When the House adjourned yesterday I was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). I said I wanted to warn the hon. member. Since he has come to this House he has not got up once to level anything in the nature of constructive criticism. Yesterday he got up again and tried, without any grounds for doing so at all, to make an attack on hon. members of this side of the House in a most bombastic fashion. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) even went so far as to attack the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) in regard to this Vote. The hon. member tried to create the impression that we on this side are in every respect opposed to the soldiers and that we are fighting against the interests of the soldiers. Neither of those two members to whom I have referred have said a single word against the soldiers or against the interests of the soldiers, but the point of view from which we start is simply this: We say that if a soldier is discharged he must no longer be kept in the army; the Government must see to it that he is given immediate employment, so that the war debt is not allowed to accumulate to a most impossible degree. Every time the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) gets up he lowers the prestige of this House.

The Speaker will look after that.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) pretends to be a very great friend of the soldiers. I am prepared to take off my hat to a soldier any day, but I don’t take off my hat to a man who hides behind a certificate which he carries in his pocket. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) to reply to the request which has been repeatedly made to him to show us that certificate, so that we may see when it was issued. Let me give the hon. member a word of advice. I want to ask the hon. member to come down a few thousand feet in his own estimation—if he does so he may perhaps be himself again. And now I want to come to item 317, signal attendants. These people constitute a class of workers who have to do very responsible and very hard work. We know that thousands and tens of thousands of lives depend on the way these signal attendants do their work. When these people enter a signal box they should not be worried by anything outside, because they must constantly be on the alert. These people occupy a very responsible and very difficult position. I know that in 1941 two men, Van der Merwe and Swanepoel, and also a certain man named Titterley, had to leave the service because of a nervous breakdown. I know that a signal attendant by the name of Konig had to resign last year for the same reason. Now I want to ask the Minister to meet these attendants in a few respects. First of all I want to say this: You get grade 1 signal attendants who have to relieve the special grade 1 men but those grade 1 men have to relieve men who occupy a higher and more responsible position, yet those people get the same salary which the ordinary grade 1 signal attendant gets, and if they are dissatisfied drastic action is taken against them. I also want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to re-grade the signal station on the Witwatersrand. I think the Minister of Railways must realise that these people are in very bad health, and a special grade 1 signal attendant is at a dead end. If a man has ability I want to ask the Minister of Railways to make provision so that the special grade 1 signal attendant whose health has become affected, may get an opportunity of being promoted to the position of inspector. That would give these people a lighter job of work and they would not feel then that they are in a dead end job. I am convinced the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), who is now Minister of Agriculture, will support me in this request. I know that he also poses as a good friend of the Railway people there, and he knows exactly what the position is. I therefore want to ask the Minister of Railways to give serious attention to the position of signal attendants and to take note of the few suggestions I have made.

A number of matters which have been brought up in the discussions would really be more appropriately dealt with under the Part Appropriation Bill. But I shall answer the points which have been raised. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) asked me to explain the increase under Head No. 1, in connection with the Construction of Railways, Hercules-Koedoespoort, and the explanation is that the total cost of that work has increased from £232,000 to £263,000 on account of the increased cost of labour and material and owing to the fact that sufficient provision was not made for the construction of overhead bridges to eliminate crossings. That has necessitated an increase of £21,000. In regard to Head No. 5, there the work is in connection with the establishment of a new port in terms of War Measure No. 101. The progress of the work has been considerably greater than was anticipated, with the result that there was this greater expenditure. With regard to breakages of crockery, I would like to make it clear that when crockery is deliberately broken by passengers the staff are not called upon to pay. They are called upon to pay when they themselves are responsible for the breaking of crockery. I may say that the total breakage of crockery on the South African Railways during the last 12 months amounted to £13,000 of which only £430 was recovered from the staff. That works out less than 1s. per man per month. I think a little measure of this kind, does encourage the people to exercise a little more care than they might otherwise have shown. The next point to which I want to refer was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). I would like to say in connection with the collection of war funds generally that collectors are not allowed on the railway trains. They are not allowed to be importunate, and if there are any cases of that description, I shall be only too pleased if they are reported. With regard to the case which was brought up by the hon. member for Swellendam it looks as if that was a case where someone acted without the authority of the Railways, and a case like that, if immediately reported, could be followed up. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has raised a matter to which I cannot reply now but which will be investigated. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) asked for details in regard to a number of items in the Additional Estimates, but as he is not here at the moment I need not delay the House in going over those points. I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and I will bear in mind what he said. I agree with him that our signalmen have a very responsible job. Any question of improvement of their lot, of course, is one for discussion with the appropriate staff group, and no doubt if they think it wise they will bring the matter to my attention officially. I notice that the hon. member for Vredefort has now arrived, and I might just deal with his queries now. The hon. member asked for details of the increases in a great number of individual votes. I would like to make it quite clear that practically in every case those increases are either due to higher cost of material, higher cost of labour, or they are due to increased turnover in the department. In the case of compensation payments, that increase is partly due to the fact that we are paying compensation on a much higher level. The goods that are being destroyed are costing very much more than they cost before.

What about livestock?

We are paying on livestock on the old basis. We have a fixed basis there laid down by law. There was also an increase in the laundry item, but that was due to the fact that we bought a lot of special equipment, and we took advantage of the opportunity to buy while it was available.

What about Item No. 424?

That increase is due to the separation of our construction work. The Catering Department runs stores in connection with our big construction works. Rather unexpectedly we have been able to go ahead with a lot of these works in the Cape Eastern and other districts, with the result that the Catering Department has had to increase their Estimate of Expenditure very considerably. There is, of course, revenue coming back against this increase; but that is why the increase is so high. In this case it is due to acceleration of the work. The increase in Account No. 354 is due to extra traffic and the increased cost of goods. Account No. 331 has had to be increased on account of increased business. That is a question of commissions. We did increased business in regard to our advertising contracts, and that is why there is an increased payment of commission. I have already dealt with Account No. 335, “Goods and Livestock.” There is a fairly considerable increase under Account No. 302, but that is due to the very high cost of electric batteries which are very difficult to obtain, the very high cost of rubber, the very high cost of electric globes and the very high cost of everything relating to electric lighting.

Is there any hope of lighting up the saloons a little better?

I do not think the position is much easier in regard to saloon lamps, but if we can get better lamps we shall increase the lighting the moment we see any prospects of getting sufficient supplies. I can assure the hon. member that that is one of the things that I should like to do. I think that covers all the points that were raised.

Motion put and agreed to.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE:

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1944, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1944.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

Head No. 1.—“General Charges—Railways”, £15,390, put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses—Railways”, £609,199, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Traffic Expenses—Railways”, £613,526, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 7.—“Cartage Services— Railways”, £95,455, put and, after discussion, agreed to.

The Minister has explained that compensation is at present being paid on a higher basis in accordance with the rise in the value of goods. But can the Minister tell us whether there is also an increase in the number of thefts on the Railways? If so, what steps is he taking to cope with those thefts? Possibly we are paying compensation for claims in respect of articles which are more expensive than they were before the war, but this increase under Item 354 is very great. Is it only due to the increased value of the goods, or are there many more thefts of goods on the Railways? This does not only apply to compensation under the heading of “Delivery Services” but it applies to compensation generally.

I should like to make the position clear. There has been some increase in the pilferage that has been going on in the South African Railways. I think that can be explained in two ways. One is that owing to the calls of our Defence Department we have been rather shorthanded in respect of the Police Force. Many policemen have volunteered for service with the army and it has taken some time to train new policemen. I should like to say, however, that the Police Force has been strengthened; we are strengthening it by taking the men back as quickly as they can be released. But quite a considerable proportion of this increase is due to the higher cost of goods. It is surprising how much higher, in respect of wholesale value, many articles are. In some cases the increase is 100 per cent. While our tariffs remain the same, the value of the goods that are carried has gone up very much, and in consequence of this our compensation claims have been higher. That explains the increase in this case.

In regard to the police staff we have heard what the Minister said, but we are also aware of the fact that the previous Chief of Police was much more concerned with the political aspect than with real police work. He was more of a politician than a railway servant, and I do hope that when the Minister appoints another Chief of Police it will be a police official who particularly applies himself to police work and not to political matters. We want a police service which will stop the number of thefts that are taking place. Our Government can look after police matters generally. I also want to express the hope that somebody will be appointed with a thorough knowledge of railway police work, and that nobody will be brought in from outside. We appreciate the fact that we have occasionally had good men brought in from outside, and we have no objection to that, but I think the Minister will agree that the police work on the Railways is very different from police work outside, and it is desirable for him to appoint somebody with a thorough knowledge of railway police work.

I do not think the hon. member should elaborate that point.

May I put it this way then : We require someone with a knowledge of railway work to prevent the claims for theft increasing to such a great extent.

I want to bring, the position on the stations on Sundays and even on other days to the Minister’s notice.

I want to point out to the hon. member that that does not come under “Delivery Services”.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 9.—“Catering and Bedding Services—Railways,” £349,600,

Last year already we drew the Minister’s attention to the position of the stewards in the dining saloons, and we pointed to the difficult conditions under which they had to do their work. I believe the Minister considered the question of appointing a Commission to go into the hours these people have to work. I again want to bring this matter to his notice. These men are young fellows round about 20 or 21 years of age.

Which item is the hon. member discussing?

Item 409, Salaries, Wages and Allowances. These are salaries for stewards in dining saloons, and an amount of £171,644 is involved. It is quite in order, Mr. Chairman. These young fellows start at 5.30 in the morning and at 6 o’clock in the morning, and some of them even start at 5 o’clock.

I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we can only discuss the reasons for the increase of this Vote.

There are increases on all the votes here. Also on salaries and wages.

The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for the increases.

One of the reasons probably is that they have to work so much overtime. That is why the expenditure increases. If we are to discuss the reasons for the increase, then we must point to the conditions under which these people work.

The hon. member should understand that we are now dealing with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

Will you please tell me then what I am allowed to talk about?

The hon. member will get the opportunity on the Main Estimates of discussing the working conditions of the stewards.

In regard to Item 412, Supplies, Liquor, etc., there is a tremendous increase in the amount. Is that simply due to the fact that more liquor and provisions are needed on account of the bigger turnover? Surely that could have been anticipated? This abnormal condition has been going on for four years and now Parliament is asked to vote more than £100,000 extra. There is another aspect—the Railways invariably pay for the highest grade of goods, and almost invariably the contractors supply them with an inferior article. Has the Minister enquired whether this increase is justifiable? This is an increase of £105,000 on Dining Saloons, and £135,000 for the Refreshment Rooms. Consequently, a globular additional amount of £250,000 is being asked for the two items. Were the estimates so bad? Surely the abnormal condition of affairs which we have today has not arisen in the course of the year? In passing I also want to ask why it is that the some contractors still get the contracts? Why is it that we get a third grade article, while the Railways pay for a first grade article? Will the Minister see to it that so far as fruit, vegetables, meat and fish are concerned, we are supplied with first grade articles when we have to pay for first grade articles?

May I, on a point of expanalation, ask : Additional amounts have to be voted here for salaries. We should like to know from you, Mr. Chairman, whether we are allowed to adduce reasons why we are opposed to these increases on those votes? May we give our reasons why we are against the increases? Viz: the way these people have to work.

I have replied to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) explaining the reason for the increase in the payments of compensation …

I put a question on a point of order.

I first of all wanted to give the Minister an opportunity of indicating the reasons for the increases.

I was not clear why I was called on suddenly. In regard to the increases which the hon. member for Vredefort has just called attention to, the hon. member knows that salaries, wages and allowances have all been raised during the past few years. Very large numbers of them have been raised, and we have given the 5 per cent. responsibility allowance.

But that was not the point I raised, but that is the point the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) wants a reply to.

The point is that we are anxious to discuss the increases on this vote, but the Chairman has ruled that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) cannot proceed with that. Now I should like to know what the position is. Are we allowed to give the reasons why we are opposed to these increases?

The reasons for the increases can be discussed but we cannot discuss the original amount which was voted. Hon. members can discuss the reasons for the increase.

On a point of order, we are asked here to vote an amount of £300,000. Are we allowed to give reasons why we are opposed to this increased expenditure? If we want to do so we must make it clear to the House what the position is.

I want to point out to hon. members that working conditions are not the reasons for the increase in expenditure.

If we are dissatisfied with the way the Government spends the money, are we not then allowed to protest against the increased expenditure?

Hon. members cannot discuss the working conditions of the staff.

I think the position is quite clear. What we are concerned with is to get authority from Parliament for certain increases in the estimates which Parliament passed last year. I came to Parliament last year and got them to spend various sums of money for various reasons. These sums of money in certain instances have been exceeded, and all that Parliament is concerned with today is to find out why they have been exceeded and why I want this money. I must justify asking for this money. But that has nothing to do with whether I appoint a chief of police of a certain type, or with conditions under which the men are working. These are matters which should come up under the estimates. The Chairman is entirely in order.

Order, order.

I apologise, Mr. Chairman. But I think the situation should be perfectly clear, and I am perfectly prepared here and now to answer any question which deals with any increase in the estimates, and to explain to the best of my ability why the increase has been incurred. But I think that is the limit beyond which it would not be proper for this discussion to extend.

The Minister critices us for being out of order, but he is out of order. He has not given a satisfactory explanation of the reasons for these big additional amounts.

With regard to that particular point, I should like again to emphasise what I pointed out in my Budget, that our normal passenger traffic revenue rose last year to above the £11,000,000 as compared with £5,500,000, a clear 100 per cent. increase.

How does it compare with the previous year?

I have not the figures actually for the previous year, but in addition to a very big increase there was particularly an increase in Defence Force traffic; and as you know, when we carry Defence traffic the calls on our liquid refreshments are usually somewhat higher than they are in the normal course. That factor, together with the higher cost of liquor and the other things that are consumed, cigarettes and so on, explain this additional expenditure. The fact that the one item (No. 406, Provisions, liquors, etc.) has gone up made it inevitable that No. 412 should also go up. The two go together, but I can assure the hon. member that it is entirely due to increased traffic and the higher prices. Speaking from memory, I think the increase in passenger traffic for last year is just over £2,000,000, which would account for practically that difference in respect of these two items.

The hon. the Minister speaks so indistinctly that one cannot follow him. In order to give him the opportunity of speaking more distinctly I want to ask him : Under Item 405, an additional amount of £135,000 is asked for provisions and liquor. Is that due to the poorer quality of the food which is being served on the Railways now-a-days? The Minister knows—as we all do—that anyone who wants to have a really bad meal should go and have a meal in the dining saloons. In the past menus were issued. Is the fact that menus are no longer issued responsible for increased expenditure? To what is the increase attributed, seeing that the service is so much poorer than it used to be?

I can only repeat what I have said. The fact that the meals are not all they should be does not only apply to the Railways. I think the hon. member will agree that this condition applies throughout the country. Even hotels are suffering in this respect on account of lack of adequate supplies and they are finding it difficult to maintain the high standard that most of them normally have. We, too, have difficulty in keeping up these high standards, but that is due to circumstances beyond the control of the Railway Administration. We do cater for passengers in the best way possible, and if the hon. member will furnish me with particulars of any really bad case of which he has knowledge, I will be glad to hear from him. Speaking generally, I think the catering standard of the South African Railways is higher than in any other system, and our Railways will do their best to maintain that high standard.

Mr. Chairman, you are ruling us out of order and we shall now be obliged to go into item after item to find out what the increases are for. In view of the bad conditions under which the stewards have to work, the long hours they have to work, one would have expected the expenditture to have dropped. Why then is there an increase in the expenditure? We get trains with more than 400 peoule, and large number of lunches have to be served, from 130 to 140 meals have to be served, and as the stewards have to work so much longer one would have thought that the expenditure would have been relatively less.

I shall explain just exactly how these accounts have been increased so that the hon. member will know what the reasons are. Let me tell him that the Hours of Duty Committee, which is the committee referred to previously, reported to me within the last week, and that report is now under consideration. It deals with the hours of duty of stewards amongst other people, and it is my hope that we shall be able very materially to improve the hours of duty of these stewards—they do work unduly long hours—under the provisions of that committee’s recommendations. I shall not be able to speak authoritatively on that, however, for another month or six weeks, until the position is examined in relation to the whole service. It may interest the hon. member to know that in respect of this particular item of £349,000, provisions, liquor, etc., account for £240,000 of that amount. Since last year additional staff has been appointed to all these saloons, and the cost involved by that together with the extra responsibility allowance, accounts for the sum of £150,000.

Under Item 412, the Minister is asking us to vote £330,000 for provisions and liquor which includes an additional amount of £105,000. Three hon. members arrived from the northern part of the Union on Sunday, and the meals on the train were so poor that one has to ask oneself what this £105,000 is for. Those members tell us that when they sat down to dinner they first of all got a bit of fish which was rotten, and they sent it back. After that they got a bit of meat—hardly a mouthful. When they asked for cheese there was no cheese. Surely it is too bad when one has to take a long trip if one cannot get decent fish and no cheese at all. What is this £105,000 wanted for? Now I want to ask the Minister something in regard to breakages: “Breekasie” as it is called here.

Under Item 413 the Minister asks for an extra amount in respect of breakages. He has told us how the expenditure in respect of breakages is allocated. The value of the breakages is deducted from the stewards’ salaries. Now, how is that calculated? The Minister, in reply to a question, stated that the value of the equipment broken in the dining saloons, or lost, has to be paid for. If it is a result of negligence, the steward who is responsible for that negligence has to make good the damage if any of the cutlery, etc., is broken, damaged or lost. Now that’s the first point. They have to repay the amount if it can be proved that things have been broken as a result of their own negligence. But now we come to B, the breaking of things and the loss resulting therefrom, in addition to that caused by negligence for which the steward himself has to pay, and in addition to the 3 per cent. of the revenue of the dining saloon — that amount is proportionately allocated at stock taking to all the staff employed in the dining saloon on the basis of the time they have worked in the dining saloon. That, therefore, means an official has to pay twice. First of all he is directly responsible, and then he is responsible for his prorata share. He may have left the dining saloon long since, but he still has to pay for things which are broken there. I contend that it is unfair on the part of the Administration to charge costs against the staff who are only getting £14 per month.

I should like some information about the shops at New Construction Works. I want to know how many shops there are, whether they come directly under the Railway Administration, and whether the goods sold in those shops are sold at a profit. I want to know at what profit those goods are sold, and whether the Controller is able to control the prices in those shops? I put this question because some time ago we had one of those shops where a profit of £2,000 per year was made. I do not think it fair that a shop put up by the Administration at the New Construction Works should make such profits. That is why I should like to know from the Minister where these shops are at the New Construction Works, what prices are charged, whether goods are sold at cost price, and whether the Administration makes sure of working at a profit there?

These shops are started in connection with new construction works.

Where are the new construction works?

We have very big new construction works going on now on the East London Main Line and also on the Saldanha Bay Line, and also in various other places, and these shops are only started for the convenience of the men who are living in isolated places, and for whom it is necessary to provide some sort of service. I do not know the details of how these shops are run but I am sure the Railways do not want to make any profit out of them. In regard to the question of breakages I am not an authority on what the arrangements are about recovering from individuals responsible for breakages, but there is an allowance of 3 per cent. made for breakages, and that allowance is calculated before any recovery is made. There is a stipulation dealing with that which reads as follows—

As I say I am not an authority on the question as to how this is done, but I shall have the matter looked into in view of what the hon. member says about double payment to see that no injustice is done. In regard to the case of the men from the North, that will also immediately be investigated and I shall contact the hon. member for further details.

I want to come back to Item 450, and to Item 412. These two items are correlated. I want to draw attention to the percentage increase of main line passengers. That question does not arise in connection with suburban traffic because we have no dining saloons on the suburban trains. The point I want to make is that the increase in main line passenger traffic is not such that it justifies a 50 per cent. increase on these items on the estimates. We have not got the coaches to carry so many more passengers. We were told last year and the year before that we had not the tractive power and that we had not got the passenger coaches to carry so many more passengers. I feel that the true reason why so much more is paid for provision and stocks is that we are not getting value for our money. We pay for a first class article but we only get a third class article. It is not because the stuff is not obtainable, but because we get a poorer quality of stuff in our dining saloons. Potatoes, cabbages, pumpkins, carrots and other vegetables are grown just as well and of the same quality as before the war. We pay for first grade vegetables but not all the vegetables that we get in the dining saloon are first grade. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to that. It seems to me he does not like to have his attention directed to that but we want him to make an investigation and we want him to see to it that the contractors who have been contracted to supply those goods supply the class of goods to which we are entitled. We pay for first class food but we get third grade stuff. We don’t object to first grade stuff being ordered; we agree to that, but we do object to the Administration being content to accept third grade goods when it pays for first grade goods. That is the reason for the increase. We want the Minister to see that justice is done in this respect. We don’t just want to criticise for the sake of criticising. We want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the increase in main line passenger traffic is not in the same ratio as the increase on the estimates for these items. All this is due to the fact that poor stuff is bought at the price of good stuff.

I want to assure the hon. member that I do not want him to think that I take his remarks lightly. His remarks will be noted. Any remarks made in this House are taken notice of and will be investigated. I give the hon. member my assurance that I shall give the matter my personal attention.

I want to know from the Minister whether if we vote this £105,000 on Item 412, he will in future put a stop to passengers being insulted after they have taken their lunch in the dining saloon. After a passenger has had his lunch and he has also had dessert he is simply told that he cannot have any fruit because he has had dessert. The table steward simply tells him that he cannot have any fruit because he has had dessert. In the past passengers were not treated in that way, and I want to ask the Minister to see to it that passengers are not insulted in that way. Then I want to put a question about the £10,000 under Item 407, Repair and Renewal of Equipment. If we vote this money will the Minister see to it that the people travelling on the Railways get better service so far as crockery is concerned. Today there may be four or five people in a compartment and if two of them are served the steward put down two cups which are very badly chipped. The passengers have to pay their full fares and have to pay in full for all they get but they are now expected to drink out of those broken cups.

I am glad the Minister now admits that the position is not what it should be and that he is going to have an investigation made. When I told the Minister some time ago what the position was he told us that everything was in perfect order. Now he says that he will have an investigation made—now that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has insisted on the necessity of that being done. As the Minister is now becoming converted, we should try and convert him entirely, and we should ask him to have an enquiry made into the whole question in regard to the serving of refreshments. About a fortnight ago I travelled on the main line and on the whole of my journey from Bloemfontein to Cape Town I was unable to get a cup of tea or a cup of coffee in my compartment. I am not the only one—there are thousands of passengers who simply tell me that they are not going to take their meals in the dining saloon any more because they have to pay 2s. 6d. for meals which are not worth 6d. If they want to have tea or something like that served in their compartment they find it is quite impossible to get it. I mention this instance, that from Bloemfontein to Cape Town I could not get a cup of tea or coffee served in my compartment. The Minister should have this matter enquired into; I hope he will have a thorough enquiry made, and that at least he will try and restore the dining saloons to the position they were in before, so that when he asks for an increase for supplies we who have to vote this increase in Parliament at least will be able to face the public who have to travel on our Railways.

I wish to say this in connection with the last speaker who criticised the attendance on the Railways.

I have also recently travelled to the Transvaal and back, and I find the service in the dining cars most excellent, and I find that every attention is given to travellers on the Railways. The hon. member’s statement that he could not get a cup of tea or coffee in his compartment is ridiculous, because the steward comes round continuously to enquire whether anyone needs anything. I say the service on the Railways is excellent— it is a hundred per cent. better than it was in the days of the former Minister, Mr. Pirow.

Is this the first time you have travelled on a train?

I have done as much travelling as the hon. member have ever done, and perhaps much more, and I know what treatment is, and I do not go to the Railways to get 10s. worth for 2s. 6d. We are all satisfied with the treatment which we get on the Railways and we think the service is excellent.

On Item 416 there is an increase in regard to bedding. I hope that that means that we are going to get a better service. If a passenger gets on a train at night he has a lot of inconvenience to put up with. If a man gets on a train after 10 o’clock he has to wait hours before he can be supplied with bedding. I hope better provision will be made and that if necessary additional staff will be appointed to carry out this service, because at the moment these people are asleep when we board the train late at night. I have had to get on a train at 2 o’clock at night to come to Parliament and I could not get any bedding.

The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for the increase.

I am asking whether this increase is to be used to supply a better service, because at the moment the service is very feeble.

I just want to reply to what the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Van Onselen) has said here. If he had travelled in the same train that I travelled in he would have spoken quite differently because we had fish put before us —well, we did not know whether we should run away or not.

Will the hon. member tell me which item he is discussing?

I am replying to the remarks of the hon. member for North Rand in regard to the meals served on the trains. As we are asked to vote this increase we shall only be prepared to vote for this increase if we know that the meals are going to be attended to more efficiently than is the case today. In the past we used to get good meals in the dining saloon, but today one is obliged to order two and three times, and in the end one feels inclined to get up and leave the food alone. I feel that as we are asked to vote this increase the quality of the food and also the age of the food should be considered.

The Minister has made a statement about laundry which is not quite clear to me. I am referring to Item 420. The Railways in certain places have their own laundries: these laundries do very excellent work, and we are thoroughly in agreement with the idea that the Railway should have their own laundries. They not only clean their linen properly, but the stuff is not damaged either. Now, is this £8,000 intended for more machinery for our own laundries, or is it required because a high rate has to be paid for the washing done by other people?

No, this money is required for renewals.

Yes, so I understand.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 10.—“Publicity, Bookstalls, Advertising and Automatic Machines—Railways,” £127,517.

The Minister referred to the shops at New Construction Works and he told us that no profits were made on those shops. We would like him to be a little more specific on this point. I can hardly imagine the Railways selling anything at cost.

Will the hon. member please tell me which item he is talking about?

I am discussing Item 426, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, and my question is whether the articles are sold in these shops without any profit being made.

I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that that does not come under this item.

If that is so, cannot the Minister explain the position to the House?

No, I am afraid I cannot allow that.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 12.—“Road Motor Services— Railways,” £217,683.

Is Item No. 480 intended for the purchase of more vehicles to transport grain, because last year we had to approach the Military Authorities to come and help us transport our grain, and because their vehicles were arranged in convoys, and because of other rules attaching to such transport, a great deal of trouble was caused. I should like to know whether this £61,000 is intended for additional vehicles. If that is so then we shall be pleased to approve of it, but if it is not so then we should like to know what it is intended for?

The higher costs in this case are wholly for running expenses. The cost of fuel and everything has increased, and in addition to that we have had a lot of extra mileage. As the hon. member knows, the mileage last year was very heavy owing to the heavy crop of maize and wheat. That actually covers the whole of this particular item.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 13—“Tourist Service—Railways,” £58,850.

The Minister on a previous occasion pointed out that there was a tremendous increase in revenue from tourist traffic. Now, an additional amount is being asked for here in regard to tourists. I want to know whether these people are tourists or war refugees? Is the Minister differentiating between the two? I do not know of any tourists who are visiting the country now, but I know there are a good many war refugees. They are encouraged to use our Railways whereas the Minister discourages other people from using them. I should like to know whether the money we are asked to vote here is intended for tourists or for war refugees?

I want to make the point quite clear, that the tourists referred to here are tourists handled by the Tourist Department. They are not evacuees or refugees. These are tourists from North Africa and other parts from the Belgian Congo, the Rhodesias, French Equatorial Africa, West Africa and so on. Large numbers of people, surprisingly large numbers of people, are coming down to spend their vacations here, and it is necessary for them to do so, and usually they have fairly long leave due to the fact that when they have lived in Central Africa they are given long vacations. Instead of going to Europe and other parts of the world, as they did in peace time, they are coming here now. To that extent it is due to the war that we are getting these tourists.

Item 496 and item 497, Hotel Accommodation—do these come under the same heading?

Yes.

Under “Hotel Accommodation” there is something in regard to hotels, and I should like to know whether that has anything to do with the new hotel in Pretoria?

No, that does not come under this heading.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 15—“Interest on Superannuation and Other Funds—Railways,” £10,758, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 17—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Railways,” £772,726.

In the explanatory footnote it is stated that this amount is required mainly for certain things, and among others £10,000 is mentioned for the establishment of a National Road Transportation Council. I should like to know how that Council is constituted, and what its relationship is to the Railways? I also want to know why the Railways have to make provision for the £10,000? In the past this was paid by the Central Government, but now apparently the money has to come out of Railway Revenue. This is an additional burden on Railway Revenue which the Railways are undertaking in connection with the Road Transportation Council. Then there are a few other items which make us feel uneasy. For instance, there is the grant to meet the expenditure at the Liberty Cavalcade in Port Elizabeth, and the grant to the Liberty Cavalcade here in Cape Town. Our attitude on this side of the House is that the Railways as such have nothing to do with the collection of money for war. We should like to know on what basis the Minister pays these amounts of £900 in the case of Cape Town, and £1,500 in the case of Port Elizabeth? The other details are not shown. On what basis does the Railway Administration make such contributions to these liberty cavalcades? I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that this is an indirect subsidy, the Railway Administration paying for the war effort, and whether the Railways are entitled to do this? Now, we notice that in connection with this Cavalcade at Green Point a large number of buck sails are being used. Are those buck sails hired out to these people or are they supplied to them free of charge? If they do pay, we want to know how much they pay for them. In Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, and other big towns, buck sails were supplied to those people, and we want to know whether they were hired out to them in all cases. I also want to point out to the Minister that urgent requests aré sometimes made by the farmers up country for buck sails to cover up their mealies. The Railway Administration refused to supply those sails, and often they are not able to supply them.

Those buck sails are paid for.

The farmer often suffers through his stuff getting wet. Our experience recently has been that at stations up-country thousands of bags of mealies have gone bad. Large quantities of mealies are stacked up at Free State stations, and there are no buck sails to cover them up. In spite of that the Railway Administration gives these buck sails to the Cavalcades. I want to know how many the Minister has supplied here in Cape Town and how much the Administration is getting for them?

I want to move the following amendment—

As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) has said, the Railway Administration is making contributions to the Liberty Cavalcades in Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. We on this side of the House object to this in principle. Our first objection is that if the Government considers it its duty to contribute to the Liberty Cavalcade it should do so under the Defence Vote, and it should not do so through the Railways. I know what the Minister will tell us in his reply. He will tell us that he is making these contributions for the purpose of advertising the Railways. The Minister has made some wonderful statements in regard to the advertising of our Railways in this country. The other day he told us that he had advertised in the Press that people should not travel by train, and, so he says, this is one of the best means of advertisement to get them to use the trains. Sometimes one fails to follow the Minister’s arguments. I am wondering whether he will argue this point today as well. Perhaps the Minister will tell us again that he wants to advertise the Railways, but I really do not believe that he wants more passengers today. I therefore move the deletion of these two amounts. I do not even want to go into the question of whether this is in conformity with the Act of Union. To my mind it is in conflict with the Act of Union. The General Manager in his report told us that the tax on Railway passengers was not in harmony with the Act of Union and now the Minister goes further than that and makes presents. I therefore move the deletion of these two items.

I want to second the amendment and I want to ask the Minister a question. I understand that the Liberty Cavalcade is being used to strengthen the Governor-General’s Fund. That being the case we want to raise a serious objection. Parliament votes amounts to the Governor-General’s Fund on the £ for £ system. A large section of the population object to these amounts being specifically voted. Now the Minister of Railways indirectly wants to make further contributions to the Governor-General’s Fund out of the coffers of the State. I want to ask whether on this £1,500 and £900, the deletion of which is moved, the Government will also have to contribute on the £ for £ basis? If contributions have to be made, let them be made outright. Why are we to contribute in an indirect way to that Fund, while in addition the Government has to contribute on a £ for £ basis? It is in conflict with the basis of control of our Railways, viz: that the Railways are to be run on business principles. Special conditions are laid down for the control of our Railway finances. I want to ask the Minister whether that is also to be done in principle under different circumstances? I am thinking of the Great Ossewa Trek for instance. Did the Railways contribute to those celebrations? This Cavalcade is a celebration in which only one section of the population, which is pro-war, is taking part. Will the Minister also make a contribution if the antiwar section of the population starts a celebration? In regard to the buck sails placed at the disposal of the Cavalcade I want to point out that thousands of bags of grain are being destroyed because there are no buck sails, yet any number of buck sails are available for this celebration and the buck sails which the farmers get are often so bad that they can hardly be used, while the buck sails provided for the Cavalcade is of the very best —one would almost think they are brand new. The food supplies of the nation at a time like the present are being endangered because buck sails are not available, yet sails are provided for this Cavalcade, and at what price? What do the managing bodies of the Cavalcade pay per day for the hire of buck sails? We should like to compare those rates with what the farmers have to pay for sails of a very much poorer quality.

I think I must intervene in order to correct the very wrong impressions of some members opposite in regard to what the Railways do in connection with such celebrations as we are discussing now. I have been taken severely to task for doing this for the war effort of the country, but I have been told that I have never done anything for anything else. Let me tell the House that in connection with railage concessions and the free loan of a very large number of tarpaulins, with the use of buildings, and in a variety of other ways these centenary celebrations of 1938 cost the Railways a sum of over £25,000. I should like to ask when that was done, did this House object to it? Was there a single word raised in criticism of it? No. When I am doing a very small piece of ordinary publicity, it is quite a different matter. In regard to the question of advertising on which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) made a point, I should like to make it quite clear that while I do not want people to travel on the Railways at the present time, I do not want people to forget that the Railways are there. As you know, and as every businessman knows, all important business firms are resorting at present to what is known as prestige advertising. Business firms even when they are not in a position to be able to supply anything are still advertising the fact that they are there, and that in due course they will be able to supply the commodities they supplied before. That is all what it is, a piece of ordinary publicity by the South African Railways; and let me say this, that the whole cost to the Railways is represented by these votes. Anything that is done in the way of hiring tarpaulins is paid for at tariff rates. We do nothing outside the votes. There is no provision for tarpaulins in these votes, so the question of tarpaulins does not properly arise in this discussion now. The limit of our expenditure in connection with these exhibitions is reflected in these estimates, neither more nor less. But I think it will be agreed that the Railways generally have always seized the opportunity to assist in these exhibitions by a certain measure of publicity. Through this publicity the Railways are assisting themselves. This form of advertisement pays handsomely, and I have no doubt that it will pay handsomely in the present case. But do not accuse us of doing it for one and not for the other, because that is not at all in accordance with the facts. The question was raised why an amount of £1,000 was paid to the National Road Transportation Council. That was done in the early days of the Transportation Council, the idea being that we would carry it to the end of the financial year under the transportation commitments of the Railways. But as from the 1st April that vote is being transferred to the Treasury, and the council becomes a part of the permanent Department of Transport under the Ministry of Transport. So from that date this will become a charge against the Treasury and not the Railways, but for convenience, as no provision was made in the Budget, it was thought wise to carry on the work for the remainder of the year at the cost of the South African Railways.

I believe the Minister does not quite appreciate the tendency of our criticism in regard to buck sails. Our criticism is that while buck sails are not available to the farmers and while the farmers’ products are unprotected and are being destroyed by rain sails are being used for purposes of lesser importance. I received a letter last week from someone in my constituency and that man wrote telling me that the Railway Department was now refusing to hire out any buck sails. I should like to know whether it is correct, or whether the station master supplied wrong information? In this case no trucks were available ….

What has that to do with this Vote?

The Minister replied to that point, and I am reacting to his reply. Extra money is being asked for here, possibly because there are not sufficient buck sails. Is it the Department’s policy no longer to let buck sails to farmers?

As far as the use of tarpaulins at the Cavalcade is concerned, I would emphasise there is only a handful of tarpaulins, only a mare bagatelle compared with the quantity the farmers are using.

What is the policy in regard to the lending of tarpaulins to farmers?

I think if the hon. member would ask the questions at the proper time, I could give him the information, but I cannot supply it at the moment. We supplied large numbers of tarpaulins for the benefit of the maize industry.

At what rate were they supplied?

On that I am not going to be dogmatic.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

In regard to this so-called Liberty Cavalcade the Minister has now explained that the amounts the House is asked to vote constitute a free gift—they are not a matter of business. The Minister then linked this up with a free gift in connection with the Centenary celebrations and he said that the Railways at that time had £25,000 expense in connection with those celebrations. I want to point out that that was not a gift of the same kind. The gift, or the present, to the Liberty Cavalcade is a political gift. The Railway question is a political question, and the last elections were fought mainly on that issue. This amount of £2,400 is therefore being given for the promotion of the war. It should come under the Defence Vote and not here, and I also want to point out that when this gift was made for the Centenary celebrations it was so far removed from politics that for instance the Prime Minister, the Deputy-Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition were not even allowed to take part, but here we are dealing with a subject which constitutes the main issue between the two parties, and I therefore want to support the proposal to delete this item.

In regard to the statement made by the Minister there is one point which I want to make perfectly clear. The Minister says that an amount of £25,000 was presented by the Railway Administration on the occasion of the Centenary celebrations. I just want to make it clear that no present in money was made by the Administration. Possibly buck sails were lent to the Central Celebration Committee but no money was voted and no cash was given. As a matter of fact the full Railway rates were paid for the ox-wagon which after the trek had to be taken from Pretoria to Mossel Bay, Hartenbos.

These amounts are only for publicity, they are only for the display by the Railways themselves.

Are not they contributions in cash, or are they for services rendered?

I want to make it perfectly clear that this is a grant to these people who are building these exhibits for the South African Railways. The Railways own exhibit has been paid for out of this money. This is not a free grant for Cavalcade. It is purely to defray our own expenditure. I am not quite clear about the details of the exhibit, but they usually run a restaurant and have a stand showing what our war work is and that kind of thing. This is merely a grant to cover the expenditure in connection with these particular buildings.

Then how can you compare it with the gift to the Eeufees?

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

St.als, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss. E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

NOES—75:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, B.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure— Railways,” as printed, put and agreed to.

Head No. 18.—“Maintenance of Assets— Harbours,” £42,744, put and agreed to.

Head No. 25.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure— Harbours,” £10,536, put and agreed to.

Head No. 27.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure-Steamships,” £152, put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure— Airways,” £11,850, put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways,” £56,291, puţ and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours,” £204,996, put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds without amendment, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, without amendment.

Report considered and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necesary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted by the House.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of the half hour privilege to address the Committee. This vote, as everyone will realise, is an important one—it is the Prime Minister’s vote and that of the Minister of External Affairs. Under this vote matters of general policy are usually discussed, and that being so it is of the utmost importance that we should discuss these matters in the most effective way and as thoroughly as we can. Before going any further I want to make a suggestion and that is that in discussing this vote, the various subjects should, wherever possible, be discussed point by point. If we follow that course, it will tend to make our discussions all the more fruitful. That, naturally, not only pre-supposes co-operation on the part of all the members on one side of the House, but also co-operation from members opposite, and especially the cooperation of the responsible Minister, in this case the Prime Minister, who after a point has been fully introduced should reply to the discussion so that the point can be disposed of as speedily as possible after the information he has given the House. The first question I want to bring up for discussion is one which I want to raise by way of a request for information, and I hope the Prime Minister will reply to my question as soon as possible. An Imperial Conference is to be held in London shortly. The Prime Minister has told us that he intends going to that conference. I have asked him to give us some information about the agenda of the Imperial Conference. We should know something about that, because matters will be discussed there which will also affect us, and which may effect us very deeply. That request for information was all the more reasonable because the British Prime Minister has made a promise that the Imperial Conference Agenda will be discussed in England itself, and that an opportunity will be provided for such discussion. The Prime Minister of Canada has made a similar promise. Our Prime Minister, although he was not very clear and specific on the point, as we understood him, also promised that he would give us an opportunity to discuss the Agenda. He then told us that he had not yet received the necessary information about the Agenda. He did not yet know what were the matters which were going to be discussed but he expected to get that information within a comparatively short time and he even indicated that this would be the opportunity —when we were discussing this vote—to have a discussion on this subject in the House. It will be very difficult for us to proceed with this matter before the Prime Minister gives us further information on the point. We are anxious to have as thorough a discussion on the subject as is feasible in the circumstances. I do not propose going any further into the subject at this stage. I want to use the rest of the half hour at my disposal to raise another subject, a question which is not really connected with the Imperial Conference, but which none the less very deeply affects South Africa’s interest—and I am referring specifically to South Africa—it is a question which will affect South Africa just as deeply as the decisions of the Imperial Conference will. The question I am referring to is that of Ireland. [Laughter.] Yes, when hon. members laugh about a matter like this, they clearly show their mentality. It is the very mentality which one must look for among those hon. members—it is the kind of mentality we can expect from them. Dominion freedom is a joke to them. To us it is not a joke. To us it is a very serious matter. Well, I shall leave those hon. members to their own devices. Now let me discuss this question of Ireland. I feel it essential to do so on this occasion because the subject is one which not only affects us but it is a matter of urgency. The events in this connection are events which have occurred in the last few days, and I suspect that they are still developing. I think hon. members are well aware of what is happening, but let me for one moment remind them of what recently occurred. A request was made by the United States of America to Ireland asking that country to do something which Ireland considered, if it agreed, would mean forsaking the attitude it had adopted and had loyally maintained throughout the war, namely the attitude of true neutrality. The request was that the Ambassadors of two nations with which England is at war, and with whom Ireland is not at war, be sent out of the country. The Prime Minister of Ireland refused to do so. He not only refused on principle, but he also refused because he is a man. He is not a slave. If he had been a slave he would have given in to every bit of pressure brought to bear on him and Ireland would never have maintained the position of independence it enjoys today. It was for that reason that he turned down the request. It was made clear that America did not act, just on its own, but that the English Government was behind it.

The old whipping boy again.

Not only the old whipping boy but the old sinner. Clearly the British Government is at the back of America’s request, and the best proof that the British Government is behind it is to be found not only in this, that the Prime Minister of England has stated that he has been consulted step by step in regard to this whole question, not only that he has given his approval to it, but that he was prepared immediately to take certain steps. Those steps in the first place amounted to this, that he was going to break off all communications between England and the Irish Free State. The telephone service between England and the Irish Free State has been cut off. As this morning’s reports announce a censorship has been imposed on any communication by post. But that is not all. Mr. Churchill has threatened that the step’s which he has taken are not the end of it, but are the beginning of further steps he has prepared, or which he intends taking. The English papers are already suggesting that this affair will end up in a blockade of Ireland. In other words, that Ireland’s food transport will be cut off. They want to compel Ireland by starving her out to comply with their demands.

What about Holland?

You people can only wage war against women and children.

Now I want to remind the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that this is not a matter which concerns Mr. De Valera only. This is not a question which merely affects a particular Leader of the Irish people—it is not a question of the Prime Minister of Ireland alone—it is a matter affecting the Irish people. Let me remind the Prime Minister that as the reports have shown, De Valera does not stand alone, but that the leaders of every party and not only the leaders of every party but that the members of every party in Ireland, which politically are opposed to each other, stand solidly together on this particular question.

Poor old Hitler !

I don’t think we should worry about parrots here. I want to put this to the Prime Minister, and I want him to think this over, that Ireland has been divided for 700 years, and that before the outbreak of war Ireland was still divided politically ….

May I ask on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. member is in order in raising this question on this vote, and whether he should not have raised it on the vote for mental hospitals and hospitals for people suffering from mental diseases?

Ireland has been divided for 700 years. Ireland was divided until the outbreak of this war, but when Ireland decided to be free in the full sense of the word and to be neutral and to keep out of the war, it had the effect of the Irish nation, which never before in all its history had been united, becoming completely united. Let me just say this to the Prime Minister, that if he had followed that example in South Africa, he would have achieved the same result here, and we as a nation in South Africa would have been more united than ever before. Instead of doing so he has divided the nation. I look upon this question as a question which not only affects Ireland, it also affects South Africa, as I said at the outset, and that is why I took it upon myself—and I did not only regard it as the right thing to do but I regarded it as my duty—to send a telegram to the President of Ireland in support and approval of his attitude.

What did he reply?

I would not have referred to this matter were it not for the fact that yesterday at the beginning of the sitting, what I would call a miniature comedy was enacted in connection with the telegram which I sent to De Valera. The question which was put then required an answer from me. The question put was this: What right did I have to send a telegram of that nature to the Head of the Irish Free State; and having done so—thus the question went—why did not I do so in other cases where the rights and the territories of small nations had been violated? Why did I not do so in the case of Holland, Belgium, Norway and other countries?

Yes, why not?

Because Hitler was the man who did these things.

Hon. members are entitled to expect an answer from me. I want to reply by putting a counter-question. Why did De Valera himself not interfere in the interest and in the affairs of Holland when that country was overrun? Why did he not interfere when Belgium, Norway and other countries were overrun? The question is this: separting the belligerent countries in Europe there is a neutral country, Switzerland. Why did not Switzerland interfere in the affairs of the war, why did not Switzerland stand up for the interests of one or other small nation like itself? There is only one answer to that; they were neutral, and the attitude of neutrality is our attitude on this side of the House. We have stood for neutrality from the very start. From the very start we have adopted a neutral attitude. The war is not our war and in the circumstances we felt that we must not take sides in this war. If in some cases I have referred to what has happened in other countries, also in small countries, I have done so with the object of showing that those coming after us with so-called high ideals and who say that they are aiming at high ideals—that they have noble objects in view —and that they are waging this war in order to achieve those noble objects—I have referred to them to show that they have not been true to themselves, and I have done so in order to show up the hyprocrisy indulged in in connection with the war, and to show it up in its true light. The question arises why I have particularly adopted this attitude in regard to Ireland. My reply first of all is that Ireland is a sister Dominion. The Dominions have this common element, that the freedom they enjoy is restricted and circumscribed by the Statute of Westminster, and if an attack is made, if the freedom which one Dominion enjoys under the Statute of Westminster, is violated, not only is the one Dominion affected but all the Dominions are affected. With regard to Ireland it has been specifically laid down that its freedom will certainly not be less than that of Canada, but more than that. Ireland and we here in South African are in agreement in our conception of freedom. We agree with each other in our interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, and in the interpretation of our Dominion status. What is that interpretation? The interpretation is that under our Dominion status we have full control over our Foreign relations in exactly the same way as we have over our internal relations. We have the right to remain neutral if England is at war. We have the right, if we want to, to break away from England and the British Empire. We know that the Prime Minister has given a different interpretation to Clause 60 of the Declaration by the Imperial Conference of 1926, the Statute of Westminister. He has given his own interpretation to it outside in the country and also in this House. But what has been the result? This House in 1930 by a big majority took a solemn resolution so to interpret Clause 60 of the Statute of Westminster that we have the right as a Dominion to stand on our own feet in the fullest sense of the word, that we have the right to remain neutral if England is at war, that we have the right to break away and to become a Republic in accordance with our own decisions. The person who wears the Crown of England also wears the Crown of South Africa, but that does not mean constitutional unity. The Crown under the interpretation of this House is divisible. We are dealing with the King not as King of England but solely and simply as the King of South Africa. That is the interpretation given to the matter by this House. That is the interpretation which De Valera has given to it and he used the right he has, the constitutional right, when he declared that Ireland was neutral. He was going to keep out of the war. It was on that occasion that he gave practical effect to his country’s freedom. He acted in accordance with his rights, his full rights. Another reason why I have raised this question in this way, and why I have done what I have done, is because England and the Dominion Ministers who have expressed their opinions have violated Dominion freedom. That is the only way I can look at it. They have been guilty of a violation of that freedom. America has been pushed to the fore, and Churchill has been consulted throughout and has supported what America has done. If Churchill was not prepared to support the action taken in the case of a Dominion, whose rights he is compelled to protect in the first place—if Churchill had not supported America’s action, America would not have made that request. Churchill was approached first. De Valera in the circumstances, as one can well understand, made an appeal to the Prime Minister of Australia, to the Prime Minister of Canada—to Mr. Curtin and Mr. Mackenzie King. They replied yesterday morning and our Prime Minister was also responsible for violating those rights by stating here that although he had not been asked by De Valera to take action in this matter, if he had been approached he would have given the same reply as the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada had given. I just want to say in passing that the fact that our Prime Minister has not been consulted, or the fact that he has not been appealed to on this question, is most interesting to all of us, and I go further and I say that it is most amusing to see what has happened. Canada and South Africa were always in the forefront in any movement for the expansion of the freedom of the Dominions. That has been the position since the days of Sir Wilfred Laurier. That has been, especially since 1926 when, with the active co-operation of Mr. Mackenzie King, South Africa and Canada confirmed Dominion freedom in the Statute of Westminister so far as such freedom did exist. They were always mentioned in one and the same breath where the question of the expansion of Dominion freedom was concerned. One would have expected under those circumstances that the first man to whom De Valera would have looked would have been our Prime Minister. He passed him over. Why? I think I hit the nail on the head yesterday when I interjected—De Valera knows him. He knows that our Prime Minister is just Churchill’s echo. He knows that our Prime Minister is the greatest Imperialist of the century. He knows that in regard to the freedom of the Dominions nothing, absolutely nothing can be expected from him, and consequently the Prime Minister’s declaration was exactly what one could have expected from him. But what does it mean? Mr. De Valera was Chairman, and a very good Chairman, of the League of Nations. Where international affairs are concerned Mr. De Valera knows what he is talking about, and the step taken by our Prime Minister means that he has expressed his opinion and that opinion, that judgment, is that he does not stand for Dominion freedom but for the very opposite—that he is a man who echoes everything that happens in London, a man who does not appreciate —who does not insist—on the freedom of his own country. Every step taken in this country for the freedom and self-respect of South Africa he has fought tooth and nail. De Valera knows the Prime Minister and that is why he passed him by, and that says a great deal. But the worst in connection with this matter is this, Mr. Churchill made a statement yesterday morning—or at any rate it appeared in the Press yesterday morning—and that statement I think is a serious one so far as we are concerned, because it makes us realise that what is happening in Ireland today may happen to any other Dominion tomorrow, also to South Africa. According to the newspaper account Prof. D. L. Savory, Conservative member for Belfast, asked—

He himself felt that that was the point at issue—that was the point of the greatest importance in connection with the relationship between England and Ireland, and that is why he put that question. Mr. Churchill replied as follows—

[Time limit.]

I want to reply at once to a few of the points raised by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I do not think it will take me half an hour to do so. In regard to the first point—the question asked by Leader of the Opposition regarding the forthcoming conference in London I only want to say this: The English Prime Minister has already made it clear in the House of Commons that the conference is not going to be an ordinary Imperial Conference, but that it is going to be a general discussion of questions of policy between the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and of the other Dominions. It is not going to be an ordinary Imperial Conference to discuss or settle a number of specific points. It is going to be a general exchange of views between the leaders of the Commonwealth. I was anxious, of course, to know what the intention was, whether an agenda was going to be placed before the Conference, and the reply was “No, there is going to be no Agenda, the subjects for discussion will be questions in relation to the war and question relating to the end of the war, and problems arising from the war.” Those matters are going to be discussed. There will not be an ordinary agenda setting out the points for discussion, as is done at ordinary Imperial Conferences. There will be a general exchange of views. I am therefore in this position, that if the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition or other hon. members want to discuss this question they will have to discuss it on this basis, that it is not going to be an Imperial Conference with an agenda of specific points, but it is going to be a general exchange of views on war matters between the leaders of the British Commonwealth of Nations. So much for the first question raised by the hon. member. Now I come to his defence, his apology, his statement of his position in regard to Ireland.

It was not an apology.

A statement. If ever we have had an amusing incident in this House or in this country, we have had it in this instance. Nothing ever astonished me more than to see the cable yesterday morning from the Leader of the Opposition to President De Valera. Nothing ever struck me as more queer and anomalous than the action of the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes; you said the same thing about the Freedom Deputation when that went overseas.

No appeal was made to him; nobody asked him for his opinion. De Valera made an appeal to two other prominent leaders in the British Commonwealth, but I think the last man he would ever have thought of was the Leader of the Opposition. That was his sin. The hon. member therefore had to get himself on the political scene somehow, he had to make an apperance on the international scene on this subject, and without any motives, unasked, like a clap of thunder, he arrived on the scene and sent this cable. When I read the cable the question arose in my mind: “Why did he not send a similar telegram to Holland when that country was invaded?” Holland’s neutrality was violated. There was an unheard of breach of international law. Why this death-like silence on the other side and on the part of the Leader of the Opposition at that time?

He has already answered that.

Why his deathlike silence at that time? When President Roosevelt made his request to Ireland the Leader of the Opposition had to appear on the scene; it shows how anomalous and ridiculous the position is. But the other point which immediately came to my mind was this: “Is the Leader of the Opposition going to follow up his friendly advice to De Valera?” If Eire gets into further difficulties, as a result of his advice and his support, what is he going to do? Are his merely idle words?

Through whom is Ireland going to get in trouble?

Or do they intend taking definite action if further difficulties should develop? The more one looks at things the more ridiculous they appear. There we have a party which has suffered a tremendous defeat in South Africa— a party which was beaten in the elections which we have just had—and the Leader of the Opposition sends a message to another country.

350,000 voters.

I know of no precedent for such a step. The President of the United States of America made a request to Ireland. In the circumstances, in my modest opinion, it was a thoroughly justifiable request. What is happening is that Northern Ireland and Great Britain are today being used as a large base for the American Army, to prepare for an invasion of the Continent of Europe.

A new base which they have secured.

Hon. members will realise that the President of America and the people of the United States are very much concerned about the position. Here they are using a country as a base and within that country, on the same island, there are representatives of the Governments of Germany and Japan. A friendly request is made by the President of the United States to Ireland asking him to consider the position and to take account of the danger to the American Army. Hon. members should remember that America has during this war rendered many services and many favours to Eire. When Eire was in trouble in regard to the importation of foods and other things, Eire made a request to the President of the United States to supply them with ships, to let them have ships, to supply their people with food, and to keep their industries going, and President Roosevelt, in spite of the great need we had for keeping every ship in our hands, said that he was going to help and he provided ships. Nearly all those ships have been sunk by German U-boats. President Roosevelt acted in a most friendly manner and he helped Eire, and now he comes along with his friendly request, asking for the representatives of Germany and Japan to be removed, and asking for the danger of espionage and of an intelligence service against the American Army to be removed, and the reply was not only “No,” but it was given in a way which in the circumstances was unjustified.

It was a moderate reply.

It was absolutely negative in strong terms. I do not see how President Roosevelt can be blamed. I can quite understand that when Canada and Australia were asked by De Valera for an opinion and for a report they immediately said: “In no circumstances; we quite agree with President Roosevelt and with his request.” Any unprejudiced individual in this world will say that in the circumstances it was a reasonable request, but now we are told the very opposite by the Leader of the Opposition. Now the Leader of the Opposition wants to drag in matters about the origin of the war, matters which have long since been disposed of, about the share we have taken, the attitude we have adopted in our declaration of war, and so on. I am not going into that. The people have given their verdict on that issue. And their verdict is that we did what was in the interest of South Africa. If we had done what the Leader of the Opposition wanted us to do we would have been in the same trouble, and perhaps in worse trouble, than Ireland is in today. Nobody can say what the future may bring, but this, we do know, that the past four or five years have shown — and have shown very emphatically — that the attitude we have adopted has been to the lasting good of South Africa. Ireland’s example has always been held up to us, and now Ireland is in trouble.

And who is getting Ireland into trouble?

Where did the trouble start? President Roosevelt addressed his request to Ireland. Don’t let us take Ireland as an example. The day will come when we shall thank God that we did not follow Ireland’s example. We followed nobody’s example; we acted according to our conscience, according to what we knew to be best, and what we knew to be in the true interest of South Africa. The way we have got over our difficulties, the large degree of prosperity we have in this country today—all these things are due to the decision we took on that occasion. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told us that for 700 years Ireland had been divided, and that now it had become a united country. Is it a united country today? Has Ireland succeeded in becoming a united country?

Yes, read the newspapers.

The Leader of the Opposition says that if we had followed Ireland’s example when war broke out we would have become a united South Africa. Has Ireland become a united country. For 700 years it has been a divided country.

The parties are all in harmony today.

The last elections in this country constituted a great judgment in the history of South Africa. The verdict given then shows that the course we chose and which we are still following today is the right course, the only course which we can follow to achieve our ultimate object of a really united South Africa.

May I first say a few words about the Prime Minister’s reply regarding the Imperial Conference? In that connection I only want to say this, I am not surprised at his telling us that there is going to be no agenda for that Conference. If there were an agenda it would not be so dangerous, because the public would know then what was going to be discussed behind the scenes. But if the Conference is to be held without an agenda, without any notice to the nations involved, without their having an opportunity of discussing these matters and giving instructions to their representatives, then I say the business is dangerous in the extreme. I am very glad to know further that the subject with which Lord Halifax’s name has been connected, the subject with which the Prime Minister’s name has been linked up, namely, a closer Imperial relationship, at any rate does not appear on that agenda. We may think what we like as to what is going to be discussed in that connection, but in any case the fact that they dare not put it on an agenda shows that in face of Mr. Mackenzie King, in the face of Canada’s opposition, they are on the run. To come to the question of Ireland—the Prime Minister continually comes back to the point that he has run an election on the war issue in South Africa and that he has won that election with a majority, and a great majority. What has the question of the result of the election in South Africa to do with this matter? It is not a question of what has happened in South Africa at the general elections, it is a question of right and of the freedom, the liberty of one of the Dominions in which, by implication, the right and the freedom of all the Dominions are involved. Now, about Ireland’s unity. It seems to me that the Prime Minister is a stranger in Jerusalem. Apparently he does not read his newspapers. If he had read yesterday’s papers about this crisis he would have seen that what I say is correct, that Ireland is at one on this matter. So far as Ireland’s nationality and freedom are concerned ….

Of course, there are two Irelands.

We are not talking about Ulster now. It is only a small piece of Ireland. I thought the Prime Minister was speaking about Eire—is Ulster Eire?

He used the word “Eire.”

That is splitting hairs.

For 700 or 800 years Ireland has been divided and what has it been divided about? It has been divided about the British connection, and when the British connection was developed into what it is today—if one can talk about British connection in Ireland—it brought about greater freedom and the chance of enjoying that greater freedom and it brought about unity in Ireland. The other argument which the Prime Minister used here was this: “Yes, you are now supporting De Valera’s point of view, and De Valera’s rights as you see them, but are you going to do anything if De Valera gets into trouble? Are you going to support him with armed forces or in any way whatsoever. What are you going to do?” Is that the sort of reply we should get to that question? I say it is nothing but childishness. When we stand up for somebody’s rights here we are told that we are not allowed to do so unless we are prepared to use force in enforcing our demands. It is a childish argument. In England there is an American Naval Base, and for the safety of that American Naval Base it has now become necessary to take those steps against Ireland and to force Ireland. That is what it means. In effect it is nothing but a military emergency. Well, if there is a military necessity one apparently is permitted to trample on a nation’s freedom. I am not prepared to recognise that point of view, and that point of view must go. And yet the Prime Minister comes here and uses that same argument. The American naval base must not be detrimentally affected by the presence of two men in Ireland, men who are the ambassadors of belligerent nations, and because of these two men those steps against Ireland are justified. I say it is nothing but a complete denial of the attitude which the other side has told us it always stands for. It shows how much hypocrisy there is behind it all. I just want to revert to what I was quoting earlier on in regard to Mr. Churchill’s statement in the British House of Parliament yesterday or the day before yesterday. What I quoted was this: He was asked how this affected the relations between England and one of her Dominions, and his reply was that he himself was not prepared to express an opinion but he could well understand that legal men might hold different opinions on the point. His predecessor, Lloyd George, at the end of the world war, told the Independence Deputation from South Africa this: “If South Africa wants to become a Republic, it does not concern the British Government, it is a matter for South Africa herself,” and that statement of Lloyd George’s—full self-determination for South Africa and the Dominions—that statement was translater into law in the Statute of Westminster, and it was recognised there, and that is how this House has interpreted it. And here Mr. Lloyd George’s successor in England, Mr. Churchill, comes along and in spite of our interpretation, and in spite of the Statute of Westminster, and in spite of the verdict given by his predecessor, he says he does not know how this is going to be interpreted— in other words, he is doubtful whether a Dominion has the right to remain neutral when England is at war, and he is doubtful whether a Dominion can maintain its neutrality to such an extent as not to break off diplomatic relations with belligerent countries. That is the only deduction we can make, and if that is so then I say that we in South Africa have every right to oppose that attitude of the British Prime Minister because it does not affect Ireland only, it effects Dominion status in general, and it more particularly affects South Africa. I need not say anything about the further reasons adduced. It is not contended that Ireland has not carried out its duties as a neutral country. So far as I know there has been no complaint against Ireland; nothing specific has been brought out to the effect that Ireland has done anything to expose the British troops in that neighbourhood to any danger. We have been told that the representatives of Germany and Japan have a diplomatic post bag and that by means of that post bag they are able to give all sorts of information. It has come out that there is no such diplomatic post bag passing between Ireland and Germany and Japan. That argument therefore has also been knocked out. We have been told that there is a danger simply because those ambassadors are there. Why was it not dangerous in the last war when ambassadors of a belligerent country remained in Switzerland all the time and in Holland all the time? There was no request for the German ambassadors and the ambassadors of other belligerents to be banished from Holland? No pressure was brought to bear on Holland. Is it not a fact that ambassadors of those countries are in Portugal and in Spain? Is it not a fact that they are in Turkey today? Next to the bases of operation. I say that this argument is nothing but camouflage. The real reason is that there are many statesmen in England, and Churchill is one of them, and in the Dominions, and the Prime Minister is one of them, who in their hearts have simply condemned Ireland because Ireland has made practical use of its freedom and because Ireland has declared itself to be neutral. You were filled with fury against Ireland, and now you are availing yourself of the opportunity, while the war spirit prevails, while Canada and Australia are also in the war— now you are availing yourself of the opportunity to teach Ireland a lesson. [Time limit.]

We have learned to know the Prime Minister. We know that when he adopts a frivolous attitude, he has a poor case. He adopted that attitude today. He tried to treat the discussion as a joke, but yesterday he regarded the matter so seriously that he got the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) to put a special question in the House, because his dignity was offended because De Valera did not consult him; he then arranged for a question to be put to him so that he could have an opportunity of saying what he would have said if he had been asked. But he was not asked. If there are two things which have been exposed in connection with the recent occurrences, it is in the first place the hypocrisy and the dishonesty of the war cries which we have had since the 4th September, 1939, and, in the second place, the hypocrisy and political dishonesty of British statesmen in connection with the so-called sovereign independence of the Dominions. First of all, I want to say this. During the past two days there have been reports in the newspapers which have tried to create the impression that De Valera was not sincere, and that he was closing his eyes to possible propaganda and possible espionage by the ambassadors of Germany and Japan. May I, as someone who knew De Valera personally, who sat with him for five weeks in the League of Nations, say that if there is one man who enjoys the respect of all statesmen of Europe as an honourable and an honest man, it is De Valera. We can take it, therefore, that De Valera is not the type of man who would give an assurance and then fail to give effect to that assurance. I come back to the dishonesty and the hypocrisy of the war cries which we have had from the beginning of the war. Of course, we remember the war cries in regard to aggression and in regard to the smaller nations. We still remember Mr. Anthony Eden saying that “We are fighting for decency in international affairs.” We remember the stories in connection with “power politics.” Even the “Cape Times” expressed its opinion in that connection Having regard to recent happenings more particularly, I want to refer to what the “Cape Times” said on the 2nd September, 1939—

Just listen to this—

It is that same contingency which is now facing Ireland, to which country power politics are being applied by England and America! The Prime Minister, too, preached those stories. We remember that at the time the Prime Minister became very religious; he spoke of “Children of the Cross” and of “God’s war,” etc. But when it suits them the Allies are prepared to throw overboard those wonderful ideas and those wonderful ideals and war aims. They started with Portugal; and because Portugal was a small country they were able to apply their power politics to Portugal. They then went to the Argentine, but in the Argentine they came up against a stone wall. Thereafter they went to Spain, and again applied their power politics; and today all semblance of sincerity is being thrown to the winds. I should like to refer to the following message which came from overseas a few days ago. It appeared in the “Argus” of 10th March. This refers to the pressure which is being brought to bear on Spain—

Can we have a more naive admission as to what is at the back of this whole business—a blitzkrieg against the neutral countries of the world! Mr. Chairman, I have no time for hypocrisy, and I have even less time for cowardice, and what we are dealing with here is not only hypocrisy but also cowardice. Because there has been a struggle in the past between England and Ireland, it was, of course, a little difficult for Mr. Churchill to tackle this matter. And what did he do? Like a coward he got President Roosevelt to take action, because he did not have the courage to do so himself. I have the proof. Here is the first report. This is an extract from the “Argus”—

The impression is created that it is America which is adopting this attitude; England is only a “discreet observer.” A few days later Mr. Churchill made a speech in which the following appears clearly—

There we now have an admission from Mr. Churchill that it is not only pressure on the part of America, but that England is behind the whole thing, and that all this is part of that “blitzkrieg against neutral states.” On what grounds do they want to take action against Ireland? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already said that there is not a single shred of evidence. A few days ago we heard of a German aeroplane over the German consulate in Ireland; and now we hear that it was a British aeroplane which flew over the German consulate. That is the sort of evidence which is placed before us to justify this step which is now being taken against Ireland. What do we hear about the so-called espionage—

Not a single shred of evidence; but what we have got is the statement of De Valera, a man who is known as a very honourable and honest man. I say that I, for one, am prepared to take the word of De Valera against that of Mr. Churchill or against that of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I shall not go into the points which the hon. member has raised. I do not think it is necessary. But the audacity of getting up here in public in the House of Assembly of South Africa and calling Mr. Churchill a coward, is only to make the speaker ridiculous in the eyes of the whole world. Mr. Churchill, a man whose attitude saved the world in the biggest crisis which we have experienced in our lifetime, is now made out to be a coward. I do not think the hon. member is doing himself justice by using such language. I do not think he is doing the House justice. The whole world knows that the very opposite is the truth. But I want to go a little further. It is not only Mr. Churchill’s courage which is attacked. We are all accused of hypocrisy and dishonesty. Our friends on the other side hold themselves out as the champions of Ireland …

Of justice.

But is that really so? Is there no hypocrisy in that? Are they not really thinking of Germany when they champion the cause of Ireland? Let us put this question to the test. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question: Does he still hold the view which he publicly expressed in South Africa some time ago, namely, that a German victory would lead to South Africa’s salvation? That is the point. A campaign is now being conducted on behalf of Ireland— Ireland forsooth—but what is at the back of it? It is that conviction that a German victory will conduce to South Africa’s welfare.

That is what is known as a red herring.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty !

Why not discuss this matter on its merits?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said some time ago that a German victory would be in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the future republic, and this whole debate which is taking place, ostensibly in the interests of Ireland, is still in fulfilment of the idea that Germany must win, and that they desire a German victory.

What sort of a reply is that?

There is no doubt that all those countries within the war zone who, since the outbreak of the war, have preferred neutrality, have had to pay a high price for that neutrality.

But you were well paid.

Unfortunately Holland had to reap the bitter fruits of neutrality; Belgium had to reap the bitter fruits of neutrality, and Norway, Sweden and Denmark met with the same fate. Here we are dealing with Ireland, Ireland which wants to isolate herself from her natural and lawful allies. If it is the choice of any country to isolate and to separate herself from her natural and lawful allies, that country has only herself to blame if she is called upon to pay that price. It is ridiculous for us at this stage to point to Ireland as an example to South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition at that time pointed to Ireland as an example which we should follow. Up to the present Ireland has already paid a high price for that attitude of neutrality, and Ireland has now reached the stage where she must decide once and for all whether in the future she wants to have dealings with the enemy of her lawful and natural ally, or whether she wants to sever that relationship and make friends with her natural and lawful allies. That is the point, as far as I can see it, and I had hoped that after the experiences of the Leader of the Opposition, where the events have proved time and again that he was wrong, that he would at last adopt another course. During the recent elections the people intimated their attitude in an unambiguous manner. The Leader of the Opposition must now admit that the nation has delivered judgment and rejected that policy of isolationism as far as South Africa is concerned. The Leader of the Opposition is now blaming the Prime Minister because De Valera did not consult him, the man who was known years ago as the person who settled the points of difference between Ireland and the British Government. I would have expected him to level these reproaches against De Valera, but not against the Prime Minister. I would have expected the Leader of the Opposition to say to De Valera:

And drawn double salaries.

I want to tell the Prime Minister that the time has arrived to put into operation a new war policy. The policy which has been followed up to the present may have been a good policy up to this point, but if you want to launch a new offensive in connection with the war effort, a brand new policy will have to be followed. And the first suggestion which I want to make is that there must be an enormous transfer of men who are at present in the army, and who are no longer in that medical category where they can be of service in the army. There are still 8,000 men on the mines who have struggled for the past four years to be released so that they can join the army. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister that those men should be released if they are prepared to fight.

Will you go along?

The hon. member asks whether I will go along. I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will remember that the war decision was scarcely five minutes old when I expressed my willingness to him to resign my seat, and go and fight wherever they wanted to send me. Those hon. members must stop making those cheap interjections. The Prime Minister and Chief of the General Staff know that I am prepared to go to any place in the world and fight there, if they want to send me there. But in the army the position is not the same as in the case of those hon. members and their party, namely, that everyone can take his own little bundle on his shoulders and do as he likes, and go where he likes. In the army every man is under the authority of the leaders of the army, and he has to do what he is told. If they tell me that I must go, I shall be prepared to go to any place in the world. Those hon. members must stop making these cheap biting remarks. They said in this House: “Just wait; let one man cross the Equator, and then we shall show you!” When all these men were prepared to cross the Equator, and many of them did cross the Equator, they again said: “Let them go as far as possible; let them go as far as they like even if they lose themselves.” One moment they say that the men must not enlist. The next moment they say: “You can enlist, but do not go beyond the Equator,” and immediately thereafter they say that these men can go as far as they please. When all the soldiers were not sent to the North, we were asked by the Opposition why we did not send them all. How do we know where they stand? No, I can tell the Opposition that there are many members in this House, who, if the Prime Minister will only give his permission, are prepared to go to any place in the world, and I am one of them. Let us leave that sort of talk. I started by saying to the Prime Minister that he must launch a new offensive in this country. I mentioned one point in that connection. My other point is this, that the men who return from the army to their former work, must be treated in such a way that it can serve as an example of the way in which returned soldiers and officers will be treated. Unfortunately, the position is that an important department of the Government—I refer to War Supplies—is carrying on recklessly and causing unemployment; it is recklessly giving instructions to factories which are engaged in the manufacture of war equipment, with the result that instructions are issued which lead to the unemployment of soldiers who have returned. I have already mentioned this case, and I want to repeat it. These people become employed in the following way : they go to the Department of Labour; the Department of Labour places them in employment, and they have no sooner been placed in employment—perhaps not even a month—when War Supplies again issue reckless instructions which again cause unemployment. It stands to reason that that reckless action has a detrimental effect on the young man whose father has been discharged from the army and whose father is treated in that way. What encouragement is it to him to join the army, when he sees how his father is treated? The Government ought to give a lead in this matter. Private employers say that it is very easy for the Government to say that they should be fair towards the returned soldiers, but that the State departments do not do so. I want to make this suggestion. Where anyone has applied for leave to go and fight, that leave should be granted. Why should there be such tremendous delay in effecting the exchange to which I have referred? That brings me back to a point which I have already mentioned. I cannot see how we can keep our divisions at full strength if they do not get recruits. We cannot expect, now that the war has reached this stage and now that we can triumphantly exclaim …. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Prime Minister was angry with me because I spoke of Winston Churchill as a coward. I want to say here that a man who gets another man to do something which he himself is afraid to do, is a moral coward.

What proof have you got of that?

The report from London that “Great Britain is a discreet observer.” We also have the proof and the speech of Churchill himself from which it is clear that all the schemes had been ready and that he agreed step by step with all the steps which America was to take. I maintain that a man who gets somebody else to do something which he is afraid to do himself is a moral coward. The Prime Minister spoke of Churchill as a man of courage but he is confusing courage with boasting. Boasting is one thing and moral courage is another thing. The Prime Minister objects to us on this side having protested against the hypocrisy and political dishonesty. Since the beginning of this war we have complained about the hypocrisy with which the war propaganda is being conducted. We objected and we still object to all those wonderful ideals being held up in front of our eyes, the ideals for which the Allies are fighting, whereas the Prime Minister knows quite well that England entered the war in order to maintain its position on the continent of Europe and for no other reason. It did not enter the war for the sake of small nations, on account of Christian civilisation or for the sake of decency in international affairs. It entered the war in order to safeguard its position on the continent of Europe and for no other reason. When we hear those wonderful stories and know why England entered the war, then we must say that this is political hypocrisy and we have every right to say so. I maintain that there is one thing which has been brought to light by this occurrence and that is that not only diplomatic hypocrisy was rife but moreover that there was also and still is hypocrisy in regard to the so-called sovereign status which we were to obtain. That is the reason why we adopt this attitude towards Eire. The Prime Minister said that we were conducting a campaign in favour of Eire. What we are conducting a campaign for is that sovereign status about which we were given assurances, that sovereign status which is now being attacked by the request and threat which is being directed against Eire by America and Great Britain. We received the assurance since 1926 and since the passing of the Statute of Westminister, that we were sovereign independent. We accepted that and we believed it. I believe it and others believed it and what do we find now? In the course of the years we have found out that we have been listening to mere words, that this was a paper status, and here we have proof of it. I and others at the time said that it was a paper status.

You did not want to accept it.

I shall not reply to the hon. member who can best be described as a has been who is trying to stage a come-back. We were afraid that our status was a pretence and here we have the proof of it. Eire was supposed to enjoy that sovereign status and now we have this threat. Eire is being asked to order the diplomatic representatives of Germany and Japan to leave the country. Is the Prime Minister and are members on the other side unable to realise that this is an attack on the sovereign independence of Eire? This simply means that Eire is being asked under coercion to break off its political relations with those countries. The Cape Times is now dishing up the ridiculous story of Chili and Peru. Those countries severed diplomatic relations with Germany and Japan out of their own free will. They acted in accordance with their sovereign independent status. But when a country is being threatened, when economic pressure is being brought to bear on it in order to force it to order certain ambassadors to leave the country, it does not break off diplomatic relations because it is keen to do so but because it is being compelled to and in such a case its sovereign independence is being infringed. If those wonderful words of British statesmen had meant anything, then it would have meant that the Dominions have the right to maintain their position.

How often have we had to hear since the beginning of the war that South Africa had decided by a free decision of the Parliament to take part in the war. But after the outbreak of hostilities we have also heard— I remember the speech of the late member for Gardens (Mr. B. K. Long) that: “It is unthinkable that South Africa could remain out of a war in which England is engaged.” We now find the same position again. Eire chose to maintain its diplomatic relations with Germany and Japan. Members on the other side will now perhaps better be able to understand why we on this side declare that as far as we are concerned there is but one ultimate goal in South Africa and that is to do away with this paper status, to brush away this mock freedom. For that reason we say that those bonds have to be severed, and that we must be free in this country and must have a free independent republic here in the fullest sense of the word. The argument is being put forward that espionage is taking place in Eire. That is the big complaint. Why are they not taking steps against Switzerland? Because they cannot get there! In Switzerland too there is a German ambassador; and a Japanese ambassador; why are they not taking steps against it? I say again because they cannot reach Switzerland. They could reach Portugal. That is a small and weak country and if Portugal had not ceded the Azores to England and the United States, it would also have been blockaded. It is the same blockade which is now being enforced against Eire. We are objecting against that hypocrisy and hollowness in the statements of England and its allies. It is the same hypocricy and hollowness which we have been experiencing in the course of years in regard to our status and which is now being exposed for all to see. It is now clear to us what was actually behind our Dominion status and right of self-determination. The Prime Minister cannot deny that the pressure which is now being applied against Eire by the United States and Britain, amounts to Eire not possessing the right of self-determination which in the past it was said to possess. We as Nationalists in South Africa say that we believe in that right of self-determination; we believe in those things and we want to maintain them. Because we believed in those things in the past and because we still want to maintain them, the Leader of the Opposition sent that cable to De Valera, in order to give him the assurance that, since he finds himself in the position in which we might have found ourselves, we send him our best wishes in the struggle which he has to wage against British hypocrisy and British aggression.

†*Lt.-Col. ROOD : I should like to correct the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in regard to the question which I put to the Prime Minister. When I opened the news paper that morning and read the cable which the Leader of the Opposition sent to De Valera, it made my blood boil. Just two days previously I received a wire from my brother that his son was killed in Italy. I hope the Prime Minister will not resent me saying what I am going to say now. My idea was to move that the House be adjourned on a question of urgent public importance, in order to discuss this cable. The Speaker, however, did not allow me to do that. I then obtained the permission of the Prime Minister to put that question in such vague terms as I did. I want to tell the Prime Minister that he cannot allow this sort of thing going on in our country. What is, however, behind the whole cable is not the question of our status as the hon. member for Beaufort West would have us believe. Behind it is, as the Prime Minister has already said, the hand of Germany and nothing else. This country declared war against Germany in a democratic manner. At the latest general election the people approved of that declaration of war and for that reason I say that in view of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in the past, to which he still adheres we have the fullest right to ask the Prime Minister not to allow the sending of such subversive telegrams with Germany’s influence behind it. In view of the conditions existing in our country, he should realise that this is the sort of thing which makes the blood boil of everybody who has a stake in this war. It is a wanton act on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and Germany is behind it. In this cable it says clearly that he wishes Eire the best of luck in its resistence and also in whatever direction it may proceed. He wishes it success in whatever direction its attitude may develop. If that direction is to be a declaration of war against the Allies, then the Leader of the Opposition wishes it every success. Against whom else could such a declaration of war be made? It will inter alia also be against us and then the Leader of the Opposition wishes him every success. I maintain that Germany is behind that cablegram and the Prime Minister admits it. I therefore say that the people of South Africa ask the Prime Minister as our leader to take steps to prevent such things passing through our post office. It is a blot on our country and it should not be allowed. It is being pretended here that this concerns our status, and I think that all of us agree that there is something more behind it. In this connection we must use our common sense. Those great powers are waging war; look at what America did against Spain? It told Spain that it would apply sanctions against it if it continued to show friendship towards Germany. Spain is not a member of the British Commonwealth. The question of status does not arise. But America comes along and finds that it is necessary to do something, too, in regard to Eire. It tells Eire: In the past I was your friend; you could not have maintained your neutrality if it had not been for Britain and America. You ate out of our hand and we enabled you to maintain your neutrality for four years. We as the Allied powers find that it is our considered and honest opinion that the presence of representatives of the enemy in Eire is going to be a disadvantage to the Allied cause if an invasion of Europe should be made; it may cost thousands of lives and we ask you to send those ambassadors of Germany and Japan out of your country. If Eire wanted to be fair and would have been willing to be friendly towards America and England and would moreover have wanted to maintain its neutrality, it could have said: Alright, I am prepared to tell those ambassadors to leave the country, but then your ambassadors must also leave the country. Then it would have been fair towards both sides. But in spite of that request by a friend — which Eire itself admitted to America to be—it simply refuses to comply with the request of those countries It refuses point blank to do so. What is the reason? It had the right to refuse. The Prime Minister also said that it had the right to refuse. We all admit that Eire had the fullest right to refuse the request, but then it should not complain if it has to suffer for such refusal. If England and America deem it necessary in view of their essential safety and victory in this war, to drive those ambassadors out of Eire, then they are entitled to do so under the circumstances They owe that to their soldiers and their people and they also owe that to us. They have to take all the necessary steps to protect the safety of their armies as far as possible If it therefore should be necessary to apply sanctions against Eire, why should hon. members on the other side squeal about it?

What is the meaning of the word “sanctions”?

Do not let us start hairsplitting here. The position simply is that England and America will do so. They will apply sanctions. They will make Eire succumb by starvation. The Leader of the Opposition is now supporting that country. What does It help the Irish nation if he sits here and cries about what is happening to them? The position is now that the steps which are going to be taken there are merely in the interest of the victory in this war. In that spirit a request was made to Eire by countries which were its friends in the past. The hon. member for Beaufort West does not want to admit that. He wants Eire to persist and to be ruined by starvation. The hon. member also wants to insinuate that the purpose is to destroy the status of Eire and that England did not want to take those steps itself and therefore asked America to do it. That is a mere fabrication and he cannot prove it. The position is that if it is absolutely essential for England in order to protect the safety of its own population, then it must make use of its power against Eire.

Germany said the same at the time of the invasion of Holland.

Yes, and when that happened, the hon. member did not say a word about the invasion of Holland and Belgium. At that time it was essential for Germany to do so. Is it fair and reasonable on the part of the Opposition to cry about Eire now? That is the lesson we have to learn from this occurrence. What will the large powers think of the telegram of congratulations of the Leader of the Opposition? We as small nations have to admit that we do not count in the eyes of the large powers. When they want to do certain things, they will do them. The Prime Minister gave the lead in our country and that lead was approved of by the people. My question to him is simply whether he is going to allow this sort of thing to continue in our country. Supposing the invasion in Europe takes place and our troops meet with a reverse and Eire enters the war against us, then we still stand there with this cablegram of the Leader of the Opposition congratulating Eire in that regard and this is only the forerunner of what is still going to come. If the Prime Minister continues to allow this sort of thing to happen, it will be difficult for him to obtain further recruits in our country. In the same newspaper in which we read about this telegram, there was a notice that 4,000 soldiers are required and that we cannot get them. That is the result of the Prime Minister allowing these things to happen. The soldiers feel that they are no longer being respected and that they are being offended by people who support the Opposition. Subversive language of this kind is being used against them. These things are happening in the country and nothing is being done to combat it. That is the reason why we get so few people to join up. They simply feel that they are being treated with contempt and they are being given no protection.

Is that the reason why you do not join up?

Do not talk silly nonsense. As soon as a man wants to deal with matters in a reasonable manner, he meets with such interjections. I want to come back once more to the cablegram of the Leader of the Opposition. At the end of it he states that he wishes Eire every success, no matter what its attitude is going to be. I pointed out what the results thereof are going to be and I again want to ask the Prime Minister whether the time has not arrived for putting a stop to telegrams of that kind and also to some of the speeches which are being made in this country. I also ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he really wants to give Eire the advice to persist in its attitude even if as a result all its people will die of starvation?

I did not really get up to reply to what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has said. I only want to remark that I think Germany will be verygrateful to him for the arguments he has used. Germany will be very pleased. What he has been pleading for is this, that if it is in the interest of a big nation to overrun a small nation, to bring pressure to bear on it, and afterwards to oppress it by means of force, then it should do so.

They are doing it.

When Germany invaded Holland, Germany stated that if she had not invaded Holland England would have done so. I say that Germany, if she were to hear this, and if she knew what the hon. member has said, and what his attitude is, would be very grateful to him for his arguments. If Germany had not done it, England would have done it. So I ask, what is the difference between Germany’s attitude and the attitude now adopted by America and England? I don’t think I need say any more about the hon. member’s remarks. I am afraid the hon. member is suffering from a nervous attack and we had better leave him alone. But now, may I just put the Prime Minister right in regard to a point which he has repeated several times? If we do not contradict it and it goes out into the country unchallenged it will create a wrong impression. He has told the House that I had stated that a German victory would be for the good of South Africa.

But you did say it.

He further said that I had stated that I would welcome it and that it would be in the interest of South Africa if Germany were victorious in this war. Let me explain what the position is. At a certain stage in this war we had very seriously to consider the possibility of Germany winning the war. Members opposite were in a state of fear and trembling. When I introduced the republican motion on behalf of this side of the House I put this question to the Government: Is the position such that we must take into account the possibility of Germany winning the war? The Prime Minister sat still and refused to answer. I thereupon put the question to the Minister of Finance. I believe it will be found in the Hansard Report that I asked: “Are we to take into serious account the possibility of Germany winning the war”? And the reply was “Yes.” If that is so what then is the responsibility of people in South Africa who have to give a lead in the political sphere? Their responsibility is that they must take into account the possibility, and they must put the question to themselves: “If that should happen, what then?” The people who take no interest in South Africa, who only take an interest in England, will not reply, but every South African who loves his mother country and who thinks of this country’s future must reply to that question. My answer was: “Then we must become a Republic and we are already out for that, and if Germany should win the war we do not want to come under the domination of another country, but we want to be free.” The question was then asked: “How are we to get a Republic?” I replied to that. Our Federal Council converted my reply into an official declaration and our Union Congress accepted that. There are two ways of making South Africa a Republic. The one would be if, as a result of the course of events in the international sphere and as a result of the war, a new territorial division of countries should come about. And then we might have the opportunity of saying that we want to be a Republic. As a result of the war that opening might come about. The other wav would be to follow the course which Ireland has followed. to loosen the bonds with the British Empire more and more until they have practically disappeared. That was the other course. That was the position I took into account and that was the statement I made on every occasion Yes, on one occasion I said something else and I shall repeat what I said; I stand by it I said that if a victory of the Allies meant an alliance with Russia, if it meant Europe being overrun by Communism, the spread of Communism over the whole world—the spread of Communism here in South Africa—so that Communism would set the tune here—and if Communism in South Africa would mean that South Africa could not be a white man’s country—I say that if that is going to be the result of an Allied victory, and if a German victory could stop and break Communism then in that case let Germany win the war. because it would then be in the interest of South Africa. I say again that if an Allied victory is going to mean Communism in South Africa, and the disappearance of South Africa as a white man’s country, then I have every reason to take up that attitude.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it now, the Leader of the Opposition has definitely nailed his colours to the mast, and I presume it is now the considered opinion of the Nationalist Party that if a victory for Germany means the extinguishing of Communism, they are all in favour of a German victory.

It is the other way round.

He said that if the victory of Russia meant Communism now he favoured a German victory.

I gather that what I have stated was the remark the Leader of the Opposition made. What did he say?

Read it in the “Cape Times” tomorrow.

Try a dual medium school.

I think the hon. member might, with considerable advantage, try a kindergarten school. I want for a moment or two to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He suggested that we have got only a paper status, and yet I seem to remember there was a time when the hon. member for Beaufort West had no objection to being a minister plenipotentiary representing a country which had only a paper status. That seems rather a remarkable change to me. I wonder whether he realised in the days when he represented his country in America and France that he was representing a country which had only a paper status? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that British Ministers, or Britain generally was hypocritical in this matter of Ireland. I want to suggest with all due seriousness that if there is any hypocrisy in connection with this affair of Ireland it is being shown by the Leader of the Opposition and the Nationalist Party; because never since I have been in this House have they ever shown that they have been interested in the rights of small nations. In the dark days of the war, when one small nation after another was being overrun by Germany, did they show any concern in this House? No, Mr. Chairman, they showed deliberate glee in this House. They showed that deliberate glee in their speeches too. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has on more than one occasion made a case for Germany’s overrunning small nations on the ground that Germany had to do it in her own self-protection. Today there is no question of Great Britain or America attempting to occupy Ireland. There is no question of aggression. There has only been a very simple request by the United States of America that Axis agents who are known to be working against the interests of the United Nations, and who are prostituting, as they have always done, the hospitality of other countries in the interests of their own country, should be expelled. Surely, if a country or government allows even diplomatic agents to prostitute diplomatic immunity and hospitality in order to further the military interests of their own people, surely the duty of that government is to expel those agents. It has been done before. Agents have been expelled from some of the South American countries. The Leader of the Opposition did not send any telegrams in those cases. I do not remember having heard of him sending a telegram to the United States of America at the time of the treacherous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, at a time when Japan had peace emissaries in the United States of America. One did not hear anything in the way of justice and of being concerned to see freedom coming from the Leader of the Opposition, hut he himself was prepared in this House to advocate policies which will cabin and confine and segregate and put behind barbed wire various sections of the population of this country.

That is what you have done.

We have never done anything of the kind. How much are we to expect from the Leader of the Opposition? He made a case which I think the Prime Minister did deal rather adequately with. He made a case that this war position has united Ireland as Ireland has never been united before. That, of course, is just complete bunkum and shows a complete lack of knowledge of Ireland, because Ireland is still divided into two states, and possibly if the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants a unification of South Africa in conformity with these principles, he will have to have a republic in the Western Province ….

Not the Western Province.

No, perhaps not in the Cape; possibly in Calvinia, or more likely in Piketberg, the republic of Piketberg ! And the rest of South Africa will be united in the Union of South Africa.

That does not show much intelligence.

It will, I think, take many years of close observation to perceive even the slightest flicker of intelligence in the hon. member. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that had we remained neutral, a very similar state of affairs would have occurred in South Africa, and he went on further to say that we had a right to remain neutral. Of course we had the right, and we have the right today. That right was recognised by the members of this House in September, 1939, when they discused the war and decided by a fairly large majority to go to war. Their decision has subsequently been ratified in a recent general election, where the parties which were in favour of the war were returned by an overwhelming majority. So what is the use of the Leader of the Opposition coming here less than a year after the election and trying to tell us that we would have all this unanimity had we remained neutral, when the people of the country have endorsed in no uncertain terms the decision of a freely elected Parliament to go to war? So all these nonsensical arguments fall away.

That was a coalition election on your side.

That does not matter. The Nationalist Party were quite prepared to fight the election on the question of the war. Coalition or no coalition, we fought it on the question whether South Africa should remain in the war.

They did not show much intelligence.

The people in general have a great deal more intelligence and a great deal more knowledge than the Nationalist Party has. The people of South Africa know full well that if South Africa had not gone to war, South Africa would have been in a parlous condition today, and that economically we would have been strangled without any effort on the part of Great Britain.

You got a double salary out of it.

Yes, here you have one of the rich farmers talking about a double salary. Possibly, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition, now having looked up his map and found Ireland, we shall hear of nothing but Ireland for the next six months, and when he has finished with Ireland he will probably move on to Spitsbergen, and then perhaps he and his friends will find Scotland—and then God help him. I do not think this question of Ireland needs a great deal further discussion. In my opinion the sending of the cablegram by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was a piece of gross impertinence. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may think he is a very big fish in the South African small pond, but I can assure him that not even in Ireland is he likely to find anyone who will pay any attention to him. The fact of the matter is that in the circumstances there do exist strained relations between the Government of the United Kingdom and Eire, and anyone who interferes without due authority in a manner that might make things worse, is doing a great disservice to the United Nations, and I want to join with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.Col. Rood) in suggesting to the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister, or the authorities, should have seen to it that this cablegram was not sent.

We agree.

I do not know whether it has arrived. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition made great play of the fact that all postal communications between Great Britain and Southern Ireland had been severed; I hope that the telegraph service has been severed to ensure that this silly, stupid telegram that was sent did not arrive. That is a gross interference, Mr. Chairman, in the rights of another nation, and can just imagine what will be the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who prates so much about South Africa’s status, who prates so much about sovereign independence; I can imagine what his attitude would be if South Africa were involved in some kind of strained relations with a neighbouring territory and a telegram was sent say by the Labour Party in Great Britain. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be the first man to rise in this House and denounce the sending of the telegram as being an infringement of the sovereign and independent rights of the nation. He has, I believe, by the sending of that telegram not only been poking his nose into things that do not concern him, but he has also been infringing on the sovereign rights of the Government of the United Kingdom. [Time limit.]

After listening to the different speeches one begins to despair of the possibility of getting an atmosphere of calm and quiet in which to deal with the great problems facing us. I am not going to answer the last two speakers. One feels that if that is the atmosphere in which the question has to be dealt with one cannot do justice to it. This debate today emanates from a few important statements made overseas and also in this House on behalf of several countries. We are dealing here with international affairs on which this House is entitled to have information, and on which it is entitled to express its opinion because we are recognised as an independent State, and because South Africa incidentally, but against our will, is involved in this war. Three tremendously important principles are brought out by the speeches and the statements which have been made. The first one is the question of the right to neutrality, the right of a State to maintain its neutrality. The next big question is to what extent the incident between England and Ireland concerns us as a Dominion. The third question, which probably will not be without significance to the Prime Minister, is whether, if a certain step is taken in connection with international law on a certain occasion, that step will afterwards be put into practice. That is the danger. The Prime Minister will in the history of international law be able to quote numèrous instances of this having occurred. In the first place I want to deal with Ireland’s right to remain neutral. Nobody has as yet made the statement that Ireland has either violated its neutrality or lost its right to remain neutral, or that she has committed any action which is in conflict with international law. True, propaganda has been made in the Press to create the impression that a breach of neutrality has been committed by Ireland, but neither this House nor the world has had one single bit of evidence that Ireland has forfeited its right of neutrality. To us it is a privilege, while rights still exist, to help to defend that right for the good of the world as a whole, and to me it is a particular privilege to be able to say a word on behalf of Ireland, a country of which I have more knowledge than many hon. members who think they are able to talk about Ireland. I have had the privilege of living among the Irish people for years and of getting to know them. But one reason why this House and why South Africa particularly has the right and is obliged in this hour of Ireland’s trial to extend its sympathy and encouragement to Ireland in its fight for right and justice, is because in South Africa’s hour of trial Ireland did all it could do for South Africa. In the days when the two Republics were engaged in their great battle for freedom, and afterwards, when South Africa came under the heel of the victor, the Irish people from beginning to end not only showed their sympathy but also gave her men and her blood for the freedom of the two Republics. That being so, this is not merely an opportunity for us to discuss a question of justice as such, but we are also entitled and obliged in Ireland’s hour of need to express our sympathy and our encouragement in the interest of the defence of Ireland’s rights.

The Irishmen won’t thank you.

The question is whether there is a right of neutrality. That still applies today. Nobody contests it, nobody contests the fact that the right of neutrality, the right of a State to maintain its neutrality in time of war, is a matter beyond all doubt. The nations of the world have even got to the stage of neutralising some States internationally. It is a principle which has been recognised for more than a hundred years, but in more recent times we have had several nations which have bound themselves to maintain their neutrality in times of war. In 1938 two Scandinavian countries, together with Holland, formed a group to maintain their neutrality. They exercised that right and no objections were raised. The greatest and most prominent example of the formation of a group of States to maintain their neutrality in time of war is to be found in the twenty-two States of America, of which the United States was one. In 1939, the first year of the war, the twentytwo American States formed a bond to maintain their neutrality. There is no doubt therefore that that right exists today, and at the beginning of this war the principle was applied and maintained, and where Ireland has insisted upon its right to remain neutral and has maintained that right without anyone finding fault with it for four and a half years, that country deserves the admiration of the world for its steadfastness and its loyalty to that principle, and it also deserves the admiration of the world for the protection of the interests of its small nation. Afrikaans-speaking people talk contemptuously about the insignificance of small nations. I don’t think we need take any notice of that. But where an effort is being made here today, a clear and definite effort, to maintain this right of neutrality, there I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not see the danger of a reversal to the laws of many centuries ago as a result of the violation done to justice in connection with Ireland. The right of neutrality has been admitted since the middle of the Sixteenth Century. Before those days the nations knew no such thing. Is the world now, in this 20th Century to revert back to those days? I think the Prime Minister will realise that this incident does not justify, the violation of the right of neutrality, it does not justify a reversal to the days of centuries ago. But I want to go further. There is a second principle of equal importance, namely, that we as a Dominion in the British Commonwealth are not only interested in the maintenance of the principle of free association, but if we allow this opportunity to pass without objecting to the creation of a precedent which in years to come may have tremendous repercussions, we shall be failing in our duty. Instead of laughing at the cable despatched by the Leader of the Opposition, instead of showing contempt for the effort made to lay down a principle for the protection of the Dominion status, this is an occasion when we should be grateful that there is at least one man, at least one group among the people of this country, who are prepared to justify and maintain that principle. What do hon. members opposite think will be the position if this so-called free association of nations will only be there if it suits the stronger ones? It will be the beginning of the breaking up, of the dissolution, of that association. So far as we are concerned we have no doubt that it will be in our interest. We have said so from time to time; we are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and we have the right to demand that the free association of nations shall be maintained. What freedom of association is there if, at a given moment, one of the bigger ones is allowed to apply force to one of the smaller ones? And if one finds on the other hand that that attitude is contested, one begins to despair of the value of any declaration, be it in writing or verbal. [Time limit.]

Anyone who has listened to this debate must have noticed that there is one thing which the Opposition is grateful for and that is that there was no debate in this House yesterday morning, immediately after the publication of this cable, because the Opposition in the meantime has had the opportunity of obtaining from their paper and from No. 30 Keerom Street all their material for today’s debate. Anyone who has read yesterday’s and today’s papers must have noticed that in those papers one found practically word for word the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, by the hon. members for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and Ceres (Dr. Stals). First of all the Prime Minister has already protested against the attack on Mr. Churchill. I feel that the hon. member for Beaufort West, in fairness and decency, should withdraw the words he used. I feel, irrespective of who might be Prime Minister in South Africa—be it the present Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition—that it is not pleasant for anyone to use such words about the leader of our people, in England or in any other country. I think it lowers the prestige of our country. The Opposition was fairly consistent so long as it followed the lead of its paper, but as soon as it got to the Statute of Westminster it got off the track. First of all the Opposition told us that they had accepted the Statute of Westminster in 1926, but they found that that was lip language, book language and paper language. When did they find that out? On the 3rd September, 1939? That must have been when they found it out, and what did they find out then? Parliament definitely, in terms of its own right and determination, acted in the way it did on that occasion. So why is the Opposition quarrelling? The Leader of the Opposition used hard words, and said England was the old sinner, but not long ago he described England as our hest friend. But let us see what they call lip service. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) stated this afternoon that the Statute of Westminster was lip language, and that we must therefore have a free republic as an accomplished fact. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about a German victory which would have given us the chance of becoming a republic. But what do we find in practice? If one refers to the arguments used in 1926, 1927 and 1928, one will be told that that is old news, but let me refer to arguments which were used not long ago, which were used last year. On the 26th May, 1943, the Leader of the Opposition when asked whether he would proclaim a republic if he got a majority said: “Yes, Ishall proclaim it when it is safe.” Now I want to ask him this afternoon when he considers the position in South Africa will be safe for the proclamation of a republic? All this fuss in this debate is based on imagination, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot accuse us. He was the first to refer to the cable and if he says that the war does not concern us, why did he send the cable? Why did he poke his nose into Ireland’s affairs? Surely one should be consistent. But the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the one hand says that we should keep out of the war and on the other hand he wants to poke his nose into Ireland’s affairs. It is the same old thing we have been having since the start of the war. Division is created here, and the enemy—Germany—makes use of it. No, the Opposition is only trying to put up a smokescreen and to create division and discord. I think the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition will find after this war that it will no longer be a question of the right of determination of this or that nation, but that there will have to be co-operation to maintain freedom in the world. And that co-operation must not be forced on anyone, it will have to come voluntarily and it will be forced on the whole world by the new proletariat, the new masses of the people created by this war. It will be the kind of co-operation where, apart from ordinary Parliaments, we will have a world Parliament with representatives from all Parliaments.

When did you join the Communists?

That is something which the hon. member does not understand yet. I do not believe he can give a definition of it. Those hon. members over there are getting behind the times, and the best proof of that is given by the debate we have had here this afternoon. Perhaps even better evidence of the fact that they are getting behind in South Africa is to be found in the result of the last elections. They have got right behind— they are right at the very back. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had made an attack on the Statute of Westminster. The Prime Minister never mentioned the Statute of Westminster in connection with Ireland, but he did mention it in connection with the declaration of war in 1939. There is the evidence that South Africa has the right of self-determination, and that it is not lip language, as some hon. members declared today.

The speech to which we have just been listening reminds me of what the Duke of Marlborough said when he got certain recruits from England for the war against Spain. He remarked: “I do not know what they’ll do to the enemy, but by God, they frighten me.” If the Prime Minister were to tell us honestly what was in his mind during that speech he would have to admit that his thoughts ran along those lines. The first point I want to make is that we on this side of the House strive for the ideal of a Republic, and our attempt not to allow the country’s present status to deteriorate is in no way affected by the fluctuating events of the war overseas. That is a fact which stands and which will remain whatever may happen overseas, and whatever may be the outcome of the war. The ideal which we cherish will live on, and we here take exception to the attitude adopted towards Ireland on two grounds particularly. Our first ground of objection is that we resent the power politics so fluently explained by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) He said that if it had to be done, if it was in the interest of the big nations, then the vital interests of small nations had to be sacrificed. That is something which according to their views one might have expected from Germany but certainly not from a party which has so strongly expressed itself against the Nazi policy, as the party opposite has done. But there is something illogical in the attitude of the hon. member for Vereeniging. I remember when Holland and Belgium were invaded the hon. member did not try to condone these power politics; on that occasion he was one of the first to get on to his feet and condemn this scandalous aggression committed against small nations. In those days it was aggression, now it is the interest of great nations, and that gives them the right to destroy another country and to break down everything that is dear to that country. That is the first thing which we object to. And this objection to these power politics is, so far as we are concerned, specially directed against the United States of America. The United States of America is the oldest Republic in the world and one would have expected them to have taken up a protective attitude towards the youngest Republic in the world if an attack was made on its independence and sovereignty. But now America is making the attack on the youngest Republic. America can do what it likes, we have no say over America. America is not bound by any treaty, except the principles of natural justice. America is in a position to do as it likes. There, again, is evidence that when we are dealing with the big powers the pot cannot call the kettle black. Those big powers are without political morality and only know the law of selfinterest. America has apparently acted in accordance with the principle of great nations, that self-interest is the supreme law. But secondly, our objection is directed against this attack on the free and independent status which we have obtained. In this instance America is not the guilty party; the guilty party is the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has associated itself with this request and this threat to Ireland, and in so doing it has become the accomplice of America in this attack on Ireland, and is just as guilty as the United States. It makes no difference whether it came in earlier or later, it has become jointly responsible for the attack. I have here the solemn Covenant which was arrived at and which among others was signed by the United Kingdom, and in this Covenant I read this—

Under this solemn Covenant I see the signature of Balfour,

What does it mean?

It certainly does not mean that a State which is a signatory to this agreement will poke its nose into the internal and foreign affairs of another signatory of this agreement. It certainly does not mean that the one State can deprive another State of its rights under this contract. Is Ireland “Master of its own destiny” if Ireland is forced to concede what other countries expect of it? Does it mean that it is master of its own destiny if it is not allowed to use its judgment in such matters, whether representatives of other countries are to be allowed to remain in the country or whether they should be sent away? If that is the meaning of “Master of its own destiny” then those hon. members must go and learn English again, so that they may know the meaning of those words. In this declaration there is a reference to “Free Institutions are its life blood.” The free institutions of Ireland, its free Parliament, constitutes the lifeblood of the form of Government described in this agreement, but if those free institutions of Ireland pass a resolution then that resolution is no good and a different resolution has to be forced on Ireland from outside. The internal affairs of the Dominion have to be interfered with. This Covenant goes on as follows—

“The sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation.” Who is to judge whether the diplomatic representatives of other countries have committed subversive activities? Is it for other countries to say? No, the only person who can judge whether the diplomatic immunity has been abused is the Irish Government itself. The Irish Government has to judge, and it has said that it is not so. Can we say that Ireland “is the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation” if they want to prescribe to Ireland what steps it is to take? We object to this action because we feel that what has happened to Ireland today may happen to us tomorrow. If that contract has so little significance, if it is no more than a scrap of paper which can be torn up, then we feel we must immediately raise our voices against this attack on the free sovereign status also of South Africa. It is not only Ireland’s fight, it is South Africa’s fight too. We are not going to surrender one iota or tittle of our free rights. On the contrary, we want to further extend our rights, and the first step is to stop our rights being interfered with in any way. That is why this action against Ireland is of such great importance to us. I want to go further now and I want to ask why this attitude is taken against Ireland. I think I can mention two reasons. Ireland remained neutral at the beginning of the war; under very difficult circumstances Ireland maintained its neutrality for nearly five years, and what is the position today? We have Dr. Van Broekhuizen’s evidence—he was there and he told us that the Irish people had never been as united as they were today under De Valera’s policy of neutrality. But there is also the economic aspect of this matter. In the “Economist” of December last I found this—

That is the economic position of a country which has remained neutral. It will come out of this war as the strongest creditor company per capita of any country in the world. [Time limit.]

The Prime Minister made a statement here today which we cannot allow to pass without comment. He referred in sneering terms to this side of the House and said it was ridiculous that such a small party could do such a thing. Let me remind him of the history of this country, and he can then ask himself whether he has the right to talk with such contempt of the forty-three members on this side of the House as a small party. I want to remind the Prime Minister of our history, but before doing so I want to remind him of the result of the elections, seeing that he calls us such a small party. He pretends that a powerful United Party is seated on the other side of the House. That party scarcely got 100,000 votes more than this party. That great strong United Party which, according to the Prime Minister, is so powerful in South Africa, got 430,000 votes in the election and this contemptuous party got 340,000 votes. If this party had only got another 100,000 votes it would have had more votes than the Government Party. Is not the Prime Minister being very stupid when he talks in a contemptuous fashion of this party—is he not doing something which we do not expect of him as a man of standing? If we remember that he only got 100,000 votes more, we should at the same time bear in mind the abnormal circumstances which prevailed when the election took place. We have a peculiar condition of affairs in South Africa. Does the Prime Minister remember that Gen. Hertzog in 1915 sat on this side of the House with the Nationalist Party, with only 27 members? Does he remember that the Nationalist Party sat here in 1920 with 43 members, about as many as we have now? And does he remember that four years afterwards the Nationalist Party was in power? While we are today in more or less the same position as we were in in 1920, as we are here again with 43 members, it hardly becomes him to refer to us as a small and contemptuous party. The facts are against him. Now let me refer him to another matter in our history. It is in regard to this so-called ridiculous thing which the Leader of the Opposition has done in sending a telegram to De Valera. Hon. members on his side laughed about it and he laughed with them. Does he remember that 20 years ago something else was done in this country which he and his supporters also laughed about, when we as a small Nationalist Party, who stood for a republic, sent a deputation to go plead for a republic? Does he remember how they laughed? Does he remember that when that deputation wanted to leave an attempt was made to stop them from going. Does he remember that when they returned and arrived in Durban they had rotten eggs thrown at them? And then I want to ask him whether he remembers that among that deputation were men who are still in this House today, men who have become outstanding figures in South Africa, men who the country looked up to afterwards, and that he afterwards put out his hand to them, to serve under some of them? That deputation made history, and what they went to ask for was granted afterwards, as we have already seen in Ireland’s case. No, it does not become the hon. member to refer contemptuously to a party which represents such a large section of the people. Now let me refer to Ireland. All of us remember the pitiless economic war which England waged against Ireland from 1932 to 1937. If ever an attempt was made to starve out a country it was made by Great Britain in those years to starve out the Irish nation. But Ireland called the world to witness that it was fighting for sovereign independence, and in 1937 Great Britain was obliged to cease the economic war, the war of starvation against Ireland. The sentiments of the world were too great for Great Britain and in 1937 it entered into an economic contract to make peace, an economic peace with Ireland. In May, 1938, after this economic peace had been concluded, and after England had lost the economic war, Ireland succeeded in achieving what the rest of the world had never thought it would achieve. But owing to the concensus of opinion in the world that Britain had done the wrong thing Ireland succeeded and the Chamberlain Government gave Ireland control over the three ports, Cobb, Bereshaven and Loch Swelly Those ports were returned to Ireland because it was in harmony with Ireland’s status. England had to give in to Ireland because she could not hold out against Ireland. But this is England’s chance, and now she wants to take revenge on Ireland. The public are now told that if those three ports are returned things will go better in the war. Britain feels sore at having lost the economic war against Ireland in the vears 1932 to 1937 when the world realised that Britain was doing the wrong thing, and in 1938 Chamberlain had to take this further step. I think the Leader of the Nationalist Party put the position correctly when he said that this is nothing but an act of vindictiveness against Ireland, because Ireland in the days of peace availed itself of its sovereign status. Because Ireland in those days demanded its rights, Britain now wants to get even with Ireland. That is what is behind this question. I want to conclude by saying that I am pleased to notice in the Press that a member of the Irish Parliament has stated that no matter how difficult the position may become they are going to do their best to hold their own and to maintain the country’s neutrality.

I don’t know what good this discussion is going to do the people of South Africa. I did not think a few days ago, when we were discussing the language questions here, that racialism would so soon be making itself felt from the other side of the House. All I can conclude from this discussion is that we are raising a lot of feeling, and what will be the result? The result will be that our people will be back in the wilderness again. We have had enough of the wilderness in the past. One section of the population has been driven into the wilderness by all this agitation and by all these speeches. It has cost us blood and tears to get them back on to the road of South Africa. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is here because I want to put a question to him. He casts doubts on our freedom today. I put a question to him at Fochville, and he told me then that we had a greater and better freedom today than we ever had before, or than we would ever get under a Republic. I thereupon asked him: “Where does that freedom come from?” and his reply was: “We got it in 1926 from the Imperial Conference and we are free now and satisfied.” Now I want to know from him when we lost that freedom, and why the Opposition distrusts our freedom?

Who has trampled that freedom underfoot?

It is perfectly clear to me that by acting in the way we are doing now we are detrimentally affecting the Afrikaner cause and we are doing it no good; we are only creating racialism and stirring up feelings. We want to give our Leader this guarantee, we want to tell him to proceed along the course of South Africa, and we shall follow and support him through thick and thin.

One thing which has come out very clearly from this debate is the way in which the Government Party, from the Prime Minister down to the last backbencher, has got away from the real point. The main point, namely the onslaught on Dominion freedom, is the thing they are trying to get away from. Why are they so dissatisfied about this telegram which was sent by the Leader of the Opposition? They are dissatisfied because they are afraid of the effect which this telegram may have on the other Dominions. They may laugh now —we know the way they laugh when they are feeling ill at ease. That is the only way they have of trying to hide their feelings. I am glad that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has raised the question of diplomatic representation of the Dominions and that the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Tighy) asked when we found out that our status was a paper status. Let me tell the House this—something I have never stated in public before. In the first place it was my own experience when I was in Washington as the Union representative, and when the British Embassy spread the story that our Embassy was merely a section of the British Embassy. It was my duty to protest and to call on the Secretary of State (Mr. Henry Stimson), now Secretary for War, to explain the position to him. Then something else happened which is of even greater importance. When I returned to London—I think the Rules of the House will allow me to mention the name of a late King here—I had an audience with King George V and in the course of that audience he told me clearly that he, as King of England, was opposed to diplomatic representation of the Dominions. Now the hon. member asks me where I found out that our status is a paper status. I found it out in my career overseas.

Then why have you kept quiet about it for so long?

I found wherever I was stationed, that an attempt was made to regard our Embassy as a section of the British Embassy. Now let me come back to Ireland and to what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said. He remarked, “The Irish Government allowed the diplomatic representatives to abuse their position.” If ever there has been an honest statesman in Europe it is De Valera, and he said that no such thing has happened. But I just want to refer the hon. member to what has happened in America. Before America came into the war and when there was a circle of espionage in America, we found that a man like Lord Lothian—a personal friend of the Prime Minister—while America was a neutral country—was travelling about making speeches which had only one object and that was to get America into the war.

But what about the espionage?

He as Ambassador abused his position to act as an agent.

But what about the espionage?

The Prime Minister must not get irritable, I shall come to that. If Germany at that time had protested to the United States of America and said that the British Ambassador in the United States was abusing his position as Ambassador, and if a protest had been made against the espionage which was going on, and which the American, papers were full of I would like to know what the United States’ reply would have been to such representations. But the power policy can be applied to a small country. Now there is another point I want to touch upon. It has been said that there is no unity in Ireland. May I just remind the House of this fact. I think it would be a good thing at this stage of the debate, when the question of the unity of the Irish Nation is being doubted, to quote what appears in this morning’s report—

There is evidence that the acts of aggression, because it is nothing but aggression— economic and other aggression which are now being applied to Ireland—have had only one effect, and that is to consolidate the Irish nation and to unite them as one man behind Mr. De Valera. This debate is going to have a very important effect on this country. It is going to have a very important effect beyond the borders of South Africa. [Laugther.] Yes, the Prime Minister may laugh; when they laugh we know that we on this side are telling the truth.

It hurts them.

The cable which the Leader of the Opposition sent—if the British Governpasses it, and that is still a question—is going to have its effect in the other Dominions, and that is what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is afraid of. [Time limit.]

I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since he finds this debate so amusing, whether he will give us the assurance that that cablegram will reach Ireland. I want to ask him that since he finds this debate so amusing. This will probably be one of the secret points on the agenda of the conference which he has to attend. That conference is, of course, a secret conference. South Africa is not allowed to know what is going on. This question was repeatedly put this afternoon in the House: How does Ireland’s position affect South Africa? We need not go back to the past in order to reply to that question. We need only go by what has been said today in order to be able to determine how it affects South Africa. I have here a copy of the Prime Minister’s statement. He said: “If we had remained neutral in 1939 we would have been in the same position in which Ireland finds herself today.” That means that if we had remained neutral, even if our Parliament had decided to remain neutral, England would now have blockaded us because we are neutral. The Prime Minister cannot now run away from his own argument. He and his supporters on the other side may try to run away from the arguments adduced on this side, but he cannot run away from his own argument. That was his own argument. He went on to say: “God help us if we have to be in the position in which Ireland finds herself today.” And that is the way in which our so-called freedom, of which hon. members on the other side are continually talking, is toyed with in a hypocritical way. I just want to mention this point. It was also said in this debate this afternoon by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) that they did not dispute Ireland’s right; that they did not even dispute South Africa’s right to remain neutral. But he went further, and it appeared from his speech that as soon as you avail yourself of the right to remain neutral, then you are acting wrongly. In other words, you can remain neutral provided you do not avail yourself of that right, otherwise you are not allowed to make use of that right. If that is the case, what is the value of the freedom of South Africa of which hon. members on the other side of the House are continually speaking? Then there is an hon. member on the other side who spoke of the path of South Africa. I want to tell that hon. member that the path of South Africa is not one which is strewn with such hypocrisy. I just want to add this. It was repeatedly said in this House this afternoon: “Our Parliament decided on 4th September; what are you complaining about?” Compare our position with that of Ireland. Their Parliament decided to remain neutral. When their Parliament decides on a course which is in the interests of England, it is perfectly in order, but when Ireland, which has the same status, decides —and their Prime Minister, their Parliament and the whole nation decide—that it is in their interests to remain neutral, then it is not right; then there is this fuss which was made here this afternoon. What about Ireland’s right? Ireland decided that she did not want to have anything to do with the war. But as I have said, when one decides to stand by England then it is perfectly in order, but as soon as one refuses to allow oneself to be dragged into England’s wars, then it is wrong. Just one other point. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister. When he was Minister of Justice in the previous Government, when he was a member of the United Party, was he in secret communication with Churchill before the war broke out? I ask that for the following reason: I remember very well that on the 4th September, 1939, the same things which are being said today in regard to Ireland were said to us. What does it mean if the ambassador of Germany has to leave Ireland? If Ireland is compelled to send the German ambassador away, it is not tantamount to a declaration of war; that argument was advanced this afternoon; it is not a declaration of war. We heard that this is necessary only for the purpose of preventing occurrences in Ireland which may possibly prejudice England. The same argument was used this afternoon. Ireland is now beingtold: “We want you to sever your diplomatic relations with Germany and Japan, and that is all; it is not tantamount to a declaration of war.” The same argument was advanced by the Prime Minister on the 4th September. The question which I should now like to put to him is whether he discussed that attitude with Mr. Churchill while he was Minister of Justice under the previous Government. Did Churchill know that what happened here would happen over there too, that initially in order to put the matter in a favourable light it would be said that the matter will go no further, that the sending away of the German ambassador would not mean a declaration of war. “We only want to send the ambassadors home, and there the matter will end.” I ask whether he promised Churchill that he would put the matter in this light in order to get the support of this House for his declaration of war, in order subsequently to wage war and in order to win a war election with that majority behind him? Every time hon. members on the other side are asked why they do not go and fight we have the excuse which we had this afternoon from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). We hear now that within one day after the declaration of war he intimated his willingness to go and fight. He is supposed to have told the Prime Minister at midnight on the 4th September that he was prepared to go wherever they wanted to send him, but the Prime Minister could not spare his services in this House. But I want to put this to the hon. member. There was a time when he was free to go; during the election he was not a member of Parliament. If he was so keen on fighting, why did he not go at that time? Why could another member go? I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he nominated these members to stand for the party, or did they voluntarily decide not to go and fight at a time they were no longer members of Parliament; did they decide that they would rather do then duty in this Parliament as the Prime Minister expected them to do? They had the right to go and fight—even the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll)—even he could go if he wanted to. I understand they require Red Cross people. I do not expect the hon. member to join in any other capacity. I think they need such people. I only mention this matter because those questions have been raised. Hon. members on that side say that they are faithful and loyal; they said this afternoon that a new offensive must be launched. The hon. member for Krugersdorp spoke of a new offensive. I shall tell you what is at the back of that. A new offensive will mean that there will have to be further recruiting and that means new salaries for those members. I want to say that if ever proof is sought that here we have hypocricy on a large scale, the best proof for that is to be found in the arguments of hon. members on the other side, and if evidence is sought that our freedom, as far as the other side interprets it, is just a scrap of paper, this debate has clearly proved it today. They are nothing but henchmen of England.

I think the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) let the cat out of the bag in this debate when he suggested that the whole country would be stirred in consequence of this debate. I think, as a matter of fact that if the country is stirred it will be stirred with laughter. The absurd part of the attitude of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is that he has suggested that Britain has used America as a cat’s paw in asking Ireland to sever diplomatic relations with Germany and Japan There can be no possible ground for such a suggestion. There is no reason why America should be Britain’s cat’s paw in this matter. On the contrary there is every reason why Britain should be America’s cat’s paw if a cat’s paw were needed. The truth is that there are millions of Irishmen in America and in her army, and I have no doubt that in making this request, she has acted entirely in the interests of her own people. At the time that Britain was threatened more seriously than she has ever been threatened in her whole history, she played the game with Ireland. She respected the arrangement that Ireland should be regarded as independent and neutral, and the suggestion now that she is far from danger, when her outlook on the war has completely changed, when the danger which threatened has completely passed, that at this stage she should act in a manner that she was not prepared to do, when she was in real danger, is a mean suggestion, even for a man like the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it was Emily Hobhouse who stated that there are pages in the history of England which she is very anxious to obliterate. If there is one country which has made itself guilty of breach of contract, that country is England. In the past solemn promises of freedom were given to the members of the Commonwealth of Nations. Outstanding leaders in England prided themselves on that freedom. That was one of the things in which the Commonwealth of Nations took pride, and here we have an act towards Ireland today which is no less than a violation of that freedom. I am convinced that generations to come will be ashamed of this deed which England is today committing against Ireland, and future generations will describe it as one of the black pages in the history of England.

The whole book is black by this time.

It was correctly said here that this is a matter which affects all of us, and if there is anyone who cherishes the ideal of freedom in the slightest degree, he must protest against this policy. We have heard so much of the fight for democracy and freedom. Is this democracy which we are getting today? It is autocracy in its worst form. I go further and I predict that this action on the part of England, this action on the part of America, is nothing but the curtain-raiser to the next Imperial Conference; it is a prediction as to what may happen at the next Imperial Conference, the basis which is going to be laid for greater unity of the British Empire, and the violation of the freedom of South Africa and the Commonwealth of Nations. At this stage we cannot have any doubt in regard to that. I trust and I want to express the hope that this House, and not only this House but the whole South African nation, will raise its voice in loud protest against this act, and demand that the freedom of Ireland shall not be touched? It is of no avail saying that we enjoy freedom, if those very things which are the outward symbols of the freedom of a nation are violated. I hope the Government will take notice of this matter timeously, and that effect will be given to the wishes of every right-thinking person, namely, that the freedom of the Commonwealth of Nations will be recognised. But our ideal is not only to keep this freedom; our ideal is to attain the fullest measure of freedom, namely, the freedom of a republic in South Africa.

I rise to say a few words with refernce to what has been said here by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). He tried to treat my suggestion with contempt that we should launch a new war effort. It is taken for granted that the hon. member will be opposed to my suggestion that the Government should make new efforts to support the Allies with everything in its power. The hon. member is consistent with that attitude and that is the only attitude in respect of which hon. members of the Opposition are consistent. The hon. member worries quite a lot about that old story of double salaries, as if it is such an extremely attractive thing for members on this side, as if that is the only reason why we are supporting the Prime Minister and why we want to see the war through.

Now that you do not receive that double salary any more, now it is an old story.

When anybody on this side of the House receives a salary in respect of services rendered in connection with the ….

The Empire.

… in connection with the war effort, then it is wrong, then it is low and mean, but when colleagues of my hon. friend draw £1,000 per annum, not in respect of the war effort, but to fill his own purse out of State funds, in addition to his Parliamentary allowance, then it is noble and genuine.

And sells farms to the Government.

There are a number of members sitting on that side of the House who also draw double salaries, not in the interests of the war effort, but in their own interests. When they draw double salaries then it is something noble and pure, but when we draw double salaries in respect of work we do in connection with the war effort, then it is a scandal. But we on this side of the House saw to it that the name of South Africa is highly thought of in the other countries of the world. The hon. members talk of double salaries. Nobody has ever enquired as to how much the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) gets when he appears in court for the Government. That money is paid out of State funds, but nobody reproaches the hon. member for it. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was a member of the Cost-plus Commission. He received £3 3s. per day for that. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) received £1,000 per annum from State funds whilst sitting on that side of the House and saying that he would prefer to be ruled by Hitler. Those are all double salaries, but they are not in the interests of the war effort and therefore it is a lofty and noble thing. But when we draw double salaries for work that we do in support of the war effort, then it is something mean and contemptuous. The very same actions have one meaning for hon. members on the other side and another meaning for hon. members on this side. The hon. members on that side of the House say quite frankly that they would prefer a German victory. But let us go further. More than four years after the outbreak of war, the hon. Leader of the Opposition comes along and now for the first time he says : “If I have to choose today between Communism and Germany, then I prefer a German victory.” That was his attitude before Russia had joined the side of the Allies. When hon. members on this side of the House put them the question who they desired to win, the Leader of the Opposition was not able to say who they desired to be victorious. He did give Germany to understand, however, that he was pro-German: “If the only countries at war were Russia and Germany, and the choice lay between Nazism and Communism, then I would say a hundred times rather a German victory than a Russian victory.” This is the mentality of hon. members on that side of the House. Now they have also said that in their opinion the result of a victory for the Russians will be so terrible that it will mean the end of the world. Who started the war? If it had not been for Russia, there would not have been a single small nation in Europe today who would still have its freedom. The time will come when hon. members on that side will say, as my leader, the Minister of Labour, once said: “Thank God for Russia”; and the time has already come, the time has come when hon. members on that side are saying in their hearts: “Thank the Lord for a country such as Russia.” If it had not been for Russia, they would not have had the freedom they are enjoying today; they would not have enjoyed this democratic right of being able to say what they wish to in this House and in this country. As I have said, the time has come for a new offensive in aid of the war effort to be launched. We should not slacken in our efforts at this stage, and I want to appeal to the Government once again to see to it that we wake up and to assure the other Allied countries that South Africa will make an effort with new determination to stand by them faithfully to the end of the war and that will also bring glory to the people of South Africa. Let us not forget that wherever the soldiers of the Union of South have taken part in this war, nothing but the highest possible praise has been given for our South African forces. Our men have been lauded by the American forces, by the British forces, the Australian forces as well as the New Zealand forces. Everywhere our men received the highest praise. The courage of the Afrikaner is highly thought of by the other nations at war and if we do not fail in our duties now, we will earn the fullest honour and fame due to us when peace is made, and I think that the Union of South Africa, through its mouthpiece, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, will play a large and important role at the conclusion of the peace. In spite of the speeches that were made— I refer to those at Riversdale—while the Prime Minister was overseas, notwithstanding the—I can almost say—attitude of envy towards the Prime Minister, I am hoping that the Union of South Africa through its spokesman will exercise an enormous influence at the peace conference which will follow this struggle. I have often said that I hope that the Prime Minister will receive more blessings at that time than ever before. We know that President Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin and Mr. Churchill all look to him to play an important part at the peace conference. We must keep our way clear and we must not resort to the sort of thing done by the Leader of the Opposition—sending a telegram to Ireland. The Opposition now has to justify its attitude. They are now trying to give Ireland to understand that there are some people in South Africa who sympathise with Ireland. We will sympathise with them, but we have every right to say: “You alone are going to pay for the folly of your own Government.” [Time limit.]

Who can understand the word freedom better than those who have lost it, and because I am one of those who have lost it and I sympathise with those whose freedom that was obtained by them is now threatened, I feel that I should rise here and support what has been said on this side. The spectacle we witness here fills us with sadness. Our English friends opposite remain silent. It is almost as if they take a delight in witnessing the Afrikaner fighting the Afrikaner in this House. Now, you would say to me: Are you the only one who has the right to talk about freedom and the value of freedom? On the other side of the House there are also men who lost their freedom. I would just like to point out that it is only a natural phenomenon which has appeared right through the history of the world, namely, that when you allow an enemy to cross your borders or when you are conquered, it does happen that people of your own blood will join the enemy. I say that we also suffered heavy losses. In the war we had to witness a brave, Boer general leaving his forces on his horse in broad daylight and joining the enemy. That is not something unknown to us, but when freedom is at stake, and we do feel that it affects Ireland in this way, then I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether I am wrong when I say that I cannot remain silent on this question of Ireland; I cannot fail to pay tribute to those Irishmen who fought on the side of our republics. I think of men like Jack Hindon. But there is always a motive. What did we find before the Anglo-Boer War? A motive had to be found for declaring war against the Free State and the Transvaal. Do we not remember that motive, when they said that England had a certain measure of suzerainty over the Transvaal? We also heard that the Uitlanders were being treated very meanly in the Transvaal. We also had to hear how incapable the Boer people were of looking after the interests of the natives and that they treated the natives badly. But let nobody say that I will ever blame the whole British nation for that. We also had friends in England. We had a man like Lloyd George and a woman like Emily Hobhouse. But who were the real enemies of the Afrikaners? It was the British Imperialism and today it is that British Imperialism once again which is making this assault on the freedom of Ireland. And today it is British Imperialism once more which under some pretext is making this attack on the freedom of Ireland. My question is whether Ireland is not a sister State of England in the British Commonwealth of Nations of which we are also a member. Is it not therefore the duty of the sister State, England, to say to America: Before making this accusation and demanding that the legations of enemy countries be removed, have you any conclusive evidence that the’legations are engaging in espionage? Has that question been put? As far as we know it has not. Now you will ask me whether I approve of the invasion of Holland and Belgium by Germany. Let me say quite frankly that I am against any form of aggression, wherever it may come from, and just as much as I hate seeing South Africa subordinate to Great Britain any longer or being in the position we are in today, that is, that we uphold the British connection as it is being interpreted, just as much would I hate being ruled by Russia or Germany or anybody else. We want to be a free people in South Africa, a free republic, and because that is the object and the aim of Ireland to be free after a struggle lasting for 700 years, we have sympathy for Ireland. Why did the Irish people get where they are today? Because they have preserved their Irish souls. And I want to tell hon. members—you might disagree with me—that as long as I possess my Boer soul, I will strive to win back the republic and to see my own free flag flying in a free and independent republic.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) and I have much respect for his opinion. When a man who has gone through the Anglo-Boer War starts talking, I always feel that there is still comradeship between us. He says that he knows what it is to lose one’s freedom. I can appreciate that. But the Leader of the Opposition has never lost it yet, the majority of the members sitting behind him has never yet had freedom, because when there was a fight for freedom, they took cover behind the Union Jack here below Table Mountain. The hon. member for Frankfort fought for his freedom and we lost it. Yes, but we lost it honourably; and the people of the Free State lost their freedom because they faithfully honoured their agreement with the Transvaal. They did not seek cover behind neutrality.

England is not respecting the freedom of Ireland today.

The Leader of the hon. member said in my absence at Burgersdorp, when I had said that he had voted for a motion in Parliament that we should honour the Simonstown Agreement and that we could not remain neutral and carry out the Simonstown Agreement at the same time—do you know what the Leader of the Opposition then said: “Yes, I have discussed the question of the Simonstown Agreement with Gen. Hertzog and we agreed that it was not necessary to carry out the agreement, that it was not necessary to defend Simonstown.” And then the same Leader of the Opposition comes along here and he votes for a motion that we should remain neutral but carry out the Simonstown Agreement. I think the hon. member for Frankfort will surely not agree with that, because that is not the example set by the Freestaters to the nation. You may laugh but the people of the country rejects such an atitude with contempt. Now we hear about Ireland. During the last election we heard a lot about it: “Why can Ireland remain neutral and we cannot?” We know what is happening in Ireland now. I agree with the Prime Minister that if we had agreed to the neutrality motion, we would not have been in the position of Ireland, but our country would have been an ash-heap.

Would England have attacked us?

England would not have attacked us.

America?

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) called together a republican congress agains the wishes of his leader. At the time when France fell, the Leader of the Opposition said: “England has lost the war hopelessly.” Now I want to ask him: If you had been in power at the time when France fell, would you have proclaimed a republic or not? They said then that England was finished. If they had proclaimed a republic, we would have had a revolution here which would have left the country in ruins and ashes.

Would England have attacked us?

Not England only, but all the Allied nations, and Germany and Japan would have shot the hon. members over there and the country would have been in ruins.

Now Oom Louw will never become a Minister — not after this speech.

The hon. members have Cabinet posts in mind. They divide the people because they want to become Ministers. I have never yet asked a Leader to appoint me a Minister. I am not here to become a Minister. I am here to serve my people. All this noise is merely a smokescreen. For a member such as the hon. member for Frankfort I have much respect, but I want to tell him that we are fighting with the Allied nations because we want to retain our freedom. The hon. member lost his freedom, but he got it back, not so? Will he deny that he got it back? If he denies that, then I want to remind him of the words of his own Leader that a republic cannot give us more freedom that we have at present. He said that England is not our enemy any more, but the mother of our freedom. Our children are going to the North and give their blood voluntarily.

Are you in favour of child-murder?

Ask the hon. member whether I led natives during the Boer War? I did not.

On a point of order, I never said anything of the kind. I asked whether the hon. member was a childmurderer; whether he wanted England to murder its own children.

England does not murder its own children. She protects us with her navy. The fact that the hon. member is still able to sit there and make a noise, he owes to the British navy and the fact that Ireland is still free is also due to the British navy.

Who is attacking their freedom?

I want to tell the hon. member that where we stand there we stand. I have often said and I want to repeat that our children have gone to the fields of battle not to fight because of a love for England, but for the sake of the freedom of South Africa. But we realise that we cannot stand alone in the world and in order to protect our freedom our only hope is to fight with the Commonwealth of Nations. It is the largest league of nations the world has ever known, the Commonwealth of Nations.

It has more commonness than wealth.

The hon. member can only joke about things. With them everything is a question of party politics. In their minds they have the desire to get a post in the Cabinet and they divide the people. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is a member who is extremely unhappy. He always creates the impression of having a grievance. There was a time when the hon. member was a great leader amongst the farmers at Burgersdorp, when he played an important role there. But they rejected him and eventually he landed in Kimberley (District). He still feels very unhappy about it. He now comes here and tells us what happened at the last meeting at Burgersdorp when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was there. He cannot forget that meeting. Why not? Because a woman chased him out of the meeting.

On a point of order, the hon. member knows that he is not telling the truth.

Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

But it is not true. I have never been chased out of a meeting at Burgersdorp yet, never in my life yet. Even when the Leader of the Opposition was there I had a good audience.

The hon. member must withdraw the statement.

I withdraw that he knows that it is not true.

On the 4th September, 1939, we learnt from the Prime Minister that the choice which Parliament had to make, was a free choice. We were in favour of neutrality, they were in favour of war.

Today the Prime Minister gets up here and insinuates in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that Ireland can expect more trouble. In other words, in addition to economic pressure, Ireland may expect that military pressure will also be exerted because she does not want to take any part in the war. Now I want to know where the freedom is, the freedom which is lauded so often by hpn. members on that side of the House. The Prime Minister says that if we had remained neutral we might have been in a worse fix than Ireland finds herself in today. That must mean that force of arms would have been used in order to force us to take part in the war. Where is the freedom then about which the Prime Minister has so much to say? I wonder whether the Prime Minister will remember— the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) was present—that at a meeting in Boshof I asked him whether he had stated in 1928 that if England went to war he could not see how we could remain neutral. On that day the Prime Minister could not remember that he had ever said something of that nature. He then said that he did make such statements before 1926, but after that we had obtained a higher status in 1926, and South Africa would not be involved in the wars of England any longer. The following day I brought Hansard along to a meeting at Fauresmith and in Hansard were the words he used in 1928, to the effect that South Africa could not remain neutral if England was at war. South Africa would then be compelled to take part in the war. That was his old standpoint. But I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side who held the same views that we held, namely that we could remain neutral—they voted for it when there was a motion before the House declaring that we have the right of neutrality—I want to ask them where they stand today. Why do they not come along now and support us and say that the Dominions have the right of neutrality when England is at war? The point that appeared very clearly from the discussion here is that the Prime Minister comes to the conclusion that we will for ever be involved in England’s wars. If England goes to war, we have to join them or else they will force us to. If that is the standpoint of the Prime Minister then our freedom becomes a farce. There is no such thing as freedom if we have to take part in England’s wars. That is why we advocate a republic, free from England. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said that the members of Parliament who received military pay, were indispensible to the Government’s war effort and they rendered important services. I wonder whether the hon. member remembers that at the time when they joined up as officers, South Africa was not even exposed to any danger. Africa had not been invaded yet.

Italy was not in the war yet. Now the hon. members tell us that they were indispensible for the war effort and the appointments were only to give position to those who were on the side of the Government. The ordinary soldier, when he joins up, has to pass a severe test before he can become a soldier. The hon. members did not pass that test and they did not get a few shillings per day like the ordinary soldiers do but they got £50 or £60 per month as officers. It put a question as to the military training these members had. The reply was that the hon. member for Krugersdorp was a member for two or three months of a rifle association. That was all the experience he had. Now he tells us that he was indispensibe for the war effort and therefore had to get a double salary.

The hon. members on the Opposition side of the House have by the tenor of the speeches they have delivered, strongly reminded me of the words of St. Paul—

If those speeches denote the character of the Opposition’s contribution to the debate today, I can only describe it as childish. I am not just being superficial; I cannot seriously imagine how people who are responsible for the style of thing we have heard today may one day be called upon to form a Government in this country. I cannot understand how people who have those dreams can get away with the kind of thing they have been trying to get away with. It appals one to realise the ineptitude of their remarks. If they represented the majority of the people of this country, instead of a minority of the whites of this country, if they were in a position to speak about a quarrel which is theirs, then I would understand that they had some right to talk. But they have elected to put this childish barrage. of nonsense across the House merely in an attempt to embarrass the Prime Minister. I want to assure the Prime Minister, however, that we on these benches are behind him today 100 per cent. The facts are these, that if we, Mr. Chairman, were able to influence the course of this war by remaining attached to a policy of neutrality—which appears to be the idea behind all this nonsense—if we were able to influence the decision of this war by sending a cable to Ireland, the facts would be altogether different to what they are. Supposing, however, that we were to declare neutrality, what would happen? South Africa would become the centre of the war. It would be inevitable. Our Opposition friends could not stop it. The United States and Great Britain would see to it that the ports on the African coast were closed, and any attempt to resist would mean war; so if our friends hope to evade war by being exponents of the doctrine of neutrality, what hope have they got? Why do not they face the facts? This country is at war—we are at war—because the majority of the people of this country wanted to be at war, because they felt that whatever might be the basic causes of world unrest and disquiet, the fact remains that the immediate thing that had to be done was to destroy this terrible monster that raised its head under the aegis of the dictatorships. That task had to be done, and the majority of the people in this country agree that it had to be done. I, who have three boys who went into this war, can say that they went willingly, because they have become true South African boys who would find it extremely difficult to gain entrance to the sacred kraal of Afrikanerdom. These boys were prepared to sacrifice their lives for South Africa. And the hon. member who shakes his head (Lt.-Col. Booysen) has also boys who were prepared to fight for South Africa, while he himself by giving lip service—he nods his head in a deprecatory way —is trying to defeat the very thing which his sons are attempting to win for South Africa. He will not tell us that they have gone up there to play at soldiers. These lads have all gone to do a job, and they will do it. None of these gentlemen who represent the Opposition would have a hope of recalling those boys to South Africa, while the task remains unfinished. They joined up to do a job and they are going to do that job, and no amount of twaddle and childishness and nonsense about the Prime Minister’s vote, will affect the issue. No, there are boys in South Africa who despite all the odium and all the nastiness that can be engendered in the Nationalist camp, are sufficiently intelligent to recognise that South Africa is greater, far greater, than the Nationalist Party.

We on this side of the House are anxious, as we have said at the outset, to help the Prime Minister to get on with this vote. Personally I think that the point we have been dealing with has been discussed more or less fully. I do not think that anything new could be brought forth. I therefore propose to proceed to the next point, namely the question of closer Imperial connections. It is a matter between England and the Dominions in general and more particularly between England and ourselves. There were two speeches which drew the attention, not only of our country, but, I think, of the whole of the British Empire, and which also received the attention of the rest of the world. Our Prime Minister made a speech in London and Lord Halifax, the British Minister in Washington, made a speech in Canada. Both these speeches are based on their views as to the position which will obtain at the conclusion of the war, more particularly in so far as it will affect England. The Prime Minister was very clear on the point. America will be tremendously strong, much stronger proportionately than ever before. And that is a fact. The other fact is that in Europe Russia will be much stronger than ever before and that Russia as the leading nation i n Europe, the Continent of Europe, will be the dominating power. That was said very explicitly. Having regard to the position that will exist according to their opinions, both of these gentlemen offered a solution. The Prime Minister’s solution was that England should bind herself in an alliance, or even—as he practically intimated —a co-operation with the smaller countries of Western Europe, but he specially emphasised the point that England should be more closely united with the various dominions in her own Empire. The British Commonwealth of Nations must be strengthened from the inside. Lord Halifax used words to the same effect and came to the conclusion, and put it perhaps even more definitely than the Prime Minister, that if England did not effect a closer union with the dominions and did not form a closer unity with the dominions after this war, then England would no longer be regarded as a great power. It would disappear as far as its power and influence was concerned. That was the position and he expressed this point of view in Canada. There must therefore be closer union. That was the solution suggested by Lord Halifax. He is an ambassador and must have spoken on behalf of the British Government. As against this, another point of view was expressed in Canada, namely, by the Prime Minister, Mackenzie King. His standpoint was most definite. He rejects the standpoint of Lord Halifax. He does not want any closer union. On the contrary, he intimated in his speech that the relationship between England and Canada should be more free. Canada should advance a few steps further on the road to independence. I think that what was in the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada— Canada is in American country—was that Canada should effect a closer relationship with the other States of North and South America. I think that eventually it will come to this that Canada will join the PanAmerican Alliance. It is practically the case at the moment. We have therefore these two possible tendencies. These two tendencies exist also in this House and in this country. There we have the road to closer union, of which the Prime Minister is an advocate; and there is the other direction advocated by this side of the House. And now we would like to hear from the Prime Minister, who desires closer union, what form it should take. It is important that we should know that before discussing this matter further. We must know what form he proposes that closer union should take. What form must it take politically and what form must it take economically? I think we should first give the Prime Minister an opportunity of explaining his attitude in this matter before we discuss it any further.

I have a very considerable affection for the country of Ireland. Perhaps because it happened that my mother came from there. I have a broad and deep and living sympathy, more so than many of her champions in this House today, for that green and gracious land. Nevertheless, it is a fact that even Ireland must in these times go in for a bit of realism. She must face the position as it is. Now, calmly and coolly, what are the facts? I can illustrate the first one by saying that there is no room for a little child in an 18 foot ring where a couple of 300 lb. champion wrestlers are contending for a world’s title. The child would be perfectly safe at the back of the hall, but must be kept clear of the flying feet and fists. Ireland is but a baby confronted with the contending nations of Western Europe. Unfortunately, she is far from being seated at the back of the hall! She is too near the contenders to be safe, and must make no mistakes as to her own powers and importance. Small nations don’t count much in total war. Ireland is very ill-advised indeed if in any way she throws her little weight about. She must face the truth, and that is the first fact. The second one is this, the very terrible incidence of the sinking of ships. Many thousands of lives, not merely of soldiers, not merely of men, but also of women and children, have been lost on her coasts, and in view of all the facts I am reasonably sure, as sure as I stand here, that any other country but Great Britain in all the circumstances would have forced Ireland into the war years ago. And now there is another point, another suggestion I would make, knowing Ireland. Had the world encountered the misfortune of of my occupying the position of Mr. Winston Churchill, I would have taken a very different stand with Ireland—because I care for the Irish and I understand them. I would have sent in 1940 a strong British army to that same Ireland. The Irish would have squealed, but they would have had something like a genuine grievance, and therefore they would have been happier than they have been since the year one! They definitely would, and moreover, they would have gone into their gardens and their dairies and they would have supplied these troops with milk, butter, eggs, and potatoes; and these people, who are still dear to me for the sake of old times and old ways would have known prosperity, a thing they don’t know today— a thing definitely they do not know now. And there is just one other point I would make, and it is this—that there are two Irelands. Many thousands of their young men are fighting today, and have been fighting for years in all the corners of the world. They are not fighting for England, they are not fighting for pay, they are fighting that truth and justice shall not perish from the earth. They are the representatives of the heart of Ireland, gay and gallant and true. The other Ireland is a political country. It is hard for politicians to be worthy of then soldier sons and daughters. It is hard for the older generation to be worthy of the younger generation who, as the Irish poet says: “Over their ready graves are rushing glorious.” The attitude of Mr. De Valera reminds me of a little limerick—the House may perhaps remember it—

That could readily happen to Ireland. She is toying with a very dangerous and treacherous nation, and for the good of Ireland we wish that she herself would make up her mind, and with all her might and courage, which we all admire, stand by the nations and forces which are maintaing today the things that are left and are worth while.

Do. you really believe that?

I do more than believe; I know it. It is for Ireland’s own good that the German emissaries, the agents of that people which has proved itself totally unable to keep faith—it is for Ireland’s own good that these representatives should leave Dublin, for they bring misery and destruction on all who harbour them.

Let the Irish worry about that.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 17th March.

Agreed to.