I move—

Let me say at once that I am personally responsible for this proposal. I am not speaking on behalf of my party and have not consulted it because I consider the matter a national one, and I hope hon. members will regard it as such. I shall try to debate the question calmly but hon. members will quite understand that it will be very difficult for me to speak calmly inasmuch as I stood in close relations with Gen. Botha. I hope that if I go too far hon. members will not take it amiss. What is the position? A commission collected money to erect a statue of the late Gen. Botha in the grounds of the Union Buildings. The Prime Minister was approached for his consent, I may say formally approached, because no one could ever dream that there could be any objection, and yet the Prime Minister in his wisdom, did something which no one could ever imagine or expect. It is not too much for me to say that the Prime Minister’s reply came as a surprise to the population of South Africa. It came as a thunderclap to the thousands and tens of thousands of friends and admirers of the late Gen. Botha. I have no words strong enough to describe our astonishment and indignation at the words used by the Prime Minister. But let me read his answer—

J. B. M. HERTZOG.

We see that the Prime Minister admits that the grounds of the Union Building are the proper place for such statues. I will at once concur if he says that we do not want every statute to be erected there, only those that are of a national character, or of great men. But where we differ strongly from him is that an exception should be made in the case of Gen. Botha, and that the rule cannot be applied to him. We think that he ought to have said: As for Gen. Botha, there can be no question about it. I agree to a great extent with the Prime Minister with reference to the future let us take the necessary steps for the future, possibly through Parliament. I hope hon. members will debate the matter without party feeling and will come to a decision. I ask and the people ask: If Louis Botha was not a national character, who then can be considered as a great leader and chief in South Africa? I, personally, make bold to say that the large majority of the people of South Africa, without excepting anyone, will say that the restriction cannot be applied in so far as Gen. Botha is concerned, and that there ought to be no question about it. Is it necessary to discuss in this House the greatness or the virtues of Louis Botha, when nearly every member has been in personal touch with him, and knows that the repute of his greatness is: world wide? A well known English statesman once used the following words to me—

That was his opinion of Louis Botha.

What about the opinion of other people?

The hon. member will have an adequate opportunity later of expressing his opinion. What did the world think of the Prime Minister’s decision? The Prime Minister says in his letter—

may be permitted. Well, is it necessary for me to bring proof that Gen. Botha was a national character? Is it necessary for me to recall his services as Commandant-General in the late war of independence? There is no doubt that he was the soul of the resistance, at any rate in the Transvaal. He was our inspiration and I make bold to say that no one made more sacrifices for his country than the late Gen. Botha. It is due to him that the farming people have earned such a reputation as will prevent them from being forgotten in history. Is it necessary for me to publish his fame as a soldier? Who else but he has done more to prepare the way for the establishment of the Union? It is well known that people shook their heads about Botha’s plans for Union. Union came about and Botha was one of the creators of the Union of South Africa. Is it necessary to ask whose political policy, whose point of view, notwithstanding the bitterest opposition of the Prime Minister and his followers, resulted in. South Africa to-day occupying its place as an equal in the ranks of the independent states of the world?

You are now talking party politics.

I ask whether the fact that Botha was Prime Minister of South Africa is not in itself sufficient to justify room for a statue in the Union Buildings grounds. Let me give further proofs. It is generally known how the other side used Gen. Botha’s name for the purpose of winning the last election.

Nonsense.

Yes, it is well known that they said that they, and not we, were following Botha’s policy.

You are not doing any good to your case now.

It is not for the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) to say whether I am establishing my case or not, I ask what more a man should do to make himself meritorious, to transform himself into a national character? The Prime Minister says that he has consulted the Cabinet, and I now want to put a few questions to the members of the Cabinet. I want to ask the Minister of Raidways—but it is possibly unfair because he did not have the opportunity of getting to know Gen. Botha in those days—but I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question—he is a Boer of Boers and has shown his love for the same cause, and still bears the marks. I ask him whether he could not break a lance for his great leader of those days? I do not want to offend the Prime Minister, he has put the reasons on paper, but I ask the Minister of Defence to be fair. I thought he would stand up for his great leader in the South West Africa campaign. I expected gratitude from him as an Englishman. I wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture something, but I do not wish to pain him. We possibly do not agree, but I ask the Minister of Lands whether he has forgotten how his great ancestor, Paul Kruger, appointed Louis Botha, one of the younger generals, to be the Commandant-General of the Republican troops. Has he forgotten how Paul Kruger entrusted the fortunes of the Boer people to his hands, and how brilliantly Botha justified Paul Kruger’s judgment? The Minister of Lands will not get up and say that he has any doubt about the greatness and national character of Louis Botha. I wanted to say a word to the Minister of the Interior, but there is too much opportunity. I just want to ask whether he thinks it is time for him to make amends for the way he hurt our feelings some years ago. I do not wish to go further. I only ask this of the Prime Minister: Did he think of the widow and children? Was it necessary for them to suffer a further humiliation of being told that there was no room in the grounds of the Union Building for their (husband and father ?

That was not said.

But we were made to feel it. I will not detain the House any longer. I am certain that our history will give his right place to Louis Botha. I am certain that what was said of George Washington, namely—

Is more applicable to the late Gen. Botha than to any one of our great leaders. Is the House not going to do justice to the late Gen. Botha’s memory ?

I have pleasure in seconding the motion so eloquently moved. In doing so, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I am voicing the practically unanimous opinion of the people of Natal, the province from which I come, in the hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will accede to the terms of the motion and reconsider his decision not to allow a monument to the late Gen. Botha to be erected in the grounds of Union Buildings. Now, the people of Natal’ are practically all English-speaking, yet we have already erected a monument to the memory of Gen. Botha. We have given the most prominent piece of ground we can find in the town, and we have surrounded it. We have not done this merely because he was the greatest son Natal has ever had, but because we recognise in that province that Gen. Botha was a patriot and one of South Africa’s greatest men. Now, I emphasize the fact of the recognition of Gen. Botha’s merits in Durban because I think that is the best proof that this movement to having a monument erected to Gen. Botha’s memory is not a sporadic movement, and not the movement of a lot of hysterical people. I understand in the terms of the refusal of the Prime Minister that he practically grants the merits of Gen. Botha; he admits that he is deserving of being placed in that position, but he desires to avoid conceding to a family or sporadic agitation for the placing within the Union Government grounds of monuments to people who are not so conspicuous. I merely cite this as indicating that we of Natal are satisfied that this great Dutchman is deserving of our esteem, and at any rate the concession should be made and the monument should be erected. Now, I say this more or less to my shame because we of Natal were somewhat slow to appreciate the merits of Gen. Botha. For a long period we distrusted him. For a long period we would have nothing to do with him politically, and when the matter was discussed I think we only sent one representative down to Parliament to support it. But bit by bit it was borne in upon us that in the late Gen. Botha we had a man who could rise superior to race and to politics. We had a man who was prepared to engender the most terrible and the most systematic disregard of the feelings of his own people in order to keep his word to the British section of the community, the word that he had given at Vereeniging. Mr. Speaker, we learned to appreciate him for that reason, and during the great war and afterwards we appreciated him more than ever. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) had referred to the reputation Gen. Botha made overseas at the peace conference. If for no other reason than that, the world fame, the world esteem in which the name of Gen. Botha is universally acknowledged, surely that should be sufficient reason for the Prime Minister altering his decision and allowing this monument to be erected. We all agree, I think, with the statement of the Prime Minister that only monuments should be allowed within the precincts of the Union Buildings to such as are of a truly national character. Well, Sir, I ask where are we to look, where is it possible to look for a man who can be more conscientiously and correctly described as a national character than the great hero about whom we are to-day asking that his statue should be placed in the ground of Government Buildings? Reference has been made to Gen. de Wet. I ask my hon. friends what about Gen. Botha? We must not put a monument to Gen. de Wet in the grounds of Government Buildings before we allow a monument to Gen. Botha to be erected there. But let us have both. When he refused this permission for the erection of this monument, the Prime Minister with a sort of implication suggested that we desired to have this monument erected as the outcome of a movement from friends, a sort of a movement not emanating from the heart of the people. Nothing could he more inaccurate. I venture to say that if a census of the feelings of the people of this country were to be taken there should be no question that every man and woman in this country would desire that Gen. Botha’s statue should be erected in the precincts of the grounds of Government Buildings. When the Prime Minister’s decision was published about four months ago refusing this permission, a wave of anger and disappointment ran right through South Africa. The anger was engendered in the people who thought that this refusal on the part of the Union Government had come about for political reasons. That was the feeling when that anger was first engendered. Let me say now that I would be the last man in the world to believe that the Prime Minister of this country, Gen. Hertzog, whom we all know so well would be a party to allowing his feelings to be influenced by any political feeling whatsoever. There was a section of the people who felt that this was the outcome of political feelings, and the demonstration we see here this afternoon on the part of some hon. gentlemen certainly lends colour that it meets with their political approbation. There was a demonstration yonder which was justification for that term. I say here and now that I do not for one minute suggest that the Prime Minister and the members of the Government were in any way actuated by political motives in what they did. But the disappointment still remains. I sense of disappointment still remains and I do beg of the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision. I am not speaking in any party spirit, and I am sure it will be just as well if hon. members will leave party out of the question. If there was any other great statesman or great soldier that hon. members opposite desired to be placed in those grounds at the same time as or after the monument to Gen. Botha has been erected there, I for one and I am sure I am speaking for every member of the House, would see no objection to it. But I say this that the first statue which should be erected in the grounds of Government Buildings should he erected to the memory of South Africa’s greatest son, Gen. Louis Botha. I have very great pleasure in seconding the proposal.

I think all will agree with me that the speech which the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has made to-day, will strengthen more or less the conviction of each of us of how right the Government was in the answers it gave in connection with this matter. With them Gen. Botha is the great leader of the S.A. Party, the leader they want to commemorate by erecting a statue to him, and how dare we the Nationalists, baulk their endeavours! That is practically what he conveyed to us here in a restrained way, and I am very glad he spoke restrainedly, because if he had not done so, and had acted differently, then the relatives of Gen. Botha would have had no reason for being indebted to him. It is all very fine to come and say here what he has said to-day, even to use all the beautiful words, however much we may appreciate the moderation of the hon. member, but let me plainly remind him that we cannot regard his action as standing by itself. It stands in direct connection with what has been done in the matter by him, or, at any rate, by his party on other occasions. I remember a meeting or a congress held in Pretoria at which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was present, and spoke in a way—I am very glad about it—the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has not spoken to-day. He adopted a different method to what was taken at the congress by speakers. It was said there that the action of the Government was the result of, or was due to, malice on the part of the Government against Gen. Botha. Is that true, or not? And I think that is what the hon. member for Yeoville also stated there. That is the sort of conduct we must leave to people who are contemptible enough to be guilty of it, and it shocked me greatly that the hon. member for Yeoville was also guilty of it. I fought the late Gen. Botha for seven years. I fought him hard. I declared his policy to be pernicious for South Africa. But during all that time there was not a single occasion where I did not make it clear that we never could forget him for what he was before that time, that is during the time before 1912.

What about your followers ?

I am convinced that my followers share my view, and will never forget what Gen. Botha meant to South Africa before 1912. What they disapprove of is not his action before 1912, but,—and they have every right to strongly disapprove of, his action which caused the chasing of his own companions in arms over the veld of South Africa, and the policy which he subsequently followed. I always had the highest respect for him until 1912 and I hope always to have it. No, the step that we took was simply for the reason that we were prepared, as is made clear in the letter to Dr. Engelenburg, to see that memorials were erected in the grounds of the Union Buildings, which were actually of a national character, or which would memorialize national men, or occurences of a national character. We must have memorials there which are really national memorials, and I made it very plain in the letter to Dr. Engelenburg, that I regard Gen. Botha as one of the men who has the right to be commemorated there, but I was not prepared, and I am not prepared to-day to allow a statue to be erected there—I do not mind whose it is, whether of Gen. Botha or Gen. de Wet—to permit a statue to be erected there for a party purpose, and to commemorate a man for what he meant to his party. As appeared clearly from the speeches made at that congress, and also from the two speeches we have heard here to-day from the two members, it is not now the intention to erect a statue to Gen. Botha as a patriot, but to him as a leader of the S.A. Party. This, I say, is clear to me from the line taken at that Congress, and from the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan).

It is the Nationalist Party that is refusing it.

I am not speaking of the Nationalist Party but of the S.A. Party. I will put the facts before you. After he had written to me about the erection of a monument to commemorate General Botha in the Union Building grounds, Dr. Engelenburg came to see me personally, after I had informed him beforehand that it appeared to me that it could not simply be unconditionally agreed to. He then informed me that a fund had been collected to commemorate General Botha. I do not recollect what the amount was, but the commemoration would be effected in the following way, by (a) the establishment of a charitable institution, (b) the writing of a book, and (c) the erection of a personal monument. The charitable institution has been established in Pretoria and the book was written by Dr. Engelenburg. If any proof were necessary to show how that fund was a party fund and not a national one, it is only necessary to read the book. Let me say in passing that Dr. Engelenburg sent me a chapter dealing with Botha and Hertzog. I returned it to him with the remark that he could not be serious in expecting me to criticize it for him. The book is sufficient to show that it was not a question there of a national character and that it was not a national move. He further told me that the balance of the money would be used for the monument. So far as I can remember it was £1,600. Is that correct.

I do not know.

I said nothing about the amount, and whether I considered it sufficient, nor did I say that the monument would of course have to be approved of by the Government, not because I immediately neglected the matter inasmuch as the great question with me was whether it could be done or not. I then immediately said to Dr. Engelenburg that I would assume that in the laying out of the grounds the intention had existed for them inter alia to be used for the placing of monuments and statues, but that I considered that monuments and statues that ought to be put there could not be other than those of real national men, and for the commemoration of national events. I further told him that I quite admitted that General Botha was a patriot about whom posterity would have the right of expecting a statue of his to be erected in the grounds of the Union Buildings, but that I was not prepared to put a monument there which would be erected for reasons of a party political nature. I also told him that there could be no monument simply as the expression of the high appreciation of family relations. If there were to be a monument it must, in my opinion, arise out of the heart of the people. The monument must be erected as an emblem of respect and appreciation of the people of South Africa. Is that what the fund represents? Are the people who contributed to the fund the people of South Africa?

It is not a question of the people who are erecting it, but of the man who is being commemorated.

If we are to put a statue to General Botha there for what he did and was after 1912, does the hon. member think that he can come to me with a request? If there is to be a monument it must be for what the people think of him and not for what a portion of the people think of him, in spite of the contempt for what took place more than once during one period or another. Just imagine that we as Nationalists, who have been trodden down and sneered at in this House, who have been more than once told that we ought to be in gaol because we opposed General Botha, are now to be asked by the hon. members, who are now in the minority, to do what they prescribe, and to honour General Botha for that reason. How can we do it for that reason? What appreciation of his actions since 1912 is expected of me? Have the hon. members thought of this? If General Botha is brought into contempt it is not by this side of the House. The position is quite clear. Only a statue to a patriot, to whom everyone in South Africa, Nationalist and S.A.P. man can take off his hat, can be erected in the grounds.

That is what we want.

But then I am very sorry that you acted in that way. You were appointed as a commission to come and see me. Why did you not come and see me? I will tell you later what my reply would have been. I now revert to what I said to Dr. Engelenburg. I told Dr. Engelenburg that he must admit that it would be fatal if a monument were to be erected in the Union grounds, which would stir up discord and bitterness among the people. I further told him that he should well consider that if one monument were erected that there would immediately be people who would apply for the erection of monuments to other people, and I gave him names. He then immediately, said that he felt that what I said was right, and he, himself, mentioned another name. I said: “Yes, precisely,” and then I asked him what the position in South Africa would be what bitterness on the part of the English-speaking people in South Africa—not to speak of the others—was to be expected. What government would take the responsibility on the question? The mover of this motion thinks of course of what General Botha was during a period in which he was, from our point of view, just the reverse, and in the first place they want a monument erected for that reason, but they forget that there are other men, whom they still despise to-day, or have done till quite recently, but whom I would like to see honoured by a statue for the very reason of what they have done during the period they earned the contempt of the opposite side. How can I allow a statue to be erected to General Botha for that reason while I refuse it to others? What would the position be then? The gentlemen seem entirely to forget that the Union Building grounds are only a small point of the Union, and that there is room enough for the erection of a statue to General Botha, even in Pretoria if they wish. We cannot be indifferent to the results that would follow if we were to erect it in the Union Building grounds. I also told Dr. Engelenburg that I only saw one way to prevent the Union Building grounds eventually becoming a valhalla for all insignificant politicians, and that was that a test should be instituted which would depend upon the esteem of the people when the passions of the day had disappeared, and they were placed in a position to judge objectively whether such a statue should be erected or not. When Dr. Engelenburg left I was under the impression that he was convinced by the attitude I had explained to him. Great was my surprise when I learned later what was written publicly by partners of hon. members on the opposite side, although possibly not by themselves personally. I think they will admit that an attempt was made to make political capital out of the Government. The attitude of hon. members opposite, and not least that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), has deeply disappointed me. I repeat that I cannot permit, and that the Government cannot permit, a statue to be erected there in commemoration of a man who was not a true patriot, and for which the desire has not come from the heart of the people. The public must decide whether the statue shall be put there or not. If we do not make that test we shall lose all opportunity of preventing the grounds of the Union Buildings from eventually being covered with statues and monuments of all kinds. We shall not raise our estimation in the eyes of the world, but will make ourselves despicable. The hon. mover said that in his opinion General Botha was such a great man that his case should form an exception, but he forgets that there are other people who differ from him, and who think that there are other persons in our history who have at least as much right to a statue. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) can easily talk because he does not bear the responsibility.

Have I spoken irresponsibly today ?

I will not say so, but the proposing of the motion is an irresponsible action. Then I further want to point out that the hon. member, when he was speaking of the greatness of Gen. Botha, felt, in the first place, as a South African Party man, and took no count at all of the great section of the people represented by this side of the House. Is it of no concern what this side of the House thinks and feels?

Let hon. members opposite get up and say what they think.

If they are to say what they think, and if the people are to say what they think, then I do not want to bear the responsibility for the consequences of it. The irresponsibility in connection with the motion appears from the whole course of action. Did the hon. member remember that the late Gen. Botha, so far as the Nationalist section is concerned, was the immediate cause of the suffering by the people of South Africa of great sorrow? He would then have acted more carefully. One thing is very certain when we think of the feelings of the hon. member and other hon. members, that many on this side of the House, including also myself, have always felt the greatest respect for Gen. Botha, and we feel it, because he was a man who —notwithstanding everything that could not be approved of in his actions—was great in his personality and his action on certain occasions. His services to the old Republic will always receive my respect, and in course of time—not today—will win the respect of Dutch speaking South Africa. If the time is not ripe to-day, then it is not due to me or anyone else, but as practical men we must simply bear in mind the fact which we cannot get over. Besides Gen. Botha there is another man who, in my opinion, stands just as high, to-day much higher in my estimation, and in that of hon. members on this side, namely the late Gen. de Wet. For what he did during the Boer war, and in connection with it he is considered by us just as high as Gen. Botha, and it is a fact to-day that, while the preponderance of honour undoubtedly exists in favour of Gen. Botha, on the other side of the House, there is not the least doubt that the preponderance of honour on this side of the house goes to Gen. de Wet. It cannot be otherwise. We as men of sense must simply admit it. I expected the hon. member for Ermelo would come and see me with the deputation, and I would have told him so immediately. I would have told him: “Look, I do not wish by refusing—what I feel ought to be granted—to raise bad feeling,” and I would have told him that if we could find a basis of solution I was prepared to consider the matter. I want again to say this afternoon that if the hon. members opposite really feel that the statue to Glen. Botha ought to be of national character, that I then suggest that a statue to Gen. Botha should be put up in the Union Building grounds, not costing £1,600, but such an amount which will enable it to be a real work of art, which will be appreciated and valued by the people of South Africa, but that at the same time a similar statue should also be erected for Gen. de Wet. I am prepared, if the hon. member so wishes, to lay such a proposal for consideration before the Cabinet, and to enquire whether the money can come from the treasury. If that happens I feel that we shall have a monument to Gen. Botha, which will really interpret the appreciation and respect of the people of South Africa, and not of a party, not for some purpose or other. The same will take place with respect to Gen. de Wet. I think nothing fairer can be found. There is a great deal in the history of Gen. Botha, which only enjoys the respect of Dutch speaking South Africa, up to 1910 or 1912, and there is much in the life of Gen. Botha at a later period which was only appreciated by English speaking South Africa, by a section of Dutch speaking South Africa, just as in the life of Gen. de Wet there was a period which, in the first place aroused the respect of Dutch speaking South Africa—not of English speaking South Africa— a period which offends the feelings of English speaking South Africa. I feel that if we can bring South Africa so far as to be great enough to adopt the scheme of erecting monuments for the two men, we shall then in future be able to say that we sufficiently acknowledge the greatness and worth of the two men to single them out, notwithstanding certain points in their history, so that the whole of South Africa, and not a portion can honour them. We can then justify the fact that we did not wait fifty years for them, but under extraordinary circumstances, and in an extraordinary period of the history of the people, we expressed in the form of those statues our appreciation and that of the public. This I wanted to submit to my hon. friend, but he did not come. I also deplore that he did not come to see me before introducing the motion. How close we were this afternoon to the outbreak of a fire which could not have easily been put out. It would have put us back some years because we know by experience how dangerous it is if someone suddenly causes a conflagration here. I therefore want to say again that in my opinion the motion was irresponsible, and if my friends opposite can make a suggestion to me which is acceptable, I shall be quite prepared to meet them at any time.

I admit that I was present at the congress of the South African Party when this matter was discussed. What exactly I said on that occasion I do not remember; but I thought and felt, and no doubt said what I thought, that the attitude adopted by the Government in regard to this matter was unworthy of them. I may have said that. If I did so, it was what I thought. Then it is quite true also that I was appointed upon a committee to go further into the matter, not on a committee appointed to visit the Government or to see the Prime Minister, but on a committee to consider what further steps should be taken. My opinion was that a committee should not go from that congress to see the Government or to see the Prime Minister, because it was purely a party gathering and a party congress. My opinion was that the committee should prepare the way for national approach to the Prime Minister, representative of all shades of opinion and that they should see the Government. If the people were behind us, we were going to demand it, and not demand it as a party. If we could not get popular support for that demand that ended the matter. That committee was appointed in order to take steps to get people behind the man to demand what they thought was right. That explains why I, at any rate, did not see the Prime Minister. It was not out of discourtesy to him, but because I felt that the committee was not the proper body to go to the Government; it should be a committee representative of the people generally. It is difficult to know how to answer the Prime Minister’s speech. If I answer the first part of it I am afraid I shall enter upon a controversy that will lead to some bitter feeling in this House. If we can come to a clear understanding whereby a statue of Gen. Botha and of General de Wet should be put in a place of honour in what I hope will be a national ground of honour for such great men, and for the men we have In the future, and above all, if as the Prime Minister suggests, under the statues of these two men should be buried all the recollections of the bitter times since 1912, if that is what he means, then we accept it with both hands. That indeed would be a national monument, one of the greatest monuments that South Africa could have, if under the statues of those two great men we agreed to sink all the recollections of the bitterness we went through since 1912. If that is the Prime Minister’s suggestion that this committee or some other body should approach him, with a view to working out some scheme on the lines suggested, I am certain that my hon. friend behind me (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will not press this motion. He asked for nothing more than that. He does not ask, and we do not ask, as party men, that a monument should be set up to General Botha because he was our party leader. That is, as the Prime Minister has said, unworthy of us.

It is the extraordinary way you go about it.

Well, we are not all infallible in this world. A great man once said that no one is infallible not even the youngest of us. I ask the Prime Minister, however unfortunate we have been in bringing this matter forward, to accept it in the spirit of the motion, and not according to the deficiencies on this side of the House. It is unfortunate, and I deeply regret, that the Prime Minister and hon. members behind him, are so little able still to put aside our controversies since 1912. The great work that General Botha did for his people they admit, during the Boer war, but I think, still more, just after the Boer war. That was when I first came into contact with him. He took his people by the hand when the country was a waste; when they were broken financially; when they had suffered defeat with all the bitterness involved in it.

Pretoria (East)!

Pretoria (East)? I did not stand for Pretoria (East) nor did I take any part in the election.

But your party did.

I was then an official of the Crown. He took his people by the hand when they were in the depths of bitterness and despair and showed them the way whereby they would not be burghers merely of the Transvaal or the Free State but burghers of South Africa. He set that ideal before them. He restored them by holding up that as an ideal to look to, and to work for. I ask if that is to count for nothing because since 1912, he has differed from you all? Supposing that they were right and he was wrong. Let us assume he was wrong and they were right. Everything that has happened since 1912 might well be forgotten by both sides of the House in consideration of what he did before. My regret is that hon. members opposite are not able to do that because of the political differences which existed between him and them since 1912. They are not able to forget, and they are not able to remember and honour him for what he did before then. Supposing he was wrong. Remember what he did before and the ideal brought to pass in South Africa and the Union he brought about in South Africa, and the restoration of his people. These were things far outweighing any political differences which existed between him and hon. members. We are not here to fight on these questions if we can possibly avoid it. It is not a matter on which South African people differ. I should be loath to introduce it in the way that the Minister has insisted upon. This motion has not been introduced from a political point of view. We are not asking that this monument should be erected for political reasons and because this man was our political leader, but because he was in very truth “volksman." because he was in truth a man whom the people ought to honour and one they will honour when these troubles and clouds have passed away. I want to clear ourselves of the mistakes made in our procedure. Whatever Dr. Engelenburg may have said in his book, we are asking for this honour to Gen. Botha as representing the people of South Africa and if hon. members will not take it from us, as being the will of the people of South Africa, they will soon hear it from other quarters of which they will think perhaps more of. During the last election campaign I went to various parts of the country and met people who predominated on the other side of the House and I heard nothing but respect for the memory of Gen. Botha. Although speakers worried me about various questions, they said they had the greatest respect for Gen. Botha. I regret that the Prime Minister does not follow that line. The Prime Minister and those behind him cannot forget the things since 1912 which the people are determined to forget and will forget in spite of what hon. members may do to people who are alive. The Prime Minister talked rather slightingly about the attempts that have been made to raise a fund for the erection of a statue for General Botha. I am assured, on good authority, however, that the sum is not £1,600, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, but £16,000.

But the biography of Gen. Botha absorbed a greater portion of the money.

There will be no want of funds—the people of South Africa will provide any money that may be required for this purpose, and even without calling for a contribution on the hon. member.

We don’t want to call for public subscriptions if it is to be a national monument.

I have no desire to talk in any slighting way of the hon. member (Mr. Conroy). People generally throughout South Africa, whatever their political opinions may be, will liberally contribute to a fund. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly in saying that Government will consider a scheme to erect national monuments to Gen. Botha and Gen. de Wet, and with the intention that they shall be a memorial to these two men and that we shall forget the bitterness which has divided us, I can assure the Prime Minister that that will meet with the desires and wishes of hon. members on this side of the House.

The hon. member has referred to myself. Every sentiment uttered in this debate is, I think, a justification of the line which the Government took up in this matter. To begin with, ought not a national monument to the leaders of this country to be voted by this House and the funds not be raised by public subscription? Certainly the former course is adopted in Great Britain.

When ?

Certainly the monuments which are placed in the entrance to Westminster Hall are voted by Parliament as national memorials.

That is in the House of Commons.

Apart from any private group of persons who raise funds for erecting memorials—let them erect their own memorial as Durban has done—the Union grounds and Buildings should be reserved as a sort of national Valhalla for the great ones of this nation, and not be filled with any lesser than the greatest of our people. I am not going to enter into any arguments whatever, or to hide my intense admiration of General Botha, whether before or after 1912. Others differed greatly over the war, but, as far as I am concerned, I differed with Genera] Botha on other matters from 1910 to 1915. History, however, will write him down as one of the greatest men South Africa has ever produced. Let us recognise that these differences in the unfortunate times we have gone through have not been merely political differences, but differences which have issued in bloodshed and has left feelings which will not be eradicated in this generation. Let us wait until 20 years are past, and let us hope and pray that after that our differences will simply be political, and then we shall be more ready to recognise the services of our great men. But let us reserve the Union Buildings for national statues to be erected from funds voted by this Parliament, and not subscribed for by any party or group. I served under General Botha, and I can fully understand the confidence he gave to those who served under him at a time when the hon. member and I fought on opposite sides. General Botha inspired confidence. All the same, every word uttered in this debate seems to me to be a justification of the course adopted by the Government. If the memories of the past arouse so much difference of feeling, rather let us defer the placing of these monuments until we can erect them by mutual consent and avoid having discussions as to the greatness of the person in whose memory the proposed monument is to be erected. The very fact that the discussion has called forth dissent from one or the other side of the House is justification for our view that we had better recognise the acuteness of the feelings which have been aroused in the last 20 years, and as far as the erection of statues in the national Valhalla is concerned, that should be reserved until this generation has passed away, and then we should be able to erect monuments to those that are looked upon as our greatest South Africans. I am convinced that in 20 years’ time a proper sum will be voted for the erection of a worthy statue in the Union Buildings, not only to General Botha, but to others who, by common consent, it is agreed have been South Africa’s greatest sons.

I am not quite clear what the Prime Minister’s proposal is; with regard to the question of a monument to Genera] de Wet at the same time, I was asked yesterday whether I would go on the central committee in connection therewith and I agreed without any reservation. So far as I am concerned there can be no question, and I am quite satisfied. If the Prime Minister will open the door, none of us would dream of opposing. In view of that I will, with the permission of the House, ask to withdraw the motion. I am quite satisfied.

With leave of the House, motion withdrawn.