as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, as follows—

On motion that the report be considered on 16th April,

The date for consideration (16th of April) is too far in advance, and the hon. member must give another date.

Report to be considered on 4th April.

I wish again to draw the attention of hon. members to the rules regarding the form of questions. The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the House. If hon. members have information which they wish to make known to the House, they are perfectly free to make full use of it in debate at the proper time, but it is not in order to put questions on the Order Paper which merely require the Minister to say whether he is aware of certain things or whether certain things are true. For these reasons Question XII, XIII, XXII, XXIV, XXV and XXVI for Tuesday next are discharged from the Order Paper. The purpose of these questions is obviously not to obtain information but to supply it. I also wish to point out that hon. members should keep it in mind that a question addressed to a Minister of the Crown must relate to the public affairs with which he is officially connected or to a matter of administration for which he is responsible. It is obviously out of order to ask a Minister to account for statements made by persons over whom he has no control whatever. The second portion of Question No. XV must therefore also be discharged from the Order Paper.

Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, with reference to your ruling, whether it is based upon the rules and orders of this Parliament, and, if so, which rules is it based upon, or whether you are following the practice of the House of Commons?

It is based on the rules and practice of this House and also the House of Commons.

Would you indicate the rules upon which you based this finding? The matter is one of extreme importance. I am not discussing the ruling, but one would like to know the rules upon which it is based.

If the hon. member will study the rules of practice as set out by May he will find this is in accordance with the rules there stated.

Mr. Speaker—

Order!

I must protest, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask one more question, arising out of your answer. I do not know whether you are ruling me out of order. One is almost afraid to put a question. I gather your ruling is based upon the practice of May and not upon the rules and orders of this Parliament.

I have already told the hon. member that my ruling is based upon what is the practice of this House and the House of Commons.

Will you, sir—

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether this ruling of yours which seems to be, in form at least, a departure from what has been the ordinary practice here in this House, whether it would not he a fair thing to submit—

Since when has it been the practice?

For a good while. These questions in this form have been asked for a long time.

Since last session?

No, for a long time. My question to Mr. Speaker is this. I do not want us to wax hot over this question. It is a matter of the procedure of the House, and we all like to see the procedure of the House preserve the rights of hon. members as much as possible. Would it not be right and proper that a matter like this should be discussed by the Standing Orders Committee which is appointed for the purpose of dealing with matters of procedure? I think it would make hon. members think that their rights are not being dealt with in any arbitrary way, but that there is a full consideration in a more or less expert body over which you preside, and in which these matters could be laid down. I would suggest very strongly that if possible rulings such as you have given now which seem, in form, at any rate, to make a change in a practice which has been in existence for some time might very conveniently be discussed in the Standing Orders Committee, and thereafter, of course, you could give your ruling, as you feel disposed. I would seriously suggest that, because otherwise there is the feeling that the rights of hon. members are being trenched upon, and you know how jealous this House is of the rights of members, especially of the rights of the minority, which have to be safeguarded as much as possible. I would make that suggestion.

I think the remarks of the right hon. member rather tend to call in question the ruling I have given. Perhaps the better course in that case would be to move a motion calling in question the ruling I have given.

If I may just be permitted, that is the very point I wanted to avoid. It is most unusual as you know to call into question the rulings of Mr. Speaker, and I am not for a moment calling in question your ruling, or making any imputations at all. I simply wanted to have the procedure of the House settled by you after such consultation as the House has provided through the Standing Orders Committee. I do not wish to move a motion such as is suggested, or in any way call into question the ruling you have given, but I think it would be more satisfactory, it would satisfy all sides of the House more if, before such a ruling is given, which seems in form or appearance to depart from the existing practice, it were first discussed in the committee constituted for that purpose. I simply suggested that. I do not wish to call in question your ruling.

I am afraid the difficulty has arisen through my having allowed too much latitude in the past to hon. members. Standing Order 286 of our standing rules and orders states if no provision is made in our rules, then the rules of the House of Commons have to be followed, and the rulings I have given are entirely based upon the practice in the House of Commons, as enunciated in the eleventh edition of May. Perhaps it would be just as well for me to read to hon. members what May says with regard to the asking of questions. May, eleventh edition, page 269, states this—

and so on. If hon. members will study May with regard to questions, they will find the rulings I have given are entirely according to what he has stated there.

That is the information I wanted, if I may be allowed to say so. That is what I wished to ascertain, whether your ruling was based upon this section.

The hon. member must admit that that seemed to savour of calling into question the ruling.

I am very sorry if that is the interpretation placed upon it, but I merely wanted the information you are now good enough to give me.

I do not rise to question your ruling in the slightest degree, but to draw your attention to a practice which seems to be growing up in the House, when an hon. member on this side is addressing himself to you on a point of order—

What is the point of order?

This is the point of order—that in addressing himself to you, sir, stating his case and putting his point of order with perfect respect and propriety he is not allowed to continue, and is shouted down by the other side. May I ask your indulgence, sir, on behalf of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) and others. If we are out of order you will tell us so, and we will at once sit down and discontinue. But it is impossible to put our points if we are shouted down.

This matter cannot be further discussed.

We did not quite catch the numbers, sir.

With regard to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said, although he does not realize it, he is also questioning the way in which I am endeavouring to keep order in the House.

Not in the slightest.

In reply to the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), the questions removed from the Order Paper are 12, 13, 22, 24, 25, and 26, and also the second portion of 15.

I move—

I rise to emphasise the question which I asked the Minister in charge of the Bill, and to which I got no answer—the enormous cost of agricultural machinery to-day. I do not suggest it is discourtesy on the part of the Minister, who is one of the most courteous Ministers in the House, but to me it indicates a lack of sympathy as to the costs of agriculture. I make the statement without fear of contradiction that the cost of agricultural machinery is 100 per cent. higher than before the war, and every farming member on that (ministerial) side knows I am correct in that statement. From the figures supplied by the director of census in 1927, it appears that the cost of food is 19 per cent. more than pre-war, but we are paying 100 per cent. more for our machinery to grow that food. Does that not show that there is something wrong somewhere? If you take the cost of fuel and lighting it is 12 per cent. more, and if you add rents it is 31 per cent. more than pre-war prices. I say the farming community is justified in coming to the Government and asking them, through the recognized body, the Board of Trade, to investigate why agricultural machinery should be at this price. Every farmer knows there is a ring, but does not know where it is. It is not as if farming is a lucrative business—it only needs unforeseen circumstances, the crops are lost, and disaster follows because there is such a small margin to work on. I am surprised to see the different reception given to a request of this sort from one from the Labour benches. When such a request is made from there you find the Minister of Labour falling over himself to put the Wage Board on to them. They are fattened like a pack of chickens—the Minister knows what I mean. Our friends on the Labour benches are getting higher wages than they want. We have the case of bus drivers in the north. The cost of agricultural machinery is excessive, not only in itself, but in comparison with other manufactured products. This request does not come from me only, but from the whole farming community, and is a reasonable one. I put this question as strongly as I could on the motion to go into committee. Does the Minister sympathize with this matter, and if he does, is he prepared to put the necessary machinery into motion? If he does not sympathize and does not think it worthy of a reply, we know where we stand.

I support the hon. member in his complaint as to the present price of agricultural machinery. We know that every other kind of machinery has depreciated in price, except agricultural machinery, which is more than 100 per cent. over pre-war prices, and the farmer is selling his produce at the same prices as pre-war. It is not that the machinery is any better, or has a longer life. That is why farmers are asking for a depreciation of 20 per cent. on their machinery for income-tax purposes. Most of the machinery comes from America. In Australia they have their own factories and they are producing machinery which is unequalled in the world as far as quality is concerned. Why cannot we do it here? I thought I would get a sympathetic hearing from colleagues on the opposite benches. We are handicapped on account of the prices we have to pay for our machinery. Look at what effect it has on the development of maize, wool, wattle bark and everything. I join with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) in saying it is a shame that the Government should neglect the farmers. This is a fit subject for enquiry by the Board of Trade.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the two previous speakers. There can be no doubt on the part of those actively engaged in farming that the price of implements has been maintained at a rate which constitutes a very heavy handicap on the carrying on of agricultural pursuits. We had hoped that the Minister of Finance would have given a sympathetic ear to representations which have been made on this subject. It is disappointing that the matter was glossed over, and not even mentioned by the Minister in his reply. I hope this is not indicative of the general unconcern of the Cabinet towards the adversities of the farmers. It is all very well in times of drought to get into an excitable state about the parlous condition of the drought-ridden districts, but we want something more than that. We want a consistent, reasonable and sympathetic regard—in season and out of season—for the interest of the farmers. No doubt we shall be told at election time that the Government’s heart yearns for the farmers, but those of us who have been consistent in endeavouring to move the Government in regard to the cost of agricultural implements will refuse to believe it. A great deal of money is being spent on the Department of Agriculture, but with very little result to the farmer himself. A most expensive department—that of Markets and Economics—has been established by this Government, but what good has it done? We have had prophecies regarding crops scarcely one of which has ever been fulfilled. We have a large number of inspectors whose means of filling in their time is a mystery to most of us. We have this high-brow department sending its officials prancing around the country inquiring into the most objectless matters of no real concern. In addition, large sums of money have been spent in speeding people round the country in motor cars looking for imaginary locusts. It has been a matter of surprise to see the extent to which the public exchequer has been depleted on errands that are utterly without justification. If the Minister of Agriculture would clear the decks and do something practical in these matters we should appreciate it much more than having to listen to long diatribes on matters which do not affect the realities of the situation at all. The question of the cost of agricultural implements is a pressing one, and by neglecting it the Government is doing a disservice to, and discouraging, the farmer. The hon. member for Griqualand has shown some natural heat at the manner in which his representations have been ignored, and I hope the Ministers to whom the representations are addressed will find it possible to stoop down from the high places they occupy and give a courteous answer to our inquiry. There seems to be an idea prevalent in the minds of Ministers that it is an impertinence on the part of anyone on this side to ask a question, and that it is nothing less than a gross insult that anyone on this side should desire to know how the affairs of the country are being carried on. None of us intends to be thwarted by the discourteous way in which information is thrown at us by Ministers. Not one of us is moved by the agitation the Ministers have shown in the last few days under the searching inquiry from these benches. Not one of us cares a jot for the righteous indignation of these gentlemen in having their composure disturbed. Ministers may wax as wroth as they think fit. They may use every device which the rules may permit to prevent us from ventilating these matters, but we shall continue to probe them to the very bottom and to insist on the information we seek being given for the benefit of the country. It would befit Ministers much better if, when requested, in a perfectly polite manner, to afford us information, they would compose their minds and return to us a civil and soft answer, which is all that is demanded. We feel that Ministers wish to treat us with contempt. A large number of matters which might have been brought forward for discussion on the various stages of this Bill have been held back in order that the Bill may go through. A considerable number of members on this side of the House refrained from speaking, out of the wish to expedite the public work, and to leave these matters over for discussion on the general budget. If we are to receive discourteous answers from Ministers, and the attitude of Ministers is going to be so menacing and hectoring, we are not disposed to turn the other cheek and take this sort of thing, as though it was no more than we deserve. I join with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in protesting in the strongest manner possible against the attitude of members on the other side who, if any member ventures to criticize, think they can overbear him by an overweening manner. To try and shout down any member of this House because they have a majority, is a futile thing and will be resented to the very end. I sincerely hope members who are most prominent in this sort of thing will take fair warning and let it come to an end. We have endeavoured to comport ourselves with the dignity which is called for from members of this House, and as long as we do that and express ourselves in language not open to objection we should be protected and they should refrain from attacking us in the manner in which they have done in the past. There are a number of matters on which one has sought to obtain information from the Minister of Finance, by way of question. One matter in particular which I would like him to deal with, if he is able to, and I have no doubt he is willing if the information is at his disposal at the moment, and that is the question of the raising of loans by the Union Government in London. One would like to know whether the Union Government has enjoyed the privilege of having these loans designated as trustee security loans. That has been a great advantage to the Union. It has enabled people, responsible for trustee funds, to invest them in the loans of the Union with the full authority of the Act in England. Another question is in regard to the comparison of wages which are being paid in Great Britain and in Germany. I should like to have confirmation from the Minister of the fact that in Germany the workers only receive 62 per cent. of the wages which are paid for similar work in Great Britain. That, I think, is a matter the Government should take into consideration in giving out contracts of any importance or value overseas. Under present conditions it seems to us the margin between the price of German material, speaking more particularly of steel material, and material produced in Great Britain, is about 25 per cent. I think the Minister will confirm the fact that the German manufacturers manufacturing for export receive a bounty equal to 25 per cent., which simply means we are sending our contracts to Germany under the belief that they are producing at a cheaper price, whereas their products are in reality supported by a bounty. Those goods are virtually being landed in this country against the declared policy of the Government, which the Minister has declared is a policy of anti-dumping—that is, a policy of dumping goods at a price lower than the price prevailing in the country of manufacture. This doctrine is ignored very largely when we buy in Europe. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) says, it is a serious matter when considering the relations of reciprocity in marketing which the Government of Great Britain has made a matter of special attention in the provision of an Empire Marketing Committee. Very good work has been done by that committee throughout the world with the object of drawing closer the trade of the various dominions of the United Kingdom. It seems to me if we enjoy all the advantages of borrowing in Great Britain, and then we deliberately go and buy in a country where wages are only 62 per cent. of the wages in Great Britain, with the money we have borrowed, then we are not cutting a very brave or consistent figure before the world. I venture to say the comparison of trade, that is of purchases, made by the Argentine in Great Britain would disgrace the Union at the present moment. The Argentine is under no moral or other obligation to buy in Great Britain, but they do so in greater volume than we do. The Argentine receives no advantage with regard to its loans, yet it gives the great volume of its trade to Great Britain. In addition, there is the disquieting fact that our figures relating to Union exports to Great Britain and foreign countries are totally misleading. We have the authority of the Union Commissioner of Commerce at Milan for the statement that statistics of our exports to Belgium are so misleading as to be ridiculous. It would appear we have sent to Belgium thirty times the quantity of stuff they admit having received. I draw the attention of the Minister to a report emanating from Pretoria, said to be on the authority of a leading customs official, that the figures of exports to Great Britain are compiled on a different basis to the figures relating to our exports to Belgium. Those relating to our exports to Great Britain are compiled so as to show the country of ultimate destination. The effect therefore is to deplete the volume or show a reduced volume of exports from the Union to Great Britain. On the other hand this customs official states that in regard to Belgium, all exports landed at Antwerp are shown as having gone to Belgium, whatever their place of destination may be. I should like the Minister to give us some explanation about this, because it is a very disquieting feature to those of us who are concerned in maintaining and fostering trade with Great Britain. Will the Minister tell us what the policy of the Government is in regard to this matter? Is it a policy of reciprocity, or is it a policy of hostility? We had the Minister of Mines some little time ago telling the representatives of the chambers of commerce of the empire that he regarded the Empire Marketing Board with suspicion. When we have a pronouncement of that sort from a Minister of the Crown, we are prone to rub our eyes and wonder where we are. Here is a Minister of the Crown declaring that he regards a board of that sort, which is concerned with developing and fostering the trade of the empire, with suspicion. That board has visited other portions of the empire and it has been welcomed everywhere. Its mission has been rcognized to be one that is for the good of the country visited, and the good of the United Kingdom. We in this country might very well take the Marketing Board by the hand and realize that they are going to be our best friends. To-day what is our position in regard to a beef and bacon policy, if we had the sense to develop it? The pig products imported by Great Britain from abroad to-day are of the value of £50,000,000, and we, in this country, contribute a paltry £3,000 per annum towards that magnificent total. We have been told by the Empire Marketing Board that our position in this country is most favourable to the production of pig products for export to Great Britain. We have the right class of animal. Our breed of pigs, relatively, is much better than our breed of cattle. The small difficulty in regard to export and preservation and treatment could be got over with sympathetic consideration. Some time ago I submitted to the Minister of Agriculture, on behalf of Col. Watkins-Pitchford, C.M.G., a method of treating bacon which would have enabled us to have captured a very large share of the market of Great Britain. That was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture with a view to its being examined, and, if possible, adopted on a large scale in this country. What was the result? After an inexplicable delay of about two months, Col. Watkins-Pitchford was asked practically to give away his methods to the Department of Agriculture, and let them test them upon a very small number of cattle, which would not in any way have provided a test on mass scale of the system. In comparison to that, what has been the attitude of Australia? A shipment was sent to Great Britain, and examined by a man who had been on the Australian Meat Council. He gave a most encouraging report of this method, and he has recommended to the Australian Government on behalf of the Australian Bacon Producers, and Col. Watkins-Pitchford is to go to Australia to carry out these investigations. We on our part, in regard to reciprocity of trade with the empire, are sitting back on the traces. We are doing nothing. Wherever possible, we are doing less than nothing. As far as the prospect for the cattle producer of this country is concerned, it is unutterably bad. It has never been worse, and we have the Minister, at this late stage of the day, sending two representatives to the Argentine to begin to study the matter where it was left six years ago by the ranching people of this country. We are not a ranching country. We are a country of small producers, and, unless the Minister realizes that, and avails himself of offers made to him, irrespective of his own department, and shows some disposition to encourage research, to encourage successful export and the stimulating of trade with our best market, we are in for a very sorry time. When I rose I had not any intention to speak at any length, but the subject is one which engrosses one, and it is one of very great importance to the country. I have made these remarks in the hope that they will not fall upon deaf ears, and that the Ministers concerned will give some fair consideration to the representations which we are making from this side of the House. I hope that the third reading of this Bill, in view of the attitude of the Ministers towards questions generally, is not going to be treated simply as a matter of form, and that, notwithstanding the grudging attitude of Ministers towards information which is sought from them, they will on this occasion realize that we are dealing with important subjects, and subjects that demand serious attention from them.

I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes. I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that only two or three days ago his attention was drawn by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to the fact that the cost of living was going up by leaps and bounds. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has now drawn attention to the fact that the cost of production is going up by leaps and bounds; these two facts act and re-act one on the other. The cost of production is largely governed by the cost of implements and appliances employed in the raising of crops. So that in view of this great initial cost I hope that the Minister will listen to the appeal made to him by hon. members on this side, if it is only to give some attention to a matter of first-class concern, and that he will do all he possibly can to assist those farmers who are in difficulty in producing by putting them into a position to produce economically and profitably. In this connection I would draw the Minister’s attention to what I consider was a false line of action taken in connection with a number of farmers who were in great distress, and who appealed for help. I refer more particularly to the ostrich farmers, who suddenly found themselves robbed of their income by the slump in ostrich feathers. Their business has gone and to all intents and purposes it is to-day an extinct occupation so far as this country is concerned. They applied to the Government for help. All reasonable people were of the opinion that the best way to assist these people was to put them on their legs and to assist them to start in mixed farming. This was the advice given to the Minister for Agriculture by his experts. He said “What do you want?” They said, “We want £112,500 in cash.” The Minister said “You shall have it.” The general manager of the Land Bank said, “If you lend this money to these people, you will lose it.” That money was handed out. It did no good, and this great sum is lost to the country for ever. This is an illustration how not to do things. Had that money been used to re-establish these people so that they could start again in sheep farming or some other productive line of business, that money would have been well invested, but in the face of all expert and technical advice, the Minister of Agriculture persisted. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will tell us what is exactly the position with regard to this £112,500. The Auditor-General puts it this way. [Extract read.] I say again this is how not to help farming. I hope the Minister of Finance will listen to the appeal of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), and will at the same time take warning by his experience with the ostrich farmers.

I am sure that nobody in this House has been deceived by the affected solicitude of certain hon. members for the interests of farmers in regard to the dearness of agricultural machinery. As far as the sympathy of this Government is concerned, we prefer to take the opinion of the farmers themselves. The speeches to which we have listened this afternoon with regard to the price of agricultural machinery are merely amusing. We know it is not seriously meant at all. The hon. member who raised the question the other day about this matter and who had the idea that it could form a fit subject for investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries, knows very well he spoke after the Minister of Mines and Industries had spoken. I am rather inclined to think that when I spoke the hon. member was not in his place.

Yes I was, I was sitting down there.

Well, the hon. member was not in his customary place. I am very glad to see that my hon. friend has developed an apparent confidence in the work of the Board of Trade and Industries in regard to such matters. He appears to think that the whole question of the price of agricultural machinery can be solved by an investigation by the board.

I never suggested that.

What does the hon. member suggest? Does he suggest the Government should undertake the sale of agricultural machinery? What is he attacking the Government for then? We are not selling agricultural machinery. I understood from the hon. member that his suggestion was that this matter might be solved by an investigation through the Board of Trade. Now the hon. member says “No.” Well, what is his object in bringing forward the question? We are not in this business. It is a competitive commercial business. These articles come from overseas. It is just possible, I do not know, that if members are prepared to have an iron and steel industry in this country that the prices of agricultural machinery might come down.

Is it not quite possible they might go up?

Then I confess I see no remedy for the evil the hon. member is complaining of. I know my right hon. friend and his colleagues there have no faith in the methods resorted to in other countries, in Government trading for instance. If the Government should step in and sell it, I do not know whether that would solve the question. It was not seriously meant I am quite sure. As I say, it is not a matter which concerns my department, but I am quite sure the Minister of Mines and Industries will consider it. Then there is the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I do not know whether he really seriously wanted to get information, or whether it was an attempt to carry out the new policy of retarding the business of the House. He has threatened us with that. I can tell him that those threats leave the Government quite cold.

On a point of order, is the Minister entitled to suggest that I am retarding the business of the House?

He is not out of order.

I am sorry to see the hon. member is now squealing. I understand that arising out of what passed yesterday he and his friends have decided that even these innocent little measures shall not have a smooth passage through the House, and that they were going to avail themselves, I won’t say by unlawful methods, but methods which are permitted by the rules of the House, to see that Government measures shall not have an easy passage. I think that was his threat. That leaves me quite cold.

You know I did not say that.

Well, what did the hon. member say then? I will leave it to hon. members to judge. We have listened to a lecture on the sins of commission and omission on the part of the Government with regard to their policy relating to purchases overseas. Hon. members debated that last night. I presume he refers to the purchase of railway material.

I never spoke.

Well, apropos of what was he indicting the Government then? What is he complaining about? I must say I cannot follow my hon. friend. He makes vague and general statements, but when he is pinned down to particular things—well, I know they did not come off very well last night at the hands of my hon. colleague.

I tell you, I did not speak last night.

The hon. member might not have spoken last night, but the inference is quite reasonable that he is indicting the Government in regard to the policy of my hon. friend in purchasing engines overseas.

I would do it again.

Then, why does he deny it? If the hon. member complains of the policy adopted by the Government let him attack a specific act on the part of the Government. What is the good of making vague statements about the general hostility of the Government in regard to purchases overseas in Great Britain? Just let me say that the hon. member and his friends, if they are anxious to promote an inter-imperial trade, they are not going the right way about it. Let me assure him that these gentlemen might well say: “Save us from our friends.”

What do you mean by that?

I say we have at present a Government which is sympathetic; but there are people in this country who would prefer to see that the Government in these matters should give no consideration to one particular country, and have open markets where it should purchase its material.

Who are they?

A large portion of the inhabitants of this country.

Who are they?

Here, again, the Minister of Railways and Harbours last night gave the House the facts, that the Government went out of its way to try to preserve a portion of its orders to the manufacturers in Great Britain. Those facts are indisputable.

We will tell you that.

The hon. member has asked a question, which, by the way, is on the Order Paper, with regard to loans raised overseas in England, to which I am quite prepared to reply, and wants to know whether dominion loans are trustee security loans in England. Yes, that is so.

Anywhere else?

No, that was not the question. I replied to the question which was put to me. What does the hon. member want to infer from that? I hope that the placing of Union loans overseas in Great Britain is of mutual advantage. I hope that is the case. If the hon. member wants to make out from that, because we place our loans in a particular market, the Government should be bound to make its purchases there, I tell the hon. member that is not the policy of this Government, and if those conditions are to be imposed by any country where we place our loans, we shall revise our policy in that matter.

Reciprocity.

There is reciprocity to-day. I know that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)—I was not in the House, and I do not know whether he was attacking the Government—he criticized it. I am stating the policy here. This sort of thing is just intended to serve as an attack, and is not intended generally to further the interests of trade between those countries, and these methods adopted by the hon. member will not achieve that object. The hon. member for Weenen has brought up the subject of ostrich feathers, and he knows very well if he wants a debate he will get an opportunity. It was debated last year. I do not know whether he has any new facts to bring before the House. They started to attack my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, but soon ran away from that. The hon. member has read us the remarks of the Auditor-General, and he again questions the wisdom of the Government on the matter. He has drawn attention to what he calls acts of indifference as regards the fate of these unfortunate people, but if he wants to debate that again, I am quite sure my hon. friend here (the Minister of Agriculture) will be again prepared to justify the acts of the Government this year, as he did last year.

To get the money back.

The money will be recovered when the ostrich feathers are sold, and if the money is not recovered, it will not be the first loss made in this country as the result of Government action with the object of benefiting a certain section of the community. As far as that transaction is concerned, I think the record of this Government compares favourably with certain other transactions entered into in this country when my hon. friends opposite were in power. I believe I have dealt with the matters raised; I do not want to be discourteous, and if I have not dealt with any subject on which information is required, I hope my attention will be drawn to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

After the stormy passage of the other measure, I should like to conduct the Minister of Railways and Harbours once more into the calm waters of Buffalo Harbour. I understand that his heart has been considerably softened by hon. members who have the turning basin very much at heart; and to enable him to make a final decision, I want to remind him that the final obstacle to the Minister giving his consent was, I understood he said, he had no guarantee that if this turning basin was made, the mail steamers would come in. The Minister is a very busy man, and is running an institution with a revenue comparable with the whole of the consolidated revenue of the Union, and it may be that certain details have escaped his attention. My information is that the Union-Castle Company have officially informed the divisional superintendent in East London, about 6 months ago, that when it was safe for the mail steamers to come into the harbour, they would come in. There is every reason why they should do so when you find that in the last year for which we have the statistics, 6,423 passengers were landed and 7,458 embarked, mostly by basket in the tug. Surely, there is every reason for the Union-Castle Campany being only too pleased to bring their mail steamers in and save their passengers all that trouble. I pointedly asked the Minister to pay attention to the figures I gave him, particularly in regard to the estimated cost, and I showed him that it would be more than counterbalanced by savings in other directions. These figures the Minister did not question, so I took it they must be accepted. What, then, can be the reason for delaying this greatly-to be-desired improvement, which I repeat once more will convert Buffalo Harbour into one of the safest and most convenient in the whole Union?

The Minister of Railways, in his very long speech last night, very carefully avoided one or two questions I raised. One was the steadily growing expenditure of the Railway Department, which has been increasing ever since he took office. An illuminating light on this question is contained in the Auditor-General’s report on the railway accounts. The figures show an increase of 238 European officers and 2,270 European employees, and a decrease of 4,688 non-European employees—a total decrease of 2,180, as compared with the preceding year. Notwithstanding that decrease there has been a total increase of salaries and wages of £456,398. We have pressed the Minister to give us information about this white labour policy—I don’t call it a civilized labour policy—a European labour policy, and here we have some idea of the cost. There is another point I wish to refer to. In the course of the debate the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) alleged that a letter was written by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Defence during the negotiations for the arranging of the Pact.

Does it concern you very much?

Very much indeed. I think it extremely important. This letter promised to restore the 8-hour day to the railwaymen, and the letter is said to be in the possession of the Minister of Defence.

Why don’t you ask for the letter?

Put the matter straight by placing the letter on the Table. The Minister of Railways rather casts suspicion on any such letter having been written.

I don’t remember having kept a copy of the letter.

Will the Minister give us some information on the matter?

And the reason for the Government not carrying out its promise.

I have no doubt that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) congratulates the Government for not having given effect to the question of the 8-hour day. I happen to be directly interested in the matter as a member of the Labour party. Last night the Minister of Railways, if I understood him aright, cast suspicion on the letter. The Minister of Finance has on occasions talked in the House about different pledges, and has said that no such pledges were made, so the time has arrived when we should know to what extent there is Cabinet responsibility. Whilst, as far as I am concerned, the Government as a Government made no pledge, the fact remains that as far as the Labour party was concerned, a pledge was made to it when it agreed to enter into the present arrangement with the Nationalists. The matter was raised in this House two years ago. There was a lengthy discussion on the matter. There was considerable dissatisfaction at the time because the promise of an 8-hour day had not been put into effect. The question of this pledge was discussed, and on that occasion the Minister of Defence stated very specifically, and, I think, rightly, that he resented the suggestion that there had been any breach of faith in connection with the matter, and he pointed out that an instalment had been given, and that that instalment was an earnest of good faith in connection with the pledge generally. He said he himself would have preferred to have had the matter carried out in one step rather than in two or three steps. The matter was raised again by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) because for all practical purposes, this is the last important session of this Parliament, and one is naturally anxious to know if this pledge will be given effect to. The Minister indicated quite clearly that he does not propose to do anything further in the matter, because the Government is considering the question of giving some measure of relief to the underpaid men in the service. We are justified, therefore, in asking the Minister, in view of the fact that the pledge was made, whether it is not right and proper that he should tell us definitely, either, that the pledge will not be carried out, or that some definite effort will be made to see this matter is satisfactorily adjusted before the life of this Parliament comes to an end. There is another important matter to which I wish to refer, and to which the Minister replied airily. That is the question of the agreement between the Government and the Union-Castle Company. It is a fact that so far as his allies are concerned, in the Government, we have always been pledged to the policy of State shipping. That does not apply only to members on these benches, but I know a large number of members on the Nationalist benches are in favour and have been in favour of Slate shipping, and many Ministers, not only the Minister of Labour, but Ministers belonging to the Nationalist section in the Cabinet, have declared themselves on several occasions in favour of State shipping. The Minister tells us in view of the agreement which has been entered into that we shall have to exercise our influence on future Governments. That applies, apparently, to the Minister’s allies. The Minister tells us we need not worry now about using influence on our allies, but on future Governments. That is not a kindly attitude towards his allies. He missed the point very considerably in this respect. Without going at the present moment into the merits or the demerits of the position, I submit to the Minister, having regard to the fact that this is an issue which has been exercising the minds of the country and the members of this House and that his allies are pledged, the least the House is entitled to, and his friends are entitled to, is that the agreement should be submitted to the House for consideration and approval. It affects the question of an important policy, and surely the Minister and the Government do not desire that matters of important policy shall be decided by a Minister without Parliament having a say whether the matter shall be dealt with or not. Again I ask the Minister whether the House is to be ignored in this matter as his allies have been ignored, or whether the House is to be given an opportunity of considering this agreement and deciding whether it shall be given effect to or not. There is another matter to which I wish to draw his attention. We have had considerable discussion whether our railway stock should be purchased in Great Britain or Germany. I have no doubt in my own mind that it is desirable to purchase our stocks, as far as possible, in Great Britain, for two reasons, firstly, because the rates of pay to the employees are higher in Great Britain than in Germany. There is no doubt that the conditions of employment are better in Great Britain, and that the standard of the workers is higher. Secondly, because it indirectly affects South Africa. Because if you only consider prices and disregard the conditions and pay of the workers you will have prices depressed more and more, and labour will be depressed more and more and other countries will become even keener competitors with us than they are at the present time. After all, one is not justified in considering benefits from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence only. You should remember that it is an advantage to buy from a country which is your best customer, because you then are spending your money in a particular country which buys something in return, and provides work for your own citizens. Preference should be given to Great Britain in connection with this matter. You must take into consideration right through, not the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) of judging the question on whether it costs a little more or a little less, but from the point of view of the conditions of employment, the condition of the market, and the point of view of raising the standard of life in our own country. I raise this question from another point of view. While this argument is going on as to whether we should buy our rolling stock from Great Britain or Germany, there is the question of whether we should not manufacture, as far as possible, our own rolling stock in South Africa. At the last general election it was one of the great issues. We are pledged, we are in favour of the principle of having our own railway workshops, so that as far as possible the work that can be done in South Africa shall be done in South Africa. A railways workshops commission was appointed several years ago by the present Government, and, from the report of that commission, it appears very clearly that the principle as to whether our own railway workshops shall be established was an accepted principle by the Government, because it was not submitted to the commission. The only questions submitted to the commission were as to the details and the best places where those workshops can be established. Here is a question of the utmost importance to South Africa, and we are coming to the end of the life of the present Parliament, and yet so far we have had no announcement from the Government as to whether it is their intention to give effect to that matter. Surely it is time that the Minister of Railways gave some intimation to the House as to whether it is the intention of the Government to establish railway workshops in South Africa, or whether that is likely to go by the board, as so many other matters have been allowed to go by the board.

I hope the Minister will explain a point in connection with shipping contract which is causing me great trouble. The Minister told us that he does not intend to submit the shipping contract for the approval of Parliament. We who read Afrikaans and have an Afrikaans copy of the shipping contract, find it provided in Clause 42, that unless the contract is approved by Parliament before the 31st March, 1928, it automatically lapses. But I notice in the English copy that unless Parliament disapproves of the contract before the 31st March it will lapse. I do not know which version of the contract was signed, the English or the Afrikaans. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the English copy was signed, then we were under the impression that it would be submitted to Parliament, yet it now appears from the English copy that it will not come before Parliament and the House will have no opportunity of discussing the contract. According to the English copy, an hon. member must introduce a motion disapproving of the shipping contract, otherwise it will not be debated. What private member will do that, seeing it would be bringing the Government into trouble? Nor is there any longer the time for one of us to bring up such a motion before the House, and I think the Government is placing private members in a difficult position by laying the onus on us if we want to discuss the matter, to table a motion. If the Afrikaans copy is wrong, then I strongly object to the administration sending out such a document as a paper of this House. I got the Afrikaans copy from the Clerk of the Papers, and it clearly says that the contract must be approved, otherwise it will lapse. I hope that the Minister will explain this, and then I earnestly appeal to him to give us an opportunity of properly going into the matter, because we cannot be expected to table a motion of disapproval. Then I want to say a few words more in connection with placing orders abroad. We have heard a lot about it, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), says that we must buy in England because the English factory hands get higher wages than those in Germany. Is the Government of South Africa then to pay the higher wages of the English factories? If that argument is used and given effect to, we shall have to buy our goods in America because America pays still higher wages. The English factories cannot expect us to pay for the higher wages. They should put their own house in order. Last year we had a visit here from Sir Ernest Harvey, Governor of the Bank of England. He was asked whether he thought if we bought our requirements in Germany, our credit in England would be affected. “Not at all,” was his reply. He said it would result in the English manufacturers putting their house in order and that the factories would be so regulated as to be able to compete with Germany and other countries. I also have here the report of the latest Imperial Conference, where Mr. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, made a speech going into the whole matter of trade between Great Britain and the dominions, showing that between the years 1913 and 1925 American trade with the empire had increased by 108 per cent., and the trade with Great Britain by 48 per cent. He gives various figures in his speech which show that if Great Britain does not take steps to compete more satisfactorily, she will lose a large portion of her markets. America and Germany will squeeze her out, not only of the trade of the dominions, but also of that of the continent of Europe. The figures which Mr. Bruce gives in connection with the extension of German trade on the continent are startling to the United Kingdom. I will go into them at a later opportunity.

I want to ask the Minister two questions about matters of staff policy. The first is, who is responsible for the regulation being promulgated whereby, although the Railway Service Act lays down that two years shall be the probationary period for artisans, some authority has now laid down by regulation that four years shall be the period. It may not be an actual evasion of the Act, but I put it to the Minister that it is contrary to the spirit of the Act. It is a very important matter to some of us who have taken an interest in this question for a long time. I have a letter here addressed to a man who is engaged as a fitter at Salt River. He is a very highly qualified workman, and was employed by the Admiralty, but he decided to remain in South Africa, and entered the railway service on the understanding that at the end of two years he would be placed on the permanent staff. The letter is headed. “Application for employment to permanent staff,” and it says—

There is certainly some mistake about this. I am sure no member on the Labour benches would have ever agreed to any person having the right to fix a period of four years. I want the Minister to explain why this regulation should have been made. Another matter is this: Is it true that the Railway Board has issued a definite instruction to the mechanical engineers throughout the Union that, under no consideration whatever, are any more persons to he appointed to graded positions. I understand the Railway Board has taken that action and I want to submit that it is grossly unfair to our technical officers. At Salt River and other workshops, a large number of men are working systematic overtime and at the same time we know there are a large number of first-class artisans out of work. Only this afternoon I had a conversation with a young South African who is a highly-qualified fitter. That young man is out of work, and he is informed when he makes application to the railways that instructions have been given that no men are to be taken on, and so far as he is concerned, he has to walk about the streets, or perhaps work with a pick and shovel somewhere. In my opinion the Railway Board is exceeding its functions, and it is grossly unfair to your responsible officers who surely can be trusted not to start any man on unnecessary work, but everyone knows that there is plenty of work in certain departments, and I think it very unfair to handicap any responsible officer in the carrying out of his duties, and such action will certainly not assist in solving the unemployment problem.

We have heard very often in this House about this Clause 127 of the South Africa Act, and I am quite sure it has not had much effect upon the Railway Board, who were specially appointed to administer the railways with particular regard to the agricultural community. If they are going to run the railways on business lines, it would naturally follow that the members of that board should be business men. Looking over the personnel of the Railway Board, I find that one is Mr. Peter Whiteside—I should say the Labour plutocrat. As far as I know, for the last 18 years he has never done very much, except get some very good jobs for himself. The next man is my friend, Mr. Wilcocks. I know he is a business man and he ought to have some regard for the agricultural interests of this country, but as far as we have gone, I do not see that Mr. Wilcocks has done very much. Then we come to Mr. Kuyt. I do not know what his particular qualifications are. I never heard of him until he was appointed to the Railway Board, and he is appointed to run a very important board in this country. Then we have yourself, of whom I speak with the greatest deference, and then I don’t know that the Minister, as chairman of the board, has any special qualifications as a business man. I do not know whether he could get a particularly good job in Germany as a railway manager there. He might, but I do not think so. It appears to me that they are gallivanting about the country in special saloons and motor cars with all manner of comforts, but what is the country getting? I am told—I cannot believe it—that for their distinguished services, they voted themselves gold medals, gold railway passes for the rest of their lives. If that is true, and it seems incredible, if they could do such an act as that, then they are not fit to be members of the Railway Board of this country. I know that the Railway Board inherited many branch lines as the sins of the previous Railway Board, but at any rate they ought to have benefited by the experience of the branch lines created by their predecessors in office. My hon. friend who sits in front of me (Mr. Papenfus), only the other day pointed out the matter of the Sea Point electric railway. They had all the facts before them for years, and they ought to have known that the money must be wasted. When the present Railway Board came into office there were great changes in transportation all over the world, and transportation was engaging the attention of all important railwaymen in the world. Members of the board should know that the day of the branch lines was over, that the day was for trunk roads and motor roads. As to road making, you cannot have good motor transport without good roads, and the Railway Board has to realize that the railways and roadways are no longer antagonistic, but complementary. It is a pity that the late general manager was always antagonistic to the road transport system, but it has to be realized that you cannot make the one pay without the other. Some of the main roads, in rainy weather, you cannot get over at all, and we can never make a success of agriculture in this country unless we give the farmers a chance by giving them roadways, so that they can bring their produce to the markets, or what is better still, the railways could send motor cars to the various farms to bring their produce to the trains. If the Railway Board should confine their activities to a system of roadways in future, they would do something that would go down to posterity, and they would know they have done something, at least, to justify themselves. I want them to realize the tremendous responsibilities that lie on them. With regard to our poor whites, they are drifting into the towns, and in years to come the most important question will not be the native question, but that of the poor whites. We are manufacturing poor whites at an alarming rate. If the Government have benefited by the experience of the past, they would have built good roads. I have been a farmer, and have paid for my experience. I am still a farmer, because there is no one to buy my farm. There have been many people on it, but they would not take it. I have now a man on it for three years, and he is working it—for nothing. I want the Railway Board to have a little imagination, and though they are earning big salaries and living in the utmost comfort and magnificence, the country expects something from them. As far as we know, up to the present, the country has got nothing. I do not want to cast any reflection on them. If, this session, we would only say we are going to lay down that we are going to have good roads, let some of the wiseacres go and give the job to men who do understand it, and let these men have a fair chance, I believe prosperity might come to the country—it might be a long time. If the country is to succeed, we must look to the agricultural interests, and we have not yet done so.

The hon. member for Park-town (Mr. Rockey), said that the country was getting nothing from the Minister. In a certain sense the hon. member is right. There is in fact one thing that the country does not get, viz., the noticeable deficits which were made every year on the railway formerly, and do not exist to-day. It is true that the losses no longer exist, but, apart from the hon. member for Parktown, I think that everybody in the country is thankful to the Minister for the absence of them. The hon. member also said that the Minister could not get an appointment on the railways if he went to Germany. That is, of course, true, but the Minister is quite satisfied to remain in South Africa. Besides, there is a great difference between a Minister of Railways and a railway manager. A Minister is not a manager, and if the hon. member does not understand it, then I pity his ability. The hon. member called one member of the Railway Board an autocrat and another a bureaucrat, but it is a fact that the members of the Railway Board have done much to advance the country. The hon. member himself said that the time for branch lines was past, and that motor bus services should be instituted. That is just the policy which this Minister has followed with such great success. Therefore, the wisdom of the hon. member concurs in the practical policy of the Minister. Let me say this: The hon. member mentioned the name of Mr. Wilcocks. I think the whole House knows Mr. Wilcocks and his practical nature and his character, and we did not expect such remarks from the hon. member for Parktown. He asked where Mr. Kuyt came from; what does the hon. member know of railways? I think that Mr. Kuyt, although he is younger than the hon. member, has known more of railways for 30 years than the hon. member will learn in the next 30. He used to work on the Z.A.S.M. in the old republican days, and his knowledge dates from that time. As for Mr. Whiteside, I think that we all know that he is a man of business capacity. There is another point which hon. members opposite labour a good deal, and that is the ordering of engines outside of England. I think their sentiment is beyond my comprehension. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), that if the policy of the Government were to be to buy engines in England because England pays better wages than Germany, and we want to be logical, we should say that as America pays still higher wages, we should place all our orders in America. I think that the mistake which hon. members opposite make is caused through their sentiments. I do not blame them, but this is a matter of business and they want us to do business with England at whatever cost. We know that as soon as sentiment is mixed up with business there is not much good done, and if hon. members bear that in mind they will see that it is quite unsound to place orders in England at all costs. I have here a number of figures from the book “Trade, Industries, Products and Resources of South Africa, 1926,” from which it appears that the imports in 1925 (excluding specie) from England to South Africa were £31,119,000, while we exported to England in the same year £21,240,000, so that our debit balance was about £10,000,000. Gold is not included because it cannot be regarded as an ordinary export product. It will undoubtedly do hon. members opposite, and also those on the crossbenches, good to know that we import much more from England than we export there. With reference to. Germany, the import figures are £3,292,000 and exports £2,141,000. There was, therefore, a debit balance against us of only £1,000,000. The whole question amounts to this, that if hon. members say that if we buy in England we increase the purchasing power of England I quite agree, and that England then will be able to buy more from us. It is true that if the buying capacity of England and Europe increases it will be a good thing for us because our products can then be bought more by Europe and especially England. I also have here the report of the Imperial Marketing Commission, and they say only enough fowls’ eggs are imported from South Africa for a breakfast, while England imports £17,000,000 worth of eggs every year. There we have a chance, therefore, if we develop and organise our egg industry, of getting a market. If our business with England was put on a sound basis, and not on sentiment, we can do good business and therefore I am glad that the Minister of Railways has in the end not allowed himself to be ruled by sentiment, but by the actual business position, and I think the other side of the House and also the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), ought to be glad about it.

I should not address the wearied House except for the statements made from the opposite side. I am thoroughly disgusted with the remarks of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) in alluding disparagingly to the personnel of the Railway Board. I know that men of his calibre always think that nothing good can come out of exrailwaymen or Labour men. We have in Peter Whiteside an ex-engine-driver, and the hon. member would be very fortunate if he had his brain capacity. Then you have Mr. Wilcocks, who was a very efficient member of Parliament; not only was he efficient, but he also has an intellect vastly superior to that of the hon. member for Parktown. Then we have Mr. Kuyt, whose crime is that he was only a railway official. That is the reason the Opposition think no good can come out of the Railway Board. As an Englishman I appreciate the action of the Railway Board in buying material from Germany, and I will tell you why. The last Government had, as its Minister of Railways, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He is a business man, and South African party supporters place their orders with a business man, only in Labour circles we call him a speculator. We placed an order in Britain for the material for the electrification of the Natal railways. Ninety per cent. of the total value of that work was not produced in Britain, although we gave it a preference, but was really made in Germany and Switzerland. Is it not beneficial for a State that the profit which, in this instance, would have amounted to over £250,000 should be kept in the country rather than give it to a speculator, or what South African party supporters call “a keen business man”? We have got to look at these things from a common sense point of view. I believe the time will come when not only South Africa, but the commonwealth of Great Britain, will realize that it is better to trade within its own boundary than outside. Before many years are passed, I believe we shall have free trade within the commonwealth. We must all realize that from the economic point of view we must keep the trade of the commonwealth within. For, with the exception of U.S.A., all other nations are able to supply us with manufactured commodities, but are unable to purchase on the same basis from us. I would like to give a few figures, and figures that come down to plain common sense, figures that people can understand, unlike those that come from some members on Opposition benches. Take boots. Prior to the great war, the economic value of production was: China 5s. 10d., India 6s. 1d., Japan 6s. 4d., Italy 7s. 5d., Austria 8s. 2d., Germany 8s. 10d., Britain 10s., Canada 13s 9d., and South Africa 17s. 4d. It is only when these things are properly understood by all members of the commonwealth that they will realize that it is in the interest of all concerned to purchase commodities within the commonwealth because they are the only class of people who can purchase commodities produced within the commonwealth. Great Britain is purchasing a large portion, I believe it is 79 per cent., of our production, but she does not make use of it all herself. It is because she has control of the shipping, and a large percentage is used on the continent. We should, to a certain extent, take a certain amount of her products, but when we place orders in Great Britain, as we did 18 months ago, what did Peacock’s do? Although we gave them a preference, they went and had them manufactured in Germany and Belgium, because they could exploit the working men in those countries to a greater extent than they could in Great Britain. Until Great Britain puts her house in order and realizes that when orders are placed in Great Britain, they must be produced in Great Britain, we shall place our orders in accordance with business principles.

The hon. member for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has returned to the charge regarding the turning basin. I said, in reply to the argument that if the turning basin was constructed lighterage would be dispensed with because the mail steamers would come into the harbour, that there was no assurance from the Union Castle Company that their boats would then come in. The hon. member referred to correspondence between the East London Chamber of Commerce and the Union Castle Company. I have the correspondence. The Union Castle Company wrote to the divisional superintendent of railways on the 9th June as follows—

I submit that is a very qualified statement, and we are not entitled to assume that all the Union Castle vessels will come in. There is no guarantee that they will come in.

Don’t quibble.

If the hon. member will secure from the Union Castle Company an unequivocal statement that their vessels will come into the harbour when the turning basin is constructed, I will give the matter attention.

I rise on a point of personal explanation. I am informed, no later than to-day, that is the position. If and when it is safe for mail steamers to come in and go out, they will come in. The Minister is questioning the accuracy of my statement, and I want to put it correctly.

That is not a question of personal explanation. The hon. member can take another opportunity of discussing the matter.

We are a business department, and we want these matters put into writing.

What does that mean, “give it consideration”?

My main objection was that hon. members opposite are always pressing us to restrict our loan expenditure, and I pointed out that all these things cost money, and the Government was bound to consider these requests for expenditure of loan money on their merits. I was not satisfied that the Government would be justified in spending money in this regard.

Although I showed you would save money?

Yes, although you said it would save money. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) has raised certain important aspects regarding growing expenditure, but I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. I intend dealing with the ratio of expenditure in my budget statement. On that occasion my hon. friend will have an opportunity of traversing my statement. Then the hon. member comes back to civilized labour, and says I want to hide the cost. I have dealt with that matter so often that I do not think it is again necessary to take up the time of the House. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised many questions which I have dealt with, the eight-hour day, the shipping agreement—

That’s the trouble.

If the hon. member is not satisfied with the reply, he is entitled to raise the matter further.

What about the letter?

The Prime Minister has dealt with that. Perhaps some hon. members were absent?

No, he left it to you to deal with.

Having nothing, I have nothing to deal with.

The hon. member also dealt with the freight agreement. He put up a special plea in regard to State shipping. The Government decided that the time was not opportune for a State fleet, and we entered into an agreement with the Union Castle Company. Unless that agreement is disapproved of by the House before the 31st of March, it will be considered to have full force and effect.

What opportunity is the House to have to consider it?

We have had ample opportunity on this Appropriation Bill. If the House requires an opportunity by way of a special motion, I will consult with my leader, the Prime Minister, and ask if it is possible to give that opportunity. This is the first occasion since this contract was laid on the Table of the House, that the desire on the part of hon. members to discuss the matter has been raised. The Government will be pleased to have a discussion on this agreement. We believe this agreement to be in the interests of the country, and we certainly have no reason to burke any discussion. All that is necessary, if hon. members desire a discussion, is to intimate that. Then the hon. member reverted again to goods purchased outside Great Britain. I dealt with that very fully last night, and I do not propose to say anything more about it. The hon. member also dealt with the question of central workshops. The position is that we are, as the hon. member knows, pledged to the establishment of an iron and steel industry. Bound up with the establishment of an iron and steel industry is the establishment of central workshops. The Government has the whole matter under consideration, and at the proper time the whole matter will be further dealt with. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) raised the question of the probationary period for artisans. Acting on the advice of the technical officers of the department, the probationary period for artisans has been fixed at four years. If the hon. member will refer to section 6 of the Service Act, he will find that after two years a servant qualifies and he must be appointed within five years unless good reason is given. The technical officers of the department consider that a four years’ probationary period for artisans is necessary, and I have accepted their view.

It is contrary to the terms of the Act.

No, it is not. The hon. member has asked me about an alleged order which has been issued that further artisans are not to be employed in the workshops. That is a matter which I will look into. It is a matter which, as my hon. friend knows, is bound up with the question as to whether we have the necessary room in the workshops. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), in a very ill-advised moment, made, may I say, a very ill-mannered attack on the members of the Railway Board. I did not expect the hon. member for Parktown to make such an attack. Comparisons are odious.

You say that more in sorrow than in anger?

Indeed I do. Comparisons are odious, and I do not propose making any odious comparisons between the hon. member for Parktown and the members who serve on the Railway Board, but I do say this, that the hon. member was not justified in making the remarks he did about the members of the board. He knows perfectly well that all three of them have had distinguished public service to the past. It is true that they do not belong to the political party of the hon. member. Evidently that is their whole crime. If I tell the hon. member that the Government has the fullest confidence in the members of the Railway Board, that disposes of the matter as far as the Government is concerned. The hon. member, in order to build up a case against the Board, made incorrect statements, and I would advise him in future to make sure of his facts. He is wrong in most of the things he said here. Let me deal with them. He stated that the present board are responsible for the 1925 construction programme. That is quite wrong. The responsibility rests with the late Mr. Rissik, Mr. Orr and Mr. Wilcocks, and not the present board. He made the further statement that the present board had issued gold passes to themselves. That is wrong. The Cabinet takes responsibility for that, and not the board. He makes a further misstatement, and that is that they are responsible for the electrification of the Sea Point line. Again he is wrong.

I did not say that.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member now realizes that he has made so many mistakes, that he had better withdraw from some of them. I said last night that this is a legacy from my predecessor.

Dr. van der Byl advised you against that. I had not that advice.

I said I was inclined to act on that advice, but I had the department against me, and a promise had been made to the Sea Point public.

There was no promise about electrification of that line.

Undoubtedly. How can the hon. member say that? The construction was approved of by Parliament.

I do not think a promise was given. Plans were passed by Parliament.

Surely that is a promise to the public? If that and a vote of money is not a promise to the public concerned, then I do not know what is. If the Sea Point line is not paying, hon. members opposite must not try to wriggle out of their responsibilities. They are responsible, and I shall certainly hold them to their responsibilities. I am quite prepared, if it is the feeling of the House, to consider the upliftment of the line. Then the hon. member for Parktown came forward with the belated idea that the Government should take over the construction of all the roads. What an extraordinary idea! Does not the hon. member belong to a party who, practically every day of the session, have been telling us that we have been running up the costs of the administration? Does he appreciate what his suggestion is going to cost? The hon. member before he speaks again might, with advantage, look into his facts.

†*The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) complained about a mistake in the Afrikaans version of the shipping contract, and I regret that he is quite right. The last paragraph of the contract is wrong in Afrikaans, and I immediately saw that it was rectified. I am sorry that the hon. member was misled with regard to the submission of the contract for the approval of Parliament. I, however, said that if the feeling of the House was that we ought to debate it in Parliament, I would consult with the Prime Minister as to what could be done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When the debate was adjourned on Thursday last I was drawing attention to the form and scope of the motion before the House, and I wish now in the few minutes that remain to me to supplement the remarks I made on that occasion. I pointed out that the Prime Minister has unnecessarily brought the neutrality question into this debate, and that it had nothing to do with the motion before us. The House is not called upon and is not asked to give a vote on the neutrality question. The report we are asked to approve is silent on it. Not a word is said about it. It was not as much as even mentioned at the conference, as the Prime Minister has admitted to the House. The House is asked to approve the report as it stands. I vote for the report, the whole report, and nothing but the report. The report in its various sections deals with dominion status in its different aspects, with the relations between the different parts of the British empire, with the relations with foreign countries, and with the system of communication and consultation between the Governments of the empire. The motion covers all these matters, but nothing else. On these only we are voting, and on these matters I am wholeheartedly for the adoption of the report. Our vote simply means our approval of dominion status as expressly and clearly laid down in the report, and it does not bind us by implication to any inferences or deductions which are not included in the report. I pointed out last Thursday that the conference, while quite clear and explicit on some matters was significantly silent on others, and that in view of this silence it would be unwise for us to rush to conclusions on matters on which the report is silent. If an issue like neutrality or any other similar issue was agreed upon, the report would have said so. The silence of the report is, therefore, deliberate and ought not to be treated lightly by us. It is because of this fact that I deprecate the Prime Minister’s raising of this question of neutrality. I do not deny his right to do so, but to raise it on this question and in this connection might lead to some confusion, as it would be mixing up the clear question of our status with other matters which are by no means clear and are not mentioned in the report. I regret the Prime Minister’s action very much, because I think it is a matter of the utmost importance and significance for the future that we are at last agreed on the definition of dominion status as laid down in the report.

Are we?

Well, our vote will show it. By our agreement, one of the subjects which has most deeply divided the people of this country in the past is at last happily settled. We are at last all convinced that we can have and do have full freedom and national status within the British empire. It is a great thing that unanimity has been achieved in this matter after the storms of the past. And no element of doubt or uncertainty should be allowed to mar our happy unanimity on this occasion. I vote for the report as it stands, and I firmly decline to mix it up with matters not contained in it. So much for the scope of the motion before the House. As the subject of neutrality has, however, been raised, I wish to make a few observations and to amplify what I said last Thursday. In the first place, I wish to say, and I think the Prime Minister will agree with me, that the question of neutrality is one that should be dealt with and settled in the same way and in the same High Court in which our status was laid down. The right of neutrality does not concern us in South Africa alone. It is of vital importance to the whole of the empire and every part of it. It concerns all of us equally; if we cannot rely on each other’s support in the day of trouble, there would be no security for anybody in the empire, and the empire itself would become “a mere name,” as the Prime Minister has described it. It is a fact and a reality just because we know that it means mutual protection and security for each and all in the day of trouble. The empire means much more than a defensive alliance between separate states would mean. Such a defensive alliance would, of course, preclude the right of neutrality. And if neutrality were to be recognized between the states of the empire the empire would, indeed, be a much weaker thing than a treaty of alliance. In fact, it means much more than a mere external alliance. It means a sense of trust and confidence, of safety and security for all its members. It means that behind our weakness there is real power. It means that the young nations of the empire need not waste their resources in huge armies and navies. It is the greatest insurance that each and every part of the empire can possibly have much more so than any treaty of alliance could ever give them. But if we were one and all to assert and proclaim our right of neutrality before the world, what would remain of this security and this insurance? What confidence could there be for the future? Would we not rather have to look to our own unaided effort to defend ourselves, and have to proceed to build up armies and navies for the future day of trouble? And this is the main reason why I deprecate the attitude of the Prime Minister on this grave question. He speaks with great authority as Prime Minister of this country, and no mere private member ventilating personal views of his own as to what our constitutional position implies. He is bound to look to realities, and have a due sense of the importance of his official declaration. I very much fear that in the discussion of this abstract question of right we may forget the reality and be doing both the empire and this country a very serious disservice. Of course, my hon. friend raises the point expressly as one merely of abstract constitutional right, and not as one of practical importance. But the danger is that others who, unlike him, are not trained lawyers, will attach far more serious importance to his words than he himself intends to convey. I am, therefore, glad that towards the end of his speech he made it clear that the question of our right of neutrality is one almost purely of academic character. But, if this is so, there is all the more reason why it should not have been raised in this connection, and least of all by the Prime Minister of this country, who does not speak as a private member, but as the practical leader of the people of this country. The Prime Minister may or may not be right in his assertion of the abstract right of neutrality. He deduces this right from our status, and says that full freedom implies the theoretical right of neutrality. To me the matter is not at all so clear as it appears to him. In the first place, as I pointed out before, the single and undivided kingship, which is not a mere personal union, constitutes a great difficulty to my mind. Can a house be divided against itself without coming down? Can the same king be both at war and at peace in the same empire? It may sound an abstract consideration, but it ought to give pause to the Prime Minister in his own admittedly theoretical deductions and inferences from the nature of our undoubted free status. We are not a free individual State, but we are a free member of an associated empire.

Where do you get that from?

We are not a free individual State, but we are a free member of an association, an empire—

Where do you get that from?

That is the very declaration to which the Prime Minister asks our assent here. I do not wish to pursue the matter, but, to my mind, that is the crux of it. And there is another element of doubt in my mind. As I said last Thursday, the empire is a new fact, a unique thing within the domain of constitutional law and theory. It is a new attempt at human government. It substitutes free association for central authority or coercion as the common bond of empire. The old categories and reasonings of international law do not always safely apply to such a case. The empire is not a logical construction. It is sui generis, and abstract reasoning on the old lines may lead us sadly astray. If the empire succeeds and pulls through, as we all hope and pray it may, it may become a new landmark in human government and a precedent which other groups in future will follow. It will point the way to a future in which the sovereign international State of the past will have disappeared, and with it the international anarchy which has existed during the era of international sovereignty. I doubt whether the old reasonings can be safely applied to the new situation in the empire. The new wine and the old bottles do not go well together. The Council of the League of Nations has already reminded us that the old notion of sovereignty does not apply to the new mandate system; and it may yet appear that the time-worn notions of the rights of sovereign international States do not square with the new system which we are gradually hammering out in the empire. I, therefore, advise caution and patience. The empire is still essentially undefinable; it is growing and evolving; it is essentially new and still largely experimental. Let us give the new system every chance, let us make the best of it, in our interests as well as for the great world experiment that it undoubtedly is. But let us not apply the old diplomatic language rigidly to it without due caution and reserve. The Prime Minister further holds that tour obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations imply that we may have to be neutral in a case where Great Britain or some other member of the empire is at war as the aggressor, either against a State in whose favour an arbitration award has been given, or against a State in whose favour the League of Nations has unanimously decided. But, as the Prime Minister himself says, such cases are so improbable in fact that we can only consider the point an academic one and we need not waste our time over it. Do not let theory obscure the practical character of this question for us. Whatever the theoretical aspect of the matter may be, whatever abstract right of neutrality there may be, in the last resort it is not theory, but hard facts that will govern the situation. If it is a matter of vital concern for the British empire, I anticipate that the dominions will always in fact do in future what they did in 1914. Public opinion will be decisive, and the pull of the empire will be irresistible. So long as our cause is just and good, and the danger is really one of first-class character, it will be practically impossible for any dominion to declare its neutrality in a great war, in which Great Britain is involved, just as it will be impossible for Great Britain to remain neutral in a quarrel in which the existence or vital interest of one of the dominions is at stake.

Then why trouble about it?

That is my whole point. My whole point is we should not be led by abstract considerations and questions of rights where we are up against a position which will be decided by the facts of the case and of the moment. I say that if there is a just and good cause and if the danger is really of a first-class character, it will be practically impossible for any dominion to declare its neutrality in a great war. The empire has not been built upon neutrality, and it will not endure on neutrality, but on common loyalty and fidelity of each to all. When the testing time comes public opinion will not be bothered with abstract rights or theories of the constitution, but will move with an instinctive and irresistible impulse. I can hardly conceive that any government in this country in future will give notice to the Admiral at Simon’s Town to quit because we are going to be neutral; and any Government that does it will have a situation to face, even in South Africa, which I can only leave to the imagination to picture. I have made these remarks, not because I wish to pursue a barren controversy with the Prime Minister over an abstract constitutional question, but because I fear his remarks, made with his great official authority, may be misunderstood and create a false impression of the real attitude of our people in South Africa. I notice in the press that so well informed and acute an authority, Professor Berriedale Keith, has already read far more into his words than he ever intended to convey, and I think it is only right and fair to our people that the other side of the question should also be stated and stressed. There is happily a great and growing feeling of attachment to the empire among all sections of our people, and this is in a large measure due to the generous way our full rights have been freely and ungrudgingly conceded, but which is also in no small measure due to a deep recognition of the meaning and value of the empire, and to the conviction that it means well by South Africa, that South Africa’s interests are bound up with free association with the empire, and that it is the surest shield and protection to the growing liberties and aspirations of our young people. In conclusion, I would suggest that we do not pursue this controversy in this House, but that it be left over for the consideration and judgment of the Imperial Conference in how far the right of neutrality can be defined in the empire, and under what circumstances and limits it can be exercised. Its international aspects could then be further examined by the League of Nations. We have appealed to the conference to define our status, and not in vain. We wholeheartedly accept that definition. Let us leave to the same wise and highly-equipped authority the question of the lead and the guidance which should be given on this most thorny question of neutrality within the empire. And if, as I fear, the time is not yet ripe for a full definition and formulation on this point, then let us be patient and await the fuller light and wisdom of the future. We have full faith in that future and in the wisdom which has guided us through all the pitfalls and dangers of the past.

I think that the House will agree with me that in discussing this motion, we should thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for so worthily representing South Africa at the Imperial Conference. The other dominions also will agree that the result of the conference is due in no insignificant measure to our two Ministers. At the same time, I want to thank the Minister for introducing the motion in this way so that there can be no doubt about his attitude. The great problem of the report is as to what the meaning of certain terms in it is. The meaning of such words is not always precisely defined, and it is necessary for us to insist on clarity. We know that in the past vague expressions have been used which were never properly defined, such as “suzerainty” and “paramount power” and other terms. I think, therefore, that it is really worth the trouble to know where we stand before we vote on the motion, and to carefully weigh the conclusions which the declaration of the Imperial Conference involved. It is clear to me that we must be very careful, in the case of diplomatic language, to find out what people mean. I looked up, with interest, in Hansard, the debate in the Canadian Parliament, and noticed how various persons doubted the actual meaning of the kind of terms which appear in the report of the Imperial Conference. We feel the need for clear definition. I was startled, e.g., when I read the declaration of the Imperial Conference for the first time and found there that—

And then I read the speech of the Prime Minister of England at the Imperial Conference where he said that we would have to apply the old proverb of St. Augustine as the ideal of the empire—

That was originally a saying which was employed by churches, but which during the centuries was applied generally. What does “in non-essentials, freedom” mean? When we spoke of freedom, then we naturally longed for freedom so far as essential things are concerned, essential things of our national life and national existence and therefore undoubtedly certainty is desired about things which the Prime Minister mentioned here. In the past we said that it was in the interest of South Africa at any rate in the meantime to remain within the British Empire, but if we take up that attitude, then we must consider what our position will be as a free people. Then, at any rate, I want certainty about the right of secession—this does not mean that we must start an agitation for secession, and the right of neutrality. That is why I am so glad the Prime Minister mentioned these two things, and the reason why we are so anxious for certainty is, I think, in the first place that the self-respect of our people demands certainty about them, and, in the second place, that we want to avoid, as much as possible, misunderstanding arising in the future, if another time like 1914 should come. We therefore want freedom in essential things, and when I mention in the essential things I, of course, mean freedom both in internal and external politics, and that includes the right of secession and neutrality. When one reads the report of the Imperial Conference, one finds that there is a declaration which, in my opinion, is sufficiently clear and can be understood by anyone who knows plain English without any doubt arising. It says there, about the dominions and the British empire in general, that the dominions and Great Britain—

And further it speaks of—

If that is so, no great legal knowledge is necessary to understand the meaning. A free association means that I have the right to retire from it if I wish; otherwise it is not a free association. Take the following—

Can words be clearer? Is any doubt possible? Yet we read of responsible men and of influential persons in the periodicals expressing doubt on one point or another. I want, e.g., to quote here the words of an authority on constitutional law, namely Berriedale Keith. He said—

The well-known paper “Round Table” says—

That agrees with the view of the leader of the Opposition and what does a Liberal paper like the “Manchester Guardian” say—

Then another quotation about secession from “ New Empire,” a paper which is attracting much attention in connection with matters of this kind—

And Mr. Amery himself goes so far as to say that all are jointly responsible for unity of the British empire. That would mean that if Canada secedes we in South Africa would be obliged to fight against Canada to keep it in the empire. How is it that notwithstanding the clear statements of the Imperial Conference, inferences can still be made which throw doubt on the right of secession and the right of neutrality? I know, of course, that there are people, especially in South Africa, who do not want freedom. I don’t want to talk about them now. I want to refer hon. members to what Bourasse said in the Canadian Parliament about these people and “quality niggers.” Notwithstanding the clear statement of the Imperial Conference there are, however, authoritative persons who still doubt the right of the dominions to act quite independently in time of war, and their right to completely secede from the empire. It seems to me that the cause of the doubt is only to be found in true expressions in the report which are not properly defined and therefore remain vague conceptions. The first is that the dominions are dominions “within the empire” and the other which also occurs a few times is the expression “united by common allegiance to the Crown.” It seems to me, if I may say so, that the report in this respect is a statue to Janus, i.e., that it has two faces; the one side is looked at by the people who are looking for freedom and independence, and they see the clear statement and are satisfied, and the others who do not want independence look at the other side of the face and are also content. They look at those vague expressions. The report appears, therefore, to have succeeded in satisfying both sections, and therefore I think that it is of the greatest importance that we should have clarity before we vote. What does the expression “within the empire” mean? What does the expression “united by common allegiance to the Crown” mean? How does the Crown bind us? Does the expression “within the British empire” mean that a sort of wire fence is drawn round us and that inside it we can do what we like, but that outside of it we have no freedom? If you shut up a lion and a sheep in an encampment and you tell the sheep it is just as free as the lion as long as you remain inside, he will have to be a poor sheep to believe it. Does it simply amount to this that we can compare ourselves to a flock of sheep which are free inside the enclosure but may not go outside? You feel at once that that explanation is rather repulsive to us, and I really cannot believe that it was meant by the draftsmen. Hon. members will possibly have read the definition of Mr. Zimmern in his paper, the “Third British Empire” where he says—

I agree with that definition. If the British empire is nothing but an entente cordiale, then I have no objection to the British empire, and we feel that we can work together, but so long as our freedom is curtailed, so that we cannot say that we have the right, if the people are convinced that it is in their interests to secede from the entente cordiale as long as we have not the further right to remain neutral in time of war, so long will we feel that we do not possess the freedom that we believe we have, so long do we not possess the freedom which, as a self-respecting people, we think we ought to possess. If, however, we have the right, then the Crown does not have the meaning which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) appears inclined to give to it, then the right of secession and that of neutrality is no disloyalty to the Crown. If, however, the Crown so binds us that we do not have the right, then it will, of course, be a constant stumbling block in the way of our freedom. If we are not “freely associated” what will the result be? We shall then find that the movement will increase to abolish the Crown. But if we are separate from the Crown then it need not mean that we are out of the British empire, that we have broken away from the “entente cordiale.” If there actually is an entente cordiale, if we are mutually bound together in equality by friendship, then the Crown is not such an important thing, but if the Crown makes us suspicious and we should feel that our actual freedom is handicapped, then we shall not want to remain under the king of England—who never sees us here, and we know from the old history of the Israelites that the people like to see their king—then we shall possibly come to the conclusion that every dominion must have its own king or its own president or what not, without thereby necessarily breaking the entente cordiale. I see that a former Minister of England has already spoken of “President Hertzog of South Africa.” If the attitude is assumed that we have not the right of neutrality because we are bound by one Crown, it will have the effect of propaganda to more and more get away from the Crown, because it is in the way of our freedom. I believe that no service at all is being rendered to the British empire to-day by raising objections with regard to our right to freedom, the right to neutrality and secession. The English Parliament has the right to abolish the Crown by an ordinary statute and, if we have equal status, then any dominion has the right of abolishing the kingship by an ordinary statute. There can be no doubt of it. If hon. members doubt it, I want to recall history to their minds. What does Green say in his “Short History of the English People”—

If we merely possess freedom and are equal with England, then we, of course, also have the right to make an alteration in the king-ship, and if the Crown prevents us from having the status that as a self-respecting dominion we think we have, then the movement will grow to separate from the Crown. I was always a republican, and still consider the republican form of government as the best, especially for South Africa, because in the past we were exploited by imperialism for capitalistic ends and I cannot see the least reason why, if the empire is an entente cordiale, a dominion cannot belong to the Empire as a republic, and the entente cordiale should imply that if the people of South Africa consider it in their interests to secede that it can do so, and that if it wants to remain neutral, it can do so. I have discussed this matter with reference to the Crown because the point is not properly defined. This language has, of course, been used for years and years past. We find, e.g., that Chamberlain as long ago as 1897 in Birmingham used language which almost entirely agrees with that of the Imperial Conference report when he said—

That was in 1897 and so many things have happened since that we are beginning to doubt and would like to be very certain what our position is now. When we talk of the right of neutrality then we demand the right for South Africa, as a self-respecting people, which must work out its own salvation in the world, to judge what is in its interests and what is not. It is so often said that the protection of England means so much to us. I know it, but I do not forget that by the protection I also inherit the enemies of England. England has enemies all over the world, has interests all over and is dragged in the maelstrom of all kinds of quarrels, and if South Africa also is to be dragged into them, it becomes a question of what weighs more, the protection we enjoy or the enemies we inherit. This is not an academic question to me. It was not an academic question in 1914 and we do not know how soon it may be a practical question again. The Prime Minister introduced his motion and explained it. I agree with his explanation. I do not see how the hon. member for Standerton can say that he will vote for the motion, but will give a different interpretation to the report of the Imperial Conference. The Prime Minister was our representative at the conference, was present at all the debates, even those that are not laid before us. He knows what took place and he introduces this motion and says that this or that is the meaning and we must vote on it. If the hon. leader of the Opposition gives another interpretation to it, then I think it will be better for him to vote against it. If I could not agree with the Prime Minister’s explanation, then I feel that I could not vote in favour of the motion. I would chiefly object to the part of the report which deals with co-operation with England. Although I heartily welcome the Prime Minister’s work, I think that it is a dangerous thing for the Prime Minister of South Africa to make promises at an Imperial Conference. It is a question of principle. The promise was made that South Africa would vote a certain amount to make joint experiments with Great Britain with regard to the building of great airships. I only mention it as a matter of principle, but be this as it may. The Prime Minister has explained the motion and, after that explanation, I have not the least hesitation in voting for it. I therefore think that we must bind ourselves to the explanation of the Prime Minister and if hon. members do not agree with it, and want to give another explanation, then they had better vote against the motion.

I very much regret that the advice which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) gave the House to come to a vote on this subject, after hearing the speech of the Prime Minister and his own, has not been followed, because I can quite see that this subject may, if we do not handle it in a very wise and moderate manner in this House, give rise, not only to an angry debate here which may lead nowhere, but may give rise to a good deal of commotion throughout the country.

Why shirk it?

In this connection I would like to say that when the Prime Minister returned from England about 15 months ago and made-the glowing speeches that he did, in which he accepted this report as settling all our difficulties, and advising his people to accept the report with both hands, my hopes ran high that we were about to make a fresh start in South Africa. But since that time we have had a very bitter discussion regarding the flag, and the flag question to a great extent obliterated the impression which the Prime Minister’s speeches 15 months ago caused on the public mind, and we were back again in the racial morass in which we have been so often struggling in South Africa. Fortunately, the question of the flag was got out of the way, and our hopes began to beat high when we saw this motion on the paper, because we believed the whole country was satisfied with the speeches made by the Prime Minister on his return, judging by the reception they got. We were hoping that once again we should have the opportunity of making a fresh start, as we had in 1910. We all pictured in our imagination a united nation, going forward from strength to strength. I am afraid that part of the Prime Minister’s speech which he made last week referring to neutrality is going to stand in the way of that vision being realized. I repeat that, unless we are very careful in this House regarding our language, and unless we give a lead to the people outside, there will be a real danger that instead of South Africa benefiting by the report, for some time at any rate, we shall be struggling along and quarrelling amongst ourselves. I very much regret that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) had to make his speech—because he has emphasized points that he raised some time ago in various parts of the country, and he still seems to be hankering after sovereign independence or secession. I thought that secession was a dead issue, from the Prime Minister’s speeches of 15 months ago, and that the country had agreed to talk no more about secession, because this talk retards progress, leads to bitterness, and is not practical politics. If we in this chamber are wise, we ought not to talk about secession or to carry the idea in our speeches outside the House. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the excellent part he took in the Imperial Conference, although it is impossible to follow all he said with regard to neutrality. I congratulate him very heartily on the speech he made in introducing the motion, although it had not the same hearty ring that his speeches of 15 months ago had. I was frankly puzzled when I listened to his reference to neutrality, when he laid down the proposition that South Africa had the right to declare her neutrality in the event of the empire being at war and still remain within the empire. To me that was an extraordinary doctrine—I could find nothing about it in the report.

It may he extraordinary—is it wrong?

I do think it is wrong without a very great deal of qualification and a good many provisos. I do not say that under no circumstances should a dominion declare its neutrality in the event of the empire being at war.

Then you have given away the whole thing I am pleading for.

On the other hand, in the vast majority of circumstances that we can visualize, we have not the right to say that we may declare neutrality and still remain within the empire.

You seem to agree with me.

I put this case to the Prime Minister. Supposing Great Britain were at war with another power, and assuming that, owing to the geographical position of one of the dominions it was thought desirable that it should remain neutral and Great Britain was willing that it should remain neutral. In that case the neutrality would be in keeping with its duty to the empire, and the dominion would remain in the empire.

The question is not whether the dominion is satisfied with its neutrality, but whether Great Britain’s enemy would respect it.

That is a point that the Prime Minister did not touch on clearly.

I pointed that out very clearly.

Assuming that Great Britain were wantonly attacked, and assuming that she invited help from the dominions, each dominion would have to make up its mind whether to assist and remain in the empire or to declare its neutrality, and practically secede and go out of the empire.

I am afraid that is just where you are wrong.

Assuming that Great Britain is reluctantly compelled to go to war and South Africa imagines that its interests are not involved in any way, and it declares neutrality, principally because the belligerent has no navy and is supposed to be unable to him her.

It does not matter why.

Assuming that the belligerent seizes our trade commissioners or a Minister—recently we have had Ministers travelling in different parts of Europe—

That might not be a misfortune.

Assuming that the belligerent seizes the person and property of our nationals, and any South African ships in the ports of the country concerned, what will the Prime Minister’s attitude be then?

Can there be any doubt?

But he has declared his neutrality. Is he then going to war with the nation which has imprisoned his Minister?

I would certainly not say I would go to war, but it would be an act of hostility on the part of the belligerent.

We may declare our neutrality in the event of Great Britain going to war, hut after all the belligerent would have a good deal to say about that.

So it will have over against America.

If neutrality is declared in South Africa, I would like the Prime Minister, in his reply, to answer the point put by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Is he going to ask the admiral with his ships and supplies to leave Simonstown, and if he refuses will he imprison him?

What has that to do with the right of neutrality?

It is a practical question. If you are only fighting the air and splitting hairs about the matter, then I think the Prime Minister ought never to have raised the question at all, because the statement leads the public mind in different directions. We are bound to sit down and think what will be the result, supposing the country acts at any time on the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister. I am glad we have not to express any binding opinion about the matter. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) will not find, in the motion, anything at all to salve his conscience regarding the point he has raised. I understood him to say he is voting for the motion only on condition that it is accompanied by the interpretation which the Prime Minister has put on the report with regard to our right of neutrality. That, I submit, is not before the House. We shall only vote on the report.

Are you agreed we are a fully independent nation?

I would answer the Prime Minister by quoting the document.

I asked your opinion, not the document.

My answer is we are an autonomous unit within the empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to any other part of the empire, in any respect of our domestic or external affairs. We can call it independence.

What is Great Britain in that? Is it also an autonomous State?

Great Britain, in regard to our status within the empire, is in the same position as we are—

Is that not good enough?

In respect of domestic and external affairs, united by our common allegiance, and has in every respect the same status as the dominions.

That is good enough.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

When the House suspended its sitting, the point I was endeavouring to make was that if South Africa remained neutral in the event of the empire being at war and the other portions of the empire did not consent, then it seemed to me that we would ipso facto secede, we would break up the empire. I want to go to another point. The Prime Minister’s attitude regarding this matter to some extent reminds me of the attitude that some people in Natal took when we were considering the draft Act of Union. I can remember that at one meeting one of the critics asked the question—

That was a question that was put. Another man asked the question at the same meeting—

My reply to these questions was that there was no use in imagining impossibilities. This was a Union we were about to enter for all time, as far as I could see, and the critics of Union must trust to the good sense and fair dealing of the other portions of the Union—

The reply was excellent, but the parallel very bad.

—because without good sense, mutual good will and co-operation there would practically be no Union. Some critics of this report take up practically the same attitude. They set up imaginary difficulties and they create a doubt in the minds of their hearers which are totally unnecessary. That was not the attitude that the Prime Minister took up when he came back from the Imperial Conference. He was overjoyed at the report being issued, he thanked the Imperial statesmen heartily, and he placed no difficulties in the way of the general acceptance of this report. Referring again for a moment to the Act of Union, the Prime Minister will admit that it was silent on a great many points. It said nothing about a uniform franchise throughout the Union, which some people then thought very necessary. It said nothing about the Asiatic question, which was a very acute one both in the Transvaal and Natal at that time. It also said nothing about a more important question, the native question.

Why was nothing said?

I am merely pointing out the fact that the Act was silent on these points. The Prime Minister went back to the Free State and advised the Free State to enter into this Union. It was for the benefit of the Free State, and he did not draw a lurid picture of what might happen if all these matters were not settled to the liking of the Free State. As I have said, I do not agree with the very general statement the Prime Minister has made regarding this matter. But we do not decide; posterity will decide. If and when the time comes the Government of the day and the people of the day will have to decide, according to the interests of South Africa as they understand them at the time, whether they will take up an attitude of neutrality or not, in the event of the empire being at war. I believe when that time comes that no doubt the permanent interests of this country will be put in the forefront and will be acted upon. It is a very difficult and delicate matter to apply what you might call abstract rights and principles to a complex organism like a State, because conditions are continually changing and fluctuating. From day to day changes take place, not only within the Union itself, but within the empire, and also in relation to our connection with foreign countries. Nothing is settled, nothing is stable, but I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that the only sure test of political wisdom is expediency, not of a narrow and selfish kind, but of a broad and comprehensive kind that looks far ahead and takes long views. That, I think, is what we ought to expect posterity to do in this case. We might not to pay too much attention to any difficulties that the Prime Minister may raise at the present time. We must trust to the future; we must trust that posterity within the empire will work the empire to the advantage of all parts of the empire, just in the same way as we in South Africa have been trying to work the Act of Union and to carry on the government of the Union to the best advantage of all parties concerned.

Why could that not be done on the basis of the right of neutrality?

It is very difficult for me to try and make these few remarks with the limited time at my disposal if I have to answer all the Prime Minister’s questions. The future is a sealed book to us, and it is in a sense idle for us to try and foresee what will happen in the future. The Prime Minister has referred to the League of Nations. The League of Nations at the present time has very limited power and influence, but every lover of South Africa, every lover of peace, I am quite sure, is desirous of seeing the League of Nations powerful and strong, but some of us think more highly of the British League of Nations, and when the Prime Minister asks us to put our responsibilities to the League of Nations before our responsibilities to the British empire, he is asking too much. And the Prime Minister does that. The Prime Minister has told this House that in the event of the empire being at war and the League of Nations asking any of the dominions to remain neutral, that dominion is bound to remain neutral according to the responsibility it has undertaken in the Covenant of the League of Nations. When the Prime Minister says we must put our responsibilities, our obligations, to the League of Nations before our responsibility to the empire—

When did I say that?

That is the interpretation I put upon the Prime Minister’s words.

Just let us know when it is an inference.

Will he deny that he did say that in the event of the empire being at war and the League of Nations laying it down that one of the dominions should remain neutral, that dominion’s duty was to remain neutral?

Let us be correct. In the case, say, of Great Britain being at war, and being declared by the League of Nations to be the aggressor, therefore, Wrongful in war, then upon us rests the responsibility under that covenant to remain neutral.

Assuming that that does take place, and assuming the dominions do not agree that Great Britain has been the aggressor. It may be a difficult question.

Great Britain has undertaken to abide by the decision of the League of Nations, and so have we.

Our duty to the British empire is of a much more intimate kind and a much more binding kind than our duty to the League of Nations. Our first and paramount responsibility is to the British league of nations.

I am afraid if I were to say that, I would be called to account by the League of Nations very quickly.

Possibly you would, but you would be applauded throughout the British empire.

I hope not.

It would be monstrous to say that any vague expression in the covenant of the League of Nations should have the effect of relieving us of our responsibilities to the rest of the empire. Just let me remind hon. members of the position which we occupied towards the empire prior to 1926, when this report was drawn up. In the first place, we had a common king. When we have a common king, we owe him allegiance. Then the Governor-General was appointed by the king. The Governor-General is the head of our Government. Then measures were taken prior to 1926 to try and evolve a common foreign policy. It was agreed that Great Britain would allow the dominions to use the services of her representatives abroad, ambassadors. Ministers, consuls and so forth. The basis of our connection with the other dominions was mutual co-operation in peace and war. Now can it be said, in view of those duties and responsibilities to the empire, that anything has been laid down in the covenant of the League of Nations which absolves us from those responsibilities? In fact, this report repeats them. The report refers to the fact that we are under a common king. The report deals with the Governor-General as being the king’s representative. The report also goes to great pains to try and lay down rules for bringing about a common foreign policy, and it also refers to dominions using the ambassadors, ministers, and other foreign representatives of Great Britain, and, finally, the report also refers to co-operation between the various portions of the empire. All these things taken into account surely must convince any reasonable man that our duty and our responsibility to the mother country and the other dominions must take precedence, must over-ride any duty or responsibility that we owe to the League of Nations. The Minister gives the case away himself. In his speech he said that the League of Nations recognized that the relationship between Great Britain and the dominions should carry certain rights and privileges to which other members of the League are not entitled. Surely, one of these rights and privileges is to look for help from the mother country and the dominions in time of trouble.

Certainly.

If we have rights, we have also responsibilities to help in time of war, and there is nothing in the covenant of the League of Nations which takes them away; in fact, the Prime Minister, according to the report, says we have certain rights and responsibilities.

Certainly.

If so, I wondered several times why the Prime Minister raised this question, and I have come to the conclusion that it is in order to placate some of his supporters, like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who are still dreaming about secession, and are still talking about it occasionally. If it is necessary for the Prime Minister and his supporters to believe all they say about neutrality, as far as I am concerned, they are welcome to do so. They can think what they like, so long as we can bring about a better spirit in this country, and recapture the convention spirit as it was termed, which existed in 1910 or thereabouts. After all, this is an academical question. The hon. member for Winburg had some difficulty about the terms “within the empire” and “common allegiance.” I think these phrases self-explanatory. If the Prime Minister thinks they are of such importance, he may have them explained at the next Imperial Conference. It seems the hon. gentleman was simply playing with words which had no foundation and meaning.

What is your explanation?

I make an appeal to hon. members on the other side to leave this question of status as settled once for all, and let us hear no more about secession. I am sorry to say that some English-speaking people have an idea that if they cannot get their own way, such as occurred during the flag question, they have a right to appeal to the British Government and the king. They must know they have no right to appeal to the British Government. Their Government is in South Africa, and if they do petition the king, as they have a right to do, the king will act on the advice of the South African Ministers—there is no doubt about that. I think if both sections of the population approached this subject in the right spirit, there ought to be no difficulty about the future.

Hear, hear; I quite agree with that.

I wanted to say a few words about co-operation, but I am afraid I have not the time. South Africa bulks very largely within the empire—some people think it bulks too largely in empire affairs. Well, somehow it seems as if there is a mystery and a fascination about South Africa, just at the present time, as in ancient times. The unexpected always seems to be happening, and there is nothing humdrum and monotonous about our political life. The romantic story of the voortrekkers and their gallant trek into the interior, accompanied by their equally brave wives; their fight against famine, pestilence, and barbarians; the coming of the 1820 settlers and their heroic struggle to try to establish themselves in South Africa under strange conditions; the wars that have taken place between the black races and the white race; and between the white races themselves; the establishment of responsible Government in the two republics owing to the magnanimity of the British Government of the day; the way in which the Dutch leaders rose to the occasion and responded to the trust placed in them; and, finally, the action of the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking South Africans in flocking to the standard and fighting for a great cause, and proving their manhood on many stricken fields—these and many other events have struck the imagination of the world, and especially the inhabitants of the British empire. If the Prime Minister were to withdraw the veil from the proceedings of the Imperial Conference and tell us some of the things that happened there, he would say that he was surprised at the influence South Africa exerted at the Imperial Conference. We often hear about our duty in looking upon South Africa first. And it is right; South Africa should stand first with every one of us, but it is quite compatible with that that South Africa should be a loyal pillar of the British empire. In my opinion, Natal stands first of all the provinces of the Union; I have more love and affection for Natal than for any other part of the Union, but I hope I am still a good citizen of South Africa, and there is no reason why South Africa should not take its part, and be proud of the fact, that it is part of the British empire. Eighteen years ago the ship of State set sail under favourable auspices, and everything seemed to be going well for a time, but the storm of the great war and other storms arose, and the good ship narrowly escaped shipwreck. Fortunately, Providence decreed that it should survive, but a great responsibility rests upon us, in my opinion, now that we are making a fresh start, as a result of this report, and we should see, as far as we can, that she shall set sail in pleasant waters in future. If we are united and put away these questions that divide friend from friend and brother from brother, we can face the future with courage and equanimity. The British empire has had a long and glorious history, notwithstanding mistakes and blunders, and I believe she is going on from strength to strength and will be a greater power for good in the future, than she has been in the past, provided South Africa and the other dominions act up to their traditions as honourable and self-respecting nations.

The hon. member who has just sat down said that South Africa loomed very largely in the empire, more largely possibly than, in some opinions, we ought to. I wonder, when we discuss these subjects, whether this looming of South Africa so largely in the empire does not exist largely in our own minds. I wonder if, in the opinion of the average Canadian or Australian, South Africa looms as largely in the empire as we think it does? Is it not rather the fact that when we discuss these matters, it is rather in relation to the old controversies in South Africa, and that it is they that loom largely in our minds? On one point I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts). He does not see us issuing a notice to the Admiral to leave Simonstown. I do not see us doing it either, and I am not revealing any Defence Department secrets when I say that we have no plan for massing the South African navy in order to give that notice. I want to discuss this important matter in relation to the points that have been raised, and might I suggest that not a little of the apparent divergence of view—I do not think there is much divergence of view on the motion, but a divergence of view on the subsidiary question—is due to confusing two things. The question whether the freedom exists to take a certain course in certain eventualities is confused rather with the question whether in the exercise of that freedom you will take that course in those eventualities. That is at the bottom of some of the apparent disagreements on the question, and the confusion between these ideas must necessarily prejudice our judgment in regard to them. I will take the speech of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), who said: “I do not say that under no circumstances would the Union not have the right to remain neutral.” That obviously implies that there is an inherent right to remain neutral. In candour I can hardly conceive circumstances arising in which this Union would desire to remain neutral. I cannot conceive, in the relations in which the British commonwealth of nations exists, of one member engaging in a serious war in which she requires the help of the other members unless they have, by previous consultation, all agreed to it. I think that is one of the greatest securities for peace in the existence of the British commonwealth of nations. I cordially agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the empire stands for the security of all in the day of trouble. That is the great value of it. But there is another right all dominions have which, I think, is unquestioned in any quarter of the House, and that is the right, cordially conceded long ago, of any dominions and of any self-governing colony to decline to vote one penny, or to send one single man to the assistance of any of the other dominions, or of the mother country in time of war.

That is not neutrality.

I was not saying it was neutrality. I don’t want to discuss this in any polemical spirit. My point is that if we have that right of not giving any help whatever to your sister dominions in the hour of trouble—if we have that right to decline to give any assistance—then what becomes of that “security for all in the day of trouble”? I think what is of the greatest value to the British commonwealth of nations and to the whole world, is that feeling that we can grow up in security, that we have blood relations in other communities, who in the day of trouble will stand by us; but there is no legal obligation on them to do so. That is very different from the impulse of the moral obligation which may exist not to see your brother downed in the day of trouble. That position, however, is totally different from the legal position. Let us take a phrase which has been used in this debate, let us take the phrase “sovereign independence.” I remember in the days of my boyhood when the commonly accepted creed was that when the colonies grew to sufficient strength they would cut the painter. Later “imperial federation” held the field. The view was that there should be an Imperial Parliament, in which would be represented the whole of the empire. I remember, too, the disappointment I felt in my youthful enthusiasm for this notion when I read a speech by the late Lord Salisbury pouring cold water on that as an impracticable idea. That ideal was impracticable, but we have gone from that position to another different one. We have arrived now at the position in which it is laid down by so authoritative a body as the Imperial Conference that we are, all of us—

If words mean anything it means that the status of the Union of South Africa, of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain and Ireland is the status of equal national sovereignty. In so far as Great Britain enjoys sovereign independence, so far do we enjoy it, and in so far as that is limited only by self-imposed obligations, in so far is our independence only limited by the self-same, self-imposed obligations.

What do you mean by “sovereign independence”?

I am not an international lawyer, but I have always been accustomed to look upon Great Britain as enjoying a fair degree of sovereign independence, and we enjoy the same degree, but what it is I leave to international lawyers to argue. Precisely the same degree of sovereign independence the people of Great Britain enjoy, the people of each dominion enjoy, limited only to the same extent by self-imposed obligations to the other dominions.

What was the term you did not understand?

I bow to the tremendous authority in international law of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). I place it on precisely the same position as the independence enjoyed by Great Britain and each of the other dominions. Then I think we should hail this declaration on all sides with immense relief, with immense pleasure, as setting aside and putting a period to controversies which had gone further in South Africa than in any other dominion. It declared in a sense nothing new, nothing which had not been already declared by other high authorities amongst the statesmen of the empire, but there was this important new thing that, instead of depending upon a statement of Lord Milner or Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Bonar Law, or any other, statesman, the whole conception received the imprimatur of the Imperial Conference which must be looked on as the highest authority in the empire in regard to such matters. The created a new situation under which controversy on that point should cease, and it should be accepted by all. When a document of that length came out, one read it, and anticipated there would be different interpretations placed on the different phrases in it. We pass Acts of Parliament with considerable care, and different interpretations are placed on them. And in a document of considerable political importance of this sort, undoubtedly different interpretations would be placed upon it, as to the precise interpretation and meaning of phrases. I, therefore, prefer not to deal with this matter so much on the meticulous legal interpretation of each word. That is not the spirit in which we should treat it. The right hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, and perfectly rightly said, and I think this is the whole key of the matter, that the empire is a new unique thing in the history of the world. It is precisely that which makes a good deal of the argument based on international legal precedent somewhat unsuitable. We should regard the whole matter historically, and I propose to do so in my further remarks in so far as they have application to some of the fears expressed here. No doubt hon. members have read the book of Sir Robert Borden, “Studies in the Canadian Constitution.” Episode after episode in that book showed the development through representative government and responsible government to the present position, and how each proposal of the local Ministers to the Governor-General led to the Governor-General being instructed by a nervous Secretary of State that he was not to concede these rights, otherwise he might as well cut the painter. And years after, when that right had long been established, the same position occurred again in regard to some new advance and another nervous Secretary of State would give the same instructions. That is the spirit we have to avoid. The significance of this declaration of the Imperial Conference is that it makes clear to ourselves and to the world—I would rather reverse that order and emphasize that it makes clear to ourselves—that the seed sown by the Durham report in 1839 and later by Lord Elgin of Canada, seed sown also in other communities—once colonies—has reached its inevitable development in the constitution of these various communities to-day as nothing with the responsibilities of full-grown nations and with the status of nationhood. It has made it clear that we have to realize that we are embarking on a great undertaking fraught with immense benefit to ourselves and to mankind if successfully carried out. If my reading of history is correct, you have never had such a community of nations as are constituted by the British commonwealth of nations. In no other case within my reading can one recall a nation growing to the full stature of nationhood and achieving the fullest right to settle its own affairs except through the arbitrament of war with all the hatreds and antagonisms war leaves behind it. It is the only case, sir. Look at America. If history could have been antedated by a couple of centuries how different might have been the consequences. How absent would have been that sentiment, that tradition of grudge to Britain on which politicians play from time to time. Now for the first time we are showing to the world that we can start each of us on our career as a nation without breaking the family ties, getting complete independence and managing our own affairs, and yet that status compatible with the maintenance of those ties, and each adding, as it grows in strength, mutually to the strength of one another and of us all. In doing that, just as in the case I cited from Sir Robert Borden’s book, where persons without vision were always harking back to precedent, and could not see the greater strength and where it was leading, so, we must not be afraid of the logical implications of the developments we are going through. It is a very grave enterprize we are embarked upon by the will of fate or the doings of those who went before us, and let us recognize that the principle of its growth was the development of the freedom principle, which look away authority from outside of each dominion or colony and vested that authority within that colony or dominion. For heaven’s sake, let us have faith in that same freedom principle which is the very life principle of the commonwealth. That faith does not permit—as some hon. members by their remarks seem to me to indicate—that you must be grudging, that you must be afraid of what these words mean, namely, that in the time of war a dominion has the right to say it is neutral. If it has the right to manage its own internal and external affairs, it has surely the right to make war. It is not a right that only Great Britain has. If, however, we go and make a foolish, silly war, do you mean to say the other dominions are bound by our foolishness and silliness? If we take the responsibility of going to war with some other people on our own, then we have to bear the burden ourselves. But one thing it does clearly show by its spirit of cooperation—by the actual practice of it. It is that if there is any serious enterprize being contemplated by Great Britain the only one of the dominions which has contemplated declaring war since the dominions have been dominions in turn now accepted status—or by any other dominion, the intimacy of communications which exist between Great Britain and the dominions, ensures that very reluctantly would any state in the commonwealth do anything that might break the peace of the world without the assurance that the whole of the family was with them, and that is one of the greatest guarantees in the world against war, so far as we are concerned. We have had an experience since the great war. Remember the Dardanelles incident. Very easily in the older days might Great Britain have entered into a warlike adventure there on her own. But on enquiry from all the other dominions they found it was not approved. That warlike adventure was never entered into. Without war all that matter was peacefully accommodated. Some remarks of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) rather reminded me of those famous words of Lincoln before the great civil war, when he addressed the Southern States and said: “We won’t leave the Union, and you shan’t.’” That was said by Lincoln, before he was president, to those states which were going to secede under a system which had a central authority. Again, we are unique in the history of the world. We are what one might call a co-operative commonwealth of nations, but with no central authority. We are making the experiment. I say we look upon it as something more than an experiment, that with all its difficulties, with all the uncharted seas that we may be going through we are going to see that this experiment succeeds and that we believe, in spite of having no central authority, in spite of the fact that we rely only and solely upon the strength of the desire to keep together, that all these difficulties, from the clear right of neutrality and goodness knows what, are imaginary bogies which we are simply lifting before ourselves; that we had far better realize that if neutrality is desired by the whole of the people of South Africa as represented in this Parliament, neutrality will certainly take place, but that if we rely upon all those intangible factors which keep the commonwealth together, if we realize the degree of intimacy in all their secrets almost which prevails between the Governments of the empire and the hardening into custom of that habit of co-operation, we need not worry about these bogies of disunion and disintegration in the future resulting from these rights that we enjoy. Let me add one word. To us, to the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and myself for instance, the ties of sentiment, coming as we do from another land, are stronger than they are with many other sections in this population. But to those other sections of the population who have not got those ties to reinforce the legal position, as the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) said, this co-operation must be based on complete freedom, compatible with any man’s respect, and you will make that co-operation eventually stronger than if you stress legal points in a desire to indicate a certain compulsion. That is where I would like to leave the thing. I do not believe there is any need for any chopping of logic in regard to what you may be going to do in certain eventualities. As I read those words, we have the right to do what we like. We have the right to be neutral. We have the right to do whatever we please in the management of our external affairs. I say from my reading of history in this country that one of the greatest obstacles to the complete cordial, co-operation by every man in the country in this British commonwealth is any kind of assumption that that co-operation is anything but the freest expression of our own goodwill to go on co-operating.

I should like to congratulate the Minister who has just sat down upon what he has said, and particularly for this reason, that he has struck a new note. He has struck a note which, I confess, I missed in the speech of the Prime Minister. I think it was natural perhaps in the Prime Minister’s speech. We know the frame of mind in which the Prime Minister went to this conference. He was quite clear and candid about it in the speeches he made in this House, and before the public. The great fear of the Prime Minister was that there was to be dominance and that fear, fortunately, that bogie that the Prime Minister had, disappeared in his experience at that conference. As one knew, it was bound to disappear. One had full confidence that that bogie must disappear when the Prime Minister got into the atmosphere of an Imperial Conference. In a subordinate position, I had had the opportunity in 1923 of seeing what the spirit of this conference is, and as I say, I knew that bogie must disappear. But that being the state of mind of the Prime Minister, it was perhaps natural to him that the dominant thing in this report would be the matter of status. These things appear in different ways to different members. To the Minister of Defence, the question of co-operation has been the thing that has loomed large, and that, I think, is the real spirit of the British empire—co-operation after consultation—and that is what I take it the Minister of Defence was putting before us. Therefore, I welcome the declaration of the Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister’s speech was, very largely, and naturally, one of quotations from the report signed by Lord Balfour, and enlargements and comments upon it. As I said just now, there are phases of this question that must appear to us in different ways. I do not look upon this report that we are asked to approve of as a declaration of independence. The Prime Minister appeared to look upon it largely as á declaration of independence. I think even he would admit that that was only one side of it. I look upon this document more as a deed of partnership which is putting on record the rules by which the work of the empire is carried on by the various dominions, nothing new in it, but stating in definite terms what has been agreed upon and the rules by which this partnership in the empire is carried on. There are various things the Prime Minister stated in the course of his speech that I think Call for a little statement from another point of view in regard to some of them. After all. I suppose our debates will be read, and, I think, as I said, that there are many phases of this thing, and many ways of looking at it. We shall never all of us look upon this matter in the same light, and I think there should be some expression of the different points of view. The Prime Minister quoted, with apparently great approval, a statement by an American professor, that under the new conditions the British empire was little more than a name. The Prime Minister quoted that with approval and he proceeded later on to rather enlarge upon it.

As an empire it is.

The Prime Minister said the British empire was very little more than a name.

Your own leader has said it, only in different words.

The Prime Minister quoted, first of all, from an American professor, and exactly why an American should be taken as an authority I do not know.

Why should he not? Is he endowed with less intelligence?

If the Prime Minister will allow me, I will explain. In this very document to which the Prime Minister is a party, the words are used “a foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British empire” and so on.

Does that mean that no foreigners can understand?

It means that a foreigner necessarily has difficulty in understanding.

I am afraid you are underestimating the intelligence of foreigners.

However, that is only a side issue. The Prime Minister again not only quoted this American professor,—who I believe is a very eminent man in international law—but went on to talk himself about the British empire and that it was really of no other object than to serve that of indicating collectively certain territorial bodies standing in relation to one another. I would like to quote one or two things from this document, to which the Prime Minister is a party, with regard to the British empire. This document says—

Therefore, apparently, the British empire is a political organization.

I have never denied that, have I?

It goes on to say—

Apparently this thing, that is nothing more than a name, is a political organization and also has a true character.

Is it not mere name for this particular organization?

In another place it says—

This thing, which is nothing more than a name, actually has life blood and has ideals and has a soul. It has free institutions.

Won’t you define it now?

I am merely quoting the Prime Minister’s document.

It says it cannot be defined.

The definition here is quite good enough for me. I am accepting every word of the document which the Prime Minister asked us to accept. Surely he could not ask any more of a humble member? I am merely pointing out that the Prime Minister has told us what this means to him. Surely it is open to a member, even a humble member, to say what it means to him also.

What does it mean to you?

What this document says.

That is what it means to me. It is not what it means to you.

I am accepting this report in full, every word of it.

In other words, you have no opinion of your own about it?

Really, I want to be polite to the Prime Minister, but surely that is very poor stuff he is putting up. I am, to the best of my ability, trying to make a serious speech on this matter. I am not an international lawyer, or any kind of lawyer, but it is a matter I feel strongly on, and I am doing my best to say what it means to me. The Prime Minister is quite in a pleasant way, but constantly interrupting me. I repeat I am accepting the Prime Minister, so far as this document is concerned, in everything that has been put forward, but I am trying to put forward one or two things which mean more to me, apparently, than they do to the Prime Minister. In the same way as the Minister of Defence has put forward what it means to him, in the way of co-operation. What appeals to me more than the question of our status—which was not new to me—is what is said about co-operation. Co-operation after consultation is the true secret of whether we are going to make a success of this empire or not. I am merely trying to extend the thing a bit and to point out what many of us feel, that to call the British Empire little more than a word was not doing justice to it. We have a right to say, surely, that it means more than that to us. This document, which we are asked to accept, gives a far greater character to the British empire than to say it is little more than a name. I would like to say a word on this question of neutrality also. I would sooner have kept off it, but it has been put before us and I follow the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in saying that the Prime Minister’s exposition of this document was complete without it. He went on to give his views about neutrality and he gave reasons for it. He said that to him it was imperatively necessary that he should put this before the House. What the Prime Minister said was—

He then proceeded to inquire into this. By whom has this question been challenged? It certainly was not challenged at the Imperial Conference, and the question did not come up there. He has not told us whose challenge it is that it is imperatively necessary that he should bring it before the House. He has not told us why it should be enquired into. Surely this is not the proper place to hold an enquiry into it, and the place should be, as the Minister of Defence has called it, the supreme authority of the empire—the conference itself. In my opinion, any such expression at such a time, made without consultation of the Imperial Conference, would be ill-timed, mischievous and not in the spirit of co-operation, which is the real secret of these Imperial Conferences in the working of the British empire. I cannot help thinking that the very fact of the Prime Minister’s bringing up this matter here, and before the consideration of the House, before consultation, shows that he has still something to learn of the true spirit of co-operation within the British empire. I cannot see it is going to do us any good—this statement of the imperative necessity—but may do considerable harm. The Prime Minister went on to refer to the position before 1919. [Extract from Prime Minister’s speech quoted.] That has never been questioned. The Prime Minister, apparently, would wish us to depend for any protection we need, on the League of Nations. The time may come when the League of Nations may give us that security, but now it is still in the experimental stage. The British navy is not in the experimental stage. We have seen, when there was this talk about gun-running in Hungary, the League was apparently temporizing over it. The League has not yet established itself, so that it can take effective action between beligerents, although we might wish it to do so. We are placing our security and our maritime security on the British navy, and the Minister of Defence told us so this afternoon. If we are asked to make a choice between the British navy and the League of Nations, I shall vote, with both hands, for the British navy. We all take up that position, although we may not all admit it. It is the only self respecting thing for us to do, and we should do nothing to weaken the ties of the British empire, seeing that we are dependent on it for our security. I hope the Prime Minister will believe, if I seem to be rather critical, and spoke a little warmly at times—

Oh no, not at all.

The Prime Minister put me off my stroke with his constant interruptions.

I apologize.

I congratulate him on the great advance that has been made, and that he has been able to bring forward a report of this sort, in which I shall entirely concur, and for which I shall vote. I would have hoped he had left the report as it was, and not introduced this extraneous matter. I have sufficient confidence in the South African people to believe that whatever Government may come into power the majority of the people will do the right thing, as they have done before, that the empire will stand together, and that South Africa will be a true and self-respecting member of the British empire.

I rise, not merely for the sake of speaking, but because this is a matter on which I feel strongly, and I should like to begin by saying that the hon. members of the Opposition must well understand why the question of secession is no longer touched upon to-day by us old republicans. It is due to the action of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference. We old republicans, who have much love for the old principle, unconditionally accepted the position when the Prime Minister came back from England, and we accepted those matters gratefully. To us this matter is of very great importance, that is, the right of independence, because that is the matter at issue here, the right to remain neutral in time of war. That is the great question. The question is not what we are going to do, but whether we have the right of neutrality in any war that may arise. I should like to warn the Leader of the Opposition that if he does not accept the position, if he does not adopt the right of neutrality, he can be quite certain that the secession question will come up again as sure as we are gathered here to-day. To me it is a very serious matter if we have not that right. Yes, it is a vital question to South Africa, but if we have not got the right of neutrality in times of trouble and in days of war, and if the Leader of the Opposition does not admit it, then as certain as two and two make four the old question of secession will come up again. I will give the reason. We have two kinds of people in South Africa, our Dutch-speaking and our English-speaking South Africans. The Afrikaans-speaking, who constitute 50 per cent., are descendants from the old Hollanders, the old Germanic race, who had great love of freedom and independence, just as strong as our friends opposite. If we stand together in South Africa for the welfare of the country and for right if the question of neutrality arises, then I see a great future before our country. We have the words of the Imperial Conference—

That is surely as clear as glass, and as Col. Amery said at Durban, we are just as free as England, and have perfect right in time of war to say what we will do in connection with the matter. I have here a leading article from the “Cape Times” which says—

That is a leading article in the “Cape Times,” the organ of the South African party. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs. We will assume that the “Cape Times” is their mouthpiece.

We are independent.

I do not think many people believe it, but it is not only the “Cape Times” that talks like that, but I should like to read something that the Prime Minister of Canada said on the 1st February, 1923, viz.: That Canada must retain the right of deciding whether it would take part in a war—

That was said by Mr. MacKenzie King.

That does not signify neutrality.

He said that three years before the Imperial Conference.

Yes, he said it then, and thereafter he took still stronger action. Does the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) say that the remark does not amount to the right of neutrality? Sir Wilfred Laurier said that the time of the second war of independence—

A motion was passed in the Canadian Parliament on the 20th March, 1923, without a division. The motion read—

Who was the mover? It was a certain Power, not a drawing-room general or colonel, but one who was badly wounded in the world war and returned to Canada. Then there are the statements by Sir John MacDonald at the time of the Soudan war in a letter to Sir Charles Tupper, High Commissioner in London, dated 12th March, 1885, in which he refuses to assist. He says—

Then there are the conclusions of Professor Ewart, K.C., of Ottawa—

Further there are the following four conclusions—

1. (1) Canada’s emergence from war is a matter within her own exclusive control.
2. (2) Consequently if, being in a state of war, she chooses to remain there, she may do so even if the United Kingdom acts otherwise.
3. (3) Consequently Canada may be at war with a nation with whom the United Kingdom is at peace.
4. (4) Consequently the idea that when the United Kingdom is at war is ancient history and anyone who remains of that opinion is thinking in terms of a hundred years ago.

Section 48 of the Constitution of Ireland is—

Are we less independent than Ireland? I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I agree with what he said this afternoon when he spoke of two things, viz., “Loyalty” and “Fidelity”. He showed them in the old days when he adopted the old republic as his country. I agree with him that in the first place we must show “Loyalty” and “Fidelity" to our country. If it is in the interests of South Africa to take part in any world war of the future we must have the right of doing so, but if it is in our interest not to take part we must also have the right to decide to that effect. That is loyalty and fidelity to the country in which we live. Hon. members say that England is our mother country. Is that so? Fifty per cent. of South Africans say that it is not our mother country. Whom have we to thank for laying the first ground work of Christian civilization in South Africa? Old Holland. Will any hon. member opposite say that if Holland is at war we also are at war? They will ridicule it as the greatest folly. We are descendants of the old Beggars of the Sea, discoverers and voortrekkers, would like to be loyal, keep our word, and be faithful to our promises, but I want to repeat that we who live in South Africa feel that South Africa needs every Dutch-speaking and English-speaking son of the soil to make this a happy country. We heard how that a high official recently spoke of a great black cloud and that it was the first duty of sons of South Africa to develop the country, and I want to ask hon. members opposite to seriously think over this matter. If we had to send our children, e.g., to Mesopotamia or China while the great black cloud was hanging over us, would we be entitled to do such a thing? However, I just want to say this, that for the sake of peace in the country, we should like to work together in South Africa as a free nation. We have shown this in the past and proved that it is possible for the Dutch and English-speaking people to co-operate. Let us stand together and develop the country and hold the Prime Minister’s view that we have a right of being neutral. It is supported by the international legal world. I admit what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that things develop, but notwithstanding what international lawyers may say, we have the feeling of the national soul of South Africa. It may not be violated, and I can assure the hon. member for Standerton that at least 90 per cent. of the Dutch-speaking people here feel this point very deeply, and I appeal to the hon. member in their name—because I know them through and through—to agree with us that the Prime Minister’s explanation that we have the right of neutrality is correct. I do not say that we shall take that attitude, but we have the right, as a free independent nation to declare absolute neutrality if the moment comes that it is in the interests of South Africa. This is one of the greatest questions which has ever been dealt with in Parliament, and for the sake of peace and co-operation in the future, I ask members of the Opposition to accept these things. They will be showing South Africa a service, and the co-operation of the people will be greater than ever before. I know hon. members opposite always spoke about the secession bogey, and that they, therefore, want cooperation. We on this side also want cooperation. I can assure hon. members that they will be doing a great thing in the interests of South Africa if they agree to our right of neutrality.

Reference has been made in the course of this debate to the circumstance that when the report of the Imperial Conference was published it was received with universal approbation. The Minister of Justice, in speaking just after the report was issued, said this—

There were others who contended that the report did no more than emphasize the contention for which the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had been working during the years 1918 to 1923. The fact remains that nearly everyone in South Africa was satisfied with the compromise, and the good work of the Prime Minister was eulogized throughout South Africa. Sonce the hon. gentleman made his speech in the House last week, I have received letters from my constituents, some of them expressing alarm at some of the expressions contained in the hon. gentleman’s speech. They ask three questions. What does the hon. gentleman mean by his declarations as to neutrality; what does he mean by sovereign international independence; what does he mean also by stating that the empire is merely a name? I would ask the hon. gentleman in his reply to make these points quite clear. Although we may raise academic questions in the House and discuss matters either as international lawyers or mere members of Parliament, the average man in the street wants to know what the hon. gentleman means when he speaks of the rights of neutrality and the other matters I have spoken of. As far as neutrality is concerned, I want to leave the matter where the right hon. member for Standerton left it. I want to say that I strongly approve of the speech of the Minister of Defence. I do not propose to touch this question at all, but I would point out that it is not only a fact that the Prime Minister did not urge this question of neutrality at the Imperial Conference, but, as a matter of fact, the question was raised by Mr. Fitzgerald, the representative for Ireland. It was deliberately and specifically raised at the conference, and was just as deliberately left alone by those responsible for the publication of this report. I ask the Prime Minister why, if he was satisfied to leave every reference on rights of neutrality out of the report, why he has raised this question to-day in order to complicate the difficulties of people who were perfectly satisfied to vote for the report when it came into our hands at the end of 1926.

Why was the right of making war not mentioned?

This question was raised specifically by Mr. Fitzgerald and the compilers of the report left it alone. Then why raise it to-day? Is to satisfy gentlemen like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), or what is the reason? Now I want to deal with the question of sovereign international independence. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has referred to the significant fact that the report is silent with regard to independence. Gradually this word has grown. It became sovereign independence, and now it has become sovereign international independence, and the man in the street wants to know what it means. Mr. Lowell, mentioned by the Prime Minister, has dealt with the question of sovereignty, and he said the British use this word in two different senses. Popularly it is used for the wearer of the Crown, but among political philosophers it means the ultimate source of authority and in that sense sovereignty in Great Britain, although delegated to Parliament, resides in the last resort with the electorate and from this time forth it will also in the dominions. Does the Prime Minister mean that by sovereignty?

Hear! Hear!

Does he mean that?

Yes. This Parliament, as representing the people, and, in the last resort, to the vote of the people.

They why is he not satisfied with the word independent? Why paint the lily? Why introduce the word “sovereign” into the matter? I cannot help thinking it was the case of “Rex v. Christian” that influenced the Prime Minister to use the word sovereignty. This case came before the Appellate Division in connection with a case of treason laid against a native in German South-West Africa, and the question was raised as to whether the man could be condemned for treason against the Union of South Africa which was merely a mandatory. The Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of that case, for the purposes of that charge of treason, the Union of South Africa had sovereignty and the man was convicted. This decision of the Appellate Court was followed by the hon. gentleman when entering into a contract with the Portuguese authorities, using the expression, “The Union of South Africa, exercising sovereign rights in German South-West Africa within the terms of the mandate, etc., contracts with the people of Portugal.” Exception was taken to this statement by the mandates commission, and the matter was brought up before the League of Nations and subsequently it was reported upon and this is what the report said—

In reply to that, the Prime Minister said that he had no comment to make. It seems to me that ever since that decision, ever since the case of Christian, the Prime Minister has seized upon this expression “sovereignty” to try to indicate a complete independence within the empire such as was never contemplated in the terms of this conference. If I am asked to indicate what I conceive to be the meaning of this word in relation to independence, I would say that it is something very similar to the interpretation of the expression “liberty”. The Prime Minister will remember Blackstone’s definition of liberty. Blackstone says: “Political or civil liberty is no other than natural liberty so far restrained as is expedient for the general advantage of the parties.”

In other words, you are prepared to concede liberty, but not independence.

No, I say I am prepared to concede independence exactly in the same way, that is, we must exercise our independence in the empire, restrained so far as is expedient by the general advantage of the other members of the empire.

Restrained by whom? That is the question.

We restrain ourselves.

Then there is no difference between you and me.

I did not say there was.

Why all this talk?

I understand the Prime Minister to claim that he is perfectly independent.

Yes.

That he is entitled to exercise sovereign international independence without regard to anybody.

Without the will of anybody being imposed upon me.

Then I ask him why he is not satisfied with the expression “independence”? Why introduce “sovereign”?

Because I want us to be a State of the higher independence.

Has it no other significance than mere independence?

No higher will to be imposed upon my will as independent.

That is the real meaning of independence.

That is the real meaning of sovereign independence.

How does it differ from all independence? I do not think that the hon. gentleman uses this expression with such simplicity as he would have us believe. I am serious about this, because it is puzzling the ordinary man in the street. Does the Prime Minister mean to convey any difference between ordinary independence and this expression which he so constantly uses—“sovereign international status’”?

If you concede it also means such independence as to have no other will above it, and imposed upon it, then I grant that it is independence.

I claim this independence to mean that we have just as complete autonomy to make our laws and govern our affairs without regard to anybody, but as members of the empire and with due consideration to other members of the empire. Then I say that the word independence conveys all that without the use of this expression “sovereign international”. I ask the Prime Minister, does he not use these expressions to placate the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and others who think like him?

No. I am afraid I have not got the Sons of England behind me.

I ask the Prime Minister another question, why did not you put this expression into the report?

I shall tell you.

The ordinary elector in my constituency wants to know why did not the Prime Minister in the report say: “We have the right to remain neutral, and we have attained sovereign international independence.” At the same time, will he please tell us why he raises it now when he simply asks us to confirm the report which he himself signed in 1926? If it means nothing more than is contained in the report, I can assure the Prime Minister that he has raised considerable doubt in the minds of people by the use of that expression, a doubt which was not at all evident when he came back from the Imperial Conference and made the speeches to which reference has been made. The Prime Minister smiles because he knows it is true.

I smile because you are so scared for nothing.

I think we have every reason to be frightened. Quite seriously, if the Prime Minister is simply using these expressions without any significance at all, then I say he is the one who is responsible and not I. People have become alarmed, and if they mean nothing, why not be satisfied with the simple formula as we have it, that we are members of this commonwealth of nations under a common king, with equal status, with equal autonomy, with the right to make our own laws and govern our own affairs within the Empire and within the commonwealth of nations.

Have you never heard the word “sovereign” applied to the United Kingdom?

I have. I understand its significance to-day.

What is the difference now?

I understand the position is altered. I understand to-day there is no sovereign state. We are all equal. As I understand, the King is the sovereign.

The United Kingdom is no longer sovereign?

The United Kingdom is no longer sovereign, in my opinion, except so far as this definition goes, that is to say, that in the ultimate resort sovereignty rests with the people, but the only sovereign that I recognize to-day within this commonwealth of nations and within this empire is His Majesty the King. I ask the Prime Minister again, why does he so persistently use this expression “sovereign national independence?”

You are equivocating now. You are using “sovereign” in the sense of “person.”

That is what I want the Prime Minister to clear up. There is not a word about sovereign independence in the report. Now I come to another matter. Since this report was published, a number of the matters we are now asked to confirm and agree to, have been brought into existence, for example, the royal title has been altered, the status of the Governor-General has been altered, the new department of foreign affairs has been set up, and I understand we are now to have Charge d’Affaires and so on. All these things have been brought into existence without any reference to us, and I am concerned with one matter, the matter contained in Chapter II of the report. That is, with reference to the committees and the sub-conferences which are to be set up to consider the operation of dominion legislation, and the Merchants’ Shipping Act and so on. The right of appointing the nominees to these committees, I presume, rests with the Prime Minister. In reply to a question which I put to the Prime Minister a few days ago, he stated that these committees had not so far been set up. I would be very glad to know if they are to be set up, and if so, when.

Preparations are being made.

Will he tell me, then, how are the nominations to these committees to be made. Are they to be made by the Government?

Yes.

And will anybody be granted an opportunity of making representations before these committees? They deal with one matter especially, the right of veto. Our people have views on this matter which they would like to represent. I have pointed out that up to the present the important changes which have been made since the conference, have been done without any reference to this House whatever, and what I am really alarmed about is this: The Prime Minister will nominate his representative on these committees, and these committees will report. Are we to have an opportunity of discussing these reports before anything is done with regard to the question of the King’s veto, and the matters I have referred to?

Do not forget that nothing decided by the Imperial Conference is of any force or effect unless approved of.

That is the case so far as appeals to the Appellate Division is concerned. I do not know what the modus operandi of these committees is to be. Are they to take evidence? If so, are they coming here or how shall we have the opportunity of discussing with them this important question of the King’s veto?

I do not take it to be a commission that will hear evidence, except, of course, technical evidence.

Then I regard it with very considerable misgiving. I do not say it with any disrespect, but I take it the nominee of the Prime Minister will be some gentleman who entertains the same views on these questions as he does. It is only reasonable to suppose that we can all conclude what that report is likely to be. I really do think we should have some assurance from the Prime Minister that nothing will be done to interfere in this question of the King’s veto, with the reservation of Bills by the Governor-General, and so forth, unless we have some clear opportunity of discussing it. The whole question of the provinces is involved, in fact the whole Act of Union is involved by these questions to be considered by these committees.

Surely the Act of Union cannot be amended without the sanction of Parliament.

No, but if the South African Parliament to-day does something which they have no right to do under the Act, the Bill can be reserved by the Governor-General, or the veto reserved when it goes to Europe. I understand what is contemplated is whether that right of reservation and the King’s veto is to remain as it is, or whether it is to be altered. We have considerable apprehension that the nominee the Prime Minister will send to that committee will be a gentleman who probably entertains views corresponding with those of the right hon. gentleman.

Quite likely.

Or he might even have views like those of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). We do not want a nominee of that sort if we can help it.

I can quite understand that.

I do not think the Prime Minister would like a nominee like the hon. member for Winburg.

One from the Empire group?

I would prefer that every time. The Prime Minister has made no statement on the subject so far. We do not understand how this committee is to be set up, or what its modus operandi will be, and we are considerably anxious that its findings shall not be brought into law until we have had a thorough opportunity of discussing them.

As to the last. I can give you the assurance at once.

I am very pleased to hear it. For the last, I come to this question already alluded to by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I really was grieved to hear the Prime Minister adopt this expression from Professor Lowell, with regard to the empire that so far as the dominions are concerned the British empire has become, legally and constitutionally, little, if anything, more than a name.

Hear, hear.

That has also upset my constituents.

You are so soon upset.

I ask the Prime Minister, what does he mean by that expression?

Nothing disparaging.

I am not asking the Minister of Mines and Industries, because I know his opinion, and I can anticipate his speech. So far as he is concerned, he is perfectly hopeless on this question, but I have some hopes of the Prime Minister. I want to know what he means by that. Surely, as my right hon. leader said, the whole soul of this document, if anything, is the empire.

I thought freedom was the soul of this document, independence.

Freedom is within the empire. I should have thought that at least the Prime Minister would have taken a different line of action in that regard, that he would have tried to induce the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and others, to realize what a great privilege it is to be members of this wonderful empire upon which emphasis is placed in that report. If the hon. gentlemen opposite cannot appreciate what a privilege it is, can they realize what an empire it is? Do they know what its population is? May I give a few figures and comparisons.

We have nothing, I assure you, against the empire.

But you have nothing to say in its favour.

It is so good—why should I say?

Perhaps I might give a few figures. The population of the U.S.A. is 105,000,000, of Europe 427,000,000, and of the British empire, of which the hon. gentleman has nothing to say, 450,000,000.

How many are white?

Have hon. members opposite realized the possibility of being members of such an empire, for trading purposes alone? The British empire controls 27 per cent. of the world’s wheat, 66 per cent. of its rice, 53 per cent. of its cattle, 51 per cent. of its sheep, 69 per cent. of its coal, 77 per cent. of the whole world’s wool supply, and 87 percent. of the world’s rubber supply; and the Prime Minister says that that empire is nothing but a name. Apparently he does not realize what a privilege it is to be a member of that empire. I think a better service would have been done if the Prime Minister, with all his influence, had tried to educate the people who follow him to its being a privilege to belong to that empire, that it is a wonderful asset. We should have a true realization of what that empire means, or should mean, to all of us, and that would probably bring about the removal of these academic questionings on neutrality and sovereign independence—if only we could be satisfied to be members of that great empire and appreciate what it means. If we did, we should not have these controversial questions arising so frequently. In conclusion, I would again ask the Prime Minister what he means by “sovereign international independence” and by the empire being a “mere name.”

I do not think that the hon. member who has just sat down has taken the matter any further by quoting the figures of the population, etc., of the empire, but I do not want to go into the matter now, because it is no longer necessary to-day. Now that we debated the matter to-day, it is very clear that there is a chasm between the two schools of thought in this House. I thought that there would now be one view in connection with our relations to the British empire and our status, but views have still been expressed here which do not indicate uniformity. So much has been made of what the Prime Minister said, that the empire is merely a name. I for a number of years have taken a great interest in the matter, and I remember that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said nearly the same thing years ago, namely, that the empire was a name which we could not use. I have here what he said at a lunch in the British House of Lords, presided over by Lord French in 1917, i.e., 11 years ago. He then said—

In quoting those things to-day, I have not the least intention of deciding whether it is Jannie Smuts or Barrie Hertzog who obtained the freedom, but I should like to regard the matter from the standpoint of the development of the British commonwealth, and to try to follow the line of thought of the people who played a part in the development of that development. I agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that we must have clarity. As the hon. member for Standerton said, important developments have taken place. Some members say that they took place during the world war, and other members, like the hon. member for Standerton, say that it took place after the world war; but it makes little difference. Let me assume that it took place during the world war. Even then the hon. leader of the Opposition felt that the word “empire” was no longer correct, that we should find another name, and therefore the Prime Minister said that when we spoke of the “empire” it was merely a name. It is a tradition of the past, but a name and nothing more. The history of the British commonwealth of nations and the development of the independence of the various parts, can only be described as a freedom and independence by instalments. It commenced long ago, and we may consider the first granting of rights to Canada in 1839 by the Durham report as the moment when things commenced to move. Off and on new instalments have been added, and the development continued gradually until it reached its culminating point in the Imperial Conference of two years ago. During and after the great war, moreover, things happened which, when they took place, we could not always understand. I only want to instance that I, as a lad, during the second war of independence, could not understand why the two republics had to lose their independence. It was very difficult for us to explain such a thing, but when we considered the matter quietly afterwards, we came to the conclusion that it was possibly necessary because it was doubtful whether we could otherwise have obtained a union of South Africa. It became very difficult to us at that time to understand the development, but in that way a united South Africa and, subsequently, a free South Africa, arose, and that is a great comfort to us. We have seen, in South Africa, how the instalments came: first, Responsible Government, then the Union, thereafter development during and after the world war at the time of the Imperial Conferences of 1911, 1921, 1923 and 1926. If we ask ourselves what the cause of the development, the cause of the evolution, was, then we find that there was no other cause than the love of liberty in the hearts of the people themselves, whether in Canada or in South Africa; in both cases the people insisted that they no longer wanted to be governed by a government that was 6,000 miles away. That is a development which no one can find fault with, not even the most imperialistic Englishman in England. Unfortunately, we find that when a further step in the development in the freedom of the dominions came, there were always numerous opponents and persons who wanted to delay progress. That was the case here and also in England. I only want to mention a few facts out of the recent past. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) two years ago, e.g., wanted to deprive us of the right of fixing our tariffs when we wanted to introduce it. That light Canada took in 1857, and the British Government could not prevent it. When, however, subsequently, it is adopted here then an objection is made. Furthermore, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), e.g., a year or two ago in connection with the flag question said on the argument that we wanted a flag to show that we were free and independent, that we were not yet an independent nation. That is only two or three years ago. To-day statements are made by hon. members opposite, especially by the hon. member for Standerton, which we on this side consider as a curtailment of our independence. I will later go into the question of our freedom and independence, but for the moment I just want to point out that a brake is always being put on progress, and that there are still people to-day who want to impede the right of freedom. I think that the House is much indebted to the Prime Minister for his very clear explanation of the report. Perhaps hon. members opposite say that the question the Minister dealt with is purely academic, but it may give rise to much trouble. Many of our people say, what is the use of boasting about our liberty if we do not possess the right, in case of war, of declaring our neutrality? It is for that reason we are very glad about the statement of the Prime Minister, because even if the Opposition possibly do not accept it, we now know where we are on that point. We, on this side, accept the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton that there is a kind of “senior partner” or “managing director,” because those are the expressions he used. We do not accept them, even if at the moment, in practice they are actually partly so. We would not rest—

I possibly said so earlier, but it is now no longer the legal position.

I, of course, entirely accept the hon. member’s statement. It is years since the hon. member used the expression. We of course accept what was said by Mr. Amery here, viz., that we possess all the rights that England possesses, and no right which England demands for herself can be withheld from us. I think that is very clear. If, then, that is the position, I ask what then are the rights of England, and if England has any right of neutrality, then we also have the right of deciding whether we shall remain neutral or not. As the Prime Minister has said, there may be certain restrictions. But who imposes them? We have ourselves to come to a decision with reference to the restriction. Much was made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) about “independence” and about “sovereign independence.” Whatever it may be, independence or sovereign independence, I do not see much in it. The hon. member surprised me by stating that England itself had not sovereign independence to-day. I cannot understand how he can say such a thing, but if a country is fully independent, then it surely has certain rights under international law, one of which is the freedom to solely declare war and conclude peace. Those are essential requirements of a sovereign independent nation. There are only two possibilities. The hon. member agrees with me that we are either independent and are on an equal footing with England, or not. If he does not admit it, I cannot argue with him. If he does admit it, then he must also admit that just as England can declare war upon Japan or another country, so will South Africa—I am stating as a suppositious case—can declare war against Portugal or another nation. Take the other case. England declares war. The king, on the advice of the British Government, declares war; can the decision of the British Government bind us? If my hon. friend takes that view, then if the king, on the advice of the South African Government, declares war, England will also be involved in the war. Assume the hypothetical case that in the distant future we have difficulty with our neighbour, Portugal, and that it is found necessary in the circumstances to declare war on Portugal, would England be bound by that?

What is the case with India?

I am just first taking the position of a part of the empire towards a country outside the empire. No one surely will say that the British Parliament will be bound by a resolution of our Parliament to wage war. The same applies to the opposite case. The hon. member for Standerton asked what the position would be in the case of a war with another part of the British empire. I cannot imagine such a thing, but if it should e.g. happen, with India, then it will still ultimately depend on the decision of the voters of South Africa to declare war or not.

Such a war and the exercise of the right is irreconcilable with the continuance of the empire.

I admit it; in such a case, yes, if there is war between two parts of the empire. The hon. member will see that, as to the position towards foreign nations, I have correctly stated it. He himself took up that attitude years ago. I just want to point out what he preached a few years ago. The hon. member for Standerton was one of the first disciples of neutrality. He made several statements in that direction in 1919. On the 12th November, e.g., at Losberg, according to Reuter, he stated that he thought we had the right of neutrality. The report says that Gen. Smuts stated that in 1914, when war was declared, the dominions had no say, but that in future they would themselves decide about it. He emphasized the point. The report reads—

At Ventersdorp he said, on the 3rd December, 1919, that in any future war we would have the right to decide whether we should take part in it. If there were time, he said the whole nation would be consulted. At Lichtenburg he repeated the same thing. I quote it as a student of the development, and not as a party politician. In 1919, at Paarl, the so called herenigings conference took place between the Nationalist party and the S.A. party. Representatives met each other and, according to the official minutes, the leader of the Nationalist party, Mr. W. A. Hofmeyr, asked the leader of the S.A. party, Mr. A. M. Conroy, now a senator—

The answer of Mr. Conroy was “yes.” The next question was—

The answer was—

The hon. member for Standerton and his party therefore took up this attitude years ago. Are we then to go back on it now? As a student I should like to know from the hon. member for Standerton why he now takes a different attitude. The hon. member surely does not suggest that the 1926 conference was a backward step, that we since 1919 have been retrogressing? We must admit that a few years ago already the attitude of the South African party, as well as the Nationalist party, was that we had the right to neutrality, and I should like the hon. member for Standerton to clear up the position. Will he admit that he is taking up a different attitude, and that he does not want to go so far now as he did then? Why should we as South Africans who can obtain the rights to-day adopt the attitude that we will not accept them? According to international law, we have the right. I now come to the kingship. I state that, with regard to the kingship, we have the same position to-day as years ago in Great Britain, when George I was king of England and also elector of Hanover, and when William of Orange was king of England and also stadholder of Holland. Many writers favour the attitude that it is legally exactly the same position, so, e.g., Prof. Lowell, who has already been referred to in this debate, and Mr. Zimmern, in “The Third British Empire.” The position was the same. If at that time Holland had declared war on another nation, England would not have had to take part, although it had the same king and one crown. If we go into the matter, we also find that the hon. member for Standerton himself adopted the proposition in the past, that if the king of England lived in South Africa—he said that the king would yet live in Pretoria—that then the English rights would not thereby be affected. He would no more or no less remain king of England. I believe that the position is not altered by the circumstance where he lives. If the attitude of the majority of the population is that we shall he neutral—and suppose that it is illegal—who will compel us to give it up? Suppose that we may not declare war, that we may not remain neutral when England is at war, and suppose that we want to be neutral, who will compel us to give up neutrality? Not the English Government. No one can compel us. Thus, eventually it still remains the will of the majority of the people. One can use the same argument in connection with secession. If we find that it is in the interests of South Africa to secede, we shall have the right for the same reason that I gave in connection with neutrality. Although we may clearly say that we do not intend in the distant future make use of the right, we yet cannot abandon the right. We must say that we have the right to do so if we wish. Let me just add something about the republican form of government. I am convinced that republicanism is the best form of government. What is the use of disguising it? I believe more in the republican than in the monarchial system. I think that many members on this and the other side, and also on the cross benches, share the feeling. This new development of the British empire does not remove my feeling in favour of a republican form of government. But I do not say that we should establish a party to that end, and that we should exercise it by force or agitate for it. But it is wrong to say that the feeling for the republican form of government is dead, and so I want to deny it. I am speaking for myself, but many share my view. I even believe that the hon. member for Standerton is not entirely opposed to a republic. He said it in the past, but that he did not want any fighting about it. I am only expressing my personal opinion, and do not want the one party to attack the other about it If it is possible to carry it out I shall favour it, but, of course, there are great difficulties. If posterity can secure it, we shall have the fullest right as a people to adopt the republican form of government. I feel, however, I am again speaking, not as a member of a party, that we must go and curtail our own rights, that we must not say to the outside world that we have not yet got the fullest form of independence, that we ourselves still put certain reservations. If we do that, the foreign nations will, of course, also have the reservation. We must make full use of our free status. We ought rather to adopt the extreme form than to curtail our rights to the fullest form of entire freedom, independence, and we must place ourselves in the position that whatever comes in the extreme case, the people of South Africa will only have to decide what is in the interests of South Africa.

I trust the Prime Minister will accept the adjournment.

No, let us go on.

Then may I just say a few words and move the adjournment later, if the Prime Minister will accept it? The point I want to deal with is the point that has most exercized most of us on this side, and the country beyond, and that is this momentous declaration on the question of neutrality. It is quite clear that the point the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) is stressing so much, that we have in South Africa the fullest right to participate or to abstain from participating in any war in which Great Britain or any other part of the Empire becomes involved, is one that we need not discuss to-night. We have never sought on this side to say for one moment that this country, without the full consent of its people and Parliament, will ever be involved in any war outside our own borders. That we may take as axiomatic. I do not believe that any member of any party would contest that for one moment. Certainly the leader of this party has never taken up any other attitude. Therefore, if all the Prime Minister meant to affirm was simply that, then that portion of his speech which related to neutrality was quite unnecessary. But we must take it that in saying what he did he meant to go very much further, and he meant to lay down—or rather I am going to ask him what he meant to lay down, because I am not perfectly clear about it—he may have meant to lay down that in the event of Great Britain declaring war tomorrow on France, let us say, or the United States, this country is ipso facto neutral. Did the Prime Minister mean to go that far, or did he mean to say that we had the right, such war having been declared, thereafter to declare neutrality, and claim to take up the position of a neutral State, such as Denmark or Holland may be. After carefully reading his speech, I have some doubt as to which of the two is the case. I am sorry I cannot get a reply from the Prime Minister, though he was courteous and voluble enough in answering the few questions put by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson). If the Prime Minister chooses to remain dumb, I am without remedy. I cannot make him reply. But what he said is open to one or other of these two constructions. Why does he ignore the question; what right has he to do so? I am constrained, therefore, to argue this matter on either of those two cases. If he means that if and when a state of war is declared by His Majesty the King, through his Government in Great Britain, with France or the United States of America, we are ipso jure neutral, it does not need very much argument to show that the Prime Minister is taking up a position which cannot be justified either in logic or in law. If that is the position, there is nothing to differentiate the position of this country from Denmark or Holland. They are without any declaration neutral when war is declared between England and France,—without a word being said their neutrality is settled. Does the Prime Minister mean that without a word being said we are specifically, as a State, neutral when war is declared between England and France? If so, what significance is to be attached to the words or the formula he is asking up to adopt in this resolution? He has stressed the opening words of that formula, but largely omitted reference to the closing words [extract read]. I agree with the part he stresses, but also agree with the rest—

Is it possible for the king, through his Government, to declare war on France and for us, ipso jure and without anything being said, simply by the logic of events, to be declared neutral?

They declare war for us.

I was addressing my question to the Prime Minister; I do not regard the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) as an authority on that particular matter.

I am asking if England can declare war for us?

Certainly not. If Great Britain were to involve herself in any war it is unthinkable that she should do so without prior consultation with other members of the empire. I should say that if Great Britain suddenly announced to us that she was at war with France, say, without consulting us, we should have every right to say it is no business of ours.

And if she did consult us?

We can say: “Yes, go ahead, we are in with you.” The other option is to say: “We are sorry you are entering into this war on your own; we will take no active part in it.” Does the Prime Minister maintain that if England became involved in war with France to-morrow—any country may declare war with England—are we ipso jure neutral without any act on our part? Surely not! That contention seems so absolutely untenable that it does not really require much further argument. If we were neutral and England were at war, England could not enlist soldiers in this country; any English ships coming to South African ports would be at once interned; Simonstown would be closed down and those petrol tanks—kept full at the cost of the Union taxpayer for the use of the British Admiralty in time of war—would, I take it, be emptied at once. Therefore, the statement that ipso facto we are neutral when England declares war, and we do not participate unless we make a separate declaration of war is unthinkable. There is the other aspect. Does the Minister’s statement mean that if England declares war we are not neutral but we have the right, as and when it seems fit to us, to declare that we are neutral, and after making such a declaration to claim not only vis-a-vis England and the other dominions but vis-a-vis the enemy states the whole status of a neutral? If so, I think we may have the power to make such a declaration, but by the very act of making such a declaration we then and thereby sever our connection with the British empire. We cannot have it both ways. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) made an eloquent appeal for South Africa to be left alone to work out its own destiny and to use its people untrammelled by any European or continental entanglements. I go very largely with him, but has he ever heard the phrase, societas leonina, used by lawyers to denote a leonine partnership—in which one of the partners gets all the profit and the other partner bears all the losses? Could he fairly claim all the advantages which we get from our connection with the British empire and then say: “Leave us in peace here with our European population of one-and-a-half million at the southern extremity of Africa on one of the great trade routes—let us have peace and all the advantages which flow from security, but when you are in trouble, leave us alone.” That, I am afraid, is the difficulty the hon. gentleman has to meet. Do not let him think, for one moment, that if we were a community entirely of foreigners with no great power standing behind us, that our history would have been what it is now or what it will be in the future. Is it manly for us to take all the advantages, not trade advantages, but international advantages, and then say in a time of trouble: “Leave us out, solve your troubles in your own way but dont’ drag us in.” Let me remind the Prime Minister of what Mr. Amery said at the famous banquet in Pretoria over which the Prime Minister presided. He was talking of what association in the empire meant to all of us and he said—

May I read one other extract from Mr. Amery’s speech—

Now, I ask the hon. gentleman, does he want all that and give nothing in return? Would he live rent free at another man’s expense, year in and year out, and expect not to give any return whatever? Would he enjoy security and freedom at another’s expense?

We would defend ourselves. You have never tried to defend your country.

I have probably done as much as the hon. gentleman.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed on 19th March.