With leave I desire to give a further reply to Question No. XIV by Mr. H. J. Cilliers (see col. 2152):

The correct number is 5,336 comprising 3,449 widows and 1,887 children.

Yesterday afternoon when this vote was under discussion, the Leader of the Opposition asked me for some information, he asked me to clear up the position which he said had in some respects arisen out of some speeches which had recently been made—he asked me for an explanation of a speech of mine in London in November last and a speech by Lord Halifax in January and a speech by the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. He particularly wanted to know what the position was in regard to the idea of a closer connection between Western Europe and the British Commonwealth of Nations, which was referred to in those speeches. I want to say a few words to explain the position which may perhaps be of some assistance in this debate. My speech in London in November last was made before the Study Circle of the British Parliament. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the Empire Parliamentary Association makes a study of a number of subjects; in London that study is fairly extensive. Members of both Houses of Parliament meet together in those study circles to discuss affairs and I was invited on that occasion by the Parliamentary Study Circle in London to discuss any subject. I asked what I was expected to talk about and I was given a subject—the position of a New Europe. I made my speech there on that occasion. It was published afterwards, it was circulated among the members throughout the Commonwealth —members of the Empire Parliamentary Association. It was published widely and it received a good deal of publicity. The speech dealt with a number of matters, but particularly with the position which has now arisen in Europe as a result of the war, the Power position which has arisen as a result of the disappearance of certain big Powers, and the arising on a large scale of new Powers. I said that things were pointing in the direction of the Power line, the political lead in the immediate future, being in the hands of the three great remaining Powers, i.e. Great Britain, the United States and Russia. Those are the three great remaining powers.

China?

I did not mention China; I looked upon China more as a potential Power, not as a Power which under present conditions has to be seriously considered. If China is recognised today as a great Power, it would be more as a potential Power in the future. I therefore did not refer to China, but I mentioned the three Powers which are in actual fact great Powers. I pointed out that with the development which is now coming about, those are the three great Powers of which, so far as Europe is concerned, Great Britain will be the weakest. The resources and the development of strength, both in the United States and in Russia, are on such a colossal scale that this Trinity, as I called it, will not be evenly balanced. Without the Empire, without the Commonwealth, England would be in a weaker position than the other two. I also pointed out that the position in Europe itself, the position of smaller countries, should be considered so far as the future was concerned, and I referred to Russia as a colossal power. The war has shown that the smaller countries cannot defend themselves. The smaller countries of Western Europe have mostly gone under because they were too weak to defend themselves. The collective security as contemplated under the League of Nations could not save them, and therefore in the event of a large scale danger such as that in which Europe found itself, collective security was not enough, and further arrangements had to be made for the future to secure the peace and the existence of smaller countries in Western Europe. I then made a suggestion. It was a suggestion which sounded rather novel and which subsequently caused much comment. I suggested that consideration should be given to the question whether in the interest of the peace of Europe and the existence of the smaller countries in Western Europe, it would be possible for those whose views were identical to Great Britain’s, those whose outlook on life, whose conceptions were identical, could be brought into closer connection with Great Britain, so that in that way not only the weaker section of the Trinity would be strengthened but their own future would also be secured. They would have a greater degree of protection than the existing collective security under the League of Nations gave them. In connection with this suggestion I pointed out that the road for such a step had already been indicated in connection with the development which had taken place in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I pointed out that one could be a member of the British Commonwealth, yet maintain all one’s rights, one’s position of sovereignty, and have a complete say in matters affecting one. You can be a member of the British Commonwealth without forfeiting anything and without in any way detrimentally affecting your National say or sovereignty.

What are they doing to Ireland now?

I pointed out that the position which had developed in the British Commonwealth was a signpost to something even greater in the world, and that it showed the way by which countries which could not protect themselves could form a bond in which they, like ourselves in the Commonwealth, could retain their sovereignty, but where they would have a certain amount of protection which they would not have under the system of the League of Nations. That was my only reference to the Commonwealth. I only mentioned the Commonwealth in my speech as an example of the kind of development by which it is possible to protect smaller countries in Western Europe if they cannot protect themselves against such dangers as they have been faced with. In my speech I also went into the British Colonial system, and I made certain suggestions which I thought might help to make the system more effective. As I have said, that speech was made on the occasion of a meeting of the Study Circle of the British House of Parliament, it was attended by a large number of members of Parliament, and it attracted a fair amount of attention, especially when it was published later on. There was a lot of discussion about it. Certain side issues attracted most attention. Certain aspects which I had not intended to give most of my attention to, attracted most attention, such as for instance my reference to France. It was, of course, in connection with the attitude I adopted, necessary to refer to Great Powers such as Italy and France which have now as such disappeared from the scene, and it was necessary for me, among other things, to point out that France would not be regarded today as a Great Power in view of her position. I said that it might take a long time before France would regain her position and that it might be difficult, and I mentioned this to show the great changes which had come over Europe as a result of the fluctuations among the Great Powers. Those were the main points of my speech. Subsequently, in January last, Lord Halifax made a speech in Canada in which he arrived at the same basic idea as I had done, but he discussed the matter on totally different lines. He also started from premises that the Great Powers, which he said numbered four, as he included China, would hold the position of power in the world. I discussed Great Britain in her relationship towards Europe, and he discussed a different matter; he discussed the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations. He started out from premises that in order to strengthen the position of the British Empire and of the Commonwealth it was essential to get a closer connection. I am speaking in vague terms because I have not seen his speech. I have only got, my information about his speech from references in the Press and from remarks which were subsequently made by Mr. Mackenzie King, but I have not seen Lord Halifax’s speech itself. Apparently, however, the question which he discussed was the strengthening of the British Empire and of the British Commonwealth in view of the new fluctuations in strength in the world, and what he suggested was something which I had not discussed, and he did not discuss what I had discussed. What I discussed was the position in Western Europe, and particularly the position of Great Britain, the expansion more or less of the British Commonwealth of Nations to Western Europe, to the small countries whose views were identical. Lord Halifax on the other hand took a different course. So far as |I can understand from Mr. Mackenzie King’s remarks, Lord Halifax’s view was that the British Commonwealth should form a closer bond, and Mr. Mackenzie King reacted to that and criticised those views and protested against the speech, and said that so far as he was concerned, and so far as Canada was concerned, that was not a practical course to follow. Canada wanted to retain its own full say in regard to all great problems; Canada wanted to retain the full rights it had, and Mr. Mackenzie King further pointed out that in view of the peculiar position which Canada occupied between the United States on the one hand and the British Empire on the other, Canada had to be careful as to the extent it allowed itself to be drawn into such a closer bond. That was the main content of his speech. He did not criticise, he did not refer to my suggestion so far as Europe was concerned; he only gave his attention to that part of Lord Halifax’s speech which referred to the British Commonwealth. Of course I don’t want to interfere in the dispute—if there is a dispüte—between Lord Halifax and Mr. Mackenzie King. It is out of my sphere. But the question remains, what really is the position of the British Commonwealth? I have referred to that and I would prefer to quote what I said about the British Commonwealth in my speech so that hon. members may see what my attitude was—

This was after I had made a suggestion that the smaller countries in Western Europe might possibly enter into closer contact with Great Britain—

Those were my words and that was my only reference to the position in the British Commonwealth. Now let me come back to that particular aspect. There are different directions, in the Commonwealth today. There are, as we know, different tendencies— there are tendencies, which as we know, strive for the bonds to be loosened—which consider that the bonds are still too tight, and there is another direction of thought which wants to go still further and contends that South Africa should have an entirely separate Republic. That is the tendency supported in South Africa by certain political sections and that, so far as I can understand, is also what Ireland wants. I must admit frankly that so far as that idea is concerned I am opposed to it as I have said for years.

You were not opposed to it in the Boer War.

I am opposed to it on two grounds; the one is that I do not see how we can possibly, by releasing ourselves further from the British connection and from the British Commonwealth, get greater freedom; how we are going to achieve more than we have today—a say over our own affairs, control over our own interests, and the national sovereignty which embodies a nation’s dignity—I fail to see it. It has never been made clear to me how we can achieve more in that way, how we can achieve more by that ideal which we used to have, how can we achieve more than we have under the present connection. You cannot get more. It has been repeatedly said from various sides and by different parties in this country, that South Africa today has a greater amount of say in its own affairs, has more freedom and sovereignty than it had under the old Republics of the Transvaal and the Free State. There is no doubt about it. And anyone who knew the conditions which prevailed in the days of the old Republics and who compares the situation of those days with that of the present will admit with me that we have advanced along the road of freedom, and that we have not gone back. We have a status today, whether we become a Republic or not, which gives the nation the fullest and the most complete freedom—the fullest say and sovereignty. That is one reason why I am opposed to a change in that direction. I feel that we have everything we want along that course. My other objection is this, we have learnt a lesson in this war. We have learnt what dangers face us on the path of small countries. If the war has taught us nothing else, it has taught us clearly that the small countries which stand on their own, are in a very dangerous and uncertain position. To me it is clear that if we here in South Africa had not had the protection which we have today of the British Navy, or of the circle of friends among whom we find ourselves today, we would have had to make defence treaties with one or other big country. It would be dangerous for us to stand alone in the midst of the system which is developing today in the world.

Even a Republic can make treaties.

Some of these countries were Republics and some were Kingdoms, but all of them have passed, and have been destroyed. Here you have a country like South Africa, situated on the main roads of the world, between East and West, with riches such as we have, with resources such as we have, with the manpower as small as ours is—it seems to me, if I am to judge what are the real interest of South Africa, and if I am to have a say in the future of South Africa, that I would say that it is dangerous for us as a small country to stand isolated and without friends. Had we not been in the circle of the British Commonwealth of Nations we would have had to go further to look for protection, and we would have had to bind ourselves to defence agreements to secure our future, and if we had not done that we would simply have become a football on the world’s stage.

Do you mean to say that the day of small nations has passed?

No; I am pointing this out. There can be no doubt that the position of small nations today is very much more dangerous than it was in the past. The countries which I have spoken of, the countries in Western Europe, had been safe for 100 years. They had not been attacked since Napoleon’s days.

Ireland is still free.

Ireland has been sitting safely behind the British Navy. Ireland has had a wall of power around it, and that wall of power was the British Navy. To me it is clear that if we had isolated ourselves and had freed ourselves from the British connection we would have been forced to tie ourselves by agreements which we are not tied by at the moment—that is to say we would have had to enter into defence treaties with other countries. Then there is another direction, another tendency, and that is the tendency which stands for a closer connection with the British Empire. That is a tendency which was very strong in the previous generation. It was a Federal Movement in Great Britain; it was a movement which aimed at the creation of a Federation—of a Federal State in the British Empire. More than a generation ago I took up the cudgels against that idea; I can still remember making a speech in London in 1917 and one of the leaders on that occasion said: “Smuts has torpedoed the idea of Federation.” It is a well-known speech of mine, and it was followed by other developments. We had the Versailles Peace Treaty where the position of the Dominions was formally recognised to a large extent. After that we had the Balfour Declaration, and finally the Statute of Westminster which we made the law of our own country. It is our law today. The road we have followed has been away from Federation and not in the direction of a closer bond inside the Empire. We found a better course, along which, without tying ourselves more closely, we were able, while retaining our freedom and retaining our full sovereignty and our say, to remain within that circle of friends and by consultation and co-operation to find our way through the world, and to protect ourselves against the dangers which might be on our course. That idea which of late years has been revived and is being discussed—that idea of “closer union” and of “union now”—and all those things are mere illusions, so far as I am concerned. They mean going back to a past which is dead. In the British Commonwealth we have followed a totally different course, a course which has proved to be a practical one. It was said in those days: “No, a bond which is so loose, a Commonwealth on such a loose basis like the British Commonwealth, will fall to pieces at the very first shock.” We have stood the test, and we have protected ourselves and helped each other, and the result is that all those dangers which led to the undoing of all these other countries, have been overcome by us, and at the end of the war we shall come to the fore as one of the great victors. It is the only course to follow. It is the course which never before in the history of the world has been followed. I look upon the idea of the British Commonwealth as one of the most valuable developments in the history of the world. As mankind develops with its ideas of government new conceptions develop, and this is an entirely new conception of which there was no sign in the years behind us. It is a practical development—not thought out by thinkers or philosophers or lawyers, but it has been developed on the basis of practice. It is a natural development based on our experience. The idea has been adopted in the Commonwealth and it has worked well. People may be wrangling and criticising today, but we need not go back far in the speeches of all parties in this country to see how, generally speaking, the value of this idea and its practicability are recognised on all sides. I am opposed to the idea of a Federal State, to the idea of a super State in the British Empire. I am also opposed to taking a leap in the dark and proclaiming a Republic. I am opposed to total isolation from the others—to a position which is going to involve us in serious dangers, which will give us no greater freedom than we have today. I stand fast by what has been achieved. We have our law; we have the Statute of Westminister which clearly recognises the absolute equality of all Dominions, no matter whether a law or a constitutional amendment is at issue. We have gone further than the other Dominions. We are the only Dominion in this whole group which has made the Statute of Westminster the law of the country. Canada has not gone as far as that. In Canada they still have the stumbling block in the Canadian Constitution which leaves all changes in the Constitution to be dealt with by the British Parliament. We have not got that position here. Canada is faced with that difficulty, and it is one of the greatest difficulties with which Mackenzie King has to contend, and we have to bear that in mind when we remember what he said about the constitutional position—he is faced with this difficulty, that part of the Canadian population, namely the French part, is absolutely opposed to leaving the amendment of the Canadian Constitution to the Canadian Parliament. They insist on any amendment to the British North America Act being left in the hands of the British Parliament.

No; they are now proposing an amendment.

Let us first see what becomes of that.

But an amendment is proposed.

That is one of the issues; I am speaking of the position as it exists at the moment. Here in South Africa we have accepted the Statute of Westminster to the full, and we have passed a law giving our Parliament Sovereign Powers and giving us national sovereignty. We are the only Dominion which has done so so far. Australia has not done it, New Zealand has not yet done it, Canada now wants to do it if it can.

What about Ireland?

Ireland has gone beyond that; it is because of that that Mr. Churchill used that expression in the British House of Parliament to which the Leader of the Opposition referred yesterday. Ireland has not accepted the Statute of Westminster, but it has made a separate law of its own which creates a situation rendering it difficult to say what Ireland’s position really is.

Ireland has made use of the rights it has.

It is difficult to say where Ireland stands in regard to the British Commonwealth. I think the reply which Mr. Churchill gave in the British House of Commons is a very excellent one. It is a question on which lawyers differ and he does not want to express his opinion on it. I may be asked what my point of view is. I did not discuss this question in London, nor did I mention it in my speech there. I took it for granted that we were free sovereign countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations. But I may be asked what my position is in regard to all these tendencies and directions. My reply is that I am opposed to these two extreme tendencies, either to the right or to the left. I stand fast by the existing position. The rights of South Africa under the Statute of Westminster and the Status Act which we have accepted here—I stand fast by them. Nothing I do will harm or interfere with that position. On the contrary any departure from that position to the right or to the left will meet with my strongest opposition.

The Prime Minister devoted part of his speech to an explanation of a speech which he made in London, and at times it appeared as if he were a bit apolgetic, particularly in regard to his reference to France. Now, I don’t propose going into that. That is a question which can be discussed elsewhere or on a later occasion. Let me further say this: that to a certain extent the speech which the Prime Minister made in reply to the question I asked him gives us hope and courage, at any rate when we look at the external aspect in regard to this matter. That at any rate appears to be so. Now, one of the things which gives us that degree of hope and courage is the fact that he disassociates himself from the speech made in Canada by Lord Halifax. In any case, he does not agree with Lord Halifax. Not only is it news to us but it will definitely be news to Canada, because when Lord Halifax made that speech in Canada there was a strong reaction to it in the Canadian Parliament and in Canadian papers, and Lord Halifax and our Prime Minister were invariably mentioned in the same breath. Now that he disassociates himself from Lord Halifax it gives us a certain amount of courage and hope. But now we must consider the matter further. In spite of what the Prime Minister has told us this question will arise. He told us that it is not on the agenda of the pending Imperial Conference, but that does not mean it will not come up for discussion. It is not on the agenda simply because there is no agenda, but that is all he can say. The newspapers, however, were full of it. Lord Halifax and a good many other statesmen—responsible people—were under the impression that that matter would be the principal topic of discussion at the Imperial Conference. It is a fact that there is no agenda. That, in other words, means that those who go there can talk about anything they like without it being necessary for them to first tell the people and the Parliaments which they represent what they are going to do there; that gives rise to all the more suspicion in my mind and makes me think that this matter will be one of the principal subjects to be discussed there. I therefore say that what the Prime Minister has said here has given me a certain amount of hope and courage in this particular respect. What he said was clear evidence of the fact that when Lord Halifax spoke, and was severely criticised—and his remarks were criticised in a most devastating manner—the protagonists of closer union simply ran away. Mackenzie King put them to flight, and at the Imperial Conference they will not take the risk of doing anything in that direction. To that extent it is satisfactory. At any rate the Prime Minister did admit here that there are two directions in the British Empire— two tendencies in connection with this matter. The one tendency, he said, is to loosen the bond, and the other tendency is to tighten the bond. He takes the middle course between the two. He told us that he was not in favour of loosening the bond. Well, we knew that that was his attitude, and I do not intend discussing the reasons he gave at any length. I have not the time to do so. He told us, among other things, that we could not have greater freedom under a republic than we have within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Regarded from a certain point of view I agree. The question is not merely whether it is on paper, but the question is whether we are correctly interpreting the Statute of Westminister when we say that we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations from our own free choice, that any Dominion can part company with the British Commonwealth if it considers it in its interest to do so. But that is not the only question. The question is: If that right is given effect to, will it be recognised as an action which the Dominions have the right to take. Yes or no? For many years we have had Clause 137 in our Act of Union, a clause giving equal language rights to both sections of the population. Year after year we have had to fight for the practical application of that clause. It has always been thrown at our heads that we are disturbers of the peace in South Africa because we fight for the practical application of that right. It has always been thrown at us that we are giving offence, and that we are breeding racialism. It is no use having it on paper. The question is this: If we take steps to give effect to those rights, will our doing so be recognised? And yesterday we had the test of that in connection with Ireland. Ireland exercised its rights and declared its neutrality in this war, but because it did so steps were taken against Ireland. The question is whether membership of the British Commonwealth only in name confers that freedom, or whether in actual fact that is the position. Is it freedom indeed? I am not going into the other arguments of the Prime Minister now—we can do so later. How does he now describe his own attitude in regard to this matter? He adopts the central attitude. He does not agree with the one section which stands for loosening the bond. He says that he expressed his view in his speech in London. He considers that if a Dominion is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations that Dominion has in its own hands the exercise of all sovereign rights which any other nation in the world has. In other words, we can have no greater freedom than that. I am glad to hear that from the Prime Minister. It has not always been recognised, but let us test the Prime Minister. We have known him at various stages. The first was in 1919. Lloyd George gave the Independence Deputation the assurance that the question of South Africa wanting a Republic was a matter which rested in its own hands. He said that South Africa had the right of selfdetermination, and South Africa must decide for itself. We came back to Parliament then, and I myself asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with Lloyd George’s statement that South Africa had the right of self-determination, and he replied: “No.” We fought him for many years on the point as to whether South Africa had the right of self-determination or not. Then we came to the year 1930, the Statute of Westminster, which was accepted in principle. In South Africa, Parliament expressed itself on the matter, and what was the attitude of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister of those days, Gen. Hertzog, said that South Africa had the right of self-determination, and that the Statute of Westminster meant that the Crown was divisible. It meant that we had the right to separate from the British Commonwealth. We could separate in accordance with our own rights, and if England was at war we could remain neutral. What was the attitude of the present Prime Minister? He fought us tooth and nail on that point, and the Parliament of the Union had to pass a resolution in face of his opposition to give the right interpretation of our point of view. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) asked yesterday why it was that no English-speaking members took part in this debate. I think I shall answer him by reading from a book written by a great South African—

Order, order.

I am going on to the Irish question.

I hope the hon. member is not going to read the whole book.

I am just coming to the Irish question—

That book is written by Col. Deneys Reitz.

Fancy quoting him.

No wonder the Chairman tells you not to read the whole book.

They jest at scars who have never felt a wound. Here we have a man who was wounded when fighting for the Republic when my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, was skulking under the British Flag. We don’t want any running down of Col. Deneys Reitz here. Let me tell hon. members that he is a friend of mine.

We have heard that before.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is always talking about Col. Reitz. Let me tell the hon. member that he is not fit to tie his bootlaces. Now let me get on with this question of the Irish. We are like the Irish but we lack their sense of humour. If the hon. member for Piketberg had the sense of humour of the Irish he would certainly never have sent that telegram. But let us get a little nearer home. I want to get down to tintacks.

You better try.

My hon. friend argues like a Philadelphia lawyer. He argues high and low. But can the Allied Nations tolerate that a Japanese ambassador and a German ambassador who are spies shall sit in Dublin and give away information which may smash the great Allied offensive? Can they allow them to sit there or not? That is the great question. No, Sir, our friends on the right are not worried about the Irish. They are worried about Germany and Japan. There lies the secret weapon of Hitler, on the other side. That is the secret weapon. They are not worried about the Irish; they are worried about their German friends and Tokyo During this war my hon. friends on the other side have been in communication with the enemies of this country.

That is a lie.

That is a lie.

It is true.

Order, order.

Order, order ! Which hon. member made that interruption that it was a lie?

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) both said it.

I said it.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

Then I shall say it is not true.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that it is not true, when he was instructed to withdraw the statement?

Sit down.

I hope all these interruptions will be taken off my time. It was not very long ago that our friends on the other side thought that this country was beaten; then the Leader of the Opposition was talking to Goebbels over the wireless. He knows that is true. Hitler was going to hand them a republic on a silver dish, and then a quarrel started as to who was going to hold that silver dish, the Leader of the Opposition or Hansie van Rensburg. A few days ago after the Minister of Finance had made his Budget speech, there came a speech over the wireless from Hitler’s headquarters, attacking the Budget speech. One of their friends on the Opposition was speaking. They are tied up with the Germans neck and crop. There is not the slightest doubt about that, and that is why the English-speaking South African today looks upon them with the utmost contempt, because when our country was in danger they joined hands with the enemy. I take off my hat to the other Dominions who say that this shall stop. If it had not been for the United States there would have been no President de Valera. Year after year he ran over to the United States to get his silver dollar, just as my hon. friends today run to the Reddingsdaadbond to get their silver dollar. I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) will give me his attention, that pure lilywhite politician. He gets up in this House and arrogates the right to himself to say that he knows more about international politics than even the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member is pretending not to listen, but he is listening with his left ear all the time. [Time limit.]

May I just conclude what I was saying? The point I want to make is this: that it does not matter what the Prime Minister says overseas in regard to Europe, and the linking up of other countries with the British Empire, but what does matter is what the Prime Minister says, and how he acts in his own country, in regard to this matter. Let me remind hon. members of the fact that he opposed what the then British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, proclaimed even during the last war, namely, that South Africa had the fullest right of self-determination, that it could decide its own fate. In 1930 when the Statute of Westminster was under discussion and when we were asked to express an opinion about it, he again took up the attitude that the Statute of Westminister, if it were placed on the Statute Book, did not mean that we had the right of separating from the British Commonwealth, or that the Crown was divisible, or that we had the right of neutrality. Parliament had to take a resolution in face of his strong opposition. Now we come to 1933. We then got Coalition which was followed by the fusion of the two parties. The present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, formed their Coalition. I on my side wanted to test the contention that the Prime Minister had been converted to our view, to the view of the Nationalist Party, in regard to Dominion freedom and Dominion rights, and I had a letter sent to the then Prime Minister through the Head Committee of the Cape Nationalist Party to ask him what his attitude was in regard to the points which I mentioned here, and which were an issue between us, and I asked whether those points were going to be inserted in the new party’s basis and whether an assurance would be given in regard to the rights of the Dominions. He replied in the affirmative. He still stands where he has always stood, and he said that the right of neutrality existed to the fullest extent. After that there was a crisis in the Cabinet and an urgent meeting was called at Groote Schuur, and we were told that a statement had been made by the present Prime Minister and by Gen. Hertzog to the effect that they differed from each other on this point in the past, that they still differed, and would continue to differ, in future, but that in spite of that they were going to form one party. In 1933, therefore, he still, openly, and in spite of the resolution of’ Parliament on the question of the Statute of Westminster, in spite of Coalition, declared that he still adhered to his old attitude, which to all intents and purposes meant that Dominion freedom and independence signified very little indeed. And now we come to 1939. In 1939 we had the opportunity of testing the position by deciding whether we could remain neutral or not, whether we were going to exercise our rights or not. He did not have the courage then to say that we denied our right to remain neutral, but he chose a different and safer course, and he said that whether we had the right or not, from a practical point of view we could do nothing else but cast in our lot with England. Even there he did not go so far as to say that Dominion freedom signified the three things which I have mentioned. Even on that occasion he did not admit it. I had hoped that perhaps later on in the war we might have had some indication of his having departed from the attitude which he had adopted all through, I had hoped that he would give some indication that in practice he acknowledged the freedom of the Dominions to remain neutral in the fullest sense of the word. Yesterday’s debate in this House fully convinced me that he still adheres, as strongly as ever, to his old Imperialistic point of view.

He said the same thing this morining.

Now that Ireland is going to carry out the rights of a Dominion laid down by our Parliament, too, he agrees with the others, if necessary to force Ireland by means’ of a blockade or by starvation, to surrender its rights. The question which arises in my mind is this: If the House on the 4th September, 1939, had decided to keep out of the war, to remain neutral, what would have been the attitude of the present Prime Minister if he had been in the minority? He would not have blamed England, but he would have invited England to force South Africa. That would be consistent with the attitude he adopts in regard to Ireland. For these reasons, in order to complete yesterday’s debate, I want to move—

The Prime Minister’s speech today was particularly interesting, interesting in the first place because it was very clear that the Prime Minister spoke with great care and that he had chosen his words very carefully. But what was further interesting was not only the apology be made, but the way he shied away from Lord Halifax’s speech. The Leader of the Opposition deduced from that that the Prime Minister by his silence showed that he was in agreement with Lord Halifax. Possibly, however, there may be a different explanation. It is strange that the Prime Minister has not read this important speech of Lord Halifax’s which has been discussed throughout the whole of the British Empire. The Prime Minister says he has only seen references to it. He goes further and says that he does not want to interfere in the dispute between Lord Halifax and Mr. Mackenzie King.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that the Prime Minister, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, had fought shy of Lord Halifax’s speech. He said he had not read the speech, he had only seen references to it. It is difficult to believe that the Prime Minister did not read the speech which caused such a commotion throughout the British Empire. He went further and said that he was not going to take any part in the dispute between Lord Halifax and Mr. Mackenzie King. He also said that Mr. Mackenzie King in his speech only referred to Lord Halifax’s speech and that he did not mention his speech. That is not so. Mr. Mackenzie King in his speech also referred to the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister of South Africa. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister to make a clear statement here today in regard to his attitude on, the subject of Lord Halifax’s speech. He did not do so this morning. The Prime Minister laughs. The fact remains that he did not explain what his attitude was in regard to Lord Halifax’s speech. Lord Halifax’s speech is not just an expression of opinion by some individual. When he spoke he spoke in his capacity as Great Britain’s ambassador. He specially went to Toronto to make that speech. I think the Prime Minister will admit that an ambassador does not make a speech, particularly such an important speech, without first consulting his Prime Minister about it. We have the right to assume that in this instance Lord Halifax’s speech was an expression of the opinion of the British Government. I have the speech before me, and if the Prime Minister really has not read it then I think it is necessary to draw his attention to certain things which Lord Halifax said there. He said this among other things—

There we have criticism of the Statute of Westminster, and then he went on to say—

And then he went on and came to the very attitude which this side of the House has adopted, namely—

We have been told so often about ourselves and other Dominions having the fullest right to choose whether we are going to take part in the war or not. Here is an important statement by Lord Halifax in which he says that the Dominions have been placed in a terribly difficult position, that they have to choose between participation in the war or the breaking up of the British Empire. In other words, the Prime Minister is placed in the position of having no free choice. That is Lord Halifax’s attitude, but he goes on and says what the alternative is. He says there are two roads, just as the Prime Minister said today that there are two roads. So far as the first road is concerned they are in agreement—it is the road of separation. Our Prime Minister says that the second road is to stand by the Balfour Declaration and by the Statute of Westminister, but Lord Halifax does not say so; he does not say that the alternative road is to stand by the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminister; he says the other course aims at closer Union—

And then he goes on in his speech and he sets out his policy which amounts to closer union of the British Empire. In the circumstances, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister this morning pushed the Halifax speech aside, and in view of the attitude which Lord Halifax took up when he spoke as the mouthpiece of the British Government, we have the right to say that the Prime Minister cannot just push this matter aside but that he owes us an answer. The Prime Minister this morning said that in his London speech he only referred to the Commonwealth in connection with his suggestion of a combination of the British Empire and certain other small nations. He said he only mentioned the British Commonwealth in that connection. Now let me say to the Prime Minister that he is most unfortunate in being so badly reported, because the reports in his own papers in South Africa do not agree with what he said, and not only in South Africa. I have before me a S.A.P.A. report from Ottawa, shortly after the Prime Minister made that explosive speech of his, and from the S.A.P.A. report it appears that in Canada they placed exactly the Same interpretation on the Prime Minister’s speech as we have done. They say that the tendency of his speech is to advocate a closely united Empire in which all defence sources are to be pooled, and everything including foreign policy is to form one whole. [Time limit.]

Hon. members have been speaking here this morning as though our allegation that they are proGerman is wrong.

Well, you know that it is.

I should like to know which members individually on the other side are not pro-German. I take it there are several of them, but I do not know how many.

Not one.

It will be remembered that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) at the beginning of the war said that many of them were not proGerman. Well, that left many of them who were pro-German, and the previous Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, in 1938 made the charge that hon. members on the other side were pro-German.

Who said so?

The former Prime Minister made that charge, and I think the hon. member for Aliwal had some connection with that in regard to the question of a bale of wool. Now we are told that we are inconsistent because we approve of Ireland being attacked. I want to put this question—if it were any other country —not a country belonging to the British Commonwealth of Nations, would not sanctions long since have been applied to it? If it had been any other country would not steps long since have been taken to put an end to leakages—to information getting through? It is because Ireland is one of the Dominions that it has had all these chances given to it, and that it has been considered in every possible way; that is the only reason. Had it been any other country the position would have been totally different. Now I want to go further and say that whatever may appear in Hansard, when Holland was overrun the Leader of the Opposition gave the House to understand that he condoned Germany’s action in invading Holland. Everyone listening to his speech must have had the impression that he approved of it because from a military point of view it was a sound thing for Germany to do. Have we not got the right to say then, if we look at that speech, together with the one he has just made, that he spoke in favour of Germany?

Read the Hansard report.

I have read the Hansard report but I am speaking of the impression which the hon. member created.

You say that in spite of what is in Hansard?

I do not know whether the Hansard Report has been corrected

That’s a ridiculous argument

I am speaking of the impression which was created.

You are still under a wrong impression.

Then the hon. member must look for the fault in himself, because apparently he is unable to create the right impression. We have heard of the difficulties existing between him and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in 1923, and again in 1933, and all those things—we have been told of the way he and the Prime Minister regarded our status. I want to say to the hon. member that the Highest Court in any country represent the people of that country. Eventually it is that court which has to decide whether a thing is right or wrong, and I do not think that this interpretation of our position has been accepted, and the people have given a very clear verdict on that issue

The electors, and not the people.

We are not talking of the people whom the hon. member is thinking of. When we speak of the people we include the electorate. Now, let us come to the 4th September, 1939. Let me assure hon. members that that day was one of the most important days in our history. We have had certain discussions here, and I can tell hon. members that if the then Prime Minister had not made a pro-German speech—if he had not dealt with these matters which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) was not allowed to refer to when he quoted from a book—things might have gone differently, and there might have been a better feeling here, we might perhaps even have decided to remain neutral for a time, but immediately after that speech the House realised that if we did remain neutral we would be playing into Germany’s hands, and to all intents and purposes we would become an ally of Germany. The House then realised that we should take a clear stand. If the then Prime Minister had not made that proGerman part of his speech some hon. members might perhaps have felt differently about things and things might have gone differently, but when it became clear to us that we were going to play into Germany’s hands, and that to all intents and purposes we were going to be an ally of Germany, it was a different matter. Now there is another point I want to refer to. One of the Natal members the other day raised a question in regard to our status. Everyone of us can, remember the former member for Cape Town (Gardens) the late Mr. B. K. Long, making a speech here and no one in this House got up to discuss the matter any further. The interpretation which the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) gave when he said that South Africa had a complete right of self-determination was generally accepted. We could decide to go to war or not go to war. Not a single member of the Opposition discussed the matter any further. We decided, and there was no question of any trouble about that decision. A position was created afterwards which made us realise that we could not just allow things to pass. Why should we again have speeches of this kind, such as we are having today, which do not take us any further? We are convinced, and the people are convinced, that the kind of speeches which hon. members opposite are making are nothing but an attempt to undermine the Government and our allies. When Parliament met we hoped that an attempt would be made to change the atmosphere of this House. The people had given their verdict and we thought that members opposite would accept that verdict and would not try to dig up the past. But no, the first chance the Leader of the Opposition had was made use of by him to dig up all these old bones. We on this side represent the Afrikaner people just as much as hon. members opposite. Possibly we represent even more of the Afrikaner people. In any case the more responsible section of the Afrikaner people is represented by this side of the House, and it will be all the better for our people in the future if hon. members refrain from dishing up and reiterating all these troubles, and all these harangues of the past.

Before I continue discussing the speech which the Prime Minister made here I want to remind the hon. member who has just sat down that the former member for Cape Town (Gardens), the late Mr. B. K Long, a few days after he had made his speech here on the 4th September, made another speech outside this House, in which he said it was unthinkable that South Africa could keep out of a war of Great Britain, or that South Africa could remain neutral if England was involved in a war. In regard to the question of Imperial relations I quoted from Lord Halifax’s speech in which he stated very clearly that the present position wás: that the Dominions must either take part in Great Britain’s wars, or otherwise they would see the British Empire breaking up. Consequently, there was no choice for the Dominions. Now, let me come back to the : Prime Minister’s speech. He said that in his speech in London he only mentioned the position of the British Commonwealth in connection with his suggestion for co-operation between the British Commonwealth and the Western Nations. I have before me the speech at it was reported in the “Cape Argus” and according to the “Cape Argus” he said this: “Let me now say a few words about the Commonwealth and the Empire.” Consequently, he had finished making his suggestions about the proposed co-operation between the British Empire and certain small nations, and he was proceeding to talk about the British Commonwealth and the British Empire. And then he came along with his centralisation proposal. Not only here but the newspapers in Canada got that impression of the Prime Minister’s speech. According to a S.A.P.A. report from Canada the following interpretation was placed on that speech—

1. (1) A more closely united Empire, as suggested by Field-Marshal Smuts, in which all defence sources are pooled, and in which an all inclusive foreign policy is supported in the world, where the Power policy will at any rate prevail for a time

I did not speak about Power policy.

The Prime Minister certainly referred to Power policy when he drew attention to the wheat position, in which England as a member of the Trinity—America, Russia and England—would be. It seems to me that the Prime Minister’s memory is beginning to fail. He said so this morning again. He told us that his proposal was intended to strengthen England, the weakest of the three powers. In other words, to strengthen England because she would be weak in relation to Russia and America. Now we come to the second alternative as it was put in the Canadian report—

That was how the Prime Minister’s speech was interpreted in Canada, And then the report goes on—

And now the Prime Minister comes here with an apologetic speech and tries to push the whole business off his shoulders. He knows nothing about Lord Halifax’s speech now; he has only seen extracts from it. He also wants to create the impression that when he spoke in his explosive speech about the British Commonwealth, when he advocated a policy of centralisation instead of decentralisation, he only mentioned those matters in connection with his suggestions for cooperation between England and the small nations of Europe. The whole question of Imperial relations is at stake again today. That issue was raised especially as a result of the conditions which have developed in consequence of the war, in consequence of the condition of affairs which is expected still further to develop, that is to say the condition which the Prime Minister himself anticipated when he made his speech to the members of the British House of Commons. In this connection I want to draw attention to the game which has been going on during the past twenty-five years in connection with the question of Imperial relations. It was a very clever game, but it is now coming to an end. It started after the end of the last war. The Dominions took part in that war and they insisted on getting greater freedom and greater privileges. It started with the attitude adopted by Canada and with the independence deputation which came from this country. The movement was started in Canada by Sir Wilfred Laurier, but it was also strongly supported by the Conservative leader, Sir Robert Borden, of whom we had not expected it. I had the opportunity of discussing this question with him one whole evening, and I was astonished to find what a strong protagonist of Dominion freedom he was, even before the Balfour Declaration of 1926. The urge for greater freedom was very strong, and something had to be done to satisfy the Dominions. We know that the British people are experts in the field of diplomacy. They are experts in finding a compromise which makes people believe they are getting concessions, if they cannot do anything else. Then we got the first step in that game. The Balfour Declaration was made and after that we had the Statute of Westminster, but British statesmen realised what the danger of such a policy would be and that is why we got the one speech after the other telling us on the one hand how free the Dominions had become, but on the other hand there was always a reference to the “invisible bonds”—those bonds to which the Prime Minister in his London speech also referred as an “invisible bond of steel.” The impression was therefore created that the Dominions, although they were alleged to be independent, none the less formed a diplomatic unit, together with England. If there is one thing I can personally testify to it is the effort which was made abroad to create the impression in other countries that the Dominions were supposed to be free under the Statute of Westminster but that none the less they formed a diplomatic unit. I can testify to that from my own experience; as the South African representative I can testify to the fact that from the side of the British Government in certain cases objections were raised to the practical application of our so-called independence. For instance, there was such a simple thing as the issuing of passports and visas by our ambassadors. Continuous objections were raised against this from Whitehall because it was realised that if the foreign ambassadors of the Dominions were allowed to function as such, the impression would take hold that they were really sovereign independent states and that they did not, together with England, form a diplomatic unit. I also showed yesterday that even the British King did not believe in the independent status of the Dominions. But there were two Dominions which took the position seriously, and which decided to give practical application to that status. The one was Ireland and the other was the Union of South Africa. There was another Dominion, too — Canada — which followed that policy. Under the Liberal Party particularly there was a tendency which became stronger all the while to apply the Statute of Westminster in practice. And what was even more alarming to Whitehall was the clear tendency in Canada to find a closer approach to its neighbour, the United States of America. There also was in Canada a strong tendency to join the Pan-American Union. It was only as a result of the strong pressure which was exercised that that was not proceeded with, but the tendency was there, and that fact alarmed Whitehall very considerably. [Time limit.]

Knowing the Prime Minister, I was rather amazed this morning —I thought he was rather modest when he would not give the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) the agenda which was going to be discussed in England. I would like to tell hon. members opposite what the agenda will be.

Now we are going to hear something.

The first point to be discussed will be this, that on the 4th September, 1939, the Union Parliament of its own free will placed its full confidence in the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa (Gen. Smuts). The second point which will be discussed is this …

The result of the Zoutpansberg by-election.

The 150,000 men and women, sons and daughters of the soil of South Africa, were willing, without any army, to face death because they had full confidence in the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa.

While you sat at home.

The third point which will be discussed is this: The Union of South Africa at the last election once more signed a pledge of full confidence in the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

Well, well, well!

And the fourth point which will be discussed is: “We, the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, say to the Prime Minister: “Go to England, you have carte blanche, we trust you and we know that with your help the Allies are assured of victory’.” Those are the four points.

Tell us who wrote that out for you.

Let us have a copy of it.

Did you get that from Arthur Barlow?

What amazed me yesterday was that the Opposition were so concerned about certain people not going to the front.

Yes, we are very concerned about you.

I want to say something in explanation of the attitude of the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

Do you want to apologise for him?

If the hon. member for Krugersdorp had been allowed to go to the front, he would have died, if he had been in a fight—he would have died as a hero.

Hear, hear; but he didn’t.

Today he represents the public …

You mean he misrepresents the public.

And when his time expires he may be taken to the back streets of Krugersdorp and he will die without becoming a hero in the Union of South Africa—it will be because he has not had a chance. But I say this, that the hon. member for Krugersdorp has come to this House to serve his country faithfully and I say that he deserves all the credit that anyone can bestow on him for not resigning his seat to go to the front and become a hero there. I say with regard to hon. members opposite that there is one thing they have lost touch with. They term themselves Afrikaners; now, we Afrikaners have been taught one thing at our mother’s knee and that is to respect our seniors. Members opposite have lost touch with the doctrine which was taught by every mother in South Africa. They not only do not respect the Prime Minister, but what respect do they bestow on their own leader, the hon. member for Piketberg? I notice that hon. members opposite have quoted Ireland. Well, I only hope that they will be brave enough to follow in Ireland’s footsteps. What did Ireland do when the majority party decided on a certain course of action?

You tell us.

When the majority decided, the minority submitted to the decision of the majority, but what happened in this country, when the majority decided to go to war? The minority started undermining the decision of the majority. They should follow the good example of Ireland, because in Ireland when they are in trouble they stand together.

Well, if you followed that example you should submit to the decision of Zoutpansberg in the by-election, and resign your seat.

I should like to say seething about America.

Another brilliant thought.

If we had a President here we might have the same kind of trouble as America is having at present.

Good Lord!

The people there want a certain thing, and the President wants something else. There is no unanimity.

Be careful, America is an ally.

Some hon. members have quoted Canada. Now, what do you find in a little place like Quebec? The French people there say: “We want to have the law laid down by the British people in England, we don’t want it done here by our own Parliament.” What do hon. members opposite do— when they are in the minority they go out of their way to undermine the war effort of the majority.

Are you referring to Zoutpansberg now?

The Prime Minister does everything he can to build up this country, but hon. members opposite undermine all our efforts. Now let me say a word about Zoutpansberg which hon. members opposite seem to be so very keen about.

Well, you are not.

Let me give hon. members the assurance that they can be proud of Zoutpansberg because one thousand of its people out of 7,000 voters from there have gone forth to fight for the freedom of South Africa—yes, even including for the freedom of hon. members opposite.

Why did you not go with them?

And while these people are fighting hon. members opposite are brave enough to make a big cry about the results of a by-election. Let me remind them that the position of the voters in Zoutpansberg is like that of a racehorse which is kneehaltered in a race. While our people were fighting—while our men were away at the Front, hon. members opposite and their followers are very proud of having won a by-election. Let me tell them this, the day will dawn when they will thank the people of Zoutpansberg for having fought for the freedom of this country.

When listening to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down we got the impression that America was hopelessly divided. We know that that is not so. I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). Ever since he has come to this House he has inveighed against this side of the House and in doing so he has used very gross language. We cannot gain anything in life by inveighing against people from whom we differ; we cannot achieve anything by using bad language towards them. When he in the past, as a citizen of the Free State, had to serve in the defence of the Republic he went across to England. He knows that that is so. I am not going to say anything that is not true. Now let me come back to the debate. This debate will be recorded in history as a milestone. Both sides have raised certain points in regard to the past and in regard to the future. We on this side of the House on the 4th September, 1939, voted for neutrality. I believe in my heart that if I have a personal difference with a man I cannot solve that difference by having a fight with that man and by showing that I am a better fighter than he is. Nor is it any use trying to settle differences between nations in that way. For that reason I voted for neutrality and I am still neutral. History and time will show whether we on this side of the House were wrong. We should remember that our friend of today may be our enemy of tomorrow. I have always done my best not to make it impossible for our small white nation in South Africa to come together again in the future, and solve our problems. But now we hear in this House that because we differ from the Government we are pro-German and we are Nazis. That is definitely untrue. We are alleged to be Nazis and it is also alleged that we are always out to undermine the Government and anything the Government does. That also is definitely untrue. Nobody but the Prime Minister himself said that he was grateful for what we had done to maintain law and order in the country, to maintain the unity of the country and not to start a revolution. Let me repeat what I said on behalf of my Party in 1941. Those words are recorded in Hansard and I should like to quote them as they appear in coloum 5,471, volume 42—

I have the fullest right as a democrat to differ from the Prime Minister. We are told the Allies are fighting for democracy. But every time anyone gets up on this side of the House, every time my leader gets up, we hear the allegation made that we are Nazis, and that we are undermining the Government. Hon. members who make these statements will rue their words. We take up this attitude because we feel in our heart of hearts that ours is the correct and the sound attitude to adopt. At the first possible opportunity after the war had broken out I said to the Prime Minister: “Look here, if anyone commits sabotage and undermines you, arrest him and lock him up.”

You’re alright.

Yes, as alright as all my people are. But all this slandering by the other side must stop now. I fought at the side of the Prime Minister for a Republic; later on I again fought at his side, and although I differ from him now on the question of neutrality I have never reproached him and he does not resent my attitude. If one democrat differs from another one does not resent it, but those hon. members over there, because we differ from them, slander us and dub us pro-German. Let me repeat what I said in 1940. First of all there were five members, but afterwards we made it two members, and I said that if two members went to the front and resigned their seats I would also resign my seat and we would go back and fight those seats. Don’t come here and draw double salaries and stick to your seats, and then call us pro-German. Who knows what the position will be in thirty or forty years’ time, or perhaps even in a year’s time. The whole world may possibly be republican then. Who can anticipate what may happen. What is happening in America today? A member of the House of Representatives declared there the other day that they should not invade France because Russia might come along and join Japan. I am alarmed at the future of the white races in this world; I am afraid that the white races may have to fight the Asiatics, the yellow races. They represent two thirds of the entitre population of the world. There are 2,000,000,000 people in the world and 1,500,000,000 of those are coloured and yellow races. The time will come when we as a white race if we want to save our skins, will have to fight the coloured races. And what about today? Time will show who is going to win. But I want to repeat that I as a democrat have the fullest right to differ from the Prime Minister, without being slandered and cursed by the other side. It is narrow-minded to do so. I hope we are not going to have a repetition of the language and the scenes we have had here. We are not pro-German, we don’t indulge in subversive activity, we are simply South Africans. I once suffered as a result of a war, and at whose hands did I suffer? I suffered at the hands of the British Empire. They are not perfect. They played an aggressive part in the past on a gigantic scale, and now, suddenly, they say they are fighting for civilisation and small nations. Let us be fair and honest. Every big nation fights for itself. Commercial jealousy and rivalry are at the bottom of this war. That is what they are fighting for; they are not fighting for small nations; they are fighting for the domination of the world.

It must be difficult for an honest man like my hon. friend who has just spoken, to have to make the speech which he has just made. The last time he made it he was called up by his Caucus. I do not know what is going to happen now. The hon. member has complained about their Party being described as pro-German. Well, it has been laid down by the Bench in this country that “Die Transvaler,” a newspaper to which they all subscribe, and one that belongs to the majority of those gentlemen opposite, has been laid down as a pro-German newspaper.

By whom?

By one of the judges of this country. By one of the most honourable men in this country, as honourable a man as ever occupied the Bench. [Interruptions.] Will the hon. member say that again, so that Hansard can get it? [Interruptions.]

Did he attack the paper or the man?

It was pro-German, that is the question. I shall deal now with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He arrogates to himself the right to stand here on the same basis as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who is one of the best known statesmen in the world. What is the background of the hon. member for Beaufort West? He was a lawyer, then he became a shopkeeper, and he sold his shop to a Jew. [Interruptions.]

I did not.

And he has been sorry for it ever since.

I rise to a point of personal explanation. The statement made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is untrue. I sold it to the firm of Mortimer and Hill, of Wellington.

I do not accept that, but from a parliamentary point of view I accept it.

Order, order!

The hon. member for Hospital has definitely stated that he would only accept it in a parliamentary sense, but he has not accepted the statement made by the hon. member for Beaufort West. I should like to point out that that is not in accordance with the rules of the House.

The hon. member for Hospital must accept the statement unconditionally.

I accept it in a parliamentary sense.

The hon. member must accept the statement of the hon. member for Beaufort West unconditionally.

Yes, let us say he was a shopkeeper.

That was not the statement.

Order, order!

The other side are doing their best to stop me through the Chairman. They are trying their old tactics. [Interruptions.]

Order, order! The hon. member must accept the statement unconditionally.

I accept it. Then the hon. member, through the assistance of “jobs for pals” was sent over to New York as trades commissioner. He will remember that from these benches I attacked him as trades commissioner. Why did I attack him, not because he was not a friend of mine, but because he was the worst trades commissioner South Africa has ever seen. Our trade with America, when he came back, was “19” in favour of America and “1” in favour of South Africa. Why did I attack him? Because instead of looking after our business over there he was always intriguing with the Sinn Fein man in the corresponding position.

On a point of explanation, the member is making another statement which is absolutely untrue. The representative of the Irish Free State at that time was a representative of the Cosgrave Government, and he had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Sinn Fein Government.

That is not a point of order, and at that time Mr. Cosgrave was a Sinn Feiner.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

At that time the Government was “Sinn Fein.” Then the hon. member was a lawyer. Today he attacks Mr. Winston Churchill and calls Mr. Winston Churchill a coward. That reminds me of a black and white polecat making faces at a tiger. Does the hon. member remember that Mr. Winston Churchill has been one of the greatest friends of the Union of South Africa for many years, and that in the great khaki election in England he stood as a Liberal. When the whole of England had gone khaki he said—

When he was in South Africa he was taken prisoner by the Boers.

He was the “Times” correspondent when he was captured.

If it had not been for Mr. Winston Churchill hon. members opposite would not be sitting in Parliament, because he has saved the world, and that is probably why they are so angry with Mr. Churchill. I want to get back to my hon. friend on the other side. Why does he pose as such a great international politician? What on earth does he know about it? He went from New York to Paris and from Paris to Portugal, and then he went back to Italy. In the United States of America nobody thought anything of him.

I went to Italy first and then to France. You should get your facts straight.

Then he thought there was an opening in the Cabinet; and he ran back here as hard as he could, but Gen. Hertzog cast him aside as a piece of lumber. Then he asked whether he could get his job back, and when he could not get his job back he joined the Gesuiwerde Party, and there is probably no more unpopular man in that party than the hon. member. If the party had their way they would hang him.

I think the hon. member should now come back to the vote.

I am coming back to the man who was talking on the vote, which is exactly the same thing.

But the hon. member must come back to the vote itself.

I cannot come back to the vote unless I come back via Beaufort West. The only way I can come back to the vote is through the hon. member for Beaufort West. That is the only way I have got.

Order, order.

The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) has sent this telegram. Will the hon. member for Piketberg tell me in which language he sent that telegram. In what language did he send that telegram to the President of the Irish Free State. Did he send it in English or Afrikaans. I want an answer.

Who are you to want an answer?

The country wants an answer. The president of Ireland speaks neither Afrikaans nor English in his home nor in Parliament. I want to know whether it was sent to him in English, or in what language, and I also want to know whether he has had that telegram returned. I should like to remind the hon. member that today is St. Patrick’s Day, and I am surprised that he is not wearing the green harp on the lapel of his coat. Surely the hon. member has not forgotten this is St. Patrick’s Day. I should like to ask him whether he can tell me the name of the Leader of the Opposition in Ireland today. There is silence. He does not know the name of the Leader of the Opposition in Ireland, and Ireland does not know the name of the Leader of the Opposition in this country; they have never heard of him. Let me tell you that today it is St. Patrick’s Day and 44 years ago, almost to the minute, two Irish generals walked into the capital of the Orange Free State. They talk about the Prime Minister as being a man who is today the arch-priest of imperialism. Where were those priests in the Opposition Benches at that time when led by two Irishmen the British Army walked into Bloemfontein, and Rudyard Kipling wrote the poem beginning: “Oh, Danie Boy, Oh, Danie Boy.” I suggest that the hon. member looks that up. It was his name that was used. [Time limit.]

It appears to me that the House so far has not availed itself of the opportunity which the Prime Minister has offered it. In his statement yesterday he told us that the round table conference of Prime Ministers of the Empire would have no agenda, in other words, he left it to this House to make suggestions to him and to express its ideas on points which he might keep in mind when attending the conference. It appears to me, however that that opportunity has not been taken advantage of yet, not even by those who usually pose here as constitutional experts. We have members here who think they are such tremendous constitutional giants that they can talk for hours on these matters, but we have had nothing from them yet. This House can do two things. It can blindly place its confidence in the Prime Minister, and place all the responsibility on him, or otherwise the House can say: “We have also dreamt a bit here and there about international affairs, and we therefore want to tell you what we have been dreaming about.” If our thoughts are explosive thoughts, well, let them be. Added to the other explosive thoughts they may make a good combination. Let me say first of all that I feel that this House and the country owe the Prime Minister a word of thanks for his clear exposition this morning of the two tendencies which prevail today. I happen to have been thinking a lot about this question as to which tendency the various Dominions would favour, and it seemed therefore very kindly and very fitting for the Prime Minister to have told the House and his fellow members of the Dominions what he felt about the position. In this regard I think the House would not be making a mistake if it were to tell the Prime Minister that we want to go along the course and in the direction which the Prime Minister has indicated. It has been proved in the past that that is the soundest and the most salutory direction for South Africa, and also for the other Dominions. There is ah extreme left and an extreme right side and there is the middle course. We prefer to follow the middle course because if we do not do that we do not know where we are going to land. I therefore want to suggest in my turn that this House should tell the Prime Minister in this debate that we expect him to continue along the course he has indicated—the middle course which he has always followed. That is the course which South Africa prefers for the future. That should be the attitude which the Prime Minister should adopt at the conference. So much for South Africa’s attitude towards the other members of the Commonwealth, but undoubtedly other questions will be discussed there, and I think anyone Who considers the state of the world and the potential problems will immediately feel that a question which will call for further discussion is the immediate relationship of the Commonwealth of Free Nations towards the other States which have stood by us in this war and which we feel should be closer to us after the war—I am referring to States like Holland, Belgium, Norway, France and America. My suggestion in this respect is that the idea of Dominions in a Commonwealth under which we are living should be extended and that Holland and France, and other countries of Western Europe, should be induced to accept that model. So far as I can see it is an undeniable fact that if peace were declared, tomorrow countries like the United States, France, Holland and Belgium would immediately feel constrained to try and join a League of Nations along the lines of a Commonwealth of Nations, because if we analyse international agreements of the past few years and see what their results have been, what do we find? We find that the League of Nations was just an idea, that it has produced no results. We find that the Kellogg Pact has led to nothing. The one treaty between a great European nation and America has been a complete failure, but there is one bond of nations which has stood the test in peace time and in war time, and that is the Commonwealth, of which we are a member. What we have had on a small scale should be extended to those nations whose conception of life, whose political institutions, whose outlook, whose social conditions, are identical with those of the Commonwealth.

Like Ireland, for instance?

Let the others do what they like. We should not lose sight of the fact that countries like Russia and China may afterwards perhaps change their views entirely, and that they may not feel disposed to join such a large scale League of Nations. But I think it should be our aim to see that countries like England and America and the Dominions, and Holland and Belgium and Norway and France and Sweden are tied together in such a bond of nations. We shall then have an enlarged Commonwealth of Dominions which will be able to stand the test of their alliance in war as well as in peace. To my mind that is the only possible League of Nations which will really be able to stand the test of war under all conditions and circumstances. I feel that the war we have had has not been caused by only one type of tendency; for instance, by commercial rivalry and jealousy. The war germs have often been laid and developed as the result of some ideology or other, or as a result of some conception; and those nations which I have in mind, and which I have mentioned, are nations whose conception of life, whose political institutions, and whose social conditions are more or less identical. Those nations understand each other and they have the same outlook. If we succeed in developing such a League of Nations, other countries like Russia and Chirla and in fact any other big country will feel they cannot keep outside. [Time limit.]

We have just been told by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) that this debate will be one of the milestones in our history. I differ from him. I look upon this debate as an attempt to break down one of the milestones in our history—the milestone which was erected on the 4th September, 1939, when we as a democratic Parliament of a free nation gave our decision in the highest interest of our country, and for the good of our people. This debate was started yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in an attempt to dig the soil away from underneath that milestone. We have been told by the hon. member for Aliwal that he, with the Prime Minister, sacrificed everything for the freedom of our country, but what did we hear from the Leader of the Opposition? He got up here with a sneer and he displayed the greatest temerity in asking what the Prime Minister had done when the freedom of his people was at stake. I could almost call it conceited temerity, and in turn I want to ask him what he has done for the good of the people. What can he show us today? He left the pulpit where he had to recruit souls for the Kingdom of Heaven, and since that time he has done nothing but sow seeds of discord and trouble among our people. Show me any good the Leader of the Opposition has ever done for this country. I don’t want to say any more about that aspect of the matter. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) got up yesterday and said that his status had been doubted when he was in Washington.

South Africa’s status.

It amounts to the same thing. He also said that when he was in England nobody less than the late King also cast doubt on his status. But in spite of that he stuck to his job with its big salary for years and now in 1944 he comes here and tells us about all these things.

Should he have left our country in the lurch?

I can hardly find words strong enough to express my disapproval. When the hon. member thought he could get a better position in this country he came here but when he could not get anything better he tried to get back the position which he now describes as a “paper position.” If a man is as hypocritical as that …

The hon. member must not say that.

I withdraw it if it is not Parliamentary, but if a man has occupied a position for years which he now describes as a “paper position” one is led into using an expression like that about him. Now, let me come to another point. I am in agreement with the warning given by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-col. Rood) yesterday that it is high time the Government put a stop to an attitude such as that of the Leader of the Opposition in sending the kind of telegram he sent to Ireland. We in this Parliament have repeatedly confirmed the resolution taken on the 4th September, 1939, in the interest of our people and for the security of this country. The great test came in 1943 when the people confirmed that resolution which was passed on the 4th September, but in spite of that con firmation the Leader of the Opposition comes along here with this covert attempt to undermine our war effort. They want to help Ireland just as much as the man in the moon, and I am convinced that if the Prime Minister gave them an opportunity to go and help Ireland not one of them would go. The whole of this business is nothing but an attempt to undermine our war effort and to help the enemy in that way.

We are going to do what you do by staying at home.

I feel that the time has now come for the Government to take action to put a stop to this subversive activity. I know hon. members over there will deny again that they are pro-Nazi, but when the Supreme Court of this country gives a judgment that their mouthpiece in the Transvaal, “Die Transvaler,” is pro-Nazi, then surely there can be no doubt about it? I agree with what has been said here by hon. members on this side, that the Prime Minister should now put a stop to this type of propaganda.

The last two speeches which we heard from that side of the House were nothing but an accumulation of personal attacks. This subject was not discussed on its merits.

What do you say about the attacks which were made on our Prime Minister by your Leader yesterday?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition did not make an attack on the Prime Minister. He attacked the Government’s policy.

It was a personal attack.

The trouble is that the hon. member for Rustenberg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) apparently does not realise the difference between a personal attack and an attack on policy.

You are beginning to feel that it was mean.

I hope the hon. member’s conscience will prick him and that he will discuss the policy and not give free rein to his personal feelings in this House. We have had enough of that, and it is high time that we conduct these discussions on a level which becomes, the dignity of this House, and that we refrain from descending to the type of personal attack which we have had here The Prime Minister told us that there were three possibilities. He said that the two extreme possibilities were these: The first is imperial federation, and the other is the disappearance of the British connection, and he said he stood between these two. But with all due respect, I want to put this to the Prime Minister, that that is still very vague. Between those two extremes there is a wide gap, and we should like to know what is the tendency of the Prime Minister’s thoughts in this matter? Is it in the direction of imperial federation, or is it in the direction of a slackening of the imperial ties? One cannot stand still in constitutional matters. Circumstances change and a statesman who tries to stand still in the constitutional sphere, is an anachronism. He does not belong to these times; and for that reason I should like the Minister to be a little more explicit as to the direction in which his thoughts go between those two extremes. You will notice that our knowledge of the Prime Minister in connection with this matter in the past has been such that it gives rise to a certain measure of doubt. We know that every inch of ground which he has yielded, was yielded very reluctantly in favour of the wider freedom which we advocate. We recall that on the eve of the departure of the late Gen. Hertzog in 1926 to the Imperial Conference, the Prime Minister made a speech in the City Hall of Cape Town and in that speech he spoke sneeringly of Gen. Hertzog’s mission to the Imperial Conference, and he told the late Gen. Hertzog that his request would be treated with ridicule at the Imperial Conference. We know that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was not a good prophet in that case, but at the same time it gives us an idea in which direction his thoughts go between those two extremes. In that speech which he made in England, and which, according to the statement of Maj. Attlee to the House of Commons, was published at the request of the Prime Minister, he reverted to the old idea of balance of power and peace. He said that the great nations must form a trinity of power to enable them to rule everything in the new world, but he said that those three nations were not equally strong, that England was not as strong as the United States and Russia, and in order to make England sufficiently strong, he suggested two things, the first being, as he called it, closer union with the Western European Powers, and the second being the “tidying up” of the Commonwealth and the Empire. That means that in international affairs the British Commonwealth must act as a unit. That is how I understood it because if England acts alone she is not strong enough. I want to put this question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Am I wrong in inferring from that speech that the British Commonwealth must act in international affairs as a unit in order to be on equal terms with the United States and with Russia? The Prime Minister does not reply. If I am wrong. I shall be glad if he will tell me so. In any event, that is the inference which I draw from his speech, and not only I, but that same inference was drawn by other journals which have personal access to the Government. The Prime Minister still does not reply. I go on to point out that if that is the case, and the Prime Minister does not deny it, if it means that the British Commonwealth must act as a unit in international affairs, it means in the first place that we must have a common foreign policy, common to the whole Commonwealth, as in the case of Russia, although it consists of a number of provinces, as in the case of America, although it consists of a number of States. And the second implication is that the Commonwealth must have a common defence programme. If that is so, I want to point out that such a unit cannot be obtained without affecting a closer union of the members of the Commonwealth. In the past, before the war, the position was that every country, every Dominion, was free to have its own foreign policy, but if we are now to have a common foreign policy, it means a greater centralisation of power. A body must now be called into being, even though it is an imaginary body, in order to get unity in foreign policy, even if it is at the expense of our freedom in this country. Those are the implications of the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I just want to say that unfortunately the Prime Minister does not stand alone in that respect. We have already had the speech of Lord Halifax. Here we have an opinion from a person who ought to know a good deal about the matter, and he says this—

and then there is a quotation from his speech where he said—

If that is the case, it confirms what I have said here, and it means that there is an encroachment on our rights and that after the war we shall not be in the same position constitutionally in which we were before the war, because that very important point which meant our independence, that is, the right to have our own foreign policy, would then disappear. This opinion which I hold is an inference which other people have also drawn from his speech. I again quote from the same journal—

And may I add also “the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.” And that is the opinion of a journal, the chairman of whose directorate is the hon. Minister of Finance. [Time limit.]

I am glad to see that the over-sensitiveness of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has at last been pricked. If he is sensitive because this side of the House, through the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), reacted to the repeated personal attacks which were made against our Prime Minister. I must ask him to translate his sensitiveness into practical deeds, and to urge his leader and other colleagues not to make personal attacks against the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

When was any personal attack made by the Leader of the Opposition?

If the sensitiveness of hon. members on the other side is touched by a mild accusation which may be made by this side of the House occasionally in self-defence, how much more does it not hurt our sensitiveness when hon. members on the other side repeatedly level these crude personal attacks against the Prime Minister?;

The trouble is that some members do not know the difference between a personal attack and an attack on policy.

We must leave those things. Let us leave those things on both sides of the House, and let us discuss the matter on its merits. The case of Ireland was raised here. We are told that we do not go and fight. At any rate, when the war broke out we immediately offered our services to the Government. I want to know from those hon. members whether they will carry their sympathy with Ireland so far that they will be prepared to go and fight for Ireland? No, they will not do so. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that they were never proNazi, but I want to ask why, if that is so, they brought the country under the impression that they were pro-Nazi? Why did the Hon. Leader of the Opposition not immediately repudiate the statement which was made by the then member for Fordsburg, the Leader of the Nationalist Party on the Rand, when he said that the salvation of South Africa depended on a German victory? No, they went throughout the length and breadth of the country and brought the people under the impression that a German victory would be to South Africa’s advantage. Did not the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) state in this House last year that a British vitory—he did not speak of an Allied victory, but of a British victory—would mean that the Afrikaner cause would be lost and frustrated for all time? If that will be the outcome of a British victory, one must surely infer from that that he desires a German victory. If they do not realise that they brought the people under the impression that they desired a German victory, they are just like a certain prisoner-of-war who was at Bermuda. There was an old gentleman who was a prisoner-of-war. He received a letter from his wife. He was illiterate and he himself could not read the letter. He called in a young man and asked him to read the letter to him. He added, however: “But look here, you are not going to listen to what you read.” The young man then said: “I promise you that I shall not listen to what I read.” The old gentleman then added: “It is not that I distrust you, but do you mind if I block your ears while you read?” That is the attitude which the hon. members on the other side adopt. They do not listen to what they say. Would it not be better for them to admit that they put a wrong interpretation on the state of foreign affairs? We recall a speech which was at that time made by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he said: “Two things are certain; Stalingrad will fall, and Smuts and Churchill have lost the Empire war.” Well, that prophecy was not fulfilled by the trend of events, and if the Leader of the Opposition is so mistaken when he tries to interpret the state of world affairs, and on the other hand we have a man like the Hon. the Prime Minister who, as far back as the 4th September, 1939, accurately foresaw the whole state of affairs, is it not better for us to say to our Prime Minister: “You are now going to the conference of Prime Ministers. You have always interpreted our foreign affairs well. We entrust the further interpretation of our foreign interests to your care.” Hon. members on the other side have been sadly mistaken. They did everything in their power to create the impression in the world that there is an alternative Government in South Africa which is sympathetic towards Germany, a government with which Germany could negotiate when she was victorious. They created that impression; but now Germany is no longer going to win the war. Would it not have been honest on their part to come forward today and say: “‘We have been mistaken; we now realise that we must no longer desire a German victory.” We shall heartily welcome such a statement on their part that they no longer desire a German victory. That has been the cause of the great division in this country, and if the reason for that division disappears, we can stand together and tackle and solve the big problems which lie ahead of us. Those hon. members were mistaken. They thought that Germany, would win the war, and they thought that we should be as friendly as possible towards Germany, so that Germany could say: “If the Smuts Government falls we can appoint a Malan Government to assist us.” In conclusion, I just want to make a final appeal to hon. members on that side. Let us now leave this difference of opinion. They realise as well as we do that their interests and the interests of the whole nation are bound up not in a German victory, but in the opposite direction.

Listening to this debate, it is remarkable to find that every member on the other side of the House tries to drag in matters which have nothing to do with it. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated here that he wanted to meet the Prime Minister in this debate, and that he wanted to assist him by raising each point specifically, but notwithstanding that attitude which was adopted by this side, we had this type of reply from hon. members on the other side. The merits of the case are not dealt with, but motives are sought for saying the things we do say. When one listens to the debate and one reads the speeches of hon. members on the other side as reported in their own newspapers, one hears that when the other countries fell not a word was said by the Opposition. If at that time it was wrong to attack any country, then it is still wrong today. The remarkable fact is that when one rises to defend one of the countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations, one is accused of being proNazi, of being prompted by certain motives. Many of us, and more especially the younger members, firmly believe that South Africa was an independent State, that we could do as we pleased in South Africa, that we could declare a republic if the people of South Africa desired a republic. We differed from the Prime Minister when at that time he told us that it was our bounden duty to participate in this war. But I want to deal with this matter from another point of view. The Prime Minister said that he did not have the agenda of the matters to be discussed at the Imperial Conference, and it is necessary, therefore to examine what will be in the interests of Great Britain, what her intention is in convening this Imperial Conference. I should like us to deal with everything on the merits of the case. Let us forget about the motives which are attributed to this side, and let us come back to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It is indisputably true that times have changed. There was a time when Great Britain had o protect the Colonies, but I think everyone will agree with me today that if it were not for the British Commonwealth of Nations, there would no longer have been a Great Britain today. The Colonies now have to protect Great Britain. The Prime Minister spoke here of the tremendous war efforts of the Dominions, and even from that one can infer that the position is reversed, that today we have to protect Great Britain. What must we do then in the interests of Great Britain? The closer the ties with Great Britain, the better it is for Great Britain from her own point of view. In other words, if Great Britain can succeed in anglicising the Afrikaans nation, it is better for her, because then there are hon. members like the members on the other side, who supported the war not because they thought it in the interests of South Africa, but because they adopt the attitude that it is our duty to participate in any war in which England is involved. There are members on the other side who feel that if England is engaged in war, there can be no question of our remaining out of it. Unfortunately there is a number of the Afrikaansspeaking members on the other side who no longer feel towards Afrikaners as they felt formerly. Let me mention a few examples. I want to put this question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. When he fought for the Boer Republics he held a certain opinion. I want to ask him whether he still holds the same opinion today. I want to ask him whether he will still fight for a republic in South Africa today. Of course not. English politics, the British atmosphere, the conquest of South Africa by Great Britain, have succeeded in getting some of our Afrikaansspeaking people to go and fight for England. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). When he saw the White Cliffs of Dover for the first time, when he saw the White Cliffs for the second time, what did he say? He made a speech there and said that when he saw the White Cliffs of Dover for the second time his heart beat faster at the thought of the freedom which that country had given to Our people. He has changed; the British influence has anglicised him. Take those hon. members on the other side who were members of the old Nationalist Party. Why are they sitting on that side today? Is it that the Nationalist Party has changed its policy to such an extent? Tell us in which respect?

It has changed.

At first we tried to co-operate with the English-speaking members on that side. We said that we should go amongst them and convert the English from within. What was the result? When a dispute arose in South Africa, how many of those Afrikaners who wanted to convert that party from within remained on that side? Not one of those Afrikaners walked over to this side. There was a time when a Scotsman in Scotland was proud of the fact that he was a Scotsman. But then one comes to South Africa and one gets a member like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean).; he speaks the Scotch language, but he has become completely anglicised. Today when one goes to Scotland, the Scots no longer say that they are Scotsmen. If a Scottish child speaks his own language, his mother tells, him to speak English. The British influence is out to anglicise everyone If we now have an Imperial. Conference—and the Prime Minister says that no agenda has been drawn up—the danger is that he who has already become anglicised will try to bind us more closely to the British Government I want to go a little further. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw referred to Mr. Churchill as a coward, and that was held against him. There was a time in England, not long ago, just before the war—I want to ask the Prime Minister whether that is not so—when Mr. Churchill sat in the British. Parliament without a single supporter. He was regarded as a ridiculous person, as far as the British people were concerned. He was regarded as a fire-eater; he was regarded as a man who wanted war. At that time the English people did not want war, but when the war came they had to use an abnormal man to see the war through, because one thinks abnormally in time of war. I want to come back for a moment to Great Britain. When Lloyd George saw the last war through, Ramsay MacDonald was on the Opposition benches. During the war Ramsay MacDonald was not allowed to play on his own golf links, but when the war was over and the people started to think normally Lloyd George was pushed into the background and Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister. What we want to advocate on this side is this; I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not to take part in a British Imperial Conference. I want to tell him that if he comes to the Afrikaner nation and he tells us that he is not even in possession of the agenda of that conference, we can only judge him by his, attitude in the past. I want to ask him whether he has ever stood up in this House and expressed his disapproval of anything done by Great Britain? Never. Take the flag question in South Africa. Until recently the Union Jack flew over the building on the other side of the street when the Prime Minister came here. The Union Flag was hidden in a corner, and when we asked the Prime Minister why the Union Flag had been taken down and why the Union Jack had been placed there, the Prime Minister replied that he had done this in order to show that he was in the room in that wing. Now he has put the Afrikaans Flag in a different place. He has now put the Union Jack right on top.

That is against the law; he is not allowed to do so.

That only goes to show the attitude which the Prime Minister adopts in relation to Great Britain and everything that affects Great Britain. When I was in Rhodesia recently we got into conversation with English-speaking Rhodesians. And what do they say? They say, out arid out, that the Prime Minister is a greater Imperialist than Churchill himself. They went so far as to say that they would like him to become Prime Minister of Britain. But then they added: “It is a pity he is Dutch.” I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people and on behalf of those of us who would like to see our country a free country. [Time limit.]

I want to say at the outset that I am very sorry the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to send that cable to Ireland a few days ago. When I saw that cable and the concluding part of it, I thought the Leader of the Opposition had forgotten the general election which took place recently, and just to remind him I want to mention a few figures. The figures are 837 and 27. Now, let me tell him what these figures mean—those figures represent the soldiers’ votes in Langlaagte during the last election. The 837 votes were cast for the Government candidate—myself—and the 27 were cast for the candidate put up by the Opposition. I am not going to mention that gentleman’s name—he is a very honourable man and I am leaving him out of the debate. I do not claim any special credit for the 837 votes which the soldiers cast for me nor am I going to cast any reflections on my opponent who only got 27 votes, but that was a true reflection of the views of the soldiers up North on the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues behind him. And I want to say this about that telegram—I believe that telegram will be remembered in this country for many years to come—it will be remembered as well as the telegram which the Kaiser sent at the end of the Boer War—that telegram has never been forgotten, and this telegram will be remembered against the Leader of the Opposition for many years to come. The wording of that telegram was not a true reflection of the opinion of the people of this country and I again say that I regret very much that he thought fit to send it. Now I want to get away a bit from the type of debate which has been carried on here. I am not going to make any further recriminations, but if you will allow me I shall make a request to the Prime Minister and it is this: When he goes to the Imperial Conference I hope he will try to arrange inter-Dominion visits between members representing the other Dominions and ourselves.

Ireland included.

I have special reason for mentioning that. My special reason is this: That I do think if it could be arranged, if members of the other Dominions could be induced to pay a visit to South Africa, they would have one of the biggest eye-openers they have ever had. They would see the great progress which this country has made, not only in time of war but during the last three or four years, during the administration of the present Government. They would not only see the great progress made, but they will realise the great potentialities of this country. And an exchange of visits would possibly help to solve a lot of Dominion troubles which will have to be solved in the future. And if possible I would like the Prime Minister to invite Mr. De Valera himself to come here and see what our country is like. I believe that if Mr. De Valera could be induced to come here; he would be the first man to realise what neutrality has meant to Ireland—and he would do away with it. He would be so impressed with the prosperity of this country that he would go back to Ireland and join hands with the other Dominions, and once and for all abandon neutrality.

Before making a few remarks I want to refer to a statement made bv the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). He unfortunately connected the Reddingsdaadbond with a political party. I feel it my duty to tell this House and the public outside that that statement was not only unworthy but also absolutely incorrect. After having said so I had expected that he would not repeat his remarks. I have for a long time been working with the Reddingsdaadbond and I have also worked in its head office. I am also making these remarks because I am responsible, together with others for the investment of the Reddingsdaad funds, and I want to state here clearly that any sug gestion or any statement that the Reddingsdaadbond is connected with politics is incorrect and untrue.

Does the Reddingsdaadbond contribute a single penny to this Party?

No political party gets a single penny from the Reddingsdaadbond. If it is asserted that the funds are used to assist Afrikaners who are in difficulties, that may be so.

Would a business man get a loan from the United Party?

Every case is dealt with on its merits. I want to keep this question outside politics and that is why I am not anxious to refer to it in this House. I thought, however, that I should avail myself of the first possible opportunity to contradict the statement made here and to ask the House to accept my statement that not a penny of the funds of the Reddingsdaadbond is used for political purposes. Now, I want to use the few minutes which are still at my disposal to bring the question of the principle with which this debate is concerned to the notice of the Prime Minister—and perhaps I may be repeating what has already been said. I do not expect we shall be able to convince each other in this House of the importance which we attach to the object of the forthcoming Imperial Conference, and of the seriousness of the statement by the Prime Minister in London. I want to assure the Prime Minister that the reason for this discussion is our feeling of alarm a his remarks, because the basis of his speech and also of other speeches in that connection is the restoration of the Power position of the British Empire within the Trinity. The Prime Minister’s speech was based on his concern at the position which the British Empire might possibly occupy at the end of the war. Because the Prime Minister today occupies a prominent position in the world and because he is known as the handyman of the British Empire, because he is an Imperialist, he was given the opportunity of expressing his views in London. As Prime Minister of South Africa it is his duty to listen patiently to our opinion about this matter. The Prime Minister started his statement by pointing out that at the end of the war there would probably be three great powers—as he said this morning too. But he pointed out that there would be two tremendously strong powers, while Great Britain, in spite of its reputation, would none the less be the weakest, both economically and militarily. The Prime Minister spoke about a colossus which would stand straddled across Europe, and he spoke of the powerful and inexhaustible resources of the United States and against that he put the position of a weakened Great Britain. He held out the prospect of those three Powers and he asked what could be done to restore the British Empire in its world position, to place it in as equal a position as possible to that of these other Powers. He started off from the premises that it would be undesirable for the British Empire to associate itself with the United States. That would be the start of a new world conflagration. We agree with him, and for that reason, because he says that association with that one nation might possibly cause a new world conflagration, we contend that the same implications are to be found in his wish to have the British Empire placed on a footing of equality—we say that that position may also cause a world conflagration. He spoke this morning about his suggestion in regard to the democracies of Western Europe. I do not want to go into that, but he gave expression to two other thoughts, and I should like to say a few words about his second thought. He spoke about the loose connection of the Dominions of the Empire. What he meant was that alongside the Dominions, which he described as “vrygeweste,” there are a whole lot of widely spread parts of the Empire Dominions which are entirely loose and which are critically disposed towards administration from London. There are objections to administration from London, and for that reason there must be a new grouping of British States, and this has to be done in connection with the existing Dominions. That is how I understood his statement. That naturally involves a great many implications. The first is that this association of Imperial States with the existing Dominions will place certain obligations on the existing Dominion. The second point is that so far as administration is concerned, if a new entity comes into being, it will surely not take place without any connection with Downing Street. I therefore want to put the following question to the Prime Minister. I want to know how he proposes grouping the Imperial States or territories in the Southern part of Africa? My second question is, which Dominion are they to be attached to, and under what conditions? My third question is, what administrative connection with London did he have in mind when he made that suggestion? It involves the implication that if certain Imperial territories are associated with existing Dominions, it is self-evident that South Africa will be indicated as the Dominion for the Southern part of Africa. That in the first place means that that Dominion will have to accept responsibility for these territories, and what is inevitable is that it will also have to accept responsibility towards those States.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) who I am sorry is not in his place dealt with the problem of the future of the Commonwealth of Nations, and although he did not say it in so many words his attitude as well as the attitude of the party opposite is in favour of the dissolution of that Commonwealth. Now, he did not say that, but he put two alternatives to the Prime Minister. He said the issue is whether the bonds of the Commonwealth are to be loosened or tightened. As a matter of fact I think there is a third course, that is the strengthening of the Commonwealth. All those who recognise the value of the British Commonwealth of Nations may feel that there would be an advantage in enlarging the Commonwealth without detracting from the autonomous rights of the members of the Commonwealth —they may favour the strengthening of the bonds—by creating machinery to provide for a greater measure of consultation—and the possibility is that a step in that direction might be acceptable to all those who view the future of the world in the way we and so many of the Western European countries do. The possibility of strengthening the Commonwealth by extending its membership is looked upon favourably by many who stand for the principle of democracy in this world. Now that is what the Prime Minister referred to. I would remind this House that he was expressing an opinion with the lucidity of which he is a master and with the prestige which his great part in international affairs attaches to his opinions, and which are today shared by more and more people who view the Commonwealth as an instrument which will secure to a greater extent than was even possible in the past and more permanently the freedom of the world. Only about twelve month ago a certain professor Hancock, an Australian who is a Professor of History at the Birmingham University, dealing with the question of the British Empire, said this very same thing in one of his lectures on international affairs, when a number of prominent refugees, particularly from Holland, Denmark, Norway and other countries who were attending his lecture, asked him specifically whether it would not be possible so to extend the British Commonwealth of Nations that countries like these Western Democracies would be able to become members of the British Commonwealth. And that is the opinion which is held not only in Great Britain and in other Dominions, but it is an opinion which is growng in these small democracies which believe that if they are to safeguard their position isolation is hopeless, and that the only method by which they can safeguard their position is to associate with one of the great Powers, and one of the great Powers which lends itself to that position is the British Commonwealth which stands for freedom and is based on free association of autonomous States. And for my part I believe that the time is fast approaching when the Commonwealth, instead of consisting of its present members only, will be strengthened by the inclusion of these Western Democracies. Now the hon. member for Fauresmith when dealing with the question of the rights of the various parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations forgot to tell the House that while these members of the Commonwealth have certain rights they also have certain obligations, and although Southern Ireland has the fullest right to decide its own policy, the moment in the decision of that policy something is done which is prejudicial to the interests of another nation and particularly to a member of the Commonwealth, it is ridiculous to say that that member of the Commonwealth whose safety is jeopardised has no right to retaliate. And that is the position which exists at present. Dr. Goebbels only a few days ago said: “We are now at five minutes to 12”—the last moment before the climax which will finally settle the destiny of the world, and surely it cannot be expected that at a moment like this the United States and the Allies should stand aside and allow things to happen which may not only jeopardise the offensive to which they are committed, but to jeopardise the lives of thousands of people who would be safeguarded but for the spying which is apparently being carried on by the Axis Embassies in Dublin. I want to touch on another point. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) just now mentioned, apropos of the insulting statement by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) about Mr, Churchill, that before September, 1939, Mr. Churchill was sitting in the House of Commons without any support from his party ….

He did not belong to a party.

Well, that is largely true. The reason was that Mr. Churchill for years before the war started foresaw the menace of Nazism and Hitlerism in the world, and had been preaching against the policy of appeasement which had been pursued in Great Britain, and the moment war broke out he was called upon to take a share in the responsibility of the Government, and the moment Britain was faced with disaster, at the time of Dunkirk, the people of Britain asked him to assume the Leadership.

He was very bitter against Russia.

That may be, but not at that particular moment. The other point which was forgotten is that not only did the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman carry out a great act of statesmanship to wards and show great trust in South Africa, at a very important stage in its history, but Mr. Winston Churchill at that time was Undersecretary for the Colonies, and piloted the Bill under which South Africa got its freedom through the House of Commons. Mr. Churchill and Lord Balfour were great friends, and we know that as a result of their assistance we got the freedom which even the hon. member for Piketberg told us was such that it was greater than we could ever hope to have as a Republic. The hon. member for Mossel Bay mentioned Mr. Churchill’s hatred of Bolshevism. Now, I think that the country and the House are entitled to have an answer as to the Opposition’s attitude on this particular point. Hon. members opposite talk about the menace of Communism. Why do not they reply to the question as to why during the war period from 1939 right up to June, 1941, they never protested against the Hitler and Stalin Pact— why did not they raise the bogy of Communism then? Why did not they protest at the time when Stalin with the approval of Germany took Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania? What did they do in those days to show their love of small nations? [Time limit.]

There are a few points which I want to say something about. The first point is in regard to a statement made by hon. members opposite, a statement which has been repeated very often, namely that that side of the House represents the two sections of the population in this country. We all know the facts, but it may perhaps be as well to emphasise those facts. It is true that they represent one section of the population, viz., the English-speaking section, but the Afrikaans-speaking section they represent is very, very small indeed. Let me tell hon. members what this well-known journal “Life” has to say about it—that journal a few months ago contained a very comprehensive article about the Prime Minister’s life. It was a full description of his life, and I just want to quote one sentence from it—

That is what that paper says. And then we have this interesting sentence which I also want to quote—

Do you believe that?

I believe that Gen. Botha sent that cable. Another statement made in this debate is one which I want to refer to in passing. It is peculiar that since Ireland has declared its neutrality we can hardly get any reading material about Ireland in this country. The Parliamentary Library suddenly has nothing, and practically every bookshop is in the same position. It is very difficult to get any information about Ireland. It is peculiar that the Parliamentary Library suddenly has nothing, and that the Public Library can hardly give us anything. There has of late been a very striking absence of any information about Ireland. Now I have something here in my hand which I want to quote. This is an article taken from the “Sunday Despatch” and it was written by a prominent Irishman. Now, what does he say about Ireland’s unity?—

And then the article goes on and states that even Mr. James Dillon, who is generally known in Ireland as a man who does not take up that attitude, made this statement in a recent election when there was a wave of public feeling in favour of neutrality—that was on the 30th May—

Just one other point.The Prime Minister told us that Ireland was maintained and supported by the British Navy. Now let me read what the “Sunday Despatch” says in this article—

That is what James Dillon says, but the Prime Minister tells a very different story. The Prime Minister this morning made two very interesting statements, and I hope the country generally will take notice of them. The first is that there is a possibility of loosening the bonds of the British Empire. That is an important statement. The other statement is that he is not in favour of a Republic. So far as that is concerned it is old news to South Africa; we all know him. He has departed from the attitude which he took up in the Boer War; he has changed. But what is peculiar is this, that latterly the United Party has been trying hard to make the public believe that they, too, are indirectly striving for a Republic. Even their News Letter, their own party paper, recently had an article about the Republican ideal and said that the United Party was not opposed to the Republican form of Government as such. I can give it to the Prime Minister to read if he perhaps does not read his own party paper. There are other journals supporting the Government which try to make the public believe that they are also disposed towards a republican form of Government. Let me remind hon. members of the journal of the Minister of Finance, “The Forum,” which recently also contained an article to that effect. And there are other indications in that same direction. There is a whispering going on in this country—I don’t knew who it is fostered by—that there are members of the United Party who have an idea that after the war the Prime Minister will help them to get closer to the republican side. For that reason it was most important to hear the Prime Minister make his statement this morning to the effect that he and his Party generally were opposed to a republic and to a republican form of government, and that he did not want to have anything to do with it. So far as that clarification is concerned, it is very good. We have had a lot of changes in South Africa in that respect. I have studied Hansard for 1917 because in that year there was a debate here about the republican form of government. In those days feelings ran very high on that issue. Mr. Merriman, who opened the debate, said: “People such as Dr. Malan and others who agitate for independence are nothing more than traitors and enemies to South Africa.” We have progressed considerably since those days when Mr. Merriman accused the Nationalists of being traitors to South Africa. We have also progressed since the days when the present Minister of Justice, who in those days represented the Vredefort constituency got up in this House and according to Hansard, 1917, column 165, declared—

That is what the present Minister of Justice said; he, too, is in the ranks of those who have left the republics in the lurch, just as the Prime Minister has done. A further important statement made by the Prime Minister is that there is one section which wants to loosen the bonds with the British Empire; it is an important statement for him to make, that it is possible to loosen those bonds. Now I want to tell him that Ireland has preceded us in that respect. They have loosened the bonds with the British Empire, and that is where the Prime Minister will lag benind in the opinion of the people of South Africa, because the people of South Africa are moving in the direction of a republic. [Time limit.]

I should like to say a few words before this debate closes. I confess that I intervene this afternoon with a good deal of disinclination—disinclination because of the course this debate has taken. Instead of the time being occupied with profitable criticism and suggestion as to how we can better carry on this war and make our powers felt more, and be more effective, instead of thinking how we can marshal the power of South Africa in common with the rest of the Empire in getting a better day and a better future for the world, we have been led into a vortex of abuse, of language which I can only characterise as filling me with disgust, and it has filled a great proportion of those who have read the debate throughout the country, with disgust. It has indicated beyond all question, beyond all possible doubt, that had the destinies of South Africa been committed to the hon. members opposite under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, we should have been placed in a position of shame and powerlessness, which I think myself attaches to South Ireland, to Eire, owing to the action she has taken. I think that there is this advantage which we can gather from the telegram which was sent by the Leader of the Opposition, that it has placed beyond all doubt that he ranges himself alongside Mr. de Valera at a time of crisis like this, at a time when the freedom if the world is at stake, in nursing the accredited representatives of the protagonist governments for dictatorship in his midst; and I gather from that that had the hon. member for Piketberg been charged with the destinies of South Africa, he would have done, if he had the power, the same for us. He would have placed us in the same position of shame and powerlessness. I shall tell you what the difference has been. A small country like South Africa, owing to being a member of the British Empire, has been able to share in the imperishable glory which is attached to that Empire in having stood up solely and alone when our Allies collapsed, against what appeared to be an overpowering force for the sake of freedom and for the liberty of human mind and human thought. Mr. Chairman, I can only say that events have prove quite conclusively that all I have said in the past on the supreme importance of the unity of that Empire both in this House and out of it, all the points I have taken, have been justified to the very hilt; and no prophecy I ventured to make in that connection has been wide of the mark. Uncompromising hostility to republicanism, in any shape or form, wherever it raises its head and in whatever guise it is produced, will be my attitude and that of the party I have the honour to lead.

They are not here; where are they?

They are in the coalition, because in the coalition we have been able by co-operation to get South Africa to take its part and win its share in the glory to which I have alluded. Think what the position of South Africa would have been had we decided otherwise? We would have had as much power to defend ourselves, or to do anything for the rest of the world as a fly has got which scours about the inside of a cathedral. Think what power and influence South Africa will have in the future of· the world, not only at imperial conferences, powerful as they are, but in the world conferences which are going to take place. Compare the authority and the effect of intervention by the Prime Minister of South Africa, when speaking for a South Africa within that Empire, and that which Mr. de Valera has or will have, speaking for South Ireland in any such gathering. In the one case advice will be backed by achievement in battle of which we are ail—on this side of the House at any rate—intensely proud, and on the other it will be weighted by a record of neutrality in time of direst need. Regarding the present and in looking to the future I say that logic of events has proved what I have always maintained, that the true security of South Africa lies in remaining part and parcel, a very powerful part and a very potent member of the British Empire. Speaking for a detached country you have little influence and you have no power. Speaking for a country that is within a very much larger entity, you add to the influence which is all your own, that of the larger entity to which it belongs and gather the power which comes from union. Thus to absorb and give back in an intensified form, is necessary if we are to play the part in the post-war period to which I am looking forward. I think, Sir, that Great Britain, that the British Empire, that each and all of its constituent parts, but infinitely more the aggregation of the whole, will be in a more powerful position in the world morally and materially, than it has ever been before. Morally it is beyond all question of doubt that it stands in a unique position; and if we have a gibe thrown across the House that its material power is reduced, I repudiate that entirely; I do not believe it. I do not believe that the material power of the Empire or of Great Britain will be reduced. I believe that it is intensified.

What did your Prime Minister say?

I am speaking for myself and my party, and I say most emphatically that Great Britain will appear after the war stronger than ever she has been before; morally, without any shadow of doubt; and I say materially, too. For with all the destruction of material wealth that has taken place we have been able to invent, we have been able to stimulate production on a scale which has never been dreamed of before. We have been able to marshal scientific thought and convert it into terms of wealth production; and may I add this beyond all, we have been able to marshal not only the manhood but the womanhood, the total living human power of Great Britain and of the Empire to a common purpose, with the results that nobody can possibly foretell but which are bound to be immense. That involves a vast increase of material wealth and material power, as well as the moral glory attaching to the role they have played. I hope that as a result of the conference of Prime Ministers which is to take place, we shall be able to find that we are agreed that it is the common interest of all that we shall have much closer inter-action than we have had even in the past. I say most advisedly I hope that unity will be found.

I want to say just a few words arising out of what the Minister of Mines has said. I have a pamphlet here which was sent to me this afternoon entitled “Empire Unity.” It is an explanation of the attitude of the Dominion Party in South Africa. It was sent to me with the compliments of the author, and on the cover the word “Urgent” is written in blue pencil. In view of the debate which is being conducted here this afternoon it is very peculiar that this pamphlet written by Mr. C. W. A. Coulter, should have been sent to me in such a hurry this afternoon, and that immediately after I received it we had this speech from the Leader of the Dominion Party. In this pamphlet we find this—

Now, the Minister of Mines is in the same Cabinet as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister proclaimed a policy here this morning, and now the party of the Minister of Mines sends me a pamphlet which proclaims the very opposite policy. It shows how right we are and how much reason we have to wage this debate. What the Minister of Mines has in view, and what Lord Halifax has also done, and what Mr. Churchill has also done, is to try to whittle down the degree of independence which we have under the Statute of Westminster.

We were read a stern lecture this afternoon by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) about indulging in personalities, and he claimed that he did not indulge in personalities. But the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus)—who is not in his seat—though he did not personally indulge in personalities read from a great American paper a quotation against our Prime Minister, a quotation, Sir, that should make every South African blush with shame, and be stirred to anger. He read it out to this House with great glee. That very same paper, some months ago, was supposed to have a representative in this country, and that representative went out to Stellenbosch and I suppose cabled home this news. It spoke of Stellenbosch as an academic centre, and then it went on to say that the climate of Stellenbosch was most unhealthy, that it was filled with mosquitoes, and that Stellenbosch was a very dangerous place to live in because the mountains surrounding it were infested with lions and tigers.

Did you say lions, or—

Yes, lions and tigers. That is the kind of paper the Opposition quote. I happen to live in Stellenbosch and when this paper arrived there, I was approached and asked to take up the matter in the House on account of this maligning of the name of Stellenbosch. I did not do so then but I am doing so now. If that paper, or a similar paper publishes anything scurrilous about the greatest man we have in South Africa today, the Opposition quotes it with glee. The previous speaker (Mr. Louw) always gets up and reads a stern lecture about indulging in personalities and then proceeds to call Mr. Churchill, the British Prime Minister, a coward. This morning our Prime Minister made to us one of the greatest speeches he has ever made. There, Sir, we have the mind of a statesman at work, thinking first of all in terms of South Africa, showing to us clearly that if we are to have a future and if we are to make the best of our future, we must first of all have security. In these days no nation can live in isolation. In these days no nation can, so to say, live a life to itself. For our security we must have outside friends. The Prime Minister in the House this morning visualised the friendship of an association, an alliance that as far as can be humanly possible, seemed to offer safety for South Africa and an assurance for South Africa’s future as nothing else in the world could. Young South Africa will be stirred by that speech of the Prime Minister. Young South Africa that thinks of its future knows it cannot think of South Africa alone. From past history, from history that is being written at the present moment, it is clear to young South Africa that the first thing we need for our future is security. The Prime Minister of this country has pointed his finger to the way. From the moment the Prime Minister made that speech to us, a speech that will ring through the world as well as through South Africa, what have we had from the Opposition benches? They have criticised it, tried to pull it to pieces, gibed at it, jeered at it. The hon. member who has just sat down and other hon. members opposite, has searched the English language, or rather the Afrikaans language for anything that is abusive, and it has been called into play this afternoon since the Prime Minister made his speech. That is all very well, but what is the Opposition’s alternative? Young South Africa says it wants to know the alternative. At the last general election the Opposition told the country what bad fellows this Government was comprised of. They told the country that they were not fit to lead South Africa. They told the country all sorts of fearsome things. For South Africa, however, they offered no alternative. Certainly the Opposition put no alternative up to the country. That is why they are today in a hopeless minority, and as long as then policy offers no alternative, their numbers will not increase, despite all the fond hopes of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Their numbers will constantly diminish because South Africa is an intelligent country and it is going to follow an intelligent and constructive policy. South Africa is going to follow a policy that offers it a future. I ask the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, what is his alternative to the Prime Minister’s case for our South African future?

A republic.

A republic with one friend in the world, Eire, and South Africa versus the world.

What nonsense!

South Africa is not going to follow a policy like that.

Now you are on the soap box.

The opportunity has been presented here for the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition to present an alternative policy to that of the Prime Minister, and his only alternative policy is a republic, with no friends in the world. He said we do not want any friends in the world.

He never said that.

In effect that is what it means. It means that we do not need friends, that South Africa will stand alone like Casabianca on the burning deck whence all but us have fled. That policy will never be accepted by an intelligent young South Africa.

You are living in a fool’s paradise.

We are accustomed to the cheap gibes of my hon. friend. We ask for an intelligent alternative to be put before this country.

Look at the Votes and Proceedings, at our party motion there.

The hon. member never proceeds. That is the tragedy. He is always going backwards. He always wants to go back. We are facing a new world. Even in our domestic policy the whole fabric has been changed. We talked in the past about private enterprise as being sufficient, today everyone is for development of the country by the State leading development. Today we say the Government must take a hand. Outside in the international world it is precisely the same. After the war the world is not going to be the same as before the war. We are going to have communities of people. [Time limit.]

I want to develop the point which I was making earlier on. Another question which will undoubtedly be discussed at the Conference is that of the interests of the various States on the Continent of Africa, and as South Africa is the only State on the Continent of Africa which enjoys Dominion status, I hope the Prime Minister will remember its interests because I know that other sister States in Africa are looking at us with covetous eyes. As they are going to have no say at this Conference they are looking to us. They have been busy for years working out a policy for themselves and preparing for a union with South Africa, and the Prime Minister will have to remember that tendency for closer union with this country. They will look to the Union of South Africa as their elder brother, as the principal State to which they can look, acting in a manner, when the opportunity offers, which will draw them closer to the Union of South Africa. I think I have every right to say that a country like Kenya is very anxious to be a member of the United States of South Africa, in which South Africa will play an important part. This question will undoubtedly be discussed at that Conference, and we feel we should not confine ourselves merely to this State belonging to Great Britain. There are other countries, too, which are anxiously looking forward to a lead from us, and this is the opportunity for the Prime Minister of South Africa to put up a plea on their behalf. Then there is another matter which to my mind concerns us very greatly, and which undoubtedly will be discussed at the Conference. It is the effect and consequences of the Atlantic Charter on the various Dominions. Here we are on somewhat uneasy ground and I want to say that if the Atlantic Charter is to be put into operation in the way it is conceived by some people in South Africa, it will not tend to strengthen—I am not speaking of closer relationships—it will not tend to strengthen those bonds between the Dominions, America and the Western States of Europe, which are apparently desired; on the contrary the Atlantic Charter will undoubtedly be a fly in the ointment, and will in the near future be looked upon as one of the reasons why Western democracy and even America will become estranged from us. We are dealing with a very delicate position here, and it will be necessary for the Dominions, together with Great Britain, to be on their guard, because we know the dangerous influences and the tremendous onslaughts which will be made on the privileges and the inter-Dominion preferential tariffs which we already have. The Prime Minister will have to act very carefully there in the interest of South Africa, and he will have a more difficult task there than anywhere else. All I want to suggest to the Prime Minister is the he should remember that the older States should realise that South Africa is one of those Dominions which is on the threshold of tremendous industrial development, and that the big States should take this into account. I am looking forward to there being agreement and concord in those discussions, so that the Dominions, with Great Britain, will be able to speak with one voice, and I hope that the interests of the Union will be promimently brought to the fore, and that our interests will not be pushed back by the interests of others outside the Dominions, and that assurance we can only get if all the Dominions can speak with one voice on this subject.

As a new member, and also as a backbencher, I want to object to the way hon. members of the Opposition sometimes address the Prime Minister in this House. The way they speak to him, the way they point their finger at him, should be stopped. It does not become hon. members of this House to do so.

Clean your own doorstep first.

I want hon. members to remember that the Prime Minister of South Africa is not a youngster. He is a man whom the whole world respects.

One can see that you are a new member, and a youngster.

I am glad I am still a youngster, and that my intelligence is not as antiquated as that of the hon. member over there. Hon. members of the Opposition have accused the Afrikaansspeaking members on this side of being Anglicised. I deny it. It is just as untrue as their contention that they are not pro-German. They know that the Afrikaansspeaking members together with the English-speaking members on this side represent the people of South Africa—they represent both sections of the public. Hon. members of the Opposition unfortunately cannot say that about themselves. They only represent a section of a section of the people.

And you represent the coloured people too.

They deny that they are pro-German—but what do their mouthpieces say? What about their Press? Whenever the enemy scores a success, or makes some progress, they print the fact in large black letters. Does not that prove that they are pro-German? And we know that those papers are their mouthpieces; we have had ample evidence of it, and we know it. They know that South Africa is at war with Germany and that acts of sabotage have been committed by irresponsible young fellows, yet did their newspapers warn those young fellows—did they ever do so? No, their Press said that those young fellows had been challenged by people supporting the war effort. Does not all this go to prove that they are pro-German? Have not these acts of sabotage been committed in the interests of Germany, and against the interests of South Africa. What news do they listen to over the radio? They listen to Zeesen. Whom does Zeesen refer to when it calls out: “Good night, Boers,” “Good night, Afrikaners”?

You seem to listen in to Zeesen yourself.

I only listen in to Zeesen when I am invited by you to do so. In 1899 we appealed to Germany for help, and we were disappointed. In 1914 to 1918 the Opposition banked on a German victory and they were disappointed. Today again they put their faith in Germany.

Fortunately they will again be forced to recognise disappointment. Not only are they pro-German, but they are steadily becoming imitation Irishmen. They are telling us that England’s actions have led to unity in Ireland. And then the Leader of the Opposition sends a cable to the President of Ireland to tell him that he sympathises with Ireland’s neutrality. He does so on behalf of the Opposition, knowing that he only represents a part of the Afrikaans-speaking people which is more divided than it has ever been before. I do not believe that the Prime Minister of Ireland will take any notice of or even reply to the cable. We are in a world war today. Ireland has been warned and told to review its position, and the Opposition objects. When the country which they originally hailed from was attacked overnight by Germany they did not utter a word of warning—on the contrary, they kept silent and found excuses for Germany. I want to ask them whether they are closer to Ireland than to Holland? I want to know why they did not stand up for Holland, why did not they express their sympathy with Holland at the time? Why did not they openly express their sympathy? No, they did not do so because Holland was dragged into the war against Germany, against the country which hon. members opposite looked to to grant them a Republic. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) said that nobody knew better what freedom meant than the man who has fought for it and lost it. I should like him to go through Germany— if he did he would realise the meaning of freedom in South Africa. If he would take off his political spectacles he would be able to look at freedom from all sides. Hon. members opposite are criticising the statement which the Prime Minister made in England a few months ago, knowing that in that statement he put the position exactly as it was. They have not proposed any alternative. And now they blame the Prime Minister because Lord Halifax has made a contrary statement. They forget that we are not living under the Naxis but that we are a democratic country, and in countries which do not fall under Nazi control everyone can express his opinion as he thinks best. I want members opposite to remember this truth.

Is Russia part of the democratic world?

If I told the hon. member what his Leader said about Russia a few years ago he would be ashamed. With these few words I want to conclude. I only want to prove that the Government has been correct in regard to its attitude towards the war. I only want to prove that the Opposition is pro-German because hon. members opposite imagine that Germany can give them a Republic and can save them politically. I am very sorry for them. They will finish up without any plan at all—they have again missed the boat.

I think this debate is naturally coming to an end but before the end I should like to say a few words in conclusion. I must say that I have not been very much enlightened by this debate, although I listened with great interest.

Nor have we been very much enlightened.

Much of our time has been taken up with personalities and the by-play of party politics which has not had much to do with the subject before us; but still, certain points have been raised which require some measure of reply from me. I must say that this debate has been specially listened to by me because I feel that it has been the feeling of many members, especially on the opposite benches, to impress on me the seriousness of the position that I will occupy when I go to this Prime Ministers’ Conference. I realise that, I realise that very important and far-reaching questions are likely to be raised. You cannot discuss this war, or questions flowing out of this war, ás we have been told will be the principal points for discussion, without dealing with problems among the greatest we have ever had to face in this world, and I go with this feeling of profound responsibility to this Conference. I have been to quite a number of them, but I frankly admit that I have never had such a sense of gravity of the situation, of the gravity of the task which will fall on me as on this occasion. Let me say this, that there seems to be some solicitude about my attitude towards certain questions—well, I go to this Conference with a profound sense of what is due to this country. A profound sense. We have had a chequered history, we have had a wonderful history, we seem to be emerging at last into a new era. South Africa after very grave perils for some generations now in her history seems to be in some measure coming into her own, and I should like to see justice done to this country, and I should like to see that we do reap the fruit to some extent of our labours. I do not want to go merely as the representative of one section of my people. I think that below all these party politics and the by-play of politics which we see in this House and in the country, there is a deep sense of national unity growing up in this country. We are debating matters which no doubt are of importance, of foremost importance, to the future of this country, but underneath it all I sense a growing feeling of oneness and unity among the various sections of the people.

On what basis?

And I should not like when I go away to represent this country on this most important occasion, not to feel that I am going with the goodwill, the support and the goodwill in a large sense of all sections of the people, and I shall do my best, I shall strive my best, to deserve that good feeling and that confidence. One hon. member has raised the question of Africa generally—that is the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He has raised this Colonial question and I must say that not only do I feel for this country but also for our Continent. I do believe that this Continent is entering upon a new phase of its history. No continent today in the whole world has greater and more pregnant problems than the African Continent. We are here trying to hammer out differences of opinion, questions of party politics; we are trying to hammer out politics which will influence the future course of action, which will have farreaching effects on the future of this Continent, and it is quite possible that at this Conference some of these questions may be raised. The hon. member for Ceres referred to that part of my speech in London, which I considered “explosive,” which referred to the Colonial set-up of this Continent. There is no doubt that there is much of it that is wrong. The Colonial system in Africa has just grown up haphazard, somehow things have happened, there has been grabbing here and grabbing there, and the result is that the map of Africa today is curiosity. You take South Africa itself. Here we are, a Dominion with Sovereign status, by the law of the land, by the law of Great Britain, a Sovereign country but sandwiched in among us we have little territories that do not belong to us and that are administered directly by Great Britain.

Is that a new discovery which you have made?

And those anomalies are scattered broadcast all over this Continent. I do not think that justice will be done to Africa unless we also look at this situation, at this anomalous wrong set-up where money is being wasted. There is a great deal of overlapping, different policies are pursued by the different governments and different countries which are the home countries of these colonies. It is possible that some of these questions referred to by me in my London speech may come up. I must say that I feel that something is due not only to South Africa but also to Africa. The part which we have played in this war, the way Africa has tried to do her duty under the most difficult circumstances, entitle us to some good coming out of all this struggle for the peoples of Africa as a whole. The question has been raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith about our own foreign policy. He says that it is not enough merely to say, as I did this morning, that I am satisfied with the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster—that is a very large and wide subject and it may cover a multitude of difficult problems. He says: “What about our own foreign policy”; “What about our own say in these big matters which concern our fate?” Well, I would say this: I am all for our own policy but I am most anxious in this world in which we live, with things in this dangerous world becoming still more dangerous as time goes on—I am anxious to shape my policy in a way which will harmonise to some extent not only with our own interests but also with the interests of our friends.

Are they confined to the British Commonwealth, or are they wider than that?

In the first place it is the British Commonwealth who are our family so to say, our nearest associate, but, of course, the whole world question arises far beyond that, and we shall have to look far beyond the confines of the Commonwealth.

Must the Commonwealth act as a unity?

No; my conception is this, that in our Commonwealth we should have the spirit of interchange of opinions, of consultation and of coming together and trying to hammer out a policy which will, if possible, be in the interest of all. That is what this conference is for. We are not going to settle down on a uniform policy but we are trying to see how we can shape our different policies—Canada’s policy, South Africa’s policy and Great Britain’s policy, and Australia’s policy in such a way that we can continue to operate in the future.

Do you agree with Lord Halifax?

Let me just quote these words from the speech of Mr. Mackenzie King. I hope the Leader of the Opposition who has so far agreed so strongly with Mr. Mackenzie King, will agree with this too. In this speech to which we have been referring this morning he said this—

I think these words describe the spirit of our conference, the spirit in which our business will be conducted. Naturally, we place South Africa first. There is no mistake about that. If the hon. member by referring to our own foreign policy means that, then I agree with him. Our interests and the interests of our closest neighbours in Southern Africa must rank first with us, but it may be possible by interchange of opinion, by discussing these various aspects and points of view with our friends at the conference we shall be able through this intimate collaboration and discussion to fit our policies together so that we may have a general line of action to which all may agree.

Yes, the Empire policy.

That is a change from the pre-war position.

Well, that is our hope. It may be that we will succeed. Mr. Mackenzie King has adumbrated that his American position may make it very difficult. No one knows what difficulties may turn up at such a conference; we can only go there with the sincere goodwill of trying to work together as far as possible, looking after the interests of the country for which we are responsible in the first place, but trying to fit our interests into the general picture which will help our neighbours in the Dominions and the rest of the world.

Yes, exactly—the Empire policy.

I think that answers the questions generally. I do not want to go into Lord Halifax’s speech.

Why not, he spoke on behalf of the British Government?

I don’t know that he did.

Why don’t you want to go into his speech?

The hon. member seems to know a lot which I don’t know. I know—at least I have read that this was a speech made at a commercial conference in Toronto.

Yes, and it acquired large publicity.

Why such an occasion should be chosen to declare Britain’s policy passes my mind.

It is usually done on such occasions.

If something has to be done, you will find that the British Foreign Secretary will be quite capable of performing such a job himself.

Why do you avoid it?

Is he not sent abroad to lie for his country?

Much of our discussion has gone over the question of rights. Now, I do not minimise the importance of that question—I do not minimise the importance of the question of the right of neutrality, or the right of this or the right of that. To me the practical questions themselves are really more important at the moment. It is not whether we have the right to do a certain thing, but the wisdom of doing it; that is the question. No one denies our right to declare our neutrality.

That is something new.

I don’t deny Ireland’s right to do it—I have never denied it, and I don’t do so now. This Parliament on the 4th September had the right to declare its neutrality if it so chose, but it chose differently.

And so did Ireland.

It is not a question of abstract right. It is a question of the wisdom and the responsibility—it is a question of your shaping your course of action—it is a question of your doing something which you think is worth doing.

Then let Ireland judge for itself—don’t you judge for Ireland.

The Committee will remember that on the 4th September in my speech I said: If you choose to be neutral you will in the end find yourselves in the wrong camp, you will be in the German camp. It did not take long before my words were justified. It is not a question of this country’s right. The question is which is the wise course to adopt and I have no doubt—and I think South Africa has no doubt whatever now—that that course which we adopted under immense difficulties which tore the people of this country to the very foundations has proved to be a wise course, and the course which our hon. friends on the other side chose to adopt was the wrong course in the interests of this country. That is the whole point. I do not think I need go into the other particular points.

In this short time at my disposal I should hke to draw the attention of the House to a very serious matter. A short while ago certain disturbances and difficulties which took place in the clothing factories in Germiston were brought to the notice of the Government, and the Government was requested to take action immediately. As far as we know, nothing has been done in this matter up to the présent, and if my information is correct the Minister of Labour was also asked a few days ago to take steps to settle the dispute in the trade union organisations, but he said that he did not have the power to do so. Now I should like to discuss this matter with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister under this vote. He was informed about a certain Mrs. Nel and Mrs. Moll who were suspended as members of the association in Germiston, and the reason is stated to be that the owners of the factory engaged coloured people as machinists to work alongside the European women. These women naturally objected. I just want to tell the House briefly what happened. These difficulties continued, and eventually a church commission was appointed consisting of members of the Synod and members of the three Dutch churches. This commission then took the female workers under its protection. The matter was investigated by this commission and it was found that the cause of the whole trouble was that the owners had allowed coloured persons to work in that factory as machinists together with the European female workers. At the request of the owners these female workers selected five of their own members to investigate this matter. We know that they investigated the matter and they reported that it had been disposed of and settled. That was the position temporarily, but ten days later only Mrs. Nel and Mrs. Moll, who had served on that committee, were summoned to appear before the Garment Workers’ Union. It appeared from the enquiry that these two ladies were grossly insulted, and they were suspended as members of the Union, while the other three remained in employment. We also had a statement from the owners that Mrs. Nel and Mrs. Moll were not leaders of the strike, that these two persons had carried out their duties very faithfully for many years in that factory. We cannot get away from the fact that the dismissal of these two ladies is due to the fact that the Garment Workers’ Union abused its powers, and there is not the slightest doubt that the Dutch churches are very seriously upset at this incident. We told the Government that if this matter was not settled it would give rise to trouble, and that trouble has come. Yesterday afternoon a meeting of the Garment Workers was held in the City Hall of Johannesburg. The newspaper reports tells us that many thousands of persons attended this meeting. The meeting was convened for the purpose of discussing the dispute which arose in Germiston. It is a remarkable fact that only about 20 of Germiston’s factory girls were present. They obtained permission to attend the meeting, but a short while before the meeting took place the permission which they had been granted was withdrawn. According to the newspaper reports bloody scenes were enacted inside and outside the City Hall, notwithstanding the fact that the Government was warned in time that these things would happen. Worst of all is the fact that our Dutch ministers of religion who attended the meeting in order to explain the attitude of the church with regard to the colour question, were refused admission. Other persons, not belonging to the Union, were allowed to attend the meeting, but these ministers were asked to produce their membership cards, and they were naturally thrown out. Two’ of them, the Rev. Fick and the Rev. Pienaar, were seriously assaulted, and even in the hall, when one of the workers asked that the ministers should be allowed to attend, her clothes were torn off her body. We can’imagine what the state of affairs must have been. The assistance of the police was called in, but the position was so serious that the Garment Workers even carried the police into the street, and it took a long time to restore order. Order was only restored after many girls had been carried out of the hall in an unconscious condition and full of blood. Those girls did not hold the same views. They were divided amongst themselves on this question, and they fought amongst themselves in the hall. We want to ask the Government today whether in this matter it is following its old policy of “let-things-take-their-course.” We warned against these things. I just want to add this: There was a maxim there which read: “Ban racial hatred from our midst and away with Hitler agents.” Is it racial hatred when the Afrikaner insists that the dividing line between European and nonEuropean shall be maintained? This is the work of communism. As far back as last year I issued a warning against the threatening danger of communism, and unless I am mistaken, I also sent a report to the Prime Minister of a meeting which was held in the City Hall of Johannesburg by a certain Advocate Kahn of Cape Town, where he addressed a meeting of communists. I sent a copy of that report to my Leader and to the Chief of Police, and I demanded officially that a prosecution should take place under the Emergency Regulations. They refused to prosecute. [Time limit.]

With regard to the matter that has just been raised by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) I hope that the Government will take up the attitude that it is not going to support the attempt to dominate the affairs of Trade Unions by political influences. The matter I wish to raise myself is quite a different one. I should be very glad to have the opinion of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister about the very curious correspondence that has apparently been conducted between the Social and Economic Planning Council and the Secretary for Agriculture through his office. This correspondence has been published in the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. It is on the subsidisation of maize. The Social and Economic Planning Council ever since its inception when it was given the job of exploring the social and economic problems of South Africa and offering advice to the Government on those problems has been very much concerned with the problem of malnutrition. It has been one of its main concerns to discover the conditions in South Africa and to frame the lines of a progressive policy. Now on this question of malnutrition it has continuously insisted on the low level of nutrition amongst the natives and the extreme urgency of a policy to counter the ravages of this condition. They have made it clear from the beginning that they have felt that the process of wage increases is going to be too slow to meet this condition in time to be effective. In this second report which they have put out they have gone to the root of this matter and have proposed a subsidisation of maize. They have done so on grounds which I think are unchallengeable. If anything, I believe the Council has understated its case for the need of subsidisation of this kind. They have shown that the rise in the cost of living for the native population has been at least as rapid and as high as for other sections of the population. I think that is a point where they have definitely understated their case. I think the rise in the cost of living for the native population has been considerably steeper than for the other sections of the population, and the two grounds on which I base my contention are that maize is not included in the retail price index which has been the basis of the cost of living allowance scheme, and that maize has risen much higher than other commodities included in that index, and that secondly the native population is called upon to pay a great deal more for fuel and lighting than are other sections of the community to which electricity is available. The Council has then pointed out that the Government is already committed to a policy of subsidisation. It subsidises wheat, and it subsidises butter. But as they have emphasised, that subsidisation which is designed to keep down the cost of living to the poorer sections of the population, does not assist the native population at all. They get practically no benefit out of that particular subsidisation. And in the circumstances they urge, as an immediate need, the subsidisation of maize. They say—

Now, feeling this, the Council wrote to the Department of External Affairs last year and proposed that for the last season, a subsidy of £1,000,000 should be given to the consumers of maize. Sir, this proposition was made before the maize price to the producer was raised from 15s. to 16s. The rise to 16s., as they pointed out, only strengthens their argument as to the immediate necessity for a subsidy. The letter containing this proposition, to which I have referred, was not dealt with by the Department of External Affairs but was sent on to the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary for Agriculture has simply replied that he does not see how this subsidy, can be put into operation because it would probably mean giving the farmers, when their crop is first sold, a smaller price than they will ultimately get. He says forsooth that he does not see his way clear to agree to the application of this system because the farmers had been very dissatisfied with the price of 16s. per bag, because—

That is what the Secretary for Agriculture replied to the Council’s proposition; that because he, personally, had to go and argue with the farmers to accept 16s. per bag instead of 20s., he felt that the subsidisation scheme to the consumers of maize could not be put into operation. That seems to be an extraordinary answer on a matter of national policy. I cannot understand why this question which is of fundamental importance should be decided on the ground of whether it is easy for the Secretary for Agriculture to administer the thing or not. In any case I find the reply of the Secretary for Agriculture a most extraordinary reply. For the last ten years we have had the most difficult and intricate schemes of subsidising the maize farmers, but when it was a case of subsidising the farmer, no scheme was too difficult or too intricate to administer, but when it comes to subsidising the unfortunate consumer who is already undernourished and whose efficiency is being undermined by his inability to buy enough food, then it cannot be done. I very much want to know what the Prime Minister feels in regard to this situation. The Social and Economic Planning Council was appointed for a special purpose. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister told us last Session what that purpose was, and he challenged our confidence in him and in the Social and Economic Planning Council on the ground that this was an intelligent body of people, to whom he had committed the duty of advising on economic and social policy, and more particularly that their recommendation would get the ear of the Government. This seems to me a recommendation of primary importance, but it has apparently not got anywhere near the ear of the Government. It has got lost in correspondence between the Social and Economic Planning Council and the Secretary for Agriculture. I hope very sincerely that the Prime Minister will intervene in this matter and that he will himself make a decision which I rather gather is the only decision which will override the decision of the Secretary for Agriculture; and I do trust it will be the decision which the Social and Economic Planning Council has recommended. This situation is grave and urgent. Costs are still rising. I rather gather that a higher price will be given to the farmers for maize this year, and if that is so it is an additional reason why this urgent recommendation of the Social and Economic Planning Council should be adopted now and not later.

The debate which we conducted this morning was of a very serious nature. What we want to discuss this afternoon is equally serious but of an internal nature, and I hope that both the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the responsible Minister of Labour will immediately give their attention to this matter. I refer to the matter which was raised here by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). This is not the first time in the history of this House that a warning has been issued from these benches to the Government in connection with this matter. I just want to remind the Prime Minister of the fact that more than a year ago, on a few successive occasions, we warned him in regard to the position which had arisen on the trains. He did as the hon. member who has just sat down advised him to do again, namely, to close his ears to the warning. I told him that the day would arrive when blood would be spilled and that then he would be forced to give his attention to the matter. That day arrived, and when the Laingsburg incident took place, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that the coloured troops had left him in the lurch. Repeated warnings were directed to him in regard to this matter by this side of the House, by the public and by the churches. A warning was sounded against the growing stream of Communism. A warning was issued that there would be a clash in South Africa as the result of the action of the Communists in this country and that that clash would lead to bloodshed. I just want to refer to the deputations who were sent from time to time by the churches. A deputation met the Minister of Justice to explain the attitude of the churches in connection with the question of the colour bar. He did not pay any attention to it, and that clash which we expected has now come about. And what took place in Johannesburg last night was nothing but a clash between the Communists on the one hand and the three Dutch churches on the other hand. It was a clash of powers. I want to warn the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour once again this afternoon that if they do not put a stop to this scandalous propaganda on the part of Communists in South Africa, it will lead to a clash and very serious incidents in South Africa. It was very clearly stated by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) how this matter developed, and our information is—and I say that candidly to the Minister—that while he was there he was asked to intervene. He was on the Rand for fourteen days and he knew of this trouble which was brewing and which culminated yesterday in that bloody clash, and if he did not know of it, he should not be Minister of Labour. He must have known of it; I give him credit for that. We have been informed that he was asked to intervene in this matter and to settle it. Our information is that he said that he did not have the power to do so. That is our information, and now I want to tell the Minister that he has got the power. He has the power under two emergency regulations which exists in this country. He has the power under Emergency Regulation No. 6 of 1941, and he also has the power under Emergency Regulation No. 9 of 1941. I say this for his edification, if his excuse is that he has not got the power.

He can also promulgate new regulations.

He also has the power to promulgate new regulations if under the existing regulations he does not want to avail himself of the power he possesses. But knowing that this trouble was brewing, he allowed it to culminate in that clash which took place yesterday. And now I want to say this very clearly. What is the attitude of the churches in this case? The Minister may say that the church was guilty of interference. It is only right, if the church wants to fulfil its true functions, that it should interfere, and I hope that the Dutch churches will always adopt the attitude that it is their duty to guard over the purity of the Afrikaner European nation. Those Dutch churches of the Rand formed a commission, and it was the duty of that commission to see that the thin end of the wedge was not driven in and that this working together of Europeans and nonEuropeans will not be allowed. They were charged with the duty of keeping a watchful eye over the interests of the Afrikaans daughters who work in those factories. We heard here that a meeting was held in the Johannesburg City Hall—a manipulated meeting, as we understand the reports. The trouble arose in Germiston, but the meeting was held in Johannesburg. The female workers who were directly concerned in the matter were prohibited from attending that meeting. They received notification late that afternoon that they would not be allowed to attend the meeting. The Communists who had no right to be there were admitted. What happened there? An assault was made on the right of the church to state its attitude in connection with the colour bar. That meeting was manipulated by the Communists. That meeting was convened only for the purpose of justifying the insult to Mrs. Nel and Mrs. Moll, because, as good Afrikaner daughters, they refused to work alongside those non-Europeans. What happened in their case was nothing but victimisation on the part of the Communistic section of the Garment Workers’ Union. Those ministers came there in order to explain the attitude of the church in regard to this question, and they were assaulted in a scandalous way. Let me just say this to the hon. Minister this afternoon—let the reasons be what they may—but this assualt on ministers of the Dutch church will have its repercussions in this country, and I want to give him the assurance that if he does not intervene, this will not be the last word as far as this question is concerned. I have said that it is only right that the church should keep a watchful eye over the interests of the Afrikaans daughters who work in those factories. I say that this refusal, this failure on their part to take action, has now given rise to the clash which took place there. Fifteen of our leading ministers of the Dutch churches were insulted in a brutal way; they were assaulted; and I want to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to get up here this afternoon and to give the assurance on behalf of the Government that a stop will be put to those things, and if they are not stopped and that interference on the part of the Communists continues, we shall again have to tell him at a later date what we said on a previous occasion, and then he will have to say again that the coloured people, or in this case the Communists, left him in the lurch. We warned him against this danger and the Government did nothing. A feeling of hatred has arisen which may have further repercussions, and all this is the outcome of his old policy of letting things take their course until there are bloody clashes, and when that happens he will again exonerate himself by saying that this, that or the other party left him in the lurch. We want to protest most strongly against the assault which took place on the ministers of the Dutch church, who went to that meeting to keep a watchful eye over the interests of Europeans who were placed here by the Almighty—those ministers who have a calling to fulfil, and who will fulfil that calling whatever the Communists may have to say.

The trouble has now started. It is becoming all the more serious. I think back to the days of 1941 when, in connection with the Factories Act, we struggled and fought here for separate spheres of work which we thought the European and coloured people should have. I remember that we on this side of the House, and nearly all the members on the other side, were prepared to give the Minister the right, under the Factories Act, to promulgate regulations, where necessary, to set up a dividing line between European and coloured workers. He will remember that all that was said to him by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) was: “I hope you will not interfere in this matter.” They intimidated him and forced him to withdraw the provision which he had made in the Bill. He will remember the trouble which existed at that time. I should like to have a statement from the Government and from the Prime Minister as to what the policy of the Government is in connection with the question of coloureds and natives and Europeans being thrown together in employment. I can give him the assurance that I come into contact very often with English-speaking Afrikaners in this city and in this neighbourhood, and I am convinced that he will not find a single true Afrikaner who is not in favour of separate spheres of employment. Not a single one. This is a difficult problem. When one raises this question it is thought that it is done with a view to making political capital out of it. As far as I personally am concerned, I feel that it is a much bigger problem than it appears to be. It is not a question of interfering with trade unions, or of making regulations in connection with separate spheres of employment. It is not only that. This is a state of affairs which we find particularly in the Cape Province. It is realised, of course, that the Prime Minister experiences difficulty, because the coloured people are entitled to vote, and because he would not like to lose their votes. But ask any person who comes from the platteland, or from the North, what his views are in regard to the position in the Cape. I am even surprised that people still come down on holiday to the Cape with its lovely beaches and beautiful surroundings, when one sees how the different sections live together and work together. I ask any hon. member on the other side who has a son or a daughter, whether he would like to see his son or daughter working in a factory or workshop alongside a kaffir or coloured person. Will he like it? Not one of them would like it. Now I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and ask him whether it is not possible for him to approach the Leader of the Opposition and discuss this matter with him. As far as I am concerned it is not a question of politics. I should like my people and my decendants to remain European. I do not want a hybrid race in our country if I can help it. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do what is taking place today. This position in the Cape is beginning to extend even as far as Paarl, and later on it will go further. A state of affairs is coming into being where one cannot call anything one’s own. It seems to me that these people want to be Europeans. There was an opinion at one time that the coloured people would inter-marry to such an extent that later on they would become Europeans. But with the penetration of natives into the towns that is out of the question. Take a district like Robertson, where I live. Ten years ago there were not more than 100 natives and today there are 1,500. They are beginning to marry coloured women and are producing hybrid children, and the problem is becoming all the more serious. It is time that we realise, apart from political advantage, what is taking place and that it is our duty to face these facts. A stop must be put to this state of affairs, and I make an appeal to the Prime Minister, apart from the question of politics, to discuss this matter with the Leader of the Opposition so that some sort of plan can be decided upon. It is not a question of not wanting to give these people their rights. We do not want to take anything away from them. God knows that I do not want them to suffer or not to have the same privileges as the Europeans, but we must clearly understand what the position is. I want to warn the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. He is much older than I am. But I want to say this, that the Prime Minister may think that these people will vote for him, but they are going to become Communists and will not vote for his party. They will put up their own candidates, and we shall bring into being a hybrid generation. If we do not put a stop to this living together, and this working together in the factories. I am serious about this matter. If this problem is solved, there is still hope for the future. It is no use saying that we are going to build houses for the coloured people. The coloured people will simply refuse to live there. They want to live amongst the Europeans. One need only go along the coast as far as Fish Hoek and Kalk Bay. A few months ago I was there during the afternoon, and I think there were 15,000 coloured people there—and there is not place for one. There are no facilities for them, no sanitary facilities, and they packed the streets from Muizenberg to Fish Hoek. The people are beginning to feel ill at ease and dissatisfied. It is not, as has so frequently been said in the past, a matter of the Afrikaans-speaking people wanting to make slaves of them, or treating them like slaves. One still hears that kind of story, but these people are now beginning to demand things which were never dreamed of in the past. Twenty or thirty years ago when I worked in the Cape, one did not find the scenes which one sees nowadays. People are beginning to ask who is going to restore the colour bar? If we wait for another twenty or thirty years there may not be an opportunity to draw the dividing line. Look what happened in Johannesburg. There you have a man like Solly Sacks, head of the Garment Workers’ Union. He is a well-known Communist; and this trade union discharged two innocent women from their union, and they now have to face the prospect of starvation. They were in the service of the owner for years, and he says that they were good workers, that he had no complaint. Their only sin is that they are not communists. They do not want to work alongside kaffirs and coloured persons. For that reason they were dismissed from the trade union, and they were insulted. I received my information from people who investigated the matter. They went to their church for protection, and the Synod took the lead and appointed a special committee, people of standing and position in the community, and because they, too, would like to see the European civilisation maintained in our country, they made investigations, and the only reason for the discharge of these people was that they were not communists, that they did not want to see the dividing line between black and white withdrawn. I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour should be afraid of these people. He shares my views. He knows as well as I do that coloured people and the Europeans ought to have separate spheres of employment, and he embodied that in the Bill which he framed at that time. Nor would he like to see his daughter working alongside a native. His daughter may be in a position to take care of herself. But what about the hon. Minister’s grandchildren, or my grandchildren? Perhaps they will be unfortunate enough to have to seek employment in a factory. When one finds these conditions in the factories, one cannot blame these girls for becoming communists. They have to struggle to make a living at a small wage; they have to be assisted by these people, and the result has been, as I must admit, that some of our Afrikaans-speaking people are now becoming leaders amongst the communists, and they are going out of their way to associate with kaffirs and coloured persons.

I should like to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to one thing only. In 1921 or 1922 there were also disturbances on the Rand, more or less in connection with the same principle, namely, the colour question. You will remember that a rebellion practically arose and that the Prime Minister had to go to the Rand post haste to settle things. This matter is more or less on the same lines, except that women are now involved and not men. At that time the mineworkers were involved; today it is the female garment workers. We should like to ask the Minister to guard against a repetition of the same thing. It will not be in the interests of the Prime Minister’s Party. In 1924, shortly after the occurrences at that time, the Nationalist Party came into power. If the Prime Minister allows this thing to develop, it will not do him any good. I just want to make a second point. That instigator, Solly Sachs, has already been deported by a South African Government on a previous occasion. We should not like to have a repetiton of these disturbances. The Government interned many persons who did not do anything as serious as this, and something should be done to bring this man to his senses. He is inciting the coloured people against the Europeans, and I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not to delay. Last year we had statement from a Cabinet Minister to which I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention. The Minister of Public Health made a speech at the Wanderers and said that he welcomed the idea of the children of Europeans and children of nonEuropeans meeting on the same footing at sports gatherings. He said that is was the first time that such a meeting of organisations and clubs had taken place, without colour, racial or religious distinction. When such statements are made by Cabinet Ministers, the situation becomes critical. It is in conflict with our convictions, and the result is that it gives rise to a feeling on the part of parents that it is perfectly in order for coloureds and Europeans to mix. It is undesirable for a Cabinet Minister at this stage to make such statements, and I should like the Prime Minister to issue a warning in this connection. I want to associate myself, therefore, with the remarks of hon. members who have spoken before me. We who come from the Transvaal are deeply disturbed at the conditions in the Cape, and we should not like to have the same conditions in the Transvaal.

The fact that the Opposition interrupted its discussion on foreign affairs under the vote of the Prime Minister in order to raise this matter, shows how seriously we look upon it, and it is in that spirit of seriousness that we bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. I want to point out to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that last year we had a discussion here as a result of the motion which we introduced in connection with Communism in South Africa. I do not know whether the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was here, but in any event I can tell him that on that occasion evidence was adduced to show that it was part of the Communistic policy in other countries and also in South Africa to obtain control of the trade unions. That is what happened in connection with this particular trade union, the Garment Workers’ Union. They also obtained control over the Distributive Workers’ Union. Under the leadership of the well-known Communist, Solly Sachs they succeeded in obtaining control over the Garment Workers’ Union, and now they are applying their Communistic principles. In the second place, we availed ourselves of the opportunity to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and of his Government to a particular principle which the Communists advocate, namely, that there should be no distinction between Europeans and coloureds. I furnished the necessary documentary evidence in this House. I quoted from the instructions of the Communist Party itself in order to show what is happening in South Africa, and I pointed out that advertisements have appeared, for example, in regard to dance parties where it was specially adver · tised that there would be no colour bar. All these things were brought to the notice of the Prime Minister at the time, and on the occasion of another debate the Prime Minister referred to the debate in regard to Communism, and he said that members on this side were seeing ghosts. With all due respect I want to tell the Prime Minister that proof has now been furnished that we are not seeing ghosts, but that we are dealing with realities. He now has proof as to the practical effect of Communistic propaganda in South Africa. The facts in regard to this incident have already been mentioned by other speakers, and I do not want to add anything to that. I want to say a few words, however, in connection with the criticisms which were levelled against the ministers of religion who were concerned with this matter. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that instead of going to a political party and seeking assistance there, these girls approached the Church and sought help from their ministers. If they had not done so we would immediately have been told that the Nationalist Party was interfering in the matter and that political capital was being made out of this case. In view of the importance of this matter we interrupted the debate on foreign affairs in order to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to what was taking place. It may be a small flame at the moment, but it may develop into a huge blaze, and I hope in the circumstances that we shall get a statement from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. I hope the Prime Minister will not simply leave it to the Minister of Labour to reply, but that he will personally realise the seriousnèss of the position and take part in this debate, that he will tell us what his feelings are in regard to this matter and what his Government is prepared to do. We do not want to resort to threats, but we must point out that if this matter is allowed to develop, it will lead to trouble in this country. On previous occasions we warned the Prime Minister against impending dangers. We are doing so again today in all seriousness. The Prime Minister will admit that this debate was conducted on a serious note, and that we pointed out to him in all seriousness, the dangers which are coming into being, and the recent incident in Johannesburg is one of the forerunners. I hope the Prime Minister will indicate that he realises the seriousness of the position, and that he will rise and say what his policy is.

Before I sat down I was telling the House what had happened in connection with a similar meeting in Johannesburg. I described how the matter developed and what took place at this meeting. Before I go any further I should like to remove a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) stated that she hoped that the Government would not take too much notice of our attack on trade unions. I want to say for the umpteenth time that we, as a party, are not opposed to trade unions as such. We admit that every organised group of workers should have a trade union in order to protect their interests, but in this case we say that the trade union fell into the wrong hands, into the hands of the Communists. We are opposed to Communists, but we are not against trade unions as such. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and tell him that the country is perturbed about this matter. Things cannot go in in this way. We on this side of the House ask that the Government, if possible, should announce its policy today. What is it going to do in connection with this matter? Is it going to take action? The news which has reached us is to the effect that a series of meetings will now be held on the Witwatersrand in order to protect the interests of European workers. There may be further trouble if the Government does not taken action. The European workers must be protected. That should be done in the interests of everyone of us, and I know that many members on the other side share my views. I have spoken to some of them on previous occasions in connection with these matters. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to say clearly this afternoon what the Government proposes to do and what its policy is in this connection.

I should just like to have the attention of the Prime Minister for a moment. We decided to have no further discussion in connection with this very urgent matter, and there is still sufficient time for the Prime Minister to reply. As has been shown, serious trouble has arisen in the past, and blood has flowed because he allowed matters to take their course. He was warned and he took no action. The 1922 incidents started on a small scale, but ended on a large scale, and their repercussions are still evident today. A similar difficulty has now arisen. It starts on a small scale, but can assume great proportions. We would like to give the Prime Minister the fullest opportunity to reply to this matter. I make an appeal to him, because the Minister of Labour has already gone into this matter and, so we understand, has said that he is not going to do anything. We would now like to hear whether the Prime Minister is going to take action in this matter. Will he tell us what the Government proposes to do?

Mr. Chairman, a good deal of the criticism of this afternoon is based upon an absolute absence of knowledge of the facts.

Oh yes?

A mountain has been made out of a molehill. We have had forceful public meetings in this country before. I well remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was fighting an election and just as a mere coincidence one of my opponents was a Nationalist; I was assaulted with eggs, tomatoes and a bicycle chain, a very forcible demonstration of a lack of confidence on the part of that section of the community, at all events, in myself. It is nothing new for us to have forceful public meetings.

Surely you are encouraging this kind of thing.

No, Sir.

You take it very lightly.

No, no, I say that you people are exaggerating.

There you are, levity, for which you are noted. You don’t take anything seriously; levity, that is all we ever get from you.

The talking marionette.

Levity, levity, that is all.

Levity is all you deserve.

That is all you give us.

This is not levity, this is the report of the police.

Yes, give us that.

Why don’t you be quiet. If the hon. member’s intervention was of any value, I would sit down and allow him to continue it. Now, this is a description by the police of this meeting—

Nothing unusual—

They carried the police out.

No, the police are going to tell you what they did, if my hon. friend will keep quiet. He is putting into the position what is not there, he is building up a castle of straw and coming along to kick it down—

Nothing about the police being turned out—

So my hon. friends had better be careful how they intervene in this matter.

Levity again.

“Levity again,” says the hon. gentleman for Beaufort West. The police stopped this and quietened the disturbance. One woman, Sir, who interfered with the police in their efforts, was taken to Marshall Square, her name and address were obtained and she was allowed to go. Some clergymen sought to obtain admission to the hall early in the proceedings, but this was denied them. The trouble arose partly out of the recent “sit down” strike. Now, Sir, once again we have had this bogy of Communism raised. I have asked this question before in almost similar circumstances when charges of Communism have been made. I have asked the question of hon. members on that side and particularly the Leader of the Opposition. I have asked them to tell us what Communism is. It is only necessary for somebody to oppose the Nationalist Party and he is at once a Communist. In France, in Czechoslovakia, in Greece and almost everywhere where they have military authority, thousands of people are being murdered by people who charge them with Communism simply because they resist aggressive tactics.

Why don’t you ask your Prime Minister? He admitted that there was Communism in the country.

Of course there is Communism in the country. I know what it is! Do you? I asked for a definition. I want a definition from the hon. member whether the hon. member for Piketberg was a Communist when he was preaching Socialism to the students of Graaff-Reinet or Grahamstown. Was he a Communist because he preached Socialism? I have been accused of being a Communist although I am one of the biggest opponents of Communism. I have put a definite question, but not one of the hon. members over there who always talk so much about Communism can tell me what a Communist is. Hon. members have never told me yet what they think a Communist is. They have thrown it across the floor of the House at us, that we are playing into the hands of the Communists, they have told us that certain people are Communists, but they have never told us what it is.

Communist is a political swear word.

My reading of their objection is that anyone who is opposed to them is a Communist. Now what is this Garment Workers’ Union? There are 8,000 Afrikaans girls members of the Union. Are you accusing these 8,000 girls of being Communists?

You are trying to force them.

Now I did not interrupt the hon. member and I do not think he should interrupt me.

Your trouble is that you do not understand what we say.

Oh, yes, I did—I had one of the finest interpreters in the House. Are you accusing him ….

The Hon. the Minister should address the Chair.

May I, with all respect, through you, Mr. Chairman, interrogate them on this question? Are they prepared to associate themselves with the accusation that these 8,000 Afrikaans girls of the Garment Workers’ Union are Communists?

The control is in Communist hands.

I am not going to enter into the merits or de-merits of Communism. I am informed that the membership roll of the Garment Workers’ Union is 8,000—all Afrikaans girls.

Do you read your paper?

Is the hon. member prepared to say that these 8,000 girls are Communist?

I said that the Communists have the control.

Because it is the Afrikaans girls who expelled these two women.

The Communists control the whole business.

And they have a Solly Sachs too.

He was not anywhere near—he was in Cape Town.

He was not such a fool as to be there. He knows what to do in a case like that.

Now, just one moment. I don’t think my hon. friend would accuse Solly Sachs of being afraid of a situation. He certainly is not one of my greatest friends—rather the opposite—but he is more plucky than some people. He would be prepared to face the issue even physically. I am not defending Solly Sachs, I am only saying he was not on the job.

You are defending him.

Oh, no, I am much more used to attacking than defending him.

Well, he is a Communist.

All of them have good positions in the Garment Workers’ Union—all the Communists have.

Again I ask : What is a Communist? Now let me say this, in the last General Election, and in the Municipal Elections these people whom hon. members are referring to opposed the Communists, and the Communists opposed them. Neither got in. The country was very sensible.

We saw to that.

The country was almost as sensible in rejecting them as it was in rejecting the Nationalist Party. But the fact remains that these people opposed the Communist Party themselves and every candidate put up by the Communist Party. The Socialist Party, of which Solly Sachs was the head, the front and almost the whole body, opposed the Communist Party.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but his time has expired.

I was under the impression that I was allowed to speak longer than ten minutes as a Minister.

No, only the Minister in charge of the Vote.

The Minister of Labour spoke for ten minutes without replying in any way to the question which we put. He said only one thing for ten minutes. He floundered in a vortex of words and said the same thing over and over again, and laughed at his own jokes. He must not think that he can avoid the issue by doing that. He will hear a great deal more about this matter, and the Prime Minister will also come in for his share. I just want to say very clearly that the Minister of Labour tried to play the role of Harlequin by saying that this, that or the other person did not know what a Communist was. He told us that he did not know what a Communist was, unless it is someone who is against the Nationalist Party. But immediately thereafter he said that he did know what Communism was, because they stood in the place where the Nationalist Party did not stand. In this way he contradicted himself from beginning to end. One moment he knows a certain thing and the next moment he does not know it—and so he went on. The Minister tried to avoid the issue by adopting a frivolous attitude. Does he deny that that action was a serious action; and why does he attempt to run away from it in such a light-hearted manner? He referred to someone who lost his trousers. Is he afraid to interfere in this matter for fear that he may also lose his trousers? I do not want to say that he is a coward, but he is afraid that he will lose his trousers. We started to deal with this matter in a sober way, and we tried to discuss this serious matter in a serious manner. The Minister then came along and tried to dispose of it in a frivolous way, which, to say the least of it, is no credit to his position. We directed our questions to the Prime Minister and asked him to reply, knowing that the Minister of Labour would waste ten minutes without telling us anything. I just want to tell the Minister that he will have time until next week to think out something aboüt this matter. If he cannot do so himself, he can exploit all the other channels, and we hope that when he comes to this House on Monday, he will cut a better figure, a figure which at least becomes the position which he occupies.

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 20th March.