The frequent statement has been made by members of the Opposition that there has been no participation in this debate from the cross-benches. A great deal of possible harm might have been avoided if hon. members on their side had not said some of the things they did say. Fuel would not have been added, as it has been, to a public opinion already made inflammable, and the matter would have been treated in the calm dispassionate way which would tend to cement the races for all time and facilitate the development of the country along lines which would be for the ultimate good of the South African nation. The Labour party has been charged by members of the Opposition, almost ad nauseam, with being responsible for the impasse which it is claimed exists to-day.

Quite true.

The Labour party is not accepting responsibility in the sense in which it is implied by the reflections cast upon it. The Labour party is going to claim the credit for making the last big gesture of the English-speaking population of this country to their Dutch-speaking fellow-South Africans which is finally going to dispose of this race matter and set us along the road to progress. The Labour party is charged with having lent itself to the exclusion of the Union Jack. The Labour party claims it has assisted in an attempt to set up the Union Jack with the British community of nations and to signify that the old menace of secession, of republicanism, upon which admittedly the National party was built up in a decade or a decade and a half, has been disposed of, and that, from now on, the people of this country have without equivocation accepted that position of equality and sovereign independence which has been advertized so widely. In future when matters of moment are put to the country concerning our own domestic affairs they can be adjudicated upon by the electorate without the issue being obscured by appeals to passion. At every general election in the past since Union, with only one exception, this flag question has been introduced with a view to prejudicing one section against the other section, that thereby political advantage might be snatched. If the attempt in which the Labour party have assisted at the present time is nullified or defeated, it is possible the consequences may be grave, and that they may have repercussions, but these consequences will lie at the door of those who could not rise above parochial loyalty and see with a vision more truly Imperial. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) yesterday delivered a speech which was something in the nature of a challenge to the Labour party. As I have listened to this debate I have been struck by one remarkable fact, and that is the great concern manifested by members on the other side for the Union Jack, for the imperial connection and for all those things which are involved therein. I say they have shown this great concern while so few of them have ever made any sacrifice or been involved in any risk in attempting to set up that flag. But when I look at the Government side, and I see the faces of those who are trying to solve this flag difference, and to arrive at a joint solution, I see that a substantial number of them, if not the majority, are men who have not only risked all, but in many cases have sacrificed all for those things which they believe in. It has been said by hon. members of the Opposition side that members on the Government side are only concerned with the abolition of the Union Jack, that their hatred of the Union Jack is such, that they will sacrifice anything if only they can get rid of it. Surely the matter contained in the Bill absolutely contradicts that statement. When the provision for a distinctive national flag and that signifying the Imperial connection were put in different clauses, it was due to the representations of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Heyburn) that those two provisions were included in the one clause so that there should be no suspicion of precedence or afterthought. It is easy to laugh at these things, but here we are confronted with a situation which, in the words of the members of the Opposition themselves, is a serious situation. If one analyses their speeches during this debate, one finds they have tried to impress upon us that this country is on the verge of a tragedy, a thing none of us really believe, because again in the Bill provision is made that if the people do not desire the flag proposed by the Government they have the option of turning it down. Surely nothing could be more liberal than that. Referring to the relative claims of members to speak on this matter with feeling, so far as I have been able to read the minds of the Afrikander people with whom I have been associated, and they are many, all I can read from their actions and words is this, that they are desirous that those things which are to them a sacred memory should be put away in a place where they can remain sacred and not be brought out into the hurly-burly of present-day political altercation. Where they shall be consecrated in history, a sacred memory upon which no hatred or resentful bitterness shall be obtruded by a forced resurrection in association with, and overshadowed by the flag of the conqueror. If they were permitted to put their flag away in this way and embark upon a new era of co-operation without it being forcibly impressed on their notice that this co-operation had been brought about through their having been placed in that position by a conqueror, that would facilitate, beyond all power of calculation, our amicable and harmonious co-operation in the future. Hon. members on the Opposition side have, in effect, said to the other side—

That has been the implication of speeches of hon. members of the Opposition.

What have you been doing?

Shake hands every time?

If we go back to the time when this division between the races was made almost irreconcilable and look back to matters which are now history, I think we English-speaking members of this House, and certainly the English-speaking members of the crossbenches, will not assert that it was a quarrel between sportsmen. If a huge fellow were to attack a little fellow in a corner and said to him—

and the little fellow, not being accustomed to cringing, decides to fight, and the big fellow says—

is that a sporting proposition? The onus of proving sportsmanship is upon the British people in this country, and to-day they have their opportunity. The first action towards proving that sportsmanship and that truly imperial breadth of mind is to do something I have never yet known to be done by any hon. member of the Opposition, publicly or privately— to express contrition for things done in the past towards a smaller but not a weaker people— smaller numerically, but not les strong in culture and ideals; and having expressed that contrition, the next step for a really great and Imperial people to take would be to offer reparation, which is the best form of contrition. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was the one speaker on the Opposition side of the House to impress me as having a true desire to arrive at a solution on this matter, and it is a pity that there are not more hon. members for Yeoville on the benches of the Opposition. If it were so, I am satisfied that the difficulties existing, which are growing and increasing as we encounter them, would diminish and gradually vanish, and we would arrive at a solution. The hon. member for Yeoville was taxing the Prime Minister with not having discharged the duty that falls upon him to find a solution of this almost insoluble question. But he might have turned to his left and included in his strictures his own leader, because what has militated against an amicable solution more than anything else has been the consistent refusal of that leader to accept the olive branch held out—

That is untrue.

—or in any way to indicate that he would welcome the holding out of an olive branch. That has never been done; on the contrary, he has unequivocally said he would not give his word that it should be dealt with in a non-party way. This must be a question of national policy, for which the Government of the day, whoever may be in office, must take responsibility; but the initiative rests with the Opposition how that policy shall be met and dealt with. The Government cannot make it a party question; but the Opposition can. If the Opposition from the beginning had said that this matter would not be decided on party lines and that the press dogs were not going to be let loose, that we shall meet and discuss the matter and keep the discussion within fields in which party politics shall not enter, we would not have arrived at the present state to which this test of endurance has brought us.

What line has the Labour party taken?

I shall tell the hon. member just now. There is an inconsistency which marks the attitude of the Opposition on this question. They ask that we should forget the past and look to the future, and at the same time they assert the right to set up for all time an active agent to keep that past alive. The Opposition have, by the acts of their members in this House, and of those they represent outside, shown that they do not desire to put the past aside; they want that past bitterness of race division perpetuated. The initiative has been taken by the Government to make an honest attempt by the course they have followed in introducing this matter, to the end that that should be put behind. One may say that the Boer war, when it ended in 1902, ended one of the most unfortunate periods of South African history, and since that time we have been passing through what historians will term a transition period. I believe we are on the threshold of a new period. Our sovereign independence has been conceded and accepted, and we are setting out definitely to make our own future without domination from elsewhere. Surely that is a time we should say we are commencing a new—a fresh life—and we should put aside all these things that have militated against cooperation in the past. I am an English-speaking scion of a small nation—not by choice—but it is so. I think that I myself am in the position of a referee in this matter. I understand the feelings of the English people, but I also understand the inwardness of the feelings of the people of small nations. That I have inherited, being the scion of a small nation. I feel that whatever is said will have very little effect on the Opposition, and will not deflect them from their intended course. When God created man He never created a cleaner man than the clean Englishman, but Englishmen must not fall into the error of thinking that they are the only Admiral Crichtons of human-kind, for God created other equally clean men of other nations —men with an equal regard for justice and human advancement and for the carrying out of those broad lessons which were taught by the Master whom the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) professes to represent. The English people in Great Britain are not unaware of what is going on in this country, but we have no evidence that they are greatly perturbed as to the outcome of this debate. On the contrary, we have evidence that they feel that this country is quite capable of managing its own affairs, and they conceded us sovereign independence, without any such reserve in their minds as is apparent in the minds of Opposition members. For instance, the “Saturday Review” suggests that the Prime Minister was not unreasonable in proposing the inclusion of the Royal Standard—

It is common knowledge that these papers are referring to the facts which will confirm the record of the advances made by the Government during this controversy. Each succeeding proposal which came from the Government side on lines such as the inclusion of the Crown or the Royal Standard have all been turned down almost with contempt, and it is rather remarkable to find a party in this House, professing to stand for all that the English-speaking people respect, with regard to the monarchy, turn down the proposal that the British Crown should be included in the domestic flag—they turned down such a proposal with absolute contumely. As to the attitude of Labour, it may be information to hon. members that the Labour party of Great Britain subscribes to the idea of British community of nations.

Including China!

The Opposition would like to include China in a community of British nations. They made the attempt just following the Boer war, and we have no guarantee that they would not again make a similar attempt. The British Labour party has always taken the lead in Great Britain towards cementing the sentimental and economic ties which bind the young nations to the mother nation. It was from the Labour party in Great Britain that emanated proposals for empire marketing of dominion products and that a guarantee should be given to dominion producers. Is that not effective in building up the empire? Labour is not destructive, but constructive in its outlook.

It abolished Imperial preference.

There is a division in this House which has been apparent in all previous divisions in this country. We have a party on the Opposition side who are the successors in politics of those people who first exploited the divisions between the two great races. Just as in those days, when they precipitated war and when they used the Union Jack for their purpose, they are using the Union Jack for the same purpose to-day. They say we on the crossbenches are a Labour and socialist party, and are allied to a conservative party. That is true, but we have one great thing in common, that is, we stand for the common people. The hon. members on the opposite side have always stood for South Africa as represented by an array of statistics and they never went below those statistics to see in which way our prosperity, represented in the statistics, applied to the common people of the country. Those on the other side, and on the cross-benches, attach more importance to the conditions of the common people than they do to the column of advertized statistics and that is why we are so closely allied. It is said that we have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. Have we? Well, at any rate, if that is true, it was my own birthright I sold and hon. members here who are taxing me with having sold it have got no birthright. There was a time when it was alleged that the British empire, in fact world democracy, was in danger, and we went to war for the rights of small nations. Of those hon. gentlemen who are taxing the Labour party with having sold their birthright, how many of them made any sacrifice or took any part in it?

Only three.

They were not all over age either. And I submit to the House—

How many of the other side fought for the English?

What about the neutrality resolution?

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has made a mistake. He knows perfectly well that the leader of the Labour party, now the Minister of Defence, who has given his assurance of support in this measure with his party behind him, at the beginning of the great war incurred the opprobrium of a large portion of his own party—

On a point of order the hon. member has accused me of a misstatement.

That is not a point of order.

I want to make a personal explanation.

Is the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) prepared to give way?

He has given way; he has sat down.

The point of order. If, when the member for East London (North) rose, and the hon. member for Springs sat down, is that not taken that the hon. member for Springs has given way?

The hon. member for East London (North) stated that he rose on a point of order and if a member rises on a point of order any other member must sit down. Is the hon. member for Springs prepared to give way for the member for East London (North) to make a personal explanation?

Yes, sir, if I have made an error.

The hon. member for Springs has stated that I have made a misstatement. I said the Labour party had passed a resolution of neutrality.

They never did.

The hon. member for Springs thought I said his leader had taken no part in the war. My statement was that the Labour party at East London passed a resolution of neutrality to take no part in the war.

I heard the hon. member for East London (North) comment on soldiers as gentlemen and so on, and I am surprised he took such an occasion to make an interpolation of that kind because he knows that at the time of the East London resolution Colonel Creswell was away in uniform serving on one of the fronts.

No, he was not; he was at Geneva.

The war would not have lasted a week if the labouring classes of Great Britain and other dominions had not stood behind their Governments, and I hope that when another similar conflagration threatens the world that the labouring classes and the working classes will think long and deeply before again standing behind them. I just want to say that the outstanding difference between the two parties on this question is that members on the Opposition side are more concerned with what they consider the stability of a young nation by having behind them the big guns of the British empire rather than, on the other hand, by having the unity of the people behind them. We of the cross-benches and hon. members on the Government side are not so much concerned with the safeguarding of the interests of those exploiting this country from New York, Berlin and London and any other place where big finance runs wild, as we are to develop our own resources by our own people for their own benefit. It is said this Bill has been conceived in a spirit of racialism and I say that is decidedly so, and that is not a confession but a claim, a claim that it was conceived in a spirit of racialism which hon. members on the other side are unable to interpret. It is not conceived in a spirit of bi-raeialism but uni-racialism and the underlying intention of the introduction of the measure is to do away with bi-racialism in this country and begin on an era of uni-racialism; to lay the foundation of the one white South African race of the future. The Labour party, as I said, accept a share of the responsibility and they are going to claim their share of the credit for having faced a question which the Opposition confessedly evaded. The leader of the Opposition has had tributes paid to him by his own people in their speeches because they say he had the wisdom, the foresight, to evade such a question and leave it alone. I do not know when we are talking about high courage and optimism, whether it is very patent evidence of that courage and optimism to say that on cogent questions of this nature we should step aside and relegate them to our children for solution. [Time limit.]

I move—

I object.

Withdraw!

May I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his objection?

Order! We cannot have discussion on this matter.

Objection withdrawn.

I shall try not to abuse the indulgence which has been granted to me by the House. It is probably correct, as has been stated, that had the Labour party intimated to the Minister of the Interior when this question was first mooted that they were opposed to such a measure, that measure would not have been introduced, but in our opinion that would have been a very cowardly evasion of a very pregnant question, of a question which must be faced sooner or later and the sooner the better in our opinion. Our reasons for supporting him were these, that the Bill in its essence contains no element of injustice to any section, while at the same time it does concede a long overdue instalment of justice to another section, and that is the underlying reason which impelled the Labour party to give its support to the Minister of the Interior in introducing this measure, and I think the hon. member for Yeoville will bear me out when I say that our representatives on the Select Committee who first dealt with this matter in all things did what they could to see that the susceptibilities of the English-speaking section of the community were not offended in any way. We co-operated and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), who has been subjected to more vituperation and obloquy than any other member of the Labour party throughout, worked day and night to try and get some common ground on which we could meet to discuss a suggestion or suggestions which would offer a solution. I am sure that if the hon. member for Yeoville were referred to he will endorse what I say in this regard. I pay the same tribute to the hon. member for Yeoville, who has been just as anxious as anyone to find a solution which will not disrupt, but which will bind. Labour has been specially singled out for attention by the members of the Opposition. I suppose the members of the Opposition take it for granted that on any subject which is introduced into this House by the Government they must of necessity oppose, but they evidently think that the Labour party sitting on the cross-benches is out to support whichever side seems to offer the greatest advantage politically. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Labour party are fully aware of the use which is going to be made by the Opposition and its press of their action in this question of a flag. The Labour party are prepared to sacrifice their representation in this House for that which they believe to be right. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) seemed to take rather a delight in saying that he would like to fight my seat against me on this question. I am quite prepared to fight my seat against the hon. member on this issue, and I am quite prepared to lose it. But this is just the difference in outlook. Members of the Opposition seem to think that the whole end-all and be-all of politics is to secure seats regardless of principles. It seems to me that this is an appropriate occasion on which to declare the Labour party’s attitude on South Africa’s status. The Labour party embraces the nationalism as represented by the Government benches without any reserve. We subscribe to that nationalism 100 per cent. That is not done to get seats. The status which has been acquired, admittedly, through the previous exertions of the leader of the Opposition upon which the apex was set, and which was set down in clear terms by the work of our present Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference, those things are what the Labour party look upon as of extreme value to the young nation, and we ourselves, while we believe the members of the Labour party, or the Labour party as a body of opinion do not consider that any intelligent people require a monarchy; we do not believe that a monarchy is necessary to weld together different sections in a nation. We believe that intelligent people can govern themselves, and, therefore, while sentiment on the part of many of the members on the cross-benches still binds them over to the old regime, there was no reason economically why they should not subscribe to any policy which furthered the economic independence of this country and also its sovereign independence. We have in our ranks people who do not consider that a republic would be a bad thing and we have men who have a great sentiment and regard for the Union Jack, and that regard is none the less real and deep because it burns in the heart of a Labourite; but they do not do lip service to the slogan “South Africa first.” They subscribe to “South Africa first” and they are prepared and not only prepared, but determined to transmute that slogan into action by saying that South Africa itself will make its first claim upon the service and the loyalty of South African citizens. I would not like it to go abroad that the Labour party are making a virtue of expediency in this matter.

A virtue of necessity.

The Labour party, as I say, subscribe entirely to the nationalism of South Africa which the leader of the Opposition presumably had in view but which he never really voiced, but if we are to believe what is implied by the utterances of hon. members there, he was gradually leading them along until the Unionists one day would find that they had suddenly become Nationalists. Hon. members on the front Opposition benches have disowned any connection with or influence from the Sons of England or the Empire Group. I do not know whether they have acted entirely sincerely in that regard. I think myself that they have really sensed the feeling amongst the English-speaking people in the country through those bodies, and it was decided that there is in these indications something which could be exploited to embarrass the Government. The attitude of the Sons of England and the Empire Group towards this question has been this, that if an agreement is not possible, why not leave things as they are? That in other words means—

or, as the Dutch-speaking Afrikander sees it, with obtuse complacency the English say—

The unreasonableness of the attitude of the Opposition is aggravated by the fact that the Union Jack for the first time in South Africa is provided for by statute in this Bill. The Opposition have consistently evaded that. This point has never been referred to in the speeches made by the members of the Opposition, but they have consistently tried to concentrate the thoughts of their listeners and readers on the suspicion that, underlying the introduction of this Bill, the Government have some sinister intention, such as secession, or the revival of the old cry of republicanism. If that attitude of theirs is justified, then I say that all the proceedings of this House must be farcical. I do not believe it is justified, but if the word of one gentleman given to another gentleman counts for anything, then they must know that this is a mischievous intention to sow suspicion, because the most explicit declarations have been made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and others. When the Minister of Justice was speaking in the Transvaal just about the termination of the Imperial Conference and when he must have spoken with the authority of the Prime Minister, he said unequivocally that no constitutional question now exists in this country. That secession as a plank in the National party platform was a thing of the past. Was it a small thing on the part of the Prime Minister, that having had his party rally to him as it did following 1912 when a school of political thought and aspiration aimed at the restoration of the independence of the Dutch people, was it a small thing for the Prime Minister then to turn round to his people and say—

I ask any fair-minded, straightforward man, was that a small thing for the Prime Minister to do?

He told us he never meant that.

What about 1910?

We are not talking about. 1910; we are talking about 1928. We are faced with a different position of affairs in this country from that of 1910. The Prime Minister, having once and for all disposed of that menace—as English-speaking people, perhaps rightly, regarded it—has established, I say, a first-rate claim upon sober-minded consideration for any proposal like this to try and cement the two races together. The Minister of Justice, at the same time as he made that declaration, said the National party were quite prepared to revise Article 4 and delete from it anything which would militate against the acceptance of this new position.

But have they done it?

The whole effort of the Opposition throughout this debate and throughout the whole controversy has been to create the impression that the Prime Minister has now gone back to consummate the sinister work which was begun, and to that end all the speeches on this side have been devised to create the impression that this Bill aims at pulling down the Union Jack. Hon. members know perfectly well that is not so.

They are a thundering lot of hypocrites.

Hon. members know perfectly well that when any patriotic Englishman in South Africa has flown the Union Jack he has not flown the flag of this country. On what occasion did the people of South Africa accept the Union Jack as the flag? It has no authority except the authority of the British army. The truth is that the English-speaking people of this country, even those people who do not subscribe to “South Africa first,” but who unashamedly say that their sentiment is still attached to the home overseas, those people are at liberty to fly the Union Jack 365 days a year. But now, in addition, they will be flying the Union Jack as an official flag in South Africa. That is what the Government has done for English-speaking people, but hon. members on the other side have been at great pains to disguise that fact from them. So long as that line of argument and action is taken just so long will it be utterly impossible to get the people of the country to give an unbiassed and unprejudiced and clear-minded expression of their views on this matter, because they are being wrongly informed.

You could fly the Chinese flag if you wished to.

I know, but the Chinese flag would not be the official flag of this country as the Union Jack will be now. It is said that South Africa will be a two-flag country. I was born in a two-flag country, and I trust South Africa is not going to become one. Whether it will or will not depends on the genuineness of the protestations of English-speaking South Africans that they owe allegiance first to South Africa. If they are sincere, it is not going to be a two-flag country, but if they say “No we give our daily material allegiance to South Africa, but the allegiance of our hearts and sentiments we give to Britain,” if that is done then it is going to be a two-flag country. The Union Jack is indisputably the flag of Great Britain. The retention of the St. Patrick’s Cross invites derision, and, if inapplicable where it originated, is surely incongruous as the symbol of nationhood for a people the majority of whom are, by origin, foreign to Britain. It is, in fact, to South Africa a “foreign flag,” where the great majority of the people are descended from a country foreign to Britain. What is there offensive about belonging to a foreign country? Surely when the Allies were fighting together side by side they were allied to foreign countries, and Germany also was allied to other countries foreign to her. So where is the offensiveness in the use of the term “foreign”? South Africa is a Power to-day; sovereign and independent. She is allied with other powers which form a league or a community, and’ she is an integral part of a cohesive whole. It was emphasized by the Minister of Justice that when Britain or any other of the community partners are at war, we also, ipso facto, must be at war. But that position does not invalidate our individuality. It will be necessary, however, before any of the partners participate in any war, to get the sanction of the Parliaments of those partner nations before they can participate. It is to be hoped that that knowledge will have some restraining influence on Great Britain, because there is not the slightest doubt that while the last world-war was a tragedy, a still greater cataclysm is overshadowing the world to-day, and it may devolve upon these smaller nations in the community of nations, to avert such a catastrophe. It is claimed that the community of British nations is the first real league of nations. If we accept this and go further, and say this will be the forerunner of a greater league of peoples whose interests and national outlook and codes are identical with ours; if, in fact, it should prove to be the initial step taken towards world peace and understanding and, if this league of nations is really going to assist in the national development of the world, then surely they would not exclude nations which do not fly the Union Jack as a symbol. It would be absurd. If that would be their attitude towards foreign nations, why should they not apply such reasoning to South Africa? The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the Government had no right to decide what symbol the English-speaking people should have. At the same time he said he was opposed to a referendum. The only possible conclusion we can draw is that the South African party must be the only people who have the right to decide this matter. The Government have made provision for the only possible alternative to submitting it to the South African party to decide, and that is they have provided for a referendum, so that if the people do not want the Government’s proposal, they can leave it where it is.

Is that the best case you can put up?

The right hon. member for Standerton has introduced an amendment. As far as is possible by agreement, what is provided for in this amendment is provided for in the Bill. The amendment becomes meaningless, because the Government has already made the provision for exactly the same basis of agreement as is provided for in the amendment, and if South Africa already has a flag, as stated by the hon. member for East London (North), then the amendment is vet more meaningless. There is nothing very criminal in proposing a flag such as the Government has proposed, because we find in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, 24th November, 1920, that Mr. Maasdorp, the South African party member for Wakkerstroom, moved, seconded by Mr. Kretzschmar—

Shame. You didn’t only try to pull down the Union Jack, but also to do away with “God Save the King.”

I submit that the implications of that motion are far more drastic than anything contained in the Bill. If we look at the list of those who voted for the motion, we find amongst the “ayes”—

Eventually the motion was agreed to. The Labour party, hon. members of the Opposition will note, on that occasion voted exactly as they are voting to-day. They voted for it. The “noes” numbered 18—

It is true there were Nationalists in the Provincial Council who voted against it, but they had very good reason. They had reasons which would not exist if the same question was introduced now, because Mr. Hofmeyr moved, seconded by Mr. Schonken—

They cannot applaud the Prime Minister too much, because he came back with the sovereign independence of South Africa laid down for all time, and now he is following it up with what was adumbrated by the South African party in 1920—he is following it up with the South African Nationality and Flag Bill. Yet, what was right for the South African party is utterly wrong for the Pact.

May I ask the hon. member if he will now read on what took place in the debate, and the action to be taken by parties on that resolution? [Interruption.] In that exclusively South African flag the Vierkleur was to be included.

Play the game!

What about sportmanship now?

Read on.

It is said that numbers of people voted for the Labour party at the last election in 1924 because they considered that the Imperial connection was safe in the hands of the Labour party, The implication is heard that, as to the flag question, we have exercised the whole matter of the Imperial connection. [Interruptions.] With regard to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), I am sorry I have not the matter of the debate here. The hon. member was aware two days ago that I was going to use this. I showed it to him two days ago. He cannot claim an advantage that way now, because he should have said then—

He did not give me the slightest inkling that any inference to be drawn from what I have quoted would be altered. The hon. member can be his own moral mentor. We of the cross benches are not responsible for the hon. member’s own individual standpoint. I do not know what the hon. member thought of Russia’s action in withdrawing from the contest in the middle of the war. Nor have I ever seen such a proceeding in sportsmanship a man walking off the field in the middle of a game. The hon. member for Pretoria (West), speaking on the amendment, quoted some high authorities and opinions, one of which he said was the Prime Minister who was endorsed by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. He wanted to impress upon us: that it was our moral right to act individually in this matter, and that we are not bound by any agreement arrived at by our party as a party, or with another party. That was the whole inference. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) must have made a mistake when he referred to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) as a white ant. He must have made a mistake—in referring to the wrong bench. If, as stated by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), the Minister proceeded with the measure when it was repugnant to the Labour party—

What I said was [interruptions]

Will the hon. member for Pretoria (West) address himself to the Chair.

What I stated was that the Minister of the Interior definitely said that this was not a party question. He admitted it at the time I spoke.

Should not be one.

If it is true that the Minister of the Interior places this matter outside the party arena, he consulted his political allies at the moment, and asked us whether this Bill contained anything repugnant to our party, and our reply was in the negative, and that prompted him to go on with the measure. Is not the moral right and duty of the Labour party absolutely undeniable? How can members of the Labour party, having said we would support the Minister, withdraw either individually or as a party? The hon. member for Pretoria. (West) also said, quoting that authority, that a delegate and a representative were analogous, and that there was very little difference between them; that it was laid down by this authority that a delegate had the power to act without a mandate, and is, in effect, a plenipotentiary. We agree; and that is the reply to the charge made by hon. members of the Opposition on many occasions, that this matter has not been submitted to the electorate in 1924, and that, therefore, we are acting without a mandate. The hon. member’s argument absolutely justifies the action taken by the Labour party to-day. Everyone knows, it is common knowledge, that the matter of the flag was discussed only from the political platforms of the South African party at the last election

Every election!

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) professes to be shocked by the “outburst” of the Minister of Finance. That bitterness is perfectly understandable to me. The Opposition should try to look at things from other people’s standpoint also. During the Boer war not only were the regular forces of Great Britain employed, but forces from the dominions all over the world were concentrated here to make the desolation more complete. We remember how it was bruited abroad that the lion cubs had rallied to the assistance of the old mother hon. and because they came from the ends of the earth they were held up to praise and glorified, although they had suffered no wrong and had no concern in the dispute. Perhaps it had its aspect of glory about it, but what was the attitude of the British press and Government towards those who responded to the call of the blood on the other side to resist wrong and aggression? The Minister of Mines and the Minister of the Interior have been taunted with the fact that they were born under the British flag—British subjects. When the commandoes from the Transvaal and the Free State came into the colony and their blood brothers, drawn by race and family ties joined the commandoes, did we, the sporting British who hold ourselves up as paragons of fair play—

Don’t you speak for the British.

Did we glorify the action of the people in the Cape Colony who went into the war in the same way as troops from Australia and Canada did? When the leader of the Opposition invaded the Cape Colony did he ever tell the Dutch colonists that he did not want them? That they were wrong to join him? Numbers of them were executed, others were imprisoned, others were fined amounts which represented the full amount of their personal property and farms, and thereby lost all their substance and were reduced to poverty. I know these people intimately and no one on the Opposition side can say that we have not looked at this matter impartially. Therefore, when the Minister of Finance, or any other with his experience, does exhibit a certain bitterness on this subject I understand that bitterness thoroughly. It should be the business of every man who has any regard for the unblemished reputation of British fair play to do his utmost to wipe away that bitterness and to eliminate from the minds of the Minister and his colleagues those bitter things which undoubtedly did occur. Our action at that time was indefensible and our best earnest that we realise it is to admit it. I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). He said why hurry, and pointed to the instance of Canada. I am quite sure that the two instances are not at all parallel. There are, it is true, two races in Canada, but the territory which they were colonizing was after all Crown Colony territory. The French were never established in Canada as an independent nation.

They were conquered by English troops.

The French were the colonists of Canada. While the amalgamation of two peoples was taking place in Canada it was the amalgamation of two sections of colonists under a common flag, but the difference here is that you have two nations occupying contiguous territories. Those two nations went to war and one of them was obliterated as a nation. That is what makes the difference. Having recognized that reparation is necessary and is going to be a real step towards achieving unity, then we of the Labour party say that we the English-speaking people must concede to the ex-nationals of the two republics their right to look upon South Africa as their own domestic territory and to symbolize that in the flag we adopt.

Have the English people no right to territory here?

The English-speaking people have the lion’s share of the bargain. Even if this measure goes through as it is before the House to-day what will the English-speaking people have lost?

What have they got?

They have got, not a subject people, but a brother nation. They have a nation which is prepared to build up with, and not be a drag on its imperial parent. Reference has been made to the fact that we are dependent on the British navy for our protection. I am quite sure that South Africa, in common with other dominions, would be quite prepared to contribute its share for its sea protection. But has that been done by other countries flying the Union Jack? The Opposition cannot get away from the early Victorian standpoint, when we maintained the two-power standard. There is no mistress of the seas to-day, and singing “Rule Britannia” will not keep anyone from your shores. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) says that a large section of the Dutch population have no respect for law and order, and coming from that hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, it seemed doubly unfortunate.

He was referring to the Voortrekkers.

One of the commonest reproaches of the English people against the Dutch is that the reason the Dutch do not succeed in land settlement and in other ventures is, that when they are in difficulties they run to the Government for help—in other words, that the Dutch look upon the Government as the father of the people. In the eyes of English-speaking people that seems to be in many cases, a reproach. Then it is alleged that the Dutch have no respect for law and order. I am not sure that the leader of the Opposition remembering the tragedy of 1914, would not admit that, because he then subjected the people to a test which it was almost impossible for any people to endure. The leader of the Opposition also being a Dutch Africander, has himself at times exhibited a disregard for law and order. In 1914 when law and order did not provide him with sufficient power to achieve his ends, he ignored them, but he secured law and order afterwards by means of an Indemnity Act. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) also said a deep suspicion existed. By whom is that suspicion engendered and fed? When we listen to the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) saying that amongst other things threatened in this measure the English language would be assailed—

He did not say that.

What I did say was that any argument brought forward in connection with the Bill might in future be brought forward against the use of the English language.

I am quite satisfied with that explanation. Let us look at the English-speaking and the Dutch-speaking South Africans in the House.

Look at the clock rather than anything else.

Is that your English sportsmanship? You have no idea about it.

Why don’t you say something, Madeley.

Keep the Minister quiet over there.

We find on the Government side of the House that all the Dutch-speaking South Africans are bilingual, and they follow the interminable debates in English and understand them. If the Dutch-speaking South Africans are bilingual, surely there is no threat to the English language coming from them. They are proficient in both languages. The English-speaking members are not proficient in either tongue, and most of us, amongst them myself, have not even a rudimentary knowledge of the other language. The hon. member knew, when he spoke of that possibility, that it was founded on nothing substantial, and he knew it was being disseminated through the press to the people for them to say—

He wanted to make the flesh of the English-speaking people outside creep.

This is a non-stop run.

On a point of order, I think the hon. gentleman has forgotten how to stop.

I am making some sort of attempt at any rate—[interruptions]—regarding languages, flags and emblems—

Say a word about regarding patience.

If the hon. member does not care to listen he is not compelled to. We do not hear the Volkslied sung at the bioscopes. When they sing their song they do it with reverence. In the towns the English-speaking people— [interruptions]. Just as they debase the National Anthem so they want to debase their flag. No people can entertain respect for anything thrust upon them every day and night week after week. I will tell the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) the story of a friend of mine—[interruptions]. This friend expressed concern for the Union Jack; he was a member of the Labour party, a Jewish friend of mine. He was against the encroachment of Asiatics in Natal and the Transvaal, and we talked about the Union Jack and Asiatics at considerable length. I happened to be in West Street, Durban, when I saw a three-storeyed building with a not very wide front, and on top there were five flag poles in a row, and from each pole flew the Union Jack, I went and brought my friend and showed him the flags about which he was concerned, and asked him if he felt now the flag was secure. He said—

It was flying from the top of the Bombay Bazaar.

Is not Bombay an integral part of the British empire?

My friend said that if he had to have both or neither, he would choose to have neither. I know I have transgressed very much on the hon. members. [Interruptions.] I will tell them a way which is not the way to solve it. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) told the Prime Minister that was his job, and expressed a desire to help, but if I quote from the “Cape Times” of May 17th from a leading article written on the first reading debate, perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville will ask those who speak after me to disavow those sentiments—

If this pretends to express the feeling of English-speaking people in the country, it is very unfortunate for those wishing to solve this problem. I would like to sound a serious note and to go back to the days of the great war, when English people were making big sacrifices, and those who made the biggest sacrifice were those who made the least noise about it. We remember the biggest tragedy of the war, the execution of an English nurse in Belgium by a German commander. Her last words were—

The people, who erected a monument to Nurse Cavell, did not put those words on her monument, yet they should be the words by which we should remember her for all time. We have been called a Socialist party. Does it follow because an Englishman is a Socialist he is no less an Englishman? I would like to quote other words by an Englishman who gave his life in the great war.

Don’t be a bore.

I know I am a bore to the hon. member, but it is good that he should hear the truth. The words I want to quote are—

Your whole speech denies that.

That was written by an Englishman who gave his life for his country, the man who wrote that was a socialist, and would have scorned the words used by the hon. member for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The canteen heroics—

Is the hon. member in order in referring to the words of the hon. member for East London (North) as canteen heroics?

I did not hear him. Did the hon. member refer to them—

Yes, I used the words “canteen heroics.”

The hon. member must not use such words.

Very well, sir, I withdraw them. I bow to your ruling. I would not have used them except that it was a simile which I knew the hon. member would understand. If hon. members of the Opposition had more regard for the sentiments expressed by people who have made a sacrifice they would concentrate less on the malodorous kind of vituperation habitually coming from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and there would be a better chance of getting over the difficulties existing to-day. If those influences are eliminated we shall succeed in welding ourselves into a country and a people, not concerned with to-day or yesterday, but a country which has got its eyes on the to-morrow of South Africa, and has a still larger horizon to look forward to as a partner in the commonwealth of British nations.

I sympathize with the hon. gentlemen who have just walked out of the chamber. I only wish that I had been able to do the same after sitting for two hours this afternoon listening to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen). He is not one of those hon. gentlemen who frequently addresses the House. This, I think, is the first occasion on which he has had to ask for the indulgence of the House, and after the exhibition this afternoon, and the long speech of ill-digested rubbish we have had from him, I take it it will be a long time before he comes again and asks for our indulgence. We were deploring the fact—[Interruptions.]—In the early days of Japan, before that country was opened up to Europeans, there used to be a ceremony known as “trampling on the cross.” That was a ceremony every European had to undergo before he was allowed to enter Japan, signifying that he abjured Christianity and all that it stands for. Listening to the hon. member for Springs, I wondered if he is instituting a new game, a new pastime in this country, “trampling on the Union Jack.” In every line, in every word of his speech, he set out to vilify, to degrade, to jeer at, to mock and to sneer at that flag, which, I am glad to say, not a single Nationalist member has done. He set out to out Herod Herod—to out-Hertzog Hertzog. He set out in the manner of some members of his party to deride and belittle everything that we on this side of the House and many of his colleagues on that side of the House hold most dear. Nothing that England has ever done was right, nothing that the republics or the Dutch-speaking people of this country have done was wrong. I have a profound contempt myself for that type of Englishman. As a matter of fact, we know that he is not an Englishman. We know that he is a Sinn Fein Irishman.

And very proud of that, too.

Ah! We have got it now. The hon. member has been putting the viewpoint of Sinn Fein as that of an English-speaking South African. If that is the last word of the Labour party on this question, then the Labour party is doubly damned and doomed in this country. I challenge the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) to fight me in his constituency on the vote of the Labour people. I would like to fight him and any other Labour member in this country on the issues raised by the hon. member for Springs. I would like to circulate his speech and mine, and say to the electors—

I know what the verdict would be.

He is being congratulated by Winburg.

No doubt he will get congratulations from some members on the Government benches. But I have no doubt most of them will have for him the contempt we would feel on these benches for a Dutch-speaking member who got up and systematically vilified the republics, and all that the republics have stood for. If you will allow me to say it, the only feeling we have on these benches for an hon. member who professed to speak for the English-speaking people in this country, and who made such a speech, is one of undisguised contempt. He had the effrontery, the impertinence to get up and say—

I said nothing of the sort.

Will the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) give way?

I have never said anything of the kind. I said that it was remarkable that these gentlemen who express such concern now for the Union Jack, had never risked, many of them, anything for that flag.

You lie.

The most cowardly form of attack that I know of is by innuendo.

The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) must withdraw those words—“you lie.”

Which words?

The words you said.

I want to make a personal explanation first. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) has dared to say, and to repeat the statement, that most of the members on this side of the House have made no sacrifices for their country. I, for one, repudiate that statement. I have served, and I have suffered.

The hon. member must withdraw the words—“you lie.”

I do so.

The hon. member must express regret at having said “you lie” to another member of the. House.

I have withdrawn the words.

I ask the hon. member to express regret.

At your wish, I express regret.

Now that this interlude is over, let me say as far as I can say, within the rules of this House, that the hon. member for Springs, when he made the statement that few, if any, of the members on this side of the House had made any sacrifices for the flag they were standing up for in this debate, was not telling the truth. Let me tell him this—that, as he said those words, I drew up a hasty list of members on this side of the House who actually fought in either the great war or the Boer war or previous kaffir wars, under the Union Jack for the Union Jack. The list has been hastily prepared and is necessarily incomplete. Yet, it comes to 28 out of 53 members. If the hon. gentleman who prides himself on his qualities of gentlemanly feeling and sportmanship has any left, he will take the first opportunity of apologizing for that statement, because it is untrue, and the sneer that lay behind it was an unworthy sneer. That sneer seemed to be received with acclamation on the opposite benches. It is an untrue and an unworthy sneer, and will not help in the remotest degree towards settling this question. He began by saying that the speeches which had been made on these benches might well have been spared, because they only roused feeling. Yet, he has roused more feeling by his speech this afternoon than any speech which has been made this session, and I appeal to the leader of the Labour party, the Minister of Labour, whether the speeches made on these benches have not been studiously moderate in tone and whether we have not refrained from saying a single word which would render a solution of the question impossible.

Few have, but many have not.

Do you say the majority have not?

The majority, I think, have stirred up feeling.

I will ask one other question of the Minister of Labour—does he approve of the tone, the manner and contents of the speech which we were told was delivered as representing the Labour party this afternoon?

I am not here to answer your questions.

The Minister of Labour was willing enough to answer a question of mine a minute ago. Now that is quite a fair question for me to put. I put it again to the Minister of Labour as leading the Labour party in this House. Does he accept that speech?

Not in every detail, but in substance, yes.

I want to know whether the Minister associates himself with the remarks and the sneers made about members of the Opposition that the great majority, although willing to talk about the flag, have never done anything but talk. Does he?

I am making no comments.

Well, hon. members can draw their own inference. I do not think, after that, I need waste anymore time on the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen). It is quite clear that it would take me two hours to deal with the various points he raised, but frankly one can read in the face of the Minister himself his disapproval and disavowal of that speech.

Is it not correct.

Well, do you approve of the speech?

I have told you already.

This is the third member of the Labour party who has spoken in this debate, and it has become a matter of comment in this House that this is one of the most remarkable debates we have had, in this sense, that almost every member of the Opposition benches has spoken, and according to his lights, has put his views on the flag and the flag question, but the one party, upon which, according to one of its own members, the greatest responsibility for this Bill rests, has been so far singularly silent. When they did break silence, as they did this afternoon, they certainly broke it with a vengeance. The hon. member spoke for two hours, and said very little. We have been waiting on these benches to hear the speeches of some other of the hon. gentlemen on the Labour benches. We have been waiting for one from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). We want to hear what his views are. We want him, in his broad Doric, to tell us what he thinks the views of his constituents are. We want to hear the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), that middle-class Scotchman who, I am sure, is too middle-class in outlook to sympathize with the speech or the tone of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen). We want to hear from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), the gentleman who, in future, will be known as “yes-no-Barlow,” the gentleman who will be known, and is known to-day, as the weathercock of South African politics. The Free State Republican of to-day and the S.O.E. past-president of yesterday. We want to know where he stands on this Bill. When the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) was making that courageous speech the other day, he interjected—

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) was saying in different language exactly the same thing as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said in that famous article of his in the “People’s Weekly.” We wanted to know from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) why it was possible and permissible to say these things in a newspaper which circulates all over South Africa, things written down in calm and cold deliberation, and not to say them on the floor of this House, and to ask him how it is when a member of his party does have the courage to say them, he turns round on him and says: “You are singing your swan-song”; in other words, “you are going to get the order of the boot from the Labour party.” I should have liked to hear the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), those lonely twins of the Cape Labour party who, although they summoned up courage to vote against the party on the colour bar, on the bigger issue of the Flag Bill were apparently bound, as the hon. member for Springs said, to vote against their conscience and convictions.

He never said anything of the sort!

We have had three Labour speeches representing three entirely different angles of thought. We have had the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (West), and whether one agree with it or not, it was a noble and dignified and courageous effort, and if the hon. gentleman was singing his swansong, it was sung in a way which does him infinite credit. It was said by a member of his party that his action was equivalent to walking off the field in the middle of play. It was nothing of the sort. He told his party twelve months ago of the false position they were in, and the rocks upon which they were running. When this country gives its verdict, as it will, he will be justified of his warning, and hon. members who will not be warned will not be here, and “the subsequent proceedings will interest them no more.”

He won’t be here.

I know one person who will not be here, and that is the hon. member who told the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that he was singing his swansong.

What does that matter?

I quite agree. It won’t matter a button. We can get on just as well without him, but I must confess I did not expect to hear such candour from one of his colleagues. The second speech was by the Minister of Labour; it was the speech of a good man struggling against adversity. It was timid, shrinking, apologetic. That speech betrayed in every word of it the consciousness he had of his own wrong-doing, and of the fate that was about to overtake him in common with others. Why, what was he doing? He was defending the action of the Government in introducing a Flag Bill which, if successful, will force upon an unwilling minority in this country a flag that they do not want, and will have nothing to do with. Am I right?

The people will decide.

Yes, but if the people decide in favour of it an unwilling minority will have forced upon them a flag they don’t want, and with which they will have nothing to do.

It can only be carried by the votes of the English.

I repeat, the Minister was defending the action of the Government in trying to force by means of a referendum—I grant him that, a 50-50 referendum—a flag upon the people of this country which a minority do not want. What did he say when that Bill was introduced last year? He gave a message which was published in the Natal press. He said—

I quite agree with that.

What is the hon. gentleman’s attitude in this House? He implied he would not defend the measure before the House but for the referendum clause.

We support the Bill on principle, and we leave it to the people to decide.

His trump card was the referendum, and he said there was nothing undemocratic in forcing the Bill through, if you referred to a referendum of the people. He is a member of the Cabinet, and he was last year. Last year, when the Bill was postponed, the Minister in charge of it, as a parting shot with the approval of his colleague, said—

So that last year the hon. gentleman was perfectly willing to commit his Cabinet to a Bill which had nothing of the referendum in it, and the main principle of it was to create a flag which excluded the Union Jack and the republican flags. He cannot now stand and put his hand on his heart, and say—

This referendum, even if were a fair one, and I will deal with that point later, avails him nothing. The next speaker we had was the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), with whom I have dealt, and there is one other speech to which I want to refer—that of the hon. gentleman who intimated that at the next election he will support the Pact—I refer to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), the Constitutional Democrat.

You object to that?

I will deal with that. The hon. Minister prided himself on the fact that never interrupted people.

What chance do you give him?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) appeared before this House in the self-constituted role of an arbitrator and a judge—the hon. Mr. Justice Alexander pronouncing judgment, and after weighing the pros and cons of the matter he finally gave judgment for the defendant with costs. I do not know that the Minister of Labour appreciates the fact that the only independent member of this House and one with decided Pact leanings has decided that he and his Government is wrong, and one of his own party has done the same. One thing the Minister of Labour knows, and that is that the Labour party has always been a curious mixture of persons who were truly patriotic and persons who were internationals. But I have noticed that as surely as the international element comes to the front, so surely is the Labour party ground to dust in the next election. In 1910 it returned four members, and the number by by-election grew to 8 in 1914. Then came the war, and the Labour party (in the absence of Colonel Creswell it is true), passed at East London that resolution which will for ever be one of the blackest blots on the history of that party—the resolution of neutrality, not in the sense that it said that England or South Africa should be neutral, but that the Labour party should be neutral.

Hear, hear.

Precisely. At that moment, when our army had just gone to Flanders and was being over-run by the hordes of the German troops, and we were locked in one of the most deadly struggles of our history, the Labour party said it would be neutral, and in 1927 the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) says “hear, hear!”

Tell the truth.

In 1915 there was an election, and only three members of the Labour party were returned, one being my hon. friend opposite (the Minister of Labour). In the 1920 election, which was fought on economic issues, 16 members of that party were returned, and with them were returned a large number of Nationalists. The constitutional question came to the fore and the agitation conducted by the present Prime Minister for independence became a very strong one. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) then issued his famous appeal to co-operate on the constitutional issue. The Labour party said it would not co-operate, and within ten months there was another election, and their numbers were reduced from 16 to 10. In 1924 we had an election on purely economic issues, and 18 Labour members were returned. So surely as there is a heaven above us, if the Labour party vote for this Bill in this House, their number will be reduced to three again.

You will be very happy.

It is essentially unsound that a party should be subject to vicissitudes of that sort. But that is because the country does not think the Labour party can run straight on the patriotic question.

Are seats in Parliament the only consideration?

Is it honest if you know that the great bulk of your constituents don’t support the line you are taking on a big fundamental national question and you know you have no mandate from them, to take that line, and to say that the election is two years off, and it does not matter what happens then? Tens of thousands of people believe to-day that The Labour party have no sincerity on this flag question, and that it is simply temporizing to keep in office and power. They believe they are being tricked, befooled and sold. If they go on like that—

But if an hon. member feels he is right?

If the hon. member will grant me that the overwhelming majority of his constituents do not want him to vote for the Flag Bill, and he does vote for it, he is doing something he was not sent to this House to do. He has no mandate, and he is voting for this Bill, and though maybe he says he is doing it from the very highest of motives, the great majority of the people of South Africa will believe he is doing it for place and for power. The sporting thing to do would be for us to go back to our constituencies and I will fight him on his own ground, though I know that he has a very large Nationalist vote which will go against me. The result of that election would give him and his party a mandate. I will hand in my resignation to-morrow if he will do the same.

That is not the question I put. If a man is convinced that he is right, what should he do?

Does the hon. member remember Maj. Hunt, the former member for Turffontein, who had a very serious difference with his party? He resigned and fought a bye-election. Every English member of Parliament who has gone over to the Labour party has resigned and offered himself for re-election.

You are evading the question.

You are evading an election.

The honest thing for the hon. member to do is to go back and consult his constituents, and not to give a vote which he knows will be resented by a majority of his constituents. It is a travesty of representative government if an hon. member can say: “I have been elected for five years, and during that time I have a general power of attorney so that I can do what I like.” I challenge every member of the Labour party with the possible exception of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) who I believe has a majority of Nationalist voters in his constituency, to say that in this matter he is voicing the views of his constituents. Who are the honest men in this matter—the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) or the other gentlemen, who say that they cannot be turned out for another two years and they will vote as they know their constituents do not wish them to vote?

That is not true. The referendum provides for that.

The hon. member has represented Greyville for 11 years. I will make this challenge to him. I do not know a single soul in Greyville, but I will go there to-morrow and fight him. If he is frightened to accept that challenge, is it not an admission that he knows that he does not represent the feelings of Greyville on this question, and that he is not honest in remaining a member of the Cabinet which is putting this Bill forward?

My vote in this House will not decide the question—it will be decided by a referendum. The voters in Greyville have more power in this matter than I have.

Have you heard of a limpet stocking to a rock?

You were a sticker for many years.

The Minister of Labour is a member of the Cabinet which says that the Union Jack will never be put in South Africa’s national flag. I ask him to fight me on that issue in his own constituency. I ask any impartial person if the Labour party has a mandate to vote for this Bill. [Time limit.]

I hope as additional time has been given to other hon. members, the same courtesy will be extended to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

The hon. member has the right to proceed.

Flag-wagging tactics are very cheap.

You are going to find it a very expensive business.

I seem to be penetrating the Minister’s armour. Why is he sitting on the Government benches at all? Because he was sent by the electors to represent a Natal constituency. But his actions on the Flag Bill are an insult to a majority of those electors.

They will vote against the referendum.

They will vote the hon. member down too. I have no doubt about that. At the next election the Labour members will have to face an angry electorate which feels that it has been befooled, and such Labour members as are returned will be elected with the help of the Nationalists. Not one of the Labour members will dare seek re-election in a purely British constituency. The Pact under which they were returned to power was to determine at eight o’clock on the night of the election. It was purely an offensive pact to turn out the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), but having got a majority the temptation to take office proved too strong, and they returned to their party congress and got a mandate which is contained in the Creswell-Hertzog correspondence. It was made perfectly plain in that correspondence that whatever else the Pact did it must not touch either the imperial connection or the flag or anything of that sort. Having got into power they are using it to-day, as we believe, to tear down the Union Jack in this country. I should not like to be in the shoes of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) when he next faces his electors. Unless the Labour members receive some of the 17 safe seats which the Nationalists have to give away in the Free State, I do not know what is going to happen to them.

Where are the members of the Government? Not one of them is here.

The hon. member who preceded me spoke for two hours during which the Minister of the Interior remained in his seat, but when I got up to speak the Minister went away. I see that he is now returning, and I should like to congratulate him on being the only Minister in his seat. I was going to put this question to the Labour members. If they were not in the Pact, would they be voting for this Bill to-day? That is the acid test. The answer is that if they were not in the Pact they would not be voting for the flag, and the Government would not have dared to introduce the Bill. That being so, the average English-speaking person thinks he has been tricked and be fooled by the Labour members. They will believe that the votes they gave to return Labour members are being used not for really trying to help this country in its economic progress, but for setting alight a racial fire in this country that will burn for many a year to come. The Minister of Labour, who apparently has had enough of me, said in his speech that the Government has shown every desire to compromise throughout. That is true, but within definite limits. The Government said this—

It reminds me of the form of punishment in condemning a man to death and allowing him to choose his own method of execution. The Government appointed a parliamentary commission which failed to agree, and then followed the Flag Commission, the terms of reference of which and personnel of which were an insult to the members on this side of the House and even to the Labour party. Finally, we had this conference, in which the so-called commissioners showed what their impartiality was worth by appearing nakedly as representatives of the Government before the Flag Committee. One was a lady occupying a high position, and another a professor at Stellenbosch. Most of our troubles seem to come from professors at Stellenbosch. They used language which was deplorable. They told the Flag Committee that we were on the eve of a great racial war, and that a new era of resentment against England and the English is looming, and unless we accept the Government flag proposals we cut ourselves off from co-operation with the Dutch-speaking people. That was said by Mrs. Jansen in the presence, and with the concurrence of, Professor Smith. If that was the position of that Flag Commission, and its mental attitude, then I don’t wonder nothing came of its efforts. The Government’s efforts to compromise were shown in a curious way by that Flag Commission. Finally there was the conference to which I have referred. Finally let i me say that the Labour party had fallen into the pit when they entered the Pact in 1924. Their fall was foreseen by its leader, because when, ten years earlier, he was invited to enter into a Pact by the leader of the National party, then a small party, what did Col. Creswell reply? I have his letter here, and I have read it before. But it is worth repeating. Hon. members will find it in Hansard of 1924—

Those words were written in 1914. If he had had that letter before him in 1924 and paused, he might have prevented the ruin his party has fallen into to-day. He is in Australia to-day making speeches no doubt explaining why the Union Jack is going to be torn down in South Africa. When he comes back, he will be invited to explain the share he had in it. When the National party came into power in 1924 we were told with a flourish of trumpets, that the Pact has ended racialism, and that a new era of non-racialism had been inaugurated. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Dr. Steyn) said this in this House on the 6th August, 1924—

The whole of the Flag Bill depends upon the prejudices of a generation ago. So far from forgetting those prejudices the Prime Minister and his friends, nobly assisted by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), have been engaged in inflaming and resurrecting those prejudices. Yet I say the Prime Minister knows that South Africa, by his action, as Mrs. Jansen herself said, is going to become a seething cauldron of racial hatred, and this is the party that announced three years ago that the Pact had ended racialism. This party announced three years ago that the Pact had killed racialism. If ever a statesman in this country had the chance of a lifetime, it was when the Prime Minister returned from England last year. Does he mean to tell us that he was so impotent with his own people that he could not have gone to them and said—

He had a unique chance, but he failed, as he always does fail on big occasions. He failed, as he failed in 1914, when he could have stopped the rebellion, but preferred to sulk in his tent. He failed the other night, as he failed in 1918. Let me recall the occasion when the Germans had broken through the British lines, and it looked as if the final phase of the war bad come. In this House that noble and chivalrous statesman, Gen. Botha, moved a resolution expressing what we all felt at the time, the greatest sympathy with Great Britain in the crisis that she was going through. The hon. gentleman got up and devoted days to opposing that motion and vilifying the British cause. He has always failed to rise to a big occasion, and his failure stamps him, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said in a recent article, as “not a statesman, but only a politician and a second-rate one at that!” Whatever influence he may have had with the British people in this country has gone, never to return. What is he and his party trying to do in this Bill? They are trying to force a flag upon an unwilling people. What flag? A flag that has been designed by the commission of which we heard just now. What people? English, Dutch, native, coloured and Asiatic. Who is doing the forcing? A section, and a section only, of the Dutch people of South Africa. He is trying to force, through this Bill and through this referendum, upon 7,000,000 of people in South Africa a flag which the overwhelming majority do not want, and never will acknowledge. Let me deal with the machinery by which it is to be done. I never heard of a more monstrous proposal by which this is to be done than this proposed referendum. A bare majority of one is to be sufficient to impose upon this country a flag. Does not the Minister of the Interior realize that under his Electoral Act thousands and thousands of citizens in this country who would have been entitled to vote in the ordinary way, have been disfranchized? The figures for the Rand are 8,000 below normal. For the Cape, they are 2,000 down. For Durban they are something like 2,000 down, and for Port Elizabeth also about 2,000 down. Why? Because he put a clause in the Bill saying that a man cannot be registered for a particular constituency unless he has been living there for three months. A man who has changed his residence is by that mere fact deprived of his vote on the flag. No woman is allowed to vote. No native beyond the few in the Cape, is allowed to vote, no coloured person, except those in the Cape, and no Asiatic. No young man below the age of 21 is allowed to vote. I have been looking at our Defence Act, and I see that it provides that every citizen in South Africa, between the ages of 18 and 60 is liable for military service. A young man under the age of 21 may be good enough for military service under the flag, but he is to be allowed no say in the choice of that flag under which he has to serve. I say that a referendum under those conditions, of an electorate depleted as that electorate is depleted, cooked in the way that that question has been cooked in the Bill before the House, is a sham and a mockery. I say if there were a fair referendum, and a two-thirds majority, and a fair choice, at least the Prime Minister could say that that flag represented the feeling and the wish of the great majority of South Africans. If he carries his flag by even a small majority it will be the flag of the minority of South Africa, and he knows it. I know that the population of Johannesburg has increased, and that the population of Cape Town and of Durban has increased, but the numbers on the voters’ roll have gone down because of a technicality. Yet only the persons whose names appear on those rolls will be allowed to vote. Let me remind the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that when he was asked at a public meeting about this Flag Bill, he told them in round terms—and I hope he will tell us in round terms when we come to the committee stage—that the only thing that would satisfy him would be a referendum that would provide for a substantial majority. I do hope the hon. member for Troyeville, having made that speech to his constituents, will get up in this House, at the committee stage of this Bill, and move that the majority shall be that which is required for a fundamental change in the constitution of this country, namely a two-thirds majority. I have only one word to say in conclusion, and it is this—that, although the Prime Minister, the other evening, lashed himself as usual into a fury and referred to me as a person who was afflicted with anti-Dutch hysteria, I am prepared to do everything that I can, having stated my point of view in this House, to help a settlement, if a settlement can be arrived at. The gulf which exists between the two parties in this matter is very small indeed, because there can be no doubt of our oneness on the question of our national status. It is all very well for an hon. gentleman like the Prime Minister to sneer and suggest that hon. members on this side do not accept with gratification, with pleasure, with pride, our status in the empire, but he knows, and hon. members know, that that is not true. Every one of us, without reservation, accepts that status in the empire with pride. All we say is this—that it is an insult to ask us to drop the Union. Jack in this country. We want our choice in that flag of what will represent our feelings and our past, and we give you an equal choice in regard to what will represent your feelings and your past. I still remember with disgust the speech made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) last year when the motion to introduce this Bill came before the House. It is only by mutual forbearance and respect and tolerance that we can get near to each other. Having agreed on the question of status, and having agreed, with the Minister of Justice, that there is no longer any constitutional question in this country, surely our statesmanship is not so bankrupt that we cannot arrive at agreement on this question. The Prime Minister says, what is the use of postponing it if no hope of settlement is held out? I would go with him so far as to say that if an appeal were made from this side to withdraw the Bill without anything more, that appeal could not be accepted, because it would practically amount to asking the Government to resign, but when this appeal is coupled with the assurance of my right hon. leader that he wishes for settlement and he gives the assurance that the action of the Government in postponing or withdrawing the Bill will not be made political capital of, then the avenue is open, and the responsibility rests on those who still go on saying—

I say again we are willing, even now, fairly to explore the possibility of settlement. But do not let me be misunderstood. I say without hesitation we think it is essential that in any flag representing the Union the Union Jack in its entirety shall be there. Speaking for myself, I had the same feelings against the Vierkleur as the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) says he had against the Union Jack. But I am now prepared to love and respect that flag, and I ask him to join with with me and love and respect mine. That is the very least we can ask. Let us choose our emblem; you can choose yours. Let us young men come together, and together create an emblem of a united South Africa. The Prime Minister said a wrong, cruel and wicked thing when he said I was afflicted with anti-Dutch hysteria. I am happily married into a Dutch family in this country. I speak their language and I have grown up with them. I am a South African, my children are South African, and my destiny is forever interwoven with the people of this country.

I wanted to leave the opportunity to my hon. friends opposite to speak on the Bill, but not one of them wanted to do so. I shall not apologize or make excuses because I consider this matter of so great importance that I should reproach myself later and my constituents would also be able to do so if I did not take part in the debate. A flag is one of the things which you can never force upon a people or a portion of a people. If that is done then it is certain that the people or the portion of the people will never have any love or respect for such a flag, with the result that it will mean nothing. The Minister of the Interior, who is responsible for this Bill, said that if we could not come to an agreement he would put the Bill through, and then both friend and enemy would have to accept it. I do not regard those as the words of a statesman, because it is stupid to use such words about a flag. As for the flag, I can easily agree with the Minister of Justice that it leaves me cold, but I cannot go so far as to say that I follow my leader blindly. I shall not follow any leader blindly in such a question. I can understand his saying so, especially after the speech he made, because it was nothing else than a frivolous speech. Such a lack of seriousness on an important matter made me think of a turn suitable for the Tivoli—

The hon. member must not go too far.

Have I said anything that I must withdraw?

I have already called other hon. members to order in this connection. The hon. member must not go too far.

I think then that it is not becoming in persons like the Minister of Justice to speak with a certain frivolity about so serious a matter. I am surprised that he has done so. It is surely expected that we should look up to a Minister and the Minister of Justice particularly should be careful, because he has to carry out the law of the land and see that order is maintained. Under the flag under which I grew up, and which has flown hitherto things were often done in the past which I disapproved of which hurt and deeply wounded me, but should I for that reason continue to cherish hatred—

May the hon. member read his speech?

Or must I go about with the hatred in my heart? No. It would be foolish and unwise to do such a thing. It would certainly also be unchristian. I personally do not take up that attitude, but what is more I do not stand here to consult my personal feelings, but in such things I represent the people and, as such, I must do my duty. These are things that go deep down and are important to the future of the whole country and, therefore, when I speak here I must regard the matter in that light. We have in our country an English-speaking and a Dutch-speaking section.

No other section?

I know no third section which is concerned in it. The two sections exist with their history and traditions of which they are proud as well as of their flags. The English-speaking people have their flag which is dear to them, and I do not blame them. What is more, if they did not behave in that way they would be contemptible in the eyes of the world. It is right that they should love their flag and the traditions of their flag. From the moment that the flag question came up in this House the English-speaking people have taken up a definite standpoint. Each speaker has said, and resolutions were passed at meetings and articles appeared in the newspapers; “Give us our own flag and you can put in from your point of view whatever else you like.” No limitation or restriction is made and for that reason I regard their request as reasonable. The English-speaking people have never yet said that the flag of the old republics should not be included. They say: “Put in what you wish, just as long as we can put in what is dear to us.” I can understand their asking that the old flag should be included in the new. That is reasonable, but what I cannot understand is that ex-republicans, who, for three years, fought for their flag, fought with such courage and determination that they became famous throughout the whole world, should now come and not want to see their flag again.

On a point of order, has the hon. member the right to read his whole speech?

The hon. member is not entitled to read his speech, but I presume he is referring to notes he has made.

When I have done the hon. member can have my notes and he will see that I have got both English and Afrikaans notes, but if I prefer to look at my paper rather than the face of the hon. member, I have, surely, the fullest rights to do so. The hon. member always reminds me of the drum of an orchestra which is periodically beaten. The hon. member sits quiet here, he does not play an instrument, but occasionally beats the drum. The ex-republicans do not wish to see their symbol flying again, but say that it is dead, and that is inexplicable to me.

What is the flag without the thing it stood for?

The flag stood for freedom, and we still have it to-day. I regard this matter as a very sad one. It will bring discord and trouble. But there is no cloud so dark, but it has a silver lining, and it is in this case the fact that we shall not have a division on racial lines. I am always afraid of that, but we are not going to have it in this case, because then I shall have to sit with the Minister of the Interior, and I see no chance of doing that, and the hon. members for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick) would also have to sit together, and I do not think that they also are so keen on each other’s society. One thing is certain, viz., that the large majority of the English-speaking people— I say majority because when one has listened to such a speech as we have had this afternoon from the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), one sees that there are exceptions—are opposed to the flag, and I say that a large proportion of the Dutch-speaking people, and certainly the right-thinking and intellectual portion, are also going to be opposed to the flag, because they see how unreasonable it is. The two sections that I have just mentioned also want to have a national flag, but we want a flag in which the history and tradition of those sections is represented’. If that is unattainable to-day then let time decide. An hon. member said something here yesterday which made me think a great deal, and that is that the minority had to yield to the majority. I have often thought about that, and I want to ask my friends opposite whether the existence of the Nationalist party is not due to the fact that one person, a leader of the people, would never submit himself to the decisions of the majority? The minority must submit to the majority. Hon. members who have been fairly long in Parliament will remember how, after the split, the parliamentary party did everything that was possible to yield the breach. The two persons were asked if the parliamentary party decided the matter, whether they would submit to the majority. One said “yes,” and the second person said: “If I do not get my way I shall go to the congress.” A congress was held and the two persons were asked if they would submit to the majority. The one said “yes,” and the other said: “If I do not get justice I shall go to the people.”

And the people have spoken.

The people have spoken for fourteen years and every time they said that the one who had said “yes” was right and not the other. The people spoke for fourteen years, and when he would not submit himself he went in for the unholy pact of which we are constantly reaping the bitter fruits. One is that we are going to have this referendum, because that is being sheltered under. What will it cost the poor country? It will cause bitterness which will be very far-reaching, and, so far, it has cost in money £645 excluding costs of printing. The referendum will cost about £14,000, rather more than less. This morning I met somebody from the north-west and when he heard that he said—

The drought is causing anxiety and worry in the country and yet discord is sown in this way and thousands of pounds are to be spent because the Government is headstrong.

Suppose there should be no referendum.

No, we want to get rid of the root of the evil. We must not merely cut down the tree so that three or four new branches should sprout out.

Stop reading and speak a bit.

The hon. member is never serious, but in this matter we ought not to be frivolous. There is not the harmony amongst hon. members opposite that there is represented to me, and that is the reason why they have remained silent during this debate. When the House was full, while the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) were speaking one could notice by studying the faces of hon. members opposite that some of them were in favour of the matter being dropped. According to what I have seen there are many hon. members opposite who will be thankful if we get so far as to have the flag question completely removed from the scene.

If your study of sheep is as bad as your study of faces, then you ought to give up sheep farming.

A donkey can easily judge. I am glad to see that the Minister of the Interior is here. I have often been sorry for him that he has taken such a difficult task on himself and has to sit here so continuously. My thoughts went out to his youth when he prosecuted his studies to qualify as the champion of the banner which, as a symbol, means something quite different to the flag with which we have now to do. The symbol of his banner at that time was toleration, peace, love and unity, and it is deplorable that the same person should be so bitter and unforgiving.

What did he say that was bitter?

It appeared plainly from his speech that he could not accept the Union Jack—just like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe)—because he cannot forgive and be a little tolerant. Where are the things which he preached at that time? They must not merely be preached to other people, but also be practised. When the Minister gave up his first calling he said that it was with the object of uniting his scattered people.

That is what he wants to do.

That is what he wanted to do. His first step was the formation of a Herenigings party, but it was not long before he amalgamated his Herenigings party holus bolus with the Nationalist party. He who said that he was going into politics to unite the divided people worked to bring about division. We know how the Minister worked as editor of “Die Burger” not to unite the people, but to separate them. That was always the policy of “Die Burger,” and the Minister worked in that direction. I once asked him on a public platform whether he had worked to bring his people together, and he then said that if he had not united them he had, anyhow, succeeded in building up a party. He did do that, but in that way we always drifted further apart. He used his influences to keep us apart, and I should like to hear whether the Minister is now convinced in his own mind that the Bill he is trying to put through is an attempt to unite the people of South Africa.

Yes.

I want a reply from the Minister himself, but he is so indifferent that he does not even listen.

He knows who is speaking.

Fortunately it is not the clown of the House who is speaking. I want to assure the Minister that he is throwing a fresh apple of discord amongst us. He is making a name for himself, but, in my opinion, that name will be nothing else than the name of a man who, in his political career, did more than anyone else to encourage discord and dissension. I do not say this carelessly, but because it is my opinion, and I hope the Minister will think about it.

That is what one might expect from one of your opinion.

It is difficult to talk seriously about anything here, because you are usually ridiculed, but that does not remove my responsibility to say what I feel. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and the Minister will well remember the words—

The Bill brings discord and dissension into our country, and I want to appeal to the Minister to take the view that it would be sensible for him at the eleventh hour to prevent our having all the discord and dissension. He can do it if he wishes, because it is all in his hands. If he says that it will be a humiliation to him then I want to say that we often have to do things in the world which are humiliating. If the Minister takes that step then he will obtain high praise and honour. I am certain that if the Minister does it he will confer a benefit on the country and on the inhabitants of the country. The country will certainly honour him for it, and I hope, therefore, that he will give his serious consideration to the point.

This matter has been so fully discussed that it seems a work of supererogation to attempt to add anything to the discussion. I think it ought to be common cause among us that the question of a flag for the Union is purely a domestic question. I do not know whether hon. members opposite are still of the opinion that it is or it should be an imperial question, but so far as I have followed the history of this question it has always been regarded, except at one stage by the leader of the Opposition, as a purely domestic question.

That is so.

I am glad the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) agrees with that. I have not had the advantage of listening to every speech, but I have come to the clear conclusion that it cannot be seriously argued that we have already a flag for the Union. The ensign exhibited by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) was not, and was not intended to be a flag for the Union. It was only intended for shipping.

The Prime Minister said in the minute it was the flag of united South Africa.

I heard the correspondence read and you must read it as a whole and the only construction you can put on it was that it was a flag for shipping. The attempts made later by the South African party congress to establish a flag for the Union show that the ensign was never regarded as the flag of South Africa. The leader of the Opposition took a prominent part in the Imperial Conference of 1921, and I want to ask him a few questions. Didn’t he suggest to himself—

didn’t he suggest to himself—

didn’t he suggest—

That recognition has now taken place, and I think we all agree it is the greatest landmark in the history of the commonwealth. What is that landmark? It is absolute mutual trust. It is a declaration that there will not be the least attempt to dominate one over the other. In material England is much stronger than we are, but internationally little Holland is equal to the greatest country in the world, and that is all we seek for South Africa. If it came to a test of power, some of the small nations and some of the dominions could be crushed out of existence, but that is not the test we shall attempt to apply. Didn’t the right hon. gentleman suggest to himself—

Didn’t the right hon. member argue with himself—

Didn’t the right hon. member state—

Of course the hon. member did. He admitted them the other day. Why should he not admit them? What is surprizing to me is that the hon. member has been hiding his light under a bushel all these years.

I have said it in my speeches in the House. Where, then, did I hide my light?

These valuable views, and very correct constitutional views of the right hon. member were suggested by himself to have been got from the waste-paper basket.

I will deal with that. I will deal with your leader.

I am sure my leader will be able to give a good account of himself.

He will have to be in better form than in his three hours’ speech the other day.

Didn’t the right hon. member suggest—

didn’t he suggest—

didn’t he suggest—

didn’t he think—

and didn’t he object to—

You are misunderstanding what I said. You misunderstand the wastepaper basket.

Perhaps they are somewhat undigested constitutional views of the right hon. member, but I find them remarkably correct, and remarkably justifiable in spite of their coming from the waste-paper basket.

If you look through the waste-paper basket you will find many more indeed.

Didn’t he suggest—

The expression—

is, for various reasons, not universally popular, and should be superseded by the name—

I want to concentrate all these sayings over a number of years—

The right hon. member even contemplated the elimination of the Union Jack for another common symbol.

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

The right hon. the member for Standerton has often twitted me with continually asking his opinion on constitutional questions. The answer has been given in the House. It appears that the right hon. gentleman had written down those opinions and they have now come to light. To-night he announced that he would deal with the Prime Minister. I would advise him, if I may be so bold, to forge a better weapon than he did last time, because in the recent struggle he certainly came off decidedly second best, and if he cannot forge a better weapon than the feeble excuse that, although he desired these things, although he committed them to writing, he did not formally propose them at the Imperial Conference, I can assure him that his next encounter will have a similar result to the recent one. No, were these views simply a brainwave for the moment. Were they a sort of mental exercise, or did he indite these lengthy views simply to assign them immediately to the waste-paper basket? I wish to repeat that the right hon. gentleman, who is now in his seat, threatened to renew the struggle with the Prime Minister, and I am bold enough to warn him that unless he can forge a better weapon than the feeble excuse he put forward in the last debate, he will again come off second best, as he undoubtedly did last time.

As usual.

The right hon. gentleman’s excuse was that, although he pondered over these things, although he cogitated on these very important constitutional questions, he had never formally proposed them.

I have not spoken on them yet. You are anticipating.

No, but the excuse of the right hon. gentleman was that he had made no such proposal at the Imperial Conference.

Nor did I.

Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that the right hon. gentleman held these views, he tells us that he still holds them, and he tells us further that he has repeatedly proclaimed them in this House. As regards the last, I join issue with him, if he says that he proclaimed these views in this House. On what occasion, for instance, did he proclaim the view that the Union was entirely free at any time, and should have the undoubted right by legislation to abolish appeals to the Privy Council? On what occasion did he proclaim the view in this House or at a public meeting that as regards vetoing legislation the King was in no better position towards the Union of South Africa than he was towards the British Parliament; views that I heartily welcome, views that I have tried to get from him for many years past. I am glad, however, to see that the right hon. gentleman has at length openly admitted them. I want to know, in view of this important revelation, how does the right hon. gentleman explain his attitude towards the mission of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to the Imperial Conference, his attitude before they went, his attitude during their absence, his attitude during the Imperial Conference proceedings, his attitude immediately afterwards?

What is our subject tonight?

I leave that to Mr. Speaker. Do not let the right hon. member, who as a rule claims to be so patient and forbearing, get into a temper. He is always trying to teach me lessons of patience and not to lose my temper. I ask him in all sincerity, why did the South African party pass the resolution in Natal repudiating the Prime Minister and what he was doing at the Imperial Conference in every point I have quoted here to-night?

Why go over all the old ground?

These points have a lot to do with this question. I ask, in view of these facts is not this Bill a fair and natural consequence of every important constitutional point that the right hon. member—I assume he is speaking for his party—has conceded. Is not this Bill a rational issue from those admissions? Of course it is. And yet you have your flag committees in this country trying to whittle away our independence, our sovereign independence. You have the Prime Minister who had himself used, after these ponderings, the word “independence” and the phrase “independent status” coming and quibbling in respect of the Imperial Conference and saying the word “independence” does not occur—I mean the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. I am glad to see the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) repudiates the flag committees in so far as they have tried to whittle down this sovereign independence. Then we have got the far-fetched contention that this Bill is unconstitutional. I am not referring to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), who explained that he meant that it was extra-constitutional and I am not referring to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, who also made it plain that in offering his criticism he was only showing that the referendum is not a usual thing. In that respect there is much to be said for that view. We have an exceptional case to deal with. A flag for the country is a thing that occurs or ought to occur only once in the life of the country, therefore if we have recourse to a referendum here it ought not to be open to serious objection. But there are parties closely identified with the hon. members opposite who say that our whole procedure is unconstitutional, and in fact they have gone so far as to obtain legal advice from overseas. Flag committees, Empire Groups, Sons of England and all these people urge that this is grossly unconstitutional. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says “Well, leave them out.” I am glad they repudiate them, but repudiation is not enough.

Perhaps you would like to kill them.

No. The hon. member cannot expect us to be satisfied with a mere repudiation by one or two members opposite. We want to point out that so long as you have important bodies, or rather bodies that consider themselves important, agitating in this radically wrong direction, you cannot have that desired state of affairs that we ought to have.

What about the speech on republicanism by the Chairman of Committees?

The right hon. member is always obsessed with republicanism. That is why he is so anxious, I suppose, to have the republican flags in the Union flag. The remarkable thing about the Empire Group, Sons of England and so on is that although they profess to be anxious to have a flag that embodies not only the Union Jack, but also the republican flags, they speak only in regard to the Union Jack, and their demonstrations refer only to the Union Jack.

Because you laid it down it must not go in it.

There is nothing in their talk, or their speeches or their papers about the republican flags.

It was specifically mentioned in a resolution.

The late Gen. Botha was one of the political leaders of this country who always tried to impress upon the people that the majority should prevail. What is fairer than to refer this question to a referendum?

What kind of referendum?

A referendum in which the people reply to a question relating only to the flag and nothing else.

To a very crooked question.

It would be most undesirable to refer this flag question to any other decision than that of a referendum. You must have a clear issue on the flag and the flag only. We are all agreed that it is a most important question. Is it not therefore desirable to make it the sole question for the decision of the people?

It is going to be the sole question at the next general election.

Why didn’t you refer it to a referendum first and save all this time?

But where is your machinery? You must have legislation.

Why didn’t you make it a two-thirds majority?

I have just stated that one of the cardinal principles that was always stated by the late Gen. Botha was that the minority should bow to the majority; and if we once depart from that principle, where shall we land?

Not in a question of sentiment like this.

You can imagine very far-reaching questions coming before this House in the ordinary course that will have to be decided by an ordinary majority, and especially if that ordinary majority is obtained by special reference. There is nothing to cloud the issue. It is only one question and the whole dispute about the flag is the question and nothing else. It is eminently fair and it is an eminently fair answer to hon. members opposite, who systematically criticised us and said that we had no instructions from the people in 1924. We have met that issue fairly and openly. The whole difficulty here arises from this simple fact, that members of the party opposite will not recognize the logical, statesmanlike and fair implications of equality. We had an example from the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). The hon. member is always temperate in his language, and speaking for myself I have always listened to him with respect, but really over this question he has not exhibited the usual fairness that characterizes his speeches.

You are a good judge.

I endeavour to be a good judge. The hon. member can take my word for that or he can leave it. There is undoubtedly a tendency to belittle the rights that the Union has got. You have it evinced by the Sons of England, by the Empire Group and even by the flag committees, and unconsciously and perhaps involuntarily hon. members opposite are also guilty of that thought. There is a jingo section in South Africa.

Yes, behind you.

No jingo like a Nationalist.

Yes, of course, jingoism you will find in every country, and it is not confined to any particular race, but among our English friends in South Africa there is a jingo section that is all for liberty, but liberty for themselves, and not for other people or other races. What they desire themselves most they begrudge others.

Nonsense.

Equality on paper—oh, yes, they are always for it—but try and put it into practice for a moment and you see the difference. Do not care to exercise your right! If you do, then you become disloyal, you become racialistic; and to accuse the Dutch people of South Africa, as I have often told English and Dutch audiences publicly, of hatred and racialism is the most unfair thing you can imagine. The Dutch people of South Africa, if I have any fault to find with them, it is that they are too prone to forget and too prone to forgive.

Those are the people who never put their own skins in danger when danger was about.

Oh yes, always the personal argument. Cannot the right hon. member, who is an Irishman, and therefore possess a generous heart, cannot he raise himself above the level of that argument? The fault of the Dutch is they forgive and forget too soon and they are not vigilant enough in exercising their rights, and then they are guilty of imitation, and very poor imitation at that. English people have many faults, but they have many good qualities, and one which I admire is that they stick up for their rights and they stick up for their language, and in that respect I am afraid our comparison with them is a poor one. I have often said it in this House, and I say it in no bitterness, that the Dutch-speaking Afrikanders in South Africa have not yet even approached equal rights as regards language, the public service and generally. If we go into our little villages, where you find the shopkeepers thriving on the Dutch farmer, you will find that society is led, or in the past was led, there by little cliques of people, who, thriving on the Dutch people, were often the most hostile section towards many of the people of this country; and because the Dutch people have during the last few years awakened and they are trying to put into practice this much vaunted equality, and are endeavouring to exercise their equal rights with their English fellow-citizens, there is a section of our English people who are jingoistic and cannot bear that.

Now, give us some facts in proof of that. You have only made statements so far.

Then the right hon. gentleman has the temerity to accuse us of an inferiority complex, when his grievance in 1921 was this very inferiority, as I showed to-night. There has also been the thought with a section of our English fellow-citizens—I do not speak of our English fellow-citizens generally, but of a section, and a section can do a lot of harm in that way—there has always been an arrière-pensée at the back of their heads—

and the idea of domination, preponderation and predominance has not been absent from their minds.

Those are statements, not facts; come, come, be fair.

The right hon. member comes along and accuses us of an isolation policy, but whoever suggested that South Africa should remain isolated? Does the action of the Prime Minister indicate anything of that kind at the proceedings of the Imperial Conference last November? Surely not. Surely the right hon. member will not suggest, when he indicated that line of conduct, that it indicated any policy of isolation; and then the exaggeration that has characterized a good many of the speeches of my hon. friends opposite!—gross exaggeration, that we are trying to haul and to pull down wilfully the Union Jack and trample upon it, as it were; surely it is a gross piece of exaggeration. And then it is said that the cross of St, George is dead. Surely the cross of St. George is a living thing in today’s Union Jack, and if it is embodied in the Union flag, why should it be regarded as dead? It is part, to-day, of a living thing, the Union Jack, or is it suggested seriously that the cross of St. George, because it is combined with two other flags in the Union Jack, is a dead thing? If that is sound reasoning, it shows how inconsistent hon. members are who propose the inclusion of the two republican flags with the Union Jack. They would be including it with something that is either already dead or would be, according to their own reasoning, dead if included. And then the imagination of hon. members runs riot with them, and they say—

Even the right hon. member opposite could not swallow that. The right hon. member asked me what that has to do with the particular subject of debate. Did he hear the subject of neutrality discussed, and what our position would be automatically if England made war on another power, or another power made war on England? But it is the right hon. member who proclaimed our right to neutrality—he has repeatedly proclaimed it.

Where was that? [The right hon. member made a further remark which was not caught.]

No, that has not come out of the box of Pandora. [Time limit extended.] Now I want to ask, can hon. members opposite really state, with their hands on their hearts, that they have unequivocally and unconditionally accepted the resolutions of the Imperial Conference; and that they welcome them? I do not think they can all do so. It has been difficult for many of them; I can understand the difficulty, and I am not going to criticize them for it, but I am not really sincerely convinced that these hon. members have, from the start, accepted the resolutions of the Imperial Conference.

We have, as a matter of fact.

I attended the lunch given to the Prime Minister in the City Hall when he returned from England, and I noticed the expressions on the countenances of the audience. I do not take it amiss that they have not eagerly accepted the position, but I am glad to see that one of the fruits of the debate has been the statement that they now, at any rate, accept these resolutions. I hope that the acceptance will, in course of time, become wholehearted. Shall I say what the difficulty is with hon. members? They will not say it in so many words, but it is at the back of their heads. They have always considered in the past that they occupied a stronger position than the Dutch section of the community, and it is a natural consequence of the fact that formerly we were subject to the Imperial Parliament; and that is the psychological result with which you have to reckon, and you have got to recognize. It shows that they are on the way to progression. But the right hon. member after having made that statement came afterwards, and as it were, issued a threat that the very status that has been created might come to be questioned later. What does he mean by that?

I did not say that.

If I have misrepresented the right hon. gentleman—

I said that if a spirit of suspicion is raised in this country, matters which are now accepted with goodwill will tend to become questioned. I did not mention anything in particular.

Why should they be exposed to question? If the right hon. gentleman thinks more about it, he will realize it was not a wise statement to make.

Do you base all this on the way people looked at lunch?

Hon. members say that the time has not come, and we should leave well alone, but do they not realize that in the meantime those who are protagonists of the Union Jack—and it is only natural that they should be—are in possession, and possession is nine parts of the law; and if this Union flag is postponed indefinitely they are quite content to remain in possession of the Union Jack, and hon. members on this side have to be content. Now is that fair? Surely hon. members must feel that that is not fair, and that it is not a square deal. The right hon. member himself— leave alone what he was pondering in 1921 in London—the only fair construction of what he was thinking of then was a flag which was an exclusive flag not embodying the Union Jack, because he said distinctly that in addition to the Union Jack there must be this other symbol. There is only one fair construction of all his utterances in this country, and the motions and proposals at various South African party congresses, and that is he envisaged a flag without the Union Jack.

made an interruption to the effect that he denied it.

On the 4th October, 1919, at the South African party congress at Paarl, Mr. E. B. Krige (Ceres) proposed—

The blue ensign?

Yes, this is the blue ensign. At the same congress, it is reported, Mr. F. S. Malan —now the right hon. Senator—said—

The resolution was unanimously adopted. In December the central congress of the party was held in Bloemfontein, and in his closing speech the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), accordingly to “Ons Land”, said—

Read the whole.

You will hear the whole; the doctrine of holism applies here too. The right hon. gentleman is further reported as saying—

Now listen; I am asking the House to put a fair construction on the whole thing, and I will read everything. At Paarl on December 6th there was a congress between Nationalists and the South African party representatives with a view to bringing about hereeniging, and I had the honour to be one of the Nationalists. This question was put by the Nationalists to the South African party delegates—

The answer was—

On September 29th, 1919, the right hon. member said—

and according to “De Volkstem” of December 2nd and 5th, the right hon. member amid cries of “hear, hear,” promised an own flag, and admitted that the Union Jack did not have pleasant memories for us. Now we come to the incident between the right hon. member and his friend Col. Greene, who wrote a letter to the “Natal Witness” on January, 3, 1921, in which he said—

The right hon. member, with that humility which always characterizes him, answered as follows—

It is a longish letter, and the right hon. member proceeds—

The right hon. member was then content with a substantial reminder of our imperial connection. No wonder that in 1921 he was pondering that it need not necessarily be the Union Jack, but on this occasion, at any rate he was quite content to have a more substantial reminder of our connection with the imperial system in our Union flag. Don’t you call the Cross of St. George a substantial reminder? Then I am afraid the right hon. member’s appetite has since grown on what it has fed on. I now come to a speech made by the Minister of Finance, who, alas for him, has fallen from grace. His speech on the Flag Bill has been described as bitter, as reckless, as “an outburst,” and as provocative. I refer you to a leading article in the “Cape Times” of last Friday for a model of moderation and calmness dealing with my hon. friend’s speech. What an example of temperateness! I should like hon. members to re-read that article and decide whether a comparison of the speech of my hon. friend with the right hon. member’s speech was deadly to the Minister of Finance. I hope the right hon. member will not think this is bitterness on my part, but I think if the test comes it will be a deadly one for the right hon. member, who has lost the confidence for ever of the vast majority of the Dutch people of the country. I leave it to the public of the Union to say what confidence the bulk of the Dutch people in South Africa have in my right hon. friend. It is misleading to say that the speech of the Minister of Finance was bitter. It was the speech of a man of decided views, but to describe it as bitter and reckless is the height of absurdity.

That is a matter of opinion.

I will back the Minister of Finance’s conception of patriotism against the conception of patriotism of the right hon. member. Shall I tell you what the gravaman is of the Minister’s speech and his supposed sin in the eyes of the Opposition? Nothing more and nothing less than his statement that South African citizenship was good enough for him.

Don’t talk nonsense.

Does it not betray arrogance and presumption for hon. members to take exception to that? That was the height and burden of his offence in their eyes. Now I come back to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). I want to challenge him to say by what colour of right is he entitled to challenge the right of any member on this side of the House who was born under the Union Jack or in the old Cape Colony to take part in this debate. The hon. member will forgive me if I say that his language is always temperate, and that I have always listened to him with respect and interest, but we regard a statement like that as an example of arrogance. I hope the hon. member will not think I am personal. He challenges the locus standi of any hon. member on this side of the House who was born in the old Cape Colony.

Quote his speech!

He said he could not comprehend the attitude of mind—

Quote his words, please.

He said he could not comprehend the attitude of mind of members like the Minister of the Interior who had been born under the Union Jack. Surely the hon. member does not seriously argue that at this stage of the history of our country it is disloyal on the part of anyone born under the Union Jack to contend that we should have a flag such as is suggested in the Bill. Does he say that is disloyal? If he does not go to that length, then I cannot follow his argument, and I say it is not a fair argument. If we all shared his views, he would not challenge our locus standi, but because we happen to differ from him, our attitude becomes incomprehensible. That is only another way of saying that we ought to have no say on this question. Then the hon. member, in a very small, petty way, gave instances such as the appointment of the Public Service Commission, the appointment of public servants, and such small matters. What have they to do with a big issue like this? I said some time ago that the difficulty is that hon. members opposite will not give effect to the natural implications of equality, and I go further, and I say that some hon. members, and some of our English fellow citizens are obsessed with a suspicion which is unsound, mischievous and totally unjustifiable. So long as they are obsessed with this suspicion we will not make any progress towards building up this country, and towards the further understanding between the two rates.

What is the suspicion?

That we are harbouring everything that is evil.

Not everything?

Well, a good lot that is evil and mischievous towards the empire, England and towards everything English.

It is quite true.

I say that the hon. member at any rate is honourable and candid and admits it, and I say that as long as we do this sort of thing we have no chance of agreement. I hope the hon. member in course of time will change his views and get rid of his suspicions. No wonder he sees red and that the “Cape Times” sees red when he is suspicious in this manner. The only laudable passage I find in that remarkably temperate article in the “Cape Times” last Friday, and it is well put, it is an exalted idea, and finely considered—

This is only another way of saying that in trying to acquire greatness you must not rely on material conditions, you must not rely on force; but where did the gibe come from when my hon. friend spoke of ex-territoriality, when he spoke of the protection of Union subjects in foreign countries? The gibe came from that side, that the Union has no force and cannot make its will effective outside the Union. Great Britain is powerful, Germany and the United States of America are powerful, and can make their force felt. In other words, it was an appeal to force, and was directly in conflict with the fine sentiment uttered by the “Cape Times.” What about little Holland, Switzerland, Denmark? Do they not endeavour to protect their subjects abroad and if the moral force behind a nation, whether it be materially big or small, is not a force throughout the world, then that nation has a poor outlook and the world has a poor outlook. Hon. members opposite sometimes become so obsessed with ideas of liberty appertaining only to England and the Union Jack, that one would think that the history of England had a monopoly of liberty. Holland led the way to liberty. In Holland there was far more liberty long before England began to realize what liberty really was and what it ought to be. I refer hon. members to a work of Professor Thorold Rogers on “Holland and what she has done for civilization.” Hon. members should refrain from creating an impression that they, because they are English-speaking, and have been accustomed to the Union Jack, have the monopoly of liberty.

Don’t set up these bogeys to knock them down.

Remember why the United States broke away from England. Was that in consequence of liberty? The argument has been used that we have millions of natives inarticulate. I think it was voiced by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr, Gilson).

For Tembuland.

When the Transvaal and the Free State were suppressed were the natives consulted? When Natal was annexed from the Boers in 1840 were the natives consulted? I do not know whether I misunderstood my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but when reference was made to the statement made by the leader of the Opposition, in which he said that the English ought to have a say as to how they should be represented in the Union flag, and it was pointed out that the logical consequence of such an attitude was that we from our side could suggest anything—even the monument at Bloemfontein the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said—

I never said that.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member. The substance of my point is if we leave it unconditionally to either side to choose their part of a flag, you may have a flag resulting from it which, instead of cementing the two-races, would be a further matter for discord and division, and I shall not take up the time of the House by giving examples. Last year the right hon. member, if I remember correctly, and if I am wrong he will correct me, referred to the Union Jack and the “colours” of the republican flags.

That means the flags in the sense in which I used it. It is ordinary English.

If the right hon. member says that I am bound to accept his word, but all the time he spoke of the Union Jack as a “flag,” why does the right hon. member not speak of it as the English “colours.” The other night the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) not once, but twice referred’ to the British flag, the Union Jack, and the “colours” of the republican flags.

But it means the same thing.

It is up to the member to say whether he means the flags in toto or the flags’ “colours.”

If you are referring to me I mean the flags of the two republics.

It has been frequently said, and I cannot see how we can get away from the truth of it, that apart from the heraldic montrosity it would be—the combination of these three flags on one piece of canvas—it would not be a square deal. The reason has been given so often that hon. members must be thoroughly acquainted with it. The fact remains that Ireland has nothing of the Union Jack in its flag, and I want to refer to the speech of my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). Why is he to gloomy and pessimistic about Ireland? I have never seen it suggested because the Free State of Ireland has excluded every vestige of the Union Jack the relations between her and England should not be good. I understand they are absolutely good. My hon. friend, the Prime Minister, was at the Imperial Conference, and he will assure hon. members that there was nothing to distinguish the relations between England and Ireland and between Ireland and England, and the relations between the rest of the dominions. I think another point hon. members do not sufficiently consider, and, perhaps, have lost sight of entirely, and that is that with regard to the republican flags, you have to do, not only with tradition and the past, but you have to consider the result of the annexation and the incorporation of the two republics into the British empire as having cut off and destroyed the aspirations of the Dutch people in the republics to develop along republican lines in their own way, to fulfil their aspirations and develop and perfect their institutions on a republican basis and along republican lines. I do not think hon. members have given consideration to that important fact. Hon. members admit sentiment plays an important part, and this is a great question of sentiment—the chance that was destroyed. I am convinced there are many English-speaking people in the country who themselves are convinced by our actions in the past that we have done everything possible to meet the wishes and the sentiments of the English people. I am convinced there are many English people in the country who are in favour of this Bill and are in favour of a Union flag without the Union Jack in it, seeing that the Bill makes provision for the recognition of the symbol of the commonwealth of the British community of nations of which we are one.

Then why all these public meetings?

We know how things can be organized.

Tell us how they are organized; we should like to know.

We are showing a marvellous lack of confidence in the future; confidence in the good sense and the judgment of the two white races in the future. I am not a protagonist of the fusion of the two races by any hasty measures. I thoroughly agree with the two-stream view. We should endeavour to act as one people in regard to State matters, but in many respects as regards our language, history, traditions and our own particular customs, why should we not proceed along parallel lines, side by side, without interfering with one another. In that sense I am a protagonist of the two-stream policy.

I suppose your colleague the Minister of the Interior is of the same mind, the two-stream policy, because this tends that way.

I have said in State matters we should endeavour to be of one accord, but you will never wipe out the past between the Dutch and the English for centuries to come. We must leave that to Providence and to nature. I am now nearing the end of my speech, and I am very thankful for the indulgence that the House has extended to me. I want to make a few final observations. Hon. members, some of them, at any rate, have criticized this step as disloyalty. If there is anything disloyal in trying to enlarge the opportunities of the Union, then surely every step that the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has taken in the past and every step that the Imperial Conference has taken in the past to develop us from mere responsible government to full independent status and government must have been disloyal towards the British empire and towards England.

Who used that word?

One man has used the expression and only one.

All right, I am glad to hear it being disclaimed. Therefore, being a British subject, being a member of the British community of nations, it is entirely free to any dominion, and it is, therefore, entirely free to South Africa to choose such a flag as it wants.

That is not in dispute.

This afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who is not in his place, repeated that hon. members opposite were willing to consult and discuss a possible compromise.

Hear, hear.

Nobody wants to deprive them of that opportunity. They are entirely free to make a proposal.

The advance should come from the Government.

What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? He at once restricted his freedom of action and said that the inclusion of the Union Jack in toto is a condition precedent to any pourparlers. I appeal to hon. members to drop the suspicion and distrust and to adopt equality, wholeheartedly and practically, drop it as a principle and adopt it as a rule of practice. This was the cardinal point on which the late Imperial Conference succeeded, and if you read their declaration you will see that the foundation of it is absolute freedom to each dominion and that co-operation was to be absolutely free and spontaneous and voluntary. That is what the National party is striving for, and that is what the Labour party is helping us to strive for, and that is the only true and lasting solution and the right hon. the member for Standerton cannot understand it that he did not succeed in getting that declaration. I hope it is not a matter of regret with him, but that he will rejoice along with us in seeing that what he says he aimed for was ultimately accomplished by the Prime Minister and by the other members of the Imperial Conference. I do not want to derogate in the least degree from the credit that is due to the whole Imperial Conference. Then my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who is a Soot by birth and ought, therefore, to have great confidence in himself and in the country of his adoption as well as in the country of his birth, is very gloomy and pessimistic. No, let him join us in the unbounded confidence that we have—we are strong enough, we do not want him to cross the floor—but let him join us in the unbounded confidence that we have in the future of this glorious country. The hon. member said—

The future of this country is bright, and I am not relying on this flag, but I am relying on the unequivocal recognition by the Imperial Conference and by our English friends in this country of our sovereign independence and the attainment by the Dutch people of what they have aspired to through generations of bitterness and strife, and I say the result of this confidence and the result of the attainment of this aspiration and of these hopes, the realization of these expectations must necessarily make our country great and glorious and the future bright.

I recently came across this phrase—

I hope that in anything which may come from me to-night I shall not have to regret the spoken word, but I do think that the Government in power will have to regret very much the lost opportunity of making this a great solid country. I have lived all my life practically in this country. It was my one hope that I should see the two races bound together in an inseparable combination in the future, and I believe that happy consummation would have come about if it were not for the politicians of this country. We live in a most beautiful country, a country blessed with all that a man could have, and cursed by politicians, and cursed, may I say, at this moment by the parson politician. I have long been connected with the church, and have had a great deal to do with parsons. While I admire their work and know that at their own job they are doing a work of incalculable good and benefit to the country at large, when they become politicians then I begin to fear. I would remind the Minister of the Interior that if he had lately-read the Sermon on the Mount and remembered that—

he would have been doing much better than piloting a Bill through this House which is going to send the people of this country to the devil. I say this, that if he had only had a little consideration, a little thought, a little common-sense, a little of that Christian charity which we should at least expect from him, this Bill would not have been forced upon the country. Before I proceed to the main part of my speech, I would like to refer for a moment to that speech which we have just listened to. Of course, it was a clever speech. The Minister of Mines and Industries came from Johannesburg, and we naturally expect a clever speech from anybody coming from Johannesburg. We expect a good speech from the Minister, who has been the Attorney-General for the Transvaal—I do not think he should have been in that position myself—and has also been Attorney-General in the Cape. He read out extracts, for which he did not give any authority, but presumably they were of statements made my the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who was then. Prime Minister of this country. I am not at all surprised if our Leader gave expression to ideas of that kind. It all goes to show that Gen. Smuts is the greatest living Dutchman in the Union of South Africa to-day, and that he has devoted his entire life and great powers to the advancement of the Dutch people. His name, because of that devotion to his own people, is honoured by every Englishman in every civilized country in the world, and yet the people over there are shouting “crucify him.” Well, they will regret their present action.

We want to reform him, not crucify him.

I would like to tell the Government straight away that not Gen. Smuts or the beloved Gen. Botha could have induced the people of South Africa to accept any flag which did not combine the Union Jack with the other colours of the Union of South Africa. There is no doubt about that. We want a flag in agreement with the rest of South Africa, but we want a flag we can look up to and respect, and the Dutchman can look up to and respect, That can only be done by the combination of the Union Jack and the Vierkleur. In regard to the referendum, no one would object to a referendum which appealed to the ordinary man in the street, so that he could understand it but this referendum in the Bill could not appeal to the ordinary man in the street, and I have no doubt a great number of papers would be spoilt. I would like to point out to the Minister that when we were altering the Dutch language to Afrikaans it required a two-thirds majority of the House and from our side there was not a word of objection. So in what, to me, and to their English-speaking men, is a much greater matter, there should also be a two-thirds majority. However, I suppose it would be no use asking for that. We have been asking for bread and we have got nothing but a very-heavy and indigestible stone. I have been in this country a great number of years, and for the last forty years I have lived in the Transvaal. I take the gravest view of the position which is going to obtain if this Bill is forced upon the people of this country. It is no use saying nothing can happen. We have already seen from ebullitions of feeling in this House what can happen, and we are supposed to be well conducted people—I don’t know that we are really. Supposing this flag is hauled up somewhere or other, and pulled down. Hard words follow, then blows, and possibly loss of life. It is no use trying to avoid that side of the issue. It is almost bound to occur. I trust there will be no more blood and tears in this country, that goodwill will prevail. That you will go on with the Bill I have no doubt—I do not see how you can retract—but afterwards I hope it will be dropped, and that some Bill which the people can support will be brought forward. All through this debate I have been rather surprised not to have heard it mentioned that South Africa, for the last hundred years, has always been under the protection of the Union Jack. Neither the Free State nor the Transvaal could have existed at all, but for the fact that the Union Jack was in the Cape Colony and in Natal. When the great powers of the world from 1870 onwards were looking for a place in the sun, if it had not been for the fact that the British flag flew over South Africa and therefore protected the whole of South Africa, the Transvaal and the Free State could not have lived for a single day. History repeats itself, and the time may yet come, and I think it will come, when these mandated territories of ours will have to be held by some force stronger than South Africa can possibly provide. If we once withdraw these mandated territories from the protection of the British flag, you will soon have someone trying to claim them. Never in my forty years in the Transvaal has the flag question been a burning question. In the Transvaal we have been a happy family, and Dutch and British have lived together there in perfect amity. If we were left to ourselves, and if these interfering politicians would not come and disturb our good fellowship we would go on to the end of our days living together as a happy people. In the early days the Vierkleur flew and we respected it, every one of us, as the Minister of Mines and Industries knows perfectly well. Twice during the day the Volkslied was played, and many hundreds of Englishmen were there, and they stood reverently, and uncovered. They listened to its strains as we would have, had it been “God Save the King.” There never has been any difference between Briton and the Boer people in the Transvaal.

Since when?

I am perfectly certain that it is the earnest desire and wish of every South African born of English parents to work hand in hand with all our Boer brethren here, and I cannot begin to understand this talk of racial inferiority or racial complex. In the Transvaal you have eminent politicians, jurists, surgeons and so forth who are Dutch-speaking, and the doctors do not get their patients purely from the Dutch people—my own doctor is a Dutchman. There are mine managers who are Dutchmen. And they then talk of racial inferiority. It never has existed. This poisonous doctrine of inferiority is ridiculous. It is instilled in the backvelders or plattelanders—they do not know any better—and in the end it can lead only to disaster. You know better than I do, or really as well as I do, that the British people are not racialists, and never have been. Take the history of the Cape and of Natal Boer and Briton lived together. Take our own history in the Transvaal, we are not at all racialist. When we get outside influences people who do not understand the Dutch—then trouble arises. I think the Government quite fail to recognize the character and the psychology of the British people. Of course, British politicians have made grave mistakes in this country, and in other countries, but taking it by and large, the English people are a very trusting people, and they trust everybody. They respect their pledges and plighted word, and that without reservation; nor do we cherish grievances. I hope that grievances will not be cherished in this country. We are here—I wonder sometimes what we are here for. We have had trouble and trials, and mostly of our own making since we have been here, but I hope the time will come when peace will prevail over the whole country. I am told that the Minister, before he introduced the Bill, consulted the Minister of Defence who is now absent from the country; if they did so and followed his advice, it is very unfortunate. His obsessions are now verging on madness, and if he led his followers over there and led the Government to believe that the British people of the Union would accept a change of the flag, he would make the Government believe something he did and ought to know was perfectly wrong. It is a peculiarity of the Minister of Defence that he has been away on momentous occasions.

Shame!

At the two strikes in Johannesburg, when we could have been a power for peace, he did not show himself there, but had hidden away in the precincts of some house in Johannesburg.

That is not true.

He was there.

Your suggestion is that he is a coward. Be an Englishman, and say he is a coward; then we know where we are.

Why did you not speak?

I have a good deal of sympathy with members on the Labour benches. I realize that through their leaders they have been led into a position none of them would willingly occupy. They know that they are not representing those people who sent them into Parliament, that they did not send them there to agree to the Government’s action with regard to the flag. I am not qualified to judge the feelings of Labour members; but I do wish that they had, as Englishmen, put in their weight to prevent this Bill coming forward. I do realize, also, that members of the Labour party are most obedient to their leaders, as it is possible to imagine people to be, and they have been led into a false position which they regret now—into a position which they can never justify.

Send a wreath along.

You are in a position you will never be able to justify as long as you live. Apart from the fact that the Government have no mandate for a Bill that must divide the people or cause a great deal of division, is there anything in the representation of the two races to justify the Government in bringing forward this Bill? There are, roughly, 400,000 voters on the voters’ roll of the Union, and it is quite probable that there is a slight majority in favour of the Government side. A good many voters on the Government side are not effectives, so it probably follows that there are more effective voters on this side than the other side. Therefore, there are not sufficient voters to justify the Government in bringing in this Bill. Assuming that the Government got rid of the last Englishman, if it could do so, who would it put in his place? The Dutch cannot run this country themselves and when other people have taken the place of the Englishmen it will be found that the last stage of South Africa will be worse than its first— better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. The young people in the Cape and Natal and their fathers and grandfathers were born under the British flag, and everyone born within the last 25 years in the Free State and the Transvaal also saw the light of day under the British flag. I know a good deal of what happens in the schools of the Transvaal, where the boys and girls, British and Boer, work and play happily together. They combine in their sports and studies and in every possible way, and if they were left alone the natural result would be that British men would marry Dutch girls and Dutch men would marry English girls, and that would be the final and proper solution of our troubles. Under the Bill, unfortunately, we must expect divisions and troubles from the very start. Young boys and girls are little horrors when it comes to things like this, and one boy will say to another—

and the other will retort—

and then there will be trouble. The future of our nationhood is not going to be made by an Act of Parliament, but by the character, fellowship and understanding which are going to prevail between all sections in a free country. To-day British and Dutch compete with the best of good feeling in sporting competitions. The Dutch are the finest rugger players in the world and the British hold their own in cricket, and together they compete on the best of terms. I have heard things said in this House against the Sons of England.

The sins of England.

The Sons of England is purely an English institution and is not open to Scotsmen or Irishmen. The Sons of England regard the Union Jack as a symbol of faith and if they live up to what the Union Jack means they will be fine men. Don’t scoff at the Sons of England! I am a member of the order, perhaps an unworthy one, because I happen to be of English birth. The Sons of England in their own way are working for the good of South Africa. Just the same with the sons of Dutch people, and if we leave them to develop on their own lines they will all become worthy citizens of South Africa. Do not overlook the most regrettable and disastrous influence this Bill will have on the children and the young manhood and womanhood of this country. If we cannot all agree that we are all decent enough fellows in our own way and entitled to the views we hold and have been brought up to, and if there is not a certain amount of give and take between the two races, then the future of this country is in danger. If, by this Bill, we divide the people of this country into two hostile camps, no one can possibly foresee what the future will be, but I entertain very grave fears regarding it.

The Minister of the Interior in introducing the Bill made two or three inaccuracies and mis-statements. The first was in regard to our having no national flag. The Minister of Mines has referred to the flag of the Irish Free State. It is true that the Irish Free State has a flag of its own —green, white and yellow bars—but that flag is not recognised by any maritime power in the world—it is not even recognised by this Government. Last year I returned to Natal by the Kenilworth Castle, and in Algoa Bay we anchored close to an Irish Free State steamer. When a strange ship enters a foreign port she flies her national flag and usually she carries the flag of the country she is visiting at the peak. This Trish Free State steamer, however, flew the British ensign over her stern. True she was flying a very small edition of the Irish Free State flag where other steamers usually fly the house flag. The other day I was seeing a friend of mine off by the Walmer Castle—an Irish friend who had just toured the Union—and he was asking me about the flag question, and he assured me that the Irish Free State Government had discovered that their flag was the flag of disunion and discord, and that a Bill was prepared to restore the Union Jack to that flag, and that they only waited a favourable opportunity to do it. If we follow in the footsteps of that country and find afterwards we have to re-adopt the Union Jack it would be better to leave the Union Jack where it is in the corner. The most cruel thing said about the flag was said by the Minister of Justice the other night when he called it—

I believe the green flag is usually flown over a wreck which is a danger to navigation. If the hon. members opposite consider the Union of South Africa is a wreck and a danger to the navigation of the Union on the sea of progress and prosperity, well let them hoist the green flag with the white cross upon it. I have always understood Dutchmen and Scotsmen get on well together. If the green is taken to represent Ireland and the red cross on the white background England, what has the Scotsman got? The principal part of the Union Jack is the blue flag of Scotland with the white cross on it. This Government is unique in the history of the British empire because it is the first and only Government in the British empire which has not got a Scotsman in it. If it had it would not be going to perdition, it would not be riding for a fall. A Scotsman would have taught them caution. I cannot understand why the Government should go for legislation which they know cannot be carried out. They do not understand the feelings of the people or realise the gravity of the situation. If they persist with this flag it will never fly in Natal. You may get all the police and all the troops you like but you will never fly it, and remember you cannot imprison all the people—the whole community. It simply cannot be done.

Why won’t it fly in Natal?

Because it is against the will of all the people all the time. It is unfortunate that a little of the convention spirit has not been shown in this Parliament. I believe there are only twelve men who were in that Convention alive to-day. Two are in Rhodesia, one is in retirement in Natal, one is in retirement in the Cape Colony, and of the eight remaining only one sits on that side of the House—the Prime Minister. We have four on the front bench on this side and three in the Senate, and they all profess South African Party principles. It is curious that seven out of the eight should be on the South African Party side and against racialism, whilst hon. members on that side are trying to press that on this country. We have had enough trouble in this country. We do not want to be at one another’s throats again. We do not want any two stream policy. We want the two races fused into one. We are only 150,000 white people against 5,000,000 blacks. Does the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) know that where I live there are in the magisterial division only 1,500 whites against 56,000 natives?— When I come here I leave my home in charge of six women and only one youngster to defend them. It is all right for you people on the veld who have no natives to worry you. You know nothing about it. You are going the very best way to bring about division in South Africa, and it is very much easier to bring about division than it is to bring about fusion, and as was pointed out by a newspaper on Saturday, you have only to transpose one letter in the word “united” to make it “untied.” I will just say a word to the Scots men in the Labour party, a party which has not expressed a view of what they are going to do. Scotsmen have always been noted for their love of liberty, and they have fought more centuries than the Dutch have years in this country. They fought the Romans and they have fought everyone since. We had more men in proportion to our population in the great war than any other country of the allies. I would ask those Scotsmen to think well before they cast their votes in favour of this Bill and not be a discredit to their upbringing and a disgrace to the mothers that bore them.

It is with diffidence that I rise to offer my contribution to this debate, but I feel, as other members on this side of the House feel, that it is my bounden duty to criticise the Bill which is before the House, and to give my opinion on the traditions which we all revere. In criticising, however, I think that although our traditional ideals may be at variance, the Minister and his colleagues will find common sympathy with me in viewing the national outlook. My desire is to see South Africa a great nation, a nation that will be revered, respected and esteemed by all the great councils of the world, but in order to attain that end I feel that there are two great essentials before we can ever anticipate reaching that goal, and those two essentials are wise Government and a true statesmanlike interpretation of the spirit of the Act of Union. I want, briefly, to view the measure that is before the House. I cannot quite appreciate why it has been found necessary for the Government first of all to introduce the Bill and then go to a referendum. I may be somewhat at a loss on the actual constitutional position as to how this should be done, but I feel that, first of all, the Government should have gone to the country on a referendum to ask the opinion of the people and to obtain a mandate from the people on this question. When I come to view the referendum which it is proposed to place before the country, I must say that I find it extremely misleading. I shall find it exceedingly difficult to know in what manner I shall have to vote. The main question asked is—

In the same breath, as it were, you have to answer this question—

I am a South African bred and born. I am a South African first, my whole ideals and my whole love is for South Africa, and I am going to find it extremely difficult, although I want a flag and I would like to see a national flag, to vote “yes” in this referendum. The reason that I want a national flag is that we should have a flag which symbolizes the traditions of the two great peoples in this country. A flag, after all, is an emblem symbolical of the traditions of the nation, and unless you have a flag which includes the symbols of the two races in this country it is absolutely meaningless. I am one of those who are always prepared to see the other side of the question also, and see the other man’s point of view, but I would like them to see our point of view at the same time. This flag is going to be handed down to our children and our children’s children, and in generations to come when these children analyse that flag and ask what it stands for, what it represents, what are the symbols on that flag, they will and can only come to one conclusion, and that is that it is absolutely meaningless. I do not wish to force the Union Jack down the throats of anyone, or of any person in this country who has not the same regard for it that I have, but I do say this, that I feel that those who cherish British ideals and traditions are entitled to have their traditions honoured and respected, and to have their request seen to in the national flag of this country. I have very great regard for the feelings of my Dutch fellow-citizens. Their argument, as I have been able to follow it, is that the Union Jack must not be included, as it hurts their feelings. We, on the other side, say that we are proud of our traditions and we are proud of the flag which was the flag of our fathers and their fathers, and we wish to see that flag incorporated in the national flag, the domestic flag of this country. As to what the emblem is to be so far as the Dutch-speaking section of the community is concerned, that is for them to decide. Personally I cannot see any reason why a flag should not be produced incorporating, as has been suggested several times on this side of the House, the Vierkleurs and the Union Jack. But if, on the other hand, as has been contended on the other side, the Vierkleurs are dead and buried and are gone by, then let them decide upon another emblem. But do not suggest taking away the emblem of the section to which I belong. Do not prevent the inclusion of that emblem in the national flag of this country. The other day the Minister of Finance, for whom I have a very deep regard, said—I think it was meant more as a jibe—supposing we wished to put the monument at Bloemfontein in the national flag. I am convinced they do not want that, but if that is an emblem with which it is desired to symbolise that section of the community, it is not for us to say they shall not do so, provided they accede to our request for the inclusion of the Union Jack. It seems so illogical to say a flag must be produced which is meaningless, which is a flag of exclusion instead of a flag of inclusion. Natal has been attacked on several occasions, and I think it is due very largely to the fact that hon. members opposite have not had opportunities of getting to know the people in the towns of Natal. What does Natal say? The whole attitude of Natal is this: “We will honour and respect, and we do give due regard, to the feelings and sentiments of the Dutch-speaking citizens of South Africa, but what we do ask is that you will allow us to incorporate in the domestic flag of South Africa the flag which has been the flag of Natal practically ever since the existence of Natal.” When jibes are flung at Natal members, and when feeling is running a little high, I do want to impress this upon the House, that Natal is most sincere in its desire to give full recognition to the other section which is assisting us in creating the South African nation. In conclusion, may I say that I, in common with many others, while holding a deep and earnest regard for our fellow Dutch citizens, request that our sentiments be respected, and our traditions be honoured, and that the Union Jack, to the safeguarding and maintenance of which we have in some measure contributed, be incorporated in a flag symbolizing the two sections of the South African nation. I sincerely hope that the members opposite, and the Minister in charge of the Bill will, even at this late hour, see fit to allow the matter to remain over until the passions of people have subsided, having regard to the demonstrations throughout the country at the present time. I think it would be most dangerous to go on with it, and I, as a South African, proud of my English traditions, appeal to the Minister that if they cannot see their way to incorporate the Union Jack, they will at least meet the feeling throughout the country by dropping the Flag Bill for the time being, and allow feelings to subside so that the question can be dealt with in a more equitable way in years to come.

I would not have contributed to this debate, especially as no new arguments can be brought forward at this stage, if it were not for the fact that this is as important a matter as we could possibly have to deal with. If you see what is going on all over the country, if you take note of the spontaneous objections to these flag proposals, it certainly shows the Government it ought to pause. I would only ask them to pause and to consider whether they are doing the right thing towards South Africa. Do not let them think of any little miserable party advantage to be gained by this, but let them think of South Africa. We frequently talk about our growing into a big nation, and it is said that we sometimes are saying more than is warranted, but we expect to get on, and if we do, we want the co-operation of both races. You are not now working for co-operation, but dragging the races asunder. I represent a predominate Dutch constituency, and I have had the honour to represent it for a good many years. During all that time I have never heard this flag matter introduced. We had for a considerable time the secession, and this had caused conditions of bitterness at some elections. We have had severe and strenuous elections, but you have never heard flag matters introduced. You had other matters; and what caused bitterness a few years ago was the secession issue, which was trotted out very much in 1921. In 1924 we had more to do with economic matters—the alleged extravagence of the S.A. party in its administration. I hope that those who made that charge against the S.A. party are satisfied now. We had another matter prominently brought forwarded at the last election, and that was the native question, which the Prime Minister was going to solve. I would like to know whether he is going to solve it when he is creating the atmosphere he is creating now. The natives and the coloured people are very much disturbed over this flag matter. They were very much disturbed at the time of Union, and they were suspicious. Your natives were not satisfied at that time, and went so far as to send a deputation across to England because they wanted to put their case before the British authorities before we went into Union. Now the natives are as much disturbed to-day; they cannot understand these changes, the coloured people also, cannot understand these contemplated changes. What is this new move? They ask—

In South Africa.

And they know no other flag. In many parts of the territories and the old Cape Colony they have known no other flag than the Union Jack. Not only are they suspicious, but other sections are suspicious also. It is not confined to the British section only, but many of the Dutch in my constituency are asking, what is behind it? What is the next move to be?

Their member.

And they have good reasons to be suspicious—their memories are not short. They remember what has been the aims and objects of the Nationalist party only a few years ago. Thank God the Nationalists have given up some of those aims. I am referring now more particularly to the secession issue. But people are still suspicious, and they may well be so because the party opposite has never for long adhered to any single line of policy. The trouble is that we do not know where we shall find the Nationalists to-morrow. The flag question has never before been raised as a practical and direct issue. A few months since the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance returned from the Imperial Conference in London, and we remember the immense reception they received from all sections of the community and the fine speeches made by the Prime Minister. People were anxious about the flag and many had hoped that this Bill would be dropped. If we had had an election shortly after the return of the Prime Minister before the flag issue was again raised, many votes would have gone to the Pact which to-day they will never get. If we had an election to-morrow, the Pact would not poll two-thirds of the votes they would have got if there had been a general election four or five months ago. I was fortunate to return from England with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in the Edinburgh Castle. The passengers were largely English, and they were very much taken up with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the speeches they had made at the Imperial Conference. The Flag Bill was discussed a great deal by the passengers who felt certain that it would be dropped as a result of the Imperial Conference, they were very hopeful that the Flag Bill would be dropped. I met one of my fellow-passengers a few days ago, and I asked him what his view now was, and he said—

He is not the only one.

So we all have, but it is not too late for the Prime Minister to make amends. Let them drop the Flag Bill, because by their persistence in putting this matter through they know full well to-day they are causing an amount of feeling such as we only had before and during the Boer war. Up to now we have never had a flag matter raised at the elections, but if this Bill is put through and you have a referendum, you will not have an election without this flag matter in future, and it will cause a tremendous amount of racial feeling. The Minister of the Interior, who brought in the Bill, said it was not a party question. They have made it a party question. It is nothing else but a party flag. They have laid it down they will have a flag, but it shall be according to their own liking and nothing else. We have repeatedly said on this side—

Let us have that or otherwise no flag at all. You can only have a flag by agreement, and if you cannot get it by agreement the best thing is to drop it, and I still urge upon the Prime. Minister not to go on with the Bill.

We have had a number of speeches on this great question and the importance of the question justifies those speeches, and, though I am not a frequent speaker, I feel it is impossible for me on this occasion to give a silent vote, because I feel the gravity of the position is one of serious importance. We are once again at the cross-roads in our journey in working for the unity of races in South Africa, and I feel what we are going to do to-day or to-morrow is a question that may affect the future of our land to a serious extent. I speak as a representative of Queenstown and district, and I will remind members of this House that the people of Queenstown are intimately associated together with the past—Boer and British. The old frontier town and border district were associated in the old days in many of the old kaffir wars. Men of both races in those days lived together, fought together, and shared all the dangers and privations and sufferings of that time; and since that day that intimate association between those races has made them one people. I am speaking on their behalf when I say that the people of Queenstown and district are absolutely opposed to the Bill now before the House. They say, and they say in no uncertain tone, that the flags of the Boer republics and of the British community must be united in one national flag. They go further, and they ask: why is this Bill before the House? They want to know what mandate, what calf, what demand was made for this particular Bill, and they feel that in a Bill of this kind it is absolutely necessary that we should have agreement—not disagreement—between the peoples of this country in regard to what flag they shall choose. In regard to that matter, I wish to refer to a remark made by the Minister of the Interior in the course of the debate last year, in which he said—

Those words came from the Minister of the Interior. I was under the impression that the Minister at one time was an exponent of the law of faith, hope and charity, “and the greatest of these is charity.” Do I read charity in a remark of that kind? Do I read that there he is showing consideration to others for their sentiments, which we know are the deepest sentiments that are found in the heart of a human being, that this flag shall be a flag by agreement, or without agreement and in spite of disagreement? He goes further, and says—

I would like to know on what grounds the Minister made that statement? He said—

I was under the impression that the Minister was born and bred under that flag, that he owes all his happiness and prosperity to that flag, and, though he may speak for himself and say that he abjures that flag and will have none of it, what right has he to say that this flag shall not be included in the flag of South Africa as a national and united flag? There are others beside himself who have the deepest sympathy and the deepest regard for that Union Jack, not only the British section of the community, but many of the other section of the community who have lived, as their fathers have lived, under that flag. The Minister goes further, and says that it shall not include the republican colours. Again, I would ask: who gave the Minister the right and the power to say that the republican colours shall not be included in that flag? Are there not many men who have fought and suffered for that flag? Have they not a right to say whether these republican colours shall not be included in the flag of the Union of South Africa? If the present flag is an insult and a rock of offence to any section of the community in this House, or any of the people outside, I personally cannot understand the mentality of my friends. I have heard the reason to-night from the Minister of Mines, and the sentiment is that the present flag does not meet the present aspirations of the Dutch-speaking people. I can quite appreciate that point and I grant it, because I am a South African born, and I can enter into the feeling of those of another race who belong to this country. But I would say this, we are quite ready to meet them to-morrow, but give us the Union Jack as an integral portion of that flag. The other portion can be decided by the Dutch section, and any proposal they wish to make will, I am sure, meet with approval from us. All we are asking, as men of British descent, and others who have always lived under the Union Jack, is that the Union Jack shall form an integral portion of that flag. The history of the Union Jack, after all, in this country, in spite of any suffering and any trials which seem at present to dominate the minds of some of our friends, is one of the glories of the Boer people. The stories that can be told of the past surely redound to the honour, and it ought to be the pride, of the Boer people. During the last half-century, when the two races have been working for the development of South Africa and the cause of civilization, they have been hindered by the very fact that we have had conflicting interests and opposing sentiments, which did a great deal to deter the progress of the country. We of British descent honour everything that redounds to the credit and glory of our Dutch friends. Surely to-day, with our wider vision and clearer perspective of the past and our clearer understanding, we can enter into the feelings of our Dutch friends and respect each other. We follow out these words of Kipling—

Everything of the past worth keeping and treasuring helps to bring us together as a people. In that respect I wish to quote again from a speech made last year on this very subject on the second reading. The Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition in his speech quoted words which everyone of us should cherish and take to heart and try to practise—the words of that grand old patriot, Paul Kruger, the finest patriot South Africa has every seen. He told us that these were some of the last words written shortly before the death of the old President.—

Surely words like these ought to have an even mightier influence on us to-day when the future looks so gloomy and uncertain. Might I remind my hon. friend that dislike and hate cannot live long. The fires of Hate will soon die out because they have to exist on themselves. But they leave a legacy of only sorrow and despair for those who kindle them and hope to continue them. To-day, if we hear i: we hear it with a smile—any jingoistic expressions in the House on in the street. The spirit of jingoism is dead. The old cries we heard when we were younger men—to avenge Majuba, when the old Boer stalwarts defeated the English generals. To-day they carry no note of truth about them; to-day, from a more distant view and with a clearer perspective, we can see only the courage and the strategy of those old Boer stalwarts against the British generalship. Our feelings—and I am speaking for the British section—go out in admiration and respect to these old Boer heroes. To-day our feelings with regard to the last great war are that we admire the men who played the great game in that war, and saw their way to do their duty and be an honour to their race. When I speak of that great war it recalls to my mind a very small incident that has never left my memory. It was such a little thing, but struck me at the time, and has never left my memory. When in London during the great war I happened to cross Waterloo Station. With hundreds and thousands of people going to and fro in that busy time, I saw a lad standing there alone, and he looked so sad and forlorn. I had five minutes to spare before catching my train, and, going to him, I saw he had the South African badge. I went up to him and said—

Seeing my surprise, he said—

He was a young Dutch lad, only a boy, and we were speaking about generalities, as we had only a few minutes. I remarked—

He replied—

But that went to my heart. I felt there is, indeed, a man, and I wondered what had brought him across the sea. Possibly one thing that had led him there was the old spirit of adventure still in the blood of the Voortrekkers. There was the feeling, perhaps, that he had to do his duty to his King and flag, inspired by the desire to do honour to the race to which he belonged. We hear a great deal about inferiority complex.” I cannot understand how anyone can be swayed by the idea that there is such a thing as an inferiority complex. I am reminded of the time when England and Scotland entered into union. There were then many Scots who felt that union would mean that Scotland would be lost in a union with a larger and wealthier people. History has shown, however, that the Scot has been the dominating factor in the development of the great British empire. The Union of South Africa has been in existence since 1910, and people still talk of the inferiority complex, when we have had three Prime Ministers to govern this country, and every one of them of them of pure Dutch descent. I, as a South African of English descent, have felt no sense of the inferiority complex, or complained that the position was almost intolerable because of that fact. With that young Dutch lad I met at Waterloo Station, there was no feeling of inferiority complex. I feel that the object of this flag proposed in the Bill is to create disunion and division. The flag proposes to blot out the history and the sorrows of the past, which are one of the glories of the Boer race. It proposes to stand for unforgiveness and unforgettableness. The children of South Africa, as they grow up and ask their old folk why they have this flag —are they to be told that it is because we will neither forgive nor forget? I feel we are on the wrong lines when we start with a flag of this description, and we are following lines which everyone will be sorry for in the future. As a son of South Africa, the position appals me when I consider that we are actually discussing a flag which is going to create dissension and division among the people. It is a most appalling situation. We hope to build up a strong and united people. The events of the last 25 years and the great war surely should have justified us in expecting that the prospect before the country would be a very different one from what it is to-day with this flag controversy creating discord—that we should be working up to become what we must become, and what we shall become, a united people. No one has a greater love for South Africa than I have—no one in this House. I am a son of Africa in every sense of the word—a son of a voortrekker—and when I say that I speak of a father who was born away beyond the Orange River 90 years ago, when Beaufort West was the frontier town of South Africa, and I am proud to claim the privilege of being a son born farther north than any member of this House—away in Rhodesia. I have lived all my life in Africa, except for a few years at school in England, and I have drunk in all the air I breathe in South Africa. When I travelled as a lad for hundreds of miles on South African veld, is it possible for me to have anything but the deepest love and veneration for this land? I speak as a South African in every sense of the word, although of Scottish descent, and I feel very deeply on this question. It reminds me, too, of the man to whom we owe Rhodesia, where many of your sons and daughters are living. Only just beyond these walls stands the statue of Cecil John Rhodes, the founder of Rhodesia, and below the statue, on the stone, are written the words, “Your hinterland is there.” The statue stands there facing Table Bay, with arm uplifted, pointing to the North—

Not only material wealth for us, not only the development of mineral wealth, agricultural and pastoral resources, which are surprising and wonderful, but there is a deeper meaning. To every man living in South Africa that meaning is that he was not to live for South Africa alone in the sense of the Union of South Africa, but that our destiny lies away to the North, that great continent, and it is our destiny to become a great people by doing our duty to ourselves and to each other. This call is not to one race alone, it is to all of us. “Your hinterland lies there”—a land that calls us to one common purpose, that demands our united effort and devotion. At the present time we know the nations of the world are worrying and trying to solve the problem of the treatment of subject races. How are we going to help solve that question unless we prove we are a united people ourselves? Surely when we think of the conflict of the past, and how we have taken up attitudes which were opposed to each other, surely we have learned the lesson that there is only one thing we can do, and that is to respect each other’s sentiments and feelings. If we do our duty to each other here in the Union of South Africa, we are going to make ourselves qualified to carry out and solve this great problem which is agitating the countries of the world. We cannot possibly remain hidebound in the Union of South Africa with personal feelings and prejudices and narrowness of vision. When I say vision I think of the phrase—

Are we to have no vision? In a land like this of vast spaces and far-distant horizons, we feel that we must lift up our eyes and see the future and realize we must do your duty to the people who surround us and whom Providence has committed to our charge.