as chairman, brought up the second report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows—

Report considered and adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER, as chairman, brought up the third report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows—

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before Friday, the 28th October, the report would be considered as adopted.

With leave of the House I would like to make a statement with regard to the retirement of the general manager of railways. As I informed the House during last session the general manager, Sir William Hoy, prior to retirement, will go on leave on the 12th November. I have on a previous occasion on behalf of the Government and the Administration indicated our very high sense of appreciation of the work which the general manager has rendered to South Africa, I do not propose at this stage to refer to that again. I just wish to say that the Government have in recognition of the outstanding services of Sir William Hoy decided to grant him the amount of £7,500 as a mark of our appreciation. With regard to his successor, we have decided to appoint the assistant general manager at Durban, Mr. J. R. More, as acting general manager. It will be understood that Sir William Hoy goes on leave on the 12th November so that the appointment of Mr. More is of an acting nature. I feel sure that the acting general manager, Mr. More, can rely upon the cordial support of all sections of the people of South Africa The general manager who is now retiring, Sir William Hoy, has had the support of all sections of the community and of users of the railways, and I feel sure that the new general manager will have that same support. I feel also that I can with confidence make an appeal to the staff of all grades to give the same measure of support to their new chief. Mr. More has had distinguished service with the South African Railways and consequently comes to this difficult task well equipped to carry out the great traditions of our service.

It is not in accordance with the rules to debate a statement such as the Minister has made, but I think it would be fair and proper if from this side of the House we joined with the expression of the Minister recognising the great services which have been rendered by Sir William Hoy to the country. On a previous occasion we have already in this House referred to the departure of Sir William Hoy and to the sense of gratitude which this country feels for the great services which he has rendered. I wish to say, speaking for this side of the House, that we feel that we are losing in him one of the very ablest men that has ever served this Union, a man who for a lifetime, for 40 years, I believe, has worked and slaved night and day in the interests of this country and of this Union and has contributed as much to its material and economic up-building as probably any other single individual. We are very sorry that he is leaving us, but that is inevitable, and we wish him all possible success in his future work. He is not leaving southern Africa. Next door he is going to do work which may be of far-reaching effect even for us here, and we wish Rhodesia and the neighbouring states all possible luck in the services of Sir William Hoy, which they have secured. With regard to the gratuity which the Government propose we should vote to Sir William Hoy, we are in entire accordance. He has saved this country not thousands but hundreds of thousands and millions of pounds of money. No man has served this country better, and I fully concur in the proposal which the Minister has adumbrated. With regard to the successor, Mr. More, the Minister may rest assured that we shall give him every possible support. Mr. More is one of the ablest men in the Government’s service; he has served this country well. He has had a long training and is as well acquainted with the circumstances of that great service as any other man, and we know he will continue to do his best, as he has done in the past. The position of general manager of our railways is to-day one of the most difficult positions in the whole world, and the least we can do is not to weaken him by carping criticism but to strengthen his hands as much as possible in the great work which lies before him.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I may at once say that I feel a little awkward just at this moment because I have made my notes in Dutch and up to this very moment I had intended to speak in Dutch, but my eye just fell on my hon. friend over at the back and others who do not know Dutch, and I am afraid it would hardly be fair if we were to come to a conclusion this afternoon and speak in Dutch leaving my hon. friends to wait until to-morrow to learn what I am going to say. I shall commence by saying that I can quite realise the House must feel considerable anxiety to know what is the result which has been accomplished or achieved by the discussions between myself and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I feel glad that I am here this afternoon in a position to say what has happened, and I feel all the more glad because of what I think is the spirit which I have noticed is abroad in consequence of what has already transpired as to what has been done by us. I think it augurs well for the future. I may say we had before us really three questions to decide. The one was the design of the national flag; the second was the position that the Union Jack was to take, as regards the Union flag, that is to say, to bring that out more clearly than was evidently the case with some, as the Bill stands to-day; and a third question was that of flying the Union Jack. I think that, as far as these questions are concerned, I feel at any rate that the conclusions we have arrived at are such that if they do not give full satisfaction to everybody, I feel sure that they ought to give satisfaction in general to the whole people. I think that is as much as could, or can, have been expected from us, even from us as a Parliament. With regard to the design of the national flag, that design is according to what we had decided to lay before this House, as adopted by the Bill before the House, with the shield dropped, and in the place of the shield to substitute the three flags; namely, the Union Jack and the two old Republican flags, in the following manner: the Free State flag hanging vertically in the centre of the national flag, having adjoining to it on one side horizontally the Union Jack fully spread out towards the pole of the flagstaff, and on the other side, adjoining the Free State flag, the Transvaal flag fully spread out away from the pole. This will be in future, if the House does us the honour of accepting what we propose, our national flag, giving expression to the authority and the power of the Union as an independent State. Next, with regard to the Union Jack, as a flag of the Union, this we intend bringing out, and decided shall be brought out very clearly, so that there can be no doubt about it that, next to the national flag, we have adopted the Union Jack also as our flag, giving expression to our relationship with the other members of the commonwealth of nations. Then came another question of considerable importance, because a great deal is attached to it by members—and must necessarily be attached to it by members and the public outside—namely, when and where the Union Jack shall be flown. With regard to this, we took into consideration—at least, I did, in my trying to meet as much as possible my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts)—keeping in view what the Union Jack as our flag will stand for, that what is required is that flag shall be there continuously to show, or to indicate, the relationship which is there always, and, let us hope, will remain there; but that it is not necessary to have that flag hoisted everywhere and anywhere in the Union; and we came to the conclusion—and that is what we recommend to this House—that the Union Jack, as our flag indicating our relationship to the empire—be flown with the national flag from the Houses of Parliament here; then from the principal buildings in the Union, the provincial capitals; at the seaports, and from the public offices abroad. It ought to be left to the Government of the day to decide as far as the rest is concerned, where else the Union Jack is to be flown. With regard to that, I wish to say that I and my colleagues fully appreciate the fact that a considerable time must necessarily elapse before it can be expected that the people will adapt themselves in their sentiments to the new position. On behalf of the Government, I wish to say that I undertake, and the Government undertakes, to have full regard for those sentiments in the official flying of the Union Jack. As I have always said, this is a question where not merely one section has to be looked to, but we have to look to all sections; and our object should be, from now on, to do everything in our power to reconcile the people and get their attachment to and love for the new position. The result must inevitably be, whether it is this Government, or whether it is that of my right hon. friend, when they come to sit here later on, we have to take into consideration all the sentiments of the people, and to meet them as practical statesmen. Furthermore we have added this, which was really necessary: The Governor-General might by regulation fix the manner in which the flags should be flown on ships on the high seas or for special purposes or occasions. This was undoubtedly very necessary—this suggestion came from my right hon. friend—for as I pointed out on a former occasion the time is not far distant when matters in connection with merchant shipping and the Merchant Shipping Act will have to be considered and we shall have to agree between us all what we shall do on our ships, as it will be essential to have some common symbol. Now, these are some of the points which we shall have to consider. In regard to giving expression to the Union Jack as being one of the flags of the Union, I suggest that it be set out in the following terms—

We bring it out clearly that they are both the flags of the Union, in fact we ought to say the flags of the Union because I have no doubt that later on we shall have other ensigns. These are the solutions of the three problems set before us. I hope that they are going to have the unanimous support, not only of this House but the unanimous support of the whole country. I feel that very great weight has to be attached to this manner of coming to a solution of this question by agreement. I have always felt that if possible it should be decided in this way, and with that I have always agreed with the right hon. gentleman, although we have disagreed as to how far we could agree on this point. But let me say this. I think the country is indebted—greatly indebted—and will feel its indebtedness to members of this House for what they have done on both sides in order to achieve this in the way I hope it is going to be achieved. I feel in the first place that this is the crowning of the work of what has lately been accomplished by the Imperial Conference. I cannot help feeling that among all sections no matter how we may have differed on minor points, there was a general feeling forcing us to say that we must have a national flag. That was because we all felt that we longed to have something which would visually appeal to us as a symbol of our nationhood and status. I also feel that an unpleasant chapter in the history of South Africa is now brought to a close. (Cheers.) There cannot be any doubt that conflict which we have often spoken of as a racial conflict in South Africa through which we came to look at things from a racial point of view have often nothing to do with race at all but have been the effects of two conflicting directions and tendencies in South African national life, the one wanting freedom and independence. When we look back we see it could not have been done and we see it was just as well it was not done. Nevertheless there were on the other side again our opponents—the English-speaking people—or the thing could not have been done. This conflict—really a constitutional conflict—has been going on for well nigh 100 years in South Africa I have not the least doubt that to-day you can go into the country and you will find that 90 per cent. of the people—Dutch-speaking and English-speaking—and they will say that they are glad that this question has been settled. There again I wish to do justice to what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has more than once said—this question must be settled with a view to the future by agreement. We all felt that and we feel it to-day very strongly. I feel that this question once settled by agreement you will find a totally different atmosphere and a totally different attitude assumed by the one section over against the other in the future. I have not the least doubt in regard to that. The result of this must be that our future will be one of the very greatest importance. In conclusion I hope and I think we have the right to look upon this question as one which has been brought to this happy conclusion not by this man or that man, or this section or the other section; practically we may say that the whole of the people of the Union have been forcing your statesmen in that direction. I think the way in which we have to look upon this is that we sitting as a Parliament are merely acting in the name and through the people of the Union in this matter. In that spirit I have not the least doubt that although we may have our little personal quarrels between myself and my hon. friend opposite—I mean these little personal differences on flags—but one thing I am certain of there will be an end to anything like an international quarrel between the two great sections of the people of South Africa. That is all I have to say. I hope that this agreement will be accepted by the House unanimously. I hope it will be accepted by the whole of the House and that then the manner in which it is done will go forth to the country in order that it will be an additional reason for the country to accept it as wholeheartedly as we have done.

I rise, not to continue the debate on the Bill. I am afraid I have made far too many debating speeches on this subject. I hope never to produce another debating speech on the question of the flag. I rise to congratulate the Prime Minister on the most important, statesmanlike and wise speech he has just made to the House. I am sure the country will listen not only with interest but with gratitude to the settlement he has just announced and I have little doubt when they come to ponder the subject they will from one end of South Africa to the other, accept the settlement. I wish to say, having taken part in these talks which have led to the settlement, that I am convinced the proposals now before the House are a sound and firm basis for a good and lasting peace on the subject. It is peace with honour. No party has won, no party has scored, but an honest effort has been made to deal fairly and justly with a question of profound interest to all sections of the people of South Africa and I can only recommend, in the strongest terms possible, the proposals for the acceptance of the people as a whole. It is not necessary to pay tributes on an occasion like this, but there is one word I would like to say, with which I think the Prime Minister will agree. The rules of the House do not allow me to refer to those in high quarters but when the public come to hear the full story they will realise with pride and gratitude that His Excellency the Governor-General has taken the profoundest interest in what has been arrived at. Let me refer to the conversations between the Prime Minister and myself. They have been difficult. The country must not think because results have been produced within a week that the subject was not one surrounded by difficulties. I have sometimes found it easier to make war than to make peace, and there is no doubt this was one of the questions, after what has happened, after the tumult and the shouting and the angry cries, and passions of the last two years, which it was most difficult to come to a sensible arrangement upon. The Prime Minister and myself had one advantage in these conversations that we took the subject at once out of the atmosphere of angry wrangling, and the best I can wish for the country is that it will approach this and all other great national questions with which it will be confronted in the future, in the same spirit in which the Prime Minister and myself approached the solution of this great question. No attempt was made to score off each other or to get the better of each other. We realised that both of us had profound difficulties. Not only personal difficulties, but difficulties in the position we occupy in our party and in the country, and our effort was directed to helping each other over these difficulties in order that, in the way, we might get to a solution. We stated frankly to each other our difficulties and we both realised them and realised the limits within which any solution of the question was possible. It was only because we dealt with each other on that frank basis and in that helpful spirit, that it has been possible to overcome the vast difficulties with which this problem is undoubtedly surrounded. It may be asked why we did not earlier do this, why this solution, by way of agreement, has only been reached after two years of angry disputes. My answer is simple. I do not believe it was possible before to come to an amicable solution of the question such as we have reached in the last two days. I am convinced the original flag conference at the beginning of 1926 was animated with the same sentiments as the Prime Minister and myself. They were determined as far as possible, and if possible, to come to a solution of the question which was, however, not yet ripe for solution. And although there were the best intentions and the keenest efforts, and, contrary to what has been often said in the House, there was no obstruction or difficulty laid in the way, yet they were a failure. From the beginning of 1926, since we started this controversy, we have travelled a considerable distance. There has been a considerable education of public opinion on this question and new ideas have evolved which have made a solution possible. Let me mention one matter in which there has been a development since 1926. Both parties in this House started in 1926 with the idea that a national flag was desirable and that it was possible to have one national flag. That was common ground and we explored a solution throughout the whole year on that basis, the basis of finding one flag which would satisfy the requirements of the case and satisfy the sentiments of the people and allow of a satisfactory solution. It has taken almost two years for us to realise that the solution lies along different lines. In this respect our experience of former troubles has been repeated. I remember in the National Convention we had the same difficulty with regard to the capital of the country and we debated it for a month and were ultimately faced with the break up of the National Convention and the failure of the work because this question presented itself as unsolvable. A way out was found, Solomon’s judgment was applied and the solution of a duel capital was arrived at. We have had the same experience also on other occasions. In this case it is only after the debates of the last eighteen months or more that we have found the proper solution is to have two flags in the country, and the idea has gained ground generally until it has presented itself to the Prime Minister and myself as the best way of securing satisfaction and achieving a real settlement. We have now two flags. Instead of the one flag recognised in the Bill we shall have two flags, the Union Jack to signify our Imperial relations and a national flag to satisfy national sentiment. There is something appropriate in this, if we look at our position today. Not only in South Africa, but in the British Commonwealth of Nations, there is a good deal, on the merits, to be said for the solution of two flags, which, on other grounds, might be condemned. We do occupy a dual position, not only as an independent nation, so we require something to symbolise the national status, but we also require something to show our fixed and unalterable connection with the other members of the British group of nations. Now the solution which has been found makes it possible to satisfy these conditions, to express both these relationships, our internal status and our external relationship with the Empire, and therefore it is on the merits even more defensible than otherwise it might appear. The Prime Minister has explained the details of the changes that are proposed, and therefore I do not propose to go into them. There will be the two flags, both recognised as South African flags, as Union flags, and the Prime Minister has explained the recommendations that we are making in regard to their flying. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for the statement which he has made on a point of policy which arises on the clause which has been proposed. In a number of important places in the Union, in the provincial capitals, the seaports and other places, both flags will fly together by law. But a certain discretion is left to the Government in regard to the flying of the Union Jack with the National flag in other places and on other occasions, and I think the House is indebted, and the country will be indebted, to the Prime Minister for the statement of policy which he has made on behalf of the Government, that in that respect the Government will have due regard to the sentiments of the people of this country. You do not want to fly the Union Jack in every little drop of the backveld, but you have large parts of South Africa where the sentiment of our English-speaking citizens calls for the flying of the Union Jack, and the country has the assurance of the Prime Minister that in all those parts and in those respects these sentiments will be considered and no change which will hurt the feelings of the people will be made. In regard to the national flag, t he alteration that has come about is, as the Prime Minister has said, that the shield has been dropped with its contents and the three flags—the Union Jack with the two old republican flags,—will now be set out as integral portions of the national flag. I could have desired myself that the size of these flags was larger than it is, but I recognise the difficulty that if you take the Government design, that is the Orange flag, and you put on that three more flags of very substantial size, you may get a combination of colours and design that will be inartistic as a whole.

The Senate flag.

Well, the Senate flag was a very good flag. Let me say this, hon. members do not seem to realise that flags are matters of very great difficulty. They involve questions of taste, and artistic quality on which practically everybody differs, and nothing has brought this more clearly home to me than the hundreds, I may say thousands, of flags which have been sent to me in recent months, with the diversity of design and grouping which may be found in them. It seems to me as if a very large portion of South Africa has been preoccupied for months with this question, but there is no doubt that there was the greatest diversity of opinion and hon. members there may perhaps condemn a design which is one of beauty and simplicity. I wish to say this, the national flag as it is now designed, was not of my choosing. That is the proposal of the Prime Minister, but I realise that it is now going to be one of the two flags of South Africa, and certainly no word of discourtesy or disapproval will fall from me in regard to that flag. I recognise that it is going to represent, in future, the honour and respect, and I hope it will carry the love of South Africans, and, although there may be this difference of opinion and of taste in the country, and whatever people’s private opinion to-day may be about the proposed design for the national flag, I appeal to them all over South Africa to rally to that flag and support it and say not a word of discourtesy or disapproval, but rather to be helpful, to give that flag a chance and see that it takes root and becomes a popular flag in this country, even more than it can be to-day. We are too near the bitter fight, too near the passions of the moment, and hard words have been spoken about the main part of that flag, but in a few years these disputes will be forgotten. In another generation a new South Africa may love that flag and think its design the best possible. Let it have a chance, and bear in mind that the flag is going to be one of our flags for the future. Now let me just conclude with one word, and it is this, so far as I can see this is the last great, what I may call, racial question in South Africa. We have been in a great contention for one hundred years. In the last twenty-five years we have been trying to solve the mistakes to undo the errors of the previous seventy-five years, and on all those occasions for the last twenty-five years we have tried to settle our questions by way of agreement, as the Prime Minister said. We have followed the path of agreement. The white races in this country are not used to domination, they will not stand being dictated to, not even by their South African fellow men, least of all perhaps by their South African fellow countrymen, and the process by which we have achieved success has been this process of sitting round a table, coming to an agreement, making a compromise, accommodating ourselves to each other’s views, and in that way reaching a settlement. This is the last great question as far as I can see. There may be others in South Africa—one never knows what may happen in South Africa—but of the outstanding questions this is the last one and I am profoundly grateful that it has been decided that this great question also shall be dealt with in this way by agreement. We can now look upon the result not as having been forced upon us, and we can accept it as being settled with our consent and we can move forward in this feeling that it is our joint work. There is a great deal that remains before South Africa, and I think that after this settlement has been reached we shall be able with all the more courage and all the more unity and strength, to move forward to the task before us. I have this feeling that if we reach a settlement on this occasion we shall have more than a flag settlement. This settlement will bring about an atmosphere of union in South Africa. We shall see the return of that larger atmosphere in which most of our former questions were solved. My hope is that we shall get this new atmosphere in South Africa, this better feeling between the races, this doing away with the antagonisms which have rent us in recent years, and that in this spirit of unity and of South African nationhood we shall move forward to the great tasks which are ahead of us. I have nothing further to say, except to express my wish that this settlement will be accepted. I may say that for the last couple of days I have received from all parts of South Africa hundreds of telegrams, but not a single one disapproving of what has been done. I have received telegrams from all the provinces, from most of the principal centres, from representatives of political opinion and largely from quiet people who take no part in politics but who are very strong and sound South Africans. They one and all express approval of the lines which have been followed in coming to a settlement on this question, and therefore I think that what has been done not only in a spirit of goodwill but in a South African spirit, will commend itself to South Africa as a whole.

This afternoon we have listened to an important speech from the Prime Minister with regard to this Bill followed by another speech of equal merit, and were it not for the special position in which I find myself in this House I would not have thought it necessary, nor would it have been necessary, to add anything. I, like many persons outside this House, have taken up the position that no settlement, except by agreement, should be adopted in regard to our flag, and I feel that having expressed this sentiment and the matter now having been concluded upon that basis, I would like to offer a few words of congratulation to all sides of the House, the leaders on both sides and the people who have supported them, on having achieved this great and lasting settlement. There are roads that come into the life of every individual as well as every nation, that is the cross roads. You take one direction and you come to ruin and destruction. You take the other road and you come to a period of happiness and prosperity It is sometimes very difficult to know which road to take. Those who are responsible for this settlement Show that they have taken the right road and we are to-day standing at the threshold of a new era in South Africa. A little while ago some quite sensible people said that we were marching on the road to what might conceivably have led to bloodshed and civil war. Some quite sensible people had come to that very unfortunate conclusion. It is a time of very great happiness when we realise what has been saved by what has just been achieved. It has been rightly pointed out by hon. members that we shall now have a chance of devoting ourselves to the solution of social and economic questions crying out for settlement once this great question, bristling with trouble, is out of the way. The referendum has now been rendered unnecessary and all the trouble, bitterness and confusion attendant upon that referendum has been done away with and made unnecessary. It is only right, therefore, that we should express our opinion on an occasion like this, because it is necessary to say to the people outside that there should be no division whatever in any quarter now that there has been an agreement by consent. An agreement has taken place and there is no reason in the world why there should be any further difference of opinion. There are just one or two suggestions that I would like to make to the Prime Minister. In the first place I would ask him to adjourn the House immediately the second reading has taken place to-day. It is not with the idea of avoiding work, but I do feel this is such a great day in the history of South Africa that we ought to adjourn immediately after the second reading until tomorrow, to mark our sense of the greatness of the occasion. There are two other suggestions I would like to make. I hope the Prime Minister will arrange when this Bill becomes law, as no doubt it will very soon, to communicate with the heads of the various religious denominations in South Africa, because I think that on the Saturday and Sunday after this Bill becomes law, we might ask the various religious leaders to offer up prayers of thanksgiving to almighty God for this great and amicable settlement. Another suggestion I want to make is this, that there should also be a public holiday proclaimed as a day of rejoicing. I am saying this with all seriousness. If it has already been arranged, all the better. It seems to me it is a matter of national necessity, because we want to get all the people together to realise that a great landmark in the history of South Africa has been established. If these suggestions are carried out, I feel that the various sections of the people will realise what is taking place. It is sometimes very difficult when you are close to a great event to realise the significance of that event, but I am sure, when history comes to be written, great credit will be paid to those leaders of both sides who have been responsible for this great settlement. Great credit is due to those who have performed almost the miracle of averting the disaster of racial antagonism, and have brought the ship out of troublous waters into the calm we see this afternoon. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, and I think a word should be said also in praise of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior and all the others who have helped to achieve what I consider to be the greatest event in South African history since Union.

I am not going to spoil the two great and remarkable speeches that have been made by the Prime Minister and the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, speaking for both sides of the House, and, therefore, I shall confine my remarks to a few words. Let me say that, as far as I am concerned, I think that the agreement which has been reached between the two sides of the House with regard to this question is in every way a fair and equitable one. As far as I can judge, when we take into consideration the different points of view, the different standpoints, from which we originally started, I think it can be justly said that we have met each other half way. In making concessions, in compromising on our part, we have tried to soften the blow to ourselves as much as possible by taking time over it. We have taken two years to progress—if I can use that word “progress”—from the standpoint which we originally took up to the agreement we have finally reached. As far as the other side is concerned, they have taken much less time about it. What we have accomplished in two years’ time, they have hurried over in a week’s time.

Now don’t spoil the thing.

But I think, if we take into consideration our original standpoint and the agreement we have finally reached, we can say that on both sides we have compromised to an equal extent, and, therefore, we may say with justice, we may say to the country at large, that victory does not rest with the one side nor with the other, but that the victory belongs to all of us. I shall just conclude with one suggestion, and that is that this Bill, when it is successfully passed through both Houses of Parliament, shall come into operation on Union Day. We shall require some time to get in readiness the flags that will have to be flown on the day when this Bill comes into operation. Perhaps we require a little time, for people to settle down, perhaps we require a little time for people to forget the strife and the bitterness that have been aroused in connection with the flag struggle, and I think that no more suitable day for the coming into operation of this Act, when it has become an Act, could be chosen than Union Day. On Union Day the struggle, the bloody struggle, ended between the two races in this country. On Union Day again, the two races agreed to throw in their lot with each other, agreed to have one common destiny, and I think if the Flag Bill comes into operation on Union Day then on that desire and on the firm decision of the two races to be one in every respect the seal will have been set. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with this suggestion, and that it will be possible to embody it in the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee to-morrow.