as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, reporting the Railways and Harbours Regulation, Control and Management Act, 1916, Further Amendment Bill with amendments.

Report to be printed; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 6th June.

I move—

objected.

We are drawing to the close of a debate which, to my mind, has been very remarkable, remarkable in the first instance for the moderation and the quiet deliberation of the Minister of the Interior when introducing the Bill. The debate had been carried on at a very high level until interrupted by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. It is remarkable also for the earnestness displayed throughout the whole of the debate and for the soul-stirring appeals made by Dutch-speaking and English-speaking members on this side to the Minister and the Government as a whole. Very deep feelings have been left unexpressed, because hon. members felt they were discussing a very serious subject and they preferred to discuss it on its merits rather than fully to express their deep personal feelings It will be remembered for the undignified, unnecessary and constant interruptions by no less a person than the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, who has shown a complete change of mind since he delivered those admirable speeches on his return from the Imperial Conference. He apparently has forgotten those noble words uttered by him at Delville Wood, and he now looks upon the flag under which he then spoke as merely a foreign flag. Let me read extracts of those fine utterances at Delville Wood—

I do not suppose anyone could improve on these utterances, and our only regret to-day is that the Prime Minister should not put into practice those sentiments then expressed by him. I think also the debate is memorable for the great stand made by some of the Dutch-speaking members of this House for what is right and what is just. It was with profound emotion that they explained to the House how, after a most bitter fight, they were prepared to grasp the hand of friendship and to trust those who promised them consideration and reparation and who have faithfully kept their promises. The debate has been outstanding as showing how great problems can be shelved and other matters introduced which can produce nothing but bitterness and strife. It has been marked by an amount of personal animus towards South Africa’s greatest son, such as surprises all, for we would have expected a cessation of petty jealousy under present circumstances and that such methods would only be made use of under circumstances not quite so serious. I think the strangest feature of all is that members on the opposite side have entirely avoided taking part in the discussion of this most serious question. It is a most far-reaching question and perhaps one of the greatest that will have to be faced in this country while the present Government is in power.

All your arguments were replied to.

We will see about that later on. The majority of those who have been spending their time in foolish and silly interjections are those who are afraid to get up in this House and honestly tell us what they really feel on this great question. I am sorry the Minister of Mines and Industries is not in the House, because I would like to congratulate him on the good humour which he showed when he was speaking last evening. It is something quite new to him, and to us it is most welcome. Perhaps he spoke with a certain amount of relief after what had happened in another place; perhaps he spoke without conviction; in any case he said little about the flag clauses in the Bill. One remark of his particularly surprised me—that “it was farcical to speak of the fusion of the races into one nation.” What have we been striving for and boasting about during the last few years? We have taken our stand on the assumption that we are a nation, and the Minister of Mines and Industries, at this late stage, tells us that we are not a nation. Is the main reason for the introduction of this Bill not that we are a nation and that as such we should have a domestic flag? That, I understood, was the chief argument; and what is the position now? The Minister complained that—

and that there was—

I must say I find it very difficult to follow the Minister in his complaint; hut if he is correct, then I ask him, can he blame the English-speaking section for being suspicious? Not long ago he uttered words which would force the English-speaking people in this country to become suspicious. He said—

It does not help to disguise the fact that as late as 1920 a responsible Minister should see fit to make such remarks, but he cannot blame English-speaking people in the country if these words caused them to become suspicious.

We did not have sovereign independence then.

He said also—

Do hon. members wish to cast doubt on the bona fides of the Prime Minister? Do they wish to suggest that the Prime Minister was writing a serious despatch, believing that he was not really wanting what he asked for? In Minute No. 465, dated 6th September, 1910, written not on his own behalf, but written on behalf of the Government, for if not written on behalf of the Government, what right had he to make his appeal in the name of “Ministers”—he says—

The Minister referred to several suggestions which were made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. These, he admitted, were merely raised as academic questions. But no matter what he suggested, what we are concerned with is not what suggestions the right hon. member made, but how he acted; and we are satisfied that he has never acted, except in the interests of the people of South Africa. We know, and the world knows, that no man anywhere in the world has done more for his country and for his people than has the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, and that is what concerns us. Then he has the temerity to accuse the right hon. the leader of the Opposition of not always explaining what he means when he makes an utterance. I think he should be the last to make such an accusation, and I should like to ask him what he means by a certain utterance made by him not long ago—

These words, almost immediately after the statement “It was England’s duty to inform foreign powers that the Dominions enjoyed ‘absolute equality’ with herself, and that they must be regarded as equally free and independent” seemed to me to require quite a deal of explanation, and I should like to know exactly what the Minister means to imply. He has said so many things that, taking his sayings as a whole, it would be difficult to say what his real true inward feeling is to-day. He asked what was fairer than a referendum. Since when have the present Ministers individually, since when have they as leaders of their party, been anxious to allow any Government to avoid responsibility by referring great public questions to a referendum? Another remark the Minister made which rather surprised me was that the chief failing of the Dutch was that they were too prone to forget and too prone to forgive. Does the Minister deny his race? I know of no man who remembers longer, and who is less likely to forget than the Minister of Mines and Industries, more especially when he suffers under the delusion of some imaginary wrong.

And yet he was quite right when he said it.

Then it was amusing to hear the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) referring in very sneering terms to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). I think there is no man in this House who has less right than the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) to refer in scathing terms, or any terms, to anyone who has changed his political opinions. He said that the hon. member was singing his swan song; if that is correct, this is certain, that as far as the Labour party is concerned, we shall before long have the best example of community singing we have had in this country. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) referred to the opinions expressed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, but unfortunately he did not explain the circumstances under which those opinions were given. When those words were uttered there was a greater national crisis than even that which exists to-day, for no occasion could be of more vital importance to a country than when its leaders are arranging peace terms after a great war. The commander-in-chief of the Boer forces, Gen. Louis Botha, who was chairman of the committee, was rather perturbed because some of the members were limited in their powers, and he put the question—

On that Mr. Justice Hertzog, who is now the Prime Minister, said that it was a principle in law that a delegate was not to be regarded as a mere agent or mouthpiece of his constituents; on the contrary, he is a plenipotentiary when dealing with public affairs with the right to act to the best of his judgment. The leader of the Opposition, who was then State Attorney Smuts, agreed with that view. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) on that authority asks why should people not have the right to act independently of their instructions on this occasion and no one can find fault with such a question under such circumstances. The unfortunate member of the Labour party who has had the pluck to say what he feels on this Bill is to he made to suffer, and his harshest judge is he who has not for long been constant in his allegiance to any party. It is an iniquitous system by which a parliamentary party is told by an entirely outside body how it is to vote, and when this point was brought up before, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) interjected, as if that entirely concludes the matter—

If an outside body can dictate to members of Parliament how they are to vote it is an intolerable state of affairs and will put members in a very unworthy position. Simply because we stand for the rights of all sections of the community we are told by the Prime Minister that we, like the Empire group, are imbued with an anti-Dutch hysteria. On the subject of hysteria the Prime Minister is a sound judge and undoubtedly the best authority in this House, but it is a wicked and disgraceful travesty of the truth to say that members on this side are in any degree anti-Dutch. It is absolutely untrue. The real trouble is that the Prime Minister is not able to say the same thing on two consecutive days. We have seen him attempting an egg-dance on the Union Jack. Let me remind him of what he said in 1913, when he was asked if he desired the development of South Africa as an integral portion of the empire and under the British flag. His answer was—

The Prime Minister, in his long speech on this Bill, did not reply to a single argument brought forward from this side of the House. His hysteria is such that, without the proverbial method of the pettifogging lawyer who has a bad case, he surely would fail to raise any enthusiasm, and he would be obliged to fall back on his dictum of 1914. If I did anything to save my people, I would lose my influence. The Minister of the Interior, during his second reading speech, told us that it was very easy to rouse passions on this subject, and appealed to us to show a high sense of our responsibility. We, on this side of the House, have listened to his appeal, but when we have speeches such as those of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, it is obvious that it is the Government alone who are to blame if anything has occurred which has not kept the debate on the high level on which it started. He asked us to avoid rousing passions, but if ever speeches were made with the intention of rousing passions they were made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. Both of them went out of their way to engender the most bitter feeling and both cast all responsibility to the winds. The Minister of Finance has posed hitherto as a peacemaker and a man of moderation. I defy him, however, to make that claim in future, and would suggest that before he attempts to make such a claim he reads his speech and assuredly he then must make up his mind that his claim has gone for ever The Minister admitted that the debate had hitherto been kept on a high level. He asked us to continue in that, and he reminded us that the discussions outside will largely be guided by the discussions inside the House. We, on this side, have kept the debate on a high level. But, after those speeches by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who, undoubtedly, have set a course which will be followed outside, no one can be surprised if bitterness and strife follow, and the responsibility will be theirs. These speeches I say will lead to bitterness and strife. All our moderation, all our appeals, have been of no avail. The Prime Minister says the Government is determined do push the measure through. He thus, in the face of every appeal, of every argument, is deliberately bent on rushing the country into turmoil and trouble. If Design No. 2 is forced on the country the consequences undoubtedly will be very serious. Memorable words come to my mind when I visualize the future—

The Minister of the Interior tells us the Prime Minister has gone back on the spirit of the speeches he delivered here after his return from the Imperial Conference, because we were unreasonable. The Prime Minister says he went back on those speeches because of the Empire Group. We can safely leave those two Ministers to fight it out themselves. The Minister of the Interior denied the other day that the French, when they settled in this country, were deprived of their rights. History has so often been misquoted that we must take notice, and I must refer him to references to the French refugees by the keeper of the archives—

made an interjection.

If the Minister will speak up I shall be able to hear him. When a responsible Minister gets up and denies the fact I think it is our duty to point out what history really says about it. Another point. The Prime Minister denied that the Union Jack had any right in this country in the old days, and said the Union Jack was the flag of the people merely by compulsion. I deny that, and I say it is a strange mentality which can read history in that way. The Prime Minister has been answered by many of this side, but there will be no harm in giving him a little history again. On page 460 of Moodie’s history, a history which takes its reference from writings by men among whom is one member on that side will not disown, Dr. Theal, it states with reference to the arrival in Durban of certain trek boers, parties of the great trek—

What more than that do they want to show that the English were there first? We had the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe)—who is, unfortunately, not in the House—we had him interjecting yesterday, as if it were conclusive, that the Union Jack stood for oppression, and he instanced the great trek. I ask the hon. member for Winburg, who is a scholar, to tell me where in history it says that the great trek was in any way due to the Union Jack. We have it that the abolition of slavery was one of the causes. Is there any man in the House to-day who would not stand for the abolition of slavery wherever it existed?

If you say the great trek was a result of the abolition of slavery then you are talking absolute nonsense. I know history better than you do.

The causes of this trek have been given over and over again, and so need not be repeated. Suffice it to quote that—

I am sorry the hon. member for Winburg is not here, because last year he excused his hatred of the Union Jack by his supposed sufferings in the concentration camp. I want to ask the hon. member a question or two, and I hope his friends will convey them to him. Was he not sent to the concentration camp at the request of a very near relative, and was the request not made to save his family by securing for them a place of safety? I should like the hon. member to answer these questions. I put it to the hon. member that his is rather a case of biting the hand that fed him. We do not like mentioning these cases, but if we have members on that side referring to matters they know are wrong, quoting history which they know is incorrect, then it is our duty not to let their statements go unchallenged. It is a very strange commentary on our system, on our universities, and on our theological seminaries that the two men in the House who have been reared in and whose professions are the teaching of the doctrines of the prince of peace should be the prime movers and supporters of doctrines opposed to all peace and goodwill in the country. It is pleasing that the Minister of the Interior has now changed to a show of reason and even moderation. Last year I listened to him in astonishment, and this year I followed his speech with pleasure. He has laid aside a great deal of his bitterness, but even his speeches of last year have been entirely outclassed in bitterness by the two other members of the cabinet who have spoken. It proves, as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, that, although some men may be reasonable on most occasions, the moment the British connection comes into the question they entirely lose all reason. The Minister of the Interior made a statement in the House the other day, which, after his close study into the history of the flags of the dominions, surprised me. I do not know how he missed some official statements. He said that in Canada the majority of the designs were without the Union Jack.

When did I say that?

You said it in your speech on the second reading, and I want to give you what is on record in official papers.

You are beating the air now.

It is in the official records of Canada that there were 115 designs sent in. Twenty-six were of the Union Jack on which was superimposed a distinctive Canadian emblem; 18 were the red ensign with a distinctive Canadian emblem; four the blue ensign with a distinctive Canadian emblem; four the white ensign with a distinctive Canadian emblem; 24 were miscellaneous designs embodying the Union Jack in various ways, nineteen were opposed to any distinctive flag whatever and there were 20 only on which the Union Jack did not appear. There the Government, as any responsible Government would be, was impressed by the very serious agitation which was aroused by the introduction of that Bill. Mr. MacKenzie King, a gentleman who, I believe, before the last Imperial Conference was quoted by our two delegates who went across as someone who would be prepared to support them in their views, in withdrawing the Bill said he would be proud to have the Union Jack to represent Canada as the national flag and he would not support any flag not having the Union Jack as its most distinctive feature. As regards the referendum, to my mind it would be useless to refer the named clauses as suggested if we wish to have any solution in this country. On so important a matter I think the Government should make up its mind to shoulder the responsibility and not hide behind a referendum, but go to the country and ask for a mandate at a general election. If they are so certain, as they appear to be, of the justice of their claim, they will not be afraid to appeal to the people, not by the method of avoiding responsibility and shirking the real issue, not by a method which leaves them in power whatever happens, but by the straightforward course of letting the people say whether or no this Government in spite of their actions still enjoys their confidence. It is perfectly easy and safe to adopt the principle of a referendum when in trouble, but under our system of Government, it is not the honest way. On general principles one is rather inclined to support a referendum, but if we accept it as a principle, then I say it must be a form of our Government and not be a convenient way for the Government to avoid responsibility. We should then also give the people the right to claim a referendum when they were dissatisfied with the Government. Members on the cross-benches are very ready to avoid their responsibility by the introduction of this new method; but then they have jettisoned so many of their principles that I am not surprised they are supporting a principle which no Labour party in the world supports. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) the other evening reminded us that the British Labour party subscribes to the principle of a community of nations. Seeing that he went to the British Labour party for support and quoted with approval some of their principles, he might have gone further and considered other of their principles. He might, for instance, have given us the views of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald on the referendum. In his work “Socialism—Critical and Constructive” he says—

“Too slow to secure internal peace”—that is what we are afraid of on this side of the House. We are afraid that the internal peace of the country will be disturbed by this new method of getting the opinion of the people. [Time limit.]

I move—

I object.

Withdraw.

I am very sorry that the courtesy which has been shown by members on this side of the House to the speakers on the Government side has not been shown in the present instance. In listening to this long debate, one cannot help but remark on the stolid indifference, if not contempt, which the Government benches have shown to the moving appeals for delay made by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and by my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). These two hon. members pointed out in a way that I am sure every person in this country who read their speeches would agree with, that the best interests of this country are not being consulted by the Government in rushing this Bill through. They pleaded for delay, they pleaded for agreement, but their pleas were dismissed with indifference, if not with contempt. Another thing that occurs to one in connection with this matter is that, apart from the three or four Ministers who have addressed us on this subject, there has been no attempt made to meet the weighty arguments which have been, from time to time, placed before the House from this side. One of these—and it is the most weighty of all—is that we ask that the Government should not force a Bill on the country, but should endeavour to adopt a Bill by agreement, and, if it cannot be done to-day, let the thing stand over until to-morrow or next year or the next ten years. We are told by the Government that the country demands a flag. I do not know where the demand comes from. It must exist in the imagination of Ministers, because there was no demand at the last election.

The South African party conferences.

I admit that there have been some speeches made on this subject at long intervals, 1917, 1919 and 1920, but there was no consensus of opinion at the last election in favour of the adoption of a new national flag, and, as is remarked by my hon. friend behind me, it has been no part of the Government’s programme. It has never appeared on the party programme, and we heard nothing about the Government’s intention until two years ago but we are now told that the country demands it. The Government must know by this time that they have upset the people of this country very materially, and that the action which they are persisting in is going to land us in trouble and strife and chaos, and they will be responsible. In connection with that matter, I would like to read to the House what the Minister of Justice said within a year ago in talking about the flag at Bloemfontein. He said—

If this significant utterance of the Minister of Justice is not to carry some weight, I do not know what we are to believe of Ministers’ speeches in future. This statement, I think, was made at the time when the Minister of Justice was Acting Prime Minister, and he had all the sources of Government information at his disposal. That is what we all know; it is the truth, it is the fact. But for their own purposes the Government endeavour to make the country believe that there is a universal demand for a national flag. We, on this side, say that if the Government are determined to have a national flag we are agreeable; we want a national flag also, because it is only in keeping with the status of the country that there should be a national flag, but we say, give us a flag which will be acceptable to all sections of the community. The Minister of the Interior, however, says—

Would the flag that you suggest or the flag which your party suggests, be acceptable to all sections?

I am quite sure that the flag I suggest would be acceptable to the great majority of people in this country, and I am equally sure that the flag which it is now sought to force on the country will not be accepted, and if it is accepted by a majority it will only be the occasion of further strife and dissension, and it will not unify the people. If the Minister of the Interior will only turn to the eloquent speech which he made a year ago in introducing this same Bill, he will see that he made a great point of the necessity for unity, of a symbol of unity to which every person in the country will look up with affection and respect, and which everyone will love. Will this symbol be loved, will there be much affection for a flag forced upon the country by a majority of the electors? Certainly not. It will be a cause of strife and dissension. We have got along quite well since Union, for the last 17 years, without a national flag, and it is far better that we should go on for the next 17 years with the flag that we have if we cannot agree upon one. The Minister, in his speech recently, when introducing the Bill this session, tried his best to make the English-speaking section of the public believe that they ought to be satisfied with the St. George’s Cross. If they had been satisfied they would have said so, but they are not satisfied, and it is no use to say that a great concession has been made to English-speaking sentiment by showing the St. George’s Cross on the flag, because they have already made it plain that that symbol is not acceptable, and it ought not to be forced upon them. All that has been claimed in connection with this matter from this side of the House is that the English section of the population should have a say in the new national flag. The English-speaking section of the population do not want to monopolize the flag, and I am quite sure that the Dutch-speaking members of the South African party are perfectly willing to give the English section of the public a share in the flag, and that is all we ask I was very much struck by a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in which he said that it was the duty of the Government to consult and endeavour to meet the wishes of the English-speaking section of the population, because they, as well as the Dutch-speaking section of the population, had been pioneers in this country. They have been very largely responsible for the development which has taken place in this country during the last hundred years. Who built our railways? Who developed our mines? Who established industries in the country? Who even introduced improved methods in agriculture? Very largely the English-speaking section of the population, and very largely with money coming from Great Britain. These people have made good their footing in this country, they are good South Africans, they put South Africa first, and they ought to be consulted and their wishes ought to be met when a national flag is being adopted. As a matter of fact, there is no reply to that strong point made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). The Prime Minister instead pours the vials of his wrath upon the Empire Group. He spent a large portion of his time in quoting from the manifesto or the publications of the Empire Group. There is no body defending the Empire Group in this House, as far as I am aware, but, after all, they are free men, they are citizens, and they are entitled to express their opinions They are as much entitled to have their opinions on this question as the Minister of the Interior, or the paper he had the honour to edit a short time ago, namely, “Die Burger. I am reminded that if one compares the opinions in “Die Burger” with those expressed by the Empire Group, moderation is on the side of the latter. Another question put to the Prime Minister from this side, and a very pointed one, was—

He made no reply to that, except to quibble and wriggle. It is an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister, who is also a lawyer, should get up in public, as he did the other day, and try to disown his own signature to a solemn document of State. That is what the Prime Minister did. I was looking over the speech which the Prime Minister made just before he went to London, and I saw in that speech he took the people of Natal to task for having insisted upon the Union Jack being included in the flag, and he said it would be treason for South Africa to do so, and any Government that listened to such a request would be guilty of treason to South Africa. Well, if it is treason to-day, it must have been treason 17 years ago. We all know the Prime Minister is a gentleman who changes his mind very quickly at times for no apparent reason, or, at any rate, no reason which can be followed by a plain-minded man like myself. I often think these Natalians upon whom the Prime Minister vents his anger have been far better citizens than the Prime Minister himself, and many of those who sit behind him, because they have never tried to break up the constitution. They have stood by the constitution which they adopted 17 years ago. They do not try to stir up strife, as the Prime Minister has done time after time in this country. They do not head deputations to Europe to ask the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and President Wilson to use his influence with that Prime Minister, to break down the Union of South Africa, and restore the independence of the Transvaal and the Free State. The citizens of Natal have never held with the secession movement for the purpose of cutting the painter and getting away from the solemn act which the present Prime Minister and others on that side rejoiced in, I mean the achievement of Union in 1910. I do not wish to go through all the arguments that have been used on this side, but I was very much struck with the point made from the other side that the Union Jack is the flag of the oppressor. When one thinks of all that has taken place during the last 25 years one would think that common sense would teach people who talk in that way that really they have no sense of proportion. The man who is always prepared to dwell upon the wrongs of the last century and forget the benefits of the last quarter of a century, I think must have a disordered mind. There was a very apt remark in an interesting letter which appeared in to-day’s paper, written by an Irishman, and in which he quoted the saying of Sir Horace Plunket that Irish history is to be remembered by Englishmen and forgotten by Irishmen. I think, with a slight alteration, that saying might be taken to heart by a good many members on the other side, that South African history might be remembered by the English-speaking people, but might be forgotten by the Dutch-speaking people, because if we are to come together as a united people, if we are to form one nation, and if we are to be a prosperous nation, and if we are to build securely on the foundations laid in 1910, then we must forget causes of bitterness, we must work together, and we must try to meet each other’s point of view. A strong majority must not try to ride roughshod over a minority. In to-day’s paper I saw a reply sent by the Prime Minister to some people at Uitenhage who had sent a protest against the Flag Bill. This is what the Prime Minister says—

I entirely agree with that sentiment. There is one remarkable thing about the Prime Minister, that when he talks in general terms we can usually agree with him, but when he comes to put his glowing principles into practice, he falls very far short of the theory with which he started. If he would only consult the general interests of this country, and not its sectional interests, this Bill would be withdrawn at once, and the country would be saved from a great deal of trouble and strife. The Prime Minister asked us to be less suspicious of him. I remember that just before Union, in 1910, I, as one of those who was present at the later stages of the National Convention as a Natal delegate, thought it my duty to go round our little colony and address public meetings with the intention of getting the people to vote in favour of Union. Time after time I was asked in public, and also privately—

It was a very natural question when you think of the circumstances. The war had only been over about seven short years before, and the public—I am speaking of the Natal public— were, to some extent, taken by surprise at the readiness with which leading men were prepared to unify South Africa. In every case I said that I had heard and seen the Dutch leaders in the National Convention week after week for several months, and that I entirely trusted them. I had heard the late Gen. Botha speaking, and I heard the present Prime Minister speaking. I heard the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) also speak and express his sentiments on Union, and I did my best to assure the Natal people that they ought to have every confidence in their Dutch fellow-citizens, and that it was their duty and interest to enter into union. Well, recently when I was in Natal I was reminded of that advice by several of these people. I was asked—

If anybody had suggested at the National Convention that within 17 years of union a Government would come forward with a proposal to pull down the Union Jack, and display it only four days in the year, there would have been no union. If anybody had been able to inform the people of Natal that this would happen, instead of a two-thirds majority for union, there would rot have been 10 per cent. of the people in favour of union. I regard it as a distinct breach of faith, nothing less, to bring in this Bill. It was a natural consequence that in 1910, shortly after union, when the Government was asked by the British Government to adopt a sea flag, that the present Prime Minister should address the minute which he did, approving of that flag which included the Union Jack. But we are now called the enemies of South Africa because we ask that the Union Jack should be included in the new flag. I saw the manifesto issued over the signature of Mrs. Steyn the other day. I would like to ask the Minister whether he approves of the language used in that manifesto. I see he does approve of it.

Did he assist in drawing it up?

I don’t care, but he says he approves of it. Then I am an enemy of South Africa because I wish to see the Union Jack included in the new Union flag. I suppose the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) and the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) are also the enemies of South Africa. I would like to know whether the Minister thinks that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. waterston) are greater patriots than those members I have named. I would like to know whether he thinks that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who have publicly said that their flag is the red flag, are better patriots or greater lovers of South Africa than the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) or the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The Prime Minister wishes us to get up and disown the Empire Group. Does he disown this language? The Minister of the Interior says he approves of it, but I do not think the Prime Minister is quite so racial in his views. The only people who are true South Africans, and who are not the enemies of the country, are apparently the hon. gentlemen on the Government side, together with their friends of the Labour party. The Labour party, I am afraid, have gone astray on this occasion, as they have done on many other occasions. The Labour party put their foot in it very badly when they passed their neutrality resolution in 1914, and when the Labour leaders saw that the rank and file the workers of South Africa, flocked in their thousands to uphold freedom and justice, and take their places side by side with the English-speaking men who volunteered for service in the great war, then the Labour leaders turned tail and were in a great hurry to overtake their followers, so as to try to still be leaders. They had to make a complete somersault in order to do that, and these same leaders also, I remember, in Johannesburg, in order to save their reputation and save their face when the 1922 strike turned out a fiasco, had the effrontery to get up in the Town Hall of Johannesburg and pass a resolution that South Africa should be turned into a republic. They rushed off to Pretoria to lay this precious resolution before the Nationalist party. These are the men who are the true friends of South Africa, and who express the sentiment of the English people on the flag; they wanted to pull the flag down, because they could not get their own way in the strike. I remember that two years ago the Labour members of the Government were backing up the Government in the fatuous attempt to make the taxes on imported British goods higher than on foreign goods. They had to drop the thing like a hot potato, because the public would not have it, and there again the Labour party was supposed to represent public opinion. They represented themselves, and had to eat their own words. Their worst blunder was to come forward in connection with this Flag Bill and support the Government. When they saw their own followers were disowning them, they tried to hedge by saying they wanted two flags—a domestic flag and a Union Jack to be flown with equality. A more preposterous idea I have never heard. If a flag is to unite the people, two flags will disunite the people and keep them apart. If the two flags were flown on a school playground I can imagine one boy saying that one flag was his and that his father fought for it, and another boy saying that he was a South African and that that flag was his; and from words it would come to blows. The same thing would come about with adults all over the country. It was the most stupid performance made in the whole of the stupid performances of the Government. We have been told by the Prime Minister that the Union Jack is a foreign flag. Why, it is our flag; it is the flag of South Africa, and the flag of the empire; it is the flag under which four-fifths of the people now alive in South Africa have been born. I had an idea that the Union Jack was the flag of the empire, but after the Prime Minister made that statement I wanted to see whether I could not get any authority for the opinion I held. I turned to Professor Keith’s work—“Responsible Government in the Dominions,” in which it is stated—

We have been told by the Minister that our international status demands a flag. I think that the status of Canada is equally as great and high as ours, but they have not yet adopted a flag, excepting a sea flag. Australia’s status is no less than ours, and they have not adopted a new flag; in fact, the flag has nothing to do with our status. It does not necessarily demand a flag. That brings me to an important point, and I would like the Minister to tell us when he replies what will be the position of the flag that was adopted in 1910 if the Bill passes and the new flag is adopted at the referendum? Will the present flag now used as a sea flag be continued to be used as a sea flag, or will it be replaced by this new flag? We have South African vessels —steamships registered here—going to all parts of the world, flying the flag which was adopted in 1910, which contains the Union Jack. When they enter a foreign port it is immediately seen that they are ships belonging to the British’ empire, and they have, if necessary, the might of the British navy and of the British empire behind them. Our nucleus of a navy, our mine sweepers and survey ship also fly the flag at that time—I understand it is the White Ensign which contains the Union Jack— and one can see what tremendous difficulties may arise if our ships, flying this other flag, have to work in concert with the ships of the British navy. The Australians recognize that, and they have the White Ensign flying on their warships, because in times of war their ships are incorporated with those of the British navy, and that will happen with our ships. We may get a gunboat or a cruiser as South Africa becomes more important, and in peace time our ships may manoeuvre with the ships of the British navy, and in war time act in concert with them, and they must fly the same flag. With regard to the referendum, it has been said that there can be no objection to it on this flag question because of the referendum precedent in Natal. The Minister of the Interior has said that. I would point out that there is a very important difference between the referendum taken in Natal and the one proposed to be taken. In the former case both parties were agreed that the referendum would settle the matter definitely and for ever. There were people in Natal at the time who objected to Union on sentimental grounds, and others were not prepared to trust the Dutch people, but the majority objected on economic grounds. It was agreed definitely in Parliament to settle this matter by a referendum. I ask, will this referendum settle this matter, and will hon. members opposite be satisfied if the referendum goes against this flag? We have been told by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that they will not be satisfied. If the referendum goes in favour of the new flag the English section of the population will not be satisfied. They will not adopt it as their flag, and, as far as they are concerned, it will not exist. So this referendum will settle nothing.

It will settle the Labour party.

It will settle your hash.

There is another important difference between the one referendum and the other. In the referendum in Natal a plain issue was put before the people. It was not an involved issue and one difficult to understand. In this case the people are not being asked to select a flag, or to say what they want in the shape of a flag, but are only asked—

and it is not a fair question. The Minister and his colleagues know that a large section of the people do not want this flag, but want the Union Jack and the Vierkleur. They are to be given no option or right to say that they prefer that flag. It is an unfair referendum, and the people are being humbugged and focussed in connection with it. The Minister of Mines and Industries said that the people of Natal wanted the Union Jack, and nothing else. That is not the case. I have resolutions passed in Natal to the effect that the Union Jack and the Vierkleur was asked for. I have a resolution from my own constituency. Dundee, to that effect, and it reads—

That expresses the feeling of the English-speaking section as I understand it—

It has been said that if this new flag is not adopted an unfair advantage will be obtained by the English-speaking section of the people, because they will remain in possession of the Union Jack. Well, it cannot be helped. We are part of the British empire, and the Union Jack is the flag of the British empire; not only that, but it is the flag of South Africa. It has been flying in this province for 120 years, and in Natal, I think, since 1829— before 1830, at any rate; and, as far as I am aware, during the short time that there was an Afrikander Volksraad in Pietermaritzburg there was no flag flown, so that the Union Jack has uninterruptedly flown.

The Voortrekkers had a flag.

I would like the hon. member to give us some proof of that. I have tried to find it, but I could not. The Union Jack was flown in Durban by Lieut. Farewell in 1824, and it has not been replaced since. This country has got along quite well with its present flag during the last 17 years. [Time limit extended.] In answer to the remark made by the Minister of Mines and Industries last evening that the South African party have not accepted the declaration of the Imperial Conference with regard to our status, I have never heard a single member of the South African party repudiate it, or say that he regretted it. I have never heard a single person in the province I come from say anything else but that they were delighted, and greatly delighted, at the declarations made by the Prime Minister and his colleague when they returned from the Imperial Conference. We then thought that we had entered upon a brighter and a more glorious era, that peace had descended for good and all on South Africa; that we had put behind us the strifes, dissensions and racial bitterness of the past, and we trusted the Government. Unfortunately, other counsels prevailed, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues have embarked on a course which, if persisted in, is bound to lead to chaos and disaster. I do not think it is any use appealing to the Government. They have thrown down the gauntlet, and we must take it up. We must fight this matter out, and the result will astonish the Minister when the figures of the referendum are made known.

After the speeches that have been made, I think we will all admit that the debate is now quite exhausted, and I do not think that there is any point of view of any importance which could still be raised in the matter. I am very glad that we have had such a debate as has taken place in the House, with less excitement and less passion than one might have expected owing to the feeling about this matter. On the other hand a debate such as the one we have had here will, undoubtedly, be of great importance to this House and the country, because it showed very clearly the different attitude regarding the matter on the two sides of the House and the question which the dispute is about. It was fairly clearly brought out in spite of there not being many speeches on this side of the House. A large number of the speeches made are very difficult to deal with, because it is admitted that the speeches are not actually a reasoned reply to the arguments made from our side of the House. It was even acknowledged-—if not directly, then indirectly—by various hon. speakers opposite that on our side it was a matter of logic and of logical reasoning about the whole position. As for that, it is not even necessary, so some hon. members opposite say, to reply to those reasoned representations by arguments. All that was done on the opposite side of the House— or what was chiefly done—was just to point out in various way what strong feeling there was in the country in favour of the Union Jack. Because there was such strong feeling for the retention, or for the inclusion of the Union Jack in the proposed South African flag, therefore, the whole matter had in the circumstances, better be allowed to drop, as we could not get agreement. That is the main attitude taken up by hon. members opposite. Let me commence by saying, although I admit and will gladly admit that we have to do here with sentiment—I acknowledged when introducing the Bill that we had to do with a very difficult matter, i.e., sentiment—I want to say to the other side that in this question it is not a matter of sentiment alone. Nor is it a question whether we will admit the contributions that the various sections of the people have made in the past towards the building up of South Africa. That is the ground on which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) argued for the acknowledgment in the flag of the contributions which English-speaking South Africa had made in the upbuilding of our country. It is not merely a matter of sentiment and acknowledgment or non-acknowledgment of the contributions which the various sections have made in the past towards the up-building of South Africa, but in the Bill, and in the discussions here, there is at the root of the matter a conflict of ideals. I think if we will be honest in the matter that we shall admit that at bedrock we have to do here with a conflict of opposing ideals. When I say that, J want to say at the same time that the conflict of ideals does not necessarily coincide, except possibly in parts—with the difference in the country between the two white races. It does not coincide with the races. We have in the past had English-speaking people in South Africa who, like Dutch-speaking people, have stood for greater freedom in South Africa, and for a higher status than what we had. I will go further and say that in some instances we had English-speaking people in the country who, in this respect, gave a lead. I am thinking of the old Cape Colony when men like Molteno and Saul Solomon took the lead in the struggle for the development of freedom in South Africa. I will even go so far as to say that a man like Rhodes—who for more than one reason was not so much honoured by Dutch-speaking people in South Africa as by a section, at any rate, of English-speaking people in South Africa—was a man who, for a long time, took the lead in the development of self-governing rights, and took as his political slogan—

When I say that we have to do with a conflict of ideals, then I do not mean that the English-speaking people have one ideal, and the Dutch-speaking people another. We have English-speaking and Dutch-speaking people on the one side and Dutch-speaking with English-speaking people on the other side. When I introduced the Bill I pointed out the difference in ideals, viz., that Dutch-speaking South Africans, although they were the descendants of European people, have broken away from the country from which they sprang. There is a sentiment to a certain extent, but it is a weak sentiment which does not actually count practically in the national life of South Africa. The Dutch-speaking people in South Africa were above everything, and in a positive way South Africans alone in the first place. The English-speaking people in South Africa who came here later stand on a different footing to a great extent. The English-speaking people are still much more attached to the race and the country overseas which produced them, and, for this reason, the interests of South Africa do not take so much with them and in their ideas the first place as is the case with the Dutch-speaking people. From this has arisen the difference in aims and views which has caused the conflict in South Africa. This flag question coincides with, or touches to a great extent, not only the sentiment or acknowledgment of traditions, but is a conflict of ideals. Those different ideals came out in the debate, but I think they came out in the very clearest way in a speech which was delivered a few months ago in the very circles where the opposition to our flag proposals originated. Just let me read out to the House what, inter alia, was said there, to make it clear how behind the opposition to the flag there were ideals hidden which we could not admit, which Dutch-speaking people, and English-speaking people who agree with us, may not admit, because the ideals are unacceptable in the interests of South Africa. The speech to which I refer was made by the grand-president of the Sons of England. At the congress he said at the conclusion of his speech, speaking with reference to the question of the secession of South Africa from the British empire—

You found your policy on that?

At the same time the same meeting passed the following resolution—

This is the circle from which the opposition to the Flag Bill has arisen, and, in view of this, we can say with perfect right that it is not a matter only of sentiment, but that we have to do with a conflict of ideals. And because we have to do with a conflict of ideals, ideals which the other side, according to their statement, have now also adopted, we cannot adopt other ideals which are in conflict therewith.

You form part of the empire. The Prime Minister agreed to that at the Imperial Conference.

There are people who came later and said that we were wrong. They say that they are giving up the old ideals. Very well. We are the first to completely accept their change of front, but the arguments which are used to-day in connection with the flag question at meetings and in this House do not tally with that. Let me now leave this point and return to the matter of sentiment. If it is said that we have to do with a matter of sentiment, then I repeat once more that we admit that sentiment is involved in the matter. Moreover, we can all understand the sentiment, and we are willing to say that the sentiment cannot be objected to by anyone who thinks reasonably. No reasonable person can object to an English-speaking person having sentiment for what he has always regarded as his flag, but the point is that, fortunately or unfortunately, we have another and a different sentiment in South Africa, There is also another sentiment in South Africa, and in our flag proposals we must also recognize the other sentiment—which is actually concerned with the same Union Jack—and take account of it. What we ask in connection with the flag question is that the whole of South Africa should put itself above sentiment and take each other’s sentiment into consideration and agree to a proposal by which we shall get a flag which includes nothing that will hurt anyone who looks at the flag. We, on our side, are prepared to say that we want nothing in the flag that will hurt our English-speaking fellow citizens when they look at the flag. All that the Dutch-speaking people or the old republicans ask is that there shall be nothing in the flag which will remind them of anything that hurts their feelings. Now, during this debate, an attempt has been made to make out that Dutch-speaking South Africa—I do not use the term because I think that this is a racial question, but I use the terms Dutch-speaking and English-speaking for the sake of convenience— that the Dutch-speaking people have no right to cherish the feelings which exist in connection with the Union Jack. It was said by more than one member of the South African party and applauded by other members that the war that took place was not lost by Dutch-speaking South Africa, or even if it was lost they have no right to continue to feel that sentiment. All I can say in this connection is that people who judge in that way, who take up that attitude, thereby show very clearly that they are not in a position to put themselves into our mental position. One of the fatal things in the history of South Africa, one of the great difficulties we have to fight against, is that, unfortunately, we do not always sufficiently possess the capacity to put ourselves into the position of each other. Those who state that Dutch-speaking South Africa did not lose the second war of independence or if they did lose it have not the right to-day of feeling hurt about it, clearly show the lack of that capacity to put themselves under all circumstances into the state of mind of others. The question has already often been asked and it actually exactly represents the position, whether if in the world war Germany had been the victor and had forcibly annexed England, and if Germany thereafter granted full self-government to England—just as full as England has granted to South Africa—whether England then would be satisfied with the demand that, although it could have its own flag in England to show the status of self-government, the German flag should be included in toto.

The position is not the same.

Would England be satisfied with that? The position is absolutely the same.

No.

Let me tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) what the difference is. The difference is that England in proportion would not be conquered to such a great extent as South Africa. In proportion the laying waste and the suffering in South Africa was much greater. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not feel that the cases coincide then it shows that he is not able to put himself into the mental condition of such a conquered people. I am glad that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) differs from him on the point. With reference to arguments of this kind, he acknowledged in the forceful word he used that at the end, or during the second war of independence, the iron went deeply into the soul of the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa. All we want is the admission that that is so, all we want is that the hon. member for Standerton should be believed in that statement, and that the fact should also be recognized in the creation of the flag of South Africa, which must be a flag which will remind no section in South Africa of anything in the past which would hurt its feelings. In this debate and in the debates outside the House about the matter, the position in Canada has been referred to, and it was said that when the matter was dealt with in Canada a few years ago there was an agitation in Canada and the Government was sensible enough not to go on with the Bill, and that the Union Jack was accepted by the two sections of the population in Canada without any protest. Now I want to point out to hon. members that a difference does exist, and in my opinion there are great differences between the position here and in Canada. In the first place the occurrences in Canada took place 150 years ago, while in South Africa the war is of recent date.

Why then the hurry?

The last rebellion in Canada by the French-speaking people in Canada was in 1838. That was even before the great trek took place in South Africa, before any of the republics existed in South Africa. In South Africa we have to do with recent history. There are a number of men in this House who personally took part in the life and death struggle. There are men in this House who were in the concentration camp as children. The position is entirely different to that of Canada, but what is more—and the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) showed this yesterday—what took place in Canada is quite different to what took place in South Africa. The struggle at that time in Canada was one between England and France, not a struggle between English Canada and French Canada, and what is more significant, French Canada was at that time nothing else than a Colony of France. They had never built up there their own national life to which the French Canadians were attached as their own. In South Africa we had to do with free republics and everything which had been built un in South Africa by conflict and suffering. When it was taken away the iron went very much deeper into the soul of the South African people than into the soul of the French Canadians. Therefore, I hope hon. members opposite will not again mention the case of Canada, because it is not a parallel case to South Africa. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) even went so far as to give an illustration of the divisions and discord that existed when the Union Jack was hoisted for the first time at the union between Scotland and England. He enlarged on the dissatisfaction that there was on the Scottish side and the excuse he gave was that there was a conflict between England and Scotland, and that the history at that time was still very recent. That is the reason why at that time the Union Jack, as it then existed, was objected to. According to the hon. member the Scottish dissatisfaction was due to the dominating position of the St. George’s Cross, and was justified by recent history. What was the recent history? There was, indeed, a struggle between England and Scotland, but England did not conquer Scotland. The King of Scotland became King of England, and as to that it was, therefore, actually a conquest of England by Scotland. Yet the Scots were dissatisfied and the hon. member for Three Rivers now says that the Scots were right in being dissatisfied, because the history was so recent. He can understand the position of the Scots at that time, but he is not able in view of the so recent occurrences in South Africa—more recent than those he made mention of—to appreciate the state of mind of the Afrikanders. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) made the statement—

Now I ask the hon. member what the English-speaking people are sacrificing. They are not giving up the Union Jack. The Union Jack will continue to fly in South Africa for that which the hon. member and others actually consider the chief value of the Union Jack, viz., to indicate the British connection. The Union Jack in that sense is not given up. It is surrendered as the flag of South Africa, but the question is whether in the real sense of the word it ever was or is the flag of South Africa. In the sense of standing for the British connection to which the English-speaking people attach great importance, it is not being given up. The proof that it is not being given up is this Bill. It is here laid down in the clearest way that no one can be a South African citizen without at the same time being a British subject. The British connection is thus not given up, and I ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) what he is sacrificing. He says everything, but I ask him what? It is said that English-speaking South Africa at the commencement of the Union gave up their predominant position. They said that Dutch-speaking South Africans were in the majority, and that the English-speaking people were going into the Union and handing themselves over to the mercy of the Dutch-speaking people who would rule the country. That is the sacrifice which English-speaking South Africa made. Now I do not know since when the minority has ever had the right of saying that they are entitled to rule, and that it is a concession on their part when the majority rules. I do not think it is a sound position to ever, take up on any side, and I think that English-speaking South Africa since that time has practically always continued to govern. From the time of Union the Unionist party which more particularly represents English-speaking South Africa has more and more increased in influence and power, and long before its amalgamation with the South African party it governed. Practically all the years of the South African party, and certainly since the establishment of the new South African party, the English section has dominated. If that is the sacrifice which they have made, then I say they have made no sacrifice at all. Let me take the other side of the statement of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He says—

Let me at once honestly admit that we Dutch-speaking people by refusing for our part to allow the Vierkleur and the old Free State flag to be included in the new South African flag give up little. I go further, and say we actually give up nothing. The sacrifice on the part of Dutch-speaking South Africa has, however, been made. What was the sacrifice made? The sacrifice on their part is that they have accepted the idea of burying republican independence and such a sacrifice English-speaking South Africa has never yet made, and will never be called upon to make. All we now ask is that English-speaking South Africa, in the face of that sacrifice made by Dutch-speaking South Africa, should be prepared mot to give up the Union Jack or the British connection, because they remain, but to say that they are going to take count in the flag of South Africa of the sentiment of the other part of the people with a view to our becoming a great and united people in South Africa. It was said during the debate, and I think has been repeated that Dutch-speaking South Africans in the Cape and in Natal do not share that feeling, and they ought not to have that feeling in the old republics. They were born and have always lived under the Union Jack and ought to have the feeling for the Union Jack that the English-speaking people have for it. Now let me say that I was born here in the Cape, and grew up there, and received the greatest part of my education here, and I think that I am actually in a good position to judge what the feeling is, and always was of the Dutch-speaking South Africans in the Cape Province. Let me now openly say this afternoon that the feelings of the Dutch-speaking South Africans in the Cape Province with reference to the great occurrences that took place in the second war of independence are, and have always been, precisely the same as the feelings in the Free State and the Transvaal. Dutch-speaking South Africa in the Cape Province, in relation to its feeling of Afrikanderdom, has never separated itself from the rest of South Africa, and I hope that that will never happen. I think the best proof of it is the accusation of dislovalty which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) together with his associates in those days made against the Dutch-speaking people in the Cape Province because they sympathized with the people in the republics.

There has been a great change since those days.

One of the best and most telling truths is that the hon. member for Standerton at the time of the second war of independence was fortunate enough to get 10,000 South Africans in the Cape to join him in the fight and to sacrifice everything. That is the best proof that Dutch-speaking South Africans in the Cape never felt differently from the Dutch-speaking South Africans in the north. The best proof also is that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was prepared to suspend the Cape constitution in order to take away the vote and influence of those Dutch-speaking South Africans. I hope the argument will not again be used that some Dutch-speaking South Africans were born under the British flag and, therefore, they are different or ought to be different from Dutch-speaking South Africans in the rest of the country.

You must not put the position wrongly.

I was on the point of saying a few words about the constant accusation of race hatred which are made here over and over again. The Minister of Mines and Industries spoke fairly fully about it last night, and it is possibly best that I should leave it there. All I want to say is that I think that if we had to sum up which side had shown the most racial feeling and race hatred it was undoubtedly on that side. I now come to the details of the Bill. Let me in the first place say a few words here about the clauses in connection with South African nationality. During the debate the Empire Group were spoken of in the House with a certain amount of contempt, I mean by that side of the House. The members of the Empire Group were laughed at as people who were extremists, of whom we need not take account during this debate. Yet the view which is actually that of the Empire Group with reference to these nationality clauses was expressed by one hon. member after the other on the opposite side of the House. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) who was the first speaker clearly said that he would like to make provision in the Bill for the people living in South Africa and living here permanently to repudiate South African nationality if they wanted to. That is exactly what the Empire Group stands for and in the second reading speech which I made on the Bill I made special mention of it. It was then said—

Yet the hon. member for Durban (Central) comes and utters precisely the same thought. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) also took up exactly the same attitude with reference to South African nationality, and denied directly in the House that there was such a thing as a South African nation. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) expressed precisely the same thought. Therefore, the view of the Empire Group, however extreme it may be is in part at any rate the view of some hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Durban (Central) asked what actually was behind that clause, and that definition of South African nationality, and when he had to state his reasons for the idea that there was something behind it the only one he could find was that in the Canadian Act there was no mention of publication every year of the names of people who had repudiated Canadian nationality, and had given it up. We do, indeed, provide for this in our Bill and therefore there is something behind it, namely, that we want to hold the people who have repudiated South African nationality up to the contempt and ridicule of the public as people who are un-South African. Let me now say this that if it, if the names of such people are published, people who live in South Africa and who want to continue living here, is a ridiculing it clearly shows the hopeful occurrence that a South African nation has actually been born. But then I want to point out further to the hon. member that if we take the British Dominions there is not only a special dominion nationality in Canada but that it also exists in Ireland. If the hon. member will look at the Treaty between England and Ireland, when Ireland got its freedom, then he will see that there is an Irish nationality and that it is provided in the Act that any Englishman who goes over the sea that divides England from Ireland does not in that way acquire Irish nationality, but must first live for seven years in Ireland before he can acquire Irish nationality. Therefore it is not right that such a thing only exists in Canada, and that it only arose there and merely by accident. Ireland has precisely the same thing that South Africa also wants. As to the publication, I want to point out that we are only following the ordinary practice which is pursued by various nations. If anyone wants to be naturalized as a British subject amongst us then a register is kept and the Minister of the Interior has to publish the list in the “Government Gazette” every year. The list of people who have acquired the nationality must be published in the “Government Gazette” every year, and the publication is, therefore, an ordinary thing. How should we know what is going on in the country in connection with people who want to become South Africans and people who want to renounce their South African nationality unless we have a register of them; and if we keep a register how can it be correct if no opportunity is given of correcting it and removing mistakes by publishing it in the “Government Gazette”? There is nothing behind it. The hon. member further said that two-fold nationality was an unheard of thing and would give rise to all sorts of difficulties and that the Imperial Conference actually realized this and therefore appointed a committee to investigate it and that we ought to wait until the enquiry was completed. As far as I know the enquiry of the Imperial Conference is one which has nothing to do with that two-fold nationality. It has nothing to do with nationality in so far as it exists between England and Canada or England and Ireland or England and South Africa. Where difficulties have been experienced is in connection with such cases as, e.g., Germany. When Germans who come to live in South Africa adopt our nationality and become British subjects through us they get a two-fold nationality, because there is a law in Germany that when a German leaves his country and identifies himself with another people and adopts the nationality of another nation it is not acknowledged by Germany, and he is always still regarded by Germany as a German citizen. That is the difficulty, and the enquiry suggested by the Imperial Conference is in connection with that difficulty. With regard to our nationality, the position is very plain. A British subject is one who is a subject of the King wherever he may be in the world. If he is a subject of the King he is a British subject, and those who have the South African citizenship are those who are subjects of the King and live in South Africa or in any case are a part of the South African nation, or in other words, Union subjects. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) wants certain people to have the right who do not wish to adopt South African citizenship, of repudiating it, even if they continue to live in South Africa. I must say that as far as I am concerned that if I can meet these people in any way and give them the right of releasing themselves from the South African nation, I am prepared to give them the right, people who think and feel like that ought to have the right to renounce their South African nationality, but the logical conclusion from that is that if they do not want their South African nationality, if they want to free themselves from the national life of South Africa, that these people then should have no say in the making of the laws of the land, and to have no franchise in the country. I think that that follows logically. But according to international law there is a principle which we all admit that no one can abandon his nationality, at any rate, internationally, so long as he is in the territory of his nation. No one in South Africa, as long as he lives here as a British subject can have himself naturalized as a German subject. He must go outside his territory to adopt another nationality, and while anyone lives permanently in South Africa he cannot acquire the right of depriving himself of his South African citizenship. I now come more particularly to the flag clauses in the Bill and first want to say a few words in connection with the referendum. The first objection of the hon. member for Standerton was that the referendum was extra-constitutional. Others improved upon that and some of the newspapers who support the hon. member said that it was unconstitutional. I do not think the hon. member meant that it was unconstitutional but extra constitutional, and that was the word he used. We all admit it, but the same applies to the referendum in Natal when it came into the Union. And to the recent referendum in Rhodesia in connection with coming into the Union or otherwise. That is no argument. The question merely is whether the circumstances justify a special measure of that kind being taken, and according to the judgment of this side, at any rate, the matter and the circumstances justified the step of submitting the Government’s action to the approval of the people. Further, it was said that the proposed referendum is not fair. The question is merely whether the people approve of our proposal or otherwise want to remain without a flag. That is regarded as unfair. Some people go further and say that the voting paper has intentionally been so made that the provisions in connection with the flying of the Union Jack are also included in order to win English-speaking votes for the flag in that way, because they will see therein the guarantee for the Imperial use of the Union Jack. We deliberated a long time about the referendum and how it should be made, but I think that constitutionally and in other ways it is the only right way of doing it. Eventually, anyway, the Government of the country is the responsible body to govern on behalf of the people, and in all referendums that are taken a proposal of the Government is always referred to the people for confirmation or rejection. All that is done, therefore, is to follow the ordinary procedure. The Government has been placed here by the people. It has a proposal and wants to know whether or not it meets with the approval of the people, it wants to test the opinion of the people on this definite point. That is all. I cannot imagine anything more fair. That is the usual practice with reference to a referendum. Before we go further we must first know precisely where we stand about certain matters. During the debate the hon. member for Standerton spoke about an offer he had made. When the Minister of Finance was speaking and used an argument or gave an explanation with which the hon. member for Standerton was not satisfied the hon. member for Standerton remarked in a manner audible to the whole House—

If any offer was made by the Opposition in connection with the flag question then I should like very much to hear what the offer is and to know precisely what it amounts to. I cannot make out from his speech whether he made an offer. I again specially read the newspaper report of his speech and could not find an offer of any kind, except that he said that if the Bill were withdrawn he and his party would not make any “sneers and taunts” against the Nationalist party. Well I do not know whether this is such an important and great offer. If we accept the offer it will show that we are worthy of “sneers and taunts,” and that we are running to the hon. member for Standerton for protection against them. In any case I am glad that the hon. member has now found out that he has much greater power over his party than what he originally thought, because when the Empire Group asked him a few months ago to give that assurance he said that his party was free to do what it wished and that he therefore could not give the assurance. Now, however, he has got so far as to get his party not to make “sneers and taunts.” I think the hon. member for Yeoville went further and said in his speech here—I am not giving his words literally but it amounts to the same thing—that there were also extremists on the flag question. He more particularly mentioned the Empire Group as extremists whose lead could not be followed, although he and his party do actually closely follow the Empire Group because the Opposition actually started in that circle. Now he says that they cannot accept the Government’s proposal and he says to the Prime Minister—

The implication is that if anything else along the lines of a compromise is proposed he will be prepared to co-operate. In this connection I may say that it is a great pity that the hon. member for Yeoville did not follow his own lead which he gave in the matter some time ago. Shortly after last session the hon. member made a speech somewhere in Johannesburg and on that occasion said that he did not wish to say that a flag for South Africa, which did not contain the Union Jack but which in some other way indicated the British connection, would not be acceptable to him. I take it, of course, that he was speaking for himself. That is a “lead” and an indication that a compromise between the parties on the flag question could be arrived at. Now he calls upon the Prime Minister to give a lead. He himself gave a lead, and why does he not follow his own lead? If he and others had followed his “lead” then we should have heard no more to-day about a flag question in South Africa, and we should have had a solution to-day. I want, however, to take it as an indication on the part of the hon. member for Yeoville, and possibly of other hon. members opposite, that in their opinion every method of arriving at an agreement has not yet been exhausted, and that there is a possibility that at the last moment here we may still arrive at a solution. For that reason my colleagues and I are prepared to say that when the second reading of the Bill has been passed it can be sent to a Select Committee. In that Select Committee there can sit—and I hope that this will be done—not the subordinate members of the various parties, but the chief leaders of the various parties. Then my hon. friends opposite and on all sides of the House will have a full opportunity of going into the whole Bill and into the description of what the flag must be. If this is the last means let us accept the last means and see if we can get to know precisely what the possibility is of eventually arriving at an agreement. When the second reading is passed I therefore intend to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the House. I now come to another point, which I considered as a closed matter after the speech last night of the Minister of Mines and Industries. It has, however, again been mentioned by two speakers this afternoon, and therefore I think that a further explanation of the matter is necessary. It is the question raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) whether South Africa does not already possess a Union flag. I think the House understands quite well now the ins and outs of the correspondence which has been published. There are matters which, according to law, have to be decided by the Governor-General-in-Council, but some are purely departmental matters and therefore it is the custom for the Minister in charge of a department to draft a Minute and then to send it on to the Prime Minister. Without the matter being discussed by the Cabinet it is simply signed by the Prime Minister or Minister acting for him. The Cabinet as such never decides about the matter. It is a matter which is considered by the Minister concerned as entirely departmental, and as not needing to come before the Cabinet. Such a Minute was at that time drafted by the hon. member for Standerton as Minister of the Interior. If the actual intention of the Minute was that we, as a Union, should choose our own flag and if it was actually so regarded by the then the Minister of the Interior, then it somewhat reflects on the methods of my hon. friend, the member for Standerton, to get a flag for the Union in that way, without a referendum, without the approval of Parliament and without even a Cabinet discussion. All that the Prime Minister did in the matter was that he had to act and take the place of the then Prime Minister, who was absent. He therefore signed it in the usual formal way, but the actual man who did it and who gave South Africa a flag without consulting the Cabinet was the hon. member for Standerton. If he really intended to give us a Union flag then it was a great reflection on the people, the Parliament and the Cabinet. If we really at that time got a Union flag then I think the greatest condemnation of that Union flag is the amendment which has been proposed in this debate by the hon. member for Standerton. It reads: [Amendment read.] The language of the amendment proceeds from the assumption that we have no South African national flag, and the greatest condemnation of the attitude taken up by the hon. member for East London (North) is the amendment which he is soon going to vote for. I think that I must make it clear here what the facts actually are in connection with that flag which is now held up here as our South African national flag. As correctly mentioned by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) it is not a land flag, but a sea flag. The position is that that flag is not a national flag but an “ensign.” An “ensign” is not meant to indicate the nationality of a nation, but it is intended to indicate a certain departmental service. That “ensign” was originally used for the British Fleet. The British Fleet has three “ensigns,” a red, a blue and a white, and these three are used to indicate three divisions of the British fleet. This gradually caused confusion and it was then decided to use the white “ensign” for the British fighting fleet and the blue “ensign” for other departmental or Government services. In this book, The Flags of the World, the blue ensign is described as indicating public buildings, consular services and colonial governments, and the white ensign is still used by the British Navy. With reference to the use of the red ensign, it is authorised by the issue of a “Royal Warrant,” and in that way was actually created the flag which the hon. member for East London (North) exhibited here, and not by the Minute issued by the hon. member for Standerton and signed by the Prime Minister. The authority is the King’s Regulations, Clause 128. According to that all colonial merchant vessels will fly the red ensign except Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, which, by an “Admiralty Warrant,” can fly the red ensign with the distinguishing badge of the colony in the fly. All that was done at the time was to fix a badge for South Africa, which had to be placed on the red ensign to be flown on our ships according to the Admiralty Warrant, under a regulation issued by the British Government.

Why is it used in Geneva and over the office of the High Commissioner in London?

What is flying there is the blue ensign, and as I have pointed out it stands for Government services and for consular services, inter alia. Under our old status we did not have a recognized consular service abroad. We did not have the necessary status, or extra territorial jurisdiction, and when our ships were more than three miles from our coast, then, internationally, they were not our ships but British ships. Therefore we did not have the right to give the ships a flag but England only could do so, and the ensign was then given.

I follow that.

Precisely, and therefore because we did not have extra territorial jurisdiction the blue ensign was flown which is also flown on other consulates of England. The same ensign waves over our building because internationally we are British, but our badge is on the ensign. I think the matter is very clear and that it is not necessary for me to give any further explanation. I can only say that apart from our having the right of flying the flag exhibited by the hon. member for East London (North) as the South African national flag, it is prohibited to do so. According to law we may not do so without special leave from the British Admiralty, and I think the penalty for contravention is £500. I now go to another point which has been raised by the hon. members for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). The former said that by the proposal we were breaking faith with Natal, because when Union was brought about it was said that the Union Jack was quite safe and that the Natal people need not be afraid of entering into Union. I think that if hon. members will judge impartially and fairly they must admit that where it is said that the Union Jack is safe and the English-speaking people in South Africa need not be afraid, it was not thereby intended that we should have forever to maintain just one definite design as a flag that we should never be able to make an alteration, but that what the Union Jack stood for in the country, viz., the Imperial connection, was safe. I ask any hon. member to state whether the British connection is not just as safe as it was in the past or can ever be in the future. On the contrary, provision is made in the Bill for acknowledging the British connection. It has nothing to do with the flag but has to do with what the flag stands for. That remains absolutely unaltered in the Bill. Where then is the breach of faith towards Natal and the English-speaking people? I now come particularly to the arguments used by the chief speaker in the debate, viz., the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I think that the position, regarded from the standpoint of the hon. member for Standerton, was very well conceived in an expression which he used, viz., an expression which I used in introducing the Bill—

That in a nutshell is the position. In that connection he said that the Union Jack existed in South Africa and that it must be included in toto on any flag of South Africa. Now I ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that if he demands that for the Union Jack he ought, for the sake of justice, to treat all sections on the same footing and that therefore the Vierkleur and the old Free State flag must also be put on the flag in the same way. As far as we can understand the hon. member wants the Union Jack to remain unmutilated and that the same thing shall occur with the Vierkleur and the old Free State flag It is said that the portion of the Union Jack which is now included is dead. I think it is the intention of the hon. member to incorporate the three flags in their entirety. If he does not mean that then he is not treating the two sections of the population on an equal footing. Our reply to that is that if it is his attitude that none of the existing flags may be mutilated that he should produce such a flag. It was tried at the conference which was held. What was brought forward is not even quite what the hon. member wants because the Union Jack was unmutilated, but the other flags were not precisely represented as they are. But what was shown there was of such a nature that none of the English newspapers which support the hon. member for Standerton had the courage to publish them simply because it would make us ridiculous in the eyes of the world. If that was his intention let him then in the first place produce such a flag, so that we can see how it looks, so that we can judge it. The hon. member will have an opportunity of doing so in committee. All that I want to say to him further in this connection is we think that he cannot design a proper flag in that way, and I ask hon. members opposite to mention one flag in the whole world which was constituted in such a way.

The Union Jack.

I expected that answer. The Union Jack is not the combination of one flag out of the full old flag of England, and one flag out of the full old flag of Scotland, and one flag of the full old Irish flag. The Union Jack is a compromise flag, nothing else than a mutilation of three flags, and not one of the flags is included in the Union Jack in its entirety. And all we want to-day is that the example of the United Kingdom in this respect should be followed, and a flag arrived at by a compromise, just as in the case of the Union Jack, and the flag which we propose is such a flag. We take what is the most important in the Union Jack, the cross of St. George, which is the most essential part, the basis of the Union Jack, and we take the colours of the old republican flags, which are intended to stand for Dutch-speaking South Africa. The colour which is included is the colour which stood in the existing flag for the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa. Then our flag is a compromise as the Union Jack was. It is the collecting together or the mutilation of the flags which previously existed. The hon. member for Standerton wants the three flags to be included in the Union flag in an unmutilated condition. Why, then, the vague language last year when we spoke about the Union Jack and the old republican colours’ The hon. member has now explained this and I accept his explanation. The hon. member will admit that he wants the Union Jack absolutely unmutilated. What, then, does the amendment mean which he has proposed: [Amendment re-read.] What does, “as far as possible,” mean? The Union Jack must, according to him, remain unmutilated.

I do not say that.

The Union Jack remains and must be unmutilated.

Do not twist my words. I say “as far as possible all three.”

He says it need not be the complete Union Jack.

I am glad to learn that. I think that is the greatest advance which has yet been made in the debate, that the hon. member for Standerton now wants precisely the same thing which the hon. member for Yeoville was also previously prepared to accept, viz., to recommend a compromise flag. He is now prepared to combine the three flags in precisely the same way, but all three flags need not absolutely remain unmutilated. That is a basis on which we can discuss matters.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has let the cat out of the bag now.

I now further want to mention something that was raised during the debate in support of the attitude of the Opposition. I leave the hon. member for Standerton there, but as the proposal existed formerly hon. members wanted to have the three flags completely unmutilated, the Vierkleur, the old Free State flag and the Union Jack. We know what the Union Jack will stand for. I suspect what the Vierkleur will stand for according to the intention of the people who take up that attitude. I have a suspicion in the matter. Hon. members like the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), who have referred to the Voortrekkers in the way he did, give me reason, to do so. If he says that he wants the Vierkleur to be incorporated, then I have a suspicion what it will mean to him. When the Walker flag was proposed the objection was raised that it was a disguised Vierkleur. If people who are absolutely opposed to the South African nationality accept the Vierkleur, then I have a suspicion what they are thinking of, and what, according to them, the meaning of the Vierkleur in such a flag will be. One thing is certain, that it will not stand for republican independence, for which the flag always stood when it was alive. The republican independence has, of course, been again and again fought against by hon. members opposite. There was a time when they protested on the platforms against it, and that even against school children wearing ribbons and favours with the republican colours. In other words, if the Vierkleur is included in the South African flag they will not admit that it stands for republican independence. Then it must stand for something else. I say that in so far as the Vierkleur is concerned the view is that it is dead as far as its old meaning is concerned. Then no sacrifice, no compromise whatsoever is being made by the other side. It is said that the Vierkleur is not dead but is alive. How does the hon. member for Standerton reconcile this with his various interpretations? I want to return hereto his argument about the proposed flag.

What is the good of going on if you are going to Select Committee?

But I must answer the argument of the hon. member for Standerton and point out the opposite views he has about the matter. The St. George’s Cross is dead to him. It must not be put on the flag because it is dead to the English-speaking people in South-Africa. This, though it is the essential part of the Union Jack, this is said while what the St. George’s Cross stands for is still alive to-day in England. Now it is said that the St. George’s Cross is dead, but if the Vierkleur is put on our national flag then it is not dead but alive. I think the hon. member must himself see that he has not done himself justice in his argument about the clause.

Why don’t you say your whole idea is to make a settlement impossible? Then we would know where we were.

If hon. members think that by my answering the arguments of the Opposition any further it is possible that an agreement may be prevented, then I shall stop on the spot. All I can say is that I will leave the rest of my speech, which is actually the point to which I want to come, and I shall just express a hope here that when the Bill is dealt with in the Select Committee we will come on all sides in the spirit and with the fixed desire to help each other and to arrive at a satisfactory solution, one that will satisfy not only ourselves but also the whole people. In the circumstances I am prepared to stop now.

Resign!

The writing on the wall!

Original motion then put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

seconded.

I do not know whether the Government are serious, but to ask a select committee of this House to sit on this question of a South African national flag and to report within a week, seems to me a mockery. It is a subject on which one commission after another, one committee after another, has spent months, and not been able to evolve a solution; and a committee of this House is given a week to settle it!

After a week’s debate.

When they have to call for papers and take evidence, and I dare say call in experts to draw designs—and we are given a week!

Not a week—four days.

Four available days.

How long would you like it?

Till the next election.

I say drop the time limit. If the Government is serious and in earnest, and they want a settlement to be come to on this question of a national flag, they will drop this time limit. But to me it is a proof of what is vulgarly called eye-wash; and the Government is not serious. Four effective days are given us to evolve a national flag for South Africa, to have the designs painted, and brought into proper order to be brought before this House. I have never heard anything more ridiculous, and more indicative of the Government not to have a settlement, but to force their will through on this House and on the country.

The Minister of the Interior says he appreciates the necessity for a compromise and I share those sentiments. He also said that he hoped that the leaders of the House would sit on this select committee. He knows, however, that the leaders of the House are already sitting on a select committee dealing with native affairs. Does he propose to suspend the deliberations of that committee? He also proposes to give us four days in which to devise a flag which will probably last South Africa, if we can agree upon it, four hundred years or more. He threw out a challenge to the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to prepare a design for submission to the committee of what a South African flag should be, a combination of the Union Jack and the republican colours. Is he to have four days only to do that? Surely my leader was right when he said that that is trifling with the House on a great question. The Minister having gone so far in a spirit of compromise, I appeal to him not to try and bullock this thing through in the short time suggested. Where is the urgency? Is South Africa going to perish if this matter is not decided this session, even if the select committee cannot complete its labours? We have spent two years trying to arrive at an agreement and now we are to be steam-rollered into agreeing upon a flag in four days. It is an absolute mockery. The Minister must have done it with his tongue in his cheek.

I suggest that the Minister should give the select committee a fortnight. I understand it was hoped to prorogue Parliament about the 21st instant. If the select committee is given a time limit, and it cannot bring up a report within that time, it is always open to the committee to ask for an extension. A week is an absurdity. I move as an amendment—

To continue the committee’s deliberations to a week is an absolute absurdity if you want a settlement.

seconded the amendment.

I appeal to the Minister. The committee cannot meet before Monday. It would sit on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and must report on Thursday. As committees can meet only two hours each morning, this select committee will have a total of eight hours in which to complete its work. It is impossible The Minister must be reasonable.

The committee can meet at the very earliest only on Monday next. It must then call for evidence which it can receive at the earliest by Tuesday. Where can you obtain evidence within two days? Assuming you want witnesses from Johannesburg, they would arrive only on the 10th. It is farcical to ask a committee to finish its labours in such a short time. It is trifling with the House to put forward such a proposition. I ask the Minister to make no time limit. No self-respecting committee could function under the conditions proposed.

Your trouble is that we have given you the offer.

If the select committee were to meet on Monday, it would mean that any witnesses to be called from the province I represent would not be here in time to be heard before the committee concluded its work. That would seem to favour of shutting out people of my province from giving evidence. I hope the Minister will not perpetrate so obvious an injustice on the people of Natal.

I will not now go so far as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as to say that he is not in earnest, but I think I can go so far as to say that he is not reasonable. The objection which is made against the limitation of the date is that the matter has not only to be considered, but that evidence has to be taken. Let me point out to hon. members that the committee which was appointed last year in consultation with the hon. member for Standerton on which the three parties were represented considered the matter and discussed it fully and thereafter had nothing further to discuss, and I do not think that there were more than five or six meetings held. I can point out to the hon. member that the commission appointed by the Government, which was a fairly large body, met and thoroughly considered the matter and came to a decision. There was a great variety of possibilities which they took into consideration. The conference on the same question held by representatives of the Government commission and of the organized opposition to the flag did not, I think, consider the matter for more than four or five days before coming to a decision. No more designs can be asked for from the people because they have already twice been asked for them and I think the people so far as it is concerned is exhausted.

The combined flag has never yet been considered.

No, you will find many. The first time when the largest number came in such designs were not prohibited, and a large number were hung on the line. All that is necessary is that the matter shall be considered and a possible compromise come to, and that certain experts in the matter of heraldry shall be consulted. That is all. We do not wish to be unreasonable but one thing must remain unaltered and that is that we must dispose of the matter this session. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and to give a further week. I hope the hon. member for Standerton will be satisfied with that because I think it is not unreasonable.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

Hon. members will see that in the schedule attached to this Bill we seek to give effect to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means adopted by the House in regard to three articles on which we propose to raise the customs duty, namely, barley, preserved cream and sheet lead. In addition we make provision for a number of adjustments in the tariff which has the effect of reducing the existing rate. When we come into committee if hon. members want reasons for these adjustments, I shall be prepared to give them, but only in the case of the three items named do we increase the tariff. The adjustments will clear up difficulties and anomalies which have arisen in the administration of the customs law. We take the opportunity also of introducing a few other amendments in our existing Customs Act which are necessary in the interests of proper administration. Perhaps it will be advisable if I explain shortly a few of the more important amendments we are introducing in the existing Act in the interests of proper administration. The first is Section 2. If you refer to Section you will find that amendment is designed to set out more fully the original intention of Parliament that when notice is given in the House by a Minister to increase the rate of duty of a given article the same shall apply in the case of an article where the duty is proposed for the first time or a change in the rate of duty is made. The wording of the Act has been ambiguous and difficulties may arise in the interpretation. Sections 3 and 4 are consequential amendments. In Section 5 we make provision for an extension of the provision to petrol which is allowed at present in regard to spirits and wine. Petrol is imported in large quantities and a large amount of evaporation takes place, and we propose to extend the same privilege to petrol imported in bulk. In Section 6 we seek to deal with the difficulty which has arisen in connection with frauds perpetrated on the customs revenue and where you have to prove that it takes place knowingly. The onus of proof falls upon the authorities, and in order to prove it we should have to get people from overseas. We, therefore, propose to delete the word “knowingly” which enables the department to obtain a conviction unless the person charged proves to the contrary. In other words the onus is on the person charged to prove that he is not guilty. We have had cases where we were in possession of the evidence, but it could not be brought legally before the court, and we could not get a conviction. Not only are frauds committed, but unfair trading takes place to the detriment of the fair traders. Unless we are in a position to bring offenders to book those traders are placed at a disadvantage. A precedent for this was adopted! two years ago when we brought in the new Insolvency Act. Then, in Section 7, we propose to make provision for the application of the Customs Management Act with regard to the prohibition of importation into the Union, the mandated territory of South-West Africa—

That does not take you much further with regard to the control of yeast.

No, in Section 7 (1) we make provision for prohibition. At present certain things cannot be imported into the Union, but they can be imported into South-West Africa, and in that way find their way into the Union. In this amendment we shall be able to deal with it. In Section 7 (2) we deal with the prohibition of various articles, namely, dangerous weapons, yeast, etc. Hon. members will see that in regard to the importation of these articles the matter is to be left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Police for the future. Legal importations will be allowed in future but the police will be able to control the importation through illicit channels.

But that will not help to prevent the man who gets yeast from a wholesaler from selling it to the native.

No, we have factories making yeast in the country today, and they can get it that way. I do not attempt to deal with it in that manner. I am endeavouring only to deal with importation. We shall probably have to deal with the whole subject drastically later on in the Liquor Bill. Incidentally it means, I am informed, that if illegal importation is stopped, it would mean a loss of £20,000.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

When the House suspended business I was explaining Section 7 (2) of the Bill which provides for certain restrictions on the importation of yeast and dangerous weapons that in future these articles can only be imported on a certificate of the Commissioner of Police. Coming to Chapter II, Section 8 is self-explanatory. In Section 9 (a) provision is made to permit the free importation of materials for the making of uniforms for recognized boys’ brigades and nurses’ associations, as well as the uniforms and appointments. The principle was admitted a few years ago. Section 9 (b) deals with the giving of a rebate to the officer commanding his Majesty’s naval forces in the Union in connection with the purchase from open stocks in the Union of certain supplies. That principle already exists in favour of the Railway Administration, and it has now been extended in this way at the request of the officer commanding his Majesty’s naval forces in the Union. Then in sub-section (c) of the same section the Governor-General is vested with powers to grant certain favours, and we are now providing that in such cases he shall also have authority to withdraw those favours, if once granted. The same applies in connection with the issue of proclamations by the Governor-General authorizing suspended duties under the Customs Tariff Act or imposing any dumping duty under Chapter II. Provision already exists for imposing these duties, and we now take power for the Governor-General in certain circumstances to withdraw those duties. Section 10 is of a similar nature. Sections 11 and 12 are self-explanatory. The schedule I have already dealt with and explained that we are here providing for the imposing of the duties on the three articles which the House passed in committee, and the balance deals with certain amendments and adjustments of the Act.

In regard to this Bill I have nothing at all in the way of criticism on any clause except Clause 6. There, I think, my hon. friend has taken rather a big step forward. In Section 111 of the principal Act a person who “knowingly” does certain things renders himself liable to prosecution. My hon. friend now wants to take out the word “knowingly.” From what he has said, I can quite see that there is a good deal to be said in favour of that, but what I do not like about it is that it puts the importer very much in the hands of the officials. It is quite possible that an innocent mistake may be made. If the official happens to be against the importer—well, he can carry it a good way, in fact, he may prosecute the importer. I quite recognize what the Minister has said as to its being necessary for the safety of the customs and also to get at certain people who try on tricks to defraud the customs that this change should be made. I can also understand the difficulty there is in prosecuting these people, if you have to get evidence from overseas for the purpose of proving that they “knowingly” tried to defraud the customs. What I rose more particularly for was to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the very excessive duty on cotton blankets. He is charging on cotton blankets under the tariff, blankets, rugs, shawls, etc., 1s. per lb. with a maximum of 2s. 6d. Last year the duty paid on these blankets was £275,590, while a further sum of £56,042 was paid on kafir sheeting, etc., making a total of £331,633, which is paid on cotton blankets and kafir sheeting, paid by the natives and by the poorest part of the population of this country. The total importation of these articles was £561,000, and the total duty paid £331,000, so that as near as possible the duty amounted to 60 per cent. There are only two factories in this country making these blankets. I may also say that, as far as I am aware, all the cotton waste is imported, and not made in this country. It does seem pretty hard lines that the very poorest section of the population and the natives should have to pay such a heavy duty as this, 60 per cent. on clothing which they must have in weather like we have outside. Then there are secondhand blankets. The duty is 5s. over 100 per cent. These are also bought by the native and the poorer part of the population.

You would not encourage the importation of secondhand blankets?

They are all right as long as they have been cleansed and are absolutely clean. I think my hon. friend makes a mistake. Why should not the kafir buy secondhand blankets? They are warm enough and good enough. As a rule the customs take care that these blankets are thoroughly cleansed.

You cannot always control that.

Still, my hon. friend must have some consideration. To put a tax of 5s. on 4s. is pretty stiff. This taxation alone amounts to no less than £331,000. I want to appeal to my hon. friend to see if he cannot see his way to modify this in some degree. In addition to this taxation, and let me say the taxation from the customs amounts to £640,000, on the stuff the natives use, including the blankets I have mentioned, but in addition to that there is also the general tax laid on by my hon. friend two years ago, and there is the pound for every adult native domiciled in the Union. The general tax on the native amounts altogether to £1,100,000: then there is customs £640,000 and excise £68,000, and there are also provincial and local taxation amounting to another three-quarters of a million. The total estimated taxation, direct and indirect, on the natives amounts to £2,100,000. My hon. friend, this year, has had quite a big surplus, and surely in a case of this kind, which affects the poorer part of the population, he might make some little remission. If he took off sixpence I don’t think he would lose more than £100,000, and that is not excessive. I think I would be in order if I move that the duty on blankets, rugs, shawls, etc., in Item 61 of the tariff be reduced by 50 per cent., which means it would be reduced to sixpence with a maximum of 1s. 3d. That would give an impetus to the importation of these goods, but, at any rate, it would enable people to get them cheaper, and it is only right and fair.

The hon. member should move that at the committee stage.

With the views expressed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I am in entire accord. There are one or two other points I would like to refer to. With regard to Clause 6, there is no doubt this is reversing the usual order of things and one can see how easy it would be for a perfectly innocent man to be convicted under this. It depends upon the administration and for my part I do not like its being entirely dependent upon the administration. I regret there should be any need for it, but I am sure there is a need for it and that it is required by the honest firms as a protection against firms that are not honest. I would like to refer to another matter which I mentioned in Ways and Means, when you, sir, told me this would be the proper occasion—

Perhaps it would be right for me now to say something in regard to that. During the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means I stopped hon. members who wished to deal with taxation other than that contained in the motion. Since then I have carefully considered the matter and have come to the conclusion that on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means hon. members should be allowed to discuss taxation generally. For the guidance of hon. members I may say that in future a general discussion of taxation on such a motion will be allowed. When the House is in Committee and at the report stage hon. members will be confined strictly to the items contained in the motion. On the motion for the second reading of the Bills to give effect to the resolutions agreed to by the Committee of Ways and Means, the debate will be confined to the terms of the Bills, and any reduction or modification of existing taxation which hon. members may wish to discuss. In view of the fact, however, that I stopped hon. members on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means I shall on these Bills allow full discussion with regard to taxation generally. It must, however, be understood that in future I shall follow the course indicated above.

Fortunately the matter I want to discuss is not one that questions taxation. It is a question of customs management as affecting our trade with Rhodesia in the way it has been affected by our increase of duties while they are not able to increase their duties. Some figures have been supplied to me showing the trade between Rhodesia and ourselves from the year 1910. The position is that the trade between Rhodesia and ourselves, taking the two together, that is imported goods and also South African produce, dropped in percentage from 59 per cent. in 1910 down to 38 per cent. in 1926, and one must see that must be the effect. When we are raising our duties they are naturally not going to pay our duties when by importing direct they can get the goods at a lower rate. The suggestion that is made is that rebates should be allowed on goods forwarded to Rhodesia from open stock. The suggestion was made as far back as 1914, and at that time the customs department did not see their way to accept it. It has been renewed at various times and in 1915 the head of the customs said—

The figures show that his opinion and forecast were entirely wrong. The suggestion is now made that the customs department and the Minister should go into this matter, and as we are in danger of losing this trade, see if they cannot make arrangements for a rebate on open stock supplied to Rhodesia. We do it with some other countries. The principle is recognized with Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Nyassaland, the Pelgian Congo and Portuguese East Africa under certain conditions, and it seems that if these places can have this privilege there should be no particular difficulty in regard to Rhodesia. There is another much smaller matter which I was asked to bring up by the hon. member for South Peninsula Sir Drummond Chaplin), and that is the question of regalias for friendly societies. These friendly societies, for the most part, are composed of poor people. I am not speaking about the Freemasons, I know nothing about them, but these friendly societies which have made representations are really all very poor people and they attach a good deal of weight to the wearing of regalia. There is a duty of 20 per cent. and a reduction would make a very great difference to members of these societies, and I hope the Minister will also give this his favourable consideration.

I also would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 6 of the Bill. I must say I do not like it. One knows that occasionally it is necessary to go away from the rule under which a man is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. But it hardly seems that the Minister has made out a case for the alteration here. As to Clauses (b) and (c) of section 111 of the Principal Act not much difference is made by deleting the word “knowingly”: no offences as defined practically imply knowledge on the part of the importer. But there is a difference as to Clause (a) of that section. If you take away the word “knowingly” it means that under Clause (a) a man who produces an invoice which is false is merely by doing so liable to a very heavy penalty; ex hypothesi he has nothing to do with the making of that invoice, but the shipper or the supplier at the other end has and it would probably come through at this end through a shipping agent. It seems to be going very far indeed. It is true that the Minister says that the customs people have found it rather inconvenient to get proof in these cases: but this does not seem to be a sufficient reason. I think this is one of the cases where the old principle applies that it is better for a dozen guilty people to escape rather than that you should make one innocent man suffer. The amendment is designed only to save the customs people a certain amount of trouble and get the Government a certain amount of revenue. That is not enough.

I congratulate the Minister on putting in the words he has done in Clause 6. While it is quite true that mistakes are made unknowingly, still the fact remains that the importer reaps a financial benefit if a mistake is made, and therefore the Minister is quite justified in inserting the words he has inserted. The chief reason I rise is to appeal to the Minister to try to consider South African industry. We have a firm manufacturing different roofings, asphalt, etc., in bulk at Salt River. They could be quite capable of manufacturing, if not sufficient for the South African market, a great amount; which would be not only to the advantage of the industry itself, but would employ the people of South Africa and mean greater circulation of money.

Employ how many?

If a private industry is created in this country it must of necessity start in a small way—unless it is a State concern, and I am pleased that the Government has recognized that in regard to the steel industry. The Government naturally would be justified in removing the protective tariff if an industry did not satisfy the needs of the people. Give it five years, so that we can see whether it is a genuine industry or not. If we were to give this industry an opportunity it would satisfy the needs of a large portion of the people of South Africa.

What industry is that?

The Asphalt Manufacturing Company of Salt River. In regard to the cement industry, it is not supplying the needs of South Africa. They are keeping the production down and keeping the prices up to a very great extent. If it were not for the selfishness of the directors of the cement industry, they could produce sufficient for the needs of South Africa, but they refuse to do so.

How are you going to prove it?

We need not go to the hon. member for Stellenbosch to do it.

I am asking you.

The Minister is quite able to judge the right or wrong of which industries should be protected.

I judge from the ruling you gave just now, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be competent to move a reduction on cotton blankets, but I want to make an appeal to the Minister—

I interrupted the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to say that this is not the stage where it can be moved.

At the approximate time the Minister introduced that taxation, he also introduced the higher taxation of natives in the Cape Province, and we, on this side, supported that taxation; but my experience in the Transkei has shown me that there is no tax the natives have objected to so strenuously as that on cotton blankets. Agitators have made use of this in order to point out to natives who are discontented in certain places that the Government have introduced double taxation. The Minister told us that the tax was introduced, not to obtain further revenue, but to try to establish further industries in this country. He told us that the raw material has to be imported. The tax is imposed on the poorest people of this country. In the Transkei you cannot leave a sack about; if you leave an ordinary sack it goes.

That does not prove anything. A native will always take a sack.

A cotton blanket which cost 1s. now costs 2s. 6d.

A child’s blanket is not taxed.

Twelve ounces and under. It is only the smallest baby that wears these blankets. Parents cannot afford to pay these higher charges for blankets. I say it is the most unfair tax which has ever been imposed, and it is not a right tax. It is a tax to try to build up an industry for white people. If it were to build up an industry for natives I would say nothing about it. I do hope that the Minister, when this matter comes up, will look at it from this point of view. The industry is one you will never build up here. The cotton blankets made by local factories are not the type for the natives, and the cost is too much for them. There is a bigger infant mortality than there should be owing to the fact that these children are not sufficiently clad. The natives understand the principle of the uniformity of taxation. As I said before, we do not want to establish an industry on the backs of the poorest.

I think this is a very desirable alteration. Most people know perfectly well that there are unscrupulous importers in South Africa. I think it is quite right that the Administration should get at these people. This alteration is designed to get at the unscrupulous person in South Africa who wants to rob the Administration. There are exporters who send out two invoices, one for the customs containing a low price and the other for the customer showing the correct price, which is higher than that indicated on the “faked” invoice shown to the authorities. I heartily welcome this alteration. I am speaking from the practical point of view, whereas the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) speaks only from the legal point of View. I certainly support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in his endeavour to reduce the duty on cotton blankets, as it is a great hardship on natives when their mealie crops fail to have to pay more for blankets with which to clothe their children.

I hope the Minister will not listen to the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I want to appeal to the Minister on behalf of the wool farmer, and by using South African wool we can produce an article which is very much more serviceable than the cotton blanket. The natives would be very much better off if they wore blankets made from South African wool.

They can’t afford to buy them.

The hon. member wants to bring the price of the woollen blankets down to that of the cheap lustre cotton article, which carries no weight. The Minister should encourage the use of a decent wool blanket made from South African produce, and I hope he will not be deflected from that course by any spurious arguments used by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) or the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn).

I support what has been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) with regard to friendly societies. But I think Masonic regalia should also be included. Some of the regalia is made in South Africa, but in other cases and particularly in regard to the Masonic regalia I am more intimately acquainted with, the regalia is not made here and the duty is a hardship.

Don’t you think the Freemasons can well afford to pay?

Evidently the Minister does not know anything about Freemasons. They are just ordinary hard-working citizens, and the idea that they are a fraternity of wealthy people is absurd. This very heavy duty on their regalia hits them very hard If the Minister had an idea of the large amounts raised by Freemasons for charitable purposes he would be surprised. A Masonic education fund, which has its headquarters in Cape Town, and has been in existence since 1887 and in active work since 1890, distributes in grants to the poor children of deceased and distressed Masons nearly £2,000 a year. There are similar funds in other parts of the country, and in the Transvaal there is a hostel for the children of Freemasons. Freemasons help the State in many ways of which the Minister is in ignorance. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) there is no desire to help the unscrupulous man referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox). The hon. member for Rondebosch is trying to protect the man who is absolutely innocent, but who, under the amendment, will be punished. Surely you don’t want to convict an innocent man because you desire to punish the guilty. As to the industry to which the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) pleaded they have a large output from their factory at Salt River, where they manufacture roofing felt, pipe wrapping, floor covering and other things. They put their case before the Board of Trade and were told to wait. They are now making arrangements to erect factories at Durban and Johannesburg, and when these are completed the industry will utilize a good deal of mica and asbestos and other mineral products of the Union. Since the industry started business the cost of roofing has been reduced by at least 25 per cent. All that is asked for is some measure of protection. Last year they pressed for some relief, but instead of helping them the Government removed the duty of 25 per cent. on pipe wrapping, which is manufactured here. The result is that they now have to compete with the imported article, and when their representative saw the Minister on the subject the Minister laid down the principle that there was going to be no more protection for at least a year. The industry employs civilized labour and pays high wages, but has to pay the same railway rates as that charged for the conveyance of the imported article. I think a fair case has been made out for a reconsideration of this matter.

There has been some criticism in regard to the deletion we propose to make of the word “knowingly.” It was with a good deal of reluctance that I consented to propose the amendment, for I fully realised that we were taking an important step and materially altering our principle in regard to criminal offences, but the department has had a real difficulty in dealing with these cases. I do not think that any court of law would find a man guilty if he proved he has made a mistake and that there was no intention to defraud. We do not want to prosecute such people.

Cannot you make another provision? The man who goes to court will not get off on this.

We think it is necessary we should have this right to protect the revenue and to protect bona fide traders. If the House feels strongly against such a provision, I shall not press it. We have adopted precedents in these cases and have deleted the word “knowingly” in similar circumstances. I think this is one of those special circumstances. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has brought up the question of the duty on cotton blankets used by natives. He was right in saying that it was not primarily designed to produce revenue but it was done deliberately not to protect cotton manufacturers but to encourage the wearing by natives of woollen blankets. Afterwards it was suggested that the native preferred cotton blankets, but in spite of what was said at the time the duty has had the effect of establishing two industries in the country. And it appeared from the figures that a very good blanket is produced at a very low price— practically no difference to the price of the imported article. The hon. member says they are using waste products, but I understand that cotton blankets are produced from waste products—the most shoddy stuff you can get. It would not even pay to use the poorest quality of cheap cotton. Even our cheapest grade of cotton at the present low price cannot be used because apart from being unsuitable it is too expensive. In spite of that although the raw material is imported we have these factories here and there is every prospect of consumers being supplied with an article as good as the imported article at an equally low price.

It can’t be done.

When I accompanied the Prime Minister to the native territories last year this question was brought up and I pointed out to the native that the territories were suitable for sheep rearing and I thought it would be a real good thing if we educated the native so that instead of going in for the cotton blanket he should wear the woollen blanket.

But we grow cotton here. Why encourage the native to wear wool if we can produce cotton blankets?

I shall have no objection to him wearing cotton if it is made in this country. We dealt with wool because we were told there was no possibility of starting cotton manufacturing in this country. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has raised the question on the diversion of trade between Rhodesia and this country for open stock. I understand there is some evidence of that. But how far it is due to the operation of the Rhodes clause I am not in a position to say. I will go into the matter. The hon. member suggested introducing a system of rebate and I will go into it and see if it is possible to do anything in the matter. We should like to encourage the trade between the two countries as much as possible and if anything could be done we shall consider it. Then the hon. member has raised the question of extending free importation to friendly societies, the same free importation we are at present giving to nursing associations and to boys’ brigades. I think we should be careful in extending the free list. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) wants us to extend it to masonic regalia. I will go into that question. It may be possible to make out a case for the friendly societies, but I doubt if it would be possible for the other gentlemen to make out a case.

They are entitled as much as the others.

I agree they are a very deserving people, but I think they will find some difficulty in making out a case for extending this privilege to them. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) have brought up the case of the Asphalt Manufacturing Company and they have pleaded for protection. Representations have been made to me by the owners of this industry and I informed them that the Government have decided, in view of the fact that we have for two years running brought in very important alterations in the tariff, and that we were giving protection to a great number of industries we felt just at present we wanted to go slow and see the effect of what we were doing. We want time to investigate these claims. I do not say that the industry is not entitled to protection. I think I had the report of the Board of Trade on this industry and they agreed that the policy I laid down that just now we want to go closely into these claims and we shall probably deal with them next year. It does not signify a change in the policy of the Government. In cases were a good case can be made out in future we shall go into it on its merits and if they are entitled to protection we shall give it to them. If I receive a report next year in connection with this industry it will receive due consideration. The hon. member has mentioned the case of cement and this industry should be able now to do without the protection we are giving them. I myself thought once that the time should arrive when probably these and other industries should be able to get along without protection.

No protected industry will ever get along in the future without it.

I was assured that we would not be able to get along without protection.

You never will be.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into committee on 6th June.

I move—

In this Bill we are fixing the income tax rates for the year and it also provides the necessary relief for life insurance companies in accordance with the proposal I outlined in the budget statement. It provides for two small amendments in the principal Act which deals with the super-tax on the undistributed profits of companies and we are making minor amendments for private companies. There is another minor amendment to abolish the penalization of husbands who live apart from their wives without a formal separation and who do not contribute to their support. We are taking away that. I move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 6th June.

I move—

The only alteration we are making is in the schedule of licences relating to hawkers and pedlars. There is a revised schedule fixing the rate and we are taking the opportunity of dealing with two small matters relating to Natal. One is in connection with the taking out of certain licences in Zululand, and then we are abolishing a certain fee which exists in one of the old Natal Acts. The principal reason why we are making this alteration in the rates payable by hawkers and pedlars is became at present a hawker can obtain a provincial licence by getting a certificate from one local authority. He can then trade within the limits of another local authority without the permission of that local authority. We have had very strong representations from local authorities all over the country objecting very strongly against this, and we are therefore reverting to the old practice of requiring a licence within the limits of each local authority and we are abolishing the provincial licence. It really is a matter of control.

What extra revenue is it going to bring in?

That has been no consideration at all. The provinces get the revenue, and I do not think it will make any material difference. What we are losing from provincial licences we shall probably make up by the licences payable in the various local districts. Then we have also split up into a number of classes certain products which can be sold under the low rate of licence of £1 or 5s. For some time there has been some criticism about the rate of licences payable by people who merely hawk about one particular product like fish or fruit and vegetables, etc. We are now making provision for a £1 licence for six classes, or 5s. for one class. That will materially ease the position, especially in the Cape, where it has been felt as a hardship.

I should like to have an explanation from the Minister in connection with hawkers’ licences. According to the Bill we see that if anyone trades in certain six articles then he must pay a licence of £1, but the licence for one article is 5s. In the Western Province there are people who hawk fruit from one district to another, but on their return they bring another article. Inhabitants of Villiersdorp e.g. take fruit to Hermanus and return with fish. Must they take out a licence of £1 or can they take out two licences of 5s?

He must hold two licences at 5s.

This is a matter of much importance to the farmers and hawkers.

I have made certain about it.

It seems to me that the Minister is going rather far in this. Let us take a hawker of fruit, for each district where he trades he has got to pay a licence of £1. I think that is pretty rough. Suppose a man wants to take out his fruit on his own cart, for instance.

The producer does not take out a licence at all. He can sell his own product without a licence.

Supposing he has a regular system, and he takes out these products to different places, he has got to have a licence. I think it is rather rough on the producer in the first place. In the old days in the Cape where a man sold the products of his own farm he was left free. If a man travels about with produce from one district to another, he has to take out a licence in each district.

It is very much easier than it was. We are easing the position a good deal.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 6th June.

I move—

In moving this motion I may state that it relates to the amalgamation between the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Limited, and the Cinderella Consolidated Mines, Limited. Hon. members will recollect that this question has been referred to during recent years, and that there was a commission appointed consisting of the Government Mining Engineer (Sir Robert Kotzé), Mr. Walter Webber, and I think, Mr. Walter Hudson, and I was often pressed by some hon. members to bring the proceedings to a conclusion. I pointed out that if I had to press the commission no agreement would be likely to result, and by the exercise of a little patience an agreement ultimately resulted. It resulted in this way, that the commission made a recommendation. Inter alia, they recommended that the Government should guarantee certain debentures to enable an agreement to be come to. The Government did not see its way to guarantee the debentures, and then the parties proceeded de novo and they reached an agreement. Now one of the recommendations of the commission consisting of Sir Robert Kotzé, Mr. Webber and Mr. Hudson, was as follows—

This is a very important feature. They refer to the Low Grade Mines Commission’s report of 1920, paragraphs 78 to 80—

This is so far as the liability of the E.R.P.M. to the Government was concerned. Then we come to the liability of the Cinderella, about which this commission says as follows—

The remission of these two debts was considered by the Government and when the company, after the failure, on the recommendation of the commission, of their attempt to come to an agreement and after the Government had refused to guarantee the debentures, when they started, de novo, on the basis that the Government would not guarantee the debentures, they asked the Government again whether they were still prepared to remit these debts, and we went into the merits of the case and we came to the conclusion that these debts should be remitted. In consequence of this, an agreement has been drafted and has been placed before the House, and the Government is now proposing that this agreement should be ratified by the House in terms of the Act of 1918.

What is the capital value of the remissions to the Cinderella?

I cannot for the moment say what the capital value is. Of course, if the feeling of the House is it should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, I am quite ready to agree to that.

Yes, that is the best way.

seconded the motion.

It seems to me the Government is unusually and unreasonably generous in this particular regard. I was one of the members continually urging the Government to endeavour to bring about the amalgamation of these two companies, but when the Commission, after sitting for three years, brought up a proposal, the companies rejected that proposal, and that liberated the Government entirely from any promises made. I have heard, for the first time, from the Minister, that when the companies resumed negotiations among themselves they again approached the Government and got the concession mentioned in the motion. It seems to me these companies are not exactly in a position to come to this House and ask for particularly generous treatment, and to be liberated from this amount of £45,000 in one case and 4 per cent. in the other. We cannot say what the latter will amount to, for if the Cinderella turns out as some people hope it will, the 4 per cent. of profits will run into a lot of money. Through market manipulations the E.R.P.M. has got on a share market valuation £2,000,000 more than they had before the amalgamation, and the Cinderella company have, in cash and shares, a million pounds in addition. As a matter of fact, they have not started working on the new ground yet, and they have £3,000,000 profit to go on with. I think this would be a very bad precedent if companies, thinking they have a bad deal in contracts, come to the House for relief; the practice may extend to other companies. It should be borne in mind that this money is only going to be called for out of profits, and it is not as if we were inflicting any great hardship upon the companies concerned. Perhaps the better way, as it is a technical subject, would be to refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee, and I move as an amendment—

I hope the Minister will agree to that. He promised that he would. The select committee will go quite impartially into this matter. We know nothing about the facts of the case. Yes, I will second the amendment.

The procedure proposed by my hon. friend is the right procedure. I would just like to point out to the Minister that the Government is not taking into consideration that we are here giving a number of claims to this company on which the capital has accrued very considerably. Assuming, for one moment, the combination of the E.R.P.M. and the Cinderella is going to achieve the aspect put before the Government, there is another side to the picture: supposing the company closes down immediately after amalgamation. What guarantee has the Government got that anything is going to be done to achieve that position which has been promised to the Government? They have practically been made a present of these claims. They can liquidate the company and start a fresh one. That is the position they are in. The company is in a very sound position, but the Government has no guarantee. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister to arrive at a settlement, but I do not think the Government is getting any guarantee as far as the companies themselves are concerned, that they are going to achieve what they have promised if the Government makes them a present of this.

I suppose we have power to take evidence and to call for papers?

The Committee has that power.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz—

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 3, and amendments in Clause 4 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 8 and in par. 2 of the Schedule, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On the amendment in par. 7 of the Schedule.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment in the twelfth line, after “after” to insert “having received notice from the trustee or assignee of”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment in par. 9 of the Schedule put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in par. 11 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Schedule put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I notice that the committee recommends the lease of 20 morgen of ground to the Riversdale Golf Club at a rental of £1 per year. Considering that we paid £30,000 for that land, that seems to be a bargain for the club.

The land is used as grazing ground for the settlers, and the golf links will not interfere with the grazing.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (3) to (5) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (6),

I notice that the committee recommends the withdrawal of several demarcated forest areas. In one case near Humansdorp the area recommended for withdrawal amounts to 2,700 morgen. It must be put aside for afforestation. What is the reason?

This is on top of the mountains, and the Forestry Department are of opinion it is no use for afforestation, so we gave it out under the Cape Act of 1887 to the adjoining owners.

I am sorry I am not on this committee anymore. Unless you really show you do not want the ground for any particular purpose you should not agree to the withdrawal of these forest areas. It has been shown in some cases the moment these are withdrawn people come and make offers quite inadequate and land is given out to them. In the old days unless we had actual claims for these lands we always refused to allow them to be withdrawn from the demarcated forest areas. That was a sound principle.

I just want to make clear to the hon. member that the Forestry Department has a few hundred thousand morgen of ground which are lying waste. The part is dry and mountainous and cannot be used for afforestation. It looks as if the department has much ground while in reality it has always to buy more ground. We now recommend that a portion of the ground which is probably suited for farming purposes and is quite useless to the Forestry Department should be taken over by the. Department of Lands Why should it not be granted to owners who may be able to use it for farming purposes.

Recommendations (6) and (7) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (8),

I want to raise another question with regard to the withdrawal of 20 morgen. What is the explanation of that?

I should like to point out another reason why we should be careful. Under the Act demarcated areas are protected. The only way we can stop bush fires is to have the land demarcated as forest areas where you have a severe penalty for people setting fire to these lands. It is, therefore, a protection to the country to have these areas demarcated. We have that protection under the Act, and I ask the Minister, unless it is necessary to dispose of the land for some good purpose, to allow the Government to keep their hold on the land and have it protected in that way.

I may inform my hon. friend it is not easy to get land suitable for afforestation from the Forest Department, and where the Government can get hold of land which the Forest Department cannot make use of it is better, rather than to let it lie idle and have nobody on it at all, to let it belong to some adjoining farmer. In that way it is better protected. This land is required by the railways for a lighthouse.

Not 40 acres of ground surely. What do they need with that?

It is on a native reserve and Native Affairs do not object.

The Minister has to buy land sometimes for afforestation, and that is why we are so jealous and why we think he should think twice before parting with it.

I know this land, and I know that the natives are crying out for land in that part of the country. I should like to know why the railways require 20 morgen for a lighthouse. I should also like to say that in cases of this sort there should be some way for letting the member for the constituency know about it. In that way we should save discussion

The papers are laid on the Table of the House.

It does create discussion when discussion might not be necessary. This land is on top of a hill and is surrounded by bush.

If you have a lighthouse you require land for houses to be built upon, in which the people who look after the lighthouse can live. This is not a question I bring before the House departmentally or by myself. It has been dealt with by the Committee for Crown Lands.

We cannot all be on the committee, so we must exercise our rights to criticise now.

You must have confidence in the members of your committee. We cannot have every member on the committee. I can only give my hon. friend an assurance that we go thoroughly into every case and look at it from every point of view before we make a recommendation. My hon. friend need not be anxious that we have done anything here that is detrimental to the interests of the Government.

This ground is for a light-house, and you will want cottages for the men who are employed there. We have got the same thing down at Slangkop beyond Hout Bay, but they do not require 40 acres of land. There are cottages for people to live in, but they do not require such an extent of ground as that.

I think this thing was started when my hon. friend was Minister of Railways.

No, I do not think so.

I would like to point out that these lighthouse keepers lead a very isolated life, and they want to keep a cow and do a little gardening. It seems to me that 40 acres is not too much to give in a case of this kind, because a lot of the ground is covered with bush.

Recommendations (8) to (11) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (12),

This is a very curious recommendation. Here it is proposed to lease to the Cofimvaba Football Club the land situated on the market square. Is it intended to play football on the market square?

I am told that it is a big market square, and the people only use a small part of it. I understand that these people play football there now, and it does not interfere with others. Trees will be planted round the ground, and the people who live round the square do not object to the young fellows having their recreation ground there.

Recommendations (12) to (19) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (20),

This recommendation raises an important question. It is proposed to reduce the allotment price of the holdings comprised in the Klipdrift Settlement in the district of Potchefstroom from a total valuation of £53,463 to £25,660. There is also to be a further writing off. I want to call attention to this, that the writings off and reductions in this report amount to £93,180. Why is it that we have two authorities in this House making reductions of this kind? We had before the Public Accounts Committee the other day the question of reducing the debt due by the municipality of Victoria West.

On an irrigation scheme.

Still, it was the giving away of State money. They asked us to reduce about £30,000. There also came before the Committee a little time ago the question of reducing the debt of Wolmaransstad for a dam they have put up. We have protested several times in the Public Accounts Committee against two separate committees of the House exercising the same power. One would imagine that an important matter of this kind would be confined to one authority. In the Public Accounts Committee we passed a resolution some time since and we passed a resolution now dealing with this very matter. We strongly protest against it. It seems that in 1925 a resolution was placed before the House to appoint a select committee for the disposal of Crown lands or servitudes, etc., That was never passed by the House, as far as I am informed.

It was passed.

Our information laid before the Committee is that it was not passed You have taken powers in that committee which we consider you have no right to.

Have you got the right?

It has been the custom of this House up till recently that any question of the remission of moneys due to the State shall first be examined by the Public Accounts Committee. Why they could not apply that to land, rents, etc., I do not understand. There was a very important matter this afternoon coming from the Mines Department which has been referred to the Public Accounts Committee, a matter of £45,000. Why should there be two authorities—that is what we protest against—dealing with the same matter? It is extremely irregular. I wonder the Minister of Finance does not take it up and put the matter on a proper footing.

I would certainly object to that. I am not going to make myself responsible for irrigation loans which is the function of another department. This is not a financial matter at all. That is just the different outlook we have on this point. My hon. friend considers everything from the financial point of view, but I look at this from a different point of view. The State has bought certain land and we have put settlers on that land. They cannot make a living if the price remains what the Lands Department paid for it. My hon. friend we know is very efficient, he is a financial authority, but his worst enemy would not accuse him of being a land valuer. Consequently whenever it concerns a question of land settlement it is the word of the Land Committee, a committee which has dealt with cases like that for years past. As far as I am concerned I would certainly strongly object to the writing off of land for settlers going to the Public Accounts Committee. This is not a financial matter primarily; it, is primarily a matter of making it possible for settlers to live there and not pay for land more than it is worth.

I would like to point out that we are getting into a very serious position. Not only have we at least two authorities for writing this off, but there are three or four authorities for making advances of money. I have here the Loan Votes. First of all I find the Labour Department are asking for £55,000 for stock, no doubt for the purpose of helping settlers. All these Ministers now are going to have the power to advance money. Take agriculture—advance to assist farmers, £15 000. Then there are advances to settlers £35,000 under land settlement, my hon. friend’s department. I am only pointing out the extremely unsatisfactory position and I earnestly want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to this. I do not claim originality in this matter. The Auditor-General has called attention to it in the Public Accounts Committee.

I do not know whether this discussion is in order here. I can tell my hon. friend when the time comes. I have given the matter attention. We have appointed a small departmental committee to go into the question of Hartebeestepoort, and the Labour Department and the Lands Department are carrying on with a view to co-ordination. The Labour Department have been dealing with quite a different class of person than settlers. There is a certain amount of overlapping, which we are considering now—until they can place these down and outs; we have irrigable land there, and we are putting them on useful work. Any expenditure in connection with that is borne by the Labour Department. Similarly, they have a scheme at Doornkop.

They are all leaving.

A small departmental sub-committee is investigating the whole matter.

Perhaps my hon. friend can give us some explanation with regard to Klipdrift?

Klipdrift was a place bought by the Irrigation Department which built a dam there shortly after Union. The settlers could not make a living there; the land was not of the best either. As I could not get in any money, and I pressed these people, I decided to send an expert commission there, which went thoroughly into the whole case, and made the recommendation as it is printed here. We have written down practically £80,000 so far, but I can assure my hon. friend he will get some more shocks yet before we have finished

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (21),

Can my hon. friend give us some information of the Delagersdrift Settlement?

This settlement, a church settlement, was started in pre-Union days. When these settlers could not make a living it was agreed between the Delagersdrift Commission and my hon. friend when he was Minister of Lands, that he should take over 100 of these settlers and make advances to them. There were 99 settlers and advances were made to them, but things went from bad to worse. Many of them, owing to the war, had to pay high prices for cattle and implements. Some of them got in such a hopeless mess that they left. A commission was sent which included a representative of the Treasury and the Commission recommended that the church should keep the colony. I agreed to meet the church on the condition that there be security of tenure, so that eventually the settlers might become owners of the land, for without that prospect there is no incentive for settlers to work hard. I have told the church that this is the last thing I can do for them.

Recommendations (21) to (26) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (27),

What is the reason for giving a grant of land to Postmasberg for a town hall?

In this case the ground was originally given for the purpose of a school site, but the Education Dept. changed its mind and the municipality decided to erect a town hall on the site. Sometimes we all change our minds. Whenever a municipality asks for land for public purposes and it is not required by the Government, we give it to them.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (28),

I should like some explanation with regard to this recommendation.

I cannot hear what you say.

The Port Elizabeth municipality is asked to pay £333 for 166 square roods of land, but the Cape Town municipality is asked to pay a very high price for a small piece of ground it requires for public purposes.

£2 a square foot in Cape Town and £2 a square rood in Port Elizabeth.

If the land is required for public improvements Government should charge municipalities as little as possible for the land. This is purely for public service.

You are not objecting to this price, are you? You can move a reduction here if you like.

I do not want to move a reduction, I want the Government to consider the question.

This amount of £333 is only one third of the value. The Public Health Department suggested that the site should be sold in terms of section 66 (d) of the Public Health Act of 1899. £1,000 is the value of the whole land.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (29) to (34) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (35),

You go sa fast, sir, it takes me all my time to follow you. I should like some explanation with regard to the farm Kaffers Kraal, which is to be put up to public auction.

This has a very interesting history. Lord Milner, just after the Boer war, allowed these people a span of oxen and a wagon and sent them to the farm and he made this a burgher settlement, and when he put them on Kaffers Kraal it was at first all right. Afterwards, since Union, the Irrigation Board—Mr. Neser was chairman— asked of money to build a dam, and my department objected and pointed out that, if the dam was built, these settlers would not get the water to which they were entitled. But the Minister in charge of Irrigation overruled that eventually, and the result was the dam was built and the furrows caved in. They got a supply from the dam, but it was not the same as from the spruit. The thing has become so hopeless that they cannot get water, and where formerly they paid 1s. 6d. they now are going to pay £4 per morgen for water, and these people are only too glad to get out. I came to the conclusion that we must take drastic measures to end the matter. The report of the Board was that the only thing to be done was to pay compensation to them, and they would clear out, and very glad they would be to get out.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (36),

There is an item of £66 in the district of Krugersdorp.

That is a place that was bought during the war. It is not at all a suitable place. The soil is not very deep. I think a mistake was made by the land board and the Minister at that time in paying such a high price for the ground. I cannot keep any settlers there; they can hardly make a living. The board went into the matter and recommended that we should write down these two places—that is, numbers 36 and 37. We should then see whether it would be possible for the settlers to make a living. It is far better to get something for the ground than nothing at all.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (37),

I see that a very big reduction is proposed in this case. Perhaps my hon. friend will explain that.

That is exactly the same as the previous case. These two places were bought more or less at the same time and are both more or less of the same character. The soil is not very deep and it is not very fertile. The price paid for the ground was far too high. Even if the ground had been bought as an agricultural proposition it would be too high a price.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendation (38) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (39),

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he is going to do with this. Are you going to have a school there?

There are settlers there. I have given out the land. At the time it was advertized it was pointed out by the Land Board that it was useless to give it out at those prices. However, I thought it would be well to give it a trial, but I find that it is hopeless and that the settlers cannot make good.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (40) to (42) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (43),

I think there is a reduction there also.

That is ground that was bought under Section 11 for settlement. It is one of the places bought at high a price and we cannot get it allotted at that price. People who seem to know the place won’t have it at the original price.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (44),

Has this ground been granted free of charge to the municipality? There is nothing said in the recommendation about any price.

That is the same as I explained a little while ago. Any Government land or erven in a township which is not required any public purpose by any of the departments and is applied for by the municipality is always given to them. This is not a new policy; it has been the practice for some years.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendation (45) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (46),

I see on 45 and 46 that the two resolutions of Parliament were passed only a year ago.

Yes, I can explain that. Parliament decided that we should sell this farm by public auction at an upset price of £2,435. On the case of item 46 the trouble is this that under the will of this Mr. Taylor the money is given if the land is registered in the name of his trustees. Then the trustees can pay out the money with which to build a hospital.

Why does not my hon. friend go thoroughly into the whole matter of the reductions the department wants to make?

We are discussing (46).

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (47) to (53) put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported,

I move—

Objected.

Report to be considered to-morrow.