I move—

For months past the subject matter of this Bill which I am introducing, and of which I now move the second reading, has been so extensively discussed throughout the country that it seems hardly possible at this stage, to lay any information before the House or to open up any point of view which is entirely new. It, therefore, seems hardly necessary for me to occupy at any length the time of the House in explaining either the principle or the various clauses of the Bill. At the same time the Bill admittedly deals with a subject which is not only in itself extremely complicated, but which necessarily involves a world where a difference of opinion is admittedly always to be expected. I refer to the world of sentiment, and the world of taste. The Bill, therefore, deals with a subject where it is easy enough for any one to arouse passion, and thereby to darken the real issue and to prejudice, in a matter like this, public judgment. Last year when this same Bill, or practically the same Bill, was discussed in this House, it was recognized on all sides that the debate which took place here was kept at a very high level. I know on this occasion that it is not too much to expect that the House as a whole, including the representatives of all parties, will show the same high sense of responsibility. The subject-matter of this Bill is going to be discussed not only in this House, but also, as it has been up till now, far beyond the precincts of this House, and that discussion, where it will take place outside the House, will not only be very largely guided by the discussions that will take place here now, but at the same time the discussions in this House will, to a very large extent, determine the tone and also very largely the intensity of the discussions outside. The more contentious clauses in this Bill have been so exclusively discussed in connection with the Bill, both in the House and outside the House, that it is almost necessary on this occasion to remind hon. gentlemen that we have here to do in the first place with a South African Nationality Bill, and that the clauses which have to deal with the definition of South African nationality really form the foundation of the other clauses of the Bill. The South African flag, in other words, is to be secured to give expression, to be the outward symbol, of the established fact of South African nationality. If it had not happened recently that a certain section in this country has drawn special attention to the nationality clauses of the Bill, because they denied the very fact that there is such a thing, or that there ought to be such a thing, as South African nationality, or, rather, if they had not called attention to the terrible disaster of having to be described as South African nationals, then the country generally, and possibly very many hon. members of this House, would have forgotten that this Bill has to do with South African nationality. Let me begin by explaining that the Bill does not propose to either create or to establish South African nationality. South African nationality, and as a matter of fact, any nationality whatever, cannot be created, and cannot be manufactured by law. A nationality is something which must be born. It is born, and has been horn in South Africa in the course, and very often through the travail, of history. Nationality in South Africa is not, and has not been created or established; it must be, and in this Bill also it is recognized, as an existing fact. For generations the life and the mental attitude and the affections of a very large section, the larger section of the population of this country —I refer more especially to those descended from the people of Holland and the people of France—their life and mental attitude and affections have been centred in South Africa. They have been proud to call themselves, not Dutchmen or Frenchmen, but Afrikanders. That has been the case to such an extent that to-day they have almost forgotten that they have ever been anything else. I do not pretend to be an expert in the interpretation of the mind of English-speaking South Africans. There are many others who are much more capable of doing that than I, but if I may venture to interpret the mind of English-speaking South Africans, then I would say and I think I will be correct in saying, that the large majority of them also have developed a distinctly South African sentiment in this country of ours they have developed that South African sentiment to a much larger extent than is recognized, to-day, or is taken on account of to-day by those newspapers which pretend to voice their feelings. It is a well known fact that English-speaking people generally in this country do not want to be, or do not want to be described to-day, as Englishmen, but in the first place, and above all, as South Africans. Therefore, I think I am quite correct in saying that while this Bill deals with South African nationality; it does not and it cannot create such nationality: we have to do with an established fact, and all the Bill can do and proposes to do is simply to define what South African nationality is. As I explained last year to the House, there are certain practical reasons why we say that the time has arrived that South African nationality shall be properly defined by law. In the first place, I wish to point out that South Africa, like most civilized countries in the world, belongs to-day to the League of Nations. In connection with the League of Nations, there has been established what is called the International Court of Justice. Every one of the members of the league has, in connection with the appointment of judges to the International Court, a certain right. They may nominate to the panel their own judge or judges, who, on occasion, can be nominated to sit in judgment when the International Court of Justice meets. Now, it so happened that one of the first countries to be selected to nominate one of the sitting members in the International Court of Justice was our sister dominion, Canada. But then Canada found out, probably at that time to her surprise, that she could not nominate a judge unless that judge could be described legally as a Canadian national, and then Canada found out that it had no law to establish or define Canadian nationality, and for that reason Canada was the first dominion to introduce a Bill, as we have here to-day, to define its own nationality. If we shall not only be a member of the League of Nations but wish to assume fully our responsibilities in connection with the International Court of Justice, then it is necessary for us, as it was necessary for Canada in the past, to pass a law for defining South African nationality. There is another practical reason which I wish to emphasize, and it is this, that passing a law, the second reading of which we are moving this afternoon, is the only way for us to avoid confusion in certain respects in connection with our own administration. I more especially refer here to our population statistics, which are made up every five years during the census. In order to find out what is the composition of the population in South Africa, the question is, as a rule, asked—

Now as South African nationality, at least in a legal sense, has been in the past, and is today, non-existent there has always been a good deal of confusion with regard to the replies that had to be given, in the official mind, and that confusion became worse confounded in the popular mind. At one time it was expected of every South African who was born and bred in South Africa, whether he belonged to the old republics or to one of the old colonies of Great Britain, that as a reply to this question he should state that his nationality was British. Now, from the South African point of view, that information is certainly of little value, because there is nothing at all to indicate a real and permanent connection between that individual and South Africa, There was nothing even to distinguish an Englishman who had been born and bred in. South Africa from any other Englishman who had been born and bred in England and had never been out of England, or Ireland or Australia or Canada. At another time, again, when the census was taken the reply was expected to be given by a South African was not his nationality in the ordinary sense of the word, but he had to give the place of his birth. Personally, I was enabled as a result of the information that was given according to the new census forms to state that I was a South African because I was born in South Africa; and filling in the census form in that way I could be proud of the fact that I was a South African. But there were others who had as much right to state that they were South African in the ordinary interpretation of the word, and they were debarred from that privilege. Let me take as an instance my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who, although he was not born in South Africa, has lived here for a longer time that I have. He had to state, according to the requirements of that form, that he was British, and there was nothing to indicate in that form that practically all his life he had identified himself with South Africa and the people of South Africa. Apart from these practical considerations, the definition of South African nationality is certainly a consequence, as I have stated, of the very fact of our own dependent nationhood. A nation, like an individual, is always a separate entity. It is distinguished from other nations, and being so distinguished from other nations, there are individuals belonging to that nation, and individuals not belonging to that nation. As long as a country is merely what I would call a geographical expression, that is to say, a territory merely, without a nation living on that territory as long as we have English and Dutch people living here this definition of nationality is not necessary, because there is not such a thing, as a matter of fact, as South African nationality. That stage when South Africa was a mere geographical expression, a territory without a distinct nation living on that territory, is, we are glad to say, long a matter of the past. We are living now in South Africa in an era where we have become a nation in the full sense of the word—a nation with a sense of its unity and its individuality—a nation with the full self-consciousness of a nation; in other words, with a soul. Having reached that stage, it certainly has become necessary that South African nationality shall be properly defined, and if it is not properly defined that will amount under present circumstances to a denial of our own nationhood; further, the definition of South African nationality has become a necessity in consequence of what we call our independent national status. Our separate nationhood is not only a fact, but recently at the Imperial Coherence it has been held that we have assumed independent nationhood, openly and publicly before the nations of the world. Our independent nationhood is not merely what it was perhaps formerly—a matter of domestic arrangement between the various parts of the British empire, but it has now become a fact that is publicly and universally recognized.

Why do you want the Bill?

I will tell the hon. gentleman why I want the Bill—because if we have such an independent status we cannot stop there. It simply means, when we have that status, that we must assume to the fullest extent our responsibilities as a free and independent nation. The first and foremost obligation when we have a free and independent nation is the obligation towards our own nationals. If our own nationals leave our shores to sojourn and settle abroad, or if they acquire interests abroad; if we are a nation which is not only independent and free, but has also got self-respect, we cannot possibly leave the care of those interests to those nations. To-day there are a large number of South Africans who have settled in Angola or the Argentine. We have our traders who are living in Mozambique and other parts of the world where we have established trade relations. We have hundreds of South African students who are studying in the universities of various civilized countries. If we have no definition of South African nationality, neither we nor those other countries nor those South Africans concerned know whether inter-nationally or not we are nationally responsible. For that reason it has become a necessity to define South African nationality. It is hardly necessary to explain the nationality clauses of the Bill—we have followed very closely the Canadian Act, which defines Canadian nationality. These clauses lay down that as South African nationals shall be considered those South Africans who have been born in the country and who have not become aliens, and who, when they have settled abroad, have not renounced their South African nationality. Further, a South African national is every British subject, or a naturalized British subject, who comes from abroad and has been living in South Africa for at least three years. He retains his South African nationality as long as he retains his domicile in the country. There is another class of South African national who is born in South Africa, who settles abroad, and who desires to retain his connection with the country of his birth. Although he has settled down in another country he can remain a South African, and his child born in that other country can also choose deliberately, when he becomes of age, to be and remain a South African national. South African nationality can be lost by anyone who leaves the country by renouncing his South African nationality, or it is automatically lost when he assumes the nationality of any other country. In regard to these matters, our Nationality Act will follow the same lines as Nationality Acts of every other country. The point was raised during the recess as to the relation of South African nationality when that is defined under this Bill to the British nationality which we defined in Act of Parliament last year. It has been represented that if anybody under this Bill should become a South African national he would thereby lose his status as a British subject. I must say a statement like this is to say the least of it surprising and amazing. It simply shows the lengths to which party partisanship and wilful distortion on occasion can go. Fortunately it also shows how cautious the public of South Africa ought to be when they read statements of this nature in the Press. The Bill itself on that particular point is as clear as daylight. No one can be of South African nationality without at the same time being a British subject—the one presupposes the other. Not every British subject, it is true, is of South African nationality. There may be British subjects living here for less than three years, and there are British subjects in Canada and Australia and New Zealand. Not every British subject is a South African national. But the Bill makes it quite clear that every South African national is, and must be, a British subject. South African nationality is merely a smaller circle within a larger one. I am aware that there is in the country to-day a section under a very high-sounding name who object not only to the clauses of the Bill which deal with the question of a South African national flag, but also to the clauses dealing with the definition of South African nationality. These people state that they don’t want to be South Africans at all.

It is not true.

They wish to remain on South African soil and to rear their children in this country, but they wish to retain the right to repudiate and divest themselves of all connection with the spirit and even with the name of South Africa.

Incorrect.

Who are they?

The hon. gentleman comes from Natal and he ought to know. I do not take the trouble to condemn that section of people, for they stand before the country self-condemned.

Are you talking of Natal?

Not of all the people of Natal but of a section, for there is a good deal of common-sense even in Natal. I shall not declare them to be South Africans for they have no part or lot with the people of South Africa, because they have cut themselves off publicly and completely from the national life of South Africa, not only from the life of Dutch-speaking but of English-speaking South Africans. Cannot I ask if that is their real attitude what moral right have they to determine with us the destinies of South Africa? What moral right have they—as they claim to have—to dictate to the people of South Africa as to what they shall do and what they shall not do?

Tell us who they are?

If it is still a secret I will tell hon. members— it is the Empire Group. I am now coming to the more contentious clauses of the Bill—that is the part dealing with the securing of a South African national flag. I am aware that a very considerable section of the people take the view that we must never secure our own South African national flag unless there is in regard to that flag an agreement between all sections of the people both as to the principle and as to the design. (Opposition cheers). It is unnecessary for hon. members opposite to emphasize that point because I acknowledge that is their standpoint. I am trying to interpret the standpoint of hon. gentlemen opposite as correctly as I can. It is their standpoint that we must leave the matter of the South African flag alone, because they say that it causes under present circumstances merely ill-feeling and disunion. They consider that the first consideration in this country, and possibly in every country in the world, is that there shall be peace and quiet. Rather than disturb the peace and quietness of such a country—that is their attitude—it is best, if it must be, not to have a flag for the country at all. Therefore, that has been their attitude all along and it has shown itself, especially during the recess, that it is best for the Government to withdraw the Flag Bill. That opinion was voiced in this House eight days ago, when the Bill was introduced for the first time. With regard to the standpoint of hon. gentlemen on the other side, and of the section of the people who support them, I can say I do appreciate that standpoint. There is certainly a good deal to be said for it. It is not necessarily unpatriotic do take up that standpoint.

It is kind of you to say that.

Of course, if it is possible within a reasonable time to secure a flag, a national flag for the country, by agreement, then I would be the first to say let us wait and get a flag by common agreement.

It is not a reasonable time, but a reasonable Government we want.

I do not share the optimism of the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, and their supporters, whey they say—

when they say—

Leave us alone and we should agree.

The question of securing our own national flag was raised more than two years ago.

Seventeen years.

It is more than two years since the matter was first raised in the House, and a Bill was actually introduced, and two years have passed, and I am afraid we are no nearer to getting to agreement than at that time. The question of a South African flag was raised at the beginning of Union in 1910, and we have been waiting all these years to get to the position in this country when it will be possible to get this question settled by common consent.

You never said a word about it during the election.

The reason why this matter will not right itself is self-evident, A flag has always to do, admittedly it has to do, with sentiment and at the same time, when we think of the particular design to be selected, with taste.

And tradition.

And which of these can be taken separately, matters of taste and matters of sentiment? Matters of taste always find extreme difficulty in finding common consent and agreement. In the question of the selection of a flag for South Africa, we have to do, not with each separately, but with the two combined. It is a matter of sentiment and a matter of taste. We are, in South Africa, in this position that we must either find a certain measure of difference of opinion and discord or otherwise content ourselves to remain without a South African flag for ever.

You can have a flag tomorrow if you will be reasonable about it.

It has become customary in this connection to quote the example of Canada. In Canada some years ago, it was proposed by the Government to alter the existing flag of Canada and get a new Canadian flag. Presumably the idea was to get a flag in which the Union Jack was not included.

What right have you to say that?

If the Union Jack was to be included why was objection raised in Canada against that? The people of Canada are no more unreasonable than the people of South Africa, and to-day the Union Jack is included in the Canadian flag, and therefore I think I am right in saying it was the idea to have a flag without the Union Jack. A storm arose in Canada on that particular point, and the Canadian Government decided to leave the matter in abeyance.

You follow suit.

That is the whole discussion that has followed in connection with our own flag. We must not forget that Canada is not the only civilized country which, in the past, did want its own flag. There are other countries which had to settle this flag question. I am asked to name an instance. There is an instance in Europe at present. We have the case of Germany. The German Government have introduced a new flag for the German Republic, and there has been a, great deal of discontent and difference of opinion with regard to that new flag, and I think that discord in connection with the flag is to a large extent going on at present. In any case that did not prevent the German Republic from getting its own national flag.

Germany changed her form of government.

Many years ago you had exactly the same position in Norway and Sweden, when Norway and Sweden decided to get their own flag. A storm raged hot for many a year in connection with the question, but it did not deter Norway and Sweden from getting their own national flag, and a day arrived when they were satisfied.

And they were agreed on it.

Even the brilliant idea of Mrs. Ross, of Arch Street, Philadelphia, who designed the Stars and Stripes, was not accepted at once by the American nation. Perhaps the outstanding example where a flag was secured amidst strife and discord was the case of the Union Jack. The Union Jack did not descend from the skies amidst the general applause of all the people. For quite a number of years the Union Jack was flown in the United Kingdom amidst strife and discord. There were protests and violent protests against it on the part of the Scots. For quite a considerable number of years two flags were actually flown in Great Britain. To the south of the Scottish border there was the Union Jack as we know it and to the north, a flag in which the cross of St. Andrew was superimposed on the Cross of St. George. I will not say that was an example of Scottish tenacity, and Scottish self-assertion, but of Scottish self esteem. As far as Ireland is concerned—and I see an hon. gentleman on the other side who hails from Ireland—in spite of the cross of St. Patrick, the Union Jack has never been accepted in la-eland. If other countries have not waited for the day when through Common consent and agreement they could secure their own national flags, why should we expect South Africa never to make a move unless we have got that millennium condition in the country?

Because that is what the Prime Minister laid down.

It has been argued—and that was one of the main arguments used during the discussion last Monday in this House—that we must leave the flag question alone, because if we don’t then it will endanger the acceptance of our own independent national status, as that has been defined by the Imperial Conference recently. All sections, so it was stated, are to-day in this happy position that they loyally accept the declaration of the conference, but if we go on with the Flag Bill now, then that status will be questioned. Without wishing to question at this stage the facts in that statement, it was not questioned that everybody in South Africa loyally accepted the status as defined recently by the Imperial Conference—

You say at this stage?

I am going to speak in the debate again.

We understand.

Let us agree for the moment that all in South Africa accept the status as defined by the Imperial Conference. Now if that is so, I must say I have never heard a more queer and more perverse argument. Because we are free and independent, so it is argued, and because all of us in South Africa accept that new independent national status, we must have no national flag which shall be the outward symbol of that status. I say it is a sufficient reply to that argument to ask the question—let me ask it of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who used that argument—whether he knows of a single free and independent nation in the whole world without its national flag, or, to be more correct, whether he knows of a single free and independent nation in the whole-world under the flag of another free and independent nation, which stands on a footing of equality with it?

Australia. Canada, New Zealand.

All these have their own national flags.

So have we.

Even amongst the dominions of the British empire, South Africa stands alone as having no national flag.

We do not accept that.

So far from endangering the acceptance of our national flag, I think—and I think I am right in saying—that it will be fatal to the acceptance of that status if we remain without a South African flag.

Why didn’t you tell us all this at the general election?

It may be that what the right hon. gentleman had in his mind was a large section chiefly amongst his own followers, who have violently objected to the statement of the constitutional position by the Prime Minister before he went to the Imperial Conference. They objected to this statement, which was eventually confirmed by the Imperial Conference, on the ground that that freedom which the Imperial Conference declared would be, to their minds, too great a freedom. They took up that attitude of hostility to the status simply because they were still suffering from the colonial complex. When the declaration was made by the Imperial Conference, and the statements of our own Prime Minister were confirmed, that section of the people to whom I am referring accepted the new status as an accomplished fact. Now that the flag question is raised—I am still quoting the argument—there is great danger that these people who have accepted this accomplished fact may revert to their old opposition. In other words, we must leave the flag question in order to satisfy in South Africa the man with the colonial complex. Whether this is the right way of setting about this whole matter is something which I doubt very much. I would rather say that the right way to deal with that section of the people is to educate them, and the best way to educate them is by having in South Africa our own national flag. The right hon. gentleman, if he has that section of people in his mind, has forgotten there is also another man in South Africa who may, with as great difficulty, be got so far as to accept our new national status. He is the man in South Africa who has been accustomed through a long history to see in the Union Jack, which is, after all, the flag of another country—

The flag of freedom!

—who has been accustomed to see in the Union Jack the symbol of inferiority and subjection. I think nobody on the other side of the House will question what I say here that that man has been accustomed to look to the Union Jack as the symbol of inferiority and subjection, and because that man in South Africa has seen the Union Jack in that light, and still sees the Union Jack in that light, he is discontented, not, like the other man, because South Africa, to his mind, is too free, but because South Africa, to his mind, is not free enough. This last man whom I am speaking of is certainly of the two the more dangerous man, and it has been the instance of the British race to satisfy, in the course of history, that man in preference to the other; not to satisfy the man who thinks that his country is too free, but to satisfy the man who thinks that his country is not free enough. If we secure in South Africa our own national flag, then that man I am speaking of will feel that his country is free, and for that reason he will be contented. If we get our own South African flag, to the one section which, with difficulty, has accepted our new status, it will be an education, and to the other man who will, without difficulty, accept that new status, it will be a restraint, and at the same time it will make him the most contented man in this country. An appeal has been made that we drop the whole question of the flag in the name of the unity of the races. It has been represented that the English-speaking people in this country have their own sentiment, a sentiment centreing in the Union Jack, and that in the same way the Dutch-speaking people have their own sentiment centreing in the old republican flags, and the question has been asked—

and it has even been said by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) last year, in the debate—

Now when I think especially of certain newspapers, it is very strange that those who make this appeal in the name of unity of races, are the foremost to-day to call upon all English-speaking people in this country to stand together as English-speaking people and defend the Union Jack, and if they don’t do that, then they are described by these very papers as traitors to their race. But this appeal itself in the name of the unity of races based on the fact that the one has got its own sentiment and the other has got its own sentiment, is a confession that we have in this country a divided sentiment, and if there is a divided sentiment at the root of our national life it is impossible to build up a great and united nation. If that is so, if there is a divided sentiment, at the root of our national life, then the sooner we get away from that position the better. That is necessary in the real interests, faking the long view, of the unity of the races. As I stated last year in the debate, we are not raising by the introduction of this Bill the flag question. There is a flag question in the country, and what we propose to do is, as soon as possible, to get away from that flag question.

You have started the right way!

Let us for a moment think as to what the real position in South Africa is. We have got in this country two races, not only racially different, but each speaking their own language. Through an unfortunate history in the past, a gulf has been established between these two different portions of the permanent population of the country.

That was bridged at Union.

At the same time, we in South Africa were not always unified under one Government. We had different states, each with its own history, its own traditions, and two of these with their own national flag. As long as we have got this position in South Africa, if, on the one hand, English-speaking South Africa has got its own particular national flag, and Dutch-speaking South Africa has got its particular national flag, and as long as there are two of the provinces constituting the Union, having their own national flag, the flags of the past, if the right hon. gentleman opposite (Gen. Smuts) is correct in saying—

That is not the position.

We in South Africa are nation building, and because we are nation building it is necessary that we must get away as soon as possible from that position which consists in diversity of sentiment and leads to diversity of racial outlook and aspirations. If agreement had been possible within a reasonable period I personally, and I think the Government with me, would have been quite content to wait until that time of common consent arrived.

Why did you not try it?

Let me say this, that it cannot be said that we have not tried on our side to get agreement. I think there is not a single impartial man in the country who will not acknowledge that the Government has tried everything in its power to get common consent. Let me point to a few facts.

What were your terms of reference?

The Nationality and Flag Bill was first introduced into this House in 1925, two years ago. We did not proceed further than the first reading, but on his own initiative the Prime Minister approached the leader of the Opposition and represented to him the necessity of coming to a common agreement which shall be above political parties and political divisions, and for that reason he offered that if the leader of the Opposition would bind himself to the principle of a South African flag we would postpone the measure for another year. That was for the definite purpose of, if possible, reaching agreement. During the recess every step that was taken in the direction of arriving at agreement was taken after consultation with the right hon. gentleman opposite, and there was no single step to which he did not agree and in many cases the suggestions came from his side.

Did he agree to the terms of reference?

The result of this consultation during the recess was a small conference representing the three parties in the House which met and tried to thresh out the whole matter and tried to come to a selection agreeable to all. That agreement was not reached, but I think I may say here that in the standpoint in the conference taken up by myself and my colleagues we made sure that nothing should be proposed by us which had any racial or partizan colouring at all. The flag we selected was such a flag that the objection against it was not that it is racial or that it is partizan, but the great objection on the other side is that it is neutral. That showed we studiously avoided in this whole question anything that savoured at all of racialism or partizanship. But apart from that, we on our side agreed that alongside of our own South African flag the Union Jack was on occasions to be used, to stand for that very idea which makes it so dear to the hearts of hon. gentlemen opposite.

We are not children.

That is to say, it shall stand for the British connection; it shall stand for our relationship to the British community of nations.

What a concession!

And in the Bill it was provided that the flying of the Union Jack on all occasions where we think of the relationship to Great Britain and the other dominions, shall be made compulsory. Anyway, whether it was accepted or not, hon. gentlemen on the other side will agree that that certainly did not show partizanship on our side and did not show racialism. When that was not accepted, from our side in a speech made by the Prime Minister in Cape Town, another offer was made and that is, apart from the flying of the Union Jack we were willing to include in the flag the Crown, showing in the flag of South Africa itself that we were not out for secession and that we were not out for a republic. We wanted in that way to show that we were content to live in future with our fellow English-speaking South Africans under the Crown of Great Britain. When that was not accepted another similar offer was made on our side and that is the inclusion of the Royal Standard. That was also not accepted; it was ridiculed. After that the Government agreed to meet the Opposition in another way still. It was presented from platforms throughout the country that the Government was out to force a flag on an unwilling people, to force the flag down the throats of the people. To meet that argument we agreed that we would have a referendum and submit the proposals of the Government, after they had been approved of by Parliament, to the consent of the people.

Half the people.

When that was also opposed by the Opposition we were approached by a deputation representing what I shall call the organized opposition to our proposals in the country. They met the Prime Minister and myself and they made the suggestion that we should hold a conference together on this flag question and see whether it was not possible to come to an agreement. They said the objection they had against the commission which had been appointed before was that the terms of reference for that commission were restricted and they wanted unrestricted reference. The result of our conversations was that the Government agreed, and gladly agreed, to meet the organized opposition in conference in regard to this matter and agreed there should be no restricted reference to the conference. It is unnecessary for me to describe the results of this conference. It is enough to say that the leaders, the chosen leaders of the organized opposition, agreed that one of the designs which was recommended by the Government commission was in principle acceptable to them and they were willing if the conference adjourned to go to their supporters in the country and get their approval for that design or a similar design. There we have got the definite opinion of the leaders of the organized opposition that one of the designs of our own commission was a genuine friendly gesture on the part of the Government and of Dutch-speaking South Africa towards their English-speaking fellow South Africans. The next step we took to meet the opposition was to choose from among the three designs recommended to the Government by our own commission the design which was described by leaders of the organized opposition as a genuine friendly gesture, and that is the design which is incorporated in the Bill now before the House. That was the way we tried, and we tried hard on our side, to meet the opposition and to get agreement, if agreement was at all possible. What was the position of the opposition? The opposition on this question has not budged an inch, not a hair’s breadth. The standpoint they took up originally they are still taking up to-day.

And so do you.

The unrestricted reference which was asked by the leaders of the organized opposition was definitely refused. What was demanded from the Government and from this side of the House, was not to meet them by way of compromise— which we would gladly have done—but what they demanded from us was complete capitulation. Now the question is asked, and has been asked here by way of interjection this afternoon, why not pacify the opposition by the inclusion of the Union Jack in the design—

My reply to that question is that what is possible in Australia need not necessarily be possible in South Africa. Australia and New Zealand have had altogether a different history from the history that South Africa has passed through. Our opposition asks us not to disregard in choosing the design of the national flag the history of South Africa; the past history, they say, must be represented. Now we ask the same of them, to take account of South Africa’s history and not disregard it. The Union Jack in South Africa is in quite a different position from what it is in most other dominions.

It is the same in Canada.

In most of the other dominions and also in South Africa—I am gladly admitting it—the Union Jack stands for the constitutional development, because that constitutional development has been effected largely under its guidance.

Under its protection.

Under its protection—let us agree to that. It stands for constitutional evolution; it stands for that idea in Australia, in New Zealand and in Canada and it stands for that also in South Africa. But the Union Jack in South Africa in addition to that also stands for conquest, and that makes all the difference between the position of South Africa and the position of Australia and New Zealand and largely also of Canada. The position of South Africa is very similar in this respect to the position of Ireland. In Australia you never had two races standing over against each other in arms. In New Zealand Boer and Briton did not shed each other’s blood. Two races stood against each other in Ireland and shed each other’s blood there, and for that reason the Union Jack is not included in the national flag of Ireland.

You are entirely wrong.

And neither in Ireland nor in South Africa will it be possible for any government with the concurrence of the people to propose a flag in which the Union Jack is included.

You are absolutely wrong.

If the Union Jack had been included in the flag of Ireland—

Which Ireland? There are two.

—I am right in stating that disunion and dissension in that country would have continued. But Ireland was left free to choose its own flag.

Be accurate. Which Ireland?

A flag which does not remind the Irish people of the divisions of the past. [Interruptions.] And what has been the result of that freedom and good sense with regard to the choice of the Irish flag that has been displayed? The result is that the wounds of the division and the strife over a period of 700 years are being healed to-day, and Ireland at the Imperial Conference, just as South Africa, has fully accepted the status as defined by that Conference. Ireland to-day is ready and willing to be a dominion along with us, and Canada and Australia, under a common Crown. But there are some hon. gentlemen who will say—

And protection.

The hon. gentleman will say—

My reply to that is that I personally have never had the least objection to the Union Jack being an object of affection to the English-speaking people generally.

Thank you!

I could not have any objection to that, because English-speaking men in South Africa have no other flag to represent South African feeling, and therefore for that reason we could not justifiably object. We have never had any objection to the Union Jack being, and flying as, the flag of Great Britain. The objection in South Africa has always been to the Union Jack being described as the national flag of South Africa, simply because it is the flag of Great Britain, which to-day, constitutionally at least, is one of the dominions. When the Union Jack flies and signifies that, it is not an object of aversion to us and it cannot be more than the Union Jack as it flies with that significance and that will be also to the Dutch-speaking people of. South Africa what it is intended to signify, according to the provisions of the Bill. As far as Dutch-speaking South Africa is concerned, we are very thankful to the Imperial Conference for its full recognition of our status—to our own free and independent status. And there is one thing we will never forget—I speak as a Dutch-speaking South African and a Nationalist—and that is that that result has been accomplished of course through the labours and the faithfulness to principles of our own Prime Minister, but it was not accomplished and could not have been accomplished without the full and free approval and co-operation of British statesmen. We will always gratefully recognize that, and for that reason the Union Jack, according to this Bill, will fly to signify our relations with the British community of nations. It will fly not only with the consent of the English-speaking section of the people of South Africa, but also and as much with that of the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa. I shall now deal with the particular design which has been put forward in this Bill as a national flag. The standpoint which was taken up by the opposition in this House and outside was that we should have a combination of the Union Jack with the old republican flags for the flag of South Africa. It is common cause that if we should have such a South African national flag, the Union Jack and the old republican flag must be included in such a way that there shall be, as far as the representation of the different sections of the people of the country are concerned, perfect equality. Our position is, and that was expressed in the debate last year, that that in any case is not possible. The Union Jack is to signify that it is the flag; of Great Britain.

and Natal.

Yes, and the hon. gentleman sees in the Union. Jack more than that. He sees in it the symbol of empire. It is a living and an operative principle. But the Vierkleur and the old Free State flag are in quite a different position. They do not stand for Dutch nationality alone —they do not even stand for independence alone—they stand for republican independence; and republican independence in South Africa is dead. Therefore if we include in one and the same flag the Union Jack and alongside of that even on a footing of equality and you have them intact, in actual fact you have not equality at all. Apart from that it is common cause I should say if we have equality as far as inclusion of the designs are concerned, we must either have these three flags in their entirety or intact—that would be equality as far as the designs are concerned—and if we have not that we must have all these flags mutilated in the same way, and to the same extent. The idea has been expressed by the Opposition that we should have such a flag. We have waited more than a year for them to put in a concrete form that idea. So far they have failed to do so. The conference between members of the Government Flag Commission and leaders of the organized opposition did consider three such flags which were put forward by the organized opposition, and I take it that these men have done their utmost to put forward the best that they could find. The result of that was such that, as far as I know, not even a single English newspaper, though it was given the opportunity of publishing these designs, has done so, simply because that idea, when put into concrete form, shows it is an impossible idea. If we as a country adopted a flag of that nature we would make ourselves ridiculous amongst the nations of the world, and therefore the only alternative, if we wish to have a flag at all for South Africa, is that we shall have a flag in which the Union Jack and the republican flags are mutilated to the same extent. If that is done, we come back to the position taken by the Government, that we shall have a flag by compromise. The flag we put forward is such a flag, and was provisionally approved by the leaders of the organized opposition.

That is not true.

They acknowledged it was a genuine friendly gesture. The conference was assured that they could put that design before their supporters in the country, and get from them an unrestricted reference to agree to the adoption of that design or a similar design.

That is not true.

It was never accepted.

I am now coining to the particular design put forward. This design is not a mere combination of colours, but its distinctive feature is that it tries to give expression to two very definite ideas. One idea is that of racial unity —one of the English-speaking and Dutch-speaking sections of the people; and the other feature is that it gives expression to a common national ideal and a common national destiny. We have as the background of this flag, green. Now, green has been chosen because that is a colour which is found in one of the old republican flags we have in this country. It is a colour which was not imported from overseas when that flag was designed. It had its origin in South Africa., and the idea was that it should stand for a young and a growing nation.

It is also the colour of Islam.

If it is the colour of Islam I hope that all Mohammedans will vote for it at the referendum. The Dutch-speaking elements of all four provinces have laid the foundations of European civilization in South Africa. The British element came into the country later. The British element was superimposed on the civilization that already existed in the country when they came.

It is here to stay.

To represent the British element we have the St. George’s Cross. I do not think it possible to include any symbol to indicate the British element better than the St. George’s Cross.

The flag of England.

On the edges of the St. George’s Cross we have white. This edge does not belong to the St. George’s Cross—it is fimbriation. The white in itself forms the Cross on which the red cross is imposed. The fimbriation is there to separate the red from the green, and at the same time to unite the two. That very aptly represents the Union—the white cross is a colour by itself. It very aptly represents the union of the two racial elements of the country.

What about the English standard?

In this flag the most characteristic feature is the cross, a red cross upon the white cross. In the flags of the world we often have crosses, and the crosses always stand for the idea of the maintenance and the spread of Christian civilization. That has been so since the days of Constantine the Great, the first. Roman Emperor who was converted to Christianity. On the eve of a great battle in which had to be decided whether Christian civilization or barbarism were to triumph, he saw in the skids—so the legend goes—a cross, and that was to him a sign of help and of assistance from above and of victory. We find the same in the history of Denmark. When the first Danish King who accepted Christianity was on the eve of a decisive battle he also saw, as the legend goes, a cross in the skies, and that also was to him a symbol of assistance from above and victory against the forces of barbarism. From that time we have the cross on the flags of the Scandinavian people. That is also the significance of the three crosses in the Union Jack. It is always said that the Union Jack stands for righteousness, peace and justice. Let it be so. I admit it is so, but why is it so? It is not because it is the flag of England only, but right from the beginning these crosses have had their significance, and the significance is the maintenance and spread of Christian civilization, and it is Christian civilization that stands for righteousness, peace and justice. That was the idea—the maintenance and spread of Christian civilization— behind the landing in South Africa of the first white settlers of Van Riebeek and his band, and that ideal was expressed by him on the day he landed in a prayer which is still found in the archives of the Cape. That is the idea which animated the Dutch-speaking people in the Great Trek. That is the great lesson of Bleed River—Dingaan’s Day-the maintenance and spread of Christian civilization. Therefore, I say, if there is anything which is designed to bind the racial elements of this country in one common destiny and one common purpose in the country, it is that idea which is expressed by the cross on the flag. As far as the backward races are concerned, I think that nothing should appeal to them in a flag more than a symbol and guarantee of their upliftment, and their protection, than the cross. That was the idea in the minds of the designers of this flag which we have incorporated in this Bill. The flag is simple; it is constitutionally and heraldically correct. It is the best compromise between the diversity of sentiment in South Africa, and it should command the support of all moderate and responsible people in the country. As far as the referendum is concerned I quite realize that objection could be raised against that on the ground that a referendum, being like a general election, would simply prolong the struggle, and a struggle raging about a flag question may be so much the more unwise. On the other hand, there are three very good reasons why we should have a referendum. The first reason is that it finally disposes of the objection which has been raised that Parliament is going to force a certain flag on an unwilling people. By a referendum, however, the flag is submitted to the people for their approval or disapproval, and when it is finally accepted it will be finally accepted by a majority of the people. A second good reason why we should have a referendum is that, as far as it is still possible, it will lift the whole question of a South African national flag above the arena of party politics. Of course, everybody will admit that it is impossible at a general election, to get the judgment of a people with regard to a particular design or flag question, as such things, at a general election, merely form an element in the whole of the politics before the country and therefore it is impossible to get the judgment of the people on this one point only. When we lay this flag for acceptance or rejection before the people by way of referendum, then it is lifted out of the politics of other issues. In connection with this I may also say that one of the reasons the flag question is by means of a referendum, lifted out of the arena of party politics, is that the result of a referendum cannot affect the position of the Government.

Having it both ways.

Referenda never affected the position of any Government appealing in that way to the people. We have had in Australia referenda time and again. The Bruce Government lost a referendum, but it did not affect their position.

Will you go to the country on this issue?

We are going by referendum to the country on this issue, but simply because the position of the Government will not be affected by the result of the referendum, people knowing that beforehand, will vote on the merits of the case, and that is the way to lift it out of the arena of party politics. The last good reason why we must have a referendum is that we cannot expect the opposition in the country to bow merely in regard to this matter to the decision of a party Government, but if we refer this matter after the proposals of the Government have been approved of by Parliament to the people at large, then if these proposals are approved by the people the Opposition does not bow to a party Government, but they bow and will bow to the expressed will of the people.

How long have you had your party propaganda going on this matter?

Let me say, in conclusion, that the flag which we propose is decidedly not what can be described as a Jingo flag. What I mean by a Jingo flag is a flag which satisfies, on the one side or the other, the extremist. It will not satisfy the extremist on the side of the Opposition and it will not satisfy the extremist on our side—the side of the Government. The extremists on our side have been insisting on a flag in which there shall be no cross, no green, and no representation at all of anything reminding them of Great Britain or even reminding them of the English-speaking element in the country. We are not going to satisfy those extremists, and we are not going to satisfy any extremist in the country. Our hope is not in the extremists but in the moderate people in the country. I appeal this year, as I did last, to the large body of moderate people in this country, Dutch and English-speaking. I realize that we require a measure of sacrifice. Thinking of the deep-rooted feelings in the hearts of many we do require in many a case a big sacrifice. But we have a right to ask that, to ask all the people to support us in spite of sacrifices, and however much they love the old Vierkleur or the Union Jack, we have the right to require from every South African that he shall love South Africa more than anything else, and because as a South African he loves South Africa more he shall be willing to accept the flag which does not satisfy the extremists, but which, because it is a flag of compromise it is a flag which will, at any rate, be the common flag of all sections of the people.

In the time provided by the rules of the House I shall not attempt to follow my hon. friend in his discourse which lasted one hour and fifty minutes. We are deeply thankful to the hon. Minister for his kindness in suggesting that they will have no objection to the Union Jack floating over Great Britain in the future. That is a concession for which we are very deeply grateful. I would like to say to my hon. friend that he has been rather wrong in the picture he has drawn of the Canadian constitutional position. In his reference to the nationality clauses of the Bill, to which I shall not refer at any great length, they will be referred to by other members, he has rather been a little astray in his position of Canada in regard to the nationality question. If he followed the discussions of the League of Nations, he found in September, 1926, Sir George Forster, the senior representative of Canada at the League of Nations, made a statement which has not been since contradicted in which he said—

That showed unmistakably the status of Canada. My hon. friend has said, so far as South Africa is concerned, it will be necessary in the future, when the South African nationality clauses of the Bill go through, for subjects of South Africa to have the protection of South Africa when they find themselves in a foreign country. I would like to say to the Minister, is he serious? Does he really believe that the citizens of this country finding themselves in China, or Russia, or other parts of the world, where dissensions are taking place, that the Union of South Africa would be able to protect him by invoking the rights of citizenship in South Africa? Would my hon. friend the Minister, or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, sail forward with the Union fleet to demand protection for the rights and privileges of the citizens of South Africa?

Is that the only way to protect your citizens?

My hon. friend asks if that is the only way to protect our citizenship. History has shown us the protection of this country and of every country within the bonds of the British empire has solely and entirely depended upon the navy and its command of the sea for which we contribute so very little.

Force is your only measure, apparently.

Knowing the character of the statements made by the hon. gentlemen, and made in the country, might I say at once, to prevent misunderstanding which has been so industriously spread through the country, that members on this side of the House are opposed to a national flag, is entirely false? I am glad to see the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) in his place. We are and have always been in favour of a national flag, but a flag which combines within its folds the symbols and traditions of both the two great white races of this country, of which neither in their past, has cause to be ashamed. We are absolutely opposed to what I might ascribe as an abortion of a flag, arranged for in this Bill, which, advisedly or not, is an outrage to the sentiments of a large section of the people of this country, who claim that their sentiments and their traditions should be respected and considered, and that in choosing a national emblem for the country, they demand their right to be equally represented, and insist that such an emblem should maintain an unmistakable token of our association, notwithstanding our autonomous status, as an integral portion of the British empire, on which the whole future and prosperity of this country depend. Never, owing to the feelings which have been aroused by the high-handed action of the Minister of the Interior and his extremist friends, was a more unsuitable time to force a measure of this sort through the House. Surely the Prime Minister cannot be aware of the anxiety which exists throughout the country. If my hon. friend will look at the galleries of this House, if my hon. friend the Prime Minister will look at the galleries of this House and their crowded character, he will realize that never has there been an exhibition of such anxiety to attend a debate as on this particular occasion, and he will realize that why the galleries are so full is owing to the deep anxiety which has existed in connection with this unfortunate question which has been forced on the House and the country. Might I, in connection with this matter, refer to the unfortunate utterances which have appeared in the report of the delegation of the Flag Commission appointed by my hon. friend, to which he has referred in his speech, though, strange as it may seem, I will use one of the statements appearing in that unfortunate statement, and others, no less important, delivered not so very long ago by the hon. the Minister for the Interior, and I will refer to these statements in support of the contention I desire to lay before the House, as to the unsuitability of a time of this sort, of bringing forward a flag such as is contained in the Bill of the Minister of the Interior. In the course of the reply which was made by the delegation representing the Flag Commission, which went to Johannesburg to discuss with the Flag Committee this very burning question, the following paragraph occurred—

Could anything more strongly point to the necessity of including in the national flag these symbols and traditions to which that portion of the memorandum which I have mentioned refers? The hon. the Minister of the Interior, at a meeting he had a short time ago in the Koffiehuis, stated that in looking into the future of the people, they always had to look into its past. Quite true, but in looking into the future of a people like the people of South Africa, you have not to look into the past of one section of the people, but into the past of both sections of the people, and combine them in the general community of the nation you are desirous of building up. Then the hon. gentleman, unfortunately, went on to say that there were people who had lived for 40 or 50 years in South Africa, and were not yet Afrikanders, because they had divided their love between South Africa and the country of their birth. Well, I have lived between 40 and 50 years in this country, and I consider, in a country in which my children have been born, that I am as much attached to this country as the hon. the Minister for Justice, and that I have just as much right to say I am a true South African, although I have not forgotten the attachment, which I think nobody could expect me to forget, to the land of my birth, but that does not prevent me being equally true to the land of my adoption. Then the hon. member wonders that we are alarmed. I read, with the greatest regret, a speech by a Rev. Dr. van der Merwe at Stellenbosch last Friday. Surely it cannot be the speech of the hon. the member for Winburg, though they bear the selfsame name—

among other things, said this Rev. Dr. van der Merwe—

The Rev. Dr. van der Merwe, whoever he was, when he made that statement, must have known it was untrue. Then the same reverend gentleman went on to say that if these people, meaning the English, who opposed the Flag Bill were irreconcilable, then the Dutch people would have nothing else to do than to get the Union Jack out of South Africa if the referendum went against them. Who authorized this reverend gentleman, if that gentleman was the hon. member for Winburg, to speak in the name of the Dutch people of South Africa? His memory must have been very defective. Has he forgotten the number of his Dutch fellow-countrymen who fought and died in the great war under the Union Jack to preserve the liberties of this country, and whose memories are enshrined in the national memorial at Delville Wood? When an hon. members says, I believe it was the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe)—

I ask are statements of that sort not sufficient to cause us considerable alarm as to what is behind those extremists who are supporting my hon. friend in putting a measure of this sort through the House? I would say to the hon. member for Winburg—

Ditto.

I would ask the Prime Minister, what is the necessity for pressing a question of this character when, as he must know, the air is heavy with unrest and suspicion? No doubt on the return of the Prime Minister from the Imperial Conference it was his intention to drop the Bill. Judging by the character of the speeches that the Prime Minister made in Cape Town and Pretoria, everybody had got the impression that he was determined to do all that within him lay to get rid of the old troubles and racial differences that divided us in the past. Did the Prime Minister not say at that dinner in Cape Town, I think it was at the Mount Nelson Hotel—

If we are “all tired of these squabbles,” am I not justified in appealing to the Prime Minister at a time like this not to raise a question which is going to renew these squabbles in the most bitter manner possible after they had been allowed to sink since 1910. I challenge the Prime Minister to deny that when he returned from the Imperial Conference, when he discussed the question with certain members of his Cabinet, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice were at one with him in agreeing to drop the Flag Bill for the time being. Yet, at the same time, while the Prime Minister was speaking about avoiding these squabbles at the dinner at the Mount Nelson Hotel, the Minister of the Interior, without any authority from the Prime Minister, was addressing a meeting in Cape Town, I believe at the Koffiehuis, where he was pledging the Government to go forward, no matter what the consequences were, and to push this Flag Bill through the House at the ensuing session.

That was already decided last year.

The Prime Minister, in reply to a telegram that he got from Durban, said that the Cabinet had not as vet come to any decision on the Flag Bill, previous to which the hon. gentleman, knowing the thoughts that were running through his mind, with the impressions he brought back from the Imperial Conference, was determined to force his hand, and press this Bill upon the country. What a glorious opportunity the Prime Minister had then! Nothing surprised me more upon my return from Australia than to find, after the character of the speeches of the Prime Minister in Cape Town and Pretoria, that there were large numbers of people, who previously had been his greatest opponents, prepared to do everything they possibly could to forget the past and support him in what they thought the new course upon which he was going to embark. What a glorious opportunity for the Prime Minister, not alone to have spoken the word, but to have shown by actions and deeds that he would not allow himself to be overruled my hon. friend and the extremists of his Cabinet. Has the Prime Minister forgotten 1910, when he also made most impressive speeches, in one of which, when the question of flags was raised, he said that, owing to the magnanimity of the British Government in handing back free institutions to the two late republics—

That is justice, not magnanimity.

The hon. gentleman seems to be getting rather alarmed. I am not going to be put off by the interruptions of any hon. Labour member in this House. What evil influences were brought to bear to cause the Prime Minister to change his first laudable intention when he arrived here?

May I tell you that I never sent that wire you referred to?

You can tell me afterwards. I do ask the Prime Minister—he said he would tell me afterwards—what were the reasons that caused him to depart from his first laudable intention?

I did not say I would tell you later. I said may I tell you that I never sent the wire to which you referred.

I never said the Prime Minister sent the wire. Your secretary on your instructions sent the wire. Does the hon. gentleman deny that?

Nothing of the kind.

Does the Prime Minister deny that his private secretary would have consulted him before he sent a wire of that character? I do ask the Prime Minister what were the reasons. May I ask him further, upon that assurance given to the Prime Minister by the Minister of Defence and his Labour colleagues in the Cabinet that the opposition to this Flag Bill was entirely a party matter, and that so far as the country was concerned it had no real existence of any sort whatever, did the Prime Minister pause to consider what were the reasons that actuated the Minister of Defence and his colleagues in making such representations to the Prime Minister? I am not going into the reasons. I think the reasons are perfectly apparent to everybody, but does the Prime Minister at the present time in his position of awful responsibility not realize the rumblings of discontent which are going throughout the length and breadth of the country? A flag must be a symbol of a nation’s history. This combination of the Union Jack and the Vierkleur, which, I can assure the Minister of the Interior, is very easily brought about and can be designed, is not on account of the Union Jack appearing on it a flag of dominance, but it is a flag of union. Greater still, as the Prime Minister himself acknowledged, the position of this country as an autonomous portion of the great commonwealth of nations which forms the British empire is far greater than if we were an independent republic. For years in this country there has been equality of status so far as Great Britain and the other dominions are concerned. Did the Prime Minister read the speech of Lord Balfour, who was a prominent member of the Imperial Conference, and I believe was one of the main persons associated with drawing up the conference report, to the students of the Glasgow University, in which he said—

Does it not appear as if that quotation is very apt to this country and that a large section of the people in the country are made to believe that without a flag which did not contain the Union Jack it would be impossible for us to maintain that position of independent status which has been freely accorded to all the dominions within the British empire?

What about Ulster?

One of the great difficulties in connection with Ireland is that there can never be a union of that country, which I as a born Irishman desire, until the Irish Free State is prepared to combine with northern Ireland and adopt an unmistakable emblem of their intimate association with the British empire. May I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker? An attitude of this sort may have been useful in selling sleepers in the Argentine Republic, but it is not a fit and proper thing to take place in a House like this under such conditions. The Minister of the Interior referred to Canada and the Canadian position. There are two races in Canada. Canada has also had its troubles, like South Africa. I ask the Minister this. Is there not a greater racial difference in Canada, owing to the character of the two sections of the population, than there is in South Africa? The Minister shakes his head, and says no. What was the position in Canada to which he refers; what was the position in Canada when the question of the flag was under discussion? What did the Prime Minister of Canada say in Canada last year under circumstances very similar to the circumstances existing in this country, a statement which was adopted by the Canadian House of Parliament and in its entirety by French Canadians? Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, in speaking last year in the Canadian Parliament, said—

Why cannot the Prime Minister of this country adopt the same principle, especially when he knows the depth of feeling aroused by the attitude of the Minister of the Interior? Every argument that can be used against the inclusion of the Union Jack with the Vierkleurs in a national emblem for the country can at some future period be used against the retention of the English language in this country. There is not a single argument which has been used against the retention of the Union Jack which could not be used against the retention of the English language. Is it unreasonable to ask, at a time like this, that the Prime Minister should put country before party, and make allowance for the deep sentiment and the deep feeling which exist throughout the length and breadth of this country in connection with this matter? By the action and speeches of my hon. friend opposite and others, the greatest distrust, unfortunately, has been engendered, and rightly or wrongly we have become so suspicious, owing to the character of the speeches that have been made, some of which I have referred to in this House, that we are really becoming anxious about the nationality clauses in the Bill, which at first we thought quite simple and were prepared to accept. In the course of his speech last year, the Minister referred to the fact that these clauses had nothing to do with the franchise, but in the course of his speech to-day he referred to the fact that to be a South African national, you will have to reside three years in this country. Is it the intention of the Minister, if the Bill goes through, at the first opportunity to alter the franchise law and to see that nobody who is not a South African national has his name placed on the voters’ roll, and must every British subject coming to this country forego the rights he possesses at present and remain a sojourner in this land for three years before he can exercise in the Union the right of a voter and a full citizen?

What about the public service?

The Minister now refers to a regulation whereby a man must be resident not less than three years in this country, if he has no special technical qualifications, before he can become a member of the public service, and from that statement I gather my interpretation of his meaning was perfectly correct, and it is his intention when this Bill goes through—which it won’t—to introduce legislation then in connection with the franchise, whereby British subjects from other parts of the British empire are debarred for three years from having their names placed on the roll.

Don’t jump to conclusions.

Notwithstanding what the Minister of the Interior has said, I would pray the Prime Minister to drop the Bill until by consent we can arrive at a flag for this country.

When do you think that will occur?

I can give my hon. friend this assurance. I speak now more as an English representative in this House than anything else. If he will combine in the flag the Union Jack and the two Vierkleurs—the symbols of the traditions of both great races in this country—we will accept them open handedly, and give loyal allegiance as well, and I say further, if we are prepared to do that, I appeal to the Prime Minister, in the awful responsibility that lies upon him in a time like this, if he were to cease being forced by the Minister of the Interior to go against his better judgment, and if he realizes his responsibility to this country, to say he is not going to embark on a deed which will bring nothing but misery, dissensions and suspicions throughout the length and breadth of this land—

There is no doubt they will gather a great deal in this country if the Government’s attitude is persisted in. The Prime Minister has travelled a good deal in this country, and no doubt in his travels has come across many railway lines where he has seen the signal—

If ever there was a time when the Prime Minister should stop, look and listen to the rumblings of discontent, which are rampant in the country at the present moment, it is at the present time. Why this objection to the Union Jack embodied in a flag combined with the two republican flags? The Dutch and the English fought and died under that flag in the great war, and under that flag they established an imperishable record which has not been exceeded in the whole of the pages and annals of history. It is not the English section of the people alone who are anxious for the combination of these symbols. I am perfectly certain that there are large numbers—and that is why I object to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) speaking for the Dutch people of the country—there are large numbers of Dutch people of this country who have fought under the folds of the Union Jack for the maintenance of civilization and liberty. I speak of what I know—there are large numbers of the people of this country of Dutch descent who have loyally and constitutionally abided by the solemn pledges and promises into which we entered at the National Convention—when we, the English section of the people, knowing that we were in a minority, accepted a position of a Government that we knew would be controlled by the Dutch majority, and which we felt convinced would give us every possible right and justice, and make every possible allowance for the sympathies and affection which we held with regard to the flag we then lived under. And it is to those people, and not the section of the population represented by my hon. friend opposite, that I appeal, in the interests of that unity which is; so essential if a nation is ever going to be built up; to see that the sentiments of the National Convention are not trampled upon, and that every promise then given will be acted up to; and although we have a national status and absolutely automatic and free independence, we are still greater than we were, and we are members of the great commonwealth of nations which forms the British empire. It would be an injustice to the sentiments of a large section of the people of this country to see a national flag which did not embody within its folds these traditions of the people, as an emblem for the future peace and prosperity of this country. I would appeal to my hon. friend. This is not a political agitation, and he should not listen to the interested support which he has received from his Labour colleagues in this Cabinet. I would ask him to listen to the rumblings of the voices in not a small section of the people, of which he cannot be unmindful; not for fear that he would lose a certain amount of prestige if at this eleventh hour he departed from this unholy business, but he should recognize he is the Prime Minister, and there are privileged moments when you feel you have done good to your country, and at a period of intense feeling feel that you have done all you could to stifle that feeling. We are desirous of building up a nation. You cannot build it up of Dutch and of English alone, but of a combination of the two. We are South Africans, but we should be proud to remember that we ate an integral portion of the great British empire, which stands for peace, liberty and justice, and is the greatest organization which the world has ever seen.

I would not willingly add one word of bitterness in this debate to accentuate the two years of strife which this Bill brings us, but as a South African by birth, representing a very large proportion of the people who are as a link between the old-established order and the new latecomers, it is incumbent on us to take up a firm stand with regard to our country and the position we occupy, when such a momentous issue is put before us. One feels almost as if trespassing when offering opinions on an occasion of this kind. It is only a sense of duty that prompts speech, but even then one feels somewhat in the position of the great humorous philosopher, who, when asked to give his views about heaven and hell, said he would rather say nothing because he had very intimate friends in both places. We British South Africans are fortunate and unfortunate—we of British birth and origin who cherish our traditions and love our country, loving it perhaps the more because those who came from overseas sacrificed themselves for it —not as the old Voortrekkers (for whom I have the utmost respect)—but as a new element who came in and also played their part. This should not have been a party question, and as it originated it was stated not to be a party question. I regretted to hear the Minister of the Interior say definitely just now it will be a party question.

I never said it.

I understood you to say so.

No.

I am only too delighted to accept that denial of intention and that he is not claiming the votes of the pact on it as a strictly party question, but is leaving it to the whole House, and to the entire country as a non-party matter. I hope he will carry that affirmation to the country, and say plainly in this House that members may vote as they wish in any decision claimed on the Bill, free from party pledges. That, indeed, would be most satisfactory to us all. I have been among those who pressed for a flag which the children in the Union could look up to and say—

If this Bill had in it a fair referendum giving an honest choice to the people, I would be first to hold up my hand in its support. But as far as the referendum is concerned, however, it is a question of loading the dice, for under the Bill we cannot possibly get a just deal. The referendum is not fair—the people can have any flag they like, so long as it is the one specified. It reminds one of Ford’s early motor cars, which the buyer could have in any colour he liked so long as he chose black. We are told we must have a new flag, because we have a new status. I fail to see much newness in the new status. It is an old garment re-made, merely the old hat with freshly-coloured ribbon and the feathers redyed. We have always had an independent status; certainly for 25 years our independence has never been questioned. We have enjoyed perfect freedom. I was among that little band, now almost all gone west, which put up, a fight for responsible Government in the Transvaal after the Anglo-Boer war, and I should feel disgraced if it had not worked out with the absolute freedom and independence we predicted. During that quarter of a century, has there ever been the slightest interference by Great Britain with the status of this country? When we fought that matter in the Transvaal we were asked if we could put faith in the loyalty of the Dutch. We said we did not know, but we had faith in the spirit of justice of the constitutional machine which, if properly worked, would set at rest all our difficulties. That faith has been justified by events. In no case has there been any insurmountable difficulty because self-government was founded on a spirit of justice. The Prime Minister was perfectly right in saying as he did the other day that our constitutional status was not the work of any one man, but “the will of the people.” It is so. The sovereign independence we have enjoyed has not been the work of one man, but the will of the people, and principle of the will of the people prevailing that is recognized as a right throughout the British dominions. There has been a question as to who deserves the most credit for obtaining our status of sovereign independence. I don’t care by what name it is called, so long as it is the liberty we enjoy of freely governing ourselves. If there is to be credit given for obtaining that status—the status that has been newly defined—the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has a perfect right to his share in securing it and of sustaining it. In fact, if you put it to proof, I think the hon. gentleman completely demonstrated in his own life and experience, and in his administration, that we exercised full sovereign independence. There is nothing very new in it. There was a proof of sovereign independence when the hon. gentleman ordered the King’s Own Royal Dragoons from Potchefstroom to Johannesburg on his own initiative. At the direction of our own police commissioner that regiment rode down the people gathered in the square. I saw trolley loads of innocent victims carried off for burial. England looked on and did not interfere. We had chosen freedom of action and had to accept its rough with its smooth. I wondered whether the British people would stand for that action, but they stood by what we had claimed and they had given, namely, responsible government and constitutional liberty. He proved again that we had absolute sovereign independence when he deported British subjects from South Africa without a trial. We were astounded. Would Great Britain accept that affront? It did; we were a free people. We give credit to the Prime Minister for having solidified the position, and for having it defined. I want to say in praise of the Prime Minister that we of British extraction will never forget that splendid oration of his at Delville Wood, where our buried heroes lie; an oration that will rank with the best classical efforts, and take its place amongst the great speeches that go down in history. That speech, voicing as it did every precious thought that South Africa could have of those who loyally gave their lives for freedom, was perfect in form and taste, and I hope it will be included in our university text books. It endeared the Prime Minister to us for he voiced perfectly the ideas we reverently held regarding the great war, and the sacrifices made by this country. Then came the Imperial Conference, where the Prime Minister secured the consummation and definition of our sovereign rights. Everybody was delighted. There was no voice raised to mat the joy of this country; not one, as far as I know, who failed to express the most perfect satisfaction. All were glad. The Prime Minister returned and satisfied us that secession from Great Britain was a dead and buried issue. What a glorious opportunity for cement in this country in a united whole for all time—

and the Prime Minister had his great chance of more closely uniting the people Unfortunately, other counsels prevailed, and that opportunity was lost never to return. What a surprise we had! Those who, like myself, had sometimes doubted our fellow-countrymen in their loyalty to the throne and the British commonwealth of nations; when we found all differences forgotten, we felt we owed an apology to our Dutch friends—in that we had misunderstood and doubted that they wanted to remain in the British empire; when they said (every one of them) they were now satisfied. All the years I had believed they wanted to restore republicanism, and I am glad tins afternoon that the Minister has stated that republicanism is definitely dead. May it be decently buried! There are still reasons, unfortunately, in this Bill for doubt. For twenty-five years we entertained doubt, and we found it was all a mistake! In the Pact agreement we had even inserted the condition that during the five years of this Parliament no question was to be raised of secession. We would not have inserted such an “insult” to their loyalty had we known that all that time we misconstrued their ideas; and if we had known they had no wish for severance from the British empire Well. I am astonished they so meekly accepted the “insult” that for five years they should not revive racial dissension. What a surprise we received when the Minister of the Interior explained, with that hair-splitting nicety for which we have such admiration, that desire for secession was merely a wish to secede from the Government of Great Britain, not from the Crown, and the whole difficulty could be adjusted by directly dealing with the throne through a representative of the Crown. We asked—

Not one of us took exception to the glorious reception deservedly accorded to the Prime Minister on his return. No one in Pretoria at the time will ever forget the display of real affection towards him. At the head of a great procession rode 300 representatives of all the commandoes of the Transvaal, who proudly carried two flags, the Union Jack and the old Vierkleur—that Vierkleur which is not dead, but still lives, and will live for ever in their hearts. The commandants there showed an example which, if we had but followed it, would have left this country from that hour peaceably disposed to follow its ordinary course of development. I have nothing but admiration of that action of the representatives of the commandoes of the Transvaal, that at the head of the procession to meet the Prime Minister should be borne the two emblems silently proclaiming—

It is the hour of victory that tries a man, not the hour of despair, and in the hour of victory, when the Prime Minister had the opportunity of his life, he might have followed the wise examples of history. Statesmen are rare, and acts of statesmanship almost rarer, but two incidents stand out to me in the record of this country which show what men may do in the hour of victory in the way of cementing friendships. One was when Paul Kruger, that great statesman, had handed over to him as prisoner Dr. Jameson, and around was the “Krijgsraad crying—

But, to his everlasting honour, with his victim in his hands, Kruger was great enough to say to Great Britain—

That was an act of a great statesman, bigger than the small minds beside him. He set an example that those who come after might well follow. It was that hour of victory the Prime Minister had when he came triumphant to Pretoria and pushed from him the great opportunity for unity. The other incident was that of a raw savage. The Basuto chief, Moshesh, had cut up one of the proudest regiments in the British army and chased Sir George Cathcart back to his camp; his gallant lancers beaten and scattered over the country. In that hour of victory, with his foe at his feet, what did that savage do? He sent six white cattle to Sir George Cathcart, who was tearing his hair in despair in consequence of the huge defeat, and the message the victor sent was—

From that day the Basutos never “looked back,” because they were led by a statesman who could seize the moment in the hour of victory to act wisely for the lasting good of his people. What is the first act of our sovereign independence—this new sovereign independence which is to differ from all that existed before? What is the Pact Government’s first act under the new-found freedom? A coercion Bill! Try to explain it as the Minister may it is an intention to force a flag on the country; to force an unfair referendum on a democratic people. That is the first act of sovereign independence, and an unfortunate first act that severs the people again, indeed a bad beginning. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has paid for his mistakes. The Minister of the Interior will pay for his mistake in taking the narrow instead of the wide view, and so dragging down the Pact Government. Let me not for one moment be understood to be putting blame on the National party. I put no blame on the Nationalists, they have lived up to the expectations entertained of their party. No, the Labour party to which I belong, is wholly and absolutely responsible for this mad business.

Why don’t you get out of it?

I am still “master of my fate,” but I can understand the hurt feelings of hon. gentlemen when I bring this measure home to them. They could have stopped it. It is to them that final responsibility attaches. The Labour party wrote down in the Pact agreement that there should be no racial differences raised for five years. Instead we were to wholeheartedly confine legislation to economic measures. Did they stand by that compact? They also wisely set down in the written Pact that both in this House and outside, we shall have the right to speak freely that which is in us. I claim that right here and now. Those who put Labour into power said: The party is 90 per cent. British and will stand for what is British; and if it does not quite do that, it will at least always stand for a square deal. Can it be said that we have kept the faith? In their pride our leaders may say—

Yes, they may be proud of the three ministerial portfolios, but what can it avail a party if it gains three portfolios and loses its soul? All the excuses we may make cannot absolve us as a Labour party from the fact that we had an opportunity of stopping discord; that we had an opportunity for establishing peace. We have lost that opportunity, and it would have been better for our political allies and for ourselves to have insisted that, for five years, no racial controversial question would be permitted, as implicated in the agreement. That would have been honest to the parties, honest to the country, and would have kept open the flag question, as it should rightly be kept open for common consent. We are to have this turmoil, this unrest for two years, and for what? Will the hon. gentleman who brought in this Bill, and defended it so meticulously, tell us that we are in for a period of two years of peace, political and industrial peace, of industrial development in this country? If so, he is more optimistic than I with my long experience of political life in South Africa can be I see nothing in the Bill but the raising of racial passions which should have been allayed, the distrust which we had hoped had gone for ever; and we have lost that wonderful chance which this country longed for—the opportunity of developing it in the best interests of its own people, for its hungry and starving thousands. One thing I am surprised and amazed at, and I put it up specially to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), I am astounded, as the son of a Scotsman, that there are those in this country, of Dutch extraction, who can speak of themselves as a conquered people. [Interruption.] If there is one race who challenged not only the admiration of the people here, but the admiration of the world; it is that of our Dutch friends and fellow countrymen. They came to Vereeniging heroic fighters who had suffered many defeats, men who had gone through blood and fire as few had ever done; a little people who met the might of England in the field for two years; who bravely “held their own,” and went in to discuss peace proposals, unbeaten and unconquered. I take up this book, the record of a great fighter, Christian de Wet, and ask anybody to read that publication, wherein is recorded what those Dutchmen went through before they met Lord Milner and Kitchener, not in servility, but as equals demanding terms. It is a record any people can be proud of, that, after all they had endured, after all they had been through, they said—

They made an honourable treaty, and there was no conquest whatever. [Interruption.] Well, how can there be conquest when combatants finish the war upon terms agreed to by mutual consent? And after? I ask the hon. member for Standerton, who has governed the country from the day of responsible government? There was no loss of independence; certainly no loss of power. There are various forms of independence. I heard the hon. member for Winburg almost tearfully declare himself as one of a conquered people. I was surprised indeed to find also that the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Jansen) descending from his high estate into the sordid arena, in the political sense, and he, too, said that if the new flag contained the Union Jack and Vierkleur it would be a continual reminder of the conqueror and the conquered. Then we have Professor Smith, who has translated the St. George flag into good heraldic Afrikaans, who also refers to conqueror and conquered. I can just imagine anyone telling a Scotsman that the Union with England was a union of the conqueror and conquered. He would in pride resent it and point to the flag to show that his unvanquished emblem was there enshrined. Defeated often, the Scots entered the union unconquered. After their glorious record, that Boers should be content to say—

surprises one beyond measure. Where is the pride of race which should be theirs, that for a miserable debating point they would sit in the dust and wail: “We are a conquered people.” As a South African, I would lose my pride and pleasure in my association with such of them. The proud time of an Englishman is when he can include with his own nation another people, but it seems to me the proudest day for our Dutch-speaking people will be if they can erase the Union Jack from the Union emblem, and exclude British association. That I think marks the difference in the two races—one is exclusive, the other inclusive, in national ideals.

Are we then the conquerors?

An hon. member asks me if they —the Dutch—were the conquerors. Yes, they are. From the day responsible Government was obtained, and from the time of Union, they have ruled this country, and are ruling it still; and we, the British, say—

The British cannot be ridden with spurs. No. Those who tried to rule the world by force have found their mistake. A Napoleon ends his meteoric career on a barren rock in mid-ocean; a William the Second on a slice of mud between the dykes of Holland. That is the end of those who think to rule by force, even force by a majority. They are bound to fail, as this Government is bound to fail; just as our Labour party in the last provincial elections reaped as they had sown. When the general election comes those who sit in the seats of the mighty may remember with sorrow that they put on spurs to rough-ride this country. I admit the wonderful concession which the Minister offers us! For 48 hours in 1,760 hours, the Union Jack shall fly to symbolize our connection with the British commonwealth of nations, which I notice the Minister alludes to as the British community of nations. Is the alteration purposeful? We are quite satisfied with a commonwealth” that exists for a common good with a mutual purpose and a mutual destiny. Is that 48 hours indicative of the proportion we are to have in this association with the “community of British nations”—this 48 hours in which we will be permitted to officially float the Union Jack? That is the concession to be allowed for all that Great Britain has done for this country, and for all that the British connection stands for—

If that is all we can expect from him, I pity colleagues associated with one who will most certainly drag them down. We have been told of the bad way the republics were treated by Great Britain in the distant past, but I ask my friends to remember we have had, not only Jamesons and Milners, but also a Gladstone and a Campbell Bannerman, men who cancelled the evil of the past and did everything in then power to restore lost confidence. They were content to give back the Transvaal to the Boers, after Majuba, and later after war, to yield self-government to that country. Our Union was union by consent, and in 1910 the four states, having their own Government, and pursuing their individual destinies, deliberately united under the British flag. I have here a record of a great South African, who in 1906 stood at my side when I won the hardest fought election of my life. [Time limit extended.] I thank the House for hearing me so patiently. This is what General Botha said—

That was the speech of a man who had led his people bravely in war and proudly to an honourable settlement by agreement. I ask the House to realize what we have now in front of us; to realize what this Bill really means. It means two years of internecine strife and the raising of the worst racial passions; it means that the Prime Minister cannot possibly solve his native problem. It means that he must put his great task aside, because, in a heated atmosphere, in the maelstrom of political controversy, it is impossible to have the still, quiet and peaceful conditions necessary for even a partial solution of that vast problem which confronts us. Our financial credit may be seriously shaken. We have Rhodesia further antagonized, and threatening a customs barrier on our frontier. One of its most prominent politicians has already given notice to move in that direction, and with ports and railways opening up to the north-west there is no reason whatever why they should not cut us out. Rhodesia will probably elect to go in with that great British dominion now forming and going right from Bechuanaland to Somaliland and inland to the Soudan and Egypt. That is what we have now lost. On top of all that we get racialism rampant. We looked for something different when the Prime Minister came back with his corncopia of good things, and everybody was satisfied. We looked for a time when our statesmen would meet other statesmen of the commonwealth of British nations and taking occasion by the hand set the bounds of freedom wider yet. There cannot be too much freedom for a freedom-loving people. We, as such a freedom-loving people, resent coercion, and as British-born, proud of my Scots descent, proud of my country, and proud of my fellow-countrymen, can only say with our Scottish South African poet, Pringle—

I cannot hope to oppose the Bill before the House as eloquently as the previous speakers. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has pointed out what a wrong step the Government is now taking, and I feel just as strongly about it as he does, viz., that the step now being taken may easily prove a calamity to South Africa, and I agree that we must do everything in our power to fight the Bill in the country. As the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has spoken for himself and for the English-speaking section of the population, I want to speak for myself and for a large part of the Dutch-speaking people, although I possibly look at the matter from a different point of view to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. I want to say at once that my opposition, and that of thousands of people who think like me, does not arise because we have a particular love for the British flag. A particular sympathy towards the English flag is not the source of our opposition to the Bill. My English-speaking friends do not take it amiss of me when I say that I have not any particular penchant for the English flag.

When I say it, then they blame me.

No, I will not blame you if you say it. We fought against the British flag, and as hard as we could, to prevent it flying over our Fatherland, and it would be expecting too much of us to think that we should have a particular love for it. We, however, say at the same time—the Transvaalers say it frankly without hiding it—that we love our own flag.

The Vierkleur is dead.

The hon. member has no flag, and why, then, does he speak? We declare our determination that our own flag, the Vierkleur of the Transvaal, and also the flag of the Free State, shall be in the new flag.

These are flags that arc buried.

Many of my countrymen and I cannot help it if our hearts beat faster when the Vierkleur is hoisted. We however, do not apologize for it, nor are we ashamed of it, because we have every reason to be proud of our flag. As the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) said, we were never conquered.

Do you believe that?

We are still governing the country now. Yes, we want a Union flag with all our hearts, but we do not want one which does not contain the Vierkleur. We shall oppose a flag which does not contain it with all our power.

It is dead.

You say that it is dead, but I do not know whether the Transvaalers say so. Perhaps it is dead to the hon. members opposite who never knew the Vierkleur. Let one of the friends over there just say that the Vierkleur is dead.

Dead, officially.

I shall tell my hon. friends there what has contributed more than anything else to kill it in the country. It is the Nationalist party, with its supporters. Not long, only a few years ago, the flag was exhibited on every possible occasion and waved in the faces of our English friends.

Not true.

I saw it, and we made a protest.

Why protest?

The object was to catch votes.

They did not fly it from love for the Transvaal flag, but in a spirit of challenge to the other section of the population. They made themselves just as guilty of flag-wagging as those who they accuse of doing so. We then said that we should not drag the Vierkleur in the mud. I said that we should not challenge others by waving the flag.

That is why you waved the Union Jack.

I have never yet done that.

But you are doing it now.

We protested, and if the Vierkleur is dead, then the Nationalists must bear the responsibility, but I deny that it is dead, and hon. members opposite know that it is not so. The Minister says on the one hand that the flag is dead, but in the next breath he says that the National party is prepared to make sacrifices; that it is prepared to sacrifice the Transvaal and the Free State flag, but then, according to them, the English section of the population must also sacrifice the Union Jack. Whoever asked them to make the sacrifice?

Where does that come from?

The English section of the population said—Put your flag in the flag of the Union, put the old republican flags on it; and they went further, and said that they were prepared to accept our flag as theirs. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said here this afternoon that they were willing to respect the flag which contained our old flag, to take off their hats to it, and to swear loyalty to it.

Who first pulled them down?

I appreciate it, but hon. members now want to say that we want to have nothing to do with them. I say that it is an offer of real co-operation in order to build up a nation here. I do not stand back to any man in my love for my people, fatherland and traditions.

Where does the love for the Union Jack come from?

But I say that in the same circumstances, when I see my flag in the Union flag, it will not humble or hurt me at all to see the Union Jack on it, and I want to say so frankly in the House. I say that when I look at the Union Jack I feel no inferiority, and I am surprised that the Minister of Finance has often said that it induces a feeling of inferiority. I feel that I have never yet had such a feeling when I talk to an Englishman or look at the Union Jack. The English-speaking population is prepared to meet us, and what do our friends say? We are not going to give you the same right as that you are prepared to give us. Thousands of Dutch-speaking people say with me that we shall be satisfied with nothing less than having our flag incorporated in the Union flag. We ask nothing more and nothing less. If they are prepared to take that step I am also prepared, and satisfied. What do the Nationalists, however, say? They ask, with the Minister of the Interior, when we shall get a flag by agreement. It lies in their own hands. Take your flag and give us our flag, say the English-speaking people. We say that we are prepared to do that, but people like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and many others now say that they cannot stand it, that they cannot look at the Union Jack in the flag. They say “We want to ban the Union Jack from South Africa.”

That is not true.

They say that their grudge against the flag is so great that they cannot bear to see the Union Jack in the national flag, and therefore they cannot accept it.

Is the Union Jack our flag, or that of another country?

It is not our flag. Our flag is the Vierkleur, and if the hon. member had fought as hard for it as I, it would not be necessary to make this thing plain, but I say that the Union Jack is the flag of Natal and the Cape Province. When Union came about, it was their flag. I say further that if what the hon. member for Winburg and some of his friends say is true— that a large portion of the population cherish such a hatred against the Union Jack—let us in Heaven’s name wait until their passions have cooled down, wait until they are dead if hon. members prefer it. There is no hurry in the matter. I say that if we are not to consider patriotism in connection with the flag, but ordinary business principles, what use is it to us to have a flag which a portion of the population curse and a portion bless?

Is that not the case now?

No, there was no flag question in the country before the Minister of the Interior brought forward this Bill.

Did your leader never speak about it?

What about the resolution of the S.A.P. congress in 1919?

If we cannot do so to-day, let us give bur children a chance of settling the question. We have already done much since 1902, because then we never thought that we should live with our opponents in peace and love. We have, however, advanced a great way, because we had leaders with endless patience who knew that there were certain questions that could not be settled by force, but had either to be arranged by agreement or left as they were-. That is the only reason that we have advanced so far on the way of conciliation.

You are a good champion for the Sons of England.

Let me then remain in your opinion a good champion for the Sons of England. I am willing to take my chance on this point at an election. I want to express my opinion openly because there is a time in the life of every politician to express his views and not to wait and see what his constituents will say. He must say what he thinks, and can then be kicked out if his constituents think differently. I should like to-day to have a national flag but no one prevents us from having a flag except the Minister of the Interior, and hon. members opposite are inclined to follow him. We say that the country should have a flag which the population can honour and swear fealty to.

What did you say here in 1919?

There is one argument which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. The opponents of the Bill say that it is a question of honour and breach of faith, especially in Natal, and some of the newer population say that they came into the Union under the British flag although they knew that the country would be governed by the leaders of the Dutch-speaking portion of the population. They say that it is a breach of faith to now force a flag upon them.

What about the referendum?

I shall come to that. Let us take it that it is not a breach of faith but you cannot argue on such a question.

If that is a breach of faith then we shall never get our own flag.

Even if it is not a breach of faith you cannot argue with a man on a point of honour if in his heart he really thinks so. They have it in their hearts that we are abusing our majority and power, and it is therefore time to stop and call a halt and see if the matter cannot be postponed.

The man who is wrong therefore governs?

There is another argument I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has just referred to the point whether it is worth while by this unfortunate flag question closing the door for good on a greater Africa. That is what we are doing, and that fault ought not to be made. By passing this Bill we are shutting the door in the face of our northern neighbours and we shall have to say farewell for ever to closer Union with our British neighbours. Is that possibly the policy of South Africans who do not want a greater Africa? The people are friendly disposed towards us and look to us as their senior partner in connection with the native, the Asiatic and other problems. Do not let us shut the door in their faces. Northern Rhodesia is practically governed from the Transvaal. It is the policy of large companies to only send South Africans there, but by passing this Bill we are closing that door.

The same thing was said in connection with the importation of cattle under a certain weight.

This is a matter of sentiment not a matter of business. You can quarrel with a man about business but not on a matter of sentiment. One inevitably becomes warm when you speak about this matter, but I want in all deference to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. It seems to me that we have reached a very serious stage because this is a matter of honour. I think the Minister of the Interior does not know the hearts of the old Transvaalers, but I know them. It is not a matter of party politics with them. We feel deeply and we feel that whatever he may do he must not take away the republican flags.

Where are they then to-day?

If hon. members opposite believe what Mr. Kleynhans says then go to a general election. We are prepared to fight it. Even if the Government is right—

It is right.

Even if the Government is right then there is such a thing as being patient on the long road of conciliation in the country. I want to bring to mind the policy of the late Gen. Botha because he was always patient in connection with matters of sentiment and national feeling.

Is the patience only to be on one side?

We have gone a long way in the country with this policy of patience.

Did that policy warn you not to amalgamate with the Unionists?

Our national soul is at stake and we must not give the other man a chance of saying that we are not playing fairly. If we have to choose then we must be prepared to suffer for our Fatherland. If that has to be, let us, as the older section of the population, be the least.

That was always the case.

If we go so far as to be the least then we know that it is in order to strengthen our Fatherland and to make it great. I say again that we should very much like to have” a national flag and to make provision for a national flag, but before that we want to have a united people. The flag will come of itself.

The Minister of the Interior this afternoon in the introductory part of his speech mentioned that whereas a considerable amount of time had been given to the discussion of the flag clauses in the Bill there had been very little reference to the clauses of the Bill dealing with the question of the new nationality. I was not here last year when the discussion on the Bill took place, but since my return I have perused the reports of the speeches made on that occasion and I was faced with a difficulty the Minister himself to-day has to a very large extent removed. It was not clear to me in reading the report whether the Minister’s contention was that a South African nation existed, to which he was just giving legal sanction, or whether the measure was for the first time establishing a South African nation. The Bill before the House this year, on that very material point, differs to some extent from the one of last year. Last year there was a statement as to who was to be considered a South African national; we have to-day the statement of the establishment of a South African nationality. The title of Chapter 1 shows the establishment of a South African nationality. That appears in the Bill and did not appear in the Bill of last year, and from the speech of the hon. gentleman I gather the position to be where as he acknowledges to-day in the borders of South Africa we are entitled to consider we are a nation, yet certain difficulties have arisen with reference to the League of Nations, and in connection with our status, which render it desirable this particular Act should be passed.

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

When the House adjourned for dinner I was dealing with the nationality clauses of the Bill, and I was pointing out that, whereas last year the Minister of the Interior had not made it quite clear as to whether in his opinion a nation existed in South Africa requiring legislative sanction, this year he has been at pains to show that in his opinion the South African nation existed, but that for certain purposes it was desirable that the position of the South African nationality should be prescribed. In the same way last year the hon. gentleman gave as the reason for the introduction of this Bill that there were two questions involved. One was the matter of South African status; the other was the position of South Africa in relation to the League of Nations. In regard to the question of status, the hon. gentleman is reported to have said, at page 426 of Hansard—

Now it is quite evident from the speech of the hon. gentleman this afternoon that his views in regard to the status position have undergone a change, for, whereas last year he seemed to have some doubt as to what the status of South Africa was, he to-day, in common with other persons, is prepared to accept the status of South Africa as laid down by the Imperial Conference of last year. Apparently, there is no difficulty in the hon. gentleman’s mind in regard to South African status. With reference to the position of South Africa in relation to the League of Nations, the hon. gentleman last year made a similar statement, that there was some difficulty in relation to the recognition of South Africa as a nation in connection with the League of Nations. The Minister said that he had followed the precedent of Canada, who had introduced a Bill in 1921 on similar lines to the one now before the House. I tried to find a report of the debates of the House of Commons in Canada with reference to the introduction of that Bill in Canada, but, unfortunately, the reports of the debates in the Canadian House of Commons are missing from our library, but, through the instrumentality of the Empire Parliamentary Association, I have been able to get a copy of the proceedings from the Canadian House of Commons, and it is undoubtedly a fact that the reasons assigned by the Minister for introducing this measure were the same reasons that were assigned in the Canadian Parliament in 1921. There was a doubt expressed as to the question of status, and a further doubt with regard to the recognition of the Dominion of Canada at the League of Nations. With the greatest possible respect, I venture so say that the opinion in Canada on both those points in 1921 was a wrong impression. There were many other people besides the Canadian people in 1921, who had a misconception of South African status at that time, and the best proof of my statement in that regard is the Minister’s own confession that last year he had misapprehensions as to the South African status. On the other question as regards the right of the Dominions to admission to the League of Nations, again I submit, with all respect, that there is not a word in the covenant of the League of Nations which indicates that only nations are to be admitted as units in the League of Nations. I have been at some pains to find out what the terms of the League of Nations are in this regard, and this is what I find is stated in the covenant—

The word “nation” is not used at all.

You have missed the point.

There seems to have been a total misapprehension in Canada, as there was in the mind of the Minister last year in introducing this measure. With regard to the right of the Dominions to be represented at the League of Nations as distinct units, I would refer to a statement in Professor Zimmern’s book on The Third British Empire” on this subject. He is probably one of the greatest authorities living on this question, and he says, at page 15, as follows—

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) this afternoon referred to a statement made by Sir George Foster, who was the official representative of Canada before the League of Nations in 1926, and Sir George Foster is reported to have said this—

Whatever doubt there may have been, not only as to the status of South Africa but also as to the right of representation at the League of Nations, there can surely be no question now following the deliberations of the Imperial Conference. Sir Austen Chamberlain is reported to have said at Geneva at the beginning of this year that he would circulate the memorandum of the League Council dealing with the forming of future international conventions, arranging that the British Dominions would participate in such conventions and sign them. This, again, is the outcome of the Imperial Conference, when the equality of status of Great Britain and the Dominions was formally declared. Therefore, I say that whatever apprehension the Minister may have had last year as to the question of status, and whatever he may have considered to be the difficulties with regard to the formal pronouncement that we are a nation, I think the facts are that there was no ground for that apprehension. Apart altogether from these considerations, the point naturally arises, what is understood by a nation, and is it desirable to establish a nation by Act of Parliament? Before I deal with these somewhat technical questions, may I be allowed to say to the Minister that, like many opposite, he seems to have the preconceived idea that we of Natal have some extraordinary objection to taking part in the upbuilding of this South African nation. Why the hon. gentleman should form that opinion it is difficult for me to understand.

Appearances are against you.

Appearances are not against us in this respect. He looks upon the utterances of one movement up there as indicating the true feeling of the people of Natal as a whole. Why does not the hon. gentleman seek to ascertain what is the opinion of the people to whom he made a special appeal this afternoon, the moderate section there? I want to ask him, why does he conclude that we of Natal, many of whom have been living there for generations, are less willing to take part in the upbuilding and formation of this nation than he is? Surely the hon. gentleman knows that we are not all recent arrivals in Natal, that there are plenty who go back many years, and I can assure him that they are just as anxious and willing, under reasonable and normal conditions, to take part in the upbuilding of this country as he is himself. I have taken the trouble to make this perfectly clear, because in the observations I am about to make I know my remarks are liable to misrepresentation. I want to make it perfectly clear that normally we are just as anxious as he is to take our part. I proceed to ask the two questions again: What is a nation, and is it practicable or desirable to establish a nation by Act of Parliament? There is no more difficult question to answer, no more difficult matter to define, than what constitutes a nation. I have read a good many authorities, and each one expresses the same difficulty, and Lord Bryce in one of his books says this—

It is, to my mind, impossible to define a nation beyond that. We recognize it when we see it, and beyond that we cannot go. Professor Zimmern, in the same book, on page 130, says—

I would crave indulgence in reading a further extract on the same subject. Let me quote an extract from a book by Professor Herbert on Nationality and its Problems—

Further on he says—

The lesson of these writers is this. Whereas it is quite competent and desirable to establish a dominion or a state by Act of Parliament, it is impracticable to set up a nation by Act of Parliament, and invariably it leads to injury and trouble. The Minister this afternoon distinctly stated that, whereas he was quite satisfied of the existence of this nation, for certain purposes it required to be established by Act of Parliament.

Defined, not established. Look at the title of the Bill.

I have read the title— Nationality and Flag Bill. The two are coupled together. Last year the Bill read—

and it commenced—

but the new Bill distinctly speaks of the South African nationality. Read the heading of Chapter 1. The Minister of Labour will have to read this Bill several times before he goes back to Durban. It is a most important addition. The caption is the South African nationality. You are establishing a nation by Act of Parliament. Last year the Minister made this statement. He said—

The people of Natal immediately became suspicious. I want to be perfectly frank with the Minister. Coupling this measure with the Flag Bill and coming from the hon. gentleman, the people became suspicious of the intention of this Act.

Absurd nonsense!

And as a result we started to examine these provisions. The Minister says this is a copy of the Canadian Act. There are one or two very important additions in this Act that do not appear in the Canadian Act.

I said it was on similar lines.

Perhaps the Minister did not use the actual word “copy,” but he gave us to understand that it was on the same lines as the Canadian Act. In the original draft of this measure, as it appeared in the “Government Gazette,” there was practically no difference between this Act and the Canadian Act, but since then, last year and this year, new provisions have crept in. The first provision, foreign to the Canadian Act, is that, whereas both Acts allow renunciation, in this country the list of names of persons who renounce their South African nationality has to be recorded, and they have to be published annually in the “Government Gazette.” Why is that? What is at the back of the Minister’s head when he makes that provision? In the Nationality Bill which we passed last year there was provision for renunciation, but no provision for publication. The reason of that, some of us believe, is that those persons who renounce are to be held up to opprobrium, or what is equally likely, and probably the two things are contemplated, not only that, but he is going to have a different franchise. Then I come to what I consider to be the gravest possible feature of this Bill, a feature which is entirely absent from the Canadian Act. The Minister provides for certain persons being entitled to renounce. People born in South Africa pure and simple cannot renounce. Other persons born in South Africa under certain conditions can renounce, and British subjects from overseas may renounce, but they must leave South Africa. That is not in the Canadian Act. Why has that been put in? I do not know what the Minister finds particularly amusing in my observations, but I want to ask him why that was put in.

I want to ask the Minister why was it put in. If he proposes to give us the right of renunciation, what is the earthly good of it if we have to go out of the country before we renounce? To show you the machinations of the Minister, in last year’s Bill it was open to doubt as to whether a person might leave South Africa after renouncing his domicile and then come back. But this year the Minister puts in a new proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2, which says that when anybody renounces and gives up his domicile in South Africa, if he comes back he comes under the provisions of the introductory paragraphs, and he must be here for three years before he can become a South African national. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) says tome—

It is the Minister of the Interior and the gentlemen who are responsible for introducing this Bill who will force some of the people to renounce. Nobody contemplated to renounce, and they were satisfied with their status in this country and satisfied to remain here.

It should be called a Deportation Act!

We, in Natal, came into Union as free contracting parties, and if we are not prepared to accept the Minister’s terms and prepared to renounce why should we not have the right to renounce and remain in the country, the same as in Canada? There he simply makes a declaration, and ipso facto, renounces. I will be very glad if hon. gentlemen opposite would relieve my mind in regard to these two clauses which are not in the Canadian Act, and I want to know why they were introduced. I now want to deal with the establishment of dual nationality. Canada has already experienced some difficulty arising out of the passing of this measure. There are certain questions which naturally arise as to the meaning of this Act once it becomes law. When we set up a new nation it must involve some obligations, and this brings me to the question of peace and war. The right of a dominion to declare neutrality when Great Britain is at war was, down to 1914, regarded as an axiom— the mother country being at war, the dominions were at war. When in 1922 Great Britain was nearly at war with Turkey with reference to the port of Chanak, the home Government inquired from the dominions whether, in the event of war, they could rely on the co-operation of the dominions. The Premier of Canada for the first time raised the point that the question of the participation in war was a matter for the dominion Parliaments, that is to say, dominions not desiring to participate in war had the right legislatively to declare neutrality. This question of peace and war was not raised at the Imperial Conference. The crisis was overcome and the question was not pressed. I for one do not admit that the home country being at war, it is competent for any dominion to declare neutrality. The British Government being at war, in my opinion, the whole of the dominions are at war. But whether my opinion is right or not, what is going to be the position under this Bill? If we establish a new nationality and Great Britain was at war to-morrow with China, what is the position of reservists, both military and naval, if the Government of this country were to pass a law that they are not going to take part on that war? If, on the one hand, they refused to go overseas they are disloyal to the Imperial authorities; if, on the other hand, they go to war they are, I presume, to be disloyal to South African nationality. If Great Britain is at war with a foreign country is a British man-’o-war to be treated as a neutral? What is to become of the ships at Simonstown? Are they to be told to leave?

To be interned.

I can multiply these questions by the dozen. Does this new nationality involve any obligation, and has it any meaning? To show that my anticipations are not altogether chimerical, difficulty has already arisen in Canada. In 1925 it was raised in Canada. I am sorry to say that the reports of the speeches in the House of Commons in Canada are missing now—I do not know what has become of them—but they are not in our library. British Columbia is only about a week distant from Japan. I understand there is considerable trade between British Columbia and Japan. Since the passing of the Canadian Act, Japan has passed a law in which they refused to recognize dual nationality, and this question arose in the Canadian House of Commons. This is what is reported in the Canadian Hansard. Speaking in May, 1925, one of the members raised this point—

The Secretary of State for Canada appreciated the difficulty, and promised to bring this matter before the Imperial Conference. I find the matter was raised at the Imperial Conference last year. A committee called the Nationality Committee was set up, and considered this very question, amongst others, of dual nationality, and this is what is reported they have decided— page 243, appendices to the Imperial Conference proceedings—

That committee consisted of representatives of Great Britain and the dominions. This committee reported to the conference, and the conference affirmed the decision arrived at by this committee. They decided to leave this question of dual nationality over for the time being. I ask the Minister why cannot he leave the question over until such time as it is dealt with as a whole?

Quite a different thing.

[Time limit.]

I am sure that hon. members on all sides of the House have been very much indebted to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) for the great research he has given this very important question, and they appreciate that no less than the lucidity with which he put his views before us. It is a matter of regret, as my hon. friend puts it, that he was not allowed to finish. I hope this portion of the Bill will receive the attention it deserves. I hope I may be as fortunate in my remarks, but unfortunately I have to confine myself to the other portion of the Bill dealing with the flag question. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. member himself and many others are beginning to see that the introduction of this Bill was a calamity. It was unnecessary, it was ill-timed, and it is very regrettable. When a nation is faced with a calamity, disaster, or with a pestilence, or anything affecting the public on a large scale, the best thing is to make a more or less scientific investigation into the causes of this calamity, and it may be well to make an investigation into the cause which has brought this measure before the House. I wish to have a certain misapprehension removed at once from the Minister and this House. The hon. Minister will agree with me in this if in nothing else— the burden of his speech was that South Africa has not a national flag. There has been an organization started whose manifesto we saw the other day, and the burden of their campaign and of the appeal, summarized, is—

and again—

African flag;

and so forth. [Cheers.] These cheers are quite comforting; so far we are all in agreement and I presume it will come as a relief to those hon. members, and especially the Minister of the Interior, that we have a national flag. We have had one since 1910. If the Minister has never seen it, I am very glad to be able to do him a service—here it is. It will delight his eyes to look on his own flag. I will call his attention to the fact that in one corner is the Union Jack, and on the flag we see the arms of the four provinces. Does the Minister of the Interior say that he has never seen this flag before? If so, his eyes must have been averted when he passed a magistrate’s court, for it flies over those courts on public holidays.

I have never seen it.

I would advise the hon. member to go down to Cape Town docks and he will see the Government steamers flying this flag. If the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) had been successful in his mission to the Argentine, the vessel carrying his sleepers would have flown this flag.

Here is the flag of Ulster.

The hon. member for Vrededorp has been flourishing a flag, and I understand he asserts it to be the flag of Ulster. The hon. member knows a great deal about many things, but not much about Ulster or flags. The flag of Ulster is the same as the flag of the British Isles—the Union Jack. Ulster is an integral part of the United Kingdom. It has also a flag which I might call a provincial flag. [Interruptions.] These interruptions don’t carry any weight. The flag the hon. member exhibits is the provincial flag of Ulster to distinguish Ulster from other parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruptions.] I can quite understand the reason for the interruptions as these facts are very awkward for the Pact. It is quite competent for any portion of the dominions, or even for a municipality to have a distinguishing flag. Why was the South African flag I have shown introduced?

Who chose it?

The present Prime Minister, as far as I know. This flag was introduced at the request of the Government of the day, because they wanted a national flag for South Africa to be used by its citizens during the visit of the Duke of Connaught. Those were the words used in a letter suggesting the flag, and that letter was signed J. B. M. Hertzog. That flag has served ever since, and until last year there was never a grumble on behalf of the people of South Africa about this flag or its design.

What about the resolution of the South African party national congress?

Neither I nor any one on this side of this House will deny that this flag, which has gained general acceptance, cannot be altered or improved. And if the South African party, or any other party, want the design improved it is quite competent for them to say so. But an essential part of this design will remain, and that is the Union Jack. Is there any desire in the two old republics, for which I have the greatest respect, to have a new flag? I think not. The Minister of Justice, when acting Prime Minister in November last, repeated what he had stated throughout the length and breadth of the country, and said—

Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) quite recently stated—

These words are contained in a considered article contributed by him to the “People’s Weekly.” A great deal of unmerited abuse has been directed in coffee houses and other places of public resort against the Union Jack. I keep a common-place book, in which it has been my pleasure to note the many eulogistic remarks made from time to time by the Prime Minister about freedom and the British Empire. His attitude may be summed up in the words he spoke at Pretoria on December 3rd, 1912, which was just after there had been very strained relations in General Botha’s Cabinet. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) then said—

So do we.

We have different methods of showing that. One of the most popular members in the House, who, unfortunately, is with us no more, the late Mr. Charles Fichardt, speaking at a Nationalist congress in December, 1916, said—

Nor had they.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), in the same article, wrote—

The hon. member has always dissembled his love very effectually. We have had it on undoubted authority that this Flag Bill had left the Free State and the Transvaal cold. The Pact association was getting cold, and it was necessary to find something to warm it up. Many houses have been burned down by people lighting fires to warm their hands, and something of this sort may happen here. The Pact parties were a little tired of each other, and it was necessary to divert the attention of the country from what was going on. The Flag Bill was introduced in 1926, although the Minister was technically correct in saying that it was tabled in 1925. When it was introduced in 1926 there was almost simultaneously introducing a Bill for increasing the salaries of members of Parliament. [Interruptions.] Yes, hon. members opposite may well sigh and groan. “Die Burger,” in a moment of candour, said the two Bills must stand together. Surely nothing could be plainer than that. I remember the strained attention with which everybody who listened to the debate heard the first speaker from the Labour benches. [Interruptions.] Dr. Johnson once said—

The occasion was most painful, and it was common knowledge that the price had to be paid, and was being paid for Labour support.

The hon. member is going very far now in suggesting that the support of an hon. member has been bought. I do not think he is entitled to say that.

Withdraw.

If I am transgressing the laws of debate on that matter, I will leave it at that.

I think it is wrong to suggest that any hon. members have sold their support, or that their support has been bought. I do not think any hon. member should say that with regard to any other hon. member.

Very well, I withdraw that with the greatest of pleasure.

And you took the money, too.

I desire to keep this on the highest plane. I desire to deal with these serious matters in a serious way, and I shall leave this matter as you desire, sir. Why was this Bill introduced? I have been diligent enough to search the election speeches on both sides of the Pact, and I have been unable to find any necessity for introducing a new Flag Bill. Surely, it should have filled the mind and the imagination of the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the elections, when they were asking to be returned to power. Not a single speech referred to the Flag Bill.

That is why there is a referendum.

Not long ago the Minister of the Interior, who is the father of this measure, in a document described as “The aims and methods of the Nationalists,” said—

This document he signed. Only two days ago we have a former secretary of the Labour party drawing attention to the fact that on every Labour platform during the election of 1924 it was declared the Union Jack was to be as safe in the keeping of the Labour party as in the keeping of the South African party. We shall not argue that now, but when the occasion comes the country will announce its opinion with no uncertain voice. Already in the provincial council elections they have stated their opinion definitely. I am one of those wild animals that will defend themselves when attacked, and if my flag is attacked I shall defend it. If the honour of the army is attacked, with which I had the honour to be associated for a great portion of my life, I shall defend that too. When I find a high personage advocating as a reason for insisting on doing away with the Union Jack that it engendered bitterness and animosities due to the conduct of British soldiers, I shall resent it. I can quote Lord Roberts, who described his soldiers as—

There was another commander-in-chief in the field who fought for his flag and fired many shots for his flag, and he was in constant touch with the British army as an enemy. That was the late Gen. Botha, and when self-government was granted to the Transvaal and he visited London in 1907 and was asked what honour he would accept, he asked to be made a general in the British army. That was to give him the right to wear the uniform of the British army, and when the time came he put on that uniform and led the army in one of the finest strategic campaigns of the Great War. Had that been a single campaign it would have been quoted as one of the greatest strategic feats of arms by the historian. His victory is not the less great because in the words of a Shakespearean character—

A great deal has been said, and more insinuated about the fulfilment of the terms of peace. The world was astonished at the magnanimity of the British Government in their terms. They spent no less than £1,000 per head in the repatriation and rehabilitation of every captured person. The hon. member seems to forget that the Anglo-Boer War was what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen Smuts) described as one of the last of the Christian wars. None of the nations of the Great War, conqueror or conquered, are likely to receive or display the generosity that was displayed on that occasion. We have been told that the existence of the Pact has been justified by the terms of the Pact. I quote the Minister of Agriculture speaking at Bethal. He said—

Is this admitted degradation of the Union Jack part of the propaganda for a republic or not?

You are begging the question.

It is not a begging of the question. Is it not degradation that the Union Jack will only be flown officially on four days in the year, against 365 for the other flag? That fact alone is a degradation and we shall resent and resist it as far as possible. I hope the hon. Minister who used the phrase, and other Ministers, will explain it away without leaving any doubt as to their ultimate intentions. I was relieved to find the Minister of the Interior this afternoon using expressions that would tend to dissipate that fear that the propaganda about the flag was to declare this country a republic. It is notorious that recriminations were going on between the two sides of the Pact. Labour was dissatisfied with certain measures, like State banks and the eight-hour day, which had been omitted, and we know our friends the Nationalist members had strong feelings against certain social administration, such as the application of wages to matters affecting the farming interest, such as building and so forth, which had been a matter of concern to them. This is a desperate means of distracting public attention from their dissentions. In history wars have often broken out between nations, not for definite reasons, but because one or other in a desperate endeavour wanted to distract the attention from their mismanagement of internal affairs. It looks as if something of that kind is going on in the Pact fold. It is unworthy of any true lover of South Africa to revive alleged scandals that took place over a quarter of a century ago. The country has been silent about them for over twenty-five years; why revive them? I think the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has not rendered service to his country nor his party by adopting the peculiar line he has in his speeches. I think the facts are sufficient to convey to the minds of all reasonable people there was no national demand for this flag. If so, where are the proofs? There is every reason to believe this new flag will not be a national flag. It will not settle anything, but on the contrary, it will unsettle a great many things and in the gravest way. If there was no national desire on the part of the Englishman or the Dutchman, why should this flag be brought forward now, knowing it has aroused the deepest animosity of the people of the country. Everything must have a beginning, even the Union Jack. It was not the Union Jack 1,000 years ago. It was then the St. George’s flag. That was carried in battle in the tenth century, the St. George’s Cross. The St. Andrew’s Cross was first carried in battle in the year 1300 and it was not until 1603 that these two were combined and became the first real Union flag. The Minister has admitted what a deeply religious significance is behind these flags. He is tampering with them, and trying to deprive us of the Union Jack, which really became the Union Jack, as we know it, in 1801. He is depriving us of something that stands for the whole history of our country. How can we part with the traditions associated with that flag? We cannot do it. Nothing could be more eloquent than the words of Professor Smith, quoted by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) this afternoon, as to what a flag represents. I ask the Minister, will this flag, No. 2, have any traditions? When we look at the Union Jack even as South Africans, without leaving our shores, it makes us think of many things. It makes us think of Dick King, who rode 600 miles in nine days to save the flag for Natal, it makes us think of Alan Wilson and his comrades dying at Shangani, it makes us think of Rorke’s Drift, and of Melville and Colville, who died to save the colours after Isandula.

And the women’s memorial.

Order!

I do not think an hon. member was ever more appropriately called to order. Now these are our South African traditions. There will be no traditions, and few facts connected with this suggested new flag that good South Africans will care to remember. They will not care to remember the circumstances under which this flag, if it is unfortunately adopted, is passed into law, and it will embody no traditions that are of value to us. If facts and words mean anything, they mean this, that this is not a measure founded on the people’s will, endeavouring to give expression to a long-suppressed desire. It is obvious that this agitation has not commenced with the people, but has been engineered from the top.

Nonsense!

I would remind the Minister, if he needs reminding, there is only one thing in the world that I know of that is commenced from the top, and that is a grave. It may well be that this is the grave of many things we would be sorry to lose. It is already the grave of many reputations in South Africa. My hon. friends on the cross benches know that. It may be the grave of the Pact, but—

Why worry?

I am not worrying about that, but I am worrying that this measure may be the grave of South Africa’s advancement towards prosperity and peace.

I have always said that I could approach this matter in a cold spirit, and nothing that has happened in the House to-day has stirred me to any warmth, except that I admired one phrase that fell from the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) which is a magnificent phrase in the age of machinery, because he spoke about—

I do not think a happier phrase could have been invented in the present age, but in the years before we had machinery, we would have described our status in a very different manner. I congratulate the right hon. gentleman upon a very happy phrase indeed.

Quite worthy of the occasion, isn’t it?

Didn’t he say “autonomous status”?

No, he repeated it twice; that is why I admired him so much. I want very shortly to deal with the nationality provisions of this Bill. I quite appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), but I tell him this, that he is trying to deal with the present position, as far as the British Empire is concerned, as if that position has some reflex in reference to other empires in regard to the different states of the world. This is the first time under the political constitution of Great Britain that that nation has constituted a large number of independent dominions. That has never before happened in the history of the world, and it is, therefore, no use quoting outworn shibboleths. Hon. members opposite have spoken about the Union Jack in connection with the large number of battles that took place on land and sea, but the greatest thing that has ever happened under the Union Jack was not those battles, but the development of political liberty and the development of that magnificent constitution of the British Empire. That was one matter on which one would have thought that hon. members opposite would have laid some stress. Had it not been for the liberty which we have under that flag, it would have been impossible for this debate to take place in this House to-day. I was dealing with this point, that we are now concerned with something that has never happened in the world before and, therefore, when we are talking about a nation being formed in South Africa, about the difficulty of being subjected to two different forms of nationality, those difficulties are inherent to the system which has been built up and those difficulties will be resolved in future. I do not say they have all been resolved, but I have no doubt that what has been forged will be sufficient to solve them. I would remind the hon. member that the ordinary language in which the British Empire is described to-day in England, is that the British Empire is a community of free states, or a community of free nations. That is the language that is always used in Great Britain, and we are only following that same language by saying that, owing to the status that the Dominions have acquired, the people living in those Dominions have formed a new nation in each of those Dominions. I admit at once that if you take the derivation of the word “nation,” it means people of the same birth. In that sense, of course, we would in South Africa have several nations; we would have the English nation; we would have the South African nation, and we who are of Dutch extraction have been an Afrikander nation for a very long time. We have asked, we have hoped, we have worked in the direction of the white population in South Africa welding itself together into one great nation, and we believed that especially after the results of the Imperial Conference that had been achieved. So great was our belief that under the deliberations of the Imperial Conference a new nation had been born in South Africa that many who had worked with us, and I myself, felt as the result of that conference and the work that was done that it was not in the interests of this country to pursue any propaganda for secession or republicanism in this country, but I commenced to have some doubts on that matter, because the first thing that should happen is that the symbol of that nation should be set up. I was entirely cold upon that matter before that news came.

You are doing an egg-dance.

My hon. friend is not suited to that. With regard to these nationality clauses, I see no reason whatever for anyone to cavil at these clauses unless he believes that behind them there is some idea of secession or republicanism, and I am say for myself and for the whole of this Government that there is no idea of anything of that kind. These nationality provisions are a very natural setting-out of the position attained by South Africa.

Why do you want an Act of Parliament?

The Act lays down the way in which people become South African nationals, the scope of that nationality and the way in which they can renounce that nationality, matters which could not be left in the air and which, I take it, must be determined by legislation. Otherwise I do not see how we could deal with the matter; in what way we would have renunciation, for instance. I cannot personally see difficulties in connection with these (nationality clauses except those difficulties that are inherent in the position of the British Empire, difficulties which have to be resolved. For instance, one difficulty that is made is with regard to fighting, remaining neutral or not in time of war. As far as international law is concerned, if one part of the Empire is at war every part of the Empire would be at war, but the measure of their participation would be decided by themselves. That position might change at a later stage, but it would mean the British Empire taking steps to change the international law upon that matter. The British Empire is a constantly growing organism, and none of us can put a stop to that development or to that of the different portions. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) also made the rather extraordinary statement that presently we might have the English language rejected in South Africa.

I did not say any such thing. I said the same arguments used against the flag would be used against the language at some future time.

That is an argument which I find it quite impossible to follow. We might take the imperial flag mentioned and the national flag mentioned—I cannot see how these can be an argument against the retention of the English language. The two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

You must be duller than I gave you credit for.

I do not think so. Perhaps I have become automatically dull. Now I am coming to the question of the design of the flag. As far as I can understand the position there are two arguments raised by members of the Opposition. The first is, do not have any change at all today; leave things as they are. The second is if you have a flag, have one combining the flags of the two old republics and the Union Jack. Both arguments have been used; I do not know upon which hon. members principally rely. We will first take the argument that we should make no change, I say the change that has been made by events and by the growth of the British Empire in itself makes it necessary for us to have a symbol, and that symbol is a national flag for South Africa. People are prone to attach an exaggerated value to the symbol when the thing that is important is the thing that is symbolized. It is really a type of idolatory. You go a step further and you dedicate or consecrate the symbol instead of dedicating the thing, the magnificent achievements, for which it stands, and that is idolatry. I say it is a much more important thing to consider what a flag stands for than the flag itself. The flag itself, remember always, is merely a symbol and nothing we can say about flags can make them anything more than symbols.

So is a wedding-ring.

A wedding-ring is a mark of servitude as far as the husband is concerned. Why I am trying to deal with this question of symbols to this extent is this; there is no doubt one wishes to embody in the flag that for which the flag stands. It is a right and a natural and obvious thing to happen. I will leave the question of postponing the flag and deal with the point that you should keep the Union Jack and the flags of the two republics in the flag. I say what do these two flags—the republican flags —symbolize? The Vierkleur of the Transvaal represented a republic; it represented the South African Republic. Is that republic still in existence, because if the South African Republic is not in existence the symbol must also have disappeared. That is perfectly obvious. You cannot keep your symbol as a living thing unless the thing it symbolizes is also alive.

Why did it apply to the Transvaal the day the Prime Minister returned to the Union Building?

It applied to the Transvaal at all times. There is no doubt it is a symbol of the past, and very naturally it has been raised in the Transvaal and the Free State. I have seen it in the Transvaal.

In 1914?

I don’t think I once saw it in 1914.

You were not there to see it.

I was in hospital.

It is on certificates of membership of the National party.

On the certificate of membership of the National party? I did not know the hon. member had probed into that. I congratulate him too. I have never seen industry, often misdirected, such as the industry which the hon. member displays. I have a much better flag than the hon. member proposes. I would suggest red, white and blue in the corner, which would represent all the nations, and a strip of orange, white and green. But I hesitate to make any offer of that kind, because I am sure that hon. members opposite would accept it at once, and then what happens to my hon. friend? I do not want to live in enmity here. I would rather have his enmity than the political friendship of the whole Opposition. I want to deal with one other point, with regard to your putting the Union Jack and the two Vierkleurs in one and the same flag. One is a great and an existing symbol; the other two have disappeared, and therefore there is no equality between the two. It would in the second place be a very patchwork flag indeed, and in the third place there is no consent that hon. members opposite would be satisfied. Last year the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said he wanted the Union Jack with the colours of the Vierkleurs—not the flags.

The colour is the flag—I thought you knew English.

Red, white and blue—the colours of the Union Jack—have you any objection to that? Nobody wants the colours when they are the colours of the Union Jack! I personally cannot see how anyone can consider that there can be equality when these three flags are on one and the same design. I will give a further reason—not given by other hon. members—and it is, on account of the greatness of the Union Jack it will overshadow any other flag as a symbol on the national flag of South Africa. Will anybody deny that? If it does so, and I challenge any hon. member opposite to deny it, is it fair to all sections? And now I come to this further point; I say I go a step further than the Minister of the Interior and I say that the Union Jack is not only the flag of Great Britain and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; in spite of legislation of this kind, it remains the flag of the British Empire, and as far as the dominions are connected in their imperial relations. It stands as your imperial flag, as a flag for which you have so much respect as showing the imperial relations, that you are not exhibiting it every day, but only on some days. Who loves his wife more —the man who is parading his love every day, or the man who has so much fine feeling that he is not going to exhibit his love always? I go a bit further; when hon. members opposite wish to make a greater parade of their love, I say that any Government that gets into power has the right to display that flag on every day of the year, and not on the four or five days as representing imperial relations. It can be displayed on the birthday of the right hon. member for Standerton, which falls on one of these days. I wish to be the first to congratulate him—his birthday takes place to-morrow. If he had been a little more careful, and had his birthday on another day, we could have had an additional day to display that flag. Even at the start he began making mistakes. It says in the Bill —

When there is a change of government—and for the sakes of the present government I hope that may take place soon—some governments may have more taste than others, and display flags sparingly; other governments a matter of making it always displayed—and use always leads to a certain measure of not caring for a thing in the end—I do not want to use another word. The Union Jack is recognised as the imperial flag of this country and of the whole of the British Empire, and it is placed above the use by politicians for political uses in South Africa. And there has hardly been an election in South Africa in which the Union Jack has not been used for political purposes. It has been used against the right hon. member for Standerton in 1908 in the Transvaal. I can speak from experience—how many elections have there been where it has not been used in connection with elections? If you make more sparing use of it it will abide more in the hearts of the population than if you display it more. I ask every sensible English-speaking man in this country —there are a large number of them—I am always English-speaking, as you have noticed— I ask them, as far as flags are concerned, who is going—to put it in colloquial language—to get the biggest end of the stick—your so-called Dutch—we never call ourselves that—or the English-speaking? The Union Jack is not only the flag of Imperial relations, but the national flag has the St. George’s cross of England unless you think the green blobs represent the Afrikanders of South Africa. Undoubtedly this is one of the most curious things I noticed. You have the Sons of England in Johannesburg, at a meeting which took place on St. George’s Day, and they repudiated the St. George’s cross. This is one of the humorous things that occasionally happen. The badge of the Sons of England is a red cross on a white ground, and yet they are very indignant that we have elevated their cross to the position of the national flag of South Africa, or desecrated their cross, which ever they like to call it. The St. George’s cross has the longest and most glorious history of any flag of the British Empire. Surely where you have the Union Jack as the Imperial flag of South Africa, and where you have the original flag of England as the domestic flag of South Africa, surely no English-speaking mail can object with justice or reason. Somebody recently described at Bloemfontein this original cross as the flag of England, adding that the other crosses were more or less embroidery. I am sorry he spoke of the Irish and Scotch crosses as being embroidery.

He did not know any better.

Mr. Wood of Bloemfontein said that. It does not take away the fact that the most important part of the Union Jack is the cross which we adopt as the national emblem of South Africa. Will the English-speaking section who are so much afraid that we may get too much out of the flag, tell me what do we get out of the flag in comparison with what the English-speaking section get?

If you dismember a living body it ceases to exist.

So if you put on to the flag a dead body in the form of the Vierkleur, then it becomes alive? Another thing in connection with these flag agitations, I notice, is that the people who attend them sing “Rule Britannia” and “Land of Hope and Glory, but I notice that they never sing the volkslieds of the old republics. You would have thought that where they make a claim that the flags must be together, they would sing not only the national anthems of England but also those of the two republics whose colours they are so eager to incorporate in the new nag. Personally I would never even expect them to pronounce Volkslied.

Will you teach us how to sing it?

If the hon. member will allow us we will send a special deputation from the Free State, but he must not expect me to do it, as my singing voice is bad, and I have never sung the Volkslied. Whatever our English-speaking friends believe they must never believe that we are obtaining an advantage under this flag proposal If there is any advantage it is not obtained by us.

Then you don’t agree with the Minister of the Interior as to the reason of the exclusion of the Union Jack—hatred?

I don’t think there is much hate. I think were the emblems to be united under which men of both races were killed, it is much better to get an emblem which has no history.

Then put up a white flag.

Why not propose that as an amendment’ I do not know whether the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is going to intervene in the debate, but if he does will he say why in December, 1920, he stated in Paulpietersburg and other places that he wanted a flag for South Africa which did not contain the Union Jack? If we had a flag then why did he suggest that we should have another? If he has since decided that he was wrong what are his reasons for the change?

What flag do our vessels fly?

I do not know of my own knowledge, but as far as our public buildings are concerned the flag the hon. member refers is not exhibited over them.

It is flown over the Treasury in Cape Town.

It is also flown over the gaols.

It must be flown to signalize the release of friends of hon. members opposite.

It is flown by Mr. Smit at Geneva when he goes there to represent South Africa at the League of Nations.

It is flown over the customs house.

On the vast majority of Government buildings it is not flown. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has given a most powerful argument in favour of a domestic flag different from that of the British Empire. Northern Ireland is not even an independent dominion, yet it has the flag of the British Empire, and also its domestic flag which is not the Union Jack, but it looks very much like the flag we wish to adopt as the domestic flag of South Africa.

Ulster is not self-governing.

It is self-governing.

It sends members to the House of Commons.

It has its own Parliament.

A provincial body.

If the north of Ireland can have a flag which has no Union Jack in it, so much the more can a great self-governing dominion have its flag in the same way. May I invite the hon. member’s attention to that old saying of Euclid that the whole is greater than the part’ If they can solve that, they can solve my argument. The Union Jack can fly here for 365 days in the year, if one wants to make the imperial flag cheap. When I suggested that it should fly all the year round, the proposal was opposed by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), every member of the Opposition and the South African party press. That was one reason why I dropped the suggestion, because we were trying in every way possible to effect a compromise. Somebody said that nobody was ever satisfied with a compromise, and the definition of a perfectly fair compromise, is one in which none of the parties is satisfied, but it saves a lot of trouble, money, and inconvenience in the future. This is a compromise which should be accepted by hon. members representing the English-speaking people, because they are scoring heavily in the compromise. If the position was reversed I should be the first to accept it.

Have you ever heard of a compromise made by one side only? The chairman of the commission ruled out the Union Jack.

The first commission set up by this House did not exclude anything. The second one did exclude it, but it was an unrestricted reference.

The Minister said it was a sine qua non not to have the Union Jack.

There was no reference to its being a restricted inquiry by the first commission.

When they met on the first conference the Minister of the Interior laid it down as a sine qua non.

I am speaking about the first commission, and the only restriction would be the terms of reference, and I know nothing of any restriction on that occasion. It is perfectly easy if we make the position clear with regard to what the flag is This is the St. George’s Cross, the flag of England There at all events there can be no bitterness, because there surely can be no bitterness in having the old flag of England in the Union flag of South Africa. Of course, none know how far that position may be injured by that flag being continued in the Union flag because we might not live up to its tradition. In concluding my few remarks I must point out that it is not fair to say there is proof of any ill-feeling towards any of our friends in the country contained in that section of the Bill. Let us differ in peace on that question. It seems to me the referendum is going to be a very sporting event—

Do you agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe)

Don’t ask me to agree with other members, I am giving my own views, and I believe they are the views of the Government. I believe it is going to be a sporting event, and no one knows what the result is going to be. If every English-speaking man votes against the Bill, we shall not get a majority, but I believe a large proportion of the English-speaking people are going to be satisfied with the solution that has been found. I do not say they will be satisfied in their hearts, but I think they will consider it is a fair solution. I have done my best to keep my own party in the Transvaal quiet, and to see they did not introduce racialism or bitterness into the matter. It is the easiest thing in the world to stir up feeling, and we did all we could in the Transvaal to prevent that sort of thing, and you cannot point to any statement made in the Transvaal to which you can take objection. Hon. members must get it out of their minds that if they go into the Dutch farms in the Free State or the Transvaal that they will be treated as enemies, whatever their political opinions may be. In the whole world there is no person less racial than the Dutch farmer in the Free State.

I have never heard a serious public question discussed with such unseemly levity as it was by the Minister tonight. It reminded me of Nero fiddling whilst Rome was burning. It shows me that the Government does not understand the seriousness of the position, if that is the way they are going to discuss it.

Do you want me to be bitter about it?

The Minister must not play the fool about it.

You must not use language of that kind.

The Minister has stood here to-night, sir, like an artiste at a musical comedy.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Very well, sir, I withdraw them, but the public have not come here to-night to hear the Minister cracking jokes, but to hear an explanation from the Government as to what possessed them to bring forward such a measure at all. If these gentlemen have been pressing for it since 1919 then they exercised considerable restraint during the last general election, because they did not say a word about it. I have taken part in the affairs of the country as a humble musket bearer since Union. During all those long years I never once heard so much as a whisper or a hint of a flag. I have attended hundreds of political meetings during those years, and I have been heckled times out of number by irate Nationalists and never on one single occasion from one single individual have I ever heard mention of a flag. One thing is certain, the flag question was never a live issue in South Africa until the Government went out of its way to make it so, until the present Government deliberately raised this contentious subject.

That is all nonsense.

I have never heard it mentioned in all those years.

I have.

You were remarkably quiet about it during the elections. That is my objection you played a confidence trick upon the public. Does not the Prime Minister realize that there are some things you cannot legislate on. There are some things touching the lives of men, intimate, personal sentiments, which no Government has the right to force through by a mere majority vote. Does not the Prime Minister realize and does not the Government realize that in matters affecting sentiment, in matters, for example, such as religion, language, pride of race or past traditions, you have no right to coerce any portion of your citizens and still less have the Government the right to coerce any section of the population as regards a flag which stands to them as the collective symbol for all of these deep feelings. I am an old republican: I fought against the British flag. I am not one of those republicans who sheltered under the British flag until it was safe to come out and be a republican. I was a republican in the days when the claim to that title required something more than bare assertion. I fought against the British flag to the very end, but for these very reasons I consider it my duty to protest against this Bill, which will do more to arouse ill-feeling than even the memory of that Boer war which the Minister tells us this new flag is designed to efface. This flag will efface nothing. It will reopen the old wounds. For that reason I hold that every man, whatever his race or origin may be, if he means well by this country, is in honour bound to fight against a Bill like this, which, instead of giving us a flag instead of bringing national unity to this country, will bring national disunion and a nation torn against itself. If this proceeded with this country will be in a ferment of passion within a month from now. Will not the Government pause and consider, with the high feeling running, what will be the condition of the public mind by the time this Bill has been bludgeoned and dragooned and closured through all stages in this House, by the time this Bill has been fought over and rejected in another place, by the time it has been fought over in a special session of Parliament, by the time the public have gone to a referendum on it and, above all by the time that the public have sat in final judgment on the arbitrary conduct of the Government by means of a general election? This Bill is not going to be the last word of the public on the action of the Government. The next general election is going to be the real referendum on this flag question. Already the Government side has issued printed propaganda calling upon people to make ready for the fight. Already the Government side has issued printed propaganda stigmatising men who oppose this Bill as enemies of South Africa and fomenters of ill will.

Did you say the Government?

I said the Government side. We have not heard any one of you repudiate that infamous manifesto. If already, before this Bill is discussed in the House, that is the language used by the other side I ask what is going to be the position of this country by the time we have finished with this Bill? If the Government commit an unfair and unreasonable action like the present Bill, it cannot expect that all the citizens at all times will remain reasonable, too. By that time I fear unforgivable things will have been said and done on either side and wounds will have been dealt that will never heal. I am afraid we may find ourselves in a condition verging on civil war. I fear that may be the condition. I ask in God’s name what is the country going to get out of it all. When the Minister of the Interior tells us that we are going to get national unity and a national flag I could shriek with ironic laughter if it were not for the pitiable tragedy of it all. Imagine national unity emerging from this! Nearly half the people of this country look upon the Union Jack with reverence and respect. They would be pitiful creatures if they did not do so. It seems to them and justly seems that the underlying motive of this Bill is not to provide us with a national flag but that the main object in this Bill is to eliminate the Union Jack. They have seen that the design of the new flag is of no importance to the Government. They have seen the Government approve successively of the Walker jazz pattern, the Crow and Lion Beer label pattern and now the hot cross bun.

If I was an Englishman I would slap your face if you called it that.

You come and try it outside. The Government has already accepted three different designs, the Government is prepared to accept any design, however irrelevant or preposterous, so long as the Union Jack does not figure in it. We have noted that they have even gone the length of refusing to include the old republican colours because they know if they do that they will also have to include the Union Jack, and naturally the people I am speaking of feel justly incensed at this deliberate gesture of enmity towards them. Let us make no mistake. The issue in this Bill is not whether we should have a flag of our own. No. In spite of the chicanery of the referendum the real issue is—

I must say I have never understood this inferiority complex, this chicken-hearted mentality which makes a man confess that he feels a sinking in the pit of his stomach whenever he sees the Union Jack, that he feels dishonoured and disgraced. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is one of them.

Didn’t you say that?

No, I never said I cringe when I see the Union Jack. There are no conquered and no conquerors in this country. We are all members of a free people. A man may be defeated without being conquered. The spirit is unconquerable. Why is there any necessity for any man to talk about cringing and feeling he is conquered? It is true we had a war many years ago, but in a war only one of two sides can win, and there is no necessity for a man who suffers defeat but not dishonour to go about cringing. As one who fought against the Union Jack to the end, I will tell you the feeling it gives to me? When I see the Union Jack it reminds me that the race I belong to put up against it one of the most gallant fights in history. I remember how men of my race fought for three years undaunted against overwhelming odds. I remember that when at length we were beaten, fainting to our knees, our enemy took us by the hand and helped us up, and showed us one of the greatest acts of clemency and performed one of the greatest acts of reparation ever shown by one nation to another. Holding these memories of the Union Jack and the Vierkleur, I tell you I cannot understand the surly, narrow minded refusal to give the Union Jack a place in our flag—because that is the issue in this Bill. The Union Jack, with all its defects and virtues, is part and parcel of and is woven into the very woof of our history, and to refuse it a place in our flag is to deny our past, and is to commit an act which is unworthy of a self-respecting people like ours. The tragedy is that the Government can have agreement about the flag to-morrow. The people are prepared to accept a flag which adequately represents both sections, but are not satisfied to have a flag rammed down their throats in a spirit of hatred—that is the spirit in which this Bill has been framed. In this country there are no conquered and conquerors. We are all members of a single nation, and we would be members of a united nation if hon. members across the way would allow us to have our way. If the Union Jack reminds us of conquest does the red cross of St. George remind us less that we are a conquered people? That plea is an insincere one, and the real motive is * a desire to rake up old embers of the past, on which the Nationalist party alone has thriven in the past. The Prime Minister, the head of the country, should know the people he is called upon to govern, and should know whether a thing can be done or whether it cannot. He should have his pulse on public opinion, and if there is one thing more glaringly obvious than another, it is that to force a meaningless and unwanted flag on a free people, is a crime and a blunder, the consequences of which will be hard to foresee. I would ask the Prime Minister and members of the Government not to adopt a pharisaical attitude, and to claim that they alone have a monopoly of South African patriotism, and to claim that all those opposed to the flag are unpatriotic and un-South African. Nothing infuriates a country more than this assumption of smug unctious patriotism, this claim that they alone are right and the rest of us are alien in spirit and sympathy to the country we live in. The world has accepted a wider idea of duty to one’s country than mere pathological race hysteria, and the people who are opposing this Bill are doing their duty to their country more truly than those who are trying to force it on us regardless of consequences. I would ask them likewise to refrain from telling people that opposition to this Bill is being worked up by party agitators for party purposes. It shows how little the Government realizes what is going on, how little they understand the psychology of this flag movement. I have never known a great public question in South Africa in which less of party politics had entered. This flag question transcends all normal political standards. It cuts across all parties. It is a spontaneous protest from men whose deepest feelings are being trampled under foot. The Government, in trying to degrade the flag, which a large section of the people hold in reverence, is sinning against the light. Last year when the Minister of the Interior introduced this Bill he told us in passionate phrases the meaning of the flag to all true men. He was not speaking of a reach-me-down ready-made flag like the one he is trying to force on us, but of a flag sanctified to a people by proud memories, and great traditions, a flag such as was the old Vierkleur, to those who fought under it, a flag such as is the Union Jack. This is what the Minister of the Interior said a flag should be, and I endorse every word of it. He said—

Tested by the Minister’s own words this new flag does not possess a single one of these high qualities which he attributes to a flag. Tested by the Minister’s own words the Union Jack to those born under it complies in its entirety with the description the Minister has given of everything a flag should be. That being the case, does the Government think that any section of the South African population is made of such poor stuff that they will tamely stand by and allow their flag to be hauled down? If I thought that any section of the people that go to the making of the South African nation are so poor-spirited I would hang my head in shame. I ask my Dutch-speaking fellow-citizens if the position had been reversed whether we would have stood by and allowed the flag of our forefathers to be dragged down in this manner. Let me remind them that it took 250,000 bayonets and three years of war to deprive us of our flag, and does the Government think that English-speaking South Africans are of baser metal than ourselves in vital matters such as this? Let me remind the House that many thousands of our Dutch-speaking citizens took up arms in 1914 for a less cause than is here at stake, and that in 1922 many thousands of our citizens took up arms for a less worthy principle than is here in question. I would ask the Prime Minister and the Government not to go on with the Bill and not to throw the country into the turmoil and welter of ugly feeling. It is easy to throw a firebrand amongst us in a gale, but who will say where the flames will end? It is not as if there are not enough important things affecting the material welfare of the people to be dealt with. South Africa has many serious problems facing it, more than any other white community on earth and they can only be solved by standing shoulder by shoulder as far as the white people are concerned. If there is one people who should stand together it is ours, yet here we have a Government in the sacred name of patriotism and of national union throwing this incendiary bomb amongst us. In refusing to withdraw this Bill the Prime Minister has lost an historic opportunity. The Prime Minister in his heart of hearts knows it is wrong and he knows that the best interests of the country would be better served by withdrawing this Bill, but he has put his personal dignity before the interests of South Africa. Had the Minister stood up before the world and said he had made a mistake and that he never realised there was such strong feeling, but now that he did realize it he would withdraw the Bill ….

You would have sneered and jeered at him.

The less the Minister of Labour has to say in this debate the better. That Minister and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs have done nothing but jeer and guffaw during this debate.

That is the first interjection I have made in the whole debate.

Well, it is a very poor one. Your colleague the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has done it throughout the debate. The public is always fair and is willing to appreciate a man who, having made a mistake, is willing to own up to it. Had the Prime Minister stood up and admitted the mistake and followed a great course he would have found himself at the head of a united people instead of at the head of a Union that may soon be a Union only in name. Mr. Speaker, I would like the country to take a note of the fact that this is a most important subject that has come up for years and there are exactly two members of the Government in the House and in order to signify our opinion I move—

It is disgraceful.

seconded.

I wish, also, to add my voice, in the strongest protest possible, to what I consider, under the circumstances of our country, to be a wanton and wicked action on the part of the Government in bringing in a measure of this sort in the circumstances in which we are to-day. I wish first to show how the country has alternated between quietude and unrest on this question. In 1925 the measure was first brought in; in 1926 it was discussed all over the country, and we have not been able to come to an agreement, but, notwithstanding all that, this measure is again brought in, to shatter friendships, to create and revive suspicion and to stir resentment and unrest in the hearts of the people of this Union. As a man who fought in the Boer War, I can never remember such a state of feeling of suspicion and lack of cordiality since that time as exists to-day, and the only reason for this revival of feeling is the introduction of this Bill, which the Government so obstinately persists in bringing before the country. I want it to be realized that I mean every word I say. I am not playing any party game. I have travelled right through the country between the periods of which I am speaking, and I know that what I am saying is true. In 1925, on the introduction of the Flag Bill, there was suspicion in the minds of many people that there was something behind this movement. Ground was given to this suspicion by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice. At Stellenbosch, before the Prime Minister went to the Imperial Conference, he stated that—

We have got it.

I am coming to that in a few moments. Half the trouble is that we are confusing sovereign independence, in the sense of having an absolutely independent nation, with independence in our domestic affairs, and interdependence within the British Empire, which is united in a great whole. As the Minister put it, we are “a smaller circle within the larger.” Owing to past speeches—we can all remember them—made by members on the Government benches, it was perfectly clear that republicanism was in the minds of a large section, if not the majority, of the men who are to-day behind this Flag Bill. That was our fear—that it meant absolute independence, instead of interdependence as a unit of the Empire. When the Prime Minister stated that “secession would be a national disaster,” we accepted it as coming from his heart; but the speeches which followed revived suspicion, and that suspicion was strengthened by the Bill of 1925, which excluded any emblem whatever—I think we must emphasize that point—that would show our connection with the British Empire and our allegiance to the British Crown. To my mind, that is the main point in this whole controversy. Having first said that no such emblem would be allowed, the Prime Minister, before he went to England for the Imperial Conference in 1926, stated in Cape Town that he would permit the inclusion of a Crown on the flag which was then before the country—I will not call it a Vierkleur, but it was a four-colour flag in the form of the Vierkleur. Having made this “concession,” the Minister who introduced the Bill said he would have “no objection to that.” I do not want unduly to draw attention particularly to these words, but that statement—that he would have “no objection to that”—caused a great deal of feeling amongst many people. Then the Flag Commission was appointed, which had its hands tied by the instructions from the Minister of the Interior that they must bring in a recommendation “on the lines of the Flag Bill” then existing, with the addition of the provision referred to by the Prime Minister in Cape Town—that is, including the Crown. It has been said on the opposite side that the agitation all through against this proposed Flag Bill is an engineered one, and that there is nothing spontaneous about it. I have a letter dated March 10th, 1925, from a Dutchman in which he says that, personally, “although of pure-bred Dutch descent he would not for a moment tolerate a flag that does not embody the Union Jack.” The widespread agitation against the Government’s flag proposals has been quite spontaneous all along. There was a meeting in Cape Town at the time which we members of Parliament did not attend because we did not wish it to be thought that we had anything to do with it in our legislative capacity. The agitation has been spontaneous and has come from the hearts of the people who do not lightly dedicate flags and swear allegiance to them. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) laughs. Socialism embraces many aspects and atheism is one of them.

That is not correct.

I withdraw that then, as a general statement, but it does apply to a section of Socialist Communists. But in any case the hon. member for Umbilo has no right to laugh when I refer to the spontaneous action which was carried out by thousands of people, not because they wanted to make a dramatic exhibition but because they were deeply moved and stirred.

It is an absolute prostitution of religion.

We thus see that the first protest was raised in 1925, spontaneously by the people. In 1926 the same protests were made but on a much larger scale, and much more earnestly, because the country saw that (he obstinacy of members of the Government was driving it on, and that argument did not appear to have any weight with the Government. These protests are the people’s clear and simple way of showing that they object to the Bill root and branch. Last week I presented to this House a petition, which I have had in my possession for months past, against the Bill, signed by the inhabitants of the chief town in my constituency—Grahamstown. This is not the outcome of a few men’s activities undertaken lately, but was done months ago, and this petition I think is only the beginning. Lately I have had more petitions from the country areas of my constituency against the Bill, which I also presented to the House, and the names appended to those petitions are not all English ones by a long way, but include many Dutch names. I thought it wise not to give encouragement to the protest movement at the time because I had faith in the Prime Minister’s word, given in his speeches when he said we need have no fear of any movement in the direction of the abrogation of the British connection. I had faith also in the statement of the Minister of the Interior when he said—

It is safe to-day.

… Well, if that is so in reality, then do not let us embark on actions which make people suspect whether that safety is as secure as we hoped and thought. These protests were not made “only by the Sons of England,” on whom a virulent and most unjustified attack was made by the Ministers of the Interior and Justice, but also by other patriotic societies and by The British Empire Service League, which has a membership of men who fought together as brothers in the last war, whether Dutch, English or Hebrew. They are blood brothers, of a brotherhood cemented on the battlefield—men who went voluntarily, as free men, to do their duty, without coercion or compulsion, and they made that compact of brotherhood then, and we do not get mere agitations and party political movements from these men.

Are not many of these men in favour of the Government measure?

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) and others have woefully mistaken a very natural and sincere desire to reach agreement in this country, especially found among the men who fought and suffered together, and who therefore have gone a long way indeed to find a solution to this question.

They have gone no way towards it at all.

Namaqualand must be very short of news! When the Prime Minister went to the last Imperial Conference, and was there reassured of the true position and status of the Union, and returned and said he was “fully satisfied” with that status, then, what I can only describe as a sigh of relief, went up throughout South Africa.