gave notice that on Wednesday he would move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the grading of certain minerals intended for export.

What, this time of the session!

It is only a small thing—formal.

gave notice that he would move to-morrow for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the powers of provincial councils.

It has no chance.

When I read the speech of the Prime Minister what impressed me most was his apparent inability or unwillingness to look at this question from any other point of view than that of his own followers, which, of course, is characteristic of him. Until the Prime Minister takes a broader view of this question and tries to enter into the feelings of the English-speaking people of this country, it will be impossible to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of it. In his speech he kept on putting the question—

Of course, the obvious reply to that is, “why should our Dutch-speaking friends try to force upon us a flag which hurts us?” The Prime Minister, in his speech, seemed to ignore that phase of the question altogether, which is to be regretted because until he tries to appreciate the point of view of the English-speaking section we can never hope to reach a solution of this vexed question. Then I deduced from his speech that he had very much underrated the depth of feeling that there is in this country for the Union Jack. I think that I may add that the repugnance of the Dutch-speaking people towards the Union Jack has been very much exaggerated by the Minister of the Interior and other speakers on the Government benches, the object being presumably to bolster up the case for the exclusion of that flag from the proposed South African flag. The Prime Minister, of course, must know what the Union Jack stands for to us. It represents our achievements, our traditions and our history in the building up of which our forefathers played no small part. It is the symbol of our descent, and represents to the British people the flag of their race all over the world. I do say it would be an outrage to the deep-rooted sentiments of British people to exclude from this proposed flag this symbol of their history and traditions. Surely the Prime Minister must realize that no flag which does not give British sentiment representation will ever be acceptable to the British people of this country.

What about the other people?

Why does he not face that fact and try to arrive at a solution on the basis of inclusion, not exclusion. As regards the other people, we are prepared to give them three-quarters of the flag to put in whatever they like, but we do claim the right to have a portion of the flag to put in what represents our traditions and our history. The Prime Minister does not seem to realize that nothing will reconcile British people to a change which does not give them that representation. Negotiations for an agreed flag having failed, this Bill proposes to impose a flag on the British people by coercion and compulsion, a flag which they do not want and which they refuse to recognize. Of course, that is a very dangerous course, and one which I think is to be deprecated and might well be reconsidered before it is too late. The consequences of such a course will be disastrous to the country. We are going to revive all the old, bitter animosities of the past, to provoke racialism in its most acute form, and, in addition to that, it is quite possible that a strong agitation might spring up for dismemberment of the Union which has already been mooted. I was distressed to read in the press, that at a meeting held in Natal, of sober-minded farmers this question of Natal seceding from the Union was actually mooted. I may as well read the report. It is the report of a meeting held at Richmond, presided over by Dr. Gordon Cummings, at which resolutions opposing the Flag Bill were unanimously passed, and it was said that the voice of the Minister of the Interior should be a healing one, instead of provocative. At the conclusion, Dr. Gordon Cummings proposed—

The resolution was passed unanimously. I was one of those, and I am not ashamed of it, who opposed union, not only with my vote, but on the public platform. I did so because I doubted the wisdom of placing the destinies of this country in the hands of those who had only a few short years before been our enemies. I thought it was premature to repose such a great trust in our late enemies. I am glad to say that my doubts on that score were very soon dissipated. The great war followed very soon in the wake of the union, and the attitude which was taken up by our then leaders, the late Gen. Botha and my respected leader the right hon. member for Standerton dispelled all doubts in my mind, as they responded nobly to the trust which had been reposed in them. These great leaders not only saved the honour of their own race, but they saved South Africa for the empire. I, and thousands of others who shared my view, became reconciled to union. We were converted by the splendid lead given to the country by the then leaders and by their honourable observance of the terms of the Act of Union. Although I am one of those who opposed union, I would to-day regard it as a calamity if an agitation sprang up for the dismemberment of the Union. I hope the Prime Minister would also so regard it, notwithstanding that in 1919 he stood for the dismemberment of the Union, because we know he went to England to ask for the restoration of the republics in that year. I hope the Prime Minister will make it clear that that is no longer his policy, because, if it is, this Bill is going to help him to attain his objective. I have said that in my view the Prime Minister has over-rated and exaggerated the depth of the feeling of repugnance of Dutch-speaking South Africans to the Union Jack. I think that feeling is only confined to one section of racial extremists in this country who are the followers of the Prime Minister I can say, as a Natalian, that in my part of the province we have had no evidence of this great repugnance to the Union Jack. I feel strongly that the whole of this agitation for a flag which is to exclude the Union Jack on the ground that that flag is hurtful to a section of the people has been engineered by a few racial extremists who have found in the Minister of the Interior a willing instrument to carry out their nefarious designs. I say it is a racial agitation which is being promoted by a few racial extremists of one political party and assisted, of course, by the Minister of the Interior. Outside these extremists there has been no agitation for the exclusion of the Union Jack. I am fortified in that view by the expressions of opinion which I have read and which have been uttered to me from time to time by Dutch-speaking people in South Africa. In Natal, I think I am right in saying, the only flag meeting held under the auspices of the Nationalist party took place in my own constituency. I want to read to the House the report of that meeting, which was held when the flag question was raised last year. The report is headed—

This difference of opinion is not confined to the Ladysmith branch of the Nationalist party, but unless I am very much mistaken there are hon. members on the opposite side of the House who hold the view that the introduction of the Flag Bill is unnecessary and is to be deplored.

Not one here.

I know what I am talking about. This is the resolution which was proposed at the Ladysmith meeting—

When hon. members taunt us with being uncompromising I want them to remember that the so-called uncompromising attitude of this side of the House is the attitude of a large number of people in the Nationalist party who share the view which we share, and are not afraid to get up in public and give expression to their views. The resolution proceeds to say—

It is not a party question.

Yes it is a party question. The whole Flag Bill is a party question, and it is being forced on the country by a section of the Nationalist party and no one else. At the meeting an amendment was proposed which stated—

The chairman said that—

I can endorse that. If a flag is introduced by means of force and compulsion which excludes the symbol of the British section of the community there will never be peace in South Africa.

Who was the chairman?

Mr. Illing, then chairman of the Nationalist party in Ladysmith. Let me give you what Mr. J. H. Nienaber, the secretary of the Nationalist party there, said—

The meeting was far from being unanimous, and the amendment was carried by one vote, but several persons did not vote. It was decided that they should proceed to the election of officers, and the chairman who had given utterance to these sentiments was re-elected unanimously as chairman. I submit that that supports my contention that this agitation springs from one section of the community only—a section of a political party, namely the extremists of the Nationalist party—and is being engineered by that extreme section which will never be anything but irreconcilable.

What about the referendum, then?

A further meeting was held, and resolutions were passed which I am asked to quote to you. At a meeting held in Ladysmith last Saturday, which was regarded of such serious importance that stores and offices closed at a busy time of the day to enable people to attend, the following resolution was passed—

1. (1) That the proposed new Union flag, known as No. 2 design, is unacceptable and will not satisfy South African sentiment. That it is not emblematic of the traditions of the races in the Union of South Africa, and that it is not characteristic of anything suggesting the common bond between the two races for the future nor does it identify the Union of South Africa as a state within the British Commonwealth of Nations.
2. (2) That the Prime Minister and his Government be earnestly and respectfully urged to abandon any proposal for a new Union Flag which does not include the Union Jack as an integral part.
3. (3) That any attempt to pass a Flag Bill without general consent will be strenuously resisted by every constitutional means.
4. (4) That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the Prime Minister, General Smuts and Mr. Anderson.

The speakers at that meeting were two Dutch-speaking and two English-speaking South Africans; one of the former who had been the chairman of the Nationalist party there, and the other Captain Botha, M.P.C.

He does not belong to the party.

The chairman (the Deputy Mayor) said the meeting had not been called under the auspices of any political party. Mr. Illing, who moved the second resolution, said—

This he absolutely denied. Continuing Mr. Illing said—

I can assure you the Nationalists are not all bad fellows, and the resolution was only lost by a bare majority. There are many men who will unhesitatingly vote for the Union Jack if they are allowed to vote by ballot the same as at Parliamentary elections, but there are a lot of the rank and file who would be afraid to sign any paper when it would be cast up against them. I appeal to you as South Africans, if we only look to the good of South Africa, and even for selfish reasons if you like, we have still got to say we must have the Union Jack in our flag. He was followed by Capt. Botha, an M.P.C., who said—

A meeting was held at Umtata the other day and Mr. Potgieter, chairman of the local branch of the Nationalist party, proposed that the Government be asked to suspend the Bill for five years. The Bill, said Mr. Potgieter, was premature and should never have been brought forward. Another of the sneakers of that meeting, Col. Goss, said he could forgive the Nationalists, but he could never forgive the treachery of his own fellow countrymen— Col. Creswell and his followers. He went on to say—

I want to reiterate what I really feel—that in the hearts of a very large section of Dutch people in South Africa the Union Jack is not to-day regarded as a flag of oppression but as a symbol of protection. Owing to the magnanimous treatment meted out to them since the Anglo-Boer war the latter sentiment has taken the place of the old feeling of antipathy. Only a few years ago thousands of our Dutch-speaking friends willingly enlisted to fight under the Union Jack; one cannot conceive their doing that if they entertained a feeling of hatred towards the flag. Then in the ranks of the Nationalist party there is a division over this question. To have the matter settled by a referendum will do an immense amount of harm. Personally I am not the least bit-afraid of the result of a referendum, which will be adverse to the Bill, but I do deplore the bitter feeling it will arouse. It will put us back to the bad old days when racialism was rampant. When Union was consummated we in Natal believed that our flag and our traditions would be respected. But for that belief we would never have agreed to Union. We regard the introduction of this Flag Bill as a betrayal of that confidence and trust which we reposed in our Dutch-speaking friends when we agreed to enter Union. It is a pity to create a feeling of distrust by one section of the people for the other which will be the effect of this Bill. I am supported in that view that the Bill is a betrayal of trust by a speech which was delivered by Mr. Johnson, in the old Natal Legislative Council, in the course of which he said—

We people in Natal also feel there has been a further betrayal of confidence. We feel if this Bill had been contemplated, which no doubt it was at the time of the last general election, it should have been made one of the issues of the election by the Pact. Thousands of English-speaking people in Natal voted Pact at the last general election, which they would not have done if they had known that legislation such as this was contemplated. They feel that the Pact, by keening this contemplated legislation in the background at the last general election played a confidence trick upon them and they are resentful. They feel that their confidence has been outrageously betrayed. The Prime Minister has said that he has the support of 40 per cent. of the English-speaking people for this Bill, but if a referendum is taken, which God forbid, the Prime Minister will find his information is incorrect. Let me give him some idea of the position in three at least of the constituencies in Natal. In my own constituency he will draw a blank. He will get no English votes there, and in Maritzburg (North) he will get one vote, that is the vote of the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), and in Umbilo he will get one, that of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn).

He will not get those if there is a secret ballot.

No, if he wants to make certain of those votes he had better go into the ballot box with those gentlemen, and see them make their mark and he had better take the same precautions with regard to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), a past president of the Sons of England, if he wants to make sure of his vote. I shall leave my labour friends alone now to continue their battle with their stricken consciences. If any one of them whilst walking down the street should overhear the remark—

he will know that he has overheard his fellowman passing a righteous judgment upon him.

I was not able to follow the Prime Minister in his speech, but I gathered he had a grievance against certain institutions in South Africa. There is very good cause for the Sons of England and other organizations taking the line they are to-day. One of those causes is to be found in one of the clauses in the constitution of the Nationalist party, a clause which has caused a great deal of suspicion. In the interests of unity I earnestly ask that party through the Prime Minister, if they cannot consider the deletion of Clause 4, which causes suspicion in the country. I understand it was given out when the Prime Minister returned from England that there was no further need for that clause, and whilst it is there you will have these societies growing stronger and becoming more powerful than they are to-day. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not in his seat, because I want to refer to what I consider is a most unworthy accusation against the Mayor of Durban in connection with this controversy. I challenge the Minister to prove what he said was correct. I hope the Minister will reply. One weakness occurred to me in the composition of the first Flag Commission, and I want to inform the Prime Minister that if he is being guided, as far as Natal is concerned, by the members of the Labour party, he is being hopelessly led astray. The navy has not been stressed sufficiently. During the great war there were many opportunities for the enemies of Great Britain to cause destruction to the ports of South Africa. We ought to thank the navy for its protection, the navy flies the Union Jack. Those ships keep a watchful eye on the coast of South Africa. In the course of another great war we shall have to depend upon the British navy to defend our shores. We will be grateful then for the protection of the Union Jack. With regard to the referendum, it is not a fair one. There should be no alternative. You should not put up Flag No. 2 and say to the people “You can say whether you want the flag or you don’t want it.” The English-speaking people have said they will gladly have a flag embracing the colours of the other race so long as our own flag is there.

We cannot get such a design from you.

You have never asked for it.

You have been asked to produce one.

You should say to the people—

It is not my intention to detain the House long. Last year I was present on that memorable occasion at Delville Wood. We heard a fine speech from the Prime Minister, which did credit to the Prime Minister and credit to our country. That was followed by a wonderful prayer by the late lamented moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church. The feeling I had after that was now at last South Africa is coming together. Then, when the Prime Minister returns, we have this bombshell. He had a most magnificent opportunity to bring the two white races together. Ever since Union my heart has been in this, let the Dutch and English shake hands, come together, pull together, and I appeal to the Prime Minister, as one born in South Africa, proud to call himself a South African, to consider seriously the dropping of this. Bill. I am an Englishman, proud to be a South African, and proud to know that the King of England is the King of South Africa.

One has just got to think for a moment in reference to one incident that occurred last week. Reference was made to Balaam’s ass. Possibly it might be forgotten by many of us who do not give that attention to Scripture that we ought to do, though the Prime Minister must remember that the ass put Balaam on the right road. That is to the credit of the ass. Possibly the Prime Minister, if he had only had one ass in his Cabinet instead of so many, might have been on the right road. Another thing that occurred was that while some person was speaking the Prime Minister shouted across the floor—

Now that is perfectly true. Very few Scots at that time would have fought for the Union Jack, which was not quite the Union Jack then. It was then a union of two flags. I ask the Prime Minister just to think that that was a time when memories were sad, when thoughts were of the long struggle that had taken place between Scotland and England, when the Scot was holding his own against the mighty power of England. But what occurred 100 years after this? What occurred in the great war? Scotland sent more sons in proportion to population than any other country to defend the Union Jack. In one of the western islands there was not a man of fighting age who did not go to the front. Cannot the Prime Minister apply the lesson? Is it not possible, when time has passed, when the fires of the concentration camps have died down, when the memories of the sad war when the Boers showed such bravery are not so strong, that those same things will happen, and that the Union Jack will be treasured, possibly not by you, possibly not by your sons, but it will be treasured by your grandsons for what it is, the flag that has always, whatever mistakes may have been made, sought to protect the weak and stand by those who were oppressed. In coming to this great question, I wish to utter no word of a personal character that is offensive. I think this question can be approached from a standpoint that is very much higher than anything of that kind. I think this question can be approached by a House of this kind with feelings akin to friendship. Somebody said—

The Scottish standard is not a flag in the sense that the Union Jack is. If hon. members on either side of the House saw the flags flying together, they would see the Union Jack flying at the masthead, as the flag of unity. The Scottish flag flying below is the domestic flag of Scotland.

You never saw that!

I never saw it, but my son has seen it. That is the position at any rate, and that is the information I have got. The Scottish standard flies at Holyrood when the King is there, so does the Union Jack. Time after time during this debate, it has been said that the Union Jack is the flag of the conqueror. What an unkind word to say! Defeated yes; conquered, no. Can you name any other country that was conquered and was called in to sign a treaty of peace? They made a treaty of peace, and having made a treaty of peace, they ceased to be conquered. I ask hon. members in this House to-day, except for the first few years after the war of 1899-1902, who has been the conquered in this country since 1919? We have been the conquered ourselves, not conquered by oppression, but conquered by plurality of votes. The Ministry has been entirely in the hands of South Africans, and quite rightly so, possibly because they represented the majority of the country. We have had three of the most eminent sons of South Africa as Prime Ministers—Botha, Smuts and Hertzog. I ask hon. members opposite—

You have got the majority, and you can make any laws you please.

That is why we are making this one.

Yes, my hon. friend has been delivering his speeches in single sentences throughout the whole course of this debate. We have had these three persons at the head. What is the position? Take the first Ministry, how many representatives had you who represented those who were not born in this country? None, if my memory serves me right. In the second Ministry, you had a few, but not many, while in the third Ministry, in this Ministry, they are all sons of the soil.

The three Labour Ministers?

Oh, no, don’t talk about the three. They come in as ballast to keep the ship on an even keel. If the Prime Minister could have had a majority without them, they would be here fighting against this flag to-day. They are there, not for love of country, but because the Prime Minister could not carry on without them. I put it to the Prime Minister, and I put it to this House, why use offensive words of this kind about conquered and oppression, when you have the whole legislation of this country in your hand? My hon. friend (Dr. Reitz) says—

made an interjection.

My hon. friend is another of the interrupters. I would like to see him walk on Saturday night through Pietermaritzburg with his kilt on, carrying the proposed flag. I am afraid by the time he had finished the kilt would be about equal to the dress of the average flapper to-day. The hon. member is shouting here, but let him go to Pietermaritzburg and make his stand there. He has got to make his peace there. Let him pray that this session will last as long as possible, and that he may be kept away from those who know him better than we do. Can any hon. member point to a speech made during the time of the last general election in which this flag question was referred to? I venture to say not one. I have not read all the speeches; possibly my hon. friend from Pietermaritzburg referred to it in his speech, that he would haul down the Union Jack. Take the last general election, the difference between the votes that were cast. I am taking in all the Labour votes and the Nationalist votes, and yet the difference as compared with this side was only 7,000 voters.

Count up again— 13,000.

That is my friend from Riversdale, the exaggerated “Baby of the House.” I was rather glad to hear him interject. He also is one of the men who make speeches by interjections. The position is this, that even if it was 13,000, I ask the Prime Minister and every member of this House, are you justified in forcing this Bill on the country? Call fall a general election.

What about the referendum?

You would have to turn up the dictionary to get the meaning of the word. The position is this. No Prime Minister and no Government is justified with such a small majority in forcing a Bill such as this upon the country. Let us take a direct issue. Let us go to the country on this one question. If the country sends you back with a larger majority than you have to-day we will be the first to give you support. The voice of the country is the voice of the people and this House should obey the voice of the people.

Is not the referendum the voice of the people?

I, for one, have the greatest respect for the old Vierkleur. I have spoken at meetings on Dingaan’s Day and I have seen the Vierkleur and the Union Jack flying together side by side. I never thought at any time that it would come to this, and as far as I know, and I have a large number of Dutch constituents, the Vierkleur was always the flag that was hoisted, and why should it be dragged down to-day? Is it riot the emblem of men on that side and men on this side? Why drag the flag down?

This Bill doesn’t drag it down.

No, it doesn’t drag it down, but it puts it in the position where it will never go up. With what pleasure I read the Prime Minister’s speech at Delville Wood. I thought the memories of the past had ceased to be, and that a new era had commenced. When I thought of that speech I remembered the great war, and I remembered that I had seen a smile on the faces of some hon. members when Britain was getting defeated, forgetting that upon Britain they were dependent for their safety. But let that go. Let that pass, and let us take a high view. Another thing we should remember is this. In dealing with this flag, are the feelings of the natives not to be considered? Is there any man in this House who says that although the native has a black skin, that we do not owe a duty to the native? Are we not their custodians? Are we not responsible for their future welfare? Even if you do carry this flag by a referendum, even if you do get a majority for the flag, would it be representative of the people of this country? Are you going to throw 5,000,000 natives aside? Are you not going to give them the slightest consideration? I have been somewhat struck by what I thought the sympathetic and kind manner in which the Prime Minister has filled his position as Minister of Native Affairs. He has shown a human sympathy far above the political motives of those sitting behind him. But what is the position of the native to-day? Are they to have no place in the sun, no flag to look up to, to cheer them on, to give them something to look forward to? I ask the Prime Minister and anyone connected with it, what is the position in that regard? Suppose by some unfortunate circumstance, some member of the Government was to do something which caused trouble with one of the Eastern Powers. It could easily happen. There are three members of the Government who, in my opinion, have neither tact nor temper, nor anything else. Supposing one of those three landed us into trouble, who would be required to defend our shores? The British navy. Then you would walk along by the edge of the sea and see the oppressor, and you would look up at the Union Jack. It reminds me of the story. Going home by ship from India, a missionary was shocked by the way the sailors were swearing. He complained to the captain, who said, “Don’t worry, as long as the sailors are swearing the ship is safe.” They got into the Bay of Biscay, where there was a fearful storm. The poor missionary crept along to the for castle and heard the men swearing. “Thank the Lord they are swearing,” he said. It is the same now. You may despise the Union Jack to-day; you may try to get rid of it, but when the day comes when the British navy is necessary to protect your coast line, you will say—

You may not despise it, but you are treating the Union Jack like ‘Arry of ’Ampstead, giving it a four days’ holiday on the Roll. I suppose it is to keep the moth out of it. That is all you are doing. Who was the generous-minded soul who invented the four days a year? He ought to go down to posterity. Just think of it! Four days in the year!

Is that the maximum number of days?

My hon. friend found it so hot over here, that he has had to creep over there. He has deserted his seat, but at the general election his seat will desert him.

It is quite easy to be a flag-wagger.

Possibly it is, but it is much easier not to wave flags. I quite admit it is very easy, but the flag-waver is the man who follows the flag in the hour of battle and follows the drum into the field. I am glad of these interjections, because they show it is getting home. The medicine is working; it is having its effect. The political ceremony will be at the general election. It is the duty of the electorate to see that if there are those in this House who do not represent their views, they send someone who does. I want to ask one other question. I ask the Minister of the Interior, is this a fair ballot-paper? Is it one that the man in the backveld will understand? Is it a paper that the less educated voters will understand?

You don’t represent the backveld, so don’t worry about it.

I was in the backveld when you were having your mother’s milk. Unfortunately, I am getting advanced in years, and although I can hear your tongue wagging, I cannot see who you are. What I want to get at is this: is this a fair thing? What I would say to the Minister is, put three flags upon your ballot-paper. Why this flag? You call it the “hot-cross bun.” I do not like to call it names, because it does not do it any good; but it does not represent anything. With regard to the St. George’s flag, the St. Andrew’s flag was in existence before the St. George’s flag, and it is the foundation of the flag, but it does not represent so large a population. Look at it as you will, I have read Mr. Wood’s description—but it does not meet it. Here is the original flag that this country had. (The hon. member exhibited a small flag.) It is from van Riebeeck’s time, and see what colours it has. Put on No. 1—the flag the Minister of the Interior is father of—that makes it twins now. Surely he is not in earnest, or that this flag satisfies his aspirations. Is it not put there to pacify us—a soothing syrup flag, of which we must take spoonfuls at a time, and you will have to swallow more later on? It leaves out the history of the Dutch race. If I had the choice between it and the Vierkleur, I would vote for the Vierkleur every time, which has some sense and has history behind it—that of the struggle of a brave race for 150 years behind it. I would rather associate myself with that flag. Speaking possibly as one of the oldest members in this House, I would like to say that a reverend gentleman, speaking in the cathedral, stated that if they adjourned the House and gave up all their racialism, and have half an hour of prayer, it would be better. I am still a believer, however much they may despise it, in the calm atmosphere of prayer which leads us to better thoughts. The Prime Minister, I am sure, is not anxious to do a single thing to hurt the feelings of his brethren overseas whose sons are citizens of this country. I would ask him to postpone it. Just one word to my Labour friends. In Port Elizabeth they held a great flag meeting. The chairman of the Labour party there sent a letter to say he was confined to bed and could not be present, but the secretary of the Labour party seconded the resolution. I do not know who his grandfather was, but his father was English, and born in this country. He was born in this country, and they must have behind them at least 60 to 80 years of South African history on their father’s side. On his mother’s side he is Dutch, with years of history behind him.

Then he ought to be ashamed of himself.

But your standard of shame may be greater in your tongue than in your practices. So far as the Eastern Province is concerned, as far as I can learn, the whole Labour party are against the position which is taken up to-day by hon. members opposite. These two men to whom I have referred are men who ought to be respected. They fought for the Labour party, and knew they must be defeated. One of them fought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), I think, and the other fought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), so that these men are entitled to be heard. They did not go in for safe seats, but for seats for which the party had to fight, and they lost those seats. I think the Labour party ought to feel that this action is one that ought to lead to the approval of their constituents. No one says that the Labour party should not have just representation in the House. The only representation we do not want them to have is for them to take our own seats. I put it to the Prime Minister, you cannot justify yourself by the feeling at the last general election, and that you are giving any test whatever of public feeling. You cannot justify yourself by not allowing the Vierkleur in the flag and by taking away the Union Jack—the flag upon which you are dependent for your defence in your hour of need. Whatever errors it may have made in the past, and it has made errors, it has been defeated and hauled down and dragged into the mire, but it never remained there, and the blood of its sons washed it, and sent it aloft after a long struggle. It is a worthy thing, and although they sing—

it is also—

It would do credit to the other side of the House as it would do credit to us. If you do not assimilate those flags the day will come, although I will not see it, when they will come together and people will be proud of the flags and see that the history of the past expresses the history of the nation. They will have a flag symbolical of the whole nation, which both sections love, and which you can hand to your children with honour.

I hope that the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday is not the last word on the subject. From what we gather the Prime Minister said—that he has made up his mind, and that he will see the Bill through —I hope on second thoughts he will reconsider his decision. Hon. members on the opposite side must have realized from the speeches made in this House and the meetings held outside that we are face to face with one of our gravest crises, and we cannot settle it by the Prime Minister saying—

Twenty-five years ago to-morrow the peace was signed at Vereeniging, and 17 years ago tomorrow the country entered into Union. How did they approach that union? I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister to approach this matter in the same spirit as they approached the matter of union in that day—not as conquered and conqueror, but as South Africans anxious for reconciliation. There was no question then of top dog, or the inferiority complex to which the Minister of Finance referred. There are four members of this hon. House who were members of that conference, and they visualized a different South Africa from that they contemplate to-day. They let bygones be bygones, and they held out their hand to the Dutch. Twenty-five years after the war feelings are still bitter. In that conference there were 20 English delegates and 13 Dutch delegates—they did not use their majority to force things through. They elected as their chairman a Dutchman—Sir Henry de Villiers. They could have pushed things through by a majority if they wished to do so, but they did not do so. The president of the convention said in his introductory speech—

These words apply to-day. There is no feeling of confidence on the other side, but only a feeling of suspicion. The Prime Minister ought to take these words to heart to-day, and not force the Bill through the House. There was another thing that happened at that conference. One of the very first discussions that took place was that of equal rights for both races which was introduced by our Prime Minister who was one of the delegates of the Orange Free State, and he proposed that it was essential that English and Dutch should be recognized as languages of the Union. This was seconded by an English delegate. Sir George Farrar moved, as an amendment, which was agreed to unanimously—

There is no inferiority complex about that, or question of conqueror and conquered. The English-speaking delegates at the National Convention were prepared to meet their brethren of the Dutch race on equal terms, and to unite with them in an endeavour to build up a united South Africa. It seems a tragedy that, 17 years later, the Minister of the Interior should be introducing a measure to disrupt that Union, which was formed with such high hopes for the future. As a result of the convention a general election took place, and a Dutch Government was returned to power. The Ministry included two members from the Free State, the present Prime Minister and the late Mr. Abraham Fischer. It was quite natural that the Cabinet should feel that they had been generously treated by the British Government, which gave back responsible Government to the Free State and the Transvaal. I have more faith in the sincerity of the Prime Minister than to believe that he signed, with a mental reservation, a request for a Union flag containing the Union Jack. It is pure sophistry to say now that we have no flag. The Prime Minister now says that he simply signed the minute as a member of the Cabinet. The minute itself, however, is quite clear, for it refers to Ministers in the plural, and the members of the Cabinet must have discussed the invitation from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Union Government to design a Union flag. Canada was practically in the same position as South Africa, being composed of two races, one conquered by the other. The South African Government selected as the design for the Union flag, the red ensign, which has the Union Jack in one corner and on the fly of the flag was the Union coat-of-arms. The Minister of the Interior should look into this minute again, for it clearly states that the design was that of a national flag for the Union. Clause 3 of the Ministers’ minute reads—

I hope the Minister is satisfied that this was not intended to be merely a temporary flag. The Minister of Finance does not agree with the Prime Minister that it was only a temporary flag, nor with the other Ministers. His objection is: “They had no choice.” The minute shows that they had the whole choice as the Government at that time was a Dutch Government elected almost exclusively by the Dutch-speaking people.

Which flag did the Minister want in 1921?

It is quite possible that the South African flag does not sufficiently over the traditions of the Dutch-speaking people, and all members on this side of the House would be quite prepared to consider a design which embodies those traditions. I appeal to the Prime Minister to approach this question in the spirit with which he returned from the Imperial Conference in London last year. I am satisfied that at that conference he was so impressed with the relations which the Union has with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations, that he preferred to be a member of that great republic— because it is one of the freest republics in the world—than to be isolated out here as a little republic on our own. The “Cape Times” of December 13th last contained a wireless message which the Prime Minister sent to the people of South Africa from the steamer by which he returned from England. In the course of that message the Prime Minister said—

At a luncheon given to the Prime Minister in Cape Town the day he landed he said—

When the Prime Minister arrived in Pretoria from Cape Town he was preceded by a procession carrying the Union Jack and the Vierkleur. In his speech at the Union Buildings, pointing to the Union Jack, he said—

I agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) there were feelings of deep thankfulness in the hearts of the majority of South African people that the old racial bogey had been laid and that the Prime Minister had come back a changed man. Is it any wonder that after these expressions of the Prime Minister the proposal to have a national flag for South Africa from which the Union Jack is to be excluded, has struck dismay in the hearts of the English-speaking section, and that meetings of protest should be held up and down the country, and that they should be feeing anxious regarding this Bill in which they see that the flag they revere so much is to be relegated to the past. The Government had no mandate regarding the flag at the last general election, which was fought on entirely different issues. I attended a mass meeting of protest in the Cape Town City Hall, and if the Prime Minister had been there he would have been satisfied that it was not the Empire Group that had stirred the people up but the fear that the Union Jack was to be ruthlessly cast aside. It is reported that Mrs. Jansen, one of the most important members of the Flag Commission, has said—

Is that not enough to make the English-speaking people anxious on this matter? There is another point. What about the children in the schools? Every day there is a ceremony in which the children are drawn up round the flag and taught about it, its history and traditions. The arrangement to have the Union Jack flying only four days in the year as contemplated under this Bill means that the schools will be closed on those days, and the children will have no opportunity of seeing the Union Jack and will hear nothing about it. I hope the Prime Minister will pause before it is too late, and that calmer counsels will prevail before he rushes this Bill through. I do not see the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister in the House, but no doubt they visited some of the great cathedrals in the old country. I expect they went to Westminster-Abbey and St Paul’s, and if so, they would have realized how precious these flags are to the English-speaking race. Some of these flags are mouldering away with the dust of ages, and are held together with pieces of wire. That shows how much they think of the flag, or they would not pay so much respect and so much attention to them. In one of the reports of the Flag Committee it spoke of flags as “sacred symbols,” which we love and venerate as symbols standing for certain facts and traditions. Upon this question recent meetings have been held and the people are being stirred as they have never been stirred before. When the Prime Minister took over the memorial at Delville Wood he did so in a speech that appealed to the hearts of every South African. The Union Jack has been in this House repeatedly called “the flag of dominance,” but I put this thought to members on the other side, there were 17,000 South African soldiers who went to the great war, and of these 8,000 gave their lives, and to the 8.000 mothers of those men the Union Jack is the symbol of sacrifice. I hope the Prime Minister will listen not only to the appeals made in this House but to the great voice of the people outside. I would like him to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria. (West) (Mr. Hay). He has interpreted the feelings of Labour, as did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) last year, when he told us that if this Flag Bill went through not a single Labour man would be returned to the House from Natal. These are the men who are representing Labour. I hope the Prime Minister will listen to the appeal, and the Bill will be withdrawn until we are in a better position to deal with it.

Before this Bill was made available to members on this side of the House, there were certain rumours which appeared to be inspired floating about the House and the country that, when the measure did appear, it would be very different from the one that preceded it, and it would be of such a character as to be acceptable to the Opposition and the country generally. Those people who credited the rumours were considerably disillusioned last week when the Bill made its appearance. It is no better, but a great deal worse than its predecessor. It sets up crimes and offences, adding further to our penal code, which is fast becoming the most extensive in the world. I desire to protest on behalf of this side of the House that this Bill should have been circulated by the Minister amongst his own followers and the members of the Labour party with whom it has been considered at Labour conferences and conclaves before it was made public. It is unfair to the country that half the people should be kept in the dark whilst others are holding meetings and considering the Bill which the other half knows nothing about. Thus, instead of securing the confidence of the country, that in itself was sufficient to arouse suspicion and distrust. The Minister of Justice a few days ago, prior to the appearance of this Bill, speaking in Cape Town, said that in looking into the future of a people, you must look into their past. That is the old proverb that you must measure the future by the past. Surely, then, there is something wrong with a section of the people which endeavours to bury and forget its past, for that is what the Government and the Nationalist party are endeavouring to do in this Bill. It is a striking fact that the two Ministers held most responsible, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Mines, were born under the British Flag, as well as their fathers before them, and for a hundred years they have been safe under its folds. It is a strange thing all the vocal people on that side of the House are dead against the old Vierkleur and the Free State flags being incorporated in the national flag, yet the men who fought under those flags are desirous they should be included in the national flag, and with that desire I agree heartily. I look at the Minister of the Interior and seem to recognize in him a true disciple of Torquemada, but he was born out of due time. He should have lived two or three centuries ago, and I could then imagine him turning a cold eye on a heretic being burnt at the stake. Yet, it was the fanatic who was responsible for the revocation of the edict of Nantes who was also responsible for the presence of the hon. the Minister in this country. He comes of a distinguished Huguenot family which left France and came to South Africa for their faith and to find a new home, and they were deprived of their language and their traditions. I think I noticed the other day when this statement was made it was challenged by the Minister. I wonder if he reads his history if the facts are not true. Is it not a fact that the French Huguenots lost their language and traditions? And he, their descendant, should be the last to endeavour to deprive nearly half the white population of the country of a symbol and tradition which they hold sacred. In the first flag commission set up, the Government nominated Mrs. Fahey and Mrs. Jansen, and in the recent conference, Mrs. Jansen alone, to represent Natal. I ask the Minister by what mental process he appointed these two ladies to represent Natal. They are newcomers to that Province and did not represent one-tenth of the inhabitants of the country, so that practically nine tenths were not represented. Mrs. Jansen in her joint statement with Professor Smith says she speaks for the vast majority of the Dutch-speaking people. What steps did she take to find that out? I would like to ask her what proof can be adduced of her assertion that the great majority of the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa hold the Union Jack in abhorrence. The very fact of making provision for the hoisting of the Union Jack four days a year, as suggested in the Bill, shows how hollow that statement is. Why should it be hoisted at all, if that hostility exists which we are told exists. The question of Ireland has been introduced into this debate, and I feel it is necessary to say something in that connection. It has been introduced by every Minister and they spoke in such a way as to show they knew nothing about what they were talking about. I am an Irishman, and I am proud of it, and I think very little of the man who denies the country which gave him birth, but I am also a South African, and proud of that, of the country in which I have lived so long, is my only home, and where I expect my bones to be laid. The flag of southern Ireland has been referred to, but it is a most unfortunate precedent, that choice of the southern flag in Ireland. The choice was confessedly made prematurely, in a spirit of antagonism and resentment which belonged to a period of bitter hostility and which was terminated by the treaty which established the dominion. That premature and hasty decision is beginning to be regretted. A growing neighbourliness and friendship with Great Britain has set in and also a realization that the two countries are economically and geographically inter-dependent. The exclusion of the Union Jack from the flag was done of open and deliberate intention according to the feelings of the moment. No doubt this exclusion represented the practical unanimity of the population within the Free State area, but it alienated the north. It is now universally accepted throughout both parts of the country that the flag by agreement must be an indispensable preliminary to any form of national unity, which is much desired and is no doubt approaching, and that the Union Jack must be a portion of any such flag. The Irish are in the friendliest relations with Canada, Australia and New Zealand and they have begun to notice that their flag design tends to make some distance between them and their friendly sister dominions, all of which have incorporated in their flag the Union Jack. The resident Irish in Canada, Australia and New Zealand live contentedly and are good settlers in those countries. I have it from three Ministers of the Free State that they look upon their present flag design as one that has to be changed before many years. The Irish are tremendous haters, but there is no people on the face of the earth that responds to fair treatment as they do. No country in the world has suffered as they have done, not even Poland. For hundreds of years the sufferings went on, but a brighter day has dawned and I believe is at hand for that country and when I was there twice during the last few years I found that there is one man in the wide world who is looked to as having had a great hand in that, and that is my leader. There is not in the Irish any of that cold deadly persistence and un-Christian hate which one finds surviving in South Africa nearly a quarter of a century after all causes of hate have been buried and in spite of such reparation as is unknown between nations elsewhere in history. I was in Ireland a few months ago and I witnessed for myself the growing better relations between the two countries. Ireland recognizes England as her best friend; she knows that she lies helpless and defenceless were it not for the sure shield of the British navy, and I would like to say to these great talkers of independence in this country, where would South Africa find herself in case of a great war without such protection? Why, one modern cruiser could in a single week lay every coast town between Cape Town and Durban in ruins. What is to prevent it? The Minister of Finance produced a minute last year at the Imperial Conference which I have got here, in which he talks of coastal defence. But there is no coastal defence. I have no doubt that we shall have it in time according to what he said, but there is none to-day. British and Dutch have fought and fallen side by side in this country. They have given up their lives together for the preservation of white civilization. The farmers in the south-eastern Transvaal were in fear of massacre by their Zulu neighbours, but the Zulu power was destroyed by Britain. Dutch and British fought there together. Later the power of Secocoeni was also broken by the same means. Why are these things to be forgotten? I would like to ask this question, I would like to ask, for instance, the Minister of Finance, who seems to be the only Minister in the House at present, are the Government and the Nationalist party out for amity and peace between the two races in this country? I would like a direct answer to that, because if they are, I would like to ask them how it is that there is not one single English-speaking man on their side of the House. It is idle for the Prime Minister to claim the Labour party as representing the British people of this country, as he did the other night. We have to live together and why should it not be in peace? One thing is quite certain, despite all the Minister of Finance said the other evening when he referred to the question of the inferiority complex, that one race will not dominate the other, neither the British the Dutch nor the Dutch the British. Why try to impose by legislation upon one-half the population a thing they do not want? I would like to ask the Government and members of this House, would there have been a Union had this proposal been made in 1910?

Never.

Natal came into the Union with considerable diffidence and reluctance, but so many assurances, verbal assurances, unfortunately, were given that that reluctance was overcome, and Natal entered Union. Would Natal ever have come into Union had a proposal to eliminate the Union Jack been made at that time. The Natal Provincial Council which takes no part in party politics, has felt itself called upon to move a resolution which was passed unanimously dealing with this question, and protesting against the action that is set out in this Bill. That resolution has been forwarded to the Government. A few years ago the question of Rhodesia entering into this Union was debated and discussed, and a referendum was taken there, and it was not so much against coming into Union, but it was thought that the time was not ripe to do so. What is being done in this Bill? We are putting a ring fence round the Union, we are building a Chinese wall which is for ever preventing Rhodesia joining us, and, not alone that, but it is also depriving the people of the Union of South Africa of the hinterland which is theirs by right in the future. It has been said, and said rightly, that the gentlemen on the cross benches are selling, if they have not sold, their birthright for a mess of pottage. But in a few years that mess will be consumed. These gentlemen take their orders from various quarters. Some of them, it is said, take them from Moscow. What is their flag? It is the red flag. But the next orders they take will be marching orders, at the very first opportunity. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, who represents Greyville, the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), and the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), what have they done to consult their constituents on this Bill. I was saddened to see my colleague walk across the floor the other day and vote for this Bill, because he knows as well as I do that he did not re-present his constituents in doing so. This referendum—what a mockery it is. Why, whatever happens, no matter whether it is yes or no, we are going to set up further bitterness in this country. I have no desire to bring the question of the native population into this question, but I would ask the House to remember that there are five millions of natives inarticulate. We are imposing a symbol on them in this Bill of which they know nothing, and I ask is that fair? The whole course of white civilization is being endangered in this connection. We have had men like Livingstone and Moffat, who gave up their lives for mission work in this country. When the Dutch church in South Africa was in distress did not the Scotch church come to their aid, men like the Murrays, the MacGregors, the Frasers, the Robertsons and the Turnbulls, and many others whose names will occur to you and whose descendants are worthy South Africans. Have they not been builders of the nation, and why should their work be forgotten and the flag they worked under be torn down? I represent a constituency in the oldest town in Natal, created by the Voortrekkers 90 years ago, and named after their leaders, Piet Retief and Gert Maritz. In that town English and Dutch have lived always in peace and friendship with each other. Some of my earliest friends have been Dutchmen, and I am proud to say they are still my friends. I voice the opinion, not of my own constituency alone, but also that of Maritzburg (North), when I say this Bill is entirely repugnant to them, and they will do their utmost to see it does not pass into law. I regret the Prime Minister is not in his place. I want to refer to the fact that on the 10th October last I, together with many other South Africans, accompanied the Prime Minister to Delville Wood to see the unveiling of the great monument to South Africa’s dead. We had many notable addresses on that occasion, one of the most noteworthy being that of the Prime Minister, but the most moving of all was that given by the Moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church, the late Dr. van der Merwe. Speaking in English and Dutch he couched his address in the form of a prayer, and if ever lips were touched with divine fire his were touched that day. Pointing to the lonely cemetery with its long rows of graves, he said—

He spoke sincerely and touched his hearers as only the sincerely spoken word can. It appeared as if he were filled with prophetic vision. He came back to South Africa to die, but from his lonely grave at Cradock his spirit still lives, and that is the spirit we should try and emulate in South Africa. The Prime Minister’s speech in Cape Town and Pretoria on his return from Europe has already been dealt with, but what is the sinister influence that has been at work to alter the attitude of the Prime Minister from that which he showed at Cape Town and Pretoria when he pointed at the flag and said—

What is the sinister influence that has been at work? The Prime Minister had a great opportunity when he returned to this country to weld the people together. He lost that opportunity, but one still remains. Let him listen to the appeal which is made. It is not too late. Let him drop this Bill, which, if passed, will prove a source of bitterness and sorrow. Do not let him be deterred by pride or a fixed determination to push this Bill through with his majority. I can assure him there will be no recriminations on this side of the House. It would almost appear, in view of his speech the other evening, and also that of the Minister of Finance—which I was astonished and pained and grieved to hear—to be hopeless, but no path should be left unexplored to try and save the country from this disaster. Tomorrow will be the 25th anniversary of the conclusion of the Peace of Vereeniging. The Prime Minister interjected the other day when the right hon. the leader of the Opposition was speaking—

I would like to remind him that within eight years of that day the first Union day was celebrated, in 1910. Who could have surmised and believed on that day in 1902, when the two republics were down and out, that the people of this country would have come together in eight years? Why, then, does he say that there will never be agreement? In eight years a miracle happened, which no man in his senses believed could have happened; but it did happen. Why should it not happen again? Why is there the tremendous urge for this Bill? I do not hesitate to make that appeal, and I hope it will be accepted. It is useless to pretend or to deny that things have taken place under the Union Jack that cannot be condoned; unscrupulous men have used it for base uses in various parts of the world; but, allowing all that, it stands unchallenged and unapproached for the widest, the purest freedom the world has ever known.

It has clearly appeared throughout the country and in this debate in the House that it is the wish of the people to have a national flag. That is a point about which there is not the least dispute, and, in my opinion nothing else could be expected, because every country on earth that has in any way made a name in history or can boast of a separate national existence possesses a national flag. Why should not the Union of South Africa also have one? On the point that there ought to be a national flag there is no difference of opinion, but the difference exists about the way in which such a flag should be brought into existence. In his second reading speech, the Minister of the Interior clearly and eloquently mentioned all the various points and arguments. It is certain that every country and every nation has a flag with which are associated history and traditions, and which is looked upon with veneration and respect. Take the four separate peoples in the world who are called the forefathers of the South African people. Take Holland, France, Germany and England. There can be no doubt that each of those countries possesses a flag for which hundreds and thousands of its subjects have sacrificed their lives, and have let their blood flow. Everyone who knows the history of those peoples knows that the four national flags were honoured and respected by their subjects throughout the whole world. The French people look up to their tricolor, under which its soldiers were led to victory over the whole of Europe in the time of Napoleon. Holland looks up to its tricolor, so well-known to us, under which the 80 years’ war was carried on and freedom of faith and religion were obtained of which we are to-day still reaping the fruits. And how many conquests cannot the German flag be proud? I am thinking merely of the battles to secure freedom from the rule of Napoleon, the victories in 1870-71, and the world war, which was, indeed, lost, but in which the honour of the flag was still kept up. And the English flag? We know its history almost best of all. In thousands of famous battles throughout the world, and in all times the English flag has been held high, and been carried to victory. As that is so, why cannot the same thing be done in South Africa? Why cannot South Africa have a flag which she can look up to as the embodiment of everything that is beloved and dear? What is required for that? In the first place, the history of land and people. The history of South Africa, although only 200 years old, is yet one of which people may be proud, a history which every child and adult ought to know, of which they can justly be proud, and which can be immortalized—I might almost say—or at least can also be represented in the flag that we are on the point of creating. Because how much trouble is not taken to imprint the history deeper still in the hearts of the children, not only at the schools, but also under the parental roof? Take Cape Town, take the whole country. Who, e.g., will agree to the old Castle in Cape Town being demolished? How many statues are there not throughout the whole country, memorials, monuments of victories, and also of struggle and suffering, how many national hymns and how many paintings which remind one of the history of the country? In a word everything is done to make the history more dear and to impress it on the rising generation. So also with the traditions. We can safely say that throughout the whole of South Africa trouble is being taken to maintain the traditions of the past. Look at the church institutions in our ordinary life and on the farm. Look at the method of marrying, dying and being buried. In all respects everything is done to hold the traditions of the people high. Now I ask whether the new flag, the green flag with the St. George’s Cross is a symbol of the history of our country and people, if there is anything in it which actually speaks to the patriotic national feeling in us? No, not as I see it. The flag proposed is deadly neutral. It contains no reminders of history, of the traditions of our people, and it is at the moment not able to raise in any way a feeling of patriotism in us. Nor could that be. We are commencing so to speak from the beginning with a brand new flag. Everything which has occurred in history, and to which we actually attach importance and which ought to be symbolized, we are leaving out of it. Such a deadly neutral flag cannot speak to our sentiment. And let us just for a moment see what flags are to be replaced by the new flag. If our country and people were newly-born without a history, and had never had flags, there might possibly be some sympathy to be worked up for the new flag, but that is not the case. The flag is to replace the English flag, viz., the Union Jack, and the old republican flags. As for the English flag, I do not want to put myself up as its defender. Nor could that be expected of me. The remembrances of it are certainly not of the pleasantest. In this connection I owe nothing to the English flag, i.e., insofar as the history is concerned with which I myself was concerned. I well know the feeling that existed in June, 1901, when the news came to the commandoes in Natal, of which I had the honour of being a burgher, that the old flag in Pretoria had been pulled down and been replaced by the English flag which was hoisted on the Union Buildings in Pretoria. At this news it was as if a string had snapped in the hearts of everyone there, and the further results left me no pleasant recollections of the English flag. If I had exactly the same thoughts to-day as in May, 1902, then I should also positively express my condemnation of the English flag, because those bitter recollections would always still be alive within me. But 25 years have passed. In those 25 years great changes have taken place in the feelings and the souls of the Afrikander people itself. The feeling of hostility in the old republics never existed in the Cape Colony.

Then you have very quickly forgotten your history.

That feeling gradually disappeared, and the reconciliation was crowned in 1910 by the Union of the four provinces under the convention. Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to be led by the feeling that originally existed towards the English flag. I cannot at all object to the population of English descent pleading for the English flag also to be included in the new flag. In my own district, I must say, we were, during the last 40 or 50 years, so fortunate as to be spared racial feeling. Lydenburg was one of the districts when the whole of the Free State and the Transvaal was only occupied by boers— that already had a large concourse of foreigners; especially did the English come there from 1873 as a result of the goldfields at Pilgrim’s Rest, Sabie, Graskop, etc., and the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking people in my district have always lived in the greatest harmony with each other.

Especially at Pilgrim’s Rest!

They were friends of each other. I mention Barberton as well, because Barberton in those days was a part of Lydenburg. But this does not detract from the fact that the English-speaking people who live there always still, of course, cherish their English descent and insist upon the English flag being included in the new South African flag. I then have also received a telegram to hand over to the Prime Minister which says, inter alia—

That is the feeling of the English-speaking population of my district. I must add that I have not yet received any letter or telegram from the Dutch-speaking people in my district. If we want to be fair we must also take notice of the feeling of the English-speaking people to whom the adoption of the new flag will actually mean a great sacrifice.

Have you yet tried to draw a design in which those principles are included?

Yes, the question is quite fair. I will admit that it would be a many-coloured affair. That I well believe, but I think that in such a great problem we cannot comply with all the requirements of heraldry, and that in this respect we should compromise for the sake of peace and friendship.

But we cannot make a ridiculous thing, surely?

I will not deny that it will look rather variegated, but, at the same time, I think that we should not attach too much importance to that if we really can obtain peace and friendship. The actual meaning of the flag is of greater importance than the outward form. The English flag which is to be replaced by the new flag of the Minister is not replaced by it. Now I come to the flags of the two old republics. What is the basis of both the flags. Both with regard to the Transvaal, as well as the Orange Free State, the base is the old Dutch tricolor, which, for 150 years, floated from the Castle here and over the whole Colony, and, therefore, longer than the English flag. After 150 years that flag was pulled down, and, as the Prime Minister has said, it was pulled down by conquest, by force. It was during the stormy time of the French Revolution—I think, in 1795— but 50 years later both in the Free State and in the Transvaal the same tricolor with certain additions again arose and was again held aloft as the leader and predecessor of the Voortrekkers who formed the two republics. What associations are not connected with the old republican flags? The red stood for love of the Fatherland, for courage to defend it, and for the blood that flowed in doing so. White stood for purity, uprightness, and blue for fidelity. The Transvaal added green, the colour of hope, standing for progress of the new republic, and the Free State added orange, according to the name of that part of the country and the Orange River. Therefore, it must be admitted that both these flags which have to be replaced are of great inward and deep meaning, and the flag now proposed contains no reminder of our history and traditions and gives no expression to national sentiment.

What was the first flag that the Voortrekkers hoisted?

The Mohammedan flag— green.

It seems to me that the new flag can give no satisfaction or cannot comply with the requirements for a national flag. The St. George’s Cross will not give satisfaction to the English, and it has not the least signification to the Dutch-speaking people. It makes no appeal to our sentiment. It conveys nothing to us. But let me say here that I cannot agree with the explanation, I might almost say as an afterthought, which the Minister of the Interior has given to this cross. The Minister calls it also the symbol of our Christian religion, of the Christian civilization which was brought here by Jan van Riebeeck, but I do not believe that the Minister actually has a right to do so. Why not? Because Jan van Riebeeck did not bring that religion and faith here under the sign of the cross. He brought the religion from the country that had actually banished the cross as a symbol of their religion. After the great religious wars between the Protestant Calvinists and the Roman Church the cross was practically abolished as a symbol. Just look around in all the countries of the world. In the Roman countries, the countries with an overwhelming Roman population, one finds the cross on all the churches and in the churches, and one finds crucifixes in the churches, on trees along the road, in every house,, and in those countries every pastor or every preacher of the Word carries as an ornament a golden cross.

Then Denmark must also be Roman.

But that never existed in South Africa, and it was certainly never the symbol of Jan van Riebeeck, because the Minister who, of course, has a detailed knowledge of church history, knows that the cross was actually despised by the old Protestants, and one does not find it as a symbol in most of the Protestant countries of Europe.

What about Norway, Switzerland and Denmark?

But not in the countries of the old Calvinistic faith.

Switzerland then?

If we want to have a good illustration of it we must go to the door of the big library here. In the vestibule there are two paintings, both representing episodes out of the earliest history of South Africa. One represents the landing of Bartholomew Diaz landing with the cross, surrounded by priests and monks with crosses, and, on landing, the cross was erected and blest. This was, of course, a country to which the Roman religion was extended. The second painting on the other hand represents the landing of Van Riebeeck, and there is no question of the cross, but actually of the tricolor. There he steps ashore and plants the tricolor. I do not think that it was an original thought with the Minister to represent the cross on the flag as a symbol of the spreading of the Christian faith and civilization, because it was the symbol of the Roman church. I have read with great interest the speeches of Professor Smith and Mrs. Jansen, and I must say that they have clearly, and in a plain way, set out their point of view. I may say that every argument is brought forward in an eloquent way, but there is no question of the cross being a symbol of the Christian religion, and the Christian civilization, and I also really believe in my heart that the Minister was not justified to, so to say, appeal to the faith of the people. No, the St. George’s Cross is a kind of small concession, but in the eyes of those for whom it was intended it is quite an inadequate concession which is being given to the English-speaking people instead of the English flag. At the same time, I feel compelled to make a kind of apology towards the Minister of the Interior. I and many others always thought that it was due to the obstinacy—I will not say the headstrongness—or possibly the irreconcilability of the Minister that the Bill was brought forward, and that it was decided that it had to be passed; the blame was always thrown on the Minister, but I now come to the conclusion that I was wrong there. I had hoped that if it only depended on the Minister of the Interior the other Ministers would induce him to withdraw the Bill, but the hope that I always cherished was first brought into doubt by the speech of the Minister of Finance, and the speech of the Prime Minister has entirely destroyed the hope. Then it appeared that the die was cast, and that it was unavoidable that the Bill would have to go through the House and be left in the form of a referendum to the decision of the people. Whatever the decision may be, it will not give satisfaction. The answer of all three Ministers is that there will never be satisfaction, and it has been said that whether another four years or forty years of delay takes place, general satisfaction cannot be got, and that a solution will never be found in that way. On this point I differ entirely from the opinion of the Ministers. Why? Because we have already had so many difficult problems in South Africa about which at that moment, so to speak, there was no light, where everything was dark, where no ray of light broke through the thick, dark cloud, and which yet were solved with a little patience and thought and waiting for a good method. Who e.g., would have thought in 1902 that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands would sit on the benches where they now are?

Why not?

Anyone who had prophesied it would not have been believed, and yet it happened. Thus the old proverb—

holds good in this case, and it can also hold good in the case of the Flag Bill. If, at the moment, no solution satisfactory to all parties can be found, why put it through? Have we so little faith in our children and in the coming generations? They will be a little further removed from the dark days which lie behind us, days of fighting and quarrelling and trouble. They, themselves, will have had no experience of the war and the concentration camps. The children go to the same school, learn each other’s language, join together in sport and grow up as one nation. Have we then so little confidence in the patriotic feelings of our children that we cannot leave the matter to them, to our children and grandchildren? If the Minister sees his way now to postpone the Bill a little and to confide it to the coming generations, we shall possibly see that they will easily find a solution, and our children will say later that they could not understand the old people having fought each other about a matter they are solving so easily. I hope that the Minister will think over this point of view once more. I have little hope, but yet I trust that he will say that he will leave the last portion of the Bill in the matter of the flag to the future for a solution to everybody’s satisfaction, and for the happiness of the country.

I think we may safely say that South Africa is to-day facing one of the tragedies in its history, and that has been borne out very largely by the debate which has been going on now for some days. Now this debate has brought to light certain outstanding features and surprises which I am sure will have a far-reaching effect on the mass of the people of this country. One of the outstanding features I would say is the silence of the Labour benches. Here we are to-day debating one of the most vital matters which concerns the people of this country, and, with one outstanding exception, we have had dead silence as far as that party is concerned.

What about the speech by the Leader?

If you are contented to leave it to that one speech, and if you have nothing to say for yourselves, it is not for me to condemn you. It is for you to satisfy your consciences and your constituents who you are sent here to represent. There has been one outstanding exception, the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). That hon. member may have done many wrong things in his life, like most of us, but I am perfectly certain of this that the recording angel has wiped out 90 per cent. of them, for that speech which he made the other night, a speech which was overflowing with honesty and was full of courage, made under the most difficult and under the most trying circumstances I should imagine that any man ever had to stand up and make a speech in this House under. But what about the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan)? Has the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) nothing to say? Has he nothing to say for those people who sent him to this House and who trusted him implicitly, as we trusted him, because he was a Maritzburg man, quite apart from the fact that he is a Labour representative? He has voted in favour of pulling down the Union Jack at every opportunity he has had in this House. He may, indeed, be suffering the tortures of the damned, but he has done it and he has done it deliberately, in spite of the warnings of his own people and the warnings from his Natal colleagues on this side of the House. He assured his constituents when asking for their votes that the flag was safe in his hands and he referred to it as the “grand old flag.” Does he consider this green flag with a red cross safeguards that grand old flag? I cannot understand it, but I do believe this, that the hon. member to-day is unhappy, supremely unhappy. I believe he is looking forward to going back to his constituency with a considerable feeling of dread. Natal will never have that flag, no matter what he may say or do, and the reasons are quite easy to discover. Now the next great surprise, which I think has fallen upon all the hon. members opposite, is the discovery of the intense feeling which exists in the mind of every British South African with respect to this matter. They never dreamt of such feeling, they never believed it could exist among people so good tempered and long-suffering. That is, all the hon. members over there, with the probable exception of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), who thinks fit to interrupt me and who does not understand the deep significance of these matters. It has come to every member opposite as a tremendous surprise. But if that has come as a surprise to them, what are we to say as to the surprise we have felt on this side? We never dreamt, no British South African ever dreamt, that such bitterness could exist against us and our case in the minds of any of our fellow Dutch South Africans as the speeches in the House have shown does exist. We did not believe it possible that any Minister of the Crown, let alone the Minister of Finance, from whom we all expected far greater things, should have made a speech overflowing with bitterness and such hopelessness as he made us feel as to our future on that occasion. We British South Africans now realize where we now stand. The Minister made it perfectly clear. For a Minister who enjoys the advantages he has enjoyed, to say that he is only a British subject under compulsion, meaning that he was in a state of political bondage, is a most amazing thing for anyone to say. I would like to ask the Minister, would there have been any Union but for the flag? Now if there had been no Union, where would the Minister to-day have been? Would he have been occupying one of the most important appointments under the Crown? Is that an indication of being a British subject under compulsion? No, sir, we are the people who are the under dogs—one might almost say the permanent under-dogs—and we are quite prepared to put up with that if they on their part will only play fair. Let us come back to the position of Natal. I have here a series of resolutions passed in my own constituency. They are typical of the resolutions which have been passed in every other section of Natal. There has been no question of a division of opinion, it represents the unanimous feeling of the province. These resolutions read as follows—

I ask hon. members opposite, if they could so far disabuse their minds as to approach the question from the point of view of those who do not agree with them—I try to do so and it is equally necessary and reasonable that we should ask those on the other side to try and put themselves in our places—I would ask what were the reasons which actuated Natal in coming into Union. Natal had nothing to gain by coming in, on the contrary, she had a lot to lose. I am not surprised at the jeering remarks by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), and the hon. gentleman whose constituency I forget but who had that remarkable experience in Piccadilly Circus. Laugh, it is the laugh of the supremely ignorant, particularly ignorant of Natal and its people and everything connected with its history. It is the jeering of sheer crass ignorance. I repeat that Natal had nothing to gain by coming into Union. She was sacrificing her independence. She knew perfectly well that she was placing herself in a position of subordination for the rest of her life, that she could never expect to have anything but meagre representation in any Government that was formed, and it has gradually dwindled away until to-day it is almost negligible. But she felt that the time had come when all sections of the peoples in South Africa had to sink something of their personal interests for the common good. That was the point. We felt we had nothing to gain; we had been a very independent country, and a very independent people, and we managed our own affairs, and we are perfectly competent to manage them again if the necessity should arise. She felt she was giving away a good deal and getting little in return. We were the lightest taxed community in the British empire, and the Minister of Finance will know that our credit stood highest at one time of any dominion within the British empire. That was a proud record. But Natal went into this because she believed in the other man. She went in on the principle of trust and confidence, and believing that they would mete the same treatment to her as she gave to other people. She believed in the golden rule. She was assured, not once, but by every speaker who came and represented what are now the other provinces, that her interests would be safeguarded and that she would be safe in the hands of the people of South Africa. That was the spirit in which she confided her interests to the people of South Africa. That she would reverse her opinion to-day, if the choice were given to her, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, and that is a grave reflection on the way we have been treated by those who came into power. I wonder whether the Minister of the Interior ever gave expression to views of fairness, reasonableness and consideration at any time, meaning, when he did so, that he would carry them out if ever he got the opportunity. Let us see. I have here in my hand the records of a meeting held in 1915 at Middelburg, Cape Province, where the Nationalist party in the Cape was formed, and this was passed on the motion of one Dr. D. F. Malan, who, I believe, has some connection with the present Minister of the Interior, if indeed he is not one and the same person. This is what he said—

How much internal peace have we had since the hon. gentleman has been a Minister? He then went on to say—

Perfectly true; unless you are prepared to act justly, fairly and sympathetically you are not going to have internal peace. Are we truly getting that just and sympathetic treatment? He goes on—

Are they being respected?

Are you respecting ours?

Is that the best you can say in answer to that question? Then the hon. gentleman went on to say—

Who then set out to produce antagonism which never existed until he became a Minister of the Crown? He goes on—

Is it possible that anyone who used these unexceptionable words could possibly be responsible for all the bitterness, turmoil and strife which the hon. gentleman has caused the people of this country?

We have not seen any— outside of the newspapers.

I hope you will see it inside the newspapers to-morrow. The hon. gentleman said—

that is, this one—

I maintain that every promise and every undertaking that the hon. gentleman made on that occasion has been violated by him since he came into office. I have appealed to him privately and publicly to stay his hand, and give the country time to attune itself to the new conditions. To-day this is the condition in which we find ourselves—in every portion of the country I come from prayers are going up to the Almighty to intervene and eave it from a dire catastrophe. We are not a hysterical or a hypocritical people, and when people make an appeal to their Maker, they are moved by the deepest sense of anxiety, it is that wrong ideas should not continue to triumph over right ideas. I come now to the flag; and the new or any national flag must be one which commends itself to every section of the people. It is impossible for one section to try and dominate over the other, and it is equally ridiculous to suppose that one section of the people is by a process of irritation and annoyance going to drive the other side out. We are all here to stay. What is the hon. gentleman’s professed object? He says it is to build up a great South African nation. No, sir His real object is to build up a little Afrikanderdom, and everything he has done is making it impossible to build up this great nation he talks about but which he is far from desiring. No Government with an ounce of sense would attempt to establish a new nation by starting out on a line of division, bitterness and hatred, which this Government is initiating. The object of the Minister is to make things impossible for us. He passes law after law aimed at certain sections of the community, irritating laws which have not been introduced for the general good. The Minister describes the Union in its new status as a nation within a nation. Wise men have considered this problem, men of greater experience of empire affairs than the Minister, men who have spent a lifetime studying these problems and they have arrived at the conclusion that a nation within a nation is an impossibility. Professor Zimmerman, an outstanding authority on the subject, writes—

I don’t know whether the Minister thinks he is going to put me off my train of thought by carrying on a conversation with his colleagues. I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that I am addressing the House and am trying to put the view of the other man before the Government, and for Ministers to carry on a noisy conversation is adopting exactly the attitude we complain of in their administrative proceedings—contempt for other people’s feelings and opinions. The authority I was quoting proceeded—

And this is the view that our intelligent men, people of vision, agree with. Now Natal takes exception to the Minister’s suggested flag because it is not only an emblem without sentiment or tradition, but it views the introduction of such a flag with the greatest suspicion. It feels that if such a flag is adopted it will be the one under which the South African republic is going to be proclaimed when the opportunity occurs. They regard this flag with the gravest suspicion. Now you have it straight. The Minister of Justice says that the proposed national flag means nothing to them. [Interruptions.] The Minister of Justice said the flag means nothing to him, spoke of it in the most contemptuous manner and added that they had given us as a concession the Cross of St. George. That reminds me of the benevolent old lady who was always careful to warm the water in which she drowned her kittens. This flag, according to the Minister, we are asked to swallow, because it has a red cross on it. Two months ago a man pleaded guilty to murder in New York, and in proof of the extenuating circumstances said he had been careful to wrap a piece of sacking round the crowbar with which the foul deed was committed so that it should not hurt. This proposed national flag of the Union is wrapped up with a red cross in order that we shall not feel the injury inflicted. A national flag to be of any value should look either backwards or forwards. If it looks backward it should be emblematic of history, achievements or traditions. If forward, it should indicate ambition and strength. As an illustration, we have the stars and stripes of America, emblematic of the union of all the North American states. Then we have the Union Jack which is the flag indicating the achievements of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. But as an example, if looking forward we have as an illustration the “rising sun” of Japan which illustrates the character of the people—warmth, brightness, determination and ambition. Could anything better characterize the Japanese people? On the other hand our proposed flag can never mean anything except disunion and discord. The only precedent that has been advanced for the Government’s proposal is the flag of the Irish Free State, but I am told that as long as that flag flies so long will the north be divided from the south. Even if the Union Government has no regard to our feelings do not let it make a mess of this splendid country, and either drop the flag, stop this turmoil or else adopt one which will be acceptable to both sides. I have no doubt the Labour party will take great credit for the fact that they have forced the referendum on the Government. They are entitled to the little credit they can get for that, and any little advantage, but I can assure them it will lead them a very short way, indeed. First of all the Labour members made the fatal mistake that long before the referendum was ever considered they were voting solidly in favour of this flag and the hauling down of the Union Jack. But the Prime Minister gave the whole case away with regard to this referendum when he said that if the referendum went against the Government they need not resign. There you have it. I assure the hon. member the country is not so green as its flag. The only one who has spoken on behalf of Labour has been the Minister and he reminded me of the small boy in the dark whistling to keep up his courage. He said he was in favour of the referendum and he hoped it would go in favour of the Government. Now we, on our part, are going to do our best to see that it won’t. In this matter of flag debate the nationality clauses of the Bill have been lost sight of, but I regard them as being almost as poisonous as I do the flag. There we propose to superimpose on the people another nationality. There is an international side as well as a national side to this question, and it must be dealt with from both points of view. It is true Canada, in a hasty moment, adopted a Canadian nationality, and many in Canada to-day are seriously considering whether they can maintain it and what it will lead to in the future. As soon as Canada passed that Bill Japan passed a law that they could not recognize people with a dual nationality. Japan realized there would be a time when they might be compromised if they had to deal with two people who claimed to belong to two nations, A to-day and to-morrow B. Australia and New Zealand and Newfoundland would have had nothing to with it and at the Imperial Conference it was relegated to a committee of experts and they have been unable so far to come to any decision about it and probably never will. Supposing a dual nationality is forced upon us in our peculiar circumstances, and I do not intend to refer to how manifestly unfair that would be, but let us take an international point of view. There may come a time when Great Britain is at war with a first-class naval power. The Minister of Justice is the only Minister who has yet admitted that if Great Britain was at war every part of the British empire is automatically at war at the same time, but he maintains that we could go on with a limited liability. Do not forget that we do not decide whether we are at war or not. It is the enemy who decides that for us. The Minister qualified it by saying that we could enter the war with a limited liability, that we could go just as far as we feel inclined. That is an impossibility. I look to the time when the great war broke out and I think of the mental attitude and sympathies of those who are now occupying the Government benches. What would their attitude have been had they been in power at that time. If we judge by what they did at the time and what they have said since, they would have gone for neutrality. We should have had to renounce our British nationality and become a neutral people. The fleet at Simon’s Town would have had to sail, to put to sea the next day and would have had no more privileges in this country than any other belligerent power. Now our trade is £150,000,000 per annum in and out, and that trade would have collapsed and the people would have passed into bankruptcy for we would have had no protection. If the same position arises again and this country declares for neutrality the trade of the country would collapse within 24 hours. You will have to declare whether you are for or against the enemy. That is the practical result of the nationality clauses. I regard them as the most perilous, dangerous, stupid and unnecessary piece of legislation ever conceived, and conceived for no good purpose. I say to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that if you are not prepared to listen to us and give consideration to those who are suffering to-day then the troubles and the consequences which follow will fall on your heads, as well as on ours.

I should imagine by this time the Government have seen the great mistake they have made in ever bringing the Bill forward at this particular time.

That is right, you imagine it.

My hon. friend has changed enormously in recent years as I shall show him. He had no idea of the amount of feeling which has been aroused amongst the English-speaking people in regard to this matter. Ministers comfort themselves that it has been worked up by the S.A.P. or the newspapers, always a useful weapon or a beast to whip. I never knew a matter where the South African party had less to do with the active part of the work. The newspapers can take care of themselves. They have found the sentiment there and they have recorded it. That is all they have done. Sentiment is tremendous against this Bill on the part of the English-speaking people.

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

When business was suspended I was saying that the Government could have bad no idea of the amount of agitation and feeling that has been aroused in reference to this Bill. I also stated, which I have no doubt is the fact, that this agitation is absolutely spontaneous and arises from the feelings of the English-speaking population themselves. I would like to ask when we are going to get peace and quietness in South Africa. Surely we have sufficient problems in this country, such as, for instance, the native problem, also the economic problems and the developmental problems—problems which are more extensive, more important than the problems in any other dominion of the British empire except, perhaps, India. As I say again, when are we going to get peace and quietness in order to study the problems of this country? We thought we had settled our troubles at the convention in 1910, when we expected that we would be able to settle down and develop the Union of South Africa. Unfortunately we were disappointed in that. We had the rebellion of 1914, and then we have had ever since that day, one would almost say, the secession agitation, especially in the northern parts of the country. Is not that disturbing to one section of the population?

Natal.

No, not Natal alone. I say that ever since 1914 we have had more or less agitation for secession in the Union of South Africa, particularly in the Transvaal. Is not that disturbing to one section of the population of this country? Now, when we thought we had attained our highest ambition as a nation, that is to say, a status of independence in South Africa, we had a right, surely, to expect that we should have in future some time for peace and progress in this country. But what has been the position? We have attained that status, I want to say, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, with the support and the goodwill of the English-speaking section. The Prime Minister is wrong when he thinks that we English-speaking people in this country want to go back on that declaration which was made at the conference in London. We recognize that position, but it almost looks—and I say it with very great regret—as if we had an evil genius presiding over the destinies of this country. In this particular case we have had brought up and forced to the front a Flag Bill which had disturbed one section of the population, at least, more than I can remember its having been disturbed before. Not only that, but the Minister of the Interior deliberately admits it. He said in his speech the other day that he was aware that a very considerable section of the people took the view that a national flag could not be secured without agreement between all sections of the people, both as to principle and design. The Minister seems to have had some idea of the disturbance, the unrest, and the agitation which were going on and, deliberately, in the face of that, he brings forward this Bill. Is that the act of a statesman? Surely it was his duty, knowing the unrest, knowing, at any rate, that there was some glimmering of unrest, to have said—

That is very different from what he said in September, 1915. The manifesto of the National party of the Cape Province adopted at the party congress at Middelburg on September 16th, 1915, is signed by Dr. D. F. Malan, who is, I suppose, the Minister of the Interior. He said there—

The very opposite, surely, to what he is saying to-day. He proceeds—

Are the English-speaking section of the population being sympathetically dealt with at the present time? He goes on further—

Are they being respected at the present time?

Certainly, abundantly.

He proceeds—

That is not what is taking place to-day. These are the words of the Minister of the Interior. He continues—

Has any Dutch-speaking man in South Africa been made to feel that there is no room for him here? Absolutely not.

Certainly.

Can my hon. friend give us some evidence?

If we appoint a Dutch-speaking South African to almost any post, you object on that side.

The most suitable man should get the billet. Was not that the rule we followed?

You objected to the appointment of the Auditor-General.

That is absolute nonsense. The Minister continues—

We have not seen much statesmanship latterly on the other side of the House, I must confess—

That is exactly what you don’t want to do, as shown in the Bill—

This is by my hon. friend. I must confess he has gone a long way since then. Where is the attempt at “internal peace”? I cannot see any, and I should think no impartial man could see it. They can see it on the other side no doubt, because, of course, it is their duty to back up the Minister. This is not the way to bring about peace and quietness in South Africa to introduce a Bill of this kind. My hon. friend also stated he was a nation builder. Is this going to do any nation building? It is going to drive both sections of the people in this country apart. You are doing nothing else but stirring up trouble.

We are cementing them together.

Is this going to bring them closer together? It is going to result in rousing feelings which should have been laid long since. The effect of this Bill is going to be the very opposite of bringing people together. I want to say a few words in regard to what was said by the Minister of Finance. He said the speeches he had heard in this House seemed to suggest that we disputed the right of South Africa to her own flag. I am not one of those. I say we, as an independent nation, have a perfect right to any flag we like. We can set up the Vierkleur of the Transvaal or the Free State, if we wish. No one disputes, so far as I know, that right. The only thing we do contend is this, that it must be a flag acceptable to both sections of the people. That is the only condition we make. This is not so acceptable, and, consequently, we strongly oppose it.

Then tell us what kind of flag will be acceptable.

I am going to do that. The Prime Minister stated that we, on this side, wanted the Union Jack as something symbolical of our position in the British empire, and it was our arrogance and not sentiment that we wanted embodied in the flag. Nothing of the kind!

I said pride, not arrogance

You used the word “arrogance.” We are proud of the race from which we spring, but there is no superiority in that regard.

What I said was, you wanted to see your pride reflected in the flag—not you personally.

I don’t want to be separated from my friends. What we demand is this, and we have a moral right to demand it, that the sentiments of English-speaking people in South Africa shall be respected.

As well as ours?

Yes, equally so.

You have got the Union Jack.

But it is not in the national flag, that is why we are opposing it.

The Union Jack is provided for.

The English-speaking people have just as great a moral right to have their sentiments emblazoned on the national flag as the Dutch-speaking people, and I freely admit that the Dutch-speaking people have a similar right. We demand it as a right—I do not want to go round corners—to have our sentiments embodied in the flag.

Do you mean to say you have a right to demand that, no matter what the other side thinks?

Certainly. At least 45 per cent. of the people of this country are of British extraction. These people have done their full share to build up South Africa. We have spent blood. Take the Eastern Province and the battles on the frontier.

We do not deny that.

I want to bring it home to my hon. friend. Take Natal. Haven’t they shed blood there to relieve that country from the savage races? The Imperial Government has spent millions of treasure to defend this country. I want to establish my right and that of all English-speaking people. Take any section of work, it may be industry, farming, mining or trade. Have English-speaking people not taken a full share of the burden, all tending to the prosperity of this country? It is on this ground that English-speaking people have done their full share in building up the Union of South Africa, both as a nation and as a people, that I put the right to demand that we should be represented in the national flag. It should be representative of the sentiments and also the traditions of the English-speaking race, and I give the same right, as a matter of fair play, to the Dutch-speaking people of this country. We recognize their position just as much as ours. We have suggested over and over again that the Vierkleur should be brought in.

The Free State flag?

I do not pretend to be a herald, but it could be brought in perfectly well. My hon. friend said the other day that where there’s a will, there’s a way. Let the English flag be there, as representing the English-speaking people. I don’t lay stress on our position in the British empire. I speak now as a British South African who has lived here close on fifty years. It is said that the Vierkleur is dead. If ever I saw an insincere excuse, that is one, because the Vierkleur is not dead, and you see evidence every day. If you have a meeting in the Transvaal or the Free State, or even the Cape Province—we will say it is only a bazaar—if the Dutch people are in the majority, the Vierkleur is flown.

Is that not sheer misinterpretation?

No, I should interpret it as showing the respect and affection of those people for this flag. To say the Vierkleur is dead is absolute rubbish. I do not deny them the right to fly that flag, but it does show that the Vierkleur is by no means dead, but the very opposite.

You don’t grasp the meaning in which we speak of it as being dead.

I only understand plain English. If it were dead they would want it out of the way, pushed under the table.

May I explain? What is meant when we say the two old republican flags are dead is this, that, whereas the Union Jack to-day stands for a living power, the authority and power of an existing State, your old Vierkleur and your old Free State flag are dead in the sense that they no longer symbolize any existing authority or power.

I understand that, but surely my hon. friend will agree that that flag exists in the affections of the people as being emblematic of their past. I do not understand why hon. members of Dutch extraction on the other side do not want to go back to the past. If the flag is emblematic of their past, why should it not be embodied in a national flag, just as the Union Jack is emblematic of our sentiments and of our history in the past?

And of the present.

If you put it that way, well and good, but I don’t see any significance in what my hon. friend says. If you have these traditions, if they are good and noble, they are useful to build a nation upon in the future. I cannot conceive how anyone can contest the absolute fairness of it. We say—

But we don’t want it.

My hon. friend has never lived under the Vierkleur. I can understand that, but I cannot understand members like the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) who has fought under it.

Would you be satisfied if the Union Jack and the other flags were so represented in the national flag as to show them as things of the past, symbolical of the past?

I don’t think my hon. friend is quite fair. I hope he does not doubt my sincerity, because I cannot give him the answer perhaps, straight away. If I were in my hon. friend’s position I should say we will put in the Union Jack with the Vierkleur as well, with someone well up in heraldry to arrange them. That, I think, quite meets what we want. The only reason I can imagine why the Vierkleur is not accepted in this national flag is because the advocacy of it has been intertwined with the advocacy for the Union Jack so much that they say—

No.

Then I hope my hon. friend will get up and account for it.

You see you don’t want it as something representative of your past history.

But we do. We don’t want the Union Jack there to imply in any shape or form that we are the superior race, or the governing race, or to imply arrogance. I ask it quite sincerely, because I am a British South African, and I say we British South Africans have done our full share, and shall do in future, in the building up of this country. The only thing we ask is to be put on an equality with the Dutch-speaking people.

If you want equality, the equality must also be in the representation, and then, if you are prepared to have the Union Jack so represented in the national flag that it will symbolize the past, as the two other flags do, then, of course, we may think about that.

I take it the Vierkleur is emblematic of the past?

Exactly.

Then put it in.

But one is of present significance.

All I can say to my hon. friend is that, to my mind, it is of no present significance. That is where the Minister of Finance has gone wrong. You want the Union Jack, not because of its present significance. To the majority of hon. members on this side this does not exist. It is emblematic of the traditions and the sentiments of the British race in this country. That is all I ask for. I hope my hon. friend will appreciate our feelings in this matter, because it is representing a good bit of the English population. The main part of the argument of the Minister of the Interior was, to my mind, based on a fallacy. He said that alone amongst the dominions South Africa stands in not having a national flag. I do not know whether my hon. friend has taken the trouble to look at a book, The Flag of all Nations. The flags of the dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as far as the general run goes have the same thing that we have—but in the corner their arms are represented.

How about Ireland?

I am not taking Ireland. That has been fully explained. The result there as has been pointed out more than once in the debate, is that it is absolutely and irreconcilably dividing Ireland into two nations, and so long as this flag stands there will be no union between north and south.

Disunion has nothing to do with the flag.

I am quoting what my hon. friend said—that South Africa stood alone in having no national flag. Then, again, he said that it would be fatal to the acceptance of our status if we remained without a South African flag. You could not have a lamer explanation than that. I understand that to-day the agent of the Union at Geneva flies that identical flag we have already got here, and it does not interfere with our status in the slightest degree. Then my hon. friend wants to defend our nationals in various countries. How is he going to do so in China, for example? I believe we have nationals in China as missionaries. How is he going to do it? He would have to appeal to the British Government to look after these individuals. The proposed flag is not going to do any good. Then he mentions about Angola and Mozambique. It is perfectly true we have a lot of our nationals there, but are they going to be better protected by this new-fangled flag than the flag we have? Is the Portuguese Government going to have more respect for it. They will ask where it comes from and what it means. My hon. friend might try it on in Mozambique and Delagoa Bay, to see whether they will have more respect for it. He will get a bit of an eye-opener in that direction. This Bill, if passed, is to be referred to a referendum of the people. It sounds well, let me say, and as far as I can judge it is the only way you have been able to get over your difficulties with regard to the Labour party, members of which are saying now and telling their followers it is an enabling Bill. I know personally that is what they say in this city. That gets over the difficulties with their followers to a certain extent, and is salving their own consciences. It is consequently to the interests of the Labour party for their followers when we come to the Referendum to vote against this Bill. It is going to save their leaders from a desperate position. But how about the followers of the Prime Minister? Suppose the Bill is defeated; my hon. friend has declared against the use of the Union Jack—that was the burden of his speech on Friday. He asked—

If the referendum defeats the present proposal, is that not also going to hurt him?

Then I simply submit to the majority.

I am pleased to hear my hon. friend say that. Why does he not do that now?

Because I have a majority.

I am surprised at my hon. friend, and that he should use it in that way.

I have not proposed to put anything on the people as a minority.

My hon. friend in studying it should study it from the statesmanlike point of view, and not from that of the politician. He should say—

I was profoundly impressed by what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said the other evening—something I have thought of before now, but which has not been often mentioned—that the greatest misfortunes in this country have been brought about because somebody was in a hurry; and that has taken place on at least two occasions, as my hon. friend knows.

I am not sure that a great many evils have not come about because we have waited too long.

Take the annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 by the British Government. Was that not a matter done in a hurry? There was the Jameson raid—was that not a matter done in a hurry? If my hon. friend will rise to the statesmanship of which he is capable we will say—

I do not see how you can avoid breaking the Pact on this thing because it is going to be in the interests of members on the Labour benches to save themselves by their own people’s vote at the referendum.

Why are you worrying so much about that?

I am not worrying so much about you—I am worrying about the Government. One can foresee that that is going to be the result. I want the Prime Minister to take the statesmanlike view of the matter—that is what I am worrying about entirely. My hon. friend must consider the future of South Africa, as has been pointed out. He must not consider South Africa as bounded by the Limpopo and Bechuanaland, but as extending north. There is no doubt the tendency of Rhodesia was to look to the south. We have railway communications with them, and we know what their sentiments are, but their tendency now is to turn their ideas, their thoughts, and their views up north.

And south-west?

I am not speaking of South-West. The South-West is ours to-day, but Rhodesia, Nyassaland, Tanganyika and Kenya are still developing, and we hope that in time these will eventually join up with the Union, and then you would have a big dominion stretching all the way from Cape Town to the equator. But my hon. friend has blasted all that. How can you expect these people up north to look with favour on this flag? My hon. friend is neglecting the big opportunity, and interfering in some degree with the future of his own people. We know that Dutch people, pioneers, thousands of them, are scattered over the two Rhodesias, Tanganyika and Kenya. Does he want all these to be alien to the Union? [Time limit extended.] These people have an affection for the old Union, and want to stick as far as they can to the Dutch language. You see that in Kenya to-day. It is the big policy for the Union of South Africa to bring all these people in. And there is another point I want to mention, and that is more painful than what I have said before. There is another reason why my hon. friend should postpone this Bill. The British people in South Africa to-day are profoundly suspicious of the party in power—I say it with every sense of responsibility. I do not say whether it is justified or not, but the fact is there, nevertheless, and although my hon. friend may regret it, a statesman should take these things into consideration and direct his policy accordingly. The ordinary man in the street who does not know as much as we do here, has come cause to be suspicious. It cannot be denied that up to recently the National party has been a secessionist party, and secession has now been quite honestly as I believe disclaimed by leaders of the party; but you have not dropped Article 4 of the constitution of the party. I am just speaking for the man in the street, and the way he looks upon it. That is one reason why there is so much determined opposition to the Bill. There are thousands of English-speaking people who look upon this as a final cutting of our connection with the British empire.

That is one of the main reasons?

I have no doubt it is with some people. The best way to allay that feeling is to act as statesmen and to drop the Bill at any rate for a time. After the miseries and misfortunes we have endured patience should be the watchword in South Africa. Statesmanship demands that the Prime Minister should follow the example of Canada in this matter. I am convinced that is the only real way to obtain peace. On the one side the English-speaking people insist on the inclusion of the Union Jack. On the other side the Dutch-speaking people say that under no consideration shall the Union Jack be included. If that is so drop the Bill for the time being—I do not see any other way out. Then there is what may be regarded as a minor objection and that is if the proposed flag is adopted it will be an absolute abortion. The English will never fly it, and I should not be surprised if our Dutch friends say that the Vierkleur is good enough for them.

They will fly it all right.

I am not addressing my hon. friend who has lived under the Union Jack all his life, I am addressing the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who have fought under the Vierkleur and I have no doubt that they are still proud of it. The Minister of Finance said it would be treason if they dropped this Bill. I take the exactly opposite view, if he wants to do a good action let him use his influence with the Prime Minister to persuade him not to press forward with the Bill. The Minister of Finance will gather in his taxes just the same. I again appeal to the Government to drop the measure, at any rate for the time being.

I wish to add my voice to those who beg the Prime Minister to drop the Bill as an act of true statemanship. I voice the opinion of a large number of people in my constituency who are in the greatest distress about the measure and its effect on the flag which they hold in the highest affection. I appeal with the greatest confidence because the Prime Minister has shown that he appreciates the vital necessity of doing all in his power to bring about that unity and peace which are favoured by the moderate. In the Governor-General’s speech in 1926 for which the Prime Minister was responsible the following passage appeared—

At Union we chose as our motto “Ex unitata vires”—strength from unity. That should be our beacon light and our aim. When the Bill was first introduced it was without any mandate from the country, but at the desire of a particular faction only. I ask the Prime Minister to pause ere it is too late and to consider whether as an act of statesmanship he should not put the accursed thing on one side and wait until the people of the country are able to come together and agree upon a flag which will win its place in the hearts of the people. When the debate opened the Minister of the Interior delivered a speech which was on a much higher level and on a more reasonable plane than the one he delivered last year. He remarked that sentiment is a matter in which it is very easy to inflame passion and he urged us to recognize our high responsibility in order to bring about an agreement. That speech was in striking contrast to the attitude of hon. members on the Government benches. They were exultant and triumphant, gloating that they were now attaining their ends. That ought to have been a revelation to the Prime Minister as to the necessity for postponing the Bill until it can be approached by both sides of the House in a more reasonable calm and equitable manner than was shown by his own followers when the measure was introduced. That attitude has been most noticeable on the Government benches right through the greater part of the debate. The Minister of the Interior described the flag as one of compromise. In what sense is it a flag of compromise? It is true that one of the elements of the. Union Jack in the shape of the St. George’s Cross is included in the proposed national flag. When the Prime Minister blamed the patriotic societies for the whole of the opposition to the Bill he showed that he did not realize that the patriotic societies were having no concession made to them, for the St. George’s Cross appeals to the English people only, but does not appeal to the Scotsman, the Irishman or the Welshman. After all this discussion about the Sons of England the only “concession” was made to them because the St. George’s Cross is their badge. It was not, however, a concession at all. The English-speaking people of this country are entitled to have their views respected in selecting the design for a national flag. For the Prime Minister to describe the opponents of the Bill as not being South Africans, is unjustified and unworthy. My parents came from England 75 years ago and never returned. I was born here 60 years ago, and did not visit England until 18 months ago. By birth and upbringing I am as true a South African as any other man in this House. We English-speaking South Africans are entitled to have respect shown to our sentiment, but for many years people who retain their love for the land of their forefathers overseas have been treated as though they were unworthy of being considered South Africans. A very memorable incident happened on the Prime Minister’s return from England. I was at the luncheon at the City Hall given him on the 13th December last by the Mayor of Cape Town and the Prime Minister then spoke in words which appealed to many of us. In the course of his speech referring to the Union’s higher status he said—

The words of the Prime Minister were spoken earnestly and warmheartedly, speaking as he did without any idea of party. At that luncheon there were representatives of all sections of the community irrespective of party come to welcome him as the Prime Minister returning to South Africa on a great occasion, and that is the tribute he paid to the country from which he came, and that is the acknowledgment he made of what was clearly our undoubted right, to reconcile our position as South Africans with the love and affection we have for the land overseas, for its institutions and history. What then becomes of the arguments of those who say it is impossible to have a true affection for your own country here, and at the same time love and regard for the land overseas? That regard and affection is at the bottom of a great part of the sentiment felt by hundreds and thousands of people throughout this country, by probably 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the English-speaking people. We are, as a right, entitled to voice our sentiments and to say, when it comes to the question of the choice of a common flag, that we, as a great portion of the country, are entitled to have our sentiments acknowledged in a flag which is to be a national flag So far as that goes it matters nothing upon how many days— whether four days or 365 days—that flag shall be flown as a symbol of our Imperial association. We have had a couple of speeches from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, God knows there was trouble enough in the country about the division caused by this unhappy Bill, but the gloom has been made deeper and more sombre by the two speeches we heard from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister As far as the Minister of Finance is concerned many of us knew that at one time he felt very bitterly, but we hoped and prayed that he had got past that stage.

There was no bitterness at all.

There are many of us in this House who, though his stoutest political opponents, have given him credit for being desirous of healing the troubles of this country. I have in this House openly expressed my own appreciation of the actions and conduct of the Minister of Finance but I, for one, had one of the greatest and unhappiest shocks of my life when I heard the speech of the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister himself said he had noticed the great shock which went through the Opposition when the Minister of Finance spoke. It is true, and it will take a long time to outlive that shock, a long time for the damage he did by his speech to be outlived.

It shows the intolerance of those who heard him.

I am content to let anybody judge what I say of the Minister of Finance. When it came to the Prime Minister himself we had three hours of bitterness of speech such as we hope never to hear again in this House, least of all from the leader of a party and one who has come practically fresh from the generous treatment and actions of the gathering which he attended at the end of last year.

If there is ever any proof of the intolerance of a section of you, this is it.

The Prime Minister must not comfort himself that we are intolerant on that.

No proof is required.

Not a man or woman in the country fails to realize we have been set back a tremendous distance by these two speeches. We thought the troubles of the past had been overcome, and that time was going to heal them all. But when we have responsible people raking the embers of the past to find the live coals of hate it is a source of terrible grief and dismay to a large number of people in this country. Take what the Prime Minister said in his speech. The first part of his speech was devoted to showing that my hon. friend, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), need not have called upon him to acknowledge the generosity of the British Government in its actions since 1902. This led the Prime Minister to make statements about the Union Jack and Great Britain which were very welcome. He said—

That was the considered statement of the Prime Minister. He goes on after that to deal with the Union Jack as part of the flag of South Africa, and tells us it only reminds him “of the other side of the picture,” the events of 1899 to 1902. He told us that flag had ousted every other flag in every part of the Union.

It is all it stands for to me, so far as South Africa is concerned.

As a matter of history he knows how the Cape itself was acquired in 1806, and he knows that the Cape itself was ultimately purchased. That is the long and short of it.

There is no discussing things with you. That is not as we conceive it.

How can one and the same person say—

and at the same time say—

I fail to understand the logic of the sentiment that inspired those two speeches.

My respect for the Union Jack is a purely intellectual one. I have no sentiment of affection for it, and I never said it.

The Prime Minister said there was great good feeling and friendliness towards the British Government and the Union Jack. It is impossible for me to understand how one and the same flag can, side by side, inspire two sentiments in the mind of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister approaches a matter in that way and we cannot understand it, he says we cannot understand the feelings of the Dutch. The unhappy part of the business is that the Prime Minister has shown himself, if that is his steadfast attitude of mind, that he is incapable of understanding the feeling of the English section of the population.

It is quite possible, and it seems to be reciprocal, this misunderstanding.

How are we going to get that unity if we approach the matter in such a way that we find leading statesmen in the country unable to appreciate the feelings of half the population? That is the difficulty one feels in the matter. When we ask the Prime Minister to remember the history of this matter we ask him also to remember that from the start the difficulty has been created (apart from the manner in which the Bill was introduced last year) by the Government laying it down, as a sine qua non through the whole proceedings, that they would have no Union Jack in the flag. Had that matter been left open there might have been a chance for some method of agreement. The conditions laid down definitely from the start were that there should be no compromise on that point, that there should be no Union Jack on the flag. In this way we had a situation fraught with great difficulty which made a solution impossible, because of the attitude of the Government from the beginning. They have declined to take notice of the feelings of a great portion of the population, and have laid it down that their sentiments shall not be expressed in the flag, and which, ex hypothesis, are not expressed on the flag. When the Minister of Labour talks about this being a new start, I say it is a very false start indeed, and one which made the success of the attempt to find a solution of the problem an entirely impossible one for a great portion of the people in the country. Their sentiments are affronted by the circumstances under which the refusal was made to recognize their feelings at all. When we say bur rights ought to be respected and the Jack should appear on the national flag, we are told if we insist on that and they have to give in to it, it means capitulation. Regarded from one point of view, it would not have been capitulation, but a generous act, which would have been responded to throughout the country. If there is one thing you can trade upon in this country it is the generous response of the English people to an act of generosity towards them. When we come to talk about capitulation, it seems to me that, if we look at the historical facts of this matter, the capitulation has been not as far as we are concerned, but the capitulation has been by the Prime Minister himself and a section of his Cabinet to the extremists on his own side of the House. When the Minister of Finance the other night talked about—

when he said that we were insisting upon the Union Jack appearing on our national flag as a part of the old domination, he could or would not recognize the existence of a very fitting and a very deep feeling of respect and love and affection which forces people to do that. But when we talk about domination, there is no domination when people ask you to respect their sentiments. But I say there is a new domination here in this Bill which insists upon forcing upon the people of this country a flag which has no interest to them, no symbolism, and is of no regard whatever to the people upon whom it is being forced; forced as the Prime Minister said to-night—

a majority which was given to them entirely unaware of the fact that it was going to be used in this way. That is a new form of dominance which makes things ever so much more hard and difficult for the solution of any question of this kind. The Prime Minister told us on Friday night a good deal about how he felt, and how impossible it was for this flag to be framed in the way it was asked for. Was the Prime Minister always of that opinion? If those are the sentiments that he has expressed this year and last year, then it is inconceivable that he could have gone through the process of joining in the Act of Union, and it is impossible to conceive how he could have made those speeches of generous recognition in the Free State House after the grant of responsible Government and when the Act of Union was being considered. Unless a man has a dual personality—and that is sometimes apparently, the only explanation of some of the things that we see going on—then one cannot understand how he can at one time say generous things, and at other times speak the most bitter things. Look how near we were, apparently, to a solution of our difficulties. First of all, there was the 1910 flag. The Prime Minister, in referring to that minute of Cabinet Ministers in 1910, said that he was not the person who was solely and individually responsible. But he entirely failed to see the humour of the situation, which was not that he was the one who was alone responsible because he signed the minute; for every Minister of the Cabinet is responsible for a minute like that. The humour of the thing was not that he was wholly responsible for the minute, but that he should have been the one who signed it in order to give formal validity to the document. The point is that this was the considered minute of the whole Cabinet, and the whole Cabinet was collectively responsible for it.

For the design of a badge.

No, not for the design of a badge. The Prime Minister keeps evading the terms of that minute.

Then I am rather surprised that your leader ever went about trying to get a Union flag after that.

I will deal with that. I am not going to leave that out. The minute says that Ministers—

Paragraph 3 says—

Use has been made of that flag, both over the High Commissioner’s office in London, and the South African premises in Geneva. I say that is the distinctive flag of United South Africa.

I have never seen it.

The hon. member must have been asleep. Probably the hon. member flies the Vierkleur. What we want to do is to give you an opportunity of doing that officially. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that we have a right to change our distinctive flag, for united South Africa—that is the flag that he himself lent his concurrence to—to any other design as the flag of united South Africa. Until we choose that, the Union Jack is the general union flag of the empire, and the Red Ensign with the badge is the flag of united South Africa.

I am beginning to think we ought to leave it to the Government to simply say what is to be the flag.

There are two or three ways of doing it.

I will tell the hon. member that the Government had better to-morrow give instructions that the Union Jack will no longer be floated anywhere.

May I remind the Prime Minister that what was done in 1910 was done with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Now that we have got the independent status, the better way of doing it is by Parliament.

Running away again! The usual tactics.

There is no running away at all. The Prime Minister has twitted the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with his attitude on this question. My right hon. friend has stated his position in various speeches, and in written memoranda. In not one single instance has it been shown that the right hon. gentleman ever dreamt of imposing a flag on South Africa which was not arrived at by agreement. The difference between the two is that there we had a statesmanlike policy of providing a flag by agreement, and here we have the suggestion that the flag should be pressed through by the barest majority regardless of the feelings of the minority. That is what we are fighting, so that the flag shall not be forced upon the people against their wishes. Let us look at the memorandum that was prepared before the Imperial Conference of 1921. What is there in it in conflict with the point of view now expressed by the Opposition? We have accepted definitely and plainly the position that it is desirable to have a distinctive flag for the Union. All the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said was—

The Union Jack itself is a distinct flag with no other device upon it. What we suggest is, have our own domestic flag, as suggested in the memorandum, and have on this domestic flag that which represents and typifies and attracts the sympathy, respect and reverence of all sections of the population.

You don’t mean to say that will typify my affections?

If that was the idea, you do not propose at this moment that if you have the Union Jack on the domestic flag you should, in addition, have the Union Jack to symbolize our connection?

I am not objecting to that part of the Bill, but the part I object to is that our national flag should have definitely removed from it the Union Jack. What I say is this, let us have the Union Jack on the national flag, and let us have the Vierkleur of the Transvaal and that of the Free State. We have heard a great deal about the Vierkleur being a dead flag. In that memorandum which was prepared by Professor Smith and by a lady—a memorandum which I regret was ever put before the public, arrogant in tone, dictatorial hectoring, lecturing people because they expressed their own sentiments in a free country, a most regrettable memorandum— there is one passage worth quoting—

The Prime Minister to-night also talked about their being symbolical of the past. While those flags are politically and officially dead, we say they live in the hearts and minds and souls of thousands of people in this country whose feelings we desire to respect. Let us make them again live politically and officially also. This we can do by providing for those flags on the common flag of the Union.

Does the House realize, does the Prime Minister realize, what they are doing? Do they realize that they are setting the white races of this country at each other’s throats by a Bill of this kind?

Who is doing that? You who say “we must have this on it,” or I who say “please don’t?”

Does the Prime Minister admit what I say is going to be the effect? It is not my concern just now to say who are responsible.

I admit nothing. I am only answering your argument.

I am warning the Prime Minister of what is being brought about in consequence of the steps the Government are taking. One of the Ministers, one of the Prime Minister’s colleagues, said to a friend of mine the other day—

Sir, this has brought to their feet the moderate, reasonable men and women throughout the country. It has stirred them to the very depths of their being. I would just like to read a very eloquent passage in the speech the Minister of the Interior made last year in introducing this Bill, to emphasize what I now say. This is what he said—

These eloquent words were expressed by the Minister last year. Was he in earnest when he said that? And having said that he straightway asks us to scrap that flag, that sacred emblem; and deliberately stretches out a hand to put it down. That is my reply to the Prime Minister when he said: “Who is doing that?”

What do you mean by hauling the flag down?

It has been pointed out that the Bill now before the House endeavours to reduce the number of days on which the flag is going to fly. Instead of having our flag flying as it is to-day it is going to be flown for four days in the year. If for any purpose it is deemed necessary to fly it for a greater number of days we have to do so by permission of the Minister of the Interior.

Can you tell me how often that flag is flown now publicly?

As far as I know every day. Let me turn to another aspect. Here we have two white races. South Africa is equally the home of each. This is the material out of which our future nation is to be welded, is to be built up, and I say that the man who places a wedge between these two peoples and deliberately drives it home with a great hammer is doing a most serious disservice to this country. Gen. Botha lived and died striving to do away with racialism. We know that racialism has been the curse and the bane of this country in the past, and has dominated all our social and political life. It has interfered with much useful legislation. Gen. Botha and other South African patriots strove to allay it, and to unite the peoples. The Prime Minister, too, after his return from Europe gave utterance to the self-same sentiments. No, sir, just as it is the greatest good to South Africa to try to unite the people, so is it the greatest evil to do anything which separates or to set them apart. The Minister maintains that our past should be obliterated, forgotten. We must give up our traditions, our ideals, our virtues and character. Ana our past history has to be sacrificed, and we have to come with a clean sheet and start a new page. That is impossible—just as impossible as it would be to expect a tree to live if separated from its roots. We stand on the past. It is part of us. All our traditions have grown out of and are rooted in the past The Minister is willing to sacrifice all this—all that is dear to his own people because of hatred of the Union Jack, a bitter, unrelenting hatred of the flag under which he and I and a large portion of the people of the Union (over 75 per cent.) were born.

I was also.

Now it is proposed to obliterate the Union Jack and to have no trace of it on the proposed flag.

It has never been there, so I cannot obliterate it from it.

The endeavour of the Government is to try to remove the Union Jack from the place of honour which it fills in the hearts of a section of the people. Our (suggestion or claim is for the Union Jack combined with the Vierkleur and the flag of the O.F.S. That would be a real symbol of Union, but here again the Minister of the Interior finds a very serious objection and he says—

In the first place, I would reply that in the Cape, where the Minister was born, the Union Jack was not a flag of conquest, but was always a flag of his province, and the same may be said of Natal. It may be correct as far as the Transvaal and the Orange Free State are concerned, but not in the Cape and Natal. It has been our recognized flag in the Cape and Natal for a long period upwards of a hundred years. The Minister was backed by the Prime Minister who said that the republican flags were dead as republican flags; and during the course of the same speech the Minister of the Interior said—

How can it then be contended that these flags are dead? They are not dead, but are still cherished and beloved by the people of those provinces, and will always be so cherished; and I respect them for it. It is very much alive. The Minister claims that hatred of the Union Jack was natural because it had robbed them of their republics and their flags. I agree that there was ground for feelings of that kind and that they were natural, but soon after the war the Imperial Government granted the greatest measure of liberty to those two states, and not long after the war they had their own responsible governments. When we entered into Union the Government was in the hands of their section of their community. Gen. Botha, who led them during the war, became the first Prime Minister of the Union, and they continued to govern. We realize that they made sacrifices in lowering their flag in favour of the Union Jack. Later on to further symbolize Union we urged the claims of a flag on which the Vierkleurs and the Union Jack will have equal places of honour. This was rejected by the Minister as the Union Jack would still stand for domination. Perhaps that view was not altogether unreasonable, but when the Prime Minister returned last year from the Imperial Conference with a message that we had obtained all that could be desired, and that we now had a freer constitution than we could have had under a republican form of Government, then surely the hearts of these people must have relented somewhat, when they were told by their trusted leader that the flag which had robbed them of the Vierkleur had actually given them more than it had taken away. Then still to refuse the proffered friendship is surely most uncharitable. I do not believe that the vast number of my Dutch fellow-citizens share such bitterness. The only flag which will satisfy the people is something which will symbolize that which is dear to both sections of the population. The flag suggested in the Bill symbolizes nothing at all, and will never be regarded with any degree of affection by either section. I feel that the present flag, the Union Jack, is insufficient, and does not represent the Dutch-speaking element, and until we have something which does fully represent them we shall not have the desired flag. We must come to terms over this business, and even if we have to wait indefinitely it is much better to do that than to plunge into something which is a danger to the best interests of the country, and which will widen the gap that was drawing closer and will rekindle all the evil passions of the past. The Prime Minister lost a splendid opportunity, when he came back from Europe—no other man has ever had such an opportunity of doing so great a service to South Africa, and of cementing a real Union of the people by a union of our flags. When he delivered that message the hearts of each one of us went out to him in a great responsiveness. We felt that we were nearing a position for which we had been praying for many years. Why was that opportunity not availed of? What has deflected the Prime Minister from his course?

Your unreasonableness.

No, sir, not our unreasonableness but that of the Minister. We have been taunted with failing to suggest a flag, that is nonsense; the talk also about heraldic impossibilities does not weigh much with me. It is very nice to have something artistic, but there is something far better, and that is to satisfy the wish-deep down in the hearts of the people for a flag which will symbolize their history and their traditions. Finally, I most earnestly appeal to the Government to stay its hand. If it does not it will make one of the most serious blunders ever perpetrated by any Government, and it will, as I have said, set the people at each other’s throats, that will happen if the Minister persists in his present unrelenting course.

We must remember that we are not only speaking for the white races, but there are nearly 5,000,000 natives who are inarticulate as far as direct representation in this House is concerned, but who are watching this debate with the keenest interest and the deepest anxiety. While the Union Jack is to us a symbol of the past, enshrining as it does the traditions of our race, to the natives it is a symbol of protection and of justice. After all, one has only to look at the history of the natives in this country to see how the Union Jack brought peace and security to those tribes whom Chaka had almost obliterated; and how, for instance, under chief Khama, the people of Bechuanaland obtained prosperity under the Union Jack. At one time or other, every native tribe has fought against the Union Jack, and in the end has come to look upon that flag as one of hope, of prosperity, of justice and security, and if that flag has not got its place in the national emblem of this country, we are going to take away an object of veneration to the natives for years past. I stand with every other member of the House in agreeing that it is only right South Africa should have a national flag, but it has got to be something which every Englishman and Dutchman can look to with reverence and respect, and which means the living embodiment of the traditions of both races. The Minister of the Interior when he introduced the Bill last year clothed his words in the finest of language, and we were all impressed by the descriptive beauty with which he garbed his description of the flag. We remember, he said, that the flag was not a mere cloth—that it symbolized a national existence. It was a living thing, a repository of national sentiment, able to create the greatest enthusiasm as well as to move to tears, the source of the deepest springs of action. For a flag a nation could live and could fight and could die. I grant that is the ideal of a flag, but is this national flag, this hot-cross-bun we are going to get symbolic of a national existence, is it a living thing? Is that hot-cross-bun a repository of national sentiment is that hot-cross-bun going to create the greatest enthusiasm, is it going to move to the deepest springs of action and inspire to the noblest ideals? That flag means nothing to the English or the Dutch, and is not going to arouse that sentiment the Minister described to the House in such rounded periods last session. I credit the Minister with being a man of sound common-sense, but to try and persuade the Englishman or the Dutchman that these noble ideals are going to be applicable to that meaningless cloth, is asking us to accept something which I cannot swallow. We are two great races in this country. It is impossible to say we are at present one nation. We are building an Afrikander nation which does not exist to-day in its truest sense. The fact that at the National Convention it was thought fit to have two official languages in the countries, is symbolical of the fact that thee are two peoples still in South Africa, and if we respect one another’s language, why cannot we respect one another’s flag? Where is the difference? The Minister of the Interior and his colleagues do not realize the position of many Englishmen in South Africa. Many men like myself have lived in South Africa practically all our lives, our wives are South African, and our children are growing up in South Africa, and will be the South Africans of the future, our hope for the future and our interest in the present lies in South Africa, but we shall never forget the race from which we have sprung and our reverence for our own homeland, and our flag inspires us as South Africans to greater efforts. It is the thing which is one of the mainsprings of our effort in this country and I do not think the Minister realizes our position in this matter, that we are as true South Africans as those who insist that the Union Jack should not be found on our symbol, as true South Africans as any man on those benches opposite. If they have a national past, so have we, which nothing will induce us to let go that past.

Our national past is in this country, yours is elsewhere.

I am satisfied to look to our national past in this country. Have we not great national traditions in this country? I ask our friends to look back to their own history, from the day when Van Riebeeck landed in South Africa, to when Prinsloo trekked from the Cape to establish himself in Somerset East, on to when Commandant Van Jaarsveld drove the Kaffirs beyond the Fish River, and the first Kaffir war was fought down to the Great Trek when 98 souls under Louis Trichardt made one of the most wonderful treks in this or any other country, when they broke the might of the Matabele—I say the history of the Dutch is one of the greatest histories in the world. To them we owe Natal, and whilst they were settling that land we had the massacre at Weenen, and the fight at Blood River, where it should be always remembered that English and Dutch fought and shed their blood together, and right through these hardships, sufferings and victories to the time of the Boer war, when they again bore a noble part. The history of the Dutch in this country is the history of one of the great doings and great endeavours, and the fights they put up and the sufferings they endured are a record of which any people can be proud. What is the emblem of these fights, these hardships, these battles fought and victories won? The emblem is the Vierkleur. Let us dismiss this thought about the Vierkleur being dead. It is the emblem of the Dutch people, the emblem of their past. I fought against the Vierkleur, I honour the Vierkleur, and I respect those men who fought for it, and I say, without fear, that any man who stands up in this House to-day, any Dutchman who tells me that he has forgotten the Vierkleur and that it is a dead flag, has nothing but my contempt. Any man who forgets his past, any man who casts away the symbol of that mighty past, is the man who is beneath contempt. Now I come to the crux of the question. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not here. I would ask him this question, is his insensate hate of the Union Jack even greater than his love of the flag for which he fought? I cannot believe it. As the Dutch have a great history, so have the English a great history. We can look back upon victories by land and by sea, and we can look back upon as equally great a past as the Dutch have, and the emblem round which the traditions of my race have clustered is the Union Jack, and I say to my friends opposite that it is only right that the Vierkleur should have a place on the domestic flag of South Africa, and I equally claim that the Union Jack, as the emblem of my race, should also have a place on that flag. We are told that the Union Jack stands for an emblem of conquest, that it stands for oppression. Let us look back since 1902, and, as I think my hon. friend for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) said, could any man have foreseen when the Treaty of Vereeniging was signed that in a few short years the Transvaal and Free State should have their own Government under their own leaders? When Union was consummated in 1910, where was your conquest? Who was the first Premier of the Union? A Dutchman, and one of the greatest Dutchmen that ever lived, the late General Botha. Who succeeded him? Another man of the Dutch race, a son of South Africa, and a man whom South Africa can look to with pride. Who succeeded him again? The Prime Minister of to-day, and another man who, in spite of his action in this matter, I believe is actuated with the purest feelings towards this country, and wishes to do his best for South Africa. Is that your “conquest” since Union? I believe—and I am sorry to say it—this to be largely a political move. I believe in their heart of hearts that this hatred of the Union Jack does not exist, and I believe that buried in the hearts of my friends the love of the Vierkleur burns as brightly as ever it did in the past. There is no doubt that when the Prime Minister came back from the Imperial Conference he had one of the greatest opportunities that a statesman ever had in this or any other country. He went and carried with him the suspicion of a certain section of his people. When he came back he said—

When he uttered those sentiments he banished, as I had hoped for ever, the suspicion which had rankled in the hearts of many. If he had then come forward and said that the National party stood for the abolition of racialism, and, as they could not to-day agree upon a flag which embodied both the symbols of the British empire and those of the old Dutch republics, he would freely and frankly withdraw this Bill, I believe he would have won for himself a place in South Africa and a position amongst the statesmen of the world, and he would have so endeared himself to British and Dutch alike in South Africa, that he would have entrenched his position as he could have done in no other manner. This action in bringing forward this Bill at the present juncture has shattered the idol which both races in South Africa had set up. I wish to address one remark to my friends of the Labour party. I shall indulge in no personalities. Two nights ago we listened, unfortunately, to two of the most bitter speeches I have ever heard delivered in this House, one by the Prime Minister, and the other by the Minister of Finance. Those speeches broke down the barriers, they loosed a flood which bids fair to carry to destruction on its bosom all the great work for which the late Gen. Botha gave his life. I would say to the Labour members: The terms of this Bill are nothing; the conditions of this Bill are nothing; you are not casting your vote for the clauses in this Bill, but if you cast your vote in favour of this Bill, you are casting your vote for the spirit behind those speeches, for the bitterness loosed in this House on an occasion upon which many of us look back with regret. If you do so this House will not be your judge; you will go back, and your constituents will say: “We heard what was said; we saw the racial bitterness that was created. As you have cast your vote in support of that racial feeling, so you will accept our judgment at the polls.”

I never in my life was a flag-wagger. And I do not intend to become one. I must, however, say a few words about this proposal of the Government.

Was not the flag wagged at the last election in your constituency?

I hope the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) will get up to speak because we have so far heard very little from hon. members opposite. I want to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the Flag Bill. My reason is that the sentiment of various sections is being hurt.

We have already heard that.

Various sections will be hurt if all their flags are not included. I do not only refer to the Union Jack, but also the Free State and the Transvaal flags.

They have already been united. Did you see that design?

Any flag that is chosen must be respected by all sections, whether they be English or Dutch-speaking, Germans or Frenchmen.

Must the German flag then be included as well?

Where we see the flag flying we must take off our hats to honour it, and if we cannot get such a flag, then I say to the Prime Minister that he ought rather to withdraw this Bill. The South African party branch at Stellenbosch passed a resolution and gave me a mandate in the matter, and as hon. members know, the South African party has an overwhelming majority at Stellenbosch. The following resolution was passed on Friday—

They say nothing then about the Vierkleur.

Then I have another resolution from the South African Women’s Party at Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) said that there were many people who could speak up for the Union Jack and he himself spoke about the Vierkleur.

For which one are you speaking?

I think the hon. member was also born under the Union Jack, although he possibly went early to the North.

No, I was born a Republican.

The coloured people of Stellenbosch, Somerset West, Drakenstein and elsewhere in my constituency also passed resolutions about the matter. They say that they will vote for no flag which does not include the Union Jack. Those people always connect the Union Jack with the liberation of the slaves because the English decided to liberate the slaves. Even to-day when you go to the older people and speak about Queen Victoria they immediately take off their hats because they appreciate what she did for them.

The liberation of the slaves was long before her time.

It was before her time, but these men cannot go further back than her time. She was the friend of the coloured men.

Not their “vriendin”?

Yes, their friend.

How far can you think back?

The Prime Minister must understand that the flag can be forced on us but the respect that such a flag deserves cannot be forced, and we want respect for the flag and not quarrels about it. Now I come to the referendum. I see that most of the Government newspapers did not fully report the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) where he said that the referendum would be a fight with loaded dice I quite agree with that. The people are being placed before the question—

We South Africans would all like to have a flag. I hear that a green flag means a locomotive that is out of order. What the Cross on it, however, means, I cannot say.

You are too stupid to do that.

My hon. friend there may speak if he likes, but they dare not. I challenge the whole lot to speak, but they may not. The members of the Opposition talk one after the other and do not repeat themselves but continually come forward with new points. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here because I want to point out that he has no mandate from the people for this Bill. During the elections I never heard about the flag. I should like the Government to have the courage if it loses the referendum to regard it as a motion of no confidence. They dare not do so. The Prime Minister has the power of dissolving Parliament now. Then very few of my friends opposite will come back. I am sorry to hear the bitter attacks of the Prime Minister on the leader of the Opposition. This is the second time this session that the leader of the Opposition has offered the palm branch to the Prime Minister, but every time it is rejected with contempt, with the most contemptible language. Excuse the word, but that is the word for which the Prime Minister was called to order. I wanted to congratulate the Minister of the Interior. I noticed what a fine boy he had in his arms. I hope he will become a good son of South Africa and never give so much trouble as his father. If he were to do that, then I thank the Lord that he was not a twin. I only hope that the Prime Minister will now allow the Bill to go to a division. Let him come to an agreement with the leader of the Opposition to withdraw the amendment and the whole Bill so that love and peace may reign in the country. Possibly in a few years a flag may then be chosen which will give satisfaction so that when we go to a foreign country and see the flag flying we can knock at the door and say: “Give me your hand, old friend.”

I would like to make a remark or two on the amendment. I wish first to thank the Minister of the Interior for the frank way in which he stated that this is not a party question. I put the matter rather clumsily the other day, and attributed to him an admission that it would be regarded as a party matter, but he definitely and clearly intimated to the House it was not a party question. I welcome that assurance personally, because it has some effect in regard to myself and those I represent; but still more largely it is a plain intimation to the party to which I have the honour to belong that members can also exercise freedom of voting on the Bill and amendment without there then being any complications as far as the Pact Government is concerned. In considering the clear statement of the Minister who introduced this Bill, that it was not to be looked upon as a party question, and that is certainly the right attitude to take up, I ask my friends and colleagues to note the liberty allowed us in that respect. The Minister also stated, very properly, that the Ministry would not be affected by the referendum decision. In no sense is it to be regarded as a vote of confidence or otherwise.

The hon. member should confine himself to the amendment.

I am trying to draw attention, to the fact that the House will have the opportunity of deciding between the amendment and the resolution itself, and, therefore, my remarks are pertinent in regard to that issue. With regard to the amendment, we shall have full liberty to exercise our individual rights. I take it this statement of the Minister is a friendly gesture, and I am glad to be able to take it as a friendly gesture, because if the party to which I belong chooses the amendment instead of the resolution, they will be doing exactly what they have the moral right to do, as well as the right under the specific agreement between the two parties to exercise freedom. We will be doing what the Minister contended we should do, that is to have no party tie in regard to their vote in this matter. The Labour party owe thanks to the Minister for knocking out the shackle-pin of the cable which supposedly connected us with the Government. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that we have the choice between the amendment and the resolution. Under our agreement, written down in black and white, we have the right, both inside this House and outside, to exercise our individual independence. On that pact we certainly stand as a party, and I hope other members of this party will realize they have been assured of perfect freedom, and can vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituencies or their conscience (as the lawyers say, “whichever shall be the greater). To several of my party the liberty to vote as their constituents wish is a decided’ acquisition at the present time in making up their minds. The liberty they now enjoy enables them to meet the wishes of their constituents, and then we may have the pleasure of seeing them back again in their seats, when otherwise we might not. Again I thank the Minister for expressing so clearly that this is not a party question, and remind my friends they now enjoy the full liberty to vote according to their constituents desires or their own conscience. That is a liberality which, I think, we are entitled to thank the Minister for, but I am sorry that he has chosen not to remain in his place to hear fully my appreciative thanks in that regard. As regards the free exercise of this party liberty, the question of whether a man is a delegate or a representative is very interesting. I quote an authority in regard to what a member’s duty is in representing constituents, and I am quite sure that hon. members of the Nationalist party, will accept this decision without demur. It reads—

When I mention the authority for that dictum, I am perfectly sure it will be received with great respect at least on this side of the House. The authority is Mr. Justice J. B. M. Hertzog, a judge of the Free State, who lays down what our duty is as it applies to a member of Parliament, and the full freedom he has to exercise his actions “to the best of his judgment.” I think that judgment would be approved by the whole of the House, because I see that Staats Prokureur Smuts—

which appeared to satisfy the commandant-general and other representatives present. So it is a decision on the very highest authority. Knowing this, I trust my colleagues will take into earnest consideration the desirability of accepting the amendment instead of the resolution. I may, indeed, go so far as to recommend the amendment, because it would lift the whole matter out of the difficulty in which it now is, and leave it in a position in which the people would all like to see it, accepting the motion not to agree to the second reading of the Bill. That would help my colleagues, who are in great difficulty. Unfortunately, they are between the upper and nether millstone and though the mills of our political gods grind slowly, they also “grind exceeding small.” They are grinding exceedingly small the party to which I belong. The evidence is there already in the provincial elections; and, accepting this gesture of good will that it is not a party question would save my unfortunate party from being utterly ground to dust. I trust they will accept the position, and act in accordance with the constituencies to which they belong. Act, indeed, in accordance with this legal opinion, which comes from an authority which we would not question.

I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept the adjournment at this late hour. It is rather in sorrow than in anger that I rise to speak in this debate and I must confess that having read the reports, the very lengthy and voluminous reports which appeared in the papers during my unavoidable absence in the Transvaal in the course of this debate, I would rather, had I not been perfectly certain that my silence would be misunderstood and misrepresented, not have taken part in this welter of racial passion and party strife and bitter personal recriminations that I have been reading of in the papers. Because it seems to me that the net result of this debate is going to be to bring us back to the days of 1896 and 1899 in South Africa. I rise to intervene in this debate, in sorrow rather than in anger, because so far I have done my best, true to the position I have occupied in this House, to treat each particular proposal of the Government on its merits. I have differed from them on several occasions, but I have agreed with them on more occasions. I have no particular quarrel with the Government, because in spite of their faults, if there were an election to-morrow I should throw in my lot, if I had to do so, as between the South African party and the Government, with the Government forces. I say that quite frankly, because I do not wish my vote to be misinterpreted, nor do I wish any political kudos for the action I am taking. I regard the Government on the present occasion, as absolutely in the wrong, and I will do my best to explain the reasons why. Whatever I say has no relation to any consequences of the election I was opposed by the South African party last time, and I fully expect to be opposed by them next time I am opposing this Bill for the reasons which I will attempt to show to the House. I think the Government is on a bad wicket. They have been brought into the position, largely owing to the skilfulness of their political opponents, who have out-manoeuvred them at every turn; they have been brought into a position from which now, apparently, they do not wish to extricate themselves for fear of being taunted. I am trying to deal with this matter purely impartial, from the detached position in which, fortunately, I am able to find myself, to try and arrive at a just consideration in this matter, and to vote according to what I regard as the rights or wrongs of the case, and not according to the developments that are likely to accrue to any particular. There can be no question of the first raising of the question of a distinct national flag for South Africa, in many speeches both in congresses and in the country a flag which would not, so far as domestic affairs are concerned, include the Union Jack, that that position was first taken up by the South African party before amalgamation with the Unionists. I do not say it by way of blame to the Opposition, because they were sensible enough not to translate those speeches into action, and in that respect they were wiser than the present Government, but at the same lime it is quite fair and right that these things should be made clear, because these were speeches made all over the country. There was a declaration by the right hon. the leader the Opposition at Calvinia in 1919 as reported by “De Volkstem” to the following effect [translation]—

There was a S. A. party congress on the 4th October, 1919, at Paarl, where a resolution was passed unanimously, in favour of a purely South African flag, with the Union Jack as a symbol of the Empire. I think the Minister of the Interior quoted the relative passage in the debate in 1926, but it will bear repetition. It is a quotation from “Ons Land,” a paper which supports the Opposition. Mr. E. B. Krige, who represented Ceres, at the congress held at Paarl—not the ex-Speaker—on notice of motion proposed—

Mr. F. S. Malan, the present hon. Senator and a Minister at the time, said that—

On the 5th December, 1919, after the return of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition from the war, where he rendered great service, he made a statement at Rustenburg, and here I am glad to be able to quote from the “Cape Times.” The headings were—

The report states—

At a Congress held on the 18th December, 1919, at Pretoria, Gen. Smuts said [translation]—

“De Burger” had a number of quotations from “Ons Land” with regard to this congress (1919) in their issue of 22nd May, 1926, including the following [translation]—

Then there was a controversy between Colonel Greene and the present leader of the Opposition before the election of 1920. A change has since taken place and that is due to one thing. All this talk about the flag stopped as soon as the Unionists and S.A. party amalgamated. That is a tribute to the influence of my old friends who committed political suicide by joining the S.A.P. It is only fair to say this because I am going to oppose the Bill, but up to the time of that amalgamation the old S.A.P. was saying the same thing and using the same arguments with regard to the exclusion of the Union Jack that the Government are using to-day. Writing to the “Natal Witness” on January 3, 1920, Colonel Greene said—

The leader of the Opposition who was then Prime Minister replied that Colonel Greene could think of nothing better to do than flag-wagging, so he attacked the Government for “pandering to disloyalty” and woke up to cry the hollow cry of the past and did not realize how ridiculous it sounded in the ears of all South Africans who had not been dozing. After the amalgamation of the Unionist party and S.A.P. in 1920 all talk of the elimination of the Union Jack from the South African flag ceased. That is where I think the present Government have allowed themselves to be out-manoeuvred. I am not in the confidence of the parties on either side of the House and am not asked to sit on any of their little secret committees. However, what was in the Minister’s mind I do not know. Whether he thought that in bringing forward that proposal they were going to get hon. members whose speeches I have read and resolutions I have referred to—whether he was going to get their support I do not know. I will say for the Minister that in 1925 he started right, and if he had only gone on as he began he would have been quite right and nothing could have been better than the statesmanlike speech he made, which I am going to read, and if I could bring him back to that position the country would be saved from disaster. This is what the Minister said in 1925, when he spoke as a statesman and not as a party politician, and when he realized the only way to solve this question was by agreement. In the course of that speech the Minister of the Interior moved that Order XI, the 2nd reading of the Nationality and Flag Bill, be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn. The national flag, he said, was destined to be the link binding together the different elements of the population in one common South African patriotism, and that from the commencement it must occupy a place above racial and political divisions. The Prime Minister had approached the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, who was kind enough to intimate his acceptance of the principle of a South African national flag, and his willingness to co-operate in a combined effort to obtain a unanimous and non-party decision, and he would reintroduce it at the beginning of next session in a form so altered as to embody the description of a South African national flag the design which would be generally accepted as the united choice of all sections of the people through their recognized political leaders.

We thought they were sincere.

The Minister and his colleagues have allowed themselves to be deflected by what they considered the insincerity of the Opposition leaders, losing sight of the fact that it was a matter for the people of South Africa and not for the leaders. Blunder after blunder has been made from that time. They constituted a committee, no a select committee, and they were wrong in the constitution of that committee. Each party nominated so many, and it was the same old vicious party system which gets us into terrible difficulties in this country, and I was not surprised—

Who suggested that?