as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows—

Your committee would accordingly recommend the sum of £11,439 8s. 7d. for specific appropriation by Parliament.

Report to be considered on 31st May.

When the debate was adjourned on Wednesday night I felt that it was my duty to add a few words to what had been said in the House in this great debate. I consider it my duty to also raise a warning voice in the House against the principle which is here being laid down, because we are to-day discussing a fundamental question. I deplore it, and am very sorry that this Bill, of which we shall later have to reap the bitter fruits, is to-day before the House. The Bill will have very bitter results, because through it you may get division, hatred, envy and distrust in South Africa, Those will be the fruits which we shall reap as a result of the Bill. I hope the Minister of the Interior will listen when we are discussing these sentimental matters deeply affecting the people.

Which section of the people?

I have no time now for silly interruptions. Take your turn and rebut what I say. Before I go further to discuss the Bill I want to peep into the history of South Africa, and especially the Transvaal. There was a time in South Africa and the Transvaal when there was a bitter conflict between the two races. The time came for an end to be put to it, and once for all a concrete foundation was laid at Vereeniging, where the two races stretched out a brotherly hand to each other. It was then said that we wanted peace in South Africa. I am one of the people who secured it, and so far as lay within my poor ability I tried to effect the realization of the brotherly hand which was held out at Vereeniging, that historical place in South Africa. The conditions which were laid down were carried out in every jot and tittle by the British Government. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), that there was a conqueror, but thereafter there was again another victor. The then conqueror submitted conditions and carried out his promises but did the subsequent conqueror carry out his promises in what is going on to-day? That is a question which we must look in the face. I do not wish to criticize, but I speak about things I know. The greatest ideal of one of the greatest sons of South Africa, the late Gen. Botha, was that we should have a united people in South Africa. He was the man that influenced me to stretch out the hand of brotherhood to my fellow compatriots in order to have peace in our country. Notwithstanding the difficulties with which the late Gen. Botha had to cope his ideal was attained and a united people was obtained in South Africa. Things went so far that Union was brought about. That is one of the big things which great leaders like Rhodes and President Kruger tried to attain to but could not. It was, however, attained to as a result of the work of Gen. Botha with the co-operation of both sections. What is the responsibility to-day of the present Government? It is the responsibility of the Government to maintain the bond of friendship which was established. That is why I am uttering a warning against the Bill. Let it be dropped because it will affect and shake the deep foundation of the building of Union, and that is a thing that we shall regret. I was one of the people on the day the negotiations took place at Vereeniging who was sent by my commando to negotiate there and to sign the treaty. I have lived for a long time in South Africa, but it was one of the bitterest days in my life when the beloved Vierkleur had to be pulled down that day and another flag waved over me.

Now you want to continue it.

The hon. member must wait. I am serious about this matter.

The less you talk about it the better.

What is the history of the Vierkleur?

It is dead.

The Vierkleur is not dead. The history of that flag is that it took three years of bitter conflict, and that people sacrificed everything they could for nothing else than for the holy Vierkleur of the Transvaal. Where was my hon. friend that he did not help? A great deal of blood flowed, and I say that the Minister of the Interior does not appreciate what is going on in my heart and in the hearts of the old Republicans of the Transvaal.

We do not want to dishonour the flag.

It ip now being trod in the mud.

Do you want the Vierkleur now?

You can have your turn. The flag which has been so dearly bought lives deep down in my heart. I love it very much because when I opened my eyes in the Transvaal I looked at it and not at the Union Jack. It was my first flag, and I do not think my English-speaking friends will blame me that I have not the same sentiment for the Union Jack that they have. They will not object to my saying that I feel more for the Vierkleur than for any flag in the world. I feel for my flag just what they feel for theirs. It was the flag of the voortrekkers—

That is wrong.

Now I come to the point I want to talk about, viz., the freedom and independence which is so much talked about that we have under the Union Jack. I shall call it by its name and say expressly that we are sitting here to-day as a free people under the Union Jack. We as a people can decide on questions, and under the Union Jack we have to-day had the victory. We have only to steer in the right direction.

Do you love the Union Jack very much?

We got the right under the Union Jack to create a national flag for South Africa. I should very much like to have a national flag, and I hope the time may yet come when I may see it.

Excluding the Union Jack?

I say it is an improper time to come to the House with the Cross and to have it accepted by the country.

Would you prefer the Union Jack to the Cross?

I say that the people to-day are in an excited state.

Who is the cause of that?

It is the duty of the Government to submit to the people. That is the democratic way.

We are going to do so. What about the referendum?

I will come to that. That Cross flag which is proposed has its followers, the Union Jack has its followers, and the Vierkleur has its strong followers. That is a thing which not one of the Ministers can take out of my heart. The Free Staters are satisfied because their flag is dead to them.

You leave that alone.

I should like to see a Free Stater getting up and talking about it. We have no need to-day for a flag with a Cross on it which means nothing to South Africa. We require a flag which has history behind it. The Cross represented here is an unknown flag which England had in the past. Then an hon. member spoke about the referendum. Will that save you? Just as little as the referendum will the Cross flag save you. The Government has put its foot into the stirrup, and the only advice I want to give is that the Government should withdraw its foot, drop the Bill and accept the motion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It is unnecessary for my friends to be afraid that we will say it is cowardly. I say that it will be magnanimous if the Government withdraws. If it sees that the people want to go a different way and the Government is going in a different direction, then it would be doing its duty. What will the history of the Cross be in this country? What can hon. members tell their children the flag has sprung from?

It is the Union flag.

I say that we must have a flag with which the people can be satisfied, and if we cannot get it should then let it rest until the time comes and the people, as a people, ask for a flag. The flag will satisfy the people in what it asks. It is a terrible thing to my friends opposite for the Vierkleur and the Union Jack to be on the same flag. The hatred which exists in the hearts of the people is caused by this Cross flag being proposed to-day. The Vierkleur can be trod on the ground merely to banish the Union Jack from South Africa.

Who buried the Vierkleur?

Where is it?

If there is one man who can cherish and retain vengeance then it is the man who fought in the Transvaal. The condition of the country to-day is such that it requires union and co-operation, that the old slogan of the Transvaal should be followed—

That is necessary in South Africa. The divisions which are now being fomented break the force and the country requires force and unity. I have three telegrams here which I should like to read out. The first reads—

Who sent the telegram?

I will give the name. Here is another telegram—

Jack as one flag.

Then there is a third telegram—

Hon. members will therefore see how the Transvaal is fighting for the hon. members of the Free State.

That the Transvaal has always done!

Who do the telegrams come from?

All three come from people who were in the concentration camps. Their mothers and daughters were there and they put the revenge out of their hearts and stretched out a brotherly hand to create a united people in South Africa.

What party do they belong to?

Many of my friends who are interrupting me were in children’s clothing or in the cradle when I was fighting for the flags of the two Republics.

Have we not the right to speak as well?

I do not say so, but the hon. member will do better to remain silent. There are men to-day on the opposite side whose mouth is shut, who dare not speak.

Who?

All of them there. Where are Gen. Kemp and the Minister of Lands? They fought for the Republican flag but to-day they are not here.

I did more for the Vierkleur than you did.

Your father and grandfather lived under it.

I did more for the flag than you did.

Now I should like to ask the Prime Minister—I have never been hostile towards him but always been and still wish to remain his friend—whether he, when he got the large majority at the election to govern as Prime Minister, got a mandate to divide the country. I should like to ask whether he is properly carrying out the mandate he got, whether he did not get a mandate of South Africa first alone united?

There you have it, hear, hear.

Not a mandate for a flag of another country.

Did he obtain a mandate to divide a people and to create race hatred? The Prime Minister knows a little about the history of the Transvaal and I hope he will reply fully as to whether it was his object and his mandate to divide the country. I now want to come back to the Minister of the Interior and to impress upon him to put himself a little into the position of the Transvaalers and to consider their sentiments and feelings. The Minister is a man who has led a congregation, but it seems to me that he now comes very much short of understanding the sentiments of the people, and I appeal to him to drop this unnecessary and undesired legislation which will divide the people in the country. We ask that of him. We can be heartily grateful that up to the present no one has trifled about this matter. Why should our people be driven asunder? The flag is going to be the greatest damage and seeing that love and peace have arisen in South Africa why must the people to-day be divided? The work of the great men who led us for twenty years and strove after the great ideal of a united people in South Africa must now be broken by one simple little Bill. This may mean the greatest difficulties for South Africa and all the sacrifices of the past to build up unity will be broken to pieces, the walls will crack and it will take years to get it back into the state it was in before.

Just sing “Tipperary” now.

That frivolity does not suit such a serious debate. South Africa is young but we have great problems which require force, courage, strength, sympathetic feeling and mutual love. Apart from all difficulties which have taken place I am always still prepared to give my hand to any man who means well by South Africa, and to work together with him, to make South Africa in the future a country which our children can live in.

That is just what we want to do.

But unfortunately many people do not use the brains they possess, but consult their hearts. As soon as the heart is consulted one goes along the wrong lines. We must use our brains, and send South Africa along the right direction. I still hope that the Minister and the Government will be converted. I now come to the referendum. Why should there be one? What will it mean? If it turns out favourably to us will there be satisfaction? And if it turns out against the Government proposal will there be satisfaction then? No, in my opinion the referendum is a needless responsibility which is being thrown on the people to remove the responsibility from the Government. Let hon. members opposite rise and say, “I shall tell them what they are to say.” Do not be autocratic but democratic. It appears no excuse to me that the responsibility is shuffled off and thrown upon the people. We have here to do with a very serious matter. I am not speaking to-day for the Union Jack—there are people who want it and who love their flag who are manly enough to plead for it—but I speak for my own, but what I have to bear in mind is what I have received under the Union Jack which I never thought to receive, which I never thought we should obtain by our legislation. We have got back a great independence and we have again become a free people. Under what? Under the Union Jack. If they had been revengeful should we have got it? We had for a short time a military government and then we immediately got Home Rule, and from step to step our rights became greater until we reached the place where we stand to-day. Is it then not fair—however wrong the feelings among our friends may still be—to meet the people? Meet them. The people have been noble and generous towards us, so that we have reason for meeting them. If we cannot agree upon the flag let it stand over for the present.

There it is again.

The time will come. Let us then wait until the people rise and say that they want this or the other flag, so that we shall give satisfaction. I make a further appeal on the Prime Minister not to do anything which will drive the two races apart. The flag will come. The Prime Minister needs unity to solve the great problems of our country. Let the slogan of the Transvaal be kept before his eyes—

After two days of debate we have heard three members of the Government side speak, and all members of the Cabinet, and we have not yet got an answer as to the real urgency, the real necessity of this Bill. We are told one reason is we could not put a judge on the International Court unless we had our nationality defined. We are told it is necessary for us to have some legal enactment to look after our nationals when outside the Union. Neither of these reasons are sufficient to tear the country in half as this Bill is doing. There is really no need, except utter bitterness, which has urged the Government to put this Bill before the House. I say further that the Prime Minister is too fond of definitions and pieces of paper. I very much doubt whether the unprejudiced observer to-day would say we are a nation yet, I very much doubt whether we can say there is a South African nation yet, I deliberately say that. I say the South African nation is very near its birth. It is in travail and its birth may be imminent, but it will never be a live birth if the Minister of the Interior starts its life with a dose of racial poison like this. Does the Government understand or appreciate the impossibility of this nation ever existing unless we have England behind us in our early years? Who is going to protect our nationals?

What has this flag to do with that?

This flag has everything to do with that. It is the extraordinary blindness of the Prime Minister that is dragging us down to the depth of despair. This flag has everything to do with that. This flag question is intimately bound up with our connection and affection for England. There are three principal factors which will eventually weld us into a nation—unity in religion, unity in social and economic life. Thank God we have, practically, unity in religion. This country is not divided as some countries are. The religions of the two races are very closely allied, particularly the Scottish and the Dutch. On the social side, ever since the Boer war, the two sections of the nation have been getting close together. Those of us who have seen the development of the economic side can be astonished at the economic co-operation between the two races. Prior to the Boer war there was practically no co-operation between them. In law and the medical profession there was a certain co-operation; in agriculture there was no co-operation. The Eastern Province and Natal went their way and the Transvaal and the Western Province of the Cape went their way. We have seen it grow up since in the co-operative societies in maize, wine and tobacco, and in all the industrial relations we see co-operation growing and coming into life. Unfortunately, this Bill is going to put back the clock a quarter of a century, and is going to breed a suspicion between the two people that will stop the growth of this co-operation, and will stop the growth of a real unified national life, and it is that disastrous effect of this Bill that makes it impossible for us on this side of the House to accept the provisions of it. Personally, I do not pretend to argue tire question of the flag. The question of the flag is a question of sentiment. To us the flag is exactly what the question of the use of the language was to the Dutch, particularly the Dutch of the Transvaal and the Free State. And who, to-day, would say that England was wrong in granting absolute right and free right to the Dutch to use their language? I ask the Minister of the Interior, does he, today, think that the Dutch Government in the beginning of the eighteenth century was right when they prevented his ancestors using his original language, his native language—French? Does he think that the old Dutch East India Company were right when they told his ancestors that they were not allowed to use their mother tongue even in their own churches?

It shows your ignorance of history.

It does not show my ignorance of history. The old company did refuse, and did deny, the right to the Minister’s ancestors to use their language, and I do say this, that no man to-day would dream of defending such action.

Is the Minister of the Interior of French descent?

The Minister is of French descent. I was going to say he is not a Dutchman; he is a Frenchman. To get back to my argument, there is no more reason why the Minister should force a flag on us than there was in those days for the Dutch East India Company to force a language on his people. Cannot the members of the Government appreciate the sentiment on our side of the House, not the sentiment alone of those of us who are of British descent, but also the sentiment of hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler), who has a sentiment for his own flag? If it is impossible for the Government to understand that feeling, it seems impossible for us to ever become a truly and really unified nation. Now it seems to be accounted to us for unrighteousness that those of us who are of British descent in South Africa cherish a remembrance of the country from which our ancestors came. It is, surely, a point in our favour. It is a point to be regretted on the Dutch side that they got away from the noble traditions of their home race. Probably one of the reasons why that came about was that in the seventeenth century the question of transport was so difficult, and they got away from their homeland and their home ties, but surely it cannot be looked upon as an evil that a nation should remember its past, and when the Prime Minister interjected the other day, I think to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), he said—

Yes, that is exactly what the Prime Minister cannot understand.

What is it I cannot understand? Just make it clear.

The Prime Minister cannot understand that every Englishman— Scotchman, Canadian, Australian and New Zealander—wants to remain a Britisher.

What do you mean by “Britisher?”

I will explain to the Prime Minister. I, by descent, am an Englishman. I quite agree that to-day I am not an Englishman, and I don’t desire to be an Englishman, but I do desire to be and to remain a British South African.

What do you mean by “British South African?”

I mean a member of the British empire. That is what I mean by being a “Britisher,” and, however good a South African I have become, or however good a South African I may be, I still want to remain a Britisher, and I say I can be as good a South African as the Prime Minister, and still be a good Britisher.

Will you point out how this Bill affects your being or not being a man who belongs to the British empire?

I was answering the Prime Minister’s question. There are many things in the Bill that I can discuss when we come into committee, but there is a distinct inclination on the part of the Minister of the Interior, at any rate, to make it more difficult for any Britisher from any other portion of the King’s dominions, to become a South African Britisher.

Don’t be climbing down now.

[to Mr. Stuttaford]: I want you to make it clear; tell us how this affects your being or not being a member of the British empire.

I think I must leave the Prime Minister the opportunity of explaining this point of his to the House. I am certain that this House has been surprised that on an important subject such as this the Prime Minister has delayed so long in telling us his views on the Bill. I look upon this Bill as being as great a catastrophe as the Jameson Raid. The Jameson Raid had the effect of breaking the growing sympathy between these two races. I quite agree that in our young days we applauded that raid, but now that we are older and have seen the effect of it, we think differently. There was no man who felt that more than Jameson himself. He spent the rest of his life in lining penance for that, and I only hope that the Prime Minister won’t have to spend the rest of his days doing penance for the horrible deed he is perpetrating on the people to-day. I believe that the only effect of this Bill is to come in between the two peoples, the British and the Dutch South Africans, who are, naturally, willing and likely to come together. They are anxious to come together. There is no fundamental difference between us, such as there is between other nations. We have got the same racial objects, our religions are similar, our mode of life is similar, everything helps us to become a nation, and the only thing that will prevent it is the Minister of the Interior and a Bill of this disastrous nature.

The only thing is the Union Jack.

The Minister says that we must have this Bill. There is some urgent necessity which he is unable to explain to the House, but when we come to his referendum, it is so framed that it will leave the whole question in the air, because I have sufficient confidence in the people of South Africa to know that they will turn this Bill down, and then the position is that we have not solved the question in any way, but we are simply put back into the same position as we were in before, and the Minister will have to try again. I do suggest to the Minister that if he is going to have a referendum, for goodness sake let us have a fair referendum, let us have the two flags—the flag suggested by the Government and the flag suggested by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—and let us ask the people which they want, which flag they will have, and I know that the flag suggested by the right hon. the member for Standerton will become the flag of the united nation.

He has not suggested any flag, has he?

I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here to-day, because I can assure him that the speech he made the other night came as a shock to most of our British South Africans.

What was it that shocked you?

I believe that every word said by the Minister of Finance was what he believed. I believe the Minister of Finance is admired for his truthfulness and his straightness. I believe there is no class of people in this country that appreciates more than the British South Africans the character of the Minister of Finance. There is no British South African who does not admire the youth who went and fought for his country when he ought to have been in the playing field, but I would like to ask him—and I do it with all respect—whether forgiveness is not greater than revenge. For we shall never get through in this country if men of the standing and high character of the Minister of Finance take up this impossible attitude as regards the things that the one section of the country, at any rate, hold very, very dear.

What has that to do with forgiveness, or not?

It has everything to do with forgiveness. The Union Jack is a symbol to us of true freedom and justice. I quite agree that many of the members, the Prime Minister, probably, will say that the people who have followed that flag have not always followed clearly its true ideals, that there have been deviations. I agree. Every nation has that against it, but I do say, on the whole, that that flag has represented and has led us forward to true freedom and justice, and—

Hear, hear.

And I say, as a British South African, as a South African born of British parents, that we should be contemptible if we did not hand those traditions down to our sons and our grandsons.

There is no more complex task in the sphere of human government than the one that faces the Prime Minister to-day, that is in deciding upon the choice of an emblem that will harmonize with the past and inspire the future of the two great white races who in spite of the misunderstandings and conflicts of former years have been brought together to build up a united country. None of us can contemplate the vicissitudes and hardships of our fathers without being drawn closer together and realizing that where there is so much to strive for, it is the soul of wisdom for us to stand together and to endeavour to build up a common patriotism, a common love of country, and a common service for the sake of the ideals for which our fathers lived and died. Therefore, I think, we should solemnize our minds when we approach this subject, because it seems to me quite impossible for us to determine with justice what is due to both sides if we simply nourish our minds on the bitter memories of the past and if we have no prompting to a higher or better patriotism. I was very much stirred by the speech of my colleague the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler), and I should like to say that our friendship of some years’ standing has become a firm one, in spite of our imperfect knowledge of each other’s language chiefly because we have placed our feet on the road that leads to a common patriotism, and there is nothing in the whole of my experience that I cherish more than the growth in the Union of its common patriotism, such as it has been up to the present. If I look back upon my own experience as one who, in his early days, had probably never seen a Dutch-speaking fellow citizen, I remember that I came in time to mourn the death of a Dutch leader, the late Gen. Botha, just as acutely and just as keenly, I maintain, as any of his Dutch-speaking followers. I think the highest tribute we can pay to that statesman is to honour him as the one who did more towards our common ideal of race conciliation than any man before or since his time. I maintain that, up to the time of the rebellion in 1914, that common patriotism, that common love of our country and of our leaders was growing very satisfactorily. I can remember, too, the acute regret with which I heard of the death of the late Gen. de la Hey. Not that I ever met him, but I looked upon him as a man who, in time of war, showed himself to be a generous and chivalrous enemy, and subsequently became one of the fathers of the Union. One felt at that stage, right up to the time of the rebellion, that we were all drawing closer together and the work of nation building was going on very satisfactorily. Incalculable harm was wrought by the rebellion, but it seems to me that in the present crisis, which is one of the Government’s own making, the Government will do bad work of a worse kind in not responding to the appeal, to the anxious cry, which has gone up from end to end of this country to avert the grave peril that the Government seems definitely resolved to lead us to. We looked to the Government for peace and goodwill, and the Government, in the person of the Minister of the Interior, has returned to us fanaticism of a singularly vindictive kind. The Minister of the Interior, driven on by a perversity which is the dismay of every public man in this country, last year introduced a Bill which was received with a storm of dissent at a time when every parliamentarian, every political leader of any consequence, was engaged in his parliamentary duties in this House, and, therefore, had neither the wish or the opportunity to foment any agitation. An entirely voluntary feeling, a spontaneous feeling, rose throughout the length and breadth of the land on the part of the English-speaking communities to protest against what was proposed to be done. What was the Minister’s course of action? For the moment he held his hand, but he announced, in what everybody was obliged to interpret as a very aggressive and threatening manner, that he would re-introduce the Bill, and that it would still exclude any symbol of the past. Among the chosen spokesmen who supported that Bill last year we had the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who made a statement which, to my mind, has given the keynote of the subsequent actions of the Government. He said—speaking of the Union Jack—

The Minister of the Interior and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, proceeded to show their vindictiveness against those who were foremost in remonstrating in a dignified and entirely unprejudiced manner against what seemed to them an outrage. I refer to the Sons of England. The Minister of Justice thought fit to issue a circular which could only be interpreted as striking at the livelihood of any member of the police service who was a member of the Sons of England, and when the remonstrance of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) reached him, he only partially modified that circular and he had the effrontery later to stand up in this House and say he had never declared the Sons of England to be a political society. His own circular contradicted him, and proved that what he uttered in this House is wanting in truth, in fact, is without a vestige of truth in it. Then we come to the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior calmly and in a considered manner issued a circular which declared war against membership of the Sons of England as constituting “serious misconduct” under the Public Service regulations. In the presence of his Prime Minister in this House, at a time when the Prime Minister was fresh from the Imperial Conference, he stood up and declared that membership of the Sons of England would be visited by disciplinary action under’ a rule of the service which applies only to serious misconduct. What is the effect of that? This is a society which has not changed its objects or its constitution—it has stood throughout this period for the same objects, that, is for the appreciation of the traditions of Englishmen, and for the encouragement and the observance of occasions and traditions dear to the race, surely these are commendable objects such as we can appreciate, and which should make everyone who espouses them a better man and a better South African for cleaving to those objects. What does the ban of the Minister of the Interior amount to? The worst offence that any member of the service can commit is described in the service regulations as “serious misconduct.” He may be drunken, and neglect his duty, he may default with public funds, he may run away with his neighbour’s wife, he may be grossly immoral or live in open adultery, but the highest offence with which he can be charged in the public service is “serious misconduct,” and that is the level to which the Minister of the Interior reduces the Sons of England. For what reason? For the only reason that they have been faithful to the objects which they have set out to follow, objects which make every man who follows them a better man and a better South African.

Are you eligible to join the Sons of England?

I am not. As I have explained, I am a Scotsman, and I am proud to be a member of the Caledonian Society. The policy of this country since Union. I think, has been to compose our differences by agreement, and, if possible, to cultivate that mutual respect for one another which alone can be the firm foundation of future goodwill. I listened the other day in vain when the Minister of Labour, at great length, endeavoured to explain how it was he came to be standing in the uncomfortable position he occupies at this moment. Before I deal with his speech I should like to remind him that he made a statement the other night about the municipal employees at Durban, which has been called into serious question by the members of that society. He said that the municipal employees of Durban had had sent to them under a covering letter from the Mayor, a pledge by which they were required to declare and give an undertaking never again to vote for members or candidates who were responsible for eliminating the Union Jack from our national flag. He presented that statement to us in such a way that we could not fail to believe the Minister of Labour had information proving that those men had either to sign that pledge, or lose their jobs, and he said, in plain language, that was the position. We have had a denial which was telegraphed from Durban very promptly yesterday to the effect that there is not a word of truth in the Minister’s statement. In our earlier days we were taught that the uttering of untruths caused a wee pimple on the tongue, and I would venture to suggest that the Minister of Labour’s tongue must be in a very septic condition at the present moment.

The hon. member should not use language of that nature.

I am always willing to defer to your ruling, sir, and I do so with the utmost respect. The Minister of Labour went to a great deal of trouble to show that he was fully authorized to introduce or to be a party to the introduction of the Flag Bill as long as the referendum was provided for. I challenge that, and I challenge it on the highest authority, the authority from which he holds his position in the Nationalist Cabinet—that is the text of the alliance between his leader and the Prime Minister. In a letter from the Minister of Defence who, oblivious of the happenings in the Union, is at the present moment enjoying himself beyond the sea, we find this statement—

This is important—

Could anything be more plain than that? The Minister of Defence stipulated that their votes should not, considering their sensitiveness on the subject of secession, be used at the next general election contrary to their desires in this matter.

Can you tell us how they are being used?

The votes of the last election are being used contrary to the wishes of 90 per cent. of the people who returned Labour members.

In this Bill, will you tell us how they are being used contrary to their desires?

If I were allowed to digress, I could go fully into that matter, but it is perfectly plain that that undertaking is not one to be interpreted in water-tight compartments. The Minister of Defence intimated that they were very sensitive on secession and cutting the painter.

Will you point out how this Bill cuts the painter?

If the Prime Minister will convince the hundreds of thousands of people who hold the view that this is the first step, I will take off my hat to him.

I am glad to hear that view.

Is your opposition to the Bill based on that?

I am indicating on the grand scale that this particular action and this particular Bill come within the sphere which the Minister of Defence indicated here as being sacrosanct, and not to be interfered with by the people who were returned by British votes at the last election, and can anyone gainsay the common sense of that view? I am borne out entirely in that by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), who spoke from his heart and with such stress that no man who heard him but could be impressed with his sincerity. The Minister of Defence supplemented the written text of the Pact at a public meeting, where he spoke in explanation of the Pact, and he said—

And he went on to say—

What more need have we than that? Here is a supplementary explanation by the Minister of Defence of what the Pact means, and in those ringing tones we know so well he said—

The Prime Minister said—and his manifesto containing this was published in the “Guardian”—the Labour journal—

What is he doing now? In a matter primarily affecting British sentiment why is he bringing it into the arena of practical politics?

Are you a party to this contract?

No; I am only pointing out where it is being infringed; parties on the one side have been squared, and matters have conveniently been overlooked by them.

What about the voters who voted for them?

The late national secretary of the Labour party, in a letter to the press, made it clear that the total number of members of the Labour party in full standing in South Africa does not exceed 1,000.

He was not telling the truth.

I prefer to believe the national secretary, who had access to the books, and was writing from his inside knowledge and experience of several years in that post. Then we have the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) smilingly assenting to this Bill. A recent correspondent in a Natal paper has indicated that he was present at a meeting at which that hon. member in those tones, which always bring assurance to us in this House, said—

(The hon. member repeated the words in a strong Scotch accent.) I look towards him now, and I do not find the flag in his hands—it has changed hands. The Flag Bill is there instead, and the grand old flag doubtless is under the bed, or pawned with a highly respectable firm of pawnbrokers and the ticket lost. The hon. member stood up in this House and told us in those sincere tones of his that the carrying of this Bill would mean that not a single Labour party member or Pact member would be returned to this House from Natal in future. From that very statement he confessed that he knew he was going against the wishes of Natal and against the wishes of the people who sent him here. Only that interpretation can be placed on his words. And we find him to-day voting for the Bill.

That does not make the Bill wrong.

We have in this Bill provision for the flying of the flag on certain appointed days. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) was used by the Government last year to “white ant” these empire occasions. He introduced a Public Holidays Bill last session which provided for two of these days to be done away with, and he was supported in that by the Minister Of the Interior, who, with that calm dignity with which he speaks in this House, spoke of Victoria Day, and wept no tears over the disappearance of that day. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) wanted to substitute St. Bolshevik’s Day—the 1st of May—red flag day, for Victoria Day, because the Queen died a long time ago, and he made the rafters ring with the Labour demand for May Day. The Minister of the Interior said that Queen Victoria’s name would always be honoured by history, but it would not quite answer its intention, and it should be something more. He said a more actual meaning should be attached to that day, (whatever he wished to convey by that) and, therefore, they should call it Empire Day. He added they should shift that day (a difficult task I should imagine) to bring it into association more with the birthday of the King. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North), in whose hands the “grand old flag” was so safe, said that Victoria Day and the King’s birthday had been bracketed together under the name Empire Day, and both events would be celebrated on the first Monday in August— a date having no empire significance what ever, be it remembered—but the whole idea was to kill any sort of sentiment for the empire days that would be commemorated. The hon. gentleman who allowed himself to be led into this was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North). I now want to deal with the statement made by the Minister of Finance the other evening. That statement fell upon me in a manner which was more hurtful and painful than a bodily wound. I have always held the Minister of Finance in high esteem, and his suggestion that if the British insisted on, or demanded, the inclusion of the Union Jack he, for his part, would put forward a demand for the inclusion of the national monument to women—

I am prepared to stand by what I did say. I am not prepared to be misrepresented.

Take the Minister’s own words.

I have seen it stated in the paper; that is false.

Read the “Cape Times.”

If the Minister insinuated that the statement was a deliberate lie, it ought to be withdrawn.

Yes; I repeat, the hon. member has no right to repeat that statement, because it is false, and the hon. member knows it is false.

Read the “Cape Times” report; do not read the “Cape Argus.”

On a point of order, does the Minister insinuate that I make wilfully false statements. I am quoting from memory; that was the impression that was made on my mind.

You were in the House, were you not?

It was suggested by the Minister that we might—

If the hon. member will allow me, I will tell him what I did say. I was dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), and I said that if the British section have a right to choose their symbol, we have the right to choose our symbol—by inclusion, and not by exclusion. I tried to show how wrong that was, and that you cannot settle it on those lines. I said that if the matter has to be decided on those lines, we would have to choose our symbol, and I added that you could not do that, and you would be raising a bitter controversy. I tried to show the foolishness of that sort of argument.

I accept the Minister’s statement in its entirety, though as he is speaking from memory I don’t suppose he is literally correct.

The hon. member knows the seriousness of that charge, and it is made by one of the Capetown papers, and that is why I resent it bitterly.

The Minister in making that suggestion, in any case could not be desirous of promoting the cause of mutual goodwill. [Interruptions.] I am not going to he dictated to by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). The Minister went on to say that the withdrawal of the Flag Bill would be an act of treason to South Africa. How are we to analyse that? Acquiescence in the earnest desire of so large a section of the community the British, is to be regarded as an act of treason to South Africa. I am sorry to find the Minister in alignment with the contention of one of the members of the Flag Commission who said at a joint meeting of the Flag Commission and Flag Committee that the Britishers were “here as a necessary evil.” The Minister is in line with that sentiment. The Minister, if he believes that an act of consideration to British feeling be an act of treason, then must hold that the British section have no part in the life and future of South Africa.

That was no part of my argument.

The Minister lost control of himself the other evening, and because I am commenting on that, he seems to resent it. In what way would this be an act of treason unless we interpret it as far as the British are concerned that they are not entitled to be considered? The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) in a letter dated December 4 said—

That means that he approves of the persecution which has been put on these people by the Minister of the Interior. In another letter he says—

A foreign flag! That is the attitude of the kind of people who enjoy the comradeship of the hon. member for Barberton. The Union Jack is to be regarded as a “foreign” flag, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated to us that the development of this country must be within the British empire!

What would you call it in relation to this country?

It is always recognized the world over as the emblem of the British race, just as a British sovereign is worth twenty shillings.

What would you call it in relation to this country?

I would call it the flag of a very large proportion of people born in this country, who will have no other flag.

What would you substitute for the word “foreign”?

I would substitute no such word for it, and would only say it is the flag of this country and has always been so, and has earned its right to be here.

The flag of South Africa—the Union Jack as the Union Jack is the flag of South Africa?

The Union Jack with the addition of the Union coat of arms is our flag.

I merely ask for information.

I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he is in sympathy with the employment of the word “foreign”?

It is foreign to our affections.

We have had more than enough of that already.

When I speak you can put that question to me.

I have done the Prime Minister the courtesy to answer a running fire of interruptions.

I am asking for information. We are trying to convince one another. I want to know what I am to answer,

One would like to know what is the Prime Minister’s view of that reference by one of his followers to the Union Jack as a foreign flag at a time when the Prime Minister was fresh from the councils of the empire? Some time ago the question was put to him by Mr. Bell, of Johannesburg, who asked him whether he desired the development of South Africa as an integral portion of the British empire under the British flag. The Prime Minister’s written reply was—

What therefore can the Prime Minister’s present attitude towards the employment of the word “foreign” in regard to the flag mean?

Surely that is all covered by co-operation.

The Prime Minister is well able to answer for himself.

I think so.

We come now to the Labour party who stand in precisely the same relation as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) who when he voted for the Bill knew he was voting against the wishes of those who returned him here. The same holds good with regard to the remainder of the Labour party, but one can scarcely be surprised at their attitude. [Time limit.]

There were so many interjections during this debate that I think the speakers should be allowed five minutes over the allotted time, in order to make up for the time lost by interruptions. If the question before the House could be sent to a laboratory and were capable of analysis, it would be shown that the Dutch of the Free State and the Transvaal have a real love for the Vierkleur, but their representatives in this House, to my mind, have such a bitter and intense hatred for tile Union Jack that they are determined to eliminate both the Vierkleur and the Union Jack from the national flag of the Union, without the slightest regard for the feelings of the English-speaking section of the country. Now English money is quite good enough to build our railways, our irrigation works, and for the development of the Union; English markets are quite welcome to purchase our produce and the British navy would be received with open arms in certain events, not only to protect our shores, but to safeguard our trade routes, but hon. members opposite say: “Away with the British flag, we will have none of it.” In face of that we, on this side of the House, are accused of racialism. When the South Africa Act was passed and the Union of the four provinces was effected, the general opinion throughout the country was that racialism would be a thing of the past, never to raise its head again. But our hopes have been dashed to pieces. Since Union we have had the two-stream policy. When that subsided, and feeling had cooled down, the (secession movement was inaugurated. Then came the great war, and the open sympathy of hon. members opposite was expressed for Germany and the enemies of the empire, and that attitude, I am sorry to say, was supported by the Labour members then in the House. It was very painful to me, as an Englishman, that members of this Parliament, born under the British flag, were in sympathy with the enemies of England. It was mortifying that my own countrymen were also in sympathy with the expressions that fell from the Nationalists on that subject. Now we have the Flag Bill. There has been a periodical stirring up of English feeling. Before one irritating question subsided another equally disturbing subject was foisted on the country. During the great war when our sons were being killed and wounded the Nationalists did not disguise their sympathy with Germany. We bore their insults in silence, not desiring to stir up feeling or to complicate matters. We were also afraid of offending the susceptibilities of the Dutch community. If the other side had as much regard for the feelings of the English as the English had for the feelings of the Dutch, there would be no racialism to-day. In face of all that the South African party is accused of racialism. More of it exists on the other side of the House. No one can accuse me of being unfriendly disposed to the Dutch. I have been in this country 56 years. I have had tempting offers to settle in England, hut I have thrown in my lot with South Africa. I love the country, and I have an affection for its people, but I am also devoted to the land of my birth and revere its flag—

I can give many instances of this feeling of regard for the Dutch. I will give one notable example. I have been chairman of the Jagersfontein Diamond Mining Company for many years. I occupied the position during the Boer war. Just before the war that company employed 90 per cent. of Free Staters, and a few Transvaalers, and the balance were tradesmen from overseas. When the war broke out these white employees joined their different commandoes. The mine was closed for three years at a loss of three-quarters of a million of money to the shareholders. When the war was over the general manager wrote and asked me what policy to adopt with regard to the old employees. I said that every employee who was there when war broke out, and who joined his commando, could re-join the company, and those who did not do so should never be reemployed. I fought against the republic in those days, and I respected the men who fought so bravely for it. Some of those men are still in the employ of this company. To my mind it is the primary duty of Government to allay, and not excite bitter feeling, to appease and not irritate, to bring people together and not divide them and to aim at contentment, not discord. This Bill violates all those principles of good government. There was no real need to change the flag. The moderates of both sides were satisfied with the Vierkleur and the Union Jack. Why then throw this bombshell amongst us? The country was reconciled to the two flags until it, unfortunately, entered the mind of the Minister of the Interior to haul down the Union Jack. This flag has flown over the Cape Province for 120 years, and in Natal since its earliest days. I had a letter from a man whom you might consider to be an extremist, a hot-head, and in that letter to me he said—

Thank God Britons are made of sterner stuff than those gentlemen, otherwise we should not be discussing the Union Jack in this House to-day; the German flag would be floating over this country, and it would have gone hard with those who tried to pull down that flag.

What did you do?

Those of us who were too old, their sons went. I am not referring to the members of the Labour party who went to the front.

I am one of those.

You are, but you are in bad company. War is a terrible thing. It always brings suffering and ruin and pain to both sides. Just after the conclusion of peace I visited the battlefields of France, and there saw towns destroyed, whole districts devastated—cities with populations of from twenty to fifty thousand people. Cathedrals, churches, hotels, theatres, houses of the rich and poor were blown to atoms, and these big towns were nothing but pulverizing debris heaps.

You did not think of the devastation which took place in the Transvaal during the Boer war.

Will the hon. member have patience? When the late residents returned to Ypres, where I visited with Mr. Feetham and the Prime Minister of Australia, they came back and could not recognize where their homes formerly stood. There was nothing left of the towns. I know that people suffered in this country during the Boer war. At the beginning the Cape Colony and Natal were invaded, and they suffered. Compared with the sufferings of the French and Belgians in the great war the people in this country, in comparison, were in clover. The suffering was not one-sided. Thousands of English people and families had to leave Johannesburg and came down to the Cape, and people who had comfortable homes had to live on charity in Cape Town.

Who forced them to come?

The republics forced them to come. Five thousand people, forced from the Transvaal, rushed into Kimberley. One thousand five hundred people in Barkly West were escorted from this homes to Modder River and were handed over to the British forces. They were marched over 50 miles of country in the height of summer. They also suffered. I do not want to go too much into details, it is a painful subject. During the Kimberley siege—I know something about it, because I was second in command—500 civilians were killed from shell fire or died from scurvy. We have not squealed about it. We have not made a fuss about it, like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who was in his cradle when the war broke out. I suffered during the defence of Kimberley. I lost seventeen pounds in weight. When we were relieved all we said was—

It was the flag we thought about, and not what we suffered. It is a marvellous thing to me that hon. members on the other side, who did not fight in the Boer war, are more bitter and irreconcilable than the burghers who fought right through the Boer war. I cannot understand the mentality of the present generation. I will give an example: When the war commenced a big commando dashed round Kimberley and swept off 700 head of cattle. That was quite correct; it was one of the incidents of war, and no one complained about it. In their orders the generals complimented the commando on capturing 700 head of cattle from Kimberley. In December, near Christmas, when the people were hungry, I was instrumental in capturing 187 head of Boer cattle, which were grazing between Susanna and Olifantsfontein, five or six miles from Kimberley. Five or six days after a spy brought in a newspaper, and the first thing I say was a paragraph referring to Col. Harris as the cattle thief. That is their mentality. I stole, but the burghers captured. The flag which proudly waved over Kimberley during the war hon. members on the other side are endeavouring to pull down by legislative enactment. It is nothing to be proud of. Men who were formerly clergymen are raking up the past and are stirring up feeling and discord when they should be preaching peace and goodwill to all men. During the Boer war both sides suffered. There is no doubt about it, we all acknowledge, everybody must acknowledge, history will acknowledge, that the Boers put up a grand fight during the war. I appreciated it, and I admired them for it. The races that have been brought together by the statesmen who framed the South Africa Act are being torn asunder by prejudiced politicians. Why not let things remain as they are, and let the people be free to fly the flag they like, the Vierkleur or the Union Jack, or embody the two in one flag? The Dutch have every reason to be proud of the Vierkleur. There is no episode in history that excels the heroism, the bravery and the prowess of the Voortrekkers, and I am proud to think that in that commando there was a sprinkling of Englishmen. Their defeat of Dingaan is an epic. I take off my hat, and I salute the Vierkleur and on the 16th December every year I raise the Vierkleur on the flag-staff of my house.

You never saluted it when it was flying!

And we are equally proud of the Union Jack. Why not combine the two? It would be a compliment, the greatest compliment that the two brave races could pay to each other. In conclusion, let me say this, what has been truly said and verified in history, that by unity the smallest states thrive, by discord the greatest are destroyed.

I think it would, perhaps, be well if I at this stage were to say what I have to say. I think everyone in the House this afternoon will agree when I say that if there was ever any evidence given why this matter should be settled, then it is the spirit which has been shown on more than one occasion this afternoon. It is very clear to me that if we want to reach a healthy condition of the people in South Africa, then we must not continue stirring up, by means of this House, the people outside to racial division and feeling. It is a pity, but that has undoubtedly been done here this afternoon willingly or unwillingly. I want to say, as far as I am concerned, that my intention is to speak very plainly and very straightforwardly about this matter, and I think it is time that we spoke frankly with each other about it. I noticed that when the Minister of Finance spoke the day before yesterday and spoke straightforwardly an amazing shock passed through the other side of the House which has been made worse by the distorted way in which his words were represented to the public. If there is one thing to be deplored, then it is that the clear, plain words which came from the Minister of Finance in connection with this matter should be so distorted, so wilfully distorted. The newspaper which published it in that way—I do not know which it is—can I say only have put it that way in order to wilfully distort what the Minister of Finance had said. You cannot tell me that it was done for any other reason than to wilfully distort, and not only that, but also to accuse the Minister of Finance to the people outside. We can deplore nothing more than that such a thing should have occurred. As I say, it seems to me that it is best in this matter to be as clear as possible in the first instance. We must know what we are differing about. Take, e.g., the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) this afternoon. He was clear, and at once on the point in considering the word “foreign” used in connection with the Union Jack as a further proof of Afrikander hatred, clearly showing that the hon. member has never yet actually himself taken account of what the relations are of the Union Jack to South Africa, and what it should be called, because when I asked him: “Give me another word for the word ‘foreign’ as applicable to the Union Jack in regard to us,” then he was at a loss, and could not do so. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) was also at a loss when he spoke here, and I asked him what he meant by the word “Britishers.” He first told us what it was that made him and the Canadians and the Australians and others so attached to the Union Jack, and he added—

Then I asked him the question what he meant by “Britishers,” and he stated that he meant that they wanted to continue to belong to the British empire. Then I asked him—

And then he was non-plussed. But the chief grievance of the hon. member for Newlands against the whole Bill was that he in the future would be deprived of being within the British empire, just as the strong objection of the hon. member for Illovo was directed against the word “foreign.” We must have clarity about the terms we use, the position that we take up, the relations that exist between us and the empire, Great Britain and whatsoever else, in other words, we must first appreciate what our rights as well as our obligations are. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen, Smuts), two days ago, made a speech here which, perhaps, was one of the speeches on this matter which deserves the greatest praise in relation in the tone, and also the arguments. That is to say, that he tried to frame his arguments in the matter logically. What the value of it was is another matter which I hope to go into later. My first remark about the speech is that the hon. member took about one-third of the time to make an appeal in this matter by referring us to what has been done by the British Government and Great Britain, and, therefore, under the Union Jack, in South Africa, the way in which they have treated us. He also made an appeal to me, and said that I certainly would agree that we had no complaint against the British Government in regard to all this. I want here to say at once that I do not believe there is anything about which we can more positively say that people deserve praise than the way in which the British Government have acted towards us since 1902. I repeat that I believe that there are no people who deserve more praise for the way in which they have constantly done their best to actually carry out what was contained in the Treaty of Vereeniging, and for that very reason one finds with regard to Great Britain and the British Government the immense amount of gratitude in the sentiments of the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa. Have hon. members opposite ever heard complaints for years from these benches or anywhere else by our people against the British Government. No, as rightly pointed out by the Minister of Labour, South Africa has never had a conflict with the British Government. The British Government has constitutionally and systematically always kept itself out of South African affairs, and the result is that there is to-day a measure of good feeling and friendly spirit, not only towards the British Government, but also towards the Union Jack itself, which, undoubtedly, is extraordinary, and no one could have expected in 1902.

One can hardly accept that.

No, naturally the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will not quite believe it when I say that there is a measure of goodwill towards the Union Jack. He does not stand up for the British Union Jack, but he wants a South African Union Jack. I am coming to that. We must now once for all be clear on the point. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Standerton what that one-third part of his speech has to do with the whole matter? We are not fighting against the British Government and against the Union Jack as the flag of Great Britain. No, that is just one of the reasons why we constantly say to hon. members opposite that they must be careful in dealing with the Union Jack in South Africa because what they are doing only causes a feeling of hatred in the hearts of those who have not the least antipathy against that flag as the flag of Great Britain. I say again that the hon. member for Standerton could very well have left that third of his speech out because we have not the least complaint against the British Government and against the Union Jack as the flag of Great Britain. Just the reverse. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will possibly be shocked, but I say that I have much greater respect for the Union Jack as the flag of Great Britain than for any other flag, and as the flag of Great Britain I have for that flag an amount of goodwill which I have not for any other flag in the world, except what I shall have for my own flag when we get it one day. It, however, has nothing to do with the matter, unless the hon. member for Standerton intends by that to say: “See, England here has been so good to you, the Union Jack has been so good to you, and all Britons have been so good to you, come now, to give them pleasure is it not your duty—your moral duty—to feel grateful for that goodness and to include the Union Jack? I say about that that it has very little value. I want to ask the hon. member for Standerton this. In 1921 in view of the Imperial Conference in England he made certain proposals with reference to a South African flag. Pardon me, he did not do so at the Imperial Conference, but intended to do so and consulted people in England beforehand. What did they say to him? That it was a question with which the Imperial Conference had nothing to do; that it was a matter for South Africa. In other words. Great Britain and the people of Great Britain tell us that they have nothing to do with that question. “Go away, don’t worry us with that matter.” Therefore Great Britain and the people of Great Britain are certainly not so anxious for us to show gratitude towards the Union Jack as English flag by giving it a place on our flag. I will return to this later. Now I want to say that the hon. member for Standerton by pointing out what Great Britain had done and what we had enjoyed under the Union Jack has only pointed to one side of the case. If there ever was a matter which had two sides, both of which ought to be indicated, then it is this. English-speaking South Africans cannot say to Dutch-speaking South Africans that it is a matter of sentiment to them, and then to muzzle the Dutch-speaking South Africans by saying. “This cannot be sentiment in your case.” What I object to in the hon. members or Standerton, and what the people of South Africa object to is that he only mentioned one side. He has never yet (while he pointed out on the one hand “the Union Jack and the English have done this for us since 1902”) deigned to say to the English-speaking people in South Africa, “Look what is on the obverse side.” The Minister of Finance the other day mentioned certain things. Ï do not wish to return to them because then they will again be twisted and wrongly represented, but is it not true that only the one side of the Union Jack has been referred to? You see in that all the good the Union Jack has stood for, but is it not true that the feeling of half of the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa goes out and says at once: “Look at the monuments?” We cannot expect it, and I say this not only in all earnestness but because I want a true and good feeling to arise in South Africa. We cannot run away from the flag because it is very celar to me that we must go on. We shall speak the truth here, and as for me I want to do so. We have the words which the hon. member for Standerton has said on the one side. We have not the least doubt that there are great historical facts in the history of the people of South Africa which ought to be brought to our notice, and we must remember them if we want to come to a fair and just solution of the flag question. I am going to mention facts on the other side this afternoon, on the side of Dutch-speaking South Africa, to make the people feel how impossible it is for the Dutch-speaking South Africans who undoubtedly still have a sentiment, to agree that the Union Jack should be placed in toto on the flag of South Africa. In the first place let us remember that the Union Jack was not the original flag of South Africa and of the white civilization in South Africa; in the second place that the Union Jack was a subsequent intruder—please do not let us again represent that the word just used by me is used in an offensive sense—because the Union Jack was a subsequent intruder into the history of South Africa, and pushed out the original older flag of Dutch-speaking South Africa, and in the third place that there is not one of the four provinces of the Union where that did not take place. There is not one— and it appears that this is sometimes forgotten —where the Union Jack did not come and push out the older flag of the older Dutch-speaking population. As I have said it did not in a single case occur without violence. The hon. member for Standerton said the other day—

That is absolutely true. It might have been taken amiss if anyone else had said it, but when stated by a man like the hon. member for Standerton, no one objects. Not only in one of the provinces but in all four of the provinces the population came under the Union Jack by compulsion. We heard here the other day, and I mention it because I hope that we shall not in future hear that argument again, because then we shall never become united, when the Minister of Labour was speaking, the remark coming from the opposite side—

The Labour party is immediately declared unfitted to take part in the debate and to have anything to say. I ask if this is right because 40 per cent. of the English-speaking population of South Africa is represented by the Labour members. Whence do hon. members opposite get the right with arrogant superiority to appropriate to themselves the sole right of speaking on behalf of English-speaking South Africa? What is more, when the Minister of the Interior was speaking it was interjected from the opposite side—

Of course, then, there was another section of people who had no right to speak, and the Dutch-speaking people in Natal, and in the Cape, were immediately excluded. But now comes the best of all. I noted the argument silently which is actually contained in the words which were said to me ten or twelve years ago in the very words that I am now going to give, by an English-speaking person, when I said that we did not stand under the English Parliament and under the English Government. He said to me—

Then, of course, there was another third excluded, and only, “your highly respectable true Britishers” are left. That was the whole trend of this debate, and now I say that in this way we shall never come to agreement.

Dissolve Parliament and let us hear what the electors say.

We are going to have a referendum about the matter, and hon. members opposite will have every opportunity of seeing whether the people want it or not. This brings us to another great question which we must not lose sight of, that neither in the Cape nor in Natal, nor in any of the old Republics have Dutch-speaking South Africans ever stood under the Union Jack other than when compelled by necessity. Does not our whole history show this? I mention it for no other reason than merely to indicate: “If you please just look at what you want when you ask that the Union Jack should be incorporated in toto on our national flag.” How dare that be asked? How can anyone with any reason ask a Dutch-speaking South African whether he feels in such a way that the Union Jack shall be included on the national flag and that they should then love the national flag? I should like us to go into history a little because it is necessary. Let us see what the position was before 1902. We notice in South Africa that the Union Jack as flag of Great Britain represented the authority and power of that country 6,000 miles away, and at the same time we see that in the Cape and Natal where it waved, it waved with our people in subjection and not a free people. On the other hand we notice the Free State and Transvaal, the latter with the Vierkleur and the former with the Free State flag.

Do you mean to say that the people in the Cape and Natal were oppressed before 1902?

I never said anything of the sort. I said—

While in the Free State and the Transvaal there were two free Republics with two free flags which symbolized the authority of two free peoples.

Was the English-speaking section also free?

Just as free as I am.

They did not have the franchise in the Transvaal.

Assuming that they were not free, what has it to do with the question? It is useless arguing with people who do not listen to facts. What I am saying here is not to show whether the others were free or not free, but only and solely to show why we Dutch-speaking people in South Africa cannot be asked to put the Union Jack on our national flag. If we will not listen to facts, then we shall never come to agreement. If we will not listen to facts, we will never attain anything. Let us shortly see now what happened in 1902 and 1910. What do we see? The two flags of the northern republics disappeared, and the Union Jack took their places. As the hon. member for Standerton remarked, the Union Jack came by compulsion. That we must not forget. Now’ I only want to say that we should contribute a great deal to a friendly solution of the flag question if my English-speaking friends would just for a little bear in mind the historical facts, and would just with a little sympathy put themselves in the place of the Dutch-speaking South Africans, and would ask themselves with what feelings Dutch-speaking people regard and necessarily must regard the propriety of a proposal to put the Union Jack on our national flag. The hon. member for Standerton said that we must look at the past and see that what we do in the future shall be harmonious and fit in properly with the past. I want to ask him: “Would the placing of the women’s monument in Bloemfontein and the Union Jack on the same flag be in harmony with each other?”

Why not?

Do you not see what is taking place? The Union Jack must be on the flag, but the Union Jack stands irrevocably as far as the Dutch-speaking people are concerned, a matter which neither I nor you can alter, for something which recalls pain and grievances in the past.

But there is also another side to the matter.

But then I ask with what right the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) tells me, a Dutch-speaking person, that be knows better than I do what is going on in the hearts of the Dutch-speaking people.

The point is the way you represent the matter. There is also another side to the case, and I only ask that we should not forget it.

I admit that there is another side of the case. That is not what I am asking. I admit that there is also the side which the hon. member for Standerton has put, but I say that from the angle of the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa the Union Jack stands partly, perhaps, for benefits, but for the greatest part it stands as a grievance and for pain in the past. How can we deny it? And then I ask my friends opposite—“please let us acknowledge it, and if we admit it we cannot decide on demanding from the Dutch-speaking South Africans that they should agree to the Union Jack being put on the flag.” Do you wish the flag to be respected and loved? Do you wish us to respect and love the national flag just as the Union Jack is loved and respected by Britons? If you wish that, then I ask again how can you expect me—and I say here in all honesty that I do not cherish the least hate towards the Union Jack—that I should adopt the national flag with the Union Jack in full on it, and should love and respect it as my national flag. Before I come to that mental state a great deal of time will have to pass. We cannot lightly evade the objections of the Dutch-speaking South Africans. They are there, and we must face them. Let me say this to hon. members—the Union Jack is still waving over us, notwithstanding the Union, but it waves over us, not as the flag of Great Britain, not as the flag which represents the authority and power of Great Britain, not in the least. It waves here because we have hitherto agreed that it should wave over us as a substitute for our own flag until such time as we have our own flag. That is what it does. Where the Union Jack flies in South Africa it does not fly as the British flag which represents British authority and power. If that were so, we should be as subservient and subject as ever in the history of the past. No, the flag does duty here to-day because we have borrowed it, and the use of it will continue until such time as we have our own flag.

Why do you not go a step further and include the domestic flag in the national flag? That is what the English-speaking people ask.

Include what?

The Union Jack.

The Dutch-speaking South Africans cannot accept it. I have just pointed it out.

Let the matter rest then.

No, I tell you that we will and must go through with the flag. I shall no longer permit the feelings of South Africa to be played with. It may be asked how it is that we did not immediately at the commencement of the Union take steps to obtain our own flag. It is clear to me.

If the referendum goes against you will you then adopt the attitude of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe)?

Everyone knows, the hon. member for Standerton just as well, as I, why, at the commencement of Union, we did not obtain our own flag. Because we thought at that time that it would be necessary to allow a reasonable time to pass to get a flag and to give the greatest amount of consideration to the sentiment and feelings of Dutch-speaking and English-speaking people.

Exactly. Both sides.

Precisely, and that is why we let it rest. At the same time it must not be forgotten that after that time there was a strong feeling in the country for a national flag, not only on one side or in one party. That the Nationalist party felt very strongly in favour of a national flag goes without saying, but the South African party felt no less strongly that we ought to have a national flag as appears from the resolutions passed at meetings and congresses, resolutions passed by the provincial council and especially by the South African party congress in Pretoria. This appears most of all from the speeches possibly of the hon. member for Standerton. [Time limit extended.] In December, 1919, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—and he admitted here that he had said it—asked why we should not have our own flag. He said—

At the South African party congress in Bloemfontein in 1919 the same hon. member spoke about it, and said—

(That is, a national flag just like the Dutch-speaking people.) On the 2nd December, 1919, he said at Ventersdorp—and he has admitted that the report is correct—that the desire was unanimous with the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking people—

The hon. member has denied the report of what he said at Paulpietersberg. I, therefore, will not quote it, but be this as it may, it appears from all this how the general feeling for years was that we ought to have our own national flag. What particularly strikes one is the speeches of the hon. member for Standerton is how, according to him, the English-speaking South Africans agreed with him about the desirability that there should be a national flag. The hon. member denied the day before yesterday the correctness of the report of what he said at Paulpietersberg to the effect that he wanted a purely South African flag. I accept that, but now I am, nevertheless, going to quote something, and I should like to know whether the hon. member denies it or not. I am going to make the quotation from a solemn document which the hon. member for Standerton drafted in connection with the Imperial Conference in 1921, in which he advocated certain constitutional amendments. In that document he pleads for our own national flag in the Union. His words are the following—

Hon. members see from that that the hon. member for Standerton in 1921, after earnest consideration and deliberation, had come to the conclusion that we required “a distinctive national flag,” apart from the Union Jack, and without the Union Jack.

That I did not say.

I want to quote again—“a distinctive national flag for each in addition to the Union Jack.” I should like to know from the hon. member in what respect his proposal of that time differs from that now embodied in the Bill.

Where was that proposal made?

I will tell him. The proposal was only made to himself. The hon. member again wants to deny, but now I want to tell him that he must be careful, because, I not only have five or six typed copies of it, but also the original in his own handwriting.

Where was the proposal made?

It was what the hon. member for Standerton solemnly wrote down as what he would lay before the British Government and the Imperial Conference. That was not done, and I will say what happened. He mentioned it to responsible people, who told him that it was a South African concern which should not be brought before the Imperial Conference.

Who was the responsible person?

I do not wish to mention it here.

Come now, who are the responsible persons?

No, I will not mention it here. The hon. member for Standerton can get the information from me at any time if he wants it. If there is one thing that I object to and which the whole people can object to in the hon. member for Standerton it is that he has hardly done or said a thing than he tries to find a backdoor to run away from it.

It is untrue to say that.

The hon. member wrote that, and he did not intend it in 1921? That is all I want.

I never proposed it.

That is all I want, that at that time he was in earnest about it. Whether he said it at the time at Paulpietersburg or in London can make no difference to me, but I know that he did say it in London. Hon. members opposite are now rejoicing because a way out has been found in the wording used. That is not all. After he had summed it all up he comes back again to the flag and says what resolution should be passed. It reads—

That is still my view.

That is what our amendment says.

I leave it to the hon. member with his subtlety to rescue the hon. member for Standerton from that position.

What nonsense.

I now want to ask the hon. member for Standerton whether, when he wrote those words and took them to London and submitted them to certain persons, he meant them. Did he never mean them? I ask another question, and will give way to the hon. member if he will give an explanation. In what respect did his flag proposal differ from the one we have in the Bill? In what respect? No, now we see that we have not to do with hurried speeches hurriedly reported with possibly certain words missing—

With my wastepaper basket.

Now I will tell the hon. member what his wasterpaper basket was. His wastepaper basket was no less than one of the British Ministers amongst others. Yes, that was his wastepaper basket. I ask if one can argue with a man who in that way tries to get out of his past. No, it is not possible. Let me say in all earnestness to the hon. member for Standerton that he ought, anyhow, to know that he has a past, and that he is a man with prestige which he must not only keep up for his own sake, but also in the interests of our country.

You are, of course, helping me to maintain my prestige.

I protest against the hon. member for Standerton acting in such a way as to damage it.

I shall do my duty.

Where?

Order.

Do not let us lose our temper. It is the truth.

It is untrue.

What is not true?

I did not make the proposal. It is wastepaper basket espionage which you are fitted for.

Really! The hon. member accuses me of espionage, but I will leave it to the House. I have got it from documents which are public documents in my office. How dare the hon. member say that?

They are never made use of.

They are documents which the hon. member used as Prime Minister and which he left for my information and for the information of his successors. I say that I have never yet heard anything more contemptible of a man.

I have never yet seen anything more contemptible than your conduct, and this from the Prime Minister of the country.

It is the height of contemptibility.

For the Prime Minister of the country to talk in that way.

I just want to point out to the late Prime Minister of South Africa that there is a way of behaving which even he who has left that high position ought to bear in mind.

You are repeating private conversations.

You have no sense of honour.

There you have another hon. member who says that I am making use of private conversations.

And making misrepresentations.

I want to tell the hon. member that I am making use of no private conversations, but only of documents.

I am bitterly disappointed in you.

I want to ask the hon. member for Standerton what the cause is of his change of views since 1921. When I look round about him then there is only one reason, and that is ordinary political necessity. Then the hon. member comes here and stands on a pedestal with a pious face—

Just listen.

—to say there is a holy sentiment in all these things.

Just listen—“a pious face.”

What I want to emphasize is that everyone in the House sees that since 1910 the people—Dutch-speaking and English-speaking—have insisted on our having a South African national flag, and how the Dutch-speaking South African people urged it, even through the hon. member for Standerton: “Please do not give us a flag with the Union Jack on it.” He himself, at the time, did not only, inter alia, admit as he did the day before yesterday that the Union Jack was objected to by the Dutch-speaking people, but he went so far as to say that he wanted a flag on which the Union Jack would not appear.

Where did I say that?

To yourself and to other persons.

Read where I said it to myself.

That is the only reasonable construction.

Is there greater-futility than a question like that from a man who not only thought so, but sat down and put it in writing?

Read it and see if it is stated there.

Oh! do you deny that it is there? Then I want to tell the hon. member that I am willing to leave it to any man of sound judgment and without prejudice, but certainly not to the hon. member for Standerton.

But he wrote it himself.

I ask hon. members again not to forget that it is the Dutch-speaking people who first of all were free throughout the length and breadth of South Africa and had a different flag to the Union Jack, and that the Union Jack came and pushed out their flag. How can it be taken amiss in them if they say: “Please, the Union Jack makes us think of the past which is full of pain and trouble to us.”

Did you think that at the National Convention when you signed your name and brought your son to see the document signed?

You will agree that that is pure nonsense, and that I need not reply to it.

Why don’t you answer the question?

As for the Union Jack, it must not be thought that I reproach the Union Jack for having come in here and replaced the other flag. Not in the least, nor have I the least feeling against the British Government or against the Britons who came here and pulled down the old flag. Not in the least. Let us assume that the Union Jack, so far as that is concerned, stands for something that represents the honour of the British people and of the Union Jack even in South Africa, but what I want is that it should be remembered that in proportion as it honours the British people and the Union Jack, so in like proportion it gives rise to a feeling of grievance and humiliation to the Dutch-speaking population in South Africa. If that is appreciated then there can be no further talk, and there will be no further talk of forcing the Union Jack on to our national flag. Some time ago we had a flag conference here, and at that conference half represented the flag committees, that is, those who are strongly opposed to a clear pure national flag, or rather a national flag without the Union Jack in extenso. The conference itself could not but admit that it is necessary to-day to have a national flag.

No one disputes that.

I am very glad to hear it, but I should say that that alone is sufficient justification for the Government in introducing this Bill in the House and of saying that we now propose to create a national flag.

Which will satisfy both sides.

What does the hon. member for Standerton say now? He says that it is wrong of the Government to introduce a Flag Bill before an agreement between the two races is first arrived at. I think I am accurately giving what the hon. member said. Then he goes further and says that what we have done was never done by him and his S.A.P. Government. In matters of “grave national concern,” according to his statement, he never brought things before the House and put them through unless an agreement had first been come to. He makes that his very strong grievance, and he says that he protests by virtue of that grievance. For that, reason he protests against the Bill on behalf of his party. One thing seems very certain to me, and that is that the words, his statement, were meant to justify their opposition to the Bill, and not only that, but also to inspire it outside. Is it true? Is it true that the hon. member for Standerton, or any one of the S.A.P. Governments, never introduced any question of a very important national character and put it through before they had reached an agreement in the country? Let me ask the hon. member that. I should have thought that the declaration of war in September, 1914, by which the Dutch-speaking South Africans were dragged in with a number of English-speaking people in South Africa into a regrettable war, was “a matter of great national concern.”

Did we decide on the war?

I want to ask my question first, and then to settle matters further with the hon. member. I ask him if he wants to make out that at that time the consent of the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa was first obtained before the Bill was introduced in the House?

We did not decide on going to war.

Let me say that that is the biggest piece of quibbling which has ever yet taken place in this House. Let me ask the hon. member where he got the right from if this House had not authorized the first £2,000,000 and the other £30,000,000 or £40,000,000? Did the hon. member ask the Dutch-speaking people if they would agree to pay that? Did he first of all do that? One cannot help feeling the utmost contempt—

I hope the Prime Minister will not use the word “contempt.”

Let him go on. Let the people hear what language he uses. We know him.

I was not speaking of the hon. member for Standerton, but said that that sort of argument did not hold water. Let me say this that that kind of argument is not expected from a member like the hon. member for Standerton.

Why from another member? What right has the Prime Minister to think that?

It would not do justice to his commonsense. But let me come now to the proposition of the hon. member for Standerton, viz., that “ in matters of grave national concern ” the Government may not bring measures before the House to get parliamentary authority before first of all an agreement is reached between the English- speaking and the Dutch-speaking people. I say that that is something which no Government that has sound sense can accept. If a Government were to follow that policy it would soon be entirely powerless and paralysed, because it would then be dependent not only on arbitrariness, but also on the sentiment, of any section of the population which wanted to thwart it. Then in the case of practically every measure he would have to say: “For this or the other national or racial reason I must give it up.” There is such a thing as duty which a Government has to perform, and the duty above everything is to govern, and I say that if we have to wait until we have got all the parties to agree I should like to know how much longer we should have to wait. It is clear to me whether we have to do with this or any other question that the question which must be decided and which must be the deciding factor whether the matter should be brought before Parliament or not depends on which of the parties is right, and I want to devote a few words more to that question. The flag conference which has already been mentioned also emphasized that in this matter we should get as much unanimity and goodwill as possible. I will say at once that I entirely agree with that proposition, but it is asking too much of me or anyone to accept the proposition that the hon. member for Standerton has laid down. I say again that the only thing which we must ask of ourselves is, who is right, and when we have decided about that we must not allow ourselves to be deflected by opposition from one side or the other. The opponents ask that the Union Jack shall be placed on the national flag in full form and colours, and they say that they ask that in the first place because the Union Jack can lay claim to it. Then they say that if their request is not complied with it will be a misappreciation of their sentiment, and that they attach a great deal of value to it. I should like to go into these points a little. In the first place they ask for the incorporation of the Union Jack as a right of the Union Jack. Can they state the request that the Union Jack shall be put on the Union flag? What right have they or has the Union Jack to that?

Why not? The sentiment of a large part of the people demand if.

Because, says the hon. member, the sentiment of a large part of the population demands it, viz., the majority of the English-speaking people, it must be done.

Why not?

That surely was not my question. My question was what right the Union Jack or anyone on behalf of the Union Jack has to say that the Union Jack should be put there? Those are the two important points. One day we hear: The Union Jack demands this and we demand this. Then again you hear that British sentiment is being misjudged and wounded. I will deal with that. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has just now dealt with the second point. But there is apparently no one here who is prepared to act as the champion of the first argument, an interpretation which I myself honestly do not understand. I want to repeat that the Union Jack is the flag of Great Britain and not of this country.

And of the people in this country who have died for it as well.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is right then the Union Jack waves here as symbolizing the might and authority of Great Britain and not as our flag.

I do not take up that attitude.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member denies that the Union Jack is the flag of South Africa. It was borrowed by us and is to-day being used by us—something that we have borrowed until such time as we have our own flag. It symbolizes therefore insofar as it floats over South Africa the might and the authority of ourselves and not of Great Britain. How then can people come and say that they have the right, or the Union Jack has the right of being put on our flag as a symbol of the might and authority of Great Britain? I will return to that. There are also members in this House who take the view and that is one of the reasons why it is necessary for the Government to insist on our having a national flag.

Why did you refer to the Union Jack as a “stinking rag”?

There are but a small minority who will misunderstand the situation.

The former member for Umbilo (Mr. Mackeurtan) asked you the same question in this House, and you could not answer.

I shall not answer the hon. member anymore. We now come to the second point which is that British sentiment is being wounded. I want to ask in what way British sentiment is being wounded. Let me in the first place ask hon. members what they mean by British sentiment. I take it that it means the sentiment of English-speaking people. I go further and want to know in what way that sentiment is being wounded. What is happening to the Union Jack? Does it not remain just as alive, clothed with the same authority and power which it has to-day? In what way is an atom of the might and the authority of the Union Jack broken down? If that is so, then how is the sentiment wounded? Let me say this that with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—I do not even wish to speak of the hon. members for Illovo and Zululand—it is not a question of British sentiment. Oh no, it is not British sentiment, but haughtiness, because they—if we have our own national flag in South Africa— will no longer be able to see themselves represented as the dominating people in South Africa. That is what is at the root of it all. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has not this afternoon spoken against the Bill by means of his interjections, but he wishes that the Union Jack should also represent the might and authority of Great Britain.

You are wrong.

Well now, I am glad to hear that from my hon. friend. But let me just a little enquire into the British sentiment that is being spoken about. What I have here is interesting because a letter was sent to me dated 3rd May, 1927, in which the resolutions passed by the Union Patriotic Societies in South Africa submitted to the meetings in many villages were enclosed. I think it will be conceded that the said meetings very well represent the opposition to the Bill, to a national flag which does not include the Union Jack. The resolutions read—

That may be quite correct, but hon. members see that nothing is said about sentiment. Secondly it is said—

Still nothing is said about sentiment. The third point is—

Don’t you approve of that?

It is quite plain that by that they mean the idea of the hon. member for Standerton—an empire state of which we form a part. That is actually what is behind the whole thing. Apart from that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will see that these people who, though they represent English-speaking people in South Africa more than anyone else, have not a word to say about sentiment. In the first place the present flag design is “not emblematic of the traditions of the races in the Union of South Africa.“ We may differ about that without our killing each other with knobkerries. In the second place it is said: “That it is not characteristic of anything suggesting the common bond between such races for the future.” There we can differ without fisticuffs. In the third place it is said: “Nor does it identify the Union of South Africa as a state within the British Commonwealth of Nations.” These are all political reasons and then hon. members opposite come and pose as if their sentiments are being shocked, and that it cannot be otherwise, but that everyone who differs from them should be hanged from the gallows. In that way we can never arrive at any agreement in South Africa. I go a little further. The hon. member for Standerton asked—

Now I want to ask the hon. member what he means by haste. Since 1910 he has been one of those who have always spoken about our having a national flag. He went from platform to platform discussing it, recommending it, and pleading for it. He went to London and pleaded for it there. We have waited for it now for 17 years. Let me ask him: Suppose that English-speaking South Africa—the small part of it which to-day is opposed to the Bill—will not sacrifice their claim that the Union Jack should be put in extenso in our national flag. What is then to happen? Are we always to continue without a national flag?

Your wisest course would be to drop it under the circumstances.

In other words the hon. members and his friends are in possession and then day after day a flag will be flown over us irrespective of our feelings. No, it is very clear to me that we cannot continue in South Africa in that way, and that the Government has no right to continue in that way. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) knows, e.g., how the Empire Group in Natal are going on. Does he think that the Empire Group will ever get so far as to relinquish the incorporation of the Union Jack?

Perhaps the other side might be able to change their mind; it would not be the first time they have changed their mind.

Then the hon. member wants me to change my view. With what right can that be asked? What right have the hon. member and his friends to force something on me which hurts me? They can choose what flag they wish as long as they do not put anything on the flag that hurts me. Have I not the right to demand that? Do they say: “You have not the right to say that you are hurt?

I do not say that.

I am glad the hon. member says so, but then I ask them if it is not very unreasonable, unfriendly and not well disposed towards me to say that notwithstanding that it hurts me the Union Jack must appear on the national flag. Let us try for a little to speak openly and to understand one another’s standpoint. When I read out some of the resolutions of the Patriotic Societies I wanted to get back to the fact that the greatest part, 90 per cent. of the agitation against the South African national flag without the Union Jack on it is based on the fact that they are being wounded and that their object is to destroy the constitutional independence of South Africa.

Nonsense.

That is untrue.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is getting excited because he knows that I am coming to him. What do people like the hon. members for Zululand and for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the Empire Group mean? They cannot stomach the fact that we have an independent Free State to-day and they want to have the Union Jack there as a emblem of our subjection.

That is untrue.

I do not take exception to that, because I am glad that opinions are being freely expressed. Now I want once more to quote a little and the House will be able to judge. I have here with me another letter from the Flag Vigilance Committees. Let us hear what they say why the Union Jack should be on the flag. When we talk about “ independent ” then they say independent in a relative sense.” They say that we have not got absolute independence and that is why they want the Union Jack on our national flag. They say further: “The constitutional position calls for its inclusion.” What does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) say about that? The Flag Vigilance Committees surely represent a large part of the population and they say: “The constitutional position calls for its inclusion.” That is exactly what I as the head of the Government can never allow to be agreed to. The Government and the person that does that will commit treason towards South Africa and I will not allow it. The hon. member for Zululand persists that it is not true, but now I am going to read what he said. He went so far as to describe the Bill as entirely unconstitutional.

I will explain that in my speech.

Yes exactly, the whole speech amounted to nothing else.

Your referendum is similarly unconstitutional.

No, you said that the Bill was unconstitutional.

I said you had no mandate from the people, and that the whole procedure was unconstitutional.

Yes, that is precisely what is said by hon. members opposite.

He means that you have no mandate from the electors for this Bill.

No, there the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not convincing.

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

I am sorry that I must occupy so much time of the House, the more because the House has generously allowed me to speak for more than 40 minutes, but I think that hon. members will welcome it, because this is, after all, a matter about which I feel for my part that I, more than anyone else, ought to speak out plainly, and the House, as well as the people outside, have the right to know from me in the first place what we are going to do, and in the second place the reason for doing so. I hope, therefore, that the House will excuse me if I go on a little more. I will at once recommence the debate where I left off at the adjournment. I then pointed out that among a large part of the people who were opposed to the flag the feeling existed that the Union Jack ought to be on the national flag for constitutional reasons. They are not satisfied with our free status. They want to detract from it, and for that reason to have the Union Jack. Now I want at once to say that a large portion of those who are opposed to it—I am convinced that a large number of those opposed to the flag are, in the first place, opposed to the exclusion of the Union Jack for the reason that they think that the Union Jack is having something taken away from it, and therefore they feel as if they were injured. I said here to-day that I should like to know from anybody in what respect anything was being subtracted from the Union Jack through its not being put on the national flag. But as for the other point, any hon. member in this House can at once understand that I, as Prime Minister of the country, to whom in the first instance our freedom is entrusted, would have the least right of all to permit anything by which the freedom of anything should be interfered with. And if we should concede to those who demand that the Union Jack should be put on the national flag, then it would, without the least doubt, be a concession to—it may not be the largest part of the opponents—but in any case to the noisiest part of the Opposition, in the first place to the empire group in the country. It is undoubtedly true—I need hardly say it to-day—that if it were not for the empire group, of the noisy empire group, we should hear very little of this opposition in the House and outside of it.

That is not so.

What I am saying one can read every morning in the newspapers. The hon. member for Standerton said in his speech the day before yesterday: “They do not want it (speaking of the English-speaking people who are opposing the national flag without the Union Jack) as the flag of the conqueror or the superior.”

“Hear, hear.” Certainly with regard to a part of the people. I cannot say it on behalf of every Englishman in the country.

But then I ask again how does that tally with what the flag committees have expressly said, “because the constitutional position wants the inclusion.”

The hon. member for Standerton spoke for the moderate sections of both parts of the population, I do not agree with the flag committees myself.

Well, I am glad to hear that because anyone who will look at the facts must see that it is unjust to ask what is demanded. But then I say that it is said by the Empire Group and your Sons of England and the flag committees which practically, I think, consist of representatives from the Sons of England and the Empire Group. I think that I heard that the Sons of England once stated that they represented 10,000 of 20,000 people. Well, that is a fairly considerable class, but then I ask my friends if I can agree to include the Union Jack on our flag on account of the misconception that we are a subordinate people? I should now like to ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) what his intention is with regard to the claim of those people that the Union Jack should be put on the national flag. Is it his intention once more that the suspicion about our national freedom should again arise? Is it his intention that the conflict should again be kindled as to whether we are a free people or are still under the British Government and the British Parliament? Is that your intention? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), indicates a negative. Nor can it be because it is clear to me where that would lead to. If we are going to do that then I warn hon. members in the House. If that conflict is again to be kindled in South Africa then it will have sad consequences for the country. We have rest to-day. Why? Because we now know where we are and now it is acknowledged that we are a free independent people. If we do not hold fast to that we shall not maintain the peace. But then I ask how anyone can expect of me that after the Imperial Conference has made a declaration about our freedom that I and my Government should adopt the attitude of that group? Is it not a fact that hon. members in the House have received a warning from the same group to fight the declaration of the Imperial Conference?

I have never heard of that before. Do not be uneasy about the Empire Group. Put them out of your thoughts.

Every time things are brought home to the Empire Group and it is said that we must take no notice of them. It is only a small minority that insists on it in order to express their views and who constantly misunderstand the position. The Empire Group does not only exist outside of the House, but there are hon. members opposite who are kindred spirits of the Empire Group. There is, e.g., the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

I do not belong to the Empire Group.

Even if the hon. member is not an official member then his whole attitude is the same.

It came into existence before the Bill was started.

I do not know when it came into existence but I know it exists, and that it exercises a powerful influence on hon. members opposite. What, e.g., did the whole speech of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) consist of? When I asked the hon. member for Standerton about it he made a gesture as if the hon. member was one of the small minority. This afternoon hon. members opposite have taken up nothing else but the attitude of the Empire Group. They are opposed to the national flag without the Union Jack on account of the constitutional question that it involves, and the hon. member for Newlands thinks that he would not otherwise belong to the British Empire. That is precisely the same position as the Empire Group take up. It cannot take place and as for me I will not agree to our having the old question so that a conflict shall again arise in the country which will give rise to the bitterness of the past. I feel that I am saying no more than the truth when I state that there was little, very little active feeling against the Union Jack, and there is not now. There was indeed a passive view that the great part of the Dutch-speaking population said that they were indifferent and it left them cold that they would rather not have it because it always reminded them of the sorrow and pain of the concentration camps and other things. There was, however, not an atom of hatred towards the flag. What will, however, occur through insisting on having the Union Jack as a portion of the national flag. There is now slowly being produced a hatred in the minds of those people against the flag. How can it be otherwise if the inclusion is insisted upon notwithstanding their prayers: “If you please whatever you do in the national flag do not put that flag over us.” If that is continued and, what is more, if threats are made then there could be no more unmannerly and insulting action. Let there be a small minority, but that small minority is then the cause of the origin of the hatred towards that flag, which it is my duty and that of every member of the House to prevent. That is what is taking place. Can we in these circumstances go so far as to yield? We—the Dutch-speaking people—have not the least right to ask that anything should be put on our national flag by which the feeling and sentiments of the English-speaking people will be hurt, and I should be the last person to allow anything, that would do that, to be put on the national flag. The English-speaking people are, however, not the only ones in South Africa who have the right to sentiment, the Dutch-speaking people also have the right to sentiment and to equal rights.

I agree.

I am glad the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) admits it and I say again that I am very thankful to him for the reasonable way in which he has always regarded things when they are brought to his attention. That is not the case with the large majority of the opponents outside, and we must take care—it is his duty and mine—to bring it to their notice. That is one of the great complaints I have against the hon. member for Standerton. Has he in all those years, in all the bitterness since 1921 said a single word to give a lead in the matter? Did he last year and this year give any lead when English-speaking South Africa—in the Lobbies here—was prepared. Notwithstanding what I have quoted from the 1921 days he did not take a single step to give a suggestion to South Africa as to what ought to be done. That is the great complaint which the people have and are entitled to have against the hon. member—Dutch-speaking South Africa at any rate. Just as little as I shall, and we can, permit that anything should appear on the flag by which English-speaking South Africa will be wounded, can the Government or anyone in the House permit anything to appear on the flag which will wound Dutch-speaking South Africa.

What about the Red Cross?

The history is not all on the one side as the hon. member for Standerton has said, but there are two sides. The side of the Dutch-speaking people has never yet been laid before the people, nor clearly laid before the House. That is why I am speaking as I am, because I am convinced that when English-speaking South Africa sees what we feel and what is going on in us they will have more consideration when we say: “Please, whatever flag you get, do not humiliate us further by putting the Union Jack on it.” I say again that I will lift my hat any day to the Union Jack as the flag of England, but as the flag of South Africa it does not belong here, and with the history of the past, we cannot, and may not, accept it. Let me ask hon. members opposite and again make an appeal on the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). It is not true that on the part of English-speaking South Africa there is still too much suspicion and distrust. Is it not one of the principal reasons why so much fuss is being made about the inclusion of the Union Jack? When the Bill was introduced last year into the House, it was said that we were on the road to secession.

And now we have your speech of to-day.

A man is judged by his deeds, is he not?

It is now confirmed. Now I ask whether they expect Dutch-speaking South Africa to allow them to insult it. Of course, if a man like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who has just interrupted and admitted it, expects it, then he is like the Empire Group and is filled with the anti-Dutch hysteria. As soon as those things are spoken about, then the anti-Dutch hysteria does not permit them to enquire first of all whether Dutch-speaking South Africa has a right to its sentiment.

You appear to-night to be suffering from a “hate complex.”

Everything that is South African national is a subject of the deepest hatred to them. You may have hatred and show as much anti-Dutch hysteria as you like, but I ask Dutch-speaking South Africa and English-speaking South Africa, who still have a feeling left … [disturbances]. “The highly respectable Britishers,” as represented by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout can, of course, not understand that there may be English-speaking people who are fair towards the Dutch-speaking people. That I can understand. It is the arrogance of those people that makes them misunderstand the position.

Why then do they not get up and tell us so?

Suffering is the characteristic of their whole race.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort never grows up. When the most serious matter is being debated then he must, of course, make funny interruptions, and I do not grudge him them.

Look at your Labour supporters.

Look at the face of the Minister of Labour.

It is not in the least an injustice to any English-speaking person to ask English-speaking South Africa not to put anything on the national flag which will hurt the Dutch-speaking people, and it is no more than right for the Dutch-speaking people to demand that. That complaint about the wounding of British sentiment is a ridiculing of the Dutch-speaking part of South Africa. The man who tells me that his sentiment requires the Union Jack to be on the national flag, while Dutch-speaking South Africa says: “Please do not do it, put anything else in, but keep that out,” then he ridicules the sentiment of the Dutch-speaking people.

Is it done intentionally?

I do not say so, because I would never accuse the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) of intentionally doing so, but it is the result of his action.

It is not in the least my intention.

I admit that, but even if it is not the intention of anyone, then it still is ridiculing Dutch-speaking South Africa. We have the right at this stage of the flag question to come to the English-speaking people and say that they ought to know now what our complaint is.

Have you swallowed all this since 1902?

The Government regarded it as right and fair and in the interests of the country, not only to-day, but for the future of South Africa, that the Bill should be laid before the House without the inclusion of the Union Jack.

Without any mandate from the people.

The referendum will tell you what the people think, and that is enough. I want to add that the Government is convinced after what has taken place in and out of the House during the last few years that there is no chance of taking the matter further in respect of an amicable agreement between the Dutch-speaking people and a section of the English-speaking people. I say a section, because a large part of the English-speaking people agree with us. Because the Government feels that nothing more can be done towards an amicable settlement it considers it its duty to introduce this Bill before the House and to make it the law of the land.

That helps a great deal.

It is the hope of the Government that whatever happens owing to the passing of the Bill the feelings in South Africa will be brought to rest. [Disturbances.] I am convinced of one thing. If we leave the matter where it is, then nothing else than further bitterness from month to month and year to year will take place in South Africa. No, the time has come for the Government to act. It has assumed the responsibility, and is prepared to go on with it. Now a few remarks about certain questions which were asked me. In the first place, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked me a question this afternoon: “What then did I call the British flag, whether it was a foreign flag, or what it was?” I already told him this afternoon what the position of the Union Jack was, as the British flag. It is the flag of Great Britain and to that extent it is to us, therefore, a foreign flag. That is very clear, whether he wants to call it a “foreign” flag or what not. And that is exactly the difference between him and the Bill. He does not want it. He wants the British flag also to be put on to our flag.

What did you say at Pretoria?

Exactly what I am saying this afternoon. I said that the flag which was waving here was the Union Jack, our flag, not your British Union Jack. Of course, it is our flag until such time as we get our own flag. We have borrowed it for the time, and it is doing service as our flag. Am I then to repeat it again?

How can it be our flag, and, at the same time, a “foreign” flag?

Well, exactly, that is the very reason which makes it so stupid for us to continue longer than absolutely necessary to use the flag of Great Britain as a flag, because the same colours and the same design have to do service as the flag of Great Britain and of ourselves. Of course the hon. member appreciates the absurdity of the position. As a lawyer he must see that at once.

As a lawyer I have never heard such nonsense.

I should then very much like the hon. member to tell us i what the position is. Let him say whether the Union Jack waves here and on the Union Buildings as a symbol of the British authority and power.

I will reply to that when I take part in the debate.

I can so well understand the position. According to the hon. member for Rondebosch, the Union Jack, when it waves here, is the British flag with the full authority and power of Great Britain.

I have simply taken your words. I never yet said anything of the kind.

It seems to me the hon. member wants to retreat, and we must give him time to get away.

Did you tell the other dominions that the Union Jack was a foreign flag?

The Australian flag is a foreign flag. The flag of New Zealand is a foreign flag. Is then the position different with regard to Great Britain? Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of constitutional law can take up no other position. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is, oh! so much grieved, so indignant that we have not put the two old republican flags on the design. Well it is peculiar. During the debate last year he could not get any further than proposing only the colours, and only after we had protested against the colours he went a little step further, and now he wants both the flags in full. I am going to test the seriousness of the hon. member for Standerton. I will undertake to give the hon. member every opportunity when we are in committee and from the time the second reading is taken to bring forward a flag design on which the flags will all be equally treated, wherein justice will be done to all, and which will not make us ridiculous.

All three?

All three, which will not make us ridiculous. I want to give him the opportunity. If the hon. member wants the flag of the old republics we shall give him every opportunity to make a proposal by way of amendment to include the old flag of the Free State and the Transvaal.

You never gave the commission a fair chance.

I am now not talking of the past but of an opportunity which the hon. member will have in the future. He had opportunity enough in the past as well but would not take it.

Why then excluded until now?

Running away again. He immediately runs away. As soon as an opportunity is offered he runs away. The hon. member has never once told us what flag design he actually proposes. Now he has another opportunity. I may almost dare to prophesy what he will do. He will make no proposal. But now I come to another point. It was asked—is it true that on your return from Europe you were in favour of the question being allowed to stand over? I wish immediately to say that my whole tendency was to recommend that the matter should stand over for a year or two. But let me add here that it did not take long before I was so disillusioned that I saw it was an absolute impossibility. I intended to let it stand over, but not that we should put it off never to come up again. I was hardly here three days when I was disillusioned. The Empire Group and others immediately decided what they would demand. They demanded that the Union Jack should appear on the flag. Why? Because they were dissatisfied about the constitutional position which had been reached, and the Union Jack had to come to put things right again, and then I immediately felt that we could wait one, two, and even seventeen years, and yet forty years more, and would not get the flag. Then I said: Now we are going on and no more going back. First it was the Empire Group, but it did not take long before the newspapers also were busy, and we really are entitled to expect a little more form a newspaper like the “Cape Times.” The “Cape Times” published the most insulting articles towards the Dutch-speaking South Africans which have ever appeared anywhere. Their attitude was: “You can do what you like, but the Union Jack must be included,” and that was coupled with insults of all kinds. I say again that a Government cannot allow itself to be led under such conditions to a postponement, and I said at once that we must now go on and not look back anymore. How many hon. members opposite had the: least sympathy with all the attempts that were made? Hardly had anything been done when the hon. member for Standerton went on to the platforms in the country and rejected them in the most insulting manner.

Where?

What about the Hertzog flag? In other words, how dare you propose a national flag without the Union Jack, seeing that in 1910 you asked the British Government to give us a flag which contained the Union Jack. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) commenced it. He thought that he had made such a nice find and brought the whole thing, case and all, with him, kept it in his bench and exhibited it as the Hertzog flag. I do not want to blame the hon. member so much, but the person I want to blame is, once more, the hon. member for Standerton. Hon. members of the Opposition look so surprised. They know what is coming. The day before yesterday while the Minister of Finance was speaking, the hon. member for Standerton said that he had to ask me how things were with that flag. Then I told the Minister to leave it to me and I would give an explanation. Now I am going to explain, and I hope the hon. member for Standerton will be satisfied. One thing is certain that the hon. member for Standerton wanted to say what was notified by the hon. member for East London (North) viz., that I was responsible for that flag.

No, I did not say that.

Let me hear then what the hon. member did say.

The Minister of Finance said that we had no flag. I thereupon interjected and said—

That was in reply to the statement that we had no flag.

I am pleased for the sake of the hon. member. Did he not think that it was his duty at once to enlighten his own followers about the truth of the position, e.g., yesterday when the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) said that I was responsible for it, and that it came out of my office? Did not the hon. member for Standerton think it right after what was stated by the hon. member for East London (North) to clear up the matter? We are surely not here to score off each other but to try to so discuss matters so that we can do something big for the people. My office had nothing to do with that flag, and I had nothing to do with it expect to put my signature to the document. It was the office of the hon. member for Standerton. It was the Minister of the Interior, and he had it drawn up in his office and initialled it himself. It was signed by me for submission to the Governor-General and that was all I had to do with it.

Why did you sign it if you did not agree with it?

I have never J yet said that I did not agree with it. That was never yet the question with which I had to do. I ask why the hon. member for Standerton did not immediately say that it came out of his office, was initialled by him and sent to me for signature to be sent on to the Governor-General? It is a small matter, but if it had happened to me, then I would immediately have told my friend what the correct state of affairs was.

What, then, is your signature worth?

If the hon. member knew anything about the practice among Ministers, he would not ask that question. The hon. member for Standerton was at that time my senior—

Did it not go before the Cabinet?

It was never before the Cabinet. That is not the question, because you could do it without going to the Cabinet.

Did you not approve of it when you signed it?

It was sent to me because the Prime Minister (Gen. Botha) and the senior Minister (Mr. Sauer) were in Pretoria. The hon. member for Standerton was then the senior Minister here, and he sent it to me as the Minister immediately below him for my signature.

You ought to have sent in a minority report.

Would you sign a Cabinet minute of which you disapproved?

I have sent for the original, and the initials J.C.S. are on it.

He is not ashamed of it,

That is enough about that. Now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort asked me whether I did not agree with it. No, but now I have again a matter to settle with the hon. member for Standerton. I might surely have expected that the man who was consulted about it and who was responsible in his office for the drafting and circulation of it would have known what that minute contained. The hon. member has just spoken about our flag, although he knows just as well as I do that if he says our South African flag, he says something which is incorrect. I do not wish to express myself more strongly. He is not an ordinary man and a layman in the matter, because he is a lawyer, and ought to know what the meaning of it is.

Why did you sign the minute?

I can understand that hon. members opposite are annoyed when such things are made public. The fact is that the Duke of Connaught came out in 1910, and some of our boats were to meet him and bring him ashore from the warship. And that was actually done. Now it is a fact that Great Britain has a special flag which is called the “Merchant Shipping Ensign.” It is red for Great Britain, and for the dominions there is the same English flag, but to indicate the particular dominion to which the boat belongs a distinguishing mark or badge is placed on the “fly.” In the case of India there is, e.g., a star on the English flag as a coat of arms. We had then just become a dominion, and Lord Crewe has sent us a letter saying that inasmuch as we were going to meet the Duke of Connaught—

That is not correct.

We must have a badge to put on the ensign.

That is not correct and you know it. Read your own minute.

I shall read a letter from Lord Crewe. [Minute read.] There was no choice of a flag, all that was said by Lord Crewe was that a Coat of Arms had to be selected. If that is to be called a flag then I am satisfied. Now I come to the letter of the 6th September drawn up by the hon. member for Standerton and signed by me. (Letter read.) The whole question was that your Union ships should fly the British flag with our Coat of Arms on it. In this way our ships would be distinguished from the other British ships, and to that extent it can be said if you wish that it was our own flag. I have nothing against it. We can call it our flag if you so wish, but then we must know what it means. Then the answer came that certain alterations were made for heraldic reasons. Practically we had so little to say that we could not even decide upon our own badge. Then we were further informed that the Minister for the Colonies would like to have proposals seeing that in connection with the impending visit of the Duke of Connought the feeling would exist amongst South Africans to have a flag for United South Africa. The flag of the Union of South Africa. May I ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort why all this haste if there already was a flag for the whole of South Africa. It is surely nonsense if there is already a flag for South Africa ever since 1910. But then I go further and I hope that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort especially will listen well.

You have not yet finished reading the letter.

The hon. member can read the rest. I make him a present of it. But now what did the flag of 1910 consist of? Out of the Union Jack as one flag, accordingly a flag after their heart. It was a large Union Jack and the rest of the flag was red or blue or what not. The Union Jack was on it in full. Have we ever yet heard of this flag? Have we ever yet heard of a flag of any country which was so stillborn? Born so absolutely dead that besides the hon. member for Standerton and myself possibly no one in this House knows anything about the flag. Why? I will tell you. To the Dutch-speaking people it was from the commencement an English, a purely English flag.

I have never seen it.

Yes, we have seen it, but why has it been entirely forgotten. And what will happen if those hon. members get their way with the national flag in South Africa? A national flag with the Union Jack on it will follow the same way. The Dutch-speaking people will simply attach not the least meaning to the flag and will regard it as a British flag and not a South African one. And the English-speaking people? That is just what they want, that is to say, that section of the English-speaking people. They want neither more nor less.

Why did you call it the flag of the Union of South Africa in a. Cabinet statement?

See, what we have here. But all the time the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and other members are engaged on nothing else during the whole debate than ridiculing the matter. While they represent that this matter is being earnestly debated in this place, is being treated in a worthy manner with the object of coming to a good solution, some of the hon. members and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) are primarily engaged in ridiculing it.

Who signed the letter?

I, of course, do not wish to hurt the hon. member, but I ask hon. members whether it is not a fact that the hon. member is the best example of Balaam’s ass which we have ever heard.

On a point of order, is the Prime Minister entitled to refer to one of the members of this House as a fine example of Balaam’s ass?

I think that the hon. the Minister should not use language of that sort.

Very well, but we must clearly understand—

Withdraw.

No, I do not withdraw. I did not accuse the hon. member but only asked if a better example could be found, but I leave it at that. But it is surely a fact that we are often like asses. We shout when we are hurt. And it is not only applicable to that hon. member, but to many of those who have to-day shouted so much.

Who has shouted to-day?

Well, it is difficult to say which of the two, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort or the hon. member for Standerton, has shouted the loudest. I now want to conclude. I am thankful for the opportunity which the House has given me to clear up the matter here. I just want to repeat that it is ridiculous to think that by silence or by sweet words we can flatter each other that we shall ever reach a solution of this matter. We ought merely to restrain ourselves from anything which would stir up feelings.

You have set a bad example.

You have been doing it for three hours.

Where have I stirred up feelings? I have beaten, certainly. There comes sometimes a period in connection with the problem in which you can only in one way get people to use their common-sense, and this is when they have fallen asleep by all kinds of stories and injustices. This question is an example of that. During the past few years many injustices have been done in this matter, so much soft soap by the other side that I thought it time to wake the gentlemen up a little. I have not the least doubt that I have succeeded in that. The way in which they have to-day shown their sensitiveness in the matter is a proof of it. I am quite satisfied and I have attained my object. And when to-morrow or the day after the pain is forgotten a little and we meet here again to discuss the matter then I know we shall think and speak quite differently about it. In conclusion I say, speaking for the Government, we cannot think of allowing the matter to stand over for years before coming to a decision. The matter must be settled and the Opposition are having the last opportunity insofar as time permits it to offer a hand in solving this matter. If they do not wish to, if they want to go to work in the same way as in the past, they will not escape their responsibility.

The Prime Minister, in one of the last sentences of his speech, said that he had attained his object in the speech which we have just listened to. I wonder what that object was. I wonder if he realizes what he has really achieved. No, when he began his speech—I do not like to think how long ago— some of us thought, and I thought, that we were going to get from the Prime Minister something that would lift us out of this rut of controversy that we have been in since this Bill came into the House. I was hoping, and some of us hoped, that we were going to get something from him, not a mere retort to what somebody else had said, but a lead, a lead to the country, not a mere shot fired in a battle that is doing the country no good. We did not expect from him argument. Any of us can produce that. We wanted some sign of a solution. We did not expect from him that he would come and give us what he called the other side of the picture.

Of course you did not. I did not expect you would.

I did not, because that we can get from many members on that side. What is going to become of us? What is going to become of South Africa if we are going to sit here day after day, our side presenting one side of the picture and the other side their side? I thought the Prime Minister would have given us something above the two sides, shown us some means of bringing the two sides together, that he would have given us the speech of a statesman, and not the speech of a controversialist. That is what I expected. What we have got I do not like to say. I do not want to say a word that will make feelings in this House more excited and bitter than they evidently are at present. I cannot follow the Prime Minister in the mass of statement and argument which he gave us. It was too involved and too long, but I would like to put forward one or two considerations from the point of view of those, and there are many in this country, who are genuinely alarmed at what is going on. Anyone who felt like that could have come to no conclusion on hearing the Prime Minister’s speech, but one of despair. I cannot see a ray of hope for this country if that is the best the other side can give us. If that is the lead they can give us, what hope is there for this country? The Prime Minister made himself the mouthpiece, not of the country, but of the one side. He took us back to the grievances, not of 25 years ago, but of 120 years ago. He told us that the fact the Union Jack had driven out the flag of the old Holland was still one of the things that made it impossible for Dutch-speaking South Africans to regard the Union Jack as part of a national flag with anything but aversion.

That is the fact, that is all.

Is it a fact? Is it a fact that the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa cannot forget that? If so, what is this new flag going to do for us? Is this new flag going to bring peace and reconciliation? If the capture of South Africa in the Napoleonic wars still rankles and is still a grievance, is this new flag of St. George’s Cross upon a green ground going to bring peace?

Yes, undoubtedly.

I do not say it is not a fact, but if that is the only way in which we can look at that fact, I say, what hope is there for this country?

Adopt the new flag.

Is that going to wipe out the memory of this hundred-year-old insult?

Yes it will.

Yes, plus the courageous resolutions of the Imperial Conference in November. These two together will.

We are not asking for the inclusion of the Union Jack in any spirit to make light of what the Imperial Conference has done.

I was answering your question.

You are afraid that you are not going to exploit the Union Jack anymore.

We have no desire to exploit the Union Jack. The Prime Minister can put that out of his head once and for all. Let him not be terrified by figures of the Empire Group looming out of the darkness. The most pathetic thing I heard the Prime Minister say was that when he came back from England he had it in his mind that this question might be deferred for a year or two. Then the Empire Group came along and something they said or suggested, or that the “Cape Times” said, turned him aside from that purpose and brought him to the conclusion that the thing ought to be settled at once. On such small pegs do great events hang. Can we take it as really serious that the Prime Minister of this country, having definitely made up his mind that it would be in keeping with what happened in London to put this off for a year or two, should be turned from that path by something some extremist said, or some newspaper said in its leading article? There are extremists on both sides. Are we going to serve the best interests by dwelling on what they said?

May I ask you this question? Do you think by allowing this to stand over that in two years’ time the English section will have come so far as to say, “Let us have a flag without the Union Jack on it”?

I am not prepared for a moment to give any such guarantee. The Prime Minister, I submit, is not putting the question correctly. The Prime Minister complains that we are uncompromising, that those of us who say the Union Jack should be on the flag are uncompromising.

You say “must” —that is my objection.

The other section says it must not. Are they not uncompromising? We are not fighting for a design. There are two sections of the people holding diametrically opposite views. One section says that to leave out the Union Jack will injure their feelings will injure their respect for the traditions in which they have been brought up. The other section says, “If you include the Union Jack, that will injure our feelings, and will recall bitter memories of the past.” Each is as un compromising as the other. We are not more or less uncompromising than the other side.

Can you reconcile them?

Yes, I say we can reconcile them. The Prime Minister said in an interjection which he made—

If the Prime Minister had that will to conciliation he could find a way but he is trying the other way.

That is to say, if I get the Dutch people to accept the Union Jack?

I am not prescribing what way the Prime Minister should do that. That is his business, not mine, to bring the two peoples together. He ought not to be afraid of waiting two years to do so.

That is why this Bill is on the Table, because I am not waiting.

The Bill is on the Table in an entirely different spirit. It is not on the Table as a means to find conciliation, but because the Prime Minister says, “I will have no more of this; we have fooled too long with this; we must settle it once and for all.” Let me remind the Prime Minister that nearly all the great disasters that have overtaken South Africa have come about because somebody was in a hurry, somebody refused to wait. Right back to the annexation of the Transvaal, somebody would not wait, Disaster followed, and remains with us still. A little patience! I know that to the Prime Minister patience seems to be weakness, and putting off a thing seems to be a condescension to your enemies, but let me remind him that patience is one of the greatest parts of statesmanship, and to wait two, three, or even ten years, for a consummation such as this which would bring the two sections of the people together would be well worth the waiting.

And in the meantime, what flag is to be here?

Don’t worry about the flag; if we are advancing on the path of conciliation what does it matter if we spend a year or two with a flag we do not recognize?

What about our feelings in the meantime?

I would ask the hon. member whether he is talking about his own private feelings, and those who agree with him, over the grievances of the past, or his feelings for the country and the future of the country? If he is talking of feelings of resentment, I know it may be a little difficult, but if his feelings are for the country, he will be content to wait a year or two longer for the purpose of achieving such a conciliation as that. Why must we always look back on these old troubles; why cannot we look a little to the future, for a change? I want to refer to the bomb that the Prime Minister fired upon us. He came with a message of peace, and fired a great bomb, of which we have heard for some days. I suppose we have had it, and it seems to me to have burst in the wrong place. What does it matter, for the thing we are now considering, whether the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at one time thought you could have a national or domestic flag for this country on which the Union Jack, which represents the Empire, was not represented? Many people have thought that. The difference between the attitude of my right hon. friend, when he was Prime Minister, and the present Prime Minister is that my right hon. friend was not prepared to force his will on an unwilling country.

Why did he not say that?

Why did he hide his light under a bushel?

I tell the Prime Minister in all seriousness that if he had left his Bill where my right hon. friend left it, it would have been a better day for this country. If he had had more forethought for the feelings of the people, and not attempted to force by a Parliamentary majority upon them something they would not accept, South Africa would have been spared a good deal of trouble. I place little importance on such a revelation as that. What we are dealing with to-day is this question, and no other—whether this Bill is to be forced through in the face of what the Prime Minister knows and recognizes is a hopeless division of opinion between two sections of the people. Each section is as worthy of respect as the other, and is he going to think he will override these differences by forcing upon them this matter, and think that nothing further will be heard of it? If he is, he is living in a fool’s paradise, and I would counsel him that homely method of patience, not being in a hurry and using that will of his to find a way of conciliation, and not a way of insisting on one side prevailing over the feelings of the other, because you cannot do such a thing. You cannot kill sentiment of that kind by a referendum or by any other means; but you can by conciliation and giving it a place in our national sentiment, and not ruling it out. We have heard a great many expressions of opinion in regard to the reasons why it is impossible for the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa to accept a national flag in which the Union Jack figures. The Prime Minister told us to-day emphatically, repeatedly that it was impossible, and said—

We have had that feeling expressed over and over again—by the Minister of Finance and others, that after what has happened in South Africa, particularly in regard to the Anglo-Boer war, it was impossible for the Dutch-speaking people to accept a flag in which the Union Jack appeared. I have the greatest respect for the men into whose souls the iron of war entered, and from whom it has never departed. But is nothing coming out of that war except grief and trouble, and are we going to repudiate these feelings by renewing them in our own I do not think a nation, anymore than individuals, can start with a clean sheet. They grow out of their past and they should be proud of what is noble in their past. They should embody that in their national emblem. Has there been nothing but trouble in our history? We have heard a great deal about the work called “A century of Wrong,” but, taking it for granted, and assuming that there has been a century of wrong, is the best way for us to take to have a century of retaliation? Is that going to do us any good? Out of all these troubles, the overthrow of the republics and the disappearance of their flags as the flags of independent nations, has come the Union of South Africa.

Is a fresh start retaliation?

The Minister misunderstands me. We are urged to make this fresh start. We are urged to put away the Union Jack, because you will not look upon it but with aversion. I look upon that as retaliation. Out of these troubles has come this Union of South Africa, and that was a thing for which many South African patriots worked, hoped and prayed for very many years before it happened. It is not for me to say that it would never have come about except for these troubles that came out of the war; it might have been a long time, and it might not have come for another generation or two, but anyhow, let us be thankful that we have it, and let us try to build on that foundation and see that some good fruit may come out of the ploughing of the ground that took place during that war. I would ask the Prime Minister not to think always of what he calls our side of the case, which means the amount of injuries, injustices and troubles that have been committed by one race on the other, but to think of what we have.

Surely this is a misapprehension. All I wanted to do was to state the case from the other side. You know your case better than I do.

I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should try to do something more, and he should try to give us a lead.

Do you know what your case is?

I have lived in South Africa for some time, and I have tried to understand the other side as much as I can. I ask the Prime Minister to consider his responsibility—not as an advocate, but as a leader. Let him not state one case against the other, but try to bring the two sides together.

That is the Bill. It is a compromise.

The Minister is quite mistaken in that. The Bill is no compromise. The two sides are standing against each other as uncompromisingly as before. One says that the Union Jack must be in the flag, and the other says no Union Jack. The Prime Minister should try to get above the dust and the conflict, and should show where the two sides should come together.

In other words the Dutchmen you think can surrender what they feel.

No. If that is the attitude of the Prime Minister I am afraid advice is thrown away.

If the Prime Minister fails you, show a better way.

I know the Minister can make fun of what I am saying, but there is one man—and one man alone—who can do it, and that is the Prime Minister.

Because the Prime Minister is the only man who can surrender rights.

No one looks for a conciliation, or wants a conciliation, which will mean the surrender of rights by one side or the other. The mere fact of my trying to point out such a way, even if I knew it, would mean that it would be rejected immediately by the opposite side.

We have made half a dozen attempts at a compromise.

I know it has taken two years, but what are two years for a thing like this if you can get it done?

Then don’t say we have made no attempts.

I thought that time had come when the people of both races could regard the Bloemfontein monument in a spirit of respect and not use it to stir up an age long controversy.

The same with the Union Jack, but we shall not get it along your way.

We shall not get it along the way of Government forcing the Bill through. I do not say we should be satisfied with what we have by way of a flag, but if we want something which expresses more truly the sentiments of both sides, hon. members, such as the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), should try to get rid of the bitterness in their hearts, and try to find out something under which we can live in peace and amity. For unless that is done I see no hope for this country. We have been told how Ireland refused to accept a flag containing the Union Jack, and by that means was brought to conciliation. But at the cost of the dismemberment of the country, for Ireland is split into two under the Irish Free State flag. Are we prepared to pay that price—the price of dismemberment? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this may lead to dismemberment. Do not let us quote Ireland as an example. I do not know any worse example, for conflict has been going on there for centuries. For heaven’s sake do not let us get into that row. Have we not had enough of it? I put it in all seriousness that proceeding with this Bill is going to put back the conciliation that has already taken place, and will put back the history of South Africa to the times before Union. All that has been done because the Prime Minister will not wait, because he says he must have a flag, and must have it now. The game is not worth the candle. It is worth while waiting ten years rather than cause the dismemberment and splitting of South Africa between the two races, as the Prime Minister is now finding. I entirely agree with what the Prime Minister has said about the feelings of a certain section of the people in regard to the Union Jack. I can quite understand those feelings, but it is not our business to look to those feelings, but to try and bring them into accord with the feelings of others, and that is why I was profoundly disappointed with the Prime Minister, who did not give the lead that he should have to the House and to the country that is waiting for a lead. The Prime Minister also said that the Government’s proposal was not a means of showing any disrespect to the Union Jack, and was not pulling the Union Jack down in South Africa. I submit in all respect that it is. Merely to show it on four days in the year as a token of our membership of the British commonwealth of nations does not make that in any sense the flag of the country. The flag of the country for all purposes will be number 2 design which will take the plate of the Union Jack as the flag of South Africa. The Union Jack will cease for any purpose whatever to be the flag of South Africa.

For what oilier purpose do you really want the Union Jack?

I want it for this purpose. Because as we are at present a large section of the people who have the right to have their feelings consulted will not be satisfied if it is left out.

Why?

Is the Prime Minister going to try and resent their having any sentiments? These sentiments are present in that section of the people just as strongly as they are in the other section, and they have just as much right to be there as have the feelings of the other section.

And therefore it is right of them to insist on getting something positive where the other side demands nothing.

The demand of the other side is not negative. It is a demand for a flag from which the Union Jack is excluded.

I understood you all wanted a national flag. Assuming we want it, you must take that for granted and that being so, all we say is we are not going to ask for anything to be put on it, and why should you ask for the Union Jack to be put on it?

That is a very subtle argument.

No, it is not subtle.

Surely in substance you want something positive.

The section represented by the Minister wants something positive.

Starting from the common ground of the Union Jack?

We are starting from the common ground of a national flag, and a certain section says on it we want the Union Jack because it represents the sentiments of our people and our traditions. The other side say we want a national flag which does not contain the Union Jack. I say again, at the risk of repeating myself, these two sections have an equal right to be represented and to be consulted, and no way can be found for a national flag to bring peace that does not contain both.

Supposing that the two parties never will surrender their point, then are we to go on without a national flag?

That question reminds me of the old puzzle at school—

Assuming neither side surrenders it means we remain in the same state of national disruption as we are to-day.

Can the Government allow that state of disruption to continue?

But the method of curing the trouble adopted by the Government is making it worse instead of better. We are not proceeding on lines of conciliation.

Is it not your part to give us something better and not say “Shut the show down”?

I say it is the Prime Minister’s job to find something better. I remind him of his own words—

Let him find the way to conciliation.

Conciliation requires two minds, not one.

And disruption can be brought about by one.

Yes, and it requires above all things, that the party in power, holding the big stick in its hand, should take the first step.

Have we not taken the first step?

But I want the Minister not to be so easily satisfied and to come to the conclusion that it is hopeless and that nothing can be done. If he is right it means disaster to the country. He will not drive us to peace by force of his Parliamentary majority. It will produce the opposite. I ask him not to go on, but to find another way.

Your own leader has often twitted us with changing our attitude.

Let us twit each other as much as we like, but never change our mind about making this a great country.

Your unreasonable attitude will not help to do it.

I have tried to be as reasonable as possible, but the Minister has misunderstood me. I am trying to be calm without hurting any feelings and to show the path along which we ought to go. They are fastening on to the little things, and are neglecting the big things. They are looking to the past instead of to the future. They think they are going to make this the flag of South Africa, but they are going the best way to isolate us externally and plunge us into disruption and discord internally. That is the inevitable consequence of the line upon which the Government is going, and that is why, if I thought it could serve any good purpose, I could speak as long as the Prime Minister, to urge upon him to give up that path; on no account to be moved by the blandishments of his friends or the criticism of those behind him, but to keep in view the conciliation of the nation; the cooperation of the two races, because, without it, it matters nothing what political triumphs he achieves or what applause he gets from those behind him. He will do an irreparable injustice to South Africa.

Is Ireland divided to-day? Is England not friendly disposed to Ireland, and are they not co-operating?

Of course, but I was dealing with the obvious danger if we hoist this flag in South Africa and robe ourselves in a garment of isolation. We shall drive the people to the north of us away, and thousands who would come here will be driven into other countries where things are more congenial. It is a matter of earnest duty on the part of the Prime Minister, in spite of what has been said, not to give up this attempt at conciliation, to bring the two sections to agreement, and he should not grudge the year or two spent in that task. I warn him solemnly that this Bill he has put before the House now, whether accepted by a majority in the referendum or not, is one of the worst services he can render to South Africa. It will not command respect, and it will not be a sign of unity but an instrument of division.

I know much has been said about the Bill, but I should be neglecting my duty if I do not say a few words. I should not be true to the people who have sent me here for the last 17 years to look after their interests. I am very sorry that we have commenced again to-night to sow discord and bickering. I remember that the Minister of the Interior introduced the Bill last year, and that he did not know then that such great opposition would arise. He, however, became convinced of it because after he had stated that the Bill had to go through because it was necessary he came back to the House a few days or a few weeks later and stated that it was wise to withdraw the Bill, and he did so. The Minister and the Government must be convinced of it that after everything that has occurred it may be a calamity to push the Bill through the House.

What, then, are we to do?

They must wait until they can get a flag which will satisfy all sections of the population. The Prime Minister spoke about three hours and he only argued from the point of view of the Dutch-speaking people. Has the Prime Minister received a mandate from the whole Dutch-speaking section?

From 90 per cent.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) may think that, but I am sure the Prime Minister will admit that there is a large number of Dutch-speaking people who do not agree with him, and a very large section too. Alongside of the Dutch-speaking people we have the English-speaking. Is no count to be taken of their feelings? Has the Minister then forgotten that at the general election of 1924, 149,000 votes were given to the S.A.P. and 113,000 votes to the Nationalist party. Hon. members must not try and say that they represent one part of the people. What on earth will it help us if the Government pushes the Flag Bill through the Prime Minister has said. Let the Government use its common-sense. I say the Bill cannot go through as it is. I may be very stupid and I believe it is so. But in my opinion the Bill will bring division among the people, and we do not want division because we want to remain united. Poor South Africa has suffered sufficient from dissension. We must leave the monuments of yesterday alone and build monuments for the future. We have a flag, a borrowed flag which gives us the greatest freedom in the world. What have we obtained under this—according to the Prime Minister—borrowed flag? Many privileges, as many as we have ever had under another flag. Why then is it so impossible to find a flag which will take count of all sections of the population. Is it then such an impossible matter to acknowledge all sections of the people. It is surely a great pity that divisions should once again arise amongst us. I thought that they had disappeared from our country. I remember that the Prime Minister in the good old times, said at Vrededorp that there are two streams running alongside of each other but which would subsequently join up. I thought that it was to take place now, but it looks as if the streams are to continue to run parallel to each other. Who is responsible for that? The Nationalist party throw the blame on the S.A.P. and on the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We must, however, be honest. I think the Prime Minister is too hasty in his judgment, and that when he becomes calm he will feel his conscience pricking him because he has used expressions which will hurt many people in our country. He has unnecessarily hurt the Sons of England very much. Those people live here, and they are not asking for anything impossible. They only ask that they shall be considered in connection with the flag. I stand here not only as a representative of Dutch-speaking people, but also of a large number of English-speaking people, and I am not at all ashamed of being the representative of the latter. I have represented them for 17 years. I can assure the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) that these people are not at all so terrible as they are represented to the public. The people want to live at peace with us and to assist in building up the country. The Prime Minister said that in committee he would give every opportunity of improving the flag proposals and to give consideration to the opinion of the hon. member for Standerton, but what about the opinion of a large section of the people, viz—the English-speaking? Will he not listen to them? These people live here and have property here and are assisting him and the flag which is dear to them and for which they are prepared to sacrifice their lives ought also to be acknowledged. If we do so then we shall remove much bad feeling. What will it help now to adopt a flag with which a large part of the people is not satisfied? The Minister of the Interior does not know sufficient of the conditions in our country, and he does not know what may happen. The flag will be carried by a majority in the House, but perhaps it will be thrown out in another place, there is a chance of that.

Is that the intention?

Yes, there is an intention. The one section of the population is not to be taken into consideration. Has the Minister thought of the bitter struggle which we have had and that this referendum will be the most bitter thing.

You can avoid it by being reasonable.

The Minister can prevent it if he will be reasonable. His slogan, as he said, was to try and unite the people, but now he is dividing it. I am sorry. I should like to see unity of sentiment in our country. I also know the Dutch-speaking people. I am one of them. I now again want to speak on behalf of the Transvaal. In the Transvaal we did not hear much about a flag after Union. The Prime Minister mentioned that the hon. member for Standerton had said at various places that we ought to have a flag. I accept that.

And the resolution of the Provincial Council?

We must be reasonable.

We must also have a purely South African flag.

Yes, we can obtain a pure flag if we acknowledge all the sections in our country. Tut the Onion Jack on one side and the two Republican flags on the other and then everything will be right.

How will that look?

It will look very well because it will bring peace. The Minister’s flag will only cause disunion, and I never heard much of a flag in the Transvaal. The people were never much occupied with it, and where does the scheme come from now? It comes chiefly out of the brain of the Minister of the Interior and other leaders. He must bear all are responsibility now for ail the troubles arising from it. I have also fought elections, and fought very hard, and I do not like them at all. What will the referendum cost the country? Can the Minister tell us about the great dissension which will arise? With the flag a spirit has arisen among one Dutch-speaking people or a portion of them which is trying to dominate our country. As long as that spirit is there we cannot expect any progress. I must say that I have not personally received a mandate from my constituents to put the Union Jack in the flag, but I take the responsibility upon myself, because I know that the people will be aggrieved if the proposed flag is forced on the country. I have received a mandate from the S.A.P. on the Witwatersrand. I shall not quote what the views of the majority are, but the general council of the S.A.P. on the Witwatersrand held a meeting at which certain resolutions were passed, and they sent the resolution to me, and I will now read it. (Resolution read). We ought not to attempt a thing about which we know beforehand will cause division in the country. We must obviate that as much as possible. We have a great responsibility on us. It is true that the Government have a majority, but that does not say that all sections must not be considered, and I request the Government to maintain rest and peace in our country, because we cannot exist with strife. Let us postpone the matter. We must not threaten the people because, if we do that, the consequences will be bad. All parties will have a difficult and trying time, and as usual the poor innocent people will suffer the most. Disunion will follow. I ask on behalf of thousands that the matter be postponed. We want to cooperate with the other section of the population because we are not race haters. I live with these people and have always co-operated with them.

Deeply conscious as I am of the extremely delicate nature of the subject under discussion, it is my intention, in the few remarks that I shall make, to speak with the greatest moderation, and I trust that I will say nothing to exacerbate or intensify feeling. I think I can claim to view this question quite dispassionately, and that I am wholly free from any conscious racial bias. For this happy circumstance I am grateful to my forebears, because on my paternal side my German, French and Dutch ancestors have been resident in South Africa for centuries, and on my maternal side my grandmother came to South Africa as a little girl with the 1820 settlers. With the blood of both races in my veins, I can candidly say I have never had conscious racial bias. I have no conscious prejudice against Dutch or English, and I have Dutch and English friends on that side of the House and through the whole country. As I was born in the Free State, nature has planted in my breast an indissoluble attachment to this country. The Free State was a well governed, clean country, with liberal and franchise laws. As we are having a national flag, I naturally ask: why cannot the old Free State flag be incorporated in that national flag? In this connection I claim to be the spokesman for no inconsiderable number of Free Staters. At the last general election there voted for the South African party 8,155, as against 19,414 for the Nationalists, the percentages being 28.1 to 67.0. Therefore, I repeat there is a considerable number of Free Staters for whom, I venture to say, I am the mouthpiece, and they have the right to say and will claim that the Free State flag should be recognized in any new national flag. Now, in this connection I have derived some hope from the Prime Minister’s statement, because he has said that any omission to represent the old republics could be rectified in committee. I think that the old Free State flag was a very artistic flag. That flag, in addition, would serve to remind future South Africans of their Dutch descent and their connection with the illustrious House of Grange—a House which has produced many great men. I am not concerned so much with the appearance of that flag. The Minister may smile. He may be an authority on heraldry, but that is an aspect that does not appeal to me at all. What I want to see is racial unity and a continuance of racial unity. Surely the real building up of a nation depends upon race fusion, and there is no doubt that if this Bill is carried that process which we all desire will be interrupted. Now, I have always considered that the present Government, by reason of its two constituent elements is a very weak Government. Naturally it must be so, from its very nature. A coalition Government is bound to be weak, especially when the two parties are the antithesis of each other. If there was one redeeming feature in the Pact, and it is what I have considered, perhaps, the only redeeming feature, it is that one party which is all Dutch is coming into close association with another party which is all English, and one hopes they will come to know one another better, and that the members of either race will recognise that there is some good and merit in the other. We hear it often claimed by the Labour leaders that they have killed racialism. One is extremely rejoiced to hear this. One, however, hopes that they will be prepared to concede to the immortal General Botha some measure of achievement in this direction; but I think that is an aspect of the question that can be safely left to the verdict of history. So far as conciliation and better understanding between the races is concerned, there is not a single English member in the Nationalist party, nor is there a single Dutch member in the Labour party, but, as far as one can judge, some considerable progress was made in the direction of mutual and better understanding, because we find that the rank and file of the Nationalist party—we in this party call ourselves by our surnames—the rank and file of the party opposite call one another by their Christian names. Klassie, Tommy, Piet, Walter, Jan. etc., is their familiar mode of address. This fraternization is certainly a very good omen, and I, personally, am very pleased to see it. I maintain that any national flag is one that must be acceptable to the vast majority of the people. I think that is a proposition that no reasonable minded man would dissent from. How can the flag which is mentioned in the Bill be considered of that character when the largest political party in this country is opposed to it? Do not let us lose sight of that. The figures are these: for the South African party at the last election, 150,013 votes recorded; for the Nationalist party, 113,406 votes; and for the Labour party, 44,058 votes. The Government proposes a national flag, and we are at once up against the fact that this side of the House, which represents by far the greater number of electors, is opposed to the flag. What is now happening in the House is a display of feeling which might easily be merged into bitterness, and will be accentuated and reflected throughout the country. I have no doubt that the flag which will and must necessarily be acceptable throughout the country is one which will incorporate the Vierkleurs of the two former republics and the flag of the two former self-governing colonies. With regard to the proposed referendum, the terms of the referendum are unfair to the electors. They have no choice. They are told: “Take it or leave it.” They have no alternative. Assuming the Government gets a majority vote in favour of the proposals in the Bill, could it be said that this would be genuinely representative? I do not think that can be contended for a moment, because it must occur to hon. members what an opportunity is presented for propagandists who wish to distort and obscure the issue. Many of the electors will be told—although some think for themselves—that if they vote against the Government they will be voting against having a national flag. Another aspect represented will be: that if they vote against the Government’s proposals, then they are voting in favour of the Union Jack. The fairer method, if we had a referendum, would be to put not only the Government’s proposal, but also an alternative flag—such a flag as we on this side think should be the national flag of this country. But, after all, the only straightforward way of getting the view of the electors is by submitting the issue to a general election. That is obviously the duty of the Government. A referendum would be a wholly unsatisfactory method, and will not represent the deliberate opinion of the country. The Minister in introducing the Bill, said that the flying of the Union Jack in South Africa on certain days would be hailed by Nationalists as a recognition of gratitude by Dutch South Africa for the work done for South Africa by British statesmen. I contend that this spasmodic flying of the Union Jack gives away the whole case, because, after all, if we fly this flag on certain holidays, it will mean that, instead of the principal holidays being days of pleasure and happiness to every section of the community, such a holiday will be a day of perfect misery to a certain large section of the population, which will feel most deeply insulted. I must joint with other hon. members and ask the Prime Minister to do the big thing. Here, if ever, is the occasion to be great. The only solution is the incorporation of these three flags, which would embody our status of equality. Let us have a flag which will make a strong appeal to other members of the British commonwealth and, if we are in trouble, we might feel it would be an incentive to men from Canada, Australia and New Zealand to come to our assistance. The country wants rest and peace, and I would say—

because there can be no doubt that there will be, if this measure is persisted in. I would ask hon. members not to blind themselves to the fact that it will split the country from end to end, and there will be racial strife. We will be a divided people; we will suffer economically and, what is more lamentable, the progress of our nation, which is in progress of being built up, will be retarded. If the Prime Minister will give this consideration, he will admit the earnestness and seriousness of the appeal made on this side of the House, which represents by far the largest part of the population of the country. If he will keep that in view and give the matter his further serious consideration, he can come to no other conclusion than, if he fails to carry all sections of the vast bulk of the people with him, it is better to leave the matter severely alone. I have not noticed any great public demand for a national flag. It is the work of politicians. At all the meetings I have held throughout the country, and I have fought six general elections—and in my constituency there is a large section of Dutch-speaking people —I have not heard of any such demand. There has not been any urge. To me it is something new. It is very extraordinary to me that the Prime Minister stated that the incorporation of the Union Jack in the national flag would be an insult to a large section of the population. If that is his firm conviction, how is it that he agreed to the setting up of a commission to try to arrive at a decision, and on the nominees of the Government no restriction of choice whatsoever was imposed. That commission was not told that it must cut out the Union Jack, because it was going to be an insult to a large section of the people. The Dutch are a peace-loving and law-abiding people; they have lived peacefully under the Union Jack for a large number of years, and many of them retain grateful sentiments towards it—even the Prime Minister does so. The document quoted by the Prime Minister from a British patriotic society breathes praiseworthy sentiment, and asks the Prime Minister to have regard to those sentiments. After all, we cannot fight sentiment, and you cannot rob people of their sentiments by legislation. You can, however, blend the sentiments of the different sections of the population into a harmonious whole, and that should be our object. I would ask the Prime Minister to pause; that would redound to his credit, for it would be a most statesmanlike action to pause and wait for a more propitious moment.