as chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Native Administration Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 1st June.

May I ask the Minister of Finance when the Loan Estimates will be laid on the Table?

I hope next week.

Before resuming my speech I wish to say that I for one appreciate the courage and the tone of the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay). The speech he made the other day required a great deal of courage, and I feel, and many feel, that he was speaking for a very large section of the men who are the ordinary members of the Labour party outside this House. I also wish to protest most strongly against the behaviour which is meted out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) whenever he gets up to speak, but especially on Monday.

He asks for it.

He does not ask for it. One cannot help coining to the conclusion that it is done because he, being a Dutchman, has the courage to stand up and give expression to his opinions and feelings without any reservation. I say that he stands for a very big section of the Dutch in this country, and in offering this affront to him they are affronting their brothers in this country who think with him.

What do you know about the Dutch?

I wish to resume my speech as near as I can where I stopped the other evening. I endeavoured to show how this country for the last 25 years has gone through periods of peace and quietude which have been disturbed from time to time by the actions of this man or that any especially now by the revival of this question of the flag. I wish to repeat that when the Prime Minister returned from the Imperial Conference and made his speech in Cape Town, which he repeated in Pretoria, a sigh of relief went up in the country, especially from those of British birth and descent, whether English or Dutch-speaking, that now at last we had got on to a stable basis which would not be again disturbed. We thought there would be a wider and more statesmanlike outlook, and that there would be a true appreciation of South Africa’s position within the empire and a wiser handling of our destiny. He then had the opportunity of finally silencing that agitation. Whatever the influences were that were brought to bear we cannot tell, but he appeared to waver and then eventually to succumb to the rabid fanaticism, as I cannot help calling it, of Dr. Malan. I am not speaking of the Dr. Malan the Minister, but the Dr. Malan as the speaker in the countryside.

The hon. member cannot dissociate Dr. Malan from the hon. member for Calvinia.

Then I presume he surrendered to the pressure brought upon him by the Minister of the Interior who is so obstinately wedded to this Bill and nothing but this Bill. I cannot consider that in any way the flag provisions of the Bill are national. They are sectional in the true sense of the word in that they represent the views of the extremist section whether in the Labour party or in the Nationalist ranks or outside those ranks. Until there is a much greater unanimity of feeling on this point, we cannot call it a national design or a national flag or a national settlement of the question at all.

We are going to test the feeling.

Yes, in a very Machiavellian form of referendum, one of the most wickedly Machiavellian measures I have ever seen put before the people to decide.

Can you suggest a better one?

I could find many better ones. I want to point out that we cannot, in view of what has occurred in the last few months, pretend that there is a true fusion of the people in this Union. There is not. But that fusion is coming. It is coming more rapidly than some people like to see. We are forced to the conclusion that there are still people who do not wish to see that better feeling which we all pray for. But it is bound to come. Nothing will stop it. Until we get agreement amongst the people as to what emblems they wish to have incorporated in the national flag I think it would be disastrous to try and impose any particular emblem or design on those people. Let them first come to an agreement as to what form the emblems should take, which shall symbolize each of the two main constituent elements of the European populations, in the national flag. It would then truly represent the people of both sides. The elements of the Europeans in this country—I want now to deal more particularly with one area of the Cape Province—are mainly of British and of Dutch descent, with an intermixture of Huguenot French blood and blood from Flanders. That being the broad principle, that we in the Union are British and Dutch, I would like to say that, to go back a little over a century—

What about German descent?

I am coming to that in a few minutes, and I am going to deal with it in a way which I hope the hon. member will take to heart. Well, a little over a century ago a considerable body of people who form one of those elements came to this country. The British settlers of 1820 were thrust, untrained and inexperienced, into the wilds of the Eastern Province. They were put there as a buffer between the savage hordes of negroes and the Dutch settlers of the Midlands and the rest of the colony. Do not let us forget that for a moment.

Who did it?

The British Government did it.

Who asked for it?

It is a pity we did not ask for and get a few more thousands of those men. Those early British and early Dutch settlers—they did not raise these questions. They lived in peace and friendship with each other. They were partners in every enterprise. They were comrades and brothers in every war against the kaffirs in the east.

Is that why the great trek followed?

One of the reasons why they trekked was that in those days, amongst a certain section of the Dutch there was an antipathy to anything like law and order and good government control. The descendants of those 3,000 British settlers number no fewer than from 160,000 to 170,000 to-day, and are some of the best citizens we have in this Union. Are these men and their traditions to be ignored? They have no flag but the Union Jack. They have come from England or are of English descent and they have their old English flag of St. George in the Union Jack; but what does it mean to them now, apart from its inclusion in the Union Jack? They are from Scottish descent and have a still older flag of St. Andrew dating from 980 a.d.; and they are from Irish descent with the cross of St. Patrick, which goes back to 411 a.d.

What is your ancestors’ flag?

My immediate ancestral flag is the Union Jack; more remotely it was the Holland-Dutch flag. I am speaking as a South African of British and Dutch descent, with a name which has not been changed and of blood of which I am proud. Are you going into the ethnology of every man, and because he has stuck to his name to say that he belongs to a race that he does not belong to? These inmost feelings and sacred traditions of these people are not to be uprooted by any section in the country. Another element of the European population of the Union are the Germans of the Eastern Province who came here and adopted South Africa as their home; they fought under the Union Jack and enlisted under it; their children were born under it, and they know no other flag but the Union Jack

By compulsion.

No, there was no compulsion. They came out as free men, and have proved that all through their history. They have proved staunch to their oath and allegiance and they have been in the forefront of the people who defended this country. They have been loyal to the Union Jack, and no other section has been more so. Compare their action in the last war. I saw the memorial at King-williamstown, and amongst the names on that memorial 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. at least were German names. Are they Germans? No, they are South Africans—British South Africans by adoption and by birth, but proud of their German descent. The St. George’s Cross means nothing to them, but the Union Jack means much.

You cannot speak for the Germans.

[Other remarks from Government benches, e.g., “you are Dutch “you are a German.”]

I quite anticipated these vulgar and unnecessary interruptions. It is not for me to waste the time of the House with my ethnological descent, but I shall be glad to show any hon. member who is curious the point how every drop of blood in my veins is English and Dutch and before that German blood. I am proud of being South African, but I am more proud still that I am British as well.

You must change your name.

All cowards in the wat changed their names. You found a man with the name of Schwalbe blossoming forth as Swallow. I ask my interrupter the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) whether he is not one who welcomes the advent of settlers into this country.

Yes.

Well then, we want people to come who know they can make their homes here and feel they are welcome here, and not be subject to disturbances. I want to tell you in all seriousness, that when I was over in England in 1925 man after man—not the ordinary “men in the street,” but members of the House of Commons—approached me and said that they were of opinion that the Englishman was not wanted in South Africa. That was the impression they had gained.

Did you believe it?

I did the best I could to contradict it. I did not believe it, because there is a large section which welcomes the Englishman in this country and the Prime Minister himself stated that he would welcome men from the British Isles, but the interjections I have been subjected to and what has been said all go to prove that there was ground for people’s fear and for their suspicions. The effect of the introduction of the Flag Bill has been, without question, to create a feeling that every country is better for British settlers to go to than South Africa, and also in view of the open indications that men of English descent are not wanted here. It is our hope and wish, and is it not our real destiny, that at some future time Rhodesia should form with the Union a greater South African State?

What has that to do with the flag?

It has much to do with the flag. Rhodesia cannot and will not come in until they know that the flag is there for all time. There has of late been a bigger inflow of settlers to the northern parts of South Africa—Rhodesia and the eastern states —than into this country. It is a small enough stream in all conscience, and we are not doing enough to increase it, but we are doing enough to stem that flow. The Lord knows that a greatly increased white population is the big question before us. No other question compares with that big outstanding question—are we going to form a large enough nation, in numbers, to hold our own with the black people of the Continent of Africa? Another effect of this Bill has been emigration from South Africa, which is the most sinister fact of all. People who have spent their lives, or from twenty to forty years in this country, are leaving it. You cannot deny it. The Minister of the Interior knows that better than most of us, having access to all the emigration figures. There is emigration of people we ought to welcome here and ought to keep here. I know personally men who have said to me they are not going to stay in a country where the Union Jack is in danger of being pulled down. Even amongst English-born South Africans, born in this country—born of English parents— amongst these South Africans there is a feeling that even South African-born English are not wanted here.

You know it is not so.

My point is—let us restore that faith and confidence that it is not so, and make for the political stability we want in this country. I want to emphasize that the men I represent—the men of the Eastern Province—are not racial. Racialism is unknown in that part of the country. [Interjections.] No one who knows me and knows my past work amongst the farmers of this country can accuse me of having one iota of racialism.

Except in the Boer war.

No, not even then. I hope what I say will not be taken as any attempt to stir up feeling, but simply to bring home the truth. These men are not emotional nor racial, but they feel deeply, though silently, and are determined and dogged, and are not having demonstrations simply for the sake of making demonstrations. They are of both English descent and of Dutch descent. [Interruptions.] It is unfortunate that some people think that one cannot be a good Englishman, a good Scotsman, or a good South African, and still be a good Briton, but we all are “British” in the widest sense, being but British people of different racial descent. The feelings of the people in the Eastern Province are a far better index to the feelings of the English-speaking people in South Africa than are those of the people with whom, no doubt, the Minister of the Interior conferred when he drew up this Bill. I maintain that men who are prepared to stand by their traditions and by their history are far more able to judge of the feelings of the English-speaking section than are the Minister of Defence and others of his party who have told the Minister to go on with this flag proposal and that the English-speaking people would accept it. Unfortunately, the Minister went to the wrong men for information, and he has been misled.

What did you do during the Boer war?

I fought against the Boers, and they were good, staunch men. Where was the hon. member for Riversdale at that time?

I was kept on my farm by the British.

Yes, and I expect making money out of it, under the protection of the flag under which I fought, and which you were wearing in your button-hole yesterday. I flew the flag of the Union of South Africa over the squadron which I commanded during the great war, and I respected our Union coat-of-arms but that does not make me want to see the other symbol on that flag—the Union Jack— eliminated. Britons and many thousands of Dutch are most willing to meet those who desire to embody other emblems than the Union Jack in a national flag, but they refuse to accept any compromise which would call upon them to do violence to their deepest sentiments and most sacred traditions, and to forswear their honour and birthright. We do not demand the inclusion of the Union Jack as the “emblem of the conqueror,” as stated by certain irreconcilables, but because it symbolizes the history and traditions and allegiance of many centuries, and because love and veneration for that flag are rooted deep in the inmost heart of each and every true Briton, and of very many thousands of Dutchmen and men of German descent, and of all the natives and coloured people of South Africa. All British South Africans are proud of their South Africanism, but equally proud of their racial descent and traditions, and of their equality with the other dominions and states in their membership of the British Commonwealth, and of their unswerving allegiance to the British Crown for which the Union Jack stands in the eyes of the world, as in their own. We are proud of our South African nationality, but we are equally proud of our racial descent and tradition. The Union Jack is the symbol which implies that we are an important unit of a greater commonwealth, and we do not wish to see the tie which binds us to that commonwealth weakened. I wish to deal with the method adopted by the other dominions in selecting their flags. Happily for them, they did not encounter the same trouble in making their selection as we are. In all the dominion flags the red ensign is the main theme, but, whereas the colonies were assigned their badge to be placed in the “fly” of the flag, the dominions were asked to fill in the “fly” with their own desired emblems. Australia and new Zealand each adopted the red ensign. New Zealand placed in the “fly” a cross made up of four stars, and Australia placed on it the Southern Cross of stars with a point for every state in the Commonwealth. In 1910 we followed the example of Canada, which placed on her flag her coat-of-arms. An attempt has been made to provide a distinctly individualistic flag for Canada, in deference to the wishes of a certain section of the French Canadians, but after much discussion, and in view of the conflict of opinions and inability to come to any reasonable compromise or agreement, between a section of the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec and the people of the other provinces of Canada, the attempt was very wisely dropped. Surely that is an example of good sense and good feeling which we in the Union might well follow to the enduring benefit of our country and people? For the conditions in Canada and in this Union are very similar politically, and ethnologically there is a parallel. When we formed the Union and a design for a flag was sought, we followed the example of Canada, and we elected to place in the “fly” of the red ensign our own Union coat-of-arms, which fittingly consists of the emblems of the two old colonies of the Cape and Natal, and of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, which are the four provinces of a fraternal Union, entered into at the National Convention freely and without any reservations as to future nationality, or any question of new flags or their substitution. [Time limit.]

I should not like this debate to pass without saying a few words on the grave subject before us. I think it will be difficult, indeed it will be impossible, to exaggerate the importance of that subject. In the ordinary rough and tumble of Parliament, with arguments bandied about between the parties, we tend to lose our sense of proportion and to lose sight of the main issues behind our discussion. We tend in the course of debate to deal with great matters from a party point of view. But, sir, we are dealing with a subject which is far above the ordinary subjects we discuss in Parliament. I feel that a debate like this is not an ordinary debate between parties. We are not debating here in the ordinary sense. With an issue such as we have before us we are in a large sense a conference —a high conference of the nation. We are trying to find out what is the proper course to pursue, feeling that whatever decision we come to will have very far-reaching effects on the future of our nation. It is not a question of ordinary party politics or the sort of thing that generally engages our attention but a grave issue which affects the future of this nation. Most unfortunately the parties are divided on this matter. It is one of the misfortunes of South Africa that in our youth as a nation we are not yet united on fundamentals. Things which, in any other country, are accepted as the basis of national life we, still in our youth and unformed state, question here. Let us do so with all good temper and all good spirit, knowing that the words we utter here will carry far beyond these walls. Even though we talk with restraint in the House let us remember that passions are boiling over in the country beyond these walls. We are a high conference of the nation and the responsibility is laid on us to do our best to find a way out of the struggle. When I join in this debate to-day I assure hon. members on all sides that it is not in the ordinary party sense. I want to recall to the House the greater bearings of this question and emphasize what appears to me to be the great issue at stake, and in that way to bring us to realize that we have to proceed warily and cautiously on the ground we are now treading. There are various points of view in a matter like this. Some members think of the matter from a party point of view, and others naturally, and we should not resent it, look at it from the abstract point of view, as an ideal—the ideal of our higher status. Others prefer to look at it in relation to a future republic and ask themselves whether the form of our flag will suit some future republican evolution in this country. Others look upon it as purely a Union question. We should not look at it from the abstract and ideal point of view and not merely from the purely Union point of view. We are dealing with a matter fraught with far-reaching effects and we are bound to consider them and, in a matter like this, I suggest we keep before us the larger African point of view. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) in a speech that does him more honour than his victory in Pretoria, has suggested that we ought to keep before us the African point of view and that we should not decide from the Union point of view merely an issue which is going to affect in a large measure our relations with other communities on this continent. I ask this House to take such a decision in this matter that we may be enabled to keep up a united front with the rest of the civilized communities of this continent. We are trying to establish and render impregnable the European civilization of this country. These communities look upon us as their elder brother. Historically, and in other respects, we have taken the lead and I hope the decision we take on this grave matter will be of such a character that they will continue to co-operate with us and that no feeling of alienation will arise, but that from Cape Town to Kenya these communities shall feel we have acted in a spirit of give and take, a spirit of comradeship, making it possible to preserve a united front in years to come. We have to bear in mind the history upon which the debate arises. To-day, twenty-five years ago, the representatives of the Boer people in the Transvaal and the Free State were debating the question of peace at Vereeniging. I do not agree with the hon. member for Pretoria West when he said the other night that the Boers were the victors in that fight. I would not go as far as that. I would say this. The soul of a nation is not conquered by arms. The soul of a people remains unconquerable, you cannot beat them by force of arms and you cannot beat them by the ballot-box and you will not beat them in the referendum. The Boer people emerged from the struggle, in a sense, a beaten people, but they preserved their faith and kept their honour. They have built up in the war one of the great traditions of South Africa which is almost great enough to compensate for all the loss and suffering of the war. We have to bear that in mind that great tradition; the honour of South Africa and the older population was firmly established from that great struggle in which they had been engaged. It had been preceded by long years of conflict and misunderstanding. I have been twitted here and on the platform with “The Century of Wrong”; I have used bitter words. Bitter things have been done, and I can forgive my fellow South Africans when bitter words are used. At the age of some of those young men I used the same language and that is enough to recall to me a sense of tolerance. All that injustice, all that wrong, all that sense of suffering and injury had been wiped out in the great struggle, and in the tradition which our Boer people had built up for themselves. After Vereeniging we started under the Union Jack by compulsion; we had to submit, and a new chapter was opened there, a chapter which remains a great chapter in the history of South Africa for both English and Dutch-speaking South Africans. We have heard a great deal of the Union Jack in this debate and no doubt in the coming days we will hear a great deal more about it. It should be said, and I think the Prime Minister when he speaks in the debate will agree with me, every promise the British authority made under that flag at Vereeniging they have done their best to keep and to carry out. So far as it was possible the British authorities who imposed on us that flag, under that flag did their best in the years that followed to carry out a great act of reparation. They extended a helping hand to us. According to their promise in the treaty of Vereeniging they gave us self-government at the earliest opportunity, an opportunity which to many outsiders seemed crazily premature. We worked together in those days, although there may have been the relation of conqueror and conquered. But they had respect for the work we had done, for the attitude we had taken up and for the tough manhood we had shown. They became our friends instead of continuing as enemies and in the years that followed the Union Jack, and the authority that Jack represented, I may say with perfect truthfulness, became the friend of the Dutch people in South Africa. Let us not be ungrateful. You hear language to-day used in this country which seems to savour of ingratitude. You hear harsh language used about the Union Jack, no doubt coming from a prior history in South Africa. I do say this, that my people would indeed be ungrateful if they did not recognize and openly declare that ever since the treaty of Vereeniging the English authority in this country, so long as it continued the authority in this country, was our friend and did its best in every way to further our liberties, to extend our rights and make friends with us. The Union Jack to-day, whatever its position in the future might be, is our friend and let us show no ingratitude by the language we use in this House or outside it. I think as one of the spokesmen for the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa it is right and proper that I should say this and I am sure the Prime Minister, as the spokesman of another section of the people, will agree with what I have said. Our rights were extended, every opportunity was given us to govern ourselves, freedom was given us in the old republics, and finally the opportunity was given us to unite freely, without any intervention or interference by the British authority, into the Union of South Africa. I have said that there was no interference with us during all that time. When Gen. Botha was Prime Minister and he wanted to end the Chinese question the British authority at once agreed with him and later on when he wanted to end the entrance of Indians into Natal the British authority again agreed with him. In every case they have done their best to agree with us and to further our rights. I remember a memorable occasion when the Prime Minister was in Paris, Mr. Lloyd George, who was then the Prime Minister of England, asked the Prime Minister on what occasion in recent years the British Government had interfered with South Africa or in the exercise by the people and the representatives of the people of their rights, and our Prime Minister on that occasion replied that he had no complaint whatever to make against the British Government, that his complaint was against those of his own race and people with whom he was at issue. These are matters of record and I quote them to show that on a most solemn occasion in the history of this country our present Prime Minister admitted to the British Prime Minister that we had no grievance what ever with the way the British Government had carried out their authority in this country. All that the Union Jack stands for in this country —after the Boer war no longer a flag of injustice, a flag of the conqueror, a flag of the superior over the subject race, but always the helping hand, always the friend, anxious to help, anxious to extend liberty, anxious in every way to further our rights. When in 1914 the great war broke out and the Dutch people of South Africa were tested to the uttermost, many doubted us. Even Mr. Merriman, the great Mr. Merriman, in after years admitted to me that he had doubted Gen. Botha and myself. He thought that in the real trial, in the hour of trial and testing, we would not stand firm in the policy which we represented in those years before the great war. The testing came and with the exception of a small minority of our people, who had my sympathy, whom I could understand, whose ideals and objects I could appreciate to the full, with the exception of a small minority of my own people, the vast bulk of the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa stood firm, stood loyal and kept the faith and kept their plighted word. Under that Union Jack our boys went forward in their tens of thousands and there they lie to-day buried on the battle fields of the world. Our own Prime Minister, in one of the proudest moments of his life surely had the privilege of doing honour to their great memory at Delville Wood. That great pact between the races, that great union was sealed with the blood and lives of our young men, and when to-day we discuss great things which are going to have deep and far-reaching bearings on our future it is right and proper that we should turn to the past and see that what we are doing for the future is in harmony and in proper setting with that great past. We occupy to-day a high place. As a result of those sacrifices, of those lives lost in the carrying out of that great racial compact as a result of the work of statesmen, some dead, some still living, we have to-day the declaration, the formal declaration, of the Imperial Conference of our equal nationhood in the empire and in the world. That is a great thing for us, but I say greater still, far greater, in my opinion, is the tradition which English-speaking and Dutch-speaking South Africa built up in those years, the tradition of honour and loyalty and co-operation. The tradition which was built up from the Boer war onwards is a thing for the future of this country as important as and perhaps still more important than the higher status which we occupy to-day. It was all built up on that policy of agreement, and a tradition of agreement, of settling great questions and great national issues affecting the races by consent was built up in this country which I hope we shall never depart from and which certainly we shall never depart from without very grave damage and loss to ourselves. Now we come to the question of our flag, and the Government say that, having attained this higher status, having attained this status of an independent nation, and equal standing in the world, we should have a flag to represent it. I agree, but I say the flag does not only represent our independent nationhood. The flag represents also these great traditions which I have referred to, the tradition which Dutch-speaking South Africa built up in its past, in its glorious past, the tradition of the helping hand which the Union Jack has represented to us in the years when we were down and when it helped us to get on our feet and get our full liberties in the world. I look at this flag to-day, the design which has been proposed to us, and I feel at once—speaking, I hope, in no party sense, but knowing that we are dealing with a matter which concerns the years to come—I look at this flag and I feel at once that it ignores the Boer tradition in South Africa. We Boers have no lot or part in it. The Minister of Justice said the other night that it is perhaps possible—he said so almost jocularly—to look upon the blobs of green as representing the Dutch-speaking elements in South Africa. That proposed flag, that compromise flag, arrived at in the way which the Minister of the Interior explained to us the other day, is not a flag in which Dutch-speaking South Africa has part or lot. I feel that deeply.

What about the English-speaking section?

I will come to them. I am speaking first and foremost as one of those who has devoted the best years of his life to standing up for his people and seeing that justice is done to them. [Laughter.] I don’t think that laugh becomes my hon. friend. I have felt in all those years that if we are to have peace in South Africa, peace which should endure in this country, it should be an equal agreement, which would create conditions in South Africa in which there would no longer be a question of “under dog” and “top dog,” but absolute equality. We have fought for that. The Dutch people have every right to consider that in the symbols which represent the honour of our race and our nation for the future they should be represented. And I ask, where do we come in in this flag? It is possible to argue that the English-speaking section are represented in this flag, but I ask you, where does Dutch-speaking South Africa come in, that glorious tradition which we have built up? The Minister of the Interior said the other night that Dutch-speaking South Africa had everywhere taken the lead in the past. What is there in this flag to recognize that? Let us be true to ourselves. I say that this flag, arrived at in this way, does not represent Dutch-speaking South Africa.

We will give you a chance to have it.

That is what we want.

In committee you can get it.

I say that this flag which is before us does not help us and it. Would be unfair to our future to hand on a flag from which we are, apparently, deliberately excluded.

We are quite prepared to meet you.

Do not let us do that. Last year there was the flag of Prof. Eric Walker. This year it is the flag of Mr. Woods. But I want a flag which will be a national flag and which will do honour and justice to the claims of both sections of the people. I say we are not there. I ask hon. members opposite to forget for a moment that they are members of a party. I ask hon. members on this side to do the same. I say let us look at this matter as something affecting the honour of the people of South Africa, some great historical event which we should look at in the most impartial way, apart from all party considerations, and I am sure if from that point of view we consider this proposed flag we shall all admit that justice is not done. I am not speaking of the English-speaking people. I will come to them. Justice is not done to the Dutch-speaking people section of our people.

You need not labour that point. We are quite prepared to meet you.

Yes, but it is an awful pity that we should have come to this stage and that these matters should have become matters of high debate and controversy before the Government recognize that in the proposals which they are going to force on this country, which they intend to force on this country, they have not done justice to the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa.

You ought to put up something better than that.

It is said that the Vierkleur is a dead flag. The flags of the two old republics shall live as long as the soul of the Dutch people lives in this country. These things do not die. The Prime Minister, the other day, when he entered Pretoria in triumph after his return from London, was preceded by the old Vierkleur of the Transvaal. He did not feel insulted; he did not look upon it as a dead corpse which was being paraded before him. People’s deepest affections and homage and veneration are attached to that flag. Do not let us talk of dead things. In a certain sense, of course, you can say those flags are dead, but in a far deeper sense these things can never die; they will live as long as the soul of our people lives. And let me say this; do not let us by mere subterfuges inflict any injustice on the people of this country. I am sure it is not intended, but that is the effect. By devious ways and compromises a certain flag was arrived at, and that flag does not do justice to us, and when I think of my old fellow comrades of the Boer war, when I think of all we passed through, and I think this is what it has come to now in the day when we have a chance to create a flag for South Africa, in a day when the British people in South Africa say—

When I think our English-speaking fellow citizens are prepared to do that and then by some political blindness we, the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa say—

I say it is an unpardonable thing. In a moment of party passion—

You used those very words on one occasion.

The Minister of Finance does not follow my argument.

I am just asking whether you did not use those very words on one occasion.

Not on one, but on several occasions.

That the flags were dead?

Of course. Of course they are in a sense dead, but in another sense, much more vital, far more true, they are ever living.

What do they symbolize?

In the same sense in which our Transvaalers, when they wanted to honour the Prime Minister, carried the flag before them—in that sense of undying attachment I say this, we have not given to this subject of a national flag that large national consideration which it deserves. If calmly and deliberately we were to consider this question in all its bearings, we would come to see that the proposals before us do not do justice so far as the older section of the people are concerned. For the sake of our future, for the honour of Dutch South Africa, I say that flag should not stand and should not be accepted.

You had your chance before.

The Prime Minister knows that the attitude which he and his colleagues have taken up from the very start and right through, and on which they have been adamant, was that the old flags, the Union Jack and the old republican flags, shall not be represented on the future flag of South Africa, and that has vitiated all attempt at settlement.

That is not right.

Well, we will hear from the Prime Minister what his attitude now is. Anyway, that is his attitude as announced in this House, as formally published in Government Gazettes, and as notified to the country far and wide, and if there is a change of front it will be welcomed by me. Let us consider this great national issue not in the light of abstract ideas, and of prejudices, but let us look at it on its merits, and see whether it is not possible for us to arrive at a flag which will truly represent the united honour and traditions of our people. Let me now come to the English objection to this flag. I do not pose to speak in a special sense for our English friends, but I do say this, that if they are to be represented on the flag surely it is only fair and proper that they should say how they should be represented. The Government says—

They have employed for the purpose the cross of St. George. Talk of dead flags—the cross of St. George ceased to be the English flag hundreds of years ago.

It is still on the Union Jack.

But that is not the same thing. When we talk of the Vierkleurs, they ceased to be official flags of this country twenty-five years ago, but here it is a question of a flag which ceased to be the flag of England 200 years ago. Do not let us quibble over these matters. If we are going to give the English-speaking section of our nation due and proper representation on our flag, as is proper and fair that we should do, let them have a say how it is to be done. They say they want the flag which has been their flag, which represents their traditions, their honour and their sacred feelings, and has done so for the last 200 years. It is not the flag of the conqueror. They do not want it as the flag of the conqueror, the superior.

If you read Michael Collins you would know whether it is or not.

Do not talk to me about Michael Collins. I know a good deal more about that gallant man than the hon. member does. Our English-speaking fellow citizens say this—

Is that consistent with what the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has just said?

I ask the Prime Minister not to be deflected by side issues, when he is considering a grave national question. He knows that what I am saying is absolutely true and correct. When the English claim1 in South Africa to have the Union Jack on our flag, it is not because they want to lord it over us or express their national superiority over us, or to express our inferior status. They have agreed, and agreed most handsomely, that this is a case of equals. They accept most wholeheartedly the work of the Imperial Conference.

Who accepts that?

A11 the people who sit behind me. The Prime Minister knows that South Africa, apart from all party considerations, accepts the status as it has been laid down in the Imperial Conference. In these matters I speak for my whole party, and therefore let me say that we have nothing to do with the question of superiority. We have only to do with not hurting people’s feelings, with keeping up the traditions of the races which compose our people. Our national flag in South Africa for the future, under which we shall live for centuries to come, should embody the traditions of both races. Let it do so. There is no objection to it, and I think if we do not reckon with the feelings of both sections of our people, English and Dutch-speaking, we are going to have a flag which you may pass by law but it will not be the flag of this country. It will not be loved, it will not hold people’s affections, it will not stir their deepest devotion, they will not die for it. They will say—

Do not let us make compromises. I do not think it is necessary. Both sections have their rights. I think we can have a flag which gives its due to both sections. Let us do so. Let us make an honest and unbiassed and unprejudiced attempt to do so, and I think we shall succeed. If once we start on the way of compromise there is danger that the rights of people are whittled away. We get to that state which the Minister of the Interior aptly described as mutilation. You mutilate flags, you lacerate people’s feelings, and in the end you alienate all sympathy from the flag which you establish in that way. I think we shall be able to agree. I do not despair. It is a late hour, things have gone very far, but I cannot forget that in other crises in this country’s history the people of South Africa somehow have risen to the occasion, and I believe there is too much wisdom and magnanimity among us not to see that we have to reach a non-party solution of this great question, and we have to adopt a flag which will truly carry the sympathy and represent the glorious traditions of both races in this country. I think it is possible for us, by a united effort, even at this late hour, to come to some agreement. But I go further. I say if we cannot, after having shouldered our responsibility and done our best, come to an agreement, then I would say let us pause. I would then recognize that the time is not ripe.

Then we shall never come to any agreement.

I do not agree with the Prime Minister. I have seen in this country great events moving by tides of feeling. I have seen things absolutely impossible at one stage become realities within ten years. We may have suspicion and dissension at one stage, and then again we come into smoother waters. People pull together once more, and results are achieved which seem almost miraculous.

We have made up our minds we are going through, and we will go through. Where there is a will there is a way.

I am sorry to hear the Prime Minister say that; to my mind, it is far more important if we are to agree and to come to a workable solution for this nation and for its future that we should let this matter rest for a while and that we should say that the thing that matters first and foremost is not the flag, but the unity and the co-operation of our people. Rather let us strengthen that co-operation, the basis of that co-operation, and in that way attain to a united flag in years to come than try to force the pace and in that way prejudice the very results we wish to achieve. I do not think the proposal of a referendum is a wise one. The referendum is a dangerous proposal. In the first place, it does not, as has already been pointed out in this House, give a fair choice. [Interruption.] The whole thing has to be dropped. I want to explore all the issues, and I want to exhaust every possible means of agreement—

What have you done during the last 12 months?

We have been waved aside with contempt. The choice given here is not a fair one, because the people are asked to vote either for this particular design or against it, and if they vote against it they will be told—

That is not a fair choice. [Interruption.] I want the hon. member to look at it from the point of view of the man who differs from him. A man may say—

He will be told—

Do not let us steal a march on each other, and do not let the referendum become a new source of grievance to us. The referendum is not constitutional, either—we have in the South Africa Act no such method of settling national issues; no such method is known to our constitution. The Government do not want to fight a general election over this issue, and have adopted a means which is extra constitutional and which our constitution does not know.

What about Natal?

I am not talking about Natal, but about the Union of South Africa. The Minister can read the South Africa Act through from end to end, and he will find there is no such method of settling national differences.

Parliament cannot lay that down?

Parliament has every power. It can declare a man a woman, and it can do anything; but Parliament must follow the constitutional way, and, I submit, this is not constitutional. If the referendum applied in this case, is it not going to be applied to other grave national issues? Is it not to be a precedent for the future, a precedent by which a majority of the people will use its brute force against the minority in other matters of grave national difference? There is a great deal to be said against this procedure, and if we can avoid it in any way I would not go in for a referendum, and not adopt this course.

What is your alternative?

I am afraid this referendum will let loose the dogs of racialism in this country. I do sincerely believe that whatever efforts we may make to keep people’s feelings, and the expression of their feelings, within limits, however much we may try to be moderate and restrained, a storm will be set raging over this referendum which will have very far-reaching effects in this country. If the thing is at all possible, let us avoid it. The responsibility is on us; the responsibility is on the Government, in the first instance; and do not let us shirk our responsibility and throw it on the people of this country—the poor people who can vote only according to their deepest passions. I think we ought to pause and reflect very deeply and gravely before we embark on the method of procedure which the Government have now started. After all, we have time for further consideration, and one year or more does not matter much in the life of a nation or a young country. The matter is not of such tremendous urgency. It was not urgent enough to be mentioned at the last general election. The Government received a mandate on the economic issue—on certain economic questions—and they received a big majority of these questions. Do not let them use it to settle entirely new issues on which they would not have received a mandate from the people if the people had been properly informed. Let us pause and explore further. I fear, if this thing is forced through, this country will never forget it. There are people who say to-day—

but that is making a grave mistake. There is no doubt that some people have short memories, but there are things which will never be forgotten nor forgiven. In a matter of grave national importance which affects our future, and which springs from the deepest roots of the past, if we are going to force the pace and use the majority given for other purposes in order to achieve an end like this, the deed will never be forgotten and never be forgiven. The Minister of Labour the other night, during the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), interjected and said—

I have seen it stated that if the Government were to pause now and not push this Bill through in the way they propose, they would be sneered and jeered at, and insults and taunts would be flung at them for the course they had adopted. I will clear that away at once. They will not have such sneers and taunts and jeers from me. I say that they will be doing a statesmanlike thing, a patriotic thing— something which is wise and fair and proper in the interests of this country—and they need not fear that there will be any sneers or jeers from me on this matter. I appeal to them not to be influenced by party considerations. These sneers and jeers may be party weapons, but we are not dealing in this grave matter in that spirit. Let us think of our nation first and foremost; let us think of the honour of our nation, and of the unity of the nation which we want to bind together by means of a national flag, and not to tear asunder. I do not wish to go any further, but I wish to move an amendment which I hope will give the Government a chance to reconsider the whole position and to see how far it is possible to explore a better way, if they are so minded, and not force this thing through, but take time for consideration. When they take this step and pause and reconsider the whole position it will be the duty of all of us, and it will be my duty, to give them such assistance as in our power in this very difficult matter. I move, as an amendment—

I second the amendment. After hearing such a speech as we have just listened to from the right hon. member, and realizing as we all do the interest he has taken in this great country, and in building it up and helping it through all its troubles, no hon. member who listened to that appeal and who has not been stirred to the depths of his being must be made of wood. The Prime Minister, in interposing, made a remark: “Where there is a will there is a way,” and I believe there is a will at the bottom of the heart of every man in this House to find a way. That way has not been found yet. I believe the will lies in our hearts to try to come to that agreement, and to meet everybody on that side, and to try to create that flag of which we and our children will be proud. That is what we aim at. The Minister who introduced the Bill spoke in a calm, cold, logical manner. When I listened to his speech, it almost brought me back to the lectures we used to hear in our school room. It was the speech of a man who had never known a flag, never fought for a flag, and never loved a flag. I ask the House, can a man who has not known this passion and who comes in his cold logical way and holds out a flag saying—

Do you wish to deny him that privilege?

No flag created in that way will earn the respect or the love of any true South African. The Minister sits there, the father of a young son; in 10 or 15 years’ time I ask him, when he tries to teach that child the traditions of the country and to show he is descended from the great Dutch blood that forms part of our nation, when he holds that flag up, he may say—

He will never be able to show anything in that flag but a flag of a miserable compromise which does not in any way betoken the feelings and traditions of the past. I was born in the Eastern Province. Hon. members opposite say the Union Jack is our flag because it is the flag of the empire. Do they realize that we who were born in the Eastern Province fought under that flag and gained territories under that flag which became not only the emblem of the empire, but of all the British who helped to found this great Union as part of that great empire. Thus it is also our local flag. My father lost everything during one of those native wars, he had his shop burned over his head, and he had to flee. Cannot hon. members opposite realize the strong affection we have for that flag, and that we in the Cape Province demand that it shall form part of our national flag. At the last general election the Prime Minister announced his intention to attempt to solve the native problem, and we on this side of the House have pledged ourselves to assist him. Unfortunately, he has already made one great mistake in passing the colour bar Act, and we protested at the way in which that measure was forced through.

I do not think the hon. member should adversely criticize that measure.

Last year the Prime Minister telegraphed to the Transkeian Native Council, in reply to a resolution, that there was no present intention of extending the regulation under the Mines and Regulations Act beyond the point at which they existed prior to the judgment of the court. Should, however, any such extension be thought necessary opportunities would be given to all parties interested in the Union to make representations on the question. That means that that measure has had no effect whatever and cannot be carried out. Seeing that this Bill may take the same course, I ask the Prime Minister to pause and consider whether it is wise in the interests of the mass of the people that it should be forced on the country. I speak as a representative of the natives, and I realize the dangers we have to face and know that feeling is being stirred up amongst the black races which we may not be able to control if this legislation goes through. The natives have the greatest faith in British rule. The Union Jack means almost as much to them as it does to the British section of the nation. In a book printed in 1834, dealing with native affairs, an old chief who had fought against us said to Col. Sir Harry Smith, when they were about to enter into a treaty—

The pledge was given that they would be treated with justice, fairness and equity, and they have grown to love the Union Jack and to recognize it as a symbol of justice and fairness. Is it right that the great mass of native feeling on this question should be ignored? If the Union Jack is not included in our national flag the natives will feel that the King of England has thrown them over, and that will be a dangerous feeling to create at this stage. We, as a young nation, have received a higher status and we are proud of it, but the Prime Minister should realize that that has not been brought about by himself alone. We who have lost relatives on the other side during the great war realize that they went to fight not for the Union Jack, but for the honour of South Africa. It is because of that that we have risen to higher status. We are proud that the Prime Minister has enabled us to secure that position. Realizing the dangers that lie before us, it is not fair to this young country of ours to risk the trouble that may follow the taking of a referendum. We know the bitterness caused by a general election and that politics is the curse of this country, but a referendum will do more lasting harm than any political fight. That is my conviction, and I wish the Prime Minister would leave the referendum alone. Unfortunately, many of the people will be incapable of coming to a fair solution, and a heavy burden will be placed on ignorant people who will allow their passion and not their reason to influence their votes. We are on the verge of establishing a great nation. Let us do it in a proper way and we shall spoil it if we create a flag which is not a real South African emblem. The Eastern Province is willing to have a flag in which there shall be emblems of the people of this country. It has surprised me above everything to see men who took part in the Boer war, and who held the British army at bay so ready to cast down the flag under which they fought. The Vierkleur is not dead, and I respect it as forming part of the traditions of the young race we are going to build up. I shall never lose my respect for the Vierkleur and I hope no other Englishmen will do so. How can the Prime Minister expect the people of the backveld to control themselves on such a great issue when it was obvious this afternoon that he himself was unable to do so?

I wish to congratulate the leader of the Opposition in maintaining this debate at a high level, even although we may disagree with some of the things he said. No one could take exception to what he said except on the point of view of honest disagreement with the arguments put forward. In this regard the leader of the Opposition followed the example set by the Minister of the Interior, who made an eloquent and magnificent speech, although people may disagree with the conclusions he arrived at and the reasons for those conclusions. No one in the country could take exception to one single thing said by the Minister of the Interior as being calculated to offend in the slightest degree the susceptibilities or sentiments of any single person in South Africa. My only regret is that it is not possible for all the people in South Africa who are interested in this question to be present and to listen to the whole of this debate. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in an eloquent speech, rightly said that the British Government has never interfered in South African affairs since responsible Government was granted, and that the Imperial Government has been the friend of this country. There is tangible evidence that there has been, and is to-day, full recognition and appreciation of the attitude of the British Government towards South Africa. The mere fact to-day that we have by common consent, and with the full approval of the united nation, accepted the fact, and will live up to it in the spirit and letter, that South Africa—in consequence of the development and consummation at the Imperial Conference—will not only become, but will remain, a portion of the British commonwealth of nations, not with the consent of the English, or the English plus half the Dutch, but with the consent of the united Dutch and united English of South Africa, who have accepted the position that this country is part of the British commonwealth of nations, and is prepared to play its part as such. That is the answer to the statement that the British Government has done so much for South Africa. It is in that way this country has shown its appreciation and recognition. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will agree with me when I say that British statesmanship has on many occasions risen far higher than the statesmanship of English politicians in South Africa. British statesmanship has done things which have had far-reaching effect, and in many cases has done them in the face of opposition on the part of Englishmen in this country. I only mention two things because the hon. member for Standerton has mentioned them. Did the British Government interfere on the Chinese question when Gen. Botha went to them and said: “We want to get rid of the Chinese from South Africa?” Who said: “Yes, by all means do what you think right for your country?” It was a British statesman overseas, and a section of the British in South Africa opposed it. I will take another question only because the right hon. member himself has raised it, namely, the Indians in Natal. Who was it said to the British Government that we wanted to stop further importation of Indians into Natal? It was not the English section who were ruling Natal, and who brought the Indians here, it was the first Government of which Gen. Botha was Prime Minister and the right hon. member for Standerton was his right-hand man. It was they who got the willing consent of the British Government to stop further importation of Indians into Natal, and it was against the protests of large numbers of English in Natal.

That is where you are wrong.

For many years many of us in Natal, myself included, fought hard to secure this, when we had responsible Government, until the Union came about and Gen. Botha and his Government took the action they did.

They were fighting long before you appeared in Natal.

I do not want to say one word that will offend the susceptibilities of hon. members opposite or of people outside. I will try and deal with the question on its merits without bitterness or feeling. I only raised the points because the hon. member for Standerton raised them himself. I was astounded at the hon. member for Standerton when he said two things. One was that we had not exhausted all efforts to reach agreement on this important question. Could any Government have done more than this Government has done to get co-operation and the consent of members on the other side in order to try and reach agreement on this flag question?

They could have appointed a fair flag commission, and not a Pact one as they did.

I have made it my business in this debate to restrain myself and only on one occasion did I make an interjection, and I would like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to remember that. At the very start the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton agreed that both sides should be represented on the select committee which sat during the recess. Both sides were equally represented.

Who chose them?

The right hon. member for Standerton chose your three members, and you know that as well as I do. At the finish, without any restrictions whatever, we had that Flag Commission on which there was half-a-dozen representatives of the organized Flag Committees and half-a-dozen representatives of the Government, with power to bring in any design they liked, and the design now adopted by the Government was the design which the Flag Committee’s representatives said represented—

in the right direction, and every member was prepared to, and I believe did, go back to his respective organizations and appeal for this flag to get acceptance in his respective centre.

How were they free to choose if the Union Jack was deliberately excluded?

I did not interrupt the hon. member when he spoke; will he let me finish? I only mention that as an indication that as far as those members themselves were concerned they tried to reach an agreement, and had practically reached a provisional agreement, but it was turned down by the people outside whom they represented. Might I refer to the point made by the hon. member for Standerton when he made a final appeal to the Prime Minister to drop this measure, and he referred to the interjection I made in that connection? I was prompted by the fact that the Empire Group last year took up this very point and wrote to the right hon. member for Standerton and said—

I waited with interest and anxiety for the reply of the right hon. member for Standerton and the reply was that he would make no such guarantee, and it was put in such a way that suggested to me he was saying to the Prime Minister—

That is how it suggested itself to me, but the fact remains that when the appeal was made to the right hon. member for Standerton, by the Empire Group, he would not do it.

Are you satisfied with my assurance now?

If the right hon. member gives his assurance now we have to accept it, but it is a thousand pities he did not give it sooner. If the right hon. member for Standerton had really wanted to rise above party advantage he would have unhesitatingly and willingly said “Yes.”

If you had had that guarantee would you have dropped the Bill?

It resolves itself into two schools of thought. There is common cause in the first place that a national flag for South Africa is desirable if possible. Both sides agree on that.

Is it possible?

It is possible.

But it exists.

It is a most extraordinary thing. Yesterday the hon. member for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron) trotted out a flag which is now put forward as the South African flag. I am satisfied had it been so it would have been referred to and flaunted through the country by members on that side of the House long ago, but they were just as much surprised as I was when the hon. member produced it in the House.

Ask your Prime Minister about it.

The question at issue is not whether we should have a flag or not, but as to the design, and here we have two schools of thought. One school says that the design of the national flag should be one in which the flag of the United Kingdom, in its entirety, shall be included in order to reflect the past history of South Africa and in order that there might be some association in the flag with our British connection. The other school of thought says there shall be a national flag, but it shall contain no reference to the past; it shall signalize our new nationhood and will show that we are out in this country to make a new start. Why we do not accept the principles laid down by the other Dominions is that we lay down the principle of British connection and association in a different way, because in South Africa the history has been very different from that of any other dominion. We say we are quite prepared to fly the flag of the United Kingdom in order to show respect, but because this country is singular and different from the other dominions we ask that we should have a specific flag which contains no reference to the past and which will enable us to make a fresh start, in a united and a contented nation. Three main arguments are brought against that, and I want to deal with them. They have been put forward again this afternoon. The first is that a flag of that kind means, so it is alleged, the pulling down of the Union Jack; the second is that the Government is trying to force this flag on the people against their will; and the third is that it will divide the people on racial lines. I am going to show that not one of those statements is true; I am going to show that not one of those arguments is sound or correct. Let me take the first one, which is that we are pulling down the Union Jack. If we were pulling down the Union Jack, why is it that in the Bill itself the Union Jack is officially recognized as our empire flag?

Four days a year.

The principle is there. It does not matter whether it is flown one flay or 365 days a year. I say this emphatically, that if this Government, or anybody, had intended pulling down the Union Jack there would have been no reference to it in the legislation now before the country. The mere fact that it is provided for, the mere fact that it is compulsory that it shall be flown, that it is recognized officially as the flag to denote our association with the British community of nations shows, at any rate as far as the principle is concerned, that the Union Jack will fly and will fly as one of the official flags of South Africa. Why are there only four days, it is asked? The four days represent all the public holidays except those that are religious holidays, on which flags are usually not flown. That is the first point. [Interruption.] I will promise any member on the other side that I will not interrupt him. The four days on which the Union Jack will be flown are four public holidays which are not religious holidays, but further than that I do not think it is recognized by the people in the country —it certainly has not been emphasized on the opposite side of the House—that this Bill makes the Union Jack an official flag for 365 days in the year if the Government like to fly it for that length of time. The Bill says that it must be flown on those particular days, and “may be flown on any other day that the Governor-General may decide.” The Governor-General, of course, is the Government in power.

Why should the Government decide?

Because they have the right.

The point I am emphasizing is this, that the principle is laid down in this Bill that the Union Jack is not pulled down, but its position is legalized and consolidated, and it may be officially flown every day in the year if the Government in power so decide.

made an interjection.

The right hon. gentleman makes much better speeches standing up than sitting down. I now want to come to the second point, that the Government is forcing this flag on the people against their will, and that it has no right to take advantage of what has been termed a snatch Parliamentary majority to force this flag on the people, and especially as the flag question was not an issue which was before the country at the general election. That is a fair statement of the position. I accept that argument. I say it is unfair on an important question like this, that this Government should take advantage of its majority to force something on the people which the people do not want, especially something which was not put before the people when they elected their representatives to this House. For that very reason I have been one of the strongest supporters of leaving this matter to be decided, not by this House, but by the people outside. May I emphasize this point, this Bill is an enabling Bill. The man in the street, the people outside, are given to understand that we, by a mere parliamentary majority, are going to take advantage of our position as members of Parliament to drive through this House a measure which is going to become law automatically, whether the people like it or whether they don’t.

Who said that?

I never interrupted the hon. member.

I am helping you. I want you to answer the question.

I will answer it in my own way. I am going to answer it.

And remember Greyville is listening-in.

I was astounded at the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), because last year in this House, when the question was raised, he said—

That was before we had agreed to have a referendum, and I agreed with the right hon. gentleman, and to-day we are in this position, that we have decided that Parliament shall not decide this question.

Then leave it alone.

No, it is a question that has got to be decided, but it is a question which is going to be decided by the people outside and not by members in this House. One vote by any man in the country, whether he is in Durban, Johannesburg, or anywhere else, one single vote of theirs at the referendum is a bigger deciding factor and has more power than every vote of every member in this House. One vote of an elector at the referendum has got more power to decide this issue than every one of our votes in this Parliament. I say that by this Bill we are merely putting the Government’s policy and the Government’s proposal before the people of South Africa.

In a very crooked manner.

It is an enabling Bill. It is a Bill recommending the policy on which we are agreed. I am going to come to the question raised by the right hon. the member for Standerton as to the form in which the question is put.

A very dishonest form.

I am going to deal with that. This Government has a certain policy. That policy is that we shall have a new flag which shall contain no reference to the past, and, in order that our association with the British empire might be emphasized, we have the Union Jack provided for officially, and the two things are now put in the one clause. This has been found necessary because when they were in separate clauses previously, hardly a single word was said about the provision made for the Union Jack, but everything was concentrated on the national flag, which did not contain the Union Jack. There were thousands of people in South Africa who did not even know that provision was made for the Union Jack being an official flag of South Africa, so now we are putting this in the one clause in this way.

Sharp practice!

It was because our opponents were guilty of such sharp practice in keeping this concealed that we decided the two should go together. What are we doing? We say, “This Government has a certain policy, it is for you, the people, to decide by your votes whether you agree with that policy or not.” Could anything be fairer; could anything be more straightforward than letting the people decide for themselves whether they want our proposals or not? The referendum is a new departure in South Africa. There are thousands of people throughout the country under the impression that when this Bill passes through Parliament, then we have committed an outrage because ipso facto, it becomes law by our parliamentary majority.

Nonsense!

This is the only Bill since Union that does not become law when it is passed by Parliament, but has to go to the country for the people themselves either to ratify or reject. I want to emphasize that point, because some of our constituents who voted for us would not have voted for us on this particular question. I want to emphasize that this Parliament is not doing something against their wish, but that they themselves have more power by their votes than we have got in this House on this particular question. We can only put the proposals before them. We put those recommendations before them because we agree with them in principle, and because we think that in the long run it will not only be in the best interests of South Africa as a whole, but in the best interests of our British connection, and of Britishers in South Africa. I will come to the third point, and that is that we are dividing the people on racial lines. There is no need to contradict that statement when the mere fact of both sides of the House, represented as they are, gives the answer. That side is represented by whom? By the old Unionist party, all English, and the South African party all Dutch, amalgamated. On this side we are represented by English on the cross benches, and the Nationalists, Dutch. I do not think there is any issue, including this flag issue, that is big enough and strong enough to divide the people to-day in South Africa on racial lines. I say that the determination of the people of this country, English and Dutch, to amalgamate, to co-operate in a spirit of goodwill, and to work together in the best interests of South Africa, I say that it is too strong to allow them to be divided on the flag issue or any other issue. I will go further and I will point out that if there has been any attempt made to divide people on racial lines on the flag issue, then it has not been made by members of this side of the House. I will tell you why. Together with many other members here I have been in Union politics 17 years, and have fought six general elections, and in every one, without exception—

You come and fight another.

In every one I have found there has been on the part of our opponents the most gross abuse of the Union Jack. That is one of the reasons why we have to deal with this question. I cannot remember any election in which an attempt has not been made to divide the people on racial lines, by means of this very flag question. At every one of my opponents’ meetings, spread all over the hall was the Union Jack. On motor-cars and all over the place was the Union Jack. This has been going on in South Africa for too long. The Union Jack should be too sacred to be used and abused for political purposes.

What about the red flag?

Do you say the Union Jack is safe in your hands?

I don’t want to raise any heat.

Answer the question!

Order!

I want to deal with this issue as far as I can dispassionately and by argument. The argument I am dealing with is that we are using the flag question to divide people on racial lines. I say the flag question has been used for the last 17 years not by us, but by members opposite to try and divide people on racial lines, but we have risen above it. I do not think there is an issue big enough in South Africa which is going to permanently divide the people in spite of temporary outbursts which may happen at any time.

What did you say at the Armistice?

I was born under the flag which I am officially recognizing in this Bill, and I am quite proud of it. Quite recently we had a provincial council election, and that election, according to all accounts, was really fought on the flag issue. There it is—

What happened? The different parties were re-elected in much the same strength as before the election. In Natal I admit feelings have been worked up much more than in other centres; to-night they are having a big meeting. [Time limit extended.] They have diverted that meeting, as it were, not so much to protest against the Government’s flag policy although that is contained, but they have very cleverly switched in a resolution to ask the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) and myself to resign. When I went back to Natal on the last occasion after Parliament rose in July— member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) will bear me out—and I would like the hon. member to remember that I do not represent Durban, but Greyville.

Misrepresent.

Cheap jibes do not [rest of sentence lost in interruptions]. I called a public meeting in July, and it was crowded. I thought that the best thing I could do, as feeling was running high, was to deal with the flag question, and for the first half hour of my speech I did so—and I then got a unanimous vote of confidence. Then the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) went into his constituency and got five votes of confidence and one vote of no-confidence after holding six meetings. We did not go to the Berea and other parts where we would have got votes of no-confidence because we do not represent Berea and other places. Let me take the recent provincial council election, where the Labour party lost all the seats—perhaps that will please hon. members on the other side. I want to deal with it to show that this question has not divided the country on racial lines, but that we can fight these issues and not fight them on racial lines. Labour polled over 40 per cent. of the votes, that is, the same proportion in that election as represented by hon. members in this House. Durban is represented in this House by six members—four S.A. party and two Labour, or 60 per cent. S.A.P. and 40 per cent. Labour. It is very easy for anybody to go to Durban which is a S.A. party stronghold—thirteen of these seventeen hon. members from Natal are S.A. party and there are four Pact members—three Labour members and one Nationalist—it is quite easy in Durban to work up a meeting, get a vote of confidence and carry it against the Labour party.

You would not like to put it to the test?

I fought six elections, and on every occasion I was supposed to be going to lose the seat. It is a good thing for the public life of the country that all of us have to go before the bar of public opinion and abide by its decision. That I regard as a wholesome thing; that is a tradition handed down by the British Parliament for many years, and is for the safety and security of the public. As far as I am concerned, I do not hesitate, I will not shirk it, and if they say they disagree with what I have done, they have their remedy, and if they say they agree I shall carry on. There is no reason to do that on this issue, because we have by means of the referendum given the people the opportunity of voting on this one particular issue without complicating it with all sorts of other political questions. We are doing it because there are thousands of people in South Africa who agree with the Government’s general policy—the development of the country, the native question; the questions that go to make up our political life; and they think the Government have done well, but they might disagree on the flag question. They will have the opportunity of voting on the flag question as a specific case without its being complicated with the other issues. When they have done that and they want to carry the fight on and to vote again at a general election, they will again have their opportunity of doing so.

Will you resign on the referendum?

Might I just emphasize that there is no need to resign under these circumstances, when you are placing it in the hands of the people themselves. I now want to show what is being done in Durban to get support against the Government’s policy. The mayor of Durban in his official capacity, as chief citizen of the town, is getting out pledge forms, not so much to protest against the Bill or the policy adopted by the Government, but taking political advantage of the situation. It is being placed in front of every one of the municipal servants; there are letters to say that some are signing that pledge in order to save their job. [Interruptions.] The pledge reads—

That was not drawn up by the S.A.P.

It is signed by Mr. Buzzard, the Mayor of Durban, and a covering letter has been sent to the head of every municipal department asking that it should be placed before the notice of employees. I am told that some refused to sign it, but that others signed it in order to save their jobs. That pledge is also going the round of the business firms in Durban. Let me conclude by saying that the party I belong to, and for which I am now speaking, are equally responsible with our colleagues the Nationalist party for this measure, we are jointly responsible for putting before the people of South Africa a proposal which we think if given acceptance to will in the long run be in the best interests of this country and of the English-speaking as well as the Dutch-speaking people, and also in the best interests of the British connection and the empire to which we belong.

I rise on a point of personal explanation. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) did me the honour on Monday to refer to what I said at Stellenbosch a few days previously. I had not at that time a knowledge of what he said otherwise I would have risen immediately to correct the mistake. He is reported by the “Cape Times” to have attributed these words to me—

I made that statement with the addition of the words—

What I did do at Stellenbosch was to point out the dangerous fruit which might be borne by the irreconcilable and unreasonably uncompromising attitude of the organized opposition to the proposed national flag. I said that if this olive branch be rejected, this Flag Bill, which not only officially recognizes the Union Jack but also accepts the most distinguishing feature of the Union Jack as the most distinguishing feature of our South African flag, it was only natural to fear that moderate Dutch South Africans would be driven into the extremist camp and refuse to have anything to do with the Union Jack or any part thereof. So far was I from saying that I would fight every symbol representing the British race I even went out of my way to say that even if South Africa had been a republic it would be right and equitable to have the British represented on the South African flag by some such symbol as the St. George’s Cross.

We have listened for about an hour to the Minister of Labour and nothing he has said has made me reconciled to the Bill; in fact, I am inclined to think worse of it since hearing his explanation. He referred to some outside things such as Chinese and Natal Indians, and he seemed to bring a charge against my hon. leader that he had not been prepared to give an undertaking with regard to any political use that might be made of a withdrawal of the Bill. There are people who have not the right to ask questions of that sort. Here was the place for that question to be asked and my leader has given a full, free and frank answer to it to-day. The Minister also talked about making a new start. What is the new start? I constantly hear speeches from members on the Government benches inferring that all South African patriotism belongs to them, and one could almost imagine that there had been no South African patriots, and no opportunity of showing true South African patriotism, before the advent of the Pact Ministers to power. As a South African that is an attitude I strongly resent, for there is no warrant for it. The Minister at last got to the Bill. He first of all objected to references from this side that the Bill provides for pulling down the Union Jack. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) interjected once or twice—

The terms of the Bill are that this flag, No. 2, from the date this Bill becomes law, to be for all purposes the official flag of the Union. If that means anything it means that on the night before the day this Bill comes into effect, from every public building the Union Jack will be hauled down and will not go up again. Surely, that is pulling down the Union Jack? The reason given for saying there will be no hauling down is that for four days in the year the Union Jack is to be “officially flown” for certain purposes. Let us get to the strict legal way in which that can be carried out. Hon. members opposite and the hon. Minister must not be surprised if after the gyrations he has gone through and the different way they have been squeezed over this matter, suspicions attach as to the way this Bill will be carried out.

Do you suspect it?

I do suspect it. I put it to the House, will it not be possible to meet the position in this Bill by flying one Union Jack on one public building in the Union, and might it not be possible that public building is an inaccessible lighthouse on the coast and that by so doing the provisions of the Bill will have been legally carried out? Then the hon. Minister gets up and denies that there is any question of pulling down the Union Jack in the country. I hope he will be able to satisfy his constituents. He has not satisfied me. He has talked about the force of the steamroller, but this is the first step, and the other follows. He seems to think he was answering the whole question by saying that after the steps taken here there would be a referendum. Does the Minister expect us and his constituents to forget that when there was no referendum in the Bill he was still prepared, and it was his intention, to vote for the Bill? What becomes of his argument now? He went on to speak about the division of the people, and he claims to speak for the English people. Is he able to face his constituents and claim that be speaks for the English section? The only test so far is the provincial council elections, and in my constituency not one Labour voter in ten will be prepared to back the Minister in the position he has taken up.

Why so afraid of the referendum then?

It is a crooked referendum.

The object of this Bill is to provide for a national flag for all purposes, and we have had some opportunity of hearing what the Minister said a national flag should be. Last year the Minister said that nothing was so powerful to unify all the component parts of a nation as a national flag. Then a flag to be national must be unifying, and must draw the people together, and that is the only basis upon which to secure a national flag, and that is going to be secured by a referendum. The only thing the referendum will show is that there is a division of the people on the question, and the mere fact of having a referendum shows that the flag cannot fulfil the only basis on which such a flag should be selected. I would like to say we cannot any longer, in this world, live to ourselves alone, and the effect of this Bill is not going to be merely local. If one can judge from the effect in other parts of the world, then the only part of the world that takes a brotherly or sisterly interest in us stands aghast at the absolute folly of bringing this issue before the country at the present time. What is the immediate urge for going on with the Bill? It is clearly not the question of our status, because that was settled in 1919. It is not a question having anything to do with the conference of last year, because a similar Bill was introduced before the conference was held. It is not a question of the English versus the Dutch, because we have English and Dutch on this side, but the difference is that we have Dutch who are prepared to respect the feelings of their English fellow-countrymen. It is not a question of republicanism versus non-republicanism, because we have men on this side who did more for republicanism than any man on that side. That is not the urge. I put it down to want of courage on the part of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. They entered into it not knowing what the effect would be. The Prime Minister is not a man who would willingly enter upon a course that would deliberately wound the feelings of his fellow-countrymen. He did it not knowing the extent of the feeling that would be aroused, and my diagnosis is now that he has not the courage to withdraw and take the strong position in this matter. We have heard the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice. Is he in love with this flag? I cannot see what the urge is as against the evils that are to be brought about by the introduction of this Bill. The Minister, in introducing it, talked to us about the extremists of his party. If he talks about extremists, then the hon. gentleman looks upon himself as a moderate man. I have never come across any man yet who did not claim to be moderate.

Moderation is doing what you want.

Let me explain what moderation is. At the same time the Minister, speaking about the failure of some of his flag commissions which he appointed, talked about complete capitulation. That was that the inclusion in any shape or form of the Union Jack in these flags was to be complete capitulation. Then this moderate man, because he tells us that he knows that this will mean strife, this man of moderation is deliberately going to force this thing through, knowing that it will bring strife, but hoping that something good will come out of this strife.

You oppose everything we introduce into the House. “Moderation” would mean that we would drop all our legislation.

For the benefit of my Caledonian friend over there, the member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) I would quote—

From the earliest times there have been fanatics, entirely sincere that they were doing the divine work, but in reality doing the work of the devil. We go back to quite early times, when Saul before he softened into Paul was persecuting; we go to the Spanish Inquisition which had the belief that they were doing the right thing. We had the same with the Scottish Covenanters and the English martyrs, and I have no doubt whatever that the Minister is absolutely certain that he is doing the right thing, but in my judgment he is doing the same sort of devil’s work in this Bill that these men did in the full belief that they were doing the right thing. I have tried to get at the other man’s point of view, but I do not think it is much use trying to consider the point of view of fanatics. Fortunately for my purpose, at any rate, we have before us the reasoned statement of a man whom I look upon as a real moderate man, a man for whose opinion I have great respect, a Nationalist member of this House, but whose views are not likely to be expressed during this debate, and I would like to read the view of a moderate man and try to put the opposite view of another moderate man. I am claiming the moderation this time. I will not read the whole, but I will read part. If, in doing so, I do injustice to the hon. gentleman, I would like him to understand that it is unintentional. This man analyzed the mental attitude of the two races towards each other, and the feelings of the Dutch section after the Boer war. He says—

He quotes what the feeling was after the Boer war, and remarks that there was a saying by Lord Milner—

He continues—

That is a thing that is apparently not confined only to the Britisher, because I understood the Minister of Justice the other evening to say that there is no institution to compare with the British institutions, and we have carried that out by modelling our parliamentary life and public work on British institutions. The hon. gentleman whom I was quoting continues—

There is the reasoned point of view, as I say, of a moderate man. I would like to put the point of view also of a moderate man who takes a somewhat different view. My objection, my only objection to the statement I have quoted, is that it is harking back to the times before 1910. In 1910 we agreed to do away with all those feelings. We might have held them up to 1910, but this is a harking back to the feelings and a going back to what we said we would bury, and we said we would make a new start.

What about past history now?

I do not know what you are talking about. Then the position seems to be this. On the one side they have been asked to give up nothing. We are prepared to take any symbol they put forward, and put it on the flag. We ask them to abandon nothing. On our side we are asked to give up something, and I do not know whether they can realize what it means to us. We are asked to say, in the speeches that are made and opinions published, that the Union Jack, which means so much to us, is not worthy to be on a South African flag, and that it should be obliterated. We ask them on that side to give up nothing, while they ask us to give expression to an opinion of that sort about our flag. I would like to put forward what the Union Jack means in the constituency that I come from.

What is it we ask you to give up?

The Union Jack in our domestic flag, in any shape or form.

Oh, in fact, you want to remain a Briton?

Certainly!

Perhaps if the Prime Minister will allow me to develop my idea of what the Union Jack really means to us, he would understand a little better.

Are we now to understand the nationality clauses of the Bill?

I think I was correct in saying that in my constituency the Union Jack was the sole question. Some mention is made as to feeling being worked up. If the Minister is under the impression that in the part of the country I come from there has been any working up or need of working up, he is absolutely ignorant of the conditions. It was there already, and it found immediate expression, and is still doing so. If he wants to hear about working up let him consult his own colleagues, for instance, the Minister of Railways.

Did not the “Eastern Province Herald” work the people up?

It was there and they could only give expression to what already existed. I would like to refer to the reference made by one hon. member to “another milestone.” What is meant by another milestone? Do hon. members opposite really think that South African patriotism has only begun since they took office? I claim to be just as sound a patriot as the Minister there. I claim to be just as good a South African patriot, and I believe it to be not a merit but a privilege to be a member of the British empire, and that I am none the worse a South African for that. I would like to put it to the Minister what this Union Jack means to one man I know of in this House. He was brought to this country at the tender age of two. His grandfather fought in the battle of Trafalgar under the Union Jack. On his mother’s side his forebears fought at Corunna and at Waterloo. When the Great War broke out his sons fought for South Africa in East and West Africa, in Egypt, Palestine and France, upholding the honour of South Africa under the Union Jack. Is there anything ignoble in the wish of that man that his son’s sons, if the time comes that they have to fight for the honour of South Africa, should fight under a flag bearing a tradition like that? I say you have no right to ask people to deprive themselves and their successors of traditions like that, and South Africa would be richer and not poorer for having traditions of that kind. Which has the higher claim to recognition, the position as put forward by the Nationalist member to hark back to the old grievances or that of us who say that we wish to honour our flag, and it has a right to its position, the flag which you gentlemen here want to treat as Bolshevist, something unworthy and to be swept away? If we had to fight again—which God forbid—which flag would we fight under? I think the Prime Minister ignores the strength of the feeling which exists. It is clear from the very fact of the referendum that the flag cannot unite; it must divide. The referendum cannot unite; it cannot fulfil what was laid down in the speech by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Jansen) when he said—

Under the conditions in which this flag is brought forward and the stage we have come to, it is absolutely impossible that the Government can fulfil the requirements laid down by one of its own members whom we all respect. The Bill can be forced through, but what is the use of a national flag under those conditions? What is the good of a flag of that sort to you? I support very strongly my leader in asking the Government to let it stand over until such time as we can deal with it in the right spirit.

I rise as the only representative on this side of the House from Natal who comes from the Dutch race there, and in expressing my sentiments I believe I am expressing the sentiments of a very large number of Dutch-speaking people in Natal. There are people in Natal of my own race, who belong to the Opposition party, who are opposed to this flag being forced through. There are Nationalists in the town where I live who have signed a petition opposing the forcing through of this Flag Bill. I wish to take up the view from the time that we entered into Union. When the question of Union was mooted there was a very strong feeling in Natal against it. I was one of those who favoured Union. I was one of those who assured the English-speaking population in Natal that they could trust us, the Dutch-speaking Africanders in South Africa, that we had proved ourselves to be a race of honour, a race who could be trusted. There was a fear at that time that there would be dominance by Dutch-speaking South Africans. Singularly enough, Dutch-speaking South Africans since the Union took place have had the ruling of this country in their hands. There is no doubt there was a fear amongst English-speaking colonists in Natal that their traditions and sentiments would not be respected. We assured them that we would honour and respect their sentiments, their feelings and their flag. A referendum was taken, and upon that assurance, by a large majority the referendum was in favour of entering into Union. Natal placed her destiny and her traditions in our hands, and expects us to-day to fulfil the promise made at the time of Union. I, for one, will not retract the promise and assurances I gave. I feel if I broke that promise I would be doing a wrong thing, and it would be a dishonour to my own race. While I am on this subject I wish to refer to what Dutch-speaking members in the Natal Parliament said—the hon. members for Vryheid, Utrecht and one from my own town who bore my own name. I refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Fergg), who was an old republican servant. There was a very deep seated fear on the part of the Natal people at the time Union was taking place, and the hon. member said on the debate of the Draft South Africa Act—

I refer to another speech made in the Natal Parliament—

The hon. member made reference to a statement that the Dutch might want to get rid of the Union Jack, and he said—

I also refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Utrecht (Dr. Niemeyer), who said—

It was upon these assurances given by members of my race that the Natal people went into Union. We gave them the assurance that we would always respect their sentiment, traditions and flag, and on that assurance by a large majority in the referendum they went into Union. At the time of Union the slogan for the great question put before the Union and Natal, the golden threads on which Union was to be founded were—

When these assurances were given in Natal English-speaking members of Parliament reciprocated, and said they would trust and honour our traditions and sentiments. It was in that spirit of goodwill that we entered upon Union. We felt that divided we would be weak, but united we could build up a strong South African nation, which would be respected in the whole world, and that we could confidently meet the great problems which this great country would have to face. It is manifest that right throughout the country, particularly in Natal, those people to whom we gave this promise at the time we entered into Union feel we are breaking that promise, and for that reason I feel in honour bound, in respect of that pledge and assurance, to say that we are doing an injustice and a wrong not only to ourselves, but to South Africa. It is evident, if this Bill goes on, that instead of having a united people we are going to create disunion and to open up all those sores. It is going to create racialism as we have never had it before. I have spoken to many English-speaking people on this subject, and they tell me that racial feelings are to-day stronger than in the 1914 trouble.

The Sons of England have aroused them.

One cannot say the Sons of England are entirely responsible, and they are only carrying out what we promised them when we came into Union. They have been forced and provoked into the position they are in. If this Bill is continued we shall cause more feeling and heart-burning than anything that has happened since the time of Union; since the time, shall I say, of the last Boer war. I am not opposed to a national flag representing our status and our independence within the British commonwealth of nations; but I certainly do oppose the forcing of a flag on the country when the people are not united upon it. What is the good of such a flag? What would be the use of a referendum, because whichever way it goes, the people will be torn asunder?

The will of the people.

It is no use trying to force a flag on the people, for if we do we shall undo all the good work done since Union. As to Natal, there is a tremendous movement among the English-speaking people to be united with us. 95 per cent. of the scholars attending Government schools are voluntarily learning Afrikaans. Does that not show an improved spirit? At all events let us have a flag which is a symbol of the traditions and sentiments of the people; a flag we can all respect and honour and, if necessary, a flag we will all be prepared to lay down our lives for. What is the use of a flag which we cannot respect and honour? The Pact has lost a great opportunity of bringing forward a flag which will show that we are a united people, and which would connote the feeling, history and traditions of the people. That would have been a magnificent way in which to cement the true union of the people. I thought the time had come when South Africans could bury the hatchet, and could live happily together respecting and honouring one another. The English-speaking South African has realized that the Dutch-speaking South African is as good as he is. Young Dutch South Africans returning from the world’s universities are taking their place in the cultured classes of the country. The reason the Government gives for refusing a flag which would connote the history, traditions and sentiments of the two peoples, is that it would represent the flags of the conqueror and the conquered. I thought the question of conqueror and conquered was a question of the past. There was no such question at the time of Union. Then hon. members opposite assert that the Vierkleur is dead. Well, I recently visited the Utrecht district and I saw the Vierkleur drawn across the dining rooms of two houses I visited. In my own town the Nationalists, four years ago, dedicated the Vierkleur and handed it over to the Dutch Reformed Church minister for safe keeping, and for resurrection when the time came. Does that show that the Vierkleur is dead? If it were possible to join the Vierkleur and the Union Jack together it would help us in the work of building up a great South African nation. I am young enough and optimistic enough to believe that the time will come when our boundaries will extend far beyond where they do to-day, and when we shall have in the southern part of this vast continent a great confederation of States. Will that be possible under a flag such as the Government is trying to force upon us? Alas, this Bill deliberately prevents any opportunity of extension in the direction I have indicated. If the combined flag is not acceptable, let us postpone the Bill to a time when the younger generation will be able to come to an agreement. The young people in the schools are learning to know and to understand each other, and to appreciate one another’s sentiments, feelings and ideals. They will be far better able to solve this question than we are; for one thing, we of the present generation are too near to the great events of recent history. Many men still alive have fought under either the Vierkleur or the Union Jack. I would now like to say a few words to the hon. members on the Labour benches. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has been asked a question by a newspaper on which he worked for many years. I will ask him the same question. It is—

When last year’s Bill was introduced he said—

He knows what the feelings of the majority of his constituents are, he knows they are against it, yet notwithstanding that he is today supporting the Bill. I want to know what price he has paid for supporting this Bill. He will have an opportunity of answering this question in this House and I do not know whether he would give the same answer which he gave according to Mr. Archie Jamieson who, until a few months ago, was the national secretary of the Labour party. Mr. Jamieson has published a letter stating exactly what the position is, and he says of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan)—

The hon. member is not entitled to make suggestions that any support has been bought or that hon. members act here on account of material gain.

On a point of order, might I ask whether one may put to an hon. member of this House a statement he himself made. That is all my hon. friend is doing. He is reading out a speech said to have been made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North).

I think the hon. member is mistaken. He is reading what the national secretary of the party said.

No, sir. The national secretary is recalling a speech said to have been made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) and reported in the press, and my hon. friend is asking if it is true that he made this speech. That is why I intervened. I do not think you got the purport of his remarks.

The hon. member has on several occasions asked what was the price paid to the hon. member for his support. I tried to follow’ what he was meaning and on one occasion he referred to it as his reason, and now he quotes what another man has said and insinuates that the hon. member has been paid. He was quoting the national secretary.

I was referring to the political price, sir—

The hon. member was referring to “Cabinet pudding.”

I don’t want to do anything that is against the rules of this House. Can I ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) whether he said that the Labour party had been sold for two Cabinet puddings? He can deny it.

Yes, you can ask that.

I would also like to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) whether he still agrees with the admission he made last year that not a single Pact member would be returned for Natal if this Bill were proceeded with. I would like to ask him another question whether the statement of the national secretary of the Labour party is correct when it imputes to him that he said the Labour party had been sold for two plates of Cabinet pudding. I would also like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) last year, reported on the 20th May. 1926, when he said—

I ask him if he adheres to that statement, and whether he considers the Flag Bill now proceeded with will not arouse bitter controversy, and if so, whether he still supports the Bill? The Minister of Labour also made a statement last year, and in an interview, with a pressman, which was published, he said—

I ask the Minister if he adheres to that statement, and whether he considers, in the light of the information now before him, this Bill is likely to have the respect and goodwill of the British and Dutch sections of the community?

You are making it impossible, you and your side.

In what way? Have we introduced this Bill? Are we the people who are forcing this Bill on the country?

Have the Government not tried to meet you?

I would like to know in what way we are making it impossible.

By rousing passion. [No quorum.]

The Minister says we have made it impossible. I might say so far as we are concerned—that is members of the South African party—we have not made any mention on political platforms of this flag question. The only time I have spoken was when I was forced to do so at a political meeting on one of the coal mines in my constituency. I was forced to speak upon it, because I was told I would not get a hearing unless I told the meeting what I proposed to do with their flag. To me, it has been a distasteful subject, feeling as I do that it is going to cause racialism, disunion, and will break down the whole of the good work done since Union. This Bill is going to tear this country in half. If ever there was a country asking for peace, it is this country, peace to build up the nation, peace to build up our industries and our agriculture, peace that we may gradually weld ourselves into a united race. Without peace, we can never become a strong and united country. Can we make a country of this unless we have the united friendship and efforts of our English-speaking Afrikanders? I say we can never build up a strong and united people unless we have the necessary goodwill and assistance from the English-speaking South Africans. I see the hon. the Minister of the Interior smiles at me. I do not know whether he agrees with this statement. This Bill will certainly break all that hope, trust and confidence upon which the Union was founded.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I regret very much to see so few of the Labour party here.

And very few of your own party.

I am very glad to see the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) in his seat. I put a few questions to the hon. member this afternoon, and I hope they have been conveyed to him and that the hon. member will take the opportunity of explaining the attitude which he is now taking up. I put it to the hon. member whether the statement is not correct that at the last general election he definitely and solemnly pledged himself not to do any act by which the Union Jack would be pulled down? Did not he tell the electors of Maritzburg that the Union Jack was as safe in his hands as it was in the hands of any South African party man?

So it is, much safer.

I want to know whether the hon. member made that statement and whether he abides by it? I hope he will get up and say exactly what his attitude is to-day. Regarding the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), whom I heard interjecting just now, I would like him to tell the House why he did not attend the meeting at Stellenbosch at which he and the hon. member for Winburg were advertised to speak last Friday on the flag question. I have before me an article which appeared in the “People’s Weekly,” and in this article I notice it is stated—

Where does that appear?

I said it appeared in the “People’s Weekly.” Perhaps the hon. member himself wrote that leading article.

You know that is untrue.

The hon. member himself passed a resolution at the Labour party conference held in Bloemfontein last year that the two flags would fly side by side with absolute equality and equal official recognition.

So they do. Read the Bill.

That they would fly equally, that there would be no difference.

Read the Bill.

Yes, as the hon. member knows very well, last year he said that the Labour party would support this Bill, and that they are prepared to pay the price.

So they are.

Will he tell the House what that price was that he mentioned last year? Will he tell this House and the country what the price was that the Labour party were prepared to pay? I think that that price which the hon. member referred to was partially paid at the last provincial council elections in Natal, and the balance paid at the next general elections. I wish to join in the appeal to my fellow Afrikanders on the other side. I would like to say this—that when we entered into Union the English people promised us that they would honour and respect our traditions, our sentiments. That promise was made in the Natal Parliament at the time when Union was considered. You can read the speeches in the Natal Hansard where they have made that promise. To-day they are prepared to fulfil that promise. They are prepared to do honour to the Vierkleur by allowing that flag to be placed on an equal footing, on an equal basis with the flag to which they are attached. I also appeal to my fellow Afrikanders opposite that, if they feel they cannot accept that proposal, they should allow this matter to stand over. I honestly believe that the time is not far off when both Dutch and English South Africans will be able to come to a mutual agreement, when we can have a flag which will signalize the union of both sections of the people. If only we have patience, the time will come with this better understanding which is daily growing, which is daily becoming a part of the life of the people of this country; when that understanding is complete, I do honestly believe that a flag could de devised in this country which would be acceptable to all, which would be a symbol of our unity and which would be respected and honoured by all of us. I am sorry I do not see the Minister of Labour here, but I have no hesitation in saying that the flag which he supports is the red flag. On the 13th November, 1918, he wrote a letter to the “Natal Mercury” on that most momentous day, the day of peace. This is what he said—

The first words I speak are meant to be a plea for moderation in discussing this most important matter. The moderation I plead for I desire to show in my bearing and the expression of my thoughts. This is one of the crises in the history of this country, and I want to bear that in mind for myself, and I appeal to the House to bear it in mind as we proceed with this debate. There is need of moderation in speech however intense thought may be. What appeals to me as a contradictory state of things is this, that a matter like this should be going on while the troubled state of the rural population in such districts as Aberdeen, Willowmore, parts of Oudtshoorn and Jansenville cries aloud for the sympathy of Parliament and the active help of the Government.

They get it.

They get it through the charity of certain important centres of population. While the appeal is going forth to the charitably-minded, and is being magnificently responded to, meetings in those rural centres are being held exhorting the Government to stand fast to their Flag Bill.

Of course.

I am almost ashamed to quote it, but there is an ancient saying about Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. What will the country, when it comes to analyse and summarize the debates of this House, have to say about us if we devote undue time to this matter, which can be safely relegated to the future, while we neglect our starving people at our own doors? I regard the whole controversy as unnecessary, and I ask who began it. We have lately heard of oppression in this land under the Union Jack. A certain phrase that by this time ought to be regarded as useless has been quoted again and again, the phrase “a century of wrong.” The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has met that and dealt with it, and those on this side of the House who fought against Britain in defence of what they believed to be their duty have borne their willing testimony to the magnanimity of the old country. I am proud to claim it as my mother country, which after a splendid struggle won in the field did its splendid duty to those who had fought so gallantly. Oppression—that belongs not to the Union Jack! That flag is the guarantee of free institutions wherever it floats. Let us have done with cant and cease to talk about a century of wrong and the oppression that has gone on in this country under the Union Jack, for the statement is not truth but exaggeration. Better far to forget these contentious things and things allied with them, or if they must be remembered let them be remembered in silence. Yes, I commend it to those on the other side who have talked so freely about the wrongs they have suffered, the grief they have endured and their terrible oppression under the Union Jack. Where would these men be to-day had Great Britain not done the generous thing? We know the old sinister maxim about if you want to make a man your enemy show kindness to him, and I am afraid there is some truth in it. I desire to correct a mistake that to my mind is very prevalent in this country and in this House, that British people of set habit like to hoist flags every day. I could take my friends opposite to some of the chief centres of population where there are buildings with five or six flagstaffs, but it is only on one or two days that they are used. It may come as news to hon. members over there, but we consider it bad form to talk a great deal about flags. We do not talk about the flag, but we come to definite action when the flag is attacked. I can stand a great deal of clamour and you will tire before I will. If you have difficulty in hearing I will pull out another stop or two. You have to listen. Now we are told that by the gracious permission of the Government and the Minister of the Interior the Union Jack may fly for four definite days of the year. We will never fly that flag by permission. We shall never appeal to the Minister of the Interior for his sanction. That flag that has braved many breezes can endure any storms that beat upon it from the mouth of the Minister. That flag stands for something and we stand by the flag. It is history, and we shall never tolerate that such a flag should be slighted. We do say this, that in this country under the somewhat strange conditions of life in this country we are prepared for the adoption and the use of a national flag that shall show the colours of the British side and the Dutch side of thought and speech and conduct. We have not deviated from that. I have known the Minister of the Interior for a good many years. I am sure he will take from me this fact, which I certify to be a fact, that we have for at least a year past agreed in our party that the true national flag of South Africa should enshrine the Union Jack and the colours of the two late republics, too. Yet I have heard the Minister say on Monday that we have no national flag such as the other dominions have and that it is time we had one, and he expressed the utmost surprise when he was assured that we had had a flag for seventeen years past. There is no ignorance like intentional ignorance. We have a flag, and if that flag is not enough we are prepared on this side to adopt and honour and keep flying a flag that should embody the Union Jack and the Colours of the two republics, too. Concerning the attempt that is being made—and if I am to be guided by the Prime Minister’s interjection that will still be made—to enforce the will of the Government, I want to say on behalf of certain associations of men and women in this country, respectable citizens, law-abiding citizens, people who do not go to gaol and therefore do not require the clemency of the Minister of Justice, people who know the law and keep the law and live honourably with all men and who are banded together in certain patriotic associations, I say on behalf of societies like these—the Caledonian Society, the Cambrian Society, the B.E.S.L. and the much-maligned Sons of England—I have not been near a Sons of England meeting for 20 years, but I honour their principles; they stand for the right as they see it, and their judgment cannot be swept aside as a sort of froth bubble —these law-abiding people are firm in their allegiance to the flag they love so well. I want to read certain resolutions which were passed at a great meeting, and I would like to say I know as little of the organization of that meeting as any member opposite. I was so determined to keep apart from that meeting that although member for the city where it was held I did not even send a telegram on the eve of the meeting. I want to say that on Saturday came a telegram from the Mayor of East London, known in ordinary life as Mr. James Stewart. He is not unknown in this House. He telegraphs me in these words—

1. 1. That this public meeting of citizens of East London considers the proceedings of the recent flag conference at Cape Town and resolves that the proposed new Union flag known as Design No. 2 is unacceptable and will not satisfy South African sentiment and is not emblematic of the division of the races and is not characteristic of anything suggesting a common bond between such races for the future, nor does it identify the Union of South Africa with the British commonwealth of nations.
2. 2. That the Prime Minister and his Government be earnestly and respectfully urged to abandon any proposal for any new Union flag, the design of which does not include the Union Jack as an integral part of it.
3. 3. That any attempt to pass the Flag Bill without general consent be strenuously resisted by every constitutional means.
4. 4. That the three resolutions previously carried be sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior, the Leader of the Opposition and the local member of Parliament.

I thought it my duty to quote what Mr. James Stewart has to say in connection with the meeting at which he spoke enthusiastically for the retention of our flag. Then I have a short letter I wish to communicate written on Monday, 16th May, by the secretary of the Women’s South African Party at East London. You cannot mock at women, you are using them in advocacy and furtherance of the Government’s flag proposals—

I pass that on for the information, and possibly some influence on the feeling of, this House. These resolutions I have read are merely symptomatic of the way passionate feeling has been urging and surging over the people of this country. It may possibly be disastrous to proceed in the face of difficulty like this.

In what way?

In ways that will commend themselves to the hon. member’s intelligence if he will think them over. A national flag has not, as yet, been generally demanded, and what is going on now clearly indicates that the way of peace and of safety must not depend on this determination of forcing on an unwelcome people what they do not want. I want to say that after a long life in this country, donning now for a few moments the mantle of a prophet, if these proposals become law, and if by the force of the majority they are forced on us, this thing will be true—that there are scores of thousands of people, for whom I dare to speak, who will say that we will not buy and fly that flag; we will not reverence it; on the contrary, we will hold it in no respect, and on the first possible occasion we will reject it.

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) this afternoon stressed the necessity that we should endeavour to find a way out of our difficulties by a spirit of give and take. Well, on a previous occasion the right hon. gentleman referred to the excitement in the country about the proposals of the Government contained in the Bill before the House. Let me tell him that if we are unable to find a way out of our troubles he shall also not escape his responsibility, and he will have to share that responsibility with the Government. A lot has been said in this debate, which has really nothing to do with the real point at issue, but I think one thing is clear: when all these’ discussions are stripped of their overburdens and all the padding has been removed, one thing will stand out clear, and that is the uncompromising attitude the Opposition have adopted from the very start, when the Government earnestly endeavoured to produce something, and to produce proposals which we hoped would be acceptable to the country; and the demand from the other side of unconditional surrender. Let us go back and find what the position was in this country when, two years ago, the Government first brought forward the proposal that it was in the interests of the country and of the future co-operation of both white races, that we should have a national flag for this country. The right hon. gentleman, I take it, speaking for his party, agreed with us that the time had come when we should endeavour to secure such a flag for this country. He agreed with us that we should try to find a non-party solution. Well, a conference was called, the matter was discussed, but unfortunately we were unable to agree. The Government, as in duty bound, having undertaken the work, selected one of the designs that were brought forward, and what was the attitude which the Opposition then adopted—

Who said that?

I never heard it.

To-day it was said in this House. That was why the Government at once dropped it, because they said it was far from their desire to have a disguised Vierkleur and to reawaken these feelings.

Who raised that objection? I never heard it.

It was used in this House. That was the objection used by the organized opposition.

Your own Minister of Labour used it—no one else.

The Minister of Defence said it.

We were told that in this design there was a total absence of anything which indicated our connection with the British commonwealth of nations. The Government thought it was our duty to find something which would satisfy that objection—we told the Opposition they could choose a design—and the Prime Minister suggested and we suggested, that as a symbol, to symbolize our connection with the British commonwealth of nations, we should have a crown on the flag; and the result was it was rejected with scorn.

“Die Burger” rejected it with scorn.

If the Opposition had come forward and said—

we would have got our people to accept it. That proposal was rejected, and we had to look out for something else. The Prime Minister, on behalf of our party, suggested that we might use the Royal Standard on that flag. That, again, was summarily rejected.

It was impossible.

It might have been impossible, but it shows we were not out to have secession, and that we did not refuse to have anything to do with something that signalized our connection with the rest of the British commonwealth. This afternoon I was gratified to hear from the right hon. gentleman that he is now prepared to co-operate to find a solution of the difficulty, but it is a pity that during all these months, and during the recess, when we were casting about for something, he did not come forward and make that offer to help us to find something to get out of our difficulties.

You treated us with contempt.

No, we did not. My colleague, the Minister of the Interior, informed the House when it adjourned last session, that seeing that the politicians had failed to find a solution we must try to find people representative of all sections of the country to try to select a design, but the Opposition practically made it impossible, they did their best to make it impossible to find a representative commission to undertake that task.

In what way? What did we do?

The press set upon the commission to make that practically impossible, and the Minister had great difficulty to get representative people of the Opposition side to sit on that commission. That is the attitude hon. members over there have adopted, and now they say it is of so much importance to settle the matter by consent— and I hope the right hon. member is serious—to find a solution at this eleventh hour.

Is that your response to me —to question my seriousness?

I do hope that when he has offered his co-operation there will be a better chance of success and a better spirit shown. During this debate certain hon. members, in spite of what the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has said—that we are all agreed on the necessity for a national flag—some of his own members have said—

Let me remind hon. members that this question has been raised in past years not only by our side and our party, but by the party opposite, and by no Jess a person than the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. He also, on a previous occasion, stressed the necessity for a national flag for South Africa, and what is more, a flag which did not contain the Union Jack. To-day we hear that no settlement is possible unless Dutch-speaking South Africa is prepared to accept a flag which shall contain the Union Jack in toto; and yet there was a time when the right hon. gentleman knew, as well as we do, that it would be equally impossible to get Dutch-speaking South Africa, with the history they have behind them, to accept such a design. We are told about the intense feeling of the Opposition in regard to this question of the inclusion of the Union Jack, but do not hon. members opposite realize the equally intense feeling on our side that no settlement is possible if you insist that there should be a Union Jack in our national flag? There was a time when the right hon. gentleman better interpreted the feelings of Dutch-speaking South Africa than he does to-day.

Is Dutch-speaking South Africa only to be considered?

I am coming to that. On the 2nd December, 1919, at Ventersdorp, the right hon. gentleman said—

The Minister of Justice asked the right hon. gentleman the other night whether he would tell the House whether, on a previous occasion, he uttered this sentiment, and he has now admitted it. In 1919 the right hon. gentleman appreciated the feelings of Dutch-speaking South Africans in regard to this matter. In 1920 he repeated practically the same thing, and in reply to a direct question at Paulpietersburg he said that he was working for a South African flag, and when asked if he meant a flag with the Union Jack, he replied—

Where did you get that from?

It was reported in the press at the time.

In what press?

I think the statement appeared in the Dutch press in Natal.

I deny entirely that I said so.

An hon. member put the question, and that was the reply.

Not in that way. He did not say that.

The right hon. gentleman has not denied what he said at Ventersdorp.

I am correctly reported at Ventersdorp, but the other report is false.

I shall not pursue that subject further. I can only repeat that a respected hon. member of this House who put the question, unfortunately, is not in a position to intervene in this debate.

There are several members of Parliament who were there.

In any case there was a time when the right hon. gentleman felt that not only was there the need to have our own South African flag, but he also felt that it was impossible to get our people to agree to the incorporation of the Union Jack because it would hurt them.

That I deny.

The right hon. gentleman admitted that he used these words at Ventersdorp. We have to wo with hard facts in this country, and we know that this is the position as far as the majority of the Dutch-speaking people in the old republics are concerned. They will never accept that solution which the Opposition is asking us to accept. The question was put forward that in the Bill the design which the Government has chosen wounded the sentiment of English-speaking people in this country. I say there is absolutely no justification for that statement, when we have selected as one of the emblems the cross of St. George, which was the original flag of England. We have thus given full and adequate expression to British sentiment in this country. But the right hon. gentleman was correct this afternoon when he said that we differed on fundamentals. Yes, we do. The real reason for this uncompromising demand is because to hon. gentlemen opposite the Union Jack always has had, and to-day has, a political and constitutional significance in this country. The right hon. gentleman may tell us that he and some people accept the constitutional position as fixed at the Imperial Conference, but we cannot get away from the fact that that is not the case with the majority of his followers in this country. The hon. the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) told us that the whole demand was unconstitutional, and we are told that by flag committees. What right, they say, have we to exclude the Union Jack? We have heard to-night that English-speaking people would never ask permission to fly that flag.

Of course we won’t.

That shows the old spirit of domination.

The old spirit of fairness.

The English-speaking people would really prefer not to become South Africans, but would prefer to remain British subjects, if they could renounce South African nationality without leaving this country. We are quite prepared to be called South African nationals alone, but that is not good enough for a large portion of the people.

Are you a British subject?

Yes, I became one by compulsion, but South African nationality is quite good enough for me.

We are beginning to see you in your true light now.

We were told the other night by the hon. member for East London North (Brig- Gen. Byron) that this flag was carried by the English at Crecy and Agincourt. This afternoon I was amazed to hear the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) say that his objection to the flag was that the Dutch were not getting representation in it. That is not going to be a difficulty, for when we go into Committee we shall be able to find a solution for it. We have heard the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) tell us that they demanded the inclusion of the Union Jack as a right. What would he say if we made that demand that we should also include our own emblem? And if that emblem were not acceptable to the English-speaking people, what would they say?

Make your suggestion.

I can only tell him that it has been suggested that if that is to be a solution, if we are to have the Union Jack included because our British fellow-citizens want it, and if we had to choose our own emblem, why should we not choose something which is very dear to us? For instance, the national monument at Bloemfontein, which symbolises the heroism and self-sacrifice of our women, which was applauded by the late Gen. Botha when that monument was unveiled? We, however, would not make that suggestion, because it would arouse bitter controversy and hurt our British fellow-subjects. We shall not demand the inclusion of that. Unfortunately, you cannot settle this matter on the principle of inclusion. I have no bitter feelings against the British, but what I do resent is what I see has been happening here lately, this absolute refusal to appreciate our feelings in this matter, and the demand to include something which is going to hurt us. The reason for this opposition is not because we, in selecting our design, are not recognizing British traditions and sentiments, but because hon. members opposite will insist on the inclusion of the Union Jack, because they think that if that symbol does not appear they will no longer occupy a dominant position in the country. It is for that reason that if we should now withdraw this Bill it would be treason to South Africa. It is clear to me that from the opposition which we have seen in the country, there are thousands who are not accepting this constitutional position that we are equal parties and have the right to select our own flag. Listening to the arguments one would think that the Union Jack was going to disappear from South Africa. So far, very little has been said on the other side as to the provision in the Bill that the Union Jack shall be flown on certain specified occasions to symbolize what it actually stands for in this country. We have heard very little about that. Hon. members don’t realize that, for the very first time in the history of the country, you are getting the Dutch-speaking people to accept the Union Jack. The Union Jack has flown here all these years by right of conquest, and here for the first time we make a free choice and for the first time by solemn Act of Parliament we say we shall accept it and shall fly it to symbolize a certain political purpose.

What about the minute signed by the Prime Minister?

You can leave that to me—I shall deal with it.

That minute was signed before he made—

You are talking about a choice.

Do you want to suggest that in 1910 we had a free choice in regard to the flag? No, I don’t think so. This is the first time an attempt has been made to find a solution of this question. All we ask our English-speaking fellow South Africans is that we should have something which does not contain anything which would hurt any one section in this country. The Union Jack is not disappearing from this country It is not our flag, but it is the flag of Great Britain, and we accept it as the emblem of our British connection. I am supporting these proposals because I am convinced there is nothing unfair to our English-speaking fellow-subjects in these proposals. It is stated that the right hon. gentleman has the support of a certain section of the Dutch-speaking people. We claim we are supported by a large proportion of English-speaking Labour and English-speaking South Africans who ordinarily support the right hon. gentleman in politics. This need not be a question of race. South Africans of both races are wanting a flag that will not remind us of the unhappy past in this country. The position of Ireland has been quoted. When I met those delegates representing that Dominion at the Imperial Conference there was a spirit of goodwill and co-operation increasing every day and that would not have been the case if the Irish desire for an Irish national flag had been thwarted. In any case, the Dutch-speaking South Africans cannot decide this question. At the referendum the proposals will be rejected unless there is a sufficiently large number of English-speaking South Africans whose sentiments are sufficiently deeply rooted in this country as to appreciate our desire for a national flag in this country. It has been said that the Bill will be forced through. The people will decide, and I am so convinced of the justice of these proposals that I look forward confidently to the appeal that will be made to the people of the country.

I am bound to confess I have listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance with a great deal of disappointment—[interruptions owing to Government members leaving and cries of “run away” and “we have got them on the run”]—and I may say a great deal of anxiety. There were many of us who looked on the Minister of Finance as a man of decided views, but a man who would not go out of his way to say things derogatory to those sitting on this side of the House and to one section of the people. It is impossible to deny that the speech contains much evidence of provocation and bitterness and reluctance to allow the English-speaking people of this country and the Dutch-speaking members who support this side of the House the right to make their voices heard and take their share in the decision as to what shall be the flag of this country. The Minister has told us he is a British subject merely by compulsion, and that he would cheerfully welcome anything that had no sign of the English upon it.

Nonsense.

I defy anybody to say that it is not the effect of what he said, although I do not quote his exact words. Is it logical of the Minister to say it is our uncompromising attitude that has made the solution of this question difficult? There are strong opinions, but I deny that there has been an uncompromising attitude on this side of the House. When there are opinions which any body of men and part of any section of the community considered to be an essential, opinions which they cannot draw back from, surely it is straining the meaning of words when they say the thing is essential, they are, therefore, uncompromising and provocative. I speak for those who are born Englishmen, who have made their homes in this country, and I might add that if we had been uncompromising, as the Minister suggested, we should have declined the inclusion of anything in the flag of the Union but the Union Jack, or the flag, which my hon. friend behind me, showed yesterday. We have suggested in good faith that the future flag of the Union should combine the Union Jack and the old flag of the republics. We have suggested that, and hon. members opposite have turned down the suggestion. Why did they turn that down? We know perfectly well those flags are not dead. In any sort of gathering in the northern province of the Union, especially when prominent members of the Government are there, those flags are flown. If they were dead that would note be the position. We are drawn irresistibly to the conclusion that the reason a great many members opposite refuse to have the old flag of the republics is that they do not wish to give us an excuse to say that they want a flag of the past to represent them. We know that is the real reason. It ill becomes the Minister when he puts forward an argument such as that—that we are the people who are uncompromising and provocative. I regret that members look at the matter from that point of view. We have welcomed the suggestion all along that there should be a flag, and we have made it a sine qua non that the Union Jack should be part of that flag, but if the Dutch-speaking members can agree on any other device for the rest of the flag that would be a worthy substitute, then I think no one on this side of the House would take exception to such a design, and I can think of none better than the old republican flags. If we had been inclined to be provocative and suspicious, then we have had no small measure of provocation since tile hon. members came into office. For the first two years after the hon. members came into office we had speeches by the Minister of Justice, amongst others, the plain English of which was, if we English do not behave ourselves, we shall find ourselves driven into the sea.

This is an absolute travesty.

I do not say he used those words, but his speech indicated the plain meaning of what I say. We have seen a great deal of this position in the public service and on the railways and so forth.

What have you seen on the railways?

I will tell you if you will give me time. You have made it difficult for people who are English and people who are supporters of the South African party.

Give us one single case.

If evidence is wanted I can only point to the Public Service Commission and Ministers’ statements that other things being equal they would appoint a Nationalist

What would you do?

I can only say “other things being equal” have not been looked after in that respect. It is idle to deny this time last year, before the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance went to London, we were very uneasy as to what he meant on the constitutional question. We pressed him here to say what he did mean, and found it difficult to get an answer. They came back and made what were admitted to be perfectly satisfactory speeches, and we thought this question was at an end. The flag question was hung up last year and surely the Prime Minister is not going to allow the peaceful atmosphere created when he went to London and the speeches when he came back to be vitiated by a question that is convulsing the whole of the Union. We may be accused of being thin-skinned, but to the English people this proposal of the Government which they are trying to force through is nothing less than provocation and a deliberate affront. I do not wish to dwell upon the hindrance that it is going to cause to the fusion of the two races, but it is going to breed an atmosphere of suspicion that is going to last for years to come, and I am bound to say such misgivings as I have, have not been diminished by what has fallen from the Minister of the Interior with regard to the nationality clauses of the Bill. I am willing to admit, from the constitutional point of view, to take these clauses as they stand, there is not much objection, but there is this objection, as the Minister admitted, it is going to be made more difficult for people coming from England to be citizens of this country. The Minister of Finance says he is satisfied to be a South African subject, and does not want to be a British subject. When you get a statement like that, coupled with the admission of the Minister of the Interior, can it be wondered at that we are nervous of what they will do in the future, if they get the power, to alter the nationality clauses. Apart from that, look at the material damage that is going to be done. I can understand the attitude of members opposite if they were satisfied to be a small, self-contained, unventurous and unprogressive community. Are we that? Why should we desire to cut ourselves adrift from all the rest of British South Africa? In the ordinary course the Union will look forward to the hegemony of all these great territories, possibly future nations under the British flag right up to Kenya. Who is going to pay attention to us in future if we adopt this flag? They are going to look upon us as a foreign community which they are going to keep at arm’s length as far as they possibly can. I do not believe that that is the wish of the Dutch people who compose the Nationalist party. If that were the attitude the next thing, I suppose, we will hear is that the mandated territory of South-West Africa is to be handed back to the Germans or anybody else who likes to take it. I do not think that they can realize what their action will mean. There is a further point. The Minister of Finance said he is quite satisfied to be a South African subject, and that that gives him all he wants. After all, who is going to defend the hon. gentleman’s house and home, who is going to look after him if a foreign nation chooses to descend upon these shores? The Minister of the Interior, I think, saw that the whole thing was absurd, because he admitted that the Union Jack stood for the constitutional evolution of defence. I do not know what exactly he means by the constitutional evolution of defence, but what I do know is the only defence that this country has got to-day consists of the British navy and the strength of the British empire. The Minister of Finance said that he does not care for that—he is content to be a South African and not be a British subject. He says he can look after himself. I only hope the day will not come when he will need to defend himself. I think there is another point which has hardly been sufficiently dwelt upon, and that is that this action of the Government is after all, a breach of faith with South Africa. The right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) this afternoon alluded in very eloquent terms to what took place some 25 years ago at Vereeniging. Does anybody think that 25 years ago when those discussions were taking place at Vereeniging, the agreement that was then made, the agreement which has been loyally observed, would ever have been entered into if the right hon. gentleman and his friends had got up and had said—

It is quite certain that the treaty that was then made would not have been made on that basis. There is another breach of faith involved. I consider, and that is what took place in 1910 at Union. Does any reasonable person think that Union would ever have been effected if the people who represented the Dutch-speaking section on that occasion had said—

After all, that is what it amounts to. Does any reasonable person think that union could have come about? I am not talking only of Natal. It is perfectly obvious that if that had been suspected or thought, the referendum in Natal would have had a different result. The whole thing, however, would have broken down long before that. It would have broken down from the first sitting of the Convention. So I say that in forcing this Bill upon us in this way, hon. gentlemen opposite are committing what, in effect, is a breach of the understanding upon which the Union was based I do not wish to go into what I may call the more detailed reasons. The Minister of Finance says that in this Bill, for the first time in the history of South Africa, the Dutch-speaking people have consented by law to the flying of the Union Jack. I do not wish to question his law, but it seems to me, on the face of it, it is very doubtful if he is correct. It may be said, of course, that the treaty of Vereeniging and the Act of Union did not make special mention of the Union Jack, but, of course, the Act of Union mentioned British nationality. The question of the Union Jack was never mentioned, because it never entered the mind of anybody that there could have been any interference with the Union Jack. If you are going to say to half the people of the country that you are going to pull down something which we consider of absolutely essential importance, two things are going to happen. First of all, you are going to have discord in the country, and, secondly, you are going to impair the progress, the advancement, the enterprise of the whole of the Union, and you are going to make it more difficult for the British empire to give us that assistance in defence, in finance and in various other ways which we enjoy today and which we have always enjoyed. If anybody had put forward that suggestion at that time, people would have thought he was a lunatic. It passes my comprehension that hon. members opposite can fail to see the danger which besets us if we adopt the course which they are now inviting us to follow. They have invited us to get into a track which tends to get us further and further from Great Britain, which tends to get us obviously and correspondingly further and further from the other dominions, and then what is going to come? The Minister of Finance says that he is quite satisfied. I think if that happens he would not be so satisfied as he says he is to-day.

Great Britain is not worrying about this flag.

Of course not. If we make fools of ourselves we shall suffer. Great Britain will not suffer. I can find, may I say without offence, some excuse for hon. members opposite. They are of different race to us English people. They, many of them, have been through the Boer war, and it is quite natural that they should look upon these things from a somewhat different angle. In passing I would like to remark that the question of the attitude of the Dutch-speaking people of the country on this matter has been throughout this debate very largely confined to the attitude of the Dutch-speaking people in the Transvaal and the Free State. It is for those people that I can make the allowance that I suggest. The same thing does not apply to the Minister of the Interior. What other flag has he ever known? The Minister of Finance says he became a British subject by conquest. How did the Minister of the Interior become a British subject? He was born and bred under the British flag and under it he has attained whatever he has attained to-day. I do not find fault with them for that, but I wish they would think sometimes that it was lucky for them it fell out as it did. It does seem to me that it is not for them to lead this crusade.

Is it for any Britisher to differ from you?

I do not know what the Prime Minister means.

Would you say the same of any man with the same relation as you differing from you?

I am not discussing what anybody may say. I am discussing the question as to whether there is a difference between the Dutch-speaking people in the northern provinces, and those who belong to the Cape and the Natal. I say to my mind there is a great difference, because it is strictly true that the people in the northern provinces became British subjects by conquest or, as I should prefer to put it, by treaty and agreement.

Why should not the Minister of the Interior be as much at liberty to differ from you as any so-called Britisher of English descent?

I will tell the Prime Minister why—because he has not suffered. The Dutch-speaking people of the northern provinces have suffered, but he and his friends have prospered under the flag under which he was born. There is another point. It is to me a great disappointment and also a source of anxiety that there are so many, apparently, judging by the interjections, among the younger members of this House who are taking these extreme views. Some of them, as I understand, were very young when the events of 25 years ago happened, and some of them belong to the provinces where no other flag but the Union Jack has ever been known. There are other parties to this trouble. They are the hon. members who sit on the cross benches. I find it difficult to moderate my language to accord with the rules of this House when I deal with them. The members who compose the Labour party are directly responsible for this discussion which is going on to-day. If they had done their duty, if they had kept their word to the people who put them in their seats, this discussion would not be going on and this Bill would never have been introduced. I defy members on the cross benches to say that is not correct. We have had that admitted by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and by prominent members of the Labour party, not personally known to me, in Durban, Johannesburg and East London, and I am reminded that one of these was the late secretary of the Labour party who, surely, having been instrumental in getting members into their seats, should know something about the reasons which prompted him to help them. I am quite aware that this is not the first time hey have pursued a similar policy. We had the same policy pursued by some of them in the Transvaal in 1906. At that time I was in the party which was in opposition to my right hon. friend, and my recollection of what took place is that my right hon. friend very astutely and quite legitimately took advantage of these gentlemen’s activities, and he created the then Labour party in the Transvaal Parliament and used that party to split our vote. That was quite legitimate. The people who were to blame were the people who now occupy the cross benches. They did it in 1906 and they are doing it again to-day. It is for that reason that I will not admit that there is any similarity between the position of the old Unionist party and the members of the South African party on the one side, and the position of the Nationalist party and the parliamentary Labour party, on the other side. On this side we have a genuine fusion based upon mutual regard, and based upon the recognition that the right hon. gentleman and his friends have always kept their word, have always played the game, and when the country was in danger they saved it from destruction. Is there any resemblance between the manner of the fusion which took place between the members who compose this party and the relations which exist between the members on the cross benches and the members over there? Members of the cross benches were so greedy of power, or so anxious to hit the South African party, that they were willing to sacrifice their own constituents and to sacrifice their principles and they were willing to make themselves a party to a shameful bond. It is quite possible that with the aid of these gentlemen this Bill will go through this House. That is quite possible, but I do not envy the gentlemen on the cross benches their fate at the hands of the people whom they stoop to stab in the back. I think it is certain that time will bring them their retribution. When these people have done their work, when the period for which their reward shall be operative has gone, then will come, I feel sure, the withering blast. For these reasons I would support the amendment which has been moved by my right hon. friend. It is possible that in the heat of controversy timings are said which make it more difficult to bring about agreement, but if I have spoken somewhat warmly I think I had ample provocation in the speech made by the Minister of Finance. Not so much, perhaps, for the exact words, but for the obvious impression which one got from listening to that speech. I would in all earnestness ask hon. members opposite to pause before they carry this any further, because—make no mistake— if this campaign is persevered in, it may become a very serious quarrel, and it is a quarrel which unfortunately is forced upon us by circumstances under which an active campaign is going to last for a very considerable time, and no one can say what passions will be aroused by that campaign, and what may come out of it.

Not a Jameson raid!

I would put it to the Prime Minister, it is sometimes a sign of a true patriot to give way. I ask him to accept the invitation of my right hon. friend and the assurance he has given him— one which I am sure will be honoured by every man who sits on these benches, if hon. gentlemen opposite will accept that advice and pause at this late moment. There will be no endeavour to make any political capital out of it.

To me this matter is a very serious thing, and I am pleased that in this debate thus far there has been a fair sense of moderation. The consequences of any heated discussion may lead to such deplorable results as any hon. member may be ashamed of, in the near future, and any remarks from me are from one who is not only responsible to his constituents but to the country as a whole. I have reason to speak with all sincerity, having been born and lived all my life among people of Dutch extraction—people for whom I have the deepest respect and admiration. I have shared with them in their joys and tribulations. I can speak as a representative of the majority of one of the oldest districts in the Union. When I read the speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Cape Town, and afterwards confirmed in Pretoria, I felt that at last a new era had dawned on South Africa: the consummation of a united South Africa whereby the two white races would live and labour side by side in peace and goodwill had arrived. But I am gravely disappointed at the turn of events, due to the determination of the Minister of the Interior to force through a flag which will not embody the symbols of the two white races of South Africa. We are all agreed on our status, but unfortunately it appears there is no possibility of coming to an agreement on the flag question, and I would appeal to the Prime Minister to leave this burning question alone, or to leave it until such time as an agreement will be arrived at. On the other hand, if the Minister of the Interior insists on his policy of resuscitating discord in this country, no other design could be better than this proposed flag. It is said that the Vierkleur is dead, but an expression like this is an insult to those who have fought so gloriously for white civilization in the past. No it is not dead, and it should live in the heart of every Afrikander. For upwards of 100 years or more, the symbol of the Cape Colony, and for part of that period the symbol of Natal, under which both English and Dutch enjoyed protection, has been the symbol of the Union Jack. To the coloured people and the natives the Union Jack has also been a symbol to which they have been attached in loyalty and devotion. It is proposed that we should have a referendum on this question and that a majority of even one should have the effect of forcing on the minority a flag which is not going to reconcile the races. I cannot possibly conceive how blind the Government has been to their responsibility. We are going to have a referendum which is going to open up old sores of both sections of the community, which I hoped had gone for ever. Personally, I would fight 20 general elections, rather than have a referendum of this kind.

You cannot draw red herrings across the trail in a referendum.

It is going to be bitter. There are many of my Dutch-speaking friends for whom I have every admiration who are probably going to work against their fellow Dutchmen, and in this respect it is going to be bitter. We are accused of making this a party question, and the Minister of Labour said that the Mayor of Durban was giving out instructions to his subordinates, and insinuated as much that it was work for the South African party. That is only the beginning of insinuations, and I say with deliberation that nothing of the kind emanated from us as a party. A few days or a week ago a meeting was held in the Cape Town city hall. I went there through inquisitiveness, and I saw the great enthusiasm displayed by these people. Are we to ignore their feelings? They came in their thousands, and the people who spoke spoke with responsibility, and knowing what it would mean to these people’s feelings. As to the attitude of members of the Labour party on this great question, I would refer this House to a signed letter from one of them recently, whose views sum up to a nicety the views of hon. members on the crossbenches. It is a letter from Mr. Archie Jamieson which I saw in one of the papers. I have the deepest sympathy for those who fought gloriously for their country, but I have no respect for the feelings of hon. members on the Labour side; perhaps it would be unparliamentary to say that I have contempt for them. There is another point in regard to this turmoil and that is its effect on business generally, for if the Bill is passed we shall have an upheaval which will adversely affect trade. Even at a general election business is absolutely at a standstill. As one born in South Africa I yield place to no one in this House for my love of the traditions of both races. I implore the Government to postpone the flag question till some distant date when an amicable agreement may be arrived at for a flag embodying the Vierkleur and the Union Jack.

The language and tone of members of the Government make it very difficult to discuss this matter clamly, but the gravity of the question demands that it should be debated in a serious way. However, I believe it is not yet too late to arrive at a solution. It is no use raking up the bitter past and I was aggrieved to hear the speech of the Minister of Finance because the over-shadowing features of it were domination and intolerance. We cannot go on in that way, but we must look to the future. The Minister of the Interior also referred to the bitter memories of the past. Surely, he has the least reason of all to do that, for he took no part in the war between Great Britain and the republics. He was born in one of the provinces under the Union Jack and was shielded by that. I don’t suppose he has ever had a rifle in his hand. I would like to remind him that Natal is part of the British Empire and the bitter and derogatory way in which he spoke about Natal raised my ire. As a Natal man I know very little about the party in Natal which the Minister said refuse to allow themselves to be called South Africans. As a Natal man I know very little about that section, and it is very unfair that Natal should be judged by a small and extremist party. Natal has always maintained the spirit of the National Convention. How very unfair it would be of me to cast reflections on the Cape because it has a league of fanatics, mostly women, who are anti-British and who are responsible for imposing their will on the Minister of the Interior and the Government. It would be wrong to condemn the Cape because of that clique. That is not the way to achieve unity. The Minister was wrong when he said that the Government side alone represent Dutch opinion. In my constituency half the electors are Dutch and half English. The late General Botha was born in my constituency and his relatives live there to this day. The constituencies of Weenen, Klip River and Dundee are similarly circumstanced. The electors in those constituencies are people of moderate opinion, and people with moderate views constitute the majority of the inhabitants of South Africa. I was born in Natal and I represent the moderate opinion of both races, and they realize that if we are to build up a nation we must have agreement and unity. They agree that we require a national flag, one that will symbolize the builders up of South Africa—the English and the Dutch, but No. 2 design is meaningless. We want to have a flag which both sections of the population will love, that will unify the sentiment of English and Dutch. The turmoil over this question is far deeper than the Government realize. The reason for that is the violation of sentiment of the people. History gives us a solution of the Flag Bill. The history of South Africa did not begin with the landing of Van Riebeck or the great trek, but goes back to the sixteenth century when the English and the Dutch defeated the attempt of Spain to stamp them both out, and in that case and if they had been untrue to each other it is doubtful whether those two great countries would be as they are to-day and there would have been no Dutch settlement in the Cape which would in all probability have been a Portuguese republic or a vassal State under the Spanish Crown. The comradeship in arms between the English and Dutch 350 years ago, is responsible for the position of the Union of South Africa to-day. If there had not been that ancient bond of comradeship in arms neither English or Dutch would be here to-day. From 1914 to 1918 Dutch-speaking and English-speaking South African voluntarily took up arms and fought under the Union Jack. Would the Minister of the Interior suggest those Dutch-speaking South Africans, who formed part of the brigade at Delville Wood, fought less gallantly because they fought under the Union Jack, this recent comradeship in arms seals the ancient bond? The Government has made a great point of the referendum. Whichever way it goes it is going to create dissatisfaction, whether it is in favour of the Government or against it. In it there is the essence of disunion. I ask the Government if the referendum goes against them are they going to continue in office? Besides the terms on which the people are going to vote make it as the hon. member for Pretoria has said—

and an ambiguous meaning can be put to the result of that vote which should be put right when the Bill goes into Committee. I am one of those who say it is wrong to say the Vierkleur is dead. In the Free State and Transvaal the Vierkleur is still flown. The noble deeds performed under that flag will never die, and there are hon. members sitting on both sides of the House who fought nobly or the old Vierkleur, and their veneration for that flag will never die. The late republics were overpowered, but they were not defeated. If five armed men attack one man fully armed and bear him to the ground and take his arms from him it is not defeat; it is not a fair fight. They have overpowered him. So it was with the republics—they were outnumbered. The great act of magnanimity which was performed by Great Britain in giving back the country and the language is proof that the republics were never defeated.

There was no magnanimity if they were not defeated.

For those on the opposite side to say the Union Jack is an emblem of oppression is all moonshine. During the Great War the farmers in South Africa regarded the Union Jack as an emblem that would guarantee the delivery of their wool and produce to the markets of Europe. The hatred of the Union Jack, if there is such hatred, is a matter of recent growth. If there had been any talk of hatred of the Union Jack at the time of the National Convention can any member tell me there would have been a Union of South Africa? No, there was no such talk, and anyone saying there was hatred then of the Union Jack is saying what is not true. When we consummated Onion on June 1st, 1910, it was a time when the chapter of the past was closed. It was the birthday of a new nation in South Africa. At that time the late Gen. Botha planted a tree of unity and nurtured with toleration and co-operation, and that tree has borne fruit. It was his life’s work, and we see the evidence of the success in the volume of public opinion in South Africa to-day. We see it on this side of the House, where English and Dutch-speaking members sit side by side, working for the good of South Africa.

There is no good on this side.

On that side of the House you have two parties whose principles are as far apart as the Poles. One party is socialistic and the other is conservative. At the time of the National Convention Gen. Botha realized the great fact that to maintain a white supremacy in South Africa unity is essential. There is a deliberate attempt to undo Botha’s great work. We have two Doctors of Divinity on the other side of the House, men whose religious training pledges them to preach peace and goodwill to all mankind, and what are they doing"? They are doing their best to separate the people and re kindle the fires of racialism. Yet these ambassadors of God have imposed their will upon the Government in regard to this flag, which is creating an ominous commotion to-day in the country, and what its end will be no man can foretell. When the motion came before the House for leave to introduce this Bill, the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) shouted out across the House—

Why should such an offensive remark be made? That shows a bad spirit which, I am thankful to say, does not exist on this side of the House. Then the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) went out of his way last session, during the debate on this question, to insult the people of Natal. To quote his words as reported in Hansard, he said—

I say that is a gross insult to Natal and absolutely devoid of any truth. I have lived my life in Natal, and I call upon all the Natal members representing Natal to bear me out in this, that opprobrious term, that insult, has never been used by Natal people. Then, again, this high priest of racialism on another occasion, in referring to Natal, as if it were a foreign country, spoke of it as—

Is that the spirit which we should have to create a nation, or to create Union, a bitter, uncalled for remark like that? No, but the most diabolical act that any member of Parliament could be guilty of was committed by the hon. member for Winburg when—

Order. The hon. member must moderate his language somewhat.

I withdraw the word “diabolical”, but one of the gravest acts that any member of Parliament can be guilty of, the hon. member for Winburg was guilty of recently at Stellenbosch. There he is reported to have said, speaking in Afrikaans—

I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House, but the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) gave an explanation of that this afternoon.

If he denies it, I am very glad, but then again in the same report—

He did not deny it, but he explained it away.

The hon. member for Winburg said that the report was incorrect, and he stated what he said.

If he was incorrectly reported in that matter, I am pleased. But he is also reported in another place to have said—

Hear, hear.

What a grave thing it is to go to a university like that and attempt to poison the minds of the young fellows who are on the threshold of life. That is entirely wrong. In regard to this flag, No. 2 design, excluding the Union Jack, there is to-day a suspicion in the minds of the people of the country in regard to it. They feel that it is a first step to a republic, and can they be blamed for thinking so. Take last Friday at the Koffiehuis. When the Minister of Justice was addressing a meeting there he used these words—

What does that mean? If it means anything, it means republicanism. Let us take the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his address the other day in the House when he was discussing the position of South Africa’s status. The Minister of Finance was interjecting, and not agreeing that our status is equal to that of any other of the British dominions. What is the meaning of that? Is he not satisfied with our status? Does he also want a republic? South Africa has had enough trouble in the past and we have every opportunity now of going on in a peaceful manner if the Government will only be reasonable and fair in recognizing the feeling of the people. Put the Vierkleur in its proper place on the national flag, alongside the Union Jack. That is all that is wanted; the solution is simple, and you will satisfy all sections of the community. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. gentlemen on the cross-benches. I ask them who they represent? They represent themselves, but they are not representing their constituents. I ask them, where is their pride when I read to them what the Prime Minister said about them in 1921, This appears in the “Farmers’ Monthly” for March, 1921—

In Die Burger in 1921 he said—

Now they eat out of his hand like tame cats. What is being said among the public is, they want to know what price has been paid for the support of the Labour party? The public want to know whether the £200 a year extra is the price.

The hon. member must not make suggestions of that kind.

Steam ploughs!

No, not steam ploughs, but steam rollers is more appropriate on this occasion. I see my hon. friend for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) smile, and I wonder that he can smile when one of the issues of the election of 1921 was the status and the Union Jack. He said—

And then he said—

In February the hon. member said—

This Flag Bill is a violation of the Act of Union, and the hon. member knows it. In returning thanks for his election the hon. member declared—

What is wrong in it?

We have all to come to our deathbeds; and I would be sorry to be in the place of the hon. member when he is on his. He made a solemn pledge to his constituents to always safeguard the Union Jack and he was returned by them on his pledge of loyalty to the flag. I hope the hon. member has the moral courage to do what the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) has done, vote against the Bill. It is not too late yet. When my leader was speaking this afternoon and saying the Vierkleur was not dead, the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) interjected and said—

What a contrast to his words at Melbourne. They were so beautiful that I wrote them down. He said—

Now he wants a republic, and hon. members opposite want to know why there should be suspicion in the minds of people when expressions like these are made. I appeal to the Prime Minister. It has been said that for less cause than this blood has been shed. You are touching the sentiment of the people, and sentiment is akin to religious fervour. I warn the Prime Minister not to have the blood of the people on the head, and if the Union Jack cannot be incorporated with the Vierkleur in the flag of South Africa he should withdraw the Bill. Wait till the atmosphere is calmer; till there is agreement with the people on this grave question.

In the course of the debate this afternoon the Prime Minister interjected and said he was determined to go on with this Bill. I was exceedingly sorry to hear that. In other words, the appeal made to him fell on deaf ears, and in the circumstances we are obliged to resume the debate and to make our voices heard. The Minister of Finance shocked us all. We all looked upon him as a very moderate man.

So he is.

If what the Minister said means anything at all, it means he has fallen from grace this evening. He seemed to doubt the word of honour given in this House by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

No, I did not.

I understood him to say that he doubted whether the right hon. gentleman was serious in his offer. Either he accepts the offer, or he rejects it.

What is the offer?

You were not in the House when it was made. While he poured scorn on the offer made to him at the same time he said no settlement was possible if the Union Jack was on the flag. It has been made perfectly clear that whatever device is agreed upon the Union Jack shall be included, and also the Vierkleur. A large majority of the people would be only too ready to accept that as a solution. The Minister of Finance said the inclusion of the Red Cross was adequate recognition of the British section. Surely if the Union Jack is a cause of offence to any person the Red Cross must likewise be an offence if it were explained that it was the flag of England. Would that not also be regarded as an insult by our Dutch fellow citizens?

No.

You can hurt people by omission as well as by commission. The omission of the Union Jack may lead to trouble. I represent a very important constituency which has laid it down that no flag will be acceptable unless it embraces the Union Jack. I am the representative of that constituency, and I have a greater right to speak on this question than has the Government. Where is the Government’s mandate on this point? When the general election took place in 1924 the flag question was not discussed. If the Government wanted to bring in this Bill it was their bounden duty to have brought it up during the election in no uncertain fashion, and it should have been made an issue of the contest. If the Government had then been returned on that issue it would have had a perfect right to bring in the Hill. But if they had made that question the issue they would never have occupied the Treasury benches. The Prime Minister interjected the other day that he had been waiting 17 years for a new national flag. Evidently he forgets the correspondence which he had on this question with his Majesty’s representative in 1910. In a letter signed by the Prime Minister dated the 6th September, 1910, which emanates from the Prime Minister’s office, evidently in consultation with the Cabinet, it remarks that—

and it proceeds—

The Prime Minister laughs, but it is no laughing matter. He seems to treat this matter in a jocular way, as a joke, but it is one of the most serious things this House has ever been called upon to discuss. I heard you say, sir, a moment ago, that we must not use the word “diabolical,” but if I were allowed to use it it would be an appropriate description of this Bill, but as I am not allowed to use it then I must say this Bill has been conceived more in anger than in anything else. I do hope this Bill will not go through as far as the committee stage. If it does there are sections which will not be acceptable to this House. Hon. members have suggested that the Bill provides for referendum. Anybody who has studied the referendum must describe it in simple language, as being ridiculous. It goes so far as to say that the Government may say which clauses of the Electoral Act shall not apply. The Government may say that there shall be no secret ballot. They might say that somebody shall stand at the ballot box and see where a man puts his mark. What is the result? A man will be afraid who has at present got an office under this Government to put his X against this thing. He must put his X in favour of it. It goes further that the Government may provide penalties, and that the Government will have the right to create new offences. If that is a fair referendum, and you ask me—

I would say that it is nothing else than a farce, and the Bill with its referendum is ridiculous. But let us proceed. Let us see what outside people say of it, people who are looking on with a calm mind. I am quoting one or two of the London papers. The “Westminster Gazette” speaks of—

I am not a racialist; I am born in this country. My people came to this country nearly a hundred years ago. It is my country, the country of my people who love it; people who wish to stay here and make it a success. If we get these seeds of discord sown and broadcast as they are at the present time, I pity the country. The “Morning Post” says—

I think on this occasion it would be well to dive a little into the past and perhaps the Prime Minister won’t mind if I quote him rather freely in the course of this debate. In August, 1910, he made a speech at Smithfield to the following effect—

He said he had a status in 1910. Nevertheless, he came back in 1926 from England and told us he has got a status, and yet he said we had a status in 1910.

It is only you and your chief who have been constantly denying it.

My chief went to England in 1919 and he then got what the Prime Minister said he had got in 1926. The Prime Minister, in his speech at Smithfield, concluded as follows—

Hear, hear. I am only sorry about the word “Britisher.”

In June, 1912, he said this at Cape Town—

Hear, hear.

Yes, but the Prime Minister is making it impossible by this Bill. He is going in the very opposite direction. We believed him when he said that. Now we don’t believe him when he brings this Bill forward. I feel certain that we could believe the Prime Minister if he were not pulled about by the Minister of the Interior and some of his satellites. In 1912, in July, he said at Johannesburg—

That has been the tenor of my contribution to the debate, that seeds of discord are being sown by this Bill.

By your party.

In 1912 again he said—

We know that unity is strength, but is this going to bring about the union we desire? All noble sentiments, but not acted up to, unfortunately. Again in Johannesburg, and at that time he was still a member of the Botha Cabinet, he said—

Why don’t they act up to it? In 1912 he came to Pretoria and there he said—

These are very weighty words, and they should sink again into the mind of the Prune Minister. I do not like to insult him, but his is a most extraordinary composition. We don’t wish him any harm. We think he might still become of some use to South Africa, but he is of no use at present. In July, 1913, in answer to a question, he said—

Then he said—

I hope the hon. member will come to the Bill.

I will come to the Bill in due course, sir, but this is really history that has been made in South Africa. He (the Prime Minister) said—

That word “compromising” is a most powerful one, and fits the situation at the moment. The Prime Minister also said—

I will leave the Prime Minister now and have a few moments with the Minister in charge of the Bill. At Caledon on the 2nd of November, 1922, the Minister of the Interior described coalition as—

The Minister seems to have forgotten those words—that is, the worst of it. Where is that duplicity now?

In the Bill.

Look nearer home.

Some hon. members have very convenient and short memories, and do not like to be reminded of what they said. I warn hon. members opposite that this Bill will give cause for both wings of the Pact to think furiously hereafter. One asks in all seriousness which of the two parties forming the Pact is going to win—either the Nationalists or the Labourites. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has predicted that within the next five years the Labour Party will have eight seats in the Free State. He said so, and he always knows. What is going to become of those who hold the other seats? That should cause member’s of the Government to think furiously. Where are they going to be then? Now we come to a message sent by the Prime Minister when he assumed office; he thought fit to cable it to the then Colonial Secretary in London, Mr. J. H. Thomas—

How does he now propose to achieve this? I was born in this country and also desire peace and prosperity, but it will not be obtained by this Bill. In the lifetime of the late Gen. Botha he said—

The hon. Minister has a glorious opportunity such as has not been given to any other man in South Africa. I was recently reading a book entitled “If I were a Labour Leader,” written by Ernest Benn, and on page 146 of that the Prime Minister will find the following—

If he will hold out the hand of peace all the members on this side of the House will be glad to help him along, but to achieve that end lie must have courage, and to become the saviour of South Africa he must cast off those who induced him to bring this measure forward. What are the duties of a Government? They must keep the country in a calm mood. They must make it possible for people to develop their resources and to get on with the work of the country. We are most anxious to avoid a collision and a division between the people. Do not divide the people more than they are divided already. If agreement is impossible to-day let the matter rest—time will play its healing part. Is it not possible to have a reasonable compromise? I think it is. Possibly later on a reasonable compromise might be arrived at. I have worked for 17 years in this country to help to make good laws, to help bring the people together and to help forward peace and prosperity. This is my message, “Let us put our shoulders to the wheel and with might and main work in that direction.” Better nothing at all than a flag which is going to be forced down the throats of one of the contesting parties.