I move—

The outstanding significance of the report which the motion standing in my name asks to approve of, is clear to each of us. To this country the declaration of dominion freedom, and consequently of Union freedom, national and international, contained in that report, cannot but be a matter of the very deepest interest. It is therefore no more than what is expected of us, the representatives of the people gathered together here, that an opportunity should be offered in this House, such as is contemplated by this motion, for the full and free discussion of that report. I need hardly point out that never before has a similar report been brought out by any Imperial Conference. What on previous occasions—such as the Imperial Conference of 1923 and that of the reply of Mr. Lloyd George to the members of the independence delegation from South Africa in 1919—had been given utterance to in mere incidental and fragmentary manner, based upon no greater authority than that of the individual British Prime Minister or other Minister making the statement; has in this report formed the subject of specific investigation; has with set purpose been considered, and decided upon by the unanimous judgment of the leading statesmen of Great Britain and the dominions assembled at the conference; has thereafter been specifically considered and confirmed by the Government of his Majesty the King in Great Britain, and finally sanctioned by his Majesty the King himself. The report, therefore, and the declaration of status contained therein, must necessarily carry an authority, both national and international, far surpassing anything of their kind ever published before. I shall now proceed to lay before this hon. House the main contents of the report, with observations. According to the report—

i.e., equality of status both domestic and external. That status is, according to the report, similar and equal to that of Great Britain; so that, knowing what the independence of Great Britain is and what the measure of that independence is, we also know what and how great that of South Africa is. The principle of equal status, therefore, defines both the nature (domestic and external) and the measure (sovereign) of our national freedom and independence. Great Britain and the Union being equal in status, the one is and can be, says the report, subject to no compulsion whatever from the other. On the contrary, being autonomous communities, equal in status, each State, the report says, is—

All this is, in relation to Great Britain and the dominions in general, tersely expressed by the report in the words—

Apart from the mere legal state relationship, as expressed in terms of equality of status with Great Britain, the Union moreover stands related to Great Britain and the other dominions, in associated co-operation, as a member of the British commonwealth of nations. In that co-operative association of free and equal states the Union, like every other member, as the report emphasizes, is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation. In other words, no matter what may be the nature or extent of the Union’s co-operation in the commonwealth, the independent status of the Union cannot be affected thereby, because whatever is done, is done by its own free will.

Functioning.—Just as equality of status is, in the words of the report, the root principle governing inter-imperial relations, commonwealth co-operation is de facto the governing principle of commonwealth existence. The commonwealth is a league of free nations, freely co-operating with a view to security, peace and progress. While, therefore, the freedom of cooperation of its members necessitates that each member of that league shall be the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation; in its co-operative action, i.e., in its functioning, it requires, according to the report—

In the “Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs” for January, 1927, there appears an interesting and able address given by the right hon. Mr. Amery on November 30th, 1926, on “some aspects of the Imperial Conference.” In that address he inter alia says the following—

or, to use his words uttered in the House of Commons on 29th June, 1927—

III. Machinery.—This subject, says the report, has also occupied our attention. Here the conference dealt with the subject first from the point of view of the relations between the various parts of the British empire, and, in so doing, examined existing administrative, legislative and judicial forms, which had become antiquated through the present state of constitutional development and had ceased to be in accord with the position at present occupied by the dominions. This examination included various matters, such as: (a) the title of his Majesty the King; (b) position of Governor-General; (c) operation of dominion legislation; (d) merchant shipping legislation; and (e) appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. With respect to these matters, I shall not detain the House long; merely a few short remarks concerning the position of the Governor-General. In conformity with the views expressed by the conference, the character of the position held by his Excellency the Governor-General in relation to the administration of public affairs of the Union, is now one corresponding to that held by his Majesty the King in Great Britain. He, therefore, no longer acts as the representative or agent of his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain or of any department of that Government—in relation, as I have said, to the administration of public affairs of the Union. The reasons why I so qualify this statement by adding the words “of the Union,” is because this does not apply when it concerns the office of high commissioner. I feel with the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that the Governor-General of the Union should not be excluded from taking charge of the office of high commissioner in South Africa for his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain. I do not think that such exclusion would be in our interest. If at any future time it might appear that the holding of that office by the Governor-General is in conflict with the real interests of the state over which he presides, I have no doubt his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain, upon request, will at once see that the necessary change be introduced. Except, therefore, in respect to matters concerning the high commissionership, his Excellency the Governor-General to-day represents only his Majesty the King, and the formal official channel of communication between his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain and His Majesty’s Government in the Union, is to-day between Government and Government direct. A few general remarks I now wish to make as to the three other matters mentioned in the report, viz., operation of dominion legislation; merchant shipping legislation; and appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Certain questions involved under these headings, but not decided upon by the conference, are indicated in the report, as also the reasons why these questions could not immediately be pronounced upon, and require close scrutiny and investigation before they can be brought into harmony with our declared constitutional position. In the meantime, allow me to say once more, it would be wrong to look upon these questions to-day as concerned with cases of inequality indicative of subordination. In so far as they do involve inequality, it is henceforth an inequality depending upon the free consent of the dominion concerned, and which is admittedly within the right of such dominion to have properly adjusted. What the conference has done is to advise that such adjustment should be effected, and to recommend that with a view thereto a committee should be set up to enquire into and advise as to how that adjustment shall be brought about. Until that adjustment has been effected, it is by the will of the dominion concerned that such inequality exists, and not because of any inferiority in existing status. In the words of Mr. Amery, already quoted by me—

Equality of status for us with Great Britain is, therefore, not a mere phrase; it is both a national and an international fact.

It may interest hon. members if I quote what a distinguished American constitutional lawyer, Prof. Lawrence Lowell, of Harvard University, has to say on this point. After a full and thorough discussion of the report we are now considering, he says—

Hon. members will remember when I came back from the Imperial Conference, that is also what I said. He goes on to say—

The conference next dealt with the subject of commonwealth machinery from the point of view of relations with foreign countries. The dominions and Great Britain being equal in status, in no way subordinate in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, it was, of course, necessary that the Imperial Conference, considering Great Britain and the dominions in their combined action, i.e., through active co-operation seeking realization of their objectives: peace, security and progress—should seek to recommend the means whereby that cooperation could, according to their view, best be assured and made effective. With a view to that, the conference inter alia took into consideration and advised upon questions of: (a) procedure in relation to treaties; (b) representation at international conferences; (c) general conduct of foreign policy; (d) issue of exequaturs to foreign consuls in the dominions; and (e) channel of communications between dominion governments and foreign governments. The rules or practices recommended in connection with these subject-matters are most often no more than a supplementing of what was adopted in 1923 for the guidance of the Governments of the commonwealth. Nothing can be gained by repeating these recommendations here and I shall therefore refer hon. members, who desire to know what they are, to the report itself. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the House to an observation by the conference which should never be lost sight of. Speaking on the subject of the general conduct of foreign policy, the conference after having observed that—

gives expression to the following. “We felt,” it says—

This governing consideration mentioned by the Imperial Conference is of the utmost importance and significance. Tacitly it re affirms in the sphere of foreign relations the general right of independent action of each separate member of the commonwealth, while it expressly disclaims liability and responsibility without consent in the conduct and conclusion of foreign relations, by no matter which of the members of the commonwealth. This governing consideration is a vital necessity for the international status of every member of the commonwealth, without which there could be no sovereign international independence for any member—not even for Great Britain herself. It is this consideration upon which the group unit idea of empire of a few years ago had to suffer shipwreck, and upon which every similar idea involving the existence of a super-state or super-authority, must inevitably come to grief, so long as the members of the commonwealth are possessed of that healthy spirit of individual national pride and endeavour which characterises every one of them to-day. It is, finally, this consideration which has made the commonwealth possible, and which will make the commonwealth, as a league of free nations, persist and flourish when all empires based on the subjection of individual states shall have ceased to be possible. I would like to quote, with wholehearted approval, a passage from an address delivered in the University of Edinburgh on January 26th, 1927, by Lord Balfour, the distinguished chairman of the sub-committee of the Imperial Conference, which brought out the report. After having pointed out what it really was that was of importance in the achievements of the conference of 1926, as distinguished from previous Imperial Conferences, Lord Balfour continued as follows—

Perhaps hon. member will allow me to quote from the right hon. Mr. Amery in the address already referred to. “I have,” he says—

We have already heard the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs declare that—

This clear statement, assigning to every individual state in the empire complete independence of choice and action nationally and internationally, is no more than what is contained on almost every page of the report.

Nevertheless, this full dominion independence has from time to time been challenged, on the alleged ground that no member of the British commonwealth possesses the right to neutrality in the case of Great Britain or a dominion being at war.

As this contention, if true, would mean that no individual member of the commonwealth—and again I say not even Great Britain—can be accounted an international state unit, i.e., an internationally recognized independent state, I look upon it as imperatively necessary that before advising this hon. House to approve of the report of the Imperial Conference, to discuss the correctness of this contention.

Although this will be the first occasion upon which I lay before this House my reasons for holding the views I do on this subject, it is not unknown to hon. members that I am one of those who maintain that the Union, as every other dominion, has, in case of war between Great Britain and any other state, the right to remain neutral and to have her neutrality respected by the belligerents.

Those who differ from me in this view are prepared to concede that the Union, and likewise any other dominion, has the right to declare that it will not actively participate in any war in which Great Britain is involved; but then they proceed to maintain that from the moment Great Britain is at war with a foreign country, every dominion is ipso facto in a state of war no matter whether it has declared its neutrality or not—in other words, that a declaration of neutrality by a dominion has no international force or binding effect in respect to Great Britain’s enemy at war with her.

To me this view appeared fallacious long before 1919, and since the coming into existence of the League of Nations and the League membership of the dominions, I feel convinced that it must be rejected as wholly untenable.

Before pointing out the inconsistencies of that view with the status and obligations of the dominions under the League of Nations, let me refer to a few other objections to that view, quite apart from the League and the covenant.

First: The dominions are admitted to-day to be free and independent countries, equal in status to Great Britain and in no way subordinate to her in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, while they must now and always remain the sole judge of the nature and extent of their co-operation with Great Britain.

Such being the state of independent freedom of the dominions, on what grounds then could a dominion which has declared to the world her desire to be neutral in a war in which Great Britain is a belligerent, be denied the right of neutrality?

To say that Great Britain’s enemy, as I have so often heard, if it suits him will not respect that neutrality, surely is no answer. There is no certainty that it will respect the neutrality of any other nation, if war with that nation were to suit it better. The question is not what such an enemy may be inclined to do to us, but what it has the right to do.

If we were still in the colonial stage of our national existence—mere subordinate parts and possessions of Great Britain—no doubt England’s enemy would have every right to consider us as part and parcel of Great Britain, and treat us, in spite of our declaration of neutrality, as the allies treated the German colonies during the late war.

But on what principle of law or equity could that be done against nations, explicitly declared free and emancipated from any form of subordination, no matter in what aspect of their national or international affairs?

To reject the right of a dominion to neutrality, therefore, to my mind, is to reject the status of the dominions as declared by the Imperial Conference and the report before the House.

If the dominions were to be accepted as being in a state of war the moment Great Britain is at war, then the same must obtain for Great Britain and the other dominions the moment one of these, say, Canada, goes to war; and it must obtain even then when Canada proceeds to war contrary to the declared will of Great Britain.

Can this really be accepted? If such a doctrine be accepted, then in what way can we be said to be autonomous, and what becomes of the declaration of the Imperial Conference, that each individual member of the commonwealth is now and must always remain the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation?

But let us look at the question from a somewhat different point of view.

Hear, hear.

Oh, it is the same theme. I am afraid hon. members do not like to be convinced. The denial of the right to individual neutrality, be it to Great Britain or to the dominions, not only implies a denial of individual national freedom in its full international scope, but necessarily also assumes the existence of a collective state entity having the character of an international persona, whose will overrides that of each of the constituent members of the British empire—be it that of Great Britain or of a dominion. In other words, it assumes the existence of a super or higher central authority. I do not think there can be any doubt with regard to that. Let me, however, here remind hon. members, that the question of a higher or central authority is not one which was overlooked, or merely by implication decided upon by the Imperial Conference. On the contrary, it was specifically raised during the discussion at the conference, and the idea of any central or coercive authority was frankly and advisedly rejected. When Lord Balfour speaks as he does in the words just quoted, saying: “. … the constitution now formally declared is absolutely the only constitution which is possible if the British empire is to exist. Then I might say this, that he was told that if he were to have a central authority there would certainly be no agreement between the dominions and England as to our status. We need not argue whether it would not be better to have a central authority, whether some means of coercion in extreme cases ought not to be contrived,” he does nothing else than confirm what I have just said and declare that the Imperial Conference rejected all idea of an imperial central or coercive authority—

Was the question of neutrality discussed at the Conference?

No, it was not. That is why I discuss it here, i.e., of an overriding super-state, or super-authority, be it in the form of the British empire or in any other form. This appears perhaps still more clearly when, after having declared that he—

he says—

No less clear and explicit on the point are the following words of Mr. Amery, already quoted by me—

His answer to these people prophesying the disruption of the empire because the “last vestige of any central authority … is gone,” is also important to note. He tells them that “the empire has not been held together for a long time past by any central authority.” Now, if, as is confirmed by both these distinguished British statesmen, “there is no central authority,” and no means of “coercion” that can be applied to any of the self-governing portions of the empire; while the report of the Imperial Conference itself affirms that individually each of these self-governing portions of the empire is “master of its own destiny … in no way subordinate to any other portion of the empire in any aspect of its domestic or external affairs,” and that “it is now and must always remain the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation,” within that empire, then I submit, for any man to declare that no dominion, and, let me repeat, not even Great Britain, has the right to declare itself neutral in case of a war in which any other portion of the empire is involved, is simply to ignore both law and fact.

What about loyalty to a common Crown?

I wish to consider this question now in the light of the existence of the League of Nations and our membership of the League of Nations. It must not be forgotten that the dominions, equally with Great Britain, are, since 1919, members of the League of Nations. The primary object of the League being peace and the maintenance of peace amongst the nations, the question of neutrality must necessarily be a matter of deepest concern to the League. For that reason, membership of the League imposes, under certain circumstances, neutrality as a duty. If, therefore, the view be correct that neither Great Britain nor any dominion has the right to individual neutrality the case of any other member of the commonwealth being at war, then, that duty to remain neutral imposed by the covenant of the League on all members, cannot in such a case hold in respect of Great Britain and the dominions, inter se. Is this so? If it is, then it can only be because in some way or another the covenant of the League provides for a special exemption to Great Britain and the dominions from the duty of remaining neutral in the event of a war in which one or other of them is a belligerent. It cannot, I think, be doubted that the covenant of the League does recognize between Great Britain and the dominions, as members of the League, a relationship inter se different to that commonly obtaining between the various members; and that it was intended that that difference in relationship inter se should also carry with it certain rights and privileges inter se, to which other members would not be entitled. But to claim that amongst those rights and privileges, there is the exemption from the neutrality imposed by the League under certain circumstances upon its members, is a contention which I hold to be as erroneous as it will in the last instance prove to be mischievous, if resorted to in practice. As it is a matter of the utmost importance, hon. members will excuse me if I go into this question here somewhat more in detail. First, then, let us look at the covenant of the League and observe the form which was adopted in the annex to the covenant for notifying the membership of Great Britain and the dominions in the League—a form nowhere else adopted for any of the other members. Nothing is more clear than that when that form was adopted it was done with the intention that it should serve as a notification to the other members of the League and to the world at large that Great Britain and the dominions, while individually contracting to become separate state members of the League, did so upon condition that they become members of the League, subject to their being, and to the right of continuing to be, members of the British empire. As far as the other members of the League are concerned, this is a condition precedent not only of which they have been thus notified, but to which they must be presumed to have consented. As a matter of fact, we know it was a question actually discussed and decided upon during the peace conference. Now this condition precedent is of the utmost importance in dealing with the question of the right of neutrality by the dominions, for it is clear that having become members of the League upon condition that their membership of the British empire shall not be interfered with, the League can under no circumstances demand from any one of them the performance of a League duty, the execution of which must entail the severance of its imperial relationship. Hence the League can under no circumstances demand from a dominion that it shall take up arms or commit any other act of hostility against Great Britain or against any other dominion. But does this condition precedent to its becoming a member of the League, also exempt a dominion from observing the duty to remain neutral, or not to take up arms, when, by the covenant, that duty is imposed upon the members of the League in general? On what grounds could this be maintained? As far as Great Britain and the other dominions are concerned, even prior to 1919 a dominion admittedly had the right to declare that it would not participate in a war in which Great Britain was engaged—in other words, it had the right over against the other members of the empire, before the League came into existence, to be neutral and still to remain a member of the empire. This right, as already pointed out, is equally admitted today. The neutrality, therefore, of a dominion, it is admitted, has no effect upon its imperial relationship; which means that when the covenant demands neutrality, no dominion can excuse itself on the ground that that relationship will be violated. What other ground of excuse in such a case can there be? To my mind, none! The result is, that not only is a dominion in duty bound to be neutral where by the covenant it is called upon to observe a state of neutrality, but every other nation, be it a member of the League or not, is bound to respect that declaration of neutrality as much as it has to respect that of any other state; and as far as the League is concerned, it will be bound in case of a breach of that neutrality by any other power, to extend its protection to the dominion concerned, just as it would have to do under similar circumstances to any other member. For these reasons, I must once more repeat, that to my mind there can be no reasonable doubt as to the right of any member of the British commonwealth of nations in case of war, to declare its neutrality and to have that neutrality inter-nationally respected by all nations. If the question be asked, why its neutrality must be respected also by nations not members of the League, then my answer is because a dominion—even as Great Britain—is a sovereign independent state, internationally recognised, and, whether its neutrality is violated by a member or by a hon. member of the League, its claim to protection is the same. Before leaving—and I think my right hon. friend will perhaps be glad I am about to leave this subject—the subject of neutrality, I wish to point out to honourable members that I am here dealing merely with the right to be neutral by a dominion, and its right to have that neutrality respected, without in any way desiring to discuss that neutrality itself. Perhaps there is no other subject of public international law so clamouring for revision as that of neutrality. A thorough treatment of that subject giving due consideration to dominion state relationships and League membership, seems to me very urgently required at this stage of European history. I may here further remind hon. members that, provided the Council of the League functions effectively, as it is expected to do under the covenant, and as we must presume it will do, the question as to the right of a dominion to remain neutral is one which will only arise in the very improbable case of Great Britain or the dominion at war being declared the aggressor by the council. We have a right to presume that this will never occur, so that the question of the right of dominion neutrality is in reality one of an almost exclusively academic nature. When, furthermore, people maintain as they sometimes do, that, assuming the dominions to have the right to be neutral, any dominion availing itself of that right would thereby immediately cause the disruption of the empire. I look upon it as only another proof of the baneful influences exercised by prejudice upon logic and sound judgment. An analysis of what must take place under the aegis of the League of Nations in case of a dominion declaring its neutrality in a war in which Great Britain as a belligerent is declared by the League to be the aggressor, will at once show that, as far as the empire is concerned, the neutrality, instead of being a disruptive, cannot act otherwise than as a cohesive force.

In conclusion, a few words as to the terms “British empire and commonwealth,” used by the conference in its report and declaration. Doubt as to the sovereign independence of the individual dominions, and, therefore, also as to their international status as sovereign states, has been expressed by writers and public men, founded upon the use of the phrase “within the British empire,” and of the designation “commonwealth,” by the Imperial Conference in its declaration of dominion status. According to the view of these men, those terms indicate that, according to the Imperial Conference, there does exist some state entity or persona, constituted by Great Britain and the dominions under the name of “British empire” or “Commonwealth” and which possesses an authority superior to that of any individual constituent element of the commonwealth, not even excluding Great Britain. I do not think that after what I have said as to the rejection by the conference of all idea of any central authority, and the manner in which this is confirmed by both Lord Balfour and Mr. Amery, there is any necessity for further refutation. I wish, therefore, to end by repeating what I said upon my return from the conference: The words “British empire” and “commonwealth” when used in the report, have no other object to serve than that of indicating collectively certain territorial or state entities standing in certain relation to one another without the least intention of assigning to these terms any persona or functional existence—they are mere names, and nothing more! Before sitting down, may I ask the indulgence of hon. members by quoting once more from the contribution referred to by me by Professor Lawrence Lowell. In the concluding part he says this—

seconded.

The House has listened with deep interest to the important speech which the Prime Minister has just made. I feel at a considerable disadvantage in following him, for the reason that we are dealing with a subject of the most far-reaching importance. The Prime Minister has had the opportunity of considering the statement carefully, and no doubt he has considered it from every point of view, whereas I have to reply on the spur of the moment, and I ask hon. members therefore to take the few remarks I am going to make in that sense: that I do not want to be bound down to the actual letter of my statement. I hope they will bear with me and consider my position as a difficult one in speaking on a subject which is certainly one of the most far-reaching importance which can be raised in this House. I for one am glad that some delay has occurred in the raising of this debate. The Imperial Conference sat at the end of 1926, and considerably more than a year has elapsed before this matter comes before us for discussion and for action; but I think the delay has served a useful purpose, because it has served to give people time to think and it has given time for feelings and passions to cool, so that we are to-day in a position in the House to discuss the subject with far more absence of feeling and of friction than we were able to do last year. And I welcome the spirit in which the Prime Minister has made his statement. When I compare it with the violent debate we had last year on this same subject on the question which was raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and the spirit in which the Prime Minister has spoken to-day, it is clear to me we have gained enormously by some delay in raising this matter in this formal way. It is of the greatest importance to us to discuss this subject calmly and dispassionately, far away from party politics and party considerations. One of the misfortunes of our country has been that in our constitutional questions—the question of our relations to our empire, of our empire and our international position, the position has been for years one of acute party politics, and has been in the very forefront of the party struggle here, and the result has been that it has been very difficult for our people to form a clear and impartial judgment on matters of the utmost difficulty. Where even the most competent lawyers would differ it is impossible to expect the public, heated up by passion and driven by party feeling, to consider matters calmly and quietly. I hope in future it will be possible for us—let me hope it will be possible in future—to eliminate this large and important subject of empire relations from party politics. I think it is an essential condition that we should do so. There may have been reasons in years gone by, when we were conducting a great party struggle in this country, to make use of this great question as a party weapon, but the time for that has passed, and I hope in future we shall discuss this matter away from all party and political considerations, and that we shall discuss it as a matter of profound and vital national interest. In that sense the Prime Minister has spoken, and I hope to speak in that sense, too. The matter is most difficult. The position of the British empire, its nature and its relation inter se and among the states of the world is one of the most puzzling questions to-day in the whole range of international law, and you cannot read a single book by experts on the subject without seeing how deeply they are impressed with this: that we are up against something new, something to which the categories of juridical science do not apply. The League of Nations, having given its deepest consideration to our relations over South-West Africa, came to the conclusion that the relationship under the mandate system does not fit in with the pre-existing juridical ideas, and the use of the word “sovereignty” in that connection might be misleading unless you keep very close to the facts. That instance is to us a warning, because you have a much larger field and the same situation to-day in the British empire. If we continue to talk in the language of the older diplomacy and law of the new and unique situation which has arisen in the British empire, we are likely to go very far astray, and we must be very careful when we use the ordinary language of the law and constitution in regard to this new fact that has arisen, that we do not merely theorise and talk vaguely in a theoretical sense. That is all the more reason for dealing with this subject very quietly and calmly. It is largely a matter of emphasis. You deal with a very large group of complex questions. It is human nature to deal with one point at a time and to forget the rest. Take this statement which the Prime Minister has quoted from, I admit, a very high authority—Professor Lowell of Harvard. Professor Lowell says that after this conference and this formal decision which has been come to by the Imperial Conference, the British empire is little more than a name—

You also said it.

My hon. friend (the Prime Minister) goes further, and says it is a mere name.

Not the British empire, but the term British empire.

I raise the point at once to show how intricate a subject we are dealing with. The fundamental statement made by this report of the Imperial Conference is that these dominions are autonomous communities within the British empire. I mention this, not because I hold the view that the British empire is another central authority, a super-State, but to make hon. members pause and realize that we are dealing with very difficult matters. You have one eminent authority in America declaring that the British empire is a mere name, and one member of the conference giving expression to this view in this House. But here you have this report of the conference itself stating that we are autonomous communities within the British empire, and we are bound to give that subject very calm and careful consideration, because the accent and the emphasis here and there may alter the whole result. I agree that the conference was a most important one. I have never said a word to belittle the importance of that conference. That conference and the work it did was necessary. At one of the imperial conferences held in the later stages of the war, it was decided that after the conclusion of hostilities a constitutional conference would be called which would deal with this question of relationship within the empire. It was only the difficulty of our post-war situation which prevented this subject being dealt with before 1926. I went to the 1921 conference fully prepared to deal with the subject, because I felt the question could be raised, and should be raised, at that conference. But I was up against very grave difficulties. It was quite clear that other members of the conference felt that it would be entirely premature to deal with the question, with the result that nothing was done, but at some time or other, the position was bound to be raised. Now, another conference has sat and dealt with the matter. I am the last one to belittle its importance. I have said before, and I repeat, that I do not think anything new has been created. The situation, in fact, had arisen from the peace treaty and the status of the dominions followed out of our participation in the peace and the League of Nations.

That fact was largely denied.

Largely by my hon. friend. There was an element of uncertainty and doubt which had to be removed. Statements were made from time to time by the most authoritative persons, by the Prime Minister of England, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and others of the highest authority in the British Government, and in the strongest terms about equal nationhood and the status of the dominions. These statements were made by Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Milner and one authority after the other. Still something more was wanted, and that something more has been supplied by this conference, which has dealt with the matter in the most formal and authoritative manner and has published a statement which can no longer be controverted by any doubting Thomas. I am one of those who held that the conference was an important one. Although it was nothing new, the declaration itself was a landmark and must have important consequences in the future. At the same time, we must be very careful in dealing with the matter, because it is clear that whilst there was an intention on the part of those statesmen at the conference to clear up certain matters, there was an equally deliberate intention to say nothing about other matters. The result is that great task is left to the future. We are in this position to-day, that if we make inferences from what was clearly laid down, we may find that we are going astray, because the silence of the report in certain respects means that the conference did not want to make up its mind on these matters. While I wholeheartedly approve of the report and welcome the declaration made by the Imperial Conference, I also hold that much has been left in obscurity. At the time the report was published, one of the English papers said that the report was a masterpiece of evasion. I do not go that length, but some of the most profoundly important subjects in our imperial and international relationships have been left obscured and unsettled by this report.

Purposely?

And purposely. We must be careful not to stress one point too much and thereby, perhaps, omit another point. The Prime Minister has said this very striking thing in London, that our independence had been purposely omitted from the report because the use of the word might perhaps be misinterpreted. It is quite clear that the report is carefully framed, and we must not rush to conclusions. But we must also bear in mind that it was framed by wise men who left other matters to be settled in the future. The expression used was “autonomous communities within the empire” without reference to independence. We find the principle of equality is fully and absolutely recognized, because the word “independence” is avoided because it might have raised fresh trouble and misunderstanding. That is all I meant, and I am sure that that was what was meant by the Prime Minister—

You must look at the substance.

Let me raise one other point. To outsiders looking at this new declaration, the whole position is extremely puzzling. At the peace conference in Paris, continental diplomats were completely puzzled over the nature of this entity. They were thinking in terms which had no reference to the real character of our empire at all. And it is, indeed, most difficult to understand how a body of absolutely free and equal states can at the same time form a group, a sort of entity, to which you give a name, and which can be a coherent force in the world. It is almost impossible to realize such a position, because we have always been trained to think in terms of sovereignty and to feel that for a group to hold together there must be a common binding sovereignty. The question is, how do they hold together? There is a common kingship which, I think, the Prime Minister did not attach sufficient importance to this afternoon. There is a common single kingship which is naturally a very great bond, but of perhaps even greater force and importance is the invisible bond of ideals.

The wish to act in unison.

Yes. The Dominions Secretary tried to give expression to this point, the point of common ideals, common service, and the family feeling which exists.

Hear, hear.

That, although it is no formal legal bond, and although judged by the ordinary terms and conception of law it means nothing at all, is probably the strongest bond of all which holds us together.

Hear, hear.

It is difficult for foreigners, and people not accustomed to the psychology of the empire, to understand a situation like this, but to my mind it is a most powerful thing that holds us together, and the greatest fact which has emerged in the new world. The old world was held together by sovereignty and those laws which could be translated into force. Here is an entirely new condition, no central force, but a psychology which is more powerful, the soul of a group of nations. And I am sure this will prove probably a more potent force in the future in holding this great group together than any central authority or force could possibly have done.

That is the foundation of free associations.

Yes. Very grave difficulties arise with such a group, and when you apply these ideas to our foreign affairs and the conduct of foreign relationship, you see at once the great difficulties which emerge. Before the great war the British empire was of a different nature. There was one dominant State which spoke for the others with authority and could impose its will, in one way or another, upon the members of that group. That was followed by the situation which arose after the Peace Conference, when the British empire transformed itself and became a free group and recognized the equality of its members inter se. The difficulty of conducting international relations and having a foreign policy, under those circumstances, became very great, and a great effort was made at that time to have our foreign policies conducted on the basis of joint conferences and trying to carry all the members of the empire together into common agreement with any concrete policy which was adopted. For years at many conferences we were represented—all the dominions were represented— and took part in the conferences and the resolutions, and the foreign policy which was ultimately formulated and adopted was by the common consent of all the members. That was the method adopted to deal with foreign relations under the new system of equality which had arisen. There was no super-state. The Prime Minister has sometimes accused me of being in favour of a super-state because I favoured the adoption of a common empire policy which might guide us in the foreign relations of the empire, but I never had such an idea. All through I have been one of the greatest opponents of a central authority. That conference system having passed away you are left with a vacuum, so to speak. And the question is how are you going to keep the States together in future when each one conducts its foreign policy in its own manner without regard to the rest. There were those of us who wanted to pursue the policy of joint conferences at which all dominions would be represented in dealing with the great questions of foreign policy that arose. Locarno made a new departure, and there the British Government, for the first time, deliberately abandoned the effort to carry the dominions with her and to have a joint policy hammered out at conferences for the empire as a whole. It was one of the questions which might have been dealt with at the last imperial conference; how, in future, we are going to keep the empire together when we are independent States, each going its own way. The danger was there, and in the Locarno system the attempt at a united point was abandoned, and nothing has taken its place. It is a matter which will require very careful handling in the future, and will involve perfect goodwill and a spirit of comradeship amongst members of the empire if we are to pull through this difficult stage on questions of foreign policy. It is a most difficult problem. It is clear the conference shied off this problem. It did not grapple with it, but left it alone. Looking at the situation as a whole, to-day, I cannot say that we are free of all risk in the matter of our foreign relations, and we can only rely on the utmost goodwill and spirit of co-operation in the empire to see us through this period before we have hammered out some method which will enable us to follow a common policy for the empire as a whole. The question was left unsettled at the Imperial Conference. In years to come, no doubt, it may have to be dealt with. I, for one, foresee grave dangers ahead. If the Government of Great Britain, from her position and special relations to the Continent of Europe, and her preoccupation with European questions, undertakes more and more liability in regard to the state of affairs in Europe, there is grave danger that the occasion may arise when the dominions will say: “Here we cannot follow you at all; you are embarking on a course that may lead to trouble which does not concern us,” and thus you may have this question arising about neutrality which has been raised by the Prime Minister this afternoon. It is for us to avoid all occasions when the question of neutrality could possibly be raised. I want our relations to be so close and friendly with Great Britain that we should never raise the question. It should be looked upon as an academic question in the future, but the policy at Locarno may make it a practical question of the utmost difficulty for the dominions situated far away, and not interested in the matters in which the British Government have undertaken special obligations. The conference did not solve it. This applies to the neutrality question raised by the Prime Minister this afternoon. The House has listened with great attention to what he said on this question. We are all impressed that it is a difficult, and let me say, a most intricate, question. In view of the fact that the conference said nothing at all upon it, anything we say in the House is merely a matter of inference, and we should be very careful in dealing with the matter by way of inferences. Even on theoretical grounds I find great difficulty. I am not taking a hard-and-fast line. The subject is so difficult and the possibilities for the future are so far-reaching that no man in a position of responsibility would commit himself outright. Theoretically I say the question is most difficult. You have a single kingship in the empire. It is not a mere personal union, it is a union of a different character. We have a single kingship in the empire. The question of participation in wars by one member or some members of the British empire and abstention and neutrality of the rest raises the very difficult question, how that single kingship can be both at war and at peace at the same time. It is most difficult from the point of view of theory, and when you come to apply it in any individual case, and you say, for instance, that South Africa is going to be neutral in a war in which Great Britain is involved, you are faced with a very baffling question indeed, and one that is difficult to answer. I mean the question whether South Africa can remain under that single and common kingship, and at the same time be neutral when Great Britain is at war. I mention these considerations not because I am making a pronouncement on the subject. I am avoiding anything in the nature of a pronouncement. I am only warning hon. members that we are dealing with a subject which, both theoretically and practically, is most difficult, most important, and I do not think we ought to dogmatize. I think the Prime Minister was right when he said that the subject was largely academic, and, that being so, do not let us discuss it here by way of inference and deduction from the principles that were laid down at the conference.

What about Locarno? Locarno settled that.

Locarno did not settle it. All that Locarno said was that obligations undertaken by the British Government in regard to situations that might arise in Europe under that treaty would not bind the dominions without their consent. The question still remains unanswered whether in a war which might arise under that treaty in which Great Britain takes part, a dominion could go the length of being neutral? If she desires, she need not take part. She undertakes no obligation of assistance whatever.

That is always understood.

The question is whether, from the nature of our relationship under a common kingship, it is possible for a state of neutrality to arise under such conditions.

Locarno does affect the question in some measure.

I am only warning the Prime Minister and the House not to let us get off the rails on this point. Keep it in reserve. The conference very wisely kept it in reserve, probably for future consideration. It is one of those points arising out of our unique relationship which has not been settled for the present, and let us look upon it in that light. Let us adopt a position of reserve and be thankful for what has been done, but recognize also that a great deal has been left undone, that great deal remains obscure, and for the present, at any rate, let us not commit ourselves on these matters. I do not see the Minister of Justice here, but I should like to have asked him the question as a matter of law, because there are big principles of law involved, but he is not here, and I will not push the question further. The Prime Minister does not ask us to-day to make a pronouncement on the question of neutrality. If I thought that this resolution which is before the House bound me on a question like that, or on a number of other questions, which I could mention, and which to me are of the deepest importance, I would hesitate to vote for this motion, but the motion before the House is not in that dangerous form. The motion is simply to approve of resolutions which were actually taken, and which deal with our status. To the resolution in that form we can all agree on all sides of the House. Whatever view we may hold on details, whatever view we may hold on some of these highly contentious matters to which the Prime Minister has referred, and others which could be mentioned, we are agreed that the work that was done was good work, it was in the interests of South Africa, it is a work which stabilizes the work of the past, and for that reason I think we should have no hesitation whatever in agreeing to that. I do not want to push the matter further. I think I have said enough at this stage, but the Prime Minister will understand that this matter is a very important one, and the statement which he has made is a considered and very important statement to which hon. members in this House who want to take part in this debate would wish to give due consideration before they pursue the discussion. I think it would be right, under the circumstances, before we go further, that the debate should be adjourned so as to give hon. members a chance of further consideration. I, therefore, beg to move—

I propose to set the debate down for resumption on Monday next, but I am quite prepared to leave it longer.

Would the Prime Minister, before the date is fixed, put the resumption down for next Thursday?

Certainly.

Debate to be resumed on 15th March.

I move—

1. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) may be applied by the Minister mutatis mutandis when allotting land, purchased in terms of Section 11 of the principal Act, which is situate within an area subject to the jurisdiction of an irrigation board constituted in terms of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912 (Act No. 8 of 1912), or any amendment thereof.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 11,

I move—

1. 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Land Settlement Laws Further Amendment Act, 1925 (Act No. 26 of 1925), is hereby amended by the addition at the end thereof of the following words:

Agreed to.

Clause 12 and title having been agreed to, House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 12th March.

Perhaps the Minister will give us some reasons for the £7,500; I am not against it.

There really was no basis on which the amount was arrived at, except that the Government desired to give the retiring general manager an indication of the value we attach to his very long period of work. There was an accumulated period of leave which the general manager could not legally claim. I want to make clear that he was not entitled to it. He could only claim the usual period of leave. Quite apart from that, however, we thought the amount we granted as a gratuity to Sir William Hoy should be fairly considerable, so that some indication might be given as to the real value we attached to his eminent services, which were of the greatest value to the country for a very long time.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock”, £393,349,

There are some rumours about the three large engines you ordered from America.

Germany.

America. The large engines running the express trains.

That is some time ago.

Are they already used up? There are some rumours about that they have not turned out as satisfactorily as we have a right to expect, from the prices paid. I want to ask also about the German engines. There is a report that they are not equal in performance to the promise made at the time they were ordered.

With regard to the American engines, they were ordered about three years ago, and have been in the service for about two years. The castings of some of these engines cracked. That I am informed by the technical officers, is not a very serious matter, from the constructional point of view. It appears that the castings were not strong enough to stand the pressure and the work, but I may say that the company which supplied these engines replaced those castings at their own expense

They could not do less.

I think there were 25—I am speaking from memory— and a large number are at work with the original castings. We are paying close attention to them to see whether any cracks develop in the castings. We have a number of castings in hand, so that if any castings of the engines crack, they can easily be replaced. Otherwise the engines are giving satisfactory service, and we have no reason to complain. As to the two experimental German engines, we asked for tenders and received a large number from different firms, and we accepted the tender of the firm of Henschel or Maffei at Munich. I am glad to say they are giving extremely good service, and we are using them in the haulage of coal between Johannesburg and Witbank—the haulage of 1,800 tons, which is very considerable on a light line such as ours. I do not want to commit the administration and say we should order more of these engines, because we want very strong and well-conditioned lines upon which to run engines of the weight of these two. We are watching these two engines closely, and probably may, later on, decide to order more of this special type. They are purely experimental; and a word of credit is due to the mechanical department for the way in which they were designed.

It is a curious thing that the engines ordered from America during the war time developed defects—I do not say in the same way as the engines to which I just now referred. I was so impressed with this that I considered I would never order American engines again. Something else may occur later on with these other engines. I have no faith in American engines, and I would never sanction any order, after our experience with them during the war time.

Could the Minister tell us, does this increased vote mean an increase of personnel? As the Minister is reducing the personnel, is he expecting less traffic?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is perfectly right. The engines which were delivered to us by that particular company during the war were certainly not good. The material was bad—I am informed it was actually defective. Undoubtedly, however, the company dealt with the Administration fairly handsomely. I do not think it is quite fair to the company to refer to this matter now. In any case, I can say that the engines which have been delivered during the last few years are satisfactory; the workmanship and material are good, and we have no reason to complain except in regard to the castings. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) there has been an increase of personnel. We have engaged extra men in the workshops in order to deal with the traffic. We went so far as to authorize night shifts. Next year there will be a better spreadover, and I hope it will not be necessary to resort to night work.

I gather from a report which appeared in the “Rand Daily Mail” that a large order for sleepers and rails was placed with the European Steel Railway Makers’ Association, which in turn, placed the contract at a lower price with some German manufacturers. If the association can do this, why were the people who really executed the work at a lower figure than that paid by the Administration not given an opportunity of tendering direct? This would have saved the Union the profit which accrued to the Steel Association. I look upon this as a very unbusinesslike method of carrying on the business of the railway.

Undoubtedly the combination to which the hon. member refers does exist. Following the practice which obtained during my predecessor’s period of office, we never enter the market by asking for public tenders, but we tell the High Commissioner what our requirements are, and ask him to obtain informal tenders. All the foremost British, American and Continental makers are given an opportunity of tendering. After examination by our engineer, the High Commissioner decides what is the best article, and after communication with the Administration here the order is placed. I do not profess to be able to explain just how this International Steel Rail Makers’ Association conducts its affairs, but we endeavour to get the best value for the Administration.

I am indebted to the Minister for his explanation, but the position seems to be unsatisfactory. Why cannot we ask for tenders throughout the world, and thus obtain the most favourable terms? Under the present arrangements the combination tenders at a certain price, and then sub-let the contract to someone else at a lower figure. I think this is a most unbusinesslike procedure, and it reminds me very much of the sleeper contract which did not come off. I have the greatest possible respect for lawyers and farmers, but not as men of business.

When I was in office I appointed Mr. Wheatley to go through the workshops to revise the wages and bonus scale. I understand the latter has worked out very extravagantly.

For reasons I have already given I would have preferred not to go more closely into the matter. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) talks about the business capacity of farmers and lawyers. I am following the practice of my predecessor in office, who is an eminent business man. If you ask for tenders publicly the suppliers, so I am informed, all tender at the same price, but if you ask for informal tenders the members of the combination are allowed to tender freely. I hope the hon. member is satisfied that we are conducting our business on business principles. With regard to the very important question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), this question of bonus earnings in the workshops has occupied the attention of the Administration for some considerable time. We have felt that the conditions in our workshops, satisfactory as they are, are capable of improvement. After going into the matter very closely and getting the full returns, the Administration has come to the conclusion that it is necessary for us, with our large workshops spread over the whole of the Union, to give our chief mechanical engineer greater assistance in regard to the control of our workshops. It will be realized that he has to do all the administrative work, the designing of engines and rolling stock, and with that he has full control over the workshops, and it was felt it was necessary we should give him assistance. Under the scheme I communicated to the House a few weeks ago, we have appointed an assistant chief mechanical engineer in the person of Mr. Watson, who is, at the present time, mechanical engineer at Durban. Naturally he will work under the chief mechanical engineer, but with the special instruction that he should give his attention more particularly to control and organization of the workshops. I am hopeful, as the result of the appointment of what we consider to be one of our best mechanical engineers, that we shall be able to have our workshops reorganized by the introduction of new machinery, better methods and more modern organizing methods generally, with the result of the placing our workshops in a better position for economic production. What the hon. member has intimated has been appreciated by me, and after close scrutiny of the facts we have, not in any sense of criticism of the mechanical engineer, but in the sense of giving him assistance in regard to the workshops, made this new appointment, and I hope we shall be able to show better results in the future.

Vote put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Running Expenses”, £226,346, put and agreed to.

Head 5, “Traffic Expenses”, £128,150, put and agreed to

On Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds”, £4,915,

What are the “other funds”? What other funds do we pay interest upon besides the Superannuation Fund?

They are the old pension funds, that is, the Natal and Cape funds.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 1, “Construction of Railways”, £1,400, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works to be reported, without amendment.

House Resumed:

reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from the Railway and Harbour Revenue Funds and from Loan Funds.

Report considered and adopted, and a Bill brought up.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the House now. The amount asked for is £9,000,000, as supply for approximately three months, subject to the usual safeguards.

I find the same fault with the Minister that I found with him last year. He asks for £9,000,000 in nine words. Are we not entitled to some explanation?

What do you want?

I will tell the Minister. He says nothing, for example, as to why the expenses are going up at so great a rate. I would like to trace, in round figures, some of the enormous increases. The first year in which the Minister was in office the increased earnings were over £2,800,000, and in the same period the increased expenditure was also over £2,800,000. That was only the first year. After making provision for betterment and contributions towards the deficiency in the Pension and Superannuation Funds, and the reduction of interest earning capital, we find the increase of revenue was .15 per cent., and the increase of expenditure was 4.08 per cent. That I thought would have led the Minister to give some explanation. Take the next year. We find, including the additional appropriation, the expenditure was £28,170,000, while the earnings were £28,012,000 odd. The excess expenditure in that year over the earnings was £158,000. In other words, here again the earnings increased by .076 per cent., whereas the expenses increased by no less than 3.77 per cent. Now take the present estimates. The estimated expenditure for the coming year is £29,414,000, an increase of £685,000 on the original estimate, or an increase of £50,000 on the amended estimates. The estimated income for the year is not given, so I do not know what the Minister’s policy is. Now if we take open mileage, which the Minister is always referring to when making comparisons, the mileage is now 12,412, so that, in the last year, 145 miles of railways have been added to the Union system. Next year it is anticipated it will be 12,550. When he started in 1924, it was 11,113 miles, and he then had 86,181 persons employed, and the expenses were £22,979,000, and the income was £24,429,000, and the surplus was £1,450,000. In other words, during the last Government, the expense of running the railways was far below the income, and the profit in that year was £1,400,000. Now the Minister claims that his increased expenditure is due to increase in train mileage. The mileage has only increased by 1,400, whereas the increased personnel is over 500.

That is not the train mileage.

I did not say train mileage. I said mileage. There is a vast difference between train mileage and open mileage. At present I am talking of the increased mileage, otherwise the open mileage. The expenses increased by £6,435,000, whereas the income during the same period increased only by £5,000,000, or in other words there was a turnover from the time when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was Minister from a profit of £1,400,000 to a loss under the present Minister of £1,500,000.

When was that?

In your term of office. Your yearly expenditure now is £29,500,000.

What was the loss in my first year of office?

In your first year of office there was a turnover of £1,500,000.

I thought you said there was a loss.

You did make a loss on these figures. The turnover was £1,500,000.

What was the actual loss?

The actual loss must have been something over £1,000,000. On the previous turnover when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was in office, there was a decrease from a surplus of £1,400,000 to a loss.

What was the actual loss?

I have not the figures of actual loss now.

There was not a loss. There was a surplus.

Not during the whole period of your office. The yearly expenditure now has gone up to £29,500,000, and yet the Minister brings in a part appropriation now asking for £9,000,000, and does not say a word about it. Take salaries and wages, they have gone up during the Minister’s term of office by no less than £2,800,000. The Administration pays £5,000,000 odd per annum as interest on the railways alone, and £547,000 odd on the harbours, or a total of £5,600,000 odd. In pensions we have £537,000 on railways alone, and £24,000 on harbours. That is besides £287,000 necessary to be paid to restore the fund. Total, £561,900. The total of personnel is 86,636, of whom 82,381 odd are on the railways. In March, 1924, the total was 86,181, of whom 39,024 were Europeans and 47,000 odd others. In the estimates we have no information at present as to the number of Europeans and the number of non-Europeans, but I find that the Auditor-General in his report gives the number at 31st March, 1927, as 54,579 Europeans and 40,177 others, or a total of 94,756. In the previous year there were 97,154, so that there was a reduction apparently of 4,728 non-whites and an increase of 2,130 whites. The position on the 31st March, 1928, is not yet known. The high-water-mark was reached in 1925-’26. In other words, in three years from March, 1924, the Europeans increased by 15,500, and the others decreased by 7,000, and, judging from the estimates, now there is to be a very large reduction in non-Europeans, very much larger than during the last three years, and, as far as one can estimate from the figures given now, the Europeans will be 55,000, and non-Europeans 31,000. The salaries for these 86,000 employees amount to £14,863,000, or nearly half the total expense of running the railways. In 1926-’27 it was 49.57 per cent., whereas previous to the present Government coming in the ratio of wages and salaries to the total expenditure was 40.27 per cent. Several suggestions have been made from time to time as to how one should be able to judge the working of the railways, whether we are going up too fast in our expenditure, and whether we are getting too little in the way of returns. I find if we take the operating ratio, according to the Auditor-General, our percentage earnings are not in proportion to the percentage expenditure, and he gives some very interesting figures. He shows that since the war a country like Germany which, it will be admitted, suffered very severely, was able to bring down its operating expenditure by 5.5 per cent., Canada brought hers down by 9 per cent., the United States on two railways brought down the operating expenses by 5 per cent. on the South Pacific and by 10 per cent. on the Pennsylvania railway. South Africa, on the other hand, has risen by close on 5 per cent. since the war, and to-day is only 2 per cent. below the high-water-mark of 1922. The ratio of our railways is higher by 10 per cent. than the next highest in Africa, and it is higher by 8 per cent. than in South America, and 2.5 per cent. than in Australia. I want to put it to the Minister that under these circumstances there is very little hope of ever reducing our rates and fares in this country. The Minister formerly always pointed to train and engine mileage and said, “Look at the increase there, and how can you complain that our working expenses are going up?” That was the Minister’s argument, but I would like to remind him of what his own Railway Board have stated—

We have often pressed on the Minister that the only true basis is ton mileage. His own board is apparently against him on that, and, strangely enough, on the last debate on the additional appropriation, the Minister—I do not know whether he meant to do it—certainly changed his argument. The old argument has been dropped, and the Minister now blames the motor competition. But supposing it is the motor competition, and let me remind the Minister of his remark, “We will have to take very serious action. See what England is doing.” He did not tell us what England is doing, but I looked it up and I see from an article in the “Nineteenth Century” that England has determined to reduce rates so as to meet the motor competition. If the Minister will read this article I have here, he will find a lot of information which may induce him to change certainly part of his policy. There are one or two points I would like to read to the Minister. It says—

The Minister will remember that during the war the rates in England were not increased in any way. After the war, when the railway companies took over the railways again from the Government, they found it was impossible to run them except by a huge increase of rates and fares. The highest increase was 115 per cent., not as high as the majority of items in our tariff. To bring this down again, they had to get the consent of the Government. A commission was appointed, and the commission agreed on terms which enabled the Government to introduce a Bill and make it legal to increase rates and fares and to meet the employees in certain circumstances. He says—

It is here I wish to call the Minister’s attention to the method they have here. I showed last year that long-distance traffic does not really benefit in this country, and I gave the Minister figures. The system they have there is that for the first 20 miles they charge 3.75d. per ton, for the next 30 miles 2.65d. per ton, for the next 50 miles 2.2d. per ton, and for the remaining distance 1.6d. per ton. That is, the longer the distance of carriage, the less proportionately the rate, and I think it is very necessary, more particularly in a country like this with its long distances, than even in England.

Is not that our system at the present time?

Not according to the figures I gave the Minister last year.

Well, your figures are wrong.

When I quoted to the Minister his own tariff book, he did not correct me. I will give him the figures again if he likes. With regard to the ’bus competition, when the competition became so very acute, the railway companies went to the Government and said: “We cannot do anything unless we are able to reduce rates.” The Government, through the commission, agreed to reduce the rates, and they found that was the only way to meet the ’bus competition.

Is not that what we have done?

My point is, on one occasion the Minister uses one argument of train mileage and in another case he uses ’bus competition. And yet, since 1925, how much reduction has he given in rates? Bus competition has only commenced since then, so if he has reduced the rates to meet that competition, he has done something which he has not told us of. Then I want to refer to maintenance of rolling stock. If we look at the Auditor-General’s report, page 169, we find there that maintenance of rolling stock has increased by a sum of £174,000, and running repairs has increased by £41,265, and in connection with this, let us turn to page 164, and we find there something to which the Auditor-General draws special attention, a form of certificate by the chief civil engineer unlike any certificate given by the chief civil engineer before. Instead of giving it to say the permanent way is in good working condition, he qualifies it. He says that on open lines, owing to increased traffic, increased speed, heavier axle loads and a higher standard of maintenance, more expensive renewals will be necessary. If we turn to page 168, we find there that, exclusive of the cost of labour, the expenditure on the permanent way was £1,969,000 as compared with £1,964,000. The Auditor-General draws the conclusion from this that the certificate, not being in unqualified terms as heretofore, is something which requires very careful attention, and I think the Minister should give it particular attention in view of the many railway accidents we are, having. I do not suggest this state of affairs is due to the qualified nature of the certificate, but if there is any reason for qualifying the certificate, it is a serious matter which requires attention.

None of the accidents have been due to the permanent way.

We do not know. We see that the chief civil engineer varies the certificate from its usual form and really qualifies the certificate he is in the habit of giving. Prior to two years ago, the certificate was always in a form saying the running way was in absolutely good order.

Does it not refer only to the branch lines?

It does not say so. I will read it. [Extract read.] I want to refer to the matter of motor-cars. If the Minister will turn to page 89, we find that while the Minister himself is using the ordinary conveyance to and from his office, members of the Railway Board have used the Administration’s motor-cars, and the Auditor-General says—

I praise the Minister.

You are quite wrong; I also use the car.

If the Minister is breaking that rule, I am sorry. Departmental heads at Johannesburg, and members of the Railway Board do not observe that rule. The Auditor-General says—

If we look at the list of motor-cars we find that they are very large. There are eight— Railway Board, 2; general manager, 1; chief accountant, 1; assistant general managers, 5. That was at 31st March, 1926. At 31st March, 1927, it was 9, and the total was 53 as against 62 in 1926, so it has come down. Why should members of the Railway Board have this privilege? With regard to the storage of petrol at the docks, I know nothing about the matter personally, but I am told it is dangerous to allow that large amount of petrol in bulk to be stored there. I am told that in London they are stopping the erection of these big tanks, until they have had a full enquiry. It is claimed, rightly or wrongly, that if something went wrong the Government would be held responsible for the effects of any explosion. As these tanks are in the centre of the town, the Minister should tell us whether he has had any enquiry made, or whether he has had any reports from his experts, whether there has been an increase of insurance of Government and private property in the vicinity, and what the contracts are with the oil companies. If the Minister will allow me, I will go back to a matter discussed last year, when the contract with regard to sleepers from the Argentine was referred to. Most hon. members dealt with the matter very fully, and we understood the Minister had dealt very fully with it, hut he left out a very important item, and that is that the Railway Board allowed the contractor to be freed from paying a fairly large sum which he had to pay under the contract.

No, for which he clearly was not responsible. If you read the minute you will see that.

I will read the letter. What I do say is that when we went fully into the matter last year, the Minister claimed that they cancelled this contract, and that the Government lost nothing. The contract would only become effective if the sleepers were supplied. Much of the criticism was curtailed, as members felt that the Government had lost nothing by it; but when we found that an amount which should have been paid—

That is not so. If you read the report—

The Minister need not be so very anxious—I am going to read it. The Minister ought to have told us about that amount last year. The Auditor-General’s report states—

We now come to the sequel—

Only give the facts.

I am going to give them—

On July 12th Dr. Visser replied accepting the department’s suggestion. I think that is a very binding contract. It is perfectly clear that he asked for an official of the department to go across to South America with him—

And to approve of the sleepers when purchased.

Dr. Visser was asked to reimburse the department the expenses of Mr. Heberdon’s visit to the Argentine to inspect the sleepers.

He undertook to pay the expenses of the officer who inspected the sleepers at Buenos Aires.

The Minister is splitting hairs.

No.

There was not a word of protest by Dr. Visser when one man was sent in place of another to the Argentine. Neither of them, however, could have done anything at all, because there were no sleepers to inspect. An individual was sent across and he had to be paid by the Administration, because the contractors said that he was not the individual it was originally intended to send. Is that a defence? This cost the Administration £397 2s. 11d., and not a single sleeper was purchased. We are entitled to have some better explanation for foregoing a claim like that than the explanation the Minister has attempted to give.

I should like to say something about a very important document the Minister has laid on the Table regarding the re-organization of the railways and harbours services. It has been referred to in some of the papers as “centralization,” but I do not look upon it as centralization at all. I approve of re-organization, but centralization often means congestion. The Minister is really appointing at headquarters assistant general managers who shall be so in fact and not merely in name. In the past, the assistant general managers have not been so at all, because from the very fact of their being at different points of the system and concerned only with different sections of the system, they could not really be assistant general managers. I take it that assistant general managers are now to be assistants to the general manager in general management. There are one or two points in connection with the matter to which I desire to draw attention. There are to be at headquarters two assistant general managers; one will look after technical matters and the other commercial matters, controlling trains and rolling stock. The success of this change depends entirely on the use made of these two gentlemen. It had become evident with the growth of the railway system that the concentration of all power in the hands of one man only was not a good system. But the point which rather concerns me is that the Minister referring to the appointment of these two assistant general managers defines their functions, and says they will function for and on behalf of the general manager in their respective spheres. If that is to be taken literally, a great deal of good that we anticipate from the change will not materialize. These gentlemen should be in touch with everything that is going on, not only in their respective spheres, for if they are to be cognizant only of what is happening in their respective spheres they will be assistants to the general manager, but they will not he assistant general managers. That will not be sharing in the general management, and you will get the old difficulty that men are not being trained who will know the working of the department outside the respective spheres of their own departments. It will be, of course, the correct thing that their chief work will be in their respective spheres, but unless there is a constant meeting together between these men and the general manager, we shall not get the full benefit of the change it is proposed to make. To get the full benefit these two assistant general managers should be interchangeable and capable of doing one anothers duties, because it is only in that way either of them would be trained to be capable some day of being general manager when a general manager is required, and I take it that is the object of having men properly trained. I am more than pleased a change of this sort has been made, because I want to give the Minister, from my own experience, and the experience of my constituency, the sort of thing that was able to happen under the system which has now been changed. I want to refer to the question of some reclamation work to be done at Algoa Bay. It was looked upon as very important work. The Minister, speaking in this House on the 9th of June last, said: [Extract read.] The Minister followed that up by taking the vote in the month of June for £25,000 to start this work. As the House will see, the Minister has referred to it as a very serious position at Port Elizabeth. The authority for that work to be commenced was passed out in the month of December, this very serious work which it was very necessary should be done to prevent congestion at Algoa Bay. In the last week of February, one week ago, nothing had been done in connection with this very serious work except to order some timber from the Argentine with which to make a bridge. Naturally the people at Port Elizabeth got restive over this matter, and it got so far that the harbour advisory board, which gives it service free, tendered its resignation because it could not get anything done. It was only then anything was done in the matter. When this pressure was brought to bear the chief engineer went down and it was found the work could be done. I bring this matter forward to show how under the old system it was possible for works authorized by Parliament and for which money had been voted, and authority given, still not to be carried out. Unless there is co-operation in these two different departments the same sort of thing will go on. When complaints were made the Minister answered that he was not responsible for what his executive officers did, he was only responsible for policy.

I didn’t say that.

If the Minister says I was making a misstatement I wish he would explain.

I will explain. I said that I could not be held responsible for the alleged neglect of my officers unless the neglect is brought to my notice. I am certainly responsible to Parliament and my point was that this was not brought to my notice at all. Once it was brought to my notice I took steps to put the matter right.

Then I take it that unless complaint is made to him he is not responsible.

No, that is wrong. I said unless it was brought to my notice I could not take steps to put the matter right. Naturally the Minister is responsible to Parliament, My reply was, “Why not have brought this to my notice before so that I could have dealt with the position?”

I don’t mean this to be an attack upon the Minister, but only to show what was possible in the past and what I don’t want to think will be possible in the future. When the general manager was referred to he said he had given authority for the work and the money had been provided. What more could he do? You get Parliament authorizing work, money is voted for the work, and if it is not done it shows there is some congestion in the department which should be relieved and, I am hoping that this new way of dealing with the carrying on of the railway work will make it impossible that there will be any such congestion in the future. That is one of the reasons I welcome this change, believing that owing to the concentration in one hand of the work, there has been congestion in more departments than one, and this will help to ease the position and will lead to the better carrying on of the work. I would like to give an illustration of what might happen by keeping these departments watertight, an illustration of something that has happened in Port Elizabeth. With the experience gained at Port Elizabeth in connection with the work going on at a snail’s pace in building a sheltering wall a sandbank has accumulated, making it more difficult to do the work unless the sand is removed by dredger. A dredger was sent from Durban after no small interval of time, and when it came instruction had been given from one department that it was only to be used on one set of work and not on any other. Therefore if it cannot work every day except on the one set of work, it could not be used for reclaiming the foreshore. On no account was it to be used by the other department. That is the kind of thing which can go on unless there is co-operation between these departments. There ought to be regular meetings between these two gentlemen and the general manager, and each should be cognisant of what is going on. I hope we shall get what we hope for from this new change.

I was not here at the beginning when the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj G. B. van Zyl) raised the question about the Auditor-General’s report, and I did not anticipate that it would be raised here at this stage either, because it is a matter which will come before the Select Committee on Railways and I understood that it would be elucidated. I am getting pretty tired of these underhand attacks which are being made on me here by hon. members on the opposite side, very scurrilous attacks to say the least of it. They are unfounded and not according to the facts. I do not want to say much about the matter now. The time has not come for me to do so this afternoon. I have purposely kept quiet because the time when this is due to be said is in the Select Committee on Railways. When I came down here for the opening of this part of the session on January 26th, I saw the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General mentioned about my contract and certain notices that I had not given to the Administration, and that a favour was shown me by not asking for any fine because I did not carry out the contract. That contract was always considered a preliminary or tentative contract, and when I came here I went and saw the Administration and asked them whether they got the letter which I wrote to them on board ship on my way from South America. It happened at that time that the Auditor-General came to the office. I asked the Auditor-General about the matter and said “How can you make a statement like this in your report about my not having told the Railway Board about the impossibility of carrying out the contract?” He said he had never seen any papers. I asked the secretary to find out the facts and give them to Mr. Roos, and the secretary of the board on the 27th January wrote this letter—

I said to Mr. Roos, “What about the position now?” He agreed that the whole question should be gone into in select committee. I shall see that it is gone into. I shall take steps to do that and give evidence before the select committee to controvert the mean and insinuating remarks that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) made last year. With regard to Mr. Heberden’s expenses, £397, I never contracted to pay Mr. Heberden’s expenses. The position was that I arranged with Sir William Hoy, in case the contract could be carried out and to ensure that no sleepers would be refused when they came to South Africa, to have one of the officers of his department who was an expert on sleepers, and I asked that if I succeeded in my contract, this man should be seconded and I would pay his expenses over in South America. The name of that gentleman was Mr. Beacom. He came and saw me and I arranged that in case I succeeded in South America I would pay his expenses. I had nothing to do with Mr. Heberden, who happened to be in South America at the time. I also saw the Administration and the general manager when I got here, and they wrote me this letter, which I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will be surprised to hear—

This was signed by the general manager of railways, Mr. J. R. More. This thing is going to be investigated by the Select Committee on Railways, and I am going to make a statement there which will be published to the world. When I entered into this arrangement with the Government. I told the Minister and the railway board, “I am a public man, and I do not want to make a sixpence out of my Government and my country.” I would not have made a sixpence out of the sleepers. For various reasons, and because of various difficulties, the Railway Board decided to have a contract with me personally, and I could make a contract on the other side. If I had succeeded in getting the contract for the sleepers this Government would have saved £100,000 a year on railway sleepers.

May I ask why you did not tell us this last year?

Because I preferred, at that time, to be quite satisfied with the explanation of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, but I do not stand behind the doors and I do not look for anyone else behind doors. You critized me, and I did not reply because I treated your remarks with the contempt they deserve. The time is arriving when I shall expose the hollowness and hypocrisy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). There are members of this House who cannot realize and appreciate that a South African may want to do some service to his own country, and I wanted to do a service to my country. It is true I would have made a profit out of the coal, but the only conditions I would have made with the Government would have been “If you can get the sleepers from South America you must allow the same ships to take the coal from Natal.” I wanted to do Natal a service, and you would think I was a pickpocket from the way they attacked me. I am not going further into the matter. A full statement will be made before the Select Committee on Railways.

I am sure the House is very much indebted to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) for his statement, and I think it is a wise procedure to bring the matter before the Select Committee on Railways, and I can assure him he will get justice from both sides of that committee. With regard to the letter he has read out, it is a great pity he did not get that letter from the late general manager instead of the present one.

On a point of explanation, this is a copy. The letter is signed W. W. Hoy, general manager, and it is countersigned by Mr. More as the present general manager.

I am very glad that Sir William Hoy changed his mind as to the position of the hon. member. At certain times a good deal of criticism is levelled at the management of the railways, and whilst no doubt there is a good deal of room for improvement, I think on the whole we have every reason to be satisfied with and proud of our railways. The South African Railways are a very huge undertaking, and we must remember this branch of our public service is collecting, on the average, over two millions sterling every month. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the appointment of Mr. J. R. More as general manager. Mr. More, I am sure, will prove a very worthy successor to Sir William Hoy. The fact that he is a South African, and that he has been trained in South Africa, makes the appointment all the more pleasing. I hope this is the beginning of a new era, and that, before long, all these senior appointments in the service will be held by South Africans. There is no doubt that Sir William Hoy did wonderful work in bringing our railways to their present state of perfection, but I think the time has arrived for us to review the position very carefully, to take stock and to hasten slowly. In the past it would almost seem that all our energies and ambitions were centred on being thought the best railways of the world, and not what was best for South Africa. We introduced policies before the country had time to realize whether they were in the true interests of South Africa. A good deal of time and money were spent in journalism and advertisements, and at one time it looked as if the railway department dictated the financial policy of the Government. While we are all proud of the elevator system, it has shown a loss of £167,000 for the last three years, and it is very debatable whether we should encourage our farmers to impoverish South Africa for the benefit of other countries.

Speculators use the elevators; not the farmers.

Take our electrification. It is a very fine scheme, and said to be a credit to South Africa, but is it going to prove an economic success? Would not Natal and the country be better served by a double line under steam? The graving dock at Durban is a very fine piece of work, and we pride ourselves on having one of the largest graving docks in the world, but if that money had been spent in expediting the harbour works at Algoa Bay, it would have served a far more useful and lucrative purpose. Before long we shall have to face very serious competition from the motor lorry, and it is up to the Minister to meet this emergency in no uncertain manner. In this connection I must say that the speech of the Minister at Humansdorp in this direction was not very reassuring. Speaking at Humansdorp on Saturday, the 21st of January, the Minister of Railways, Mr. C. W. Malan, proceeded to utter a warning to the farmers of the district against supporting a private motor lorry service that had been instituted between Port Elizabeth and Humansdorp in competition with the State railways. If they supported the lorry by giving their business to these competitors of the railway, said Mr. Malan, the interests of the public would ultimately suffer. The Administration was not averse to the institution of motor services where they would bring increased traffic to the railways, and had themselves instituted a large number of services all over the country, but where such services came into competition with the railways, it was an entirely different matter. The Railway Administration, said Mr. Malan, had in contemplation the extension of the line from Avontuur to Camfer, and also the broadening of the gauge, but if traffic was lost now it would be impossible to give any favourable consideration to these proposals. To me this seems a very weak-kneed policy, in fact a policy of despair, for in effect the Minister asked the people to put up with high rates and inconveniences of the railways for the sake of benefits to come. This might be the right policy in Humansdorp, seeing it is a constituency represented by the Minister, especially when we take into consideration the forthcoming general election; but is it the policy any business man would adopt to meet competition? Let us rather prove to the farmers by low rates, prompt delivery and efficiency that the railways can and will handle their produce more economically and expeditiously than a private firm.

The broadening of the railway is not needed there.

What is the point?

The Port Elizabeth-Avontuur line is a notoriously bad paying one, losing about £24,000 a year yet the Minister is going to extend it and to broaden the gauge.

What nonsense. Where do you find that statement?

Why does not the Minister publish the returns of these lines?

Speaking at Humansdorp, the Minister said that the Railway Administration, which I take to mean the Minister and the Railway Board, have in contemplation the extension of the line from Avontuur to Kamfer; part of this extension would be in the Minister’s constituency.

It is not—it is in George.

The Minister also stated that it was contemplated to broaden the gauge. Rather than do that, let us appeal to the farmers by means of low rates and prompt deliveries.

And instead of broadening the gauge build developing lines.

Only a few days after he had delivered this speech at Humansdorp, the Minister, speaking at Paarl, foreshadowed an equally foolish policy, for he said, “Unless the railways are given greater support, we shall have to increase the rates.”

In England last year they raised the rates by 7½ per cent.

It would be better to cut down the expenses, and then you would keep the traffic.

If the Minister wishes to play into the hands of the motor lorry owners, let him raise the rates. Short-distance traffic is being filched from the railways by motor traffic, and it is entirely the fault of the railways. The latest information is that a road motor service running three times weekly has been established between Port Elizabeth and Graaff-Reinet. It is more speedy than the railway, and it seems that something must be wrong when motor lorries can compete with a train over a distance of 187 miles, and that over some of the worst roads in South Africa. There is no doubt that the Railway Department is largely to blame for this competition, and if the department wishes to retain the confidence of the public it must abandon its present methods and endeavour to meet the wishes of its customers. In the past, owing to the monopoly, the users of the railway have not been fairly treated. It has been customary for the Administration to lecture farmers, merchants and others when they approach it for better facilities, but the present Minister is going one better by telling industrialists what they must do if they wish to carry on their industries successfully. The time has arrived when the Railway Department must do its best to please its customers. Recently I approached the Minister on behalf of one of the oldest industries in South Africa, and asked if something could not be done to assist it by the reduction of railway rates.

The parish pump!

It was the hon. member’s duty to do what he did.

It shows where the parish pump was when the Minister was speaking at Humansdorp. This matter is so vital to the railways and the industry concerned, that at the risk of wearying the House I am going to read the correspondence—

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.8 p.m.