laid upon the Table—

Report of the Examiners on the Sundays River Settlements Administration Bill, as follows:

The Examiners beg to report, in terms of Standing Order No. 182 (Public Business), that Standing Order No. 2 (Private Bills) has not been complied with in that there is no proof that a copy of the Bill was deposited with either the Administrator of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope or with the Clerk of the House of Assembly, and in that the published notices of the intention to apply for leave to introduce the, Bill were not signed by anyone.

J. H. H. DE WAAL,

Chairman of Committees,

Examiners.

A. v. d. S. CENTLIVRES, Parliamentary Draftsman,

Report referred to Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

laid upon the Table—

Papers relating to:

1. (1) Proposed grant for school purposes of Lots 107 and 108 Lamberts Bay.
2. (2) Proposed withdrawal of Zele Forest, Libode, from demarcated forest areas.
3. (3) Proposed grant to Berlin Village Management Board of slaughter poles site.
4. (4) Proposed grant for school purposes of portion Lot 39 Postmasburg.
5. (5) Proposed grant to Port St. Johns Village Management Board of Lot 39.
6. (6) Proposed erection by Strand Municipality of Pavilion and Pier.
7. (7) Proposed demolition portion of Old Supreme Court Buildings, Cape Town.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the following papers, laid upon the Table on the 16th, 19th and 20th instant, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, viz.:

1. (1) Return of Staff of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa.
2. (2) Finance Accounts, Appropriation Accounts and other financial statements of the Province of the Transvaal for the financial year 1923-’24, with the Report of the Auditor of Accounts. [T.P. 1—’25.]
3. (3) Finance Accounts, Appropriation Accounts, Loan Funds and Miscellaneous Funds (exclusive of Railways and Harbours) for the financial year 1923-’24, with the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General. [U.G. 39—’24.]
4. (4) Schedule of Pensions (excluding pensions payable by the Railways and Harbours Administration) as at 30th September, 1924. (U.G. 44—’24.]
5. (5) Return prepared in terms of section 26 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, showing particulars of Special Warrants issued by His Excellency the Governor-General during the period 25th August, 1924, to 12th February, 1925.
6. (6) Report of the Custodian of Enemy Property as at 31st December, 1924. [U.G. 16—’25.]
7. (7) Finance Accounts (including Trust, Housing Loan and Village Water Supply Accounts), Teachers’ Pension Fund Accounts and Appropriation Accounts of the Province of Natal for the period 1st April, 1923, to 31st March, 1924, with the Provincial Auditor’s Reports thereon. [N.P. 2—’25.]

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I do not think there is any apology needed from me for introducing what may be considered a radical motion into the South African Parliament. A very large majority of South Africans, especially men born in South Africa, have always disliked titles. They have felt that they come into conflict with the spirit of a new country. I think we may state that all the really great South Africans in the past have refused titles, such as Rhodes, Merriman, Saul Solomon, etc.

What about Sir John Brand?

I am coming to that. Men like Bright, Cobden and others refused to go to the Upper House in England. One can understand men like Balfour and Pitt going to the other House because if the Upper House of England were left to the hereditary peers alone it is very probable they would make a pretty good mess of governing the country, and wise men have to be sent to another place as a rule to keep legislation on the right lines in the Upper House. If our Senate were made up of knights one could understand the Government of the day, or whoever is responsible for giving these titles, but it is not. It is an ordinary nominated and elected Senate so that the argument that you must not have nobles to take part would not hold good in South Africa. Then there is the scandal arising from the purchase of titles in various parts of the Empire. Commissions have sat in other parts of the world about this, and it would be rather interesting to know whether titles have ever been purchased in this country. Perhaps the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will tell us whether money has ever been received for party purposes in South Africa for titles. I trust he will not give us one of those Devonshire lane answers. I suppose he knows what I mean. I was reading that book of Steen’s this morning and I find that the hon. member went to Switzerland during the war and on his return to London Steen met him. He said: I see you have been away, and the right hon. member replied that he had been down to Devonshire, adding: there is nothing more lovely in the world than the Devonshire lanes. Mr. Steen knew that the right hon. member was wrong, and I trust he will give us a better answer. But it appears that from what I can find out we are indebted to a Scot for the baronetcies of the Empire. I am told that James I., being hard up for money like most political parties, sold his baronetcies for £1,000 each. They cost a little more to-day. I am told about £20,000. My friend argues that President Brand took a title. I admit it, so did President Kruger. But their case was slightly different. These men were heads of Governments and in rather a peculiar position. President Brand was in England at the time dealing with the question of the land which had been stolen by England at that time from the Free State and he was offered a title. But the people in the Free State felt it very much, and when they erected a monument to President Brand, which was raised by all classes of the people of the Free State, they deliberately left the letters K.C.M.G. off that monument. That monument is now standing in Bloemfontein and has no title on it. Another argument will be raised here. We have D.S.O. and M.C. titles and orders like that. If I had my way we would not have them in South Africa, but they are not titles; they are orders.

Will you drop the D.T.D.?

The D.T.D. was given by the late Government and I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House who has got it.

Your Government has just been conferring it.

They would not take it. Most of D.T.D.’s are on the other side.

It is to their discredit that they did not take it.

The hon. member need not be touchy on the subject. He will get the O.B.E. if he goes on like that. I do not think we need say very much on the question. There are large numbers of members on the other side of the House particularly men, born in South Africa, who quite agree with me. We have titles that are given in South Africa such as “Oom Jannie” (the hon. the Leader of the Opposition). During the election I met the hon. member for Standerton on the veld. He will remember it. He was going to speak in Bloemfontein. That was when the party broke up his meeting. I do not blame the hon. member particularly, but I do blame his party. We met on the veld and a train came along with a crowd of University students in it. They called out: “We want a speech, Oom Jannie.” In that utterance they showed more love and respect than if they had said: “Will you please speak to us, Sir Johannes?” That is what South Africans want. Let us take my constituents in the Free State. In Brandfort there is an old lady, Mrs. Linder, the widow of the late General who fought at Bloed River, one of the last of the voortrekkers. She is known to the people in the Free State and parts of the Transvaal as Ma Linder. Many people including the hon. Senator de Wet have gone out to pay a tribute of love to her. Do you think if she was known as Lady Pretorius of Wynberg they would go? No. We do not want those titles in South Africa. The titles given by the people themselves to their own people are all we want. Titles have not fallen like a gentle stream from Heaven. They have come down absolutely like a cloud-burst. Then we have been told they should be given to scientific men and the like. But Huxley, Darwin and other great scientists died without titles and probably also greater men before them. We feel that the time has arrived when we should put an end to what is, after all, a little bit of feudalism. One could understand if titles were given to natives who still go in for feudalism. Why give them in this country—a new country? It leads to snobbishness; it makes for class distinctions, which we do not want in South Africa. I feel that men on all sides of the House, especially men born in this country, will support this petition praying that no further titles be conferred. They are of no use in this country; and they are of very little use to the people who have got them.

seconded the motion.

I think that the House can congratulate the mover of this motion on the moderate way in which he has spoken, because, usually he throws a great deal of, shall I say, liveliness with a touch of acidity into his speeches which is fortunately absent on this occasion? This motion is a very sweeping one. If carried, it is an indication that in the opinion of this House no further titles should be granted to South Africans. We are, in the first place, trenching upon the King’s prerogative. Whether we like it or not, we are all British subjects, we are all the subjects of His Majesty and one of his prerogatives as the fountain of honour is to grant titles and honours. The hon. member (Mr. Barlow) has shown no reason at all why we should seek to prevent His Majesty from exercising his prerogative. It is a well-known thing that the King in these matters acts upon the advice of the Prime Minister. It is not even a Cabinet question; it is the Prime Minister alone who recommends whether honours should be granted or not and this motion not only seeks to interfere with the King’s prerogative, but it seeks to tie the hands of the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, the motion, although it may have some moral effect, is of no legal effect whatever.

It is a request.

Nothing but an Act of Parliament has legal effect. Doubtless the moral effect will be borne in mind when seeking to tie the hands of the Prime Minister. Is he not to be trusted? Is the hon. member afraid that the Prime Minister will make recommendations right and left which will bring the question of granting titles into disrepute. The hon. member had a little sneer at some of the gentlemen who have received titles, but he cannot take titles away. He is rather late in the day. Assuming that he held these views that he now expresses a few years ago, he ought to have spoken then and tried to prevent the Prime Minister who he thought was likely to make a mistake in the bringing forward of recommendations. But why do it now? This Government, according to the Minister of Justice, is in for ten years.

Permanently.

Then all the more reason for trusting the Government. As I have said, this motion, if carried, is an indication to the Government that the Prime Minister shall not recommend anyone for any titles. Now what is a title? It is an honour conferred by the King for some services which he thinks ought to be recognized—for some public service of eminence, some public service of distinction. There are hereditary titles to which, doubtless, the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) objects, and there are knighthoods, but this motion is not confined to hereditary titles nor to knighthoods. We have a title here which nobody objects to—Privy Councillors.

That is not a title.

It is an honour conferred upon a subject for distinguished services and he is singled out from his fellows by being addressed as “the right hon.” That is a title; it is an honour. There is no question about it. It has been the subject of discussion in other colonies in regard to the power of the Government as against the Home Government to confer these titles. As a matter of fact, if a subject in this country holds the position of Prime Minister for one year, he almost automatically is gazetted as being permitted by His Majesty to retain the title of right hon. for life. In the same way if another Minister holds office for three years, or if you, Mr. Speaker, hold office for three years, or the President of the other Chamber holds office for a similar period, it is gazetted that His Majesty has permitted the persons concerned to hold the title of “honourable.” Are these titles, “hon.” and “right hon.” to be swept away? If so, why? Has any good cause been shown? Then we have other titles. We have distinctive titles given for military service. They may be said to be decorations, but they are given to men for distinguished military service. Are these titles to be discontinued and no title to be given to a man for distinguished civil service, or in the ordinary walks of life? If this motion is carried, no further D.S.O.’s or V.C.’s would be given and no further members of this House will be entitled to use the title “General” after they have given up military service.

A good thing, too.

No I don’t think it would be. I like to think that our Prime Minister is called “General” Hertzog, and not “Mr.” Hertzog and I am sure my friends on the other side would think I was wanting in courtesy if I addressed him as “Mr.” Hertzog. In the same way no officer who has served in our Defence Force, once warlike operations are over and he retires into private life would be entitled to be addressed as “Colonel,” “General” or “Commandant” as the case may be. Is that desirable? I want to refer to another title, and that is “King’s Counsel.” That is a distinction given to an eminent barrister. A man who is eminent in his profession is recommended usually by the Minister of Justice to be created a K.C. The Prime Minister endorses that and recommends His Excellency to issue a patent, and a patent is issued by his Excellency the Governor-General in the name of the King creating this particular barrister a K.C. That is a title which will be swept away if this motion is carried and I do not think any good case has been made out for abolishing K.C.’s and these other titles which I have referred to. Several of the Ministers on the other side are K.C.’s and I am reminded that the present Government has created quite a batch of K.C.’s—eminent gentlemen, no doubt, who are very proud to write K.C. after their names. I say good luck to them. I think that an honour of this sort is in most cases well-deserved, and although some of these gentlemen at the Bar may not in the opinion of some people have attained to that eminence which would entitle them to be K.C.’s I personally do not take any exception, but I do say that it is rather asking us to go too far when we are asked to vote for the entire abolition of these distinctions, these titles and honours. It has been said that South Africans object to titles. Well a good many people are opposed to some titles I admit, although they like to use other titles. But a great many South Africans, and eminent South Africans even, have had no objection at all to titles. The late Lord de Villiers was a very eminent man and I could name others who were proud to accept titles. The late President Kruger accepted a title, a Portugese title. I am told it was in an Order of Knighthood called the Order of the Holy Ghost. My friend is not quite correct in saying that all eminent South Africans scorn titles. Some people object to titles, some would take them if offered, and others again I am told, ask for them and do not get them.

Some buy them.

To the granting of titles for political reasons a great deal of objection has been taken at different times, because while one half of the people may think the title is deserved the other half may not. But if there are to be titles for military and other services there can be no good reason for saying the man who has served the public in political life to the best of his lights should be excluded. I think the hon. member has made no case at all. It has been said that in recognising an eminent railway manager or bacteriologist you should give instead of a title, money. But all people do not want money. They do not place the same value upon it as upon a title. Take the instance of Sir Horace Plunkett. That is a gentleman that has not only given up the greater part of his life to furthering the co-operative movement in Ireland, but he has given up the greater part of his wealth as well. Was it not a gracious thing on the part of His Majesty to grant him a title? The Irish people thought so and they felt it was an honour done to themselves. The hon. member hinted at bribery and corruption, but he did not make out any case? He said men had contributed to party funds. Of course, wealthy men on both sides have contributed to party funds. Why not? But is any one prepared to say that political life in the Republics of the Free State and the Transvaal in the old days was less corrupt than political life in the Cape where titles were occasionally granted? Do you find less bribery and corruption and graft in America than you do in England? He would indeed be a bold man who could say so. It is quite true that there was an outcry a few years ago about a title that was to be granted to a prominent South African, but no South African Prime Minister had anything to do with it. It was then laid down that no title would be granted to a South African without the consent of the Prime Minister of this country. I think the House can safely leave the matter in the hands of the Prime Minister. No one is obliged to accept a title. It is quite possible that the hon. member is moving this motion from a sense of some need of self-protection.

You got that joke from the “Cape Times.”

No, the “Cape Times” does not know my joke yet. They will get it in a moment. Assuming that the hon. member had sown his political wild oats and became as noted for wisdom as he is now notable for his irresponsibility, and assuming that the Prime Minister were to ask the hon. member whether he would like his Majesty to make him the Earl of Bloemfontein, the hon. member would be able to refuse it. There is no obligation on any one to take a title simply because it is offered. The hon. member will be able to refuse and say—

Is the Prime Minister going to tie his own hands? Supposing you, Mr. Speaker, were at the end of a long and honourable public career, and the Prime Minister wished to recommend his Majesty to confer some distinction on you. He could not do it if this motion goes through. The Prime Minister would have to say “No; Mr. Barlow is against it.” Is the Prime Minister prepared to vote for this motion and say there shall be no more Privy Councillors? In fact he may, and indeed I hope he will, go to London himself and attend some Empire Conference. It he does he will be taken into the entire confidence of his Majesty’s Government and it is quite likely that the King may desire to confer upon him a Privy Councillorship. If that were done, I am sure we should all be delighted and we should all be very happy to address him as the “right hon.” gentleman. If the Prime Minister votes for this motion it will show that he has not enough backbone to resist those on the other side and elsewhere who are pressing for honours. It seems to me that the House is being asked to express a pious opinion which neither binds the Prime Minister nor his Majesty. The hon. member has not confined his motion to hereditary titles as was done in Canada. He goes much further than that, as I have shown, and I hope the House will negative the motion.

I think it is desirable that I inform the House as soon as possible what my attitude is concerning this question and what is the attitude of the Government. I think there ought not to be much doubt on the part of hon. members as to the attitude of the Government. Our convictions do not date from yesterday nor the day before yesterday, but have been from time to time during our public life very clearly set forth. I do not think that I have ever said otherwise to any person than that I consider titles do not accord with the conditions of life as led by the people of South Africa. Immediately after we assumed office we resolved to make no recommendations with regard to titles, and I would point out that in accordance with that we never have recommended any person for the receipt of a title. The House will thus understand that so far as concerns the Government it is considered desirable that Parliament be afforded as soon as possible an opportunity to express either their approval or disapproval of the Government’s attitude. The attitude we have taken, we have taken simply because we believe it to represent the feelings of the people at large, and I think the House will agree that we must come to a decision as soon as possible. To-day we are on the eve of a visit from a distinguished visitor from England, and it must be plain to each of us that if we hold to the former custom it will be the desire of some of the great among our people, who deserved the distinction just as much as persons who in the past have been honoured with one or other title, that they too will be so distinguished. But it would be regrettable if, after the thing had taken place, this House should declare it was the will of the people that no titles be bestowed. I say this so that the House may understand that it is the duty of the House to declare the will of the people, so that when the occasion arises the Government may know what to do. Now I agree entirely with the motion which is before the House; in the first place, because the bestowal of titles in South Africa is in conflict with the feeling of the South African people; and in the second because it is contrary to the desire of the South African people. I ask to be allowed to dwell a little on this point. We find one great thing in the public life of our people—that has been referred to already this afternoon—and that is, that the great leaders of our people, our most celebrated national leaders, are men who would never in South Africa accept titles of honour, and in such cases where that has been done, the recipient has immediately declined in the esteem of the people. Why? In the first place our great public men, our leaders, have felt that the acceptance of such titles is something which does not suit them. I will mention only Merriman, Jan Hofmeyr and Botha. These great Afrikanders have felt that it did not fit in with our life. But even had they thought otherwise, they had considered the feelings of the people; and those who accepted the honours lost in whole or part the goodwill of the people. In other words, they felt, without saying so—instinctively they felt —that it was something the people did not want. Now when we have to do with an institution to which the people are so opposed we are not justified in adopting it, and we feel that titles of honour are directly contrary to the feeling of the people. My third exception to the bestowal of titles is that they are against the interests of the people. I have said it was in conflict with the feelings of our people. Let us just consider this. What is really the feeling of the people on this subject of the making of distinctions between person and person? The feeling is diametrically opposed to it. If there is one nation in the world who values equality— equality in rank and worth—then it is the South African people. The difference between person and person, where any exists, is the difference in worth. Any other distinction is not only unknown but it is directly in strife with our whole view of life. It is hardly necessary for me to mention how, long before democracy was known even in England, except as a word, we here in South Africa applied it, for even then we had our two republics. Why? Because it was felt that they represented a degree of freedom which even in England was unknown, and not put into practice until 40 years later. Let us further not forget the circumstances of South Africa—the feelings of the whites who are encircled by a barbarous world. They have been this—and it has become a very deep feeling—that so far as white man and white man are concerned they stand as equals, as brothers, and there is no distinction between people who follow the various occupations. A European filling the meanest office might just as well become president of the Free State or Transvaal with an equal chance. This we must not forget. When we discuss titles we know that the people are against them. Our leading men have instinctively felt that and they have acted accordingly. ’ We observe that when they have not done that they immediately lost re spect in the eyes of the people. I have said that the interests of the public demand that we shall declare against the giving and scattering of titles. Let us consider what the result of the bestowal of titles is. Can anyone deny that in general class and caste differences are aroused? No one can deny it. As a matter of fact titles and the reason why the desire for them is, so great is due simply to this: That certain persons are not satisfied to rank amongs the common herd, but wish to be set in a separate niche with a separate label. They want to form a distinctive class or caste. This is not just a supposition, but what has occurred in this building on the occasion of a certain opening of Parliament a few years ago—I do not know even that it was so long ago—but I know that on that occasion precedence was given to people with titles. Distinction was officially made between various persons. The principle of privilege was thus introduced. I think we cannot be too thankful that we are practically free of the class and caste sentiment, from which the great nations of Europe are still suffering. But with the bestowal of titles here in South Africa we are going to endanger our democratic ideals for the sake of what, as I shall show later, is antiquated: which is such —I would almost say pestiferous an institution that even Europe would wish to be free of it if it could. I further said that it is in opposition with the interests of the people; that it is in fact a false recognition of worth and virtue or a recognition of false worth and false virtue. For what are titles given? It is said: “Oh, let us retain titles for merit, for bestowal on persons of high scientific attainment,” but those who have been most deserving of such have not always obtained them. The great majority of such cases in England, that is men such as Spencer, Tindall, Huxley and Darwin, giants in the world of science, did not receive them. Who gets them? It is clear. The men who have the best opportunities of coming under the notice of persons in authority and the men who are ready …

Charlie Chaplin.

I want to be serious. In the first place those receive titles who can come under the notice of the authorities, who can bring influence to bear, but the people who really deserve them obtain them only by chance. The man who is able to come to your Ministers or Prime Minister and say: I will give you £5,000—they get it. Do we not know this here? Did it not happen that one came forward and said: I will give you £5,000 or £7,000 for a title? We all know if. We know that in England the position was so bad that a few years ago it occasioned great scandal. We know that in England people of real deserts have seldom obtained a title, and if it does sometimes happen, then it is only as a cloak to conceal the other bestowals. I say we cannot but expect that our whole national life will be tainted. For this reason I feel the necessity for protecting the South African people from pollution. What can be the ultimate result when men, great men amongst our people—men who are deserving but have not in the same degree fallen under attention and men who go on in the execution of their duty virtuous—if these are passed over and your rich man and your speculators are honoured with titles? I feel convinced that we in South Africa are called on before we go further to ask ourselves whether we are on the right path, and if we are not— and I say we are not—then it is our duty as soon as possible to cry “halt.” Canada has faced this matter unflinchingly. I wish hon. members of this House had all read the arguments put forth in the Canadian Parliament on this subject. For the sake of Sir Robert Borden the Parliament eventually decided to pass a milk-and-water resolution. Sir Robert Borden was selected by the Government to be its representative at the Imperial Conference, but had that not been the case, a motion exactly the same as that which is today before the House would have been unanimously adopted. Let hon. members not forget one great point. We have to deal here with an institution which it has been constantly attempted for the last 100 years to force on South Africa. But it is not a South African institution, and even in the place whence it comes, it is a hollow and a lifeless thing. The institution of titles is, as indeed was acknowledged in the Canadian House of Parliament, no longer what it used to be. Formerly there was connected with each title an office which had to be fulfilled. Each title carried its obligations, but this is no longer the case. The bestowal of titles is for our people now of no other service than to set back the clock of our national life. This shows that we must take the matter seriously. Can anyone show of what use they are in our national life? No, I say that we are not justified in allowing the evil to be more and more introduced here, where our public says: “We do not want it.” Seeing then that the people do not want it, can we do something from which we feel that no good can result? I will now discuss a few points brought forward by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). He brought forward objections to the motion, or rather he endeavoured to justify the bestowal of titles; but I will fell my hon. friend this. I am convinced that if he had read the discussion in the Canadian Parliament on this question he would certainly not have brought one of his objections before the House. The first argument used by him is that we should be infringing on the prerogative of the King. I hope my hon. friend does not mean it seriously. It has been in this case just as it was with all the old prerogatives we have had. Eventually the prerogative became nothing more than the will of the people. So too in this case. He said this afternoon that titles are given only on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who represents the people, this indicating that it is only a case of doing what the people want. If I recommend to the King the bestowal of a title, where does the prerogative come in? The hon. member must exercise a little care. I will just say one thing, that in the debate in the Canadian Parliament, I think it was in 1918, Sir Robert Borden drew attention to the point, and he said that although the Prime Minister recommends the bestowal of a title, the nature of the title given and their number is decided by the British Government. Now I ask, are we prepared to leave it to the British Government to decide how many titles shall be given out to the South African people and whether it is to be ordinary baronetcies or earldoms, or what else it is to be? No; if this is the case, I say it is more than necessary to stop it as soon as possible, because it is not the King with whom the decision rests but the British Government. That is what Sir Robert Borden would have acknowledged in the Canadian Parliament. Allow me to say that the distribution of titles here in the first place is in relation to the interest of England. The British Government has more interest in it than all your Commonwealths put together. It would not suit England for the Dominions to bestow titles right and left, and naturally the decision must rest with England. Are we going to allow ourselves in South Africa to be dictated to by the British Government as to what and as to how many titles we may bestow? What becomes then of our authority? No, I say right out let us ask politely that no more titles be given in South Africa. Then we shall take up a sound attitude on a national foundation. Do not let us be lackeys to anybody. Further the hon. member argued that we must retain titles for deserving cases. If they were only so employed then there would be something in it, “but is it not the case that against one such bestowal, ten occur otherwise? Or is not often, in the case of the ten, a question of how much money would be pocketed. The few titles which year by year are now given go to a small number of persons, while there are at least an equal number who are equally deserving but who, under the circumstances, receive no recognition. If you must give titles, then give consistently to all who deserve them. But that number must not rest on the decision of the British Government. That is not reasonable. Further the hon. member has spoken of “right hon.” But your “K.C.” your “P.C.” and your “right hon.” are not titles. “Right hon.” can be called a title, but it is just as if I say Mr. “So-and-so ”: merely a courteous form of address, that is all. The man who does not want to use it need not do so. Take the case of “K.C.”: that also is not a title. It merely indicates that the person is an advocate and that he has cerain duties of office. He is one specially indicated by the King for the giving of advice. I think there are very few K.C.’s who are really necessary, but one thing is certain, they are deserving and certain obligations regarding their profession are associated with the title. And “P.C.” does not constitute a title, but is an indication that the person holding it is qualified to advice the King. I mention this simply to show that my hon. friend has no valid argument. He next asks, must not titles be bestowed for military service? I ask why should they? But my hon. friend probably refers to the rank of these persons, such as colonel and general. But let me point out that in America no titles exist, and yet there are colonels and generals enough. And why? For the simple reason that these people are so addressed according to their military rank. From the motion now proposed everyone will know, and the King will know, that we want to do away with all titles. They lead only to the placing of certain persons on a higher pedestal than their fellow men and the giving of precedence in society. It is our opinion that this is unsuitable here. I hope I have made my attitude plain, I wish to repeat that the attitude which I take up is also that of the Government. I hope the Houses will approve it, and that the House will understand why it is that we must come to a decision as speedily as possible. I would rather see it done to-day, but will say: that if it is not adopted to-day, the Government is prepared to give it precedence on the Order Paper.

The House has listened to a very long and studied oration from the Prime Minister which makes it perfectly certain that the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) should have emanated from the Government. After the studied speech and the copious notes of the Prime Minister, it would have been very much more dignified of the Government if they had brought this resolution forward themselves, instead of leaving it to a young and irresponsible member like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North). The Prime Minister differs considerably from the hon. member, because he (Mr. Barlow) in moving this resolution, which was adopted by the Government and which, no doubt, he moved on behalf of the Government, was very careful to say that he decried honours of every sort, whether they be knighthoods, or baronetcies, or viscountships, D.S.O.’s, K.C.’s or anything of a similar character. I asked a Minister the other day, if he had ever read “Oliver Twist” and the “Artful Dodger.” May I now ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) if he has ever been a student of Bret Harte and if he has ever read of “Truthful James ”? During the whole coarse of the flippant speech of the hon. member, there recurred, to my mind, almost at the end of every sentence the thought “Do I sleep? Do I dream? ”

“ Are there visions about ”?

Yes, and as my hon. friend opposite has said, “are there visions about ”? because when I heard the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) refer in that disrespectful motion to titles and honours of all sorts I could not help feeling that I had never got a greater shock in the whole course of my life. When His Majesty the King was graciously pleased to confer upon me the honour of Privy Councillor, which I very much appreciate, none of the telegrams, and letters of congratulation that I received from my various friends have I treasured so much as the one that I received from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North). The letter was of such a touching character that I have kept it treasured in my safe ever since.

Do you remember what I said?

I do; I will tell my hon. friend what he said. My hon. friend then assumed to speak as he assumes to speak to-day, for the people of the country, and he said that “the honour that has been conferred upon you will be received with satisfaction by every section and every party in this country.” The hon. member always takes himself very seriously. I do not take him so seriously, but I really kept this letter as a sort of treasure knowing, with my experience of the hon. member in old political days when we could not find a seat for him in the Cape Peninsula, that he tried to terrorise me and said if we would not find a seat for him he would not remain a member of the party, and, as we were not able to find a seat for him down here, he thought he would join another political party which might make a place for him. I remember attending with him a meeting at Observatory, but my followers, who were much wiser than I was, said: “You don’t know that hon. gentleman as well as we do,” and they said they would not find a seat for him.

Do you remember when you were in the Bond?

The Prime Minister, who has just now left the House, speaks, naturally, with a great deal more responsibility than my hon. friend (Mr. Barlow), who we thought had been chosen as a joker to bring this forward. I say this, and I say it in all seriousness, that I object, and a large number of the people in this country object, to the statement that the volk are entirely opposed to his Majesty granting honours to people in this country. The Prime Minister does not speak for the people. He does not speak for anything but a section of the people that support him and his party in this House, and I object most unmistakably to his statement, since at the hustings the people never had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this question. It was not amongst the various promises which were issued and the manifestoes which were scattered broadcast on the various political platforms during the last election. I, therefore, think I am justified in saying that the Prime Minister in a matter of this character has no right to say that he speaks for the feeling, practically the unanimous feeling, of the people in this country. I can thoroughly understand the Prime Minister differing from my hon. friend (Mr. Barlow) in not including generals and K.C.s and things of that sort within the category of the resolution, because on the Treasury benches there sit two “Generals,” one “Colonel,” two K.C.s and one D.S.O. Did not my hon. friend think of that when he was making his speech? Besides those, where is the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) and the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar), and where is the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), who is so proud of honours that he conferred the title of “general” upon himself in the Transvaal? Whether at that meeting which was held for the purpose of establishing a republic it was the Minister of Lands or the Minister of Justice who desired to have the title of president conferred upon him, I am not quite certain. As to generals, I believe that the party organs which support hon. members opposite referred to the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) as a “general,” and similarly to others whose “titles” were granted on account of services rendered by those gentlemen to this country during the late rebellion. The hon. Prime Minister says that all scientific people have refused to take titles.

I did not say all scientific people.

Has the hon. gentleman ever heard of Lord Kelvin, Lord Rayleigh and Lord Lister?

What does it prove? That some good men do get it, that is all.

My hon. friend must remember there are a large number of distinguished people in this country who bear titles. You have Sir Henry Lukin, who has rendered distinguished services to this country; you have Sir George Cory, Sir Spencer Lister of Johannesburg, and many others. I am only mentioning these things to show that a large number of people who have rendered distinguished services to this country have had titles conferred upon them. There is Sir Carruthers Beattie—

And Sir Pieter Bam.

There is another thing I took objection to in the Prime Minister’s speech. That was his speaking for the people of South Africa. He does not represent the people of South Africa. He represents the party. That my hon. friend will find out very soon, because if there ever was an example of narrow party government you have it at the present time. Then the Prime Minister said these “foreign institutions were forced upon this country.

Hear, hear.

The King does not force these things upon the country at all. They are recommended by the Prime Minister.

Yes, and your Prime Minister forces them on the country.

Then I do not think my hon. friend has taken account of the fact that in his speech he has touched a sentimental core in the heart of a number of the people of this country.

What do you mean?

I will tell you.

Yes, do.

The granting of honours has a large amount of sentiment attached to it, and there are a large number of people in this country who desire to retain the sentimental connections that attach to the Throne and the Empire. The hon. Prime Minister should have thought a little more before he delivered the speech he has delivered this afternoon. That speech will convey the impression that what was at the back of the hon. gentleman’s mind was one further little severance of the tie that binds us to the Throne and the Empire.

Rubbish.

There were little pin-pricks here and there of this sort going on from time to time and I wonder how my hon. friend the Minister of Defence relishes things like that? How does he like to hear the Prime Minister speak about these “foreign institutions ”? When he has the Prime Minister’s speech translated into English so that he can understand it I wonder how he will feel about the Prime Minister’s reference to these “foreign institutions?” There is another thing. I do not think a more inopportune time could have been chosen for this motion—yes, and purposely chosen—than the present. The Government have extended the invitation of the late Government to H.R.H. the Prince of Wales to visit the Union of South Africa. I do not say that the Prime Minister has purposely chosen this moment for this motion, but I say that it is most inopportune. That will be the opinion not alone of the people of South Africa, but of people throughout the Empire and in Great Britain itself. It will be felt that it was entirely wrong that within a few weeks of the arrival of H.R.H. in this country the Government should have lent the power of their voice to a motion of this character. I am sure it will do a great deal of harm. No speech the Prime Minister has made will be so resented by a large section of the people of this country as the speech he has made this afternoon. A title is one of the links which allow the sovereign who is recognized throughout the Empire as the king of each individual dominion to confer honours on his people. I regret the Prime Minister’s speech very much and I believe the views I have expressed will be those, not only of the English-speaking people, but of the Dutch-speaking people too. Many distinguished Dutch-speaking citizens of this country have been honoured by having titles conferred on them.

Were they “honoured? ”

Among others there was the late Administrator of the Transvaal and the late Chief Justice—a Dutchman of the Dutch. It was on account of the title conferred upon him alone that he was able to take his seat in the Privy Council. I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister made the speech he did. Had he come down to the House wound up as we have often seen him, I would not have minded so much, but I regret it the more because his speech was made deliberately and after full consideration. This motion should have been introduced by the Prime Minister himself and the Government should have taken the fullest responsibility for it.

The right hon. gentleman ended his speech in a more serious tone than the very flippant remarks with which he regaled us for the first quarter of an hour for this speech. I do not propose to follow his flippancies. I regard this as a serious matter. The right hon. gentleman will remember that two years ago on behalf of the Labour party I introduced precisely the same motion. He will remember that my hon. friend the Prime Minister sitting on the benches now occupied by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) supported the motion, and it is not beyond his powers of deduction to suppose that this motion introduced by the Labour party would not be treated by the House as a jest as on that occasion, but as a serious subject, and would receive the support of the Prime Minister and the Government just as in Opposition the combined parties have moved and pressed this motion upon the House. I just want to answer one or two points in the right hon. member’s speech. He lays great stress upon this being one of the sentimental ties that bind the people of South Africa to the Throne and Empire. The right hon. member and I have often differed on the subject of the things upon which the connection of the different parts of the Commonwealth depends. Heaven help us if the continuance of the connection and the continuance of the Commonwealth has to depend on the granting of titles and snobbery. I believe that the future continuance of the Empire for a long time, as long as we need contemplate, depends upon a different source of strength and upon totally different grounds. Is it not a fact which is common knowledge to everyone pretty well that these orders of chivalry; these knighthoods are relics of the mediaeval age; that they have grown altogether out of time and that they are anachronisms to-day. To confer a knighthood and say “Rise up, Sir So-and-so,” to a person who could not sit astride a horse, is ridiculous (the right hon. member will acquit me of any personal allusion). Let us grant in very many cases we all entirely endorse some honour that has been granted. Let us also be candid, and admit that in very many cases—a large number of cases—we feel that that honour has been granted by the Government much more for political services and other reasons altogether than those which should weigh with the King when he delights to honour any of his subjects. I think the right hon. member spoke as” if it were a matter appealing particularly to the English section. We in the Labour party represent very largely English-speaking and English-descended people of South Africa, and I am sure every member of the Labour party will give his wholehearted support to this motion, and also that it will receive the entire support of those of the party outside the House. The motion is a dignified expression of our wishes and couched in fitting and respectful and dignified words. I allude to another reason why the hon. member thought this an unfortunate moment to bring forward this motion, because within a few weeks he says the Prince of Wales, the heir to the throne, will be in our country. Why it is just the very time for this House to pass such a motion. The motion is couched in most unexceptionable terms. We want to get an expression from this House, and it will then go as an expression of the representatives of the people.

You do not represent the whole of the people.

This House represents the whole of the people.

Just for a time.

It will probably represent the people for a pretty long time; if your party are in the ascendant, and want to shower knighthoods on Tom, Dick and Harry, which the rest of the people cannot see any reason for, you will be able to present a humble petition to his Majesty asking him to reverse this motion, and you may get very large support and assistance from those few inhabitants of this country who themselves aspire to be distinguished in this way, in which most South Africans refused to be distinguished.

You have got a title in the family.

What on earth has that to do with it? I am pointing out that there are knighthoods and knighthoods. If it were possible and practicable and in conformity with the feelings and spirit of the country to be sure you would confine them to the few deserving cases, there might be something in it; but once you allow the practice you will have titles scattered around to those who want a handle to their name and a little notoriety.

Are you afraid the Prime Minister would permit abuse?

We have apparently new constitutional principles. The conferring of these honours used to be the prerogative of the Crown. Now, according to the right hon. gentleman, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. I am sorry that the right hon. Mr. Merriman is not here to relate to us his response to a recommendation, I think, to a former Prime Minister of Australia, when he sent a despatch to the Colonial Office suggesting that at the New Year a certain number of knighthoods should be placed at the disposal of the Colonial Prime Ministers. Mr. Merriman replied that on the whole he agreed that it would be a good thing that every Colonial Prime Minister should have some means of making his opponents look ridiculous. It is more dignified altogether for us to send to his Majesty in anticipation of the Prince of Wales’ visit a request that he will be acting in conformity with the wishes and the real feelings of the bulk of the people in South Africa if he recognizes the wishes of the people and refrains from sowing broadcast those titles and handles to one’s name. When I introduced this motion a few years ago, the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) made a great hit by noticing that I had got two titles. A man’s rank in the Army is not a title. In fact in the eighteenth century, in the days perhaps when, as a people, we were less snobbish than to-day, a man of the distinction of General Wolfe, when not in employment, was plain Mr. Wolfe, and it would be very good if in this country those who have served as citizen soldiers could be plain “Misters” again.

Example is better than precept.

Since my return from service I have at my own request been inscribed in the journals of this House as Mr. Creswell, but the manners of the day are such that I am known always as Colonel Creswell. I got rid of the Major after the South-West campaign, but the Colonel after the South-East campaign beat me.

It is a matter of usage.

Yes, these usages change from age to age. I am rather old-fashioned. I think the old-fashioned way that we read of in Thackeray, of a citizen laying aside his sword and being plain “Mister” again, was really more dignified in the citizen soldier than present method. Then the D.S.O. This is not a title. It is a decoration. I am, however, not going to be smug and hypocritical and say I should prefer not to have it, but I still wonder why it was conferred upon me.

Don’t say that.

Another designation I wish to refer to is membership of the Privy Council. I speak subject to correction, but I believe it is a very modern innovation, and typical of the increasing snobbery of the time, that is, always insisting on little bits of reflected light, but if I am not mistaken it is an entirely modern innovation to add the letters “P.C.” after the name of any member of the Privy Council. I should like to verify that, but that is not a title, it is membership of his Majesty’s Privy Council, just as some of us are members of the Executive Council in the Dominion. One carries the country appelation of “honourable” and the other of “right honourable,” but I do not think, except in the pages of Bret Harte or Mark Twain, or Max Adeler, where he is trying to caricature an American of crude notions addressing a member of the English aristocracy as right hon. Mister What-will-you-do, or among those who cannot distinguish correctly between titles connected with orders of chivalry, ancient and modern, and membership of some particular body, that these are confused. King’s Counsel, again, belong to the second order, it is not a title. A Privy Councillor is a member of a recognized official body, just as is membership of the House of Assembly, but it carries no title. It is public custom to put “M.L.A.” after your name to-day. It is public custom to put “P.C.” after the name of a Privy Councillor. I question whether it was the custom 40 years ago. To conclude, I entirely and heartily agree with the remarks of the Prime Minister, and I am in full accord with the decision of the Government to support this resolution and to bring to an end what has been a constant subject of derision and laughter, and a very fruitful source not of honour, but of dishonour, in this country. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman remembers that two or three generations ago Mr. Punch summed up the position in a couplet which has often risen to one’s mind in connection with a certain title conferred by the monarch of a foreign country on a British subject of some notoriety in his day—

I have followed the debate very closely and have been greatly interested in what has been said. Reference was made to the position in Canada. I may say that I have read a great many of the speeches delivered in the Canadian House of Parliament during the past few years and I think the Prime Minister is not quite right in his remarks as to what decision was arrived at there. As a matter of fact Canada has not abolished titles and I would suggest that the Prime Minister look into that matter again. I am very much opposed to hereditary titles. The Prime Minister was very sweeping in his condemnation. He practically said that no great scientific men had accepted titles, but several cases have been quoted. To deal with South Africa, I am of opinion that people such as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do not require any titles. They are continually in the public eye and their names will continue to be in the forefront right down the centuries. But there are people to whom titles should be granted. I lay stress upon this point, it is the King’s prerogative to grant titles, but it is the duty of the Prime Minister in this country and in other countries to recommend the giving of some mark of distinction to certain citizens, men who cannot earn distinction in any other way. Let me take first the name of Sir George Cory, a comparatively poor man who had spent the whole of his life travelling about doing everything he possibly could to get together records of this country and write up the history for our future citizens. Some will say his name will live in the future, but he can get no financial reward and there should be some little distinction to mark him off from the general body of men, I do not mean to put him in a snobbish class but simply something to show our recognition for the services he has rendered. Then I take the field of agriculture, and in that direction I realize what Professor Theiler has done. We must all recognize that what he has done is worthy of some token of our appreciation. Then, I come to the Michaelis gallery. There is a man who has done a great deal for art, and it is quite right that his name should be honoured in that way. Below our buildings here we have a library of which almost any country in the world would be proud, and they had a citizen who had devoted so much time as this son of South Africa has done to make this library perfect. You have only to go down into that library to see what a great work has been accomplished. When. I come to the field of journalism and I am sure that very many will agree with me that the name of the late Sir Maitland Park, altogether apart from the political side of the question, was that of a man who was, without doubt, entitled to some consideration from the point of view of a title. Then there is the head of the Air Force Sir Pierre van Ryneveldt, a name that suggests itself, and there are many others which will suggest themselves to hon. members. There are also men who occupy prominent positions in your Houses of Legislature. I mean men in official positions. When they retire from public life as it were, after years of valuable work in the service of the State, they are in many instances, deserving of some recognition of those services. I am not going to refer to the Speaker but I think the Speaker of the House of Assembly and men of that class ought to bear titles. I do not mean to put them in a class above their fellows, but to give them something to make them feel that their fellow citizens recognize that they have been honoured by what these persons have done and in that way seek to show their recognition. I am well aware that hereditary titles in the past, or some of them, carry with them conditions which make one ashamed of them. When you come to such titles you cannot tell what the third generation is going to be like.

Or the second either.

No, I would leave the second generation out, it is too close to the first. Well, that is my objection to hereditary titles, they carry with them these conditions for ages and you never know what the third or the fourth generation may be like. To my mind you want your titles to be marks of distinction. The great objection is this, when you take a security you want gilt-edged security, the curse of titles has been that they have been gilt-edged titles. Hon. members will agree with me that it is a disgraceful part of titles and to which there is objection. The hon. the Minister for Defence says he has not a title; I do not think there would be any disgrace if the hon. the Minister had one. He has served his country faithfully on the field of battle. It has been said that “P.C.” and other letters are not titles. They are. A Privy Councillor holds a title and to my mind, a very high title. If I was in the position of being offered a Privy Councillorship or a knighthood I know which I would accept. I would accept the Privy Councillorship. As a matter of fact, I am not likely to be offered either. Another thing is this the Prime Minister went the length of saying that the public are against it. I ask if there is any hon. member in this House who can rise in his seat and say that this question was ever put to him.

National feeling.

You have no thermometers to register that, how can the hon. member tell us it is national feeling, how do you get national feeling? It may be Nationalist feeling I admit, but it does not follow that it is national feeling. Has there ever been a public meeting held to declare against titles or is there a man in this House who has had this question asked him. I never heard anyone talk about this, I heard one person asking another what certain titles were given for, and I have heard of certain people wondering why their names were passed over. I am a great believer in the saying of Robert Burns that “Rank is but the guinea stamp,” but I want the man who has done golden deeds in the service of his country, whether in science, literature, art, or anything of that kind to be entitled to get a title. There is no danger of the granting of titles being abused. Is it a wise thing for us to lay down this principle for all time and tie the hands of future Prime Ministers and say that the only way in which young South Africans may make a name is by going into politics? Reference has been made to America. There a committee was appointed two years ago to bring up a report on the question of being able to give some distinguishing mark, title or honour to citizens. Why is that? You talk about the republican spirit. The republican spirit is quite right, but you just send over a Peer or an Earl or a Marquis or anybody with a title to America and see what happens. When the Prince of Wales comes to this country, those of you who sneer at titles and laugh at Princes and have no respect for Kings, as he passes along the crowd will also be found among those who cheer. If this motion is carried, as I believe it will be, is it going to do honour to this House or credit to this House? I have very much pleasure in submitting my amendment, which is in conformity with the debate which took place in Canada on this very question. No case has been made out except on the ground of sentiment against titles of every kind. I do hope that this House will not stultify itself by carrying a resolution which is not the resolution which has been carried in Canada. The Prime Minister made some excuse by saying that the then Prime Minister of Canada did so and so, but there is nothing in these debates to show that the Prime Minister is right. They did not carry a resolution in Canada doing away with all titles they carried a resolution doing away with hereditary titles and if this House carries this resolution it is carrying a resolution which goes beyond anything that has ever been carried in any Parliament of the Empire. It will be carrying a resolution that may lead our part of the world to read into it something more, possibly, than this House intends. If a person renders distinguished service in this country and it is brought to the King’s notice from some other source, in face of such a resolution as this that person could not be honoured by the King, and he would be left unrewarded. I move as an amendment—

seconded the amendment.

I have no doubt that if this resolution is carried—and I believe it will be carried—that the statement made by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) to the effect that the man who renders distinguished service to the State will be unable to be rewarded in this particular way, is perfectly correct. After all, is it necessary that any man in this country who renders distinguished service to the State, who gives of his best, should be rewarded in the only way suggested in this motion, by giving him a handle to his name? Is there no other way in which he can be rewarded? There are many other ways. I think it would be well if we studied for a moment how titles started and what titles really mean, not what they have come to mean to-day, but what they meant at the beginning. If we go back to the very early days we find that the people who got titles, the nobles of those days, were the men who held the people of the country in the grip of oppression. Nobility in those days had privileges. They were a privileged class with extensive powers over the rest of the people. For instance, Carlyle records that a nobleman before the French Revolution had the right on returning from the hunt to kill not more than two serfs in order that he might warm his chilled feet in their blood. If we go through the history of any country and see what the history of its nobility is, we do not find that it is one that the people of South Africa who may distinguish themselves in our service should copy. We have cut the claws of most of these aristocrats, we have cut the claws of the power that gave them those powers. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) talks about this House trenching upon the King’s prerogative. Parliament has before this trenched on the King’s prerogative. My objection to the system of titles is that it divides people into classes. We don’t want classes in this country. We find that where one class is privileged one way or another, whether it is an empty privilege or not, that class is all the time doing its best to increase its powers and privileges. We have fought in the past for many centuries to decrease the powers of the privileged classes. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thos. Watt) challenged us to produce proof of corruption in Parliaments in connection with, honours and titles. I would refer him to Leeky’s history of England, Vol. 4, where he deals with the Irish peerage and shows how it was the sale of either that led that country to sell its Parliament to England. If we examine the records of the English peerage and the English aristocracy, we find member after member sitting in the House of Lords because of the favours of frail ladies of the olden days. The man who held the hereditary titles in the Old Country are men who have bought them by warfare or by wealth. It may be said that this country is different, that our aristocracy is quite a different thing. I have taken the trouble to find out who are the aristocracy in this country. I find we have got one baron, five baronets and 101 knights. They say in Grahamstown that there are so many of them there that they call it the “City of Dreadful (K)nights.” I read this morning a very interesting explanation with regard to a thing that puzzled me very much in South Africa. In history it is recorded in many parts of Western Europe that the right of private war remains the privilege of every noble. That explains to me a thing I have not been able to understand before. I looked through the history of this country and found a number of people who have promoted private war, people who have fomented conspiracy in this country. I take as the first of these events the Jameson Raid. I looked through the list of men who were imprisoned for the Jameson Raid and I found that nearly every one of the survivors got a title afterwards. The only difference seems to be that in Europe a man must be a noble before he wages war, in South Africa he wages war first and becomes a noble afterwards. We had Dr. Jameson, Sir Lionel Phillips, Sir Geo. Farrar, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, Sir D. Dunbar, and others. If we are to follow that principle to its logical conclusion, we shall find the Government now in power conferring on the Minister of Agriculture the title of “Duke of Wolmaransstad.” If we come down to the Labour benches, we will find “Lord Robert Waterston” or the “Earl of Benoni.” Let me deal for a moment with the little sentimental touch about the titles that bind us to the British Empire. Let us examine those particular titles. We have men like Sir Sigismund Neumann and Sir Evelyn Wallers. We have titled members in this House, but I do not know what cause we have to say these titles bind us to the British Empire—men like Sir David Harris and Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. My point is that we give titles in this country to wealthy men, not for any sentimental tie to the old country, but for service rendered to the political party in power. I have looked through this list of 101 knights and find three of them who can distinctly be said to have rendered scientific or literary service to this country—three out of 101! Six or seven at the most can be said to have rendered public service in any other capacity than that of politician. When we realize that, we know that knighthoods in this country, honours in this country, have not been given for the reasons for which they are supposed to be given, but that they have been given for other reasons which are not stated. In my opinion, if an honour is to be given for services in this country it should be given to every man who serves the country. The plumber who does his work satisfactorily or the farmer who makes two blades of corn grow where one grew before is as much entitled to an honour as any wealthy member of the Opposition. There should be no distinction. A title to-day is a relic of the bad old days and we want to get away from them. I am very glad to be able to support this motion.

The more we hear of the remarks from the other side of the House, the clearer it becomes that this motion is not against titles in general but against titles conferred upon South Africans by the King. I do not think the Prime Minister is seriously thinking of suppressing by legislation the desire inherent in all mankind for distinction and appreciation of merit. It is quite clear that this motion emanated from the Government and that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was used merely as a stalking horse for tactical purposes. If the Prime Minister wants us to believe that he is against all titles I must accuse him of the pride which apes humility. Diogenes, who lived in a tub and refused all honours, was a vainer man than Alexander, who lived in a palace and accepted all. There could be no question of suppressing distinctions until the day arrives when hon. members opposite reduce us all to their own drab level. Whether you are a “Sir,” a J.P. or a D.S.O., the moral principle is the same. They are all titles and distinctions to differentiate one man from his fellow men. It is futile to hope that distinctions will ever disappear. I do not think we shall see that state arrive when the philosopher, the fool, the officer and the private soldier shall all address each other as “comrade,” as is desired by hon. members of the Labour party. Even the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) would be annoyed if he got a letter without his tag of “M.L.A.” upon it. The desire in inherent in every man for some sort of appreciation by his fellow men. I was in the museum in Pretoria the other day and there I noticed about twenty foreign orders which had been conferred upon those austere Republicans President Kruger and General Joubert. No one objected in those days. So this motion is not aimed against distinctions in general. It is quite clear the motion has been engineered. We knew the Prime Minister’s views. We knew that he had decided not to recommend any distinctions. Now he has told us that, he regards a distinction conferred by the King as a “foreign order,” and alien decoration. But in conferring a decoration upon a South African subject it is not as if the Imperial Government were doing it on their own account. The King is doing it on the recommendation of our own Government. If this motion had stood alone I would not have seen anything insidious in it, but watching the general trend of legislation introduced by the Government, it seems to me that this motion is part and parcel of an attempt to force a quarrel upon the Imperial Government and the British people. (Laughter.) Hon. members may laugh, but this is not an isolated case. We must ask ourselves where do we stand? Either we are or we are not part of the British Empire. I have never quarrelled with the man who openly says he wants to get out of the British Empire, but I do quarrel with the man who tries to get round the position in this way. I think it is due to us that the Prime Minister should tell us and the country where they are going. I think we are entitled to it the more when we regard their political past. I come of Dutch stock and I am not afraid to say where I stand. But the Prime Minister has not so far had the political courage to tell the country where he stands in regard to the British Empire. I, personally, was born a republican and have fought against the British Empire, and under similar circumstances would do so again, but I am proud that South Africa is part of the British Commonwealth of free nations. I am convinced that this motion is part of an organized attempt at outflanking the position, and I think the Government should tell us where they stand. I am against this motion, and I do feel that it has a more sinister look than would appear. It has been put up by the Government.

We introduced the same motion two years ago.

Two years ago the position was different. We knew where we were then, but there is now a growing feeling in the minds of the people of this country that the Government is not dealing fairly with them.

It is a Labour motion.

I have noticed that a Labour man likes to be distinguished as much as any of them. I say there is a growing suspicion in the minds of the public that there is something behind this motion. We have evidence that the Government is out to force a quarrel upon the Imperial Government. (Laughter.) Hon. members may laugh, but it is so. I think the time has come for the Government to tell us frankly whither they are tending.

If I say that I regretted the speech made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) I must add that I regret more the speech made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). If ever we have had an exhibition of flag-wagging in this House and of attempts to stir up racial strife we have had it this afternoon with the speeches made by those hon. members. And to call the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) a jester is an expression which comes very ill from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I think we can deal quietly and calmly with this motion. Certainly there is no need to drag in questions of the Imperial connection and the name of the Prince of Wales. To make a party matter of this motion, to attempt to stir up strife between the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking sections of the community and to drag in the name of the Prince of Wales to my mind is quite unnecessary and something to be strongly condemned. The Prince of Wales comes to this country as a honoured guest and as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we shall receive him in that spirit. Certainly we shall not make a party matter of it. I sincerely trust the motion will be dealt with on its merits. The giving of titles in South Africa has become a public scandal. There is not a member on this side of the House who thinks for a moment that the granting of these titles is a responsibility which rests upon the King. They have been granted on account of recommendations which have been made. To drag in the name of the King and the Prince of Wales is ridiculous. We on this side of the House desire not only to live in peace with our English-speaking friends in this country, but we also desire to maintain our amicable relations within the Empire. There is going to be nothing as far as we are concerned in the nature of following the example set by hon. members opposite in their attempts to stir up racial strife. We are going to play the game by our English-speaking friends. It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is trying to arouse the suspicions of the English-speaking members of the Pact. He will not succeed. I think that hon. members will agree that there are many knights made in South Africa whose titles are not justified. I hope that this question and in future all questions, will be discussed without these attempts to stir up strife between the Dutch and English sections of the country. I heartily support the motion.

When this motion was introduced it was felt by many of us that it arose from the overweeningness of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). But after the Prime Minister’s speech it becomes a much more serious matter. It has been stated in the course of the debate that the bestowal of honours in no way serves to maintain the connection of this country with the Empire. I will read to you what Senator the Hon. Sir George Foster, one of the most distinguished of the Overseas Parliamentary Delegates who recently visited South Africa, said in regard to this matter and I suggest that this is something which no hon. member of this House can disregard. On the “Hereditory Titles” debate in the Canadian Parliament in 1918 Sir George Foster said—

Professor Keith, another acknowledged authority on Dominion questions, whose writings are free from any taint of jingoism says in his book “Dominion Home Rule in Practice ”—

I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) on this occasion should have proved true to his reputation in this House of “making hate while the sun shines.” He was unable to move this motion without a sneer at England. He referred to the bestowal of a title upon President Brand as having been bestowed in connection with theft of certain land by England, and he went on to suggest that titles had been purchased in this country, and called upon the right hon. gentleman, the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to say whether money had not been received on that account. I go further and say that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) not only makes hate while the sun shines, he continues in hate after the sun goes down, hate accompanies him, to bed, and in the morning hate is still enthroned on his brow, and he comes down to the political arena to vent his petty hatred upon his fellow members. I do ask him to show greater moderation towards his fellow members, and in particular not to offend those who regard it as an insult to the land of their birth to be told that honours are given in connection with a theft by England of land in this country. Those are things that affront us and wound us in a manner which I am not called upon to dilate upon to-day. He has said that the refusal of honours has always been a Labour principle. Now, Sir, those of us who remember the important part that the gift of a motorcar played in the recent elections in England will know how much importance to attach to this. The fact that Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the High Priest of the Labour party in England, best-owed an honour on a gentleman in return for an investment—Mr. MacDonald was to have a life interest in a motor-car—

It is absolutely untrue.

If there was one thing more than another in the elections that led to the downfall of Mr. MacDonald’s reputation with the man in the street it was that very question, and now we have the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) saying mildly to-day that it is a Labour party principle. Where has it been affirmed as a Labour principle? The only Dominion where this principle has been affirmed, the principle of the objection to hereditary titles, is Canada, and the history of that was that in 1918 without sufficient consultation with the Canadian Prime Minister a baronetcy and peerage were conferred on residents in Canada and there was a lavish bestowal of the O.B.E. in Canada, a point to which strong objection was taken by the Canadian authorities. There was no question there of the Labour party taking up any definite stand. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has wisely refrained from referring to that because the whole trend of events in Canada would have been against the theory that the principle was one in which the Labour party had assisted to affirm in any of the Dominions. What has struck me in regard to the introduction of this motion is its futile character. We are here this afternoon called upon to discuss this question of titles, and the discussion has precluded the discussion of other matters of more importance which appear on the Order Paper. For instance, there is a non-party motion of a very important character, the passing of which would minister a great deal to the future well-being of this country. The party to which the hon. member belongs, or rather the members of that party, never cease to declare their interest in the under-dog, but here we have a worthless and futile resolution dealing with titles and not in any way touching the very serious problems now before the country. We have a motion on the Order Paper dealing with an attempt to solve the surplus cattle question and another to deal with the Asiatic question, but these important questions are precluded from consideration in order to discuss at exhaustive length whether or not there shall be titles in South Africa. We have our declarations from foremost members of the Pact of their affection for the under-dog with a bathos that would make a cat laugh, but we find them to-day deliberately putting in the background motions of importance in order to deal with this rattletrap matter which will help nobody in South Africa. What does it matter really to the South Africans, to their well-being, or how does it affect their chance of earning a living whether we have titles in South Africa or not? It does not matter one iota, yet the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) comes forward with this motion which is not at all in the interests of those whose welfare he so much professes to have at heart. The hon. Prime Minister made some distinction in alluding to titles. He offered no objection to the conferring of certain titles. He said he had no objection to the continuance of Privy Councillorships or of the bestowal of K.C.’s. I think the hon. Minister of the Interior might perhaps come to our rescue in this matter. He has some little surprises in store. He has promised a brand-new nationality and a new flag—things we have not asked for. Why should we not have a set of brand-new titles? Make us all barons of the veld or graafs of the Karoo or something of that sort! Then we have other latent talent on the ministerial benches which has not yet been called into play. We may even call upon the hon. the Minister of Justice who has recently exercised almost a royal prerogative in releasing a number of convicts—a sort of “Convict Jubilee.” He has exercised that prerogative. Why not ask him to come to the rescue? Some probable titles have been mentioned, but I think the hon. member for Umbilo missed out one probable title; one that we might have expected from the Minister of Justice was “Sir John Garnsworthy, Keeper of the Guano Records” or something of that sort, something to mark the fact that the Minister is mindful of his own. For the Government to bring forward at this stage a proposition of this sort, to bring it forward indirectly in the way it has been done, says very little for their courage. It has been said that if is done because the “volk” demanded, but for the Government to put it in that way is to speak with a voice not entitled to use in this House. I strongly object because the Government is in power on a bare majority, and one which was got by the preaching of a “gospel of hate” founded upon false representations against our leader the Rt. Hon. Member for Standerton. To refer again to the kind of title we might have expected, he hon. the Minister of Justice might have created, “Order of Another Chance,” that is the sort of thing you might expect from him! Amongst those admirers of his who have been set at liberty was one who had been convicted of a murderous assault of a white man 70 years of age, and he has been set free as a member of the “Order of Another Chance ”—another chance I suppose to kill a white man. These are things which make us reasonably angry. We have been told that this matter is regarded of such importance by the Government that the intention is to give another day for the discussion of it. I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that intention. In view of the importance of the other subjects that stand before us for discussion, in view of the importance of endeavouring to give some assistance to industries that have reached a deadlock in the country, the farming industry in relation to meat, for instance, I do ask that the hon. member will not take up the further time of this House with a motion that has really no real significance for South Africa, and that will make for nothing but disunity, bitterness of division throughout the whole of South Africa. Some objection has been taken by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Dr. C. Steyn) I believe, to the reference having been made to the visit of the Prince of Wales and to the untimely introduction of this motion at such a time. Well, it seems to me that this reference is a most obvious one. It occurs to the mind of every man in the street to-day that if this motion is passed it constitutes a “backhander” to the Prince of Wales which he certainly has ill deserved at the hands of South Africa.

The hon. member is not entitled to refer to members of the Royal family in order to influence a debate.

I accept your ruling. I am afraid I trespassed in the excitement of the moment in a manner I should not have done, but the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) enjoys a reputation in this House as chief barracker of his party! You Mr. Speaker have very rightly drawn attention to the unfortunate practice of making senseless interruptions in this House—a practice that has grown up—and I trust you will continue to discourage as far as you are able to the sort of senseless interjections which emanate from certain members whom I will not mention at this stage. I only wish to refer again to the absolute fiction that this objection to honours is a Labour principle, because that has been put up to my mind to disguise the fact that the motion before this House is really a Government motion. It is stated to be a Labour principle the world over, but so far from that being correct we have the remarkable instance of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald conferring knighthoods upon people who assisted him, upon a person who had given him a life interest in a motor-car. We have other instances of the conferring of knighthoods in Australia, so that the conferring of knighthoods is in no way refrained from by the Labour party. It has been followed by several Labour parties which have been in office, and in no instance have they affirmed the contrary as being a Labour principle. We have had here the Minister of Labour who stood up in his superior manner to rebuke us of flippancy, but he then proceeded to raise a cheap laugh about the fact that people who were knighted would not be able to ride a horse, forgetting at the moment that the burden of the remarks on his side of the House was that a sufficient number of scientific people had not been knighted. How does the hon. Minister expect scientific people to be able to mount horses? To my mind that was paltry of the Minister because he knows the conception of knighthood in its origin has long since been outgrown. We have heard him here rebuking us for flippancy and at the same time himself indulging in flippancy to gain a point. I wish the Minister had been here to have heard the flippancy which emanated from the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) who indulged in an orgy of flippancy on this subject which many of us feel very strongly about. Can the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) mention a single reason that he has adduced to this House why titles should be discontinued? I certainly followed him very closely, but I was unable to find that he gave any reason which would constitute a good ground for discontinuing the bestowal of titles in South Africa. He suggested that there had been payment of money for the securing of titles. He had not the courage to suggest by whom the money had been paid, but he endeavoured to besmirch as large a number of those who hold knighthoods as was possible. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) said he saw no reason why a farmer should not have a title conferred upon him. I would remind him of the instance of the hon. Joseph Baynes, C.M.G. I only wish it were a higher reward, and I speak not only for myself but I can say almost unanimously for my fellow-farmers in Natal, in saying that it is to be regretted that the Hon. Joseph Baynes was not knighted before the evening of his days so that he and his helpmeet might enjoy the honour. It gave me a great deal of pain to hear the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) rather gloat over the fact that in connection with the memorial to Sir John Brand, the honour that was conferred upon him in good faith by the Prime Minister of England or the Queen of England had been deliberately removed.

Not removed—omitted.

I accept the correction. The honour was omitted from his memorial, we are told, because of its offensiveness to the people whom he served. I think this motion might very well have been introduced for the consideration of this House without references of that sort. We have no wish to revive memories of that kind in this House. We have no wish to make the situation more difficult and the whole of my appeal here is that this matter, in which fully one half of the citizens of South Africa hold a view that is totally opposed to the view expressed here by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), is one which, if this motion is carried, in spite of the feeling that is known to exist in this country, will do an injury—an unnecessary injury—to the good feeling which should subsist in South Africa under the Union Government. I do appeal in all seriousness to the Prime Minister to abandon this motion, to treat it as a motion from an irresponsible source and to agree, now that the motion has reached this stage, that it should be relegated to the oblivion of forgotten things and that in any case it should not disfigure the records of this House as the considered opinion of South Africa which we decide to transmit to His Majesty the King.

On the motion of Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Fourie from service on the Select Committee on Public Accounts and appointed Mr. Vermooten in his stead.