I move—

So far as I know, no motion proposed by a private member has yet been accepted during this session, in spite of the fact that quite a number of motions have appeared on the Order Paper, among them some very important ones. I make bold, however, to say that on the Order Paper to-day we have two of the most important motions one can get, the one because of its cultural value and the other because of its economic value; the one deals with the soul of the people, and the object of the other one is to keep starvation away from the wheat farmers. That being so, I should like to make an appeal to all parties in the House to keep politics out of these two motions. There is no doubt in my mind that these motions can easily be discussed without our dragging in politics. I further want to make an earnest appeal and ask that none of the parties should introduce an amendment which might have the effect of wrecking these two motions. Next, I want to make an appeal to the Government side of the House and to other parties not to go to the extent of again talking out these motions. If we carry on with this policy of talking out motions, it will mean that we will simply waste the days on a discussion of private motions. We on this side of the House have decided that if the other parties are prepared to give us their co-operation, only two members on this side will speak on each of these motions, and they will only make two short speeches. I therefore trust that we shall get the co-operation of the other parties, and I say this: woe to the party which wrecks these motions. The people cannot, and will not, forgive them if they do so. In regard to the motion which I am now moving, I want to say that there can be no doubt that every country in the world has had its heroes, and it regards those heroes with pride, and it looks with pride upon the acts of heroism of its heroes and heroines, and it honours and celebrates its heroes’ days. One also finds monuments erected throughout the world by the nations which want to pay homage to their heroes, and they have their Heroes’ Days—a nation which does not honour its heroes is doomed. Let us pause for a moment and see what other countries are doing. Take a country like America, which has its memorial day, a day when the people place floral tributes on the monuments in honour of the heroes of the past, and there is full co-operation so far as that day is concerned. Let us take England; there we find a day like Queen Victoria Day, and in our country, too, the English-speaking section of the population regards Queen Victoria Day as a Heroes’ Day so far as they are concerned, and we do not begrudge them that.

What about Dingaan’s Day?

I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Bowen) does not realise the significance of Dingaan’s Day, because if he did he would not have put that question. If we turn to France we get what I believe is known as Bastille Day, I believe that it is the 14th June, a day which is set aside to pay homage to the heroes of the French nation. And that is all this motion contemplates. It contemplates a day being set apart for the Afrikaner people to honour their heroes and heroines of the past. We cannot get away from the fact that, relatively speaking, there is no nation in the world which has produced more heroes than the Afrikaner nation. The South African people are rich in heroes and heroines, and yet we are so lacking in national days to commemorate those heroes that I can justly say that it is a disgrace that a motion should only be introduced at this stage to ask the Government to set aside such a day. We propose, of course, in our motion, that the 10th October be fixed as a public holiday which will be called “Heroes’ Day” in South Africa. Now I may perhaps be asked why exactly we have chosen the 10th October for Heroes’ Day. I want to point out that the month of October is a remarkable month for South African heroes so far as their birthdays are concerned. It contains the birthdays of a whole gallery of heroes. Let me mention a few of them: President Steyn was born on the 2nd October; on the 5th October President Reitz was born; on the 6th October Gen. Chris Botha was born; on the 7th Gen. Christiaan de Wet was born; and on the 10th October Paul Kruger was born; on the 11th October Gen. Delarey was bom; and so it goes on. I could mention a great many more, but I think I have mentioned a sufficient number of names to show that that month has supplied us with a veritable gallery of heroes. It is unique in the history of the world. I do not think we can mention any other nation which has so many birthdays of heroes in one month. Somebody may ask me why exactly we have chosen the 10th October as the date for our Heroes’ Day, and why we have not chosen any other date. I may point out that the 10th October has practically fixed itself as the date for Heroes’ Day. It has been the custom in South Africa for years now to celebrate the 10th October as Gen. Kruger’s birthday, and it is regarded as Heroes’ Day. The date has practically fixed itself as the day on which we look back on the heroes of South Africa. And then the question is put why we have not, for instance, chosen the first Monday in October? It has no meaning for us, and it is a senseless day so far as the Afrikaner is concerned. On the first Monday of October we have Wiener’s Day. The great bulk of the people of South Africa do not know what Wiener’s Day stands for; they do not know who Mr. Wiener was, and we are fully entitled to ask that we should not have our holiday on that day, but that we should have the 10th October as a holiday to celebrate Heroes’ Day. We are not asking for an additional day which the capitalists might kick against, because it might cause all sorts of difficulties in regard to salaries and the rest of it. It is a day which we can put in the place of the first Monday of October, which we have always had. Now I want to give a few reasons why I think we should really have the wholehearted support not only of this side of the House, but also of members opposite, to induce the Government to accept this motion. My first reason is this: that the Government is there, or should be there, to keep its finger on the pulse of the people, to have its hand on the heart of the people, and if the Government has done so so far not one hon. member opposite can get up and tell me that they do not hold the view that it is the heartfelt wish of the people that the 10th October should be fixed as Heroes’ Day. I say that that is the real wish of the people, that they want that to be done, and may I be allowed to say this to hon. members, that I have received large numbers of telegrams and letters in support of this motion. The number of telegrams I have received is very large. I am not going ot read all those telegrams and letters to the House because I have not the time to do so, but I want to put a few resolutions before this House which were adopted by some of the largest societies in the country. I do not propose reading all those resolutions to the House because it would take up too much of our time to-day, but you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read out one resolution passed by the body which I want to mention first of all. You will not take it amiss if I read the resolution passed by the most recent session of the Synod of our Church which was held here in Cape Town. A proposal appeared on the agenda to the effect that a resolution should be passed that the 10th October should be proclaimed as a public holiday, as Heroes Day. The Synod thereupon appointed a Commission and that Commission reported as follows:

I hope that my friends opposite, and especially the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Bowen) will take notice of this—

It is a day devoted to the Almighty in accordance with that undertaking and we cannot take that day as Heroes’ Day….

I therefore feel that that is an effective reply to the hon. member. The Synod goes on to say this—

That is an important point and I want to emphasise it.

And this report was passed unanimously. After that we had the Provincial Council of the Free State. I do not want to say that that body passed a unanimous decision, but it passed an almost unanimous resolution that Heroes’ Day should be proclaimed for the 10th October as a public holiday. The teachers’ body of the Cape Province, the S.A.O.U., then passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the same day. Then we find that the Municipal Association of the Free State on which, of course, all sections and parties are represented, also unanimously passed a similar resolution. They unanimously decided that such a day should be set aside by law. I can deal at length with the meetings held in the country at which similar resolutions were passed and I could, inter alia, point out that at each of the meetings held by me in the country during the last few months a resolution has been passed asking that the Government be urgently requested to proclaim this day as a public holiday. I attended a great many meetings, and there has never been a discordant note struck in regard to such a motion. At one meeting there was a man who dared suggest something else and he had to run for his life. Throughout the country school boards have passed resolutions as I shall prove just now; there were English-speaking people on those boards as well which passed resolutions in favour of the 10th October being set aside as Heroes’ Day and being proclaimed a public holiday. The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) will just now have an opportunity of testifying to this; as I said just now I have received a tremendous number of telegrams and letters. I am not going to read those telegrams and letters to the House but I may be allowed to mention the names of a number of the bodies which have sent me those telegrams so that hon. members may realise how spontaneous this request is which from all sides of the country is being sent to the Government? First of all we have the Reddingsdaadbond; we have the Heroes’ Day Committee, District Committees and Divisional Committees; the staffs of numerous schools throughout the country; there are rings ….

Did you also have resolutions from branches and district committees of the United Party?

No, I only have resolutions from district committees and divisional committees of the re-United Nationalist Party, but I shall satisfy my hon. friend on that just now. I have received telegrams and letters from the management of “Uniewinkels,” from the University of Pretoria, from cultural societies throughout the country, from the A.C.V.V. right throughout the country, from the Voortrekker movement right throughout the country, from the A.T.K.V., and to crown it all from the Paul Kruger Birth Place Committee. We have members on this side of the House who may perhaps not have the opportunity of speaking on this motion, and I just want to say that they have also received telegrams and letters of a similar nature to those I have received. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman), for instance, placed a telegram in my hand just now which reached him from the Reddingsdaadbond which has a membership of more than 1,000; he also put in my hand a letter from the teachers of Lydenburg, Barberton and surrounding districts. I am referring to this in order to show hon. members that it is a spontaneous and general feeling which has arisen throughout the country. Now let me say something to the hon. member for Kimberley, District, who asked a little while ago whether the request had also come from supporters of members on the other side of the House. He asked me whether I had received a telegram from party branches in the Kimberley District, branches of the United Party. No, I have not received such telegrams but that does not mean that the remarks which I made at the beginning of my speech that even English-speaking people supported this motion, were not well founded. At any rate a certain portion of the English-speaking people are supporting the motion. I believe that it was in November when a meeting of the School Board of Barkly West was held. The hon. member knows that Barkly West is one of his strongholds in his constituency. A motion was passed at that meeting of the School Board reading as follows—

That resolution was moved by Mr. P. H. van Wyk and it was seconded by Mr. H. P. Tucky. My hon. friend knows Mr. Tucky and he knows that he is very “Red.”

He is a good Afrikaner.

I was not referring to his Afrikanership. I only wanted to point out that he is one of the “Red” people in the North-West.

Why do you say that he is “Red”?

I meant to convey that he was pro-English, and he comes along now and asks for a circular letter to be sent to all school boards in order to obtain their support for the 10th October to be proclaimed as a public holiday.

He is out and out proAfrikaner.

I am not saying that Mr. Tucky is not pro-Afrikaner. He may be a good Afrikaner. I do not want to drag any politics into this question. The hon. member is not going to get me to do that. If the hon. member objects to the word “Red” I only want to tell him that I refer to it merely to prove that there are also English-speaking people in this country who support this request of mine. Here we find English-speaking people supporting the sending out of a circular letter which was sent to all the school boards of the Cape Province to ask the Department to proclaim the 10th October as a holiday. As I have said, a large number of school boards even before that time had decided, at the request of Major Tucky, to support a movement such as is contained in the resolution which I have read. That request has been supported by numerous articles in some of the largest papers in this country. I again want to draw attention to the fact that in the resolution of the Synod which I read to the House it is pointed out that the South African Nation has not got a single day specially set aside to be devoted to the heroes of the country. Yet the Voortrekkers were the pioneers of a movement which has been the only one of its kind in the world. Thirdly, I want to point out that we have heroes days for foreigners. We have Queen Victoria Day which is foreign to South Africa. We have Wiener’s Day, and I do not know whether Mr. Wiener was English or German-speaking. Apart from that we have the King’s Birthday. And what do the Afrikaner people in South Africa do? They honour and respect the feelings of the English-speaking people in respect of those days. We have never yet objected to those days; if they want to use those days to honour certain persons we do not begrudge them the opportunity to do so, but we also ask them to grant us days on which the people of South Africa can honour their heroes. Such heroes’ day will undoubtedly be of tremendous educational value. The nation which does not honour its own heroes can have no respect for the heroes of another nation. If hon. members would go to our schools and listen to the radio talks, they would almost every day hear propaganda being made among the youth telling them that they must honour our heroes. Let our minds go back to October of last year. The children were divided and the teachers were divided. The parents were divided, the Department of Education was divided; the Free State readily granted the 10th October as Heroes’ Day. The Cape Province, for reasons of its own, will not agree to it. Now what has been the result? If we study the Press we find that a violent paper battle has been going on, and a paper battle would perhaps not have been so very extraordinary, but the result has been that we got division in our schools. Personally I can mention one case where the principal of a school who had a different view has perhaps been broken for all time so far as discipline in that school is concerned. There are teachers who are faithful to the authorities and they have come up against the sentiment of the parents. Their sentiment was that a day should be set aside for Heroes’ Day and the teacher who was faithful to the authorities came into conflict with the sentiment of the parents, and if matters go on like that we shall find that the cause of division and lack of discipline will flourish in the fertile ground which we so often find for these things in South Africa. The Afrikaner child attaches great sentimental value to these things, and its fiery spirit of hero adoration will bring it into conflict with the English-speaking children if the State fails to recognise that day as a holiday. I can speak as a former teacher who has had many years of experience, and I now come to my next point, on which I wish to speak from my own experience. That is the disciplinary force which the fixing of this date will create among our youth. There is no doubt that a command from the principal of a school should be law to the school children, but disobedience and lawlessness arises if he carries out his duties against the sentiments of the people. Some children would be compelled to take a holiday and the spirit will develop in their minds—the spirit of “It does not matter.” So far as the unfaithful pupil is concerned, a condition like that is grist to the mill. So far as a faithful pupil is concerned it is painful if he has to stay away from school when the teacher is in the school room. It creates uncertainty, hesitation and lack of confidence in South Africa, an evil which deeply affects the existence of our people. The request which has been made is not an unreasonable one. To turn down that request will mean discrediting the teachers and the employers in the eyes of the people, because the national sentiments of the people are ignored. That refusal has in the past caused bitterness which has led to unnecessary feelings being stirred up. We want to have one day for ourselves; one day to call our own, and if hon. members opposite co-operate with us to give that day to our people they will prove that they are honest in the doctrines they proclaim, that we should have unity among our people. In days gone by the heroes of our people were mostly their enemies, but if they do not begrudge us a day to honour our heroes they will be doing something great to recognise the sentiments of our people. We ask them to co-operate sincerely with us in this matter. I now wish to touch on another point, and I want to say that we should pass this motion in order to avoid bitterness in the future. The year 1940 has produced evidence to show that the youth of South Africa is definitely longing to have such a day. I can give hon. members the assurance that there are schools, and strong schools, in this country where the children were persuaded with the greatest difficulty last year to go to school on the 10th October. They decided to go on that occasion, but at the same time they decided that that would be the last 10th October they would ever go to school. These are hard facts, and that is what will happen at the end of this year when the 10th October dawns again, if it is not proclaimed a public holiday. Are we in this House simply going to sit down and allow that unfortunate condition of affairs to continue in this country? No force in the world will alter the views of those children. I can give hon. members that assurance; opposition has always made a people more determined than ever before; an opposed nation has always become a great nation, and that is what we will be doing here if we persist in refusing to proclam the 10th October as a public holiday. Even the parents have shown that they are unable to adduce reasons why Heroes’ Day should not be regarded as a holiday. There is not a single parent in this country who can show his child a reason why that day should not be given to them to pay homage to their heroes, and hon. members will understand what kind of conditions are going to be created if the State declines to set aside Heroes’ Day as a holiday for those purposes. I do not want to speak unduly long on this subject. I have given my reasons why I am asking for this day as Heroes’ Day, and I am convinced that we should obtain the support of hon. members opposite. If anyone, and especially those people in whose veins Afrikaner blood flows, goes against the national will in a matter of this kind, posterity will not forgive him. The people of South Africa want to honour its heroes.

Who is there who does not honour his heroes?

I am so nervous of the hon. member trying to drag politics into this matter that I would rather not reply to his interjections. I want to make an earnest appeal to the House, and I do so in the name of the youth of South Africa, and I do so in the name of the people of South Africa—I appeal to the House to support this motion. I also do so in the name of a large proportion of the English-speaking people of the country—let us have the united support of this House in putting this request to the Government. We ask the Government not to disappoint us but to accept this motion. I hope no one will put a spoke in our wheel, and I ask the Government to accept this motion and pass legislation so that we may this year have the 10th October as our Heroes’ Day and as a recognised holiday—that we may have the 10th October granted to us as a day which we can devote to paying honour to our heroes and heroines of whom, as I have already said, the Afrikaner nation fortunately has very many.

It is a privilege to be allowed to second this motion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). I am not going to detain the House for very long—not more than ten minutes. I am also going to make an appeal immediately to hon. members opposite and also to hon. members on our side to assist us in this matter so that this important motion, and also the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), may be disposed of by the House this afternoon. I particularly wish to make an appeal to the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) who has an amendment on the Order Paper. I do not wish to comment on his amendment, all I wish to ask him is this: do not propose that amendment but wait for an opportunity to bring the matter up for discussion. Do not allow this important motion to be talked out this afternoon. In any case I want to appeal to everyone in this House to help us in regard to the discussion of this motion. I am not putting this forward as a threat, but I want to say that the people outside will call those who are responsible for wrecking this motion to account. The Afrikaner nation is a comparatively young nation; we are a small nation, but we have a history of which we have every right to be proud, and the only reason why we have such a glorious past is because our people have not had a dearth of great men—it is due to the fact that we have been blessed with many heroes and heroines. We have a galaxy of heroes, aye, of child heroes too, who have made great sacrifices for the cause of South Africa; who have suffered and who have bled for the preservation of what they have regarded as their own, who have suffered and have fought for the preservation of the soul of the nation. If we study those heroic figures in our national history we behold the great figure of Paul Kruger, a man who stands out above everybody. For that reason we ask, when we want to do honour to the memory of our heroes, that we shall be granted a public holiday on the day which is looked upon and which is celebrated by the people, namely, the 10th October, the birthday of Paul Kruger. Paul Kruger was the greatest statesman and the greatest leader our people ever had; he was great but never too great for the people he sprang from, never too great for the Boer nation. He was loyal to his God, loyal to his people and loyal to himself. He was loyal to the end of his life, loyal to the great ideal he cherished and to the ideal which the Afrikaner nation cherishes, namely, the ideal of freedom. Paul Kruger was great in his day, and the farther we get away from those times the greater waxes the figure of Paul Kruger—the greater he becomes in the eyes of the Afrikaner nation. At the time he was an inspiration to his people, and he is an inspiration to us to-day, and he is unquestionably going to be an inspiration to coming generations. Paul Kruger is par excellence essentially the man of the future. I know there are some people who will ask us why we do not rather take the first Monday in October as a holiday, as it would mean giving less offence to the sentiments of the English-speaking people. I fail to see what sentiments of the English-speaking people are being interfered with. Do not let us forget that the English-speaking child has his King’s Birthday, that the English-speaking child has Queen Victoria Day; but the Afrikaans-speaking child has not a single day in the school year which counts as a public holiday. There are people also who say that if we take the first Monday in October it will mean a long week-end. All I want to say in that regard is this: he who knows the soul of the Afrikaner knows that the Afrikaner is set on that date, that he attaches more value to that date than just to have any holiday. He wants to honour his heroes in a way which is fitting to those heroes, not just as it suits him. And that is why we ask for the 10th October; no other day will satisfy the Afrikaner. In 1938 the Afrikaner nation celebrated Eeufees, and on that occasion, perhaps more so than ever before in its history, the people became conscious of the heroic deeds of the past, and it is because of that that the urge among the people is greater and stronger than ever before, to have a Heroes’ Day. We therefore ask: Give us that public holiday so that we may celebrate it in the right spirit. But, what is more, young South Africa demands it; it does not demand it because there is a lack of discipline among young South Africa; young South Africa does not demand it simply because it wants to have a day off, or because it wants to have a holiday, but young South Africa demands it because it wants to do justice to the memory of the heroes and heroines of our people. They demand it because they know that it is due to the heroes of our people, and, above all, they demand it because they know that a people which does not honour its heroes has no future. If this House rejects this motion, there will not only be a feeling of great disappointment in the heart of every Afrikaner who is proud of his people, but to my mind this House will commit an act which is nothing short of a display of contempt towards the sacrifices which the heroes of the past have made on behalf of our people. For that reason, I plead with the Deputy Prime Minister, for that reason I plead with hon. members opposite, for that reason I plead with everyone in this House, and I ask them not to deny the Afrikaner nation this reasonable and just request. We do not want to deprive our English-speaking friends of anything. All we ask is: “Give us as Afrikaans-speaking people what we are rightly entitled to, give us what we can justly claim.”

I am pleased to be able to move the amendment standing in my name on page 258 of the Order Paper—

I want to say that the hon. members for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) introduced their motion with very great enthusiasm and credit, and what struck us as Transvaalers and Free Staters chiefly was that the two hon. members spoke so enthusiastically about the great leader that President Kruger was, as well as of the other leaders of the Free State, who also played so great a role. It does our hearts good to hear and to notice the enthusiasm in the speeches of the two hon. members. We are pleased that that spirit, which has now I hope come down from the North for good, has established itself in the South. The spirit of freedom which has developed spread out its wings in the North, has now done so here in the South as well, and we hope that that is not merely temporaraily. That is encouraging. Now the hon. member for Malmesbury asked me whether I would not withdraw my amendment. Let me first of all explain what my reasons are for this amendment, possibly the hon. member will agree with me that it would not be wise of me to withdraw the amendment. I want to point out that there are two great points of difference between the motion and my amendment. The first point of difference is that the hon. member for Victoria West asks for Heroes’ Day to be proclaimed as a public holiday on the 10th October, while my amendment asks that Heroes’ Day and other public holidays shall be included in the schedule of the Act. That is the great difference between the motion and my amendment, as I will explain further in a moment. In the second place, my amendment wants, in addition to Heroes’ Day, to see other public holidays included in the Act, and I think that they are very necessary in order to settle the matter, once and for all, now.

Why did you not introduce a motion of your own?

Mr. Speaker would immediately have ruled it out of order. For technical reasons, I was unable to do so in view of the other motion. But I say that the second difference is that this amendment, in addition to Heroes Day, suggests various other public holidays and changes in connection with public holidays. Let me go back to the first point of difference. The first point of difference is dealt with in Act No. 3 of 1910. Hon. members know that Act No. 3 of 1910, laid down what were to be the public holidays. The Act was passed as long ago as 30 years, immediately after the Union came into existence, and up to to-day the schedule has never been altered. But Act No. 3 of 1910 contains a section which is of importance just in regard to the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West, in this sense, that no public holidays are recognised which are not prescribed in the schedule. But there may be other public holidays, and they fall under section 3 of the Act, and are called “verklaarde” public holidays, or, to use the English word, “appointed” public holidays. The great difference between an appointed public holiday and a public holiday which is not prescribed, is that a public holiday which is prescribed in the Act practically remains there for ever. In spite of all the efforts to bring about alterations, there have been none during the past 30 years. But the appointed public holidays can at any time be altered by the Government. The intention in connection with appointed public holidays was that they should be appointed in connection with some special occasion or other. That has actually happened up to the present. When Rustenburg, for instance, celebrates its centenary, then the Government will appoint the day as a public holiday, but only for Rustenburg. It is localised, and only applies to that place. When a great personage arrives in a village, then the Government does appoint the day as a public holiday just for that village. It is then a declared public holiday, and now the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West to make this great day Heroes’ Day an appointed public holiday, in other words a step-child amongst the public holidays.

Nonsense.

I think that the argument is clear. Let the hon. member study the Act, and then he will see what the position is. Then he will arrive at the conclusion that I have come to. Then he will see that there is a great difference between an appointed public holiday and a scheduled public holiday, but the hon. member for Victoria West and his seconder have apparently completely lost notice of that point. I repeat that as a result of the motion, Heroes’ Day would become the stepchild amongst the public holidays.

You are now posing very piously.

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) says that I am posing, but when I pose then my pose is in any case founded on history, which the hon. member for Boshof cannot boast of. There is a great difference between the two kinds of public holidays. Then I come to the second point of difference, namely, that we also want to have Van Riebeek Day as a public holiday. Have hon. members opposite got any objection to that? I believe not.

An Empire Day?

I am coming to that in a moment. I think that hon. members can have no objection to Van Riebeek day also being a public holiday. If they do in fact have any objection, then they are acting in opposition to the views of their own leader. Hon. members know if they have read the diary of Van Riebeek, that in that diary an instruction has already been given to us who are his descendants, that we should celebrate as a memorial the date of his landing—6th or 7th April—there is a difference of opinion about the date. Those instructions were given to us by Van Riebeek. They were never carried out, and I think that after all this time, 300 years, it is proper that we should give effect to them now. I do not think that hon. members can make any objection to Van Riebeek day, but if they do actually object I want to refer them to what their leader (Dr. Malan) said five years ago on the subject—

We now call it Heroes’ Day. Hon. members over there will probably notice to their surprise that I, as member of the Afrikaner Party, am moving something in the spirit of what their own leader advocated. I cannot see how they can oppose my amendment, and how they can ask me to withdraw my amendment. Then in my amendment I propose, in addition to Van Riebeek Day, that another public holiday shall be declared on the 1st May. I wonder whether hon. members over there have any objection to that? If they do object I want again to remind them of what their own leader said about the matter in 1936—and on that occasion he was enthusiastically supported by the hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit). Let me just remind hon. members of the words of their own leader—

Hon. members see therefore that my amendment in this connection is consistent with what their own leader advocated. But I think I can also expect support from the Government to my motion that the 1st May shall be constituted a public holiday.

Who is opposed to it?

I am glad to hear that. If they support me what objection then have they to my amendment?

Because you want to wreck the motion with it.

If that is right, my amendment …

Are you in favour of the motion?

Yes. Who wants to wreck the motion? Certainly not we. I cannot understand their argument. I can understand someone wrecking the motion if he moves a bad amendment, but hon. members there themselves admit that my amendment is better than their motion for various reasons. How then can I wreck the proposal? There is another point: Hon. members are now wanting to do patchwork, they want to make Heroes’ Day a step-child among the public holidays, but their own leader also took up the attitude in 1936 in regard to this matter that he did not want to do any patchwork. He said—

Now I would like to remind the hon. Minister of Finance of the fact that he also should be on my side. He was Minister of the Interior in 1936, and he will clearly recollect the words that I am now going to quote to prove that he most certainly should support my amendment. I want to quote his very words used at the time when he was Minister of the Interior—

It was the attitude of the Government at the time, that no patchwork could be done. Yet hon. members say that I want to wreck the motion with my amendment. The Minister of Finance himself said at that time that he would not have anything to do with any patchwork, and I do not like patchwork either if the effect of it is to make Heroes’ Day a stepchild amongst the public holidays.

Is the Government in favour of your amendment?

How should I know? I am not sitting on the Government side, but that was the policy which was announced at that time by the Minister as the policy of the Government, and the same arguments are still of force to-day, namely that the question must be considered as a whole. Nothing has happened in the meantime to upset the argument. Sometimes politicians change their ground very quickly ….

Hear, hear.

But there are also hon. members, and I am now referring to the Afrikaner Party here, who keep to their course year after year. I still want to refer to one point, which is also in connection with the schedule.

What about Empire Day?

Well, you will notice that the greater part of my amendment is taken from the report of the Select Committee which investigated this question of public holidays in 1936. At the moment the position is that, in accordance with the schedule to Act No. 3, there is a Victoria Day, on 24th May. I think the hon. members for Victoria West and Malmesbury know much more about Victoria Day than I do, because it is a public holiday here in the South. In the North we know nothing at all about it. Victoria Day is called Empire Day. But then we also find the King’s Birthday in the schedule, which is celebrated on the first Monday in August. Now I move, in my amendment, that we should join the King’s Birthday and Empire Day—I should prefer to have the word Commonwealth Day—that we should have Victoria Day and the King’s Birthday joined together, and that the public holiday shall fall on the 24th May, and that the two shall be linked together and shall be celebrated on the first Monday in August. Is that such a wrong thing? Do hon. members opposite want four Empire days instead of one? I am halving it, and instead of moving for two days, I am moving for one day. Do they want to double the existing number?

We do not want one.

If you want to get on in the world then you must beware of the danger of jumping off from a height and breaking your neck. It is no use wanting to go too fast, and wanting to do the impossible. I think that I have given clear reasons why the request of the hon. member for Malmesbury to me to withdraw my amendment, cannot be granted. I am just as fond of Heroes’ Day as they are, and I want to say this, that if the Government were to say that they are prepared to accept the motion, if the Minister rose and said he was prepared to accept the motion— and I shall be very glad if he will do so— then I shall with the leave of the House immediately withdraw my amendment.

Ask him.

Hon. members therefore see that I do not want to wreck their motion. My whole argument is that according to the policy which has been laid down by the Government in the past, and according to the opinions expressed by the Leader of the Opposition himself, namely, that no patchwork should be done. That is why I am moving my amendment. My amendment is not patchwork. But if the Minister will be so kind—and I beg of him to do so—as to accept this patchwork, for some reason or other, then I shall be prepared for the sake of a good cause, to approve of the patchwork, and will withdraw my amendment which proposes a sound bit of legislation.

I very much appreciate the manner in which both the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) have introduced their respective motions; in so far as the exposition of the first hon. member is concerned I can raise no objection at all. It was only when he came to certain reasons for advocating the setting aside of the 10th October as a special holiday that I felt he was getting on weak ground, on very poor ground indeed, but I shall come to that in a moment. I thank, him for the way in which he has introduced the motion; I thank him for the appeal he has made to leave politics out of the discussion. I can assure him, so far as I am concerned, I want to deal with the two motions quite dispassionately and objectively. It would be an unthinkable thing if a discussion of a national holiday should lead to disunion and discord. The institution of a national holiday in any country should be a matter for unity and should not be used for the purposes of disunity. Now, before coming to the motions themselves perhaps it would be as well if I reminded the House of the background against which this discussion is taking place, of the history of the holiday calendar of this country. The hon. member for Pretoria District referred to the basis of our present system of holidays very briefly. That basis is the Public Holidays Act No. 3 of 1910. And the second schedule to that Act sets forth eleven days which are prescribed as public holidays. I shall read them: There is New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Victoria Day or Empire Day, Union Day, King’s Birthday, the first Monday in October, Dingaan’s Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. In passing may I just refer to the fact that here in the statutory schedule the holiday popularly known in some parts of the country as Weiner’s Day is known in the Transvaal as Arbour Day—it is officially known as the first Monday in October. There is no particular significance about the fact that it is called Wiener’s Day in some parts.

In some parts it is known as St. Wiener Day.

Quite possibly it may be known as that in some parts; I am mentioning that in passing because the hon. member for Victoria West himself said that there was no particular virtue in the fact that Wiener’s Day was used—assuming this day to be nationally known as Wiener’s Day. The first Monday in October is a purely arbitrary date. It was chosen because it was felt to be in the interest of the people as a whole to have a holiday in October. The date itself was purely arbitrary. Now these are the eleven holidays according to Statute. Now as far back as 1922 representations were made to the various Governments in power for alterations in the holiday calendar. In 1922 efforts were made to obtain the Proclamation of the First Day of May as Labour Day. Those efforts did not succeed, but from 1922 on it has always been observed as a semiofficial holiday. Public servants are advised every year that as far as the exigencies of transport and essential services are concerned they may observe the first day of May, that is Labour Day. After that representations were made in regard to the 6th April, which was to be known as Van Riebeek Day, and of recent years more persistent representation has been made for the setting aside of Kruger Day as a national holiday. The hon. member for Victoria West in dealing with the 10th October has pointed out that October is, as he calls it, a veritable gallery for the great personages, the great figures in our South African history. That is true. He has quoted a number of instances, he has given us five or six instances of persons in South Africa whose names are household words in South African history who were born in October. He referred to the late President Reitz, to General Chris. Botha, General de Wet, President Kruger, General Delarey and President Steyn.

And General Louis Botha, too.

No, not General Louis Botha. I think it was purely due to inadvertence that the hon. member failed to point out that October was also the birth month of the present Minister of the Interior, but I agree with the hon. gentleman that there is a good deal to be said for setting aside a day in the month of October as a national memorial day analogous to the memorial day in the United States of America. On that point I am sure there must be general agreement. And it is an admirable thing to have a national day dedicated to the great figures in any country. I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman in the sentiments he has expressed in that regard, but I have pointed out that representations have been made from time to time for the alteration of the holiday calendar. The matter has been discussed in this House on more than one occasion. In 1925 a Select Committee was appointed to go into the whole question. That Select Committee brought forward unanimous recommendations for the alteration of the calendar. Again in 1936 the matter was discussed in this House. The hon. member for Pretoria District then raised the question and as a result of his motion a Select Committee was appointed in that year, and that Select Committee made other recommendations, which differed from the recommendations of the 1925 Select Committee. It was in 1936 that the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) moved an amendment and his viewpoint at that stage was that it was unnecessary to have any further investigation, that it was a matter for the Government to act at once, and he then suggested that May Day and Van Riebeek Day should be recognised, and another day be set aside to be known as Kruger-Steyn Day without insisting on any particular date for that celebration. The hon. member did not specify October 10th or any particular date in October for that purpose. The Select Committee on that occasion, in 1936, suggested that the first Monday in October should be “Gedenkdag,” that we should lay down the first Monday in October, but that it should be known as “Gedenkdag.” Up to the present the attitude of successive Governments has been that legislation should not be introduced in connection with one particular day, but that the question should be dealt with as part of the general scheme to rearrange the days of public holidays in the Union. There was the Select Committee of 1925. Upon that Select Committee no action was taken. The Leader of the Opposition, in explaining in 1936 why he did not take any action, said—

The Leader of the Opposition was apparently not able to translate his intentions to reality, and the subsequent Government did not find it practicable to introduce legislation. Well, what is the position at the present time? The hon. member for Victoria West now asks that the Government should confine itself to one particular date. There is a great deal of merit in that suggestion, that one should not reopen the whole question, and that is my objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria District There are a great many objections, particularly at the present time, to reopening this vexed question, involving so many interests as it does. One simple matter which I may refer to is the question of Easter Monday. One of the Select Committee uggested that Easter Monday should be a fixed date. I have only to mention that for hon. members to realise how controversial that is in itself, as large numbers of people object to having Easter Monday as a fixed date. So I may say at once—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—that it would not be practicable at present to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria District, and I regret that I have to reject that. Now I come to the main motion. I said at the beginning that I appreciated the manner in which the hon. member had introduced his motion. I cannot say the same about the manner in which he has worded his motion. This motion is couched in a contentious and provocative form, and it is quite impossible for the Government to accept the motion in this form, to accept any motion in this form. I shall come to the reasons the hon. member has given for introducing it in this provocative form. The motion reads as follows—

Now, I am not going to enlarge on this aspect, but the hon. member has not in his introductory remarks made it clear what he means when he says the “people.” On whose behalf does he speak when he speaks of the people, when he says that the people require that the 10th October should be set aside for this particular day.

He explained that.

Then the hon. member has also made it clear whether he intends his motion to introduce a new holiday into our holiday system. As it stands, it means that the Government would have to proclaim a new holiday, an additional holiday.

No.

Well, that is on the strict reading of the motion—that is how I read it. I would remind hon. members that the 1936 Select Committee was very emphatic that we should not increase the total number of our public holidays. The Select Committee of 1936 stated, inter alia, that it be resolved that the total number of public holidays per annum be not increased beyond 11.

Why stress that? It is not the intention of the motion.

I mention that in passing because the hon. member has not made it clear whether he wanted another holiday.

I made it clear.

The motion certainly does not make it clear, and I am giving reasons why the Government is unable to accept the motion favoured by the hon. member.

We are giving you the assurance that it is not what we want, we do not want an extra holiday.

If the hon. member says that, if he assures me on behalf of the Opposition that it is not the intention of the Opposition to ask for an additional holiday, then that relieves me of the task of dealing with that aspect of the matter, and we may then only have to consider whether the balance of the motion can be accepted in the present form. I regret that I am unable on behalf of the Government to accept the main motion as it has been tabled. I repeat that it is couched in a provocative fashion, a contentious fashion.

What is there contentious about it?

There is talk of serious irregularities; one can read in that almost a threat, that if nothing is done there will be difficulties. That is not the spirit in which the hon. member should come forward.

You are too touchy.

Are you afraid of the Ossewa-Brandwag?

The hon. member, in dealing with these alleged irregularities, referred to the schoolchildren, and said that schoolchildren had kept away from school, and that this sort of thing was sapping the discipline in our schools, was sapping the morale. Surely, if that is an argument in favour of his motion, then he is on very poor ground. Surely— must the Government be asked to legislate in order to appease recalcitrant schoolchildren, and is the suggestion that these disturbances and irregularities on the part of innocent schoolchildren are purely spontaneous? What I can regard as spontaneous is a request of a number of children for a holiday.

What about he Synod?

The hon. member hardly suggests that the Synod is an irregularity. I am dealing with the question of irregularities—with the instances given by the hon. member for Victoria West. If an hon. member of this House opens a school bazaar and suggests that the day should be a holiday—the suggestion would be spontaneous. But these demonstrations are not spontaneous—they are due to incitement. Children are incited to do these things, and they are told to do them. We should not bring our children into the possible sphere of controversy. Children should not be used in order to further sentimental interests on one side or other.

This year they will all be away.

It would be deplorable if any Government had to legislate in order to appease the recalcitrant schoolchildren who are incited by people into irregular actions.

Are you afraid of the Voortrekkers?

On behalf of the Government, therefore I am unable to accept the motion in the form in which it stands at present, but I want to say this—as Minister of the Interior I am entirely interested in this matter; I am naturally concerned in this matter, and I feel that the sentiment which has been expressed in various parts of the country in recent months, in fact for some time past, in many cases, spring from a natural spontaneous feeling. One must have regard to these sentiments, one must realise that there is a yearning in the hearts of English and Afrikaans-speaking children and people that we should have a day set aside in commemoration of the great men of this country, but I would like to hear the views of members on both sides of the House on the question of setting aside a particular day. I would like to hear the reaction of the country as to the possibility of setting aside a particular date. There is the possibility of setting aside the 10th October, instead of the 1st October, or one might leave it the 1st October, or one might have some other date in October.

Then you might just as well leave it altogether.

There is a great deal to be said for having our statutory holidays on a Monday. That was emphasised by the 1936 Select Committee.

Why do you have Victoria Day on the first Monday … ?

It was pointed out that with the modern development in industry, with the strain on the poor worker, there would be much less dislocation of industrial life if our statutory holidays could take place so as to allow of long week-ends. I throw out that suggestion to hon. members to give us their views in regard to the setting aside of a specific day without tying themselves down to a particular day, the 10th October. I ask hon. members to consider that suggestion in the spirit in which it is given. I reject the hon. member’s motion, not because he mentions the 10th October, but because of the manner in which it is couched, because of the form of the motion, because of its wording.

Why don’t you suggest an amendment?

It is only the form you object to?

I object to the form of the motion. Í am also not satisfied that there is unanimity among the people of this country that October 10th is a suitable date for this particular commemoration, but I put forth the suggestion that it would be useful to hear the views of hon. members of all sides, first of all on the question whether we should have a special day to commemorate our great national figures, a special day with a special name, and if so, which would be the most suitable date? I agree that October is eminently suitable for such a day, but whether it should be the 10th October is a matter for discussion. I repeat I must reject the motion and the amendment, but I hope that hon. members will view my suggestion in the spirit in which it is made, and discuss it in the same spirit.

I am afraid that my contribution to the debate is going to cause a little disturbance of the sloppy attitude that we notice on the opposite side. That attitude does not go any further than to-day, it does not go any further than this motion, and will not go beyond the floor of this House. Hon. members opposite get the opportunity of celebrating Heroes’ Day in their own constituencies, and also in other constituencies, and then we find quite a different view amongst them. Heroes’ Day is then changed into a day which is intended not only for the honouring of heroes, but also for the abuse of heroes. Those hon. members should not venture to ask me to give examples of heroes who are not honoured, but who are abused on Heroes’ Day. They know themselves that there have been numerous instances of that.

Give us an instance.

There is already another day in our calendar which is being used for the purpose of doing honour to our heroes. It is called Dingaan’s Day. I avoid the kind of Heroes’ Days which hon. members opposite are so keen on celebrating. I have, however, ventured to go to one of those celebrations on which our heroes were to be honoured, and my experience was that I heard the abuse there of one of our heroes. We had one of our true Afrikaner professors at one of our universities to come and speak on our history to us, and in a neighbourhood where the name of General Louis Botha is a name to conjure with, the poor fellow, because he was completely ignorant of the traditions and sentiments of those parts of the Union, and he deliberately tried to belittle General Louis Botha in the most petty way by ignoring his name. This so-called historian dealt with the heroic period of our history, namely, the Boer War, he mentioned in connection with that, the then president of the Free State; he mentioned the president of the Transvaal; he mentioned the commandant-general of the Free State, and then came he to the commandantgeneral of the Transvaal, but he would not mention Louis Botha’s name but gave the name of General Delarey.

Hear, hear.

Yes. There you have it again. That is the way things go in connection with practically every Heroes’ Day which is celebrated. It is also the course that things take in connection with the celebration of Dingaan’s Day. Dingaan’s Day is actually a day of a religious nature but it is also a day when we think of our heroes, but notice the way in which that day is abused. They say openly that Dingaan’s Day deals with our national affairs, and as such it is closely connected with politics, and it cannot be avoided that Dingaan’s Day should also have references made to politics in it. If a day like Dingaan’s Day is abused for political purposes, and Heroes’ Day is instituted on the basis which the hon. member opposite wants it to be, then we shall find that both these days will be used for political purposes.

Are you opposed to this motion?

The 10th October has, I am afraid already degenerated under the influence of hon. members opposite who are imbued with the same motives as those who abuse Dingaan’s Day. There is no one on this side of the House who is not sympathetic towards the idea of a Heroes’ Day. We would like to see our heroes being honoured, but there is none of us who will be able to prevent such a day being exploited by hon. members opposite for political purposes. I have another reason why I am opposed to this motion. I object to the date, because I think that there is a better date for Heroes’ Day. It is not proposed in this motion that we should have a day for Heroes’ Day but but that that day should be the 10th October, I want to suggest another date, namely, the 27th September, the birthday of Gen. Louis Botha. That is my other reason. I will never vote for the 10th October as Heroes’ Day because I know that the 27th September is an infinitely more suitable date. It is not only I who think so, but the whole of Carolina thinks so as well. Apart from the practical difficulties which a new public holiday will cause in our calendar, the question arises whether such a public holiday must necessarily be associated with a particular historical figure, and whether it would not be far better if it were not connected up with a definite figure in our history. The question arises whether it ought not to be completely disconnected from a special figure in our history, if we want to call it Heroes’ Day. But if we want to associate it with some great personage, then I say that the 27th September is more suitable and I say that for this reason. But first of all what is the main ideas which the introducer of the motion had in mind and which he mentioned? The first was that the 10th October was the birthday of Paul Kruger and the second was that there was a tremendous spontaneous agitation going on right through the country in favour of the proclamation of the 10th October. I want to deal with the second reason first. The statement that there was a spontaneous urge among the people for the proclamation of the 10th October is nonsense. In the first place it is not becoming in the people and secondly it is not spontaneous. It is an organised agitation and, especially so far as the schoolchildren are concerned, the whole movement is being carried on by people with certain political colour. When he was agitated his colour changed. I associate myself with what the Minister said, namely, that the movement in favour of Heroes’ Day is not spontaneous. If there wer a spontaneous movement in the country then it possibly was the meetings of protest against the war policy of the Government, but this other agitation is not spontaneous. It is a thing which is being forced and influenced by people who hold a certain political point of view, and who want to use and exploit certain phenomena in our history in order to promote their own policy. So far as I am concerned, I want to say that I am convinced that it is so. In this House we are dealing with a namby pamby demonstration, but it goes no further than this House. In the country it is exploited from a political point of view. I want to say that if we were to allow ourselves to be led and influenced by the force of an agitation, then there was a hundred times more reason why the Government should make a seperate peace, because the agitation in that connection has been much stronger. I now come to the other reason that was given that the 10th October being proclaimed as a public holiday and to my objection to it. In the first place I want to ask why the President of the old Free State, should not be associated with Heroes’ Day. Why should only the President of the Transvaal be associated with it? But actually I want to point out that President Kruger is, in the history of South Africa, the personification of the struggle between Briton and Boer. There is no doubt at all of the truth that Paul Kruger, with his career in our history, symbolises that historical struggle. Paul Kruger carried on the struggle, and in an undying and glorious way, when it was the proper time for it and when it was Briton versus Boer. It was not his choice, it was because of circumstances and history, and, moreover, the conclusion of the period of tremendous struggle practically synchronised with the death of Paul Kruger. He died very shortly afterwards. That was the end of that period in our history. We had a small recrudescence of that after that time which you may call an armed struggle for independence, namely, in 1914, but that struggle was finally ended practically simultaneously with the passing of President Kruger, i.e., the period of a forceful struggle for our independence. President Kruger will always be associated with that unfortunate period in the history of South Africa. As against that we have Gen. Louis Botha, who forms the bridge between that period and the new period which dawned, and therefore I am strongly in favour of the 27th September as the date for our Heroes’ Day. Louis Botha, at Kruger’s side, exerted himself just as much to maintain the independence of the Afrikaners during the war period as Kruger himself. But it was granted to him also to live on during another period, and to play his great role in another struggle for independence; he contributed his share to assist in establishing our independence permanently in the constitutional struggle, and not only for the Afrikaans-speaking people, but also for the English-speaking people. To my mind it is an inexplicable thing that we should, in South Africa, have the phenomenon that the Afrikaans-speaking people only regard the struggle for the independence of South Africa as a struggle for the sake of the English-speaking people in South Africa, but the English-speaking people were, after 1902, just as little independent as the Afrikaans-speaking people, and Louis Botha is one of the first personalities who fought for the independence of Briton and Boer, and that is why his name will always be associated in our history with his greater fatherland, our united South Africa. It is said, by way of objection, that the name of Louis Botha cannot be associated with the day because his passing was only comparatively recent, but nevertheless it did not take place many years after the death of Paul Kruger.

Was he not a political leader?

He was, but if we are to look for a person in the history of our country who has not been concerned in a political struggle, or who was not much different from, then that person certainly is not Paul Kruger. Paul Kruger, during the last election for the presidency, only got a small majority, so strong was the opposition to him. But we do not look back to those petty things. The people at that time also thought that they were doing the best thing for the Transvaal. The objection, however, that the passing of Louis Botha was comparatively recent, is possibly a valid objection, because we are still living in the aftermath of the struggle which Louis Botha carried on, but, on the other hand, I do not want to suggest that we should delay another twenty years, because I foresee that in twenty years’ time there will once more be another difficulty, and that it will then probably be said that we should just retain the 24th May, and re-name it Heroes’ Day, because that is the birthday of the Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts).

The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) gave us to understand that hon. members on this side had ignored Gen. Botha by not taking any notice of him. I am not going to take much notice of the hon. member for Carolina, because I do not wish to treat him contemptuously across the floor of this House, but what struck me in his speech—and there is very little that did strike me in it—was that he started off by saying that we should not have a day such as Heroes’ Day, because it would be abused in order to honour personalities. He had hardly said that when he started putting up a plea for a different day than that proposed in this motion. I do not want the hon. member for Carolina to become uneasy about Heroes’ Day; he objects to certain people being honoured on Heroes’ Day, and to others not being honoured. Well, the hon. member may honour his own dols on Heroes’ Day; no one will in the least blame him for doing so, with the exception perhaps of his constituents, if he should honour men like Lord Milner, Cecil Rhodes, Jameson, Sir Alfred Beit and Solly Joel, on Heroes’ Day. He is at liberty to render homage to those people, and I therefore fail to see what objection he can have if we want to do homage to the great Afrikaners in our history, and not to the individuals who have oppressed and undermined Afrikanerdom. The Minister of the Interior put two questions which I should like to reply to on behalf of this side of the House. The first question was whether we on this side of the House really felt that there was a need for a day like Heroes’ Day. I feel that there can be no doubt whatsoever on that point. The day is already being honoured right throughout South Africa in an unofficial manner. It is observed in our schools, it is celebrated in public and in private, and Heroes’ Day is to-day regarded by our people as a holiday, even though it is not an official public holiday to-day. When the hon. the Minister stated that the schoolchildren were incited or stirred up on the 10th October last year to make them adopt the attitude which they did adopt, he was wrong. The movement was spontaneous. It was spontaneous because the children felt that it was a day which should be looked upon as a public holiday. My own daughter was one of those who felt like that. She had not heard anything from me about it, and I want to assure the Minister that that was the spirit in the school, a spirit that we should regard that day as a public holiday, even though it is not officially recognised as such; that is the reply to the first question put by the Minister, namely, whether there was a real need for such a holiday. There is a generally felt need for us to have such a day. The second question which the Minister put was whether the 10th October was a suitable date for such a day. I think the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) made it clear why we ask that the 10th October should be celebrated as Heroes’ Day, but if it is necessary to add anything to what he said then, I want to say that custom has already recognised the 10th October as that day. For a great many years people have selected the 10th October as the day to celebrate Heroes’ Day. The Minister used a few other arguments which really do not redound to his honour. What he said amounted to this, that the principal reason why he could not accept the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West was because it had been wrongly drafted. The Minister even said that he also felt the need for such a day, and he even congratulated the hon. member for Victoria West on his speech and the manner in which he had dealt with the question and on the arguments he had used, but then the Minister said: “Can you come to me, as Minister of the Interior, with such a motion which is couched in improper language?” So that was his great objection. He said very little about the merits of the case, but when you approach “Harry the crawler,” you have to crawl to him, and see to it that the words of your motion “are couched in proper language,” otherwise he does not take any notice of you. That is his great argument. He admits the need for such a day, but he cannot accept the motion because it is not couched in proper language. The hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) moved an amendment, and he is apparently very pleased with his amendment. I must say, however, that he has changed his view. If one were only to change in the right direction there would not be so much objection, but what the hon. member now proposes in his amendment is at any rate a change. There was a time when the hon. member did not want to have the name of Heroes’ Day. In that regard he has changed in the right direction; the hon. member may perhaps recollect that he did not want that name.

I want Kruger’s Day.

No, the hon. member wanted “Gedenkdag,” Day of Commemoration.

Read my speech.

No, I have the record here showing how the hon. member voted. I am not concerned with what he said but with what he did. I have the report of the Select Committee here, and Mr. van den Berg’s further amendment to delete “Gedenkdag” and to substitute the “President’s Birthday.” The Chairman (Mr. Harm Oost) thereupon put the question: “That Gedenkdag proposed to be deleted stands part of the motion. Six members voted in favour of that and three against it, and the first name of those in favour of it was H. Oost. He has therefore changed and improved.

What is the difference?

There was a time when the hon. member for Pretoria District was opposed to our celebrating Dingaan’s Day. He did not want us to do so.

That is untrue.

He wanted to call it Voortrekker Day. Must I read out to him what he said on that occasion? In that respect the hon. member has improved; unfortunately he has improved in small matters and deteriorated in regard to the big things. So far as the hon. member’s motion is concerned I notice that he still wants to have Empire Day. He is very fond of Empire Day. He voted in the Select Committee in favour of our having an Empire Day. Even in those days he was in favour of it, and that being so I can quite understand that the hon. member should now move that it should be a holiday for the whole of the Union.

My proposal is to the effect that we should make one day out of the two.

He only wants half of the Empire. Quite correct. Half of the Empire sits where the hon. member sits now. Ere long they will be entirely Empire. This side of the House does not want to have any Empire Day at all; the other side of the House, where the Government Party sits, wants the whole Empire, but the hon. member for Pretoria District wants half an Empire. We do not want to have anything to do with the King’s Birthday and an Empire Day, and we hope that the time will come when the King’s Birthday will be abolished on account of the fact that we shall no longer have a king.

There are two holidays—two days for celebration to-day.

We hope that the day will come. We quite understand that there is a need on the part of certain people to celebrate the King’s Birthday but why an Empire Day? The hon. member for Pretoria District now wants to introduce something which has never existed. There is no such thing in South Africa as an Empire Day.

Victoria Day, it is the same thing.

We have a Queen Victoria Day in South Africa.

It is called Empire Day.

Oh, no, we have no Empire Day. The hon. member for Pretoria, District, now wants to introduce that. The holiday which we have is Queen Victoria Day and it was introduced in honour of Queen Victoria. The hon. member for Pretoria District who admits now that he stands for half an Empire wants to introduce a new holiday, namely, Empire Day. We do not want to have anything to do with it. For that reason I want to move as an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost)—

The amendment will then be so amended that we shall still be able to have a King’s Birthday, so long as there is a King, but no new thing which he wants to introduce, something which has never existed in South Africa, namely, to introduce an official holiday which will be Empire Day.

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the debate has fallen, in the last few minutes, to a political basis, and I deprecate that very much indeed. I had hoped that no political basis would have been introduced into this debate, and I hope the rest of it will be devoid of anything of that sort. When I read the words used in framing this motion, I was startled to find that it was based upon the wishes of the people. I have not heard that there have been any crowded meetings in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Durban, East London or Port Elizabeth, demanding that we shall have a Heroes’ Day. The whole country has been quiet on this matter for years and years. There is no demand by the people of South Africa for a Heroes’ Day. Again, when I came to the next phrase used in framing the motion, I saw it was to prevent serious irregularities. I wondered what is meant by “irregularities” that this motion is designed to prevent. From the remarks which have been transslated to me, I find that these serious irregularities are confined to a little indiscipline on the part of school children, and as has been rightly defined by the Minister, they were due to incitement. We won’t go very much further into that, we can imagine where this incitement came from. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost), that is nothing more nor less than a slight change of name in the existing holidays, plus Labour Day, and this is the only national point of view introduced into the debate so far. Everything else has been on a provincial basis. When we come to the main point underlying this motion, we find it is proposed that October 10th shall be observed as a public holiday, to be named Heroes’ Day, and one can only conclude that that being President Kruger’s birthday, it is designed to perpetuate the memory of an outstanding figure in the Transvaal.

Was he outstanding in the Transvaal alone?

And this motion is sponsored by two members who represent Cape constituencies, whilst Transvaal members, so far, have practically been silent on the matter. If we follow this to its logical conclusion, then every private soldier deserves to have his memory perpetuated. If Paul Kruger, why not Vasco da Gama, why not Nathaniel Isaacs, Capt. Alan Gardiner, Piet Retief, Harry Escombe, John G. Maydon for Natal; why not Bartholomew Dias, Van der Stel, Ons Jan Hofmeyr, Cecil J. Rhodes, John X. Merriman, President Brand, President Steyn, Christian de Wet, and at least Louis Botha? Louis Botha is the man who saved the soul of South Africa alive.

He was the leader of a political party.

He saved the soul of South Africa alive. President Kruger was the man who led his people and those of a neighbouring State into a war of aggression.

You don’t know your history.

I do not want to say anything derogatory of President Kruger, but I do say that the one outstanding national figure in South Africa was Louis Botha, and if anybody’s name and memory is to be commemorated by a public holiday it should be that of Louis Botha, the only national figure so far who has passed over.

Nothing of the sort.

What about the heroes who went overseas in 1914 and 1915, and gave their lives for South Africa; did they do less or did they do more than President Kruger? What about the men who are fighting for us to-day, the men who are in the casualty list to-day? Have they done less or have they done more than President Kruger? We ought to commemorate every one of them, and if you want to do that there is an easy way out. Probably you all remember those lines which you see on some of the war memorials of the last war—

I think that the Minister has acted wisely in replying at this stage and referring to the way in which the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) introduced the motion, and I also think it was wise of the Minister to come to the decision that this matter had better be debated fully here first of all, and that the public in the country should also be given an opportunity of expressing its point of view. It was clear from the debate this afternoon that the hon. member who introduced the motion had someone in view, namely, Paul Kruger, and that he had selected the 10th October because it is associated with Paul Kruger. But whether we wish it or not, we must in this country also bear in mind that there are different sections and different nationalities. We have to live together with them, and we must make due allowances for the fact that when we want to give an opportunity to the public to express and show their respect for our heroes, that we must not then try to limit them to the heroes of one section of our people. When, therefore, we fix a date, then I feel that we should in this relation also bear in mind the fifty-fifty principle. When I fix a date I must bear the whole population in mind, not merely one section.

What about Queen Victoria Day?

I am not saying anything against the motion, but I am only pointing out the position in our country. Queen Victoria Day is not a Heroes’ Day. That Queen Victoria Day existed in the old Cape Province, and it was continued after the inauguration of Union.

They may get it, but we may not.

No, I did not say so. This side of the House accepts the principle of Heroes’ Day, just as honestly and seriously as hon. members opposite do. When the words are used that a small nation cannot honourably continue and cannot become a great nation unless it honours its heroes, then we agree to that point of view. But when we come to the fixing of the date of the day, then we doubt the advisability of linking it up with a definite personality in the past. If we were to-day to select a definite date which is connected with a definite person, then we might very easily divide the people. Why cannot we take the whole thing together, accept the principle of a Heroes’ Day, and then allow the date to be any day in the year which we consider suitable, inasmuch as we shall then know that the State has set aside that definite day for the people to give expression to their respect and honour for their heroes? Then we are giving every section of the population the opportunity to do justice to such an occasion. The hon. member for Victoria West wants to have the 10th October, because he is attached to President Kruger. He feels proud of President Kruger, and is inclined to pay homage to him on that day. Other people, for instance those in the Free State, will possibly want to show their homage on that day to someone else, and if we select a general day for Heroes’ Day, then it cannot be said that we are handicapping any section of the population in their desire to show honour to the heroes of the past. We are giving everybody the opportunity. The day does not matter, as long as the act is there. If we want the other section of the population to co-operate with us, and also that the whole of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population should agree to such a day then we must not drag party politics into the matter, and we must not select a day which may lead to such a thing. When the hon. member says that the public want to have this Heroes’ Day, then he must bear in mind all people in South Africa. We cannot set aside days for the heroes of two sections of the people, nor can we fix a day for every hero, and if hon. members opposite take up the attitude, as they do in connection with their political policy, that they only want to speak on behalf of one section of the population, that they only want such things for the Afrikaner people in South Africa, then it is in direct conflict with our views. We say that it is impossible to do such a thing, because we have two sections in this country, two sections who have to live together and work together. We want to have mutual respect between those two sections, with mutual respect for the heroes of both sections, and we must therefore give every opportunity to both sections to pay their homage to their heroes on such a day. It may even happen that there will be a dispute about the day among the Afrikaners. It is quite possible that people in the Transvaal will want President Kruger. In other parts of the country they will probably wish to have someone else, and why should the big thing be shipwrecked now because we differ from each other in our views as to who are the great heroes of South Africa? Choose a day so that each section will have the opportunity of honouring his own heroes.

Fie, for shame, Charlie.

I can give you the assurance that if impartial people outside of South Africa were consulted, you would find that my opinion is regarded as the bigger and broader view in comparison with the narrower view which you are exhibiting on the opposite side, and that petty view which you have of a small nation and a small people, of an isolated people, is not a view which will lead to any honour and advantage for our country, and that will certainly not be the view which the impartial outside world will regard as the best for the country.

When you were a member of the Nationalist Party did the Saps also accuse you of being narrow and small minded?

When I was a member of the Nationalist Party we sat on the opposite side with English-speaking members in our Cabinet and in our party. During the time when we sat over there in the old Nationalist Party, your leader was one of those who, as you can quote from the Hansard report of 1936, stated here that we must live together as two sections in the country, and we should have a joint king, that we are on equality with England and all the members of the Commonwealth, but that we have the joint king, and therefore we must recognise Empire Day. Now the hon. member must not take it amiss of me that I continue to follow that policy to-day of recognising both sections. I have not run away from that, as his leader did when he deserted the old Nationalist Party in order to create the isolated Nationalist Party of to-day, which only has the name, but certainly not the principles of the old Nationalist Party.

Have you converted the Prime Minister to your point of view?

That is not the point, but can hon. members opposite tell me why their leader did not do what they are now asking for, when he was Minister of the Interior in the old Nationalist Party? With the co-operation of the Prime Minister, it became possible for the Afrikaner people to get Acts like the Status Act and the Native Acts through the House, and it would be ungrateful to the Afrikaner people not to give them the credit of that now, and to pretend that they were of no account. How would we have obtained the majority of two-thirds if he had not assisted us? We must not make use of people to put things through which we as a Nationalist Party have held up to the public as the salvation of Afrikanerdom, and when we have done so with the help of that person, want to tread him underfoot and belittle him. That once more is the policy which is contained in the motion of the hon. member. They talk about discipline, but what is to become of discipline if he wants to teach the school children that, if the 10th October is not proclaimed a public holiday they must not go to school on that day?

We do not teach them that; they are already doing so.

The hon. member ought to tell them that it is their duty to obey the law of the land, and he ought not to support them.

We try to do so, but what argument can we use to the children?

The hon. member must not give a lead like that to the school children. The hon. member made his speech here to-day, and the school children will read in the newspapers that the hon. member for Victoria West has said in this Parliament that if the 10th October is not proclaimed a public holiday, then the children should walk out of school.

He did not say so.

He did say so. The hon. member for Victoria West is here himself, and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) need not speak on his behalf. He did say so, and let him deny it. He said clearly in his speech that if Heroes’ Day was not fixed on the 10th October, then the children would walk out of the schools this year.

I said that we should have those irregularities, and I am trying to prevent them.

That simply means that those children must continue in their attitude, and if the 10th October is not made a public holiday, that they must then walk out of the schools. I only want to say this, that I do not want hon. members to take up the attitude that we on this side are opposed to the motion. If the object of the motion is to institute Heroes’ Day on a broad basis, then there will not be anyone against it on this side. We approve of the principle of Heroes’ Day, but we are opposed to the hon. member selecting the 10th October. Various English names have been mentioned which ought also to be included in connection with our list of heroes, according to the desire of some sections in the country. If then we accept the principle to pay homage to the heroes in our history, and if we do not connect the motion up with a definite date, then it would be acceptable. If the hon. member were to say to the Minister that he is prepared to withdraw the motion if the principle of Heroes’ Day is accepted, then I am convinced that that principle will be accepted, and we can go home.

Will you be satisfied if we fix Queen Victoria Day on another date?

We are not debating that matter now, but the motion of the hon. member.

But answer the question.

I say that all the additions and words in the motion make it impossible for us to accept it. If it is honestly meant that the general principle should be accented, then the actual date would make no difference to the hon. member. When I think of our heroes in the past, then I do not think about a particular date. I therefore ask the hon. member to agree with me, so that we should only say that the principle is dear to us, and that the date is of no matter. If the hon. member will not do so, then it is clear that his object is nothing else but once more to create the impression that there is only one section which is pleading on behalf of the Afrikaner people like hon. members on the other side—that they are the section which is pleading for the Afrikaner people, and that we do not do so. So far as I can speak on behalf of this side of the House, I say that we accept the principle of Heroes’ Day, and the date does not matter, if we can only just give the opportunity to the people to pay their homage on such a day to the heroes in our history, and the day must be a non-party one and suitable.

I do not want to drag politics into this matter and I am pleased that most of the speakers have adopted the same attitude and have refrained from dragging in politics. I notice that my hon. friend who introduced the motion, in his motion refers to irregularities. I particularly want to confine myself to the word “irregularities” because in that connection I wish to address a few remarks to the Government, and I feel that if the House pays attention to what I say I shall be able to prove that there are certain irregularities in the existing holidays in the Union of South Africa. I was glad to hear the Minister speak about the poor workers when he referred to the holidays the workers had. I am glad he used those words because I want to draw his attention to the fact that out of the eleven public holidays which the Minister mentioned as existing in the country, the workers of the country—the people I am thinking of are not what we call the white collar brigade, not the people in the offices, but I am principally thinking of the workers of the country, the thousands of people in the mines and in the factories—the workers of the country get only two of those holidays. I think the Minister will at once agree with me that those 11 holidays are enjoyed by the officials and the clerks in the offices and by nobody else, but the worker who actually needs the holiday gets only two days, namely Good Friday and Christmas Day. That is the position and I feel that if we want to use the word irregularity that word is definitely applicable to this fact, that the workers in the country in our factories and in our mines get only two days of those eleven days for their own use. I want the Minister to give his attention to this, when a revision of the public holidays takes place. What is more, the workers do not get a single one of those holidays as the result of legislation, except that the Mines Works and Machinery Act gives only those two holidays, namely Good Friday and Christmas Day to the workers in the mines and in the factories. None of the other holidays are conferred upon those workers as a result of any of our laws. I want the Minister to bear this in mind. If my hon. friends of the white collar brigade perhaps say that they are also workers, then I always want them to remember this, and I do not want them to get the complex in other circumstances to think that they are not workers. I admit that in the true sense of the word they are also workers. But the great bulk of the workers only have those two days at their disposal and I ask my colleagues on this side of the House, and members opposite, to remember that when eleven public holidays are spoken of in the country only a small proportion of the workers are entitled to those holidays, and the great bulk, namely the mine and factory workers, do not get those holidays. For that reason I hope the House will give me the cerdit of saying that my attitude on this point has been a consistent one ever since I have been a member of this House. As a matter of fact I have always pointed out that the workers in the country do not get the public holidays with the exception of those two days. I want to repeat that with the exception of the Mines and Works Act there is no law which provides public holidays for the mine and factory workers in South Africa. It is true that a few days have been added in the case of certain factory workers, and this has been achieved as a result of negotiations between the Trade Unions and those employers. But that is not recognised by law; it is merely an arrangement which exists between employer and employee and which may be terminated at any time. It can be upset by a few months’ notice being given. I say that this is something which the Government should take into consideration when proclaiming public holidays. If the law fixes a day, not only should the Government Department recognise that day, but the employers should also recognise it. At the moment they do not recognise the holidays which are recognised in the Public Service. I do not know whether hon. members have ever thought of that. I cannot find words strong enough to express my views on this point. I can only say that the workers in South Africa are having a very grave injustice done to them, and they have suffered that injustice under all the Governments we have had. It is not a party question, because it runs right through the history of the Union. The principal reason really why I got up is because I wish to confine myself to two days referred to in the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost), namely, May Day and Dingaan’s Day. When I speak of Dingaan’s Day, I immediately think of my hon. friend’s motion. If that motion is agreed to, it means that we are putting the roof on the house before we have finished the foundation. If hon. members want to honour their heroes, then I say that we should first of all fix up our house inside, and until such time as we have fully restored Dingaan’s Day to its place of honour we should not come and declare here that we want to honour our heroes. That is the foundation of everything. I repeat that before we have completely restored Dingaan’s Day to its place of honour in the spirit in which that day was first of all laid down as a holiday, it is no use our speaking of Heroes’ Day and the honouring of our heroes. If ever there was a day when we should commemorate our heroes, it is on Dingaan’s Day. It exists to-day in name as a public holiday, but it is not a national day because thousands and thousands of workers on that day suffer a great injustice through their being unable to take part in the celebrations on that day. It is not a holiday in the ordinary sense of the word, it is not a day for a little recreation and pleasure, it is not merely a holiday. Practically speaking, it is a day which affects the foundations of South Africa, a day equivalent to a Sabbath Day. It has the characteristics of a Sabbath Day and of a Day of Thanksgiving, but that day is not recognised by the employers in South Africa, with the result that the worker does not get what he is entitled to on that day.

It is a disgrace.

The man on the farm on that day can go and take part in the celebrations in whatever way he pleases, but his brother who works on the mine or in a factory has to go and work on that day in the mine or in the factory, in exactly the same way as he does on other days. In spite of the fact that under our law it is alleged to be a holiday, in spite of the historical fact that it is equivalent to a Sabbath Day, and in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly raised this matter in this House, those workers have no share in that day, and Dingaan’s Day has not yet been fully restored to its place of honour. I shall continue raising this matter until I shall eventually convince this House that we cannot talk of paying homage to our heroes until we have restored that day to its rightful position. What is the use, how will it help South Africa to honour its heroes, if the pledge the people have made is not being carried out in a reasonable way by the employers and by the Government of the country? For that reason I say that if we pass this motion and if we fail to restore Dingaan’s Day in full honour, we fail to realise the true significance of Heroes’ Day

We already have a motion in connection with Dingaan’s Day on the Order Paper. Are you going to vote for this motion?

I am not referring to the other motion now.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to speak about Dingaan’s Day now in view of the fact that a motion is already on the Order Paper?

The hon. member is in order.

I should think so, seeing that it is mentioned in the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria District. If the hon. member speaks about holidays and he forgets the most important of those days, it means that he is falling very short in what he sets out to do. I say that if the hon. member’s motion is agreed to and we pursue the policy which has been followed so far, it means that we want to finish the roof the house before we finish the foundation. And I am not going to vote for a single holiday of whatever kind until such time as Dingaan’s Day has been fully restored to its place of honour. And we are not entitled to think of any other days until such time. I have never yet tried to make political capital out of Dingaan’s Day, not even in the days when I sat on the other side of the House, and I ask the Government in all seriousness to use its influence so as to make that idea carry full weight with employers in South Africa. And members of the Cabinet must not come and tell us that worn-out story that it is an unworkable proposition, because if they do so I want to remind them immediately of two facts: namely, that before 1922 there was a voluntary agreement between the Chamber of Mines and the Mine Workers’ Union of those days under which that day was fully recognised. There was no need for the worker to go and work if he did not want to work. The second point is that even in those days the Chamber of Mines had already given proof to the Government of what it was prepared to do, namely, that it was prepared to grant that day to the workers Then men could go if they wanted to go. After that time they met the people half-way. For a few years the men got paid whether they came to work or not, but the Chamber of Mines added that only those men who could be spared on that day would be allowed to take a holiday. That is not what I want for the workers. We want every man to have the choice, we want every man to have the right to say that he does not want to go and work on that day. As things are now, it means that the man who goes to work is paid, and if it is possible for him to stay away he is also paid, but that is not the full right which we want for those people. Before 1922 those people were allowed to go on holiday, and if it was possible in those days why should it not be possible now? I am pleading with the Minister just to show a little bit of willingness in regard to this matter. The Chamber of Mines showed that they were prepared to go pretty far. Recognise Dingaan’s Day as a legal holiday for all workers in the country. If they do that, the Government will be able to say that, after having neglected that day for all those years, they have now restored it to its place of honour. The other day I want to speak about is May Day. The hon. member for Pretoria District said that in all civilised parts of the world there is a Labour Day, and that our Government acknowledges it half-way. I believe the Government gives its officials the right to absent themselves on that day if they want to stay away from work, but there are other sections in the country, other employers who take exception to their employees being absent on that day. The man who is employed in the mines or in a factory is deprived of the privilege of celebrating May Day, and if the Opposition is not opposed to it, and the Government and the members on this side of the House are in favour of it, then I fail to see why Labour Day should not be recognised in South Africa. There is not a country in the world where the Government of the day does not consider it desirable to take into consideration that little bit of sentiment on the part of the worker and to foster it. I could not mention a single country in the British Commonwealth of Nations, or any other country in Europe or America, where the day has not been set aside by the Government as Labour Day. Why is the worker in South Africa always to be punished? We have several days in this country. We have the public holiday called Arbor Day in the Transvaal. It is called Boeredag on the platteland. That is the day when the farmers come together to talk about farming, and it is just as necessary to set aside a Labour Day in South Africa so that the workers as a whole can come together and discuss their affairs, so that they can have conferences and pass certain resolutions which have to be passed every year, so that they can make demonstrations and representations, so that the enthusiasm among the workers may be kept alive from time to time, and so that the workers can be brought together and feel together on the basis of that great idea, that labour ennobles. All we have to do is to bring our mind to bear on the great changes that would come about—how the state of mind of the labourer would be uplifted if they could have one day in the year to talk together and to have their feelings awakened to a realisation of the fact that there is no disgrace in work—that labour ennobled them. We are only too ready not to make any concessions to the worker, but it will have a most salutary effect if the workers can come together once a year to strengthen their characters as workers, and to inspire their state of mind as workers with their common energy. Are any facilities granted to the worker to do so? No, they are not. May Day is now regarded as a public day of pleasure. I want to regard it as a day to foster true culture in the mind of the worker, as a day when the workers can promote their mutual interests. The workers have not got such a day at their disposal to-day. All these things are neglected. I have addressed these few words to the Minister, and I don’t want him to regard my remarks merely as evidence of a desire to take part in this debate, but I want him to give this question his serious attention, and I want him to remember that I have been trying for years to get the Government in this House to realise that that is the attitude they should adopt, and I have a greater right to-day than ever before to urge the Government to see to it that the worker in South Africa shall receive what he is entitled to in these circumstances. If the workers in South Africa to-day were told that they had to do this, that or the other, their answer would always be that they are at our disposal, the worker is always prepared to do what is asked of him. He has always been prepared to answer our call, and to place everything possible at our disposal. The workers are loyal, and prepared to contribute of their best to the promotion of the interests of South Africa, and the time has come when the Government should take steps to acknowledge the interests of the workers in these small matters. I only ask the Government to recognise the claims of the workers in this particular respect—the claims of the workers who have so loyally stood by us in this hour of crisis.

I should like to say a few words on this motion. I want to say at once that I am in favour of the institution of a Heroes’ Day for South Africa, but I am not in favour of providing for a day for party political propaganda. This is the question which has been asked here? Who are the heroes of South Africa? We have several heroes in this country, and there may be a difference of opinion. One man will say that this hero is the greater man and another will say that that one is the greater. I look upon President Kruger as one of the greatest heroes of the Afrikaner people. Paul Kruger was unquestionably a great figure. I saw him in Holland when he was in exile, and I can still see him before me. I admired him, and I should be the last to say anything against him, but when we listen to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) it becomes clear that this is merely a question of party politics. How did this business start, that on the 10th October last right throughout the country the children refused to go to school, because they wanted to celebrate Heroes’ Day? Did the children start that themselves or were they put up to it?

They did it themselves.

In exactly the same way as they used the Ossewa Trek for political propaganda in connection with our history, now they want to come here again and make party politics out of this matter. Did not the hon. member for Victoria West who introduced this motion threaten those of us who have Afrikaner blood in their veins if we dare vote against his motion? I do not allow myself to be threatened, and the Afrikaner people do not allow themselves to be threatened. I say I have just as much respect for the heroes of our people as hon. members opposite, but I also say there are many heroes. To my mind Marthinus Theunis Steyn is just as great a hero as thelate President Kruger. Louis Botha is the hero of Tugela. He also was a great man. There was Louis Wepener, the hero of Thaba Bosigo. I well remember how he attacked and went forward, and when the bullet hit him his last words were “Forward. I am severely wounded.” Was not that an act of heroism? Did any hon. member over there mention those heroes? No, they now concentrate on the 10th October and they want to use it for party political purposes, just as they abused the Ossewa Trek. Hon. members cannot expect me to take them seriously. I would welcome it if we had a Heroes’ Day but there are many heroes in our country and there are English heroes too. If I stand at the monument of Dick King in Durban, although he was my opponent, I realise that he was a hero who risked his life for his country and his ideals. I am an old warrier and as an old warrior I respect my opponents. Hon. members opposite do not do so. They want to make party political propoganda out of these things, and we find the same things in regard to the Dingaan’s Day celebrations. Do hon. members realise that we who stand by the United Party no longer feel at liberty to go to a Dingaan’s Day celebration?

You are not invited.

We are insulted there. We shall have to organise our own Dingaan’s Day celebrations. We are laying the foundation for a united nation of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people; those two sections have to stand together, and we stand for a united nation. One of our heroes, Marthinus Theunis Steyn, himself stated that it was absolutely essential for the two sections to co-operate in this country, and that if they do not co-operate it meant the end of civilisation in South Africa. What is the Opposition doing? On the occasion of the corner-stone laying of the monument near Pretoria they slandered the then Prime Minister, one of the great men of our country, to such an extent, and they exploited the event to such an extent, that it was impossible for him to be present there. Are they not ashamed of themselves? That is the way in which the leaders of the people are treated. I think they must feel ashamed when they think of that day. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) is one of the great heroes to-day. At Burghersdorp he was the “tou-leier” of one of the wagons, and he had to make a speech. He spoke very eloquently about the Voortrekkers. The speech was made near a tree which had been planted there by the Voor-trekkers and which had been cut down. A plate had been attached to the tree and his words were: “This tree died because it mourned the fact that there is a section of the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners who are no longer Afrikaners.” This was at a time when a large number of the hon. members who are now with the Opposition belonged to the United Party, but they exploited the cause for party political purposes. Those people over there are small-minded and they make me feel ashamed. We should have been unanimous on that day and we should also be unanimous in regard to this motion, but the hon. member for Victoria West threatens us, and he states that if we vote against the motion he will show us up on the platteland.

Where did I say that?

He said “Woe to the man who has Dutch blood in his veins and who does not vote for this motion.”

Where did I say I would show you up on the platteland?

What else did the hon. member mean when he said “Woe to the man who has Dutch blood in his veins and who votes against the motion.”

I meant that the people would settle with you.

Does the hon. member imagine that the people of this country are that little crowd of party politicians which stand by him; they are not the people. They are the re-United Nationalist Party or Volks Party. They do not even know what their name is; they are on “Of” Party. I want to appeal to the Minister and to the Government not to allow this day to be a party political propaganda day, but to try and see if it is not possible to institute a Heroes’ Day in respect of all the heroes of the country.

You will never be right again.

Everything they touch they want to make party politics out of. They have put up the children to demand that there shall be a heroes’ day.

Can you mention one instance?

There is a teacher close to where I live, and when the children come in in the morning he says: “We demand … And then he stops and the children reply—

Who has taught them that? The teacher

What do you say about a Republic?

Hon. members opposite even took the oath and swore loyalty to the King. I stand by South Africa, and also by the King, whom we have accepted as the King of South Africa. Did not hon. members themselves also swear loyalty?

It was pushed down our throats.

Those are the people who say they want to lead the Afrikaner people. That is not the way to lead. The traditions of the Afrikaner people are upheld by us on this side of the House. We want to maintain those traditions, together with the English-speaking people. When we take an oath we stand by it.

Together with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) ?

That same Kentridge used to be a member of the Nationalist Party.

When?

He was with the Nationalist Party Government, the Pact Government, and he assisted the Nationalist Party to win Wakkerstroom. In those days he was good enough, but now he is shouted down. I am sorry that this subject is being used for party political purposes. I want to appeal to the Government to let us have a Heroes’ Day, but let us have it in respect of all the heroes in the country, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking.

I want to support the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler). When we saw this motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), we knew exactly what was behind it. When the hon. member got up to introduce his motion, he immediately said there was not going to be any political capital made out of this. I am very surprised if he thinks he can hoodwink us by putting up such a thin smoke-screen. The mover of the motion has mentioned the name of only one man Paul Kruger, a Transvaaler. But what about Natal, the Free State, and also the Cape; were there no brilliant men there whose names should be perpetuated? I like this idea of having a Heroes’ Day, but when they come along and mention a particular man’s birthday for the holiday, I do not think that is right. Why should we not select Gen. Smuts’ birthday, or Jan Hofmeyr’s, or the late President Steyn’s, or any other great man’s birthday? By all means let us have Heroes’ Day, but it must be kept clear of any particular name, since we want to honour the whole lot of them. We are asked to select Paul Kruger’s birthday, October 10th. Well, I went to a little bit of trouble over this date, more trouble, apparently, than the hon. mover. He evidently did not go to much trouble about this, but I looked up the date, which is a very interesting historical day as far as South Africa is concerned. On October 10th, 1858, there was a brilliant comet visible at the Cape, and on October 10th, 1865, British Kaffraria was incorporated in the Cape Colony. October 10th, 1893, was the date of the first Natal Ministry being formed, and the first Prime Minister was Sir John Robinson. It might please the hon. gentlemen from Natal if this particular date were chosen as a holiday. To go further, October 10th, 1898, saw the resignation of Sir Gordon Sprigg’s Ministry, and Mr. W. P. Schreiner succeeded him as Prime Minister. On October 10th, 1926, was the opening of the South African Memorial at Delville Wood. That was a very important event, and I really like the day on that account, so long as hon. members opposite leave birthdays out of it. Now with regard to Paul Kruger’s birthday, it is generally acccepted that the date was October 10th, but it is not definitely established that the actual date was not October 1st. Are they still going to select that day, or let it go? I wonder whether there is not something sinister behind this motion, because surely the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side would have taken the trouble to find this out before bringing the motion forward. Again, I see that on October 10th, 1899, was the date when the British Government rejected the terms of the Boer ultimatum. Is that what is behind October 10th? I ask hon. gentlemen, are they still trying to keep alive something which happened 42 years ago? Here we in South Africa are busy in trying to build up a nation out of the material that we have, the good material we have here, and these hon. gentlemen opposite are deliberately trying to keep us apart. I am sorry to have to admit that. I think this motion is really designed not to perpetuate the memory of Paul Kruger, but to perpetuate the memory of the Boer war.

That is your mentality.

I did not hear that. I wish the gentlemen would speak up. I hope this information I have given them will make them think about this particular date. I support the hon. member for Kimberley District in saying by all means let us have a Heroes’ Day, but don’t let us link it up with any particular man. This young country has produced a number of heroes, and we want them all recognised, and not one particular one. The Cape Province has produced wonderful men, and so has the Free State. Why should the Free State be left out of it why should they not have a say in this Heroes’ Day, and why should a Transvaaler alone be honoured? I feel the information I have given the hon. member for Victoria West will cause him to allow this date to be changed.

I would like to draw attention to the terms of this motion, which says that it is designed to meet the wishes of the people of South Africa, and I would like to ask, who are the people of South Africa? I remember Socrates had the same trouble when he asked, Who are the people of Athens? He could get no answer then. We have a number of people in South Africa. Do the coloured people wish for this particular holiday, and do the native people wish for it or the people of Natal? It seems abundantly clear from the speech made by the introducer that the people he refers to copiprise only one section of the people, and actually only one section of that section. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie), who dealt with this very fully. I feel that this question of heroes in South Africa is not one that we are competent to deal with to-day, we are far too close to the events that have taken place to decide. This is a matter that history should deal with. I have heard a lot of names mentioned, and I don’t for one moment wish to question the fact that all these men who have been named have rendered good service to South Africa, but there are other names which have not been mentioned at all. Rhodes was a great South African, his name has not been mentioned. I would like to mention Lord Milner. I regard him as a man who has to be honoured in the history of South Africa, second to none. It seems to me to be a very narrow view to select eminent men from one section of the community, and entirely disregard the others. I want to say a word about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost). He was a member of the Select Committee which recommended as a public holiday the first Monday in October. I listened to his speech this afternoon, and he said nothing to indicate why he, the chairman of that committee, has changed his mind. I think we are entitled to know that. I don’t wish to say any more except that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) appealed to the English-speaking members for support, but he has given the English-speaking members no reason at all why they should support this motion. I cannot help feeling that his speech deals with one section of the people only, and was entirely in conflict with the wording of the motion. I do not wish to any anything here about the relative merits of the different heroes of South Africa; it is a very young country, and we are not in a position to form a calm, impartial judgment. We should leave that for the present and avoid, as far as possible, any particularisation in selecting days for public holidays.

I would like to indicate to this House an English-speaking point of view. I do feel that this debate has served one very useful purpose, because it has shown that we are all agreed there should be a National Heroes’ Day in South Africa. There cannot be any doubt on that point, but the difficulty lies in selecting a day to commemorate the heroes who have built up this country. The hon. member who moved referred to the people of South Africa, and I want to say, in all sincerity, and I hope he will take this in the spirit in which it is offered, that he cannot use that phrase in this House unless he is convinced that he is representing the views of both sections of the people. In the second place he referred to serious disturbances. Well, I will accept his statement, that he is perfectly sincere in not wanting to introduce politics into this debate. But I want to put it to him that by suggesting that serious disturbances will take place in this country he is indirectly introducing politics. The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, cannot tell me that a collection of children who know very little about the history of the country can get up and demand that this day should be made a public holiday. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) told the House that he did not in any way cause his own child to be associated with this particular event, but the hon. member seems to forget that at some part of the day the schoolmaster, in the particular school that that child went to, had some control over his child. While I accept the sincerity of the argument put up by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), I want to put it to him that indirectly he has introduced politics by using this example of the school children. Now the third point is the motion suggests President Kruger’s birthday as Heroes’ Day. I heard an interjection by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), when the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) suggested that the day selected should be one to commemorate the first Prime Minister of South Africa, that General Louis Botha was interested in politics. Surely the hon. member cannot tell me that President Kruger was not interested in politics. While the late Gen. Botha was undoubtedly interested in politics in this country, at least it can be said of him that he did represent the point of view of the two sections of the people in this country. I am not trying to belittle President Kruger. I believe he was a racialist, and perhaps that was to his credit, but he certainly only represented one section, and not both. So if you want to be sincere and not introduce politics, then don’t select a day which is indicative of a political figure in the life of South Africa, and one who is not held in high esteem by both sections of the community. I am going to suggest to this House a name which I think will be acceptable to both sections in this country, I am going to suggest that the person who should be honoured in this country should be Jan van Riebeeck. As a South African born, I say there are two big historical events in this country: the one is Union Day, when the four provinces came together, and the other is the day on which civilisation was brought to South Africa. Union Day is a public holiday in South Africa. The 6th April, 1652, was when Van Riebeeck landed at the Cape. I do suggest Jan van Riebeeck because, firstly, I believe that there will be complete agreement on both sides of the House; secondly, Jan van Riebeeck, as I have pointed out before, represents an event in the history of South Africa, and not any particular nationality. The third point is that Jan van Riebeeck’s name does not stand for any sectarian views, and the fourth point —if it might be of interest to hon. members on the other side—is that the prayers which were given by Van Riebeeck when he landed at the Cape are in part being used every day in this House. For these reasons, and for the very important reason, too, that it has become an established practice in this country to honour Van Riebeeck every year—and his name is not being honoured by one section only, and, what is more important, Van Riebeeck is not honoured only by the people of South Africa, but also by people outside South Africa. One must realise that numbers of cultural societies, including Afrikaans, lay wreaths at the statue of Van Riebeeck, also do numbers of representatives who come ashore from British warships; we have the Sons of England in Cape Town placing wreaths at the statue every year

What you propose is included in the amendment.

Which amendment?

By the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost).

Yes, but have you read the rest of the amendment? Then take the Portuguese President; when he came here he laid a wreath at Van Riebeeck’s statue That, I take it, was a gesture to the people of South Africa. When the Belgian Congo representative came here the other day, he also followed that established practice. I do not want to labour the point. I honestly and sincerely ask the mover of this resolution seriously to consider the suggestion which I have made, and the points which I have outlined. I do want to put it to him, and I do appreciate that it is all very well to come along and get a snatch vote in this House on something which is supremely important to the country. It does require a little more consideration, and I doubt if the Government can at this stage make a declaration, but I do feel, and I am satisfied that the view which I express is one shared by the country, and that is that the day is not far off when we shall have a National Heroes’ Day in South Africa, and this point I want the mover seriously to consider, and that is that if there is to be a National Heroes’ Day in South Africa, it firstly must not be indicative or symptomatic of any individual who has been representative of one particular section of the country and secondly—and, believe me, this is most important—the day must be so arranged that opportunities cannot be given to any political party of this country to make party propaganda out of it. And for that reason and for the other reasons I have mentioned. I sincerely hope that the day is not far off when this Government—and, believe me, we are here for a long time—will not just by word of mouth but by deed set aside some day which will commemorate the work that has been achieved by those great men of the past who helped to build up this country.

I do not want to say anything about the motion, because we have agreed that we will give the House the opportunity of voting on this important motion. The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) spoke during my absence, and I understand that, as usual, he made a bitter attack on me in my absence I am not at all concerned about what the hon. member for Kimberley District said. This House is already accustomed to his saying things here in regard to me which are not in the least true. It has become an obsession with him to do so. I only want to refer to what happened there, because there is someone in the House whom I can call as a witness as to what I did and said on that particular occasion. The hon. member for Kimberley District said that I had placed my hands on the trunk of the oldest tree in the North-east, which was chopped down, and that I had then said that that tree had died because it was sad about the Afrikaners having entered into fusion. To prove how ridiculous it is, I need only say that I was standing on the platform and speaking through a loudspeaker, and that the trunk of the tree was fifteen yards away from there. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that you were sitting at my side on the platform and heard what I said. I have only risen to tell the hon. member for Kimberley District how shamelessly he can behave by saying the things that he says against me here. If then he pays any attention to littletattlers, why does he not go to you, Mr. Speaker, to learn the truth before he talks such nonsense?

Our attitude has already been explained by hon. members on this side.

Are you trying to talk the motion out?

I am speaking at the moment. But it is of sufficiently great importance for us to emphasise it again. We clearly stated that we were sympathetically disposed towards the institution of Heroes’ Day or a day of remembrance, and we do not want to give the other side the opportunity to create the impression in the country that by our attitude we are in any way opposed to the idea of Heroes’ Day. On the contrary, we want to pay homage to the great men in our history, and we want to pay it fully where homage is due. There is nothing in the attitude of this side of the House which wants to detract from the greatness of a man like President Kruger. There are however so many practical questions awaiting solution at the moment that we deplore that the hon. member opposite has selected a matter like this which is associated with so much sentiment. Sentiment is sometimes a dangerous game, and can very easily cause harm. The proposer of the motion did his best to eliminate politics, but a motion of this kind can easily lead to abuse. To-day political speeches are made at Dingaan’s Day celebrations, and that celebration is exploited for party political avantage. If hon. members opposite, with the support that they are now receiving from this side, will stop that habit, and celebrate Dingaan’s Day on the lines which were intended, so that all members of the population can take part in those celebrations, we shall very highly appreciate it. We do not want a day like Heroes’ Day to be abused for political propaganga, and in any case we also ask that Dingaan’s Day should be purified, and not be besmirched with political speeches. One of the reasons for the motion which was mentioned by the mover, is the fact that there is such a strong claim in favour of it by the school children. I support the Minister when he says that it is impossible for us to accept the motion in its present form, because if we do so then we will thereby be announcing that we are yielding to a threat, and that we are allowing ourselves to be influenced by threats. We cannot encourage the school children to bring cannot encourage the school children to bring about legislation by threats. They must be taught discipline, and there is only one way of obtaining anything and that is by constitutional conduct. I cannot imagine that the benches then I see that the front benches of the Opposition are empty. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) is not in his place, and most of the deputy-leaders are not here either. We can assume that this motion is not meant seriously, and that there is something behind it. I close by once more stressing that our attitude towards the creation of Heroes’ Day is sympathetic. We do not agree with the form of the motion, although we are in favour of the establishment of Heroes’ Day, but not exactly that a particular birthday should be selected. President Kruger’s birthday has its supporters as well as its opponents. We want the people to understand clearly that what is said by this side is not intended te belittle President Kruger in any way.

I do not want to take up the time of the House a moment, because we would like to have a vote taken by the House on this motion. I now just want to emphasise the fact that I will not take notice of hon. members opposite who say that we have dragged this matter into party politics. The question has been asked why we should have selected the 10th October, and it has been stated as a matter of fact, on the opposite side, that we selected the 10th October for political purposes, and also that the people of South Africa did not want it. All the proofs that I have given here, and all the motions and resolutions which have been passed throughout the country, as well as the custom in the past, have all pointed out the fact that the people do want the 10th October. It is not this side of the House which is proposing the 10th October, but it is the South African people who propose it. The question was also put to me as to what I meant by the people. In the first place we know that in this respect we are speaking on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, but I went specially out of my way to point out that a large section of the English-speaking section of the population of South Africa supported the 10th October. I pointed out that the School Board of Barkly West had passed a resolution, which was seconded by Maj. Tucky, and that they also asked for the 10th October. There is no party politics in the motion. We only want the day which we feel will do justice to the people of South Africa. If half-baked recommendations are made, and it is asked why we cannot take the first Monday in October, then I want to ask why Queen Victoria Day cannot be postponed to the 1st June, or some such date? No, these hon. members do not want it, and why must the Afrikaansspeaking section of the population always have to be satisfied with what they get? The people want the 10th October, and when we ask for it then it is politics. The statements of those speakers who practically wanted to couple the name of President Kruger with a motion to make political propagnda, I reject with contempt. There was not the least intention on this side of the House of inciting the children. Every hon. member of this House who realises his responsibility or who is in touch with affairs in South Africa, knows that last October a spontaneous feeling arose among the youth that the 10th October should be recognised as a public holiday.

There was no incitement on our part. It is in view of that that I have referred to possible irregularities, and I pointed out that we cannot with any arguments in the world convince those children that there should not be a Heroes’ Day on the 10th October. There was no incitement. The fact is that those things took place, and that this year such things and additional ones may happen again. I said in my speech that it was better to prevent those things rather than to try to heal the trouble later on. What is the result of that? The result is the undermining of authority, and I would like us to try and prevent that sort of thing. It is better to prevent it now than to try and remedy the matter later on. I hope that the Afrikaans-speaking members on the opposite side will meet the people in the country and vote for this motion.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, which was agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Oost and Mr. Sauer accordingly dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—42:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer. K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruvn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier. P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Quinlan, S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn. G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—55:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, v. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford. R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

I second.

I assume that it is too late to bring forward the important motion which stands next on the Order Paper. I only want to express my regret that it was not possible to get that important motion debated to-day.

We are also sorry.

You did not show it by the way in which the debate was conducted. Although we do not oppose the adjournment of the House, we nevertheless want to express our regret that the important wheat motion cannot come up. Everything in our power has been done by this side of the House to curtail the debate on the previous motion, but it availed us nothing. The opposite side have taken part in the debate to such an extent that the wheat motion could not be reached.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot go into that now.

Then I only want to say that we are sorry that the opposite side carried on the debate in such a way that we shall not have the opportunity to introduce for discussion the next motion on the Order Paper.

Motion put and agreed to.