When the motion was brought forward by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) we expected that an important debate would ensue. It has indeed occasioned a discussion that in a measure is of great importance to us. But furthermore a tone has been adopted which I much regret. The attitude taken up by the other side of the House is that we support the motion only to indicate a further severance from the British Empire. The question concerned is an important one which strikes deep into the social life of our people. It is a matter of significance for the South African nation, and it possibly affects in two differing ways the respective sections of the people. One section that was formerly associated with the Cape Province and Natal, looks upon titles as honours; and they consider the institution binds us closer to the King of England and to Great Britain. On the other hand, another section of the people look on such things as something foolish and laughable, and consider that they are not suited to our people, as something tending to exalt our fellow men, besides being the occasion of estrangement from our own friends, acquaintances and relations. It sometimes causes dissension in the community and often removes us further from our own friends and neighbours. We consider that this sort of “handle to one’s name” tends only to place one’s fellow mortals on a pedestal—something to which we are not born and which is not characteristic of our people. The older section of the population in the northern districts which were formerly republics, look upon the bestowal of titles as laughable and creates anything but affection and respect towards those who accept them. For persons who look on it as an honour it is a sort of appendage served out to them as a result of which their rights, position and rank become enhanced on the occasion of journeys to Europe, England and elsewhere, where, by reason of this “handle” they are “received.” But we are of opinion that though you travel far over the world, you will as an Afrikander possess enough of the power of adaptation to introduce yourself favourably to the world. I wish to remind our friends, who charge us with wanting to incite racial hatred by supporting a motion of this nature, that when a great proportion of the Afrikander people in the north had to struggle hard and to fight to establish their right of existence as a nation, when they were trying to preserve their independence, then a great number of titles were distributed to persons who fought against them and their independence. Just think of the great struggle of 1895-’96 when the whole population in the north was rudely awakened by threatening disorder in one of the great towns in the Transvaal, augmented by an attack from outside; as a result of which the entire population was called out to preserve its independence and justify its right to exist. Our friends must remember that we had to struggle—I myself as a young man had to join in the fight—for our existence, and the feelings that have been occasioned amongst us against the people who fought against us. I do not want to be personal, but they must also consider our feelings. Just think of the great commotion in Johannesburg, and remember that the ringleaders were afterwards knighted. Each received a title more or less honourable, apparently because he had taken part in trying to rob the Republic of its independence. Other men again had gone so far in the self-governing Colony of the Cape as to obtain the repeal of the Constitution In order to preserve the colony to the British Crown. At one time or other they were all knighted. The question sometimes occurs to me why were the men concerned with the raid in Johannesburg and the movement in the Cape Colony given knighthoods? The bestowal of titles and trinkets is something up to which the Afrikander people have not been educated. We are not used to it. I cannot understand how it can be expected of us that we should allow a distinction between rank and rank, and in raising one portion of the people above the other. Have we not in our history had to do with men who were never desirous of having “handles” attached to their names? Do we not remember with pride the men who in this land have made a great name? Then we don’t think of men who have rendered great services to the British Empire overseas, but chiefly to South Africa. We remember particularly the men who suffered in the kaffir wars; the men who were pioneers of civilization in South Africa; the men who helped in the progress and up-building of South Africa. How many of those men, if they had to-day the opportunity to obtain title or “handle” would refuse it? We think of Hofmeyr, of Sauer, of Merriman and others who sat in the Cape Parliament. And we think of men in the Free State and in the Transvaal who sat in council there. Not one of them asked for honours or for privileges. Hon. members on the other side have gone out of their way to make against us the accusation that this is an opportunity which we use to manifest disloyalty, or as some of the Natal members have said, to offer a smack in the face to the Prince of Wales, from whom we are about to receive a visit. I can assure hon. members that the matter is for us a serious one. And the feeling which arises in our breasts when we think over it is that titles do not suit us, and that they have no part in our nature. We ought to work for the benefit of the people without titles. We must manifest nobility in, ourselves, and by our actions endeavour to raise the standard of civilization which we have planted here in South Africa without asking for titles to our names. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has taunted the Prime Minister with supporting the motion simply because he is against the British connection. It is a pity that a man who has sat so long in this House and who prides himself on being the senior member: a man who has for so long lived amongst us here in South Africa, does not even yet realize that our great desire is to make South Africa prosperous and that we want to do this in love and peace. I cannot understand how he can draw such conclusions. It appears to me that he still cherishes a feeling of revenge towards the South African people because they are not his kindred; are not of the nobility; are not his people. Allow me to assure him that there are in South Africa many people who will not agree with him in considering the bestowal of titles as necessary and desirable. He describes it as the sentimental connection which holds the British Empire together, constituting the link between us and the British Crown. If that is his conception of it, and of the link which binds us to the British Empire and the British Crown, then I must say he ought to live his life over again amongst us, but perhaps even then he will not realize that this is the last thing which could be expected to bind us to the British Empire or to the British Crown. To bind us to the British Crown there must be something more than titles of honour. He may just as well say good-bye to them. No single Afrikander will support him in his opinion that titles should bind us to the British Empire and Crown. If he thinks otherwise, I am unable to understand how he has remained so far outside the life of our people seeing that he has been so long in their midst. He has further reproached us with being against the bestowal of titles because we intend thus to give a smack in the face to the Prince of Wales who is shortly to visit us. Thus he makes a further display of flag-wagging and tries to incite the one against the other. But it is too late. We are too well informed to notice that sort of thing and to allow ourselves to be bound to the British Crown by such ties. We do not, because he may knight a few of us, feel attached to the Prince of Wales. We harbour higher considerations. I want here to refer to what the hon. member said in connection with one who bore our family name in the Free State, namely, Sir Cornelius Wessels. He said Sir Cornelius had rendered brilliant services and that he must have felt exceedingly happy and gratified when the King dubbed him a knight. I appreciate his remark that the name Wessels is one of the most respected in the Free State, but let me inform him that there was never a more bitter drop in the cup of the Wessels’ family than when Sir Cornelius accepted the offer of a knighthood. The hon. member also mentioned the name of a man who from youth fought with us; who with manly courage on the battlefield served his country during its great struggle, namely, Sir Japie van Deventer. If there is one embittering thought for us, his fellow combatants, then it is the step that he took in accepting that title. It is not because we think he was unworthy of it. There are many men who are worthy of the honour if we thought the honour appropriate and worthy of the men. When services are seen from this viewpoint I do not grudge it. There are other men who in time of strife helped the country to weather the storm; to them also we will not deny honour. I think of Gen. Coen Brits. But he himself said to me: “Jan Brand, if there is one thing for which I am sorry, then it is that Jaap has taken that step.” He certainly considers it an honour. But we who fought with him, who admired his courage; we feel disappointed because it does not accord with the character of the Afrikander to have a handle to his name. “Ou Jaap” was in our eyes a much better title than “Sir Jaap,” which will always be difficult for us to pronounce. I will now just quote a few views which prevail not alone in South Africa but over the whole world. In 1914 in the British House of Lords Lord Selborne used the following striking words—

Now, I ask, if this is possible in England, may it not be feared in South Africa that a man whose longing for an honour or whose family feels that a title is necessary in order to advance the prestige of the family, that he will follow a course similar to that to which Lord Selborne here refers? Are we not justified in saying that that man has no right to a title and that we consider it reprehensible that he is able to obtain one simply by contributing to party funds? I consider that this is a great evil. Lord Selborne says further—

If there is anything that I can tell our friends on the other side then it is that the present is not the moment in which to talk about disloyalty or of a smack at England or at the Prince of Wales. We speak here of something which springs up in the heart of the Afrikander. I will read further what the Marquis of Salisbury said in England on the 17th July, 1922—

I can assure our hon. friends that we are sometimes more than “shocked” when we see to whom knighthoods have been given. I will quote a few more views of men of note, and I want to point out that these are not the views of men of the old Republics, of men who sit in the British House of Lords or House of Commons. The Marquis of Crewe says—

Lord Selborne says—

I wonder whether it has already occurred in South Africa that promises of titles have been made by men charged with the management of the funds of political parties. And when the names of the persons were laid before the Prime Minister, was he obliged to ask who the particular person really is who was recommended? And I wonder whether the Minister received as answer: “It will be better if you do not ask so many questions, but remember only that the man has given £25,000 to the party funds.” Now we have another person who expresses himself on the matter. Lord Loreburn in 1917 said—

The same applies here in South Africa. Here also there have been fairly strong rumours in circulation, without people being able to make use of them and give proof of them. I want now to quote what Sir George Kekewich says in this connection—

I want only to say that when we read this and see what the custom was, and what was brought forward in these utterances by men whose loyalty cannot for a moment be doubted, what right have hon. members to prevent us from saying that we are not in favour of the bestowal of titles and that we do not want them? May we not declare that we will not have such things in our political life? The selling of titles and rank will injure our political life. It is going to degrade us in South Africa, not ennoble us. Finally, I want just to make one more quotation, and I hope that it will move everyone to vote for the motion so that they may not some day be taken to task for not doing so. It can happen that we shall one day offer such a rebuke. Who championed the case for titles in this debate? None other than by two knights, by other persons who expect knighthoods.

Aspirant knights.

Yes, they hope that with the visit of the Prince of Wales the least they can expect is to receive a reward for their services rendered to the country in the form of contributions to the funds of the old Unionist party or of the South African party—the parties where the money was. Now that we stop the bestowal of these honours, we are stigmatized as disloyal. Perhaps our hon. friends on the other side will learn something from a verse which I once heard. It is by the Duchess of Devonshire. Perhaps they will remember it and it is as follows—

Mr. Speaker, you may or may not have observed from your lofty and detached position that whenever from this side of the House a telling point is made or some awkward facts are adduced, or an unanswerable question put, it is received on the other side with the shriek of “racialism.” When the point cannot be squarely dealt with an attempt is made to sidetrack it by an expression of that sort. Psychologists tell us that if a man repeats a lie often enough he eventually believes it himself, It is necessary in the interests of this House and of this country and of the wider audience who listen to our speeches through the medium of the Press, that this should be controverted. The history, the composition, the policy of this party proves it to be the negation of racialism; it does not exist amongst us in any shape or form. This debate has proved no exception to the tactics of hon. members on the other side. The cry of racialism was once more raised as an attempt to avoid replying to fact and argument. I had hoped that this discussion would have been considered so serious that the issues would not have been sidetracked in any way. It opens up a very wide aspect. First of all we have the fact, unprecedented so far as I know in Parliamentary procedure, of the Prime Minister accepting a motion of a private member of his own party dealing with a quite extraneous subject, as a vote of want of confidence. We have the Prime Minister’s own statement at the end of his speech—

In other words, if this motion is defeated it means the resignation of the Government. Hon. members laugh, but there is no other meaning to the words used by the Prime Minister, the words “By which we stand or fall.” It might be understandable if it were correct what the Prime Minister has told us that he and his Government have taken this motion over as representing the wishes of the people. Well, we are not very far removed from the general election and the facts are fresh in our minds. It is a well-known fact that this Government is in power by.02 per cent of the electors; of all the electors in this country by that great majority of .02 per cent. That alone should have caused the hon. Prime Minister to be more cautious in his language, and I have no recollection—perhaps there are other hon. members more fortunate—of this issue having been raised by any candidate. It was certainly not raised to my knowledge by any of the leaders. I cannot recollect a single political speech or a single instance in which this matter was submitted to the judgment of the people. The Prime Minister more or less admits that because he says—

Surely such an important thing as this motion involves ought to have been outlined as the policy of the leaders of the Pact when they submitted themselves to the judgment of the electors. The whole trend of the argument on the other side was as if hon. members were speaking by direction of their constituents on this particular point, as if they had a definite mandate from them to raise this matter and pursue it to the bitter end. We are told that titles do not fit in with South African ideas. Where has that been expressed? I find no evidence of that. It may or it may not be, all we can say definitely is that the electors have not been called upon to pronounce on that question. A further remark was that the great leaders of South Africa have refused titles. That does not square to my knowledge or with the knowledge of any hon. members here. I believe it is a fact that the first occupant of your chair, Sir Christopher Brandt, accepted a knighthood. He was recognized as a great South African. I do not remember a single instance of past and gone Prime Ministers in the Cape Province who did not accept an honour, either knighthood or a Privy Councillorship, and only in one instance elsewhere, that was in Natal before Union. As previous speakers have pointed out, the President of the two republics apparently had no inherent objection to receiving titles when conferred upon them by foreign Governments. This statement, I know, is not capable of proof any more than the further statement of the Prime Minister that the people refused to have anything to do with honours. Then came a most remarkable statement in which the Prime Minister said that there were ten cases of payment or other unworthy reasons to one of genuine merit on which a title had been awarded. That, surely, is a gross libel on the leaders of the people of South Africa. We know that all good things are capable of abuse and I have no doubt that one might single out certain instances in which it would have been better for the country and better for the orders of knighthood if certain individuals had not had such a title conferred upon them, but to say that there were ten cases of payment or other unworthy reason to one of genuine merit, is, I think, going very far beyond what the facts warrant. If it had been put the other way about it might not have been seriously disputed, though even that, I think, would be extreme. When we are asked to vote on a very important matter like this, I think we are entitled to require that the Prime Minister, who supports it and advocates it, and has the whole strength of his party behind him, should be more careful in his handling of facts. The Prime Minister has also made what is perhaps a more plausible point—that these titles are an anachronism. Many of these things which have in the past served a very useful purpose no doubt have fallen into disuse, but the whole conception of knighthood is one that it would be very desirable to perpetuate and keep up. Knighthood is practically the synonym for chivalry and it was instituted with a view of developing some of the best and most humane qualities amongst people. And at times it has been found to be the best means by which these qualities could be developed. It was usually conferred by the Sovereign as a reward for conspicuous public service to the Crown or to the nation. There is, undoubtedly, more in this motion and the manner in which it has been introduced and received in the House than perhaps meets the eye at first. I think hon. members on this side of the House, at all events, were not perhaps surprised, but rather shocked by what I may justly call the contemptuous manner in which this motion was introduced. A very important portion of the party opposite consists of the Labour party and if there was one thing that was impressed upon the electors who supported them from every platform at the last election, it was that in their hands the British connection was absolutely safe. On the strength of that they received many votes and many of them were returned to Parliament. It was pointed out how impossible it was for a Government kept in power by people pledged to that connection to do anything towards the destruction of the British Empire. It need not be argued—we all know it—that the British Empire from its practical side is very important to us, and it is important that we should be members of it. We believe that the British Empire is one of the greatest factors, perhaps the only powerful factor existing in the world to-day that can ensure the peace of the world.

What has that to do with this motion?

It has a great deal to do with it, as I intend to explain. The British Commonwealth of nations, controlling one-quarter of the surface of the world and one-quarter of the inhabitants of the world of their own free-will, is a very powerful factor, the most powerful factor, towards ensuring the peace of the world. When we find members of the Labour party, who are pledged to keep us in the British Empire and to support that Empire in its great world-wide mission, which so profoundly affects us, taking the first opportunity of filing away at the one link that really keeps the constituent members of the British Empire together—in other words, the British Crown—I think that their constituents would have something to say to them. We know, as a free nation with the utmost local autonomy, we know that no interference with our affairs would be contemplated or permitted, but beyond that there is the strong link, sentimental if you like to call it, and in times of stress there is no factor so strong in keeping the people together as sentiment— there is, as I say, this sentimental tie, the Crown, connecting the various parts of the British Empire. One of the first acts of the Labour party is to start filing away at that thing.

Ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) whether he agrees with that.

No doubt he will speak for himself in due course.

He is your leader.

The Prime Minister told us that the existence of titles, the bestowal of them by the Crown and the acceptance of them by members of the South African nation tended to poison and putrefy political life. Well, I know of other circumstances in our political life that are more poisonous and have a greater tendency towards putrefaction of our political life than the existence of titles. When we see a party in office and in power, kept together by persons who hold the most divergent views possible on the big questions of the day, surely that shows a poisoned and putrefied political life. When the two leaders came together, when in a political sense they embraced, when the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Nationalist party engaged in that political embrace, I and many others wondered what they whispered into each other’s ears.

And what they did.

I think we have here a sidelight on what they did. We can imagine the leader of the Labour party whispering into the ear of the leader of the Nationalist party: “To show our good faith and satisfy you, some of us will bring a motion that will savour a little of republicanism.” Possibly, it was then arranged that a motion such as this should be put forward in all innocence, as it were, by a member of the Labour party, and adopted freely and heartily by the leader of the Nationalist party. We can imagine on the other side, the leader of the Nationalist party saying: “You know how our people are not Socialists, but watch our legislation. You believe in the State control and ordering of all things. We won’t go so far, but we will centre all power in the Executive, we will give power, as far as possible, to the Minister or the Governor-General-in-Council and that will lead you on the road you desire to travel, of State control of everything rather than Parliamentary and judicial control.” I think if the Bills before the House are examined, that tendency will be seen, and I have no doubt the Labour party will heartily support that tendency because it is leading on the road towards their ideas of State Socialism. We do not believe that a country can be run with political honour on these lines and we are disposed to resist all tendencies in that direction, no matter from what side they emanate, and we are not disposed to take it for granted that a party in power by such a narrow majority are entitled to speak for the whole people on a question which has not been submitted to them and on which undoubtedly, in our belief, far more than half the people are opposed to this proposal. I do think it has been most inopportune to bring in this motion now that we are all looking forward to the visit of the Prince of Wales. We are going to show the Prince of Wales every hospitality. I have never known a case where South Africa has failed in hospitality, irrespective of the politics of the host or guest. But is it in accordance with the best instincts of hospitality and the utmost courtesy towards our guest that we should now, in anticipation of his arrival, deprive him of any opportunity of making a return for that hospitality? It is well known that wherever royal visits of this kind have been paid the royal guest has always wished to express appreciation of hospitality and of gratitude for services rendered by conferring a few titles or decorations. Are we now to deprive our guest of the opportunity to do this? I am not much concerned with the disappointment of individuals, but I am sure it is not one of the wisest things to do to restrict our royal guest’s liberty in this way, Then we have heard a great deal about snobbery. I do not think hon. members can put their finger on any market tendency towards snobbery on the part of those to whom titles have been granted. Surely it would have been better for the Prime Minister to have stuck to his original announcement which was received by the whole community without heat or marked objection. He made it clear that he himself did not intend to make any recommendations. That was quite all right if he and his party so felt. But to bind the Government of this country for all time in this matter is not the best way of dealing with this very important subject. If we do away with titles, with the expression of thanks on the part of the Crown—and the King after all is only the focus of loyalty to the Commonwealth over which he presides—if we do that it will be necessary to invent some other form. In the history of civilization it has always been found necessary and desirable to award visible distinctions to people who have served the State well. That is so in every country in Europe except one, namely, Switzerland. We find Republican France and America have found it necessary to award distinctions, and history has shown that it is desirable and necessary. This motion is only part of a plan, unfortunately it is too clear which way that plan is tending. If the Prime Minister will come forward with a motion saying that it is desirable that South Africa should be once and for all severed from any connection with Great Britain and the Empire, we shall better know where we are. I do not know whether that is his ideal, that South Africa should take its independent way among the nations of the world, where it would be like a sheep among a lot of hungry jackals, but if that is his ideal let him say so and we shall know where we stand. In my experience it is unprecedented that a motion of this kind should when introduced be taken to call for a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government and that if it be rejected the Government would contemplate going to the country and forcing a General Election on a matter of this kind. I hope that his motion will be rejected and I am sure no sound reasons have so far been advanced that commend it to the people of this country. We have no indication that the majority of the people of this country desire to see titles abolished. If we are to get away from the old ideas of chivalry which were the ideals which actuated the holders of titles in the old days and still actuate many to-day it is to be regretted. Instead of harping on the occasional abuses of an excellent institution, we should try to cure it. To abolish titles is not the best way of dealing with the matter.

Our friends on the Opposition side of the House who are so fond of talking of chivalry but never display it have realized that they had better get back to the old cry of secession. We have not heard much of it lately. The complaint this session has been that the Government has taken over all the legislation of the South African party. Having found that that cry does not cut any ice we come to the old secession cry and the charge that this motion is an indication that the Government and the Labour party are out to sever South Africa’s connection with the Empire. I am sure that not only does the hon. member who has just spoken not believe what he has said, but no one in the country will believe it. I do not think that any speech which could have been delivered in this House could have done more harm to the British connection than the speech to which we have just listened. It is suggested by the hon. member that if you do away with money titles, the conferring of decorations upon those who have made money out of the blood of the masses of the community, that you will thereby be weakening the ties of Empire. In my opinion and I believe in the opinion of those who are best able to judge public feeling both in this country and in Great Britain you will be doing more to strengthen the ties between this country and the British Commonwealth of Nations by doing away with the necessity of conferring titles on the type of people to whom I have referred. The practice of conferring titles on people without any regard to meritorious services is already abhorrent to the majority of the people of South Africa and of Great Britain. The doctrine preached by the gallant member is that the granting of these titles is the only cementing tie in the Empire. He contends that the Empire is nothing more than an association of markets run in the interests of those who wish to make profits out of the mass of the people. Well, I have always been taught that the British Empire stands for something higher than that. I have been taught that it stands for principles of fair play—we often look for them in vain on the Opposition benches. We have been told it stands for principles of democracy. Now we have the gallant member’s view that the Empire merely constitutes an association of markets to give a few people the opportunity of making profits at the expense of the community as a whole. The gallant member’s objection seems to be based not only on the fear that you will loosen the bonds of Empire, but also because you may weaken the opportunities of making profits for the people who have the same ideas as the gallant member. I am sure it is not the intention of anyone on this side of the House to re-open the old squabbles about secession. We do not want to re-introduce that stock argument of hon. members oppsiteo—the one stock argument they have got. The gallant member, realizing that there is really very little to be said in opposition to the resolution that has been moved, has dealt in irrelevancies and generalities and even travelled as far as the arrangement that has been arrived at between the Nationalists and Labour party. He has called it an arrangement arrived at by two parties which could not agree upon everything. It is quite true. We have never suggested—we are quite honest about it—that we are agreed about everything, but there is one question upon which we are agreed, and that is the question of the promotion, as far as we are concerned, of freedom, and to extricate the people from the Government from whom for the last fifteen years they have suffered domination and from the exploitation to which they have been subjected by knights and would-be knights on the opposition side of the House. But what was the position with the other alliance? In the other case it was not an alliance. I well remember the conference held in Bloemfontein, when these two parties suddenly embraced each other, and what did they say? They did not say as we did that although there are points of disagreement because there are certain points of agreement which are more important than the points of disagreement, therefore we are going to come together. Our friends of the Unionist party, weak in numbers but powerful in influence, came to the South African party and said there was no question of any disagreement. I believe the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

You have a vivid imagination.

I believe some of the Unionist members at the Bloemfontein Conference said, “after all these years we find that we can agree on everything; there is no difference between us and the South African party.” They suddenly found after fifteen years of being in the wilderness that they had no cause of disagreement and not only went into alliance but agreed to be submerged in the South African party. Whether their attitude or alliance was honest I am not prepared to say, but there is a marked difference between their action and the action of the Government and the Labour party at the present time. We do say that there are questions of disagreement, but there are questions of agreement, and the motion before us to-day is one of the points of agreement. We have been told that Socialism may be a point of disagreement, but the first issue in this country is to save the country for the white people or we will not have any white people in future to whom to preach Socialism. We have been told by the gallant member that the real objection he has to the motion is that it is going to take away the prerogative of the Crown. But the other day when members of the South African party were speaking against the resolution they admitted frankly—they are sometimes frank—that this matter of titles is no longer the prerogative of the Crown, but that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. If it is his prerogative to recommend titles to, shall we say, successful financiers or—

Slave drivers.

Successful company promoters—if it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to do this, where is the objection to doing away with that prerogative? I have no objection to withdrawing that prerogative and it certainly does not affect the Crown. But there is another aspect of the question that has to be taken into consideration. We have many cases, and I think it has not been disputed, as far as the House is concerned which prove that the overwhelming number of instances during the last few years where titles, have been conferred (I exclude such persons as Sir Carruthers Beattie and Sir William Thomson and a few others who are used to cover up the tracks for others) have not been conferred on account of services rendered to South Africa or the British Empire. Those titles have been almost invariably conferred on account of the bank balances of the gentlemen who have received the titles, and I have yet to learn that the amount of a person’s bank balance is the degree of the connection between South Africa and the British Empire. On the contrary, if we were to go back to what we have been told is the origin of titles, namely, the principles of chivalry, you will agree that until such time as you have chivalry developed to a great extent on the part of the people who are aspiring for these titles, it is well that we should be silent in regard to the giving of titles to people in South Africa, for chivalry has not been conspicuously developed in the country during recent years, and I hope in the coming years there will be some endeavour made to develop chivalry and respect more than has been the case in the last fifteen years in this country. We were told that we had not asked the country about it. It is quite true that was not one of the questions at the election. If my friend had gone to the Rand during the elections he would have found that the people were more concerned about getting a change of Government and of freeing themselves from the grip of those under whom they had suffered starvation and unemployment. The object of the people was to get another opportunity for the development of the country so as to give people a chance to get a livelihood, and I do not think, if he had gone to a meeting on the Rand and tried to raise enthusiasm among the people on the question of the granting of titles, that he would have had any response. But the fact that men like the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the right hon. Mr. Merriman were prepared to continue without accepting titles is definite proof that in their heart of hearts they knew perfectly well that if they had accepted titles they would have lowered themselves in the esteem of their people and therefore did not accept. They wanted the respect of the people, and that is why titles have been refused. It is only the small fry who are always angling for titles. The fact remains that a great man like Gen. Smuts—and I will say a great man in spite of our differences—would not demean himself to accept titles because he knows perfectly well it would not be acceptable to the people of South Africa. Then if you take the other section of the community. Take the members of the public who are supporting the Labour party. I can assure you and this House that the ordinary man who is working for his living and the man who is starving, and the thousands of people who are unemployed in this country are not concerned or anxious about the conferment of titles. I believe that by doing away with them you will not only be doing away with social class distinctions in this country—and we have quite enough distinctions without introducing social ones—but you will make the majority of the people feel that something has been done to do away with that insult to the masses which is involved in the conferring of honours on the people who dominate and exploit them. I think the Government is judging the feeling of the people of South Africa well when it says it will not allow such an insult to the people in future, and there is the further fact that by doing away with these titles you will be showing conclusively that we are really a democratic nation who believe that people shall stand on their merits and that nothing shall be done to entrench plutocracy in this country. The people are apt to think when a title is given that the recipient must be an excellent man to have received it although we know perfectly well that the people who conferred the title have not had any say in the matter; that the recommendation has been given nominally by the Prime Minister, but in reality not even by the Prime Minister, but perhaps by some other individual who has been intermediary between those aspiring to the titles and those who confer them. We want to do away with these things and to create a real feeling of democracy; to do away with social class distinctions and with the state of affairs under which honour is conferred where it was not due, and is therefore an insult to the Crown in whose name the honour has been conferred.

I wonder whether the words of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) have brought back to the members of this House the policy of his Russian friends, and how they look upon their lands being taken away by the democracy he refers to. That is the doctrine he has preached from the first time he unfortunately came here. It shows a wonderful generosity of spirit for the House to listen to that.

Order.

While it is quite possible that many of our Dutch friends do not want titles—I can realize that quite well—I am quite sure that there are a limited number of members opposite who if they were offered a knighthood and went home and told their wives they had refused it, would not be able to get in the front door. It was not a nice speech in which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) moved this motion, but what I want to say in connection with the hon. member is that during that evening I heard a discussion between two men in regard to this matter, and one said: “I wonder if that bloke, Barlow, were offered a title would he accept it?” and the other one said, “Yes; a thousand to one on”; and I believe, that. The Labour members in this House have said a great deal about not wanting titles at all, but they do not represent British labour. There is not a man sitting on that side, on the Labour benches, except, perhaps, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), who could have got in if he had not had the help of the Dutch vote. I can speak with absolute authority about one of the constituencies in Johannesburg, I know perfectly well the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) would not have been in his place to-day without the Dutch vote.

Could you have got in without the Dutch vote?

Yes; without anybody. Well, I want to make allowances for the natural feeling of my Dutch friends, and I know that many of them would not have a title if they were asked, but I want the hon. members on the other side to consider the position of us who are British-born subjects. It means a great deal to us, and we honour and appreciate the man who gets an honour bestowed on him for public service. We expect and hope that you will enter into our feelings in that respect: Why should a South African be denied the privilege and dignity of an honour? There is no nation in the world that has not some form of degree or honour; even the Zulus in their time had some kind of honour; right throughout, since the world began, there have been these gradations of rank, and no matter what this House does that will last. The Prime Minister is not in his seat, I am sorry, because I wanted to remind him that he is not only the Prime Minister of the Dutch side of this House but of the whole of South Africa. He is my hon. Prime Minister, and I look up to him and the position he holds, and I trust he will give us all the consideration which it is possible for a Prime Minister of this country to give in a matter of this sort. He should consider the large body of people who are helping to make this country a great country, side by side. We are helping in that direction just as others are; our sons are going to help this country just as much as the sons of the other side. We have got the same feeling; really, there is not very much dividing us, for we come together on many great points. We are entitled to have our feelings studied in this matter, and it is the duty of the Prime Minister to think for every section of his people. I do not suppose he will take my advice, but really what I should advise him to do would be to come to a decision, either to talk the motion out, or withdraw it altogether.

As a young South African who believes that the salvation of this country lies in the friendly cooperation of the two races, I must say I deplore the attempt that has been made by almost every speaker on the other side to give a racial bias to this debate. Everybody on the other side who has taken part in this debate has been doing some flag-wagging. We have heard all about the British connection, sentimental ideas, and that sort of thing.

We have also heard about national connection.

If the debate had been introduced by a member of my party for the first time at this juncture there might have been some reason for suspicion on the other side; some cause for misunderstanding, but remembering that this motion was introduced two years ago by the hon. the Minister of Defence, and knowing that since that time we have been to the electorate and that they have sent back the Minister of Defence with a larger following than we had, and knowing, at the same time, that he reflects the opinions of a large body of English-speaking people, I can only say that the charge which has been levelled against us from the opposite benches is not only untrue but malicious.

Did they send the Minister back on that point?

It has been said of the Prime Minister that he does not interpret, that he does not know British sentiment and British opinion in this country. I say that in this matter the Prime Minister is reflecting British sentiment much more truly than members on the other side. To prove that I should like to quote from the highest authority on British sentiment in South Africa. I have no doubt hon. members on the other side will be prepared to grant that the “Cape Times” is a fairly high authority on British sentiment in this country, and the high authority on all matters Imperial. I would just like to read to those hon. members what the “Cape Times ”said after it had been made known that the King had decided not to grant any New Year honours to South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas. Smartt) is leaving the House at this point. I would have liked him to have heard what the “Cape Times” says in this connection—

I do not think it is possible to get a more damning criticism of the practice of bestowing titles. It has been all very well for hon. members on the other side to accuse the mover of this motion of being young and irresponsible, but here we have what has been said by a newspaper that is the quintessence of responsibility in this country, or at any rate, that regards itself as such. I want hon. members over there to mark well these words—

Do hon. members over there wish that the King’s name should continue to be debauched? It seems almost an irony of fate that we on these benches should have been found more solicituous than the aspiring candidates for the honour of the King’s name. One thing more, I want to refer to the opening paragraph in the “Cape Times” editorial—

This is the highest authority on British sentiment in South Africa, and if that decision is good, as it has been admitted to be, then I think it is very fit and proper that Parliament should clothe that decision with its authority. I should like hon. members over there, if they can, either to repudiate entirely this expression of British sentiment in South Africa, or they must admit that the Government in supporting this motion is acting in accordance not only with British sentiment but in the highest interests of the British Crown in South Africa. Let us consider for a moment the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown). He admits that there is abuse, but he thinks that abuse can be prevented and the question which he asks is why is it necessary to go the length of abolishing titles, cannot we merely stop abuse? I just wish to remind this House that the very party who says abuse can be stopped and ought to be stopped, sat last year on these benches. They were in a position to prevent abuse from been associated with this practice; they had the power and they failed to use that power. On the contrary, they have been the very people to abuse this practice most in South Africa.

In what case?

Ask the “Cape Time I maintain that abuse in connection with the bestowal of titles cannot be stopped at all, for this reason, that the system of titles is entirely contrary to the spirit of the age and the country in which we live. It is as the Minister of Defence has said, an anachronism. Titles to-day, under present conditions, and in this country particularly, have become nothing but a mere empty form, and there is nothing to prevent an empty form from being abused and creating all sorts of social evils and troubles. I say that titles have become an empty form. We must admit, as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig-Gen. Byron) has said, that there was a time when titles had a meaning and served a useful purpose. Then the duke was a leader of the army in time of war, the earl and baron was a governor of the King in the provinces, and the knight was subject to military service in time of war. In the old days titles implied a duty and carried a responsibility. The rich in those days were not an idle privileged class; they assisted the King in the government of the country. We must admit that from the nobility in those days were drawn the best administrators, the finest generals and the ablest statesmen of those times. I think, however, it must be admitted that we have travelled very far since those days. Titles to-day only confer a privilege and entail no obligation whatever. The whole centre of gravity in the State has been shifted. Where, in the past, it centred in the nobility, to-day it centres in democracy. The point is that by this change which has taken place in the social order, titles have lost their meaning, they have become a mere reward, and I say that is the cause of all the scandals connected with the bestowal of titles. I think hon. members will admit, along with the “Cape Times,” that ever since James I. started selling titles, titles have been abused by governments and by kings. There has grown up, as the “Cape Times” explains, a traffic in titles. Titles have been given not to people of merit, not to people who deserve them, not to men of achievement, but to men with money. We see in South Africa that the rich people are those who get the titles. As has been said by Coleridge, titles are “conferred by people successful in intrigue to people successful in business.” South Africa condemns the whole system. Politically, socially and morally, it has a baneful and corrupting influence. I say that socially it has a bad influence. Titles are not given to men of real achievement; we find that, usually, they are given to men of doubtful achievement. People of doubtful achievement get too big for their shoes, they become snobs and there arises amongst the masses resentment and social friction. Morally, the system is bad, because titles are given not to people who deserve them, but to people who can pay for them. So we exalt the money ideal in our social order. We give all the rewards of the Sovereign to the men who have succeeded in amassing fortunes. There is only a difference in degree between the present system of bestowing titles and the tipping system. That is why your “Cape Times” talks about “the systematic and venal debauchery of the King’s name.” A tipping system in the name of the King—that is practically what has developed. What on earth do we want titles in South Africa for? The system is opposed to the whole spirit, tradition and atmosphere of South Africa. The best thought in South Africa, as expressed in its greatest men, has declared itself against titles. At the same time, in face of the article from the “Cape Times that I have read, and knowing Dutch sentiment as we do, I say that if we carry this motion we shall be acting in accordance with British and Dutch sentiment in South Africa, I honour my Leader for the step he has taken. There is no step that he has taken which I welcome more than this. We have heard a good deal lately of “jobs for pals.” But what about “titles for pals ”? If we disapprove of the one, we must also disapprove of the other, and I hope the moral sense of Parliament will to-day put an end to what the highest authority on British sentiment has described as “the systematic and venal debauchery of the King’s name.”

I ask myself what is the reason for all this waste of time? As everyone knows, it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to recommend the bestowal of titles and we have been told that no more titles will be recommended during the present regime. Where is the necessity then for this motion? Is it one of the pin-pricks of the “top-dog” policy? I am amazed at the hon. member who introduced this motion (Mr. Barlow). He has for a considerable number of years been a prominent member of the society known as the Sons of England, whose motto is—

What has that got to do with titles?

Is the hon. member true to his pledge to his society? No, he is not. Unlike the Ethiopian, he changes his skin and shows his republican spots. But, worse than that, and a feature of his speech and one which I cannot tolerate and I think every member of this House will not tolerate, was the dishonouring of the name of a great South African. He associated the title of Sir John Brand with the sale of the diamond fields to the Cape. He called it a “theft by England.

And I repeat it.

What are the facts in regard to this? The proof is in the book notes of the O.F.S. Volksraad that I have before me, and any member will see what the facts are. We all know that Sir John Brand travelled to England, and in negotiation with Lord Carnarvon was very successful in regard to the demarcation of the boundary of the Free State and Cape Colony, and the Volksraad made him a handsome special gift of £3,000 “in consideration of the valuable services rendered by him to the State.” There was no question of a title at that time. This was in 1876, when the boundary question was settled. The question of conferring a title on Sir John Brand came up in 1882, and the reason why that title was offered to him was in view of the great services he had rendered after the Transvaal war. The spirit of conciliation which he had exhibited was so appreciated that he was offered the title of G.C.M.G. He did not accept that title; he referred it to the Volksraad and the Volksraad unanimously agreed that he should accept it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) attempted to deceive the House by misrepresentation of facts and cast a slur upon the honour of a very great man and insulted and defiled the reputation of the country of his origin. If the hon. member has any decent feeling in him he will get up and publicly apologise for the wicked and cruel statement he made about this great man. I hope the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) will make reparation before this debate is over. I was very amused at the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and his diatribe. He said very little about titles. I presume we shall soon be seeing a publication by one Moses Kantorovich on titles. One thing about a title, it does not allow a man to change his name. It does not allow you to change from Moses Kantorowich to Morris Kentridge. What the hon. member is suffering from is constipated ideas and a diarrhoea of words. Then the hon. member for Umbilo said that titles were conferred in the old days to enable individual knights to wage private war. Private war can be waged to-day. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) recently waged private war upon the “Cape Times.” He found if was a very expensive little war. Not only did it cost him £50 in damages, but he had to make the most abject apology possible, and had to admit he had told a libellous untruth.

The country had to pay for your mistakes; I paid for my own.

What about those mules of yours?

This innuendo has so often been thrown about that I claim your indulgence, Mr. Speaker to explain the position. I presume the hon. member is referring to steam ploughs.

The hon. member must not discuss steam ploughs now.

I claim leave to make a personal explanation.

The hon. member may proceed.

Now about this innuendo against me. I am proud of having introduced the first steam cable ploughs into South Africa. My honour has been impugned over those steam ploughs.

Who got them? who did you give them to?

To demonstrate the utility of those ploughs one was sent to the Mount Edgecombe estate for a few days.

Sir Marshall Campbell.

As a result of that demonstration ploughs were bought by sugar planters all along the South and North Coast from which 3,000 tons of sugar was produced, and the two ploughs proceeded to the settlers’ land in Zululand and ploughed 1,200 acres of settlers’ land, which would never have been produced but for the two steam ploughs. And, on the strength of the great success of these ploughs, another six sets were ordered arriving here about the time of Union. What became of them I do not know. Another Administration came in. That is the end of my story about steam ploughs.

What about mules?

Order.

As I was saying, during the election the text of the Pact entered into by Mr. Creswell, now Minister of Defence, and Gen. Hertzog was published. One paragraph reads: “In the Parliament which will be elected, should a Nationalist Government come into power, no Nationalist member of Parliament will use his voice to upset the existing constitutional relations between South Africa and the British Crown.” Is this motion praying the King to discontinue titles consistent with that statement? I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that he represents both sections of the community and not to hurt one side by his motion. Let him act in the spirit of conciliation we have heard him repeat, and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown).

We have been accustomed in this House to listening to very strong speeches from the hon. member from Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I presume in this matter he was used as a tool of the Government because on this occasion his language was of the softest and mildest kind we have ever heard from him.

The other man said the opposite. You are a party of two voices.

Why? Because the hon. member’s heart is not in this motion and so we have had the mildest of mild speeches from him. The Prime Minister was drawn and had to confess, at least by his actions if not his language, that he and his Government stood at the back of the motion. That being so, why did not the Prime Minister or one of his satellites introduce it? It is perfectly clear from the debate that honours can only be granted if the Prime Minister sanctions them. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister has been so besieged by applicants for honours that he has been overwhelmed and, not having the courage to refuse them himself he wishes to say that the House refuses to allow him to grant them. I know the Prime Minister has many friends clamouring for jobs and he wants to keep their support by giving them jobs.

Is that your way?

Yes.

Oh! Oh!

If you would listen I was going to say; yes if I were in power, but I have never been in power yet and if I were I hope I should not be besieged in the way the Prime Minister is being worried to-day. The Minister of Defence had the effrontery to tell the House that he did not know why he got his D.S.O. Well if he did not know, why did he not refuse it? A man of honour and integrity would have done so. Then the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) said honours were granted to two men in the Free State and those honours created a bitter feeling. Simply because the hon. member did not like them, that is the reason. When we have a man who has shown by his acts that he is deserving of a title why should it not be granted? The Prime Minister does not know to whom to refuse titles and so he wants to say the House refuses him authority to give them; in other words “get thee behind me Satan.” Not once but over and over again the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) repeated the words “making profit at the expense of others.” That was the burden of his song. He objects to people making profits. Does he not make any profit? He is a lawyer like myself, and we all like to work for profits. I am sure he does not work without profit. Perhaps the right hon. the Prime Minister will tell us how he liked the speech of his comrade Mr. Kentridge.

Order.

Just to revert for one moment to what the Prime Minister said. He stated that the country from every point of view was against the granting of titles. The point has been discussed frequently, but I am sure he cannot point to an instance when the subject of the granting of titles was discussed during the recent election or at any time in this country except two years ago when it was debated in this House. None of the hon. members of this House have had the effrontery to say that it was discussed at the recent elections. The Prime Minister hinted that it had been, but did not say when and where it took place. He is a lawyer and knows that if he makes a statement he must prove it, but he has failed to prove it. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) quotes the “Cape Times.” I wonder how he likes the “Cape Times.” Does he like its articles? When it suits him the devil can quote scripture to suit his case—He quotes from the article—

Who does that? Not honourable people. There are plenty interrupters here this afternoon who are not dishonourable in the sense that they would accept bribes, but only in the sense that they do not like the truth to be heard. They shout (and shouting is easy—when things do not please us) so that nobody should hear. The hon. member admits that titles should only be given to people of merit. Then why not leave the matter where it stands and allow the right hon. the Prime Minister to have discretionary powers. It was said that titles socially have a bad influence because they are sometimes given to people for doubtful reasons. A weaker case has never been put before the country by the introduction of this motion. Not a single fact has been brought forward to prove the case. There are a good many lawyers in this House as well as commercial people. They all know that if they go to court with a case they must bring evidence in support of it. We have not had that evidence this afternoon. As the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) says it is not only morally bad but it does not work for good in the interests of the State. He has given no sound reasons why people who have done good work should be deprived of the honours they have justly earned, and we all look up to them with pride. He also said, which is rather amusing—I hope the right hon. the Prime Minister will be amused also—that “because the right hon. the Prime Minister had the courage to say he supported the motion, he honoured him.” If that is the only reason he has for honouring his leader the Prime Minister might well say “save me from my friends.” While the debate was proceeding we had some shouting of “Rule Britannia.” Why not “Rule Britannia ”?

Why not?

I am sure the hon. gentleman opposite who interjected often sings it. There is many a man who holds his seat in the House to-day who would never have held it had he not sung “Rule Britannia.”

I had intended to vote for this motion without speaking upon it, but in view of statements which have been made on the Opposition benches I think I should say a few words; otherwise we will be told at the elections that everybody who voted for the motion was a republican and a secessionist. We can see already the use that is going to be made of this vote. I am not afraid of the vote, but I do not want to be misunderstood or led off the track. I am voting for the motion because I am a democrat; because I think titles are unnecessary in this country. Therefore we approach the Throne by humble address as constitutional members of this House. Although not perhaps admitted by hon. members of the Opposition side, the sentiments of the motion are not only known in South Africa. They extend very deeply into Canada and Australia. Many years ago I heard that as far as Australia was concerned no public man would take a title, if he desired to remain in public life, and to retain the estimation of the people as a desirable person to keep in office. They looked upon the man who accepted it as separating himself from the people. There was no question of republican or secession sentiment about it. The sentiment that we want something different in South Africa is a good one. We do not want the titles of Europe rained on this country. We are a young country. We live more or less on a basis of equality one with another and we do not want artificial distinctions to put one man on a pedestal above his fellows. A lot of confusion has been caused by the fact that decorations have been referred to. Military decorations have been referred to, also legal distinctions, as if they were titles. If a member of the Bar is singled out to Le a K.C. it means that in the estimation of those in authority he has reached a higher branch of his profession. But to compare that with a title where there is nothing to show that a man has merit is absurd. Sometimes it is very difficult to know what the public services rendered are. You might as well say if a man who takes K.C. is taking a title that in the same way a doctor who is an M.B. and takes the degree of M.D. is taking a title. They are not titles. What I take it we are referring to are knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages; things which change a man’s name and also his wife’s name, if he has one. In the case of degrees and decorations, such as for services rendered in the field, those who have earned those decorations do not become separated from other human beings, though there are certain occasions when a man who has degrees or decorations may wear the insignia, but I do not regard these as titles. I think the hon. member is quite justified in bringing this motion forward, and I think it is far more honest to say what one has to say on the subject than to gossip and talk about it outside. Surely the floor of the House is the right place to discuss it. We know that a large number of titles are given when a member of the Royal family travels in the official capacity to any portion of the Empire, and I think it is only right that this House should say whether it approves of this method of conferring titles on South Africans. I think we have a perfect right to say so. It is absurd to say that because a man approves of the motion he is a republican or secessionist. As regards the Union, I have no sympathy with republicanism or secession or with “cutting the painter.” I believe that South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations known as the British Empire has the greatest freedom to exercise all the powers it can exercise under the King and to develop the full manhood of the nation. I believe we can proceed from strength to strength as a member of the British Empire more than if independent, but having these views I do believe also that we ought to try to retain South Africa as a democracy and not as an aristocracy, and therefore we ought to try to do all we can to prevent artificial distinctions between human beings in this country and not encourage the lifting of some to pedestals above their fellow men.

I feel that this is a very difficult debate in which to take part, because I have never in any way whatsoever given expression to any opinion which might be regarded as racial either in the country or in this House I want to avoid that. I believe I am speaking from the point of view of the real interests of the country. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has spoken as he has, for this reason. I had hoped and thousands in the country had hoped that the Prime Minister would speak for the whole of the people and not simply a section of them, and that when he made a statement in regard to the feelings of the people of the country he would express the feelings of the people as a whole and not of a part; or if he was not able to do that, that, if he had partizan feelings in one direction, he would compromise. I think that is what the Prime Minister should have done I cannot conceive government on any other lines, unless the traditions of one section in this country are to be flouted by the other.

You do not call knighthoods traditions.

The last place to look for the traditions of any race is in a political Labour party. The political Labour party throughout the whole world has and does drift from the traditions of the country in which it lives.

You have forgotten the Labour party in Australia.

It stands for internationalism.

You were a member of the Australian Labour party.

I was not, My hon. friend is not a member of any race or party in this country. He is that kind of missing link which belongs to nothing. I feel this however, that the Prime Minister has taken the voice of certain members of the political Lahour party as being the voice of the British section in this country.

Quite right.

It is within the knowledge of every member in this House that the Labour party in no country carries on the traditions of the race.

They do.

What happened in this country when the war broke out?

They went to the front.

What is happening in England at present? An extreme member of the political Labour party initiated a debate in regard to the Prince of Wales’ visit to South Africa. Did he represent the country? Do any of the extreme members of the Labour party represent the traditions of any country? Extreme Labour stands for internationalism as opposed to the great and important principles which the Nationalists stand for on the other side. Internationalism is the very antithesis of nationalism.

Sow some hate.

The very soul of international Socialism is class war. The great doctrine of the Labour party is class war.

Go on with more clap-trap.

The doctrine of the Labour party in this country, as in others, is class war—hate your neighbour. Well, I want to sow peace. This is an attempt to violate some of the traditions of the people of this country, and that is something I wish the Prime Minister to avoid. What is the need for this? Obviously, the motion is something which is considered to be urgently necessary in the opinion of the Government. Here is a simple motion, a matter over which no one has distressed himself very much in the past. I do not care for honours myself, nor do most people, but why should we take two days in debate to press this matter to an issue? What is behind it; is anyone so politically guileless in this House that he imagines that a motion that the Prime Minister will force the Government to stand or fall by, has been introduced without something more behind it? To my mind it is nonsense that the whole business of this House should be held up to decide whether a certain knighthood should be bestowed upon this or that individual; if there is nothing more in it than a dislike of honours. The hon. gentleman who leads the Labour party has said on several occasions that he owes a great deal to Ruskin; a good deal of his Socialism to Ruskin.

I said so?

Yes, years ago. May I say this, that the whole economic theory of Ruskin has its roots in honour, to find some method of recompensing or stimulating the ambition of the masters of industry to work for something other than money. Socialism for many years has been trying to solve that difficulty, how to recompense without money. What greater recompense can you give to the man who has served the State, who has done his best for his country, than to confer some honour upon him, some honour that will be recognized as such by the majority of the people of the country. This is still an age of chivalry; there are people who live their lives with the idea of achieving honour, and it can be done as easily to-day as in the tenth century. There are knights of the pen and knights of industry who are working for the good of mankind; men who are as good as any knight who ever crossed a horse. The argument of the hon. member, the leader of the Labour party, that knighthoods have been conferred upon profiteers who were never astride a horse is quite beside the point altogether. One would imagine from the debate in the House that political honours were the only honours granted, but as a matter of fact they represent only a small portion of the whole, yet it is because political honours are objected to that so much trouble is created. The Prime Minister of England, sitting in the House, pointed out that political honours were few in number, and that the great bulk were given to the army and navy, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and civil servants generally, as well as to others who certainly have not paid a farthing to any political party. How can one object to that? We have no House of Lords in this country to worry about; no hereditary titles of that kind, only little knighthoods. The number of titles in this country is not going to create a poisonous attitude throughout this country as one might be led to believe after listening to speeches of those on the opposite side of the House. I oppose this for this reason; I oppose it in the interests of peace in this country; I oppose it because I do not think any hon. member on the other side has a right to challenge my traditions—the traditions of my race. I do not challenge his. I am prepared to honour and respect his traditions as far as I possibly can. Why should he interfere with mine; why should these traditions of our monarchy be taken away? I cannot but feel that this motion is not brought forward merely with that point in view, I think there is something more behind it. That is one aspect. There is another aspect which was referred to the other day the aspect given by Sir George Foster, of Canada. Anyone who had the privilege of meeting him when he was here a few months ago with the Empire Parliamentary Delegation will only have known the man to have loved him. He spoke in the House of Commons in Canada, in words which must ring in everybody’s heart who has a regard for British traditions; his remarks were referred to yesterday by the hon. member here. He has made clear that monarchical institutions are links which unite us. I speak as a supporter of the monarchy, others speak as republicans. We need not press our prejudices upon each other. Time and evolution may mould us into a nation with the traditions of both races, when neither will do violence to the other. In the meantime Africa is large enough for all of us to live together, and I trust in the interests of peace this motion will not be pressed to a vote.

I think, Sir, after having heard the speeches from hon. members on the South African party side of the House that we have in them every justification for the motion, particularly if I accept, as I do in some degree, the speech for the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), if I accept his views on the issue of orders, knighthoods, and ether titles, as evidence which may be rooted in chivalry. I am bound to condemn as unjust and untrue the position made out by the speeches of some hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. It proves its own justification, because on no single occasion has one member on this side of the House combated the motion on its merits; they have descended right down into the depths in their strained efforts to try and fasten on this motion some ulterior motive on the part of hon. members of the Government side of the House; some dark secret desire to smash up the British Commonwealth of Nations.

That is their chivalry.

Yes, I prefaced my remarks with some reference to chivalry.

Chivalry implies truth.

I am afraid that that interpretation of chivalry does not agree with the methods which have been adopted by hon. members on that side of the House, judging by their vocal efforts this afternoon, and on previous occasions. We have listened to a dissertation on economics on many occasions by the gentleman who has just sat down, after which we have found ourselves in greater confusion than ever. He has paid no regard to the facts on this occasion, but has made sweeping condemnation of the hon. members who represent the Labour party in this House. I am merely touching upon that in passing. It is necessary to point out how little we can depend upon so-called statements of facts as they emanate from hon. members on that side. He said that the Labour party in every part of the world had wiped out the dearest traditions of the country which they happened to be in. If the hon. member did not use those very words that was what he desired to get into the minds of hon. members in this House and into the minds of the people of the country. Some hon. members on that side of the House are always trying to mislead the country by misrepresentation in this House. Some reference has been made to Russia; well, what did those people do who have been fighting consistently against tradition of the most tyrannous sort in Russia? They gathered their forces together to fight for the Russian nation. They fought against the combined forces of France and other countries in Europe subsidized by British gold and British troops. Then the Labour party rose in its might and demanded that the British should withdraw their persecution of the Russian nation and allow them to work out their own destiny. What about South Africa.? The history of the last two or three or perhaps five years demonstrates most conclusively that the Labour party, in combination with its friends and allies, the Nationalist party, has been busily trying to build up a South African nation. We have been trying to build up the traditions of the South African, nation, while hon. members on the Opposition benches have been and are the real destroyers of the South African nation. They talk about the class war. We preach it; they practise it. They have deliberately divided the world into classes, where you have snobocracy on the one hand and democracy on the other. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has said that he would that the Prime Minister had spoken on behalf of the whole nation. Well, he did so speak. Hon. members on the Opposition benches surely cannot call the small portion which they represent in this House the nation. The Prime Minister of the country, who has been returned here by an overwhelming majority—

.02.

Well, they have 27 of a majority. It all depends upon your unit. If.02 represents 27, it is a very big unit. When the Prime Minister, with that majority in this House, speaks in this House, he is speaking on behalf of the nation. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has said that we were cutting at the British connection by filing at the British Crown.

I said filing at the links.

I have come to the conclusion, after listening to the hon. gentleman (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and others who have spoken, seeing that so much depends on the maintenance of the conferring of titles upon individuals, whether they deserve it or not, that the Prime Minister had better give some serious attention to this question. I think he has made a great mistake and that the Government policy is wrong in this matter. We should not be seeking to stop the conferment of titles; we should give titles to everybody and then we shall make the British connection all the stronger. If titles are the links, then let us have more links. If we were really filing at the British Crown, what a scramble there would be for the filings! You can rely upon the man who buys a title being quite prepared to sell the Empire. When the war was at its height we discovered that some of the most influential shareholders and those occupying the highest position in Krupp’s were British titled individuals—links of Empire. The man who buys a title will sell the Empire to get the wherewithal to buy more titles. The very people who stand for Empire and who are so anxious to be links of Empire are the people who were prepared a few short years ago to cut the painter that binds South Africa to England. And for what? If South Africa and Downing Street together dared to send the Chinese back to their homes. I support wholeheartedly my hon. friend’s motion. We can build up a South African nation; we can build up our own traditions from within and the conferring of titles on anybody, unless for meritorious services, will play no part in the building up of the nation, but will rather retard it.

I have listened very attentively to the various kinds of argument brought forward during this debate, but I have failed to hear one argument in support of this motion, even from the Prime Minister. Has he considered and has the House considered the perfectly appalling result if this motion is carried that those potentates who stand at the head of the four provinces must lose their title of “your honour ”? On the other side of the House are certain gentlemen who look forward to succeeding to that position some day. To be consistent, they must then repudiate the title of “your honour

I think this House will remember very clearly that last session the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) found himself constrained to quote to the hon. member who spoke last (Mr. Rider) the Sermon on the Mount. Let me again on this occasion, refer the very rev. gentleman—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am here the hon. member for East London (City).

I withdraw that, but I am entitled, I understand, to call him the hon. and rev. gentleman. I do not, in referring to the hon. member, intend to hurt his feelings or his profession. But let me ask him to read his Bible more carefully, because, if he does so, he will realize that the Master whose words he professes to follow gave utterance to a phrase which ought to be used in connection with this debate, and it was this; “Be not ye called Rabbi.” The meaning of these words the hon. member must appreciate, and I, therefore, commend them to him. I shall watch with great interest the way in which he casts his vote. This subject all along has seemed to me to be one that can very simply be decided upon, and I have decided upon my own attitude with no difficulty. It is a question which the whole people of a particular country can alone pronounce upon. The spirit of this country is such that we are more simply and democratically constituted than the older countries of Europe. We do not wish to ape them in their bad ways; we wish rather to glean from them all the good that will benefit South Africa. I think a little story will aptly illustrate how people feel here on the subject of titles. The House will remember that on a famous occasion a certain lord was interviewing the late President Kruger and while the interpreter was explaining to the President the titles and distinctions of this great lord, the President interrupted and said: “Sê vir hom ek is ’n skaapwagter.” Now that is the spirit of South Africa. Distinctions do not count. We look to the man, and we have come to the conclusion that titles are not fitting in this country. It has been repeatedly said in this debate that titles conduce to snobbery. Surely any man of honesty must realize that that is so and that titles in South Africa have tremendously conduced to snobbery. Can people say that there is no snobbery down here in Cape Town? Then you find it at Grahamstown which has been called by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) “the City of Dreadful Knights ”. You find it again in Kimberley a city of even more dreadful nights and in Johannesburg to some extent.

What about Pretoria?

Pretoria I think is quite free from it. You do not find snobbishness in the broad spaces in this country. These distinctions tend to divide the people into two classes and that is what the hon. member’s motion is aimed to do away with. It has been said that the King’s stamp never makes the metal heavier, and that is the attitude I adopt on this question. Titles have undoubtedly been bought in this country.

What?

If there had not been this evil attaching to them I would have had nothing to say. I heard the words of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) when he challenged the Leader of the Opposition to deny that these dishonourable things had taken place. I watched the Leader of the Opposition very carefully and he gave no sign of denial. Everyone in South Africa knows that these things go on.

Imagine they go on.

Imagine. When you say one imagines these things of course we will not give specific examples. It would be in bad taste to do so. Hon. members know there have been barterings of titles to fill party coffers, and I very strongly object to this practice in South Africa. I support the motion heartily. I am perfectly sure that there are hon. members on the other side who, if they gave their honest opinion, would support it as well. For instance, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), no doubt they have both had opportunities to take titles, but they have not done so. I am perfectly sure they would agree with the broad principle of this motion if only they spoke honestly.

Who made you the standard of right conduct and thought?

I do not know why the hon. member is so indignant. I have already said that I am speaking for myself alone. It has been said we have chosen a bad time to bring this motion forward. I wish to repudiate that suggestion very strongly. The visit of the Prince of Wales has nothing to do with this motion, nor do we wish to make this a political matter. We are simply saying this is the feeling of South Africa. A few figures will prove it. We on this side of the House represent, on a very conservative estimate, 50 per cent of the population of this country. The party opposite is composed of 25 per cent of the older population and 25 per cent. Unionists, and the majority of the older population I am sure would be in favour of this motion, and of the 25 per cent. Unionists quite probably 10 per cent, would be sanely South African on this question. This would give us roughly 80 per cent of the people of this country. Therefore, I support the Prime Minister when he says the great bulk of the people of South Africa support this motion, and heartily support the motion.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) finished on a note which he has no right to adopt on a question which has not been before the country. He said the majority of the people were behind the motion. I do not remember that the matter was ever brought forward on any platform in the country. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) said it has always been a plank in the platform of the Labour party. This motion is therefore a sop given by the Nationalist side of the Pact to Labour.

You want it both ways.

We knew the Labour party favoured the idea embodied in the motion, but we did not know that this question was going to be made a life and death struggle by the Government as a whole. Then the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) said that people bearing titles were always opposed to the democracy. Who was it that gave us the basis of democracy in Magna Charta, on which all free governments throughout the Empire are founded? It was the nobles of England who wrung rights for the people from a reluctant king. Then it was said in this debate that titles were given to people who had not served South Africa but had “served the Empire outside South Africa.” I believe the honours given to South Africans have generally been given for some service rendered by South Africans as such. The hon. member for Umbilo sneered at Grahamstown as a “City of Dreadful Knights.” His bitterness is doubtless due to the cool reception which he received there as an apostle of Socialism. It was said by the hon. member for Brakpan that titles were given to those who had “ground the faces” of the poor in order to extract money from them. I ask, has Sir George Cory, for instance, ever extracted money from the poor, or, indeed, extracted anything except chemical and historic knowledge for the benefit of his country? That is one “dreadful knight” who “grinds the faces of the poor.” Another one is Sir Thomas Graham, a name which is honoured in South Africa. He comes from the stock, this dreadful stock, upon which we now see an attack being made, and whose ancestor founded that city of “Dreadful Knights.” It used to be called the “City of the Saints,” but, evidently, in the opinion of the Labour party, has fallen from grace! I believe the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) spent some of his youth there, evidently unprofitably. I wish I had known something more about him in those days. I do not want further to drag names into this debate. The order of knighthood is conferred for services wider than services to party. Sir George Cory is an example. He served no party, but has served the State faithfully and well. I want, on behalf of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), although I have not spoken to him about it, to repudiate emphatically the words put in his mouth which he never used. He said honours, titles, call them what you like (there has been a great deal of confusion in the debate between decorations and honours and ordinary designations of rank) were a valuable link of Empire. He did not say that they were “the” link between us and the Empire, as stated by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Brand Wessels). What he did say, and what a lot of us feel is, that it is not “the” link or a big link, but it is distinctly one valuable cord of the thread of sentiment that does bind us to the centre of the Empire. It is one thing that is common to all parts of the Empire, irrespective of the population. It is the means by which the Head of the State can show honour to his worthy subjects through his advisers. The advisers are really responsible in modern times and should see that their advice is given correctly, and that there are none to discredit it. It is one means of showing that all members of this Commonwealth of Nations owe allegiance to one head The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Brand Wessels) repeated several times that they on the Government benches had “higher ideals of the bond between us and the Empire” than we on this side of the House appear to have, but when he was speaking like that he kept using the word in Dutch which means independence Why? I cannot see any useful connection between that word and this motion. After saying that there was no question of any endeavour to undermine our bond of unity he keeps on repeating “Independence, independence.” Surely we have reached an understanding in regard to our position in the Empire, and that we feel that we are as absolutely independent as any State could be; but owing full allegiance to one central head who is “the” bond of the Empire. Let us stop this discussion of “independence.” It was quite an extraneous matter. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) made great play with words. (I compliment him on his eloquence. I wish I had half of it.) He quoted passage after passage out of the “Cape Times.” Every reasonable man in this country agrees with what the “Cape Times” wrote. With regard to the abuse of honours, there is no sane man denies that such has taken place, although not so much in South Africa as in England itself. None will disagree that if the principle of fully justified recommendations had been adhered to in the past it is probable that this question would never have arisen in Canada or here, but the traffic grew up in England and as the other side said there was a scandal, but is not the fact that those very people who were honoured were the very people who cleared up these scandals in England a proof that honours are inherently justified? Without question there was a scandal. But the “Cape Times” said that if the Government would “set its face against” such, it would do a great service to South Africa. That is absolutely the case in a nutshell. There has been abuse in the past although not much so far as South Africa is concerned. A lot of us have wondered why certain people got titles but had we known all the reasons we might have agreed. An honour was conferred in Grahamstown through the medium of Prince Arthur during the Settlers Centenary celebrations when he marked the appreciation of the country and paid a tribute to the 1820 settlers and their descendants who had been an asset and had made good. (I wish there had been more of them. We would have been further ahead to-day.) As a tribute to those people and their descendants and as a tribute to the city of Grahamstown and the neighbouring districts and those who organized the celebrations the then mayor received a knighthood. The knighthood was not purchased. Was this the third “dreadful knight” referred to? It all amounts to this that both the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence made a very big point of this motion. They adopted it as a matter of prime importance; a matter on which “the whole country” was clamouring for a decision, the Government gave it precedence over all other business; and here is a pile of Bills which we imagined were also imperative for the well fare of the people, but undoubtedly there are many other matters that should take precedence of this question of the granting of honours. I say that this is wasting the time of the House and is an injustice to the people of the country. We have had two days’ debate on the motion. We will be told that we on this side are taking up the time of the House. I would like to say that I think the Prime Minister had it in his own hands to settle this matter without placing it before Parliament. He can say, during my term of office, I shall not recommend one individual for an honour. The Prime Minister, when he spoke said that it was necessary to come to a decision “as soon as possible” in view of the visit of the Prince of Wales and as it is the “belang van die Volk.” I can see that he is afraid to take the direct course which I indicate but wishes to tell the country that it is “Die belang van die volk” he welcomes this motion, but it would have been better for the Government to have brought in something other than the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). One of the members on the other side said that titles were foreign to “the people of South Africa” as if we were an indigenous race instead of the fact being that neither the English nor the Dutch are indigenous to this country. We brought our traditions and customs with us, and there are many of us who feel that these traditions mean so much to us that we do not want them whittled away in any way.

What about the United States.

I do not wish to say anything on that point, but that is the one country that scrambles after titles more than any other. Probably it is as snobbish a country as any other. If there is going to be snobbishness let us not allow it to be snobbishness of plutocracy. If there is one distinction which is demeaning, and means nothing, it is the distinction between wealth and poverty. If you want to produce that …. (The hon. member for Jeppe is looking at me. He has served this country well and has done for the phthisis men and the poor more than we know. There is a man who I hope is proud to be a member of the Order of the British Empire. I would have been pleased if he, among others, had been more highly honoured than that. He would have carried his title with more distinction than many others going about to-day.) The Prime Minister said another thing which I feel as a young member it is difficult for me to take up. I very much regret that the Prime Minister, with his full knowledge of facts and his strong influence with a very large section of the people of South Africa (though we differ fundamentally, politically I respect him for his honesty of purpose and sincerity) should have said: “Are we to allow the British Government to impose titles on South Africa?” He knows full well that that is never done but his ignorant followers will believe that it has been done. We all know that the British Government imposes titles on nobody. The titles are granted nominally by the head of the State. With the diversity of countries in this Empire and its wide bounds, it is impossible that honours should be granted by the Crown on personal knowledge except in the cases of a few men, and therefore it is entirely in the hands of the Governments of the countries concerned and primarily of the Prime Minister to make recommendations or not. If titles are granted it will be at the request of the Prime Minister, and it would be a simple matter for him to say, I will make no recommendations for them while in office. The reasons he gave and the arguments from the other side, though eloquent, were unconvincing. The only sincerely earnest speeches came from the Labour benches, whose cardinal doctrine is to do away with distinctions of all kinds, and produce a monotone of mediocrity, but from the Nationalist side of the House there was no logic, though they made a most eloquent but bad case out of the “Cape Times” article. We ask the Prime Minister to show and to prove that in this country honours can be granted without undue influence. I have dealt with the question of “imposition.” There is no such thing as imposition of honours on anybody in this or any other country of the Empire. If it was sought to allow honours to be “imposed” on anybody it would be a disrupting force, and we should be against that. The arguments of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, and indeed nearly all the speakers, were the same. They struck me as solely an indictment of the method of distribution of honours. There was no argument advanced on that side which was destructive of the principle. The principle of the granting of these honours, stands as firm to-day as when we started this debate. As to the method of distribution, I admit that there is room for improvement. There has been a Commission of Inquiry on this subject in England, and this commission brought out some very strong evidence. We know there were scandalous things done there; we suspect there is room for reform here, but it is not such an urgent matter that it should be made a question upon which this Government should stand or fall.

I have now heard that statement for the third time. I think it was the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who started that bogey. I never said anything of the kind, that we as a Government were going to stand or fall by this.

I never intimated that.

I am sorry. We feel as the Nationalist party that it is outside our office to decide this question, it is for the House to decide, and the House can decide freely. I want the House to decide, that is all. I merely want to correct this statement. I should, perhaps, have done so earlier, but I did not like to interrupt. However, this being the third time, I thought it was my duty to do so.

I am sorry if I have put an interpretation into the mouth of the Prime Minister that he did not intend, but I was thinking it was not meant really seriously. I meant to convey that the Government has made much too big a thing of this. It has treated this matter as a vital question, which the country was clamouring for the solution of, and I do not think it is anything which influences to any extent the well-being of the people of South Africa. I would like to ask those on the other side of the House where the idea emanated from that it was “in die belang van die volk.” There is a slight indication in the words of the Prime Minister that “any Leader who accepts honour or title at once loses prestige amongst the people.” Are we South Africans small-minded, jealous, petty people who cannot stand anybody being honoured above his fellows? Are we such narrow-minded characters that because one of us may be promoted to captain or first lieutenant of the ship we are going to try and wreck the ship on that account? That is what it means. We know it is a human trait amongst certain people that they cannot stand the sight of anybody who has been successful, who has made good, they want a dead-level of mediocrity, which stops all initiative. They want to paralyse the people of South Africa by saying that we shall all be squeezed down into the same mould until we fit; we are not going to allow any man to have distinction above his fellows. That is possibly one of the reasons for this motion. Otherwise I cannot understand the Prime Minister saying that a leader loses prestige because he is promoted above his fellows in the way I have suggested. This matter goes much wider than titles; if a man gets a step in an Order, and continues to be a man of honour in the true sense, he has every right to expect, if his further services warrant it, that he will be raised in that Order, and that a knighthood will follow his companionship. I see! Then there are minds smaller than I thought possible. You can be a companion, which is a degree in an Order, but because you hide that quietly, because there is no sir or earl or other distinguishing title in front of it you do not mind; you do not resent the principle, but the open application of it. It is therefore admitted by the Minister of Mines and Industries that it is not the honour but the fact that a man should be distinguished above his fellows; that is the objection. I am sorry that this House has wasted practically two days in discussing an absurd motion of this character.

We are not talking.

The position is that we have to. We shall have to “waste more time before all the measures are dealt with which are going to be brought forward to satisfy two branches of a body which cannot naturally hang together. Here we have an absolutely socialistic motion put forward, and put on by a man whom I do not know whether he is a Socialist, a staunch Tory, a Labour man, or what; I mean the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I do not know his political views. There is an animal which floats about aimlessly in the water called a “newt,” innocuous but very troublesome. I will not say anything more about that, but I do want to assert that we have not wasted the time of this House. Our position with regard to this motion has been fully justified. We do not want socialistic diatribes and we do not want socialistic ideas preached in this country. Hon. members have been using this motion as a tag on which to hang their doctrines, and I say we have done a service in keeping the Opposition going during these two days, and I would like to see the matter dropped and not put to the vote. If the right hon. the Prime Minister would say “We are not going to treat this thing seriously,” I would agree that we should leave it to his discretion. The application is in the Prime Minister’s own hands, if he has the courage to say “I will recommend no honours,” let him do so. But possibly he finds he cannot stand against the applications which are storming upon him. But it is assuredly in the interests of the people of South Africa to carry on the traditions of the past, to carry on any link with the countries from which they came. Although it may be an anachronism it does not stand alone; many things are anachronisms, and it may be there will be such an anachronism in a Parliament that we shall have to have a dictatorship, and really, if you could find a man of the right character, and with the necessary brain, I think that perhaps would be best. But many anachronisms amount to a great deal; it is an anachronism to keep up many old traditions; even eating haggis is looked upon by many as a tie with Scotland! There are many ties which on the face of them do not mean much, but to my mind it is very desirable that we should keep these links unsullied. Let this Government take its opportunity and be the one to sweep the Augean stable clean with a new broom, without fear or favour or undue influence, and let them see that men who really deserve well of the country and who shall not be of any particular section of the people shall be honoured in accordance with their services.

I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

seconded.

called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—48.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Jager, A. L.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. 0. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B. Watt. T.

Tellers: Marwick, J. S.; Nicholls, G. H.

Noes—72.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Do Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hesyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, 0.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J. Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk,

P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, 0. S.

Visser, T. C.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Swart, C. R.; Waterston, R. B.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I wish to detain the House a moment before the question is put. Allow me first, as one acquainted with Parliamentary procedure, to express my surprise that the Government has given preference to a motion brought forward by a private member. This particularly occasions surprise, seeing that the House is overloaded with most important business in the form of a great number of comprehensive Bills. I want to ask the hon. Prime Minister whether he thinks he has treated the House reasonably by allowing time to be taken up by discussion on this motion to which he has given precedence. I want to ask the hon. Prime Minister and to ask the House, was there any necessity for this motion? It is undoubted that according to usage the Prime Minister has in his own hands the right to refrain from bestowing titles. This is within his own power. He has already declared some months ago that so far as the Government is concerned he will give no further approval to the bestowal of titles. The Prime Minister now says he wishes his attitude to be approved by the House. With the greatest respect, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, when he has a resolution of the House—this is an important question—he will be convinced that he has tested the feelings of the people on the question? The matter is now being forced through the House purely and simply on party lines. We are going to give it the imprint of a party division. Allow me to tell the hon. Prime Minister that for him and for me this is not a matter of sentiment; but he will agree that to a greater proportion of the people of South Africa it is a matter of sentiment—and I consider that as Prime Minister it is his duty to respect that sentiment of a large proportion of the people of South Africa. He sits there not as Prime Minister of the Pact party, but as Prime Minister of South Africa. I think that the country might in all reasonableness have expected of the Prime Minister that he would show respect for this sentiment of a great part of our population. This is one of the reasons why I shall vote against the motion. I want further to tell the Prime Minister that the matter is not a tender one for him and for me, but that it is a tender question for a portion of the people of South Africa. I consider that he as Prime Minister would have done well if he had consulted the Opposition so that the House could have voted unanimously. For him as Prime Minister there are possibilities of solution of such matters by way of compromise. We might have taken a resolution acceptable to both sides of the House and to every hon. member; but now the matter is going to be forced through on purely party lines.

Who has done it?

Where does the motion come from? Who has introduced it? We did not give occasion for the motion, but I say that seeing this is a matter of sentiment for a great proportion of the population I consider it was the duty of the Prime Minister to consult the Opposition and see whether a unanimous vote of the House could not have been obtained. Then the resolution would have been of value; but if it is now adopted, will it be of any value? So far as concerns the feeling of a part of the people, they will not be satisfied. I want to give another reason why I am against the motion, a reason already mentioned by other members. It is the forthcoming visit to South Africa of the Prince of Wales. I want seriously to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks this is a desirable time for bringing the motion before the House. The hon. Prime Minister answers in the affirmative. Let me tell him that the Crown Prince is coming to South Africa, and he is, in the first place, the future King of the Empire. He comes here as the ambassador of his father, His Majesty the King, but the hon. Prime Minister says that as long as he is here on this visit to South Africa his father will not have the right to exercise his kingship in South Africa. No, he will not have the right to exercise that part of his kingship in respect of certain of his subjects in South Africa. I ask the Prime Minister, is this reasonable towards the visitor? Yes, hon. members can laugh. No one can accuse me of being or ever having been a seeker after titles of honour. I am unprejudiced and I want only to let it be known that I consider this time just on the eve of the visit of the Crown Prince, to be a very undesirable time for the forcing through the House of a motion of this character. The hon. Minister of Defence defends the motion; but I think the less said about his attitude in the matter the better. Another argument has been adduced by the Prime Minister. He said that the people of South Africa are adverse to the bestowal of titles. He said that we in South Africa stand for equality without rank or distinction. If I know the Dutch-speaking section of the people, I think I am not wrong in saying that they are in respect of ranks and distinctions an aristocratic people. It appears to me that the hon. Prime Minister acts on recommendations of the Socialist element, and that he has left the aristocratic portion of the people out of his calculations for the present. I repeat, I consider the Prime Minister has not shown the respect which he as Prime Minister was bound to show towards the sentiment of a large proportion of the people. A second point is that this is the most undesirable time for the passing of such a resolution in view of the impending visit of the Crown Prince. These are the reasons why I personally shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow).

The amendment proposed by Mr. D. M. Brown was put and negatived.

Original motion put, and Dr. De Jager called for a division; upon which the House divided:

Ayes—71.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Swart, C. R.; Waterston, R. B.

Noes—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D P.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Jager, A. L.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson. C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Marwick, J. S.; Nicholls, G. H.

Motion accordingly agreed to.