May I crave the indulgence of the House to draw attention to a matter of urgent public importance. It has reference to the grave defects of the press gallery of this House in this time of reconstruction—

The hon. member should make representations to myself and see me.

I will do so, Mr. Speaker.

May I ask to make it Wednesday?

May I say that this Bill has been published in the Gazette, so that hon. members have had an opportunity of seeing it. The Bill is not a very long one, and I hope the House will consent to taking it on Monday.

I know the Bill is not much, but the debate is of importance, and it is a difficult matter for all hon. members to make their arrangements to be here on Monday. That is the point I want to make.

Second reading on 6th February.

May we know something about it? Is it long winded? We have two Bills, and will the Minister give us ample time?

If there is any difficulty on Monday, we will not take it.

I move—

seconded.

It is absurd. Wednesday week is quite time enough. You must remember that we have to read it up again, and there are other things as well.

House to go into Committee on 4th February.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

I thought it desirable to submit this treaty to the House so that every member should have the opportunity, it he wished, to express his views on it. In my opinion it deals with a subject of such general interest and great importance that hon. Members will gladly take this opportunity of speaking on it. It is not, therefore, so much in order to obtain the confirmation of the House as to give it an opportunity of expressing its views, that I have introduced this motion today. Of course, this does not detract from the right of the House if it thinks fit to express disapproval of it with the consequences—whatever they may be—attached to the disapproval of the treaty. I only say this to make it clear that we have now come to the commencement if I may say so of our international diplomatic action as the Union of South Africa, and I should not like—and I do not think any hon. member of this House would like—to take a wrong line even with regard to matters of this nature. The other reasons why I am saying this to-day are that I consider it not simply a matter for the Government to enter into a treaty of this kind and to ask the confirmation of his Majesty the King, and that we should not lightly depart from a principle which is only now generally accepted, to wit, to bring such treaties before the representatives of the people. I wish merely to add that the Government have not hitherto asked his Majesty the King to confirm the treaty. I thought that, as I intended to bring it up for discussion in the House, it would be better to wait until such time as the House had given its approval to it. Meanwhile, I may say that there are various reasons that make it desirable to deal with the treaty speedily, and so enable the Government to ask as soon as possible for the approval of his Majesty. I therefore hope that we shall be able to dispose of the matter this afternoon. As for the treaty itself, I believe that there is hardly a single person in the House who does not agree with me that the best and the most important, I might almost say the only great insult, which has been obtained for humanity by the world war of some years ago, is that everyone, from the humblest citizen to the highest official in the states in all parts of the world, has come to the realisation of the uselessness and the futility of war as a means of solving differences between nations. What arises from that, and what I must say I welcome above everything, is that mankind has come to the conclusion that war for the settlement of disputes can be abolished. Deep down in their souls they are convinced that war is an immoral way of securing peace between states. In my opinion peace in the future can only be guaranteed when there is not only a League of Nations with a League of Nations’ covenant, but when every responsible and even every irresponsible person, in any country in the world, is convinced that war as such is morally culpable. I do not doubt that this is the chief result of the last war, and that— however we may deplore the war it is nevertheless a comfort that that great result has been attained. In consequence of that-conviction, a League of Nations was created in 1919, with a covenant. I think I am on the side of the large majority when I say that we feel that the League of Nations and its covenant are a very inadequate means for attaining the great objective of future world peace. Of itself the league would only have done it for a number of years, because the idea of a League of Nations did not in the first instance proceed from a moral reprobation of war as such. Its object was, as a matter of fact, to prevent it as much as possible, but also to allow it to operate as a necessary means. It would, therefore, only have been effective for a certain time, and as soon as the interests of one or other people demanded something else, the stated object would not be attained. The past, up to now, has shown that this is actually so. Therefore I have always felt that if there was really to be something which would last, so far as the maintenance of world peace was concerned, we should first have to come to an appreciation of the moral wrong and to the disapproval of war as such. That was the feeling that led to the movement for the Kellogg treaty, which was started for the abolition of war. The contracting parties say in the treaty that they disapprove of peoples seeking to promote national interests by recourse to war. Then the treaty goes further and says that disapproval and condemnation are expressed against the solution of any international dispute by means of war. It goes still further and rejects the solution of national conflicts by attempts at war, and finally the parties say—

The result of that is that it is a strong moral condemnation of war as such which is here stated in the treaty by the contracting parties, and all the contracting parties say—

In my opinion it is a necessary complement to the League of Nations’ idea to make of the league an instrument for the maintenance of world peace in the same way as peace is maintained between private individuals in the different states. The peoples of the world bind themselves by this treaty to a great international State system—except that the breach thereof is not prevented by any threat or sanction. Here there is only one sanction, namely, that of a clear conscience. If a nation does not keep that, and if it contravenes the treaty, then it stands outside the circle of nations, and the contracting nations no longer have anything to do with it. In other words, it is virtually banished from amongst the nations, and lies under the moral reprobation of other countries.

seconded.

I should like first to say a few words about the preliminary point which has been made by the Prime Minister with regard to approval of this treaty. I may say at once that I am in agreement on the constitutional question that the Crown is the treaty-making power of our constitution, that treaties are made by the executive authority, and in the last resort, are not dependent upon the approval of the representatives of the people outside the executive authority for their force. That is the constitutional position; but, of course, it has been felt that that position is not in harmony with the rights of the people, popular rights and democratic self-government as it has developed in more recent times. The result has been that in spite of this strict constitutional position under which the making of a treaty is the prerogative of the Crown, it has become customary to submit all treaties to the legislature for approval.

They come back again.

I think the Prime Minister is wrong. I think that treaties are submitted to the legislature in England for approval, and it has been our practice here in South Africa with regard to treaties to submit them to the approval of Parliament. That has been the practice, and I am sure that whatever the constitutional position may be, we shall stick to that general practice which has been followed regularly—that treaties made by the executive authority shall not have any force until they are submitted to Parliament. That has been our invariable practice; I do not remember since Union that we have departed from that in any single case, every treaty having been submitted to the two Houses of Parliament for their approval. If that were not the position, it would certainly be a great derogation from the rights of the people and the democratic institutions under which we live. Let me now say a few words about the treaty which all sides of the House most heartily welcome. I do not think there has been any international instrument for generations to which there has been such a measure of consent and in regard to which there has been such unanimity as there is in regard to this peace pact. Practically all the organized governments of the world have already adhered to it, and not only the small number of nations which were the original signatories; but subsequently I believe that, with a few exceptions, practically every civilized government has become an adherent to this peace pact. The few exceptions are South American states—two or three—who are afraid of the attitude of the United States Senate, and who think some reservation might be made by that Senate with reference to the Monroe doctrine in regard to which they feel nervous and cautious, and they do not mean to commit themselves before they see what form of approval is going to be given to the treaty by the Senate of the United States. If no difficulty is raised in the United States Senate, I am sure these few states will join, and you will have a treaty approved of by the unanimous verdict of civilized mankind. Russia has adhered to it, and so too. I believe, has every other state in Europe and Asia. It is undoubtedly a sign of the times that we should have a treaty like this, and it shows the tremendous change which has come over the international atmosphere and the attitude of the peoples of the world with reference to questions of war and peace. It would have been unthinkable before the great war that the nations of the world would practically unanimously make a declaration like this—

The recourse to war has been the foundation of international policy ever since the dawn of time. Ever since the organization of mankind into nations you have had recourse to war as the most potent instrument of national policy. But this solemn declaration in the face of the world registers the enormous progress that has been made. There has, however, been some very considerable doubt as to the effect of this treaty—that doubt is very widespread. The other day the Prime Minister of Italy said the treaty was a transcendental instrument, but he added sarcastically that the nation that proposed it was now trying to increase its navy by all means. There is thus an element of doubt as to the real effect and the real scope of the treaty. That doubt arises from various circumstances. On the face of it the treaty is perfectly clear and unconditional—it purports to be an absolute and final renunciation of war as an instrument of policy. It seems to be unconditional, absolute, and, therefore, final, but there are doubts as to its real scope and meaning, and these doubts arose to some extent from the correspondence which preceded the conclusion of the agreement. A reservation has been made, not in the treaty itself, but yet an informal reservation of a very far-reaching character. Mr. Kellogg said that to his mind the right of self-defence remained unimpaired—that a nation, in spite of signing this treaty, would retain unimpaired its right to go to war in self-defence, and that war was not to be condemned as an instrument of policy, where that policy was a matter of national defence. That declaration was accepted by both Great Britain and France in the answers they made. There is thus a tacit reservation behind the treaty that in case of self-defence a nation does not renounce the right of war, and may still continue to have recourse to this policy which this treaty condemns publicly. That makes a very serious inroad into the treaty. I do not remember any war in recent times in which both belligerents have not claimed to act in self-defence. In the Great War every belligerent purported to act under extreme necessity and in self-defence, and it has been so from the beginning of time. A nation never likes to confess that it is the aggressor or to flagrantly break the peace. It always claims to act in self-defence. There is, in consequence of this reservation in the correspondence, a very serious doubt as to what the effect of this Clause 1 will be, and the effect of the treaty as a whole. Before Mr. Kellogg made his speech, before the powers replied, it was plain sailing, and Clause 1 was what it purports to be, an out-and-out condemnation of war and a renunciation of it. No nation in honour and conscience, On Article 1 as it stands; can go to war in the future. But there is in the background this reservation in the correspondence and in the declaration of the American Secretary for State, and that has helped to create confusion and to diminish very seriously the effect of this treaty. There is another doubt which arises, and which is very widely felt in the world, and that arises from the state of the disarmament question. Hon. members are aware that international disarmament is provided for in one of the clauses of the covenant. The covenant provided that immediately after the coming into force of the league a commission should meet and should enquire into the question of disarmament, and that the nations should disarm completely, except to the extent that national defence might require. Ever since the first meeting of the League at Geneva there have been meetings of this commission and efforts made by one government after the other in order to further the cause of disarmament, but no progress has been made. The question of disarmament is very much where it was so far as the league is concerned. The only advance that has been made is in regard to naval defence, which was dealt with partially by the Washington Conference of 1921. That conference dealt entirely with big ships of war from 10,000 tons upwards, and it left alone the question of smaller ships; it left alone the question of submarines, and it left air defence and land defence entirely unaffected. Therefore, the only measure of partial disarmament we have had was in connection with this conference at Washington, and that has been very limited in scope indeed. No progress has been made in other respects. As Signor Mussolini has pointed out, America, whilst putting forward this grandiose scheme of world peace, at the same time was working very hard in order to increase her naval power. It is not only America that has done that. I do not single America out for mention in this connection. It is what other nations have done. They are most unwilling to diminish their naval or their land forces. The contention of France has always been that reserves should not count in the estimate of armed forces, that it should be the navy and the active army that should count as the defence force, and that should be limited if there is to be this disarmament; that reserves should fall outside the purview of such limitation. At one stage the Government of Great Britain was prepared to agree with this, but the world appreciates that if reserves are excluded from the purview of armed forces, then a nation like France, which has a conscript army, and an annual turnover of soldiers to the reserves, would, in the end, build an enormous army which could not be dealt with. The reserves are just as useful in war time as the actual army; in fact, we know at the beginning of the Great War the reserves, certainly both of Germany and of France, were integrally used in the active armies from the very beginning. The armies that marched to the frontier in 1914 consisted not only of active forces, but also of their reserves. It is, therefore, clear that reserves are a portion of the real defence force of a nation, and it is a matter of extreme regret that there should be this insistence that reserves should not be made to count. I have mentioned this matter simply to show how tenaciously the great powers are still fighting against disarmament. They are holding on to their great armies, and, as a matter of fact, we know from the actual figures that on the Continent of Europe, if Germany were excluded, the state of armament is just as formidable, if not more so, as it was in 1914, Naturally, the public ask themselves what does it mean? What is the value to be put on a declaration like this, renouncing war, when governments have so little faith in peace that they keep armed to the teeth, they bleed the nations white, and they bring their young manhood in millions into their armies—for what purpose, if war is finally renounced as an instrument of national policy? That is what raises doubt, and even the question of sinserity, in these matters. There is another matter which makes people doubtful and even suspicious about this treaty. This treaty does not constitute any machinery, or any organization for maintaining world peace. It consists simply of a bare declaration. It simply declares that the nations, in their honour no doubt, renounce war as an instrument of national policy and bind themselves to have recourse to peaceful means of settlement. But the declaration stands alone. There is no penalty arranged, there is no sanction provided, there is no method by which this peace can be organized. It simply remains a vague declaration, a pious hope or wish, so to say, and hon. members can understand that in a world such as we know, in a world of force and violence in which we grew up, a declaration, however grandiose, however wonderful in its conception, a mere declaration unsupported by further force or backing, does not carry conviction, and people are thus in doubt about the real effect of this treaty. In this respect I think the Covenant of the League of Nations is an instrument—although very much more limited in scope—of real practical value. The covenant did not go in for large declarations; it did not condemn war in general terms; it did not lay down far-reaching doctrines which it might be beyond the power of mankind to put into practice. It limited itself to practical issues. It knew it could not prevent war, perhaps, but it might do its best to make it difficult for war to arise. It might lay down time limits; it might say no nation shall go to war within nine months, as in effect the covenant lays down that there shall be deliberations, consultations, arbitrations and conciliation, and there shall be time limits, the effect of which will be that at least nine months must elapse after the dispute arises before the parties can have recourse to war. That, to my mind, was a practical measure, and it seemed to me ten years ago that was the utmost limit to which we could go. If we had gone further, we would have been following a mirage, and we would not have effected anything whatever. The League of Nations was established on that basis, and it laid down definite methods. It laid down that a determined aggressor, who was in conflict with the recommendations of the league, could be dealt with by the boycott under Section 16, and that the economic relations with such an aggressor would be severed and he would be isolated. It seemed to me a perfectly sound and practical policy then, but it has become harder to carry out. I hope in future if in actual practice an occasion should arise, it will prove a practical policy. A doubt has arisen about the practicability of this boycott. That is due to the abstention of the United States from the league. Ten years ago, when Mr. Wilson made this proposal in Paris, nobody dreamt that the initiator, the originator, the father of this great instrument, would stand back. It was thought that America was pooling her resources with the rest and going into this economic boycott, and it was not dreamt that America, the greatest economic power in the world, would stand aside. The refusal of America has opened up that possibility—that there may be a war in the future and the league may declare one party the aggressor, and subject that deliberate warmaker to economic boycott, and that then America, with her immense economic position in the world, would say: “I am not going to be bound by this at all. I am not a member of the league, and not a party to the dispute, and I want to carry on my commercial relations with the country you propose to boycott.” Supposing any European country were deliberately to go to war and flout the decision of the league, if America continued to support that nation economically and to carry on trade with her and supply her with all she wanted under the rules of neutrality, it would be practically impossible for the other powers of the league to carry on that boycott. Now, to my mind, the value of this instrument before us to-day is two-fold. In the first place, it registers a moral advance. It shows that the level has risen and that people are no longer where they were fifteen years ago when the great war broke out, and that, although in the new world we see armies and navies about ns and the appurtenances of the old world continue, something new has been born—a new principle, a new attitude to war has been born. It is weak, but it is there, and it comes as a new dawn. That is the first and the greatest value to attach to that document which has been signed by all the great powers and by almost all the small powers of the world. Anew atmosphere of peace has arisen, largely as the result of the conflict of mankind during the great war. There is a second point, and perhaps that point may also in years to come prove the value of this instrument which comes from America. The people of America feel that it is not sufficient for them to stand ostentatiously aloof from the old world and to say that she has no interest and disinterests herself in the old world. America feels that it is not enough for her merely to adopt this negative attitude, and that she cannot be satisfied with staying out of the league and leaving the rest of the world alone. She feels that she must do something positive. The conscience of her great peace-loving people asks for something constructive to be made, and this underlies this Kellogg proposal. It is a tremendous aspiration of the people of America to do their bit and to say that although they cannot agree with the league and are not a member of it, yet they are prepared to join hands with the great peaceful forces of mankind. My hope is that America, having initiated this great movement, which in ideal and conception goes beyond the league, if a real crisis arises, will act up to it. Europe is the centre of possible world conflict in the future, and if in Europe or in Asia a great conflict should arise again and the league should step in in the interests of mankind, and render a decision which declares one party to be the aggressor, in such a case America, which has initiated the Kellogg proposal, will feel it impossible herself to remain aloof from the application of Section 16. It seems to me that this proposal—this peace pact—opens the door by which it becomes possible for America to join hands with the rest of the world to maintain peace, where it is clearly indicated that one party is in the wrong and has been declared to be in the wrong by the league. In this way this treaty may become of real force and efficacy in the world. I cannot conceive America standing aside in any great conflict of the future, just as she was unable to stand aside in the great war. This treaty—her own work—may help her to collaborate and cooperate with the rest of mankind for the maintenance of world peace. We in this country who are profoundly interested in the world’s peace and in the development of our assets and the prosperity of this great continent, must whole-heartedly join in this, and we hope the peace pact will not remain a mere form, but become a great instrument of peace policy for the world.

I should like to add a few words to what my right hon. friend has just said. There is a point to which I would like to refer. I understood the hon. the Prime Minister in reply to my right hon. friend to say that there was no necessity for this treaty to receive the ratification of this House. Three treaties have recently been made. In the first, the treaty with the Portuguese, under discussion it provided merely that it shall be ratified by the contracting parties. Then we have the German Treaty, in which it is provided that it shall be ratified by the competent legislative authority. In that regard, therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the procedure is. In fact, the Act of Union lays it down that the legislature of this country is the competent legislative authority. In this particular treaty now before us it is stated that it shall be ratified according to the respective constitutional requirements of the contracting parties, and I would therefore like to know from the Prime Minister whether he accepts the position that such constitutional requirements prescribe that this treaty shall be dealt with by this House of Parliament. I think, having regard to what has been said by my right hon. friend, the member for Standerton, it would be as well if the Prime Minister would tell us in the course of his reply what are the constitutional requirements.

While I was listening to the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), I could not but be struck by the number of contradictory statements he made. He started off by telling us that this treaty was one of the greatest instruments for the good of the world, and then he told us that there was a lot of doubt about it. Perhaps from the point of view of this House there is only one matter arising out of this pact which affects this House, and that is the fact that the Union, as a member of the commonwealth of nations, is one of the signatories. I fail to see anything in this pact which is of any practical value. There have been great hopes on previous occasions. In 1905 we had the great world peace conference, and we know what the result of that was. Then on a later occasion, in 1914, the present Minister of Defence went on his way to the great international Socialist congress at Stuttgart to put an end to war, but landed in the German South-West campaign. And so we have this sort of thing going on from time to time. As far as I am concerned I honestly think that we are at the present time nearer war than we have been for some time past. When kings and rulers start talking about peace, then you may be sure that you are on the verge of war. Anyone who has followed the world’s economic development must realise that at the present time greater hostility exists between nations than has been the case for some time past. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) admitted that behind this pact there are certain reservations. I should like to refer to these reservations and also to what has been stated by Senator Borah, speaking in defence of the Kellogg Pact in the American Senate, where he admitted that “each adherent remains free to determine the degree of good faith which it will attach to the treaty.” He also stated that the treaty abdicates no national right to determine what constitutes self-defence, and that each nation would be its own judge as to whether it would go to w.ar or not; it would not be left to the League of Nations, but would be left to the nation concerned. Once you have these two reservations there is really no value in submitting this pact and getting the acquiescence of this House, except that it is a very florid document with all sorts of nice phrases. You have a series of points, in it. The signatories start off by speaking of a solemn duty, and they go on to say that the time has come for the denunciation of war, and then ultimately they are hopeful—that is what the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was—and then they decide to sign this treaty which, according to the right hon. gentleman, is simply a pious hope. I want to draw attention to two other points to show how-futile, how dishonest, one might almost say this pact is. One is a statement that was made by Mr. Winston Churchill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, who, after the Geneva Naval Conference, declared—

The right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that nations reserve to themselves the right to build armaments to their hearts’ content, and hon. members have probably read a book which has been published in America, and which has put forward in no uncertain words the economic point of view and policy of the people of America at the present time. I refer to the book, “We Fight for Oil”, by Ludwell Denny—

That is the position to-day. The question whether you are going to have peace or war depends upon an economic struggle that is going on between various nations at the present time. Germany, it is generally admitted, was forced into war to a certain extent by reason of her economic requirements. She wanted to capture markets. She was developing economically, and found that certain markets were closed to her. Ultimately those who were in control of her economic destiny—not so much the Kaiser as the economic masters of Germany—forced Germany into war. Germany is again reviving economically, and beginning to look for markets overseas, firstly in the interests of her own people, and secondly, in the furtherance of those interests, to exclude other people. We shall have an example of that before this House in the course of a day or two. There are other economic factors, the fact that America is beginning to dominate economically practically the whole of Europe is something which has brought about a state of friction between the nations. If the Governments really desire to secure peace, the two preliminary requisites for securing such peace are, first of all, not a peace pact, but an economic pact under which the states can decide to what extent in one section of industry one nation will develop, and to what extent another nation in another section. Failing an economic pact, I believe that possibly an international trust may be developed, and I believe that an international trust will do much more towards preventing war than these pious platitudes. One of the effective methods of putting an end to war would be by putting an end to private firms and contractors being able to manufacture armaments, and having done away with armaments, you will have done away with a good deal of the incentive to make war. I have made these few observations because I think it is desirable that the people of South Africa should know that what this House is declaring on their behalf to-day is nothing more nor less than pious platitudes.

I am surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I always understood that he was one of the leading members of the Labour party, which has always been a supporter of peace treaties, and now I learn that one of the leaders of the party has apparently said good-bye to that ideal. I am proud that our country is able to sign this treaty. We acknowledge in the treaty that we want to keep war out of the world for ever. And in the same spirit in which I welcomed the establishment of the League of Nations I welcome this treaty to-day. A great deal has been said in the past against the League of Nations, of its not answering its purpose, and indeed, it is probable that a large part of the world is not satisfied with it. I always regard the League of Nations from the point of view of wondering—if it had not been created—what would have been the world position to-day? It is, in my opinion, still the only instrument to which people can look in time of disunion, dissension and division to assist them when the cry of war is once more raised. We know there is nothing more necessary than to avoid war. The question is how far has that idea against war developed in relation to our nature. A short time ago I read a learned and serious book throughout which the whole idea radiated that science was so highly developed that the question arose whether man was developing as fast as science. New methods of war and machinery are always being discovered by science, and if they are put into the hands of people who do not possess high ideals, a very dangerous state of affairs arises. It is a difficult problem for the world, and we want to fry to uplift the people, and to make them see the high ideal, and to have the hope that if trouble comes there is a certain instrument which we can use. We can then threaten nations who want to go to war with an economic boycott and can say to them, “We condemn your attitude from a moral point of view.” That is the power which the League of Nations possesses. I say that humanity would be in a hopeless position but for the League of Nations. Even if all the schemes are not practicable, there is always one of which we can be proud, and that is the League of Nations can be a great help in times of division and trouble. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has explained this afternoon the general position in connection with the treaty, for which we are all grateful to him. He has shown clearly that this treaty is complementary to the covenant of the League of Nations. We have always felt that so long as America remained out of the League of Nations its position was weakened, because the United States represents a considerable force in the world. America has always preferred to remain outside the league, and in that way they have greatly detracted from the real potency of the league. Now America comes forward with the present proposal. It may be as the hon. member for Troyeville says, that this is merely a pious commonplace, but it exists, and the reputation of America and of any country that has subscribed to it is pledged in it. We in South Africa and in this House agree that it is an attempt to guarantee the security of the world, and to create something for the wellbeing of mankind.

I think everybody in the House must realize the enormous contrast between the speeches we have had this afternoon, from the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). We feel proud of the high and statesmanlike terms of the speech of the former, and to-morrow that speech will be given attention to in every chancellory in the world, because it gave a warm and generous welcome to the treaty, but also showed the futility of our feeding ourselves on illusions. What, however, did the hon. member for Troyeville do to help make the treaty more than “a pious platitude”? On the other hand, the right hon. member for Standerton adopted a high and lofty point of view, and showed that if the treaty were to become anything more than a mere pious platitude, it will require the universal adoption of the spirit in which it has been drafted. Many people believe that war will not be prevented by any number of agreements, but war will be eradicated by the creation of national and international opinion, which will make all wars of an aggressive nature, or wars for the purpose of conquest, absolutely impossible. If it does nothing else, the Kellogg pact will give time for the application of the opinion of the nations of the world. The possibility of war arising from such incidents as those which occurred at Fashoda and Agadir has been rendered almost impossible since the making of the peace treaty of 1918, because that treaty effected a great change in international public opinion.’ The Kellogg pact is the first step in the creation of international public opinion and imposes moral obligations on every one of its signatories, and those obligations will have a great effect on every one of the signatories. I believe, with the right hon. member, that the treaty is a great step forward. While it may be a pious platitude, it is capable of becoming a very real weapon in making more difficult the declaration of hostilities. I feel proud, as a citizen of South Africa, that the matter has been dealt with by the leader of my party in the states manlike way in which he discussed it this afternoon.

I have been very interested to hear from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) the views of the Labour party on the Kellogg pact.

The views of what?

The Labour party.

The South African Labour party.

Not at all. He does not speak for the Labour party.

I was hoping to hear an expression of views from the other side, the other half. It struck me as very strange that a treaty such as this, which expresses the sentiment, and I might almost say the determination, to end war, and has been welcomed by practically all the civilized states of the world, should be denounced by the Labour party in this House as a pious and dishonest platitude. What is this judgment founded upon? It is admitted by everyone that this treaty contains no sanction; as the Prime Minister says, there is no provision as to what will happen supposing any nation in the world, or even any signatory to the treaty, should embark upon war. I think the House will take a very different view from that of the hon. member for Troyeville. The League of Nations has attempted to provide a sanction for powers which embark upon war, but no one yet knows what would happen if these sanctions were put into force, if the powers which signed the peace treaty at Versailles and the League of Nations were called upon to take up arms or even institute an economic boycott against some other nation which was judged to have offended against the terms of the treaty. The fact is that nations have not yet got to the point at which they are prepared to accept some super power stepping in and compelling them by force to keep the law. If we have a quarrel with a neighbour and, instead of going to court, start to fight with him, the state steps in with overwhelming force and compels us either to desist or to accept punishment for having broken the law. In other words, we are not allowed to take the law into our own hands; in the last resort, we are prevented from doing so by the force of the state. Nations, however, have not yet agreed to have a state of mutual confidence in each other that they are prepared to set over themselves a force sufficiently strong to compel them in the last resort, if necessary by force, to abide by a decision. But that is not to say that a treaty such as this is a pious and dishonest platitude. This is a treaty which goes very much further than the nations of the world have ever yet gone. First of all, by condemning war as a solution of international controversies. We have had attempts in the past, but they have been limited by reservations of every sort and kind. I admit there are reservations in this treaty also, but they are of a much less complicated character than those in the treaties of the past. Again, it denounces war as an instrument of national policy. Before the European war, it was an axiom of nations that war was an instrument of national policy. The whole spirit of the rulers of the German Empire, for example, was that war was an instrument of national policy, and even after the war the state of Russia declared that war was going to be its instrument in forcing its policy upon other nations. Therefore this treaty goes a long way further than has been done in the past by renouncing war as an instrument of national policy and by putting forward unreservedly the principle of the solution of disputes by specific means. Do not let us say it is a useless and pious platitude, because it provides no police force to enforce its principles. It leads public opinion a step in advance of where it was never led before, and it is on public opinion that you must in the last resort depend, and not upon force and not upon armaments. I admit that the enormous armaments of to-day are in contradiction to this treaty, but this treaty must be taken as a step towards the reduction and possibly the abolition of enormous armaments. It seems to me that it must be along these lines, by obtaining a general international concurrence of the iniquity of war and the desirability of avoiding it—it is along these lines and no other that you will have a reduction of armaments. I do not say this is going to end War. I do not think anyone would be optimistic enough to prophesy that, but I do say it is a great step in obtaining an international opinion in favour of peace. The hon. member for Troyeville said that, after all, behind the forces that lead nations into war are economic needs which must be dealt with. But this treaty is an attempt to meet economic conflicts along pacific lines instead of by war as in the past. This is an attempt to deal with economic difficulties along lines of peaceful settlement. It is no use to set up machinery which is too dangerous and too complicated to be used in difficult times when it is really most needed. Although there is no machinery set up to secure the enforcement of this treaty, I regard it as a great advance towards an ideal which may be distant, but which will continue to be cherished by those who have the interests of humanity at heart, and for that reason I support the treaty.

There is not the least doubt that the feelings expressed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) are common to the man in the street, and that they are heard in societies one frequents, where the treaty is cynically referred to. In the past a great deal has been heard about Hague treaties, etc., and attempts have been made to put an end to war. Through their failure people have begun to be cynical. I should not have spoken if it were not that I feel that we must do all in our power to prevent cynical views of the public about attempts to prevent war and to reduce armaments. It is said that the influence of such attempts and of such treaties is of no effect, and that they are merely upon hypocricy, because the states are in the meantime engaged in making their military forces stronger and stronger. I believe that it is the call of this generation, who have seen the misery of war, to give the world the benefit of their experience and to do everything in their power to make war impossible and ultimately to eliminate it. We must stop the cynicism. I believe that we have not yet by a long way reached the object at which we are aiming. Everyone knows that the treaty is far from being a realization of the ideals which are being striven for, but we believe that it is a great step forward in the direction of creating public opinion which alone can end war. The pity in the past was that although sometimes war was hated it was, nevertheless, almost always glorified by public opinion. And that is the case to-day. In our schools in the teaching of history, war is glorified in that way, and the same thing often happens in our homes. The principal monuments have always been those connected with wars, and I think this treaty will contribute a great deal in forming public opinion, and especially in educating the rising generation, from which I expect much more than from all the conferences, so that war will no longer be glorified, but that these treaties and attempts to eliminate war will be extolled. Everyone ought to praise this treaty, arid, in any case, to help the ideals it mentions. The state and the press, and also the church, must use their power to see what can be done to eliminate war. The treaty is an encouraging sign, especially as it comes from America. It shows that in America in political circles that ideal is being striven for. I recently received a report, which appears to show that on other lines also Americans feel that everything must be done to prevent war; in church circles, too, America is busy trying what can be done by organization, and a large world conference of all church societies, including Buddhists, etc., is contemplated to see what can be done in creating public opinion. I just wanted to say those few words because I think that instead of speaking cynically as the hon. member for Troyeville did, we ought rather to make attempts to realize the ideal that is involved in the treaty. South Africa can contribute something to end war—of which, indeed, we have had much experience.

I was very surprised indeed to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) criticizing the speech, from the economic point of view, made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I do not think there is a member of this hon. House who would not support this treaty, but it is the duty of hon. members to draw the attention of the Government to there being something more real to be dealt with, than only looking at this treaty from the pious point of view. We know full well that it is possible for war to be brought about by international developments, as, for instance, in China, where cotton manufacturers from Lancashire, owing to competition from America, realised that they had to produce cotton commodities more cheaply than they had been doing. Instead of dealing with matters from the patriotic point of view, they transferred a large amount of their capital and machinery to China, and are now producing cotton goods there on a very vast scale. The result is that the American manufacturers are up in arms against the British manufacturers for exploiting the Chinese for producing commodities more cheaply, thereby having an undue advantage over American manufacturers. We, as representatives of the people, must see that we have embodied in this treaty something dealing with the economic competition of one nation with another. We realize that at the present time war, as in the past, is brought about only by economic pressure or economic expansion by exploiting nations on a lower standard than their own nation. The result has been that wars in the past have been, unfortunately, created for the advantage of the few. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) stated this is the first effort, of this nature. That is not so. If we go back to the twelfth century we find that kings and parliaments arranged peace terms with other nations, but they were only pieces of paper when it came to a crisis. The real position has not been dealt with—the real position is that nations have the same greed and selfishness that individuals have. We have the right to state from these benches that something more is required, although we welcome the treaty as it stands. We say that the Government in the future should try to bring about conditions which could he used as a greater weapon to prevent war than is at present embodied in this treaty.

The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) have given their opinions as to the causes of war. I do not think that either is altogether wrong or altogether right. The hon. member for Troyeville is always consistent, and whatever subject he speaks upon he brings out his favourite remedy for the ills of mankind, which is socialism. I do not think the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is correct. He admittedly belongs to a party of socialists. We have a most interesting war going on at the present time in that party itself, so that socialism is not a definite preventive of war. The hon. member for Liesbeek has said that wars are due to economic causes. That is not the only reason for war. I do not agree that this treaty is only the expression of a pious hope; I think it might better be described as a slogan which, I hope, will get into people’s minds and thereby bring about an end to war. In this connection I prefer to look at the matter in the words of Mrs. Browning: “Men get opinions as boys learn to spell—by iteration chiefly.” If we can accustom a people to the thought that war is bad and undesirable, it will tend to make war, if not impossible, certainly more difficult. It is very interesting to observe that almost every senior officer in Great Britain and the dominions who has taken part in the late war is a great protagonist of peace. They have all realised that war settles nothing, and that, therefore, it is a futile effort to engage in war to settle a dispute. My opinion is that we must look upon war in the same way as we do dirt, disease and poverty, or any other human calamity. In other words, we must search for the cause before we can cure. Economics sometimes bring about war, but I do not think that they furnish the greatest or most frequent reason for hostilities. If I had to define the cause of war in one word, I would use the word “greed”; in other words, the desire to take from someone else what does not properly belong to the grabber. [Cheers.] Hon. members are cheering, but I am not alluding to the unfortunate war in the Labour party. War is caused by oppression, by repression or injustice, by desire for more trade belonging to another nation, or a desire to possess another’s territory; the taking away of something of great material or sentimental value. So far from economic causes being the most frequent source of war, surely the greatest wars in history have been based upon religion, and, in some cases, the question of a flag has caused war. All these are matters which should be investigated, and if we can find the real cause, let us investigate it in the same way as we would investigate a dire calamity or a grave disease. A few moments ago I referred to the fact of senior officers in the army being great protagonists of peace. Now everyone should join them if for no better reason that war in the future will bring great personal danger to everyone. Not only will it mean loss of relatives and of property, but, as far as we can foresee, there will be great danger to every individual belonging to the country that is at war. In the late war no less than twenty-five kinds of poison gas were used, and we read that when an area has been drenched with mustard gas, it is almost fatal even to touch the ground. When Armentieres was taken through the use of mustard gas the German troops were ordered not to enter it for a fortnight. There are other dreadful things, such as phosgene and tear gas, etc., which can be brought down on every individual by means of aircraft, etc., so that not only will the men in uniform be in great danger, but also the civilian population and the women and children. Surely it is a good thing for us to encourage the idea that war is preventible, that it is unsocial, useless and devastating, that it is opposed to the interests of international policy and to modern civilization, and what I have indicated is the way to bring that about, namely, bring it home to the individual first, and be it remembered that nations are composed of individuals. Surely we have reached a stage when we may look forward hopefully to the infrequency of war, and also to the time when it will entirely cease; therefore, this is a measure which does not merely express a pious hope, but sounds a slogan that war can and should and will be avoided.

I feel that every support should be given to the motion now before us, and that we should all be in favour of peace, but that is not exactly on all fours with the practice being persisted in in Europe at the present time, and it is quite obvious that armaments there are increasing largely, and that there are more men now being trained in Europe than there were before. The competition in naval armaments is going on as rapidly as ever. I do not say this in deprecation of the treaty; on the contrary, it makes such a treaty all the more necessary. There can be no doubt that unless the people of the world force their governments to agree, not merely to signing a treaty of this kind, but to limiting armaments, no lasting peace effort can possibly be successful. The treaty is, I think, one of the very finest things that has ever happened, and undoubtedly reflects very great credit on all concerned. Even if it is a little bit inconsistent with the actual practice of many of the nations who signed that document, still it must be accepted as something which, if carried into effect, will revolutionize the whole world. Here are the leading nations of the world who have stated that it is a national sin to make war. Whether the treaty is successful or not depends upon the spirit in which these sentiments are carried out. As far as South Africa is concerned, any pact which aims at doing away with this age-long but senseless method of settling international disputes, is a good thing for a country weak in population and in defence, as a small country of this kind must necessarily be when in conflict with greater powers. From a South African point of view we must particularly welcome this method of settling international affairs. When one reads this extremely brief but most interesting treaty, it is almost as if one were reading the Bible again. One is reminded of the words of Isaiah, because one cannot conceive that the men who originated this treaty did not feel earnestly and deeply the problems they had to solve. I cannot conceive it as possible that the distinguished nations which are parties to this treaty could be guilty of such an act of treachery to the nations of the world as to be insincere in making it. We may assume that they are all animated by the highest possible motives, and if the nations represented by the signatories stand behind their representatives in carrying out this pact, then perhaps we shall have seen the last great war. In that case the slogan that has been referred to by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) should be an active and not a passive one, and one of the first proofs of this treaty should be the limitation of armaments. If this peace pact is followed by the limitation of armaments the vast amount of money spent on armaments would be devoted to peaceful purposes, and then we should soon see a different world. I hope the result of this great international agreement will be, in the words of Isaiah: “Nation shall not take up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

The habits of a lifetime are with me when I say that war is an evil thing, and that the time has come to put an end to war. The problem is how to get the people to see that. The day has gone past when rulers and states make war without consulting the people, but a nation is easily stampeded by a popular leader, cast up like scum on the surface of the heaving waters of passion. What we need to-day is to indoctrinate the children in the schools. Why should not the efforts be made in South Africa to approve of such text books as shall cease to glorify war, and point the inestimable benefits of world-wide fraternity and peace? The sooner you begin training the individual in that direction the better will be the outlook for this and every other country. Efforts should be made to indoctrinate our young people with higher ideals.

A pertinent question has been asked by the right hon. member opposite (Gen. Smuts), who wants to know what I consider the constitutional requirements in respect of the application of a treaty such as this. I do not think there is any doubt as to what the constitutional position is. Except where it concerns matters of cession, of territory, or treaties concerning personal liberties or taxation, the constitution requires that the Government shall take the responsibility of such treaties upon itself, having the king to ratify those treaties, leaving them then to Parliament to say at any time whether it is satisfied with the action of the Government. Of course, then comes the further question as to how the Government is to proceed, whether it has any onus upon itself to take any steps as far as Parliament is concerned to lay a treaty before Parliament, or to give Parliament an opportunity of discussing it. In the first place, I think the custom has been that these documents should be laid on the Table of the House. The further question arises—is that all. In the majority of cases the custom is to place the documents on the Table, leaving it to Parliament to take such further steps as Parliament may decide. I think any Government will always ask itself whether a document of that kind is not a matter of concern to members of the House. It is solely because I consider the matter of so great importance that a duty was thrown upon me to ask for the approval of the House, not that the House could do anything to the ratification, but if the House were to reject it, we all know what the consequences may be or will be to the Government. As to what action the Government will take under the Treaty Act, will be a question of political wisdom.