brought up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on income tax and customs duties.

Report considered and adopted; committee appointed to bring up the necessary Bill or Bills.

brought up the report of the committee submitting a Bill.

Some days ago I asked the Minister of Justice a question concerning a certain case under the Immorality Act. [Question No. XXIV, printed in column 4057.] The Minister at that time was not prepared to give a full reply. May I ask if he has any further information now?

With the leave of the House I would like to read the telegrams received from the solicitor-general in connection with the case. The questions of the hon. member were wired to him, and he replied—

14/5/’30.—Have interviewed judge who considers question remission sentence against woman premature as if guilty she was justly punished and if party to conspiracy with husband is liable to severe punishment although probably acting under coercion. Police will investigate matter alleged conspiracy.

I may just say that is not my intention to proceed with this Bill this session. I think, however, that it is advisable that it should be laid on the table.

Second reading on 23rd May.

I move—

This will make the Bill applicable in any slaughter house where more than ten animals are killed during any one month.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I do not wish to say much about it, but this proviso added to the exemption nullifies the exemption. The committee and the member responsible for the Bill, and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) generously admitted last week that the act of killing is humanely done by the Jewish method, and I think the committee will have no objection to the amendment.

In connection with this amendment, we have considered the matter. The original idea of the amendment on the order paper was to delete these words now suggested to be deleted, and to substitute the words “provided the casting preparatory to such killing is effected as humanely as possible.” Now, however, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has come forward with another amendment. He proposes to insert a new Clause 2

Order.

I am not speaking to this amendment. I merely wish to refer to this new proposed Clause 2, which I understand will be moved.

May I be permitted to move the amendment standing in my name—

If the second amendment is adopted, then these words are unnecessary. Clause 1 deals with the act of killing. Under sub-section (3) the Jewish and Mohammedan method of killing will be exempted, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will be satisfied if we delete that. A new subclause will be inserted to deal with the preparations before the killing, and would apply to Christian, Mohammedan and Jewish methods of killing. I hope the committee will agree to this amendment.

I had an amendment on the order paper to Clause 1—

but as the number 10 would probably be just as satisfactory, and would meet the position, I would like to withdraw it. I have another amendment to the same clause—

Sub-section (3) was introduced in order to bring under the Act all the slaughter houses that are either on municipal land or controlled by any local authorities. But there are few slaughter houses that are not subject to some local, authority, and if the committee will accept the amendment it will he simple to bring places like Porterville Road under the provisions of this Bill, and will do away with the effect of the clause in its tendency to rope in a large number of farms. There is one other point arises here—the word “animal” is defined as “bovine”. But you gave power to this House by a joint resolution of both Houses to include smaller animals such as pigs, sheep, etc., but no power to alter the number. If the House decides, by resolution, to bring in sheep, you will then have every farm on which five or ten sheep per month are slaughtered declared a public slaughter house, and I do not think that is the intention of the mover. That is, unless we take power to alter that number. I have no amendment ready, but at the report stage I intend to move to include in the clause which gives power to bring in other animals under the Bill power to alter the number. It will take a little drafting. In the meantime, I move the amendment standing in my name.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Essentially these are only drafting amendments, but as we are anxious to get on with the business of the Bill, I would like to ask if the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is prepared to withdraw his amendment in favour of that moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson).

I do not follow that. I have no objection to the new clause moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson).

I understand, then, that if those words are omitted, the hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) will be prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson).

I did not say I was prepared to support it. I said I had no objection to it.

May I suggest to the hon. member for Hospital that, instead of moving his new Clause 2, he should make it a new sub-section (5) of Clause 1. If the amendment is moved as Clause 2 there will be no penalty. If he agrees to that, it will clear the atmosphere very considerably and save a good deal of unnecessary discussion over some of the other amendments that may appeal to some hon. members.

I have no objection to accepting it.

I move—

1. (3) (a) Before any animals are killed or stunned under the provisions of subsection (1) they shall be driven one at a time along a race into a pen and there killed or stunned in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2).
2. (b) Both such race and pen shall be of a type approved by the local authority concerned.
3. (c) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1932.and in line 21, to omit “and (2)” and to substitute “, (2) and (3)”.

I do not think they need much explanation. It is an endeavour to prescribe more humane methods of dealing with animals up to the time of the actual killing. It will be observed that the form or the type is to be left to the discretion of the local authority. In order that they may have time to consider arrangements, and not be unduly hurried, it is provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall come into operation on the 1st of January, 1932. I have no doubt that these provisions will be put into operation almost immediately by the greater number of municipal authorities involved. In order to give a chance to the various municipalities and other local authorities, we thought it desirable to give a little breathing space, so that a good form might be devised and become practically universally adopted. I am told that there is a local authority of some description in practically every village and dorp in the Union.

I suggest to the hon. member that he leaves out the words “kill or”. The essence of this method is that you drive animals into the knocking pen, where they are pole-axed or stunned, and taken to the place where they are bled. The act of bleeding is the act of killing. We do not want them put into a pen and killed. We only want them stunned there. I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

With the leave of the committee I will alter my amendment accordingly.

I would like to point out to hon. members that right through the section the words “kill or stun” are used. Is it proposed to delete them wherever they occur?

Amendment proposed by Mr. Swart put and agreed to.

I fear that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I think that we must make the Act apply generally, and not piecemeal in the country by way of proclamation.

I hope the House will accept it. If you leave this as it is you will bring in a large number of farmers under this Act. The farmers kill their cattle humanely and mostly with a rifle. I know members of this House who are killing up to 10 beasts a month and distributing the meat. They are practically running a small butchery. Surely this House will accept that where a beast is killed upon a farm and shot that that is humane enough. If it is going to be accepted that a rifle comes under the Act, you will do away with the essence of the whole Bill. We were told that this method is not satisfactory, and that a humane killer must be used. I think it, would be quite satisfactory if we applied the humane killer to slaughter-houses, controlled or established by a local authority, and outside that local authority the Minister should proclaim the area to come under the Act. There is no complicated machinery involved, and it is only a question of actual killing. You will find that you have got to have a certificate before you can kill these animals. The certificate must be issued by the local authority. Who is the local authority so far as farms are concerned? Will there be an examination conducted by the magistrate, if he is to be the local authority, on the capability of a farmer to shoot an animal? Then you also provide that a licence once granted is not transferable. I can see great difficulty in the magistrate issuing a licence. He may not consider a man is competent to kill under the Act. I understood it was the intention of the House to apply the Bill to slaughter-houses in particular. I hope the House will accept the amendment.

I hope the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) will not press this amendment. The whole scope of the Act has been to affect the slaughter of animals on a large commercial scale, and there is no necessity for the amendment that I can see. The number of animals that are likely to be slaughtered on a farm will probably be not more than ten per month. There is no reason why this particular class should be exempted as desired by the hon. member. The committee may be reminded that practically 99 per cent, of the cruelty in the slaughter of animals takes place with respect to wild animals. Farm animals are domesticated, and the amount of cruelty entailed in their slaughter is not very considerable. The amendment would weaken the whole Bill.

Under the Bill, when a farm does come under it, the farmer will have to erect a race and pens besides having to comply with other irksome restrictions. I have no assurance that the House will accept the amendment permitting ten animals to be killed without bringing the place where they are slaughtered under the operation of the Bill. Are there not dozens of farms where more than ten sheep are killed in a month? If the committee does not accept the proviso I propose, any farmer who wants to kill more than ten sheep in a month will come under the operation of the measure.

I hope the committee will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). He has suggested that his only object is in view of the possibility of the Bill being extended so as to cover the slaughter of small stock, and he has said that possibly there are a number of farmers who are carrying on small butcheries. The object of the Bill is to ensure as far as is practicable that the slaughter of animals for human consumption shall be carried on under humane conditions. Therefore, I see no reason why a farmer or anybody else who is running a small butchery should be allowed to slaughter except under the conditions laid down in the Bill.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) stated that a rifle would be regarded as a mechanical instrument of slaughter.

He did not say that.

That makes my amendment all the more necessary. It has been said that you can use a rifle to shoot an animal for human consumption, but you cannot shoot sheep. Therefore you have to have a humane killer and a licensed slaughterer. We do not want to see any unnecessary suffering, but it is time the farmer sat up and took notice. The amendment will not weaken the Bill, but it only means that when you want a specific farm butchery to be brought under the Act, you say so.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson in line 9 put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Abrahamson, Badenhorst, Chiappini, Friend, Gilson, Munnik, Payn, Shaw and R. A. T. van der Merwe) voted for the amendment, the chairman declared it negatived.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move-—

I take it that this clause intends to provide that only a skilled operator shall use the humane killer with la minimum of suffering to the animal. That is the only possible conclusion to which I can come. Surely a man who has a licence can go to the next area without taking out a fresh licence, which seems to be absurd, and putting restrictions on which seem to be entirely unnecessary. If the only motive is that the operator should be skilled, he is as skilled in one area as another.

I hope my hon. friend will not proceed with his amendment. A mail by his conduct or habits, although he holds a licence, may be out of employment in one of the slaughter-houses, and may move to another area, where, perhaps, the circumstances are not known. The clause is in general conformity with the rules for licences, a licence usually being only available in the province or the area where it has been granted.

With the leave of the committee, I wish to withdraw my amendment, and, instead, I move as an amendment—

With the leave of the committee, Mr. Gilson’s first amendment withdrawn.

The operator using a mechanical killer will be in possession of his own licence. The circumstances may be as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has suggested. Such a man may find himself within the jurisdiction of a local authority, and he may present what may purport to be a clean licence, although his services may have been terminated with the former local authority in any but a satisfactory manner.

I do not mean endorse in the sense meant by the hon. member who has just spoken.

I think this is quite an unnecessary complication.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

This is intended as a technical change in view of the fact that the Administrator and the provincial council have jurisdiction over the municipal council.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

In line 42, after “1919)” to insert “and for the purposes of Sections 1 and 2 includes a magistrate within whose area of jurisdiction any land or premises are situated, if such land or premises are not situated within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority as defined in the said section”,

I move—

In line 36, after “Governor-General”to insert “under authority of a resolution by both Houses of Parliament, which resolution shall stipulate the number of such animals which shall be required under Section 1, subsection (1) (b) to bring such land or premises under the provisions of this Act”; in lines 43 to 45, to omit the definition “Minister” and to substitute the following new definition:

I move—

In line 35, to omit “calf,”.

The committee has accepted that it is not necessary to deal with small animals. It is an absurd thing to use a humane killer on a very young calf, when you do not use it on a sheep. Calves are all killed at about three weeks old, and the process is absolutely painless. I hope hon. members will agree to the omission of the word “calf” from line 35.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Swart and Brig.-Gen. Byron put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

As this motion deals with a very important report, I think it will be advisable for me shortly to set out, this afternoon, what is here asked for. I have had a short resume of the contents of the report, to which this motion refers, laid before hon. members. As for the report itself, I wish, first of all, to say a few words about the origin of it. Hon. members will remember that the report of the imperial conference in 1926 said that it was not possible to deal at that conference with certain things arising out of resolutions of the imperial conference about inter-dominion relations, and that they were matters of such a kind that they would have to be dealt with by a commission which would be specially appointed after the conference. Accordingly, that commission was appointed to deal with the matters mentioned in this report, and to report on them. Now we must not forget that the imperial conference of 1926 in its report laid down—this is the basis of everything— the equality of all members of the British commonwealth of nations. That declaration of equality had, at the same time, the result that existing relations were, of course, broken, and, further, that it was necessary to fix new relations. Old capacities were repealed, and new ones had to be put in their place. The commission that was to be appointed would consider everything and advise what was to be done. Representatives were sent to that commission by the various parts of the British commonwealth of nations, and they were given the instructions which are quoted on page 5 of their report, These were that they should enquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning—

1. (I) Existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorizing the disallowance of such legislation.
2. (II) (a) The present position as to the competence of dominion parliaments to give their legislation extra-territorial operation. (b) The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that, each dominion parliament should have power to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the dominion.
3. (III) The principles embodied in or underlying the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and the extent to which any provisions of that Act ought to be repealed, amended or modified in the light of existing relations between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations as described in this report.

It is in execution of those instructions that the conference then met, considered matters, and thereafter handed in this report which has already been laid on the table. With regard to the contents of the report, I just want to make a few brief remarks with reference to the printed summary that hon. members have received. The report can be divided into three main headings. The first is that the Government of the United Kingdom will pass a certain Act; now I want to point out to hon. members that the motion before the House is to ask for approval of the proposed recommendation and principles, and to give authority to the Government to take the necessary step to carry out those recommendations. The first recommendation concerns the approval of the Union Parliament that the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall pass an Act which lays down that in the future South Africa, just like all other dominions, shall have the right, equally with England, to pass laws with regard to extra-territorial matters. The second is, that the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which is still in force to-day, and which provides that no dominion parliament shall have the right to pass an Act in conflict with the British Act on certain subjects, shall cease to exist, and that for the future the Parliaments of the dominions have the right equally with the Parliament of Great Britain to make laws that they may think desirable. In the third place, that with reference to the future Acts of the British Parliament no such Acts shall any longer be passed which derogate from any Acts of a dominion Parliament. Then there is another point to which the Union Parliament is asked to give its approval. This relates to an Act which was passed by the British Parliament in connection with the succession to the throne. It provides that neither the British Parliament nor a dominion Parliament shall have the right to make an alteration by an Act of Parliament in the Act which regulates the royal succession, but that where it is desirable for any alteration in the royal title, or the provisions with regard to the succession to the throne, it can only be done with the joint consent of all members of the British commonwealth. The reason for this will at once be evident to hon. members. Now that the Colonial Laws Validity Act is repealed, and now that the right is given to every dominion Parliament to pass any law it pleases, it would, if such a provision were not adopted, be open to every dominion Parliament to say which requirements would have to be complied with, e.g., in matters of faith by a candidate for the throne. The one would be able to lay down that such a person must be a Roman Catholic, the other that he must be a Protestant, and a third would probably make no stipulations with regard to belief. Such a thing would be very undesirable, and it would lead to the greatest confusion and discord. Therefore, the recommendation has rightly been made by the commission that in relation to the succession to the throne it shall be provided that any alteration must be made only with the consent of all the dominions. Besides this, there is no other restriction on the dominions. But with regard to this one matter, we say that we are not of our own motion going to make an alteration. Then I come to a further matter in the first section, viz., that the word “dominion” shall be defined. The word “dominion” is used in the Interpretation Act of 1889, and that also applies to other dominions than those we refer to to-day when we talk about the dominion of the British commonwealth of nations. It also applies to the colonies, besides the territories that we to-day call dominions, the equal free and sovereign states of the British community of states. The proposed Act will define that word in such a way that a distinction is made. Then I come to two further matters of this heading, the first affects the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. In that Act there are certain sections which prohibit the dominions from passing certain laws, and of acting independently. In future every dominion shall have the right to pass its own Merchant Shipping Act if it thinks fit. Further on the commission makes certain recommendations about what is to be done to substitute provisions for the sections of the Act that lapse. The second matter which I have referred to concerns the colonial admiralty courts. The existing position is defined by an Act of the British Parliament, and the dominion Parliaments have no right of amending it. In this matter also the dominion Parliaments will in future have the right to deal with matters as they please. The commission also made recommendations in this case as to what wording should be used in place of the sections which lapse or are repealed. In one word the recommendations amount to this, that there must be voluntary co-operation and agreement in connection with such matters. A way is also suggested as to how the co-operation is to take place. Then I come to the second heading to which I referred. This heading starts with the words—

This alone is sufficient reason why I am coming even at this stage to Parliament to obtain approval of this report. There are, of course, other reasons as well why it is necessary. Here, however, we come to two subjects in connection with which it is necessary for the next imperial conference to know what the various legislative bodies think about them, and whether they are in agreement on them. The first thing to be recorded is—

In future the British Parliament will not be able to make any laws for the dominions except at the request of the dominions themselves. Now I want to say in this connection that this would not have been recommended if it were not that in the case of Canada and Australia we have countries with a federal constitution. It is alleged, I think correctly, that certain constitutional amendments cannot be made if the British Parliament does not take part in it. Here in the Union the right is given to our Parliament to alter the constitution as we wish, subject, of course, to a two-thirds majority in connection with specified matters. But in Australia and Canada there are constitutions which require the intervention of the British Parliament when certain alterations have to be made. Alterations which will have to be made in consequence of the resolutions of the imperial conference of 1926. The British Parliament will be expected to commence as soon as possible with an endeavour to grant the dominions in practice their complete independence. Legislation will, therefore, have to be introduced as soon as possible. So much for the application of the first convention under this second group. The second convention which is to be recorded is that referring to the succession to the throne. While the first convention does not apply to us, we are actually concerned with the second one, and as the British Parliament will probably be introducing a Bill next year which, inter alia, will deal with that, it is necessary, when I go in October or September to the imperial conference, for me to be able to say that, as far as we are concerned, approval has been obtained from the legislative authority in the Union. That is, therefore, the second heading containing two conventions which this House is asked to approve of. The third heading contains the recommendation—

Then follows a series of usages and practices approval of which is asked for. III (a) refers to the disallowance of law. As we know, the King is given the right, under existing statutes, and even under our Act of Union, to disallow an Act which has been passed by us, even when it has been signed by the Governor-General; the King is empowered within a certain time to disallow such an Act. In the old days the disallowance had to be done on the recommendation of the British Government, the British Ministers. It is clear that under the new arrangement, as laid down in 1926, the disallowance should only take place if it is suggested on the authority and recommendation of the Government of our country, itself, and in terms of the provisions of the statutes of our own country. The same applies with regard to other customs, such as the right of reservation (b). To-day there are still two kinds of reservations. The King has the right to reserve an Act before giving his approval to it; in one case it is laid down by statute that he shall reserve it until something or other has taken place, while in the other case he can arbitrarily reserve an Act until he approves of it. In the past the reservation had to be done on the advice of the British Government. That also lapses, of course, and in future it will only be done—according to the recommendation of the commission—when the Union Parliament, which, so far as South Africa is concerned, will be the only competent power, shall lay down when, in respect of what, and by whom, the reservation shall take place, and only Union Ministers will have the right to give any such advice to the King. As stated by the commission in their report, the British Government will not have the right, whether in the case of disallowance or of reservation, to give the King advice in any way in conflict with the advice of the Union Government. Then I come to IV. It is there provided that the Union Parliament may abolish the right of disallowance as laid down in the Act of Union. I have already referred to this, and the Parliament of the Union will, therefore, say what is to happen. IV (b) lays down that the Parliament of the Union can amend the constitution of the Union except the provisions of Section 152 of the Act of 1909, i.e., the two-thirds majority with regard to certain matters. I then come to the last heading, No. V. The greatest portion of the report, to all intents and purposes, deals with practical measures that are required in this connection, and in this fifth heading matters of uniformity in legislation and in judicial matters are dealt with. It is laid down that admiralty courts shall come directly under the dominions, and it contains provisions with regard to other practices in connection with which uniformity is desired. Hitherto it is obvious that informity could only be reached by the British Parliament, which could establish the uniformity by passing legislation that would apply to the dominions, or by legislation subsequently acknowledged or passed by the dominions. Now it was suggested that the British Parliament in future should no longer have such a right, but that what what was to be done was that uniformity in relation to laws and customs should be arrived at by mutual consultation, mutual agreement, after discussion. This will apply to all dominions, just as much as to England. To give an example, it is recommended, e.g., in (a)—

That is clear. I am only referring to it in passing to give hon. members an idea of what is recommended here. I further refer to (f) as an example where it is recommended—

All these matters are points which are dealt with in the report from (a) to (x). They all refer to matters of such a kind as are of common interest to the various dominions!, and will remain of common interest as long as we remain in the position we are in at present, viz., of close mutual co-operation in the form of the British commonwealth of nations. We, therefore, see that the contents of the whole report are very simple, and the subjects dealt with are all subjects of which we have often heard in and out of the House, and in connection with which we have often sufficiently expressed the advisability of their being left in future in the hands of the various dominions. That is recommended here. The effect of the whole report will be that there will now be added to the declaration of 1926 of complete equality, independent equality with England of all the dominions, and of England with the dominions, that the dominions are enabled to exercise, just as Great Britain does, equality or all the things which are dealt with in it; in this respect we shall have the same freedom as England has. I must say that the acceptance of this report appears to me to be the termination of the old conditions which prevailed in the past, and that by this not alone are new rights created, but a new position so far as the dominions are concerned, and they are put on a footing that they have never yet had in the past. Hitherto we have, indeed, had declarations in abstracto, but as soon as the British Government now does the needful we shall, in actual practice be put on a completely equal footing with Great Britain. I only wish to say that I think that since 1926 the change which has come in feeling in South Africa, the change that has come about even in opinion about this matter of complete independence, has been such that it must have convinced us even to-day that no better line could have been adopted to obtain so much co-operation, of cordial, close co-operation, among the various members of the commonwealth of nations, than by what was suggested in 1926, and which is now becoming an accomplished fact by means of these proposals. I think I can say with absolute right that it is no longer felt that a weakening in co-operation has been, brought about by the declaration of 1926, but that in respect of co-operation within the empire it has just had the opposite effect, a thing which I have always prophesied, and which anyone would have expected who thought a little about the phenomenon of how much more steadfastness is always obtained by harmony than by constant wrangling about questions of what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done. That wrangling has been got rid of, and there is more co-operation than there has ever been.

seconded the motion.

Nobody has listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon without appreciating the immense difficulty of the subject with which we are dealing. We are dealing with matters which go to the roots of the British commonwealth of nations, as we understand it. Very difficult questions of law and of principle arise, and hon. members need only have listened to him and have tried to follow him to appreciate the enormous difficulties that surround the whole subject; but the importance of the subject is even greater than the difficulties, and I think we are all deeply indebted to that conference that sat in London some months ago and tried to solve these knotty problems with which they were presented in this connection. The Prime Minister has explained how this report has arisen. The conference of 1926 in its very important resolutions did not go beyond dealing in general outline with the subject. They did not come to grips in their resolutions with the particular details, but passed general resolutions on the equality and status of the various dominions, and left a whole host of problems in their wake, and it was agreed that these problems which were beyond their time and competence should be left to a special conference which was called for the purpose, and it is these problems which were dealt with by the constitutional conference which sat in London last November and December—the principal problems with which they had to deal—that the Prime Minister has referred to. I may just make a few remarks to deal with the situation, and make clear, so far as I understand the matter, what really was settled at this conference. The first problem dealt with was that of the King’s veto. The second was that of the application of our laws, beyond the confines of our dominions. Our constitutions, not only of the Union, but of the other dominions, make provision that our laws shall be for the peace, order and good government of the dominions, and that naturally limits the application of them territorially. The third problem was the conflict which arises between the laws of the British Parliament and the laws of the dominion Parliaments. The old principle has been that in case of conflict, the Act of the British Parliament took precedence over and nullified the Act of the dominion with which it was in conflict. If there was to be equality in every respect, that inferiority had also to be wiped out. This is one of the problems, perhaps the main problem, with which the conference had to deal. The question of the Merchant Shipping Acts was raised, which are very important in practice for the British commonwealth of nations as a whole; it was British legislation which dealt with British ships over the whole of the empire, and if there is to be legislative equality in this respect, too, it becomes necessary to see how it would be possible to harmonize the legislative claims of the various dominions with those of Great Britain in order that there may be uniformity established with regard to shipping legislation. It was undoubtedly one of the most difficult and intricate problems with which the conference had to deal. In the first place, then, there is the question of the veto. We are all acquainted with the position which has existed hitherto—at any rate in theory—that a dominion law can be passed by a dominion Parliament, assented to by the Governor-General, and theoretically the British sovereign has the right, with the advice of his British Ministers, to veto it. I do not know that it has been exercised for many years; in South Africa the royal veto has never been exercised in respect of any Act passed by the Union Parliament. There may be cases where it has been exercised in regard to the legislation of other dominions, but I am not aware of a single case. We may, therefore, say that the royal veto has become as obsolete in the dominions as it has become in British practice. In Britain I believe for some hundreds of years the royal veto has not been exercised. What this report does is to place the dominions exactly in the same position as Great Britain in this respect. It is here laid down that the royal veto shall drop in law, and shall not be exercised in regard to any dominion legislation. If a dominion wishes formally to abolish the royal veto, it is at liberty to do so. That is the position with regard to the royal veto. With regard to the question of reservation, we know the practice exists under which in every dominion constitution it is competent, and it is sometimes obligatory, for the Governor-General to reserve certain legislation for the consideration of His Majesty. We have these provisions in every dominion constitution. We have them in the South Africa Act, provisions under which certain matters have to be reserved for the consent of His Majesty. Naturally when such a reservation is made His Majesty in considering these matters has had to act on the advice of his British Ministers. The question of dominion equality again requires that this matter of a reservation should be put on a right footing, and it is here laid down in this report that in future, if the power of reservation was to continue, the King shall exercise his discretion of assent or disallowance only on the advice of his dominion Ministers, and not of his British Ministers. There are two kinds of reservation; there is discretionary reservation, and there is compulsory reservation, but in both these cases the King has to act simply on the advice of his dominion ministers, and if the dominion wants to abolish the power of reservation there again the report recommends that the British Parliament should come to the assistance of such a dominion, and help it so far as possible to change the constitution. Where the dominion Parliament has the power to change its own constitution, as we have here, it need not invoke the assistance of the British Parliament. Here again a successful attempt has been made to put the dominion parliament on an equality with the British Parliament. The next point is what has been called the extra-territorial jurisdiction. Under our dominion constitution we have a circumscribed sovereignty. We can only legislate for the peace, order and good government of the dominion, and our legislation is, therefore, limited to the dominion. We have had very difficult questions arising under this provisions in our constitution. We had to pass an Act in respect of South-West Africa, which enabled us to exercise the mandate. The question has arisen whether under our constitution we had a right to pass legislation of that kind, which dealt with matters in a neighbouring territory. That question and all similar questions are now finally set at rest by the recommendation of this conference, which goes the whole length of declaring that the dominion Parliament shall in future have the same unlimited right of legislation as regards territorial jurisdiction or otherwise, as the Imperial Parliament itself has. There is no limit whatever. We may pass laws not only with regard to our own Union subjects, but with regard to anything or anybody in the wide world; and with regard to not only our Union territory but any portion of the globe where we think our legislation is called for. There is no limit whatever except the good sense of Parliament. I know that this has been a matter of criticism. I have seen that some constitutional pundits in Great Britain have argued that in this respect the conference went too far in giving the dominions power to pass legislation not only in respect of their own nationals and their own territory, but without limit. But the conference has not bothered over this question, and has recognized the equality in this respect of the dominion parliaments with the British Parliament. Then I come to the other matter, the point of conflict between Acts of the British Parliament and Acts of a dominion parliament. There, as the Prime Minister has explained, the matter is settled by the old Colonial Laws Validity Act, which was passed as far back as 1865, and which provided that wherever there was a conflict between a British Act of Parliament and a Colonial Act the British Act should have over-riding force over the Colonial Act. That Act as is explained very clearly in this report, was never passed with the intention of limiting the power of the colonies, but came to have just the opposite effect of what was intended, and it is curious how in course of time an Act passed with one intention comes ultimately to further an entirely different intention and object. The Colonial Laws Validity Act was passed in England in 1865 because of difficulties which arose in Australia. Just as in the Transvaal many years ago, the courts of Australia claimed the testing right, that is the right to say that where an Act of an Australian colony was in conflict with the common law of England, there the Colonial Act should be null and void. The courts held that certain principles of English common law were so fundamental, so far-reaching, that no colonial Parliament had the right to pass any law in conflict with such far-reaching and vital principles, and it was because of this testing right, as it was called, that time and again laws passed by the colonial parliaments were set aside by the courts as being in conflict with the common law of England. That was, of course, leading to an intolerable situation, and then the British Parliament intervened, not with the intention of curbing the rights of the Australian parliaments, but with the intention of extending and helping them, and the Colonial Laws Validity Act was then passed, which declared that the common law of England had nothing to do with the matter. It was only in case of conflict between an Act of the British Parliament and an Act of the colonial parliament that the colonial Act would be invalid, but no conflict as between the colonial Act and a principle of the English common law would invalidate it. The Act was passed with the intention of increasing, so to say, the legislative power of the colonies, but it came to have the opposite effect, Of recent years it has been argued that the dominion parliaments are in an inferior position because this Act declares that in every case an Act of the British Parliament shall have precedence. Now the conference comes forward and explains the whole position historically, and lays down that this law shall no longer apply, that in no case in future will a dominion Act be invalid simply because it conflicts with a British Act. The dominion Act will be just as valid within its jurisdiction as the British Act is within its own sphere. There are both sovereign and both valid and the legislative position of a dominion parliament is put on a par with that of the British Parliament. From this recommendation arises a number of difficulties and this is the real crux of the situation—the subject which apparently has given the conference the greatest trouble of all. If there is to be this equality in every respect, between the dominions and Britain— if there is to be perfect legislative equality— what other bond is there to keep them together? If it is a case of perfect equality would that not tend to disruption, and the question narrows itself down to that of the British Crown. There is an Act of Succession which settles the question of succession to the British Crown. If it is competent for every sovereign dominion to pass its own Act of Succession, what will remain of the British commonwealth? It would be competent if it had sovereign legislative power for Ireland, for instance, to abolish the kingship or to adopt a different royal house, and the result would tend inevitably to the disruption of the British empire. The sovereign rights of the dominion parliaments make it necessary to deal with this question of succession to the throne unless the unity of the British empire is to be placed in jeopardy. The position was dealt with by the conference, and they come to a declaration which undoubtedly is the most important matter which has emerged from their recommendations. I wish to read this declaration because it is omitted from the summary which the Department of External Affairs have drawn up. The declaration on succession is as follows and appears on page 11, paragraph 60. It is the paragraph which is printed in italics and the recommendation is as follows—

In other words, no change can be made to the succession to the British Crown throughout the British commonwealth of nations without the assent of the British Parliament and all the dominion parliaments. Suppose in South Africa we declared a republic, and we intended to tamper with the law as to the succession to the throne or to substitute another royal house for the present one, or we wanted to make cur king one of the other members of the royal family. In order to carry out our will we shall require not only an Act of this Parliament but an Act of the British Parliament, and an Act of all the parliaments of the other British dominions as well. This position I mention in the case of South Africa is a position established now for the whole of the commonwealth. If the Act of Succession has to be altered in regard to Britain, it cannot be done by a British Act of Parliament. They have no more jurisdiction as to altering the succession to the British throne other than we have. This fundamental law of the commonwealth can only be repealed by absolute unanimity of all the parliaments in the commonwealth. Under these circumstances I do not think we are likely to see any change in the succession to the throne. Some difficult questions might arise in the future—I hope they will never arise—when a Royal house might become defunct and some provisions would have to be made for the succession to the throne in the commonwealth, but so long as there are members of the royal family who can occupy the throne, humanly speaking no change can be made. I think we may welcome this recommendation of the conference. It settles once and for all what might have led to grave controversy in the commonwealth in future. Here in South Africa we know that we have had the question of secession before us. That question has now been eliminated.

If what you say is right, it may be the beginning of the thing.

That is the declaration in the meantime. Hon. members will see that the recommendation is that it is intended to embody this declaration in the preamble to the Act which will have to be passed by the commonwealth, and to which the Premier has referred. Well that, no doubt, is far and away the most important recommendation of the conference. But there are other recommendations too of very great importance. There is, for instance, that which deals with the matter of constitutional amendments. That is a question which has repeatedly been discussed in South Africa. If we are a sovereign Parliament, can we do with our constitution as we like? And the recommendation there is this, that certainly, so far as South Africa is concerned, we have full sovereign power to amend our constitution, except in so far as that constitution contains a limitation in Article 152. A two-thirds majority of a joint session of the Houses is a provision which it is humanly impossible for us to get away from, however sovereign we may be. That is an inherent limitation of our power to amend our constitution.

By whom is it limited?

The limitation is there. I may point to the United States. As hon. members know, the United States is a sovereign country. It has a constitution which cannot be altered by the Congress of the United States. It has a constitution which it is only possible to alter with the greatest difficulty, and, in fact, very few constitutional alterations have ever been made. The hon. member knows, from the terms of the United States constitution, what is necessary in order to make an amendment. But even a sovereign country, however sovereign it may be, has to carry out the terms of its constitutional arrangements. We are in that position. The other dominions are in a worse position than we are in this respect. Canada, for instance, cannot change her constitution at all. We can change our constitution, but subject to a certain majority in certain cases. Canada, in any case, has to go to the British Parliament to get an alteration of her constitution. It may be said that these are terms of inferiority, but I think that will be a wrong view of the situation. It would be just as wrong as it would be to say that the United States, because congress cannot alter the United States constitution, is not a sovereign power. It is a case simply where there are inherent limitations in the constitution which even Parliament cannot get over. The difficulties in Australia and Canada are much more formidable than here, and Canada, in any case, will have to go to the British Parliament. The last matter dealt with by this report is the Merchant Shipping Acts. I am not going to deal with that matter, because it is most intricate. But there is no doubt that it will be necessary in future for us to deal with a number of subjects in regard to which, so far, we have relied upon the British Parliament, in the case of merchant shipping and uniform conditions and the treatment of ships all over the British empire. Take another case, the case of our jurisdiction over our armed forces, if they happen to be outside of this country. So far, we have no legislation of that kind, and we have simply relied, for the government of our armies abroad, on British legislation. Take again prize courts and prize laws, and of some Acts which we have hitherto not been able to pass in the terms of our constitution, but which, once we are placed on a footing of equality, and we can no longer rely on British Acts, we shall have to deal with ourselves. The conference report deals with these matters, and makes recommendations, and says it is, on all grounds, advisable to have uniform legislation in these matters. We shall have to proceed by way of agreement, by way of understanding, and pass uniform legislation in the various parts of the empire. There is another matter, perhaps the most important of all, that arises in this connection. That is the subject of nationality. We have dominion nationality, and our own Nationality Act which we passed some years ago. Canada has another. There is no doubt that, for many purposes, we require the recognition of our own separate nationhood and our own national status. At the same time, as subjects of the British Crown, we have a common nationality right throughout the commonwealth. It would be necessary in dealing with this common nationality, as distinct from dominion nationality, whatever legislation is passed, or steps are taken altering this position, that a common arrangement be made for the commonwealth. On that matter too, recommendations are made by the conference. There is one matter which the conference finally deals with which was not remitted to it by the conference of 1926, but which has naturally cropped up and may become a subject of great importance in the years to come. It is quite possible, it is even probable, that misunderstandings and difficulties and arguments may arise between members of our commonwealth. It may be on any matter. It may be on a matter of financial or economic policy, or it may be on any other question which we need not discuss to-day. The question is, how are we to deal with matters of that kind, matters of difference and dispute between the members of our commonwealth, the various equal dominions? The suggestion here is made that in future, a tribunal should be erected for the purpose, and tentative suggestions are made about the nature of such tribunal, but the details are not worked out. It was not a matter under the direct instructions given to the conference, and they did not want to push the matter; but it is one of the matters to be dealt with. I think it is a matter which will require very careful consideration. We cannot go forward in the future on the assumption that no difficulties will ever arise in the commonwealth. It is possible that such difficulties may arise, and I think we should be wise if the ordinary precautions are taken, and machinery set up by a future Imperial Conference which will deal with such situations, if unhappily they should arise. I now come to the last point I want to raise, that is the motion before us. The motion before us asks that we should approve, in principle, of these recommendations to which I have referred.

Not as being interpreted by you.

That raises some difficulty which I want to mention. No doubt the Prime Minister naturally and properly wants some instructions from this House when he goes to this conference. He wants an indication of the feeling of this House as to how we would like him to deal with these most important recommendations and legislation which are before us. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to say that on general lines, and in principle, I agree to these recommendations. I wish to point out that really what we are dealing with now consists of recommendations made not to us but for a coming conference. The constitution conference which sat last year was, as it were, a committee of the Imperial Conference of 1926 to work out details and to apply the general principles laid down in 1926. These recommendations which they have formulated have to be submitted to the next Imperial Conference. The recommendations were not really meant for our approval, but for the coming Imperial Conference; therefore our constitutional approval will only be wanted at a later stage. I am quite prepared, so far as I am concerned, to tell the Prime Minister at once that in principle and on general lines, I agree to the recommendations. I know that when he comes back from the Imperial Conference, and that conference has approved of these recommendations and has drafted an Act—because there will have to be an Act which will have to be passed through the British Parliament, and will have to be approved by us, we shall have to approve of such Act. Besides the Act there will have to be a record of constitutional understandings of which we also will have to approve. I assume that both these documents will be prepared in the coming conference. A Bill for the British Parliament will have to be prepared, and we shall have to agree to that document here too. We cannot allow the British Parliament to pass any Act with reference to South Africa of which we have not approved. Out-constitutional dignity under the new arrangement will not allow us to see the British Parliament pass an Act referring to South Africa which we have not given our consent to besides the general approval which we are giving today. I am sure we shall have to give specific approval to a document to be prepared at the next Imperial Conference, which will be brought before us.

Surely it depends on what it contains.

We claim to be a sovereign independent country, and we are not going to allow the British Parliament to pass any Act in reference to us without our approval.

I am very glad to see you are so careful about our sovereign rights this time.

This is one of the questions which the Imperial Conference will have to thrash out. It will be in harmony with what is laid down in these recommendations, that the British Parliament, in future, will never pass any legislation in regard to a dominion without the consent of that dominion.

It depends whether it is to its prejudice.

Whether it is to its prejudice or to its advantage we are not going to allow our sovereign rights to be dealt with by any other Parliament than our own. I want to see the report carried out in the letter and the spirit, and that seems to me to be the proper way in which approval will have to be given. The approval we are giving to-day is merely an approval of instructions, so to say, to the Prime Minister that on these lines he may proceed. We may have no objection to his proceeding on these lines, and to committing South Africa on these lines, but when the final Act has to be consummated and a legislative Act is passed by the British Parliament, we shall have to be consulted as a Parliament when we have the final document before us and we can see where we are. I am sorry I have had to detain the House so long, but we are dealing with matters of the greatest importance—matters which go to the roots of the system under which we work, and as far as I am concerned I give my general consent to these resolutions.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has just, placed an interpretation on our status, and on the effect of the report of the commission of the conference, which I feel that I, speaking for myself at any rate, cannot allow to pass unnoticed. I must assume that the hon. member in dealing with this very important question has very carefully considered the effect of the statements that he made here this afternoon. The hon. member said that if the recommendations of this commission were carried out then we would create such an alteration in the position of our country with regard to the rights which our country would possess in the case of secession, that we certainly would never again hear of this question of secession. I think it is very unfortunate for our country that the hon. member has this afternoon given that interpretation to the recommendations. I do not know whether the hon. member realizes what an apple of discord he has thrown into our midst. We remember what the position in our country was before 1926, and what the relations were between the various sections of the population on that very matter which the hon. member has referred to this afternoon. We notice a tremendous improvement to-day, which, in my opinion, has come about in the country by a certain understanding in the declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926. We do not hear much today in here about secession. Why? Because at any rate we thought that in future we should he in agreement with regard to that declaration of 1926. The 1926 declaration rests on two foundations, the one is complete equality of status, and the second is the free association of the members of the empire.

Under a common Crown.

Yes, but if the hon. member now comes and tells us that in consequence of these recommendations our country will not, in future, be able to exercise its right of self-determination when we desire to do so unless all the dominions concur, then I say that I, personally, repudiate it. I do not think that any hon. member will be found on this side who agrees with that. If that were the position then the hon. member is very wrong when he says that it is the end of secession. No, then it is the beginning of it. Do our English friends not understand that if they give the interpretation that the British commonwealth of rations is based on force, that they are wrong, because we, as a matter of fact, came to an agreement in 1926 because the association was free? If that is what your party stands for, then the fight will only be starting now. If that is actually the view of that party then the old battle will be proceeding afresh. We ought to deplore it because I do not think it necessary. We have started to understand each other better during the last few years, and it was possible because we always thought that no further doubt existed about this question of our self-determination, arid that our association with the other parts of the British commonwealth was voluntary. If the hon. member for Standerton, however, states that we shall, in future, be dependent on what the other dominions say, then I certainly will not accept his interpretation.

The House has had the privilege this afternoon of listening to the Prime Minister and also to the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), both of whom have had an important share in making the history of the matter which we are dealing with this afternoon. Both have contributed to reach the position we are in to-day. I will readily admit that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has contributed a good deal to accustom the people in England to the idea which is already embodied in certain conventions, viz., that the dominions have a status of equality and freedom in the British commonwealth which was eventually acknowledged by the imperial conference. It is also undoubtedly the case that the Prime Minister has done much, even to induce the hon. member for Standerton to take up the position that the Union had to insist upon its rights and freedom. It is also beyond all doubt that the Prime Minister has contributed a great deal to make the constitutional views that existed about the relations with the other portions of the British commonwealth crystalize into the declaration of the imperial conference of 1926. What we have before us to-day is a development out of that declaration. I have read through this report with great interest, and, on the whole, I may say that it has raised a great deal of satisfaction in me, provided I am certain that the construction I put on the words that are here used is the right construction. Accordingly, it is necessary that when the Prime Minister goes to the imperial conference he will get certainty in all respects about the meaning of those words. The report is a logical and consistent attempt to bring the legal position into line with the constitutional position. The report gives us the impression that they have gone to work logically, and that the persons concerned were not afraid of logical conclusions. On the other hand, we must remember that there are men of influence in England who do not attach the meaning to the declaration of the imperial conference that we do. They do not believe that the imperial conference seriously intended that the Colonial Laws Validity Act should be repealed. Keith states, e.g., on the imperial conference—

Keith is, therefore, convinced that if the Colonial Laws Validity Act is repealed, then the way is open for us to secede from the British empire, if the people of the Union desire to do so, and if we decide to pass a separation Act.

You have not read his book.

I have read it, and it is his statement that I am quoting.

That is not his considered opinion.

If it is the view of the hon. member that the educated people in Great Britain express their views clearly, and then later say that it is not their considered opinion, then he cannot have a very high opinion of them. I know that Keith was strongly opposed to that Act being repealed, and that, as he views it, the way would be open for us to secede. He says that the British parliament can never allow that power to go out of its hands. He states—

What is wrong in that?

That is his attitude, and if that was the attitude of the imperial conference, if that is going to be the attitude in future, then the declaration of 1926 is void, and of no value, and then our “free associations” is nothing else than fraud. If I am voluntarily associated with anyone or with a body, then it means that I retain the freedom to withdraw from that association.

Are there not also any obligations connected with voluntary associations?

I want to heartily subscribe to what the Minister of Finance has said here. If the construction is correct that the hon. member for Standerton has given to these words in Clause 60, then it will undoubtedly mean the start of a very great secession movement in South Africa. He will be the cause of it, and I do not know whether he desires that. With regard to this clause, I hope the Prime Minister will get complete clarity about it, so that there shall be no doubt about the matter. He will know that there are men in Great Britain who write about constitutional matters, and who want ideas to take root with regard to our relations to the rest of the commonwealth of nations, which do not represent our attitude or that of some of the other dominions. They are men like Keith, Duncan Hall and Baker, they are men who want to inculcate the group idea, and who want to maintain the point of view which the hon. member for Standerton now wants to adopt here, viz., that when it concerns group questions, such questions can only be solved when all the various dominion Parliaments agree about them. I must say that, not what this section says in so many words about the Crown, but the reasons that are given for it, brings grist to the mill of those persons who take up this attitude. We find, e.g., that Section 59 reads—

According to this paragraph, the reason why all the Parliaments of the dominions must be unanimous on the matter is because it is a matter in which they are all equally interested. From this one could also argue then that there ought to be such concurrence in connection with all matters in which they are equally interested. We cannot agree with such a view, because it handicaps the freedom of South Africa, and of any other state of the British community of states to act independently, when we or they do not agree with the others. We are restrained, and cannot act according to tour own free choice. We must take our stand on the principles which are laid down in the report of the imperial conference of 1926, that report clearly says that in connection with any matter affecting South Africa, it is South Africa herself that must decide on it. In that regard the report reads—

Secession may actually be a question on which the Governments of other dominions will also want to express their views. I maintain that it is a matter which concerns us most deeply, whether we are to remain under the British Crown or not, and it is there where we must allow our free choice to have effect.

Can the Crown assist in destroying itself?

If it suits us, then we have the constitutional right to advise the King in connection with such a matter just as in the case of other matters. Before I leave this point, I just want to say that if the people of South Africa desire a republic—

Who are the people of South Africa?

The enfranchised citizens, and if they desire a republic and Parliament was to pass a resolution to that effect, then the Government would be able to advise the Crown accordingly. There is yet another point that I would like to deal with, and which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton, viz., the court of appeal. We recently quoted a resolution here according to which we also signed the optional clause. Personally, I am still sorry that that was done, but other people thought differently, and I respect their views as such. I want, however, nevertheless, to be very careful in connection with this matter. It is quite possible that in future differences may arise between the dominions mutually and between the dominions and Great Britain, and in the event of our not following the course of other nations in going to the International Court of Appeal, it is necessary that we should have a court of appeal in which we have the fullest confidence, which will not be one-sided, and to which South Africa can resort without the least hesitation. I hope particularly that it will not be a privy council. I believe that in the past there was once a boundary dispute before the privy council. I fear that we are here also concerned with a matter of principle which goes very deep. The reason why it is refused that a dispute between the dominions and Great Britain shall be referred to the general court of appeal, is because that many persons in authority in the British empire take up the attitude that the ordinary international law does not apply to the mutual relations within the British commonwealth of nations, and that we, in such cases, will not be able to go before the ordinary court of appeal. I have here, e.g., a statement by Baker, which gives a very clear view on the matter—

Then further—

I hope the Prime Minister will be very clear on this point. It was, as far as I understand, the position inferred from the standpoint which those people take up who preach the doctrine which was also preached by Amery, viz., the unity and indivisibility of the British Crown, and that unity and indivisibility of the British Crown is the foundation of the whole constitutional building that defines the relations between us and the other states of the British commonwealth. I hope that we shall have great dearness in the matter of the unity and indivisibility of the British Crown, and whether we stand in a personal relation to the Crown of England or not, because on this depends not only the maintenance of our self-dependence, in case of disputes before an international court of appeal, but also the other matter that we raised when we debated these questions last time, viz., the right of South Africa, not only to secede from the British Crown, if the people desire it, but also to remain neutral in times of war. I know well enough that numbers of people in England still hold the view expressed by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), viz., that we have not the right, but we want certainty about the matter. I have statements before me here of importance in the opposite sense, and it is constantly being rubbed under our noses that we do not possess the right. The more they do so, the more we feel inclined to say that we want to have nothing to do with the crowd. Amery said, inter alia—

And Duncan Hall said—

I would like to know whether the Balfour report gives us the right of neutrality or not. I voted for the report, because I believed that it did give us the right, and we stand on that. If it does not give us that right, we shall not have the peace that we otherwise would have. I can assure hon. members of that. There are numbers of statements of that kind, and I mention them because I want it understood that we have not merely invented the thing. Smith and Corbett say—

And Baker again says—

We want certainty about that matter. Then there is another point which the Prime Minister did not explain, and which I would like to bring to his notice, viz., the position with reference to the Colonial Stock Act. As I understand the position is that the Act lays down what colonial securities will be regarded as trustee documents, and that the recommendation in connection with that amounts to this: that in future when they announce such trustee documents, and they are sold by the holders of trust monies, and we pass legislation in South Africa, which may be injurious to the holder of such shares, England can take such a shareholder under her protection, and by an Act declare our Act invalid, or, in any case, can declare invalid the legislation by which such document may possibly be brought into danger. To me it is doubly humiliating. In the first place, owing to our not being masters in our own house, and, secondly, because it is in that way notified that we would not know what would injure our credit and what not. Why should Great Britain be able to protect its investors by dominating our legislation, and telling us what is the right thing? If Great Britain wants to protect its investors, we also want to protect our credit. I hope that the Prime Minister will, in any case, arrange such a compromise that the position will be less humiliating to us. In conclusion, I want to thank the Prime Minister for what he has done to get the declaration of our rights in black and white, and we want to see those rights of freedom and equality maintained as defined. I, and many others will agree with me, would like to have had a different kind of freedom. If I had my way—my own history brings it about, my own feelings and traditions —I would rather see a republic in South Africa. It stands fast, and I do not know why hon. members get the cold shivers when they hear the word “republic”. We all realize that the declaration of the imperial conference and the facts that are now before us were the only practicable form of freedom which South Africa could have at present, and as far the future, the people of South Africa will have to decide what form that freedom is to take, and every man in South Africa, of whatever party, must have the fullest rights to say what, kind of freedom he wants, and what kind of status, and he must be convinced that that form is the best in the interests of South Africa. There is not the least doubt now that the dominions have had their rights, freedom and equality admitted. People who still hold to the obsolete view, like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), will try to see whether they cannot, in some way or other, neutralize the freedom that the dominions have to-day. Whether they cannot handicap that freedom by saying, “how can we now have unity or diplomatic policy in the British empire, how can we make an economic unity of it?”, etc. They will, in that way, try to hamper and undermine the freedom that the dominions have today, and I am very thankful that we have a man like the Prime Minister, who is going to the imperial conference as a sentry to watch over the freedom and the rights of South Africa.

I hope I may say at the outset with great respect for my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, that I did regret that I thought I could detect in the speech that he made a soupcon—a touch—of heat that he might with grace have omitted. As far as I understood, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who was giving a cold and dispassionate examination of what is, after all, a very important document, and he was free to give—and did give—his interpretation of that document, and I should think it would be a matter of regret if, when an interpretation of a matter of this kind is given, if a particular opinion is expressed, that it should be taken up and regarded as something which calls for something in the nature of a threat. I hope my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, will not again think it necessary to give us what I can only characterize as a threat, if a particular interpretation is put upon this document. With regard to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe), may I say that we are not really out for the formation of a creed— we are not out to establish some doctrine of eschatology—but practical men have to consider what is best for our country under the conditions at the present time. We are faced hero by a document which is no revolutionary document. It does not start out in the direction of empire building, its originators were careful and cautious men, and they contented themselves with a declaration of existing practice and the modifications of that existing practice which they thought were desirable in the interests of the common weal. He who starts out to try and trim and shape a tree will find that the decoratory art will lead him not very far upon his path. In shaping your robust tree you should lop and prune the branches which have become decayed, and which are obscuring the vision, and, above all things, you will be wise if you leave the tree perfectly free to grow in whatever direction it likes to the utmost capacity of its roots and sap, and it will give you fruit and shade. That is what the framers of this document have done. They have most carefully said what was the existing practice, the existing law, and what was desirable as a matter of the dominions. Take, for instance, the question of the royal veto. All that they have said in this document is this. They have said, not that the King’s veto is abolished or non-existent, or that it is desirable it should not be used, but they have said that in future, where there is a power of reservation, either discretionary or compulsory, that that power of reservation shall not be used on the advice of His Majesty’s Ministers in England. So far and no farther. That is perfectly correct. I venture to think it is absolutely true and a correct statement of the constitutional practice as at present existing in the light of the imperial conference, and its declarations. Does that mean that the Royal veto is abolished, that it is not to be used? No, it does not. You will see if you peruse this document which is before us, on page 8 in paragraphs 32 and 33, they say in reference to the discretionary reservation and the compulsory reservation that it is left as being the personal decision of his Majesty the King, which would have to be given on any rare occasion that that reservation was called upon for exercise. I venture to say that that should satisfy each and all of us as being accurate and complete, and leaving us in a position to exercise our constitutional function without the smallest shadow of doubt. Does it mean that his Majesty has, on all occasions, necessarily and in the last resort always to follow the advice of the Ministers here? That matter is not answered. It can only be answered by having regard to the necessities of the case and the history of the past. I venture to say that we shall be embarking upon not only an ideal enquiry, but a very dangerous one, and we shall be adopting a reprehensible course, if we try to forecast everything that is to happen, if we try to imagine and conjure up every possibility that may arise, and say: “How can we settle that?” We shall come to blows before ever this rare incident, which may possibly never arise for decision, comes into effect. As practical men, we shall do nothing of the kind, and as practical men and patriotic South Africans we shall do nothing of the sort, but we should accept fully, freely and with both hands the constitution as we have it, and as it exists, and do our utmost to make it a success. Where is the ground for the criticism of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe)? He has raised the question of the possibility of the neutrality of South Africa in case of war. He has asked what we were to do. He wants a clear declaration upon that. He has appealed to the Prime Minister to make a declaration in that connection at the forthcoming conference. I have sufficient confidence in the Prime Minister to think that he will do nothing of the kind. He will leave the future to solve its own difficulties as they arise. But the question as to what the constitution is at the present time, and as to the possible consequences of war breaking out, does not seem to have been visualized by the hon. member for Winburg. May I remind him, at the risk of repeating an elementary truth, that neither England nor South Africa, neither Canada nor Australia ever make war. War is made, as peace is made, under the constitution under which we live by one person, and that is His Majesty, the King, acting with the advice of his Ministers.

Which Ministers?

If you will tell me what His Majesty, the King, is going to do with one set of Ministers advising him one thing, and another set of Ministers advising him another thing, you will have answered your problem. I cannot answer it, and I am certain that no other hon. member can answer it. That is the position, and the whole of this constitutional difficulty, I venture to say, really dissolves into thin air when the simple elementary principle of the constitution is recognized, that it is His Majesty, the King, and not a Parliament here or in any other part of the empire, that makes war or peace. What room is there for making the occasion of the consideration of this report the platform for a recrudescence of past controversies? I hope it will be made the platform for something far, far more advantageous to the people of South Africa. It seems to me that we have an opportunity here of following in the footsteps and accepting the work of our very careful and cautious representatives, who sat at this conference, and of contenting ourselves with regarding carefully what is, what exists, and of making sure that we have got the full opportunity of taking advantage of this machine, and it is a gigantic machine, a machine capable of the greatest possible good, and which nobody would break or damage, who is not in his heart, I was going to say, a bolshevist or a syndicalist in every sense. No, we will surely, as simple, plain men, citizens of South Africa, recognize the conditions which exist and which have been laid down, and send the Prime Minister to attend the conference, with the full assurance that the principles which underlie this Bill are behind it. In its application we will pledge ourselves to give full effect to it, and we have the utmost confidence and trust in the future that by using these powers and taking advantage of our opportunities, by exploiting the resources of this all-powerful machine to the utmost extent, we shall be doing the best for South Africa, for her people now and in the future.

I have listened with the greatest interest to the statement of the Prime Minister, and also to the clear speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). As for the view of the hon. member for Standerton about Section 60 of this report, I can only say that we, on this side, entirely agree with the statement made by the Minister of Finance. It is generally known that there was a feeling of great dissatisfaction in South Africa before 1926, especially on the part of the Afrikaansspeaking section of the population. It was represented to us from various sides that we were not a sovereign independent nation, and the Afrikaans section of the population said that they would never be satisfied until in their own eyes, and in those of the whole world, they were a free, independent nation. The Prime Minister then went to the imperial conference of 1926, but before he went he clearly stated what his intention was. We, on this side of the House, and the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population in general, were quite satisfied with what the Prime Minister obtained by the declaration of the imperial conference. We were also satisfied with this report because we do not share the view of the hon. member for Standerton. We construe Section 60 differently to what the hon. member for Standerton does, but he is a man whose opinion carries further than South Africa alone, and when the hon. member gives interpretation to this section, as he has done this afternoon, then it becomes us to state clearly what attitude we take up. Not only what attitude we take up with regard to the report, but also with regard to the interpretation that the hon. member for Standerton has given to it. I will not say that my opinion is worth as much as that of the hon. member for Standerton, but I am not going to submit to what the hon. member has said. If it actually did occur that we seceded, then we should not be bringing about any alterations in the succession to the throne of the British empire. The only difference it would make is that we would have seceded, and we retain that right of secession. In view of what the hon. member for Standerton has said, I want, however, to repeat that we want to say clearly that the inherent right of South Africa to secede if the interests of South Africa make it necessary, continues to exist. To obtain clarity I am, therefore, going to move an amendment to the motion of the Prime Minister, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept it. It is as follows—

I want to repeat again that if the recommendation is to be regarded that in consequence of this report we no longer have the right of secession, a right which we clearly obtained under the imperial declaration of 1926, then the struggle of prior to 1926 will and must once more go on with the utmost bitterness in South Africa. Just because we want to let the spirit of post 1926 continue, we want clearness on this point. I am convinced that if the House passes this amendment, then, as far as we are concerned, there will not be the least doubt about our relations with the British commonwealth of nations, not only with reference to the declaration of the imperial conference of 1926, but especially with reference to the report now under discussion.

I second the amendment, and I do it with a certain amount of feeling. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has shown a very great disservice to the country by the construction which he has to-day put on paragraph 60. It is with a certain amount of hesitation that I take part in the debate, because I am one of those who, during recent years thought that South Africa was enjoying, and would enjoy a sunnier future, as a result of the adoption of the report of 1926, containing the declaration of the imperial conference, and which was explained in this House by the Prime Minister. I believed that thereafter we would be able to give our undivided attention to the problems of South Africa, but now that we are engaged with the further confirmation of the provisions of the 1926 declaration to definitely lay down what our rights are, and to consolidate our complete freedom, the glove is thrown at us in the form of an interpretation of that declaration which does not coincide with our rights and freedom. In the circumstances I am one who is quite ready to take up that challenge, and I want to say here that if the freedom and complete self-determination of South Africa is attacked, then I do not see any bright future for our country. The old quarrel will be started again, I do not know how long it will last, but we have already seen in the past what the consequences of it were in and to the country. I second the amendment, because it is a matter of life and death to me that the people of South Africa shall have the inalienable right to determine it own course. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) wants to place inacceptable communications on our sovereign rights, and when our right is contested to take action in regard to the British Crown, I want to say that he is still consistent with the attiture he has always taken up since 1912, but that the attitude he took up in 1926 does not in the least coincide with the interpretation he has to day given to the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the question whether it is competent for any member of this hon. House to move an amendment such as is proposed here. Is it competent to deal with every clause of this proposal? I do not know how far this proceedure may go, but it seems to me that if an hon. member can move an amendment to any of the clauses it is going to create a tremendous difficulty. Is it competent for anyone of us to deal with this report seriatim? I think the report is only for the consideration of hon. members.

The hon. member questions the right of any other hon. member moving an amendment to any section. I certainly would not allow any particular clause to be amended, but what the hon. member for Waterberg has moved, is an amendment to the motion, and not one to alter any section of the report. It only expresses an opinion as to the interpretation of a part of the report. Therefore, I must allow it.

Might I point out with deference that the hon. member has singled out a section of this report that he desires to amend. He refers to this particular section.

The hon. member does not move to amend any particular section. He leaves the report untouched.

I was just showing that the freedom of the dominions was a matter of political life and death to me. Therefore, when our freedom is rejected by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), we must at once protest against an interpretation of the report which is before us, it is one of the essential things which we have learnt in the course of years, I might almost say, in the course of centuries, that when we have to do with relations between people and the nations, the result of everything is only misunderstanding, if from the start we do not lay emphasis on clearness and definiteness. Especially when we have to do with a declaration which, in a sense, is a treaty, we must, from the start, insist on absolute clarity. I agree with the Prime Minister that this declaration as completing the declaration of the Imperial Conference practically closes a period in the history of the development of the British empire, and that it has closed a period in our history; and that we are now at the dawn of a new period of cooperation between the two races in the country, and the promotion of our common interests, but if there is no tolerance and co-operation between the two sections, then the future cannot be attractive to us. The report we have here is an important addition to the report of 1926, and because the report of 1926 was received with mixed feelings in various parts of the commonwealth, and even in the same countries, we must have clarity as to the meaning of this declaration, and the Prime Minister must make a statement on a few points of interest. I should like information on a few points, some of which have already been mentioned by other speakers. The first is with reference to the advice which is given to the King to reserve or veto certain Acts. The second deals with the point mentioned in the amendment, and the third is in connection with the report which will be created to dispose of differences between the various portions of the empire. I mention these few points, because I consider this of supreme importance. We must, in this connection, bear in mind that there has always been the factor of the great difference of opinion about questions which are possibly of vital interest to South Africa. The second factor is that we had to do with sections of the British empire where the declaration of 1926 was not accepted as it was accepted by us. We have the phenomenon that some parts of the British empire attach no value, or practically took no notice of the declaration, and if we want to guarantee that there will be earnest co-operation within the British empire, the whole matter must be cleared up, and we must, in any case, have honesty, uprightness and clarity, and no wrangling over the existing rights of our country. I would like to quote a few examples of what I consider an encroachment on the value of the 1926 declaration. Not that they will influence us in connection with the attitude we take up, but it creates a spirit of suspicion, to a certain extent, a spirit of distrust, that this International Declaration of 1926 was not seriously and honestly meant by certain parts of the British empire. I quote a sentence out of a publication by a politician of repute, he says—

The whole of the quotation insinuates that responsible men; men who remained silent on the actual declaration, practically violated the constitution of England, and practically went so far as to incorporate words into the treaty without attaching any meaning to them, merely for the sake of an empty form semblance of unanimity. Then this quotation—

That is the statement of a prominent member of Parliament. If we want to keep the relations between the sections of the British empire healthy then such statements should not be published to the world, declarations that the important report in 1926 was merely something intended to conciliate certain absurd views. A literal interpretation of these statements can only lead to one conclusion, viz., that statesmen who sat on that important conference did not intend that the interpretation which we consider of so great value should be given to it. There are other statements, and I have one here by an important British publicist and jurist. If that is the position then we want at least to see another factor, viz., that the British public shall declare themselves for or against what was passed in 1926. The question has been put; why has the 1926 declaration not yet been put before the British Parliament? Why has not the declaration, apart from the initiative of a single member of the British Parliament, not yet been put before the British public? Why has it not been published to the world? It is surely an important international declaration concerning the various parts of the British empire. If we want to retain cooperation that honesty and uprightness must be on both sides. To go back to the solemn declaration, as the hon. member for Standerton has done to-day, means that the eyes are closed to the history of the development of nationalism in South Africa. Are we from South Africa to remind the British people of the incident at Chanak and in connection with that the treaty of Lausanne? Must we recall the definite attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada even before the declaration of 1926? Must we recall what was done under the treaty of Locarno, why must this apple of discord be once more thrown in our midst? In this connection I want to quote a few more points which were drawn up for serious consideration by British lawyers, viz.—

1. (1) That it has not been approved by any Parliament in the empire save that of the Union of South Africa.
2. (2) That it has never been communicated to foreign governments or as far as I am aware, been submitted to the League of Nations.
3. (3) That, except for one evening discussion, initiated by the present writer on June 29, 1927, it received no attention in the House of Commons. The discussion was brief and unsatisfactory.

At the adjournment I was trying to show that it is necessary that co-operation and mutual good feeling should be cultivated between the members of the British commonwealth. If this good feeling does not exist, then it is not possible to get proper co-operation, and then the Imperial Conferences, which are held from time to time, are entirely useless I expressed this opinion because I am one of those who are convinced that in the existing circumstances it is advisable to have this cooperation. With the statement made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) we feel that, wittingly or unwittingly, willingly, or unwillingly, an attempt is being made to put a damper on the national spirit in South Africa. I am of opinion that in this way the national aspirations of our people are not only hurt but also that an irreparable loss is caused to the position of the Crown and the British empire. The Crown is to-day the only common bond left which binds the parts of the Empire together. The authority of the Crown is based on the social circumstances, and the sentiment of a great section of the inhabitants of the British World Empire. But instead of that bond of affection the statement of this afternoon practically comes down to this that that bond becomes a bond of steel, which is so strong that no dominion, without the consent of the other dominions, can secede from it. If that is really the position then an irreparable loss is caused to the position of the Crown and the British empire. This interpretation, however, conflicts entirely with the view, and the attitude of the report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 which states that the states are freely associated, and when it is said here now that that bund has suddenly become unbreakable, I think that the hon. member for Standerton, himself, will understand that it is an absurdity. I also want to point out that it is in conflict to the spirit of the motion now before the House, more and more power is given to the Governments and the dominions, and the sovereignty is being more and more removed. In conflict with that spirit the hon. member for Standerton now says that the Crown forms an unbreakable bond. I also want to point out that it is quite in conflict with the position of the Crown in the United Kingdom itself. The Crown is dependent on the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It has practically been its property for the last 250 years. As the existence of the Crown in the United Kingdom is dependent on Parliament, it follows that the nations, who in the dominions possess independence, can also decide about the Crown. The proposal of the hon. member for Standerton does not only go back 250 years, but it also conflicts with various statements of leaders in the British empire. I want to point out that Lloyd George said as long ago as 1919 that the dominions had the right of self-determination within their own territory. The view of the hon. member for Standerton presumably is that we no longer have that right of self-determination. Subsequently Bonar Law also stated in the debate on Ireland that the dominions had an absolute right of determining their own fortunes. I feel that if the House were to make no reply to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton people out of the House could assume that we had tacitly agreed to the hon. member for Standerton putting us back thirty years. I want to add that if we accept the motion the Prime Minister must regard it as an instruction from the House that there must not be the least doubt about what the national aspirations of the people are, and that it is the view of the people that the Crown is not obligatory. I further want to point out that it is suggested to establish a court for the decision of disputes between members of the British commonwealth. I feel that we may strike the same difficulty here, viz., that the sovereign right of the people will be handed over to a certain body. They are rights and powers which only the parliaments of various parts of the British commonwealth ought to have, and when differences arise only a court of arbitration can be appointed to settle the differences, but no standing court ought to be established. I am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton made that statement this afternoon, because it merely disturbs the relations in the British empire, but I am convinced that the people of South Africa will have a better and clearer idea of its rights after the debate which has taken place to-day.

Viewing the motion placed on the paper by the Government, the first question one would naturally ask oneself is this, what is the principle this House is asked to adopt; and for the purpose of ascertaining that principle, one would go through the report and find out what its dominant, its keynote is, to find out indeed what the principle is which should be accepted by the House. The debate indicated that if one searched for this principle, one would find it best expressed in Section 60, referred to by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and other hon. members. Perhaps it might be described as the most vital, or one of the most vital, sections of this report. If we turn to the opening lines of the recommendations contained in Section 60, we shall see quite clearly that, read with the quotation from the Imperial Conference report, which appears in an earlier portion of the report, the keynote is the free association of the nations within the British commonwealth of nations. That is from a simple perusal of the language there employed—

They follow on logically and inevitably from the pregnant sentence contained in the report of the Imperial Conference, to be found in Section 8 on page 4 of this report—

If that is the keynote, one stops to examine what is the effect of the amendment. The hon. member asks us to adopt the report without prejudicing the right of secession of the Union of South Africa, which is a clear, unequivocal contradiction of the terms of Section 60. By that section it is laid down that there shall be no alteration in the succession to the Crown except with the consent of all the dominions, including the United Kingdom; but by this amendment we propose to qualify that by saying that the right of secession can be exercised at the will of the Union; in other words, these two things cannot stand side by side; they cannot be reconciled. The importance of this amendment arises from the fact that the Minister of Finance this afternoon, speaking as a member of the Cabinet, and therefore speaking for the Cabinet, because Cabinet responsibility is undivided, adopted the effect of that amendment by stating that he repudiated any interpretation of Section 60 which did not reserve the right of the Union to exercise this so-called “right” of secession. Therefore, I think it is very necessary that there should be clarity on this so-called principle we are asked to adopt. In 1928 we had a similar proposal of equal constitutional importance when the Prime Minister brought before the House a motion for the adoption of the 1926 report of the Imperial Conference, which was adopted unanimously by this House but, when it came to a question of its meaning, the Prime Minister placed an interpretation upon it which was utterly inconsistent with the meaning of the report and the interpretation placed upon it by this side of the House. He said that although that report was about to be adopted by the House as it stood, nevertheless there was the right as far as the Union was concerned to declare itself neutral in any war that might take place—something, may I remark, entirely different from the question of participation in a war. He went much further than the question whether the Union should and said the Union might declare itself neutral. There you had an interpretation placed on a report which was utterly inconsistent with its true meaning. I would like to quote to hon. members opposite an expression of opinion on this very question by someone whose opinion they might regard as of value. This point arose in the discussions on the Imperial Conference report in Canada, when Mr. Mackenzie-King referred, in the course of the discussion, without actually moving the adoption of the report, to some aspects of it, Mr. Bourasa, in speaking upon the whole question, dealt with this so-called question of sovereign independence. He pointed out that to declare neutrality was a prerogative of an independent state, but Canada could not do so and at the same time remain a member of the empire. I am giving you that opinion from someone who has been an advocate of nationalism in Canada. This indicates the extent of the difference of opinion that manifested itself in the House on the discussion on that report. When we come to this important report now before us, I hope we shall not, in dealing with it, be guilty of a lack of precision, and that we shall know exactly where we stand, and what we are about. Let us at least know exactly what we mean, and what we are doing. I want to point out the utter inconsistency of the two points of view, and the House should know what it is about, so that when we give a mandate to the Prime Minister those with whom he deals will know what meaning was attached to that mandate by those who sent him to the conference. When I ask myself the question whether there is this so-called right of secession, which the amendment assumes, I would like to quote an authority on the subject, the authority to which the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) referred, Professor Berriedale Keith I find that in his latest work, “The Internal and External Sovereignty of the British dominions,” he points out that no dominion has the power to secede of its own volition. The fact is that so far from there being a legal right of secession, secession can be brought about only by an act of revolution, and the point we are concerned with in dealing with this amendment is this, whether we wish the Prime Minister of the Union to meet his fellow partners in this great commonwealth, of which we are perpetual constituent members, and to say to them in one breath that he is there to endorse the effect of Section (60), while at the same time reserving the right of South Africa at its own will to effect a revolution. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is consistent with our pride and self-respect to send a representative from South Africa to make that reservation. Every South African is deeply concerned that at this important conference the representative of South Africa should not cut a sorry figure, by coming before it with a contradictory mandate of that character. I realize that it is possible to arouse feeling in dealing with this matter, feeling which I have no desire to arouse. I have as much respect for the feelings of hon. members opposite as I beg of them to have for the feelings of those who sit on this side of the House. I am sorry that an amendment has been brought forward which compels us to stand up and definitely state our views. I would like hon. members to believe that a great many people in South Africa will very much regret that in this rather reckless manner, this amendment has been brought forward. Let me now refer to another aspect of this matter. The stressing of equal association as equivalent to sovereign independence can be met with something else found in the report, and that is the obligations which result from free association. I can appeal again to the Minister of Defence. Surely we do not wish South Africa to be known to the conference, and to the rest of the world, as a nation which shirks the obligations of free association. When I hear hon. members on the other side of the House almost obsessed with the idea that this latest report as it stands in some way affects the status of South Africa, I am sure they will be interested when I tell them how it is viewed by the Irish Free State. It is believed that the Irish Free State stands more to the left than South Africa in matters connected with the conference. If the Irish Free State found in this report anything limiting their constitutional freedom, I think they would have said so. The Irish Free State is one of the partners in this association, yet they found in Section (60) nothing of the supposed danger which hon. members opposite say they perceive. The Minister of Finance said that if Section (60) means what the clear meaning of the words—

You are distorting my meaning. I was dealing with the interpretation of your leader. I addressed the House this afternoon solely on the interpretation which the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) put on the report. It is not my interpretation. I repudiate that interpretation.

Let us make the matter perhaps a little plainer. I would like to see whether there is any real difference between us, that is the difference which is signified by the amendment. Let us at least understand each other. As I understood the speech of the hon. gentleman, he is not prepared to accept the clear and definite meaning of these words in Section 60. These words mean one thing, and one thing only, that the Union of South Africa, bound by a common allegiance to the Crown, which is the symbol of the free association of its members, determines that at no future time shall there be an alteration of the succession, except with the consent of the dominions, who are parties to this document. That is its clear meaning. I take my stand on the plain meaning of the English language used therein. If the representatives of the Union of South Africa at this conference in London had stressed the words “without prejudice to the right of secession of the Union of South Africa,” this report would never have been written. Let me refer again to the Irish Free State. I am seeking to gain no party advantage from this. It would be an advantage if we could see our way to place one interpretation on this document. May I refer to what was said by the Minister of External Affairs when dealing with this report. Certainly, as far as the Irish Free State is concerned, they find nothing in Section 60 to excite their apprehensions. When submitting this report to the Dail Eireann, he stated that this report was the most important constitutional document placed before the Irish Parliament since the treaty of 1921. And here I want to indicate a ground for criticism I will refer to later. He stated that—

It was further stated that “the London conference have swept away many anachronisms. All the dominions must be consulted in regard to the question of succession to the British throne.” Why not, therefore, face the matter with perfect candour? I ask hon. members again to tell me if they can reconcile Section 60 with the amendment before the House. I say that the two phrases are inconsistent. I heard this afternoon comments made on the other side of the House which indicated that hon. gentlemen opposite thought they alone were able to approach this matter from the point of view of South Africa. I approach it exactly in the same way. I would like to quote the words of Mr. Hughes in dealing with the 1926 report in the Australian Parliament, which seem to be singularly opposite to the discussion to-day. He referred to—

and added—

May I impress upon hon. members opposite that, instead of stressing the note of independence that they seek to find in this declaration, they would realize that the interests of South Africa are much more bound up in the establishment of unity and co-operation with our fellow associates, it would not be long before we would find ourselves walking along one path in this respect. I venture to say that to take the legal framework of the constitution to pieces without devising something to take its place will not lead us along this path. There must arise at times matters upon which we must have ready machinery capable of asserting the vital interests of the commonwealth in the interests of each of its parts. This may come up in a most vital form as indeed has been the case in the past. We might, for example, infringe the treaty rights of a foreign power with some other nation in the commonwealth, and our action here might involve other parts of the empire in very serious consequences. Should there not be machinery to prevent conflicts of that kind occurring? In 1909 Australia proposed to pass legislation which would have had the effect of excluding Asiatics from all ships calling at its ports, which might have provoked a revolution in India. The Bill was reserved and lapsed, and so, before we pull the legal framework which can regulate such matters to pieces, we should have something better if possible to put in its place. It was with relief that I heard the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) insist that before any legislative action is taken at Westminster, we should have an opportunity to express our views on the practical aspects involved. I would like to stress another aspect of the matter, and that is the views of prominent shipping interests assembled last March at Liverpool to discuss issues relating to merchant shipping. It must be obvious that before any legislation of this character is passed it should be examined in detail to discover how it may eventually affect our mercantile and shipping interests. We have not the slightest idea as to what changes might be effected in South Africa by tinkering with this law. If we in the result impose additional charges on shipping it will be the importing and exporting interests which will have to pay those charges. Parliament should be careful not to tinker with a system which is working well at present. Instead of devoting our time to matters of theoretical importance, should we not rather realize that with the depression which may last for the next 18 months, we should devote our energies to something other than an attempt to take the legal framework of the empire to pieces? It behoves us to improve our markets, and improve our trade, and pull ourselves through this serious depression. Every discussion such as that following the amendment of this afternoon reacts detrimentally to the development of our markets. If I have any voice which can be of assistance in dealing with this matter, I would say to the hon. member who moved the amendment, that he should withdraw it. I would beg of him to withdraw it. I would beg of him not to discuss questions which long ago should have been disposed of, but to come back to the practical question of unity and co-operation. Let us find points of agreement rather than points of antagonism. If we will do that, it will react not only to our material benefit, but it will enhance our prestige in the great commonwealth to which we belong.

The hon. member who has just spoken has approached this matter from the point of view purely of legal phraseology and interpretation of words. He found fault with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) for moving his amendment, and implied that the introduction of this apple of discord into this debate was entirely the work of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, and those hon. members sitting on this side of the House. I wish to repudiate that charge in the most unequivocal terms. I do not believe there would have been a dissentient voice raised in this discussion had it not been for the way the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) went out of his way to place an interpretation on Section 60 of this report, which, to me, seems as entirely inconsistent with the phraseology adopted in the 1926 resolution as the word “perpetual”, which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) has introduced in this connection. When I reflect upon the two opposite courses adopted by the right hon. member for Standerton, and by the hon. the Prime Minister, and compare the effect of them upon this country, the effect upon the goodwill of all sections of this country to the British commonwealth, I say the right hon. gentleman is continually keeping alive this subject, as if the assertion of the right, if we thought fit, to take our own course, was an assertion of our desire to do so now or at any time. The course taken by the Prime Minister, who knows far better the spirit which has pervaded the whole history of our country, and the manner in which it is interpreted, has been far happier in its results. And when one reflects on the application of that spirit in the declaration of the 1926 imperial conference obtained from such an authoritative body, I say that the free will to associate implies the power also to depart from that association, not that there is any intention to use it; that is not the case. It is undoubtedly the case that for every 50 men in this country, who, before 1926, hankered after secession, I do not believe to-day that out of 5,000 men there is one who to-day wants secession. I agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) in his interpretation of the constitutional position, and though I disagree with some of his opinions, he is certainly a better interpreter of the spirit of the British constitution than many hon. members on the other side. Compare the course followed by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with that of hon. members on this side who represent the feelings of the other stock to that to which I belong and represent accurately their demand that we want to stand in this country, our own country, as free men, as members of a free nation. On those terms they welcome the association with the British commonwealth of nations, but not on any other terms. Supposing this country were Composed of men of the stock from which members over there and I myself come, do you mean to say that we should say that we are to be perpetually bound to any other Government? Has that been the course of our history? One hundred and seventy years ago there was one great section of our race overseas in America. I should like to ask if they showed that they looked upon themselves as perpetually bound if they felt that their association was hurting them. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) used the words "freely and perpetually associated That is an interpretation and not the 1926 resolution. There is not a single soul here who does not agree that the people of South Africa are as free to determine to their own destiny as the people of Great Britain, and would any hon. member here assert that if the people of Great Britain decided to-morrow to drop the British commonwealth of nations, that they had not the right to do so? They have a perfect right to do so.

They have not.

I remember listening to Mr. Amery in a speech he made at Pretoria, in which he discussed the question, and said that there was certainly quite an element in Great Britain who would prefer to drop the commonwealth, and thought it would be a better thing that Great Britain should pursue its own course alone. He defended the position not as a question of legal right, but he defended the present position and the imperial conference resolutiones, not on any legal grounds, but on the grounds that it was far better for all for the future of us all, of the dominions and of the world, that we should continue this free association of nations. I say that the right hon. gentleman in importing this apple of discord into these discussions has done a great disservice to South Africa, and I earnestly hope and trust that he will not extend it by again importing this question into our discussions, for it will be a waste of time. I express my deepest conviction when I hold that freedom is the very principle of the growth of the British commonwealth. Take it away, and you will introduce an element of discord and disunion. The hon. gentleman has read a quotation to the effect that on no occasion is it competent for any member of the British commonwealth to withdraw. Let me read him another quotation. This is what Mr. Bonar Law said in the House of Commons in 1922.

He qualified that.

I do not know about that. The quotation was to the effect that there was no man in the House who would dare to deny that the dominions of the empire depended upon themselves. Australia, Canada and New Zealand, if they decided they no longer wanted to remain a member of the British empire, we would not force them. They have the right to decide for themselves. I hold that if that position does not obtain, the sooner it is made clear it does hold, the better for future harmony and the better for the long life of this commonwealth of nations. The whole strength and vitality depend on the goodwill of the constituent peoples. There is no other bond, and that bond is not strengthened, but weakened, if you introduce one single scintilla of compulsion into it. These are my deepest convictions on this matter. I do not agree with the form in which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) has proposed his amendment, but I agree with this that after the speech of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that after that authoritative speech on behalf of the second great party in this state—

The greatest party.

We should also ask the House to affirm that we do not agree with the construction placed upon it by the right hon. gentleman supported by the “perpetual” introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). There is no need to assert that these bonds shall for ever exist that the British commonwealth of nations depends on any force extraneous to ourselves, or any compulsion but the compulsion of our own goodwill. The amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg would appear to indicate that it is only our right of withdrawal from the commonwealth of nations which is at stake. It has the sort of element in it from which it may be inferred that there is a considerable section who do desire to secede from the commonwealth. I therefore want to move, and I hope my hon. friend will accept it, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Strydom—

The proviso would then read—

We know perfectly well that we are, none of us, immune from the desire at any time to interpret in a sense which is not consonant with facts the terms of a resolution, and I do not want to associate myself with what might be interpreted in a different way. I do not see why we should lay ourselves open to the criticism that the form of words in the amendment indicate a discontent with conditions and a desire on our part to secede from the British commonwealth of nations.

Why move the amendment?

I won’t say we want to make use of it, but we have the right we believe it to be inherent in the British commonwealth of nations. I defy any member on the opposite side to say that the people of Great Britain would feel themselves compelled and bound on any consideration whatever not to change their constitution and to continue their association with the dominions. I am not going to chop logic, but to express the convictions I have held for many years, and drawn from the history of our own people, and drawn from my readings of the history of the stock from which my hon. friends behind me come when I say that from what I know of men of our stock and their stock that no such arrangement or institution as the British commonwealth of nations will meet with our allegiance and their allegiance in the wholehearted manner we all desire, which is not an allegiance the outcome of our own choice and our own goodwill.

seconded the amendment to the amendment.

I rise merely to say that I wholeheartedly accept the amendment.

Don’t run away from it.

I rise to intervene in this debate not without a good deal of hesitation, and not without a very keen sense of responsibility, because we are dealing with matters which are very deeply fraught with sentiment, and which touch chords that go very deep down into the hearts of many of us. Nobody could speak on this subject without feeling that deep sense of responsibility. But while I have that hesitation, I do not think it is a matter upon which I could reasonably be expected to give a silent vote. I am not going to traverse the speech—I shall not say the arguments—of the Minister who has just sat down. I am not going to comment on the rather farcical way in which he has altered the amendment, and I am not going to attempt to draw his attention to other utterances which he has made in the past on this subject. This is not an occasion for party points of that kind. But I want to start with a point which the Minister made at the outset. He took exception to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) because he approached the matter as a lawyer. I make no pretensions whatever in approaching the subject to do so as a lawyer; I make no claim to legal precision I am not going to attempt to define the legal position in regard to this motion. I am approaching the matter as a plain man, and as a plain man I speak as ane who realizes and gives due weight to the sentiments which prevail in connection with this subject with which we are dealing. But I do not think I am any less qualified to speak on that account because I am not a lawyer. I feel very strongly that we are dealing with matters in regard to which the legalistic attitude is certainly not enough, and of which it might well be said that: “It is the letter that killeth and the spirit which giveth life.” Let me try and analyze my own position. I spoke of sentiment. As I look at a matter of this kind, there are two sentiments that I acknowledge First there is that sentiment which I think everyone has—the sentiment of love of freedom, freedom for himself, and freedom for the nation to which he belongs, and I would make bold to say that there is no member in this honourable House by whom that sentiment is more strongly felt than by myself. But there in another sentiment, and that is the one indicated by what has been described as the first law of nature—to seek peace and ensure it, and as a means to that peace the desire for co-operation is an effective agent. I have no hesitation in saying in this House this evening, as I have said many times before, that I come forward as one who desires the maintenance and the continuance of the British commonwealth to which we belong, because I regard it as one of the most effective agents in the world to-day for world peace. As a very prominent supporter of the League of Nations described if, the British commonwealth is the most potent agent in the world to-day for peace. At the back of these two sentiments of which I have spoken one may trace two principles which have been struggling throughout history, I will not say for mastery, but rather to arrive at a settlement and arrangement between them—the principle of imperialism, or the rule of the all-powerful world-state; and the principle of liberty or the freedom of the individual community. There have been times in the past when efforts were made towards reconciling these two principles. To a greater extent than many people realize, these two principles were reconciled in the old Roman empire. When we come to our own day, the reconciliation between these two principles has more than once been adumbrated. I remember a phrase of Burke’s, running something like this—I do not remember the exact words—

If I may mention another phrase, a pointer in the same direction, it will be words used by Sir Wilfred Laurier in Canada round about 1908, which will, no doubt, appeal to my hon. friends opposite—

I make a present of that to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan). I have mentioned it because it indicates the possibility of arriving at a reconciliation of these two principles. I can recall how ten years ago in trying to suggest a way in which these two principles might be reconciled, I went so far as to express the anticipation that the time would come when the British empire, as such, would fall away, and be replaced by what I called a Britannic alliance. That being so, the House will accept my statement that I welcomed very cordially indeed the declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and I welcomed also the appointment of this committee, whose report is before us. In one of my election speeches I expressed the hope that we would follow with the greatest sympathy and goodwill the work of that committee. Therefore, I also welcomed this report, and as far as I am concerned, I would, with the utmost pleasure and the least possible amount of hesitation, accept the Prime Minister’s resolution in the spirit in which he moved it. I welcome it because it seems to set side by side these two principles of which I spoke. I wonder if we always realize what a carefully-balanced document that was; what a compound was contained in that Balfourian statement of checks and balances—

You like the balance?

Certainly, it appeals to me and should appeal to any hon. member, with sense, in the House.

The hon. member quoted wrongly. It is “freely associated”.

I am sorry the Minister cannot understand language. If it means anything, it implies both ideas. Now if we look at that declaration in the way I have indicated, there are two things that follow; first of all, the importance of the concept of co-operation. We are free in this country, as any other dominion is free, and we have equal status with any other member of the commonwealth. We welcome that freedom; we also welcome the sweeping away of all the restrictions on that freedom which survived from the older conceptions of the older empire. But I would urge this: do not let us fail to give equal weight to the concept of co-operation in that declaration which I quoted. After all, there are many people in this country and in the House, who are linked to Great Britain by ties of sentiment —to them it is the land of their birth or of their ancestors. Most of us in the House and in this country have no such ties, and yet as a nation, we certainly have a very real interest in and very adequate grounds for the desire to strengthen the ties of co-operation that bind us to the commonwealth—the ground of our own interest, arising from the importance of the British market for our products, the ground of world-peace, of which I have spoken, and, not least important, the ground of the consideration that the satisfaction of the sentiment of the British section of the people of this country, is a very important factor in building up our national unity. I would appeal then to those who have not the tie of sentiment which our English-speaking fellow South Africans have, to view the declaration in its twofold aspect, and give weight not only to the concept of freedom, but also to the concept of co-operation enshrined in it. But I hope no one will think that I am overlooking that other concept—the concept of freedom. I certainly do not overlook that aspect of the declaration. While it stands there, I do not refuse to envisage the possibility that one day South Africa will not be a part of the British commonweath. Let me draw a distinction here which should have been drawn before, between the legalistic view and the other view. On the legalistic view there can be no question whatever that the amendment which has been moved is in conflict was Clause 60 of this document which we have before us. I am speaking as a layman. As a layman I would start with that statement quoted I think, with approval, by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe), the statement of Professor Berriedale Keith, that the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act would have left the door open to secession from the empire, implying that while the Validity Act remains unrepealed there was a definite bar to secession from the empire. By this document that door is thrown open in so far as the Colonial Laws Validity Act falls away. But this clause 60 proceeds, in the main, to close the door so thrown open. It seems to me inevitable that it should be so as far as the legislative view of this position is concerned. As long as we accept this formula in regard to our being united by a common allegiance to the Crown, I can see no other alternative than that the door as far as the legalistic aspect is concerned should be closed, but, passing aside from the legalistic aspect, I do not refuse to envisage the day when South Africa will stand aside from the British commonwealth of nations. For my part I do not desire that, I shall not lift a finger to bring that about, but I do foresee the possibility of a day coming when we shall all welcome it, and when that day conies, legal restrictions are not going to matter. If the apple is ripe it will fall from the tree, and I venture to say that our friends in the British commonwealth, with whom by that time I hope we shall have strengthened our ties of co-operation, will lift no finger to prevent that from coming about. And so it is not in legal formulas, it is in the preaching of a barren republicanism that we should put our trust. Let us rather be content to leave it to the course of peaceful evolution and to the genius of South Africa. And so I would sum up my view in this way. Let us accept this report in principle as an instruction to the Prime Minister when he goes to the imperial conference, and so indicate our allegiance to the concept of freedom, but let us also not fail to take such opportunities as we can to place beyond all shadow of peradventure our allegiance to the concept of co-operation within the empire. For the rest, let us not worry unduly about the legal definition of our right of secession, but let us be content with the conviction which may perhaps at some time be fortified by an assurance from those able to give it, that if time in its working brings South Africa to the point when for the realization of its own genius, and the performance of the services which it can render to the world, it is well that it should stand outside of the commonwealth, there is no power without it which will wish to say it nay.

I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, but I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member, true to the reputation he has gained since entering politics, has again been sitting on the fence with his legs hanging down on both sides. I have noticed that at five different times he referred to the two possible points of view on every matter he has dealt with. He never, however, told us which side he favoured, and at the end of his speech we did not yet know where he stood. At one moment I was afraid that the hon. member would fall down on one side of the fence; he said that he accepted the motion of the Prime Minister in the spirit in which it had been moved, and he emphasized the words “the spirit in which the Prime Minister had introduced the motion I thought, “now the man is falling,” but no. I under-valued his cleverness as a political acrobat, because, immediately after he turned over again to the other side, and we had once more the balance about which he kept on talking. He spoke about the contrast between freedom, and co-operation, but it seems to me he had compulsory co-operation in his mind. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), who is such a strong supporter of compulsory co-operation, must make friends with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). The hon. member has made it clear that there is a legal point of view. He says that, from that point of view, we are always tied up to the British empire, and we cannot turn ourselves. He, however, adds that we must not attach too much value to those points of view, because he states there is still what he calls “the other point of view.” He advises us to wait until the apple is ripe, and then there will be nobody to baulk us. In the meantime, however, we must not talk about that apple. We must not say that it is our apple, but we must wait until it is ripe, and then we can go and say that it belongs to us. I expected more from the hon. member. This is a serious matter with which we are concerned, and we should have liked to know his attitude very much. Now, however, we do not know it all. Everyone knows what our attitude on this side of the House is. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) took part in the debate, and we know what his attitude is, but we do not in the least know that of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), and I do not think there is anybody who can arrive at it. We cannot, therefore, discuss and criticize his attitude. For that reason, I think it would have been a good thing if he had explained his attitude, even if we differ from him. We also differ from the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), but we, at any rate, know where we stand. His attitude was very clear from the start. In 1925, when we fixed our customs tariff, the hon. member produced tomes in this House to try and prove that we did not possess the right to fix our own protection tariff. That was his attitude, and when we recollect it we cannot attach much value to the attitude that the hon. member has taken up here to-day.

What you say there is not correct.

No, it is correct, and we were in this House when the hon. member made that statement. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), as well as the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), said that it was a pity that this matter had come before the House. They say that we ought rather to devote attention to commercial matters instead of dragging this matter over the floor of the House. We are all very sorry that this subject has again to be debated in this way here. The Minister of Finance has already said here this afternoon that he thought that in connection with this matter there was a good understanding in the country, and that it was no longer necessary for us to quarrel about it, but whose fault is it that the matter is being debated here again? No one, except the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Not one of us bad the least expectation that this debate would take place. The House was practically empty this afternoon, everyone expected that the motion would be passed after a few speeches, but then, to our astonishment, the hon. member for Standerton spread about poison in the House which we could not allow to lie about. He used certain expressions here this afternoon that he accepted the motion of the Prime Minister with the proviso that this question was now settled once and for all, because the door was for ever shut for South Africa, and any other dominion to secede from the British empire without the consent of the other portion of the empire. There is a kind of perpetual association. I cannot understand what a free and perpetual association is. If the association is perpetual, where is the freedom then? If the hon. member for Standerton were the Prime Minister of South Africa today, and if he had made this statement which he has made this afternoon, then there would have been agitation and a conflagration throughout the country. The people would have set themselves against it, and there would have been great dissatisfaction and unrest. Feelings would have been aroused, and the hon. member would have been responsible for it. The Prime Minister said nothing to which any hon. member could object. He explained the proposals before the House, and he introduced no contentious matters. It was quite unnecessary for the hon. member for Standerton to go into it. He literally put the match very close to the gunpowder. In my opinion we ought to feel sorry that it is necessary to move the amendment with its rider, but in view of the statements of the hon. member for Standerton, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) Mr. Coulter, and others, I, and many others, consider it necessary, as far as this House is concerned, that it shall be made clear once and for all what our attitude and the attitude of every hon. member is in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Standerton also made certain reservations during the debate on the 1926 Report. At that time we did not think it necessary to move an amendment in order to clear the position, but the hon. member persists and comes with another reservation, viz., that he would only vote for the motion if it is understood that it binds us for ever to the British Empire. The best way we can protest against this attitude is by passing the amendment that has been moved. Whenever our Ministers go to the Imperial Conference to do anything constructive the hon. member for Standerton, and other hon. members opposite to pull it down. The Prime Minister must go with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other to keep back his own compatriots with the sword in order that they should not break down the wall again. That attitude of hon. members is the cause of continual troubles in the country. I ask what the declaration of our free association means in the report of the Imperial Conference, which is also repeated here. In Section 59 of this report the words are used of “these freely associated members,” and the commission continually goes out of its way to use this term. Hon. members opposite apparently intend to remain free within the British empire, but not to go outside. I, and hon. members on this side, take up the attitude that we go freely into that association by the will of our nation, and that we are at any time free to go out of it. Our view is that we are in the position of a person who has gone voluntarily into a room and the door is locked, but the key is on the inside, and it can at any time be turned to open the door. Hon. members opposite seem to think that the key is on the outside, and that we cannot go out of the room. We here have not the least doubt about the matter, but because the hon. members opposite, and their followers, are continually throwing doubt on it, and they continually quote what some learned professor or other abroad has said, it is necessary that we should clearly explain our attitude. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) bases his attitude on statements by various so-called experts, and Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I want to ask him why he does not first of all, find out what his own Prime Minister’s opinion is, and when he talks of what Mr. Barrydale Keith has said, then I want to point out that that is the man who contradicted the hon. member for Standerton at the time when the latter in 1919 and 1921 first propounded his theory of a higher status. He said that such a thing did not exist, and he ridiculed the hon. member’s idea. To quote the opinion of such a man here as evidence is very weak indeed. I want to quote one more thing in connection with Clause 60; the hon. member for Standerton tried to make out that if a measure of doubt possibly existed about the report of 1926 in connection with the question whether we can secede or not, then Clause 60 of this report has now put an end to it, and definitely laid down that we are put under restraint for the future. I, however, want to refer to what Clause 60 says. It reads as follows—

The declaration, therefore, itself says definitely that the intention is not to make any encroachment on the declaration of 1926. How then can the hon. member for Standerton say that there may have been a doubt in 1926, but that this resolution goes further and puts us under restraint. We refuse once and for all to be restrained in the way that the hon. member for Standerton wants to restrain us, and we protest against it, and avail ourselves of this opportunity as those who have been sent here by the majority of the nations to declare very clearly that we are not under restraint.

Like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) I propose to approach this question as a plain man, though unlike the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) I do not intend, nor could I, if I wished, use the tremendous amount of verbiage that the hon. member used in order to hide his intentions. I am bound to say that on the few occasions I have had the opportunity, pleasure and privilege of listening to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) I have always arrived at the end of his speech in a state of confusion, except, of course, I have been listening to that speech at a banquet. Then, of course, the confusion occurs before the speech. However, be that as it may, like the hon. member, I approach the subject as a plain man and not as a lawyer. I very much fear that the debate initiated this afternoon may result in another five years of bitter wrangling. I hope it does not.

No, it won’t.

I want to appeal to hon. members on both side of the House, because both are equally to blame, to approach this matter calmly and moderately with a real desire to get at the inner meaning of things and to establish the position. I say at once here, that I cannot see any other conclusion that this House, or any other Parliament of the British commonwealth of nations can arrive at, than that we are, and must be, entirely free. Hon. members on this side of the House, especially my hon. and constitutional friend, the man at whose feet I often sit, the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) have rather indicated in their interpretation of the word “free” that we are free provided somebody else lets us be free. I cannot as a man, like the hon. the Minister of Defence, born under free institutions, born under them and soaked in them, I cannot for a moment accept the position under which somebody else tells me that I am free to do so and so, providing they are willing to let me. I think, in that respect, I can wholeheartedly support the amendment moved on the other side of the House. I do not know whether I can speak for my colleagues, but that is my interpretation of the position. When hon. members say in this House that if you are free, you are free to come in and you are also free to come out, they are perfectly correct, and I am prepared to support them in that contention. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) definitely stated that a free association, namely, a free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, connotes and carries with it, in effect, that you must always be in that association of nations. I say that in my opinion, his interpretation is entirely wrong. The object of this formality, because the clause preceding it states that it is a formal declaration of the position, is to impress upon all members of the British commonwealth of nations that they individually and collectively are perfectly free to do precisely what they like. The effect of it is that we, of our own free will and desire come into and remain in or go out, as the case may be, such an associations as is called the British commonwealth of nations.

As long as it suits us.

Precisely; as long as it suits us. All I am wanting is to say to these people who feel in effect as we do, and feel if you say to them “you must do so and so,” then you are creating in their minds a desire to do so and so, I want to say to them perfectly openly and reasonably that “you have the right to do precisely what you like, come out when you like,” but I am hoping all the time to induce them to remain in. That is the position sought to be set up here. It is well if the House has read to it exactly, and with the proper emphasis, the paragraph to which so much reference has been made, and about which there has been so much misinterpretation. These are the words—

Let me here say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) that if the word “free” in the interpretation that the amendment put upon it, is inconsistent with the paragraph, I say if that be true the word “free” is also inconsistent with this paragraph. The paragraph reads—

A common allegiance, not a forced allegiance, but united. United denotes a desire on the part of those united to be united. If you have not that desire, if it is not as the result of that desire, then at once for heaven’s sake, do not use or misuse the word “free.” “Free” means that you must be entirely free, or you are not free. It must be free in every implication of the word. Otherwise, the word becomes a misnomer.

United by common allegiance to the Crown. It would be in accord with the established constitutional position that all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law attaching to the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles requires the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

In that phrase “succession to the throne or to the royal style and titles” some hon. members have sought to find some restriction somewhere; that because we refer to the Crown as the symbol, the focussing point, so to speak, of our commonwealth of nations, that that Crown is unalterable. It is not so, to my mind. If it were, I should at once repudiate the expression or term “free” in any association with it whatsoever. In the application and interpretation of that succession to the throne, my hon. friend knows quite well, if he examines it closely, that all that is referred to is the person, the family or the dynasty. In other words, any alteration of the ruling family, such as was done if my memory of history serves me, on two occasions, when Parliament altered the dynasty and the family and the personnel of those ruling, not actually altering the Crown, but altering the people or the family, that is all that it means to me as a plain man. That is as a nation within the commonwealth of nations, we ourselves alone have no right to say that instead of the Guelphs or the Windsors reigning, the Smiths or the Browns shall reign. That is precisely what it means. In other words, we cannot alter the personnel of the Crown unless we get the formal association and consent of every other individual dominion, plus Great Britain herself. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence was perfectly correct on this occasion, when he said that if hon. members on this side are correct, and that if we are not free to come in, we are not free to come out, then Great Britain herself is not free to come out either. If on the other hand Great Britain is free to come out of any such association we also have the right of choice whenever and soever we please. That is the position I take up. At the same time I want to say to hon. members opposite that if the object of the amendment is openly, honestly and candidly designed to clarify the position; in other words if it is designed to say to everybody “Don’t say to me I must be in—I claim the right to be out if I wish” I will accept that position. But if as a result of a general election or a referendum then this House is perfectly competent under those circumstances, to pass a resolution withdrawing from the association with the rest of the commonwealth. It is not necessary to go to a revolution.

I’m glad you are not a lawyer.

I am glad too, if that is the sort of hair splitting they do. The House has the right to say at any time “We decide no longer to remain in the commonwealth.” But I want an assurance from hon. members opposite. I join them in the demand they are making that we in South Africa have the right to come out. If that is all they want to establish, I am with them entirely. But if underlying that is, in effect, a statement clouded perhaps by this interpretation and by this qualifying amendment that they also desire to place on record their desire and intention to come out of the British commonwealth, then I am not with them. I want that to be perfectly clear. On the clear interpretation of the clause and as a co-partner I take my stand that we are absolutely and completely free to do what we like, but I wish to belong to the commonwealth of nations. I propose to move an amendment to give effect to that. I move, as a further amendment to the amendment—

That tests your bona fides.

For how long?

Until the House is prepared to vote differently. I want to see whether you are prepared to remain in or not, and to see whether there is some ulterior object behind your amendment, and whether your object in demonstrating your right to come but actually is to decide to come out: I do not want to come out, not on the grounds that it is in our interest because of trade relations to stay in; that renders nugatory all the arguments on the sentimental side. My main object is sentimental, not so much that the membership of the British commonwealth of nations is good from the trade point of view, but from a sentimental point of view.

I cannot accept the amendment.

The original amendment seeks to establish a certain position.

It only seeks to place a certain interpretation upon a section of the report.

An interpretation of a position. I want to make perfectly clear that under that interpretation we are not going to do something tangible.

The hon. member goes much further than what is proposed. He wishes to lay down for the House a certain line of condust, which is something very different from a mere interpretation.

May I move it in this form—“But provided further?”

I am afraid I cannot allow that.

I shall not try to speak as a lawyer, I am only a stupid farmer, but this is not an occasion when only lawyers must speak, because the farmers also have an interest in the matter. When the Prime Minister came back from London in 1926 our farmers heard him say that the imperial conference had declared that we were just as free and independent as Great Bratain, that we were in the same position as England. Well, if Great Britain has the right of secession and we are in the same position then we also have that right. I do not know what Amery and those people have to say about this matter. I do not read it, because I prefer to read about agriculture, where my interests lie. But there is one man’s statement that I have, and I want to mention it here. It is the statement of Gen. Hertzog. He came and made a statement to us and we know him. He told us that we were sovereign and free, and that we were remaining a portion of the British empire out of our own free will. The people are thankful that he obtained the 1926 declaration for us, because it put an end to the old struggle that existed. What was not the struggle before that time over the question of a republic and such things? Since 1926 the people have been satisfied, and we have given our attention to our work and the business of the country, but now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) throws this apple of discord among us. He is the cause of all the fight that is going on. Is the hon. member afraid that the people are co-operating too much? Does he want once more to antagonise the English people against the Dutch-speaking people. I hope I have understood him wrongly, but that is going to be the effect of his action. I want to appeal to the leader of the Opposition, let us work together, and put the constitutional question aside. I am speaking here as a republican and, when I say that, I think I am entitled to say so because I made some sacrifices for a republic. I am quite satisfied with the 1926 declaration and I think the majority of my electors are satisfied with the state of affairs created by that declaration, and why should we dispute again now? I say, let us go on on this basis, and not debate now whether we have the right of remaining neutral. I think that we are entitled to remain neutral, but we can leave the decision over to the time when it is necessary to decide, and then we can act according to circumstances. There are many problems that we have to solve, and do not let us now quarrel about such things. I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) that a republic will come some day. It will come automatically, just as an apple ripens automatically. In the meantime I occupy myself with such things as a farmers’ bank and compulsory co-operation. Those are matters which are of importance to us, in order to make our country economically strong and self-dependent. With these few words I support the Prime Minister’s motion.

I regret that the hon. member who has just sat down should have made that unjust reference to my leader; he knows perfectly well what he said about my leader’s action in 1921, is totally unjustified. The steps he refers to were taken because of the action which had been taken by a number of people who sit behind the hon. member, in connection with secession. I accuse the Minister of Finance of introducing the apple of discord into this debate. He is responsible. After the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had spoken the Minister came out with his most regrettable statement that “if your interpretation is correct, this is not the end of the strife, but the beginning of it.” What is the meaning of that? Are we not able to see what the words in the document mean—one of the utmost public importance—and put the interpretation on it which one or another has felt must be put upon it?

It is a very plain issue.

And the plain fact is the Minister of Finance threw an apple of discord in the debate. He cannot burke that responsibility. The situation which became almost a tragedy when the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) became almost a comedy when the Minister of Defence moved his amendment, and almost a farce when the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley tried to move his. We had that vehement speech of the Minister of Defence, where after protesting a great deal he tried to water down what he knew perfectly well was a most offensive resolution to many people in this country, and was a direct challenge to the House. He protested how justified the hon. member was when he brought forward that dangerous amendment which is not now before the House as it was withdrawn in favour of the Minister’s new amendment. Then the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), went round all the points of the compass, and finally put forward an amendment which, as Mr. Speaker said, was a direct contradiction in terms of the amendment he was wishing to alter. The hon. member for Benoni made great play with the word “free,” and took great unction to himself in doing so that he was dealing with the matter as a plain man and not as a lawyer. It must be a remarkable man who cannot see that the interpretation of this clause is the same whether made by a plain man or by a lawyer. The interpretation has to be made by all these people who have to come together in the Imperial Conference from the other dominions as well as ourselves. Let us look at the history of this thing. There was a great conflict of view on high constitutional questions before the time of the meeting of the Imperial Conference, which met in 1926. Anyone who looks at the report of 1926 will see that that report was the result of compromise. In a good many cases representatives of other dominions, representatives of New Zealand and Canada, for instance, gave up positions they had held very strongly in order to come to a common agreement on behalf of the free peoples of the Empire. It is a proof of the freedom of the Empire that they did voluntarily agree on that document of 1926. In September or October last representatives of the Empire again went into questions considered but left over in 1926, and came to an agreement, again arrived at by compromise. It is that which we are asked to adopt. When we asked the House to recognise that the words of the agreement mean what they say, what right has anybody to say that we are stirring up strife? I guarantee that the representatives of the other dominions who will take part in the conference will interpret Clause 60 as it has been interpreted on this side of the House. Is it fair, is it consistent with good faith and with our own selfrespect, that we should always be suspicious when reminded that other people will be holding up to the plain words of the bond? Surely we should accept the plain meaning and should not put another interpretation upon these words, or rely on some hidden meaning. We have had a loud and vehement speech from the Minister of Defence this evening. The hon. member no doubt found that the position in which he was placed by the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg was almost unbearable. We know that when he makes these vehement speeches they are meant to disguise his intense discomfort, and that the louder and more vehement he is, and the more unjust the charges he hurls across to this side of the House, the more he indicates how deep indeed the iron has entered into his soul. The hon. member wins a ready cheer by belittling certain people and by praising others. When the Minister of Defence talked about “being in bondage,” I would like to know what “bondage” there is in people being expected to keep the terms of an agreement. The idle charges of the Minister carry no weight. All we ask is that the plain, simple words of the document shall be recognised as having the meaning which both the plain man in the street and the lawyer would place upon them. This is the meaning we want to be observed. The hon. member blames us for attempting to repress the right of the people to do what they think fit. Now when an individual here or there expresses his own views on secession or republicanism he may arouse some personal interest in what is here practically a mere academic question. But this is a very different case. I challenge the Prime Minister to deny that the Waterberg amendment is an official party one. When an amendment like the amendment before the House comes before us officially it stamps the party responsible for it as having not merely an academic interest; and this indicates that when things like these are said and done in this way, they are designed to be acted upon sooner or later.

We know it is just an election cry.

The danger of the situation lies in a statement like this coming officially from the party who for years have put this matter before the country as an apple of discord, and made it a part of their party programme. The people who do that are bringing the matter forward in such a way as to reopen all the old dangerous questions, and to revive all the old bitternesses and strife. The people who do that are doing it in a way that justifies the apprehension amongst many people that there is some sinister motive behind it. If there is those responsible are doing something most injurious to the body politic. I do hope that even now the Prime Minister will see to it that the amendment is withdrawn, so that we may get back to the position in which we were this afternoon when we were willing to accept the motion of the Prime Minister, but wanted to make it perfectly clear that the interpretation we placed upon paragraph 60 is a right interpretation.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, you ruled my amendment out of order, and I hope you will permit me to put it in an amended form. I move, as a further amendment to the amendment—

I second this in order to give the House an opportunity to vote on it. I want to say at once that I disagree with the interpretation sought to be placed on the resolution by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) but I think it is right that hon. members should have an opportunity by their votes of saying whether that interpretation is a merely theoretical matter or whether it has as its object giving effect to something which in my opinion is contrary to what was adopted at the conference committee. If the interpretation which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) seeks to give to Clause 60—if that interpretation is right then there is no need for this amendment to be moved; because, in that case, I take it we have the right to secede. If, on the other hand, the interpretation of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is correct, then the Prime Minister, if he agrees to the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg should not have agreed to Clause 60. I feel that the interpretation to be given to this clause is that we are a free association of nations, but we have one binding link, and if we are to be free to break that, there is no longer any association. We have heard the word “freedom” freely used to-night. I know the word “freedom” is a new word in this House. We have very little of the word freedom about the Riotous Assemblies Bill. Freedom is, after all, relative. While we are said to be free, we are subject to all kinds of restrictions and laws. I think it is a sorry day for South Africa that this question of secession has again been raised. It is most regrettable that we are here embarking on a discussion on controversial matters, and that we are going to divert the attention of the people from economic issues which matter to barren constitutional issues which will not give an extra meal to a hungry man or shelter to one who is destitute. I believe the interpretation means that we are free internally in every way, but we are associated and bound under a common Crown, and we cannot voluntarily break up that association. I am not going into the merits of the secession issue. We came to that arrangement at the Imperial Conference, and we cannot now turn round and try to interpret it to suit propagandist requirements.

The utterances on this subject from the other side of the House to-day leave me absolutely cold. Speakers on that side have emphasised—with the exception of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe)—that there is no intention of seceding from the Commonwealth of nations. My own opinion is that while we have no intention of seceding from the British Empire, if ever the time should unfortunately come when the bulk of the people in this country should want to secede, no laws, no league of nations, no conferences could keep us from doing so. So it is a barren controversy. I deplore the amendment, and I cannot vote for it. It is unnecessarily provocative. It would be misunderstood overseas, and by other dominions—and, what is more important, misunderstood in this country. I deplore more than anything the wicked suggestion of the Minister of Finance that he is going to reopen the whole subject again. He said that the trouble is only now going to start. I would ask members to recollect what will happen if he reopens the controversy. I hope the country has learned wisdom, and will not allow any politician or any firebrand to reopen that sort of controversy. I would remind the hon. member what a calamity that controversy was—what bitterness was aroused, and how it split and poisoned our social, family and racial relations. The hon. the Minister of Finance is a protagonist more particularly—or likes to think he is—of the race from which he and I have sprung. That race has suffered more particularly from that controversy which he threatens to reopen. I deplore his threat. I repeat it is a wicked threat. If he tries to carry it into effect, I hope the people of this country will with no uncertain voice express their disapproval. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) this afternoon was approving of every word which the Prime Minister said. He gave this report his blessing. Well, I believe that in the last resort if people in this country, owing to some international crisis, were to decide to secede, nothing on earth could stop them. But I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us what precisely Clause 60 does mean. If you do make a contract as a free man with another free man there are certain obligations which, at any rate, bind them both. I wish the Prime Minister would tell us whether Clause 60 does not impose an obligation of some sort. Several hon. members have told us that we have no obligations whatever. I have always held that there is no particular virtue about the term “republic.” I believe so long as the people of this country are free, it does not matter to us whether South Africa is called the Republic of South Africa, the Union, the empire or a soviet. Freedom is a condition; it is not a name. I have never allowed myself to be run off my feet by the empty name “republic” like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), Liberty has its obligations. There is no such thing as complete liberty. That would mean licence. We have associated ourselves with a number of other free nations. I understand there is scarcely a dissentient voice on the other side to disapprove of our joining this free association. It certainly does not mean that you are free to do exactly as it suits you. You must consider and consult the interests of your partners in the concern. He would be a poor partner who, in a given emergency, told the rest that he was getting out and would have nothing further to do with them. I cannot think that we as a nation will take up that stand. I ask the Prime Minister to tell us what exactly are the implications of Section 60. Does it mean no obligation at all? If it does mean an obligation, what sort of an obligation? Lastly, I hope the Prime Minister is not going to London with an amendment such as has been moved in his pocket. It will tie his hands, and embarrass him and embarrass the British Government and the dominions, and in addition it will be misunderstood by a large section of the community. I hope this amendment will be withdrawn.

I am sure there has been a feeling throughout the country expressed in many parts, that at last we had got away from the bad old days in fighting over this old problem, and here we are back again at the high constitutional wrangles of the past. Of what use is that to anybody? Whose interests are served? I wonder why this matter was brought before the House at all. Why is it here? What reason is there for it? This committee, whose report we are considering, was established as the result of the Imperial Conference. The report of the Imperial Conference was adopted, and as a consequence of that report, this committee was set up to consider necessary legislation which had to follow upon the adoption of that report. The proper body, as my right hon. leader has pointed out, to discuss this matter, is not this House at this stage. This committee was appointed following upon the report of the Imperial Conference, and the Imperial Conference, and surely not this House, should have wrangled over this matter. The representatives on this committee who represented South Africa were Mr. F. W. Beyers, K.C., Dr. H. D. J. Bodenstein. Secretary to the Department for External Affairs, and Mr. P. F. van den Heever, of the Department of External Affairs. We are now inserting in their recommendations an interpretation which has never before been raised. What is the reason for it?

Why did you raise it?

We did not raise it. Your amendment has brought this forward.

What did your leader say. Were you out of the House when he spoke?

So far as I know my leader explained this document, as it can be read on the face of it. He explained it in plain language and said exactly what it contained. In any case, if his interpretation was wrong, why move an amendment now to be considered by the Imperial Conference? Why is that necessary? The whole of this matter has to deal with South Africa as a member of the British commonwealth of nations. It deals with the British commonwealth of nations as a free association of members. It does not deal with people who are not members. If South Africa secedes—if it is possible to secede from the commonwealth—then this clause does not apply. Why is it necessary to state that South Africa has the right to secede. Throughout this discussion we have gone over the old bones of the Imperial Conference. Anyone going back to those days is aware that the reason for the declaration of the conference rests with the Prime Minister himself. It is on record that he and the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State pushed for a definition of the commonwealth. Here is what the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa said at the opening of the conference—

There is nothing in that to indicate that the Prime Minister had any reservations. The commonwealth was to be permanent once the Prime Minister’s request was agreed to. I do not at all agree with the interpretation of the Minister of Defence of “freely associated.” We are freely associated within an empire, but the Minister always leaves that out. It means that no part of the dominions has any dominance over any other part. It means complete equality of status. It means freedom within; freely associates. It means that there is no super-State, and the idea of the conference was to do away with the suspicion that there was a super-State.

If we have no super-State, what is the empire?

There is an empire as well as a commonwealth—an empire consisting of India and the Crown colonies under the administration of the British Governments There is also a commonwealth of free nations, but the whole thing together—the empire and the dominions—are technically the empire. When we refer to the empire we are referring to those self-governing free nations, the colonies, the protectorates and the rest. The Prime Minister went on to say—

Nothing about secession there. I wonder if the Prime Minister said a word about seceding at the Imperial conference.

Not one word.

Did he convey to anyone that it was in his mind that South Africa intended to have the right to secede? What would have been the effect upon his audience at the conference if he had done so? When the Prime Minister came back he initiated a debate on neutrality in war, a matter which he admitted he had not discussed at the conference. Was this not an after thought. It is a just inference to draw that idea of the right to secede did not arise at the Imperial Conference, neither did the question of the neutrality arise. At the end of the conference the Prime Minister said these words, none of which convey any intimation that behind all the demand for a declaration of our national status, there was a question of secession—

I ask the Prime Minister when he goes back to the Imperial Conference will he tell them “since we parted I have changed my mind. The declaration of our independence within the Empire was not enough. We want more. I have come back to-day with the demand for a declaration of the right to secede.” Does he think that he will maintain past resolutions and add to that co-operative spirit he said he was anxious to maintain. If there is no desire to secede why raise the issue? Such an issue does not enter into the clause under discussion. The proposed amendment is foreign to the whole intention, which deals only with South Africa as a part of the British commonwealth. That clause reads as follows—

Of course hitherto, it is common knowledge, legislation of this kind would require the assent of the United Kingdom, and it was to state the fact that the United Kingdom alone could not legislate that this matter was brought forward in order to give that legislative independence—the bedrock of the whole constitutional position of the commonwealth. I hope for the good of South Africa and for the sake of that co-operation the Prime Minister considers it desirable to achieve, that he will turn this amendment down, go with an open mind, and carry out the wishes, I am sure, of the majority of South Africans as set forth in this Clause 60.

I am very glad to see what is going on now on the Opposition benches, and I think everyone ought to be glad about it. It is very clear to me that hon. members opposite are heartily ashamed of the attitude which was taken up this afternoon by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) immediately felt what a great mistake the hon. member for Standerton had made; he at once appreciated the awkwardness of the position in which the hon. member had placed me and the whole House, and he immediately tried to put matters right, and to make an excuse for his leader. He asked us why the Minister of Finance had gone to the length of getting so hot and exiited about what the leader of the Opposition had said, inasmuch as his leader had spoken in a calm, and deliberate manner. Let me say now that it is true that it was a restrained, calm argument on the part of the leader of the Opposition, but just because it was a calm argument it meant so much the more, and it was felt here that the effect of the words of his argument was such that an immediate and sharp reaction should at once be made. Certainly the leader of the Opposition was calm, but he was more than calm; it was a deliberate challenge, and, let me say, a challenge of such a kind that if I did not immediately accept it, and if this side had not immediately taken it up, then I, and those who sit behind me, would be nothing else than traitors to our country. It is well known to the leader of the Opposition that since the inauguration of the Union there has been a difference on that point between him and me. He was well aware that I have on every occasion taken up the attitude, and I abide by it, that our constitution gives us the right of seceding if the people of this country want to do so. It could not but have been well know to him also that the question had also been raised in South Africa, and even raised by my followers behind me. What now did his considered interpretation mean? It must, e.g., have been clear to the hon. member that I could take up no other position with regard to any question of this kind than the one I have always taken up in connection with the 1926 declaration, and also again in connection with this report, viz., that we retain the right of seceding if we wish. The hon. member’s interpretation was calculated to do nothing else but to put the position that I must either become a triator to my people, or must betray the hon. members behind me. Did not the hon. member feel that? No? Well, a responsible man who is a leader of the Opposition should weigh his words and should know what the result of his action will be. In my speech I did not refer to that question, because I knew well that there were other persons who differed from me, because I knew quite well that there were both wise men and fools who did not agree with me. If I had gone to the Imperial Conference in those circumstances, then everyone would surely have know both here in South Africa, and overseas what my attitude is in connection with the matter. Now, however, the hon. member for Standerton comes and challenges me by saying that this report says something different to what I have always stood for. What would be the interpretation if I were not to reply to it now? Does the leader of the Opposition know in what position he has placed me?

That is the meaning of the words.

But it is not the meaning of the words, and because the hon. member has now dragged this matter in here, I will use the opportunity to show again that it is not the meaning of the words, and I will explain once more that I stand by my view that the nation has the right to secede at any time. In the first place, I say that I would regard myself as a traitor if I were to remain silent after the construction which has been put upon the matter by the hon. member for Standerton with such an awful intent. It was clear to me that hon. members opposite thought that they would once more succeed in making mischief, and I have not the slightest reason for doubting that one of the reasons was in order to see to what extent this side of the House was divided. Well, I assure them that they need not bother themselves at all about that, because we will exhibit the unanimity which we have always shown in the past. Now, however, they have noticed how things stand on our side, one after the other rises and one of them is actually the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), and they ask us not to go on with that amendment, and that we must not accept it. They say, “what a fool you will make of yourself if you go to London with that amendment." That amendment will be passed, and I will go to the Imperial Conference with that amendment. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) on the fact that he is so perfectly true to himself with all his rhetorical evolutions. As an hon. member has already said, no one knows yet owing to that way he has of speaking what his actual attitude is. The expression applies to him; words are given to the rhetorician to conceal his thoughts. He succeeds completely in that. What did he say? “From a legalistic standpoint this closes the door to secession, and it should be so. This statement was at any rate clear, and I thank the hon. member for it. But what does it mean? I cannot put it plainer than it was put in the Irish Parliament by a member. He said—

He goes further and says—

This agrees with what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said, “From a legalistic standpoint this closes the door to secession, and it should be so.” That was also the argument of the hon. member for Standerton this afternoon, and as I have said it was the statement of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). Well, hon. members can quite understand that, with all the feelings of indignation that arose in me while I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton, I also realised that I was indebted to him, because one thing is clear, viz., that the matter is being very seriously regarded, not only by the leader of the Opposition, a person who not only has achieved fame in our own country, but who has also acquired world reputation, and he thinks that we are closing the door by the passing of this paragraph. If that is so then hon. members can quite understand that I ought to be thankful to him for giving me the opportunity by the passing not only of the resolution, but also of the amendment, to see when I go to London that action is taken which will enable me when I come back to be able to say that that door is not locked on us. I am going to the Imperial Conference, and I assure my hon. friend that I shall not come back with that door locked. Rather than that that door shall be locked upon us, we would go back to the position before 1926. Nothing more awful than the result of the action of the leader of the Opposition in this House this afternoon has ever taken place in this House. I have still a good deal to say about the matter, and I am already tired.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had dicharged Dr. Conradie from service on the Select Committee on Question of Privilege and appointed Dr. N. J. van der Merwe in his stead.