We should like to pass over now to the discussion of another very important matter, a matter which in recent months has been much discussed in the country and which has already had painful results. I refer to the attack which was made on an Afrikaans organisation, the Afrikaner Broederbond. We should like to discuss that with the Prime Minister, and also specially the victimisation which followed upon it. We can tell the Prime Minister that the country longs for information. A very serious step was taken here which had very serious results and at the moment we have nothing official before us. We do not know how it came about; we do not know what injuries have been inflicted on the State to justify such a step. I rise in order to ask the Prime Minister on behalf of this side of the House to take Parliament and the country into his confidence and to tell us candidly what happened to justify this serious step. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone in this House when I say that it is the hope and the wish of everyone that, when the war has ended, the bad relationship and bitterness which accompanied the war will disappear from the country, and when peace is restored in the world there would again be a better relationship between the races and that we shall not again be divided into two camps. I know that it is the desire of members on this side and also the desire of many members on the other side and of many people in the country. In spite of that, the Prime Minister has selected this moment to fire a large racial bomb in the country. I should like to say this very clearly. The Afrikaner Broederbond is not an organisation which owes its existence to the war. It is not a product of the war or of the war spirit. This organisation existed years and years before this war. It has nothing to do with the war and did not arise out of it. In this organisation there is no war motive of any kind; and I think I can say that of all the Afrikaner organisations in the country, this is one of the oldest. Long before there was a war this organisation existed, and I think I can say this, that the motive, if there was a motive behind the organisation, was that whatever political streams might pass through the country, there would be one Afrikaner organisation, small in its formation, which tries to preserve the nucleus of unity of the Afrikaner nation, in spite of political directions followed, and not only the nucleus of unity but also the nucleus of faithfulness to everything that is best in the history of the past and in the future of the Afrikaner nation. It is not a war organisation. But now suddenly, by means of a war measure, the Prime Minister has taken this serious step. We entrusted certain powers to the Government. They are powers which enable the Government to act speedily and urgently in the case of movements which it regards as dangerous to the State. What we now want to ask the Prime Minister is this: What has this organisation done in the first five war years which gives the Prime Minister the right to brand it as so dangerous to the State that the usual legal processes of the country could not be used?

What did General Hertzog say about it?

In reply to the hon. member I can say that there was a time when General Hertzog suspected that organisation and attacked it at Smithfield. But after the General had been enlightened about the position he withdrew his measures against the organisation.

Where do you get that story?

The Prime Minister knows that it is true. I should now like to ask the Prime Minister a question. He took steps against this organisation by means of war measures, and branded it as being so dangerous to the State that he acted under emergency regulations. He acted in a manner unheard of in the history of South Africa. He expected officials who belong to the organisation practically to confess that they were guilty. This organisation is a small one. About 2,500 or 2,600 people belong to it. We know that Afrikaners who are highly regarded in their own circles belong to it, people who earn the respect and regard of those circles.

But do those circles know that they are members?

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether a thorough investigation has been made of the work of the organisation; and if a thorough investigation has been instituted, will the Prime Minister this morning tell the House what the result of it was? We know that in recent years there have been persons, and I especially think of one of the Ministers on the opposite side, namely the Minister of Lands, who went about the country and tried to rouse feelings not only against the Afrikaner Broederbond, but against every Afrikaans organisation in the country. The Minister of Lands was not satisfied with attacking the Afrikaner Broederbond, but there is not a single Afrikaans organisation in the country which he did not attack on public platforms, which he did not try to sully, to blacken, and to insult. He did not even exclude the Church.

If outside this House you say that I attacked the Church as a religious institution, I shall know what to do. Do not shelter behind this House.

I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether this attack on the Afrikaner Broederbond is just the beginning of the death of every Afrikaans organisation in the country?

You know that you are now talking nonsense.

Spoorbond was killed.

Is that the beginning of it? The question which each right-thinking burgher in the country asks is that one. That is not the only Afrikaner organisation existing in the country. There are also other organisations in the country. There are the Sons of England. We know that that organisation has a strong political colour.

But they are not secret.

There are the Sons of Scotland; and also the Sons of Palestine have their organisation. There is an Empire League, the Truth Legion and all sorts of organisations, and we now want to know from the Prime Minister why he selected an Afrikaner organisation.

I regret I have to take the House away from the interesting subject of the Broederbond. I wish, however, to deal with something of more importance at the present time, and that is the Prime Minister’s visit overseas. I feel it my duty to take part in this debate, because if I fail to do so I would not be keeping faith with those men and women who laid down their lives in the last war— the war to end war—and with those mothers and families who have been bereaved as a result of both wars. When the last war ended and the League of Nations was established, laregly due to the guidance and inspiration of our Prime Minister, the peoples of the world felt something had sprung into being which would definitely prevent wars occurring in the future, or at any rate occurring as easily as they had in the past. We know why that League failed; there were various reasons for it; there was first of all the absence of the United States from the League in consequence of its having adopted a policy of isolation. There was, too, the inability of the League to enforce its decisions in regard to stopping war, and it was found that the enforcement of sanctions was not possible. We know of the other things that occurred, a series of events which all led up to the present war. There was the disarmament policy of the McDonald Government in England; there was the laissez faire policy of the Baldwin Government; there was the policy of the Chamberlain Government, which automatically became a policy of appeasement, and it could not have been otherwise because of the unpreparedness of Great Britain for war; there was the absence from the League of any armed force able to maintain world security. All these were contributory factors which gave Hitler a clear road to pursue his policy of aggression and to embark on war, with nothing to stop him. There was another factor, one that has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), and that is the lack of a common Commonwealth defence policy. As far back as 1936 I appealed to the then Minister of Defence to make some statement as regards our future defence policy in South Africa, as to how our policy should be linked up with that of the other Dominions, so that if we entered another war we would be acting in conformity with a plan covering the other States of the Commonwealth. Under such a policy if one of the Dominions entered the war the other parts of the Commonwealth would automatically come to its assistance. No satisfactory answer was ever given to that question. We were left with the position that we could do as we pleased; we had that right. But I feel that if Chamberlain had been in a position to announce that if England was brought into the war automatically all the partners in the Commonwealth would stand by him, his hands would have been very much strengthened at the time of Munich. The other day in one of his many notable speeches, Mr. Winston Churchill said amongst other things that one of the most amazing things of the war had been the spontaneity and unanimity of the members of the Commonwealth in coming into the war, and he added in his inimitable style, “with one melancholy exception just round the corner.” That position of the Dominions rallying round Great Britain in the last war, and that the same thing has happened in this war, affords evidence of the freedom and the appreciation of the freedom which we enjoy together with our fellow-members of the Commonwealth. I feel that in this coming conference to be held in London that our Prime Minister will attend, this matter of a future common defence policy will come up for discussion, and I should be happy to think that the Prime Minister will remember the few words I am saying on the subject, humble though they may be. There are many others who feel, like myself, that this matter should receive very serious consideration. I should like to think that at the conference at London all the Dominions of the Commonwealth will speak with one voice on the question of Commonwealth defence, and there would be unanimity amongst them at San Francisco, and that whatever share we are asked to make in our contribution towards bringing about that security which we desire, we shall be willing to make. I know we shall. We know that this conference, which will shortly be held, is the most important conference the world has ever known, and one which we hope will for all time assure to mankind peace and happiness. We know that we shall be most ably represented and we send our Prime Minister forward to represent us with every confidence, and we wish him God speed.

I should like to have information from the Prime Minister and an explanation of certain steps taken by this Government during recent months concerning members of the Broederbond. The reason why I want information is because I am in a position where I get into touch not only with Afrikaans movements, but also with groups of people from all sides who expressed their thoughts about this action of the Government, and about the direction in which the actions of the Government against certain officials of State can lead the country. It is felt in circles who stand very near to the Prime Minister that steps are taken here which will give rise to a method of Government which is unacceptable to South Africa, that it will lead to measures which will have such a result in South Africa that the population will have no more faith in the so-called democratic form of government. The country and many people outside, the group which I have mentioned stood and watched what took place at the S.A.P. Congressess. I should like to have information. I was told that those people who spoke to me are aware of the fact that at the Party Congresses where the Government was fairly seriously criticised by its own members, the members of its own Party, where there were serious doubts expressed about the actions of the Government in connection with other matters, the Government then put up this dummy to members of the Congress to divert their attention from the real inefficiency and incapability of the Government. That dummy was put up, just as we have become used in recent times to other rulers erecting targets at which to shoot. The idea of it is to divert attention from the misdeeds and bad government of the Government. That may be so. It may not be so. But we should like to hear from the Prime Minister himself and to learn whether that will be an example of the methods of action, the method of Government, which we must expect if this Government remains in office any longer. In passing I might say that I believe that this is one of the steps which will lead to the speedy fall of the Government. It is one of the steps which created mistrust in the Government throughout the country: it is the seed sown which is beginning to sprout roots which will lead to the fall of the Government. It is one of the things which contribute to it. The actions of the Government have serious results in other directions, and we ask for information. We see what happens. We see that the Government is willing to sacrifice efficient officials and to sack them. Why? Solely to satisfy its followers who were incited at the Party Congresses by the leaders of the Party. We wish to know, and we must know, where his kind of action of the Government will lead in future. Apart from that it seems to us as if the Government is willing to put aside efficient officials, simply to send them into the desert, without any attempt of any kind being made to retain them, to the detriment of the Civil Service to the detriment of the Government and to the detriment of the country. If the Prime Minister can prove that that is not so, that there really are grounds for his actions, then he must do so. He owes it to the country. I am quite convinced that the Prime Minister will not prove it. But I wish to go further and ask the Government that it should not at the present time allow the leaders of its side to continue with that procedure and those methods, but that the Prime Minister should make a stand and say: “We see that we made a mistake, and we are willing to retract in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the country, and in the inerests of good relations. We will reinstate these people and withdraw the order.” I hope that the Prime Minister will act speedily. He must either deliver proof or withdraw the order. We expect him to be magnanimous enough to withdraw the order in the interests of the country, because I regard it as impossible that he can deliver the proofs.

Mr. Chairman, when under the rules of the House my time of 10 minutes had expired yesterday I was still in the course of dealing with the matter which the hon. member for Cape Flats (Capt. Du Toit) has referred to today, that of Empire defence, and I shall have to emphasise what I had to say because it is certainly a matter of first-class importance. I think the Prime Minister should realise when he has an opportunity of consultation with other Premiers in London and the conference at San Francisco of representing the people who returned him to office, that a very large proportion of these people voted on the plain issue of their loyalty in the crisis caused by the war. I am not saying that any wrong appeals were made, during the election. The election was one which was conducted in an exemplary manner from that point of view on all sides, but there certainly was an appeal made: “Honour your loyalty,” and what loyalty did that mean? It meant loyalty to the power that was saving us from destruction and that was very largely the power embodied in the might of Great Britain and the Dominions. I can say without any shade of uncertainty that the saving of the world was due to the devotion and the stand which Britain made at the time of the greatest peril. Now, Sir, when it comes to the first opportunity of discussing what was grievously neglected by our former Minister of Defence (Mr. Pirow)—the need for Empire defence—I must express my disappointment that we in this part of Africa, occupying one of the most important tactical positions in the world, had so little to say upon that immense subject. The speech of Mr. Curtin was to this effect: he was giving an account of his stewardship in relation to the Empire at the Premiers’ conference. He said—

Now, Sir, I maintain that the greatest wrong, the greatest injury that was done to South Africa at any time in its history was wrought by Mr. Pirow during his regime as Minister of Defence of South Africa. Whilst he was taking part in Empire Defence Committees of the kind mentioned in Mr. Curtin’s speech he was preaching in the backveld of South Africa the doctrine of rebellion if any such co-operation as was intended by the scheme of Empire defence in South Africa was seriously proposed. He said if that happened he would be the first to rebel.

You also preached rebellion in this House.

No, I referred to the fact that civil war would have followed, had the late General Hertzog’s neutrality motion been carried.

You are the only member who spoke about rebellion.

Had the late Prime Minister’s policy of neutrality been carried out there would have been civil war. That is what I said and that is what I still maintain, that the most grievous civil war would have been provoked in this country, and the man who saved us was the Prime Minister, who at that juncture stepped forward and declared that he was not in favour of neutrality.

Then why did you not join his Party?

We do not want him.

From the time of Fusion in 1934 I predicted that the late General Hertzog having set his feet on the road of neutrality to be followed by secession would break away at a favourable opportunity, and my prophecy was fulfilled.

And that is why you wanted to rebel.

He followed the path of neutrality and had we been similarly misguided in this country and been so unwise as to agree to neutrality we should have had secession and we should have witnessed German domination in this Union long before the present time. Now, with these perils, and with the realisation of what these perils would have meant to South Africa, over 300,000 English votes were cast for the Prime Minister in the recent election, and I ask him to realise that these people voted with the intention of maintaining the kind of Empire defence which had saved the country. They voted because their people, their own kith and kin, were at war, suffering and dying for the cause, and I have never witnessed a more harrowing scene in Natal than the departure of some of the best regiments of the Union for the front, where by far the greater majority of these men who went were young married men who parted from their wives at the station, and who have since then faced everything that has come their way like men. Now, when the hon. members on my right were obsessed by the question of republic last year, I tried to express what the people felt in regard to this matter. I moved an amendment to the Republican motion to the effect that—

Are you moving that amendment now?

I am quoting it.

Why hot move it?

I am drawing the attention of hon. members to something which is of more importance to me than the fate of the Broederbond. I feel very seriously about this matter and the Prime Minister, though he may think that many of these debates are tedious, I hope will bear with me when I plead with him to realise what this means in the life of the people of this country who have faced up to recent ordeals, throughout whatever has happened since the men were mobilised and went forward to play their part as South Africans in this war. I hope we are going to be protected by the unity which will spring from the spirit which called these men forth, and I know how the fighting men and their families feel about it. I have been in close touch with my own people. I know how precious the sacrifices of their people have been to them, and they feel that the Prime Minister goes forth to the San Francisco Conference to see to it that those sacrifices have not been in vain. I hope that the Prime Minister will realise that this is an occasion upon which he can do a great deal in the cause of the advance of the people who will matter most and who have mattered most in the great struggle which we hope is coming to ah end, and who will matter most in future, if only they are united and stand together in whatever may happen.

A subject was broached this morning which is of the greatest interest, not only to some members of this House, but it is a matter affecting the civil service and a large section of the population. The Hon. the Prime Minister was asked for information, because this matter cannot be properly discussed unless the House receives more information from him. Accusations were made in connection with officials belonging to the Broederbond by the Prime Minister, and his felow. Minister. He did it in his usual irresponsible and barbarous way. If he alone had done it we could have dealt with him. We are used to settling accounts with the Minister of Lands, and then he usually takes to flight. But the position is that the Prime Minister has himself taken over the accusations which were made here, and he himself acted in the matter, and therefore he is the responsible person, and we have to deal with him. We want the information from him. It is a matter not only between that organisation and the Government, but it is a matter beween the civil service and the Prime Minister. All kinds of accusations have been made against officials of the civil service. Officials are today penalised as the result of the accusations. The Public Service Commission challenged the Prime Minister to lay its finger on contraventions or sabotage or conspiracy or anything at all. The Prime Minister has until today not accepted the challenge. I just want to quote here what he said, according to a SAPA message of 8th November—

Evidently he was here referring to the accusations made by the Minister of Lands—

He made the accusation; this was the accusation according to his statement—

That was his reply to the civil service; do not be worried about the matter; we are watching the situation and if there are cases of unfaithfulness or sabotage, or anything of the kind in the civil service, we will act under the Civil Service Act, because these would be contraventions which can be dealt with under the Civil Service Act. What, however, did he do? Not only did he fail to accept the challenge of the civil servants, but he did not use the Civil Service Act to take action in that regard. He made use of emergency regulations. He passed over the Civil Service Act and sheltered behind emergency regulations, and important officials, prominent officials in the service, were put out of the service one after the other, not because they were convicted under the Civil Service Act, but simply because an emergency regulation was issued which they had contravened by belonging to the Broederbond in view of the fact that the regulation forbade them to belong to it. No information was given to the civil service, no information to the country. He shelters behind an emergency regulation, and in the circumstances it is his duty to lay before the House his information, if he has any information. Then we can discuss the matter. I only say this, that we accuse the Prime Minister, if he cannot justify these actions of his, that he is pursuing a policy of racialism, a policy of persecution of Afrikaners. In spite of all their allegations that the racialists sit on this side of the House, I have long suspected that the racialists and the racial party sit on that side. I ask the Prime Minister to justify himself.

In the course of this debate there has been forthcoming some considerable support for the known policy of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister which has always been the strengthening of South Africa’s relations with her neighbours and the establishing of influence as a stabilising force on this continent. The issue has also been raised of the desirability of incorporating the High Commission Territories in the Union of South Africa. I think these are policies which must commend themselves to all South Africans. I think it is a legitimate ambition on the part of South Africa that it should play a leading rôle on this continent, that it should become the centre of an integrated Africa with a common purpose and direction. But I do feel that there are certain obstacles to the realisation of that ambition which we must face more squarely that we have faced them in the past. I am perfectly certain that the Prime Minister is only too well aware of the nature of these obstacles but I feel they must be stressed again in the hope of building up that public opinion necessary to their removal which is the essential condition of the realisation of our natural ambitions. The policy of an integrated South Africa under our leadership, as the Prime Minister and many other people are aware, will always meet one definite stumbling block, one centre of opposition, and that centre of opposition is the native population of the neighbouring territories. It is the native population of the Protectorates which have consistently refused to endorse the proposition of incorporation in the Union. Now I believe there are certain definite grounds for that which must be faced if we are to realise our ambition in this regard, and that we gain nothing by not facing the facts in this case. The simple fact is this, that the native populations of the neighbouring territories entertain a definite fear of the direction of South African native policy; and they entertain it in spite of the fact which the Prime Minister has put to us, that they come in their thousands to seek work in our labour market. Now, the basis of their fear is simply the characteristic foundation of our native policy, the policy of white supremacy. I do not think the Prime Minister interprets this policy as other than our desire and intention to maintain the highest standard of civilisation we know in this country, but they interpret that white supremacy as merely involving the perpetual master and servant relationship for the native population. They fear to surrender their future. They are willing to come into this country for the immediate gains of a labour market which is better than any labour market they know. They are prepared to take advantage under economic pressure of the fact that we have here a higher standard of living for all classes, including our native population, than the other territories can provide. They come down here under the same impulse as drives our own natives from the Transkei into the awful conditions of our slums in the Cape Town area. But they do not go back with any conviction that they would have a better future with us than they have at home. They prefer, in the last resort, to remain under a government which has not declared in such emphatic terms the superiority of white civilisation. Now I feel that if this country will face this issue and hold up to our native population something other than the master and servant relationship, which is the inevitable result of the segregation policy incorporated in our laws, we shall begin to break down the oppostion of these peoples and move towards our legitimate ambition of a wider South Africa. I think the door to a restatement of the situation has been opened by the Prime Minister’s own statement in the House on a recent occasion. He put it to this House and to the country that we would have to begin to think in new terms of its native population. He accepted for us and for the country the proposition of the integration of the native population in the economic life of the country. That statement itself is a very great step towards breaking down those fears and inhibitions which have weighed so heavily with the native population of neighbouring territories. If that policy could be elaborated more clearly in terms of the future to which our native population might aspire, I think we should have taken another long step forward; if we could show that it is not our intention to build up a society in which our native population has no future of its own to look forward to, but must ever be economically subordinate to the race which at present governs it, and subordinate in the sense of serving as servants, we should have done a great deal to allay the fears which now obstruct the path to our goal. I hope the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister will in fact follow up his declaration of the need to review our policy in that direction and elaborate it with the people who have been so highly critical of the whole of our native policy in this country. Now from this point, I wish to turn to a matter of detail con tained in the statement the Prime Minister has given us in respect of native policy. The matter to which I refer was his suggestion in connection with the recruitment of native labour for the farms. I cannot help viewing With a certain alarm the extension of the system of recruitment to the field of farm labour. I can only view with the greatest alarm any suggestion involving the extension of the compound system from the towns where it now exists with very definite evils but evils controlled by regulation, limited by a wide range of legislation and regulating enactment, to our farming areas where it would in fact be most unnatural and have the most disastrous social results. I do hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will make it quite clear that he does not visualise in this development of our native policy that he has alluded to, the development on the farms of a compound system of isolated male labour. I think that would be most tragic. I do not say this without some chapter and verse to support me. I was informed years ago by a representative of a neighbouring government in Johannesburg that something of this sort was already in operation on the farms in the Eastern Transvaal, and that it was accompanied by the growth of serious evils. He could give me no detailed information in this regard, but since then there has come into my hands a document issued and endorsed by the Synod of the Anglican Church in Johannesburg. This document deals with this situation, and some of the evils that have arisen out of it. Information has come to the Diocesan Synod in Johannesburg that this compound system has grown up in the maize belt in the Eastern Transvaal. There it has grown up in circumstances in which the contract labourers are natives who have come from neighbouring territories to work on the mines or in industrial work in the big towns, but who when they have been unable to secure the work they would have preferred fall back in the last resort on farm work. They are being recruited for this work by a number of farmers who have got together to form a recruiting organisation for labour on their farms. In some cases the resulting contracts are completely satisfactory, where the employers are the right type of employers, of whom no doubt there are many. But the system has developed in an alarming manner, giving rise to some very serious evils among employers who are not so good. Some of the facts of the situation are set out by the Synod as follows:

There they remain, and except when they go out to work in the land, they are never let out unaccompanied by an induna. As a result of that system two cases have come before the courts. Two native workers lost their lives in attempting to escape from conditions which are, in fact, incredibly bad. One man tried to escape—incidentally these workers are unable to get to any magistrate to lodge their complaints. He was set upon by five indunas and died as a result of the beating they gave him. In this case one of the indunas was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the other five who were implicated having turned King’s evidence. [Time limit.]

With reference to the statements made by hon. members of the Opposition in connection with the Afrikaner Broederbond, we find that it is pathetic that hon. members opposite, whenever there is any case of subversive activity or sabotage, immediately rise to justify those actions and to defend the persons concerned. [Laughter]. Hon. members need not laugh. That is the case. When Johannes van der Walt, Leibbrandt and all those persons were arrested, hon. members on that side were the first to justify them and to attempt to protect them and to try to pretend to the country that those men were innocent. Well, seeing that the case of the Broederbond has been mentioned, and seeing that it is such an innocent body, according to hon. members of the Opposition, while it is such a healthy element in our national life, it is the duty of those hon. members to prove to this side of the House that those members of the Broederbond are innocent. Certain resolutions passed by them at their meetings ought to convince any right-thinking person that it is not such an innocent movement as hon. members opposite pretend. No member on that side rose to deliver the least proof that they did not make themselves guilty of subversive activities.

They should never have brought you to the front benches.

It will be much better if that hon. member would rather busy himself with bad teeth. If it is an innocent movement, why then all the secrecy in connection with it? I want to ask hon. members opposite: If it is an innocent movement, why would they not allow certain elements of the nation in that movement? I want to ask them whether any member on that side has ever been refused admission to that movement. I want to ask them whether they have proved that certain members of the civil service did not act subversively. But they come here without any proof and declare that those people did not make themselves guilty of sabotage. They come here and justify certain matters of which they cannot deliver any proof. A statement was made here by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition which I want to controvert. He spoke here about a challenge by the Civil Service Commission to the Prime Minister. I do not think that the Civil Service Commission ever challenged the Prime Minister.

He did not speak about the Civil Service Commission; the civil servants said it, not the Civil Service Commission.

The Association of Civil Servants.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition might have had a slip of the tongue but he mentioned the Civil Service Commission.

The Civil Service Association.

Well, I accept that. But the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said the Civil Service Commission. But I cannot blame hon. members on that side. I cannot blame the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) for his thunder on that side. They adopt that point of view. I remember that this morning in the Press I read that the hon. member for Winburg yesterday delivered a plea for South-West Africa, and I can quote extracts from the Press where in 1939 the representative of the mandated territory came to discuss the status and the future of South-West Africa with the Union and where the hon. member for Winburg, who yesterday spoke about the future of South-West, asked that South-West should be incorporated in the Union. They pretend that they are the persons who wish to help the people of South-West.

I was not even in Parliament in 1939.

I know the hon. member was not here, but when he spoke yesterday he was speaking on behalf of his Party.

You have just made a slip of the tongue.

You had better say something now; your time has almost elapsed.

The position is this that just as this morning they tried to justify their case in connection with the Broeder-bond, so they are now trying to justify their case in connection with South-West, and South-West will not forgive them, and the nation will not forget their past history in connection with subversive activities and also in connection with the Broederbond. It does not help hon. members opposite to pretend that they are the protagonists of an Afrikaner movement and to bluff the nation that the Prime Minister is suppressing the Afrikaner; that will not be accepted.

The type of speech we have just heard only engenders contempt. I know the hon. member feels very hurt because his own side recently refused him a liquor licence in Johannesburg. But I want to tell the Prime Minister that I hope he will save himself from his friends. We are dealing with a serious matter here and we direct ourselves to the Prime Minister. At the commencement of the discussion on his vote, the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition informed him that we would deal with his vote point by point. We have now come to a new point. The Hon. the Prime Minister has now been asked by the Leader of the Opposition and by two front-benchers to tell us why he took that step. They asked him: you committed a certain act; tell us why you did it; bring the accusations and let us deal with them. It does not help to say left and right that these people must prove that they are not guilty. We asked the Prime Minister very politely to tell us what the reason is why he resorted to that step. If he would do that, it would speed up proceedings very much. It was a courteous and reasonable request from this side. It will accelerate matters if the Prime Minister would accede to that request. How can the Rt. Hon. member expect us to get up here and say things when we do not know what the accusations against the Afrikaner Broederbond are, when we do not know why he sacked those officials? I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether there has ever been any member of the Afrikaner Broederbond in the Department controlled by him who committed subversive acts, who committed sabotage, who was unfaithful in his work. I consider that we have the right to know it. Was one of them ever tried? Can he deliver the proof? Will he tell us whether Mr. Wentzel du Plessis ever committed any subversive act or was unfaithful in his work? Has he the least proof of it? Mr. du Plessis was sacked after a hearing under the emergency regulations, but we want to know from the Hon. thè Prime Minister what the position is. A further point we would like to put to the Prime Minister is this. An emergency regulation prohibiting a civil servant from belonging to the Afrikaner Broederbond is issued, but that is not enough. On 22nd December, 1944, the Prime Minister issued a statement which was not an emergency regulation but purely a declaration from the office of the Prime Minister, which ordered every member of the Afrikaner Broederbond who is in the Civil Service to send a copy of his letter of resignation, when he resigns, to his Minister or to his Administrator. I should very much like to know what right the Prime Minister has to issue such an imperative statement? Does he regard it as having the force of law? Under what emergency regulation, under what law, did the Prime Minister impose that requirement; where does he get the right to impose that requirement, without its appearing in any emergency regulation? A further matter about which we should like to know from the Prime Minister is this, where he has dragged in even Provincial Councils and officials of the Provincial Councils, to wit, teachers, School Board Secretaries, and others who are simply officials of the Provincial Councils; has he ever informed the Provincial Councils about it; has he ever proved to the Executive Committees that those people are unreliable? Those people are paid by the Provincial Council, They do not fall under the Central Government. But the Executive Committees are now ordered to deal with those people. A teacher for example, can be fined £100 for being a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond, but the following day can be reinstated in his work by the Executive Committee. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has enlightened the Executive Committees and drawn their attention to it that it is dangerous to have such teachers on their staffs. It is puerile to say that we must deliver proof that these people are not guilty.

Guilty of what?

Yes, guilty of what? We should like to have a statement from the Prime Minister: we take no notice of the empty talk of irresponsible members like the hon. member who has just sat down. We should like the Prime Minister to tell us what the accusations against those people are, and then we can deal with the Prime Minister as man to man. But it is of no avail to shadow box like this. We ask the hon. member to rise and to give us that information, and then the House can discuss that matter in a thorough manner.

I was profoundly disappointed in the reply that was given by the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister to the earnest representations that were made in respect of the Indian question in Natal. I wonder whether hon. members realise the difficulty that we are faced with in Natal, and whether they appreciate the fact that in years to come there will be no room for Europeans in Natal. We shall be swamped and submerged by an increasing and an aggressive Indian population. After all, Natal is one of the fairest provinces in the Union of South Africa, and it comes as a shock that there appears to be a certain equanimity observable regarding the conditions that prevail in that province. The best part of South Africa is passing into Indian ownership, and that has got to be stopped.

Hear, hear.

It may be said I am prejudiced. Mr. Chairman, I am prejudiced in favour of my. European fellow-citizens in Natal. I do not want to see them submerged under this flood. I do not want to see them coming back from the war absolutely at the mercy of these parasites in South Africa. They exploit the natives! They exploit the Europeans! They are parasites, and their activities and their machinations and white-ant proclivities in Natal should be resolutely stopped.

You were not born in South Africa.

I was here before you, my boy. I realise that the Prime Minister could see for himself what these conditions are, but the regrettable fact is that he has never remained in Natal long enough to feel the environment and to be influenced by the environment. I wish I could persuade the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet to go to Natal and to stay there at least a month. Then I am sure they would realise the inwardness and the magnitude of the problem. Merely to state that certain residential property shall not be acquired by Indians, or that they shall not occupy premises in certain areas in Natal, is not dealing with the case as it should be dealt with. Mr. Chairman, I perceived a gleam of encouragement, the slenderest thread of hope in the Prime Minister’s reply last evening to an interjection. I hope I am justified in hanging on to that one hope, and that with patience we may be able to look forward to better things. It is a very slender hope, and I am looking to the Prime Minister to amplify it before he leaves. Now, as I said before, tendering advice to the Prime Minister on matters of international concern savours somewhat of teaching our grandmother to suck eggs. He can realise the difficulty quite as well and possibly better than most of us. He sees that the basis of the security organisation which is to be set up and the framework to be considered at San Francisco, bears the germ of its own failure when it provides for unanimity before force can be applied. We look to the Prime Minister when he goes overseas to look after the interests of South Africa and to try to inculcate common sense in the Great Powers, and influence them to work on lines that will make for peace and not for war. We wish him good luck and good hunting and we hope that he will return with information that will satisfy us that the peace and security of the world is safe.

The second case that came before the court in the Eastern Transvaal last year was the case of a man who had not tried to escape, but who was asked for information by one of the indunas in regard to a friend of his who had actually escaped from one of these camps. Failing to give the required information, the man was beaten and died. The induna who beat him came before the courts and was sentenced to nine months’ hard labour suspended for two years. The grounds on which this curious sentence was imposed were that the induna did not know that the man he had beaten was in delicate health—if it had been a strong man, he might have survived the beating. The claim put up on behalf of the induna was that he was a cog in the economic machine; the implication of which he did not understand and for which he could not be held responsible. Under this system whereby labourers are confined in compounds controlled by indunas, the indunas are given instructions to keep the labourers there so that they should not escape, and he was simply doing his duty as he understood it when he thrashed this man after his friend had escaped. Here are extracts from the evidence as set out by the Synod in Johannesburg. The first passage is the evidence of a Swazi employed on this farm who stated that the accused was an induna and he himself was also an induna at the compound. He went on—

Subsequently his Lordship accepted a special plea that was put in on behalf of the accused that although mistakenly, he thought he was carrying out his duty. This memorandum which has been accepted by the Synod of the Diocese of Johannesburg points out that these two cases have come before the courts only because these men lost their lives, but that there have been numerous other tragedies connected with the system, which have obviously never come before the courts at all. The synod passed a resolution which I believe was sent to the Native Affairs Department last yeas, but which I think the Prime Minister should know about, stating—

The synod have made it clear that this is a contingent resolution, contingent on the Government allowing the maintenance of the compound system on the farms, and without prejudice to the main issue as to whether the compound system should be developed. I trust that the Prime Minister will give this situation his most careful consideration, and review the desirability of the extension of a recruiting system which must mean the extension of a system of this kind on the farms. This is my main anxiety about the detailed section of the Prime Minister’s statement on native policy which he gave recently. I want to add a word about one or two other matters on which the Prime Minister has given us his views. He has suggested that it is imperative that we should meet the problem of the urban situation which has developed in this country by a speeding up of our housing plans. I wish to put to the Prime Minister the virtue there would be in making as a gesture of his intention in this regard an emergency case of this disgraceful situation which exists at Windermere. Today all serious-minded people in Cape Town, and anybody outside Cape Town who has seen that situation must be deeply concerned about the conditions prevailing in that area. We, Sir we were taken down to that scene two years ago by the hon. Minister of Native Affairs. My colleague of course had seen it before, because it is his constituency; but I had not seen it. In the course of these two years, these conditions have deteriorated enormously. They were bad enough when we first saw them, but today they are simply unspeakable. Take that area. There is a crowd of people housed in the most disgraceful conditions and I suggest, Sir, that that ought to be dealt with as an emergency situation. The war has taught the country how to provide at least temporary housing under emergency conditions, and I suggest that the Government should use its experience, gained in the war, to wipe out the worst features of that Windermere situation and in improving the disgusting and deplorable conditions of the stockade which houses 60 to 80 families under the most disgraceful conditions, while a long-term solution of the situation is being explored. I think that would go further in establishing confidence in our native policy than anything else. I just wish to add in conclusion that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister referred to the growing unrest amongst the urban Africans. I want to suggest that that is less related to the spread of dangerous propaganda by particular individuals than to the fact that the conditions in these urban areas are providing the seed-bed in which this propaganda flourishes. In this regard we have had a new direction from the Native Affairs Department itself. The Native Affairs Department, in a report which has just come out, has drawn attention to the fact that the unrest in the town areas is not due even to economic circumstances, but to bad housing conditions, and it is also due, as they say, to the laws and regulations applied in urban areas, which are a constant source of irritation and annoyance and frustration to the native population. Now Sir, they are also a source of anxiety to the people coming in from outside, natives coming from neighbouring areas. These people come in here. The sacrifice they make in doing this for the gains of a better labour market is their personal freedom. They learn from experience the pitfalls that beset the path of the African in this country. They see our gaols full of natives whose only offence is to break some regulation, and it would be very difficult for natives not to break any of the multifarious regulations that beset their path. If we could improve our native administration and do our best to enable the native to lead a decent life, not merely on any basis of improved housing but without all the restrictions that now hedge him round, I think we should go a long way towards rooting out the unrest which is spreading amongst the native population, and to instilling that confidence in the neighbouring territories in our native policy which is the only foundation on which we can achieve that greater South Africa that we want.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why it is that the newspapers of South Africa have to go to New Ýork for their knowledge about the Prime Minister’s movements before we can get it in Cape Town. The day before the Prime Minister spoke in this House and told us that he was going overseas, the radio in New York had told the whole of the American continent that the Prime Minister was going overseas, and not only did they tell them that, but they told the American people who was going to accompany the Prime Minister. Then is was put over Daventry and came back to South Africa. When the newspapermen went to the External Affairs Department and said to them: “We hear that the Prime Minister is going overseas accompanied by so-and-so” they said: “Hush, hush, don’t talk about it.” The Prime Minister’s Department said they must not talk about it, but they already knew all about it, and the whole of America knew and the whole of South Africa, and that information came from the Prime Minister’s Department in New York. Now, that is one of the things I want to know. Another thing I want to know is why the Prime Minister’s Department—although it comes to a certain extent under Defence, it also comes under his Department—are not reporting what our boys have done at the front as it should be done. The South African soldier had a raw deal in this war, that is when it came to telling the story of what they have done. I am going to attack the B.O.I. later, not know. I do not want to worry the Prime Minister with that. He has other things to think about. I will attack the B.O.I. when the vote of the hon. Minister of the Interior comes up for discussion. But there are things which could have been published in fairness to the men of this country. Let me just read this to you—

That was written by Jan Smuts. Now, that of which I speak is one of the most remarkable stories of courage and devotion that has ever taken place in South Africa, and the people concerned in that story were Afrikaners, Englishmen, men of the Royal Navy and natives. Never has anything happened in our history showing courage like that, but not a word was published in this country until Mr. Marsh had to dig it up years afterwards, and publish it in his book “Skeleton Coast”. Here is a story that will ring down the corridors of history. What our men did at sea and in the air, led by a man with the historical name of Uys, is told in this book, and none of them were decorated for it. They were supported by a man called Smith. Both of these men left the service undecorated, and nothing was said about it. This story is told all over the world, but South Africa knows nothing about it. There is no racialism in this story. It is a story of young Afrikaners who can hold up their heads before the whole world. Why were we not allowed to publish that story? Why could our newspapers not have, told it to our people? This book, when it is read, will be read ait the knee of every mother in this couuntry. It has already been translated into Afrikaans. Already die Nasionale Pers have taken it, over and I am glad that they will publish it for their people, but as far as the Press are concerned it has been kept hush. My friends know it. Buy the book and read it. They will see what great men we have produced in this country dur ing this war. There is no racialism about it; there are Afrikaners, and English-speaking South Africans and natives. It is a great book about great people. Not a word was told about it in the newspapers in South Africa. Then we had the case of something going wrong with our aeroplanes and the aeroplanes kept falling and falling until the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s Department felt that the men in charge were guilty of high treason. Then a South African came along and found what the trouble was; it was due to some small insect. That story was published in America. There was nothing like that published in South Africa.

Yes, there was.

Yes, but one and a half years afterwards. If you want to hear about your wonderful Prime Minister, and about deeds of daring done by our boys, read the American newspapers because you will never find anything of their deeds in the South African papers. And it is not the fault of the South African newspapers. Those boys sitting up in that gallery can hold their own with any journalists in the world, but they are not given the opportunity. Why does not the Prime Minister take some of those boys over with him? We are the only delegation going over without a Press delegation. I am not speaking about myself. I am too old. I am talking about the younger men. Our journalists can hold their own with anyone. Why does not the Prime Minister take them with him? Some of the other delegations have 50 press men. We have to rely on the American and English newspapers to tell us what happens there. I want the Prime Minister’s Department to allow the writing up of the stories of the young heroes of this country as was done overseas. I went to them for permission. Without being a braggart I may say that I can do it as well as any man in this country and I wanted to do it for the nation. I asked them please to help me and to give me the names of the parents of these men so that I could have an interview. But they said no, I cannot do it; it is a military secret. Then General Poole turns up here. The whole world sees him. He is photographed with the Prime Minister and General Pierre van Ryneveld, and we all marvel about this great General Poole whom we love as a courageous man, and one of the newspapers wants to say that General Poole is here, but they say that cannot be done because it is a military secret. Everyone in England knows about it, but here in South Africa it is a military secret. I ask the Prime Minister: Please, now that the war is going to end, give the newspapers a chance to tell the great story of South Africa and her heroes in times of war. [Time limit.]

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

It appears to me that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister does not really understand what is taking place at the moment. Charges have been laid against him as Prime Minister, and what we have been trying to do the whole morning is to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to defend himself. That is what he never dreamed of having to do in reference to the Broederbond; but we are not prepared to condemn the Prime Minister without according him a proper opportunity of defending himself before this House and this country. The Prime Minister may perhaps not think that he is the accused, but that unfortunately is the position in respect of most accused people that they do not imagine for a moment that they are the accused. The fact remains, however, that the Prime Minister has done something and in reference to that conduct accusations have been made. But there has not yet been any conviction, because we are granting to the Prime Minister what he has not been prepared to grant to the Afrikaner Broederbond, and that is the opportunity to defend himself here in public, in the presence of his accusers, so that a verdict may be given before the tribunal of public opinion. Here it is not a case of the Broederbond being the accused but the accused is sitting in the seat of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the Prime Minister appreciates this, but we are offering him the opportunity to defend himself, and if he does not avail himself of that opportunity he will pardon public opinion if it holds that there is only one unavoidable conclusion, and it is that the Prime Minister has no defence, in any case not a defence that he can present and which will stand examination by his accusers. We give him this opportunity out of courtesy, and also because we on this side of the House have still a sufficient sense of justice to realise that you cannot condemn a man without giving him the opportunity to look his accusers in the face and to submit his defence. I should like the Prime Minister to realise this, and I think if he realises this he will no longer permit a farce being made of Parliamentary procedure. Yesterday reference was made here to contempt for Parliament, but the whole of this morning we have been appealing to thè Prime Minister to answer for a deed he has perpetrated, and we are still struggling to get a reply from him. Is this not making a farce of all Parliamentary procedure if the responsible Minister refuses to give an answer? And if he has an answer he must not come and complain that the time of this House is being wasted, because then he is the man who has wasted time. I think if it is looked at in this light the Prime Minister can have no further illusions about the position, and that he will then have sufficient respect for the honour and courtesy that has been evinced towards him by giving him the opportunity to reply and to defend himself, and that he will have sufficient respect for Parliamentary procedure and the fundamental principles of Parliamentary government to stand up and to reply to the charges made against him. I should like to put the pertinent question to him, whether he is prepared to give an answer or not. If he says that he is not prepared to do that we shall know how to act. But let him say. I again ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give an answer on the point. He remains silent.

His conscience is also silent.

I do not know whether he wishes to follow the example of the Sphinx, but let me say that the fate of the Sphinx is one that even his enemies will not wish him. We are giving him the opportunity. With a patience that has been exemplary we have been trying the whole morning to bring him to the pitch of making use of this opportunity, an opportunity that hundreds in this country would accept with both hands if it were accorded them, namely, to look their accusers in the face and to answer them. I know of organisations that would gladly look their accusers in the face, but their accusers have not the moral courage to appear. But we are not prepared to do what is being done to others. We grant to the Prime Minister the opportunity to defend himself. We extend that to everyone, and in the case of the Prime Minister we extend it with pleasure. Let him take advantage of this opportunity because, if he does not take advantage of it, the unavoidable conclusion, the logical conclusion that will be made by every right thinking person in the country, is that the Prime Minister has acted without any justification, and that he has not even the moral courage to come here and say what the justification for his actions is. It is now reduced to its absolute essentials; that is the essence of the case, and if we do not receive an answer from him he will forgive us, and forgive the general public if we come to the conclusion that he has acted in this manner without proper grounds.

The fault that hon. members on the other side make is in thinking that they are the only pebble on the beach. That is not so.

A tremendously big pebble.

It is not only hon. members on the opposite benches who have the right to put questions asking for information and otherwise. All members of the House have that right, and throughput the course of the morning I have had to listen to a long series of questions that have been put to me. I have listened with considerable patience to all the questions. Hon. members opposite have become impatient. They think that they are the only ones who deserve a hearing in this House. Their complaint against the Government has been made, and they imagine they should receive an immediate answer, and that other members should not be listened to. We have followed the usual procedure. This morning I have listened with great patience to a number of points on which the Government has been criticised, or on which information has been asked, and I think it is now time to answer them. Now it is said that I am the prisoner in the dock.

No, as yet only the accused. We do not judge without giving a hearing.

Hon. members have put questions in connection with the Broederbond, and the conduct of the Government in reference to certain aspects of the organisation, and naturally the Government must give its answer, its reasons and an explanation of why it has acted in this way, and it must give the information that is desired. That is obvious. I do not know how the idea comes about on the other side that nothing will be said about it.

You could have said that you would deal with it later.

Whether I dealt with it this morning or talked about it this afternoon the other questions would have been put in any case. It has been stated here that the Government has made an attack on the Broederbond. Let me say at the outset that action has been taken in relation to one aspect and one feature of the activities of the Broederbond. Its activities extend far beyond the section on which Government action has been taken. Whether action will be taken in respect of the other aspects of its work will depend on the course of circumstances, and perhaps in a measure on the debate that is taking place here.

Is that a threat?

No, that is not a threat.

Do you want to impose restrictions on debate?

No, I have dealt fairly carefully with this matter, and I am still dealing with it carefully. The Government has taken action in reference to certain activities of the Broederbond, namely in so far as officials have been involved in it. As for the rest of the Broederbond—it does a great deal more and its activities are far wider as hon. members opposite know, because a number of members of the Broederbond are sitting there— it has not as yet been touched by the Government.

Are there not also members of the Broederbond on the other side of the House?

I do not know, but I would seriously doubt that. That has not been dealt with, but only one aspect that relates to officials. The Government has acted on a firm principle. We proceed from the standpoint of the law. We have based our action on the law of the land, and that law is that our state officials should not take an active part in the politics of the country. That is the law; it is prohibited. Officials must not take part in the politics of the country, and in respect of the action that has been taken in reference to the Broederbond in this case, we have only acted in connection with that aspect of the matter.

Do you say that you regard the Broederbond as a political organisation?

I shall deal with that later. I shall dispose of all the points. If hon. members opposite will only exercise a little patience I shall deal with the whole matter, and it is not necessary for them to put questions prematurely. A few years ago we took action on absolutely the same grounds and in the same way with the Ossewabrandwag. The Ossewabrandwag, just like the Broederbond, was an organisation that was established before the war. The Government said, just as in the case of the Ossewabrandwag, that the Broederbond is not an organisation to which Government officials should belong. We did not ban the Ossewabrandwag as an organisation. We did not touch the Ossewabrandwag as such. It still exists. But we did say that a body of that sort does work and represents views and activities in which Government officials ought not to take part, and it was then decided to impose a ban on the Ossewabrandwag so far as concerns State officials, but no further. The same decision was eventually taken in connection with the Broederbond. A few years ago I was advised to take the same steps immediately not only as regards the Ossewabrandwag but also the Broederbond. But I was careful. I wanted to give further consideration to the matter. I did not think that matters would take the course they have. Consequently at that time the Ossewabrandwag was banned only in that limited respect, not as an organisation, but only in so far as concerned the officials belonging to it. The Ossewabrandwag, in my humble opinion, acted more intelligently and more wisely than the Broederbond. After the order issued by the Government, which was in conformity with the law, the council of the Ossewabrandwag, without waiting for the officials to resign, immediately stated that they discharged the officials who were members. They gave an honourable discharge to all Government officials who were members, and these officials who were then members of the Ossewabrandwag were immediately out of it, and discontinued membership, so that it was not necessary for the Government to take any action. As far as concerns the Broederbond that attitude was not taken up. The Broederbond had not even the courage to give advice to its members. These people wandered all over the place. They first approached the executive committee of the Broederbond, and asked what guidance should be given to them. Give us a lead, because we are in a pickle. What should we do? But the executive committee remained as silent as the grave. The Broederbond is not only a secret organisation, but apparently it will not even come to light with advice for its members. The executive committee also kept this a secret of theirs. No guidance was given to the unfortunate members, and it was left to them to fight their own battles. I say this. I as the intercessor for the Ossewabrandwag.

Is that so.

It is the best agent you have.

The Leader of the Opposition once said: “Strike the Ossewabrandwag and you strike me.”

And now it is the other way round.

The Ossewabrandwag regard me as Enemy No. 1.

But the Minister of Justice is the greatest patron of the Ossewabrandwag.

I maintain that the Ossewabrandwag acted more intelligently and more wisely, as well as with more courage. It did not leave its members and the hundreds of officials who were members of the organisation, in the lurch. If the executive committee of the Broederbond had done the same there would have been no difficulty. Then I would have had no difficulty and no official would have experienced the least difficulty. I shall come in a minute to the point of the Broederbond as a political organisation. But I want first to proceed further with the course that events took. The officials that were Brothers were left to themselves. The overwhelming majority of them resigned, and quite rightly too. They said “This is the law of the land, whether it is an emergency regulation or whatever it may be, and we shall obey the law.” Many of them no doubt thanked goodness that that was the position. It is a fairly difficult matter to resign as a member of the Broederbond. It is a question whether a member of the Broederbond can resign. They did not know what they could do. There was considerable doubt on the question of whether they could resign.

You must be a member, you know such a lot.

What happened then? Hundreds resigned, about 500 of these officials intimated to the Government that they had resigned. But there were, of course, many others who resigned from the organisation and who did not communicate their resignations to the Government. The question was broached by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) what authority I had to call on members of the Broederbond who were officials to intimate to the Government that they had resigned. That order was not given to them. I had no right to give such an order to them. I did it to help these people. It was a question of where the Government should take judicial measures. The order had to be carried out, and it simply amounted to this, that if the Government knew that A., B. and C. had resigned, then A., B. and C. were not exposed to action and prosecution. Then there would not be so much time taken up, and those people were not put to so much unnecessary trouble. That is why we gave that advice to the officials.

No, the truth is that you wanted to have the names.

I have nothing to do with the names. Those 500 names are being kept secret, and we do not want to involve anyone in difficulties. That advice was given in the interests of the members themselves, so that they would not be involved in difficulty nor be exposed to proceedings. A large number paid heed to that. Others again thought that we wanted to lead them into a trap and said that they would not give the information to the Government. I do not know whether half of them advised us that they had resigned. I do not know whether all of them resigned. But the large majority resigned and are no longer members of the Broederbond. But eight of them defied the Government, they defied the law, because this was the law, and they intimated to the Government that as members of the Broederbond they were not going to resign. What they said was: We are not going to do this, we are not going to obey the order. Well in those circumstances the Government could take only one step, and no government would have been worth its salt if it had not carried out the law and carried out that order.

What law?

The law under which we acted.

You mean the regulation.

Call it what you like, but it remains a fact that it is the law of the land.

It was deliberately drafted in that way so that you could kick them out.

No one was kicked out, except the officials who defied that regulation and who defied the Government. Of course it was not only 500 who resigned; perhaps there were 1,000 who resigned. We only know about the 500, more or less, who resigned and who advised the Government of that. These eight stated that they were not going to resign, and the Government had to take action. What could the Government do otherwise? It had to maintain the law. Two of these later resigned from the Government service, two were discharged, and in respect of the other four, their cases are still under consideration.

In the hands of what department is the black list?

The department to which the officials belong. If the member looks at the regulations he will see that the names are with the department in which the officials concerned are serving. I do not know what the names are. I only know that there is one person out of my own Department. That is the whole matter. If there is anyone to blame it is in this case the Broederbond itself, and the executive committee of the Broederbond that was too cowardly. I want to accuse them of cowardice, and I want to accuse the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) who is vice-chairman of the executive committee, and the executive committee of cowardice They did this. If they had done their duty towards the members of the Broederbond who were officials ….

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is an hon. member entitled to accuse another hon. member in this House of being cowardly?

I did not do that.

I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Under the rule an hon. member may not accuse another hon. member of cowardice, but I did not understand the Prime Minister to do that.

He did do so.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister mentioned the name of the hon. member for Fauresmith and stated that he accused him and his executive committee of cowardice.

What I said was that I accused the organisation.

No, you did not.

Let me repeat what I said. I said that the attitude of the executive committee of the Broederbond was regarded by me as cowardly, and I accused the executive committee of the Broederbond of cowardice. I said that the hon. member for Fauresmith was vice-chairman of the Broederbond.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not accept this. We all heard what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said. He said that the hon. member for Fauresmith is vice-chairman of the executive committee, and that he accused him and the executive committee, of cowardice.

No, the hon. member has got it wrong. I am not capable of accusing a person of cowardice in conflict with the rules of this House. I charge the executive committee, and I said that the hon. member for Fauresmith was vice chairman of the executive committee. I charged the organisation and the executive committee of the organisation, and we would have had no difficulty, just as little difficulty as we would have had in the case of the Ossewabrandwag, if they had acted in that way; if they had acted openly and frankly with their members we would have had no difficulty. But they did not do it. In that way they landed their own people in trouble. Eight of them thought that they were in honour bound to defy the law and they said that they were not going to obey the law. They got into difficulty. I have more respect for the 500 or the 1,000 that resigned. They obeyed the law of the land even though they differed from us.

What law?

The law under which we acted. I say that I respect those who had regard for the law. But now we have these eight Brothers who have tried to show that they were better than the others, that the others were cowardly, that they were afraid, but not these eight. Well, they must not complain when they land in difficulty. If they do not want to obey the law of the country they must not complain about the consequences.

But what law is this?

The emergency regulations under which we are acting. I have given a review of the course of events up to date. What is going to happen now I shall not deal with at present. There will, of course, be something more, there may be Cases of persons who have not resigned from the Government nor from the organisation, we have not examined them all and there may be other cases. But I am putting the facts as they are at the present.

But what is your charge against the Broederbond?

My charge is in the first place against those officials who have not complied with the law of the land. Now I go further and I say that the Broederbond, the secret Broederbond, is a political organisation which is more dangerous from the point of view of the official and the Government service than any other political organisation in the country. The whole standpoint of the Broederbond is a political one. That is admitted.

Who admitted it?

We know it.

What proof have you?

Now we come to one of the difficulties in which the Broederbond has landed us. It is a secret organisation, as secret as the grave.

Is that the first objection?

Yes, that is an objection. It is a secret organisation, but It is also the calculated object of the organisation to foster the interests of one section of the population as against the other section.

It is very peculiar that your candidate against me at Stellenbosch was a Broederbonder.

Yes, but there were many members of the Broederbond in the country who bitterly regretted that they were ever members of it.

Who are they?

I do not wish to mention names. There are many members of the Broederbond who perhaps in the old days joined in all innocence when it originated as an Afrikaans organisation, but the Broederbond took a wrong turning, which frightened these members.

Who are they?

Some of the members.

He resigned because he was asked on a public platform whether he was a member, and his own party wanted to wreck it.

Then he was converted. It is one of the difficulties that this is a secret organisation. But in so far as the secret has been revealed, it is acknowledged that it is a political organisation.

By whom?

In general. Our hon. friends opposite are beginning to quibble. Why did the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) say here this morning that what the Government had done was to throw a racial bomb into the country. Why a racial bomb? Because that organisation was a pure racial organisation and action was directed against it.

What about the Sons of England?

In all respects where we thrashed out matters it became clear that it was a political organisation working in secret, that it adopted a stealthy attitude, that did not disclose who its members were, and that kept everything secret. In my opinion there is nothing more un-Afrikaans than that sort of action. It was the combination of a number of people to get the key positions of the country into their hands, and to get all the key positions in the administration of the country, and in that manner to try to control the policy in the country. That was the object of the Broederbond and it was all done in secret. Everything was sub rosa. I think that anything like that is worse than any political organisation.

Have you any proof of that?

I well know what I am talking about. The Government is convinced in regard to everything that has come before it. It has been convinced from the evidence that it has had before it, and much of that has been derived from members of the Broederbond itself.

You flourish on traitors in the British Empire.

When we have an organisation that wants to promote the interests of one section or of one race by an attitude of secrecy and keeping everything shrouded in darkness, you have to be careful. The Government is convinced that this is the case with this organisation. There was a series of articles in the Press from the secretary of the organisation, who wished to defend the organisation and one line of the defence was this: “Why do you complain that this is a secret organisation? Is the Government not a secret organisation; is the Cabinet not secret; is the Caucus not secret?” This is the official explanation of the attitude of secrecy that was given by the secretary, that all the resolutions remained secret, and that everything is kept as silent as the grave. No, this is a position that cannot be tolerated, at least not where officials are concerned. Whether it can be allowed in the country itself is another question to which I shall return; but as far as regards the public service it is my opinion that they cannot serve two masters. They cannot take an oath and submit themselves to the discipline of a secret organisation to carry out the orders of that organisation, and continue to do their duty towards the State. They cannot serve those two masters. Accordingly, I say that the officials who are Brothers should resign from the organisation.

And the Sons of England and the Jewish organisations are all secret.

The hon. member may believe in that argument, but no one else will accept it.

There is a Freemason sitting beside you.

To say that the Freemasons are a political organisation and that they pursue politics in secret is the greatest rubbish in the world. I say today to this House and to the country, that in my opinion the Broederbond is a dangerous organisation resting on a foundation that is in conflict with the interests of the country, and that is un-Afrikaans.

Mention the foundation.

It is purely exclusive race polictics, the promotion of race interests.

Mention one proof.

This is the position. We have dealt to this extent with the officials; whether we may have to go further later on and place a ban on the organisation itself is another matter.

A shameful threat.

Does the church also fall under the ban, it is also a racial organisation?

Things may come out that may make it necessary for the Government to go further and to impose a ban on the organisation itself, but hitherto we have not taken the step, and we have just stated that the officials must leave it, that they cannot serve two masters, a body such as that and the State itself. The official is bound in loyalty to the State, and he ought not to belong to a secret organisation of that sort. That is the whole matter. [Laughter.] We have dealt with the Broederbond as we have done with the Ossewabrandwag. We have dealt with the members on the same footing. The only difference is that in the case of the one organisation the members acquiesced in the treatment of the Government and were content with it, but the other case of a similar organisation which is probably still more dangerous the members have not submitted to it.

I should like to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for half an hour. After listening to this long awaited revelation of the grounds for the action of the Government, there is only one conclusion to which you can come, and that is the old truth. “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” Never in this House has there been a more meagre defence of the conduct of the Government as in this case. Let me immediately mention a few examples. One of the big sins of the Broederbond is that it is secret. The evidence on which it is now judged is secret evidence; this is evidence of which the Prime Ministers says “I have this, but it may not go further.” The Prime Minister is a person who has enjoyed a legal training. He should be the first to realise that if you wish to condemn a person you cannot do it on secret evidence. If anything has remained of his legal training and his legal instincts then he will not in this manner come and say that he is going to judge a body like the Broederbond on secret evidence. But let us go further. Here the Government comes and it says now what the reasons are for its conduct, and now it becomes very striking at once that the charges that we have heard here are not the charges that we have had outside. They have not been repeated here at all. Time and again we have heard outside about sabotage, of the fascistic nature of the movement, we have heard that it is national socialist, that they stand for a national socialist state. Now the Prime Minister says: “No, politics, that is then only sin.” “Politics” is their only sin, and now he comes and says that that cannot be allowed in the Government service. That is the policy. That is quite true, it is our policy, but if that is so why has action not been taken under the law which makes it an offence? Under Act No. 27 of 1923 we have the following in connection with the Government service—

1. (f) becomes a member of any political organisation or takes an active part in political matters;

If it is an offence for a member of the Government service and the Broederbond is a political organisation, then action can be taken. The Hon. the Prime Minister knows the names of many members of the organisation. He knows of me, he knows of others. He could have taken one of the members and said under the law of the land: “You are a member of a political organisation.” Then it would have been for the Minister to show that it is a political organisation to which he belongs. That is the right procedure that the Minister ought to have followed. But I shall come to that presently, to the real reason. Before we level our charge at him I want to mention a few other points. The Hon. the Prime Minister comes here and says that the eight persons who have refused to allow themselves to be bound by the immoral—I cannot describe it as anything else—application of the regulation, are persons for whom he has no respect. The Prime Minister has taken over many things from England. I am sorry that he has not also taken over this thing, and it is what one of their greatest patriotic poets said—

They considered that an infraction was being made of their liberty of conscience, they felt that they could not submit to an immoral application of authority such as was being exercised by the Government, and the Prime Minister is too small to take his hat off to them. Although he differs from them, although one may differ from them, it does not mean that you cannot have respect for them. Let me say this. You talk of freedom. The Prime Minister plunged the country into war with the words of Pericles in his famous funeral oration—

It is freedom for which he maintains he entered the war; those are the words that were contained in his big address at Bloemfontein at the commencement of the war— the freedom that is courage. It is the courage that is freedom that these eight people reveal. I may not agree with them, but it is no reason why I should not take off my hat to them. I may believe that as the Government has acted in such an immoral way, they might have avoided this step, but quite apart from right or wrong every right-thinking person must in his heart, if I may so express it, take off his hat to the moral courage that they have shown.

What about the others?

As with the others, I take off my hat to them, because they realise that you have here to do with a government that is so immoral that you are entitled, under the circumstances, to try to do the best for your own case. Accusations have been made here. It is said that the executive committee of the Broederbond are cowardly, that they should have acted as the Ossewabrandwag did with their people when they automatically released them from membership. This is then the crime. Did the Prime Minister realise the implicaations of that, that what the Broederbond executive committee did was not to make a bunch of “ja-broers” of their members by silencing the voice of their conscience. But the Broederbond said to their members “We acknowledge the freedom of thought and conscience of every member; you must act according to your lights.” Here the action was not along the usual lines of simply an order being given to the obedient, although it might have to be carried out against one’s conscience. If it is a crime to allow a person liberty of thought and liberty of action and of conscience, if that is a crime then I should like to plead guilty. The Prime Minister used high-flown words about freedom, freedom of society and personal freedom, as he expressed it in one of his speeches. But that freedom he is not willing to accord to the officials who are members of the Broederbond. The freedom for which he alleges the war was commenced he will not grant to those people. If we had released them from membership against their own desire or determination, and without their knowledge, it would have signified that we had deprived them of that freedom. If the Prime Minister reflects a little on his own philosophy ….

Guidance was asked, but the guidance was too cowardly or too lax to be effective.

If it is cowardly for a man to say: “It is a matter between you and your conscience” then it is no dishonour to be called a coward. It is one of the fundamental rights of anyone who has still a little human feeling and self-respect. I should not have expected that standpoint from the Prime Minister. Let me turn to a further point. The Prime Miniser has said that they carried out the regulation and that there were eight instances of officials not obeying, and he said that no Government that was Worth its salt could have remained passive in those circumstances. That may be true, but I say that no government that was worth its salt would ever have acted on these limited grounds that have been mentioned today, no government would have applied the regulations in such an immoral way. I think we can leave the Prime Minister for a moment. That was the attack he made. I have come here to offer a defence to the tremendous allegations that were made outside. I was prepared to do that, because I know what I am talking about, seeing that for nearly ten years I have been a member of the head committee of the Broederbond.

Ha, ha.

I only want to say that if the charges that have been levelled outside were true I would not be in the society. I came and expected that we would have heard all those things that were spoken about outside, but instead of the terrific furore we have heard only the pianissimo of the Prime Minister. That is all that has remained. Outside we have heard accusations of fascism, of national socialism, of sabotage and subversion; that this is a political organisation. This is just one of the points left over, that this is supposed to be a political organisation. Let me say in the first place that no party politics are permitted in the organisation. That is one of the points of the constitution.

What did Van Rooy say?

Let the Prime Minister say what politics there are in it. Is it party politics, is it a political organisation, because it is only open to Afrikaans-speaking people. What about the Dutch Reformed Church? It is for Afrikaans-speaking people, it is for the Afrikaner, but not in the narrow sense. Is it now being called a racial association? The Broederbond desires undivided fidelity to South Africa. Whether they are of English descent or of German descent or of Netherlands descent or of French descent they are admitted to membership if they have the qualifications, if they are of the Protestant faith and if South Africa is their only fatherland. Now I want to say something on the subject of secrecy. The Prime Minister knows it is not secret. He knows this. Where does he get the other information he has? It is true that the organisation does not work in public and the reasons will be readily understandable by the Prime Minister. The reason is that it is an organisation of service, and our view is that the highest service is service that is not brought to light, that does not catch the public eye.

Why can it not see the light?

It is not a case of not seeing the light. There are many things on which you make resolutions which for many reasons are not displayed in public or hung on the big clock. The Prime Minister’s philosophy ought to help him there. One of the reasons why membership is not made public and why activities are not made public, is the same reason that Plato gave that the Guardians of the State should not possess any property, namely that they should not be exposed to the temptation to seek their own glory and their own profit. It is for this reason that in a service organisation such as this that is only there for service does not advertise itself, and does not wish to place itself or its members in temptation to gain advertisement for themselves. That is one of the reasons. The other is a very practical reason that the Prime Minister himself realises full well, seeing that most of the business of his Cabinet is in secret. But now I want to go further and say this: We deny categorically the charges that have been made here, and I say with all due sense of responsibility, that I have as an individual and bearing in mind the office I fill in the society, that we deny this categorically. The Prime Minister knows these things. It is not that it appears secret to him; he knows that just as well as I do. He knows that the detectives visited the head office of the society. He knows that free access to all the documents was granted to the detectives. He knows that those detectives went away satisfied, and yet he allowed accusations of sabotage and subversion and undermining of the authority of the State to be made at his congress and by some of his colleagues without him denying it. The Prime Minister today honourably —and we appreciate it—has come here and he has not repeated the accusations of some of his colleagues. By that he has thrown them overboard. But what I cannot appreciate on the part of the Prime Minister is that knowing what the true position is he allows his colleagues to go round and retail this gossip, though the Prime Minister knows it is not true. He knows of these things and he remains silent. I come now to our condemnation of the conduct of the Prime Minister. In the first place his conduct is in conflict with the fundamental principles of justice. The first principle of natural justice is that the accused is entitled to a hearing. Here we have a condemnation without a hearing, without the opportunity being afforded to refute it and without a proper examination of the evidence which has come into the possession of the Prime Minister behind the scenes from people who, as he admits himself, are apparently traitors; and that on that evidence of these traitors which has not been examined, condemnation has been expressed. We say that is not right. Two excuses have been offered, and the first is the secret character of the movement. One could even accept that excuse. If secrecy in itself is a ground for condemnation, we could accept it, but then it should be applied consistently. If it is not consistently applied then you are offending the other principle of justice, and that is that you cannot mete out justice with two measures. This is what the Prime Minister is doing in relation to secrecy. As it is applied here, it is nothing else but hypocrisy. Otherwise he would have said that it would have applied to all organisations of a secret character. What is being done? There is the Truth Legion. Their membership is secret. You may not know who they are. There is suspicion as to who they are, but Government officials are encouraged to join some of the extremely secret organisations. Then secrecy is no objection. There is the Sons of England. Perhaps the Prime Minister, if he himself is not a member, can obtain information from his colleagues and he will know the complexion of their affairs. But is this not a political organisation? If he does not know that this is a political organisation he can get all the information from one or other of his colleagues in the Cabinet who have an intimate knowledge of what is going on there. Accordingly, if you want to apply it you must be consistent. The other excuse is that there is a state of emergency. That is the other big argument that has been employed. I have often pointed out that there has been no mention here of sabotage or anythting of that nature. There are emergency regulations for such things, but according to the Prime Minister’s own admission there is nothing of this sort irr connection with this society. He has enough means at his disposal in the case of a purely political body to take action under the ordinary laws of the country. There is the Public Service Act itself, there are certain emergency regulations that have been drawn up and which give to the Prime Minister the fullest right to institute an enquiry. Why has he not done this. Why did he not examine these people himself to ascertain what the actual position is? Then they would have had the opportunity to defend themselves. But now the Prime Minister comes and says that there is a state of emergency. If the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) were talking he would have said: “There is a war on”, I only want to tell the Prime Minister that this appeal that is being made to the existence of a state of emergency is an appeal that can be easily made a weapon in the hands of a tyrant. William Pitt said in reference to this sort of a weapon—

Here freedom is being curtailed in the sacred name of the state of emergency that exists. This is the weapon, and now we find that there is not even a charge of sabotage. All those things that we heard outside fall away after the Prime Minister’s speech. He contradicts those things. This is the first complaint, that it is in conflict with fundamental principles of justice, and secondly it is an encroachment on the personal liberty of the individual. I am speaking now in reference to the officials who have been asked to resign from the Broederbond. Action is being taken in respect of their personal freedom, and it is not suprising that some of them refuse to submit to that. Certain language was used by someone in the Prime Minister’s own department, language was written by one of his own officials, Mr. Wentzel du Plessis, which deserves to be inscribed by the historian and to be repeated by children at their mother’s knee. He said—

He goes on to say—

That is the language of a man. There is another one, one of South Africa’s greatest sons in the sphere of agriculture, Dr. Monnig. Today he is lost to the State, and that at a time when he is very badly needed. Why? He was also sacrificed on the altar of intolerance, which is behind the action of this Government.

He is not lost, he will come back.

What did he say? He said: “I do not want to be an official of a government that can act so immorally as this one.” He did not wait to be kicked out. He said that he refused, that it was beneath his dignity, to be an official of a government that acted in this way. This is a procedure that is demoralising to the whole of the Government service. It undermines confidence in the Government as an employer. The only sound test in connection with the conduct of Government officials is whether in any respect their personal conduct and their personal feelings clash with the discharge of their duty. If there is a clash between their duty and their personal sentiments then so long as they are in the Government service and want to remain in it they must suppress their personal feelings. But that does not mean that you cannot have personal feelings if they are not in conflict with the fulfilment of your duty as a Government official. I come to the third and the most serious complaint that we have against the Prime Minister, and that is that his action in this case has been nothing less than an offence against racial peace. Certainly the most important of all the post-war problems of reconstruction with which we shall have to deal is the reconstruction of the disturbed relationships between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people in the country. This attitude has been hopelessly aggravated and inflamed hy the action of the Government in recent times.

The two races ate sitting together here.

This is again a case of saying one thing and doing another. All the protestations of love of race and of the promotion of racial peace come from that side of the House, but every deed of racialism also comes from that side.

What do they look like now?

They have done nothing to promote racial peace. On the contrary, in the course of the last five years we have had it in every respect that when the Prime Minister has acted he has acted against the one race and not against the other race, and thereby he has disturbed and aggravated that attitude. There is, for instance, the poor little “voortrekkers” who are prevented from drilling. There is the attack that has been made on the Afrikaans schools; there is the attack of the Minister of Lands on th church, partly supported by the Prime Minister.

You will not say that outside.

I say that that course of action on the part of the Prime Minister, when he has always acted against the one race and not against the other has always been accompanied, as again in the present case with a pusillanimity and pettiness of conduct that does not harmonise with the mantle of world figure that the Prime Minister would so like to invest himself with. It is clear that he has capitulated to the contemptible small-mindedness of a section of his party. He has not had the moral courage to offer resistance to the display of war madness by individuals who, when they recover their moral equilibrium, will be ashamed of themselves. Instead of the Prime Minister setting a course he has taken his course from them. Like a weakling he has been led instead of leading. Why has the Prime Minister succumbed to the temptation to be petty? Certainly not to appease that section in his party. He has succumbed to this temptation to be so petty—so removed from his posture as a world figure —not only because he wishes to appease that section, but because he wants to send up a smoke cloud so that his followers who have become restless should not perceive the real incapacity and incompetence of the Government; because he wants to avert the attention of his malcontents from the Government’s sins of omission and commission, for their incapacity and mal-dministration, for their political bankruptcy and unpreparedness. I do not want to make this accusation, but there is another conclusion which is arrived at by many—and which is almost unavoidable when one reviews the Prime Minister’s deeds since 1939—namely that he has been driven by that small-minded section in his party to attempt the destruction of everything that is Afrikaans.

Nonsense.

Like his spiritual predecessor Milner, it is apparently his object today “to break the back of Afrikanerdom.” I am a young man and I say this with the respect that is due to the Prime Minister’s age and experience, that if he wishes to follow Milner’s road, “to break the back of Afrikanerdom”, he is on the road that leads to a dishonourable grave to which he will descend unhonoured and unwept by all Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who perceive in racial peace the only future for South Africa. This injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking people can only make them stronger, the immoral exercise of the authority of the State towards its officials will only be temporary; the real crime of the Prime Minister is that he has dealt a blow at the future of South Africa.

We have just heard an impassioned speech from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). Let me answer in the words of one of the great leaders of South Africa—

Who said that?

Those are the words of the late Gen. Hertzog. Those are the words of Gen. Hertzog spoken at Smithfield when he was being attacked by the members of the Broederbond, when they lied about him, that he and Klasie Havenga had sent out a letter to the Freemasons in the country; when they lied about him, and one of the biggest of the liars sits in the Opposition in this House. That is from Gen. Hertzog, but our friends opposite—I do not know whether we should call them friends—the hon. members must not run out of the House now. The vice-leader of the Broederbond (Dr. Dönges) has said that the Broederbond is not a political movement. Prof. van Rooyen, the chairman of the Broederbond, has issued a circular in which he says—

That is their whole object.

He said—

He went on to say: “We must be the only people of South Africa and South Africa must be ruled by the Broederbond.” I cannot go too far into the speeches of the late Gen. Hertzog and I only want to say that when I heard the Prime Minister speaking today, when I had before me this speech on the Broederbond which was made by the late Gen. Hertzog at Smithfield, I realised that nearly everything that the Prime Minister said here today, Gen. Hertzog said over ten years ago about our Broederbond friends sitting on that side of the House. What did Prof. van Rooyen say in his circular? He said this—

It is their leader who issued this circular. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who is a member of the Broederbond whether that is politics or whether that is not politics. That is what they have been carrying into the civil service of this country. The Broederbond with its 2,800 members is mostly composed of professional politicians, briefless barristers who are professional politicians and who sit on the front row of that side, teachers and members of the civil service. The late Gen. Hertzog accused them of this: He said: “Your danger is that you take the rules and regulations of the civil service and then promptly forget all about them, and you put your pals into jobs and you undermine the civil service from beginning to end.” I am not going to speak long about the Broederbond, but the Government can do nothing better than to say to the Broederbond: “You must get out, because you have been ruining the civil service.” We know that mothers have been to this Government and we know that mothers went to the last Government and said: “For God’s sake, get those Broederbond people out of the schools because they are causing division between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking.” When our friends on the other side talk about “rassehaat” I would ask them to look at this group, led by the most distinguished South African ever born and composed of Irish-speaking South Africans on this side of the House. English-speaking South Africans here and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans on this side. But look at the other side. They are no longer even members of the Ossewabrandwag. There they sit, the dregs of dirty racialism in this country, and if they think they are going to rule this country, if they think they will ever get into power, they are making a very big mistake. We heard a great speech yesterday from a young South African on my left We also after that heard a great speech from another young English-speaking South African. We heard good speeches from young South Africans, great Afrikaners, not on racialism. No, Mr. Trollip, I can assure you, Mr. Trollip that our men on this side are fighting for economic prosperity in South Africa and for their children and for their children’s children. They have put the Anglo-Boer War behind them. That is a thing of the past. I am speaking on behalf of English-speaking South Africans and of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. I am speaking also as a Afrikaans-speaking South African because my people have lived amongst the Boers much longer than my friends opposite. My friends opposite were all importations to the north from the Cape. We commend the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for the steps he took in this matter. It was a most dangerous thing. I remember the time when the Broederbond would not allow the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to be one of their members. I remember the time when he was put up for membership and he was black-balled. I remember the time when they black-balled Jack Pienaar. Why? Because they were with us and because they were standing on our side. And then the Nationalists say it is not a political organisation. I have not got the time and I have not got the inclination to tell you everything I know, but you would be amused if I were to tell you how these gentlemen, when they become members of the Broederbond stand in front of a big altar over which is thrown a big black curtain, how they are stripped and put on a bench. Can you visualise the Leader of the Opposition lying stripped on a bench? Then a Broeder comes along and he offers up a prayer and then the curtain is drawn aside and there stands Majuba and “Die Lig op die Wapad”. They have been chasing this “Lig op die Wapad” for many years. The whole thing makes me sick and it makes every member on this side sick. My hon. friends talk about what is going to happen after the war. Let me tell him that they will have no say what is going to happen after the war. This side of the House will decide what is going to happen after the war, and after the war, for all we care, they can all go to—Germany.

Clearer proof of how hopelessly the Prime Minister failed in his attempt to put the Broederbond on trial can never be found than the fact that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) had to rush to his assistance here, a member who exhibits more changes of colour than 100 chameleons can on one day; a member who strongly attacks the United Party one day, and the next day sings the praises of that Party, a member who one day sits in the front bench and on the next is moved to a bench in the corner, and the following day again crawls back on his stomach, begging and praying for a little notice to be taken of him. I say that the fact only that it must be such a person who rushes to the help of the Prime Minister, where the Prime Minister so hopelessly failed here, is the strongest case possible for the Broederbond.

You have erected you own straw dolls.

No, I do not have to put up dolls. There are enough dolls on the other side.

There is even one with a wooden head.

If one wants to shoot at dolls it is not necessary to put them up; the benches on the opposite side are filled with dolls. What has emerged very clerly from the debate so far, out of the mouth of the Prime Minister himself is this, that of all those terrible accusations with which the Minister of Lands went through the country like a senseless Don Quixote, not a single grain remains. The Minister of Lands crossed the country like a Don Quixote to tell the world that the Broederbond is the cause of all the misery in which the Government finds itself. ‘The Broederbond is responsible for the fact that the meat scheme is a failure; the Broederbond is held responsible for everything the Government omitted to do, and by reason of which the Government had to defend itself against the public; it is the fault of the Broederbond. The Minister of Lands made these accusations and we wanted the proof from the Prime Minister. What proofs did he deliver? Absolutely nothing. He did not bring one grain of proof to the light of day. That reminds me of a letter recently written by one of the prominent English-speaking people in South Africa in the “Rand Daily Mail”, in which he stated that if what the Government stated regarding the Broederbond was true, he would have agreed with them that the Broederbond should be banned, but until such time as they proved their allegations, he could come to no other conclusion than that the Government used this thing merely as a smokescreen in order to detract the attention of the nation from the Government’s failure and defects. And that is so. There is not the least proof. We hear all this talk about a secret organisation. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Sons of England is not a secret organisation. I want to ask him whether the Freemasons are not in the same sense of the word a secret organisation. Is the New Guard not a secret organisation in the same sense? And then the Prime Minister sits there with a prominent member of the Freemasons next to him. He told us just now that it is un-South African to have a secret organisation, and there he sits with all the Jews who belong to the Jewish Board of Deputies and all their secret organisations. There he sits with the Minister of Lands by his side, a prominent member of the Freemasons. The accusation of the Prime Minister, that it is a political organisation I leave there. It is of so little import that one need not take any notice of it. He says that the Broederbond is a political organisation. The question has repeatedly been put to him: If there is a single member of the Broederbond who contravenes the laws of the country, if there is a single member of the civil service whose actions were in conflict with civil service regulations, why did you not prosecute him under the civil service reuglations; why did you not have him prosecuted under the laws of the country; why did you not put him in the internment camp? The fact that the Government did not do these things, I say, is the best proof that there is not a tittle of truth in these accusations. If it is a political organisation—and we emphatically deny it—the Prime Minister has the right to tell members of the civil service that they are not allowed to belong to the Broederbond. But is the Prime Minister unaware of the fact that according to the regulations of the railways members of the railway personnel may belong to a political party? Is he aware of the fact that according to the regulations of all the provinces, i.e. the Free State, Transvaal, Natal and Cape Province, teachers are allowed to belong to a political party? Is he aware of that? I want to devote attention to this. According to the various provincial regulations teachers can be members of a political party. Members of the railway personnel can be members of a political party, and if that is so, what right has the Prime Minister to interfere in the matters of the provinciali councils and to interfere with the regulations of the railways by means of an emergency regulation telling those people that they are not allowed to belong to a political party?

They are permitted to belong to the S.A, Party.

Yes, they may belong to the S.A. Party. I say that the fact that the Broederbond was stamped as a political organisation does not give him the right to say that members of the civil service are not allowed to belong to the Broederbond, because according to the regulations of the provincial council teachers can be members of a political party and according to the regulations of the railways, railway officials can be members of a political party. I want to ask the Prime Minister this: His Government appointed people who are members of the Broederbond and who today sit on the Bench. His Government appointed members of the Broederbond who are today heads of departments. His Government appointed people, members of the Broderbond, who are today administrators. He knows who they are and I want to ask him to go to each and every one of them and to ask them whether they support this accusation he has made. No, they will not support it because they, even as I do, know that there is not a grain of truth in the accusations of the Prime Minister. The names of Dr. Mönnig and Dr. Du Plessis, who was a member of the Prime Minister’s personnel, were mentioned here. Let him rise in this House today and tell him where and when a man like Dr. Du Plessis, who served on his personnel, ever made himself guilty of the contravention of a single regulation of the civil service. Let him get up and ask the head of the Veterinary Department to say where a man like Dr. Mönnig, a world-renowned scientist, ever made himself guilty of a single contravention of civil service regulations. He cannot do it and we challenge him—let him or the Minister of Lands or the Minister of Justice bring one single proof of the things they have alleged here. Let the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation deliver one single proof which supports this accusation, because it is especially those two who make this accusation. Let them bring just one single proof that one of these officials made himself guilty of sobatage. I say they cannot do it; in other words, there is not the least reason for this utterly unjust treatment of these people. But you know that as things are with animals so they are with people. There are animals and people who sometimes run amok and whose actions one cannot explain reasonably. Amongst animals one finds a disease which is called hydrophobia. One finds that a dog with hydrophobia runs round and bites everything and tears everything. Amongst people it is the same. Amongst people one finds sometimes a disease called “spirit, of persecution” and if there is one person who suffers from that disease, it is the Minister of Lands. He is filled with a feeling of hate and envy against everybody who does not look like him. He is filled with a feeling of hate and envy against everyone, whether it is the Church or the Broederbond, who does not dance to his tune, and then he goes through the country and simply runs amok and he wants to bite and kick and destroy everything that is not like him.

But he dare not talk here.

I now want to tell you what, in my judgment, is the reason for this action. Any person who has today listened to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister coud come to only one conclusion, namely that the Prime Minister never before in his life acted with so little conviction in this House as he did this afternoon. Why? Because the Prime Minister himself knows that he has no basis for the things he said. In a previous debate I told the Prime Minister that he was a world-famous figure, that he was undoubtedly one of the world’s great intellectuals. But the difficulty we have with him as a Prime Minister—and that is the difficulty his whole Cabinet has with him and it is the difficulty the Minister of Finance has with him—is that he is always devoting his attention to world problems, and not to matters affecting South Africa. The result is this, that those of his Ministers who compete sooner or later to fill his place—some of them—do the most irresponsible things and then force the poor Prime Minister finally into such a position that he eventually has to act. What happens? The Prime Minister was overseas and in the meantime the Minister of Lands ran amok. He shouted Broederbond over the whole country and when the S.A. Party Congress was held the. Prime Minister was compromised by the running amok of the Minister of Lands so that he could do simply nothing else but take this step; and there is no one who delivered stronger proof of that than himself. But I want to come to this question that if one is in the civil service one may not participate in politics. The other day I put certain questions to the Prime Minister about an association existing in South Africa, the Southern Africa Soviet Friendship Congress. We can now see how he discriminates. This Southern Africa Soviet Friendship Congress is a political movement through and through. Its object is to help Communism in South Africa, but it directly interferes in matters affecting the Government. It even sets in motion a campaign in South Africa to force the Government to take certain political action and that political action is to grant full diplomatic representation to the Soviet Union in South Africa. I have a circular before me which was also received by other members on this side, issued by the Southern Africa Soviet Friendship Congress. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman ….

Empire Jim!

We heard a lot about the Broederbond: I think the movement in its initial stages had good intention towards the Afrikaner nation. But what was the result of certain exploitation from the side of members on that side of the House? I have personal experience of deeds which they committed ….

Which deeds?

If a teacher, for example, made application to a school, what did you find? You found that notice was given to certain members of that school board that that teacher belonged to the Broederbond and they must please see to it that he is appointed to the post for that reason.

Where did that happen?

I want to go further.

Where did that happen?

I want to go further.

Order, order!

I want to say that when school commissions are to be elected one finds that certain members must be supported for no other reason than that they are members of the Ossewabrandwag or Broederbond.

Nonsense.

Where did that happen?

They do not want to give me a chance. I will tell them in my ten minutes if they will only give me a chance.

You must also bring the proofs.

I want to go further and say that they are today busy undermining the large businesses which were instituted on an Afrikaans basis.

Which businesses?

If the hon. member would only be a little patient he will hear. They went further. Because certain members belong to the United Party they were out-manoeuvred and care was taken that only Broederbond members were appointed to bodies in which they were interested. They exterminated our nation. Today they try to put all the blame on the Minister of Lands. I cannot defend him nor need I defend him. He is man enough to defend himself, but I must tell him this. Hon. members opposite said that they had the courage to say what their convictions were, but I want to tell them that when the Minister of Lands honestly said what his personal convictions were he was branded and accused of being everything that is bad. Members on the opposite side are constantly referring to Freemasons on this side. I now want to tell those members this: Let the Freemasons sitting on the opposite side rise and deny that the object of the Freemason movements is to advance the cause of Christianity. Let them rise and tell us what the objects of Freemasonry are. But they are not man enough to come up for Freemasonry because they know it is an organisation which embraces the Divinity and which aims at promoting Chrisitianity. But they will not rise. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) this afternoon made “accusations.”

You are using an Anglicism.

I want to tell that hon. member that if he thinks he is an Afrikaner, we on our side have just as much Afrikaner blood in our veins as they have. I want to tell them what the Broederbond does. They caused women and children of the Afrikaner nation blood and tears in these times. In the last few years they caused the women and children of supporters of this side of the House tears.

Where?

I will tell you that. The members of the Opposition may laugh where they sit now.

But where was it?

That hon. member sits in the shadow of Simonsberg. But let him come to the shadow of Zoutpansberg and he will see in what a terrible way the mothers of our nation are being broken there by these people.

But tell us where it is.

We who sit on this side of the House stand for freedom and justice. We stand for the freedom of our own people and also for the freedom of those who fought for our country. Members opposite may struggle and feel uncomfortable but they will still hear more of the proof than they have heard on this occasion.

But where are the proofs?

I must request hon. members not to interrupt speakers so continually. If they persist in doing that I shall have to take steps. The hon. member may proceed.

A word was used this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterberg. He spoke about mad dogs.

Dog madness.

I did think that someone sitting on a front bench would not use such language about fellow Afrikaners, because there are beautiful expressions in the Afrikaans vocabulary which make it unnecessary for us to use expressions like “dog madness”. Members opposite mentioned the Voortrekker movement here and said that the Prime Minister wants to destroy that movement. The Voortrekker movement in itself is a good institution. But what was the position? Before the war the Voortrekker movement was fairly much in the background, but the day war broke out branches were formed all over the country. With what object? Not with the object of teaching the Afrikaner child to respect the Government, but to teach him that one day he must destroy the Governmen under which he grows up. We on this side who threw in our weight on the side of the Afrikaner nation will be the leaders of those people who come here from elsewhere. We do not have to follow those who come to our coasts. They will follow us, because the example of this side of the House is worth following.

I should like to apply a scriptural text to the Prime Minister: “When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but now thou art old thou walkedst whither Conroy sendeth thee”. We are thankful that the Prime Minister has made the matter so crystal clear. At the end of his speech he said that is the whole matter. There are consequently no further accusations against the Broederbond. He has only made one charge with a few subdivisions without demonstrating that there was sabotage or subversion, that there was disloyalty or neglect of duty on the part of the officials, just because the Broderbond was regarded as a political organisation, officials might not belong to it. He has said that the Broderbond is un-Afrikaans, that it is a political body and that it is an absolutely exclusively racial body. I want to take those words from the Prime Minister, and I want to ask him in the first place why then he is discriminating in his action against the Broederbond and the Sons of England. I want to tell the Prime Minister, in the first place, that there are people belonging to the Afrikaner Broederbond who are members of his Party and who support him. The morning that the proclamation was published I was at a meeting of the Broederbond and alongside me was a man who supports the Minister, and I wish the Minister could have seen his face. I can quote here from the constitution of the Broederbond that it is clearly stated that Party politics are éxcluded from the Broederbond. Now in that connection I come to the Sons of England. The Afrikaner Broederbond is an organisation that is rooted in South Africa. It has no connection with any organisation outside South Africa. It is a democratic association that prefers its own people, whose interests are in South Africa only, and that is not linked with a foreign organisation. The Sons of England in South Africa is under the control of a foreign organisation. I should like to quote from the constitution of the Sons of England. In this it is stated clearly that the Sons of England stands under—

It is in Canada that the head of the movement in South Africa is appointed. All that the association does here in South Africa remains subject to the final decision of the Supreme Lodge in Canada. What is the object of the Sons of England. It is set down here—

It is not South Africans—Englishmen. And then it goes on—

Are these not matters of the greatest political importance in South Africa? The Afrikaner Broederbond also stands for the maintenance of the Afrikaans language and is in favour of Afrikaners joining who accept South Africa as their only fatherland. In the Sons of England, however, South Africa is not referred to.

That is the sin of the Broederbond.

Then the Prime Minister’s complaint is that the Afrikaner Broederbond stands for racial politics, because it only admits Afrikaners as members. Just listen to this from the constitution of the Sons of England—

It is not only a question of race. The paragraph in the constitution dealing with the requirements of members as to nationality and so forth reads—

I take off my hat to them for having a colour bar. They do not want members in their organisation to have coloured blood, or even a man who is married to a coloured woman. Nor do they want Catholics or other creeds in their organisations, not even a man who is not married to a Protestant wife. Both the man and his wife must be Protestants. Here we have absolute exclusive provisions regarding race and religion in the Sons of England. I want to go further in reference to this complaint regarding politics. In the constitution of the Sons of England we find that a candidate must be someone who is—

There is no word about South Africa. It has been rightly said that it may not discuss party questions, but then we find further that—

1. (a) The history of the S.O.E.—Its place and functions in Africa today.
2. (b) The history of our own country and Empire.
3. (c) Citizenship.
4. (d) Patriotism.
5. (e) The object and principles of the League of Nations.
6. (f) Asiatic and native questions.

Those are political matters of importance. Now let us see what happens at meetings of the Sons of England and what can be dealt with—

Again there is no word about South Africans. Now I want to go further and show how un-Afrikaans this organisation is—

It is not private schools that are referred to here, but public schools, and then a list of names is given on which “the emblem of our Empire’s greatness” must be saluted. The following are the days that have to be observed—

1066 and all that. It is clear from what I have read out that this is a political movement. Then I come to the complaint of the Prime Minister that the Broederbond is a secret society. What about the Sons of England? They also call their members “brothers”. They also have to take an oath. Their members may not write to the Press about the order’s affairs. They have a watchword and every quarter that watchword is circulated through the country in code. No person may attend their meetings until he passes sentries outside and inside, both of them armed with a sword. [Time limit.]

I definitely do not think that the Broederbond has been treated in this way because it is a political organisation. I do not believe that has anything to do with it, and presently I shall say why. I have before me a memorandum emanating from the files of the Department of Native Affairs. It has come into my hands through a member of Parliament. I only wish to refer to appointments in the Government service, which indirectly relate to this question that we are now discussing. The point that I am making is that the Government today is appointing only their own political followers. I want to prove this from this memorandum which originates in the files of the Department of Native Affairs. I should like first to point out that Section 12 (3) (a) of Act No. 27 of 1923 lays down the following—

1. (a) the head of the office certifies that, during the period of probation or extended period of probation, the holder of the appointment has been diligent and his conduct has been uniformly satisfactory and that he is in all respects suitable for a confirmed appointment; and
2. (b) the Commission recommends the confirmation.

The Public Service Commission have to approve such an appointment after every person has served a probationary period of a year, so that the person can be appointed permanently. This memorandum relates to a specific individual. I shall not mention his name, but I shall give the Minister the number of the file. The memorandum runs as follows—

But they were not satisfied with that. It was referred back to the Chief Native Commissioner. He had to make clear what the political views of the person were before he could be appointed—

The law makes no provision for that, all that it provides for is that the person should do his work satisfactorily. It has nothing to do with politics at all, but we see here that a confidential report is asked on the man’s political views—

And there follows the provision that I have already read out. I do not want to state now what this man was. The Minister will know himself. They had not the courage to say to the man at once that he would have to go, but they went as far as this—

I would like that we should at any rate be honest. The Government does not administer the country with its own money. It is simply the trustee of the country’s money. It cannot use the money for political purposes. If they go on like this it simply means that they will be using the country’s money to further their own political interests. That is what they are actually doing. If an ordinary person set about things in this way with trust funds, to promote his own interests, he would land in gaol. For a long time it has been felt that this is the state of affairs that exists in the administration of the country, and if the Government continues on these lines we shall soon sink to the status of a country like Mexico. We cannot tolerate these Tammany Hall methods being employed in connection with appointments in the public service. I want to put this question to the Government. They are not in office for all time. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow another government will be in power, and this Government is now establishing precedents on which action can be taken in the future. These files are not going to be secret when they are out of office. Those files will then be available to the incoming Minister. The country will know what the position is in connection with appointments and promotions, and whether this is being applied to only one political party. I would like the Minister to give a reply on these points, and to realise what the sequels may be. If he wants the number of the file I shall give it to him. I shall also give him the name, but I will not mention the name here. All I want is that the Government should realise what the position is, because if this sort of thing goes on in this country, what is our administration going to sink to? I do not think that the fact whether the Broederbond was a political organisation or not had anything to do with the matter. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that it is not a political organisation.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) with very serious attention and I admired the manner in which he set before the House the aims and objects of the Sons of England organisation. I find nothing to apologise for in the manner of the presentation of his sketch, but I am surprised that he, with the logical training one would expect from a front bencher and an advocate, should have drawn such a fantastic deduction that the aims and objects set forth in the circular which he read to the House proved it to be un-South African, a secret and a party organisation. It did nothing of the sort. Take the first point that he made, namely that the S.O.E. organisation in this country was working under a constitution and under the jurisdiction of Canada. That is perfectly true, but does that presuppose that it is un-South African? Take South Africa’s Constitution itself? Is not the Act of Union an Act of the British Parliament? Is not the Governor-General a representative of the King? Are these two facts, which are parallel with the organisation of the Sons of England likely to make South Africa less South African? Take his third point, that we were, in other words, proud of our ancestry and national traditions and that we do all we possibly can to advocate, in young Englishmen in this country, Englishmen as defined by the Constitution of the Sons of England, these things? I am South African born. My father, it is true, is not, but he has been in this country much longer than I have. He could never in this sense be as South African as I am, but I am just as much an Englishman by virtue of the fact that his blood runs in my veins. I have inherited his national traditions and his nature and his respect for and pride in these things. But I am nevertheless a South African. There have, over the past ten years, been approximately five Grand Presidents of the Sons of England Order here in South Africa. Three of them were South African born. I am at the present time a South African born president of the Sons of England. We do, it is true, advocate the teaching of English by English-speaking teachers. Is there anything un-South African or unpatriotic in that? The bit of propaganda which the hon. member for Winburg has in his possession was distributed by the Sons of England organisation.

It is not propaganda; it is the Constitution.

That propaganda was distributed by the organisation on an occasion on which every member of this House and every member of the other House were given a copy of the aims, objects and ideals of the organisation, so as to disprove the allegation that they were un-South African. That occasion arose when an attack was made by a front-bencher of the Nationalist Party three or four years ago that the Sons of England was against the South African Nationality Act. Never was a more preposterous story told. The Sons of Enlgand organisation in this country approve of the South African Nationality Act and the introduction of a flag. The Sons of England went further. It did its best to co-operate with every national and cultural organisation, purely South African organisations, purely Afrikaans-speaking in order to devise if possible a better South African flag than the one which was proposed. We co-operated with the Nationalist Cultural Organisation in order to find a South African National Anthem, for more than one year. That hon. member may laugh, it just shows a vacant mind.

If you are an example of a South African, God help us.

Well, he fought for his country which is more than you have done.

I am a good South African by virtue of the fact that I am an active participant in the Sons of England organisation. I am not in the least ashamed, nor can anyone be ashamed of all that the Sons of England has done to promote South Africa’s good, and to promote South Africa’s interest. It has stood behind the Government in every patriotic act which was interpreted by the Government as being in the best interests of South Africa. Can the Broederbond say that? Is it prepared to put its constitution on the Table and say what it stands for?

So everything the Government does is best for South Africa.

The Sons of England has definitely stood behind the Government in every possible way. It was behind it when an attempt was made to eliminate from the flag the emblem that tied us to England or to the Empire, and we are not ashamed of it. Mr. Tielman Roos, as will be remembered by hon. members, took the great step of doing to the Sons of England what the Prime Minister has done in respect of the Broederbond. Mr. Tielman Roos said at one time that no member of the Sons of England could be an official in his Department. But as soon as he found that the information on which he had acted was unfounded he revoked that decision. If hon. members opposite are concerned over the actions of the Prime Minister in connection with the Broederbond, let them prove by their actions that the Broederbond is not subversive. I know that the Broederbond has been concerned in every subversive act that has been committed in South Africa.

That is not true; if we were not in Parliament I woud say it is a lie. It is absolutely untrue.

What was the action of the Broederbond prior to the war? What action did they take in undermining the decisions of the Government? They acted as they did simply because they were opposed to the manner in which Gen. Hertzog had extended the right hand of equality to the English-speaking people of this country. Do we not know that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) was the prime mover in hounding Gen. Hertzog out of his party? For what reason? For one reason only, that Gen. Hertzog said nothing more and nothing less than that the English-speaking people of South Africa should have the same equality as the Afrikaans-speaking people. That did not suit the Broederbond,

Rubbish.

It is perfectly true. The hon. member attacked Gen. Hertzog on these very points in the open. I have the authority of Gen. Hertzog’s own statement for saying this. Thus did the hon. member attempt to displace one of the greatest South Africans that ever lived. Gen. Hertzog did more for South Africa than every man sitting on that side of the House today. They threw him out of politics for the only reason that he had extended the right hand of fellowship to his fellow South Africans who were English-speaking.

Why did you fight against him in the last elections?

The hon. member knows very well why. Gen. Hertzog did not come back to this House. It was this question of neutrality. The hon. member knows we were perfectly consistent in our attitude; the present Prime Minister was perfectly consistent in this connection. Let me say that the Sons of England organisation in this country has nothing to apologise for. It has done everything to build up a memorial to the population of South Africa. We are race conscious; let there be no secret about it. We are proud to be English; it does not prevent our being South Africans in any degree. We are better South Africans for it, and we hope to see the traditions that inspired this organisation become part of the heritage of the rising South African generation.

During the past few years the Prime Minister has given one shock after the other to the Afrikaans section of the people. The action of the Government in reference to the Broederbond sets the seal on the series of offences against the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, because it embraces the principle that cannot really be characterised as other than an immoral principle. It cannot be denied that that action is a blot on the principles of right and justice in South Africa. That is why we feel so strongly on this matter. I had the privilege of knowing Dr. Mönnig, and I know that during the past few years he has exercised a wholesome influence on his circle. I have had the privilege of knowing Mr. Combrink closely and I challenge the Minister and any member of this House to point to anything that savours of sabotage in reference to Mr. Combrink’s actions and conduct. Mr. Combrink is known as one of the best Christians in Pretoria, where he took an effective lead in church matters. No one can ever point a finger at him. Not only in his department and in his circle of friends, but wherever he has moved in the past few years he has exercised a restraining influence on those with whom he has come into contact. In respect of those men a crime has been committed by the Government, as also in respect of others who have fared similarly. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister stated in the House the day before yesterday in connection with the approaching peace conference—

But what do we get here? Nothing else but revenge. The Prime Minister endeavoured in this House to defend this matter, a matter which is nothing else than a form of revenge that is being exercised today in respect of Afrikaners. The Prime Minister asked where Europe was heading in relation to western civilisation, if the peace conference was going to be held in an atmosphere of revenge. I should like now to ask “Where is South Africa making for as far as concerns the moral feelings of the white population?” if we are guilty of this sort of thing. We feel this to be a grievous injustice. The Prime Minister spoke disparagingly in this House of the attitude that the eight men had taken up. He accorded praise to the action of the Ossewabrandwag. I want to emphasise, however, what has been said here, namely, that every right-minded person will honour these eight men, and show them the highest respect, because they have acted according to their convictions and their conscience. The Prime Minister reproached them for not having been obedient to the country’s laws. But I want to say this to the Prime Minister: There is a law that is higher than the law of the land, and it is the law of your own conscience and of your self-respect. How can the Prime Minister come along and reproach these people for that? What is more, the behaviour of those eight men constitutes a guarantee that there is a future for the Afrikaner nation in South Africa, that the Afrikaner people have not entirely degenerated and that they have not yet become a nation of slaves. If necessary the Afrikaner nation will die for its convictions, it has still a conscience and self-respect. This is a guarantee for South Africa, for our posterity. The Prime Minister is an old man today. If he wants to do a big deed, not only in his life, but also in reference to race relationships in South Africa, he will stand up today and admit that his Government has committed a blunder, and that he will immediately revoke the regulation and honourably reinstate these men. During the past few years I have often felt that the Government has sometimes hurt the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people and that they have often felt hurt, but I can testify here today that no feeling of bitterness or hatred has remained. I must, however, openly say that by its action in this case a real feeling of bitterness and hatred has arisen in my heart. By this conduct the Government is sinking to a level which does not redound to the honour of our people, nor does it do credit to our Christian principles, and which signifies the slaying of the best and highest to be found in western civilisation, namely, freedom of conscience. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government to abandon this sort of misdeed, and to rectify their blunder.

This side of the House has endeavoured to explain that in connection with the Broederbond and the action of the Government an injustice is involved, the right to exist that one had under the Nationalist Government and before the war has been taken away; This side of the House has tried to show that other secret organisations exist that have a real right to exist, such as the Freemasons, the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Sons of England, the Empire League and the Knights of Truth. I think it has been put very clearly by this side of the House. These are all secret organisations. We do not maintain that the Broederbond is not a secret organisation. It is secret, like the others. The object of the secret organisation is to raise its race, the aim is noble. I will not say that the Sons of England or the Jewish Board are not striving for a noble objective. Their existence is an asset for their whole race and people. We do not envy these organisations, but they have created a precedent and have taught us also to bring such a thing into existence to be vigilant on behalf of the Afrikaner nation in South Africa. They have provided the example and we are merely following their example. There are other secret societies. For instance, the Privy Council in England, our own Government in respect of its Cabinet, there are the head committees of the parties, there are church councils, there are caucuses, all secret affairs. We cannot blazon forth all the things that occur there. That is a justifiable attitude. If the Prime Minister takes action here today and can prove that the Broederbond has made itself guilty of espionage or hostility to the war effort, then perhaps he might have a case. But he knows that is not so. Some of his own members and supporters have been members. Let them come along with the proofs. You should not humiliate officials of high standing and wreck their careers without the least trial and without being able to give reasons. They have an unblemished reputation. If the Prime Minister can furnish proofs of gross offences which justify the removal of highly placed officials from their positions we shall have nothing to say. But simply to state here that the Broederbond is a political body and that they have committed a crime through belonging to it is going very far. Dou you realise it, a body with 2,500 members; is it really imaginable that this is a political body? Is the Jewish Board or the Sons of England not a political body. And their members may remain in the public service. Racial discrimination is being made here. It has been stated that they work in secret. Well, perhaps they help their fellow-Afrikaners to get positions. The Jewish Board does that, the Sons of England does it. They try for instance to have a Jewish doctor appointed as district surgeon. Possibly the Broederbond has also tried to do that. Then they have learned it from the other organisations. Why then should there be only discrimination against the Broerderbond? This is a precedent that has been created. This side of the House represents the future Government. Will we, when we come into power, reinstate the members of the Broederbond? I am not so much in favour of that. I do not want to sink to the level of hon. members on the other side. But we shall apply the same thing to members of other secret associations.

Render evil for evil.

No, if we reinstated the Broederbond and suppressed the others then it would be rendering evil for evil. But if we impose the same ban on the other organisations then we shall not be repaying evil with evil. It has been stated that General Hertzog wanted to ban the Broederbond. We accept that that is so. But why did he not carry it out? It was just because he did not want to make fish of one and flesh of the other. He would also have liked to have placed a ban on the other organisations and he saw no opportunity to do that. Wild statements are being made here. We know how the “kakieridders” landed hundreds of Union citizens in the internment camps. The Prime Minister knows today that the wild accusations are void of all truth. On that account the internment camps had to be given up and the inmates are all out. The Government is convinced that they had been landed there without having committed any offence. And now the same thing is happening in respect of the Broederbond and the Prime Minister is believing wild accusations that have been made and that have no basis in truth. Considerable injustice and injury is being done to our people. May the Broederbond not work for its own people then? This discrimination can have only one result and that is to create political hostages. [Time limit.]

I should like to deal further with the charge that the Broederbond is a political organisation, and that Government officials ought not to belong to it. I want to show how the Prime Minister measures by two standards. I have mentioned the existence in South Africa of the “Southern Africa Soviet Friendship Congress”. It is nothing else than a political association. A few days ago I put a question to the Prime Minister, and from that and the reply it appears clear that it is a body with a political texture, through and through, which really meddles with the country’s politics and with the activities of the Government.

It envisages domination.

The hon. member is quite right, it envisages domination.

I mean the Broederbond.

I have here a circular which was sent out on the 1st of March, 1945, by that “Southern Africa Soviet Friendship Congress and in which it is stated—[Re-translation]

I is well known that this matter of whether diplomatic recognition should be given to Russia, or not, is an out-an-out apple of political discord in South Africa, and we on this side of the House are absolutely opposed to that just as the Prime Minister was opposed to it. It was only a few years ago that the Prime Minister stopped his opposition to the grant of diplomatic rights to Russia in South Africa. If you read the memorandum that they have issued you will see that their action has gone further than this. It even goes so far as to pass criticism on the Government in the very strongest language. They say—

Here the Government is accused, not only of violating an international custom, but that thereby it has made itself guilty of gross discourtesy towards Russia. That is out and out political. It is an association whose objectives are of a political nature, and it throws an interesting light on what our Government is permitting, in contrast with its action against the Broederbond. Not only are half the Cabinet Ministers patrons of this “Southern Africa Soviet Friendship Congress”, but we find here a list of patrons, and in the first place we find the names of two administrators, namely of the Cape Province and of the Transvaal. Apparently they also have become communistic cronies. Furthermore there are two judges. Judges in the country so long as they are on the Government side are being permitted to meddle with the politics of the country. The one is Judge Lansdown and the other Judge Millin of Johannesburg. Here judges are permitted quite openly to grant their protection to an out and out political organisation. There are also officials, prominent officials, such as Mr. J. D. de Villiers—so far as I know he is the Provincial Secretary of the Cape Province. He is a patron together with the Prime Minister and with judges of this political organisation. Further I find here the name of Major-General Len Beyers, a member of the Defence Force, who is a patron, and the name of Colonel Werdmuller, a member of the Defence Force. And then you find of course the names of a group of other people of their Jewish friends that you would expect to find here.

All the good people are there.

I am glad to see that the hon. member does not regard himself as a good person because he is missing. There I agree with him. Here then is a flagrant example of how the Government allows officials and judges to meddle with a political organisation, a body that interferes with political affairs. So long as they are not pro-Nationalist and not Afrikaans they are permitted to carry on in conflict with the laws of the land and in conflict with the public service regulations. One more point. Efforts have been made here to furnish some sort of proof that the Broederbond is a political organisation and then it is also mentioned that the late General Hertzog was also culpable in this matter.

Van Rooy said so.

He said nothing of the sort. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has made the allegation that Professor van Rooy stated “we are out for domination.” Every right-minded Afrikaner says that the Afrikaner must be “baas” in South Africa. This is what General Hertzog always said. Foreign adventurers must not play “baas” here. That is what is intended. As against that you have those who invoke the assistance of Russia; as against that you have the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) who says here that he is proud that he is an Englishman. He ought to have no say in South Africa, and if there is one man who ought to reprove him it is just the hon. member for Hospital because he is always babbling about the people who talk of England as their home not being entitled to a place in South Africa. He nods affirmation. I say again that the Afrikaner must be “baas” in South Africa and not the political adventurer. Everyone who accepts South Africa as their fatherland and subscribes to the Christian foundation of our national life, may be Afrikaners. The charge that the Broederbond is a political body because General Hertzog has made that statement is unfounded. I think it is high time that we put that in the right light. What are the facts in that connection? The same sort of tales that the Minister of Lands carried to the present Prime Minister were also told to the late General Hertzog. But General Hertzog acted along different lines to the present Prime Minister. He investigated the matter and discussed it with the Executive Committee of the Broederbond.

When and where?

A little after that. He discussed it with two members of the Executive Committee of the Broederbond. There the matter was presented to him in the proper light, and General Hertzog never again regarded the Broederbond in the light that it was put to him by the people who Carried tales.

Where do you get that story?

Those are the facts of the matter. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is of course an ignoramus who knows nothing about this matter.

Is your excuse that General Hertzog approved it? Is that what is in Van der Heever’s book?

If the hon. member wants to take everything that is in Van der Heever’s book for gospel then he should never show his face in this House again. I must say that I am sorry that after General Hertzog has passed away there are people on the other side of the House who actually want to use his name here in the House to gloss over their actions, especially when we take into consideration that it was not the Broederbond that ejected General Hertzog as a member of any organisation but it was the congress of that party that after September, 1939 took a formal resolution to expel General Hertzog and all his followers. [Time limit].

This House has looked forward to hearing the charge that the Prime Minister has against the Broederbond. The whole country has been waiting to hear what the Prime Minister would say. We expected that he would come with chapter and verse to show where the Broederbond has made itself guilty of subversive activities of one sort of another. The Prime Minister has produced only two vague accusations. The first was that the Broederbond meddled in politics and the second was that the Broederbond is a great organisation. Let us take the charge that the Broederbond is a secret organisation built up on a racial basis. Compare then the Sons of England.

It is not a secret organisation.

It is a secret organisation. The hon. member knows, and the Prime Minister knows, that it is a secret organisation. We have the Jewish Board of Deputies that is a secret organisation, and we have the Caledonian Society. Let us look at the policy of the Sons of England. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) read out to the House from their constitution what their aims and objects are. That body stands for the maintenance of British Imperialism in South Africa, for the maintenance of traditions and the principles of the British people in South Africa. No one will deny that.

The English people.

Yes. Their aim and object is to enable the principles and traditions of another country to take root in South Africa. The Broederbond on the contrary stands for a pure South African tradition for the maintenance of South African principles and traditions. The Broederbond is not restricted to people who have only one outlook. People who are Afrikaners, or if they were of Dutch or German or whatever origin in the past may be members of the Broederbond, provided they give their undivided affection to South Africa.

How many members of other races belong to the Broederbond?

That is the difference in outlook of that side. The Broederbond does not confine its membership to people who are of Netherlands descent. The only demand they make is that the person shall have an undivided love for South Africa. The S.O.E. only accepts people who are of pure English descent. As the Broederbond attempts to maintain the traditions and the principles of the Afrikaner nation it is the only organisation against which the Prime Minister is now taking steps and that the Prime Minister is endeavouring to kill. He does not strike at the life of the Sons of England although he knows it is a secret association and a political organisation as well. But the Broederbond that is comprised of members of the Afrikaner nation he seeks to slay here in South Africa. The Prime Minister complains that the Broederbond meddles with politics. The Prime Minister knows that at the time of the flag issue the Sons of England took action and compelled him to make the Union Jack part of the flag.

Of course, why not?

The hon. member admits that. In other words the Sons of England has the right to interfere with political problems in South Africa, with a problem such as the national flag, and to urge that the flag of another country should be included in the South African flag. But an Afrikaner organisation has no right to foster pure Afrikaans ideals in South Africa. Because it is doing this the Prime Minister is attempting to kill the Broederbond and I say today to the Prime Minister that it is a very poor-spirted thing that he has done. It is one of the most inglorious deeds he has ever done in his life. By going to work in that way it has engendered permanent racial hatred here in South Africa. The Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa have the right to maintain the traditions of South Africa, but the Prime Minister and his party are out to kill everything that is Afrikaans. An organisation in which the soul of the Afrikaner is revealed must be killed, but the foreign organisation from outside can proceed unhindered in the country. We have here seen how Afrikaans-speaking people on the other side applauded the Prime Minister on what he had done in respect of the Broederbond. It appears to me that those Afrikaners on the opposite side with cold and naked souls pay servile homage to every attempt that its directed at the destruction of the Afrikaner race. They have no feeling for their own Afrikaner people and for what is Afrikaans, and consequently we find that they applaud every deed that is designed to place the foot on the neck of the Afrikaner. With the exception of the hon. member for Hospital from whom one can expect anything no English-speaking member on the opposite side has stood up to launch an attack on Afrikaans movements, but it is Afrikaans-speaking people on the other side, with the Prime Minister in the van, who are doing these small-minded things and who are adopting a servile attitude in respect of what comes from another country and who are endeavouring to kill the soul and the spirit of the Afrikaner. I tell the Prime Minister that the deed that he has done here is a poor-spirited and an inglorious deed. It is the most poor-spirited and most inglorious deed that he has done throughout his career, and it is thus it will be recorded against him.

The defence of the Prime Minister of the deed that he has done and that is up here for discussion is twofold. The first is that the Afrikaner Broederbond is a racial organisation, and no one in the public service may be a member of a racial organisation of that sort. The second is that that racial organisation does not merely represent a race but it is at the same time a political organisation. That is his defence. Assume for a moment that is true—it is not true, but I am proceeding from the standpoint of the defence that has been put by the other side—let us accept that it is a racial organisation, what is wrong with that? If the race to which we belong got into that position, such as the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population got into after the Second War of Freedom and if the language of a race is repressed and if it has been treated as an inferior for generations what is wrong with that?

Where were you in the Boer War?

I wish that that grouser would stop buzzing.

One a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is an hon. member entitled to call another hon. member a grouser.

The hon. member for Piketberg may proceed.

The Chairman has said that I may proceed and I can therefore call the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) a grouser (brommer). If you have a race which is virtually excluded in the economic and commercial sphere, why may you not, if you belong to that race, belong to an organisation that seeks to build up that section of the population. What is wrong with that? The other excuse is that it is a political organisation. No proof has been adduced that this is the case.

Do you deny it?

Yes, I deny it. But supposing it is so. Then the question is: Are there officials in the public service who are members of other organisations that are also secret organisations and racial organisations and take part in politics? And if such is the case, has the Prime Minister discriminated between the two? He places the one under a ban; the other he leaves alone and he protects. As he is doing this I maintain that he is affording proof that he is administering the country on race lines, and then the charge that I make is substantiated that he is following a racial policy and that he is persecuting the Afrikaner. I should like to read from the proceedings of the Sons of England that give proof of what I have said here. I shall not require to add anything to it, because it will be proof that the Sons of England is a political organisation. I deny that the Broederbond is this, but if the Broederbond should have been this, perhaps to a smaller degree and in conflict with its written constitution, the Sons of England are in politics up to their ears, so why do you discriminate? On the 11th March, 1933, a general meeting of delegates of the Sons of England was held at Pretoria. It was the day following the Nationalist Party congress at De Aar, when a decision was arrived at on the question of coalition as far as concerned the Cape Province. The following day the Sons of England assembled in Pretoria, the object being to discuss coalition. It is a political matter that brought them together. I have before me authentic copies if the proceedings at that conference in Pretoria, and I shall read them out. The first is that—

This is political, is it not—

There you have it. They are glad about what has taken place. And here it is recorded they are glad that republicans are maintaining the unity of the British Empire by their own signature. I come now to the following—

These were dangerous periods for the things the Sons of England stand for, and they then mention these periods—

Is that not politics? The second dangerous period cited was—

They regard that as a menace. The Afrikaner race had to be killed by splitting it up and there was a danger that Afrikaners would become united as a result of unification. Then it continues—

In other words, they regarded the Hertzog crisis in the light of their own racial interests. The third period of danger was—

That was the coalition of 1933. Then we come to point No. 3 of these discussions—

And this organisation that says these things and that has this objective has free scope in the Government service. Point No. 4—

It is in regard to coalition that they have the start—

In other words, the Sons of England regard coalition as meaning that their people should stick together and must aim at dividing the Afrikaners.

They must be stark mad.

But listen now, I come to point No. 5—

Mr. Chairman, we have heard requests from the Opposition to the Prime Minister for information about the resignation of members of the public service and asking why the Sons of England should not be treated in the same way. The Prime Minister always in his reply has told the House that most of the objections to the Sons of England were unfounded. I may say for the information of members that the origin of the Sons of England was in the province of Quebec in Canada, in order to counteract the effect of Catholicism in that state, and the original lodges of the Sons of England were formed for that purpose. I am not ashamed to admit here that I have been a member of the Sons of England for the last 40 years, and being a member of the Sons of England, I am no worse a South African. I am loyal to the constitution as the Sons of England is loyal to it.

You have not yet told us what you wanted to counteract in South Africa.

It would be monstrous if there were any relationship or similarity between the activities of the Sons of England and those of the Broederbond. I have reason to believe that there are still mole-like activities going on in this country, i.e. organisations to undermine the constitution and the Government. Members of the Broederbond have on many occasions said that the Sons of England is opposed to Afrikaners and Afrikanerdom. That is not true. It is a vile, untrue and utterly unwarranted statement.

Just read your constitution.

If we look back for a number of years we find that the members of the Order have given loyal support to three Prime Ministers who were Afrikaans-speaking. The Order is purely a patriotic and benevolent society. Its benevolence spreads to its poor and distressed members and their friends, to the sick and afflicted. It comes to the aid of widows and orphans. It will be well to let the House know what has been the activities of the Sons of England during the last few years. I may say that we have an organ, called the “Patriot”. It is an organ which anyone can see. It gives an account of the activities of the lodges. There are also other papers of a like nature. The organisation is not a political one.

Good gracious! After what I have read here!

No politics are allowed in our lodges, provincial lodges, or in the Grand Lodge of the Order. I remember when a member, a new member, just before the election in 1943, asked which candidate the Order was going to support and the reply of the President was that no politics were allowed in the Lodge and that the member must follow his own bent. He gave no direction at all. Now, I would like to say something more. I want to show what the Order has contributed to the war funds of South Africa. The total efforts of the Lodges of the Society and branches of the Women’s Association have resulted in raising during the war period a total sum of approximately £100,000 for various war funds and services. This is something to be proud of. The Governor-General’s Fund received £827, the British War Funds £750, the Union National Rehabilitation Fund for Disabled Soldiers £1,000, the Oribi Military Hospital £250, Springfield £400, Johannesburg £500, Roberts Heights £500, Wynberg £200, and so on, and so on, a sum amounting in all to no less than £7,842. The patriotic work of the Society is no doubt the gravamen of offence in the eyes of the members of the Broederbond and the Opposition and any other organisation which is attempting to scuttle the constitution of our country.

I shall proceed to read out what occurred at that meeting of delegates of the Sons of England at Pretoria on the 11th March, 1933—

They do their work in secret.

They regretted that those Afrikaners had not split amongst themselves—

The Prime Minister ought not to laugh, he should cry.

This is a kindergarten.

It is a political kindergarten. Now I come to point No. 8—

The innocent lambs.

These are the innocent Sons of England.

I read further—

How is it spread? Through the public service of course.

Who says that?

I read on—

Pretoria rules the waves.

….

It is the training centre of the army and the air force. Finally, the sum of £9,000 was recently cabled out from England to the Sons of England.

I do not need to say anything further than what appears in this document. It is in Afrikaans here, but I can assure the House it is authentic.’

Where does the secrecy come in?

Does the Prime Minister wish to tell me that he does not know that the Sons of England interests itself in politics? If my ten minutes are not up, and I have the time I shall prove that. Here the Prime Minister comes and discriminates between two organisations, failing to prove in the one case that it is active in politics, while he is well aware in respect of the other that it does interest itself in politics, but because the one organisation belongs to the one section he allows it free scope but the other organisation is banned by him because it is Afrikaans, and that is his only reason.

In the period preceding the war we had in South Africa a great measure of racial co-operation and racial peace, but I am afraid that since the outbreak of this war ….

You should be careful.

I would just like to tell the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that he should rather tell the Prime Minister about the new party that he is endeavouring to establish with a view to torpedoing the Prime Minister.

But still I haven’t been beaten up yet.

We do not take any notice of grousers. I maintain that the action of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the conduct of his Ministers towards Afrikaners in South Africa has been and today still is of such a nature that for generations there will not be racial peace and racial cooperation in South Africa. And I say that if we do not have racial peace and racial co-operation for generations we shall lay the blame at the door of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. What has presented itself to view recently in the House? We may well ask ourselves what is there in South Africa that has in any way an Afrikaans complexion that has not been the object of an attack by the present Government? The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister permits the Minister of Economic Development to present a bill to the House in which he again does an injustice to Afrikaans-speaking people. A few days ago we had in this House to fight from morning to night to try to influence the Minister to make provision for the appointment of bilingual members on certain boards. This was consistently refused; No longer have they any use for Afrikaans-speaking members on those bodies. We have seen this at every S.A.P. congress. The first thing that is discussed at every S.A.P. conference is how to exclude Nationalists from boards and committees that have been appointed by the Government, and this is being done every day. The Prime Minister allows his Minister of Lands to range the country, for what purpose? To make attacks on everything that is Afrikaans. He attacks everything that is Afrikaans and he does not even spare the Dutch churches. His treatment of the Dutch Church was of such a character that a commission had to be appointed to investigate whether there was any truth in the allegations he had made against the church. Now that commission has produced its report and I do not think the Minister feels too happy now that he has read the report of the commission. It is not only the Afrikaans language and culture that have been incessantly assailed in the country, but even the Dutch churches have not been left in peace. It appeared strange to us when the Prime Minister last year gripped by a terrible fear of the Voortrekker lads decided to ban that movement. What has he done in connection with the Boy Scouts, a movement that is on all fours with it, except that it has another form? Has he brought that movement under the ban? No, that is an English organisation and it must continue to exist, but that Voortrekker movement of which he is a patron has been banned. We heard when we went into the war that it was a volunteers’ war. Let us just examine what things the Prime Minister has countenanced in order that he might sorely wound the susceptibilities of Afrikaners. He permitted the great municipalities such as Johannesburg and the big corporations to force Afrikaner lads out of employment or to kick them out of their jobs. He has allowed those corporations to lay down that there will be no work for anyone unless he is medically unfit. Thank goodness, there are thousands of Afrikaner lads who are not prepared to bend the knees to Baal, and that effort to oppress Afrikaners will fail utterly. I challenge any hon. member opposite to prove that what I am now saying is not correct. Even commercial firms have been permitted to put that policy into effect. But I come to another thing. I want to pause for a moment and to look at what has happened today in the public service of South Africa. The Prime Minister ought to feel very happy when he sees Afrikaner lads filling key positions in the public service of South Africa. We have been informed by the Minister that during the last twelve months more than two thousand have left the public service. We assume that there are other reasons besides poor remuneration, but the big cause is the insults that the public servants have to endure today from the Minister of the Interior and even from the Minister of Lands. It has become so bad that before Parliament met the public service officials were being so badly insulted that I think for the first time in the history of South Africa a public service organisation had to challenge its own Government to prove the allegations that it had made against Government officials, and the Government had not the moral courage to take up that challenge. Every decent man in the public service feels that he does not want to be in it. But after the insults of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Lands we have found that a stage has been reached when they have become so nervous that they have had to apologise to the State officials. Now I ask if this Government is going so far as to embarrass the very existence of Afrikaans officials in the public service, and to the point of kicking them out of the service, how does the Prime Minister expect the laws of the land to be carried out. The Government knows very well that the public servants have no time for him today, and what is being done now? These complaints are now being made that have kept the House busy discussing them the whole day long. These people are members of a certain organisation. It has suddenly become a dangerous organisation; they now have to resign as members of the organisation. The Government is taking this step knowing full well that the man who has any self-respect, who has the courage of his convictions and who will not bargain that way, is thereby compelled to leave the Government service, and I predict that those posts will be filled one of these days by people who are being appointed by these Ministers, supporters of the Government. I say that under those circumstances the Prime Minister must expect that generations will pass before racial peace and racial co-operation can be restored to South Africa. I want to give that warning to the Prime Minister. They must not think that this state of affairs will last for ever. The wheel is turning. Is this the policy that the opposite side would like to see this side carry into effect when we come into power? I say that I agree with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford). There you have an English-speaking person but a man with an entirely South African outlook, and when he says that the English-speaking section does not respect the language and the culture of the Afrikaans-speaking section, I say that is where the evil lies and that is where racial friction has its origin. It does not help matters for us to ask that the Government should reinstate those officials who have been kicked out of the service because they will not do that. But I say that hon. members opposite must not be in high dudgeon if we too give effect to this policy that the Prime Minister is carrying out. The wheel is beginning to turn, and when we come into power we shall not allow the deeds of this Government to remain unrequited.

I would like to intervene in the debate once more. I have told the Prime Minister that though he can furnish no proof in connection with the line of action of the Broederbond in respect of politics, though he really knows quite well that the other and larger organisation, a more powerful organisation, namely the Sons of England, is a political organisation which, however, confines itself to its own race he is taking this step against the Broederbond. The Prime Minister knows that the Sons of England is a political organisation. It is not necessary to remind him of that. If it is necessary to remind him of that, I should like to return to an episode that occurred in this House. I went to the trouble when this debate was coming off to check up on the facts I am going to state now. It was a question of whether South Africa should have its own flag. South Africa had obtained a new status, not only as a result of development after the world war, but more particularly by a declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and the question was whether South Africa should have its own flag as a symbol of its independent nationhood. That was the question with which we were faced. That was a political question, was it not? What was the Prime Minister’s own opinion at the start? First, when he was a member of the Botha Government, shortly after Union, they made a declaration that South Africa should have its own flag. The Prime Minister was in favour of that; he was in favour of our own flag. At Rustenburg he made an announcement, but at one congress of his party after another—men’s congresses and women’s congresses in his party—at which it was urged that South Africa should have its own flag—while he was still in power he made a pronouncement that the time had come when South Africa should have its own flag. He held a meeting a Vryheid and there Adv. Jansen cross-examined him after his speech and asked him: “Are you in favour of our own flag for South Africa?” The answer to that was “Yes”. “Are you in favour of the Union Jack being incorporated in the flag or are you in favour of a pure flag?” His reply was: “I am for a pure flag.” That is recorded in black and white. He came to the House when I as Minister of the Interior brought up this matter and when I proposed to the House that South Africa should now get its own flag—he was in favour of the principle—he declared himself in favour of the principle. In order to keep the matter above party politics I suggested that we should appoint a commission representative of all parties in the House, of all the three parties in the House—to enable us to consider the matter and see whether we could not arrive at unanimity on the design of the flag. The principle was already accepted. We held such a meeting of that sort while the House was in Session. There were representing the Nationalist Party on the commission Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, Willie Rood and myself. For the South African Party there were Patrick Duncan, Sir Charles Smith and Major Krige. For the Labour Party there were Mr. Raeburn and Mr. Sampson. When we had thrashed out this matter and after we had deliberated unanimity was reached on that commission. Only Mr. Patrick Duncan asked as the leaders of the delegates from the South African Party: “Give us just a couple of days’ time; just give us time over the Easter vacation; we want to consult the Prime Minister, we want to consult prominent members of our party and then we shall come back, and if we have obtained their approval we shall confirm this; then our agreement will be outside party politics.” They came back, and then they rejected what they had provisionally accepted, and why? Because the Prime Minister turned a somersault in regard to the attitude he had previously taken up, because the Prime Minister was impelled by the Sons of England, and he did not deny it. Hansard is full of it in connection with the debates that then occurred, and those Sons of England did not only intervene on political grounds and throw this country into confusion over this matter, but they were so powerful in the political sphere that they drove the Prime Minister from his original attitude. Is this a political organisation or is it not a political organisation? And now the Prime Minister bans an organisation that has assisted the Afrikaner people, and is doing this simply because the organisation is Afrikaans and the Sons of England has today still free rein in the public service. I was also Minister of the Interior, and I maintain that the Sons of England has continuously attempted to bring its influence to bear in the public service.

I am glad the Minister of Finance is present, because later I want to direct a few words to him. On two occasions now accusations have been made by the Government party against the Broederbond. The first occasion was at the party congress at Bloemfontein, and we have had it again this afternoon. At Bloemfontein the charges were that the Broederbond was supposed to be acting in a way subversive to the State, that Government officials were sabotaging the Government, and that the Broederbond was a national socialist organisation. When those accusations were made at that time at the party congress at Bloemfontein it was felt that the matter could not be left there, the charges being serious, and even members of the Broederbond asked themselves: How can it be possible that we have allowed ourselves to be members of an organisation which is guilty of such things which we know nothing about? And they felt that they would have to review their position if it was proved that those allegations were true. The public awaited confirmation of those charges. When the Government got so far as to ban the Broederbond on the ground of those charges, the public felt that those charges must be true, but they were not put in a position to learn by a searching enquiry whether the charges were actually true or not. This afternoon the Minister has again levelled charges against the organisation. But what has the Prime Minister said to prove and to confirm those charges? He has not repeated one of those accusations. He has simply left them all to one side and he has brought new charges; let us for a moment analyse those new charges. The new charges were in the first place that the Broederbond was a political organisation, in the second place that they were secret, and in the third place that they were sectional. I will not go into the argument relating to the charge that the Broederbond is a political organisation. It has been satisfactorily proved that it is not a political organisation. That has been read out from its constitution and its minutes, and members of the Broederbond know that it is not a political organisation. But as these charges have been made by the Prime Minister he has to prove this afternoon where members of the Broederbond have acted in such a manner that they have laid themselves open to the charge that they are members of a political organisation—as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition showed this afternoon that the Sons of England had been guilty of political activities. That case against the Broederbond has not been proved. The fact that the Broederbond is a secret organisation is no charge. There are other organisations that are also secret organisations, and what is the Government doing in connection with these organisations? As the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has stated, the reason why the Broederbond is secret is riot to sabotage the Government in any way. The reason for it being secret is that thereby it can get more efficient service, and I surmise that is also more or less the reason why other organisations are secret. But the secret character of the organisation is such that it does not justify the Government in banning it, unless members of that organisation have done something whereby the security of the State has been menaced. Now I turn to the third charge, the fact that it is sectional, that it is only acting in the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking population of South Africa. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether that is an offence. Must Afrikaans-speaking people be the only section of the population that cannot create an organisation that will look after their own interests?. We know that there are other organisations that pay attention to the interests of other sections. We know that the Jews in the country have the Jewish Board of Deputies to serve their interests. We know that the Caledonian Society occupy themselves with the interests of Scots in this country. It is only the Afrikaner who may not have an organisation that promotes the interests of Afrikaans-speaking people. Is it an offence for an organisation to be sectional? Now I come to the Minister of Finance. On a certain occasion the Minister of Finance stated in this House that he was no longer willing to be a member of a Government that acted detrimentally to a section of the population. He said that the appointment of Mr. Fourie as Minister of Native Affairs would not, in his opinion, allow him to remain in the Government because, he said, the Prime Minister by that action was doing an injustice to the non-European population in South Africa, and accordingly he as a man with a conscience and with principles protested with every fibre of his being, as he put it, and his resignation was handed in. Now I ask the Minister of Finance, is he convinced in his heart that the Broederbond has and is doing anything detrimental and subversive to the interests of South Africa? If he is convinced of that, why does he not stand up and make that charge? And if he cannot do that, I ask him: Is an injustice not being done to the Afrikaans-speaking population in South Africa? If he was so concerned about a fancied injustice to the non-Europeans of South Africa, he is not concerned about an injustice that is being done to the Afrikaans-speaking section of South Africa? I should like him to back up those fine words that he uttered in this House on the occasion when he made that statement in Parliament and when he believed that an injustice was being committed towards the natives. Then he said at a certain meeting of the Cape Junior Chamber of Commerce—he had been referring to the danger of cynical opportunism—

Do principle and an honourable objective no more count with the Minister of Finance? I want to ask him, whether it is to him a matter of principle if the Broederbond is acting subversively and to the detriment of the people, if it is doing something that is not being done by other organisations, that he should stand up as a man of principle and furnish the proof. If he does that I shall have respect for him. At that time after he had acted in that way in this House I congratulated him in the Lobby. I said that though I did not agree with him he had in any case shown that he is honourable towards all sections of the population. There he honoured the principle of placing the interests of the country before expediency. As regards the Broederbond, the Prime Minister has had no case. The Minister of Finance knows that. No case has been made out for the action of the Government, but the Minister of Finance is in default in regard to maintaining the elevated principles that he proclaims. What has become now of his conscience and of his principles?

Hon. members on the opposite side of the House are persistently demanding information from the Prime Minister, but in view of the fact that the main source of information in respect of the Broederbond is on the other side, we want to ask them to give us a little information. We who come from the platteland and who are not so well acquainted with the organisation, would like to know a little about the organisation that is so shrouded in secrecy. I should like to know whether, as in the case of the Ossewabrandwag at that time, the Broederbond movement is also recommended as a good organisation for Afrikaners to belong to, whether all Afrikaners ought to be members of that bond, according to hon. members on the other side. I put that question to the vice-president of the movement, who is present in the House. I want to ask him whether it is an Afrikaans movement. I should like to ask him who the Broederbond represents? Is it a movement that is confined to 2,500 members, or is it a general Afrikaner movement to which all Afrikaners may belong? I should like to know whether it has the character of an Afrikaans movement? I want to know whether if anyone wants to become a member of the movement, he has to take an oath of fidelity and secrecy? I should like to know whether a picture of Majuba is dragged in when the oath is taken.

No, a picture of Queen Victoria.

I want to know whether a sword is placed before a man, as happened in the case of the Ossewabrandwag. I should like to know whether it is an Afrikaans movement in character. I would like to know whether Afrikaans-speaking people on this side of the House may be members of the movement?

Not “hanskakies”.

Can any Afrikaner belong to the movement? If members of this side of the House cannot owing to the nature of things belong to the movement, it is of course not an Afrikaner movement. I should like to know whether members of that movement are only prominent people giving public service. I may have misunderstood the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, but he gave me the impression that it was only selected people who belong to the Broederbond. I should like to know whether it is a democratic movement which everyone can join. Is it the test whether a man is in a prominent position.

Perhaps you yourself might be taken into consideration.

Can I?

If prominence is the test ….

I should like to know whether the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) can belong to it? Can any person, if his opinion is in favour of this side of the House, be a member? I should like to know who appoints the executive. Is it a democratic institution the executive of which is appointed by the members of the body. Are persons black-balled when they want to become members of the movement? I want to know whether this is so. Are the meetings of the organisation public when they assemble to elect the executive? I also wish to know whether they attempt to advance members ahead of other people, Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking? That is one of the charges. Do they swear to be loyal to each other? Do they undertake to advance members of the bond in preference to other people? Is the Broederbond a body that remains outside the political arena and desires to cherish the Afrikaner cause? I want to know. [Laughter]. I should like to know whether members on the opposite benches have all been accepted as brothers and sworn in as members of the Broederbond?

The hon. member who has resumed his seat did not complete his questions. There is a seventeenth question, and it is: “I want to know whether the Prime Minister has provided any proof that the Broederbond can be prosecuted?” Unfortunately, hon. members interrupted him when he could have put the question. I will confine myself to the Cabinet. There is at least one Minister that enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) and that is the Minister of Lands. He now feels at least that there is someone on his side who has so much confidence in the Prime Minister that he has not prevented him from talking, because the Minister of Lands who has had most to say outside in the country about this organisation is now sitting there, and the Prime Minister has prevented him from talking. He dare not open his mouth. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success he has had in closing his mouth. It has only happened twice in his career that others have had just as much success. The first time was with the cartoonist of “Die Burger” after the by-election at Wakkerstroom, and the second time was in connection with the Minister of Finance over the night Session. Today we are experiencing the third occasion. I can understand that the Minister of Justice is not feeling to happy at the result of the municipal elections at Bloemfontein. One can understand that he has no desire to stand up and talk. But here is a very important matter that has been presented, and the Prime Minister is indicted as the accused, and he was eventually told that he must show that there are satisfactory grounds in his possession for instituting proceedings against the Broederbond. If this House was a court of justice and if members of the public were permitted to sit and listen, not one of them would go away who would not be convinced after what he has heard here, that the judgment of the court was the complete acquittal of the Broederbond and condemnation of the Prime Minister. Two organisations have been mentioned here, both similar in form, both secret as regards their activities, the one Afrikaans the other British. The one is protected by the Prime Minister, that which is Afrikaans has been attacked. It is interesting to note how the Prime Minister has characterised in a derisive manner the Sons of England by saying that it is comprised of such extreme people that they are mad, but he is sitting there as the patron of a mad-house. This is a function that the Prime Minister is exercising, the patron of a mad-house. He got chapter and verse in connection with the Sons of England, after his accusations about the Broederbond, but he continues to protect the Sons of England. The Government and the Prime Minister and all of us have an obligation towards the country, a very serious obligation. It is the function of this House to draw up legislation and to see to it that justice prevails in the country. There is a fine Afrikaans saying “Every nation has its law that enjoins good and prevents harm”. What is occurring here this afternoon attacks the truth of that saying. Here we have to deal with an organisation, the Broederbond, against which the most serious accusations have been made outside and which has been persecuted while another organisation, the Sons of England, has been protected, for political reasons. The one has been protected, the other has been suppressed. The one is English, the other Afrikaans. I want to charge the Prime Minister this afternoon, and he has admitted it himself, with being the man who has acted in an illegal way. He has stated in the House that eight members of the Broederbond defied the law. Who has defied the law more than the Prime Minister? Will he deny that a statement was issued by the Prime Minister’s office, and that that statement went out to the world under false pretences, and gave members of the Broederbond the impression that they were obliged, in conformity with the statement from the Prime Minister’s office, to hand in their names to the particular departments and administrations under which they fell. He had not that right. What right has he to require that of them? Who is now defying the law? And this is not the first time in the career of the Prime Minister that this has happened. We had the commandeering of rifles. After he had taken away the rifles and had hurt the people grievously, he admitted that he acted illegally and he was obliged to obtain indemnity from this House for this illegal treatment. This is a very serious charge. What must become of the respect that the outside public should have for the Government of the country when the Prime Minister acts in this manner that he says “I have done this, but I had no right to do it.”. What respect can the people have for a statement of this sort that bears the seal of the Prime Minister’s office? I should like to remind the Prime Minister of something that has been written “Justice exalteth a nation”, but injustice is a disgrace to a nation. If justice exalts a nation the righteousness of the Government also exalts a nation, while the reverse also applies. We are here dealing with a big injustice that has incurred, and it has been committed by the Prime Minister against that part of the nation to which he belongs. The Prime Minister is advanced in years. There are chapters in his career which he oftens prides himself on. History will pass a severe judgment on him. There are moments in the history of our people in connection with which judgment will aso be passed on him. I want to ask him whether this is the last codicil of the will he is going to leave, this act of oppression of people who belong to his race, while he himself has risen to be patron of the other section, the English. I want to say this, and I say this with all respect, that any self-respecting man sitting in the public gallery of this House today would, if he were a Sap have a feeling of shame in his heart when he thinks that he has supported a Government such as is sitting there.

I do not want to reply to the tirade to which we have just listened. I do not think it will be worth the trouble. I should merely like to put a question to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). He expatiated a good deal this afternoon, as vice-president of the organisation I assume, on the services that the organisation has provided its members. He said this in his address, but he never mentioned the services. We are anxious to know what the services are. The hon. member stated that the organisation is there to provide services to its members.

On a point of personal explanation. I have never spoken about the srevices that the organisation renders to its members. I have stated that it is a service organisation whose object is to give services to the people of the country, and I added that because it is a service organisation, and as it is not an advertised organisation, it prefers not to do its work in public. Our work should not be done with the object of individual profit or individual honour. I never stated what is now alleged by the hon. member.

I am grateful for the explanation of the hon. member. It is a service organisation for the people. I assume that the members are also a section of the people. Then he goes further and says that they do not advertise their work. That is just the point that we are coming to. Why do they not tell us what services they want to provide the people with? That is the point. Is the organisation ashamed, or has it not the frankness to say what the services are. This creates suspicion, when it is kept so secret.

What about the Sons of England?

I am not a member of the Sons of England and I do not know anything about them.

No, you cannot be a member of the Sons of England; you are just their tool.

They merely use you.

This is the party that states that they are acting according to the traditions of the people that are going so astray. I again ask the hon. member for Fauresmith what services they are providing. He was very indignant that I said that such an injustice was being done to an organisation that was striving towards such a noble object.

Why is it that you do not rather attack the Softs of England?

If I need you I shall whistle for you.

How is it that you do not attack them?

If you whistle it will be much nicer.

This is unmannerliness on the part of the hon. member. That is the level on which he stands, but I shall leave him there. We recall that there was a time when there was a sort of alliance between the F.A.K., the Nationalist Party, the Broederbond, the O.B. and other organisations. They wanted to establish an action front.

And the “Reddingsdaad”.

Yes, and they stated that they would see to it that they would get the power in the hands of Parliament right down to the Church Council. They said that they must appoint members in this way in order to gain the control.

They talked about cleaning up.

Who said that?

Do we not recall that the Leader of the Opposition pointed the finger at the Prime Minister and said “Touch the Ossewabrandwag and you touch me?” We know what the result of that threat was, because these were the words of a big man who challenged the Prime Minister of the country. The result was that young men went and did damage on a big scale and started fires and blew up trains and cut wires. That was the result of this sort of utterance by the Leader of the Opposition. When he saw that there was trouble, he was the first to betray it in his speech at Paarl. He went further and stigmatised his fellow Afrikaners as gangsters. This is the first time in the history of our country that such language has been used in reference to fellow-Afrikaners. He is the man that betrayed the Ossewabrandwag to the Government.

You are lying.

Is the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) allowed to make such a remark? May he say about an hon. member that he is lying?

I withdraw that, but I still say that it is not the truth.

I say that he is actually the man who delivered over the O.B. who conveyed the first news to the Government. That was when the Leader of the Opposition saw there was difficulty and that deeds were being committed as the result of this inciting.

I think that I then gave warning.

A year too late. And then he ran away like a party hero. This is what happened. I would have been ashamed of myself if I had filled such a disgraceful rôle.

Come to the point.

I am coming to the point. Tell us who are the people who have attacked the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz).

Ask the Minister of Justice. He knows. He is protecting them.

Now we are getting this tirade. The Opposition is trying merely to divert the attention of the people from its record of the last five years.

Well, that is something original.

The main object of the Opposition is to divert the attention of the people from its past, from its attitude during the last five years. They succeeded in dividing the Opposition and in splitting it up into six or seven different groups.

Have you many regrets about that?

No, but these are the people who claim that they hold aloft the traditions of the Afrikaner. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether the swearing in of members of the Broederbond does not border on idolatry. Is it in accord with the traditions of our people? Now they come here with these lamentations meant for the Government in connection with officials who have transgressed the law. The whole matter is just a farce. [Time limit.]

There is one peculiar thing in connection with this debate, and that is that the Prime Minister as well as other members on his side of the House including the hon. member who has just spoken, are now appearing in the capacity of advocates and patrons of the Ossewabrandwag. The Ossewabrandwag is now not so dangerous, it has acted well, it has been intelligent. So wise and intelligent. Those were the Prime Minister’s words. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) defends it also. This is very strange and interesting. The Afrikaner Broederbond is now the scapegoat. I want to say that it is always the hallmark of a “hanskakie” to attack something belonging to his own people and never anything belonging to another nation.

Who is a “hanskakie”?

You.

I challenge the hon. member to say that outside.

The hon. member will then of course throw lemons at him. I was discussing previously the Sons of England and I had begun to read extracts from a secret book which came into my hands. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) tried to make out that I was reading from a circular letter that they had issued and which was generally known. That was absolutely not the case. I read from a secret book, and I do not believe that it was ever placed before the public. I challenge the hon. member to say that it was divulged to the public. It is stated for instance in this book that influence should be exercised to make teachers and school committees celebrate certain Empire features. Has that ever been made known to the public? This book contains secrets. There is a provision here that any member who discloses secrets of their gatherings may be punished and expelled. These words are used: “disclosing secret transactions of the Lodge.” The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister referred to secrets of the Broederbond. What are they then? What about the secrets of the Sons of England? But of course what is approved in the case of the Sons of England is disapproved in respect of an Afrikaans organisation. The Afrikaner organisation has to be attacked.

Who are the Afrikaners in that association?

There again you have a “hanskakie”.

You are a coward.

On a point of order, may the hon. member use such an expression?

What was the expression?

The hon. member has accused another hon. member of being a coward.

What was the point of order?

Whether an hon. member may accuse another hon. member of being a coward.

The hon. member may not say that.

If the hon. member accuses me of being a “hanskakie” then say that he is a coward.

If the hon. member says that another hon. members is a cowarc he must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, but 1 take strong exception to the hon. member having said that I am a “hanskakie”.

Mr. Chairman I should like to have your ruling on a point of order. The position is this, that if a member on this side of the House is stigmatised as a “hanskakie” it is done to abuse him, and I should like to know whether it is Parliamentary to use that expression towards another member.

What does the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) mean by “hanskakie”.

You can get the definition in a dictionary, Mr. Chairman. I am not here to define it. I can only say that the word is often used in this House.

It is someone who has been tamed.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it can be shown from Hansard that the word “coward” has been used in this House, and Speaker Jansen allowed it.

Now you are making a reflection on the Chair.

The hon. member for Winburg may proceed.

I want to point out that they also have secret degrees in the Sons of England. There is the red rose, the white rose and the royal blue. The royal blue does not even fall under the Lodge in South Africa. It stands directly under the Supreme Lodge of Canada. The Sons of England has also a Juvenile Lodge. The youngsters are roped in.

They are all very juvenile.

The Prime Minister said just now that they are all raving mad, and now he says that they are very juvenile. I agree with him. But we have proof here today that this is a secret organisation and that it is a political organisation. I want further to point out that they have their own courts to punish their people and to impose fines. There is talk of fascism. Here in the constitution it is clearly stated—

Disgrace ful.

The disgrace is on your self. I should like to go further and point out that this association is not only a racial association and a political association, but i also undertakes that members should be of mutual assistance in obtaining employment that they undertake to place each other ir certain jobs. This also applies naturally to the public service. The Prime Minister states that the Broederbond is a racial organisation. But the Sons of England is an organisation to which only English people may belong. Anyone who looks like a Jew or smells like one may not belong to it. No Afrikaner may belong to it. No Catholic or anyone who is married to a Catholic may belong to it. No Englishman who is married to a coloured woman or who is descended from such a marriage may belong to it.

And the “hans-kakies” on the opposite benches may also not belong to it.

No, they can be “hans-kakies” as long as they please, but they ought not to belong to this organisation.

May anyone whose father was a “hands-upper” belong to it?

No, because I see the hon. member is not a member of the organisation. Here there is abundant proof that the Prime Minister is discriminating between these organisations. He has done an injustice to a South African organisation. We have an English association such as has been described, but the Prime Minister discriminates against the Afrikaans association. But I say now, and I say this in all seriousness to the Prime Minister and his supporters that they have not the moral courage to take action against the Sons of England. Whatever that association does the Prime Minister has not the moral courage to take action against the Sons of England. Notwithstanding the fact that they take political action, that they are secret and that they are doing all these things that we have mentioned here, he leaves them absolutly alone. He will not even send his detectives to their meetings to investigate what has been done. He has set his detectives and traitors to work to learn everything he can in connection with the Broederbond. When meetings of the Broederbond are held the detectives have been sent time and again to obtain information. He has not done that with the Sons of England; he has not the courage to do that. We are dissatisfied with that. If the Prime Minister feels that those things should be prevented, if he wishes to eradicate these things, he must apply the procedure to both sides and not only to one side. But the position is that the Government does not interest itself in the activities of the Sons of England. They may do as they please, but when an Afrikaans association bestirs itself on an Afrikaner matter, then they are spied upon and persecuted, and then an injustice is done to them. We have furnished overwhelming proof of the injustice that has been done to the Broederbond. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I will quote a person to the hon. member to whom he cannot take any possible exception, the hon. Mr. Tielman Roos. He was perfectly satisfied that the Sons of England organisation ….

And so was General Hertzog with the Broederbond.

The sooner you finish with General Hertzog and the Broederbond the better. But I am dealing now with a man whose mind was definitely poisoned and was sufficiently poisoned as to ban the Sons of England organisation from the civil service of this country. Subsequently he withdrew that ban and he withdrew the ban on the avowed statement that he was misinformed about the activities of the Sons of England. Now, what is the hon. member’s attack about the Sons of England? The hon. member says that it is a secret organisation; and he has the temerity to stand up in this House and quote from a constitution, from the objects, the activities and the qualifications for membership of that organisation, information which was placed in his possession by the Sons of England themselves.

No, no.

Let me say quite frankly to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), if he does not know it already, that the only secret work of the Sons of England is its initiation ceremony.

That is not so.

I am the Grand President of that organisation.

Did you hear. General Smuts say that you were mad?

Did he say I was mad?

Yes, and very juvenile.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 22nd March.