as Chairman, brought up the third (final) report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities. [Votes and Proceedings, pages 752-757.]

Report to be considered in committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

as Chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, as follows:

Your committee has had under consideration a letter, addressed to Mr. President and Mr. Speaker by the Town Clerk, city of Cape Town, on the subject of the proposed alienation, in favour of the council of the city of Cape Town, of a portion of the joint Parliamentary grounds, for the purpose of constructing an archway or screen.

Your committee, having conferred with the corresponding committee of the hon. the Senate, recommends that the proposal in question be not acceded to.

as Chairman, brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Controller and Auditor-General’s report, etc.).

Report and evidence to be printed and considered to-morrow.

as Chairman, brought up the sixth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on petition of Montagu Cooperative Wineries, Limited).

Report and evidence to be printed and considered to-morrow.

I move as an unopposed motion—

This was done yesterday under a misapprehension, while I was busy in another place.

seconded.

I thought it was a step in the right direction. The report ought to go to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

The committee is not sitting.

I admit that, but otherwise it was a very good step.

I trust there will be no objection to this motion.

Getting deeper and deeper into the mire!

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The Bill is certainly—and I say this without fear of contradiction—the most important Bill which has been introduced into this House for many a year.

Why introduce it at the tail end of the session ?

At the same time, in spite of what has been said to the contrary, or might be said to the contrary, I consider it to be one of the most urgent. The Bill has got nothing to do, at least it has got nothing directly to do, with the material welfare of the country.

Oh, indeed!

It has no direct connection with what is generally called “bread-and-butter politics,” important and necessary as “bread-and-butter politics” may be in its place. On the other Hand, it has to do with the nation itself. It has to do with the very existence of the nation as a separate entity. It has to do with the unity of our national life and sentiment. It has to do with our national status and the recognition of our national status by other nations of the world. It has to do with what is more than material possessions, with what is after all, even more than our fatherland ; it has to do with the soul of the nation. As the title shows, the Bill consists of two different parts. The first has to do with the definition of South African nationality ; in other words it has to do with a legal recognition by ourselves, and for the legal information of other nations, that we exist as a South African nation. The second part, which is based on the first, and is a logical result of the first, has to do with the establishment of an outward and visible symbol of our independent nationhood, and our national status. It has to do with the binding together of all sections of the people in one common sentiment. It provides, in other words, for a South African national flag. I wish first to deal with the first part of this Bill, that part which has to do with the definition of South African nationality, and here I shall begin by trying to remove a misconception which, on the part of the ignorant, is only natural. There are some who consider that this Bill defining South African nationality in some or other way affects the franchise ; that, by conferring South African nationality on a person, we do, ipso facto, confer on him the right to vote. There is nothing of the kind. Franchise rights only exist by virtue of our franchise laws, and not by virtue of the fact that we are South Africans. If franchise rights are to be conferred on people who do not possess them to-day, or if people who to-day possess franchise rights are to" be deprived of them, then that could be brought about only by the amendment of the existing franchise law. It is certainly advisable in general that our South African nationality law, if this is passed into law, should be brought into harmony with our franchise laws, or our franchise laws brought into harmony with our South African Nationality Act, but there is certainly no necessary connection between the two. What this measure which I now propose does is merely to make clear to ourselves and to foreign nations what a South African citizen is ; in other words, it makes clear as to who belong to the South African nation, and who do not. During the course of this session I introduced a Bill, which has been passed both by this House and the other House, to define the meaning of “British subject,” and in that way to distinguish the British subject from aliens. This Bill which I am introducing now is complementary to the Bill which has been passed. It makes clear what is meant by a South African citizen, and it proposes to distinguish between a South African citizen and foreigners, and at the same time to distinguish between a South African citizen and other British subjects who are not South Africans. This brings me to another misconception which I think I ought to remove. There may be some who think—and I have heard that opinion expressed—that this Bill, if it is passed into law, does away with British nationality ; that if we are South African citizens, as defined by this Bill, we would no longer be British subjects. Of course, there is nothing of the kind in the Bill. A British subject as defined by the British Nationality Bill, which was passed into law only a short time ago, means a subject of H.M. the King, and nothing more than a subject of H.M. the King. As H.M. the King is also King of South Africa in the same way as he is King of Great Britain and Canada and New Zealand, and other dominions, every South African citizen is also, ipso facto, a British subject ; but at the same time every British subject is not a South African citizen, and does not belong to the South African nation. In other words, the Bill proceeds upon the basic assumption that while all British subjects, wherever they may live, acknowledge the same sovereign, as citizens of the separate dominions or parts of the British Empire, they have their own distinct and independent nationhood ; or, to express it still differently, the Bill is a practical recognition of the fact that the dominions and Great Britain are sister states, existing on a footing of equality with each other. In connection with this point, I may further say that the definition of South African nationality as proposed by this Bill has a direct bearing on the recognition of our status by foreign nations. Since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, we have had considerable difficulty with foreign nations as far as the recognition of our status is concerned. As signatories of that treaty we are members of the League of Nations, and, as members of the League of Nations, we have a right to take part in international deliberations; but this has been our experience, that when we come to these international conferences, we are looked upon, not as guests coming to such a conference to which we have been invited in our own right and dignity, but as coming there—in the opinion of foreign nations— merely as followers in the retinue of another nation ; and for that reason we are turned back from the front door, and we are sent round, if we are to get admission at all, to the back door. We are slowly, but we are surely, overcoming this humiliating misconception and prejudice, and, with the help of the British Government, Locarno has certainly been, and will in future be, of very material assistance to us to overcome that misconception and prejudice. But how can we expect a foreign nation to recognize our status and our international rights if they do not know, and if they cannot know, legally at least, with whom they have to deal ; if legally there is no such thing as South African nationality ; if, legally, as a nation, we do not even so much as exist? Apart from the recognition of our status, the matter is one of considerable practical concern. It is one of practical concern to us in our domestic administration. As hon. members will know, the question is asked of every individual in the country, when the census is taken, to what nationality he belongs, and there is a good deal of uncertainty as to what a person must fill in as a reply to that question. At one time it was taken that everyone who was born in South Africa could fill in that he was a South African. A good many understood the question quite differently, and though they were not born in South Africa they filled in that they were South Africans. The same uncertainty has existed also with the taking of the census this year, and this year only those who were born in South Africa after Union were asked to fill in as their nationality South African. Now this Bill, when it is passed into law, will make an end to that uncertainty with regard to the nationality of persons living in South Africa. Further, we have certain rights in connection with our membership of the League of Nations which it is impossible for us, under existing circumstances, to exercise. As hon. members will know, we may nominate as signatories to the treaty of Versailles and as members of the League of Nations, a judge or judges on the panel of judges sitting in connection with the International Court of Justice; but the law in connection with that particular point requires that the judge nominated by a particular member of the League of Nations shall be a national of that particular country. Because we have got no South African nationals, we have been excluded from the exercise of this right that we have. This is a point which has weighed so much with the Dominion of Canada, that they have preceded us in the passing of a Canadian nationality law, and what we are doing to-day in attempting to pass a law of the same nature, we do on the example of the oldest and largest dominion. But, and further, South Africa has got interests abroad which can only be properly cared for and safeguarded if we pass a law of this nature, if we define South African nationality. We are not so cut off from the rest of the world as we were formerly. South Africans continually go abroad, not only to travel, but to settle abroad, and while they are still connected with us ; while they still consider their domicile is in South Africa, and while they still think that they belong to our South African nationality, as they conceive it, they look to us to protect them and care for their interests. We have recognized this in connection with Angola only this session. We have passed on the Estimates a sum of money to have to send to Angola a Union agent to take care especially of the interests of South Africans who are settled there and have been settled there for quite a considerable period. We have hundreds of students who have gone from South Africa to continue their studies in other countries, and they are scattered in all parts of the civilized world, and in some cases they have come into contact, and sometimes into conflict, with the immigration laws of different countries. All of us will think of the immigration laws of the United States. But while that is so, there exists no legal definition of what a South African citizen is. We issue passports to persons who have been born and bred in South Africa and who belong to us, and when they take leave of our territorial waters we cannot say for whom we are responsible, and for whom not. Further than that, we have Union ships which continually anchor in foreign ports. We have great material and commercial interests connected with our trade, through our own Union ships, with foreign countries. The nationality and the status of these ships and those who are on board is not defined. When they come to foreign ports they are either merely British, or their status is altogether undefined. If this Bill is passed into law, we define what South African nationality is and what a South African national is, and these will become properly defined, and if this Bill is passed into law it will incidentally establish to a large extent the natural consequence of it ; that is, extra territorial jurisdiction. Coming to the details of the Bill, I wish to explain that this Bill proceeds on the same lines as the Canadian Act. Every person who is born in South Africa and is a British subject who has become one by being born under the British flag, by annexation or naturalization, is considered a British subject. Every person who is a British subject who has been settled in the country for at least two years will be considered to be a South African. If anybody leaves our shores and settles abroad, he will be in a position to remain a South African, and his children can remain South Africans if they choose to remain so. South African nationality will be lost only when a person relinquishes his domicile in South Africa when he goes abroad and renounces his South African nationality, or he assumes alienage in another country ; or when he becomes a national of Great Britain or any other dominion. I come now to the second part of this Bill, namely, provision for a South African national flag. The reason why we make provision in this particular Bill dealing with the definition of South African nationality is because these two provisions, of a South African national flag and the definition of South African nationality naturally belong to each other. I shall not agree to the passing of the one without at the same time agreeing to the passing of the other. A flag is not a mere cloth ; a flag symbolizes national existence, a flag is a living thing ; it is the repository of national sentiment. A flag is able to create the greatest enthusiasm ; a flag is able to move to tears ; a flag can stir the deepest springs of action, and it can inspire to the noblest efforts. For a flag a nation can live ; for it it can fight and it can die. For that reason there is nothing in the life of a nation which is so powerful as a unifying factor whenever there are different sections composing that nation as a national flag. Without a common national, flag that symbolizes the existence of that nation in inspiring that nation to a common and noble effort, without such a common national flag, no nation can live. South Africa has got the misfortune—no, sir ; it is not a misfortune, but a deep tragedy—that it has no flag of its own. South Africa contains within its bosom different races speaking different languages, and having different traditions, and to a large extent having different ideals. South Africa, more than any other country in the world, has got on its shoulders the task— the almost impossible task—to unify and cement through one common bond. What makes the task so much greater and so very much more difficult is that through its great, but at the same time tragic, history, the different races of South Africa have drifted apart, and have at times even shed each other’s blood. This the races of South Africa realize to-day —that they must stand together, and they stretch out their hands to each other.

Who is dividing them ?

But South Africa has got no common symbol of its common nationhood. There is no South African national flag to unite them in one common sentiment and in one common brotherhood. There are flags in South Africa—perhaps we have got too much of it—but the practical effect of the flying of these flags in South Africa is not to unite, but to divide, and I have stated here on a former occasion that it is the usual thing in South Africa that whenever there is a function in which English-speaking South Africans are more particularly interested the flag that is flown is the Union Jack, and considering the history of a large section, all the other sections of the population are ipso facto excluded. On the other hand, whenever there is a function in which Dutch-speaking South Africans are more particularly interested—something which has to do with their history and traditions, a flag is also flown, but it is either the Vierkleur or the old Free State colours, and ipso facto the other section of the population is excluded.

Then why not combine the two flags ?

All this may be quite wrong, and probably it is, but nevertheless it is a fact, and we, as practical politicians, must look facts in the face. It is difficult in any case to fight history as history is remembered by a section of the people, or remembered by an individual, but it is absolutely impossible to fight symbolized history— history symbolized in a flag. The present position is a matter of divided sentiment in South Africa and, therefore, of divided nationality. It is certainly bad enough, but the position becomes much worse when we think of it that the absence of a South African national flag, one common South African national flag, and the presence of two or more other flags, which practically have the practical effect of dividing the people—that that position darkens and confuses every other position in the country. South Africa is a land of great, and we may say, of terrible problems. We have had our racial conflicts in this country in the past. We have to do with racial questions in the country. We have problems here which are so great that we may say, on the solution of these problems depends the maintenance of our civilization in South Africa. And to solve these problems, it is essential in the first place, that we shall judge in connection with these problems on their merits, and in the second place, in the solution of these problems that we shall have racial co-operation, and whenever a problem of that nature is brought forward, then the question of the flag or some one of the flags is brought forward, and it at once darkens and confuses the issue, and drives the races of the country into different camps. It has been said and probably will be said again in this House when the matter is discussed, that the problem of securing provision for a South African flag is not an urgent one. Probably it is the most urgent and most fundamental of our problems. The Bill does not raise the Hag question. There is a flag question in South Africa, and we cannot get away from it. All the Bill proposes to do is to settle the flag question. In settling the flag question we settle the race question, and in settling the race question we facilitate the settling of all the other problems and questions in South Africa. The Bill which I now propose is settling the flag question on the only lines on which it can be practically and reasonably done. Unfortunately, this Bill, as far as at least the second part is concerned, is not the result of agreement. There was a hope, especially after the assurance given last year by the hon. the leader of the Opposition, that we could come to an agreement on this point, but these expectations, this hope, has been dashed to the ground.

Why?

And after the experience which we have had—I speak for myself here—there is little chance of ever coming to an agreement on this question —with the Opposition, I mean. For me and for my colleagues, and I may say for the parties which sit on this side of the House, the fact that no agreement has been reached or can be reached with the Opposition in future, does not settle the matter. We consider that the question is of such importance and of such urgent importance that, in the first place, we wish to have agreement, and we shall still do what we can in future to get agreement on this point ; but if we cannot get common agreement among all sections of the population with regard to this matter, then we say it is better to have a flag without agreement—in spite of disagreement—than to have no flag at all.

Shame.

And it must be simply our look-out on this side of the House to see that what we propose is practical and reasonable. When we faced this question of securing a South African national flag, we realized that there were two requirements which we had to consider. The first is that that flag shall be such a one that it is possible for it to be a common flag for both sections of the population and that it shall not remind the two sections of the population of their past differences.

Why ?

But should unite them for the future in one common sentiment and one common nationality ; and the second requirement which we considered was that that flag should be a correct representation of our constitutional position. The attitude of the representatives of the South African party on the negotiating committee was that, in any case, the flag shall include the Union Jack. It is true that, at the same time, they were also willing to include the old republican colours, but I think they will agree with me when I say they were willing to include the old republican colours in that flag merely to make the inclusion of the Union Jack more acceptable to the other section.

Nonsense.

And the agitation which has arisen

You know it is not true.

And the agitation which has arisen as a result of the breakdown of these negotiations very clearly shows that one thing is insisted upon, and that is the inclusion of the Union Jack in that flag. I think that hon. gentlemen generally, on all sides of the House, will agree that, knowing South Africa as we do ; knowing the history of South Africa as we do, and the associations connected with the Union Jack for a large section of the population, that any flag in which the Union Jack was included would not be acceptable to a large, perhaps, to the larger section, of the country. I think that hon. gentlemen on the other side, when they think impartially on this matter, will say in connection with this sentiment which I express, that we on our side of the House are more able to interpret the feelings of the Dutch section of the population to-day. If they had been able to interpret the sentiments of the Dutch-speaking South Africans in the country they would have sat, not on that side, but on this side of the House. But let me come to the proposal which was made by hon. gentlemen on the other side. They not only insisted on the inclusion of the Union Jack, but were willing to combine with the Union Jack the colours of the old Republics. Apart from what I have already stated, there is more than one objection against that. It is certainly not constitutionally correct. What is the constitutional position of South Africa as a dominion ? What is the constitutional position to-day in connection with what is to-day called the British commonwealth ? There exists no such thing, even though it is often so called, no such thing as an empire, and that has been stated, for the information of the hon. member for East London—

You cannot inform me on these things.

That has been stated, over and over again, in speeches in this country, by his own leader. There is no such thing as an empire, because an empire implies one State. There is no such thing as a subjection of one part of the so-called empire to another part. What exists today is nothing more than what is, I should say, most correctly expressed by the expression—

a community of British nations which are free to hold together or free to divide and free to go each its own way. An authoritative statement has been made in regard to this constitutional position some years ago in these words—

And he goes further, to say—

This has been stated by no less a person than Lord Milner, when he was a very prominent member of the Lloyd George Cabinet. It is not a leader of national opinion in one of the dominions. This sentiment has been expressed by an English Minister and it so happens that it was expressed by the man who can be considered above all others as a high priest of imperialism. If, under these circumstances, when each British dominion has got its own national existence, its own independent nationhood ; the Union Jack, the flag of one particular portion of the empire is included in that national flag. It is not sufficient ; it is not a correct representation of the constitutional position. But there is one other objection against the proposal which has come from the other side of the House, and it is that if we adopt a flag in which the Union Jack is included and at the same time the colours of the old republics, then the two races in this country will not stand, as they represented it, on an equal footing with each other. We must not forget that in such a flag the Union Jack is a living flag and the flags of the old republics represent something that is dead. It does not break with the past. It reminds of the past and it reminds of the past in such a way that whether it is right or whether it is wrong it is in any case a fact that to a large section of the population it will stand for domination and for conquest and defeat. On the lines which this Bill proposes to deal with the flag question, we shall have a flag for South Africa, and that flag shall be an altogether new design which shall look to the future and shall not look to the past and at the same time to give a correct representation of our constitutional position, we are willing to have the Union Jack, the flag of the empire, and to display the Union Jack officially on all occasions which are intended specifically to represent or to indicate our relationship to the British community of nations.

The Union Jack by permission.

This proposal can be looked upon, that is if we are considered, as we are considered by many people, to represent the Dutch-speaking section of the population ; this proposal can be looked upon as a double concession on our part. In the first place we were willing to give up the representation in the Union flag of the old republican colours. I said that these republican colours stand for something that is dead, but that which is dead is not dead in the sense that it is not enshrined in the heart of hundreds and thousands in this country and therefore if it is not represented at all in the Flag of the Union of the future, then something is really actually given up. So far as we are willing to adopt an altogether new design we have already made a concession, but further, if it is so, as we represent, that we are the party standing for secession ; that we do not wish to recognize in any way that we belong to the British commonwealth, then by adopting a clause in this Bill in which we specifically make mention of the relationship between South Africa and the British commonwealth of nations, in agreeing to display on certain occasions the flag of the empire, is that not a concession that is worth something to our English-speaking South Africans?

No, no.

It has been said that we stand for a Dutch-speaking South Africa. Thus we have made in this proposal a double concession. I do not consider it a concession. I consider the whole proposal is nothing more than the only practicable and reasonable proposal we can make. So much for the proposals we have put before the House. Since the breakdown of the negotiations there has been started an agitation for the inclusion of the Union Jack. Considering the history of the country and the sentiments of the people, that agitation comes down to nothing else than a point-blank refusal on the part of sections of our English-speaking compatriots to make any allowance for the feelings of their Dutch-speaking South Africans.

No! Absolute rubbish.

While they are unwilling to make any allowance for the feelings of their fellow South Africans they accuse those who stand for this practicable and reasonable proposal of stirring up race-hatred and in that way insult them. I am speaking more particularly of certain newspapers. I cannot conceive of anything more unworthy or unpatriotic but perhaps that is not so much the fault of the people themselves. It is more the fault of those on whose shoulders the responsibility rests to enlighten them, and who have not enlightened them correctly in regard to this matter. I need only point to the fact that the papers generally which stirred up this agitation have systematically concealed from the public the second part—and a very material part—of this proposal. The official display of the Union Jack on certain occasions.

On such occasions as meet with the Minister’s approval.

With more information given to the people I am certain that after this agitation there will come a revulsion of feeling that will sweep away misconceptions and put to shame those who have misled the people. We feel on this side of the House that in view of that agitation more information to the country is necessary, and it is for that reason that it has been decided not to proceed further this session with this Bill. But when I say that we are not going to proceed further this session, I say it on the definite understanding that early next session we are going to proceed with the Bill, and that the flag which on that occasion will be brought up will be a flag on the same general principle on which the present proposals rest—that is to say it shall not include the Union Jack and it shall not include the republican colours. It will be an altogether new design. As far as the particular design which is contained in this proposal is concerned we are not wedded to it. It has been represented that this flag which is proposed is nothing more than a disguised Vierkleur. This flag has been designed by an Englishman who has lived for many years in South Africa—an Englishman who has identified himself with South Africa and is a true South African.

He sent in two other designs.

He is an Englishman who is a student of history ; he knows and understands the history and sentiments of the people and for that reason there could be no objection to the flag. He has explained that in drawing up his design it never entered his mind that this is a disguised Vierkleur. In any case if there is this objection that it looks too much like the Vierkleur we are willing to drop it, and we shall certainly drop it, and we shall try as much as possible during the recess to get as much agreement as is possible in regard to this question and to create such machinery that we shall come to the very best possible selection of a flag as I have described in general principle. But this must stand fast—we must have a national flag, a South African flag, and we shall have it. In securing that flag we shall not look to the extremists on the one side or the other side.

But to moderate men like yourself ?

Let me tell hon, gentlemen opposite that the extremists on both sides want no flag at all or a, flag in which the Union Jack is included. The extremists on their side say—

Nonsense!

If we eliminate the Union Jack then we shall eliminate something that would remind us that we are not free in this country. We shall not look to extremists on either side. We shall look in regard to this matter to the great volume of moderate opinion in the country, and in proceeding any further we shall make an appeal to the moderate opinion in the country— we shall make an appeal to all true sons of South Africa.

I could wish that the Minister had not made that last part of his speech. I listened to the first part and the main body of the speech with care and attention, and in parts with pleasure, and I am very sorry that in the concluding portion of his speech he should have adopted a tone which has brought a new spirit into this debate, and which we should take every care possible to keep out of the atmosphere of the discussion. We are dealing with a very grave subject, and a very difficult subject, and we have to discuss it in such a spirit that we may eventually come to a conclusion. We are not going to decide it to-day. We shall not be finished with this question to-day, nor will the people of South Africa be finished with the question to-day, and we must discuss it in such a spirit that it may be possible for us to come to an amicable understanding Hereafter. I am, therefore, sorry that the Minister used language and made statements which will make it very difficult to continue the debate in a calm spirit and to find a workable solution. Some of the statements he made I must repudiate at once—some of the statements he should never have made. There is, for instance, the arrogant statement that they on that side of the house represent the Dutch-speaking people of this country. The Minister knows, as everybody in this House knows, that it is not only a mere exaggeration, but is untrue and it is not helpful. The cause we have at heart is not helped by statements of that kind. The Minister says that if they did not represent the Dutch-speaking people we would not be in Opposition. That is not true. The Minister sits there, and hon. gentlemen sit there, with the help of the Labour party, who are not Dutch-speaking, so he has no reason whatever for making that statement. There is another statement that he made which I think very wrong, out of place and entirely untrue—it is that in what has happened over this Flag Bill the English-speaking section of the people have shown that they are not prepared to make any allowance for Dutch feeling.

I said a section of the English-speaking people.

The meetings of protest which are being held all over the country are not merely taken part in by the English-speaking section of the South African party, but also by the English-speaking section of the party opposite. I don't want us to import unnecessary feeling into the debate, but fairly and Trankly to recognize facts. The facts are clear and patent, that the English-speaking section as a whole take up the same attitude on the question of the flag. I think the Minister has used language which he should not have used as a patriotic South African, and, besides, it is untrue. Another statement he continually made I also repudiate—that is that there is an agitation in the country which has been worked up. I do not think so.

What about the leading article in the “Cape Times” this morning?

I could quote some leading articles in other papers. The Minister, if he has been following the press on the other side, must have known that the newspapers are using somewhat violent language, and not on one side only. The Government press have used as violent and strong language as can conceivably be used. I say let us view the matter calmly and quietly, and not make charges against each other which will make a solution impossible, shall do my best to deal with the subject in that spirit. The committee which dealt with the matter from both sides of the House really defined the position of parties on this question, and let me just repeat very briefly what happened there, The Minister to-day has taken the same line in the speech which he has just made to us. On that committee the representatives of the South African party took this line, that for the future flag of South Africa to command the affection and respect and the loyal adherence of the people of South Africa, it ought to embody both the old republican colours and the Union Jack. The representatives from the Government benches took the line that there should be an entirely new design, which would be a break with the past, and that position they maintained up to nearly the end of the negotiations and the conferences that took place. Finally, they came forward with this proposal which the Minister considers as a great concession, that, in addition to this entirely new design for the South African flag, there should be in the Bill a clause for the display of the Union Jack on certain occasions which would be relevant to the Imperial connection. The Minister has said to-day that he looks upon that as a great concession. The concession did not prove acceptable, because it was felt by the representatives from our party that there was nothing in the concession. What are the occasions—I thought the Minister would tell us—what are the occasions when the Union Jack would be seen in South Africa?

Yesterday was one.

Yes, Empire Day.

Your birthday.

The only occasion I could think of was Empire Day, which is one of our holidays. I have been thinking over this matter, and to my mind no other occasion presents itself as suitable under the terms of this Bill for the flying of the Union Jack in South Africa, and the result would be this, that the great concession, which the Minister refers to, to English feeling in South Africa, would mean that there might be one occasion in the year on which the British flag might be seen in South Africa, and even that occasion might disappear.

interjected a remark.

I am afraid the Minister is right in his interjection. If this Bill were to go through, you would see the Union Jack more often than before. However, that was the issue between the two parties in the committee.

We stood for a combination of these two things from our past, the old republican colours and the Union Jack, and the representatives of the Government took up the line that there should be an entirely new departure, an entirely new design, as a symbol of our nationhood in the future. That was the honest difference of opinion between the two parties, and that is the difference of opinion still. The Minister has announced that he is not proceeding with this Bill, but that next session he will proceed with a Bill on the same principles, that is, an entirely new design in which the Union Jack will not be found, so that it is dear from the Minister’s statement that the Government will continue on the lines that they pursued in the committee. I can only say that we see no reason whatever for departing from the attitude which our representatives took up in that committee. We think there is no solution of this flag question except by means of the combination of the old republican colours and the Union Jack, and we feel that on those lines the solution can be found, and will be found. The Minister says that that will not be constitutionally correct. I do not follow that argument. Why should the flag of this country not represent the constituent sections of its people? After all, the Union Jack itself is of that character. The Union Jack, which is the flag of the British empire, represents the constituent sections that came into the united state of Great Britain and Ireland.

Ireland has got a separate flag.

Yes, the Free State of southern Ireland.

You (the Government) will turn this country into a southern Ireland!

I want to argue the position on the facts, and I say this, that it is to my mind perfectly correct constitutionally that we should have a flag which should represent the different sections of the people and their past, and the traditions which they bring from the past. I take up this position, which differs in toto from that taken up by the Minister. He looks upon the old republican flags as dead ; he looks upon them as having been defeated and washed out, except from our hearts. I believe that these flags are a great reality in South Africa. The Minister complains that on many occasions, festive occasions in the interior, you will see the Transvaal Vierkleur or the Free State Vierkleur.

Unofficially.

Unofficially, but it is there.

You can have the Union Jack also.

Yes. These are facts. These flags have not been stamped out, they have not been killed ; it is not a case of death.

Nor will the Union Jack be killed!

No, that is just what I would say to the Prime Minister. There is no case of anything being killed. This is a case of recognizing the past, the honourable past of both peoples. I take up this attitude, we have our flag which was settled immediately after Union in 1911. I have never held the view that that is the permanent flag of this country. But I say this, that I shall feel it very deeply if we adopt for South Africa a flag which does not contain the old republican colours.

I would look upon it as an insult.

The Prime Minister says that a flag for the Union which contains the old Vierkleur, he would look upon as an insult.

No, excuse me. I say the colours. That is a different thing.

It only shows the difference of mentality in this country. I say this, whatever the Prime Minister may say, and whatever his feelings may be on so intimate a subject, I would feel it very deeply if the flag for which I fought, and which symbolizes to me the great past of South Africa, should be buried for ever and done with.

That’s clever!

No, it is not clever. We have a document in the interior, President Kruger’s last letter to the Boer people, which I look upon as his last will and testament to the Boer people, and in that letter appear his last words of advice shortly before his death. His words were these—

As far as I am concerned, I should like to live up to that testament, and I would like the people of South Africa to live up to those words of one of our greatest statesmen, and when we come to settle a flag for our future, I would like to embody in it what the Dutch-speaking people of the interior look upon as one of the good and noble things from our past. The Minister may think we can lightly break with the past. We cannot do it. A nation is a living thing, the past is linked with the future, and von can only go to the future if your roots are in what is good and noble in the past. I say this, that as regards our old Vierkleur flag, I would like to see it embodied in the flag of the future. The same feeling prevails among the English-speaking people with regard to the Union Jack. The Minister is very wrong when he says that that flag stands for conquest and subjection. I am sorry he said that. He said that it is looked upon in that way. I say to the Minister that that is a wounding thing which he said, because nothing is more untrue than that.

It is a fact.

I am awfully sorry to hear that from the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister feels like that because he suffers from what has been called the “inferiority complex.” There are people in South Africa who always think that they are being treated as inferiors. Many of our Dutch people seem to suffer from this—

It is an unworthy complex. We are not treated as inferiors, and I do not look upon anybody in South Africa as superior to me or my people ; I look upon the Dutch people as fully equal to the best there is in the world, and the Dutch-speaking section in South Africa are equal in every way, mentally, morally and other wise, to the best in the English people. When the British section of South Africa ask for the inclusion of their flag, they do not intend to lord their superiority ; they do not intend to show that they are the victors and that we are the subjects in South Africa. They have the same feelings as we Dutch-speaking people have, and that is that we do not want to surrender the sacred and noble symbols of our history and our traditions. We are not going to make a break. Bet us respect that feeling. I have that feeling myself, and I respect the British people, my English-speaking fellow-citizens, for that similar feeling which they have. If the Minister ever wants to get a united flag in South Africa— and I hope we shall come to it—we shall have to respect that feeling. He is making a great mistake if he thinks he can simply break with the past, and he makes an equal mistake if he thinks he can break with the English-speaking past. No, we shall have a flag, but it will be a flag by agreement. The good that has been done by our thrashing this out in that little committee and in the country at large is this, that we are getting to a measure of agreement, for which I am grateful ; not agreement on the lines the Minister has foreshadowed, but on other lines, and I think wiser and more statesmanlike lines. I have heard a great deal of criticism levelled against my friends from Natal. It is said they are jingoes. Our friends in Natal and elsewhere have been blamed for setting going a great agitation in the country. They have not. There is a deep, genuine, spontaneous feeling moving among certain sections of the people, and it is only the part of statesmanship to recognize that. We are like a wise physician ; we see the symptoms, we see the facts before us. It is no use applying logical formulas or theories to a situation like that. A wise statesman recognizes the facts. It is not a case of jingoism ; it is genuine strong feeling. Members in this House from Natal—the so-called jingoes—have come to me and they have said—

That does not sound to me like jingoism, like treading on the feelings of the other part of the population. That does not sound to me like the intolerance which the Minister has accused a section of the British people of.

No, to my mind, it shows that we are ripe for a solution of this question on sane and wise lines. The discussions we have had may do some good in this way, that we are shown a line of approach, that we are coming together, that we want to embody in our future flag the symbols that both of us bring from the past. Let that be our formula—not exclusion, but inclusion. That is the wise line which the British people took in settling their national flag. I think on these lines we shall get consent, and we shall have a flag which we will take to our future as a symbol of South African unity and co-operation, and not as one of division and disunity. To my mind the question is soluble, and I would appeal to members on all sides of the House to set aside the partisan feeling which has crept into this subject. It was inevitable that when you raised a question like this in the atmosphere which does still exist in South Africa, and in the atmosphere which has been worked up politically in recent years, that partisan feelings should enter and that bitterness and violent language would be used, but I say this, that we are the high court of the nation who should look on these questions with a calm and judicial mind ; we should take a different view, and we should look the facts in the face and recognize that it is possible for us to have a national flag on which the vast bulk of the people can be agreed ; and let that flag be our old republican colours from the interior and let us have on it a representation of the Union Jack.

Never.

There is the intolerance ; that is what raises suspicion, when hon. members in this House show this feeling of utter exclusion of anything that savours of the British connection.

A century of wrong.

We have seen it followed by a century of justice. I do not see how we can serve the cause of the Boer people by forever raking up the past and the bitterness of the past. The Vierkleur should be no cause of bitterness to the English-speaking people in South Africa, and it is not. The Union Jack should be no cause of bitterness to the Dutch-speaking people. I, therefore, say, if we cannot agree on these lines, if English and Dutch will not treat each other on a fair basis of equal treatment and justice, then it will be very difficult for us to come to any national flag. The Minister may flatter himself that he can achieve a flag by compulsion, but it will not be the flag of this country. The more he passes it by majorities of this House the more he will see the excluded flag flying in this country on every occasion. The position of the South African party in this matter is perfectly clear. We want to see justice and fair play done to both sections of the people of this country. We have, for the last 15 or 16 years, been trying our best to build up South Africa on a basis of equal justice to both sections, and as far as we, as a party, are concerned, we shall never submit to seeing injustice or violence done to the feelings or rights of any section in this country. I think the Minister is acting wisely in dropping the Bill for the present, and I hope before he comes forward with a new Bill next year, and before he brings forward a Bill on the lines he has adumbrated to-day, he will give the subject very careful consideration, otherwise he will find next year the position far worse than it is this year, and he will find himself checkmated by the strength of public opinion much more conclusively next year than this. The Minister has discussed this South African nationality on the assumption that it has something to do with our status abroad. It has nothing to do with our status abroad—nothing in the least. It is an internal question, and certainly can have no influence or effect whatever on our external status. How it is going to affect us internally I do not quite see either. I have been studying the Bill to see in what way this new citizenship affects the rights and duties of citizens inside the country. I fail to see exactly what is the relation of British citizenship—for which we passed a Bill only a few weeks ago in this country, and South African citizenship. The Minister may, perhaps, make it plain to us, but to me the position seems to be that in South Africa you cannot be a South African without being a British subject. That seems to be the basis of this Bill—it is the very nature and essence of this Bill. You must be a British subject before you can be a South African. So long as this is recognized, the fear that people have that this Bill is revolutionary in its first part falls away. I do not think we should have any difficulty about this part of the Bill. I have nothing further to add, except that I do most sincerely trust that the Government and the parties behind them will give this matter the very gravest consideration before they fling this apple of discord again before the people of this country. Let us have a united flag, but if we have another attempt made on these disastrous lines which have been followed by the Government this time, we shall see an even worse disaster than we have seen this time.

We are discussing this matter at a time when there is a perfect whirlwind of agitation amongst the people outside—a whirlwind which like other whirlwinds, has raised an enormous amount of dust, impairing clarity of vision. I am taking this opportunity on this Bill of expressing my opinion which, I think, when the position is rightly understood, will be the opinion and view of the vast bulk of the supporters of the Labour party throughout this country. I know that there are many thousands of men and women whose minds are grievously perturbed, which would not have been perturbed if they had the whole position and the whole of the considerations before them, as we have them before us. There is nothing strange that we, the people of South Africa, should desire a flag as a symbol of our distinctive nationhood. It is a stage which comes at some time in the evolution of a colony from another continent—the evolution of that little sprig into full national self-consciousness. As my hon. friend (the Minister of the Interior) has said, it is a necessary symbol. May I say that whatever hon. members on the other side may feel, I, as an English-speaking South African, felt, as I listened to my colleague, one representing the Dutch-speaking element, that with every word I feel in spirit in complete accord.

Shame.

An hon. member may say “shame.” I say in spirit I am in complete accord, because the spirit that animates my hon. friend in the desire to see that the bitternesses of the past shall be lost in a combining symbol of the future, is one in which I share from the bottom of my heart. The only strange thing is that we should have arrived at this stage without having a national flag of our own, and the reason of this is the very reasons and circumstances arising out of the history of the past which make a unifying emblem all the more desirable are the very circumstances which make them look one difficult to achieve, a task which, I am sure, my right hon. friend opposite has many times desired to see accomplished during the past 16 or 18 years, but faced with these difficulties he has postponed it, hoping for a more favourable opportunity. I feel confident, I have never exchanged a word with the right hon. member on the subject, but I feel confident that over and over has the matter entered into his mind to have some emblem which could be held aloft— some flag to which we could owe common allegiance, and he must have desired that such an emblem could be put aloft. We know the difficulties there have been. Into the task of trying to provide South Africans with such an emblem we shall have to go, and please God, by and with the consent and the assent of the vast bulk of all the moderate-minded men in this country, among whom I include many of my hon. friends opposite, whose sentiments I know, we shall provide such an emblem. The right hon. gentleman who has just spoken is one of the older Dutch-speaking population of this country. I am one of the newest of the English-speaking population—I was not even born in this country. I want to present a different picture—the opposite point of view from that presented by him. The difficulty is one, and one only—

I want to be entirely candid in this House, as I hope I usually am. As a man of my descent and traditions, who has from his babyhood grown up with a feeling of reverence for the flag of my country, perfectly naturally my whole desire would be to see the Union Jack figure on the flag of the people of South Africa. Many of my hon. friends can bear me out-in our discussions, I said—

a rather curious flag—but is that position really equal? When I say: “I am willing to take off my hat to the old Free State flag and the Vierkleur, why cannot you take off your hats to the Union Jack?” But do the various emblems present the same sentiments in the minds of the English-speaking and those of the Dutch-speaking people of this country? Try to enter into the feelings of the citizens of the old republics, and if I am not blind, it makes me absolutely admit that the two acts are not acts of absolute equality. In one case it is a flag which I respect, but a flag to which my own flag has never had to bow in conquest. The right hon. gentleman has referred to an inferiority complex. It would be well to see that we on our side do not suffer from a superiority complex. It is not an equal deed in the minds of numbers, or hundreds and thousands of tens of thousands, and particularly of the women, of this country. For them the Union Jack does not stand for what it stands for me. It does not stand for what the Vierkleur stands for me—as the flag of a gallant but beaten opponent, but it stands for the flag of a power which has made them haul down their flag. Let hon. members behind me realize that I am trying to express what I believe is their view—I do not say it is a feeling or resentment to the flag I love, which I justify, but I say those are feelings which are bound to exist, and which I am bound to respect. That flag again, a flag that I love, represents hardship, it represents the loss of kith and kin, it represents scenes of suffering of the women and children in those days more recently gone by, 25 years ago. It represents and recalls feelings of rancour which our national emblem should, if possible, in no way recall. While I have tried to hope that there was not so much, after all, in these objections, that they were not deeply rooted, far more intimate contact, and especially during the last few years, has afforded me a far better knowledge of the feelings of our Dutch-speaking citizens than I had before, and they have convinced me, it is not a square deal that we, as British descended citizens, should insist on. The principal function of a national emblem should be to lift our hopes of the future entirely free from the feuds and rancours of the past. That is what we desire, and for these reasons which I have briefly tried to sketch, it is a conclusion which I have arrived at that far far better ; far more in accordance with the traditions of (he Union Jack, which I revere, will it be to have, in this dominion, a national flag of the people of South Africa, which shall suggest to no section of the people of South Africa anything whatever which divides them, but everything which unites. The right hon. member opposite (Gen. Smuts) alluded to the formation of the Union Jack; how it was first a St. George’s cross and how, under King James, a flag then called the additional flag, was made with the St. Andrew's cross, but in neither case did it represent conquest by one or the other.

Yes, it did.

I must beg the right hon. member’s pardon. Will the Caledonian Society admit for a moment that the combination of the St. Andrew’s cross and the St. George’s cross in the Union Jack was a symbol of the conquest of Scotland by England? Never.

The Scotch conquered England.

Yon will find in many a family which belongs to these two sections the last desperate challenges between the two small boys before they came to fisticuffs—

There was some feeling with regard to Ireland and that subsisted unfortunately. In this country, on these grounds, I am convinced in my heart and soul, and I have confidence that the big bulk of the Labour party who only desire unity and that we should turn our attention to the things of this country, will support us and that in, every part of this country, not excluding Natal, they will be with me when the full position is set before them.

They are not saying so now.

No, because they are told that the Union Jack is to be hauled down ; to be banned and all sorts of desperate things. I am not afraid of hon. members. I have seen thousands of my supporters taken away on the (rest of this wave of emotion operating on their worthy sentiments. I find when the whole position is put before my supporters they are fair-minded and true to what I believe to be the best traditions of the race from which I spring ; fair play, a fair field and real patriotism as against mere flag worship.

Pocket patriotism.

I have never been guilty of that. Hon. members may quote Australia and New Zealand and their flag. The cases are not parallel. These are countries with a homogeneous population ; countries without the tragic history we have, and every man today on both sides of this House has no greater desire than to see the dead past bury its dead, and now that we understand one another better, to combine into one nation and do the work which we have to do as a nation in this country.

What about Canada?

I do not know if they are afflicted with a superiority-inferiority complex that we are afflicted with. I may inform the right hon. gentleman that all our friends will say that they suffer from no complex. There may be some, I examine my own mind and feelings, and I am pretty certain that a good many of us suffer to a certain extent from a superiority complex. I may be alone in that.

Then we are told we cannot aspire to any high office in the land. Is not that an inferiority complex ?

I rather imagine that I occupy a fairly high office in this country but I am not South African born.

You have paid the price for it.

Is this any indignity to the Union Jack“?

Yes.

I repudiate the suggestion that our proposal is any indignity whatever to the Union Jack, which nearly all of us English-speaking people have been proud of from our birth.

Of course it is an indignity. The Union Jack was flown from the Cape for years.

The hon. member from birth and descent has naturally a much greater claim to love the Union Jack than I have, but our proposal is not an indignity. This clause in this Bill specifically lays down that the Union Jack is, and remains, the symbol of our membership of the British community of nations. It lays this down in the Act, and in so laying down enjoins on every citizen of South Africa to respect that flag wherever it is flown and by whom it is flown. They say this is hauling down the Union Jack in Natal. Why, the Union Jack will be flown just as ever by any citizen that wants to do so. At first it will be flown more so, and I am certain there will be none on these benches who will object in the least bit.

Until the Government passes another law to prevent its being flown except on specific occasions as approved by the Minister.

Rubbish! There is the superiority complex. And when they talk in Natal of hauling down the Union Jack, every one of them can hoist the Union Jack above his house with the knowledge that the man who insults that flag is insulting a flag laid down by an Act of this Parliament as a flag to be used by the Union, and symbolising their relationship to the other dominions of the empire, and if the municipality of Durban prefer to fly that flag over their town hall, who is to say them nay. But the flag which is to be the symbol of the unity, of the one thing that we all desire in common, the recognition of what we have to do and what we have to bend our backs to, to make a oneness of this people, that, flag will be the flag of the people of South Africa. Why must we import into that anything whatever ; any line ; any colour ; anything at, all which may suggest to any people any top-dogism or underdogism or any other ism or any single thing which will infer that there shall not be one thing on that symbol that anyone can have a greater claim to than any other section. I believe in doing this we are serving South Africa. I believe that as a people South Africa realizes what the position is ; what the facts are, and what the desire is, we shall have the people of South Africa, English-speaking and Dutch-speaking, behind us to an overwhelming extent to say, let us have this question out of the way. Let us have our flag simply for the people of South Africa for one thing. Let us use the Union Jack as the symbol of our connection with the other dominions of the empire ; the symbol of unity with sister nations, as forming one family and one people. But in our own family, this is a matter of domestic concern, and let us English-speaking people say in view of the circumstances, and our knowledge of the play of feelings throughout the country, in our desire really to have something before which we shall all stand equal, it will serve, as affections gradually come round that flag; entwine themselves round it, it will serve more and more as a unifying and really consolidating centre round which sentiment can cling. I say hon. members over there, equally with ourselves, will agree that the course we take is the right course, and one which every Englishman in this country can be proud to give his assent to— not his grudging, but his cordial assent, for among the English-speaking people in this country although they may not have been some of them here for generations, there are thousands and tens of thousands of them just as keenly anxious to throw in their lot, and as South Africans to take part in building up a South African national consciousness, as hon. members on these benches whose ancestors may have come out here two-and-a-half centuries ago.

They won’t be guided by you.

I know that may be the view the hon. member holds, but I still have hopes that the hon. member and his friends do not on this occasion—as on many previous occasions—really represent the abiding sentiment and past traditions of English-speaking South Africans. I am prepared in this attitude I am taking up to have all sorts of insulting epithets burled at me, I have been through that before. I will remind the right hon. gentleman opposite of a time, just 20 years ago, when the same things were hurled at me, when I was cut by some friends of mine I had fought with in a war then recently concluded, because I was accused of the crime that I was acting in intimate cooperation with two leaders of the Dutch population, and I was told that because of that I was insulting my comrades who had fallen in the war, because those two leaders of the Dutch population were—it was asserted—really inspired by a vindictive hatred of England. Those two men were Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts. Was I right or were they right?

Why have you changed?

I have not, I am still true to what I have always conceived to be my duty, and I believe in this case I am acting on exactly the same lines as I acted 20 years ago, doing my utmost to bring as many of my people as I could to adopt a course which will make for the greatest peace, and to the greatest continuance of the British Commonwealth as it now exists.

Do you endorse this Bill?

Oh, yes, I do. When I go to East London they can throw rotten eggs at me as much as they like for a month, but they will be throwing them at other people before many months are past. I have no particular love for this present design ; I should like to see something a good deal prettier, and my hon. friend has no particular love for any particular design, but if we cannot get anything better, we will have it. I stand on the principle that if we are wise we English-speaking people will be wide-minded enough to grasp the substance rather than the shadow, and that we will not only assent, but freely and fully agree to adopt as our national symbol, something which contains no reminiscences of the past, and reminds no section of the population of enmity and rancour, and as time comes round, will be a unifying element in the life of South Africa. Not one of us probably on either side will at first be able to have the same affection for any new (lag as any of us now have—does the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) mean to hurl the insulting epithet that I am less attached to the Union Jack than he is?

I know you refuse this flag.

I don’t agree about hon. members opposite employing the truth. I have been there before. I have beaten them before, and will beat them again.

Is there another Cabinet crisis ?

I want to conclude with this one thought for hon. members opposite. Are you really going to serve that ideal of the continuance of this commonwealth of nations with the loyal full-hearted allegiance of every section in this dominion to that ideal, by standing in the way of their natural desire to have something as an emblem which is distinctive and purely South African, or are you going to serve that ideal better by helping them to get that emblem, and to keep the Union Jack, which we revere, for the symbol of our connection with the other dominions of the empire? I firmly believe tint by the adoption of the latter course, you will serve both the people of South Africa and your attachment to the ideal of the continuance for many, many generations to the British commonwealth.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.21 p.m.

I was very glad to hear the Minister of the Interior say that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed further with this Bill during the present session. I regret very much that that resolution was not come to by the Government some little time ago. We should have been saved an embitterment of feeling in this country—

On which side?

On both sides. If the hon. member reads his “Burger” faithfully, as I take it he does, he will see that on both sides there has been an embitterment of feeling which I think is the last thing that any good South African would wish to see. I also regret that, in making this announcement, the Minister told us that the Government intended to proceed with this matter on exactly the same lines as they are going on now. There is to be no place, apparently, for conciliation, for compromise. The Government have taken up a line and they are going to put it through. It seems to me that, if that is so, they are unnecessarily protracting this embitterment of feeling throughout the country for another year. They are adopting an attitude—and I was sorry to find the Minister of Defence endorsing that attitude— that we on this side of the House are in the wrong ; we are the people who are making trouble ; the other side propose something which is absolutely right and final, and we who dare to object to that, are the people in this country who are making trouble.

I did not say so.

The Minister said that the English-speaking people are standing in the way, baulking the achievement of a national flag.

I said that we, the English-speaking people, are.

I say that the Minister is wrong even if he includes himself with the English-speaking people in that respect. I say there is no reason for saddling the English-speaking people with this. There are Dutch-speaking people who take the same attitude as we do. If we are to reach the ideal of a national flag, which we hold just as dearly as hon. members on the other side, we must approach it in some other way than that, and I am afraid that, unless the Minister and his colleagues show a little wisdom between now and the time when this Bill is introduced again, we shall not be much further than we are now.

Will your side bring it further?

I hope both sides will bring it further. What I object to is approaching a subject like this with hard and fast conditions laid down on one side or the other. I want to say a few words, and they will be very few, because now that the Minister has made this announcement the matter, I take it, may be allowed to rest there, but as a member of the committee that sat in the endeavour to achieve agreement on this matter, I would like to say a few words as to our position. I take some exception as a member of that committee to what was said by the Minister, not on this occasion, but a few days ago, that the members of the committee representing this side of the House were on the point of coming to an agreement, had they not been led away from that by consultation with friends in the party to which they belong. I wish to state emphatically that this is entirely untrue, and I want to state also that this question on which the committee was engaged, was never considered by the party as a party, was never brought before the party caucus, until the report of the committee had been published.

Did you discuss it with your leader ?

Of course, I did. Were we the only people on that committee who discussed it outside the committee?

Hear, hear!

I want to say most emphatically—and I call upon the Minister to substantiate what I say—that on that committee I stated clearly and frankly, before we adjourned for the Easter recess, that we intended to consult in this matter a certain number of our friends inside our party and outside our party as to how a decision such as we were asked to come to would be received by the country outside. I understood that the other sections of the committee were going to adopt a similar line. What we were engaged upon was not the task of finding some design for a flag. We were engaged on this question as to whether any design which we might agree upon would be accepted generally by the great majority of the people outside. That was the first and the principal rock on which we broke, as far as I am concerned. It was not with me a question primarily of the design of the flag which we should adopt. It was the important question of whether this flag would bring about what we intend and hope it will bring about, that is, national unity, or whether it would be a rock of offence and a ground of division. In order to come to a conclusion about that, it seemed to me that we were perfectly justified and, indeed, bound to consult and talk, under a seal of confidence, of course, with people outside. We came to the conclusion that, in the present state of feeling in this country, to enact a national South African flag which left out the Union Jack would not be accepted by a large section of the people. That is the conclusion I came to and my colleagues on the committee also came to and, for that reason, we could not come to an agreement on the committee. The proposal put forward in the Bill which is now before us was put forward after we had discussed the matter for some time and failed to come to an agreement. We, who represented this side of the House, were of the opinion that the flag which would best represent both our national history and our present constitutional position was a combination of the Union Jack and the old republican colours.

Why the colours ? Why not the flag ?

A flag is built upon sentiment. You do not need to have an exact reproduction of all the elements.

Have you the same respect for the red, white and blue of France as you have for the Union Jack?

Of course not.

They are the same colours, you see.

It is not merely a combination of the red, white and blue, it is the flag of France. Our view was, and is, that the way to find a national flag is along those lines, and not along the lines of breaking with the past and bringing in something new that signifies nothing in our history.

Yon wanted an exact reproduction of the Union Jack?

Yes, that is so, and we came to the conclusion, after considering the matter as carefully as we could, that without that you would not at present get a flag that would satisfy, as a national flag, the great majority of both sections of the people. The idea embodied in the present Bill was put forward when we were unable to arrive at an agreement as a compromise and it seemed to me that it was put forward as a line of thought that we ought to explore very carefully to see if anything could be come to which would satisfy what we were looking for. I thought at that time that what was meant was that there should be a South African national flag for internal use and another one for external use, representing our connection with the empire and our relations to countries outside South Africa, but that is not the idea now put forward in the Bill, and why we finally came to the conclusion that the proposal of the Government would not be acceptable was because it seemed to us that you are putting up a compromise which means really nothing. You are putting up a national flag for South Africa which offends the sentiment of a great number of the people who feel that it should embody some representation of our connection with the empire, and you are trying to satisfy that by saying that on some occasions, un specified occasions, the Union Jack should be flown as a symbol of our connection with the rest of the British commonwealth. That seemed to us to be profoundly unsatisfactory ; it seemed to us likely to promote division instead of unity ; it seemed to us to be likely to bring about a state of things where the South African national flag and the Union Jack would be invited almost to come into conflict instead of being brought into unity and harmony. After what we have heard about the feelings with which the Union Jack is regarded by a large section of the population in this House and elsewhere, does it seem reasonable that our connection with the British commonwealth of nations should be represented by a symbol which we are told conveys only to a large section all the ideas of oppression, conquest and domination. We say this: That, if there is such an attitude on the part of a large section of the people towards this flag which is going to connote our connection with the British commonwealth, it is far better not to proceed any further with the idea of a national flag until we have got nearer to the ideal of a real national community.

And in the meantime?

In the meantime we must go on as we are. What is the alternative ?

In the meantime you have the Union Jack.

Yes. I say we are not justified as practical men, as men who have the good of the country at heart, in going beyond that until we have found something on which we can all agree.

You will never come to an agreement.

I do not take that pessimistic view. Another point on which I do not agree with the Minister of Defence is in his proposition that the Union Jack is regarded, and naturally regarded, by a large number of people in this country, as a symbol of conquest and oppression. We have got in South Africa to get away from that. After all, it is not historically correct ; it is not the fact. The Union Jack is in South Africa not merely by right of conquest ; it is here by right of what the people who look up to it have done for South Africa. They have been in South Africa, not quite as long, perhaps, as the other section, but very nearly so ; they have done the same work in South Africa of civilizing the land, of making it a land of peace and civilization, of carrying on its productive capacities. We are not here merely by right of conquest ; we are here as citizens of South Africa, and we bring with us our traditions and our ideas.

And your flag.

And the flag, yes. We look to the other section of the people not to associate with that flag ideas of conquest, oppression and domination, but to associate with it the fact that it is the flag of the other great section of the white people of South Africa, and to give it the same respect as they expect from us to their own traditions and history. I agree with the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the right line to proceed upon is not the line of breaking with the past, and of burying the past. There have been things in the past history of South Africa which neither side would like to remember or wants to see repeated. I admit that fully. Nobody can have lived in South Africa as long as I have without realizing that and making the fullest allowance for it. But let us remember that, out of all those differences and disputes and bloodshed of the past, has come something which South Africa never had before, and would not have had without them, and that is, Union.

Question!

I do not see how we could have come into a Union of the four states or colonies as they were, without some measure of conflict, without a great measure of disagreement and dispute and possibly bloodshed. Let us look at the fact that Union was formed not by conquest ; it was formed by agreement of the people of South Africa, and it was formed under the British Crown. Probably it would have been better if those who drew up the Act of Union had also been able to devise a plan under which we should live as a South African nation, but they left that to the future. I would urge the Government also to leave it to the future if they cannot get it now by agreement. I totally disagree with the Minister’s idea that you can force a flag upon a country such as South Africa. I think, instead of adopting the principle of breaking with the past, you should regard this Union as a consecration of the past, a thing that has grown up out of our past troubles, and is going to lead us away from them. It is only on this line that we can succeed. If you are going to take up the bitternesses and troubles of the past and live upon them, we shall get to nothing in this country. The civilization we carry will perish without a doubt. Therefore, it seems to me the only line on which we can proceed in a sane and constructive manner, is along the line which was laid down at Union, of agreement between the two great sections of the people, by agreement in regard to their constitution, by agreeing to accept that constitution and that position, and to grow out of it as time and opportunity and national strength allow us to do so. It seems to me, if we go upon a different line and insist upon not merely what has grown up out of past history, but all the bitternesses and conflicts with which it was accomplished, we shall keep alive those feelings in South Africa which every statesman ought to be only too willing to put aside. The people on both sides ought to be, and are, proud of the past, and I feel mat the flag of the South African people should be one which is going to carry out their past and remind them of their past where it is glorious and one under which they will grow as one nation to forget what has divided them in the past. I believe the Minister’s line of argument that we must get away from, the past is one which is going to lead to no peace and no finality in this country. I regret to hear the Prime Minister say: That, in his opinion, to put anything symbolizing the old Republican colours beside the Union Jack would be an insult. I regret that very much. It only convinces me the more that, much as we regret it, we have not yet arrived at that unity of spirit and national ideal in South Africa which would enable us to acquire a national South Africa.

May I just say this—not putting the colours beside the Union Jack, but putting them upon the flag so as to represent the old flag.

I do not quite follow the distinction the Prime Minister tries to draw. My idea of putting the republican colours or something symbolizing them beside the Union Jack, was to indicate that this Union of ours grew out of a union—I admit achieved through conflict and bitterness and possibly through wrong—of two British states and two republican states ; that out of this period of conflict and struggle and stress grew this Union, and that we, as South Africans, ought to look to what has grown out of that time, and not be afraid of symbolizing in the flag the states and conditions and peoples out of which that Union grew. The Minister has told us that he regards this matter as urgent. I also regard it as urgent. I think it is urgent that we should have a national unity out of which that flag is to grow, but I think it is bad policy and bad statesmanship to try and get the one without the other, to try and get a flag which is not going to be a symbol of unity, but a symbol of division. I think that this debate, in spite of the bitterness and the undesirable feeling which it has aroused outside, is going to bring us nearer to that unity ; that we are advancing and we will advance, not, perhaps, as fast as some people would like, but slowly yet surely towards a better understanding of each other. But a necessary condition for that is that it should not be forced ; that we should take both sections of the people with us ; that we should not try to ride roughshod over one section of the people and regard them as peace-breakers, but we should recognize that they have their feelings just as well as the other section, and to recognize that no attempt at a national flag can be successful which does not embody both. The South African flag must embody our South African citizenship, not English-speaking only, but Dutch-speaking also. That citizenship must be something not confined to the bounds of South Africa; it must mean that we have a common citizenship not only with our South African fellow-citizens, but with the Australians, the Canadians, the New Zealanders and the people of Great Britain. I attach a very great value to that implication of our citizenship. I hold that our flag should represent that wider citizenship.

What about the Irish Free State ?

That is why I do not think that a flag merely chosen to connote our South African citizenship is going to be broad enough to meet the full requirements of the case.

Are you against the national flag ?

No; I am in favour of a national flag which shall signify and represent the whole meaning of our South African citizenship, and not merely a part of it. We say that, in our opinion, that is not enough, and that the implication of our wider citizenship should be contained in the South African flag. I do not think I can usefully add anything to this debate, and I do not think it is desirable to attempt to prolong it unnecessarily. I wanted to state as clearly as I could what was our attitude in the committee, and that it was not a party attitude, and that in the attitude we adopted we were not dictated to by party considerations, and we expressed our opinions as freely and fully as other members of the committee. The members were actuated by doing what was sound and right. I do not accept the pessimistic view of the Minister that if we abandon those lines it is going to lead to no agreement at all. I would urge him to leave the matter open, until the time of a better understanding of each other’s position and a better appreciation of each other’s feelings. I beg of the Minister not to take up the attitude that one side is right and another side is wrong, or that one particular side is fomenting trouble. I beg of him not to go forward with the obsession that he must get the flag next session, but he must get the agreement of the great majority of the people to accept the flag, so that it will not lead to other people displaying other flags merely to show that they have not adopted our national flag.

Is your suggestion that the Republican flag and the Union Jack must be wholly incorporated ?

I am not here to make any suggestion as to the design at all. I am explaining the attitude we took up, and the conditions we thought should be fulfilled.

Have you any objection to the republican flag? Which is to predominate?

We are all going to be predominant. I want to get away from these complexes, as they have been described, of inferiority and superiority, and until we get away from them we are not going to have the right nationality in South Africa. None of us is going to predominate ; unless we can accept the flag in the same spirit, I beg the Government to leave it alone, and not to advance on the line which would lead to division and disunion. I will ask them not to be ashamed of our past, not to remember it as wholly bad—not as the “century of wrong,” which we have heard about, but as something which, while it did not contain many elements of wrong and injustice, yet out of it something else has grown which will enable us to go forward without hesitation and doubt into the future—something on which our future greatness, if it is going to come, may be built. Let us not be bound by the prepossession that there is bound to be certain disunion, but that the majority of the white people will be proud to grow up under it; and, if necessary, to give their lives for it.

I think there is only one way out of this difficulty and one solution of this vexed question, and that is that each of us, those representing the Dutch-speaking section and the English-speaking section respectively, should candidly and openly speak of what is in our hearts, and what we do think is in the hearts of the section which we more particularly represent, and that we sincerely try to appreciate and understand each other’s points of view. I am sorry that the spirit shown in the flag commission, on which I had the honour to sit, has not been shown in this debate, nor outside. In the committee we tried in our debates to speak frankly and freely what we found in our hearts, and I believe the result was to bring us closer to one another. There were no recriminations in that committee—not a single one—and had it not been for the agitation outside, I am sure we would have come to an agreement. This agitation has been going on for a long while, ever since this committee was appointed. I have before me a circular sent out on the 3th of April, from Estcourt, Natal, from the Sons of England Patriotic and Benevolent Society—

This should really not have fallen into my hands, but fortunatey there are English-speaking hon. members who are fair-minded, and did not wish to hide anything from us. With regard to what was stated by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) about the insertion in the Bill of the recognition of the Union Jack, I must be very much mistaken in regard to the discussions that took place in that committee, if that is so. We had practically reached a deadlock on account of the insistence that the Union Jack should be included in the design itself, and not only members of the Opposition took that view, but we had members of the Labour party who staunchly stuck out for the Union Jack. It is no secret what the hon. member for Umbilo’s (Mr. Reyburn) feeling is for the old flag, and his knowledge of the people of Natal compelled him to say that the Union Jack should be included. If there was one man who stuck out for the flag, it was the hon. member for Umbilo. We had practically reached a deadlock, but, on my own initiative, I put it forward as a further basis of discussion that, instead of inserting the Union Jack, we give the Union Jack official recognition, to stand as a symbol of our connection with the British Commonwealth. I did this specially because the Opposition put forward this argument ; they said—

To meet that objection, we said that in this Bill we shall officially recognize the Union Jack as a symbol of our connection with the Commonwealth. After this we heard no more of that objection. I was certainly under the impression that we were making headway, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said immediately that this suggestion seemed to be a solution. During the holidays they had the opportunity of discussing it with their friends. We met again after the holidays, and then it was clear that some strong influence had been brought to bear. Yet, even after the holidays, we agreed to draw up a Bill on the lines of the Bill which is now before us. Sir Charles Smith, a member of the committee himself, said—

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), who had stuck out for the Union Jack, said—

It is not the number of days the flag will be officially flown, but the main point is that it receives official recognition, and every Britisher, when he flies the Union Jack in South Africa, will know it to be an official flag of the Union. If we have this national flag and at the same time we recognize the Union Jack, that would, to my mind, have allayed a considerable amount of feeling of the Dutch-speaking people towards the Union Jack. I remember plainly—if I am wrong, I hope to be corrected by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), because we do not want misrepresentation—that I put the question to him—

He said—

I asked—

He said he was not definitely opposed to it. We drew up the Bill, and, on meeting again, members of the Opposition, much to our surprise, took up a determined stand and said—

May I make a personal explanation ? I can only say I am astonished at what the hon. member has said, because the hon. member must know that at the very beginning of the proceedings in this committee it was laid down and accepted that no use was to be made of any argument or statement made in that committee, outside the committee. I have no reason to hide anything. What I said then I am prepared to stand by now, but I do take exception to this breach of what was an understanding in that committee. I ask the Minister if that was not so ? But my attitude towards this suggestion put forward by the hon. member, as he says, was never that I accepted it as a solution, but welcomed it as a line which we could explore to see if we could not along that line get out of the deadlock, and for that reason I said I should like to take a longer time to think over it and consult with my friends as to what they thought the effect of it would be, and I came to the conclusion honestly, uninfluenced by any ideas of political advantage that it would not be accepted.

I accept that, but I do not think there was an honourable understanding in that regard. While the committee was sitting, it was understood that we would not refer to these things outside. I am only replying to a statement made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that what we have here was never looked upon as a compromise by the committee. I personally have been very sorry all along that the hon. member for Standerton, who now tells us that this was the most important Bill of the session, did not come on to that committee himself. If he thought it necessary to have a member of Dutch extraction on that committee, why did he not come on ? I have no personal objection to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I do not wish to cast any aspersion, but I prefer to deal with a man direct and not with a man behind a bush. If the hon. member for Standerton had been on the committee, we could have considered the matter face to face and known where we were. He seems to have been better informed of what took place in the committee than we ourselves. Even now we hear everywhere from the Opposition and also in the English press, which has been conducting this campaign, that they agree that we should have a South African flag. It is also advertised that there will be a big demonstration in the City Hall to-night, and that a resolution will be passed that the principle of having a South African flag is accepted but that it must have the Union Jack included. That was also clearly stated this morning by the hon. member for Standerton. That is the view taken up by the members of the Opposition. It very much reminds me of the old story of the man who said he approved of the principle that Providence should guide him in his choice of a wife, but he always made this stipulation—

If hon. members of the Opposition had said at the start that there was no way out of the difficulty and that we must have the Union Jack, we would have known where we were. We clearly indicated from the very outset that it was a practical impossibility to have the Union Jack incorporated. We want it to be understood by the Opposition and the English-speaking section of our people, that what we did in this attempt was honestly and sincerely to stretch out our hand to the British section of this people. Members on the opposite side may laugh, but this is a sincere attempt of the Dutch-speaking people to stretch out the hand of fellowship and goodwill to the English-speaking section, and to say: Let us have a common symbol of union that will obliterate all the past. What was the result ? Instead of accepting this hand of fellowship and goodwill, they not only rudely brushed away our hand, but also flung most insolently the Union Jack into our face, and that is why the Dutch-speaking people feel very sore about it. There is only one way of cementing union in this country, and that is by trying to eliminate that bitterness of the past and assist one another in a policy of goodwill. I think the man of peace is the one who extends his hand to the other one, and not the one who brushes it aside. What was the compromise ? First of all, it was stated that we should wait; the time was not yet ripe for a South African flag. I can quite understand members of the British section, who have their Union Jack, being satisfied with the British flag, but I know there is still a large amount of British fair-play in the country, and I appeal to that. Is it fair to say to a very large portion of the people of this country, Wait—that large portion that has all these years been yearning for a symbol of national expression. It is like a man who has had a good supper saying to a half-famished man—

That is what hon. members on the other side are doing in saying, “Wait.” If we are not to wait, we must have a compromise, and the compromise put forward by the members of the committee on the other side was that we should have a flag that included the Union Jack. Here also let me appeal to fair play. We always hear of British fair play, and I do believe there is such a thing, although there may not be too much of it in this House, and I appeal to British fair play outside this House. Is this a fair compromise; your Union Jack and your Vierkleur or other republican colours on one flag ?

Why not?

I am sure the members of the committee did not think it was a fair compromise. If it is to be fair, the sacrifice on both sides must be equal. What impression does the Vierkleur or the old republican colours make on the British section ? I know that in Natal they refer to—

but even the most moderate section of the British people may not have much feeling of respect for these colours, but they certainly do not impress them in the same way as the Union Jack does on the other section. How does the Union Jack really impress a large section, especially those of Dutch extraction, but not only those—also English-speaking people? There is Mr. Stewart Franklin in the Free State, for instance. He is a staunch South African party man. I started by saying we must appreciate one another’s point of view. How can we possibly love a flag which speaks to us in the way in which the Union Jack speaks to us? There is one mistake English-speaking people are making on the other side. We object to the Union Jack and they say this is another expression of racialism. They think it is anti-British. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply because the Union Jack does not stand to us for the best and noblest in the British nation ; because we have learnt to know the Union Jack, not in the way in which we learnt to know the noblest things in the British nation. In the past we have learnt to know it as a symbol of that terribly mad policy of Imperialism. I know the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) does not agree. I appreciate his point of view, but I am trying to let you understand what the Union Jack represents to us. The flag that—

that Campbell referred to, was not the Union Jack. It was written in the year 1800, before the Union Jack was adopted. The Union Jack stands to us and also to me, as a Free Stater, not as a symbol of all that is best in the British nation, but as a symbol of—

It may be a thousand pities that it is so, but it is a fact. I am sure what I am saying here almost half the population of this country will endorse. Practically all the Dutch-speaking people will endorse that the Union Jack appeals to us in that way. I do not want to delve into the graves of the past, or to rake up all the bitterness of bygone days. That is why we come forward with a new flag altogether. Whenever I see the Union Jack—it is indelibly impressed on my mind and I cannot get away from it—it reminds me of many occasions when I saw it in the Anglo-Boer war, and I do not want to see it. I have always tried not to look at it. I cannot look at it. During that war I was only a little boy, but I was with my mother and sisters in the concentration camp. Can I possibly get away from the fact that indelibly impressed itself on my mind when I saw the Union Jack waving victoriously over the sobbing of women and children ? It is a thousand pities to dig into these things of the past, and we ask the English-speaking people to meet us and say: Let us have a flag that does not remind of the bitterness of the past. How on earth can I love a flag—and what does a flag mean if I do not love it—if there is something in that flag that reminds me of the bitter experiencees of the past ?

What happened since then ?

I am glad of that question, because it strengthens the impression that the Union Jack as known to us does not represent the best in the British nation. In 1906, after the British people had realized that the Union Jack had become a symbol of wrong as the result of that policy of imperialism into which your Milners and your Chamberlains had befooled and beguiled the British nation, the whole British nation practically voted Liberal. There may be a little heat developed in this debate—I am very, very sorry. We want to see each other’s points and we shall never agree unless the British section realize what the Union Jack stands for to the Dutch people. The suggested national flag is not a republican flag ; it has four colours simply because we have four provinces. Again and again we have said we are willing to accept any design which the British section may propose, from the southern cross to the springbok on the veld. We give them the whole choir of heaven and furniture of earth to choose from if only they would eliminate that symbol of bitterness. We are even willing to leave it to the British section to bring forward a design, if they will only leave out that symbol of bitterneess. I know there are many Britishers in this country who fully appreciate our point of view. I was at the City Hall the other night when we did not have those Sons of England who are ashamed to call themselves sons of South Africa, but we did have many sons of England who have become true sons of South Africa. It impressed me very much when a Britisher asked at that meeting—

It is not a partisan or a republican flag that we want but a South African flag. We have to calculate on facts. I appeal in the name of the Dutch-speaking people, and especially of the younger section, I appeal to Britishers on the other side to try and see our point of view and to try to come to an agreement to eliminate all that bitterness, but we certainly don’t want a national flag to remind us of the bitterness of the past. I hope we shall soon see that there is a great deal of commonsense and fair play amongst the Britishers in this country.

I deeply regret that the former speaker did not confine himself to the honourable understanding which was come to by the members of the select committee. As the Minister knows, we agreed to publish nothing that took place there. No minutes were taken of the proceedings. The Minister made the proposal himself, and it was agreed that everything that took place there should remain within the walls of the place of meeting. I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) came here this afternoon and revealed certain statements by different members of the committee. The hon. member spoke of certain statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and the hon. senator, Sir Charles Smith. Let me say that I know nothing about the statements. It was further stated that we, as South African party, put representatives on to the committee to pass the dual flag. Let me say that the dual flag was discussed twice by the committee. The hon. member for Winburg and the Minister know that on the first occasion I was not in Cape Town, owing to unavoidable circumstances, so that I could not attend the meeting. The Minister knows the reason for my absence. When I returned, my two colleagues, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. senator Sir Charles Smith, came and told me what the proposal was with reference to the dual flag. I now want to come to the statement that outside influence was brought to bear on us. The three of us met and discussed the proposal, and we unanimously decided that it would be inacceptable as a solution of a national flag question. Then we went to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Will the Minister state that he did not discuss a matter of such great importance with the Cabinet? Were there no difficulties and variances in the Cabinet ? Did he not go from the meeting and discuss with the Prime Minister what had taken place? Does he think that a matter of so great importance rests only on the shoulders of the three representatives of each party ? I am not ashamed to say that we consulted the leader of our party, and our other leaders, but when the three of us went and said what we had decided about the dual flag, the hon. member for Standerton and the other leaders of our party agreed with us. There was no persuasion of the members of the committee. I knew that it would be a difficult and delicate matter, but I went on the committee and took part in the flag discussion, because my object in the first place was to serve my Fatherland for the highest and best interests of the country and the people, and in the second place to assist the Government in finding a solution to obtain a national flag which would be acceptable to the whole white population of South Africa—I must also say which would be acceptable to the other part of the population, because there are other people who also feel strongly about the matter. I felt from the commencement that unless we in the committee could come to an agreement in connection with the adoption of a certain symbol which would be acceptable for the whole white South Africa, then it would be impossible in this House to get a Bill passed by all sides establishing a symbol. That was the reason why I made my services—however weak—available. If possible, I wanted to assist the Minister to find a solution. The Minister acknowledged in the report that a good spirit prevailed during the discussions, a tolerant and conceding spirit. Now he comes in the House, after he has put his signature to the report and has praised the members of the committee, and makes a bitter and provocative attack on the S.A.P. members of the committee, although our only endeavour was to find a solution. I ask the Minister whether he has acted fairly towards me and the other representatives of the S.A. party? I had private interviews with the Minister, but I will not follow his example and that of the hon. member for Winburg by divulging what took place there, because I should regard that as a breach of faith. I do not now wish to state what took place privately between the hon. Minister and myself. He knows that I did my best, and he knows that I told him what the feeling in my own heart was with reference to the matter. I do not intend to follow the example to-day of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), because I condemn the discussion of what took place in the committee. The Minister said in his speech that we were under the influence, and inspired with a spirit, of jingoism, that the old Unionist spirit controlled us, that the Sons of England were leading us ; in other words, that patriotism, love of the Fatherland, was only to be found on the side of the Government. But what do the Government benches consist of ? By whom is the Government kept in office? By socialists, people who only live for materialism, who have no high ideals, who stand for only one class, not only in South Africa, but throughout the whole world, who stand for international socialism. Let me tell the Minister that we on this side of the House do not stand down in self-sacrifice for South Africa to the Nationalist party. We have people of both races sitting here who have put everything at stake, who have made every sacrifice in the interests of South Africa. And this is what we get. In the solution of this thorny, delicate subject, we are told that we are dictated to by the Sons of England. The Minister has made accusations against us, but, in connection with the statement on the opposite side that this is a Bill of most important concern and of great and urgent necessity, I only want to ask—

Why does the Minister run away from his Bill which contains such holy ideals of the people of South Africa? Why is the Minister running away ? The other day he challenged us and said that an election we should see the Sons of South Africa standing on the side of the Government, and the Sons of England on our side. I want to ask the Minister if he is afraid of the Sons of England? The Minister states here to-day that next year he is going to put the Bill through on the same principles. Why, then, cannot it be done now, if the principles are to remain the same? What is behind it? Is the Minister afraid of the Sons of England? Is he afraid of the feelings of the English-speaking population ? Why does he not force the Bill through? Here he stands to-day and reproaches us. I say, with every respect, that the Minister has confused this delicate and tender matter, and now that it is a state of chaos the Government is trying to throw the blame on our shoulders. Did the newspapers which supported this side while the matter was under discussion in committee take part in it, or arouse feeling about this delicate question ? Only after the report became known, after our decision to make it public, did the public begin to move, and letters appeared in the press and meetings of protest were started, and the public and the press announced that the flag did not represent a portion of the people. Anyone who has adequate knowledge of human nature knows what deep-seated feeling is raised when there is a question about the flag. It is not a matter of stirring up, but it concerns ideals, traditions. I do not wish to praise myself, but I say there is no one in the House to whom I need defer as regards the deep sentiment in my soul of desiring to have a national flag as the symbol of national existence, the status within the commonwealth of nations. I long deeply for that, but I also feel that unless we can agree, unless our flag is mutually acceptable to the whole population, then it is better not to force the matter through now. It has been said by hon. members opposite that the English-speaking people will make no concession. We have a peculiar history, an extraordinary history, and the difficulty is that we are only a few years separated from that important period in our history. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) spoke about the second war of independence. He is touching deep strings in my temperament when he speaks of that, but I want to say this, that after the second war of independence, we had only a few years ago the great world war in which South Africa also had to take part. The English-speaking part of the population, both materially and in the blood of its sons, sacrificed everything in the world war, thus they still live in the full memory of that war. Is it then to be wondered at that deep-seated strings are touched in the breast of English speaking people with reference to this flag in which its sons lie shrouded in graves overseas, and in east and west Africa? Is it then to be wondered at that deep-seated feelings are awakened when the flag is excluded from the flag of South Africa ? This is a delicate matter, and if we want to solve the matter in a statesmanlike way, then we shall not allow it to be done by a majority in this House, as the Minister now intends doing. Take, on the other hand, the flags of the old republics. It is said that those flags are dead. Constitutionally, yes, but I think we are dishonouring the history, worthiness and steadfastness of our people when we want to shut them out from history, as regards our national flag. The traditions aroused by the vierkleur of the Transvaal and the flag of the Free State will long live in the hearts of the Dutch-speaking Afrikanders and our prosperity. That is the tradition which we should like to go with us in our history. When we look back on our history, then we come to our entry into the Union of South Africa. We unified there and said—

Our leaders, English-and Dutch-speaking, met there and laid the foundation-stone of “hereeniging” between the two white races in South Africa. Whatever my feeling may be with reference to the history of our country before Union—in connection with the Anglo-Boer war—I can say that I am proud of the past, of the history of my people before Union. Since the commencement of the Union we have, however, turned over a new page in the history of South Africa. It is impossible to have everything perfect, but here there is a chance of improving things. I admit that the former Republican flags in a certain constitutional sense are subordinate to the Union Jack, but in sentiment, love and respect they shand just as high and honoured in the thoughts of the Dutch-speaking portion of the population as the Union Jack on the side of the English-speaking population. As we cannot get a perfect solution, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. He knows what the feeling is in South Africa. He knows the history and traditions of the two parts of the population, perhaps, better than I do. I admit that it is impossible to get a perfect instrument as symbol and as the complete conception of the traditions of the two people. I agree that we should have a symbol to give expression to the national feeling, but I ask the Prime Minister whether we cannot get something better than what is now proposed in the Bill? It has always been, and still is, the aim of the South African party to establish that symbol. At the congresses of the South African party, resolutions were taken with that object, and there was a discussion of it. It is asked why effect was not sooner given to it. The Prime Minister knows that there were difficulties for years on end, because on account of certain political consequences in South Africa, it was impossible to go forward and settle on a national flag. As we have, however, reached a status of political devolopment and of National consciousness, it is necessary now. I think that the Prime Minister feels that the Minister of Defence does not represent the English part of the population of South Africa. Let the Minister of Defence make the speech he made here this afternoon in English centres. Then he will see how he is received. Let him go to the meeting to-night in Cape Town.

It is a ticket affair.

I make an appeal to the Prime Minister and ask him in all seriousness not to carry out the policy as here laid down by the Minister of the Interior. If that is done, then there will be an apple of discord in South Africa, about which he and I, as Dutch-speaking Afrikanders, will be bitterly sorry for in the future. The Prime Minister assisted us in building up a United South Africa, and he was one of the fathers of the Union. At the National Convention the two sections of the people came together and said—

For the future they would work together for the true welfare of South Africa. In conclusion, I make an appeal to the prime Minister to try and find a solution on peaceable lines, because there is no other way along which the salvation of South Africa can be found. In the joint committee I spoke in the same strain as I have done this afternoon. I accept the insult and blame which is thrown on me by the Minister of the Interior, and I will bear it if I was the cause that the matter of the flag ended in failure in the committee. I am willing to bear the responsibility, not only with my constituents, but with the people of South Africa. The Ministers of the Interior and of Defence will also have to give account to the people of South Africa for the attitude they have taken up. I am not ashamed of my action as a member of the committee, but I am willing to justify it to the people of South Africa and to the part of the people to which I am attached by blood and traditions.

I must say that the previous speaker has taken up a peculiar attitude. He said just now that if we wanted to proceed with the Bill, then we ought rather to complete it now, but shortly afterwards he turned round and appealed to me to use all my powers to prevent its going any further. There is one point in his appeal I want to answer at once, and it is necessary that I should act immediately in connection with the appeal made to me. The hon. member asks if it would not be better to take a subordinate place. I do not know whether the hon. member intended specially to refer to the flag. I wish at once to say that. I will never assist my hon. friends in that. I wish to say that I certainly will never permit that we, or the country, or the people, or a portion of the people should take up a place under another portion. And to prevent that it should happen any further, it has —as my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, showed this morning—become so urgently necessary for the Union to have its own Hag. I am one of the old republicans who, in 1902, had to surrender their flag, and I must say that everyone who left Vereeniging went away with the feelings so well represented by Senator Reitz in his poem at the time, a poem which later and still to-day hangs on the walls of thousands of households. I read a few lines of the poem taken from an English newspaper. That is the spirit in which we took leave of the old flags at Vereeniging. That is the spirit in which everyone of us still carries them about in our hearts, but they lie buried “consecrated to the past.” Now I ask, was there a difference all this time between the Dutch-speaking and the English-speaking people in South Africa ? While the English-speaking had their Union Jack, what did we have? What did I and my fellow republicans have, what have I to-day, what have they to-day? The Union Jack? I have not the least feeling against the Union Jack. I bear just as little feeling against it as any other flag, whether the tricolor of Holland or the Stars and Stripes. But the Union Jack—let us look facts in the face—the Union Jack means nothing more to me than that when I see it I say—

But I say the same when I see the Stars and Stripes, or even when I look at the flag of little Holland. The feeling, on the other hand, which inspires me and that I read in them is nothing more than the feeling of recognition of a great people, nothing more than the reading of the history of a people entitled to its flag, but in which I have no share. The Union Jack stands for Great Britain ; that is the flag of Great Britain, the flag of the subjects of Great Britain, and if the subjects say that they attach great value to it, and that they appreciate it very highly, then I say that I can understand that very well. From what I have felt and what I still feel to-day towards the flag of that small country—the Free State— which no longer exists, I can well understand what the feelings of those subjects are. But now I ask my friends not to forget that since 1902 I have had no flag. Let us look facts straight in the face. The Union Jack is actually the flag under which I stand. It is, indeed, the flag under which I enjoy my citizenship and can enjoy it, but if it is said that it is my flag then I say—

In the proper patriotic sense of the word, it can never be my flag. That is the case with thousands. Let us not be hypocritical, but acknowledge frankly that of the Dutch-speaking people who vote for hon. members of the Opposition there are not 10 per cent, who feel differently from me on this point. It is a fact. When Union came everyone of us felt that we ought necessarily to have a flag which would not only be a flag for the English-speaking in South Africa, but also for the English and Dutch-speaking in South Africa. The hon, member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the leader of the Opposition, does he not have that feeling? He was one of the first to acknowledge it and to say from the public platform that we must have, a national flag for South Africa. Hardly had Union come about when he did that. Thereafter the South African party passed a resolution that we should have a flag. Women and men of the Dutch-speaking population stood actually as one in favour of it that we should have our own national flag in South Africa. That was all an admission that the Union Jack was not our flag, and could not be our flag. But circumstances prevented effect being given to that. What is, however, the result of that condition of things ? Every time there is a difference about great problems—yes, sometimes it need not even concern great problems—the English-speaking in South Africa go and shelter themselves under the shadow of the Union Jack and call out only one thing—

On that basis we can never become a people. It is impossible that in that way we can ever hope to obtain that unity of spirit which is so absolutely necessary for a people to be filled with if we want to have unity. That cannot be, and yet while on the opposite side in eloquent speeches such as that of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) to which we have listened, a plea is made for us to become one people, we all the time maintain the great and weighty means which has always been used as an instrument to divide our people into two. It is time that an end came to that and therefore I say that we can no longer go on as in the past attaching the interests of the country and the people to something by which it may be ruined. The danger is too great to leave it to mere chance. I want to call the attention of my English-speaking friends to the fact that they want co-operation with the Empire. Now I say that we can get that in the best way—yes in the only way—by allowing the Dutch-speaking Afrikanders to feel that they are not merely a people banished, outside the bounds of a common nationality. That is what they feel and that is the result of the position in which they have been since 1902, and it will be so as long as that condition continues, and if we want hearty and fervent co-operation then the removal of that condition should be one of the most essential things. I and other Dutch-speaking people belonging to the old republics feel that. Whether the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as a philosopher calls it the “inferiority complex makes no difference to me. It is a fact, and it does not matter what we call it. The fact is that I and many with me more or less strongly feel that those who represent the minority of 1902 still have that feeling continually with the floating of the Union Jack over South Africa. I can assure the hon. member for Standerton that not 5 per cent, of the Dutch-speaking Afrikanders, yes, not 1 per cent., take up the philosophic view that the hon. member to-day wanted us to take as the proper one to be held. You want me to cherish respect for the Union Jack. Let me honestly say that I just as much as anybody else on the opposite side of the House, also want everyone of the Dutch-speaking Afrikanders to have respect for the Union Jack, but then not as the flag of South Africa, but as the flag of Great Britain, as a flag of a great nation with a glorious history, but you cannot get me to have respect for a flag which you fly over me and which came there under the circumstances in which the Union Jack came. I have during the period since 1902 always tried to have no feeling whatsoever against the Union Jack, and I think I can honestly say that I have not the least feeling of enmity against that flag. Let me say again: I want that flag to he respected because I am convinced that when there is respect we in South Africa will be better able to see how much it is in our interests to work together heartily in friendship with the country whose flag it is. One will not get that respect by putting the Union Jack on the National Flag of South Africa, and I will presently say why. Before I do so let me say that this morning it was asked by the hon. members for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)—

If by that is meant that the Transvaal vierkleur, the Free State flag and the Union Jack must be on our national flag then I only want to say we cannot help feeling that the flags of the republics are dead. They have been buried and what we feel for those flags is only the feeling of sentiment, love and respect, to which we have a right as towards phases of the past Do not please ask me therefore to place a dead body alongside of a living power. I as well as others feel that that would not he honest. Then there are other people, men like the hon. members for Standerton and Yeoville who think that we can be satisfied with the Union Jack as a flag on the National Flag of South Africa, to then, by a mixing together of colours of which some belonged to the old republican flags make the people of South Africa think—

I could reply that in the colours of the flag design there are no less than two colours which the Union Jack also has. I only say what I already said this morning by an interjection to the hon. member for Standerton. If it is as hon. members opposite think that Dutch speaking South Africa must accept it, then I regard it as an insult, because it is nothing but a piece of fraud. We should have the same right to say to the English-speaking people in South Africa—

We must not trifle with the matter because it is very important. I have longed from the bottom of my heart and still long that we as parties should be unanimous about the matter. Unfortunately that does not appear to be attained. Now I want to show why we cannot be satisfied with the Union Jack, on the National Flag of South Africa. I think in any case it would be fatal now. There was a time when I actually had it under consideration, but I now say that even if I at that time had favoured it it would be fatal after what has occurred. After what has occurred one can simply have no feeling of love and sympathy towards the National Flag if the Union Jack is on it. The way in which the Sons of England have acted—let me say not all, but some of them—because I believe and trust that the large majority of them are men who are just as anxious as we are, to solve the matter—and the way in which they have been supported by certain newspapers makes this impossible. I am sorry that a newspaper of the importance of the “Cape Times” can so lower itself as to write the article which appeared in its issue of the 21st of May. I will make a few quotations from it here and there-

Yet squabbles perpetually break out between the two main parts of our European population ; and, again and again the squabble comes because a small minority of the Dutch-speaking people cannot forget the past. They cherish hatred as though it were a treasured national possession. They yearn for symbols of their momentary political predominance. To gratify their sectional passions they are willing to go to any lengths; and the more heavily they can trample upon the traditions and affections of their English-speaking fellow citizens the better they seem to be pleased. No thought of the welfare of South Africa restrains them. And rather than give any least concession to the sentiment of South Africans of British birth or descent, they have no scruple about riding roughshod over the most earnest appeals made to them by their English-speaking Labour allies.

Then the article says further—

Later it is said—

I am going to utter a word of criticism. I leave the matter there but I wish to say that in that page and in other newspapers a challenge has gone out to Dutch-speaking South Africa which Dutch-speaking South Africa dare not refuse to take up. The challenge must be accepted. I shall not allow that such expressions shall be used in future, because when we had the opportunity we did not take the necessary steps to prevent it. Now I ask the question—

It is to obtain a national flag, and what the national flag should contain is mentioned in what the Minister of the Interior has told the House, subsequently was intimated to the hon. member for Standerton and later again to the joint committee. The committee accepted that. The basis on which the national flag should be tested was as follows: Firstly that there should be a national flag ; secondly, that the national flag should be an expression of our independent South African national existence ; thirdly, that it should be an expression of our common national existence; and fourthly, that it should stand as a symbol of our acknowledged national status. There cannot be the least doubt of it that it is a sound basis on which our national flag should be judged. I am therefore not surprised that that basis is taken by the hon. member for Standerton and was approved by the joint committee. Now I want to ask how far that test has been complied with, and to give a reply to the question, I want, shortly, to go into the four points. In the first place we must have a national flag for South Africa. Is the Union Jack going to comply with that requirement. Will a flag with the Union Jack make it actually a national flag ? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that it would be an expression of a wider conception of our citizenship outside the Union, of a wider citizenship with the other dominions and England. But then I ask my hon. friend if that is what we want. Do not let us confuse our flag with the empire flag. Let the empire flag exist for anyone who wants to form part of the empire. But the South African flag stands for South Africa. In the second place the flag must be an expression of our independent South African national Existence. Now I say to my English friends—

We cannot get away from that. We must look it in the face. In the third place, the flag must give expression not only to our independent South African national existence, but also to common South African national existence. Then I ask my friends what they want me that I should have in common with them if the Union Jack was incorporated in the flag ? To them the flag has been a symbol for over 200 years, although the flag only came much later. To them the flag is a symbol, but the Dutch-speaking part of the people is no part of the people to whom that flag is a symbol. Where, therefore, is the expression of a common national existence ? The fourth requirement is that the flag should be the symbol of our agreed national status. What is our agreed national status ? Is it necessary that after what we heard in 1919 and often thereafter from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—that we were free and on an equality with Great Britain—for me to say any more about it? Now you come and want to put the flag of Great Britain on our national flag. Why ? Let me say this to my English friends ; Examine yourselves well, ask yourselves why you want that, and you will have to acknowledge that with 90 per cent, it is the hankering after, the longing after, the floating of the flag of Great Britain over the Union. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was only half-way through his speech when this began to come out. Let me say that I appreciate his speech, but he had not gone far when he let it out that the end in view was that the flag should not only stand for us, but also as a portion of something. At once the inferiority came out, and I say that we must not lose it from view. That is why we want the Union Jack not to be in the South African flag. I say that the Union Jack will get more recognition from me and my friends than it has to-day if we have our own flag. The expression of our national status is one of the requirements in the declaration approved by the hon. member for Standerton and by the committee, and the inclusion of the Union Jack in the flag is not consistent with that. I want to tell you this further, that it is our duty, both of my hon. friends opposite, as of us here, to see that the Dutch-speaking, as well as the English-speaking people concerned in this matter, attain unity as soon as possible ; but if we cannot get unity, we shall have to take the step, we shall have to undertake to get a flag, and in these circumstances the English-speaking part of the people have no more right to demand the Union Jack than others, who think that it reminds them of inferiority, have to demand that we shall have a flag without the Union Jack. That is the point, I think. The Dutch-speaking people have just as much right to demand that the Union Jack shall not be in the flag as the English-speaking have to insist that it shall he so included. And if one has just as much right as the other, I say it is the duty of the Government and of us who are in earnest about this matter to say, as it is such a great question between the two sections of the population on which they greatly differ in opinion, views and feelings, that the Government must intervene. Then it is the duty of the Government to take up and judge the matter sympathetically and impartially. But when the Government has reached the point of being able to say that this party is wrong and the other right, I say the Government is obliged to take action on the lines of those who are right. And when we, as a Government, come to Parliament and say and acknowledge that those Dutch-speaking and English-speaking people who say that it is not necessary for the Union Jack to be contained in the flag are right, then it is no more than our duty to give the necessary assistance, to give and do justice to those who are in the right. Hon. members opposite cannot blame us on any ground whatsoever. It can only be said that the English-speaking part of the population have rights which the Dutch-speaking part do not possess. If the Dutch-speaking part of the population have the same right, why, then, is there this excitement, this abuse and this suspicion of English people such as the Minister of Defence, who have not one drop less English blood in them than hon. members opposite. I have learned from more than two years’ intimate co-operation with the members of the Labour party that they are just as anxious as I and other hon. members opposite that a solution should be found in a healthy spirit which will lead to something useful to South Africa. It is not worthy to try and make political capital out of a great national matter. Let me say that I have received many telegrams, amongst others one of which I want to make special mention from the South African hair-man of the British Empire Service League, Sir William Campbell, on behalf of his society. I appreciate the telegram most highly. I will read it—

Hear, hear.

That is what I appreciate, and I hope the “Hear, bears” of hon. members opposite are a sign that they are just as prepared. It is for this reason, because I know that there are people, many here in this House, who feel like that, that I think we are much closer to each other if we can only get away a little from the political atmosphere, which puts us in hostility towards each other. Because I know that, I and my colleagues say that we should wait another year I thought, however, that I ought not to allow the opportunity to pass to at any rate honestly and frankly let my hon. friends opposite know what was going on in me, and what was going on to-day in all the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa. Dutch-speaking South Africa is not an enemy to-day of the English-speaking people. I assure the House that the Dutch-speaking people are just as anxious as the English-speaking can ever be to have a South African people, and the Dutch-speaking people will only ask—

I hope my hon. friends opposite will clearly understand that we cannot go on year after year postponing the matter, and we think that we shall be able next year to put the Bill through. As for us, I cannot say otherwise than that it is our intention to put it through, but I do not think it is desirable that we should go into the matter further now. I thought it advisable that both sides should have an opportunity of talking about the matter, and I do not think that either side has need to be ashamed of what has been said. I move—

seconded.

If it was the intention this morning to adjourn this debate, all I would say—and I say it with all earnestness— is that it was a most unfortunate thing for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to have treated the House to the speeches they have given us this forenoon and this afternoon. I regret very much the speeches of the Minister of the Interior and, perhaps, more especially the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), but I would say unhesitatingly that none of those speeches bear the serious character which the speech of the Prime Minister has borne just now, to say that if we are going to have a common flag—

The right hon. member should confine himself to the motion to adjourn the debate.

What I wanted to say in connection with that is that, at the present moment, it might be unfortunate, because one would have no opportunity of replying to a statement which the Prime Minister has made, and laid down as his policy, that if there is to be a common flag in this country— which God knows members on this side of the House are just as anxious to have as members on the other side, so long as it represents both sections of the population—it is absolutely necessary, and can only be brought into operation by absolutely overthrowing the ideals and views of the English section of the population, and of the loyal Dutch section as well ; and I say it is a pernicious doctrine that the right hon. gentleman has laid down.

The right hon. member must confine himself to the motion to adjourn the debate.

I was going to say it would be an unfortunate thing to adjourn the debate now, and I will give the reasons why. My reasons are that in the National Convention the English section of the population knew they were in a minority. They absolutely and unhesitatingly accepted the right hand of fellowship that was held out to them by their Dutch fellow colonists. They absolutely and entirely placed reliance on the assurance then given to them, by nobody more strongly than the Prime Minister himself. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the speech he made this afternoon, and the ideals he enunciated, had been enunciated at the National Convention, would it have been possible to bring about Union in this country? The Prime Minister himself was the strongest advocate of the spirit that was there enunciated, and I hold in my hand a statement signed in September, 1910, by the Prime Minister himself, in further reply to a despatch by the late Mr. Sauer in June, when he considered that a Union flag should be brought about before Union took place, and that it should be a symbol of the four provinces.

I regret I must ask the right hon, member to confine himself to the motion to adjourn the debate.

I will only say again that I think it is to be regretted that, after the opportunity that has been taken by the Prime Minister, and after the extremely important announcement he has made, he should try and prevent anybody from replying to that announcement, replying to it with the opportunity of saying that, so far as the section of the population to which he refers, is concerned, we have done our utmost, and we have not been lacking in our desire, to show that we were extremely anxious to do everything we possibly could to bring about the real union of the people. I believe in moving the adjournment of the debate, the Prime Minister makes it impossible for us to express our opinion. All I would say is this: That I hope the result of this debate will not have a tendency to further accentuate the feeling that exists in the country at present.

Stop the press.

If I could stop the “Guardian,” perhaps it would be a very good thing, and if I could have stopped some of the sentiments which have been given expression to in the House to-day, it would have been a good thing as well. I only want to say, and I feel on this occasion that I not alone speak for myself, but I express, I am perfectly certain, the sentiments of practically, the whole of the English community in this country. When I see that we have honestly desired to carry out the solemn obligations we entered into in the National Convention, and we had thought that, after 16 years, nobody would have attempted, at a period of time like this, to raise the spirit of contention in a question such as the national flag, which can only be brought about by the good faith and good fellowship of the two great white races in the country. The national flag must be the flag of both sections—

I must point out to the right hon. gentleman I have already asked him three times to confine himself to the motion.

I should like to have had the opportunity of showing that we, who are accused of racial animosity in this country, have done our best to appease that racial animosity; and if a national flag is instituted, it should be a real national flag.

I shall try to confine myself entirely to the question of the adjournment. I do think that it is very unsatisfactory to hon. members if, after [Interruption.]

That is a very low thing to do.

I had intended to address myself to the hon. gentleman who moved the motion, but as he is not in the House, I shall refuse to continue the discussion.

Motion to adjourn the debate put and agreed to ; to be resumed to-morrow.

I move—

I may be permitted to give to hon. members the latest available figures with regard to the financial results of the past year. Hon. members will remember that I stated in my budget speech that the revenue was expected to be £26,900,000, and that the expenditure was likely to be £26,400,000, after allowing for surrenders.

Are you taking the present year ?

No, of the past year. The figures I am giving are still Estimates, because they are unaudited. We know the actual receipts, although we do not know the actual surrenders. That would give us an expected surplus of £500,000, but I am glad to say that the final revenue figures for the last few days of the month are better than expected—£27,300,000—and if we accordingly leave the expenditure figures as I gave them, allowing for the same amount of surrender, we get a final surplus of £630,000. As far as these Estimates are concerned which hon. members now have before them, they will see that the total is £13,584,000, that is less than the amount of the additional estimates voted last year, but they show a net increase of £855,000 over the actual amount of loan moneys expended. Hon. members will see that we make provision for a considerable increase on votes, like, for instance, the Electricity Supply Commission, where last year we provided £1,200,000, and we are now providing the balance of the amount for the completion of our scheme, about £1,600,000, to enable the commission to complete the works they have on hand.

Which are these ?

At Cape Town, Durban, Witbank, and a small station at Sabie. We provide for the transfer of the Colenso station from the railways to the Electricity Supply Commission.

Last year.

No, we are actually doing it this year. Then we make provision for the carrying out of the policy contained in the two Bills which we had before the House this year—the Local Loans Bill and the Agricultural Credits Bill. In the one case we are voting £250,000 to enable the Public Debt Commissioners to grant loans under the Local Loans Bill to smaller municipalities, and in the other case £100,000 additional to the Land Bank, to enable them to make a start to provide the necessary funds in connection with agricultural credits. We also continue the amount for the housing scheme, leaving a small amount next year of the building programme entered into by the previous Government.

You are not going on?

No, we are afraid that we are not going on with the scheme. Hon. members will see that the Land Bank also claims a further amount in connection with the ostrich feather co-operative scheme.

What is that ?

We are providing the Land Bank with the necessary funds to enable them to control the market. The central Government has guaranteed this amount, and the Land Bank is to provide the funds for that purpose.

What are the prospects?

The industry is still depressed ; but, owing to the control methods adopted, there is at least a chance of putting them on their legs and improving the position considerably. An increased amount of over £100,000 is provided for defence standard stock. Hon. members will remember that the Minister of Defence gave the country an assurance that we would, in the event of certain eventualities, be prepared to put a certain amount of men in the field, but that he could not do that with the standard stock, and to carry out that programme it is necessary to incur this liability and increase the defence supplies in the country. Public works show an increase of £71,000 on the amount actually expended last year. If hon. members will turn to the details of that vote, they will see that very little provision is made for new works. We are trying to work off our commitments.

High time, too.

We cannot go on asking the country each year for money for works that we cannot carry out. The Minister of Public Works has agreed to that. We make practically no provision for new works. The amount is still very much larger than the Treasury would like to see, but hon. members will realize that we cannot stop development all at once. We are doing our best to bring down our loan requirements, but it has not been found possible up to the present to do so. We have still very large commitments which were running, and for some time to come we shall have to provide fairly large amounts which are required by the development of the country. To meet this proposed expenditure, we have available a balance on loan account, at 31st March, of £1,150,000. Then there are estimated loan recoveries from mining leases, bewaarplaatsen, etc., to an amount of £2,365,000; then surrenders from loan votes of last year £350,000, giving a total amount available in connection with these loan votes of £3,865,000, leaving a balance which the Treasury will have to provide by borrowing £9,719,000. That is exclusive of any sums that may be required during the year in connection with renewal of loans, and Bills that might mature during the year. The whole of this provision of £13,584,000 is interest-bearing, with the exception of public works, forestry, defence, public health, and a portion of the lands and labour votes approximately £1,200,000. Expenditure on these services, although of a capital nature, would not be interest-producing, and the expenditure of that nature which will not be interest-bearing immediately in connection with this programme will be £1,200,000 In connection with the 5 per cent, local loan which we are at present in process of raising in this country, the results so far have been eminently satisfactory. The lists opened on the 15th February, and the position on the 18th instant was: Cash subscriptions, £1,710,259; conversions of treasury bills, £1,246,060 ; conversions of 6 per cent, local stock, £5,530,321 ; conversions of Cape 5 per cent, stock, £2,500 ; giving a total for the three months of £8,480,140. The main object of this issue, as I have already indicated, is the conversion of the existing 6 per cent, local loan, which amounts to £8,990,000; so that it will be seen that we nearly have the amount required to enable us to convert the whole of that 6 per cent, loan, which will enable us to make a considerable saving in interest in future. Hon. members will know that to induce the existing holders of the 6 per cent, local stock, We are offering a premium of one per cent., and also a premium of an additional one per cent., as compensation for the loss of interest in connection with the conversion of this amount a year before the amount actually falls due. These inducements will not be available after the 1st July next, when the books close for the payment of dividends on these stocks, and any balance remaining unconverted on that date will be paid off on the 1st February, 1927. Proper notice of that will be given in the Gazette. I say this year because I trust that holders of these stocks will realize that there is no possibility of the Government extending the period during which the premiums will be available. We definitely intend to pay off any balance which may remain unconverted on the due date, so if people are desirous of participating in the inducements which we now hold out, they should make their applications for conversions. We hope that as a result of this loan, by the time the lists close, we shall have a considerable amount of new money raised in this country over and above the amounts required to convert the 6 per cent. loan. But the balance required for carrying out our loan programme, we shall have to find the money in the ordinary course. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

seconded.

I am glad my hon. friend is going to have an even better surplus than he anticipated when he delivered his budget speech. I would like to ask what he is going to do with the surplus. Is he going to transfer it to the Public Debt Commissioners ? In regard to the amount of these loan funds, it was a very general charge against the South African party, when in office, that we were spending millions in various ways, of borrowed money, and piling up the public debt.

Unproductive expenditure.

Oh, well; no more unproductive than this of my hon. friend. Surely some of this is unproductive expenditure here? Let me point out labour £175,000. Is that productive ? There is no more productive expenditure shown in these Estimates than that contained in the Estimates of the South African party Government. We do not find any change in the policy of my friend as compared with the policy of his predecessors in office in regard to this, but rather the reverse. The loan expenditure has increased during the two years the Minister has been in office. In 1924-’25 the total loan expenditure was £11,330,000; in 1925-’26 £12,729,000, and the amount of loan expenditure for next financial year is £13,584,000. Whereas the loan expenditure under the South African party Government for the seven years from 1914 to 1921 averaged £10,000,000 a year including military loan expenditure, the average loan expenditure of the present Government is £13,000,000 per annum. There is certainly no sign of a decrease. The grants are on a fairly liberal scale, they being £855,000 more than the actual expenditure last year.

We hope they will spend less.

When the Vote is passed by the House, naturally the Minister’s colleagues press for money.

The only way for the Government to spend less is for the House to vote less.

It is questionable whether it is advisable to have this large loan expenditure during fairly prosperous times. It gives rather an exaggerated idea of prosperity when such large loan expenditure is going on, and when that expenditure is cut down as trade becomes bad you make the situation worse than it otherwise would be. If it could be done it would be a sounder policy to reduce loan expenditure during times of prosperity, and it would be better to increase the expenditure when things are bad and there was a good deal of unemployment. Such a policy would tend to stabilize trade. Notwithstanding the protests hon. members opposite made when they were on this side of the House, about the increase of the national debt, it still continues to pile up. In 1924 it was £208,000,000 ; in 1925 £214,000,000; in 1926 £221,000,000 and this year—allowing for various sums which the Minister will get from bewaarplaatsen receipts and gold mining companies’ payments—it will be £231,000,000, an increase in two years of £13,200,000. It is remarkable how parties’ principles and ideas change when they get into office. The Government have abandoned all talk about keeping down expenditure and public debt, and are going on in the same way as their predecessors in office did, except that they are exaggerating the very practice they complained of.

There is a point in connection with the defence endowment vote on which it would be desirable to have some information. The Auditor-General in his report draws attention to items involving £65,000 relating to the oil tanks and naval store and workshops at Simonstown. The Auditor-General remarks—

The paragraph is headed—

but there is another side to the question, and in answer to a question which I put to the Minister of Defence some time ago I received information as to the value of the assets which have been handed over to the Union by the Imperial Government. Until then I had no idea of the magnitude of the sum involved in the gift. The value of the railway material handed over by the British Government was £200,000. Certain merchant vessels were handed over and I estimate that the value of the three vessels must be at least £100,000 ; then there were two mine sweepers and one survey sloop of the estimated value of £106,000. Then there are various other items. The British Government handed over as a free gift aircraft and stores appertaining thereto of the approximate value of £1,500,000, artillery and stores appertaining thereto of the approximate value of £1,000,000, barracks and stores appertaining thereto £10,000 ; engineer stores, £10,000; defence endowment lands, £1 000,000; defence endowment buildings £1,101,192. Against that on the other side it appears that a sum of £150,262 was paid to the Imperial Government in Maren, 1923, being principally for buildings to be used for other than defence purposes. I have taken the trouble to tot up all these items, and it appears that the value as estimated by the department concerned of the gifts received from the Imperial Government for defence purposes is £5,329,152, against which there has been paid for these buildings to the Imperial Government £150,262, which leaves a balance of £5,178,930. I suppose it was contemplated that in return for all that we would do something, and the point I am trying to elucidate is what we are doing. I find, from the Auditor-General’s report on page 31, that there were certain naval works at Simon’s Town prepared, or being prepared by the Union for the Imperial Government, and the approximate cost of these would be, oil site, oil tanks, oil supply, naval store, altogether £312,000. I suppose some of that expenditure is included in these estimates which we have got before us. I cannot myself see exactly where it is. The total estimate for 1926-’27 is £172,000, the balance to be provided later being £42,500. On page 16 there is an item—

I do not know whether that is supposed to go against this fund or whether it is not. My point is this, that I think all this information should be given in a much clearer way. I do not believe the general public have the slightest idea of the value of the gifts handed over by the Imperial Government to the Union, and I think if they had they would very probably be of the opinion, as I am, that we are not doing sufficient to make an adequate return for the value of these gilts. If you take interest at 5 per cent., the return on this amount is at least £250,000, and I cannot see that we are spending out of revenue anything like that. It is extremely difficult to make out from these figures what has already been done, and I think, therefore, we should have some enlightenment on the subject.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked me what I intend doing with the realized surplus of £630,000 or thereabouts. As I pointed out in my budget speech, I propose to ask Parliament to appropriate £250,000 of this amount towards the deficit in the Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Division Pension Fund. The balance of £380,000, or whatever it is, will be paid over to the Public Debt Commissioners in terms of the existing Act. Then the hon. member raised the point as to the way these loan expenditure estimates are increasing. I agree with the hon. member that it is a very large amount to spend. It has been so for a number of years now, and I am doing my very best to bring down this expenditure. I think we cannot go on every year as we are, spending such an amount out of loan funds. Hon. members will realize that it is impossible to cut down this expenditure all at once. We are committed to certain programmes which I took over from the previous Government, very large amounts in connection with the Electricity Supply Commission, housing, etc. I was informed by the departments that the least amount they could do with this year would be £17,500,000. The hon. member has referred to the increase of the Land Settlement Vote. We are now concentrating on land settlement under section 11, where the settler himself must contribute a certain amount. The Minister of Lands is satisfied that this is the most satisfactory form of land settlement that we can go in for, and the results are quite promising. He gets, of course, applications for three or four times the amount which we provide for, but we are not able to provide everybody who wants a farm with a farm. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) raised the question of the gifts from the Imperial Government. The hon. member knows that the matter was dealt with in an Act of Parliament at the time where a defence endowment account was established, and Parliament laid down by that Act how we are to deal with the property that was handed over. As to the other expenditure referred to by him in connection with the provision of oil fuel and naval store at Simon’s Town, that was an undertaking that the department gave at the time, I believe, when Col. Mentz was in England. We are carrying that out. We agreed to pay the cost of filling these tanks at our expense, and the British Government would then use them, and they would refill the tanks from time to time as they used the fuel. That undertaking is being carried out under Loan Vote “N ”, As far as the gift from the Imperial Government is concerned, the defence endowment property is being dealt with in terms of the Act which was passed. Any receipts arising from sales of this kind of property are being applied toward defence purposes.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I propose making a short statement giving the final figures. They are not the audited figures, but they are very nearly if not wholly correct. As hon. members will remember we anticipated a total revenue of £27,766,269 and a total expenditure of £27,093,282, leaving an estimated surplus of £672,987. I am happy to be able to give the House the final figures, which are the following. The actual revenue for the year amounted to £27,784,607 and the actual expenditure for the year was £27,011,062, giving a surplus of £773,545. This is £100,558 more than I anticipated when I made my Budget statement. What will especially please the hearts of members is the manner in which we obtained this additional surplus. The increase is due to the revenue exceeding our estimate by £18,338, and the saving on expenditure of £82,226 making a final surplus for the year of £773,545. If hon. members will now refer to the supplementary estimates laid on the Table they will fee the manner in which I propose disposing of this surplus. There is one item which is included in the supplementary estimates which is interesting. It is the amount of £24,000 for additional road motor services. I may say it is the policy of the Government to extend these road motor services all over the country, and I am glad to say these services are very well supported by the farmers and others. Hon. members will see we are asking £24,000 under this head, but that is offset by the revenue which we expect from these services, viz., £23,000, so that on these additional services we only anticipate a loss during the first year of £1,000. The next item is the amount of £250,000 to wipe out the loss of capital on the Durban elevator. The total loss will be wiped out by this amount. I am glad to say the foundations have now been completed satisfactorily and we are busy with the superstructure. An amount of £42,662 is appropriated to write off capital on the Sea Point Line. Hon. members will remember that at the time when the line was taken over in 1905 an amount of £42,662 was paid to the Tramway Company as goodwill. There is no tangible asset represented by that amount and for that reason we are now taking the opportunity to wipe off that amount. That makes a total of £292,662. I now come to the rates Equalisation Fund. It does not in any way burden the users of the railway but is a reserve fund which we create for a lean period, which I am very much afraid we are in for at the present time. Of course this period of the year is always a lean period, but the position is that our actual revenue is not keeping pace with our estimate of revenue. An amount of £450,000 is contributed to the Rates Equalisation Fund and will remain there until such time as Parliament may again vote it out of that fund. I think that gives a clear indication of the financial position. We anticipated a deficit for the current financial year of £85,781, which will now be increased by £1,000, the anticipated loss on the road motor services. I hope that through economies we may be able to close the year without a deficit.

seconded.

The Minister has had a good deal to say about the motor services. I am not against these, but I do want to warn him. The question was raised last night by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) about short services in the neighbourhood here, and he stated that a lot of merchandise is being conveyed by private motors, and so forth which is a loss to the railway, and urging the Railway Department to reduce the rates to meet the competition. My hon. friend does not seem inclined to reduce his rates, which I am not surprised about. It has been suggested that the Department should run a motor lorry say to carry goods from a store in Cape Town say to Wynberg and even as far as Simonstown. That is a business that is being done now by the merchants themselves or by carriers. The suggestion was made to me when I was in charge of the department that the department should be allowed to compete. I would never tolerate that at all. I know perfectly well what the result will be—the Railway Department will very soon cut out the smaller carrier. I have no objection —nor has anyone—to the service when they carry from some railway station to the country, as from Wynberg to Hout Bay or the reverse. That is perfectly fair and legitimate, but it would be very unfair if the railway started to compete by carrying goods by motor from Cape Town to Wynberg, because that is done by private individuals.

I think it is right that we should congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours on the motor lorry service. It is established in some of our districts and the effect is that the people could lay themselves out to get a small monthly income from eggs, cream or vegetables, which would otherwise be wasted and are now assisted to get their produce transported. In my constituency one of the motor lorry services was a success, and I hope it will so push the district that the Minister of Railways will see that it will not be long before a railway is required. I want to say that the people for a time were afraid of the institution of a motor lorry service, because they thought that if it were a success it would interfere with the extension of the railway there. Now, however, they can see that it can push the district ahead in order later to be served by the railway. On behalf of the people there I want to thank the Minister heartily for what he has already done for the constituency.

I must say that the speech of my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was a most disappointing one because he has not indicated in any way how the position is to be met.

Reduce your rates to meet it, or leave it alone.

Does the hon. member suggest that we can reduce our rates to compete ? The motor lorry owners pick and choose their traffic —they pick the best paying traffic, and leave the rest alone. They have no fixed tariff to which they work. We have. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the time has come for the House to consider legislation authorising the institution of motor services in competition with private enterprise, where private enterprise is injuring the State. Does the hon. member suggest that the State must do nothing, and be quiescent if the interests of the railway is threatened?

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything with regard to the capital and betterment estimates. If hon. members refer to page 1 of these estimates they will find that we propose to spend £7,222,168, and the different allocations are set out in the brown book. Six millions will be received from the Treasury from loan account, and the balance is made up of the amounts as set out here. When we come into Committee all the different items can be discussed.

seconded.

Are you referring the brown book to Committee ?

Yes, we are.

Motion put and agreed to.

I may just say from what I understand—unfortunately I was not in the House—that the question was raised whether here we were not adding to the schedule of native areas, and if so, the question was put by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) whether it was not one for the Government, and he asked that this question stand over. I wish to point out that this is not correct. The position is that according to section 5 of Act 23 of 1920, if a native council is to he instituted such can be done only within and over native areas, and by Act 23 of 1920 at that time only native areas known to be scheduled areas. But then the Act goes on to say that the council can only be instituted over against the scheduled native areas, or any native area set aside as such by Parliament. Now we do not ask that this shall be set aside in the same general manner as the scheduled native areas have been set aside ; in other words we don’t want those farms which are occupied by natives within the demarcated areas proclaimed scheduled native areas. For the purpose of this Act of 1920, it is necessary that it be, for the purposes of the council, declared such. I may point out that in April, 1924, before this Government came into office, an exactly similar resolution was taken by Parliament, and is to be found in the first and second reports of the select committee on Native Affairs—second report. We are asking exactly the same thing in respect of these three farms, which are farms occupied by natives within a demarcated area, and we ask this to be done in order that a council be established ; otherwise the natives would be deprived of that.

To my mind it is a legal question and I only want us to be on safe ground. It is quite possible that we may attempt to establish a council, and if the natives are not satisfied with it, and go to court, the court may declare the whole position invalid. I want to state to the Prime Minister how the position appears to me. Clause 5 of the Act of 1920 seems to me to contemplate that a native area has been set aside either under the Act of 1913 or thereafter by Parliament. When that has been done the Government can intervene and proclaim a council. Now that is what the law assumes. What we want in the present case is not exactly that. We do not want to proclaim a native area but to proclaim a native area only for the purpose of a council under Clause 5. That, unfortunately, Clause 5 does not allow. It does not allow Parliament to do a thing like that. Parliament can only declare a native area and having done that the Governor-General can declare a council area within it. Now we are following a different procedure and I raise the point simply to let the Prime Minister make quite certain, through legal advice, that we are following the right procedure. Perhaps this case is on all fours with the previous case of 1924.

But the precedent itself may be wrong.

From my experience, the natives in a number of cases do not willingly accept these councils, and they may be advised that the wrong procedure has been followed, and that the proclamation is ultra vires and we may land ourselves in trouble afterwards. I raise that point simply to make certain that we can pass this within the terms of the law. Is it proposed to pass a Bill ?

No, it is just this resolution we depend on. I am very much afraid that my right hon. friend is correct.

It would be as well to go into the matter first.

I was under the impression that we were dealing with the Bill, but we are not.

On the motion of the Prime Minister it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed :

Progress reported ; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the change which has been made this session in the Loan Estimates referred to the Committee of Supply and to indicate the procedure which will have to be followed. Hitherto the Railway and Harbour Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, known as the “brown book,” has not been referred to the Committee, but has been regarded solely as explanatory to Loan Vote A, “Railways and Harbours,” contained in the Loan Estimates of the Central Government and discussion on the items contained in the “brown book” took place on that vote, It has been felt, however, that by this procedure the Committee has not had an adequate opportunity of discussing and voting upon the allocation of the items specified in the “brown book.” This “brown book” has accordingly been referred to the Committee and the description of Loan Vote A has been altered to show that it applies only to the transfer of loan monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Railway and Harbour Fund. When the Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue have been disposed of, the Committee will discuss and vote upon the various heads in the “brown book.” hereafter the Committee will consider the “Loan Estimates” of the Central Government but discussion on Loan Vote A should be confined solely to the transfer of the amount involved to the Railway Administration and not traverse the heads of expenditure contained in the “brown book.”

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the Railway Estimates were being considered I told the Minister that my railway workers had held a public meeting and mentioned certain complaints. They appreciated what they got at the time but they have additional grievances, or at least what they regard as such. I have recommended them to try slowly to improve their condition and told them that the department cannot do everything at once. The first outstanding grievance is that the guarantee has been taken away. It is one of the chief grievances that they no longer have a guarantee of a threequarter day. I think that is a fair demand and I hope the Minister will meet them on the point. Another great concession which they insist on is the fixing of an individual working day, and that overtime should not be put into a “pool” but be calculated as overtime at one-and-a-quarter times the ordinary wage. I hope the Minister will see his way to grant that.

May I congratulate the Minister on this new form which has been adopted in the Brown Book ? We now have an opportunity of discussing all the items and voting on them. In regard to the foghorn, the Minister must understand that we have not finished with this by a long way yet. The position is, I want to put it to the Minister again, that I have been told by mariners that the frequency of the blasts is quite unnecessary. If we could have those sounds at longer intervals, after the Minister has satisfied himself that it is not possible to have some other form of warning, that would be some concession to the people. I do trust that in future nothing of the nature that I drew attention to yesterday will appear in the general manager’s report, because it is not fair to the previous Minister, and, furthermore, it is not correct. With regard to the Renewals Fund, the Minister seems to be determined not to make any change. I would draw his attention to the fact that the chief accountant is not in agreement with this, and his own departmental committee a little while ago reported against this system. They said—

We have advocated this for many years past. It is true that the Minister and his colleague on his right very strongly supported us previously in that regard. It is only now since he assumed power that he has changed his mind, but his chief accountant and the departmental committee which was appointed supported us, and I would urge the Minister to look into this matter once more.

I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice the difficulties in connection with damage done by fires caused by trains. I refer to a concrete case where along the construction line from Senekal to Marquard through the negligence of the department a fire was caused at a certain Mr. Prinsloo’s. He had about 8,000 bundles of babala grass burnt, and he sent in a claim for damages amounting to £231 15s. He sent in the claim on the 18th May, and as the inspector admitted that there was negligence on the part of the department he asked for a speedy settlement to buy new winter fodder. He waited two months, and then on the 30th July the department made the ridiculous offer of £10. He then brought it to my notice, and I immediately wrote to the department and pointed out the unreasonableness, and very soon thereafter he was offered £175, which he accepted. There are other similar cases, but I mention this one to show that if Mr. Prinsloo had not taken the trouble of coming to me and of going to see an attorney he would probably have had to be satisfied with £10, as he would have accepted any reasonable offer. It creates dissatisfaction among the farmers, when the department trifles in that way with such matters. The fact that the department without further enquiry very quickly offered £175 proves that the first offer was unreasonable. Such action makes the railway department unpopular with the population of the countryside, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to the matter.

I only wish in a very few words to support the request of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson) to the Minister on the question of working short shifts on the railway. I understand that the system of guaranteeing payment for working less than four hours a day on the basis of paying for half a day is a system in existence on the railways. The old system is in my opinion probably a more equitable one, that is paying railwaymen who work for more than four hours and less than eight hours on the basis of three-quarters of a day. I submit it would be a gracious act on the part of the Minister to make this concession to the railway men. The Minister has already made very considerable concessions, in my opinion, on the report of the Hours of Duty Committee, but this small concession would create, I believe, a good deal of content amongst the railway men. I do not believe that it would cost the Administration very much—probably about £10,000—and it is a concession that the railway men deserve. After all, a man should be paid on the basis of the amount of work he gives the Administration. I have only risen to make that point, and I hope the Minister will take our request into earnest consideration, and, if possible, grant the concession we ask for.

I should like to mention a few small matters. The first is with reference to delivery of goods, especially at inland stations. The regulations provide that the goods must be removed from the stations within a certain number of hours. When one travels by train you often see fencing material lying just outside the railway fence. The provision is that the person, I think if he lives three miles away, must take delivery of the goods at the station within twenty-four hours. It is often a large quantity and causes great inconvenience. He cannot at once remove it and has to put the goods outside the railway fence. The material is not lying on the platform or in the way at the station, but according to regulations it must be removed. I think the Minister can alter the regulations so that if a person is prepared to sign and pay for it the Railway Department would be relieved of all responsibility and he could be given more time for the removal of the goods, it lies unprotected, as it is, outside the fence, but the difficulty is that he has first to load it up and take it outside the fence, off-load it there and then come and load it up a second time. The time is too short. Farmers often live some distance from the station and do not get the notice in time. He runs the risk of having to pay a fine. I admit that the staff at the country stations are very obliging, but there is always the danger of an inspector coming along and saying that they are doing something they are not entitled to do. Then another matter. I have previously brought it to the notice of the Minister, but he then told me that he could do nothing. We know that especially along the rivers pumps are erected to pump water, and a certain kind of coal is used—anthracite coal—which cannot be used for other purposes. Now the people say that as the pumps are exclusively used for agricultural purposes they think the rates ought to be made lower. The rates are so high that the carriage sometimes amounts to more than the purchase price. I hope the Minister will be able to reduce the rates. Then some time ago I noticed the reduction of railway rates and that wool or angora hair which was pressed could be carried in smaller bales at a lower rate. The only person who benefits by that is the large farmer, who clips much wool and who can therefore buy a press. The presses are not cheap. I think the lowest costs £40.

£25.

In any case the smaller farmer cannot afford it, only the man who is strong financially and does not require to be aided so much is assisted, but not the small farmer. I want to suggest that wool which is not pressed should also be carried at the cheaper rate No. 4, and that it should be carried less 10 per cent. A few words more in connection with the facilities for second class passengers. Only the other day I heard of a case where there were seven people in one compartment, and the question was asked what was the seventh man to do? The answer was that he should do like the others, and sit down. Even six people are many. The people bring a couple of blankets with them, a food basket and suit case and then there is no room if there are six people in a compartment at bed time at night. I hope the conveniences for the second class passengers will be increased.

I should like to support the request of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw). It is true that it is very inconvenient if there are six persons in a compartment. Cannot the Minister arrange to have compartments in the third class made available for whites? It often happens that very respectable people who have not enough money to travel first class must go second and they come in contact there with people who travel second because there is no third class for them, where they properly belong. If the Minister makes third class compartments available the difficulties will be solved. Then I want to say a few words about the inconvenience which is caused by the bad train service between Piet Retief-Machadodorp-Glencoe-Vryheid on the one side and Pretoria-Lourenco Marques on the other. The trains from Glencoe arrive late at Machadodorp and there is only a small waiting room. The passengers have to go to an hotel for a few hours sleep, where they have to pay 3s. 6d. for the night. The poor people of course cannot do that. The solution is to run the train faster from Glencoe to Machadodorp, because although the scheduled time is 10 p.m. the train seldom arrives at Machadodorp before 10.30 p.m. The people have to pass the time in the inconvenient waiting room. It is very inconvenient for the poor people, because they are trying to get to the warm low veld for the winter months. On behalf of these people I ask that an alteration should be made in the train service and that a better waiting room shall be put up at Machadodorp with separate rooms for men and women. If the latter is done, then it will assist very much, because in winter it is bitterly cold there, especially for the children, when the train only arrives at 10.30 p.m. I understand that it is considered unsafe to allow the passengers to sleep in the carriages at Waterval Boven where the train stops for the night. On the other hand the hotel keepers will complain if that is permitted and say that they are being competed with. I want to ask the Minister to see that the waiting room at Waterval Boven is altered. It is not much larger than the little box which the Hansard writers sit in, and there is no separate room for men and women. The conditions on the railway are unsatisfactory as regards waiting room facilities, because as the Minister knows, Waterval Boven is only one station beyond Machadodorp. If the people may not sleep in the train, then there should be proper waiting room facilities at the two places. In this way the inconvenience as a result of the two train services will be reduced. When a passenger comes from the Carolina side he must remain over at Machadodorp to catch the train for the low veld. I have often asked the Railway Administration, and I now ask the Minister, if it is not possible to provide Carolina with a better train service. From Ermelo, which is close by, one can easily go for a week-end to Johannesburg and Pretoria, but not from Carolina. On the other hand if one arrives on Saturday at Carolina, then you cannot leave again by train until 9 o’clock on Monday night. It is therefore inconvenient for the people living or visiting there. I ask for the alteration of the train service, so that the people living there can go away for weekends, because there are many people who are able to go away for business or pleasure, but are deprived of the privilege on account of lack of railway facilities.

There are a few matters I Should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. A good deal of milk farming is done in my district and I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to reduce the railway rate. Then there is also the rate on bags. I can assure the Minister that in February last it was 2d. per bag.

The rate has been reduced.

I am glad to hear that because the rate last year was 2d. per bag. Then there is something else. When labourers apply for jobs on the railways they complain that a lot of time is wasted. There is a case of a person who applied for work on the railways in 1923 but although he received an answer he got no satisfaction. This is a general complaint and I hope the Minister will look into the matter. The people also complain that although the regulations have been altered so that the working hours have been fixed at eight or nine hours per day, some of the shunters have still to work eleven hours a day. Then they only get twelve days vacation a year. I hope the Minister will also give his attention to this.

I find last year £2,750 was spent on motor cars for the use of the railway board. Will it not be more convenient to group this item under Minister’s office and office of the Railway Board, which amounts to £13 556 The country should know pretty clearly what the Railway Board is costing. I find that last year £351 was spent on the expenses of an officer who was sent to America to investigate electrification development; who was that officer, and how was he employed since his return? I see there has been a reduction in the amount voted to schools from £500 to £250. Is it not time that this amount disappeared altogether ? There is one school at Sundays River within a quarter of a mile of a new Government school, and it seems a waste of money to duplicate education in that particular spot ; also I do not think it is fair to charge the railway funds for it. With regard to insurance, last year the Minister received in premiums £80,000, the claims against them amounted only to £12,000 and it seems that the £68,000 over and above is rather a big sum to allocate to insurance. On page 106 of the Auditor-General’s report the Minister will find that the interest on the whole about balances the premiums. Legal expenses have been reduced from £7,000 to £4,600, and I presume that is due to the disappearance of the retaining fee of a certain firm of solicitors in Johannesburg. How is the new scheme working? Apparently the Government Attorney is not paid out of railway funds at all.

If we now discuss these particular items, it may confuse the discussion which has taken place up to the present, on policy.

I would like to ask the Minister, as a matter of policy, about items 292 and 293 in the brown book—the substitution of automatic signalling for hand signalling. From the information one has had from time to time, some of these men working in the signal cabins—

Is that not a matter of administration ; which the hon. member may discuss when we come to that vote.

I thought it was a matter of policy. I am not particular where you put it.

That Vote has not been put yet.

A large amount of rolling stock is being imported this year. What is the Administration’s policy with regard to it? Much of the work should never have been sent out of the country—many of the railway shops are able to do the work. There are also a number of private engineering works which are capable of doing this work. Notwithstanding the policy of the Government to develop industries, we still find rolling stock being imported. We have a number of men, skilled in a special line of work, idle on the streets, and yet this work is being sent out of the country.

I desire to thank the Minister for the fog-horn in Green Point, near where I live. It is the most cheering thing I hear—I am lulled to sleep by it. After an exciting day in Parliament it has a most comforting sound indeed. I would like the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) to put himself in the place of a skipper trying to make port in foggy weather. If he were on the bridge I could understand the sailor language vented on the hon. member by the skipper if that fog-horn did not sound. You have to put up with such things if you live at a port, and one should be thankful indeed for the care that is being exercised for ships coming in. We have seen ships crumpled up on the beach here, causing much expenditure, and possibly even loss of life. I know that the Rt. Hon. J. X. Merriman once said that it was a mistake to have lighthouses along the coast because skippers came in shore to look for them and so wrecked their ships. I think he lived to regret his statement, and I think the hon. member will live to regret his complaint about the foghorn. I draw the Minister’s attention to the low rate of charges at the docks; in the last issue of the “Railway Magazine” he will find that the Argentine dock rates are twice as high as they are here. Then there are the whaling ships which come from Norway and pay scarcely anything. It is called a South African industry, but it is not. The Norwegians spend practically nothing here. They lie in our docks at amazingly small charges, take back oil cargoes, and are practically of no profit to us at all. If the Minister would double our dock charges, and allow a rebate of 50 per cent, on every ship that was paying a decent trade union standard rate of pay to its crew, that would be much better than weeping the crocodile tears which were wept for the seamen in the recent strike. What have we done to give them a chance of earning a fair wage, but a differential rate, by means of a rebate, would bp of practical assistance to our sailors. If other countries adopted it so much the better for everybody. Then there is the question of tug charges. Is it fair to pay the small wages that are paid to the men connected with these tugs, and to charge low rates for the service? The two tugs that put a mail steamer into the fairway only cost the shipping company £14. If it were in the hands of the shipping ring, do you think they would do it for that small charge? The rate of pay to the men is not liberal, especially in the case of the stokers. You have men working 60 and 70 hours a week for a pay that is quite incommensurate with their work, and to make up a decent amount of wage they have to work overtime. They practically work 7 days a week and see little of their homes. On the very vexed question of differentiation in rates of pay, we are now having yearly surpluses and making money, and we shall have no satisfaction in the railway service until that injustice is removed. I hope something will be done in regard to level crossings in various places. Take the crossing at Pretoria West, where so many accidents have happened. That line crosses the main artery of street traffic, and I think it is up to the railway to make it perfectly safe, as, whatever they may do in country districts, in the towns they should see that these death-traps are done away with. So far as railway rates are concerned, I would like the Minister to make a note of the charges made on lime fertilizer. I think it ought to be put on the same footing as kraal manure which is favourably treated on the railway in comparison with lime fertilizer, an equally necessary article to farmers.

I have received a letter to-day giving the decision of the Minister and the Railway Board on the tariff on cargo sugar, on which application was made for a reduction by the sugar industry. This letter states that the value of the sugar in fixing the rate is only one of the factors, and that it does not necessarily follow that sugar cannot carry the present rate. The tariff on sugar is somewhere about 100 per cent, above pre-war prices. I want to refer the Minister to the report of the Board of Trade on the sugar industry. The report, on page 69, shows that last year 66,596 tons was exported, which realized an average of £11 19s. 9d. per ton for the sugar. The cost of producing this was £16 18s. 2d. a ton, and the loss per ton of cargo sugar was £5 18s. 4d., and yet the Minister says there is no proof that the sugar cannot bear this high tariff. Here is an industry producing £5,000,000 worth a year, of which a considerable portion has to be exported, remember, at a loss, and the Minister will give no reduction whatever to that sugar which is carried over the railway line for the sole purpose of export. And a considerable amount of this sugar is taken in a raw state from the mills, to go through another more expensive course of manufacture. If the Minister would only study this question he would not need to have pointed out to him that a raw product requires a lower rate than the finished product. Why we are in difficulty about these rates, the Minister will tell us that he cannot afford it. But the real reason why these present high rates continue, which are having a tremendous adverse influence on industry, is because of the civilized labour policy of the Government.

Nonsense!

The Minister boasts that he has taken 12,000 men more on in the railway service. I do not think that is anything to boast about. He employed them at the country’s expense. He employed them at the expense of industrial development. If he were running the service with 12,000 men less, and getting the same efficiency, he would have something to boast about. The truth is we do not know what this policy costs us. We only know that it probably costs us considerably more than admitted. According to page 69 of the Auditor-General’s report, on the 9th March, 1925, the general manager sent out a circular telegram to his responsible heads, asking for their personal and considered opinion in regard to this white labour policy, and asked them to review the matter from the broadest standpoint of the State’s interest as well as that of the Administration. So all these officials are asked to be politicians. Their business is to attend to their jobs and not the State’s interests as viewed through political spectacles. The Auditor-General, in commenting on the telegram, says that the business principles required to be followed by section 127 above cannot be said to have been accentuated in that telegram. He goes on to state that most interesting replies were received, and that he would like to quote several, but that the confidential seal stands in the way. Will the Minister tell us what these confidential replies were ? It would be very interesting to know. They would probably throw a good deal of light in dark places. I would like the Minister to read what the Economic and Wage Commission says in paragraph 139 of their report. Your railway employees ; the permanent men, giving efficient service, will never get the maximum of wages and better conditions while you are employing so many people on unskilled work at a higher wage than you can employ the natives. You only have a certain amount of money to pay out on the railway, and it has to come out of the carriage on goods. My attitude is this: that those that are employed to-day on doing these menial tasks on the railway could be earning higher rates in industry if there were lower railway rates. Cheap transport undoubtedly is one of the growing needs of the whole country. Here in the sugar industry is a case in point. An industry producing at a loss. It comes to the railway authorities and asks for a reduction of railway rates, and although they are 100 per cent, above pre-war rates, they are told that they cannot have any relief at all. Railway rates are necessarily high because the policy of the Government throws the support of a large portion of the population on the railways, and goods carried cannot bear these high rates.

To follow your policy you would simply create unemployment again.

No. It would provide additional employment at civilized rates in industry, instead of at uncivilized rates on the railway. I want now to turn to another matter. The Minister is going to construct an addition to the line in Zululand from the Pongola to the Swaziland border, and this line is going to cost £60,000 or £70,000. What policy is the Minister going to pursue in the further construction, and in the plan of construction now going on in regard to the importation of immunized native labour into that district?

I should like to know what is the policy in regard to Durban Harbour, particularly the provision of two deep water berths which have been recommended for some years past. These berths are very urgently required. The shed accommodation at Durban is also very inadequate.: In Cape Town docks no goods are stored outside in the open, but it is a common occurrence to find goods placed in the open at Durban, very much to the detriment of the merchandise.

I should like to endorse what has been said with regard to the necessity of deep water berths and shed accommodation at Durban, and also the desirability of rebuilding the port offices there. With the growth of the harbour the port officials are unable to obtain a general view of the shipping in the bay, and consequently they have continually to go to the water front to ascertain where tugs and ships are instead of being able to see this from the offices, which stand far back. With regard to the civilised labour policy on the railway, it is rather unfair that the expense of carrying that policy out should fall on the railway funds. It should be chargeable against the Central Government Funds and this is recognised by the railway men themselves as a letter I have received from the Shop Stewards Committee at the Point shows. The letter, which is signed J. T. Ironside, is as follows—

I feel that the request that the Government should consider the proposal is a just one, and one worthy of their consideration.

Is it part of the Government’s policy to take about £220,000 from the Renewals Fund for the purchase of electric locomotives ? How does the Minister estimate the cost of freight on steamers to and from Australia. The freights may be manipulated so as to show a profit on the running of the ships. Is the loss on the catering in the Houses of Parliament also charged to the users of the railway ?

I would like to call attention to the rents of workmen’s cottages which were increased very considerably some time ago. In my own constituency, in the Randfontein district particularly, the cottages are rather old and have not been repaired for some considerable time, yet the rents have been raised, I think, out of all proportion. A cottage that was let to the railway employees at £5 16s. per month is now let at £7 8s. 8d., and in another case the rent has been raised from £3 10s. to £4 10s. 8d. This was not done under the regime of the present Minister. In addition there is a charge of 2s. 3d. per month for paying off the cost of installing electric light These increased charges, which came about at a time when the men could least afford it, cause very considerable difficulties in many districts. Will the Minister look into the matter?

I have received representations from a large number of settlers in Swaziland asking me to urge the desirability of making the bridge over the Pongola River available for road as well as railway traffic. The bridge at Port Shepstone carries both road and rail traffic, and no accidents have ever happened. I hope the Minister will not harden his heart on the question of railway rates on sugar, for it affects a large number of sugar planters.

It is quite evident that the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) in advocating higher charges is not aware of the extreme competition South Africa has to meet from other parts of the world. If the charges are increased ships that would come here for produce will be driven away, or will have to charge higher freights. In calculating the cost of an article all disbursements, including port charges, have to be added to the cost. To secure business against competition it is highly necessary that costs should be kept as low as possible. But for our low railway rates and dock charges on maize we should have lost the sale of thousands of tons, which would have been obtained from the Argentine instead of from South Africa. I think the policy of keeping down railway rates and port charges is in the interests of the country. I hope that the Minister will not accept the position as placed before him by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay).

It is rather unique to have certain members opposite criticizing the railway for its neglect of business principles and at the same time asking for lower rates. If the railways were conducted on a strict business basis not only would the rates for the carriage of sugar cane be increased, but other rates also. I believe that the rates of the South African Railways compare very favourably with those of the railways in other countries.

What countries ?

With Australia, with America and with New Zealand, and with all the European countries, taking into consideration the real value of currency.

What are the rates?

I am sorry that my hon. friend did not have facilities given to him, by becoming a stoker during the late Seamen’s Strike to visit other countries. The rates on the S.A.R. for the carriage of maize, coal and sugar are, I believe, lower than those of Australia, and also the working costs. The official figures in regard to working expenses per mile in Australia are: New South Wales £1,999, Victoria £1,995, South Australia £1,201, Queensland £837 and Tasmania £824, East and West £252.

What is the average per ton per mile ?

I have not got those figures, but if my hon. friend requires the information I will get it for him. I may say that the average working expenses per mile worked in Australia amount to £1,275 and in the Union £1,351. I think it is wrong on the part of hon. members who represent industries to forget business principles and ask for lower rates for those industries, at the same time demanding that the railways shall be run on business lines when dealing with all other matters. I wonder what the coal industry in Natal would say if the railways were run on business lines, or what the sugar planters in Zululand would have to say? On the one hand the hon. member asks that the railways be conducted on business lines in so far as other persons are concerned, but when their own industries are affected they ask for the most favourable rates they can secure. I think the railways in this country are, on the whole, run very successfully. There may be grievances, but taking them on the whole the railways, according to the statistics published, are conducted very satisfactorily.

I would ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to improve the conditions under which animals, especially cattle, are entrained for slaughter purposes for long distances. It is bad enough that many of our slaughter stock have to travel for days on the railway, but it is pitiable to see the suffering that these animals have to endure during the journey. I know of many cases in which animals have been killed in the trucks. I do think that something should be done towards preventing this cruelty to animals. I do not see why some system should not be introduced by which the animals can be tied up in the trucks. Failing that, perhaps a better scheme would be to have slaughter houses in some of the more remote parts of the country. Take Maclear, which is many days distant from our markets. Beef cannot arrive at its destination in anything like a decent condition from that part, and I think the best solution of the difficulty would be to have slaughter houses up there and to take the meat away in cold cars. It seems to me that that would be more economical and much more profitable from all points of view. Another point I wish to touch upon is that at Lady Grey station there is no outspan for the carriers who come down from Herschel and Basutoland to the railway. That is a position which could be easily remedied. Last year when the Railway Board visited the Herschel district the matter was placed before them, and Mr. Wilcocks, one of the members of the Board, took special note of it, and said that he would try and see whether anything could be done to meet this difficulty. The local divisional council has been approached, but so far nothing has been done, and I can assure the Minister that the people in that part of the country are suffering a grievous injustice in consequence of the lack of outspanning.

I am sorry to see that under Head No. 1, Construction of Railways, no provision has been made for the commencement of the Greytown-Riet Vlei line.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now. He is advocating a new line.

No, it is a line that has been passed. The Minister knows the important part that the wattle industry is playing in the world’s production of tanning material. The Minister knows that the Argentine has been the biggest producer, but instead of that country exporting 250,000 tons, it is becoming a diminishing quantity every year. Its real value is over £3,000,000. We must not lose that trade ; we must capture that trade. To-day we are exporting for South Africa in round figures £1,000,000 worth of wattle bark and wattle extract. It is most important that these railways should be constructed, because we pan never compete if we do not have the railways. Every acre of bark grown means 25 tons of production from that acre, and it is only the railway that can help the industry to live. It means a lot to South Africa if we can capture the world’s market in regard to tanning material. The general manager of railways, in his report, says that the most paying lines in Natal are the lines in the wattle districts. I hope the Minister will appreciate the value of this railway construction and give us some hope that these lines will be commenced.

I have often listened to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) airing his views in regard to civilised labour, and I was rather surprised to hear him taking the Government to task for having a civilised labour policy on the railways. I want to say a word on this matter. I want to refer particularly to construction work There is a great difference in the measure of success obtained by different contractors and employers who use white labour. We know there is a great difference in all fields of industry in the results obtained by different employers. I know myself there is a tendency on the part of certain contractors, not too successful in the handling of white labour, to blame white labour for that, while other contractors get 100 per cent, efficiency out of their white labour. There is the sweating contractor who is prepared to cut his price to a ridiculously low figure in order to secure the contract and then, because white labour will not be absolutely sweated he condemns white labour. White labour, if it is to be successfully applied, must be used as an ordinary economic factor, and not expected to perform unheard of things. I would like the Administration to take comparison as to what has been achieved by different contractors, and to give the preference to contractors who are making a success of the policy which the administration has initiated with very great credit to themselves. Another matter is the boundaries of districts where cost of living allowances are paid. I refer to the East Rand District 5. I do not think that these boundaries should be fixed inflexibly, so that just because men are on the other side of the boundary, their claims are not considered. I mention that in passing, and I hope the Minister, when he has more time, will give it consideration, because it is really a burning question. I think it is a thing which should be rectified, and if so, it would remove what is a real grievance with railway employees in the neighbourhood of the Witwatersrand.

I hope that hon. members will now be prepared to pass the Vote. I should like first of all to answer the various matters raised by members. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) has mentioned various points. He spoke about the removal of goods from stations, especially outside places. Let me tell him that the time for removal is longer in proportion to the distance the consignee lives from the station. I fear what the hon. member suggests, to assist people by allowing them to sign for goods and allow them to remain at the station is fraught with danger because the goods may be stolen, and although the receiver has signed the receipt ne will be inclined to blame the railways. If a grievance exists in connection with this matter it can be remedied by extending the time for removal. Those in charge at the stations have, however, the power in bona fide cases to give consideration to this matter. As regards lower rates for anthracite coal, I am sorry to say that is impossible to go into it because it cannot be determined when the coal will be used for agricultural or irrigation purposes. The experience of the past is that it is open to considerable abuse and that has actually taken place. I think the hon. member will agree that the railway rate on coal including anthracite coal is very low, and nothing further can be done in this direction As regards the matter of pressed wool I am sorry that I cannot adopt what the hon. member has suggested because it will cause greater expense. The hon. member may ask why a three-quarter pressed bale can be carried at a lower rate than an unpressed one, but the reason is that such a bale takes up less space in the truck when it is loaded. The large bales load badly and this means that a large part of the truck is taken up by the bale, which is injurious to the Railway Department because then there is a smaller "weight loaded into the trucks. The hon. member has made a plea for second class passengers. I have every sympathy with what he has said and may say there is no reason why they should be treated worse than the class in which they are travelling, and if there are any complaints I shall be glad if they are brought to my notice or that of the officials concerned. I agree that six passengers in one compartment is a large number on long distances, but when there is heavy traffic as often happens then the passengers are only to be taken on the trains, even if they have to travel seven or eight in a compartment. I agree that the position is undesirable, but there is a shortage of rolling stock. The hon. member knows that it is not our fault, but that of the last Government. The hon. member will see that we are now providing for more rolling stock, and I hope that as a result of that there will be relief in times of pressure on the railways. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) mentioned various matters in connection with waiting rooms and stations. The points have been noted and will be enquired into. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) asked for the reduction of the railway rate on milk. I can tell him that our rates on milk compare favourably with those of other countries. Then he also spoke of labourers who have to wait more than a year before they get jobs on the railway. That cannot be helped because more than 8,000 people have applied for work on the railway who cannot be given it. The railways cannot employ more labourers than they require. The hon. member can make this complaint to the Department of Labour. The matter of the shunters will be gone into. The hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Swart) mentioned the case of Mr. Prinsloo who had to wait so long in connection with damage he suffered. I will go into the matter and will see if there was any reason for the exceptionally long delay. The hon. member must, however, not forget that no claim can be paid out before there has been an enquiry and the damage valued. I cannot express an opinion about the matter before it has been investigated.

†The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) has raised this question of civilized labour. Let me point out that the contractor who uses civilized labour intelligently receives the benefit when it comes to tendering, because, as a fixed principle, we give 10 per cent, preference to contractors who use civilized labour, and under certain circumstances we go higher.

Ten per cent, on the labour?

On the contract price. As to the cost of living boundaries I will go into that if the hon. member gives me the particulars. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has raised the question of the conveyance of stock. We are at the present time running special trains when there is necessity for them, but this is a matter where farmers can largely assist the department if they would notify the department when they have a full train load. With regard to the slaughterhouses which the hon. member mentioned, he has not said at whose cost they are to be constructed. Does he suggest that the railway administration should erect them ? It is encouraging to hear the hon. member’s views in that regard.

Do you agree with him ?

I do not. It is not the business of the railway administration. As to the out-span at Lady Grey I have every sympathy with the people of Herschel and Lady Grey in their difficulties, but they should approach the local authorities and not the railway department. The hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) has raised the question of rents. There is a committee dealing with this question, and if he will give me a list I shall see that the rent committee investigates the grievances. There is a provision, I may point out, that no employee pays more than one-sixth of his salary in rent. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) has asked me about the south breakwater construction. We are making provision for £39,636, and the total cost is £173,945. The south breakwater is being extended by 300 feet, in accordance with the report of Mr. Wilson, who came here to investigate our harbours. Then the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has asked me for a combined railway and road bridge over the Pongola. If the farmers also want a road bridge they should not approach us, but the authorities concerned. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbours) Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has again raised the question of the foghorn, but I have noticed that he is not so pressing as he was yesterday.

I do not think you have the right to say that.

Then, I take it, the hon. member is still pressing it. He suggests that the blast should be at less frequent intervals. I can only give him the reply I gave him last night—it is quite impossible for the administration to remove the foghorn. The hon. member has made a rather extraordinary statement with regard to renewals, viz., that the chief accountant was in favour of the system he advocates, and that there should be a vote by Parliament from the renewals fund.

You have stated that you are acting under certain regulations. I have stated that the chief accountant when he made a recommendation had been overruled by the board, and the overruling was not in terms of the regulations.

That is subject to the decision of the board and Minister. As the hon. member knows, it is reported to Parliament by the Auditor-General, and Parliament deals with the matter. Does the hon. member suggest that the board has not the power to overrule the chief accountant?

Why do you make regulations and depart from them ?

Does the hon. member suggest that an officer could never make a mistake? If the board and the Minister alter his allocation, the Auditor-General reports it to Parliament.

That is exactly what he has done, but you never give us the opportunity to discuss the report.

Take the question of the electric engines, ordered by my predecessor: Has the hon. member not had an opportunity to raise the question on many occasions ? I have never stated that hon. members should not discuss this matter. I may say that the chief accountant agrees with the Administration that there should be no revote of the renewals expenditure. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) about rolling stock being imported, the fact is that our workshops are fully employed at the present time. The Administration has the assurance of the chief mechanical engineer that our shops will be fully employed for two years. Under these circumstances the hon. member would surely not suggest that we should not import?

Are your shops full up ?

Yes, they are working full time. In regard to local manufacturers, we are now asking for tenders in South Africa, and they can submit tenders for our requirements. I think the hon. member is a little unfair when he objects to our importing rolling stock. In regard to harbour and dock charges, if we charge a reasonable rate, as we do at present, it means that our ports are popular and we attract shipping. Ships come here to bunker and take provisions, and it is all to the interests of South Africa that our charges should be reasonable. The question of road crossings has also been raised. If the municipalities in the particular areas will come forward on a 50/50 basis we are always prepared to consider the cases on their merits. In regard to the rate on lime fertilizer that is already very low indeed. In regard to the rate on cargo sugar, that is not high. It is true that we charge the same rate on refined sugar. Is the hon. member prepared to concede that we should raise the rate on refined sugar ? He is not. Then I am afraid I cannot accede to his request. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has also dealt with the question of civilized labour. I would recommend him to the opinions held by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I am glad the hon. member for Zululand has got away from this idea that that was a majority report he was quoting from. This evening he carefully abstained from naming it the majority report. Does the hon. member think that the Government is going to follow the advice of these gentlemen simply because they are eminent gentlemen from overseas?

Why did you get them ?

We wanted their views, this Government decides the policy. I think the Commission did valuable work. The same hon. member has raised the question of immunised natives on the new Pongola line. While the Government policy does not allow the introduction of so-called immunized labour from Portuguese East Africa. I am naturally not going to introduce such labour ; but we have taken every precaution, as a railway administration, with regard to the natives we employ, and very much regret the unfortunate loss of life of many natives. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Lennox) has asked about the deep water berths at Durban. I am sorry we have not been able this year to include anything on the Loan Estimates, but Durban is not so badly off now that the Congella is being dredged. I understand that the mail boats recently had occasion to use the Congella. The shed accommodation must stand over until money is available. In regard to the question of promotion, the position is that when mere is a vacancy for promotion the general manager calls for nominations from the divisional officers, and these are considered by the staff office, and a selection is ultimately made by the general manager and submitted to the board for final approval when salary above £600 per annum. The hon. member has asked whether the cost of the 17 electric engines will be financed out of renewals fund. That will be done on the same basis as done by my predecessor. He has asked me in regard to rates of freight. We determine it on advice from London, through the High Commissioner. If we were not running our steamers, the freight on sleepers from Australia would be very much higher than at present. In regard to sleepers from New Guinea, that matter is still under consideration. In regard to the application of the hours of duty committee report, very careful consideration had been given to the two points raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, Maritzburg North, Germiston, Salt River, Beaufort West, Pretoria Central, and other hon. members. We have very carefully considered the calculation of overtime after eight hours at time-and-a.-quarter into the pool, but while we have every desire to meet hon. members on the point it has been found impossible to do that owing to the cost. We have, however, after very careful consideration agreed that the three-quarters of a day guarantee should be restored. The member for Umbilo, Maritzburg North, and other Natal hon. members have pressed very strongly for the retention of the season ticket rates for Natal members of the railway service. Since Natal came into the Union, and prior to that the Natal railway servants obtained season tickets on payment of a quarter of the ordinary fare. After consideration of the matter by the Conciliation Board the practice in future will be that all railway servants who receive £259 a year and less will pay quarter season ticket rates, and all railway servants earning £260 a year and over will pay half season ticket rates. Under the special circumstances I am prepared to agree that all men in the Natal service at the present time will continue to obtain season ticket rates at a quarter fare, but it will be a personal right only to those in the Natal service, and will not be extended to any new entrant, whether from any province by transfer or those who are admitted to the Natal system as new entrants. Natal railway servants transferred to another province will lose that privilege. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has raised several points. He has asked that one cost of running motor cars used by the board should be included under item 92. I am prepared to bring that to the notice of the board. The item of £18,600 for expenses includes the running of motor cars for the general manager and board, the cost of running the motor cars being £4,900. As to insurance premiums, the figures seem high. But it can do no harm further to strengthen the insurance fund. We have very valuable assets, and if we had one big fire or other disaster the insurance fund would be very seriously raided. The question of contribution from revenue to the insurance fund has been very closely watched, and we will continue to make such reductions as are justified. The new system in regard to the Government legal adviser works very well, I am informed. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) referred to the construction of the Greytown line. I regret it was not possible to include that in the construction programme, but there are many other lines which we have not been able to include. We cannot spend more than £1,400,000 this year on new construction. The board went very carefully into the matter and decided, after mature consideration, on the lines which have been selected. I hope the hon. member will have better luck next time, but I cannot hold out any definite hope as regards the time of construction ?

I am sorry the Minister does not appreciate any assistance that is given to him in getting his vote through. I referred yesterday to the Green Point foghorn.

I am going into that.

It has been stated by the board and the Minister on several occasions that all expenditure from the renewal fund must be definitely allocated by the chief accountant, and they said that the chief accountant very carefully scrutinized these payments. But is it not a fact that the chief accountant’s allocations are not always accepted by the Railway Board ? I want to give as an example the 78 electric locomotives for Natal which cost £927,650. Parliament at first was informed that this expenditure was to be charged to capital account. Subsequently this item was withdrawn arid the money was taken from the loan estimates, and in spite of the chief accountant’s protest half of the expenditure has been taken out of revenue funds. What position is Parliament in after voting a specific sum it is withdrawn and made payable out of the renewal funds ? The Minister simply slurs over the matter and does not think we ought to have the information. Since then there have been two additional lots of electric engines ordered. These are charged again to the depreciation fund. There is not a single member of this House, or a single person in this country, who can say exactly what the electrification of the Natal line has cost us.

Is the hon. member discussing the select committee’s report.

Every item I have mentioned here is in the Auditor General’s report.

I must leave it in the hon. member’s hands.

I think I have a right to resent that, if it is suggested to me that I am not speaking the truth. I say that every item I have quoted this evening is contained in the Auditor-General’s report.

I am really surprised at the hon. member (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He knows perfectly well that the act about which he complains was committed by my predecessor. What does he suggest I should do ? He is not blaming me for any action which I took. I say I agree with my predecessor that renewals should not be voted again through the renewal estimates. When changes are made in regard to allocations, I have said that the Auditor-General brings them to the notice of Parliament, and Parliament has the ultimate decision.

I want the regulations to be given the force of law.

I want to know from the hon. member where the regulations have been changed in the past. He cannot give me one single instance.

I have a question to ask the Minister, which, to some hon. members, may appear to be somewhat parochial, but it is a matter that affects the general travelling public as well as the whole of the users of the railway. I refer to the question of building a new railway station on the main line at Kingwilliamstown. The Minister has been there and he knows the conditions and many other Ministers have also been there. When trains approach Kingwilliamstown from either direction they have to be reversed and put backwards for a distance of about one mile. I want to know whether the Minister has made provision on these estimates for the erection of the necessary station on the main line. The difficulty which has stood in the way hitherto has now been overcome, and there is no excuse for delaying the necessary alteration any longer. The additional cost of running these extra train miles would have covered the cost of the necessary alterations many times over. I also want to support the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in regard to the construction of the turning basin in the Buffalo River. The fighting progressive port of East London is deserving of the utmost consideration from this Government. I trust that, in addition to the small amount of £200 which has been placed on the estimates for boring, the Minister will see his way to proceed with the necessary work.

I do not know why the Minister should have treated the questions I raised in the way he did. I am sure he could not have understood me property. The Minister has referred to special trains. That was not the aspect of the case which I tried to present. I tried to focuss his attention upon the cruelty, wastefulness, and general unsatisfactory character of our present method of transporting animals. With regard to the outspanning at Lady Grey, I would point out that no provision is made for outspanning. I asked the Minister whether he has given this matter consideration.

I want to raise the question of the catering department bar licence at Newcastle. I have a complaint here from a widow who runs the hotel, just opposite the railway station, that the bar is seriously competing with her trade. She says the bar is open from six to nine o’clock at night, whereas she understands the bar was intended to accommodate the travelling public opening half an hour before the arrival of passenger trains and close immediately on their departure, but instead, the bar is opened during the day and evening and thereby catches all local railway men and also the men coming from their work at the steel works. I think there is a real hardship here, and I am certain the Minister would not like to do anything that would cause hardship to a widow struggling to make a living—

In replying to the hon. member for King William’s Town (Maj. Ballantine) we have given consideration to the claims of King William’s Town, but unfortunately it has not been possible to include anything in the Estimates for this year, but when the Estimates for next year come up we shall give consideration to those claims. If the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) will give me the facts with regard to that case, I will go into it.

Amendment proposed first, by Mr. Bates.

I have the hon. member’s authority to withdraw that.

I am sorry I cannot take it. I must put the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.

Head 1, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Head 2, “Maintenance of Permanent Way,” £3,366,797.

Under the Vote I wish to tell the Minister and the Committee that Pietermaritzburg has at last got a station benefitting the importance of that railway centre, and it would be neglectful on my part were I not, on behalf of the people there, to return thanks. It is recognised that the Administration has taken the long view so far as the improvements at Pietermaritzburg station are concerned, and it would be a pity—to use a sea-faring phrase— to spoil the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar. The subway now being provided from the main platform to the island platform is, I understand, only to measure 12 feet wide. The Minister might look into the matter It has been represented to me, that in the not far distant future, it will be necessary, in view of the increasing traffic of this important centre, to considerably widen the subway, and for a matter, I understand, of another £300 or £400 this subway could be made double the width, and thus properly complete what are otherwise very fine improvements indeed.

On page 2 of Head No. 2, why is there a saving on ballast and sleepers and a large expenditure in rails and other material ?

With regard to the subway, I will go into it and see whether it is possible to meet the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Strachan). In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), it is quite common that more rails are required than sleepers. The fact of the matter is that we cannot expect to use less ballast. That is the estimate framed by the department after very careful consideration.

I would like to bring up the question of our engineering staff. I want the Minister, if possible, to give preference to our own South African engineers, who are in every way quite as competent as any others, and we have been very neglectful in the past in this respect.

Order. The hon. member is now discussing policy. The hon. member can only discuss administration now.

I am in thorough agreement with my hon. friend with regard to the desirability, where at all possible, to engage our own South Africans as engineers.

Head, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock,” £3,926,478.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the Workshops Commission. Paragraph 140 says—

Paragraph 141 says—

The hon. member appears now to be discussing policy.

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to certain figures.

What item is the hon. member referring to ?

Maintenance of rolling stock.

Steam locomotives?

On steam locomotives, where money is spent on wages, material, and indirect expenses ; the same with electric locomotives. Motor vehicles the same, coaches, stock, the same. The Workshops Commission reported on the method of expending money ;

The hon. member cannot discuss the method of expending money, that is policy.

Surely if I can show a saving I should draw attention to it. To put the matter in correct form, let me quote the figures. The estimate for maintenance on rolling stock for 1926-27 is £140,835 less than the estimate for 1925-26. There is £3,000,000 odd down to spend this year compared with £4,000,000 odd last year. I am trying to show that we are spending less this year than last year, because we are not paying the large amount in wages and overtime which we paid previously

We have accented the recommendations of the Workshops Commissions report. That was, I think, the point which the hon. member was endeavouring to make.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 4, “Running Expenses,” £4,393,834,

I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to take over the Colenso power station, and whether the Minister is making provision for an estimate for the supply of power, and if he knows the cost of the power to be supplied to the administration ?

It is expected that the Electricity Commission will take over on the 1st June of this year. I have not the figure at the moment but will supply the hon. member at a later stage with the cost.

The Minister gave us some figures in regard to train mileage. I would be glad if he would give us a comparison of the ton mileage on this item. It would be a very great help to us in understanding what these figures are.

If the hon. member will give me the particulars he Wants I shall have the officers work them out.

I refer to those comparisons you gave us the other day.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 5, “Traffic Expenses,” £4,100,812, put and agreed to.

Head 6, “Superannuation,” £503,375, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Cartage Service,” £402,256, put and agreed to.

On Head 8, “Depreciation of Permanent Way and Works and Rolling Stock,” £1,500,000,

How does the Minister arrive at the amount of £1,500,000?

For two years we have contributed £1,500,000. Before that we contributed on the very unsound basis my hon. friend had adopted. I don’t want to reopen that question, as my hon. friend had his difficulties at that time, but as I explained in my budget speech, a committee of senior officials is going into the whole question as to the correct amount we should contribute from year to year. I expect to receive the committee’s report during the recess, and to deal with the matter next year on a scientific basis.

The Minister cannot go into a question of policy now.

I am trying to enlighten the hon. member as to what our intentions are. The whole matter will be dealt with comprehensively.

How do you know that my basis was an unsound one ? I took 7 per cent, of the gross receipts, and that is also done by some railways in South America. How can you prove it is unsound? It is purely an assertion. My practice was certainly a sounder basis than the one you adopt. The amount should be increased. After all, what is a scientific basis?

What percentage does this work out at on the cost of the rolling stock? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is perfectly right. When the capital cost of rolling stock was far less than it is to-day, there were years when the vote for depreciation is more than it is now It was suggested that the amount should be £1,700,000 or £1,800,000. In the Act of Union no provision was made for a Railway Sinking Fund. Under the circumstances it was thought that a vote like this and betterment and equalization of rates votes should appear in fairly large items on the estimates for the year. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us what the capital cost of rolling stock has increased by in the last couple of years, and if this vote is in any way proportionate to the increase in the capital cost, say, within the last two years.

I gave the figures in my Budget statement. I have not got them now, but at a later stage I will give them to the hon. member. The basis of the present contribution is 2½ per cent.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 9, “Catering Service ”, £652,797,

I would like to know why you should reduce the rate for tickets which are issued for meals, etc. I see the railways are losing money on the dining cars. According to the Auditor-General’s report, the loss on the dining cars last year was £4,000. The price previously charged for meal tickets, 8s. or 8s. 6d. was very cheap, and yet you now reduce it.

We lost money, it is true, last year on the dining cars while the 8s. 6d. rate was in operation, but the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) has not got the result of the 7a. 6d. rate. I am glad to be able to assure him that, as a result of this reduction, the business has increased enormously. As a matter of fact, we cannot cope with the business at the present time, and we have new cars on order. The profit this year has been doubled.

Is that on the whole department or on the dining cars?

On the whole department. We expect it will be £12,000. I cannot now say whether there will be a profit on the dining cars.

I do not want my hon. friend to lose money on this service, but the general opinion is that the service on the dining cars is admirable. To be able to supply the public with meals at 7s. 6d., and give them a service of such a character is probably unique among the railways of the world. I would suggest to my hon. friend that if it is necessary to effect some economy the menu might be somewhat reduced.

I would like to bear testimony to the excellent way in which the dining car was run at Wembley last year and to its great popularity.

The officers who had charge of the car at Wembley deserve well of South Africa. They gave excellent service.

I just want to say in connection with this matter that I think the Minister will make much more money if the a la carte service is extended. There are often people who require something and they have to wait until the meal is over, that is, sometimes until 9 o’clock, and the consequence is that the people take nothing. I would suggest that it be notified in the compartments what things one can obtain and at what price. That will lead to more consumption and more revenue.

I shall certainly consider the suggestion. As far as I know meals are supplied a la carte, but it will possibly be a good thing to hang up particulars in the compartments.

I would like an explanation of item 141/1 New Construction Stores. Should that not come under capital expenditure ? What are these new construction stores? I take it they are new buildings. If they are new buildings why do they come in here ?

These stores are established in order to assist the employees who often work far away from towns. We have made a profit of £2,000. We supply materials and goods at very low rates.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 10, “Bookstalls and Advertising”, £172,574,

In regard to advertising, I remember we had advertising in some of the London papers, for instance “South Africa.” I would have liked to cancel that except that there was a contract running. Is the Minister still continuing them or has he cancelled them ?

I have very materially reduced the advertising in “South Africa” and some other London papers and increased it in others like “Sport” and “The Sketch.”

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 11, “Bedding Equipment of Trains,” £53,121.

Hon. members will have noted with satisfaction the fine type of young South African that the railway administration have been fortunate enough to engage to look after the bedding on the trains ; and I wish to redeem a promise I made to one of these young men while travelling home during the Easter recess. That is in regard to the desire of these men to get a distinctive uniform. It was represented to me that considerable friction arises through the men in charge of the bedding being mistaken for stewards of the dining car, leading to unpleasantness.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 12, “Grain Elevators,” £207,161,

When does the Minister expect the whole business to be completed ?

Not in time for this season, but next year.

Then I understand we are going in for further elevators—perhaps the hon. Minister can inform me?

We have no intention of doing so

There was an estimated profit of £23,780 and an estimated loss this year of £78,000. Does that include interest on capital ?

It includes the interest.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 13, “Road Motor Services,” £44,603, put and agreed to.

Head 14, “Interest on Capital,” £4,691,644, put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds,” £466,660, put and agreed to.

Head 16, “Charges in respect of Lines Leased,” £13,500, put and agreed to.

On Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure,” £120,410,

Why has the cost of living allowance at Durban gone up from £44,000 to £48,000? Is the Minister going to continue the grant to the Harbour Brigade?

Why is there this great loss on the Utrecht line?

The increase in the cost of living allowance referred to by the hon. member is due to an increase in the staff. As to the Utrecht line, we operate that on an agreement, and there is a loss due to loss of traffic.

I the light the soldiering had been done away with, as far as the Railway Department is concerned. I know my hon. friend made a tremendous fuss about it when I was in office.

That is a question which you should address to the Minister of Defence.

You pay the £1,000.

Not towards the keeping up of that regiment. We have nothing to do with defence matters. We act the part of the nice friend who contributes £1,000 to that brigade for extras.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 18, “Contribution to Betterment Fund,” £250,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 19, “Contribution to reduce deficiency in Pension and Superannuation Funds” £312,000, put and agreed to.

On Head 19/1. “Contribution towards reduction of Interest-Bearing Capital,” £250,000.

My hon. friend knows in regard to this that he is breaking the law. I am not going to object. Anything that will keep the capital account down I will support, but this £250,000 might as well be put into the Renewals Fund. It would attain the same object. There is no provision in the constitution for this contribution. We have simply to maintain the railway in good condition, make contribution to depreciation account and also to rates account.

It is advisable to have some sinking Fund.

That is why I do not take exception.

The Government were prepared to introduce a Bill to legalise this, but we submitted it to the legal adviser Mr. Matthews, who is now a judge, and the advice was definitely that the Constitution made provision for this and that no legislation was necessary.

Under what clause in the Act of Union?

I dealt with it last year. I am prepared to submit the opinion of my hon. fiend. In regard to the suggestion that it should be contributed to the Renewals Fund, I am afraid I cannot agree. Here we establish a sort of sinking fund and though we are not contributing it to the sinking fund, we are relieving the users of the railway of the amount of interest on the capital we are contributing from year to year from revenue to capital expenditure. There will be £500,000 on which the Administration is not paying interest, and if this policy is continued, that amout will increase and in future greatly relive the users of the railway.

Head put and agreed to.

I notice that £81,589 are set down as contribution to renewals fund for depreciation of harbour assets.

The provision we are making is 2.85 per cent.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 25, “Lighthouses, Beacons and Signal Stations ”, £48,090, put and agreed to.

Head 26, “Interest on Capital ”, £478,235, put and agreed to.

Head 27, “Miscellaneous Expenditure ”, £21,400, put and agreed to.

How are the Government steamships employed ?

They are being fully employed in the conveyance of sleepers from Australia and coal to the East. We have five steamers— three presented by the Imperial Government and two purchased subsequently out of savings.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 29, “Interest on Capital,” Nil, agreed to.

Head 30, “Miscellaneous Expenditure,” £600, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds to be reported without amendment.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

stated that the Committee had agreed to the Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds without amendment, and that he would bring up a report at a later date.

Progress reported: House to resume in Committee to-morrow.