I move—

seconded.

I do not rise to oppose this motion, but the Prime Minister has given us very limited notice, and we got notice of this motion only yesterday. Many hon. members have made their arrangements for to-night, not anticipating that a motion would be made which would include this first Tuesday night. I would therefore press the Prime Minister that we should make this applicable for next Tuesday, 7th June, and not take to-night. If an ampler notice had been given hon. members might have had time to make other arrangements, but it is very difficult with this short notice to attend the sitting to-night with any convenience. I would also press the Prime Minister on another ground, and it is that—it is not merely a Tuesday private members’ day, but a public holiday—perhaps the most important public holiday in the whole of the Union. We are all working very hard, not only members, but officers of this hon. House, and I think something is due to them and to us. I think it would be right and proper if the motion should not apply to this evening. I hope that the Government will, as far as possible, meet the convenience of hon. members in a matter like this. I do so not because I want to prolong unduly the session. I understand it is the wish of hon. members generally to curtail this session as far as possible. But to-day is a special occasion. I should like to know from the Prime Minister also whether it is possible for him to give and indication for the convenience of hon. members how long the session is likely to last, and what time can we expect the prorogation of Parliament— when, under ordinary conditions, we may expect to be released from our parliamentary duties. We have to make our arrangements.

With regard to the first point, I appreciate the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that there are some members opposite who are possibly not ready to sit tonight as the result of previous appointments, and in the circumstances I think I shall recommend the House not to make the motion to sit on Tuesday nights apply from to-night. At the same time I wish to point out to hon. members that we are anxious to finish the work of the House as soon as possible. As to the second point, with reference to the view of the Government in connection with the work which they intend to proceed with, I may say that to-day there is practically nothing before the House which the Government does not hope to finish before the House adjourns, except possibly a few small Bills about which there is no special hurry.

Will fresh legislation be introduced?

No, except possibly one or two Bills which are not contentious.

The Railway Construction Bill.

Yes, but I think I may say that nothing further will be introduced of a contentious nature, and that practically everything is to-day before the House. I think only two Bills will take up a little time of the House, viz., the Flag Bill and the Precious Stones Bill. As for the Native Administration Bill, that has been in Select Committee, and although the House will still have to deal with it I do not think it is so contentious as to take up much time. The Government therefore hopes that we shall be able to finish between the 15th and the 21st June. With regard to the Flag Bill, we have given much time to it and hon. members have had an opportunity of talking about it, so that I think most of the time that the Flag Bill will take lies behind us. Much will therefore depend on the Flag Bill and the Precious Stones Bill, but I hope the House will finish before the 21st June.

Amended motion put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

seconded.

I do not know whether this is a very important Bill or not, as it has never been published and consequently no one has had an opportunity of studying it. The House adjourned last year on June 8th. To-day we have on the Order Paper 33 unfinished orders. The Prime Minister has just told us that he proposes going on with some very important Bills, but he did not mention that the Income Tax Bill and the Estimates are unfinished, nor did he mention the native legislation, the Public-Health Bill, and the Medical Bill, which are of outstanding importance. It is unfair to the House and to the country that important Bills should be introduced without publication, and on behalf of people up-country I wish to lodge my strongest protest against this method of dealing with public business.

Motion put and agreed to.

I will bring up the Bill to-morrow.

When the House rose yesterday I was trying to give a detached and impartial view of the position in which we find ourselves in connection with the Bill. I listened with pleasure to what the Prime Minister said with regard to the early prorogation of Parliament, because I can only interpret that as meaning that Government intends to be sweetly reasonable about this Bill. Otherwise the Prime Minister must be an incorrigible optimist to think that he can force the Bill through in its present form, and yet prorogue Parliament shortly after the middle of June. I think I made it quite clear yesterday that the first idea of a South African flag which did not include the Union Jack, came from the South African party before its amalgamation with the Unionists. That has to be borne in mind in considering the history of this question, for no doubt the Minister of the Interior, having regard to the resolution of the South African party conferences regarding the flag, must have anticipated a different reception for his proposals than those proposals actually received. But I am not concerned with the quarrels between the two sides of the House, and whether one side has outmanoeuvred the other. We have to look at the question not in the interests of the Government, or of the leader of the Opposition, but in the interests of South Africa, and if one mistrusts the other there is no reason why we should not seek a solution irrespective of the enmities, antagonisms, and difficulties of the various parties. This is not a party question. The people of South Africa are asked to engage in the solemn proceeding of selecting a national flag. The blunder began with the appointment of the Parliamentary Committee by the Government. There might have been a miniature national convention to deal with the question, and it would have been better if members of Parliament had been left out altogether. But another blunder was committed when the Flag Commission was appointed with limited powers, because if you appoint a tribunal to decide a question you do not begin by tying its hands. What is the good of appointing a commission and then telling them that no flag will be considered that contains either the Union Jack or the Vierkleur. The Commission could not possibly arrive at a useful settlement on these lines. There has been a bewildering series of suggestions in this matter, first it was the Crown, then it was the Royal Standard, and now it is the St. George’s Cross. What is the meaning of all this? A flag is a thing which should contain the blood and tears, the hopes and fears of the people with the seal of Parliament set upon it, but there is something peculiar about this wandering about for a flag, this chopping and changing; until it makes one wonder if there is anything in the proposal which will solve this important crisis. Last year the Government asked leave to introduce a Bill to define the South African nationality, and to provide for a national flag. I voted for the motion but I was not in favour of the flag afterwards disclosed in the Bill, and I am not in favour of the flag disclosed at the present day. I would like also to say this, we must try and be fair in dealing with this Bill, and it is not fair to say some of the things which have been said by the Opposition. I am opposed to this Bill, but I do not agree with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) who called the flag a “rag” and a “hot-cross-bun” flag, a phrase coined by a newspaper editor in Natal. The man who says that is not unworthy of the serious consideration of this House. The St. George’s flag was flown by Richard I, it was adopted by Edward III as the flag of the patron saint of England, and as far as Great Britain is concerned, the St. George’s Cross stands first. To call it a rag, simply because the Government puts it in the Bill is a wrong thing. It is a flag venerated by millions of Englishmen. If such remarks were made in England about the St. George’s flag, I should be sorry for the gentlemen making those remarks. As far as South Africa is concerned, it is an unknown flag, and I do not see any reason why it should be introduced, but I do regard it as a concession to the English-speaking people. The Dutch people do not want it, but it was put in because it was thought the English-speaking section would agree to it, and I think that description of a “rag” and a “hot-cross-bun” is an insult to those people who venerate the flag. I think again it is wrong to say this flag means the hauling down of the Union Jack. That is not correct. This Bill does not propose that the Union Jack shall be taken down, but that it shall be flown. It is true that only four occasions are mentioned, but if the South African party get again into power, they will be able to fly it every day in the year under the Bill. There is no word in this Bill that will prevent anybody in the Union flying the Union Jack or any other flag he pleases. The Bill only applies to public buildings, and nothing prevents the English-speaking people from flying the Union Jack any time they like. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Government is taking up an obstinate position in regard to the flag. They have got everything they want but the symbol. They have got the higher status, and, like every other dominion, they are an independent nation with the King as the connecting link with the empire. That is more important than the symbol; cannot the symbol wait? Surely it is better to have everything else and leave the symbol alone, rather than lose everything else because you are obstinately sticking out for the symbol.

How would you lose everything else?

Because the net result would be that you would have disunion and discord, and you will live in a welter of racial antagonism and strife, and what is the use of your higher status then, and all just because you insist upon introducing a symbol that satisfies only one section of the people. Leave the symbol alone for the time being, or else you will take the symbol and lose everything else. That is the choice you are faced with. Is the referendum fair? Is it a fair and real choice of the people? It is not a fair referendum— it is not a referendum at all, really. When you have a referendum you give the people a choice to take what they want, and it is not a free choice when you say to the people—

For the referendum to be fair you should go to the people and say—

Why put them in at all?

Let the people decide that. I should like to see them in, because I think that a nation that does not want to be reminded of the past is like a man refusing to recognize his own mother. Let the people decide it. It is not a matter to be decided by members of Parliament on party considerations. If they do not want the Vierkleur they will answer, “no,” and if they do want it, they will answer, “yes,” and, at any rate, you will have given them free choice and they will have given their decision. You will have the people’s decision. Who ever heard of deciding a thing first and then saying, “We will send it to the people afterwards.” You cannot have divided authority. Who is to have the final say in this matter? If it is the people who are going to have the final say, put the question to them in intelligible form, but don’t load the dice against them. So this referendum is really not a fair referendum, because it does not put the question fairly and squarely to the people. Let me say this, that I am very glad the referendum is in. It is better to have a referendum even in this limited form than to have no referendum at all. I have not the faintest doubt in my mind that this referendum is going to lead, not merely to an ordinary majority, but a substantial majority against the particular flag in this Bill. I think, in the long run, we shall find that the people will throw out this proposal.

Leave it in the hands of the people.

I want to leave the matter in the hands of the people. I want to give them a chance, not merely to destroy, but to build up. I want the people to suggest to us a national flag which will settle this matter for ever. The Government still have an opportunity either of postponing the consideration of this Bill before it passes second reading, or, if it must go to second reading, then after that. There are two ways of doing that, either after the second reading to have a round-table conference, not merely of representatives of Parliament, to see whether a resolution cannot be arrived at. If they do not succeed in that, there is another way, and that is to take out any reference to a particular flag and to put the questions I have suggested, one as an alternative to the other, to the people. Ask them—

Let the people decide, and when they have given their decision come to Parliament and set the seal of Parliament upon what the people have chosen. An hon. member has suggested that there is a third question that should be put, and that is—

I do not object to that, but I think we all realize that there is a call for a national flag for South Africa. We have a flag to-day. Let me just quote to show that we have a flag at the present day. The flag has been shown; I think it was referred to by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I am quoting from the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office list of 1926, a colonial regulation that deals with matters of a flag. We have it here under Regulation 149 onward—

Regulation 152 refers to the Red Ensign, and states that all other vessels registered as belonging to his Majesty’s colonies or dependencies will fly the Red Ensign without any badge unless otherwise authorized by warrant from his Majesty, etc. It is further stated that such warrants have been issued in the case of, inter alia, the Union of South Africa. The actual warrant has been issued since Union, in 1911, by the King to use this particular flag so far as vessels are concerned.

Was that submitted to the people?

We have got no means of doing so. Even the Act of Union was not submitted to the people.

It was submitted to Parliament, though.

Exactly, but these matters have not been dealt with by reference to the people. In New Zealand it was done by means of a Bill, but in Canada and Australia, where they use a similar flag to what we have got, they had no legislation making the flag a national flag. [Time limit extended.] I thank hon. members for their indulgence. I certainly will not abuse the indulgence they have given me. I was saying that in Australia and Canada, where they have special flags, they have not yet legislated. My point in mentioning this is—why be in such a hurry about the matter? Australia and Canada are far bigger than we are, yet they have not found it necessary to legislate up to the present. In Canada you have two races speaking two different languages just as we have here. Why this eternal hurry? I would like to say that I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) as to the hurry which has been shown in regard to this question. There have been two different policies in South Africa. There has been the wacht-een-beetje policy and the hurry-scurry policy. I do not know that I can say that I am absolutely in favour of either of these policies, though sometimes I think the wacht-een-beetje policy is the better one. I have not known the hurry-scurry policy ever to bring us any good. I say to the Government, let them get back to the old wacht-een-beetje policy in South Africa, and let things remain as they are for a while.

How long?

It won’t take very long before you will be able to attain to what you want, I am certain that, as far as the younger generation are concerned, they are going to settle this question in a different way from their elders. South Africa has often been hurried along too fast. We must be patient, and I ask hon. members whether they know of a case on record outside the British empire where, after a terrible war, internecine strife and civil conflict lasting for years, within a few years’ time responsible government is granted and the commander-in-chief of the enemy forces is put in power as Prime Minister.

What about Ireland?

That is not in point. I am speaking of countries outside the British empire. Can you tell me of a case outside the British empire where the commander-in-chief of the enemy forces, after what has been called defeat, should, within a short time, be in power, with the full approval of those against whom he had fought, as Prime Minister? We have had three Prime Ministers in South Africa, Has any one of them been an English-man? You want patience and a great deal more patience than has been shown in this matter. I think the Minister of Finance referred to some of the sad things that occurred during the Boer war. I would like to quote to him a verse by Dr. Leipoldt, which. I think, he wrote in 1901 in connection with the Aliwal North concentration camp. This is what he wrote [translated]—

Surely a little more patience is required before you can come to an absolute agreement on a national flag. Look how rapid our progress has been. It is only twenty-five years ago to-day since the Treaty of Vereeniging was signed. Is there a country in the world where there has been such rapid progress and development and such toenadering of the races as there has been in South Africa? Read the history of the American Civil War. It took a great deal more than 25 years for the American nation to become a united body, forgetting all the sorrows of the past. I am not here to distribute testimonials to either side. If I were to give my opinion, I would be inclined to move a vote of censure on both sides. I think there has been just as good an attempt made on the English side to arrive at an agreement as there has been on the other side. I say a little more patience and the goal is there. What I cannot understand is why there should be such a desperate hurry that you must put in one tiling, then a second thing, and then a third. Not one of these things has any significance whatever to the Dutch people, and you still say you cannot even consider the question of the Union Jack. I can see the point of i view of the man who fought in the Boer war, who has lost his country’s independence, and who does not like to be reminded of the Union Jack. If I were in his position, I would, perhaps, feel exactly the same. They say: “It is a national humiliation to us to insist upon putting the Union Jack in.” I accept that, but don’t they see that to leave it out is equally a humiliation for the English-speaking people? It is not merely a question of domination. It is not a question of the flag being regarded as the flag of England. It is just the same as asking a man to dishonour his own mother, to refuse to recognize his own mother. The Union Jack means to them the flag of their mother, England. They have come here with their hopes and fears and traditions, and they want to see, as every man does when he comes from a home, the good points of his home embodied in the new home where he has settled down. Such a man does not want to ban the photo of his mother or his father in his house. I say it is better for South Africa to allow a man to bring the best of the old traditions from other countries, and leave them to take root in South Africa. A clean slate is all very well for people, but it is not a good thing for a nation. Nations that start with a clean slate have nothing to pride themselves on. After all, you can have a slate which contains in it something of the history of the past. Why not? It is no humiliation to the Dutch-speaking man that the Englishman says he wants a little corner of the flag to represent his own ideas where he came from, his ancestry and his position. Why not? If you feel it so deeply, if you cannot agree to it, then you must drop the matter until you come to a better understanding. If you think it is a humiliation to you to have it there, it is equally a humiliation to him to leave it out. This is a national question, and it cannot be settled by a majority. If you are going to foist on the country a party flag, because, after all, that is all it is—or it is a Pact flag—I will put it that way—at any rate it is not a national flag—supposing a new Government comes into power, then, instead of having the spoils system as they have in America, we shall have flaggery, and each candidate will be asked: “Will you vote in favour of a new flag?” That is if you decide by a majority. If you decide by the common consent of the people such things are never raised again. You are going to have something like you have in the South American republics, where elections and civil wars are pretty well synonymous terms. For these reasons it should be dropped. You have your flag to go on with. There is no necessity for another. You must consult all sections. You are going to have? referendum—are the women going to be included in that? They have no vote. One section that feels deeply on both sides is the women of South Africa, and they are not going to have a word to say on this. There are other sections of the people, apart from voters, that ought to be consulted. If there is a majority of one, then this is going to be the flag of South Africa. It need not even be a majority of one on the roll. It can be a majority of one on the vote.

Would you leave it to the five million natives?

I would not leave it to them, but I would consult them as well as other people, because you are going to have a flag that will wave over all sections. I would consult every section of the people, because, after all, they are all South Africans, whether they are natives, Europeans or non-Europeans. This is the only country they know, they were here before we were, and there is no other country to which they can go. The referendum is going to be a most terrible thing in one respect. The newspapers are full of this question, and I may say here that I am not one of those who think that this was started by the newspapers. On the contrary, I think there were many men in this House who were unaware of the deep feeling in this country. It is a curious thing about English people, that you can talk about a thing as long as you like, but the only time that they wake up is when you try to push it through as an effective measure. The moment you bring in a concrete proposal before Parliament to interfere with what they regard as vested and sacred rights, that is the time they wake up. I think the deep feeling is there quite apart from the press. The matter has now got to the stage that we are going to have meetings all over the country. The papers will be full of it, and there will be no business done worth doing until this thing is over. You are going to have a welter of passion and trouble, and bloodshed possibly in some places, and all this is going to happen because this referendum is to be forced upon the people. I would like to quote from a book on the Swiss referendum. In Switzerland they have two forms of referendum, compulsory, for all forms of constitutional changes, and the optional. It is pointed out in this book how unfortunate these referenda are in the matter of public excitement. On page 79 the authors say—

That is what is going to happen, it seems to me. The excitement engendered by this matter is going to make it quite certain that this flag is going to be rejected. I am very glad, for the reason that the people are going to save the Government from the effects of their sad folly in trying to solve the flag question without agreement. What is the position of the Government going to be then? Apparently they are afraid now to do anything because of the question of their dignity. Will their dignity be any better when the people reject with contumely the proposals?

*There won’t be any contumely.

The emphatic rejection by the people of a matter carried by a large majority of Parliament is almost equivalent to contumely. It will show the Government this, that they are on a wrong wicket. I am speaking entirely as a friend to the Government when I say they are on a wrong wicket. It is only the weak man who, when he has made a mistake, is afraid to draw back. The strong man is never afraid to acknowledge that he has made a mistake. The Government have made a mistake. Let them recognize it, for heaven’s sake, if not for their own sake, then for the sake of South Africa. If they want to wait for the referendum those who have tried to give them good advice can do no more. It will certainly teach them that they have made a grave and grievous error. It has been hinted that if party capital had not been made out of this matter the Government would not have gone on with this in the form in which it was proposed. I was very sorry that when the Empire Group asked the leader of the Opposition not to make party capital out of this, he refused to give that pledge.

Who are they to ask?

I am not holding a brief for the Empire Group. I do not agree with the extreme form their patriotism takes, but I will say this, that the Empire Group put a very pertinent question. The point is whether the question was a proper one and should have been answered? They put a very pertinent and proper question, and if the leader of the Opposition at that time had given the desired answer, well I don’t know whether it would have made any difference, but it certainly would have been very much harder for the Government to resist the appeal made to them to withdraw this Bill. It is a most unfortunate thing. It may or may not have been justified. I am not here to judge the right hon. member. He may have been perfectly right in his point of view, but if he had answered the question in the same way as he gave the assurance the other day, we might have been saved years of trouble and bitterness in South Africa. I would say this to the Government. Never mind whether the answer was given at the time or not. The point has been raised, and the leader of the Opposition has given the assurance to the Government, that no political capital will be made out of any withdrawal, and I say that assurance should be enough. The trouble about South Africa is that the great men of this country, instead of trusting one another, do not believe a word the other says. It is a terrible thing for South Africa that our political leaders will not trust one another. When Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman gave responsible government to the Transvaal, it was purely on a policy of trust, which well justified itself in South Africa. We will never get back to a decent state of public living in South Africa until the leading men in South Africa begin to respect and believe and trust one another, even if they differ in their political views. I would urge the Government to take the assurance which has been given, I believe quite sincerely, on the floor of this House that no political party capital will be made out of this if the Government, even at this eleventh hour, decide not to proceed further with the Bill, and to try methods of compromise or agreement, instead of using the big stick. The Prime Minister has certainly not had to bear on his shoulders what Abraham Lincoln had to bear in America after the civil war. The bitterness in America was very different from the form in which we have had it in South Africa. There was no comparison between the terrible hatred between north and south, the awful suffering and the devastation. It does not compare with what happened in the Boer war at all. It was far more terrible, and it took many more years to recover from, and yet it was possible for this great American, after this terrible conflict, when fires were raging, when probably the natural instinct of every man was to crucify his enemy, to use the words with which I am going to conclude what I hope is an impartial appeal to the Prime Minister to realize that in what he is doing he is not behaving as a friend to South Africa. He is doing something that, if it goes through, he will be the first man in after years to regret and deplore. I would ask him, in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, to withdraw this Bill and to think of those words—

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has used some very cogent arguments and eloquent words, and he has asked the Government to adopt the policy of—

It is a great pity, in indicating that policy, that he should have thought it necessary to attack this party, and to try to place blame on us for what has happened. For if this matter was talked about occasionally in various congresses and at various meetings in the country during the years that have passed, it was talked about in a very academic strain, and nothing shows the statesmanship of leaders of the party more than in their refusal to turn an academic subject into a great live issue; by doing so and making it a great live issue they would have done a great disservice to this country. Instead therefore of this party feeling sore about such criticism, it is happy in the thought that it has done nothing whatsoever to bring the spirit of dissension on the floor of the House; it has refused to consider this subject in anything but an academic spirit, knowing that it was a discussion of something which would divide the races if it was brought into practice. In my criticism of this measure I want to speak as an Englishman who has fought for his flag, and has some reverence for what it stands for. I want to do no violence whatsoever to the feelings of my Dutch friends in anything I may say. I do not want to hurt them by a single word; but I want to do justice to my own cause. The whole of this argument revolves upon two points of view. One is that the Union Jack is a foreign flag and has nothing to do with the life of South Africa. It is to be considered as something entirely divorced from the history of this country. It is a flag of empire, of Great Britain, and as such has no part in the national life of South Africa. The second point of view is that the Englishman, in asking that his flag shall be put into the national flag of the Union, or that his flag, the Union Jack, shall form part of it, does so because he has not his thought in this country but overseas. The Prime Minister has told us he is willing to honour the Union Jack, provided it is on a separate pole as representing the empire and representing Great Britain, but he will have nothing to do with it as representing a part of the flag of this country. Now I am going to deal with the history of the Union Jack solely as a flag of this country and I am going to deal with facts in such a way, I hope, without giving any offence whatever. Before doing so, however, I want to correct an impression which has been gained from the remarks I made in my speech on the first reading of this Bill. I said on that occasion that this measure was an unconstitutional measure. I was not speaking as a lawyer. There is a written and an unwritten constitution, and there are certain constitutional methods adopted in political life which have become the constitutional practice of all British systems and which are always adopted by honest men. One constitutional precedent is that when a vital policy is to be introduced into Parliament, it is always put before the electors at a general election before introduction into Parliament. From this point of view the Pact has acted unconstitutionally. What was previously an academical matter, the Pact has brought on to the floor of this House without any previous discussion, without mandate from the polls, without any endeavour to reach an agreement before they reached Parliament. The root of our trouble, as I have seen it in my political experience, is that our political priests and constitutional lawyers will not take things for granted. There is too much theology in their political religion—too much hair-splitting about constitutional affairs. The average man worships his God without any of those theological divings after the pearl of truth and nations keep the peace in the world without worrying their heads about constitutional law. The English-speaking South African—the average man in the street—does feel that the Union Jack is part of the heritage he has gained in South Africa, and he does this for a very good and sufficient reason. The history of South Africa has not yet been written in its true perspective. The true epic of our story drawn in the bold outlines of its tremendous events has yet to be told. Hitherto we have been engaged in trivial matters of life, teacup storms in the dorp, which have broadened into tragedies and brought bloodshed to the country. The deep currents which sweep us all out to sea make no noise in their passage. It is the thunderous cascades of minute streams which disturb our lives. So it is with our history. I think that when our descendants get the true perspective of South African history, which only time in its dispassionate analysis will give, they will wonder why we quarrelled about the things we have quarrelled about. But I am going to leave sentiment alone altogether, and I am going to concentrate upon facts—facts which nobody can dispute. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), speaking some days ago, said that the Union Jack was woven in the woof of South African history, and I want to show the process of weaving. What are the facts? Get into proper focus the milestones of our History one by one and we shall see that the Union Jack has played a great part in our history—has indeed borne the lion’s share of sacrifice. British troops and the sacrifice of British lives, paid for by the British taxpayer, has been the story for nigh a hundred years. I ask whether that is to count for nothing at all, and whether the history of the past does not entitle us to place the Union Jack on our national flag. If that is not to be done, if the facts of that sacrifice are to be ignored, then ingratitude is base indeed. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) out of his memories of the concentration camps, can see nothing but tragedy in the Union Jack for members of his race. But the Union Jack flew over the military camps in South Africa long before it flew over the concentration camps and flew there amidst the heartfelt acclamations of his own people. I ask him what force has protected the western Cape all these hundred years? What force was it that fought these seven Kaffir wars? When the British first came to this country, the European population numbered only 14,929 in the 1795 census. We know from the records of that time that the country was practically bankrupt and the whole Eastern Province was over-run by kaffirs who had invaded the Fish River. The farmers had been driven out, their cattle stolen, their homesteads burnt, and their wives and children were suffering as only wives and children can suffer under the depredations of savage tribes. He knows that the Dutch East India Company could render little aid. They attempted to meet the storm by entering into treaties with the kaffir chiefs, a policy so much condemned in the British later and which led to so much trouble. The British might have rendered no aid to the farmers in their extremity and remained at Simonstown and Cape Town, and used these places just as calling ports for their ships. But they did not do that. They marched their troops to the Border and paid for their troops to remain on the Border to protect the lives and homes of the people living there. For the first time for years the farmers on the Eastern Border, the fathers of the Voortrekkers, began to enjoy the blessing of peace, and to be saved from the depredations of the natives—the first time for many years. They began to carry on their farming in the knowledge that what they had sown they would reap. That is the first milestone which is recorded in our history of the Union Jack in South Africa.

Why did the great trek take place?

I am not going to deal with politics, but with facts. I will let my hon. friend deal with politics. A change took place. The British left. The Batavian Government came, and with the advent of the new Government the kaffirs came back over the Fish River. There was no Union Jack then, the military forces were entirely inadequate to maintain peace on the eastern frontiers. The policy of the Government of that day is recorded in the archives. They urged the kaffirs to go back, but had no forces to send them back, and the old story began to be repeated. The British came back in 1806. As is the way with Governments, they adopted the policy of the previous Government in making treaties with the natives, but they did not leave the matter there. They began to back their policy by force. British forces strengthened the commandoes and British money purchased powder and shot and equipment to carry on the defences. Very soon after their arrival British troops were compelled to take the field again to defend the liberties of many of the hon. members’ forefathers—who to-day would deny us the right to fly the Union Jack. They again drove the kaffirs back over the Fish River and restored peace to the invaded territory. The whole of the frontier had to be garrisoned from then on by British troops, who were paid for by the British taxpayer; and the Union Jack all along that frontier was flying over many lonely posts in order that the western portion of the Union could live in peace. There is many a lonely grave on the Eastern Frontier filled by a British soldier, and their sole duty to South Africa was to defend it and die for it because it flew the Union Jack. So it has been all through the years. British blood and money has defended the east from invasion by kaffirs. Take the 1818 campaign. There were 1,437 regulars engaged and 1,850 burgers, fighting side by side before there was any British settlement in the country and all the expenses of that were paid by the British Treasury. In 1820 came the British settlers. What lay behind the policy which brought them here? We have it on record. According to Professor Cory, Lord Charles Somerset, writing in 1818, said he regarded the establishment of a dense white population in the frontier districts of the Eastern Province as eminently desirable, not only on account of the possible developments of those fertile regions, but also as a source of strength against the kaffirs. This latter seems to have been the chief motive underlying his enthusiasm—

So the object of bringing in the 1820 settlers was to garrison the frontier, to act as a buffer between the kaffirs on the eastern border and the ancestors of the Dr. Malans and the Dr. van der Merwes who tell us to-day that the Union Jack has no jot or tittle in the history of South Africa. Is it not true that throughout all these years Great Britain bore the lion’s share of this protection? The war of 1834-’5 cost the British taxpayer £250,000: the 1853 war cost the British taxpayer £2,000,000. At that time there were 2,000 British regular soldiers maintained on the frontier. Before a select committee on the kaffir tribes Sir George Napier stated that it was impossible for the Cape Government to support the troops necessary for the defence of the frontier. In the war of 1851-’53 there were insufficient troops in South Africa to provide for the defence of the frontier, and regiments had to be brought out from England for the purpose. There were between 400 and 500 casualties in that campaign which cost the British taxpayer £2,000,000. It was during that campaign that the troopship “Birkenhead” sank not many miles from here, with the Union Jack flying and drums beating, a sacrifice for civilization which is spurned now. To-day that flag hurts the tender souls of hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). But that flag stood for something in the days when the whole Eastern Province was aflame and this portion of the country was in danger. In the kaffir wars, and the maintenance of garrisons on the frontier, England spent £13,000,000, a fact which drew from the Duke of Newcastle the following comment—

The men whose bones were laid to rest in the Eastern Province were not lured here by gold or diamonds; they had no wealth in cattle or goods: they came here to do their duty and to sell their lives for the honour of the flag. South Africa took all it could get in money and lives in those days of its direst need, and today there are many who would deny to us the retention of the flag which symbolizes the sacrifices these men made for civilization. It is the same story in the north, and despite what the Prime Minister said about the Dutch being the first in Natal, the British were there before them. I am taking as my authority the historian Theal, an no-one will contend that he was biassed in favour of the British. I ask the House to visualize the condition of the Transvaal before the Zulu war, and what part the Union Jack played in the protection of that state. I am not here concerned with the political question of the time. I state the facts. Referring to the position of the Transvaal before the Zulu war, Theal wrote—

The British annexation had taken place during this time and the resentment which that occasioned was responsible no doubt for much, but the position was as stated on another page. That sums it up—

The Zulu was then no longer an untutored savage of the Voortrekker days, but was comparatively well armed. The Zulu war cost the British taxpayer over £5,000,000, in addition to 1,586 men killed and 280 wounded. Does that count for nothing? Do the dead at Isandhlwana and Ulundi count for nothing to-day? Many an English lad, with the bloom of Europe on his cheeks died in Zululand. For whom did he die?

For the British empire.

What was the British empire getting out of South Africa?

It is recognized to-day by the flag.

I do not know what the hon. member feels for South Africa, but I feel that the Union Jack has so written itself in the soul of South Africa that we, at any rate, in Natal, look upon the Union Jack as the symbol of the history of this country. These men did not die for any selfish purpose. They did not come here to act against the interests of Afrikanderdom. Take those two British officers at Isandhlwana, who escaped from the field with the colours of their regiment wrapped round their bodies, content to die if only they could save the flag. Does that not raise a responsive thrill in the hearts of Englishmen? Is there anything insulting to our Dutch friends in the deaths of these men? My contention is that if they could only look upon the Union Jack as containing something of value to them and would honour the traditions it conveys to us, there would be less of the trouble we are constantly encountering, and our children would grow up together in a better spirit of friendship. Let hon. members opposite take our traditions as theirs, and allow us to take their traditions as ours. The Union Jack in this country has nothing to be ashamed of, and we as Englishmen have nothing but pride in it. It has borne the heat and burden of the day, despite all that may be said against it. It is on record that more British lives have been lost in the defence of civilization in this country than Dutch lives. In the late Boer war, which has been the chief indictment against this Bill, together with the terrible things which then occurred, and for which I am no apologist, there were sufferings on both sides. More British mothers mourned for their sons than Dutch mothers. Right through history both races have suffered together. There has been no monopoly of sacrifice on either side. Finally, hon. members opposite are quite mistaken if they suppose that I, or the people I speak for, want the Union Jack because it is the symbol of Great Britain. If, through some sudden cataclysm the British empire disappeared tomorrow, and if the red flag were raised in England, it would not alter the position one iota. The English-speaking people of this country would still desire to see the Union Jack in our national flag. The Union Jack is not a foreign flag to us, but is South African by sacrifice. It is South African by achievement. It is South African by every principle of justice and freedom which it implies. It has been in the past the bulwark of liberty and the protector of civilization. It is part of the soul of the British people in this country, and enshrines the glories of the past and the hopes of the future. I do not think the British people in this country are going to lower it, whatever coercive Bill may be adopted or whatever force may be applied. But we will do this—we will share it with our Dutch friends. We will honour their symbol if they will honour ours. We will cherish their traditions if they will cherish ours. We are ready to assist them in every measure possible to build up this new nation. All we ask is that instead of pursuing divergent paths, we should go together, hand in hand, down the great highway of the future, to a greater Africa, to a more glorious destiny, and thus fulfil the high purpose which brought us together 120 years ago.

Hon. members on the Government benches are temporarily muzzled, but judging from their interjections and jeers there would have been no want of material if they had been allowed to speak. I propose to make use of the notes I made at the very commencement of the debate. I am one of those deluded individuals and there were thousands of them who thought when the Prime Minister returned from London, thoroughly satisfied that we had received sovereign independence which he had worked for so long and which, however, we had had for some considerable time, that we were in for a period of peace and contentment. Asked by my friends what I thought would happen to the Flag Bill, I expressed the opinion at that time that the Prime Minister would insist upon the Minister of the Interior dropping the Flag Bill. In this, however, we were disappointed. The Prime Minister proved himself to be one of the weakest of leaders of men and the Minister of the Interior one of the most stubborn. The Prime Minister had the opportunity of being considered to be a great man had he been strong enough to insist upon the Flag Bill being withdrawn, but he missed the opportunity of a lifetime. Why did not he reconsider the position when Sir William Campbell and others resigned from the Flag Commission, men who were all out to assist the Minister to find a solution, and who replied that through the stubbornness of the Minister of the Interior they could not find a solution. Sir William Campbell made several suggestions to the Government. In the first place he advised them to drop the Bill on the ground that such action would hasten the day when the country would be prepared to agree on a design by consent. And, secondly, he suggested the reconstitution of the Flag Commission so that it should consist of twelve members to be nominated by the leader of the Opposition and twelve by the Government and that the commission be instructed to select two designs representing the two schools of thought, and that these two designs should be submitted to the country by referendum. This was an excellent suggestion and had it been adopted it would have settled the question once and for all. Here we have only one design submitted to a referendum and it will leave the flag question exactly as it is to-day. This proposed referendum is that the dice are heavily loaded against us, it is a case of heads we win and tails you lose. It is well the country should have a flag of its own, but seeing the country consists of Dutch and English it is well that both symbols should be represented in the national flag, that is the flag of the late republics and the Union Jack. If the flag put forward to-day is adopted it will be ignored by the great majority of South Africans and the Union Jack and the flag of the old republics will continue to be exhibited on practically every occasion. Other members of the empire have settled the flag question and with only one exception, the Irish Free State, the Union Jack has been embodied in the flag. The Irish Free State flag is held up as a precedent for what is being done now. I ask hon. members opposite whether after all they would like to see this country made into a second Ireland. Do they imagine the flag of the Irish Free State will bring union to Ireland? No, never. Do they wish to create a second Ulster in South Africa? I hope not. Another aspect has been touched upon and that is the question of the natives and coloured people who have no say in the selection of a flag. Is it not right they should have something to say in the selection of the flag? It will be theirs as well as ours if adopted. From what I know of the natives I am practically certain there would be a unanimous call for the Union Jack in any flag in this country. Have these millions of natives not to be consulted in this question? The natives know that all the rights and privileges they enjoy to-day have been acquired under the Union Jack. The Pact have received no mandate from the electorate for the flag. The agitation has been engineered by a small section of the people against the Union Jack and it does not represent true public feeling. Had this animosity been shown at the National Convention does anyone expect that the Union as we know it to-day would have been accomplished? No. The Minister, rather than have the Union Jack, is prepared to drop the two flags of the republics and to ignore the deepest feelings of those who fought under those flags. He would insult his own people in the pursuit of his hate of everything British. If the Government cannot meet a large section of the community in this matter then I consider it is their bounden duty to withdraw the Bill. I generally ask myself the reason why for most things and I have puzzled my head to know the reason for the Minister being so insistent on the introduction and passing of this measure. I am convinced that one object he has in view is to get rid of the Labour branch of his party at the next general election and that he will undoubtedly succeed in doing.

And won’t that please you?

The hon. member knows that there is no one more uncomfortable than he is. Another reason is the Minister hopes to embarrass the Dutch members on my right in the House. In this he will never succeed. After the fine speeches delivered by those members in support of the maintenance of the colours under which they have fought I am sure he will never succeed in drawing them to this side of the House. The electorate at the next general election will be able to deal with members on the cross benches. I quite agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) when he said that the Prime Minister would have been glad to drop the Bill but for the support promised by the Labour branch of the party. Those members of the Labour party are really responsible for the disaster looming over South Africa. For the fruits of office they have sold their birthright and their flag and have betrayed those who put them into office. If this Bill is passed they will have the satisfaction of knowing they have foisted a flag upon us which will be hated by every British South African in the country. The Minister has expected the British, as they usually do, to take this matter lying down, but I assure the Government they have made the greatest mistake. They have only to consider the public meetings which have been held throughout the country and the resolutions which have been passed and if they do I hope they will accept the amendment and hold the Bill over.

I feel in coming into the debate at this late hour like the poor man who has to pick up the crumbs which have fallen from the rich man’s table. I can only expect to emphasize some of the points which have been dealt with and which require endorsement. I am one of those who, in 1909, was not in favour of the South Africa Act as passed by the convention. A great many of us in Natal were in favour of federation rather than unification. We were in favour of Union but we thought a better form would be federation for a start, but the people of Natal after discussing the matter adopted by a majority the South Africa Act. At that time we were assured by our English and Dutch friends that Natal and the British section in the Union would have no reason to fear anything from their Dutch friends in connection with unification. We believed we could trust them because they had been treated so well by the British Government and people that we felt, out of gratitude, they would meet us as brothers. We trusted them and went into Union, although some of us had doubts and fears as to what might happen if ever the backveld got into power. Some of the things that are happening to-day were predicted as the things that might happen, and some of our fears are being realized. During the first five or seven years of Union we felt our fears had been exaggerated. The Dutch were led by the Governments under Botha and Smuts and the people were satisfied with the Union and asked for nothing else. Recently there has been a change for the worse. The trend of the present Government’s legislation has revived the feeling of alarm which had passed away. At the time of Union the fires of racial hatred had practically died down, but the present Prime Minister began to stir them up again and today they are blazing fiercely. The Prime Minister and some of his colleagues are still not satisfied with the evil work they have accomplished, but since then and by their persistent attempts to force bilingualism on the people to a greater extent than was ever contemplated in the Act of Union and by their displacement of English-speaking officials and by their inopportune and reckless introduction of this Flag Bill, they seem determined not to stop short of anything but a conflagration. I am not going into the design or the merits of the flag. What the English-speaking inhabitants of this country fear is not only the attempt to take away their traditional and revered flag, but what that attempt indicates, what is behind it. They fear that what is behind it means a complete separation from the British Empire. We have seen a tendency in that direction in previous legislation. Now it is going from bad to worse until it seems to us that the introduction of this Bill and the proposed flag which it is sought to force on the Union of South Africa means nothing more nor less than complete separation by and bye from the British commonwealth of nations. I wonder whether the Prime Minister realizes exactly how momentous this question is. Last year, just before the end of the session, the leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to give the House some information as to what Bills he intended to bring forward before the session closed. The Prime Minister replied that the only matter of a contentious nature still to come before the House would, possibly, be the Senate Bill. Three weeks afterwards, when he was again asked by the leader of the Opposition to state exactly what legislation he intended to put through, the Prime Minister said that the Bills which still had to come—

and yet after that, these specific statements, the Government brought in a Nationality and Flag Bill. It has generally been recognized that the only grounds upon which such a Bill should be passed through this House would be after an agreement had been come to by all sections of the people and I think any person of common-sense would say that if you want to introduce a new flag into a country you must let the people have a say in the matter and get their approval. But this Government do not do that. They simply make up their minds what the flag is to be and say—

In the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of the 1926 session the following paragraph appeared—

In passing, I may point out that it is there stated at the beginning of 1926 that South Africa had an independent nationhood and also that we had an accepted national status. Yet we find it claimed by the Nationalist party that these things were not obtained for South Africa until our Prime Minister had gone to England and taken part in the Imperial Conference. Their own words contradict them. But where is the agreement which was mentioned in connection with that Bill? All the attempts that the Government have made so far to secure an agreed flag have been nipped in the bud by the conditions which they have always laid down. From the beginning they have said that no flag which had the Union Jack upon it would be considered or accepted by the Government, and, therefore, the whole of the attempts made to obtain an agreement have been stopped at the commencement. At the last convention that was held in connection with this matter the question was put to the chairman at the first meeting—

The answer was emphatically no. It was no use going on with that convention, and I am sorry that the members of the convention did not leave the room at once. Certainly at the time of Union there was no thought of any changing of our flag. It was understood that the Union Jack was to continue as the flag of South Africa, at any rate, for many years to come, and I say it is a breach of faith on the part of the Government and the Pact party at the present time to try and introduce any other flag into this country which does not include the Union Jack. If they had come to us and said—

and if they had invited everybody who was concerned in the matter to express an opinion and had allowed a few years to pass before a decision was come to, I think we have come to an agreed decision. It is a curious thing that the Emperor of Germany, who we all know was no great friend of the English people, is reported immediately after the Boer War to have expressed his conviction that—

He certainly took it for granted that the Union Jack was to remain in South Africa. Let us suppose for a moment that Germany had won the great war and that she had annexed, as she certainly would have done, South Africa as part of her dominions. Would the Germans have allowed anybody in this country to suggest having any other flag here except the flag of Germany? Any person who had attempted to raise such a question or had introduced it in this country would have been very summarily dealt with. I can understand why our Dutch friends do not want to have the Union Jack as it is the flag of South Africa, but why they should object to having the Union Jack on our national flag, even on a quarter of the flag, is beyond my comprehension. That has not always been the case with the Dutch people. There are some of them who have been satisfied to have the Union Jack on the flag. I may mention one, an honoured name in this country, and that is Mr. F. W. Reitz, who was at one time president of the Orange Free State. He himself designed a flag which he suggested should be the flag of South Africa many years ago, and that flag was described as follows: From top to bottom, red, white and blue; superimposed half way over the red and white is the Union Jack, and the bottom blue running the length of the flag—undoubtedly a flag with a certain beauty.

When?

About forty years ago. It just shows how long the opinion has been held. If it was good then, why not now? I would like to know why that design was not considered when the others were considered. I believe such a design as that would satisfy most of the people, both British and Dutch, and would put an end to this hateful and dangerous controversy. I would like to ask our friends over there who are so anxious for a flag without the Union Jack, what would happen to their flag supposing it was flying in some foreign country and it was insulted or flouted. What would they do to exact an apology or reparation? Without the assistance of Great Britain they would certainly be absolutely helpless and could do nothing to exact reparation or maintain their dignity. In fact, they would become the laughing-stock of the world. Supposing that flag was flown on one of their own ships that they are going to have one of these days, and some other ship belonging to some other nation said “What flag is that: We have never seen such a flag. What does it mean?” But if on a quarter of that flag appeared the Union Jack they would say: “This is one of the ships under the protection of the British nation. We had better take care how we treat it.” This is not fancy. A recent case occurred in China where a Canadian missionary was maltreated in connection with this Chinese upheaval, and the Canadian people wanted to bring a case against the Chinese and demand reparation. They could not do it. They had to ask the British Government to deal with it. That is exactly what would happen to South Africa. The people on the other side, who are continually saying: “South Africa only,” by and by will find it is “South Africa alone.” It will be cut off from the rest of the world, and have no consideration from anyone. This action of the Government was not contemplated, or even thought of as far as I can find, when the Act of Union was agreed to. If it had been, there would have been no Union—there is little doubt on that point and I am quite certain that Natal, at any rate, would never have come into Union if it had thought that such a Bill as this would ever have been introduced into the Union Parliament. If it is forced through there is no doubt it will cause tremendous animosity, anger, bitterness and probably strife, the extent and consequences of which cannot at present be estimated. A great deal of the responsibility for that will rest upon the head of the Labour party in this House. The Government have no authority for this flag legislation. No mention was made of it at the last election. I would like to point out that this Government does not represent the majority of the inhabitants of South Africa. Nearly all the English-speaking people are against them, many of the Dutch-speaking people do not want the Union Jack eliminated from the flag, and practically all the natives are satisfied with our present flag. Even the majority of the voters of this country are not on the Nationalist side. Some time ago the figures of the polling at the last general election were gone into very thoroughly, and the following was the result: at the general election in 1924 the South African party polled 147,920 votes, and they secured 52 seats; the Nationalist party polled 110,252 votes and got 63 seats; the Labour party polled 43,813 votes and got 18 seats, and the Independents polled 10,130 votes and got two seats. You will find on analysis of these figures, that in each province except the Orange Free State, the South African party showed a handsome majority over the Nationalists. In each of the two provinces, the Cape and Natal, the South African party vote by itself outnumbered the combined Nationalist, Labour and Independent vote. Each S.A.P. seat represents 2,843 voters, each Labour seat, 2,428, but each Nationalist seat only 1.750. Therefore, as a matter of actual fact, if the 110,252 votes of the Nationalists were represented in the Assembly by seats on the same basis as the South African party seats, a simple calculation shows that the Nationalists would have a bare 39 members instead of 63. These figures are authentic, and can be relied upon to show that the Nationalists and Labour party put together are not more numerous than the South African party vote. I would like to say a few words in connection with the speech of the Minister of Labour. He did his best to try and do something for the Labour party to revive their drooping spirits, and I must say he made a very heroic attempt to justify their position. But to me he seemed to make their position only more conspicuous. It is well understood now that it is the Labour party we must thank for this Bill being pressed forward. It is acknowledged by those in the know that if the Labour Ministers had stated they would not have this Bill it would have been dropped. This is confirmed by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) who made such an admirable speech the other day, by Mr. Jamieson, the late Secretary of the Labour party, by Mr. Eaton, Mr. Coleman and other men, honest, straightforward men, who are prepared to back up their opinions in spite of the Labour caucus. I am not surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Labour. He owns no allegiance to the Union Jack. He cares not what flag flies above him, except one. His flag is the red flag, the flag of revolution, of anarchy and of strife. We have his own confession. At the time of the armistice the Durban members were asked by the “Natal Mercury” to give a message to the people, and we each sent a message to the “Natal Mercury.” This is the message which was sent by the Minister of Labour—

The red flag? It ought to have a gilt edge round it.

The Minister of Labour said that papers were being sent round for the people of Durban to sign, pledging themselves not to vote for those who supported this flag in the House of Assembly. He said that municipal or mercantile employees were being told that if they did not sign, they would lose their jobs. It shows how reckless some members are in making statements in this House. I have a letter which appeared in the “Natal Mercury” signed by Mr. White, chairman of the Durban Municipal Employees’ Society, which states—

Yet we have a Minister of the Crown, who ought to have some sense of responsibility, standing up in his place in the House and saying something which is grossly untrue. I have received a telegram from the Chamber of Commerce at Durban which states—

We, of course, take their statements before that of the Minister of Labour. I think that most hon. members are aware that a magnificent meeting was held in Durban last Wednesday evening. Over 10,000 people passed a resolution in favour of withdrawing this Bill, and not forcing this flag upon the country. This was a very powerful and strong meeting, and it shows very clearly what the feeling of Durban is on the matter. I can say to the Minister of the Interior that if he insists upon forcing this flag through, the people of Natal will never recognize it, honour it, or respect it. I hope he will agree to the suggestion made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, and accept it. In the meantime, let us go on with the business of the country, and that will save a lot of confusion and trouble.

It was remarkable how few hon. members opposite were present during this debate. It is clear to me that they do not care.

Who would not get tired of those stories?

They do not care whether bitter feelings are provoked or not, and they have been muzzled by the Government in the secret caucus. I am surprised that hon. members have no views of their own about this important matter. They allow the Government to design a flag and unconditionally accept it without expressing an opinion. They silently allow a flag to be foisted on them. It ought to be beneath any hon. member to allow himself to be silenced when such an important matter is being debated. I want to ask hon. members whether they are satisfied with the Union flag which is proposed.

Certainly, it is a beautiful flag, and a solution.

Cannot my friend see how even in the villages the public is excited, and that we cannot remain quiet in this House, but must express our opinion? What happened in the old days? There was a discussion in the Free State, for the first time, in 1856, about the flag. How was it solved? Was it dealt with as is being done to-day in this Bill? No, a flag was agreed to which gave satisfaction to everybody.

Was the Union Jack on it?

That is not in point. The position was different then, but they came to an agreement, and when the flag was hoisted for the first time, joy and gratitude were expressed that they had got a flag which everybody had adopted, and everyone was then prepared to sacrifice his blood, and to die, for the flag.

What flag was that?

The colours of Holland with orange added, and a letter was sent to thank Holland that orange had been permitted to be used for the flag. In the Transvaal a flag was agreed upon in 1858, and there was unanimity about it. To-day however, hon. members want to permit a flag to be forced upon us for which I shall never have nor be able to inspire in my children the least respect. I know my feelings as an Afrikander, and I can also interpret the feelings of hon. members opposite. There is not one of them to-day, especially among those from the Transvaal, who can cherish any love for that flag. That is why they are quiet to-day, and are helping the Minister to push the Bill through. The Minister has searched in the English archives and found a flag there, which is centuries old, and with which they are satisfied. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) said at Stellenbosch that we could not permit dead bones to be put on to a living flag. Can anyone speak in such a way about so delicate a matter? He was a minister of religion, but apparently does not know his Bible where it speaks of rebellion. That is the case with the flag. The Vierkleur, whether it was dead or not, is given new life in the new flag.

What will it stand for if it rises up again?

As a republican flag it had already been dead once in the Transvaal, and it arose again as a republican flag.

Must we then necessarily connect the republic with the colours of the Vierkleur? In the new flag it will stand for the combined Union of South Africa.

I am surprised at your ignorance.

The hon. member has never yet made a speech with anything constructive in it. Let him exhibit his great knowledge, and tell us what he thinks. I will then listen to him in the way one ought to listen to a debate on such an important matter. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) has mentioned here what occurred in 1891. At that time President Reitz had said something about a flag of the eventual union. One of the English authors travelled in our country at that time and met President Reitz. They talked over the possibility of a union of South Africa. President Reitz said that the union of the four provinces would certainly come about, and that the time would be ripe to make one people and one nation of the four provinces. If that happened, he said, we Afrikanders will insist on our principles, ideals and traditions being maintained. When he was asked what the flag was to be, he replied that no other flag was possible for a united people than the flags of the Transvaal and the Free State together with the Union Jack, and he even made a design of it. He said that under no other circumstances could satisfaction be given.

There were no republics then.

I have suffered and made many scarifies for the Vierkleur. I was wounded three times, and I am not ashamed to rise here again to-day for the Vierkleur, and to say that I want it to be flown again. Nor am I unwilling to give the English-speaking people an opportunity of having the sentiment which they attach to the Union Jack incorporated in the flag. In this way we shall obtain a flag for which everyone can have respect. I do not regard the Union Jack as the flag which is dominating South Africa. It is the flag of Natal and of the Cape Province. There are four provinces, and what right have we to say that we do not want it in the national flag. The Prime Minister said that he would not permit it, and from that we can only infer that hon. members opposite are ashamed to-day of their own past.

You do not, yourself, believe what you are saying.

I am not ashamed, but am proud of my past.

Now I do not understand the hon. member.

The hon. member understands nothing. He was born and grew up under the Union Jack, and all the protection he has ever had was under that flag.

My protection was in the camp.

They fed you quite too much.

We are put into an unfortunate position with this Bill today, because it will bring dissension and disunion into the country.

You people are busy causing it, and not the flag.

However moderately persons may act they will not be put outside the discord. There will be discord throughout the whole country. The Minister of the Interior is out to work up Afrikanders against English-speaking people and English-speaking people against Afrikanders, and he goes still further and works up Afrikanders against Afrikanders. That I blame him for.

Are the English-speaking people not Afrikanders then?

I stand for getting harmony in the country, but the Nationalist party want to get disunion. Does the Minister think that by dividing the people he will have peace in the country? No, the country will suffer through it, and we shall go back to the old days of quarrelling and dissension. When I had finished fighting against the English whom I tried in every possible way to kill by force, and when I laid down my arms at Balmoral I made the resolution that I would take the hand of anyone who wanted to extend it with the object of making our country a great one. That is the standpoint I took up at that time after the peace, and which I still maintain to-day.

You do not want to take our hand, however.

I will tell hon. members what happened shortly after the war. There was then hostility between those who had remained in the field and the English, and also between the hand suppers and “joiners,” who assisted in pulling down our flag. Our leaders, as well as hon. members behind me, then said that the enmity could not be kept up. Our leader told us to go to our relatives and to give our right hand to our former comrades, even if they did fire on us in the field, so that we could all co-operate to make the country a great one. When we had’ constructed bonds of friendship with them there still remained the English enemies, and we were told to co-operate with them as well, so that they would assist in carrying out the ideals which we had for South Africa. It was a sound principle for the upbuilding of our people to extend the hand of friendship to former enemies. To-day, however, an apple of discord is being thrown among the people. The Prime Minister said that the apple of discord already existed, and that he would do what he wished, and would put the Flag Bill through.

It is left to the judgment of the people.

Ought a Prime Minister to say such a thing? Must he oppress the minority when he is in power? No, the minority ought to be considered.

There is to be a referendum and the minority must submit. If you are in the minority then you must submit. We also will do so if we are in the minority.

I am not inclined to swallow the Red Cross.

You, therefore, want the Union Jack, but not the Red Cross?

I have had conversations with the hon. members for Losberg (Mr. Brits) and for Fordsburg (Mr. J S. F. Pretorius) about the colours of the Red Cross flag, and they said that the green represented the Voortrekkers’ flag.

Were those Lobby conversations?

Now I ask how that can be so. I have never heard of it. If they had had a flag then it was the one that they used in the colony. Green as a colour in a flag was never known there. Green is used on ships that are sinking or have already sunk. If it is put on our flag it means that we are retrogressing, and that we are not progressing and succeeding. It is often said that the South African party and the leaders of the Opposition are the cause of the feeling existing to-day about the flag question. The South African party never brought up the matter. The flag question was discussed last year with the greatest respect and, as far as possible, kept outside of party politics, but to-day it is pretended that we have caused the strong feelings on the question.

What did your leader say when the Empire Group approached him in the matter, and asked if he would not try to make political capital out of the withdrawal?

Your leader started the fire the other night.

We also said that we wanted a national flag.

Without a Union Jack.

That is what you say, but not a single member of the South African party said that at the meeting

What does the document say?

What document?

The one your leader signed which was discovered.

We never at any meeting discussed the colours of the national flag. The flag question was dealt with and everybody felt that the time would come when we would have a national flag which all would respect, but the colours were never decided on.

What about the resolutions of the congress?

I admit that the speeches quoted by the Prime Minister were made, but not a single speech said what the colour was to be.

You said without the Union Jack.

We only uttered the desirability of having a national flag, and we stick to that to-day. We want a national flag with which the people will be satisfied.

Without the Union Jack.

The Prime Minister himself showed that we supported a national flag by quoting the speeches which were made on the countryside. To-day this Bill is before the House and the country, and it has produce nothing else than divisions with the object of ruling. I hope that the people will not allow itself to be misled by the Bill to create divisions. We want a national symbol, because the people are ripe for it. The Prime Minister said the other night that he was speaking on behalf of the Dutch-speaking people. I do hot blame him in doing so as an individual, but I take it amiss in him that, as leader of the people of South African he says openly that he is only speaking on behalf of a section of the people. He has no right to do that. An ordinary member may have the right to speak for a section, but the Prime Minister must not speak for only one section. I have just as much right to speak for the one section, but I also speak on behalf of the other section of the South African population which has just as much right to the maintenance of its rights as the one section for whom the Minister pleaded. I am deeply disappointed about the speech of the Prime Minister.

I still more at your speech.

I am prepared to sit down and to give the hon. member a chance of speaking. He interrupts one so much that it is very disturbing. I listened attentively to the speech of the Prime Minister. He spoke for three hours, and I particularly noticed two big principles, viz., deadly enmity towards the leader of the Opposition which came out in every word he uttered. It seems to be a nightmare with him. He used insulting language to such an extent that Mr. Speaker had to intervene.

Tell us about the document.

The other chief point was deadly enmity towards the Union Jack. He will not admit anything about the flag, and will not consider the sentiment of the English-speaking population. One can very quickly divide a people, and little is required to produce a conflict. Why then have we this Bill to-day which will bring about the greatest disunion? If a flag is required to improve the position of the people, then it is another matter, but I say that if this flag waves we shall be worse off. It will take many years to get the people together again. How long did it not take before the Union came about? Years and years. Things had to take place and the time to become ripe. If to-day there is no agreement about the flag, why should hatred and envy be aroused among the people? The slogan used to be, and should remain, to do nothing that hurts each other. Furthermore, we ought to preach unity in the country, but legislation of this kind excites the feelings, and I hope the Minister will still repent. I can tell him this—that if he puts the Flag Bill through the people will not accept the Red Cross flag. A meeting was held in my district of supporters of all parties, and they agreed that the people of South Africa will not accept that flag, that it would be a thorn in the flesh of the whole population. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has entirely forgotten his past, but does he not know that there is hardly a single Free Stater who does not hanker after his old colours coming to life again? It will not occur that anyone will love the Red Cross so soon. The hon. member will have to plead a great deal to have the flag accepted, and if it were not a party matter he would not to-day dare to stand on a platform and support this flag. Let us have the combination, and then we shall have a flag which will give satisfaction.

Before I come to deal with the main issue of this Bill, I would like to say a few words, now that the Minister is here, in reference to the opening clauses of this Bill and the definition which is there laid down in regard to South African nationality. There is one aspect of that matter that I would like him to consider. In the course of this debate we have had some reference made to British citizenship, and the Minister admitted, if I understood him correctly, or, if he did not, some other speaker said it, that, notwithstanding the definition contained in Clause 1, a South African national would still remain a British subject, but although that may be so —probably it is so as a matter of legal right —one or two expressions have fallen in the course of this debate which seem to me to point to the necessity for expressly declaring in that portion of the Bill, that the creation of a South African nationality does not impair in any way the rights of a South African national as a British subject. I believe the Minister of Finance incidentally referred to this point. He described himself as a British subject by compulsion, and he seemed to think that it would be sufficient for him to describe himself as a South African national, and that he would be protected as a South African national extra-territorially. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), in an interjection to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), who asked him what South Africa would do to protect its nationals in China, put to him the point, what would Belgium or Denmark do? Let us just take the case of a South African national who found himself in difficulties there, and appealed to the Minister of the Interior for his protection. Let us just contrast that position with that of a subject of Belgium in similar circumstances. If an appeal were made to the Minister, he might, perhaps, offer up a prayer, or make a speech, but whether that would be entirely effective or not, I do not know. In the recent disturbances in China, when the affairs of subjects of Belgium came in jeopardy, it was most significant that an application was received from the Belgian Government asking the British Government to take care of its nationals. I venture to submit that in the same circumstances, the Minister of the Interior would ask the British Government to give its assistance in the protection of South African nationals, and he would be the first to assert their right as British subjects to that protection. Au express declaration of that portion of the Bill would be of some value. There are, at present, treaties which regulate the rights of British subjects in various parts of the world. I have in mind a treaty which was made between Great Britain and Japan in 1911, to which the Dominion of South Africa expressly declined to be a party under that treaty, the right is given to all British subjects to practise their profession or trade in Japan; in other words, to have exactly the same rights as a Japanese national would have. It has been pointed out that a nation like Japan might very well resent a Dominion policy which differentiated against its subjects. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a discussion of this question in Keith’s “Imperial Unity and the Dominions,” in which he points out that although at the present time subjects of British dominions are entitled to British diplomatic protection, it is impossible to assume that that will be permanently satisfactory to foreign governments. We recently passed, as I believe against the will of the people of this country, legislation popularly described as the Colour Bar Act, in which we excluded certain foreign nationals from doing certain work This Bill we are passing now may be considered, not in our courts but in the courts of Japan, and it may be that as we have created a South African nationality, they may say we have ceased to be entitled to the privileges which British subjects are entitled to by virtue of those treaties If there is any possibility of legislation reacting in that respect upon the heads of our nationals abroad, do not let us, in this Act, allow anything to be used as an excuse for drawing that distinction. I hope, in committee, to move an amendment which will make that point entirely clear. May I point out there is an omission in the Minister’s definition of a “South African national,” because he seems to have entirely omitted any reference to the ease of a wife whose husband has ceased to be a British subject, but who elected, under the Act of 1906, to remain a British subject. There is a further point I should like to refer to, with the object of getting the Minister to give us an explanation when he replies. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) yesterday afternoon drew attention to the fact that outside the House there was, rightly or wrongly—I need not discuss the point at the moment—a volume of opinion that there was a suspicion in regard to secession, and I would like the Minister to explain exactly what he means by the phrase. “British community of nations.” As far as I can see, he has used the phrase which was used for the first time in constitutional practice, in the articles of agreement under which the Irish Free State was constituted. The purpose of my question will be apparent when I draw attention to an expression used by the Minister himself last year. When the Minister was addressing the House last year he said—

This is a direct contradiction of what his own leader stated when he returned to South Africa in December, 1926. Perhaps the significance of the point will be realized more when I draw attention to the fact that whereas the Minister of the Interior keeps referring to the Union Jack as the flag of Great Britain, his colleague, the Minister of Labour, is under the impression it is the flag of the British Empire, and we have there an inconsistency of which the House is entitled to an explanation. When the Prime Minister returned from Europe, he explained what is meant by the expression, as used in the report of the Imperial Conference, of the “British commonwealth of nations.” He said—

I ask the Minister what he means by that phrase in Clause 3, and whether he can reconcile that statement with the one made by the Minister of Labour. In coming to the main issue, I would like to go no further back than the adjournment of this House last year, after the preliminary discussion on the merits of this Bill. That discussion was closed by the Prime Minister moving the adjournment of the debate. He effectually prevented further discussion and he dealt with the matter to some extent on its merits, and he concluded on a note which left no doubt as to the principle that should be considered by the country during the recess. He said—

That showed that at that stage, certainly the Prime Minister, and possibly the Minister of the Interior, realized that this was a matter that could not be dealt with by the mere brute force of a majority, but it was a matter where he would have to carry the country with him as a whole, and if possible be dealt with by co-operation. In coming to that conclusion I think that the Government must have been influenced by that remarkable and spontaneous outbreak of feeling which occurred about the 26th of May—and which is still continuing to manifest itself throughout the country. I remember at that time there was a suggestion made—I think by the Minister himself—that that outburst of feeling had been engineered by the S.A. party. It was repeated on many platforms and in many places. That it is not a political movement, and that he is wrong in his diagnosis, I hope he has at last learnt in the interim, and that it is the expression of the spontaneous feelings of a large section. What did the Minister do to ascertain the state of public feeling and public opinion on this Bill’ I take it that he should have taken some pains to ascertain what people’s feelings might be in this country; but as far as I know the Minister has not addressed a public meeting where he dealt specifically with this question. I cannot call to mind that any such meeting took place in the country, but I can say that the Minister took no pains whatever to place his views before the people of this particular portion of South Africa and to ascertain how far the people were in agreement. I take that as a serious omission on his part, when he made the statement that feeling had been artificially stirred up—and took no steps to ascertain what the feeling of the people was. It would have been a useful and educative opportunity for himself if he had gone to Durban, for instance, that “curiosity shop”— or to the coolie and native reserve, and found out how far this agitation was a real or an artificial one. If he had confined himself to Cape Town, where he is better known, he could have addressed a public meeting which would have shown what the feeling of the public was. I would like to come to the 14th of December and deal with a matter which has already been fully referred to by our side of the House. It seems to me worthy of repetition as an indication of the opportunity the Government has lost of putting his matter on a truly national basis. When the Prime Minister returned on the 14th of December, 1926, the reception given to him in Cape Town must have been gratifying to him. There have not been many similar functions in Cape Town where a statesman or politician could feel he had made so favourable an impression in dealing with the task he had undertaken. I cannot remember anything do spontaneous and genuine as the applause that followed the Prime Minister at the first few functions he attended here. People showed him that if he was prepared to make a fresh start he would find thousands of his fellow-countrymen ready to follow him. I do feel that I might usefully remind the House of some of the sentiments that were then expressed by him, and I may quote from the speech he made when he addressed the citizens of Cape Town in the banqueting hall on the 14th of December. He said—

How many times have hon. members on this side of the House, perhaps unconsciously, repeated this sentiment of the Prime Minister? How many times have they referred to that close tie? Who could have put this sentiment better than the Prime Minister did in that speech? It was a feeling that was not shared by himself alone. His colleague, the Minister of Justice, made a speech a few days before, and in dealing with secession he said—

He went on to deal with this, which has since, on the part of some of his colleagues, been called a “foreign flag,” a “flag of oppression,” and a “flag of conquest.” He said—

The declaration made by the Prime Minister and his colleague seemed to me to clear away a few misapprehensions which have existed so far as the political programme of Nationalism was concerned. It seemed to me if these sentiments were really entertained, we could feel that this question of our connection with the British empire was lifted above the plane of party politics for ever and remained an agreed and settled factor in our political life. The Prime Minister laid down that it was perfectly consistent for a good South African to have a very deep and great regard for the traditions and land of his forefathers overseas. Not so long ago it was held to be inconsistent for a good South African to be also a good citizen of the British empire, but the Prime Minister on his return from London said that these two were perfectly reconcilable. These declarations of the Prime Minister seem to indicate that the spirit of the Imperial Conference, the spirit of free co-operation and goodwill and a determination to work together for our mutual interest, was to be transferred to our political life in South Africa, and that we were going to put behind us the racial divisions of the past, and work together towards a brighter future. If the time which has been spent in discussing the flag question had been converted into a joint effort which took in hand the native problem and the expansion of the Union northwards, is there any limit at all to the possibilities open to us? If at that stage, when we seemed to have opened a new chapter in our history, the Prime Minister had remained firm to the principles he had laid down we would not be having this debate and our country would be happier. I now come to the stage where I think a very heavy responsibility rests on the Minister of the Interior. At the very moment when the Prime Minister was laying down these principles, on the very night of December 14th, 1926, the Minister of the Interior was taking care to “queer the pitch.” Without previous consultation with, so far as I can see, his colleagues, or a careful consideration of the development which had occurred, the Minister of the Interior went to the City Hall and said that the Flag Bill would go through in the form in which he had introduced it the previous year.

He flouted the Prime Minister.

When this point was made earlier in the debate, the Minister of the Interior replied that the Cabinet’s decision was given the previous year. In other words it seems to me that the responsibility for forcing this decision on the Cabinet, and the responsibility in the first instance for bringing about the trouble and the conflict, rests entirely on the shoulders of the Minister of the Interior. One wonders after all we have heard about the “lion of the north,” the “lion of the Free State,” and the “champion of liberty,” what they were doing when the Minister of the Interior took the opportunity to force his views on the Cabinet! For the moment the Minister of the Interior held the position and was determined to “hack through at all costs.” In allowing him to take that decision the collective responsibility of the Cabinet is considerable. It is clear that the Minister of the Interior is entirely out of touch with the public on this question. I do not think he can claim that he took any particular means to ascertain what public opinion was. He is really a hermit in his outlook, and he might well have remained in that cave at Calvinia from which he emerged to lead the Cape Nationalists. The result of his determination to proceed with the Bill is not to bring about a national flag, but a sectional flag and the whole object and purpose of the introduction of the Bill falls away unless he can carry the people of South Africa with him. When the Prime Minister left the Imperial Conference he came away in an atmosphere of goodwill and co-operation. Should he meet that same conference three years hence in order to describe what he had done in the meantime, what a report he would have to lay before the conference! He would have to report that having left London with the expressed desire to work together with all sections in South Africa in a spirit of goodwill the very first act of this “newly-freed Government” was to force on an unwilling minority something entirely repugnant to them. How would we figure in the eyes of the other dominions if that were the report of the result of the conferring of this “greater freedom” on us? It is a terrible commentary on the policy of the Government that we should find ourselves on Union Day, 1927, discussing a matter which makes for discord and division. This is the blackest Union Day that has ever dawned in South Africa. I hope that as a result of the debate the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior will realize that the feelings we have expressed are not prompted by the desire to further party interests, but represent the sentiments of thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-countrymen outside the House, who stand amazed at the intolerance with which the Bill is being forced on the country. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) said he thought the Labour party had been wrongly charged with the responsibility for introducing the Bill, but when the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) assigned to the Labour party the responsibility for what had occurred his words were not challenged by his colleagues, and, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) says—

I would like to read to the hon. member a comment on this responsibility, and to show how far the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is correct—

The writer of this article is Mr. Arthur Barlow in “Pictures in Parliament,” and two days ago his constituents passed a resolution, which I will read for the benefit of hon. members—

This matter is too serious for these debating points, but I quote these extracts in confirmation of the attitude of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), and, as such, it is worth placing on record. I think his speech was a truly courageous utterance, and the people of South Africa will realize that it was made under considerable difficulty, and was made because he was determined the truth should be placed before the House.

Don’t you give Barlow equal credit, then?

These interruptions coming from my left, perhaps, presage an intention on the part of those members to stand up and speak. I hope it does, because, hitherto, the impression created is that by some order emanating from the joint caucus they have been muzzled and gagged for fear they should blurt something out which they ought not to. I venture to ask the Prime Minister if, at this stage, we might move the adjournment.

No, the hon. member must finish. I am quite prepared, when he has finished, to move the adjournment of the House.

I would like to remind hon. members on my left that responsibility, on their own admission, rests upon them in connection with this matter.

The National Council decided to support the Government.

No other statement of the policy of the Labour party in the course of this long debate, has been put before the House—

made an interjection.

We should like the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) to stand up and say on what grounds he thought the hon. member for Pretoria (West) should leave the Labour party for what he said. I say to hon. members to my left, they hold the key of the position in their hands. If they wish to demonstrate it, here is their opportunity. They have seen the state to which this debate has got. I ask those hon. members—is it impossible to arrive at a solution of this present impasse. [Time limit.]