moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

then moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

seconded.

Before proceeding with this motion of the Minister of Mines I would like to point out that yesterday the Minister came to us and told us that the object of making this change in the Committee was to preserve continuity as far as the membership of the Select Committee is concerned. He also suggested that this Committee grew out of a previous Committee, and that that Committee had decided to preserve this continuity. I am afraid the Minister, when he made that statement yesterday to the House, had forgotten that out of that original Committee, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister), the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), and the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos), had been replaced on that Committee, and that there had been no continuity. It is difficult for us to follow the line of thought of the Minister, where in technical matters of this description there should be continuity. We on this side of the House have tried to continue this continuity for the education of members, but I should like to point out that the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. Scholtz) has a knowledge of mining and has toured the diggings with the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris). It would have been better for the old Committee to go on than for the Minister to come at this belated hour to make this arrangement.

I should like to ask the hon. member where he got his idea of continuity from. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos) came to me and asked to be relieved of serving on this Committee. There may be other members in the House who may be more conversant, but as Mr. Scholtz was prepared to take the place which was vacant, as a matter of courtesy, I accepted.

Motion put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: Mr. Speaker, the necessity for bringing up this motion arises from a speech which the Prime Minister made in Johannesburg last month. That speech was the first public utterance on the Prime Minister’s return home from his visit to England, and I hope he will permit me to say that in spite of the fact that we do not very often agree with him here in this House, that many of us have listened, or rather have read of his doings on the other side, with very great appreciation-—that we have read of the efforts which he has brought to bear to bring about a better state of affairs out of this tangle, to bring in a more generous spirit of human justice and to induce a less free rein to be given to national antipathies, with a great deal of satisfaction. But in this particular, speech, in Johannesburg, there was one portion which I must confess made one rub one’s eyes with amazement, and read it over and over again. It was a long passage, which I have here, and if it were not for the extraordinary contentions in that passage, it would be quite unnecessary for me to refer to the matter. It implied that a position, which we all thought was unchallenged and unchallengeable, was a fit and proper subject for debate. This passage of the Prime Minister is such a direct challenge to what we always considered an unquestioned position, that I must inflict myself upon the House in explaining what our view is of the actual position, and in doing so, I may seem to inflict a series of what may be regarded as truisms. This Imperial Conference has no legal status, it has no place in the constitution of any of the self-governing portions of the British Empire. It has come into being in order to meet what was a distinctly felt want, and probably its usefulness is all the greater because it has no legal status. It has developed within the last thirty years—I think it is something nearly thirty years ago that this Imperial Conference has been developing from its original germ. It has been rather one of these commonsense ways of dealing with situations as they arise. On the one hand you had the quite clearly expressed and strongly held determination on the part of the self-governing Dominions that there should be no restraint in the logical development of the freest form of self-government. On the other hand you also had a very strong and keen desire in nearly every Dominion to see whether it was not possible to square the development of nationhood with, at the same time, a continuance and even strengthening of that tradition of intimate and cordial cooperation which they had been accustomed to from birth. Quite obviously those principles tended to clash, and I am old enough to remember all these fantastic schemes of Imperial federation which were the order of the day thirty or forty years ago. All of them failed and came to an end because it was felt that any attempt to put into legal form any such scheme could not be carried out except at the cost of putting some restraint upon these free self-governing rights of Dominions, and it was felt that to do that was to put an obstacle in the way of their development. It was felt that any such scheme, any such attempt would be bound to defeat its own end and lead to quarrel and disruption. And instead of that, the very common sense, the very ordinary method was resorted to of trying by continual interchange of ideas, by continual meeting, as of friends, to prevent causes of disagreement and quarrel—by keeping in touch as friends would keep in touch, by trying, as friends would do, to continue this system under which they looked upon themselves as members of one family and continue as such. I think I am right, subject to correction, when I say that a germ of this Imperial Conference came about when advantage was taken, either at the Jubilee of 1887 or 1897 of the presence in London of a number of Imperial statesmen, to have informal meetings at the Colonial Office for the purpose of discussing matters of common interest. I believe the first formal one was held in about 1902, and they have continued until they have become a regular institution. But the success which their efforts have met with, and the goodwill with which they have been regarded, have been due to the absence of any suspicion in regard to these conferences in the constituent parts of the Empire. There was no suspicion, there was no insinuation, no ground for anyone supposing that anything arrived at those conferences imposed any moral obligation whatever upon any of the Parliaments concerned to endorse the action of their Prime Minister or to take any definite attitude in regard to the proposal of their Prime Minister other than such Parliament would have taken in regard to any domestic matter put forward by its Government, and dealt with by the Parliament concerned. That was the feeling in every Dominion, that was the feeling in this Parliament when we rose, and I venture to say it was a clear, distinct understanding in every Dominion Parliament that they were just as free without giving any offence, without incurring any accusation of breach of faith or breach of any understanding, they were just as free to turn down the proposals of the Government, arrived at an Imperial Conference, as they were free to turn down the proposal of a Government to read any Bill here a second time in any matter of purely domestic concern. It is a useful institution, but I think it would be far more useful if, instead of being merely a meeting of the representatives of the Governments of the respective countries, we had a meeting at which all parties and all organised opinion in the various Parliaments were represented. I know there are many objections which have been urged to that. I remember urging it upon one or two of those who were the leaders of the Labour Party in Great Britain some six years ago. I know the objections made to that course, but such objections as I have heard certainly seem to be by no means of a character to outweigh the obvious advantages which would accrue from the fact that any decision arrived at an Imperial Conference would be a decision in which all parties agreed. Such was the view universally accepted as to the weight to be attached to these agreements and these promises made by any Government at an Imperial Conference, and I think I am right in saying, in fact I am sure I am, that, certainly in our time, no British statesman, and no statesman of the British Government has ever put forward any statement or made any implication that any Dominion Parliament was in the least bound to give effect to any undertakings made by the Prime Minister of that Dominion at the Imperial Conference. It is comical, somehow, to reflect on the curious turn of the wheel. Hitherto it has been in the Dominions that there has been a watchful jealousy, watching for any sign, ready to resent any sort of interference with their own Parliaments, in their own affairs; but it has remained for a Dominion statesman, the Prime Minister of one of the Dominions, to challenge the entire freedom of the Parliaments whose Governments were represented at that conference—and of all Dominion statesmen, the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, the apostle of the higher status, the man of all others, the Dominion of all others, where our history and currents of feeling, which still have their source in the history of this country, where all these circumstances demand that we should be on our most jealous and watchful guard in the interests of the country, no less than in those of the concord and unity in the Empire, we should be on our guard against any possibility of encroachment upon our perfect freedom, and deal our own problems and feel unfettered of any moral obligation in these matters whatever. What were the circumstances? The Imperial Conference had taken place. It had most interesting and most important discussions. In some of its discussions it had trenched upon subjects which it is a matter of common knowledge—anyone who has an elementary acquaintance with the political history of Great Britain will know that they trenched upon subjects which had been certainly topics of the most keen and party-dividing nature in Great Britain. There was plenty of warning that the Government spoke on these matters, not altogether for a united country. I have here The Economist of the 20th October, long before any general election in Great Britain was talked about, and I will read a few lines from its leading article:—

I am not stating that as evidence or arguments one way or another on these matters, and I merely cite it as showing that while these conferences were going on there was strong evidence that the Government in Great Britain spoke as a Government depending on a party majority of to-day, a party majority which might owing to any accident disappear tomorrow. Then the British Government saw fit to advise a dissolution; there was a general election, and as a result of that, at the time the Prime Minister spoke out here, there was every probability of a Labour Government coming into power—a probability which has since become a fact. I agree that it is not our business to concern ourselves about party politics elsewhere. But being in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility than the Prime Minister, I cannot forbear from expressing the opinion we hold on these benches, that the advent of that Government is the greatest and best omen for the future of the world that has happened for many a long day. It is going to have as great an effect on the European situation, we hope and trust, as the liberal policy of Great Britain had upon Europe in the 19th century. It is opening a new page in the history of the world. I can quite understand the Prime Minister’s disappointment. After all, we may differ on the merits of questions—I am not discussing the merits of the decisions come to in London. They had done a lot of work, and work which there was a great chance of being rendered entirely nugatory, due to what one might call the political revolution which had taken place in Great Britain. That is one of the contingencies which you must face with your eyes open, and we have got no business whatever to growl. We have got no business to grumble if the people of Great Britain have dissented in determinations come to by their Government any more than the people of Great Britain or any other Dominion whatever are able to growl if we in this Parliament disagree with promises made by the Government on our behalf. My point is this: It is immaterial to my argument whether the present Government decide to carry out the promises and recommendations given by their predecessors or whether they decide not to. My point is that the Prime Minister implied, and in no unmistakable way, that the Parliament, people and Government of Great Britain were bound by the undertaking of a Government which has ceased to be, and he implied that there was a moral and a strong obligation on the British people and Parliament to ratify the agreements come to with the Dominions. I can hardly believe that the Prime Minister will deny that. As soon as I read his speech I felt that my first duty in the House when it assembled was to challenge the statement, and I was surprised to find that most of the South African press took the same view on the question as I did. For once I was in the position of having almost all the press on my side, but my feelings were restored when I found that one of the Cape Town papers afterwards made the following plea, with regard to the statement by the Prime Minister—

It was suggested that what the Prime Minister meant was that the British Government must merely submit the proposals to the Imperial Parliament and as a Government submit them and use its whole influence to get them ratified. Did the Prime Minister suggest that when there had been a general election, and the country had shown that it had no confidence in the Government, that its successors were bound to carry out the promises not only to submit the preference proposals to Parliament, but to submit them with the new Government’s recommendation? The Prime Minister would be too candid to shelter himself behind any such quibble. The Prime Minister said—

and he went on to say—

The Prime Minister attended the conference on the clear understanding that the Prime Minister of Great Britain was just as much subject to Parliamentary influence as the Premiers of the Dominions were. It is most important that the complete freedom of the various Parliaments of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire shall not be assailed by a pretended claim of a moral right to ratification. The Prime Minister proceeded:

If the Prime Minister of any of the Dominions or of Great Britain were to publicly state what in their opinion was the issue at any general election in South Africa, we should all be unanimous in regarding it as a piece of impertinence on their part to tell us what the issues were. The Prime Minister continued to make it quite clear that the preferences that were discussed and granted

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will give great attention to this and will remember that the idea that the mere volume of trade statistics is unreliable as a measure of the degree of amity between different communities. I would draw his attention to the saying of the late Senator Marks—

a remark having a distinct bearing on one aspect of all this matter of preferences. The Prime Minister also spoke of wide and grave issues being raised if the preferences and promises were not carried out. I hope the Prime Minister has not discovered a new Secessionist Party this time in Great Britain. The whole proposition that I have put to the House is so self evident that I hope it will receive the unanimous support of the House. I hope even the Prime Minister will support it and that the Prime Minister will candidly admit that anyone reading that speech can take it as no other than a claim for the moral obligation on the part of any of those individual Parliaments to ratify the resolution arrived at by the conference of Prime Ministers. That is the view taken by the whole of the outside world. One is not making too meticulous an examination of every word and every phrase as if a case for libel were being made out. Promises which have been made to the Imperial Conference by the British Government findings should be carried out by their successors,” says the Prime Minister. And the general effect of that is to establish a customary claim that issues decided upon by that Imperial Conference have the right to demand the assent of the constituent Parliaments and constituent peoples. Once you insist upon that the whole future of this mode of consultation will suffer irreparable damage. In order to make it clear to ourselves, supposing the Prime Minister of this Union at that Imperial Conference instead of taking up the view he had done regarding the Indian question, had taken up another view and that view had been agreed to by the whole of the Governments represented and he had made a promise that he would submit legislation in accordance with those views to this Parliament. What would we say if it was claimed that another Prime Minister was bound to use his whole power and influence to obtain ratification. We should have repudiated such an action. I move this motion in order that the doctrine which was put forward by so distinguished a party in the country as the Prime Minister shall not be cited in future years as having been allowed to go unchallenged by this House. I move the resolution in my name.

seconded.

Before I proceed to reply to the speech of the hon. member, I should like to say in one word how much I appreciate the generous reference which he has made to my work in Europe. It is very unusual to hear those references. It is the first time for months now since I came back to hear one word of praise for me from that party on the opposite benches. I do not complain of the motion of the hon. member, nor do I complain of the speech he has made here. From a party point of view the speech may be justified, I am only sorry that the party point of view should have prevailed in a matter of this kind. My colleagues and myself went to this conference in London, not to do any party work, but to do the work of this country. We did the work of this country to the best of our ability, not sparing ourselves. And I should have thought that when we came back, after the work had been done, the rest of our people in South Africa, irrespective of party consideration, would have ranged themselves behind us and approved of the work that had been done. On the contrary, that has not happened. On the contrary, the party spirit has prevailed as it prevails here to-day, and the voice of South Africa is weakened. Whereas our influence would have been much stronger and the views of South Africa pushed more effectually here if party capital had not been made out of it. Well, the hon. member has laboured at great length the constitutional position. I accept that as the alphabet. He need not have laboured it at all. They are things we do not question, and if they are questioned by people who are silly enough to do so, we know how to deal with them. The hon. member has once more proved the alphabet and at great length, and, I must say, with great cogency. He has stated what everybody of sound political sense in this country knows to be true. The constitutional position has been laid down repeatedly in the country and in this House. Only a few months ago, immediately before proceeding to London, I had the opportunity in this House of stating the position with all the force and clearness I was capable. No one has ever questioned it. I can go further; the report which has been laid on the Table gives the most convincing expression to the nature of these conferences, and to the sort of binding character that the resolutions have. I wish to quote one passage from the report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference which I think states the position quite clearly. At the section dealing with conference resolutions on page 13, this official paragraph occurs. This is the paragraph—

I hope the hon. member agrees with that.

Certainly.

Well, sir, these words were written by me. These words were moved by me and inserted into this report. We had a controversy during the conference as to the nature of the conference, as to its position in the Empire, and after this controversy had been going on for some time, I moved in these words as an amendment. They were unanimously accepted by the representatives of the various Dominions and the representatives of the British Government, and they stand here as an official record of the nature of the Imperial Conference and the binding character of the resolutions taken by them. I quoted this to show the hon. member that about the constitutional position there is no doubt whatever. If there were any doubt whatever about the constitutional position of the Imperial Conference, these words that were moved into the report and accepted unanimously, I think, removed for ever any doubt that may have attached to the position. When I was speaking at Johannesburg, I was not dealing with the constitutional position. I took the constitutional position for granted. It would indeed have been foolish for me to go to a public meeting and there, like a constitutional pundit or lawyer, make my audience understand what the constitutional position of the Empire is. That was not my business—that was taken for granted. What I did at Johannesburg was to deal with the facts of the situation as it had arisen and that situation was one of very great gravity and importance for this country. A conference had been held, very important resolutions had been arrived at, very important results for this country, but owing to changes which had taken place in the electoral position in Great Britain there was grave danger that all that work might indeed be in the melting pot, as I expressed it in Johannesburg. That was the situation I had to deal with as a practical man. No question of law, no question of constitutional doctrines which had to be settled—and have always been considered settled—the question which I had to deal with as a practical man was the practical question of policy, and I stated at this meeting in Johannesburg in the strongest language and as clearly as I could what my view was of the policy. I said that in my opinion it would be a disaster, it would be something which would have very far-reaching results if the work of the conference was to be upset at this stage. I gave my reasons. I said that it would be a very grave reflection on the conference system itself. It would have very far-reaching results on the conference system and for reasons which everyone can appreciate. It is very difficult for us to leave our countries, for heads of Governments to leave for months at a time—I suppose my colleagues from distant Dominions must have had to be away for at least six months—to assemble at conferences which are going to be talky-talky, which are going to be purely academic, and the results of which are going to carry no weight in the different Dominions. It would indeed be lamentable, and I think the whole House will agree, that if that were to be the position, that if the resolutions, and the debates at these conferences, were to be merely of an academic character, then I think the conference system would very soon not be in existence at all. It would inevitably disappear, because no one would take the trouble to attend. I pointed out another very important difficulty which was bound to arise if these resolutions were not carried out. We have been giving preferences in this country, other Dominions have been giving preference to British trade for a long time. If, after this question had been solemnly discussed, these resolutions were simply thrust aside, I think the whole policy of preference would be in danger. But in all this, no question of law was raised. I never questioned the legal power or the legal right of the British Parliament, or of any Parliament, to deal as it liked. Of course, it has the power, the legal power. What I was arguing was the question of expediency and policy, and my whole point was that on the grounds which I stated, there was the highest reason of policy, the highest expediency for carrying out these resolutions which we came to. The hon. member has read a number of the passages here, in which reference is made to the promises of the Government. His resolution here refers to Parliament. He has not read a single passage in his speech in which I referred to the Parliaments. But I did refer to Parliaments, and I shall read the passage. I have it here. I do not accuse the hon. member of evasion, but for the sake of clearness I shall read what I did say. I said this. I said the result would be most lamentable. “He hoped”—that is I hoped, “that whatever promises were made to us at the conference would solemnly be carried out by the next Parliament.”

What Parliament?

That is the British Parliament, because it is the British Government which made the promises. Is there any question here of the power of Parliament? I expressed a hope in the strongest possible terms that these promises will be carried out by Parliament, but it is all a matter of policy, of expediency, and it is not questioning the constitutional position of the British Parliament. The hon. member thinks that I am trying to cover up my tracks, that I am trying to evade the position. But I want him to realize, as everyone can surely realize, that there is the greatest difference between pointing out the law, the rights of a case and the policy, the expediency of a case, and my whole argument at this meeting which I addressed, not to Johannesburg, but to the British people, the British Government and Parliament, was in order to make them realize the gravity of the situation as we see it in the Dominions. Well, hon. members perhaps do not realize it as well as I do, because I have had greater opportunity of keeping in touch with the public in Great Britain, and I know the extreme danger that there is in all the electoral heat, in all the political conflicts of the day to view questions from their point of view, from the purely political and party point of view, and to forget that these questions have repercussions over the whole of the Empire, have great importance in other portions of the Empire, and have to be considered from that point of view, and my whole speech in Johannesburg was spoken with a view to impressing the public of Great Britain, the Government and the Parliament, with the gravity of the situation as we view it here. And I know that some of my other colleagues take exactly the same view. I have a cutting before me of an interview, a statement which Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, gave, in which he, if possible, took a still stronger line than I did. He also points out that this was not an issue at the elections. He watched things very closely, very narrowly, all through that campaign. These preferences were never in issue. They were quite different from the protection policy on which the elections were fought, and he also points to the great danger which might ensue if these preferences might not be given. He said it was a tragedy; I said it was a disaster. Those who believe in the conference system realize that the results have been beneficial to the Dominions, and you will agree that it would be the height of folly to brush that aside and simply view the question from the constitutional standpoint. I did my best to make the people realize that from the point of view of statesmanship, of the highest expediency, and of highest policy, these promises made by the British Government should be carried out. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity of going back to this matter for a few minutes. The British Prime Minister has fairly said that the Government would lay the resolutions before the House of Commons; as far as his position of leader is concerned, he has agreed to carry out the terms, and we are grateful as far as the Dominions are concerned. That is not the only matter. The question is: what is going to emerge from Parliament? I do not deny the right of Parliament to veto these resolutions, but I would repeat once more that, to my mind, no greater disservice could be done to the British Empire and to Canada and South Africa, no greater disservice could be done to the Empire as a whole, than the vetoing of these resolutions. I do not question the right of Parliament to deal with the matter. The hon. member was quite right. If I, as Prime Minister, had gone to the conference and had given definite undertakings about Asiatics and on questions concerning which there existed a strong conflict of opinion in South Africa, Parliament would not carry out such promises, and quite rightly. I do not claim greater freedom for ourselves than for the British Parliament. But apart from the legal question, and judging purely from the standpoint of practical statesmanship and on the ground of public policy, I can conceive of nothing that would be more harmful to the Empire, at this stage, than the vetoing of the resolutions. My opinion is very strongly that those resolutions should be carried out. I do not want to pursue the matter further. I do not think that it is worth pursuing. The first part of the hon. member’s resolution is quite correct; the second part is based on a misunderstanding. It is argued that in my speech in Johannesburg I was questioning the right to deal with it constitutionally. The questions of legal right and constitutional questions are left free. I would say this: the hon. member has made a great deal of fuss this afternoon, and on several occasions over a purely constitutional principle which has never been in question. The preference which we obtained at the conference is a matter of the greatest importance to this country. The hon. member has carefully abstained from expressing his opinion on this matter. Is it immaterial to him? I want the hon. member and those who side with him on his side of the House, to say what is their opinion, do they value the preference or won’t they tell us?

That is a red herring.

No. Let us appraise our work honestly and fairly. Surely this country is entitled and the party the hon. member represents is entitled to know what view they take on this question. Is it good work that we did or is it bad work? Surely this is a question of material importance to this country. No conference which I have attended during many years has done more solid and substantial work in the interest of the Dominions than did this conference in granting this preference. The conference laid down a policy of preference of great interest to this country that would lead to great development in it, yet the only interest he has shown is in the constitutional position. I think that is taking the party spirit too far. I do not think that any party is entitled to make so much of the position when the interests of the country require to be secured. This is no question to be discussed in the manner in which it has been discussed in view of the extreme value of this preference to this country and the future development of the country. I do not say there should be no difference of opinion, but in order to gain a small point for a party they are prepared to make the people of Great Britain and the British Parliament believe there is a division among ourselves about these things and that a large section of my Parliament is opposed to me. Instead of concentrating upon the points of Imperial interest, instead of making the people of Great Britain realise that we fully appreciate what has been done, a constitutional question is raised and not a word is said about the real question of the merits; and a division is going to take place, which will make the people of Great Britain believe that in this matter there is no feeling in South Africa, and that so far as there is a feeling at all, that feeling is against me. That is going to be the effect of this division; that it will give the people of Great Britain the unfortunate and wrong impression that South Africa is divided amongst itself on the question of preference. No greater disservice, no greater harm could be done to the interests of South Africa than if such an impression was gathered. Under these circumstances, I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything further on the constitutional question. It is perfectly clear that I never challenged what I myself have repeatedly laid down, and what I have tried to lay down in this report in no unmistakable manner, and under these circumstances I think the hon. member will probably, rather than divide this House and create a wrong impression abroad, see fit not to push this matter to a division.

Mnr. Speaker, ek denk, elkeen wat die Eerste Minister aandagtig aangehoor het, moet jammer voel oor die houding wat hy aangeneem het. Ons het hier te doen met ’n seer belangrike vraagstuk, ’n vraagstuk rakende ons konstitusionele regte en ’n vraagstuk gaande tot die bodem van ons volkslewe. Die Eerste Minister staan hier op en die eerste woorde wat hy sê is: Nee kyk, julle is baie ondankbaar, hier het ek gegaan na Europa, ek het groot werke gedoen vir die Unie en ek het gedenk julle sal almaal voor my neerkniel en dankbaar wees en hier kom julle en vra my omtrent ’n konstitusionele punt. Die Eerste Minister sal my ekskuseer as ek sê dat ek nog nooit so ’n stukkie kibbelary en oëverblindery in die Huis meegemaak het nie. Ons is hier besig oor een van die gewigtigste vraag stukke te praat en inplaas van die diskussie op te neem as ’n man, soos ook die edele lid voor Stamford Hill (die heer Creswell) gedoen het en andere, hoop ek, nog doen sal, draai hy om en sê “hoe durf jy my die vraag te stel omtrent die konstitusionele punt, in plaas van te sê wat jy denk van my grote dade en die grote dinge wat ek gedoen het.” Wanneer die tyd daarvoor kom sal ek en seker ook die edele lid vir Stamford Hill gereed wees om die Eerste Minister lof toe te swaai vir enig iets, wat hy vir Suid-afrika behaal het, net soos ek nou ook gereed is om die nodige blaam’, sover die daar is, op hom te werp. Dis nie die kwessie vandaag nie wat hy gedoen het of wat hy verkryg het of wat die waarde is van wat hy verkryg het, maar wat is die sienswyze oor die Eerste Minister se laaste in Johannesburg gehoue redevoering, omtrent ons konstitusionele posisie wat betref die Imperiale Konferensie. Nou Mnr. Speaker, ek herhaa nogmaals, ons het hier te doen met een van die gewigtigste kwessies, waarmee ons ooit te doen gehad het en om aan te toon, hoe gewigtig die kwessie is en om te bewys, dat die woorde van die Eerste Minister, in Johannesburg gesê, nie so duidelik is nie en dat daar misverstand oor die mening daarvan bestaan, wil ek daar net ’n bietjie aan herinner, dat na sy toespraak in Johannesburg daar geen enkele koerant was nie, selfs nie jou Cape Times, wat nie geskok was nie en dadelik uitgeroep het: “Nee maar so kan dit nie wees nie.” Daar was selfs geen enkele koerant van die sy van die Eerste Minister nie, wat hom bygespring het. The Friend van Bloemfontein het selfs sover gegaan om ’n beroep te doen op die Eerste Minister om liewers dadelik te erken, dat hy ’n groot fout begaan het. Maar, dis nog nie eens alles nie—om te toon die groot aandag wat geheg word aan die uiting van die Eerste Minister, ook selfs in Europa, wat vind ons daar? Die Eerste Minister, Baldwin, die moes dadelik optree en ontken dat die posisie is soos neergeleg deur ons Eerste Minister. Die teenwoordige Eerste Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, en ook sy vroeëre kollega, Lloyd George, het hul in dieselfde gees geuit. Die woorde van die Eerste Minister is dadelik gerepudieer geword deur die hele koerantewereld en deur die hele politieke wereld in Engeland, omdat hy gerepudieer het wat van die grooste belang is vir die vryheid van Engeland en ons. Die Eerste Minister het in Johannesburg gesê—

“Moet nagekom word deur hulle opvolgers.” Waarom moet? Is dit ’n morele verplichting of ’n konstitusionele verplichting? Die Eerste Minister laat na om te se welke van die twee, want beide is ewe verkeerd. Volgens die Konstitusie is die Eerste Minister gegaan na ’n Imperiale Konferensie en die werk daarvan staat op geen ander voet as die van enige byeenkoms van Eerste Ministers. Laat ons verder gaan. Die Eerste Minister het geen gewag gemaak van die Parlement nie. Natuurlik, natuurlik. Maar intussen wat beskou die Eerste Minister as die verpligtinge, wat rus op hom en sy Ministers as daar kwessies van volksregte en eer bespreek word? Baldwin, die Eerste Minister van Engeland, moes die eerste die beste gelegenheid tebaat neem om die woorde van onse Eerste Minister te repudieer. Ramsay MacDonald, sy opvolger, het dieselfde weg gevolg en verklaar, dat daar geen sprake van kan wees, dat ’n volgende regering gebonde kan wees deur beloftes en besluite van sy voorganger nie. En tog spreek die Eerste Minister van “must, must.” Die Eerste Minister wil voorgee, dat die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de heer Creswell) dit wil voorstel asof hy iets seer afkeurenswaardigs gedaan het. Wel, wat hy gesê het is niks anders dan die mening van nege tiende van die publieke opinie, soas uitgedruk deur publieke sprekers en nuusblaaie. Laat ik hem verder neem en op iets anders wys, dan sal ons sien die erns van wat hy gesê het en waarop die heer Creswell gewys het, dat die opvolgers van de Baldwin Regering die besluite van dieselwe en beloftes moet nakom. Let ons goed daarop. As hulle dit nie aanvaar om die beloftes, op die Imperiale Konferensie gedaan, na te kom nie dan volg daaruit dat die belange van die Empire agtergestel word by die een deel van gesegde Empire. Wat beteken dit? Die Eerste Minister en sy party het sedert jare luidkeels die beginsel onderskryf van “Suid-afrika eerste.” En hier sê hy duidelik, dat die belange van die Ryk moet gaan bo die belange van enige deel van dieselwe, hetwelk dieselfde is, as dat die belange van die Ryk moet gaan voor die van Kanada, voor die van Australië, voor die van Nu Seeland, voor die van die Unie van Suid-afrika. Waar bly hulle “Suid-afrika eerste?” En dieselfde man, die so redeneer om sy stelling te handhaaf, dat Ramsay MacDonald verplig is om die beloftes van sy voorganger gestand te doen, wens ons te vertel, dat ’t nooit die bedoeling was om enige verpligtinge te heg aan op die Imperiale Konferensie gedane beloftes nie. Ik kon dit verstaan het as die Eeerste Minister die advies aangeneem had van die Friend om te verklaar, dat hy hom te sterk uitgedruk had, daar hy wou wys van hoeveel belang dit was, dat Ramsay MacDonald uitvoering sou gee aan die beloftes van sy voorganger. Dan sou mens dadelik voel: dit is menselik om so’n fout te maak en ons moet daar nie teveel waarde aan heg nie. Maar nou neem hy dié posisie op, dat hy iets anders gedaan het as wat ons beweer. Wanneer die Eerste Minister so spreek, dan ontken hy die ware gevoele in Suidafrika en ontken die konklusie, deur almaal uit sy woorde getrek. Wat my spyt, is dat die Eerste Minister dan heengaat en ons ’n verwyt maak, dat die heer Creswell so dom en vermetel is om te beweer, dat sy woorde ’n ander sin het as wat hy hier volhou. Ek verwag van die Eerste Minister veel meer en ’n waardiger houding. Hy is nie meer ’n man, wat vir hom ’n reputasie moet maak nie. Elkeen weet wat hy gedaan het en instaat is om te doen: dit is tyd, dat hy groot genoeg moet wees om, as daar op hom ’n aanval gemaak word omtrent ’n punt van die grootste belang, op waardige wyse die punt van aanval tegemoet te tree. In plaas van te verklaar: dit is onse konstitusionele posisie, is die Eerste Minister die eerste persoon om op onwaardige wyse die parlement te wil bedui, dat dit geen besluite is nie, maar uitings van gevoele omtrent onse konstitusionele regte, die duidelik sal aantoon wat die werklike posisie is. Die Eerste Minister weet twee dinge: hoe deur die hele wereld aan die volk regte ontneem en onthou word. Hy weet meer: hoe ’n sekere seksie in Engeland en selfs hier so jaloers is op die verhoogde status, die hy ons gebreng het, dat hulle gedurigdeur daaraan knibbel en kou en probeer om ons dit weer te ontneem. Dit kan daagliks gesien word en nieteenstaande hy dit weet, gaat hy en neem ’n posisie in, waardeur hy onse konstitusionele posisie verswak en diegenes help, wat besig is onse regte te ondermyn. Sover my betref, is dit ’n kwessie, die sedert 1913 al daar gewees het: wat sal onse posisie in Suid-afrika wees: sal ons ’n federale konstitusie hê, of sal ons die verkrege regte behou. Toe ek die toespraak lees, het ek dadelik gesê: ek kan die Eerste Minister nie verstaan nie: waarom beroep hy hom op ’n besluit van die Imperiale Konferensie? Hy veronderstel, dat ons iets aal weet wat daar geboekstaaf is, maar nie openbaar gemaak nie. Hoe kan hy hom vir sy bedoeling beroep op iets wat nog nie rugbaar is in die wereld, sover my bekend, nie? Die Eerste Minister kom, nadat ons al jare daarvoor geveg het en nieteenstaande die verklaring aangaande onse posisie, dat ons afhanklik is van ’n ander liggaam as ons Parlement: hy kom en doet die verklaring, dat ons staan onder ’n Imperiale Konferensie, wat in die tussentyd opgegroei is. Hoe en met welke doel? Om die plaas te neem van die Imperiale Regering en die geen gesag het nie, maar die nog moet kry. Ons het gewaarsku, dat die gevaar bestaat, dat die Eerste Minister meer en meer die Konferensie sal gaan beskou as die gesag, waaraan hulle verantwoordelik is en nie aan ons nie. Kan hy ons blameer, dat, as hy woorde van die aard gebruik, ons eksepsie neem daar teen? Die Eerste Minister is in die posisie geraak, dat hy die Parlement beskou as bykomstig en die Imperiale Konferensie as ’n gesag in die lewe roep, wat hyself ’n gevaar genoem het. Tenslotte wens ek te verklaar, dat wat my betref en my party, ons het altoos daarvoor gestaan en sal daarvoor staan tot die laaste toe, dat geen imperiale gesag toe-gelaat sal word om te heers oor die gesag van die Unie Parlement nie. Indien die Eerste Minister die grondstelling in die oog gehou had sou hy nie woorde gebesig het, soos hy gedaan het, dat namelik onse belange moet staan onder die van die Imperiale Konferensie nie. Ons is grote dank verskuldig aan die edele lid voor Stamford Hill (die heer Creswell) dat hy die saak teberde gebreng het.

Daar is die verbond!

Die edele lid zal die dinge nooit verstaan nie, want die onkunde kan nie met die verstand meegaan nie, maar as hy tenminste wil stilbly, sal ons kan aangaan.

Ek is teveel Afrikaner om daarmee saam te gaan.

Ek is bly om te sien, dat ons sover is, dat ’t nie net ’n eigenaardigheid van die Nasionale Party is nie, maar dat die hele volk staat op die konstitusionele regte. Dit is sover as een van ons dit ooit kan neem. Dit sal, na ek hoop, nie lank duur nie of die edele lid voor Bethal (Lt.-Kol. Grobler) sal ook in die hande klap vir die Konstitusie, net soos vir de beginsel van “Suid-afrika eerste.”

I cannot, obviously, accede to the Prime Minister’s request, and I am bound to say that I was never less tempted to do so. The Prime Minister’s case amounts to this: After trying to draw a red herring across the trail, he says: “We have got something out of the Imperial Conference which is of great value to South Africa. The other people have to pay for it. Now that justified me—I knew all about the constitutional position—the importance of this advantage to South Africa was sufficiently great to justify me in trying to bluff the Parliament of Great Britain, in trying to claim a moral obligation,” and he appeals to me to carry out that bluff by withdrawing my motion. Such an attitude seems to me neither dignified, honest nor worthy of the Union of South Africa.

Motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—54.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Enslin, J. M.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Hunt, E. W.

Jansen, E. G.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, J. F.

Obermeyer, J. G.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer,I. v. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Noes—61.

Bailey, A.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Leuchars, G.

Mackeurtan, H. G.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Moor, J. W.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nieuwennuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuart, W. H.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter. J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly negatived.