I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The Minister of Labour, who, I am very sorry is not in his place, apparently intends to favour us with another of his wage determinations. He published this in the “Gazette” of the 20th May last. I think the House should realize the direction in which we are drifting with these wage determinations which are being made by the Labour Ministers in the present Government. (I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour has now come in.) This last wage determination which is advertised relates to the baking and confectionery industries, and it will, I think, be very interesting to compare some of the wage standards which the Minister of Labour is setting up in this country, by virtue of these precious wage boards, and the wages which are paid in other countries. We have to realize that we are in direct competition with the products which are manufactured in other countries under a wage standard which I shall briefly quote. I would like to give members some idea of the wages paid in England today, and we must always remember that higher wages are paid in England than in any other European country. Looking through the Minister’s wage determination I find his maximum is about £6 13s., but he has a class of what he calls employees and every employee is to get £3. If you look down this list you will find a tramway driver in England is paid 59s. 2d. a week. Under the determination of the Minister you have this class described and defined as an employee paid £3 a week. An employee whose duty it is to crack nuts is paid £3 a week, a job that any six years’ old child could do, and yet a tramway driver in England gets 59s. 2d. per week. An underground labourer in the coal mines in England to-day, the man who is doing the hardest class of work, is getting 52s. 9d. a week, but an employee in the confectionery trade whose job it is to break eggs, is to get £3 a week. The thing is absolutely absurd. It gets even worse. An engineering labourer in the old country gets 42s. 2d. a week, but one of the Minister’s employees whose special duty it is to spread jam on tarts is getting £3 a week. Did you ever hear of such nonsense? Where are we going to end in this country? You have an engineering fitter, who is a skilled man, or a shipwright who is also a skilled workman, in England, getting 59s. 6d. a week, but the Minister pays his employees £3 for emptying trays. Can any sane man support a wage determination like this? A little kaffir picanin who empties trays is to get £3, and a skilled fitter is to get 59s. 6d. in the great industrial centres of the world. An engine driver in England, say the driver of the Flying Scotsman, one of the best known trains in the British Isles, gets 87s 5d. a week, and here I see a vanman is to get £6 a week. Anyone who can hold the reins of an old decrepit mule and deliver tarts which have been jammed at £3 a week, is rated higher than a skilled engine driver. It is not only the actual wage which is being paid, but by these excessive rates of wages we are going to raise the cost of production in this country that it is going to make it absolutely impossible to compete in the world’s markets if we are going to set a standard of wages like this. The man who is going to be hit is the primary producer, the farmer and the gold mines. The farmer has to grow the nuts at £1 a week profit, and he has to pay someone else £3 a week to crack them. We talk about building up industries in this country. What is this wage going to build up? It is going to be followed by such an excessive protection that you are going to so raise costs of production that the primary producer is going to go under in this country, or be a slave for ever more. One of the worst features about the whole wage determination is that the Wage Board lays down these wages to be paid irrespective of colour. That is absolute and arrant hypocrisy. Labour has no intention of allowing the natives to earn this money, and yet when we object to this hypocrisy you get members on the cross benches accusing this party of desiring to grind down the native and pay him starvation wages, while the truth is that the Labour party is aiming to drive the native out of industry altogether. What happened when the Minister of Public Works laid down this famous 8s. a day determination? He went to a meeting of the Master Builders’ Association and said, “No native can possibly live and keep himself decently at anything under 8s. a day.” The hon. member for Maritzburg said “We don’t want this in Maritzburg.” “Why not?” said the Minister. “Because there are not enough Europeans to get it.” Therefore the Minister made an alteration in the determination there. That shows the hollowness of the Minister’s argument. What happened in the Transkeian Territory? You would have thought he would have said that here, at least, the natives were entitled to this wage. But did he do it? No, he withdrew the determination. I do not advocate 8s. a day for natives. It is an absurd wage, but this is throwing the whole country into an uproar. You have this I.C.U. propaganda going on, and specially in the Free State. We know what is going on in Natal. Their emissaries go round among the natives and say “The Government is setting a standard of wages for natives at 8s. a day. The Government is behind you, and the European employer won’t pay it.” That is at the bottom of all this trouble. You have the Minister telling the native he is worth £6 a week to drive a van. You have the Minister of Justice trying to control the agitation which is going on, whilst the Labour Ministers are pouring oil on the fires by means of their hypocritical wage determination. In my opinion, we are going to be driven into an absolutely impossible position if this thing is going on.

Louder, please.

Will the hon. member endorse what the Minister of Labour has said with regard to the wages of natives? How far are we going in upsetting the natives? This is not an honest endeavour to find work for the natives. You are going to upset the natives of the country, and it will be an impossible country to live in. It will raise the costs of primary production, and you will find the gold mines shutting down. Farming is not a paying industry to-day, and you have farmers coming to the Minister, and asking him to stop this wage agitation, and this I.C.U. propaganda. When you compare the wages we are laying down as a standard with those of other countries for the same classes of work, you see the position we are being driven into. Let us get a responsible member of the Government, not the Minister of Labour, to get up and say how we stand in this country. Every day we are getting these further determinations and a higher standard of wages, the more difficult it is for the primary producers.

I take this, the only, opportunity that is open to me, of entering a protest on behalf of my constituency against the insincerity of the Government, to use the mildest word, in dealing with the matter that is looked upon as of vital interest to that constituency: that is, dealing with the harbour works at Algoa Bay. I would have preferred to deal with this when the Minister of Railways and Harbours was present, but it is not only a matter that that Minister has dealt with; it is a Cabinet matter, and other Ministers have been directly concerned. This is my only opportunity. It is a matter that concerns not Port Elizabeth only. I am not now going into the merits of the harbour being built there, but will deal with the different conferences that have been held, showing that the method that is now being adopted by the Government is a slight not only upon Port Elizabeth, but upon the whole of the midlands of the Cape. This demand for a harbour at Algoa Bay emanated originally from a conference in the midlands, which is held periodically, and deals with matters which affect the midland’s as a whole. The conference is entirely non-political. A few of the centres represented at it are Port Elizabeth, Graaff-Reinet, Uitenhage, Aberdeen, Victoria West, Beaufort West, Grahamstown, Somerset East, Colesberg, Kimberley and Humansdorp. To show how strong the feeling in the midlands is with regard to the provision for a harbour at Algoa Bay, at the last conference it was proposed that there should be only one resolution proposed, and all the other districts were prepared to allow their demand’s for railways and so forth to stand over, and to concentrate upon that one resolution only. This came on about 1923. In 1924-’25 there was a question raised as to whether there were any engineering difficulties in connection with the matter, and the late Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Jagger) arranged for an engineering report. A most eminent engineer, Mr. Wilson, of the firm of Coode, was brought out, and reported on this at a big expense. His report was entirely satisfactory; that there were no engineering difficulties whatever. In the terms of reference submitted to him there was a question of the outlook of the trade in Port Elizabeth, and he said it was not a matter upon which he could report—he did not report on that. The present Minister appointed a commission known as the Van der Horst commission to go into the question of the trade. This report was brought in, and it reported to the effect that the matter was not only a local one, but of State interest, and that there should be no hesitation in going immediately on with the work. The report was so strong that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) expressed as his opinion, although he had originally refused to go on with this work, after he had a report of that sort, he would have no hesitation in going on with it. In face of that report he was entirely with us on the matter. There was one clause in the report on which the Minister acted. Owing to not having had a survey of the harbour, the exact cost could not be fixed, and they recommended that that survey should be made. The Minister took a vote of £6,000, and the survey, I understand, is entirely satisfactory. There has never been any definite official promise that these works would be carried out. We have everything but a definite promise from the Government—everything to lead people to expect that provided the survey was satisfactory the work would be accomplished. It was only reasonable to suppose that there would not be this big expenditure in bringing out an eminent engineer, an incomplete survey of trade prospects, and a further expenditure of thousands of pounds in surveying the port if nothing were to be done. When I asked a question on the subject recently, the Minister replied that the Government was not prepared at this stage to commit the country to a policy of developing the port of Algoa Bay. Nothing was said, however, about there being any difficulty in the way. Such a method of treating the matter is a slight upon the whole of the midlands, and shows an absolute want of sincerity on the part of the Government. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) incurred some odium in the midlands through his refusal to deal with the matter, but we were able to retain our respect for him because he said what he meant and he meant what he said. The Government, apparently, does not say what it means or means what it says, and it is this want of sincerity of which we complain. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) spoke at one of the meetings to which I have referred; he stated that he was the mouthpiece of the Minister and the harbour would be built.

So it will be.

The Prime Minister when in London last year and talking about the requirements of the Government for the development of the Union, mentioned that funds would be needed for building a harbour at Algoa Bay. Then the Minister of Public Works has publicly stated that a harbour was to be built there. It is most unfortunate that there should be an impression that from the very beginning there has been an absolute want of sincerity on the part of the Government. If the Minister of Railways were here I should use much stronger language. We differ entirely from the Government in politics, but surely that has nothing to do with economic matters. I take this opportunity of recording my strong protest against the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Government.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has accused the Government of in sincerity in connection with the Port Elizabeth harbour, and I feel obliged to defend the Government at this point. I remember quite well being present at a midlands conference with the hon. member, which had been called to discuss the question. Before the conference took place I had been in correspondence with the Minister of the Interior and I told the conference what he had said, viz., that the Port Elizabeth harbour would always receive the attention of the Government, and that Port Elizabeth’s claims would be met. The midland districts have just as much interest in the harbour receiving attention, but when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) accuses the Government of insincerity, then he knows himself that it is an unfair charge. He knows that the present Government has spent much more money on the Port Elizabeth harbour than the previous Government ever did. He knows that there are ten or twelve harbours in the country all requiring consideration, and how can he say that the Government is insincere because £2,000,000 is not immediately made available for Port Elizabeth. There has not yet been any delay in the work because it was kept going and the Government made the necessary moneys available for the purpose. What right has the hon. member to accuse the Government of insincerity? I am a warm supporter of putting the Port Elizabeth harbour into proper order as soon as possible, and I sat on the same conference as the hon. member in connection with the matter. The harbour has always received sympathy from the Government and it is therefore unfair and unjust to accuse the Government in this regard.

I do not think anyone on this side of the House has any objection to high wages so long as the particular industry can bear the economic strain, but what is happening on the other side of the fence? The Minister of Lands will be able to put us in possession of statistics showing that a very large section of the farming community has an average gross income of only £100 a year. Since the Pact Government has been in office almost every issue of the Government “Gazette” has contained wage determinations for the towns. I am not opposed to paying decent wages in the towns, but it seems to me that the Government has concentrated on higher pay in the urban areas and has completely neglected the farming population. I cannot call to mind one single law passed by the present Government which has tended to raise the earning capacity of the farmer. Can hon. members opposite, who are supposed to represent the farmers, tell me of one legislative enactment passed by the Pact Government which has helped the farmer or tended to raise his standard of living?

You don’t speak for the farmers, you speak for Port Elizabeth.

I am waiting for the farmers’ representatives to speak. The Government asserts that it stands for the farmers. In one of the awards I see that a van man—not a driver—is to be paid £6 a week, while hundreds of farmers have a gross annual income of £100. I want to put it to the country whether we are not getting lopsided with our legislation; whether we are not legislating for the towns and neglecting the farmers. I do not object to people in the towns getting high wages so long as they are economically sound.

You cannot have it both ways.

No, we are only getting it one way and there is nothing for the farmer. He is being ground between the upper and the nether millstone. I don’t ask the Minister of Labour if he can tell us a single law which has been passed that helps the farmer because he does not care a jot about the farmer, but I do ask any hon. member on that side to show me a single law that has helped the farmer in the same way the townsmen are being helped by these wage determinations. We have had a tremendous volume of legislation and we are always hearing that the farmer is the backbone of the country, but the farmer is being ground down by these enactments.

Wait till the farmers begin to talk.

I have been waiting, but none of them ever seem to talk.

The hon. member must keep to the subject of the debate.

I am keeping to the subject of the debate. The debate is on these wage determinations and I say the farmers are being neglected by the party which professes to be the farmers’ party, and I am sure the lesson will not be lost on the farmers of the country, and I for one will see that the lesson is not lost. I support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh); I don’t want to say that the Government is insincere, but the impression made by the Government through their conduct in regard to the Port Elizabeth harbour is one of insincerity. The Minister allowed us to go away with the impression that he was convinced of the desirability of having a fully equipped harbour at Port Elizabeth, and he recommended that the work should be proceeded with, but the work has been progressively slowed down. It reminds me of the “Punch” picture of the British workman laying one brick a day. The members of the congress, including the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) went away from the congress with their tails in the air. Yet the Government is doing as little as possible with regard to that harbour. I do not think it is fair after what happened at the various congresses for the Minister to adopt that attitude. I am sorry the hon. Minister is not here to give us a statement of the Government’s policy. The matter is very important. Port Elizabeth is the only really sound port between Cape Town and Durban, yet the whole matter is dismissed in ten words—“We are not going to do more than we are.” I hope his representative, the Minister of Finance, will tell us exactly and frankly what the policy of the Government is. If they propose continuing this policy of slowing down let him tell us that is the policy.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) wants to know what this Government has done for the farmers. I will mention a few things. It has repealed the tobacco tax imposed by the late Government. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) never opened his mouth when that tax was put on the poor tobacco farmers. The poor class of bywoners has been ruined by it, and this Government had to save them, and repealed the tax as it did the medicine tax.

That triviality!

It may be trifling to the rich man who goes about in a motor car, but it is a big thing to the poor people who cannot pay for medical attention. The Opposition has done so much for the farmers that the people on the countryside rushed in their misery to the towns, and the former Government did nothing to stop the rush. Moreover, this Government had to write off £300,000 on behalf of the settlers who were put on the land by the late Government and failed. The late Government made promises to them but this Government had to make good what the former had spoilt. They forced the people into misfortune. Then this Government reduced the estate duty on the less rich people. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) must not speak about the farmers. He is a townsman and bitter against everything that is Afrikander. He is quite out of touch with the countryside and he is over there in very bad company with the free traders. Does he want more protection to be given? What will the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) say about it? Does the hon. member want the farmers to be more protected so that they can get a little more for their wheat, etc.? The hon. member is only concerned about the towns and on his side of the House there are people with all kinds of contrary opinions. They are only concerned about the towns.

The remarks of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) have served to show what confusion is being brought about by the conflicting views that evidently prevail within the Cabinet on such important questions as wage matters and native trade unions. There is evidently a complete lack of policy on the part of the Government on these questions upon which the whole of the peaceful development and progress of this country depends, and we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity of declaring what the policy of the Government is, because the uncontrolled and undisciplined movement which is going on in the farming districts, organized by the I.C.U., is of such a menacing and unsettling character that it behoves the Prime Minister to come forward to-day and give us a declaration of his intention and his policy. We have the right to demand that, because when the Prime Minister was appealing for the confidence of the country at the last general election, he made an unequivocal and clear statement on this very question. At a meeting held on the 14th May, 1924, at Upington, the question was put to the Prime Minister—

The Minister’s reply was—

In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that he would fight tooth and nail the formation of native trade unions, we are entitled to ask what his policy is at this late hour of the day, when confusion in the native mind and confusion in the European mind on this question is such that a very dangerous state of mistrust and disturbance has been brought about. Had the Prime Minister been consistent to the line of policy declared by him at Upington none of us would have had any right to complain. It would have been in line with the policy that has been laid down in successive Acts of Parliament, where, e.g., under the Industrial Conciliation Act special provision was made which excluded the native workers from the provisions of that Act recognizing trade unions and enforcing some sort of discipline amongst them. An exception was made in regard to the natives, and it was made clear that the native trade unions were not to be registered and were not to be recognized. The Act quoted and the Wages Act specially exclude the agricultural industry from their sphere. If the Prime Minister had consistently followed the policy which he declared to be his policy at Upington none of us could have had any right to complain. But what do we find? His colleagues in the Cabinet, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works, have made statements and determinations of wages which are definitely in favour of native trades unions and of revolutionary increases in the prevailing scale of native wages, and they have so acted at a time when they make no corresponding increase in the rate of European wages for persons in a similar station of life, that is the unskilled labourers. You have, e.g., the ordinary unskilled native engaged in the work which the hon. member for Griqualand has referred to, the cracking of nuts, etc., entitled to receive £3 a week, while the ordinary European labourer, who does a very hard day’s work on the railway, gets a maximum of 6s. per day. I want to take the parallel further, and show the maximum of harm that is being done by the actions of the Minister of Public Works. Members on the opposite side who represent farming constituencies, will bear me out when I say that there has been a remarkable coincidence in the demands of the natives throughout South Africa in regard to the wages for farm labour. We have had the demand from Kroonstad, Heilbron, Reitz, in the Orange Free State, Piet Retief, Amersfort, in the Transvaal, and Umvoti, Richmond, Ixopo and other places in Natal, and in every one of these completely isolated areas we have had’ the one demand of 8s. per day. I have made it my business to find from what source that extraordinary demand emanated, and I find that according to the “Workers’ Herald,” the official organ of the I.C.U., the congress that was held at Durban dealt with this very question and at that congress the views of the Minister of Public Works were made very clear by one of the delegates who was present. This delegate was not a native, but an Indian. He was one of the witnesses who appeared before us in the Areas Reservation Bill Select Committee, and, although he goes by the name of De Norman, he is of pure Indian parentage. This man, according to my information, is a Communist, and although it has been put abroad, I think chiefly on the authority of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that this union has no connection with the Communists, the fact remains that this man is still a member of the Communist party. He followed the national secretary, Mr. Kadalie, who had said that they should be up and doing now and give the National Council the power to negotiate with the Government. They should also exploit the Wage Act and appeal to the Government to include agricultural labourers under the Act. Now we come to Mr. de Norman. He said he thought such a move would meet with strong support from Mr. W. Madeley. He was speaking at a congress representative of the whole of South Africa attended by over 100 delegates from the most remote corners of the Union. He said to them that he thought the move to have agricultural labourers brought under the Wage Act would meet with the support of Mr. W. Madeley. He went on to say that at a recent conference of master builders Mr. Madeley introduced a wage of 8s. per day for unskilled labourers on certain contracts. The master builders then agreed that this should operate only on Europeans and not on natives, which Mr. Madeley refused, and said that the native had been forced into industry and could not live a decent life on account of his low wages. What the Minister of Public Works actually said was that the native could not live a decent life under 8s. per day. Mr. de Norman said that he was certain that the Government would assist the non-Europeans and they were only waiting for a word from them in regard to this question of 8s. per day. Some may say, he added, that if the minimum wage of 8s. per day is enforced, preference would be given to white workers. He thought not, as it had been proved time and again that white labour was not economical. Now there is no room for doubt that this widespread agitation for 8s. per day on the farms on the part of the I.C.U. emanates from no less a person than the Minister of Public Works, and we are entitled to ask the Government to say to-day whether they approve of what the Minister of Public Works has said and whether they approve of this agitation being carried on, as it is, throughout the whole of the farming districts of the Union in the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal.

Are you a farmer?

I am a farmer, from a farming family with longer experience of farming than that of the hon. member himself.

You farm blackbirds.

I certainly employ native labour, though I do not breed large blacks, but I am concerned with the unsettlement of the native labour, not only on my farm, but throughout the whole of the province, and others which I have mentioned. I want to go further and show how the native agitators are entitled to claim that their friends in the Cabinet are the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Labour, at a time when he owned the “Guardian,” was, I take it, a party to views of this sort being issued in that journal—

This is in complete contradiction to the Prime Minister’s statement at Upington where the very same development, the reported formation of a native trade union by the South African mine workers was brought to his notice. The Minister of Labour declared a doctrine which is the very antithesis of the one the Prime Minister declared when, in 1924, he appealed for the confidence of the country. The Minister of Labour has now issued a foreword to a volume headed “A first Account of Labour Organization in South Africa.” In that foreword the Minister gives his blessing after racking up the embers of the past and making it appear that the policy of the South African party towards Labour was a blood-thirsty one.

Read the foreword out.

I am sorry, but it is too long-winded. As my hon. friend here says, it would make us all yawn, and I have no wish to be burdensome to the House. The Minister does say, however—

It came to me with something of a shock when I turned to see the photograph of the Minister, that much-photographed gentleman who has posed before the camera in the act of stroking circus lions, plucking gooseberries and saying good-bye to aviators, and in all these postures we find him looking his best. On the off-set page we find Mr. Kadalie, who is described in glowing terms as the founder of this I.C.U. movement in South Africa.

What have I to do with that?

I admit the Minister is not responsible. He is led into many embarrassing things. I was merely pointing out an inartistic mistake in the book he praises so much. He might be confused, through that error, with his fellow-hero, Kadalie. So the Minister gives his blessing to the I.C.U., along account of which appears and one of the objects of which is—

That is very strong meat for the ordinary native barbarian. Translated into Zulu or any other native language, it means one clear thing to him, that the capitalistic system in South Africa is, in the mind of the native, synonymous with European control and the dominant position of Europeans and European civilization. The Minister gives his blessing to this book and we can only assume that a great deal of capital is going to be made out of the approval of a member of the Cabinet. In all the publications of the “Workers’ Herald you find advertisements dwelling upon the value of this book. The natives at the instance of the authors are being asked to buy the book, and it can only spread one impression among the natives, that the Government, the Minister of Labour certainly, gives his approval to it, and that it has the blessing and the sanction of the Government. That is a very far-reaching doctrine, because there is no doubt that the natives are preaching throughout South Africa that the existence of this union strikes at the position of the farms owned by Europeans— that the farms must be taken away from the Europeans, and the natives must own the farms and that the day is not far distant when a general strike will be declared, the object of which will be not only to paralyze industry in South Africa, but to dispossess the present owners of farms which they hold under title from the Government.

Where does the union say that?

That is the general tenor of the report that is being received from every quarter of South Africa that the preaching of agents of this union throughout these districts is in this direction. We have, among the agents of this union, the most extreme fire-brands that probably have ever been allowed to influence the natives. We had one man addressing the natives, stating that the 8s. per day wage was the minimum for which the natives should work and that he personally was prepared to be burnt alive for his convictions. That is the sort of idea for which the Minister of Public Works is responsible. I don’t know whether the Minister is prepared to be burnt alive for his beliefs. He probably, like most of us, prefers to leave that to the great hereafter. The feeling of the natives is that this comes from the Government. The statement appeared not only in the European press, but in the vernacular press as well. That is the idea which has been spread amongst the natives of the country, and the two Ministers responsible are sitting together on those benches at this moment. They are the people who have set alight an agitation which is uncontrolled and dangerous, and associated with an anti-white crusade of the most dangerous character. I have handed to the Prime Minister’s department a series of documents of the most grave character, to the contents of which I do not propose to refer, but leave that to the Prime Minister. I maintain that the people responsible for the consequences are the two Ministers who sit in this affectedly unconcerned attitude on those benches to-day. The present Minister of Defence, the predecessor of the Minister of Labour, when this question was brought to his notice, had the sense to admit that it would be a dangerous thing to recognize trade unions amongst barbarian people; and when I asked the question whether it was his intention to allow native trade unions to be recognized under the Industrial Conciliation Act, he spoke very sensibly and moderately and realized that what might be perfectly beneficial and without any kind of harm amongst educated and civilized people, might have a totally different influence on people who are barbarians and ignorant. This movement is recognized by those who bear the brunt of its operations—the farming community—as a very dangerous one, and the press in Natal has commented upon the dangers to which the farming industry would be exposed in the event of a general strike being declared by the natives, which would not be construed by them merely as a general strike movement, but a revolt of a more serious character. The press in Durban has commented on the insurrectionary character of the movement, and is not going too far in doing so. Whenever this union has taken up negotiations on any particular wage question, it is remarkable that almost without exception the natives concerned have engaged in violence. Take the instance of the Port Elizabeth riots. There the negotiations were carried on by the I.C.U., and when these had reached a stage at which inflammatory language had caused one of their leaders to be arrested—it has been said there was some doubt as to whether Masabalala was an I.C.U. leader, but no doubt remains at all, as his name figures prominently as a signatory in the book of rules and regulations of the society. He was arrested, and because the police would not comply with the demand to release him the police station was attacked and in the riot that ensued 23 people were killed.

Was the union in existence at the time?

It was. It was established in 1918. The responsibility of the Government for any consequences that may arise out of this uncontrolled movement is very plain. The other instance is the case of the Bloemfontein riots, which took place during the regime of the present Government. The commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the matter found that the inflammatory language of the agents of the I.C.U. contributed to the hostile state of the natives when those riots took place, when there was further loss of life. As a matter of fact, there were other instances where violence was offered by these people, and firm measures on the part of the police became unavoidable to maintain order. We have reached the stage where it is not merely going to be confined to one point, but the stage where isolated farms in various parts of the country are face to face with the grave possibility of the natives declaring a general strike, and thereupon adopting violent methods which to their own minds seem best calculated to gain their own way. To my mind, this state of affairs is quite as dangerous, and justifies the intervention of the Government quite as much as the state of affairs in which Government intervention is contemplated by the Trade Union Bill in England at the present moment, which aims at stopping a general strike of a revolutionary character. It aims primarily to prevent the coercion by a minority of majority rule, i.e., of constitutional government.

It aims at interfering with the organization of the workers.

I do not accept that interpretation of it. I go by the text of the Bill itself and summaries of it to indicate what the real principles of that Bill are. I wish to draw a parallel between Great Britain, where the trade union movement has been recognised for all these years as a good thing, and where it is recognized that anything which aims at revolutionary coercion or unconstitutional methods is a matter which calls for the intervention of the Government. I submit that the Government should realize that the present situation is a very dangerous one. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to give a clear lead and clear statement as to his policy, so that those of us who are despairing of any action on the part of the Government may take courage and realize that the Government is not prepared to be dominated by those members of the Cabinet who understand least about the matter. I am sorry the Prime Minister has not seen fit to be in his place, as I gave him notice of my intention to refer to this serious subject. Even if the Government is unable to pass an Act this week to stabilize the position, it could do a great deal by a counter-offensive to check the foolish and injudicious action of the agents of this union.

Would you prevent them from organizing?

I should adopt methods which would discourage them from organizing, and serve as a counter propaganda to the foolishness and unreliability of the self-elected guides of the natives. It would be perfectly easy to attack these people at their vulnerable points. Representatives of this particular union, in giving evidence before the Economic and Wage Commission, spoke in globular figures of their membership, but flatly refused to give any indication of the sum received in membership fees or to produce a balance sheet. Referring to this the “Guardian” of Durban says—

I approve of that statement by the Guardian.” Pamphlets have been published impugning the way in which the funds of the organization are used, indicating that there has been a misuse of those funds, and challenging the right of the officials to utilize the funds in the manner in which they are being used. I believe application was made to the Court to interdict further publication of this pamphlet, but the Court refused to interfere and referred the applicants to their remedy at law. There are other means by which the Government could make a very effective counter offensive to the dangerous propaganda that is being carried on. But the Government department concerned would naturally hesitate to take any definite steps, when there is obviously confusion in the Cabinet on the subject. Unless the Prime Minister indicates that the view expressed at Upington in 1924 still remains his guiding principle, it is naturally difficult for an official to take a definite line in view of the attitude of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works.

Is that an accusation against the officials?

No, I sympathise with them. I have been an official in the Native Department for many years and understand their difficulties. I have the greatest admiration for the officials, and do not wish this to be construed as an attack on them. The “Workers’ Herald” claims that the I.C.U. organization was instrumental in returning the Government to power, so that the position of Government officials is a very difficult one there is a feeling among the European workers, that the Government is doing an immense amount of harm in fixing a rate of pay for native workers in excess of that given to European labourers on the railway. There is also a feeling that the Government is callous to the sufferings of European labourers who draw 6s. a day and less, whilst natives are being encouraged to demand a higher rate. I hope before this Bill passes some Cabinet Minister who realizes the seriousness of the question will speak in no uncertain voice and give us to understand what the intentions of the Government are. It may be said that a Bill dealing; with native administration contains within its provisions sufficient power to deal with this question. This Bill merely provides for native administration and has no bearing upon native trade unions. [Time limit.]

I want to point out to the Government the position to-day in regard to the South African maize crop. In the ordinary way the crop would be reaped by this time, and converted into cash, but it is hanging fire because the natives are demanding 8s. a day.

That is too transparent.

The maize is not being reaped in Natal to-day because the farmer cannot afford to pay the amount. The natives refuse to reap the mealies at less than 1s. an hour. The average yield of an eight bag per acre crop would cost to reap 2s. 8d. per bag. The cost of a bag is 1s. The cost of fertilizer for an eight-bag per acre crop is 1s. 6d. a bag, ploughing and cultivation 2s. 4d. a bag, and the cost of railage at 15s. a ton amounts to 9s. a bag for production. That does not take into account the depreciation of the land. The export price for September, October and November is 9s. 6d. a bag. If the cost of production is 9s. a bag and the export price they receive is 9s. 6d. that does not give them much encouragement. The Government is handicapping the farmers in every direction. South Africa is looking forward with hope to the proceeds of the present maize crop, which should mean 4½ million sterling, and that money in circulation helps everybody. If the House thinks the farmer is going to grow maize under these conditions it is mistaken, The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is correct in saying that the state of the farmers is very disturbed. The I.C.U. is disturbing the natives and they are buying motor cars with the money they obtain from them, so that the state of the farmer is being paralyzed. I warn the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works they are responsible for this present condition.

I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I wish to enter my protest against the Government’s labour policy as far as it applies to the farming community The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) interjected that it was they only who voiced the opinions of the farmers in this House. Has the hon. member for Albert read this little pamphlet by the Minister of Labour giving the decisions arrived at in the building trades wage determination?

What has that to do with the farmer’s position?

This lays down that a definite wage of 2s. 9d. shall be paid in respect of work done on farms in regard to any building, the material for which exceeds £400.

You know that is not so.

The hon. member has evidently not studied this or he would see that I am right. No, sir, he and others on that side have acquiesced in this labour policy—

Can you name a single farmer who has paid 2s. 9d.?

Have a little patience. I will come to that. It is laid down that the wage shall be 2s. 9d. an hour, in respect of the following districts in the Karoo, Hopetown, De Aar, Upington, Prieska, an area of 15 miles round Kimberley, likewise round Bloemfontein, the magisterial areas of Queenstown, Cathcart, Molteno, Wodehouse, etc. I do not now hear the hon. member over there protest. Owing to representations made on this side of the House, we farmers, the hon. member for Colesburg (Mr. G. A. Louw), the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and others, the Government has withdrawn the regulations in regard to certain areas, viz., Cathcart, Sterkstroom, Wodehouse, Tarkastad. But, strangely, the district of Molteno still remains under these conditions, and that district happens to be represented by the hon. member for Albert. It is the only one on the list not withdrawn.

Name me one farmer in the Molteno district who has paid 2s. 9d.? You are not putting the facts, and you know the farmer cannot pay 2s. 9d.

I know the farmer cannot afford to pay that, and yet you permit a law to be placed on him in your district which demands that he should pay 2s. 9d.

It is your law, not mine, and it has been made ineffective by the Minister of Justice.

We on this side pleaded it should be withdrawn, while that side maintain a discreet silence, and the only area not withdrawn from the list is Molteno.

It will be withdrawn. We shall See to that.

I hope it will be. It has been interjected that this is a law which was introduced by the previous Government, but let me say this, that modifications or alterations have been made in that law, and that the best of laws can be abused by unwise administration. Maladministration vitiates the best of laws, and this we find happened here. This country cannot stand the labour legislation which is being imposed upon it. I wish to support what has been said by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), who dealt with the baking industry. I would like to refer to the sweet industry. The Wage Board determined the wages in regard to the sweet industry of the Cape Province; the determinations arrived at were more than double what had been paid previously. These determinations involved an additional sum of £128,000 in wages, whereas the whole net income of the sweet industry in the Cape Province was only something like £57,000. It is obviously impossible for an industry to sustain a wages bill which is more than twice what its net profits are. The board, after having taken exhaustive evidence and arrived at the conclusions and laid down these determinations, have seen fit to withdraw the whole lot, and they have reverted to the policy which pertained during the previous Government. I would also like to touch upon the Public Works Department. When I was In the Transvaal a little while ago I was sitting opposite a window and watching work that was being done on a roof across the street. There were four men employed upon it, two whites and two natives. A very prominent official said to me—

That is the policy which has been laid down by the Minister of Public Works in regard to certain contracts. What is going to happen is this: supposing that a public building is going up in the Cape here subject to these conditions, the provincial authorities, in order to get their work similarly done, must also conform to these conditions, or there will be discontent and dissatisfaction among the workpeople. Further, if that is to be applied to the provincial government here, it must be equally applied to your municipalities and to your divisional councils. If we are going to adopt and lay down a policy of that kind, it is not going to stop at public buildings, but it is going to extend and it is going to make itself felt in regard to industries generally. I maintain that it will be impossible for this country to bear the tremendously increased cost of building, which a policy of this sort inevitably involves. People are crying out for cheaper living in this country. Do they realize that high wages means dearer production and dearer production means higher costs of living? I think I have at least shown that members on this side of the House have, in regard to this labour policy, more than anybody else, voiced the feelings of the farmers in the platteland.

Perhaps it might be as well if I dealt with one or two of the points which have been raised, although, let me say, that nearly all the points raised during this debate have previously been brought up in this House and been dealt with. There is nothing that has been said during this debate which has not been said before, and which I have not dealt with from time to time during the session. It looked to me like a repeat performance. Starting with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), upon my soul really when he let himself go I thought at times he was going to burst a blood vessel. At first I thought he was serious, but now I am beginning to think he was working up this imaginary indignation. He quoted the breaking of eggs and the cracking of nuts and all sorts of things from the wage agreement. I am not responsible for the wage agreement. He made a violent attack upon me as if I had something to do with these conditions. Not only were they not laid down by me but they were not laid down by the workers; they were laid down by the employers and the workers under an Act which was passed by the hon. members opposite, and all these details which the hon. member quoted are what the particular industry has been paying and what they have agreed through their industrial council to pay in the future. The only difference to-day is that under the Act these conditions are legalized; before they were voluntary. These conditions now have legal effect and can be imposed not only on the parties themselves but on all persons engaged in the industry.

Under the Wage Act or the Conciliation Act?

Under the Conciliation Act. Let me explain the position again. There is a definition in the Industrial Conciliation Act which precludes pass-carrying natives. When these wage agreements are made, the parties who make them, the employers and the employees, cry out to be protected. The good employers who want to do the right thing have to be protected against unfair employers who will take advantage of the definition of “employee” and bring in and utilize pass-carrying natives and so produce unfair competition. They say if they pay rates for a certain class of work then we have to see that that the rate is paid no matter who does the work. You cannot do that under the Industrial Conciliation Act, so we have to bring in the Wage Board which has no colour bar and the Wage Board makes a determination on lines similar to what the industry has already agreed upon.

Why did you tell us it was done under the Conciliation Act then?

The details of the conditions and the rates of pay are first of all laid down by the industry itself and they make a wage agreement to that effect and that is legalized. Then they ask us to give protection in respect of pass-carrying natives and to get the Wage Board to make a determination similar to the wage agreement so that all persons doing particular work shall be paid the rate of pay—

What a wriggle!

Either you are going to make your Act effective or it will cease to function. We had the same trouble in the furniture industry and the leather industry, and wherever an industry tries to set up an industrial council and lays down a wage agreement and says that the rates of pay for this class of work shall be for all persons engaged in that work, an attempt is always made to defeat it by the employment of pass-carrying natives and the industry comes along and says the thing is hopeless. If we can amend the Conciliation Act I should be pleased; it would save us a tremendous lot of work and worry. I hope when I bring forward an amendment to the Industrial Conciliation Act which will prevent the necessity for this, that hon. members on that side will give it their support. You cannot have it both ways. I say the Act is a good one but it has a very important defect in the definition clause. Industries have told me they will dissolve the industrial councils and they will not try to make wage agreements effective unless we give them protection. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would do exactly the same. If he is a party in a council to lay down certain rates, for certain work, and then he finds someone comes along and employs a class of labour exempt from those rates he will say: “Where do I come in? Either we must scrap it, or we must put everyone on the same footing.” You cannot do it under the Industrial Conciliation Act. The law does not allow it. I want to amend the law, but until then I have to ask the Wage Board to make investigations and determinations to save the industrial councils. All the Wage Board does is to come along and make a recommendation, and I make a determination. It is this hon. members are criticizing and attacking me for.

It is the standard we are attacking you for.

What has the standard to do with that? The hon. member gets £700 a year, and if he were sitting in the British House of Commons he would get £400. Of course all our standards are different in South Africa. I do not care what occupation you take. We have not laid down these standards quite recently. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) quoted 2s. 9d. Before we came into office it was 3s. 7½d. The wage agreement the hon. member referred to were the wages which were the practice in the industry.

They were not the legal minimum wages, my friend!

They were not legal.

You made them legal.

What was the Act for? The object of the Act was for employers and employees to meet together and sit at a round table, instead of going on strike and having lock-outs. They come together and make an agreement as to what the wages of the industry are to be, but they said that it would be no use doing that unless you made it legal. If you make it voluntary there would be so many evasions that it would be impossible. The printing industry ran a voluntary agreement for five years.

And took it out of the public.

Nobody takes things out of the public anymore than the hon. member does. Why bring that in?

Because it is true.

The printing industry said that the fault was that they could not compel everybody to comply to it. They went to the Government then in power— that of my hon. friends opposite—and they said they would lay down these conditions, and if they did it was only right that others should do the same. That is the genesis of it, and it is a thousand times better than that we should have strikes, upheavals and turmoils. You cannot have it both ways. Let an industry lay down its conditions by mutual consent between employers and employees; and legalize those conditions, so that the good employer shall get proper protection which he did not under the old system. The Wage Board is called in to protect the good employer against the bad in evading the conditions of the agreement by employing pass-carrying natives. There are other industries where there are no industrial councils, and the Wage Board can recommend as they think fit. Much of their work is done in connection with industries which have councils set up. The hon. member for Aliwal knows full well that there is a difference of opinion whether farmers do, or do not, come in under the Act. The Act was passed by the Government of my hon. friends opposite. Nothing I can do can alter it as to whether farmers come under it or not. If farmers come under, hon. members opposite are responsible, and not I. I tried under the preamble to protect them. The other side either did their job properly, of they did not.

made an interjection.

The farmer is supposed to be exempted by the Act passed by the hon. member’s party.

You have given it the effect of law.

That position is in the law itself. The main law under which the agreement is made provides that the farmer should, or should not, be exempted. If there is a doubt, it is not my fault.

But the Minister of Justice pulled you up.

There is a difference of opinion. The Minister of Justice has said that the Government will interpret the Act in a certain way, but there would have been no necessity for this if the Opposition had made the law as they now wish us to interpret it.

That is your interpretation of the law.

There is a difference of opinion amongst the lawyers on the point. However, I have dealt with this question several times previously, and if anybody talks more about it it is merely for the purpose of talking, and not for the purpose of obtaining information, as that has already been given.

I would like to remind the Minister of Labour that no one side makes the law; Parliament makes the law. I am in sympathy with the working man being paid a reasonable wage. However, my main purpose in rising is to refer to the Port Elizabeth harbour. Whatever our present differences may be, South Africa is going to be a great country, and it will become a “land of hope and glory.” Five harbours for a great country like this are not sufficient. Durban and Cape Town harbours are doing splendidly, because they are close to areas having large populations. Port Elizabeth, however, in proportion to population has gone ahead more than any other harbour town in the Union in the last five years. Algoa Bay is the feeder for the midlands and takes in the Great Fish River and the Sundays River, the irrigation settlements of which have great prospects, although for the moment they may be under a cloud, not, unfortunately, the clouds that bring rain. The Eastern Province certainly contributes its fair share in income tax, and the midland wool farmers have been doing very well. I know of one who for one season’s wool crop received a cheque for £5,000. The gateway to the midlands and Eastern Province is Port Elizabeth, but what is the use of having a fine productive area unless the gateway can deal adequately with the traffic of that area Alas, Port Elizabeth has suffered in the past, and has been neglected by all Governments. The Government should consider the rapid increase in the export fruit trade, which is greater in the areas served by Port Elizabeth than in any other part of the country. Our duty should equally be to all our harbours, and I hope the Minister will be a little more generous to Port Elizabeth.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) and other members said that we remained quiet and allowed the Minister of Labour to apply the wage regulations on the countryside. I repeatedly asked the hon. member to mention one case where that had happened, and where the farmers had to pay the prescribed wages, but I am still waiting for a reply. Is he then wilfully trying to tell the farmers things that are not true? The hon. member is playing the same game as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who recently travelled over the whole country and said that the increase in wages in the building industry was the result of the Wages Act of the Nationalist party Government.

Which now applies to your constituency.

I am coming to that. The Act which is being applied in my constituency is the one passed by the hon. member for Standerton with the support of the farmers on the opposite side of the House, and which he had put on the statute book. Now hon. members opposite always come and complain that we are applying the Act which they passed. I was the first to protest against enforcing the Act on the countryside. Hon. members will find it in Hansard. And then they say that I remain quiet here. I think the hon. member was asleep when I was speaking against the application of the South African party Act on the countryside, but I clearly protested against it and for the information of the hon. member for Aliwal I want to repeat it. We here will not permit that South African party Act to be applied to the farmers, and the farmers look to us for protection and not to hon. members opposite.

And they are disappointed.

They are disappointed because, according to the legal advisers, the South African party Act also applies to the countryside, and in order to protect the farmers the Minister of Justice had to state that no prosecutions would be instituted against the farmers. No, this is purely party politics on the part of the Opposition. They want to tell the farmers something which is quite incorrect. I was the first to say that if it was necessary an amendment in the Act should be passed to make it clear that it could not be applied on the countryside, and the Minister of Labour also intends to introduce such an amendment, and he hopes that the Opposition will support him in it. We want to protect the farmers against that Act, and I again ask the hon. member for Aliwal if he can give me one instance in which the wage regulations were applied to farmers. He cannot. If there were anyone to suffer under the Act on the countryside it would be the fault of the South African party who passed the Act. The fact that Molteno still comes under the scope of the Act is due to that South African party Act, and I am doing my utmost to get it repealed in my constituency.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the bays along our coast. I want to point out the great danger that some of the bays are to the fishermen. They often go out in fine weather, but when they return, they cannot come in by the channel, and it has often happened that boats have been lost. We have already sent many deputations to the Government and have offered, if the Government will improve the bays as soon as possible, to provide the necessary explosives at the spot where they are required, so that it will only be necessary for a Government expert to come and do the work. Recently five or six more men were drowned through the over-turning of a boat, and the great danger of rocks in the middle of the channels in front of the bays continues. It will possibly only cost £40 or £50 to remove such a rock by explosives, and we will see to it that the explosives are provided. The very poor people who are in the greatest trouble and whose boats are mortgaged often lose them on the rocks, and themselves run the greatest risk of their lives. How can we expect the fishing industry to develop if these people are exposed to the great danger of an accident and of losing everything they possess?

I am very sorry to hold up the House, even for a few minutes, because I know hon. members are anxious to get on to the Flag Bill, and so am I.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I listened with very great interest to the speech made by the Minister of Labour, and up to a point he put up a defence for the department, although it did not seem to be a very convincing defence, but his speech was remarkable more for what he omitted to say than for what he said. He was challenged from this side to say whether he still held to the view that native trade unions should be formed and strengthened, and he was reminded that in an article in the “Guardian,” the Durban newspaper of which he was editor some time ago, he advocated the formation of these native trades unions, but he very carefully avoided saying a word about the matter. I would just like to remind him that in this article the following passage occurred—

He was asked quite plainly by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) whether this was still his opinion, but he remained very discreetly silent. That speech is in direct conflict with the statement of the Prime Minister himself at Upington that he would fight to the last against the formations of these native trade unions. So that I think we are entitled to ask what the policy of the Government is regarding these native trade unions. Are they to be encouraged by the Minister of Labour, and are the Prime Minister and his other colleagues to sit still and let the Minister of Labour go ahead? Then the Minister of Labour also was asked whether he agreed with his colleague the Minister of Public Works, who laid it down that all unskilled workers on Government work must receive 8s. a day. If he had said that white, unskilled workers must receive 8s. a day there might have been some sense in it, but when he stated that all unskilled workers should receive that wage, he not only disorganized the building trade, but he spread abroad the idea throughout the whole country, including the natives working on farms, that they also were entitled to 8s. a day. That has given rise to a great deal of unrest and agitation throughout the country, and I can assure hon. members that in Natal it has unsettled the whole of the native labour. Farmers and employers of labour are not only perplexed, but they are inconvenienced by the action of their workers, who, in many cases, refuse to reap the crops unless they are paid 8s. a day. The Minister of Labour was asked whether he approved of that action of his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, but again he remained silent. The Minister of Public Works went further, and he said that no native could be expected to live decently on less than 8s. a day. I would like to know whether the other Ministers approve of this statement, because what the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works may have said when they were private members and when no one paid much attention to them—it was only looked upon as hot air and playing to the gallery—becomes a different thing when they speak as Ministers and when they take action in this respect. Because it has very far-reaching consequences, and the public of this country, black as well as white, think they are laying down the policy of the Government and, of course, indeed they are. That is what they have been doing. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have been sitting by and allowing this thing to go on. I am very sorry indeed that the Prime Minister was not in his place when the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) drew attention to the very serious state of unrest that there is in Natal, caused very largely by the action of the two Ministers to whom I have referred. We know that in a country like this with a large population emerging into civilization there is bound to be an endeavour to rise, perhaps, more rapidly in the scale of civilization than would take place in the ordinary course of evolution. We have sporadic outbursts and outbreaks, but, apart from what you might call the ordinary longing of the native to get better conditions for himself and his family, he has been encouraged and agitated by the action of the Government, which is still going on. The Prime Minister to-day— because this will be the last opportunity we have of discussing this matter—having had notice from the hon. member for Illovo that he intended to raise this question I think ought to have been in his place to deal with it. There is no doubt that in the province I come from not only the farmers and the employers of labour, but the white population generally, are very much concerned about the agitation that is going on among the natives. There is unrest and excitement among the natives in the towns where they have had large meetings at which they have demanded 8s. a day, and at which they have said the Government are paying 8s. a day to what they call Government natives, and they want to know why they are not receiving that pay also. Natives have struck work on farms; they refuse to reap crops unless they are paid 8s. a day, and, altogether, the native labour in that province is in a very unsettled and unsatisfactory state. I am very sorry indeed that the Prime Minister, after receiving notice from the hon. member for Illovo, should not have taken the opportunity to reassure the House and the country with regard to this native question. It is a very serious one and inflammatory literature is being issued by the natives every day. Here is an example from the “Workers’ Herald”—

That is to say the natives who work in the industries and the natives who work on the land must have complete control and possession of the industries and the land. Then they go on—

I suppose they want to pull down their white masters. They want to pull down the Dutch and English-speaking people of this country, because they, as far as I can read this, are looked upon as the barriers that bar the way to the natives’ freedom. This paper goes further—

There is it openly acknowledged. They go on—

I merely read these to draw attention to the serious state of affairs that is going on, and which seems to be going on without any intervention by the Government, or any attempt to put a stop to it, or to guide native opinion in the right direction. I say again that after the Prime Minister had notice that the hon. member for Illovo intended to raise this important question this morning it is a great pity that the Prime Minister did not find it convenient to be present to listen to what was said’ and to inform the House as to what the real position is from his point of view, and tell us what he intended to do in the matter.

I want to take this opportunity to mention a matter which I raised in the form of a question, not yet answered, with reference to the treatment meted out to Professor Mettam. The question I put was as follows [question read, page 845, Votes and Proceedings]. Since I put that question on the paper I have been able to get some information from an article which appeared in the press and from a précis of the correspondence which has been placed at my disposal which passed between Professor Mettam and the Agricultural Department when he was transferred to that Department from the Witwatersrand University. It would appear that the professor was appointed in 1921 to the chair of Veterinary Anatomy, Witwatersrand University. He was at that time the youngest professor in the empire, being only 25 years of age. He achieved this distinction notwithstanding a long interruption of his studies by the great war, in which he served at the western front, gaining a commission. He lectured for four years at the Witwatersrand University with entire satisfaction both from the point of view of character and efficiency; he was transferred to the Transvaal University College under somewhat unusual circumstances. Three veterinary courses running concurrently—one at Johannesburg, another at Pretoria, and a third at Onderstepoort—created a competition for students. That was found injurious to all concerned, and it was therefore decided by agreement that the Johannesburg University should close its veterinary faculty, while the Pretoria University College and the Onderstepoort Institute took over the professional staff, comprising Professor Mettam and another official. There was some difficulty as to Professor Mettam’s salary which amounted to £1,000 per annum, whether the Pretoria University College should bear the cost of that or the Agricultural Department; the Minister of Agriculture gave the undertaking that his department would bear the cost of the salary for the first year, and the matter would then be reconsidered and a decision come to whether his emoluments should be a charge against the Pretoria University College or the Agricultural Department. Before the twelve months had expired it appeared that the Pretoria University College found it was unable to afford a veterinary faculty, and accordingly gave up its part of the course to Onderstepoort, where Professor Mettam became full-time instructor. His salary added little or nothing to the cost of the institution, since the vote for another professorial post, then vacant, was appropriated for its service. Up to this point not a word had been said about the professor’s bilingual qualifications. He had been given this appointment on clear explicit terms. He was allowed to continue his duties for nearly twelve months when all of a sudden it was sprung upon him that owing to his not being qualified bilingually he would only be allowed to continue in the service on a temporary basis. It was on the 8th June, 1925, that the Secretary of Agriculture forwarded a minute to the Director of Veterinary Education and Research to this effect—

This was the first occasion of any bilingual requirement being made to Mr. Mettam who had then completed 16 months in the Onderstepoort-Transvaal University College service. He had lectured solely in English during the four years of his Johannesburg professorship and had been taken over with no stipulations with regard to bilingual knowledge. When the contract was made engaging him as an Englishman bred and born, it was known that he was not bilingual. Moreover, though now an officer of the Research and Education Department he had been accepted both at the Transvaal University College and at Onderstepoort with full professional status as appears from the official correspondence which I have per used. It so happened that in his own interests Professor Mettam began the study of Afrikaans, not so much to employ it in his classes, but because he recognized the usefulness of a knowledge of that language for intercourse with the farmers in connection with his research work. He therefore willingly agreed to undergo the required test, this being prescribed to him as that of the junior matriculation or some equivalent examination. He offered himself for examination a little while later, with the result that he passed successfully, thus qualifying in this test. The right claimed by the Minister of Agriculture to rank him in the meantime as a temporary officer he could not, however, admit, for it conflicted with his contract. He had accepted the post under conditions laid down in writing by the Secretary of Agriculture and amplified by Sir Arnold Theiler as Director of the Onderstepoort Institute, as well as by the Registrar of the Transvaal University College. Sir Arnold officially offered him a definite appointment and added later in the negotiations that his appointment was “in no sense probationary.” To the letters of the department demanding to know if he acquiesced in the Government’s view of his engagement, which it was intended to make terminable by three months’ notice on either side, no answer for the time being was returned. The examination was near at hand and he trusted that the pass which he hoped to secure would end all questioning. Within three months he had sat for the examination and on August 31 was able to report for the information of the Minister that he had satisfied the indicated test and thereby removed the obstacle to the confirmation of his appointment. For nearly a month he heard nothing from the department, but on September 21 it broke silence with the amazing reply that he was required by the Public Service Commission, before he could obtain a permanent position, to pass a further examination, namely, the Afrikaans A paper in the matric., or such other examination as will satisfy any oral test the commission might find it necessary to impose upon him. The Government, I say, dishonoured their agreement in two respects; firstly, by demanding bilingual attainment after concluding with him a contract without any such stipulation whatever, and secondly, they imposed on him a severer test after the prescribed one to impose on him was passed. He complained that he was unjustly treated—that it was proposed to deprive him of his pensionable rights and accumulated leave, which had been guaranteed to him by the Director of Research when the contract was entered into as inherent of his definite appointment and full professional status. The denial of them belonged, it seemed, to the Minister’s contention that the status of a unilingual man could only be temporary. Professor Mettam had therefore to suffer a break of two years in his pensionable service, as well as to forfeit after seven years of duty the leave to which he was entitled. The Secretary of Agriculture, in replying to Sir Arnold Theiler, who forwarded Professor Mettam’s complaint, simply defended the action of the Government, especially the right of the Public Service Commission to fix the language qualifications of public servants. “A lecturer,” he said, “would justifiably be required to show a higher knowledge than a research officer.” Professor Mettam was both, but it was ignored that he was doubly exempt from bilingual demand by his contract, to which this was extra, and also in his professional status, which left him the same choice of medium that all his colleagues freely exercised. The end of it was that Professor Mettam wrote saying the department was asking him to do an impossibility. The department replied that that was the position, and that if he was not prepared to comply with the language condition, he had his remedy. All the time the department knew perfectly well that it was impossible for him to comply straight away with its Afrikaans requirements. The department also asked him whether he was prepared to continue as a temporary official. Professor Mettam replied in the negative, and he was obliged to give up his appointment, and has since left the country. He succeeded in obtaining an appointment as Professor of Anatomy under the Kenya administration at a salary of £100 a year less than he would have obtained here, but the drop in salary is fully compensated for by the knowledge that he is getting employment under a Government whose word he can trust and in whose service his English origin will not be, as he himself puts it, a livelong detriment. This feeling that a man of English origin is permanently handicapped should he happen to be in the service of the Union Government under the existing regime is unfortunately spreading throughout South Africa. Professor Mettam was employed by the Union Government, without any stipulation whatever in regard to his bilingual qualifications. Dr. Theiler wrote to Professor Mettam informing him that the Secretary for Agriculture and the Public Service Commission had agreed to his appointment. The Secretary for Agriculture notified that the terms of his appointment included the taking of all courses in veterinary anatomy, residence at Pretoria, and the usual pension. This letter also informed Professor Mettam that his appointment had been approved of, and Professor Mettam replied accepting the appointment on the conditions laid down. But in that correspondence not one word was said about the necessity of Professor Mettam being bilingual. On January 2, 1925, the Secretary for Agriculture wrote to the registrar of the Transvaal University College, saying that the Minister of Agriculture had sanctioned Professor Mettam’s appointment with reluctance, and on the distinct understanding that provision should be made by the college for the payment of the professor’s salary for the ensuing financial year. Then we find the department beginning to hedge. From that date it would appear that the department had determined to get rid of Professor Mettam by hook or by crook. The first suspicious incident was the occurrence in a letter to him of the phrase “his proposed appointment.” As a matter of fact, he had already received the appointment.

What contract had he made with the department?

I have just read the contract out. That letter was followed by a letter from the registrar of the Transvaal University College informing Professor Mettam that the post would not be re-advertised when the college took it over. There is thus a clear and definite understanding that Professor Mettam was to be taken over by the Transvaal University College and his services continued on a permanent basis. A letter dated January 21, 1925, gave the assurance that when the post came solely under the Transvaal University College it would not be re-advertised, but that Professor Mettam would automatically fill it. The Minister is surely not going to contend that there was no concluded contract, but since that seems to be the line he is going to take up, let me quote a précis of the correspondence which I have and which forms the extract. On the 23rd October, 1924, Sir Arnold Theiler, as Director of Veterinary Research, wrote to Professor Mettam, saying—

On 2nd January, 1925, the Secretary for Agriculture wrote to Mettam as follows—

On the 15th January, 1925, the Assistant under Secretary for Agriculture wrote to Professor Mettam acknowledging his letter of the 7th inst. relative to his proposed appointment and said question of Agricultural Department’s making financial provision will be raised at an early date. Then on the 20th January, 1925, the registrar, Transvaal University College, wrote to Professor Mettam as follows—

This is followed by a letter from Sir Arnold Theiler to Professor Mettam dated the 22nd January, 1925, in which he—

Professor Mettam on the 11th February, 1925, wrote to Sir Arnold Theiler as follows—

The foregoing correspondence clearly establishes that with the knowledge and concurrence of the Department of Agriculture a contract was concluded with Professor Mettam for his employment, the clear intention being not that the post should be of a temporary character but that Professor Mettam should be employed in a permanent capacity and it must here be again noted without any stipulation as to the necessity for his qualifying bilingually. Now let us see what follows. On the 8th of June, 1926, the Director of Veterinary Research (Sir Arnold Theiler) wrote to Professor Mettam quoting minute of Secretary for Agriculture as follows—

On the 16th July, 1926, Secretary for Agriculture further wrote to Professor Mettam notifying him that in connection with his temporary appointment it had been decided to make same subject to three months’ notice on either side and that his (the secretary’s) communication of the 8th of June is hereby amended to that extent. Intimation desired whether he, Mettam, was prepared to remain in the Government employ under the amended conditions. On the 31st August, 1926, Professor Mettam wrote to Sir Arnold Theiler in reply to the above letter of the 16th July, 1926, stating he had passed Stage II of Afrikaans examination held 28th June, 1926. Wants to know how he stands in regard to confirmation of his appointment, the obstacle to which he submits has been successfully overcome. Replying to above letter the Secretary for Agriculture wrote to Professor Mettam informing him that on intimation of the Public Service Commission the question of permanent employment cannot be considered until he secures a pass in the Afrikaans A paper at the matriculation examination or the Hoër Eksamer van de Natalse Vereniging examination as well as satisfying the commission by such oral test as it may consider necessary. On the 11th October, 1926, Professor Mettam replied by letter to the Director Veterinary Education and Research (Sir Arnold Theiler) drawing his attention to the Secretary for Agriculture’s letter of the 27th of September, 1926—

To the foregoing Professor Mettam received the following letter from the Secretary for Agriculture, dated 26th October, 1926—

to which Professor Mettam replied as follows—

The correspondence which I have read discloses a determination on the part of the Agricultural Department to make it impossible for Professor Mettam to continue his appointment, the Minister imposing conditions on Professor Mettam which it was quite impossible for him to carry out took refuge behind the Public Service Commission, by placing the responsibility on that body, which is after all only a creature of the Cabinet set up to give effect to the policy of the Government. When Professor Mettam after passing in Afrikaans wrote asking how he stood with regard to confirmation of his appointment the department wrote that on the intimation of the Public Service Commission the question of a permanent appointment could not be considered until he had secured a pass in the Afrikaans “A” paper.

Any objection to that.

Yes, a most decided objection. You make a stipulation that he pass a certain examination which he does, then you stipulate a further examination which you know it is impossible for the man to pass. You lose sight of the fact that he has wasted a lot of time, that he stood to lose pension rights and leave privileges and then you impose on him conditions making it impossible for him to remain in the service and thus lose those rights and privileges.

It is nothing but persecution.

I agree. It is nothing but persecution of an official who happens to be an English-born official. When the Public Service Commission stipulated for the higher examination and Professor Mettam replied to the Director of the Veterinary Division that he was prepared to satisfy any requirement if he was allowed reasonable time. The answer he got was—

In the concluding letter Mr. Mettam says that in reference to the letter from the Secretary for Agriculture in passing stage 2 of the Afrikaans examination in June he endeavoured in good faith to satisfy the demand of the Civil Service Commission. He was willing to take the further examination asked for and he wanted to be reassured of the security of his position in the interim. He felt himself unjustly treated as a temporary officer without pension rights and accumulated leave denied him. In transferring him from the one college to the other no mention was made of his appointment being anything but a permanent one. He had no quarrel with the request that he should become bilingual, but he pointed out that with the responsibilities of a married man the matter was serious for him. Could anything be fairer than that. The Minister shook his head when I said his department had twice dishonoured their contract by subsequently imposing impossible conditions which were not stipulated for when the contract was made—I ask the Minister in the light of the correspondence which I have read to justify if he can his treatment of this official.

Now the Prime Minister is in his seat I should like to support the requests from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that he should make some statement on the serious position of affairs among the natives in the Transvaal. It is going daily from bad to worse. The Minister has already been informed that one of his colleagues, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs no less, has made a public statement that no native can live decently under 8s. a day. There has been no repudiation of that dictum by any other member of the Government, nor has the Prime Minister disassociated himself from that announcement and it is being accepted by the natives throughout South Africa, and particularly in the Free State and Natal, that the Government approve of that opinion. That has been laid down by the leaders and agitators of the I.C.U. in Natal as the minimum under which no native shall be allowed to work. It is producing a state of affairs in Natal which is leading, if not to retaliation, at any rate to counter defensive action on the part of the farmers themselves. That is a state of affairs which is inevitable but which is to be nevertheless deplored. Wholesale evictions are, of course, almost inevitable, for where natives decline to carry out their contracts on farms where they have been hitherto excellently treated and they refuse to work to-day for reasons such as I have indicated, that they are not prepared to work for less than 8s. per day, there is no other course to be taken but for these people to be evicted. This counter defensive movement on the part of the farmers has somewhat alarmed the leaders of the I.C.U., for, although they are organizing and their deliberate intention is to organize for a general strike, they realize that the time is not yet ripe for a movement of that sort and they are now realizing that these unfortunate people whom they have misled and who were largely misled by the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in this House in which he gave a testimonial to Kadalie—

made an interjection.

I know that the hon. member has had some correspondence with Natal with “My dear Eaton” and we may have another letter which may be equally interesting. Perhaps he will allow me to proceed with my argument. I am not attacking the hon. member. I simply say that they are quoting the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) and his party as being in sympathy with that movement. When the hon. member interjects in this House that we are starving the natives in Natal he is saying something which has no foundation in fact and he is speaking from the depths of his own ignorance. We have got this unfortunate state of affairs existing in Natal and now that the trouble is coming upon these people who are being misled, the I.C.U. is unable to protect them. So they, the I.C.U., are now setting to work with the idea of framing a number of charges in connection with dipping, evictions, breaches of contract, etc., with the idea of formulating a formidable list of grievances which are to be addressed to the Prime Minister and it is of the utmost importance that the Prime Minister should now make a clear statement which would let the people of this country, not only the white people but the natives, know exactly how we stand in regard to what one cannot avoid describing as a very serious situation.

Before this question is put there is one subject on which I would like to ask for a little information from the Government, and that is as to the representation we have at the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to tell us, first of all, whether we were invited to have representation there, as I believe that at the previous conference at Washington, owing to the communications of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), we were awarded representation and were represented there, I think, by the British Government. It appears from what has been published in the Press that Canada and Australia are both represented at this conference at Geneva. It does not say whether we are represented or not. We hear a great deal in these days about our independent status and, after all, it is, I think, something that we should be entitled to, representation at a naval disarmament conference—not that I think we can do anything here in the way of disarmament, because our present fleet, I believe, of three sloops, is nothing very much to be proud about. But still we live in hopes. The Minister of Finance told us the other day that the committee appointed to inquire into the question of Dominion defence would be coming out here and would make a report as to our needs and circumstances. I would be glad if the Prime Minister would tell us firstly, whether we have been invited to have a representative at this naval disarmament conference at Geneva, secondly, what reply was given to that, and, most important of all, whether in point of fact we are being represented or not.

I just want shortly to reply to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson). He thinks that he has made a great discovery of a case where the Agricultural Department has committed an injustice to a certain official. The hon. member was in a great hurry to have a reply, because he has a question on the Order Paper this morning about the same matter. He is apparently so inquisitive that he cannot wait until to-morrow. Let me say at once, as I have already stated in the House, that in so far as the Agricultural Department is concerned its officials who come into touch with both sections of the population, Dutch and English-speaking, must be bilingual, unless very high technical qualifications are required for the post, and an official to fill the post cannot be found in South Africa. I hope the hon. member now understands this well so that it will not be necessary to again raise the matter while I am Minister of Agriculture. Professor Mettam was one of the professors at the Witwatersrand University. There was a class in veterinary science, but the university felt that it was not properly supported. There were too few students and they were mostly town dwellers, and accordingly an agreement was come to with the Department of Agriculture that the class would come under Onderstepoort. Sir Arnold Theiler told-the university without my knowledge and approval that he would be prepared to take over Professor Mettam. When the matter was submitted to me, it appeared that the professor would have to give instruction to students who would have to go to the countryside as veterinary surgeons, and that it was necessary that he should be bilingual. I therefore asked if he was bilingual, and because he was not I could not approve of Sir Arnold Theiler’s arrangement. To meet Sir Arnold, I said I would be prepared to appoint Professor Mettam for twelve months, departmentally, but that it must be expressly understood that the university would thereafter have to take him back. Because the university was in a difficulty the department was prepared to pay Professor Mettam’s salary for twelve months. I complied with the agreement made. I cannot help it if undertakings are given without the Minister’s approval. There were officials who were inclined to make arrangements without the Minister’s consent, but I said that it was to stop. The hon. member speaks of breach of contract, but let me quote from the correspondence and the (negotiations and the hon. member will see that there was no breach of contract. The first letter reads [letter read]. It is therefore very clear that Professor Mettam was only appointed by me for a year [extract read]. Where is the contract? In the language of the hon. member for Klip River it is clearly stated that the contract is for twelve months. When does another contract come in? I said that the matter would be reconsidered after twelve months, but I was not inclined after twelve months to reappoint him. There is no ground for the assumption of the hon. member. He ought at least to understand his own language. A further letter from the department reads [letter read]. That was done by me because Sir Arnold Theiler had made the arrangement. Subsequently the Public Service Commission sent the following letter to Professor Mettam [letter read]. Here the Commission very clearly laid down the conditions, and the hon. member now accuses me of breaking a contract. No, that has not been done by me in the least. On the 11th October, 1926, Professor Mattam wrote to the chief veterinary surgeon [letter read.]. If Professor Mettam asks for something and the Public Service Commission says that it is not right then the Commission must decide and not Professor Mettam. This was the reply of the secretary for agriculture on the matter [letter read]. We did everything in this way because Professor Mettam did not have the necessary qualifications. We went further and tried to assist him. Now the hon. member comes and states that the department entered into a contract and subsequently broke it.

Just treatment is expected.

No the officials of the department are well treated, but they must comply with the qualifications laid down, viz., that officials who come into touch with both sections of the public must be bilingual. The hon. member is so keen on unilinguals being appointed, but that means a burden on the taxpayers, because a bilingual man has anyhow to be appointed later on to do the work. I will answer the question of the hon. member to-morrow, and therefore need not now go into all the details. The hon. member is always worrying about the appointments of persons who are not bilingual, but let me say again that with regard to the Department of Agriculture bilingual officials are required if they have to come into touch with both sections of the public.

You must not break contracts.

I have broken no contract. Does the hon. member not understand his own language? I have read the correspondence in English. The hon. member should learn his own language better and then in future he will not talk such nonsense in the House.

I just want to deal with one or two questions raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has again raised this question of the harbour construction at Algoa Bay. The hon. member has quoted the very definite statement made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours only a few weeks ago. He is not satisfied and makes the very serious charge of the Government having been insincere in the way it has treated the whole matter. I do not want to go into that. I have noted the serious charge and I will leave it there. The country can judge about that. Let me just point out that when these estimates were introduced, and the loan estimates, the House debated the whole question of capital expenditure by this country. Hon. members on the opposite side have pointed out the enormous expenditure to which we are committed in connection with capital works under various heads. I pointed out, especially as far as railways and harbours were concerned, and also public works, that the Government can only make provision for a certain amount to be spent annually. We have had a huge commitment carried over from year to year, and we were trying, I said, to get the position into a more satisfactory state before we entered into new commitments. What is the position in regard to harbour construction in the Union? This year, out of £6,000,000 which has been voted for railways and harbours, no less a sum than £750,000 is going to be expended on harbour construction. Of that amount over £100,000 is allocated to Algoa Bay. This is in connection with a total commitment for Algoa Bay of £1,500,000. Of that £173,000 has been spent and £100,000 is allocated for this year, leaving a further commitment of £750,000 for subsequent years. That being so, what is the earthly use of committing this country now to further millions in connection with harbour construction at Algoa Bay, when we have works on hand which are of sufficient magnitude to tax the energies of the department for several years to come? I do not think if the department agreed to that it would be business-like at all and I do not think the hon. member is justified in the charge which he has made that the Government is guilty of insincerity. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to our representation at the Disarmament Conference. He has asked whether we received an invitation to be represented there. The reply is in the affirmative. We were invited, and we are represented in the usual manner by the High Commissioner for the Union, who is representing us generally at the conference, and also Mr. Pienaar.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Whereabouts is this St. George’s Cemetery I must confess I do not know where it is.

It is just out here. This is a municipal matter. We are merely acting as agents for the municipal authorities. They want to buy back this land from the church. I think they want it for a sort of electrical sub-station.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendation (21) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (22),

This is a new development. It appears this House, some years ago, agreed to give this site to the church on the condition that when it was not used it would revert to the Government. Now it appears you gave them too much, and you want to give them leave to sell what they do not require. Perhaps my hon. friend will give us a proper explanation in regard to this. It is quite a new departure. Why don’t they refund to the Government the money they get for the sale of this land?

Land is really no object there. You have the whole of Gordonia at the back of it. The church desires to build a hostel for children coming to school from outside districts, and they want to sell this land in order to use the money for this purpose. It is not like Cape Town—land is no object there. They are going to use it for a good purpose.

What they want to do is to sell this ground to the public and make use of the money for the church.

No, the land belongs to the church.

You gave them a bigger place than is required. Why do you not tell the church to pay back the money which is received for the ground which they are to sell?

Surely, it is for the public good.

It is one way of subsidizing. It is a new departure, and I have never known this done before.

The land was given a long time ago.

I thoroughly agree with the objection raised by my hon. friend. We are setting up a bad precedent. No one has the slightest objection to a grant of land to a church solely for church purposes, but that condition should be adhered to. I do not care whether it is valuable ground or not, but a principle is being established. This land has apparently a sale value, although the Minister waves his hand in a deprecating way. The State is not being treated fairly in this at all. They now come to the House and ask the State to relieve them of this condition, which is a fundamental one. Nothing is said here of the purpose to which the proceeds of the sale are to be devoted.

It is never said.

They have given them carte blanche. I have been to Upington and know something of the town. It does not matter whether they have the Kalahari at the back or not, but it is the principle of the thing. I object to giving State ground away in this way.

Suppose the educational authorities come and say they want this little piece of land—would the hon. member be against it?

That is not the question.

That is the question. In 1910 this land was given to the church, and it is a church square, as far as I understand it. They want to sell part of the land, and from the proceeds put up a school hostel; if the church had come and asked for the money to establish that hostel, everybody would have granted it.

Why do you not make a grant to the church—then we know where we are.

Upington being a small place, there is no place for the children for whom they want to make provision. What is done with the land is never put in the resolution. The Crown Lands Committee had all the information before it. This matter, I may say, kept us for some time, and we even wired to the town council at Upington whether they had any objection to this sale, and they said they had not. As it is intended for educational purposes, I do not think we should object. If it was in Cape Town it would be different, although the principle is the same.

I do not think anybody would object if they built the hostel on a third of the land, but they are selling that land. They are establishing a bad principle. Look at recommendation No. 23, we propose to do the same thing—to waive a very essential condition on which the land was given. I hope the Minister will hold this over.

In my opinion the mistake is not waiving these conditions, but in ever having imposed them. A system has grown up that when a church or a charitable institution comes for land, we grant it conditionally, but it may prove unsuitable, if they want to sell a piece for a hostel. I am of opinion that the initial burden should never be imposed on them. It is generally difficult, and in many cases undesirable for the committee not to remove these burdens. We have consulted the local authorities, and they are in favour of this application. We feel in the committee that we ought to leave these things to a large extent to the local authorities. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) were on the committee, he would agree that we were right in waiving these burdens. Very often the Lands Department burdens the institutions with a servitude, and they cannot deal with the land as a private individual can. I hope the committee will support the Minister in allowing these things to go through. I hope also in future that the committee will not impose these conditions.

Why do you make these grants of land? Generally it is for a school or a church. If they ask for land and give no reason nor state how they are going to use the grant, I hope applications will be rejected. If you take away the raison d’etre of the grant, where is the line to be drawn? Any municipality or people can come and ask for a site, for the fun of it and sell it.

The committee can prevent that.

They cannot when we make no provisoin. They may get the land and use it for another purpose. I know of a case in the Gardens where a congregation had some land, and sold it at a very good price, and built a church an another piece—

That is a case where that church bought the ground itself.

The church gets the land and then sells part of it.

To devote the money to church purposes.

It does not say so. This is a fresh departure. It shows that in the first instance too much land was given. It is not a sound proposition.

Do I understand that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) suggests that where a church or a school board comes along and says that they want some land, and if they say frankly that they want to sell it, and erect a church or a school with the proceeds, do they get the land?

We sell the land.

The suggestion is made by the committee that the church should sell the land which has been got for church purposes in order to pay money over for other church purposes. The same principle may apply they may want one hostel and say Give us two acres of ground,” and sell it.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (23),

Here are another two cases, and no explanation is given. Perhaps my hon. friend can explain.

The education authorities and the local school board do not think that that place is suitable, and they want to establish a school in another place. The agreement is that whatever the land may fetch will be paid into the consolidated revenue, and whatever the building may fetch, is put into the funds of the trustees.

The State gets its money back?

Yes, for the land.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (24) and (25) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (26),

There were several cases here about which I want some information. Can my hon. friend give me some explanation with regard to these?

While the Minister is hunting for it I may state that the town of Port Alfred has grown very much, and the present school site is unsuitably situated. The idea is to build a new school on a better and more central site, and in order to do this they must get rid of this piece of ground. It is a most reasonable proposition.

It is the same as the previous case. Whatever the land fetches is paid into the consolidated revenue.

As long as we get our money back.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendation (27) put and agreed to.

On recommendation (28),

Here we are selling some land at £6 a morgen, and at the same time we propose to buy the land at £20 per morgen in the same area—the same ground as far as I can make out.

The land is outside Bellville. The land we are going to sell is chiefly sand with little bushes on it, and can be used only for grazing. A member of the Land Board, Mr. Faure, valued it at £5 and recommended it should be sold at that price. The land we are getting is good land, on the vlei, which we can give out to a settler. The owner asked £25 per morgen for the land, but we got the price down to £20 per morgen.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (29) to (35) put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolution reported, considered and adopted and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

One of the changes which the select committee has made is to alter the description and title from South African National to Union National. It seems to be to be a change for the worse. If I went to America and I was asked for my nationality I should say I was a South African; if I said: “I am a Union National,” it would convey nothing, and would be absolutely colourless. Australia is known as the Commonwealth of Australia, and Canada is known as the Dominion of Canada, but Australians would be described as Australian nationals and Canadians as Canadian nationals—not as Commonwealth nationals and Dominion nationals. They are Canadians and Australians just as we are South Africans, and we are proud of it. Wherever I go in the world I would describe myself as a South African.

The change comes from your own people.

I want to be called a South African.

When the hon. member goes to Europe and wishes to describe himself as a South African he is perfectly entitled to do so, but he must understand that in that case he is not necessarily using legal terminology. When, however, we come to an Act of Parliament we must use legal language, and there is no such thing as can legally be described as South African. The legal term for the Union is the Union of South Africa and not South Africa, and for that reason alone we have to use the term “Union.”

The title is the Union of South Africa. The distinctive words are “South Africa” not “Union.” We are South Africans.

A Rhodesian can call himself a South African.

The word “Union” is absolutely a non-descriptive term and conveys nothing. We are making a mistake when we allow it to appear in a measure which will stand with the South Africa Act as a part of the constitution. The word “Union” is simply the rind of the peach.

You would not call the United States of America, America.

Its subjects are called Americans.

But not in law.

Residents of the United States would not be defined as United States nationals, but as nationals of the United States of America.

I very much sympathize with the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell), and I would very much like to have the term South African, and for that reason in the select committee I was rather in favour of retaining the words in the title of the Bill to “define South African nationality.” The misfortune is you cannot say you are of South African nationality because there is no South African State—the State is the Union of South Africa, I would like to have myself known as of being of South African nationality, and I would have preferred South African to have appeared in the general and short titles. These two titles were left until the last moment, when it was thought by the members of the committee that these two descriptions should be made to harmonize with one another. Colloquially, I would be quite entitled to say I am a South African national, even although legally that is not strictly correct.

I wish to say in support of the view put by the Minister of the Interior that in this Bill we are dealing not with popular nomenclature, but with a strictly legal matter, and must use strictly legal language. That does not debar any South Africans calling themselves South Africans. It does not make the least difference that when we are talking of Union nationality we mean something which is purely legal and technical, and the object of the Bill is to define the legal status of Union nationals. I, therefore, hope we shall leave the words as they are, for the committee decided on them after a good deal of consideration. That, however, does not take away the right of South Africans to call themselves South Africans, but in legal matters we must use appropriate legal phraseology.

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I would like to suggest as a way out that the title read: “To define nationality within the Union of South Africa.”

No, no; the suggestion is turned down.

I want to deal with the question in sub-section (b). When this matter was considered in committee upstairs I moved that the words “three years” as they appeared in the old Bill, should be altered to one year, and, subsequently, the committee adopted two years. I want to appeal to the Minister and to ask him whether he will not reconsider this position and make it one year. The longest period for the purpose of the franchise we have in South Africa is a period of one year at the Cape. Any British subject resident at the Cape for one year is entitled to the vote. In Natal the period is a shorter one. If this Bill passes in its present form, and two years is placed as the limit of time in which a person can be admitted as a South African national, you have the anomalous position that, whereas, a person who is resident here for one year may vote, yet he is not entitled to be admitted as a South African national for a period of two years. If that position remains, this law will be followed by another law to alter the franchise, and I am apprehensive that the period for admission for the franchise will be altered from one year to two years, and I do not think it is a desirable thing. I believe the position is the same in other parts of the dominions. Why does the Minister want to extend the period for admission as a South African national? He should desire as early as possible to enrol as a South African national any citizen from the British empire who desires to become such, and who has been here sufficiently long to associate and identify himself with the country. I do not want to move an amendment because I accepted the position in committee, but I make this eleventh hour appeal to the Minister to place the position of admission as a national on the same basis as now applies to the ordinary franchise. If the Bill passes in its present form, and any attempt is made subsequently to increase the period of a British subject to qualify to exercise the right of the vote to a period of two years it will be strenuously opposed. Unless the Minister can really see some good reason for extending the period the policy should be to make the period not a long one, but he should be only too anxious to admit to the position of South African nationals with whatever obligations or benefits it gives to a short period and twelve months should be a sufficient length of time.

I wish to point out that the amendments as they stand here come from the select committee. The whole point raised by the hon. gentleman now in the House was also raised by him in the select committee, and they had it under consideration, but there was so little difference of opinion in the select committee itself that there was no division on it. I take it the overwhelming opinion in the committee itself was in favour of the Bill as it stands here now. On the merits of the question I should say there is more to be said in favour of leaving the Bill as it was introduced this session by having it three years instead of two years, as proposed now by the select committee. First of all, that question has really nothing to do with the franchise. It is altogether a different matter, and it has always been open to Parliament to give the franchise to whomever it desires to give it. Everyone coming from overseas, even British subjects, who settle in this country are, according to our immigration laws, on probation here for three years, yet in spite of that, they get the franchise after the first year of residence here. So, therefore, no new principle is being introduced.

In which way are they on probation?

I will deal with that. Before we confer South African nationality on anyone coming from overseas they must have had some time to identify themselves with the country and the people. One year is too short a period for that, and the least we can demand is a residence of two years. Nobody, according to the existing law, can be a civil servant of the country unless actually resident in the country for three years. And, according to the Immigration Law, a person can be dealt with as a prohibited immigrant for three years after entering the country. Every immigrant into the country is on probation according to the law of the country for three years. So that, looking at this matter on the merits, there is more to be said in favour of three years than of two. We made the distinction of two years in Section 1 (b) and three years in Section 1 (c), because we have to recognize there is a difference, and we want to make a difference between a British subject coming to South Africa and an alien coming to South Africa. We want to recognize that we belong to the British community of nations and, therefore, we must give preference in the acquiring of our nationality to those coming from the British commonwealth. For that reason we have three years in the case of an alien. I hope the hon. member will abide by this.

When the Minister argued that the original period of three years was a proper period, I agree with him, but I think he was wanting in logic in the latter part of his argument. He talks of a person who is naturalized as if he were an alien. Up to now it has been the invariable law throughout the whole world when a person is admitted by naturalization to be a subject of the country he is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a national-born person. Under our Act of 1926 it is declared that a person could be naturalized if he lived five years in any part of his Majesty’s dominions, one of which at least must have been in the Union. Section 6 says a person to whom a naturalization certificate is granted shall be entitled to rights and privileges to which a national-born British subject is entitled. Now we are passing a law to say if you are British-born you acquire your South African nationality after two years, but if you are a British naturalized subject you only acquire it after three years. That is against the principle of last year, and that was recognized in the original Act when it said three years for both. The only logical thing is to reduce it now to two years for the naturalized subject. I would like to move—

so as to make the thing logical and consistent with all our previous legislation on the subject.

In reply to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alexander) said, I must, in the first place, point out that any one who is naturalized in South Africa is naturalized to become a British subject under the law of last year, not to become a South African national. Nobody can in South Africa become naturalized unless he has been actually resident before he becomes a British subject, for a whole year in the Union. So it comes to the same. Before he becomes a British subject he must have been a whole year in the Union. If we add two years to that after he becomes a British subject then the alien must wait three years before he can get South African nationality.

I would like to raise another point which has been brought to my notice since the committee finished its labours, and it is this. The Minister in the ordinary course of his duties issues passports to South Africa to go overseas. Take the case of a man arriving from another part of the Empire with a passport. His passport generally exists for a period of two years. He wants to leave South Africa again within the two years before he becomes a South African national. The point was put to me, will the Minister issue a passport to him? I said that in the ordinary course he would, but the matter was questioned and I promised to raise it in the committee. These people, of course, are British subjects here for the time being, but they have not become South African nationals. I can see no objection to issuing a passport to them as British subjects, or extending the passports which they already have. I would like to know what the Minister’s attitude would be in that case.

I have not gone into that matter, but I daresay, as far as the issue of passports is concerned, the position will remain unchanged. If we issue passports now to British subjects who are domiciled in South Africa, we may issue passports to them even if we do not confer upon them, or we cannot yet confer upon them, South African nationality. I think the only change that will be effected is that on the passports the fact that they are South African nationals will be endorsed. We give them the ordinary passports that we give now, and it is endorsed on the passports that they are also South African nationals.

On amendment proposed by select committee in line 19, to omit “three” and to substitute “two.”

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the statement he made in this House last year on this very question in dealing with the matter of the relationship between South African nationality and a man’s franchise qualifications. The Minister said this—

That certainly denotes the idea that if the franchise laws are to be brought into harmony with this nationality law, we could compel a British subject coming from any other Dominion to complete two years before he becomes enfranchised. To that we have the strongest objection. From my own point of view I maintain that the hospitality of this Union is free to every British subject, from whatever part he comes.

For Indians too.

I ignore the interruption of the hon. member. He knows very well that the Indians are disenfranchised by special laws of this country which state that no person who comes from a country which does not possess elective representative institutions shall be entitled to be put on our roll.

That is not so in the Cape.

Indian Immigration to the Union is prohibited. Under this law, as I interpret it, the Minister proposes to make Indians South African nationals. The franchise laws at the present time do not make them electors. I am on this point, that I do not care where a man comes from, Australia, New Zealand or any other part of the empire, immediately he sets foot into South Africa the hospitality of this country should be extended to him, and within twelve months automatically he should go on the voters’ roll and become a South African national if he wishes to. I move—

The Minister says that after one year a man coming from any of the British Dominions, being a British subject, can become an elector, but he has to be here two years before he can become a South African national. If he is to become a voter, what on earth is the advantage of becoming a South African national? If he is an elector of the country he can become a member of Parliament. Can he get any higher? He might be a member of the Cabinet and yet not be a South African national. The position is absurd, it is childish. A reduction ad absurdum is not in it.

What then is the difference between a Frenchman and an Englishman that the poor Frenchman should have to wait three years to obtain citizenship while hon. members want to give it after one year to an Englishman. I do not say that an Englishman is worse, but hon. members forget that passports are valid for two years, and that the immigrant can leave within that period. No, hon. members want the English immigrant for voting purposes. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said frankly that they should have the vote, and he is afraid that it will be made two years. Hon. members opposite should stop that kind of thing. If a man is a British subject he is no better than anyone else. They come to South Africa for what the country is worth. The hon. member for Illovo also came here but if the country is too bad for him why does he not leave?

There is a great deal in what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) have put to the committee, that the period should be reduced to one year. There are responsibilities as well as privileges attached to nationality. If a man can come to this country from other parts of the empire and can assume citizen and franchise rights within a year, I think he ought to shoulder his responsibilities as well. There is the question of compulsory service in the Defence Force. I do not see how you can call upon a man who is a registered voter to take part in the defence of the country unless he is a national. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) seems to forget we are members of one family and live under one roof, although we occupy different rooms in that house. A man ought to be more welcome in his own house than a stranger should be. It is most entertaining to hear the hon. member. A Frenchman or an Italian or a Portuguese may be a far better man than a member of the British empire, but we are members of one family and for goodness’ sake let us approach the subject as such.

I should like to hear the Minister’s view on this point. Perhaps he would deal with the question of the apparent conflict between what he has said this afternoon in regard to the franchise, and what he said a year ago, when he indicated the possibility of a man’s franchise qualifications being brought on to a level with the period he would have to put in before he became a South African national. I understand him not to hold to that view now. Would the Minister clarify his views on the subject, and let us know what his present view is. It is only reasonable that a shorter period of one year should apply to men who belong to the Empire.

All I can say is that what I said last year was the expression merely of an opinion. Everybody has his opinion in regard to that. I have mine and still have mine with regard to it. We are not discussing the franchise laws, and whenever anything of that nature is dealt with in any franchise Bill brought before the House, of course, I will have an opportunity of saying about it what I think is the right thing, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) may do the same. Then, of course, we discuss the whole matter, but what I said last year was merely the expression of a personal opinion.

Do you adhere to that?

Yes.

I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and on additional grounds than those which have been raised. We are always crying out that we require a much larger white population, and it seems absurd that we should put legal obstacles in the way of people coming to this country and becoming nationals in the shortest time possible. It seems to me the crying need of this country is increased immigration, and if we are going to set up obstacles in the way of people identifying themselves with the country in as short a time as possible, we are not doing our best to meet that need. I do not know what is the real objection to the acceptance of this amendment, but it seems to me that in the first place we should remove all obstacles to the increase in our white population; we should encourage people to become nationals in every way possible. Secondly, we should not attempt to set up a period in which to become a national different from that which is customary in other parts of the empire. It seems to me there should be some measure of reciprocity between those countries with whom we are in close contact. We are not only building up trade with these countries, but we are also encouraging community of ideas, and when we meet round the common table every few years at the Imperial Conference then, at any rate, as far as our nationality is concerned, there should be some measure of uniformity.

I take it from what the Minister said in previous discussions in connection with this matter, this session and previous sessions, that it is in the mind of the Minister that if these qualifications become law that at some future time the existing Franchise Act of the Union shall come into co-operation with this Act so far as the two years’ period is concerned. Am I correct?

That is my opinion.

If that is the Minister’s opinion it must be self-evident to the Committee that the Minister is determined if he possibly can to increase the period of residence of a British subject in this country before he can exercise the electoral franchise. That is the logical conclusion from what the Minister has said. If we now pass this two years’ period it will be one step in advance of the desire of the Minister to see that when the Franchise Act is altered British subjects who now have the right, if they are qualified, to be put on the electoral franchise after one year will have to reside two years before they can exercise the voter’s right. In these circumstances I hope the committee will agree to the amendment of one year. The Minister laughs, but I do not see why he considers it a laughing matter at all except that he is so imbued with prejudice that he is desirous of doing everything he possibly can to prevent British subjects who come into this country from other parts of the Empire from having the opportunity as quickly as possible to exercise the franchise. I hope my hon. friend will stick to his point, though I am afraid, judging by the attitude of the Minister, and the solid phalanx of flesh behind him, there is very little hope of carrying our point. He seems determined to do what I consider to be a great injustice to the rights which British subjects possess at the present moment.

From your standpoint, why have a limited period at all?

Hon. members must remember that we also have a Dutch-speaking population in South Africa; people who come from the land of our ancestors have to be here for three years. We do not complain about it, we say it is right. To people who come from England we give a year less and hon. members opposite are still dissatisfied. What then do they want. Do hon. members think that a person of Dutch descent is inferior or worse than another? They must once for all now abandon that petty attitude and see that we Dutch-speaking people are very tolerant and patient, but there is a limit. On account of our tolerance we deserve to be met more reasonably by the other side.

It is well known that one of the things South Africa is suffering from most at the present time is lack of quantity of population, and perhaps lack of quality, too, because it is well-known that the human animal, like other animals, must have a continual accession of fresh blood to keep up the quality as it should be; and here it should be of higher quality than Other countries. One of the greatest strengths of the Teutonic races, as opposed to the Latin races, is their admixture of blood from other parts of Europe. Surely, when we have the Minister of Justice himself on a recent occasion alluding to the fact that it may be necessary for the Government to bring in an extensive scheme of immigration before long, this is not the time to add to the difficulties. We want to make the country, not less, but more attractive to outsiders, and if we, by the immigration laws see that no undesirables come in, we do not want this long test. The Minister ought to fall into line with other sparsely populated countries that desire to add to their strength by attracting immigrants of the right sort. This clause is not calculated to attract them, but for a long time they might feel what the Minister might describe as being under an inferiority complex, or that they were not full citizens until they had passed the long time of approbation that is required. I hope the Minister will adopt the amendment.

Let me just say, in reply to what the hon. member and others who have spoken in the same strain, have said—I do not know how it is in regard to other hon. members on this side, but to me it is very difficult to understand the mentality of hon. members who have put forward these views. I am quite sure they are not generally supported on their own side. The whole supposition on which they base their argument is that South African nationality is something burdensome, and that anybody who comes to this country wants to avoid it because it lays upon him a burden which he does not wish to hear. The conferring of South African nationality on anyone coming to the country is something anyone coming to the country ought to welcome. It lays no additional obligation on him, and it confers a privilege on him.

And therefore we want to speed the time in which these privileges will be conferred.

He does not cease to remain a British subject, but he gets an additional privilege, the protection and care of the Union Government. How it can be considered as an obstacle to immigration I cannot understand.

Who said so?

That is the whole argument.

“Burdensome”! Good gracious, far from considering it burdensome, we are asking the Minister to make it one year instead of two years, to get these fellows the great privilege the sooner.

I was answering the argument that it was an obstacle to immigration.

The Minister has referred to our mentality but I am always in difficulty about his own. I am really at a loss to understand how he can gain the idea to which he has given expression from what I have said. My argument is that if you prevent a man from obtaining this privilege for a further period you discourage him from settling here. Surely it cannot be inferred from that that there was anything burdensome in South African nationality—entirely the contrary. We want to give this man the privilege sooner than the Minister does.

Amendment proposed by Select Committee put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander then put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

In this matter this clause makes provision for the renunciation of South African nationality by South African nationals. Under the Bill the privilege of becoming a South African national is one which every British subject resident in South Africa acquires, whether he wants it or not, after a residence of two years; and this clause purports to give to every person who does not desire to become a South African national the right of renunciation. A similar clause appeared in the Naturalization Bill passed last year where people are allowed to declare their alienage if they so desire, but under the clause in the Bill now before us no one is allowed to renounce his South African nationality unless he leaves South Africa. At first blush one would ask what is the good of the right of renunciation if a person can exercise it only when he leaves South Africa? Surely the intention should be that if people desire to renounce their nationality they should be entitled to exercise that privilege. What possible objective can there be to compel a man to leave the country before he is entitled to renounce his South African nationality? I can understand the Minister saying that having secured a South African national he was not to be allowed the right to renounce it, but why compel him to leave the country before he can renounce? I found myself in the invidious position of being in a minority of one in the Select Committee, but I am entitled to ask for an expression of the opinion of the House on this very important matter. Feeling is running very high in reference to the whole of the Bill. The form of this clause has been modified by the Select Committee. To-day it is no longer a setting up of a new nationality but of certifying that we are South African nationals. Nevertheless the word “nationality” remains in the title, and considerable suspicion has been engendered, both as regards the setting up of a new nationality and a new flag. Every person in South Africa who willingly becomes one of your South African nationals should have the unfettered right of renunciation. If the Minister’s objective is to drive people out of the country he will not be successful, and therefore you will have people compelled to be South African nationals who entertain a feeling of resentment at the idea. What is the argument which justifies the Minister in using these objectionable words? He says that if a man is not prepared to throw in his lot with us in South Africa and become a good South African, he should leave the country. But people who came here willingly never dreamed of being anything else but good South Africans. They are just as much inclined to-day to be good South Africans, but you cannot compel them to take a flag or a nationality they are not disposed to accept. This clause does not appear in the Canadian Act from which these nationality clauses were copied. It did not appear in the original Bill as gazetted. Why has the Minister put it in? If my suspicions are unfounded, why retain the clause? So long as these words remain in this section so long will it be practically impossible for any British subject to renounce his South African nationality. He cannot go away, as his interests and his family are here, and it is no answer to tell a man that if he is not prepared to accept South African nationality he should leave the country. When these people came to South Africa you did not impose any flag which was objectionable or a nationality with which they did not agree. The whole thing savours of compulsion, and I warn the Minister that he cannot succeed in making good citizens by any method of compulsion. If the clause means anything, it means that people who don’t willingly accept South African nationality must leave the country.

This clause makes it perfectly clear to me that the Minister surveys a time in the not far distant future when certain sections of the community with whom he is not in sympathy may find this South African nationality an intolerable burden so he anticipates this by providing means whereby they may direct themselves and he does it by providing for two distinct classes of people first, people, who, like himself and myself, were born in this country, and he makes provision for our renunciation of South African nationality, but he cannot impose the condition that if we do that we must leave South Africa, for we have no other country to go to. However, we are allowed to renounce our South African nationality, the only condition being that we should be held up to public ignominy through the Government Gazette. But the man coming into the country is told that as long as he remains here he shall remain a South African national, he cannot divest himself of his dual nationality, unless and until he leaves the country and establishes a domicile elsewhere. I cannot understand how it is that this House can pass this clause without comment, and I for one feel that the member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has rendered a public service in drawing attention to the point and in time will be recognized as the one man who foresaw the perils and motives lying behind this clause. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. It seems so absurd to the Minister who says, “Well, you have come into this country and you have had this nationality thrust upon you.”

It is not forced upon you. You need not become a South African national.

It is automatic. You can only renounce your nationality on condition that you take yourself out of the country. The more you consider it the more you realize the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) was absolutely right.

I ask the Minister to consider the attitude of people who have been rendered suspicious of the real intention of this clause. It is wise for hon. members to recognize there is that feeling abroad, and we should legislate in a way which will dispel it and gain the confidence of the people. A large number of people are suspicious of the very point the Minister dealt with, in a very disappointing manner, in the clause previously under discussion. They feel there is an intention in the whole of the clause to rob them of their franchise rights and penalize them in their civil and political rights if the persons concerned happen to be of a different complexion of politics to the Government for the time being in charge of the country. In our part of the world, Natal, there is a suspicion that this Government, or its spiritual successors, might choose to declare themselves neutral if the British Government engaged in conflict, and they ask what is the position of any man who wants to go to the aid of the Empire? Is he going to be treated under the Foreign Enlistment Act and be punished for wanting to go to the aid of the Empire. I should like the Minister to tell us what the position would be if this section becomes law, and the Government declared itself neutral in time of war. In that case would a man, or a body of men, be free to organize themselves and answer the call of the Empire in spite of the decision of the Government then in power, to declare themselves neutral. To try and observe neutrality will be a very difficult matter. Under this section he would have to leave South Africa before renouncing his South African nationality and becoming a free man.

Let me express the hope that the hon. gentleman who has moved this amendment will receive as little support in the House as he received in the select committee. After the discussion we had in the select committee I did not think the hon. gentleman would have so much courage to persist. My objection against his amendment is that if it is accepted it would be a departure from the general principles accepted in all such cases throughout the world. I do not think there is another country in the world where it is possible for any person, while remaining in the territory of the Government under which he stands, to renounce the nationality of that country. If such a principle was accepted it would be a very dangerous principle of government, which has been laid down because any outside Government having a dispute with a particular country, could conceivably get a large number of nationals in that country, whilst still within the territory of that Government, to renounce that nationality and assume the nationality of another country. I don’t think that would be tolerated by any Government in the world. I don’t think from that sound principle of government we ought to depart in any way whatever. Apart from that it is not in the interests of this country to make it possible to create a large uitlander population. If we do, then if there is to-day a difference of sentiment and aspiration it will be perpetuated, and that is not in the interests of the country. It is certainly not in the interests of the British community of nations. If British subjects in a British country are uitlanders, certainly that will not assist in bringing about a friendly attitude between one part of the British Empire and another. It is certainly not in the interests of South Africa and it is certainly not in the interests of the Empire and, therefore, I hope the House will not agree to this amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended by the select committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

I want to follow the same procedure as was followed in select committee, namely, that we first dispose of Clause 4 and then consider Clause 3. The reason is that Clause 3 is dependent on Clause 4. The question of the flying of the Union Jack next to the flag of South Africa depends greatly on the design of the Union flag.

I should like to know if that course was followed what would happen to the amendment which stands in my name. I intend to move an amendment to Section 3 which is on the Order Paper, and it is competent for us to discuss my amendment under Section 3.

I think it is more in order there.

Where?

Under Section 4.

Supposing Clause 4 is carried, to which I have no amendment—I simply move that it should drop—if Clause 4 is carried and we finally revert to Clause 3, then I won’t be able to move my amendment. I will have to move it to Clause 4. I just want to have an opportunity to bring on my amendment.

The hon. member can move it to Clause 4.

Let me say that before I asked the House to discuss Clause 3 after 4, I looked at the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, and it seemed to me as if his amendment were more appropriate under 4, because, after all, it lays down machinery, how to come to the selection of a particular design, and I hope the hon. member will agree to move it under 4.

I have no objection, as long as I have an opportunity to bring on my amendment. I am prepared to bring it on on 4.

Can we take first 4 and then 3 before we take 5 and 6?

If the Minister’s amendment is carried, Clause 3 will stand over until the end. The Minister can move that Clauses 9, 10 and 11 stand over.

Is that until 4 is disposed of?

Clause 3 just stands over until the end of the Bill.

That would lead to very great confusion. We would have confusion worse confounded.

It is my intention when we have dealt with 4 to move again in such a way that we will come to 3 immediately after that.

Then move in this way, that 3 stands over until 4 has been disposed of.

The Minister cannot move that.

That is my intention. After 4 has been disposed of, I will submit a further motion.

The Minister can move, after 4 has been disposed of, that the other clauses stand over. That will automatically bring up Clause 3.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

To that clause I propose to move my amendment, which is on the Order Paper. I think we are put to very considerable inconvenience by what has happened now. We had a lengthy second reading debate on a certain design for the national flag. We discussed the principles of the Bill on the supposition that that was to be the national flag. We then went into select committee and we have emerged from the committee with an entirely different flag which the Minister proposes in place of the old design. It is a most awkward procedure now to know where we are, and how we should deal with this matter in committee. We have disposed of one flag. The Minister, after the attack on the first flag, has withdrawn it, and in the select committee a new flag has been substituted, and now in committee of the whole House we have to deal with this matter in short speeches of ten minutes or less. I think it is a most difficult procedure that we are now getting ourselves into. That is an additional reason for the course which I propose. That course is embodied in my amendment and it is this: that we should not dispose of the flag question here in this House on this occasion, but that a more or less impartial tribunal should be constituted which should deal with this question, which should ask for designs and frame a new design for a national flag, which should be published for the information of the people. Having published that for a minimum time of six months, it will then come before Parliament again at our next session and we can deal with that design. The advantage that we would secure in that way would be this, that we would get out of this heated partisan atmosphere in which we are dealing with this question now. Most unfortunately the flag question has become now a battle-ground between parties in this country, and I think nobody would say that that is the atmosphere, that is the method by which the national flag of South Africa is to be settled. We have to recognize the fact that it is now a contending ground between the parties, and I think if we wish to have any prospect of a reasonable and fair settlement we should get out of this atmosphere. I have, therefore, in this amendment, referred it to two persons in our legislature who, although they are party men, are for the time being out of the party struggle and out of the arena of active party politics, namely, the Speaker and the President of the Senate. Let them get the necessary assistance. Let them in a calmer atmosphere and with much more time at their disposal than we have, frame a design. We had not time in the committee: to do it. I am not sure whether if this matter were carefully considered the Minister would not propose another design. This is the third we have had. We had the Walker design, then we had design No. 2, and now we have come to this. I am not sure whether, after proper consideration of this matter, another better design would not be found. In what position are we in this committee? We are sitting in the last minutes of the days of our parliamentary life. We are hurrying on everything to finish the proceedings of this Parliament as soon as possible and we have to deal in the last days of the session with a subject of the most far-reaching importance and which requires proper time and care for its consideration. We have not the time at our disposal. I should say the Government ought to welcome any amendment which gives the House the opportunity for careful consideration of the whole matter. We have no time here in this House. We had no time in committee and certainly in this committee of the whole House we have no proper time to deal with the matter. The Government ought to welcome the opportunity to send it to some other tribunal where it can be dealt with on its merits calmly and quietly and away from the political animosities which are raging. I go further and I say that in view of the state of opinion outside in the country we ought really not to deal with this matter in this great hurry. When the position in the country is such, we are doing the country the gravest disservice by pushing on this matter. I think the Government themselves must feel by this time that they have made a wrong move. They took a false step when they dealt precipitately with this matter. If anything is clear to-day it is this, that public opinion in this country is not ripe for a peaceful, calm settlement of this question on its merits. The time is inopportune and the time will not be more opportune; in fact, the temper in this country will become worse if this matter is rushed through Parliament. I would, therefore, urge very strongly that the procedure which I have proposed here in my amendment should be followed and we get this question for the present, at any rate, out of the parliamentary arena and we get it before a tribunal where it can be considered calmly and quietly on its merits. I do not promise that next session we may not have trouble again, but at any rate, we shall have taken it out of the party atmosphere in which it is now. I hope the Government will listen to us and that the Government will make this concession. I am not moving this amendment in any party sense, but I feel very strongly that we are getting ourselves deeper and deeper into an impossible position and I hope the Government will take this means of extricating themselves. It is possible that the Speaker and the President of the Senate could not agree. If they cannot agree, looking at the matter calmly and quietly, then that ought to be an additional warning to the Government that public opinion in this country is not ripe for a settlement.

interjected in Dutch.

I would ask the hon. member not to look at it in that light. We are dealing with a very large issue which is going to affect the history of this country for many years. We may be settling a flag which will be the flag of the country for hundreds of years to come. Let us deal with it in a proper way. I do not blame the Government. They have no doubt got into this trouble without due and adequate consideration, and without anticipating the feeling that would be roused, but we know now it is there. We know there is the deepest feeling over this matter in the country. We do not want to divide our people. I think the position in the country is most distressful. When I look at public opinion to-day in South Africa and see how divided it is and I see how we handful of people are causing racial strife I think the Government is not doing its duty to the country in pressing this matter now. I hope, therefore, they may see their way clear to accept the amendment I have placed on the Order Paper. I do not wish to argue the other points just now; I will do so later, but I do appeal to them to give this matter careful consideration. It does leave a loophole which the country may welcome in days to come when we shall be deeper in the mire than we are to-day.

I must say that if I were at all convinced that the hopes which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has expressed could be realized, viz., that by means of his amendment the feeling in the country would decrease, there would be a good deal to be said in favour of it. But I will say at once that I not only feel doubtful about it but that I am firmly convinced that things will become worse. We must understand once for all that rightly or wrongly the old population of South Africa in the first place, and also many of the new population are to-day more convinced than ever before that in existing circumstances an injustice is being done to them. And if that injustice is not rectified I am convinced that the feeling in South Africa in the future will be made three and four times worse. For this reason I must say that I feel the injustice should be removed.

What is the injustice?

It is that the Dutch-speaking South Africans have been for years without a flag, while the English-speaking people in the most selfish ways always wrap themselves in the Union Jack as soon as Dutch-speaking South Africa says, “Give us a share as well.” And I feel that if that injustice is not removed we shall have a condition of things in South Africa for which I do not wish to assume responsibility. It is for this reason that I differ from the hon. member for Standerton that we shall diminish the feeling by postponing the matter. In that way you will not diminish the feelings of the Dutch-speaking people, and unfortunately when we notice the spirit which has prevailed in the past eighteen months, since this matter was broached, instead of the existence of more reasonableness on the part of those who are shouting so loudly outside against a South African flag, we find a more intolerant attitude every time, and if we postpone the matter further it will increase so much that no one with any feeling of responsibility will take on himself responsibility for what will happen. There are times in the history of people when you say that however unpleasant and difficult it may be a decision must be come to, and I am convinced of it that if there ever was a time to act it is now in so far as the flag question is concerned. Now, coming back to the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton, I want to say that for the very reason that I feel action must be taken I cannot accept his proposal. The amendment amounts to a postponement sine die. In the first place the hon. member for Standerton must admit that there is just as little chance of coming to an agreement between the Speaker and the President as there was between this side of the House and that opposite in the Select Committee. There is much more chance that by mutual negotiation a mutual compromise will be brought about because we have it in our power to come to such an agreement which both our two parties will accept. We had the opportunity and we failed. It is very clear to me that the speaker and the president will not come to an agreement, and it will therefore merely mean that the whole matter will be postponed. But granted that the two actually arrive at an agreement then it has to be approved of by both Houses of Parliament. I can well understand what the decision of this House will be, but will the other place agree with the view of this House? We must once for all look the trouble in the face now, and we must be prepared to tackle the matter ourselves. As for me, I am not prepared to undertake it. In connection with the motion of the hon. member for Standerton, I want to point out another matter, and before we can think of referring the flag to such a committee I must have clarity about it. I hope the hon. member for Standerton will make it clear. He says that a flag about which the two persons have to decide—the Union Jack, the Transvaal Vierkleur, and the Free State flag—must be incorporated, and he goes on and says that they must be put on the national flag—

Now, I should like to know what are “integral and substantial” and what not. The hon. member must first tell me that clearly. We come here to-day and say that there shall be a national flag on which those flags shall be shown, but clearly they are not an “integral and substantial portion.” Then I ask the hon. member for Standerton and for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt): “Come out with your design. Come and tell us what ‘substantial’ means, and what you wish the national flag to be. Do not be so secretive. We went into the Select Committee and proposed what we wanted. Why do you not also do so? Come, come. You have been engaged in playing hide and seek for two years. If you are frank in the matter come out with it. Have you not the courage?” No, every time when we say “Accept this,” then all these gentlemen can do is to smile and to speak contemptuously and disparagingly of our proposal. It is always we that are stirring up racial feeling in the country. Is it we? One has only to read the newspapers which are so anxious that the matter should be disposed of without racial feeling. Just go and see how they are going on. I can actually say that an ordinary newspaper which you can fetch out of a drain could not behave worse. No, we must have courage. There is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). Why does he not come out frankly?

You saw our idea.

Did I? May I then make use of it here?

Certainly.

Now I will say what the, idea is. It was their only idea. They brought a flag and did not even have the courage to propose it. It is a flag divided into four parts respectively taken up by the Union Jack, the Transvaal Vierkleur, the Free State flag and the fourth part with a springbok head on a blue ground.

Why not?

I met an artist and he asked me whether the Opposition had made a proposal. I said that they had exhibited something like that, and he then asked me what it was and I explained it to him He then replied—

Who was he?

In my opinion it was nothing less than an insult. [Time limit.]

I do hope that we are not going to discuss the flag of the country in this spirit. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not do himself justice; and I would appeal to him to deal gently with, and be kind to, the people of this country. The people of this country have been entrusted to his charge. For the present they are in his hands, and behind him is a large majority with which he can force through any proposal in this House, but I do ask him and his friends to feel their responsibility in this matter. We have a very difficult position in this country with our different populations, and with our people divided on matters which are of a very delicate racial character. I ask him not to deal with this grave Question in that light. I think it is the feeling that, even although a certain portion of the Dutch people feel that justice has not been done to them in the flag, they have done fairly well, and they will, for the sake of a good settlement and for the sake of peace and unity, be prepared to wait a little longer. [An interjection.] It may be that the hon. member will find out when we come to the real test that what I am saying to-day is true. I ask that we deal with this matter in the most patient possible spirit, and I want the Prime Minister and the hon. members opposite to feel their grave responsibility. We are actually at the point when we may be undoing all the good work done in this country since 1910. This country has been recreated by this spirit which has moved through the land away from party wrangling; there was this spirit abroad in the whole country, and the people of the country were willing to let bygones be bygones and to move forward in a spirit of national unity. It is owing to that that all this good work was done, but I am very much afraid the step we are now going to take is going to undo all that good work again, and this country will fall back into the most distressful state, and we shall not be dealing anymore with our economic problems or settling the native question, but shall be falling back into the miserable wrangle which divided South Africa years ago, and led to the most lamentable conditions. Let us have the greatest sense of our responsibility. It is not a question of courage—if I saw my duty clearly I would have the courage to do it, but the more I think of the matter the more I am convinced that the issue has been raised inopportunely, and the time is not ripe. You may do a lot of things when the people are in the right temper, but at other times you may fail miserably. I am very much afraid that we are in the latter time. I hold no one responsible—let us say it is our misfortune—but there is a spirit abroad to-day which makes a fair and reasonable settlement not possible. I press the Government on this point of delay—the country is in their hands. They are responsible to-day for the peace, order, good government and national unity of our country. It is no use talking of sovereign independence when we are embarking on a policy which is going to tear the country into tatters. Let us rather mark time. It may take a number of years, but I would appeal to the Prime Minister—who I know is a patriot, and who, in his heart of hearts, must feel the weight of the considerations I am urging—to make this delay. Let us go slowly. Let us give the people time. We have, perhaps, not all seen the great light which leads to South African unity. Let us give time to the other side; do not let us dragoon, jeer or sneer at them. I hope the Prime Minister did not mean those remarks which he uttered just now.

Why?

He spoke as if the time had come when these people had to be steamrollered. They are good South Africans—if they did not want to be good South Africans the case might have been different, but the Prime Minister knows as well as I do, that these people simply want time for consideration. They are just as good South Africans as we are, and they are determined to throw in their lot with us. I say let us deal gently with them and don’t steam-roller them, and create a feeling which will be like a fire, which no one can stamp out again. We have had times when we have seen people sinking their common differences, and moving forward to a united future. I am very much afraid that what we are doing now is not merely a question of a flag design— it cuts much deeper, and it is going to have very far-reaching effects. The Prime Minister asked why don’t we come forward with a design? I don’t want to do so, and we don’t want to do so, because I recognize the time is not opportune. We have submitted a design in the select committee, of which we could approve. It makes the Union Jack and the two Republican flags integral portions of our future flag, and, as far as I can make out, the vast volume of opinion is in favour of it; so far as I am able to gauge public opinion, the great volume is in favour of such a design. If the Prime Minister asks me to bring forward a particular design to which I would pledge myself I say I don’t want a party flag adopted. I submitted a design which the committee did not accept. If the select committee had accepted it I would have been satisfied, and further trouble would have ceased as far as I am concerned. However. I don’t want to proceed with a design which will be purely a party flag, although I personally might consider it the proper and right design.

My objection to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his party is that they showed a flag in the select committee—we heard nothing further about it except that it subsequently appeared that they wanted a flag in which the Union Jack and the other flags would be an “integral and substantial” part. I can only repeat that the words of the artist expressed my feelings. Such a flag is an insult.

In what respect?

In the first place it is an insult to my aesthetic feelings as it would be in insult to anybody who knew anything, and as hon. members opposite would have regarded it if we had been in the position of offering it. In the second place it is an insult because there was no seriousness with regard to it. No one can be serious in making such a proposal. I, of course, did not tell hon. members so in the select committee, because I wanted to keep the peace, but I now say clearly that that flag is nothing else than an insult to our feelings.

Let the insult rest.

I am not going to make myself ridiculous, and I am not going to insult my people. Now I say again that there is a radical difference between the views of hon. members opposite and those on this side of the House. They want the Union Jack to be the South African flag. What they want is again the same thing. They again want the “ensign” here, and whether the rest beyond the Union Jack will consist of red or blue or of a mixture of colours like the Transvaal Vierkleur, the Free State flag and springbok heads makes no difference to them. They know that if the Union Jack appears on it substantially, then that flag is the Union Jack, an English flag. I say that I shall not allow that to happen, because I know what would happen in South Africa then. Then your Empire Group and the like would crow in South Africa, and we shall have the old story over again and the question—

We shall possibly again find the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) on a platform saying: “No, look there.” No, we are now finished with that, and are not going to return to that position again. That has now been obtained. Now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that the time has not arrived to have a national flag of that kind. I want to say that if the Union Jack is to be on it as one quarter of the flag, then you can go and put on the rest of it whatever you wish. If we cannot adopt a national flag then we may as well adopt anything else, although in that case I hope that we should get something more beautiful than the mixture of colours which is suggested by the hon. members. Now the hon. member for Standerton wants more time. Let me just go back 17, no, 14 years, when the hon. member for Standerton raised the idea of a national flag for the first time. Have the people who have been shouting so much since that time become more moderate? No, they are shouting just as loudly to-day, and it will increase in proportion as more time is given, and I say with all respect that the time has come that if they will not listen a law must be passed to make them do so. It is so very clear to me that you will not take that kind of man any further by the passage of time.

Now the fat will be in the fire.

I am not going to permit, as I said in the beginning, South Africa to get from bad to worse as far as this feeling is concerned. It is clear to me that if we had passed the flag twelve months ago there would not have been half the feeling now that there is.

What flag was it then?

It may have been any flag. It might have been the same as the one we are now proposing or any other flag. The hon. member for Standerton also said at that time: “Give time, give time.” and that we were in too great a hurry. He thought so then, but have we gone a step forward? No, we have only made the feeling in South Africa worse, and I say again to those people who shout so loudly and only want to look at themselves: I can no longer look at you, but I am now going to see that the other part of the population is satisfied.

When you came back from the Imperial Conference, you were prepared to drop the flag. Was it the attitude of the Minister of the Interior that made you change?

I was not prepared to drop the flag—it was only one of your assumptions. I thought there was such a thing as sound sense, but it is clear to me that that “small minority” of which the hon. member for Standerton spoke, and who persist in misunderstanding that I shall take no further notice of them.

Why were you prepared after the Imperial Conference to post-pone the matter?

Because I thought that not only they, but also the leaders of the people would show sufficient sense to agree within a reasonable time that we should have a flag, but I then saw that not one of them, neither the hon. member for Standerton nor the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) nor one of the other leaders took it upon themselves to take a single step to give a lead to South Africa. Instead of that they tacitly did nothing else but encourage the noisy section who wished to misunderstand in their noisiness. In the circumstances I say we cannot remain quiet. I was not prepared to abandon our flag, but was only trying everything to come to agreement.

I have risen to support the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) because I think it would be a disaster for this country if we went to a referendum and divided the people on a flag adopted by one section of the people. If we are to have a national flag, it should be a flag that unites the people and not divides them. By the method of referring this matter to the President and the Speaker, we shall have a much better prospect of arriving at a flag which will satisfy all sections of the community rather than the method adapted in this Bill.

The issue is very clear cut now.

Yes, and I am very sorry it has been made so. This country is going to be divided into two hostile camps and the Government is responsible. When the Prime Minister came back from England and the public applauded him. He now complains that the South African party gave no lead. The South African party is not the Government, and the public expected a lead from the Government, and would have thought after the way he was treated in England and the whole-hearted way all sections of the people applauded him on the result of the Imperial Conference, that he would have let the matter of the flag stand over because he must have realized it was dividing the people. The Prime Minister has said that the Dutch-speaking people have waited 17 years for a flag. The English-speaking section are anxious to have a national flag but to have it by agreement.

The hon. member is discussing the desirability or otherwise of the Bill. He must confine Himself to the clause.

I was answering the argument of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister asked, “Is the President of the Senate and Mr. Speaker—”

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

The amendment which has been put forward to this clause No. 4 by the right hon. member for Standerton, I think, offers the committee a means of avoiding a very undesirable state of affairs, namely, dividing the country on the question of this flag, because, whatever may be said by the Government and their supporters, the design now put before the country must be looked upon as a party design, a party flag, and if we examine that flag, I think we are bound to say that, looking at it from the point of view of the English-speaking person, it is not so good as design No. 2, which did contain a concession, a very inadequate one, to the English-speaking people in so far as it contained the St. George’s Cross. But this flag, although in a way it admits the principle for which we have always contended namely that the Union Jack and the; two ex-republican flags should be upon the flag, it does so in a grudging, unsatisfactory and microscopical manner. If you were to hoist the flag described in this design No. 2 on a flagpole, you would require a telescope to see the Union Jack and the Vierkleur and the Free State flag. Now that flag is not satisfactory and I think it is a reasonable thing to ask that for the first time some impartial body should be charged with the duty of trying to evolve a design which contains the Union Jack with the old republican flags. The Prime Minister has asked us what we mean by a “substantial portion of the flag.” The meaning of that is a real and solid portion of the flag, not a mockery. An “integral portion of the flag” means that these three old flags should appear in toto on the flag. I think that if a flag of that sort were evolved it would please the great majority of the people. In putting forward the specimen which he did at the committee of the combination of these three flags, the hon. member for Standerton did not say this is our flag. We have refrained from putting forward a South African flag, because we do not think it is policy either for the Government to put forward a flag as their flag, or for us to put forward a flag as our flag. We want somebody as impartial as possible to agree upon a design which will be brought before Parliament, not as a Government design, not as a South African party design.

Why didn’t you do it in the Select Committee?

I am trying to explain that we did not put forward a design as the design of the South African party flag because we want an agreed flag. We said it was possible to combine the three flags and we showed how it might be done, but the Prime Minister says that this flag that was shown was a mere farce. I think that it was a far better flag than this flag which he now asks us to accept, which is really a foreign flag. The flag of the House of Orange is not a flag that means anything to this country now. It is in every sense a foreign flag, with this little shield which contains in microscopic detail the three old flags. I think that a wise course has been suggested by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It will enable the Government to avoid dividing the country, creating dissension and strife, and it seems to me it is the only means at present by which we can agree upon a united flag, a flag which will unify the country and not divide it. The Prime Minister, I am afraid, has hardened his heart in this matter. He is not anxious to take suggestions from this side any longer. I am sure the country would applaud him if, at the last hour, he were to say: “Let us try another course. Let us see whether it is not possible to satisfy all sections of the public by referring the matter to these two gentlemen, the Speaker of this House and the President of the Senate.” As an English-speaking man I am quite content to leave the matter in the hands of these two Dutch-speaking gentlemen, and if they can bring forward a design which is at all reasonable I am quite certain it will be accepted by both sides of the House.

I am particularly anxious that we should, even at the last possible moment, see if we can do something to settle this particular question. You must know, Mr. Chairman, from your legal experience, that there are very often lawsuits which neither side can win, which for the plaintiff to win is almost as expensive for him as for the defendant. I regard this flag struggle as in that category. I believe, however long we fight, if we do fight, both sides will be losers and South Africa will be the loser. I am anxious that we should not make party capital out of the matter. I think it would be a calamity of the first order if we had an election on the flag. I would rather sit ten years in the wilderness of opposition than sit in power merely on the flag issue. [Interruptions.] I see that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) has come to life again with interruptions. I want to say that I have heard nothing further from him and his party since I asked them if they had a mandate in this matter, and offered to fight the hon. member in his own constituency. When at the last moment at the end of the second reading debate the Minister of the Interior, unexpectedly to us, moved that the Bill be referred to select committee, I did see a ray of hope, but when I saw the result of that select committee’s labour I felt puzzled and disappointed. I felt that South Africa had asked for bread and the committee had given it a stone. I am one of those on this side of the House who regard the design offered of that select committee flag No. 3 as being considerably worse than flag No. 2. I see no possibility of a compromise on the lines suggested by that particular flag. Frankly I do not. I will tell hon. members why. I will give them my viewpoint as one who sincerely and most earnestly wishes that this matter maybe settled. We asked for the inclusion of the Union Jack as an integral portion of that flag. The Prime Minister was quite right this evening when he said that we wanted the Union Jack to stand in a quarter of that flag and we would allow the Dutch-speaking half of this country to settle the other three-quarters as they wish. What do we get? We get in the centre of the middle stripe of that flag a tiny-medallion containing, as to one quarter of it, the Union Jack. I do not want to be disrespectful or to say anything that will cause a single wound but it does seem to me that the medallion in the centre of that stripe is simply like the emblem on a schoolboy’s blazer. It is no more conspicuous than that. If hon. members think that British feeling in this country will be satisfied with that they are making the gravest error of their lives. It will not be accepted; there is no doubt about that. We want the Union Jack as a substantial and integral part of the new flag.

Whereabouts?

I do not mean to be pinned down to one corner if that is what the hon. member means. As far as it rests with me I would be satisfied with the inclusion of the Union Jack as an integral portion of that flag. I would welcome such a flag and I would love it, but I am not prepared for one moment to accept this one. The Prime Minister rejected with contempt the flag suggested by the right hon. member for Standerton with all the flags as integral parts. Another suggestion that certainly appealed to me was the Union Jack in the corner faced with stripes of green and orange. It only shows that those who try to arrive at some settlement meet with the Prime Minister’s iron resolution, “No, I will not have the Union Jack in any shape or form as an integral portion of the new flag.” As long as we are faced with that there is no possibility of a settlement. If the Prime Minister thinks that members on this side will take part in the Speaker’s committee fettered and clogged with the conditions laid down here he has made a mistake. I do not think any member on this side will ever sit on a committee with his hands tied behind his back as was the commission he appointed. It is wasting time if he is going to tie the hands of that committee. I, for one, would never feel that I could serve on such a committee. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) does not believe me when I say that I earnestly desire a settlement. He is welcome to that belief. There are other members who do.

Are there?

The hon. member is offensive as he so often is. I say I pray God most earnestly that we may settle this question. I would forfeit any political advantage if we could have it settled.

You do not want it settled.

When I say that frankly I am met with jeering interruptions from the hon. member for Vredefort and I say that is untrue. If I could I would use stronger language to him for daring to impute my sincerity. In any case you cannot make flags across the floor of the House especially with members like the hon. member for Vredefort interrupting in the way he does. I would say to my Labour friends in all earnestness that they know they have no mandate in this matter. The Prime Minister says “I will choose a flag and the flag I choose will be submitted to a referendum of the people of this country but I will not allow you to put your flag or your ideas for a flag into a referendum.” I say that is an attitude of autocratic dominance and it is an attempt to impose the will of the Prime Minister upon the people of this country. [Time limit.]

I want to say this, that one of the reasons to my mind why members of the Opposition are so much against the present design is because they see it is a solution of the flag difficulty in South Africa.

You know that is untrue.

They will not accept it, but the country is going to accept that solution, and I am going to make an appeal to all moderate men in this country to accept that design and I believe the moderate men of South Africa are going to accept it.

The tombstone flag.

What is the sense of copying the “Cape Times”? Has the hon. member no ideas of his own? If it is the tombstone of racialism, the hon. member can be very glad. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they have gone one single step in the direction of compromise. From the start they made one claim and they have stuck to it throughout. As far as we are concerned we have advanced largely since the time the Bill was introduced, in the direction of getting the people of this country to see that we honestly desire to have this matter settled. The Opposition are remaining where they were except that they have gone backwards, because the right hon. member’s amendment to-day goes further than his amendment when the debate was commenced. He was satisfied then that all three flags should as far as possible figure in the flag. He now says they must from integral and substantial parts of the flag. I ask the country to judge whether he wants to settle this question or not, when he has made his views go so much further in the direction of not having a settlement. I personally must say I cannot understand how anybody can say that the Union Jack, which occupies an honoured place in the shield upon this flag, does not form an integral and substantial part. What is integral and substantial? If a flag occupies in its entirety a position on the flag and has a place of honour on the shield surely that is integral and substantial? Or is the value of the Union Jack dependent on its size? If you have one four inches by four inches is that less in value than one 12 feet by 12 feet? I always thought the Union Jack depended upon its quality and not quantity. The fullest effect is given to the quality of that flag and the tradition for which that flag stands. In this Bill it recognizes the Union Jack as a symbol of South Africa and its imperial relation. I say in every respect this has been an honest attempt on the part of this side of the House to allay public feeling. The hon. gentleman may take it from me it is an honest attempt. It may be an unsuccessful attempt even now. We know a settlement was not desired when the select committee was sitting for the reason that during the whole time there were flag meetings held all over the country and its deliberations were hampered by the press of the country. I say it amounted to gross contempt of the privileges of Parliament though probably no Act will ever reach them. Throughout every step that has been made towards a solution it has been hampered as much as possible by the South African party press of South Africa.

And by your speeches on the platform.

I did not make one single speech on any platform which anyone could complain about." As far as the countryside is concerned I told them the flag question was not a matter that should be taken seriously at the time, that at a later stage we would try and come to a compromise I challenge any member to say I said a single word to exacerbate feeling in the countryside go further. I say there is no warm feeling in the Transvaal to-day. I could have made public feeling as excitable in the countryside as the newspapers have done in the towns, hut I have avoided that throughout. I am very glad to be able to see in this design a solution. It may not be perfect, but it certainly is better than any offered by the other side. I believe this flag is going to be the national age of South Africa, not because Dutch-speaking people will vote for it, but because it will be accepted by the English-speaking section of South Africa. I am not going to refer to the attitude of the Manchester Guardian or the “Rand Daily Mail,” but the turning of the tide has come and hon. members will not be able to use this matter to obtain political advantage in the countryside. This flag will be decided on its merits; it is possible it will be turned down, but the bitter feeling caused largely by the attitude or the press is going to disappear. The Coordinated Council of Patriotic Societies in South Africa passed the following resolution dated the 9th June, 1927—

I say that every one of those desiderata laid down there is satisfied in this flag. We are not forcing it upon the country; the country must decide it for themselves. That reminds me of the other argument, that we should also place before the country the flag which the Opposition wishes. When a Government goes to the country on a referendum it puts its own policy before the country, not the Opposition’s policy. That would be a new departure We have the Witwatersrand general council of the South African party emphatically asserting—

That has been done; they are embodied. If there are hon. gentlemen who say it is not, I cannot argue with them. I can argue with others, but not with them. We say the people of the country must do it by a referendum. The Witwatersrand council are satisfied, but the South African party is not. All the conditions have been fulfilled, but they cannot see fulfilment in it. They come to the conclusion that they cannot see any of the history of South Africa in the flag. This solution is going to be accepted in South Africa in the absence of a better one given by hon. members opposite, and if I read hon. members opposite aright, they will be as slow in giving a better solution as they have been before.

The Minister is really an optimist. He says that this flag is going to be accepted by the whole mass of moderate opinion in the country. I hope he is right. If that is so, I shall be quite content to find that we have been hopelessly wrong—it it brings about a peaceful settlement.

Will you try to influence them to bring about a peaceful settlement?

T shall try to influence them in what is right. If this design is going to produce peace and satisfaction, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I shall not like it much, but I shall be perfectly satisfied. Why the amendment is moved is because we feel a settlement will not be obtained. The Minister has told us many wonderful things. He told us there had been no honest attempt at settlement in the select committee, because the South African party press were keeping the agitation going about the flag. That has not been my experience. I am not a great newspaper reader, I admit, but the South African party press that I have seen have studiously abstained from discussing this question while the select committee sat. If hon. members opposite will read their own press they will find they ought not to be the first to cast stones in the matter. Even the Minister himself will admit an honest attempt was made to arrive at a settlement in that committee. I accepted it as an honest attempt, but a totally inadequate attempt. If they are prepared to come forward by all means let them do so—

We will come no further now.

I am willing to admit that the Government have attempted to meet us, that the three flags should be there, but it is a miserably inadequate attempt. The Minister makes great play with “what is an integral part of the flag?”

I just wish to remind hon. members that it is not proper to read a newspaper in the committee. The hon. member for Aliwal.

The Minister says it is not a question of quantity, but of quality, and that the Union Jack is there—even if you want a microscope to see it. If he wants to know what is an integral part of the flag, and what is now proposed, let him ask the Prime Minister, who has just told us he will, on no account, have the integral part—

I never said anything of the kind.

I am sorry. That was how I understood it.

I said that if the integral part is as is represented by you, I would have nothing to do with it.

I will use the words of the Prime Minister as far as possible. In the design that is now submitted the flag is one of three stripes. On that is imposed a shield— which is not a flag, but an ornament.

It is part of the flag.

It is a design or a badge imposed on the flag, but my objection to it— a stronger objection to it—is that it is on such a small scale that it is almost impossible to see what it is.

Move an amendment to make it bigger.

This is not the place to move such an amendment—this is not the place to obtain a solution by moving an amendment. If a national flag is to be designed it will have to be done in a much quieter atmosphere than this; and that is why my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) has proposed that we should go into that quiet atmosphere.

And we have come back here.

Supposing that is so, and that these two gentlemen cannot come to a solution, is that not a proof that we had better wait a little bit to see whether the question may not become more soluble in time. The Prime Minister’s attitude is: “Take this; J am tired of this question.” Great questions are not settled in that way—by somebody putting down his foot and saying: “I will have it so.”

You wish to allow things to develop.

That is what I complain about. We cannot get it from heaven, and it does not seem to be growing out of the soil in any great hurry. We have to wait a little bit. The Prime Minister says we have gone back on what was done by us at the second reading. The amendment was, as far as possible, to embody these three flags—not in a corner.

Is this the same amendment?

Practically. In the amendment it says these three flags are to be part of the flag, as the ordinary man understands it, and not put on a button.

That is not what you said at Doornfontein.

I have explained several times. I said in Doornfontein I will be pre pared to have some device which could be agreed upon by Great Britain and the Dominions as a symbol of the commonwealth. I would be prepared to accept that.

You said you were not keen to have the Union Jack on the flag.

I said I was quite prepared to accept a symbol like that even If it did not contain the Union Jack—I said a symbol which was accepted by Great Britain and the Dominions and internationally recognized. The difference is perfectly clear—we say we want these flags on an integral part of the national flag, and not as an afterthought—we want them as embodying the traditions of the peoples composing South Africa. That is what the Prime Minister, I am sorry to see, will not have. We wish a flag composed of these three elements in some form or another.

In connection with this flag question, one would like to ask the hon. member the same question I asked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell):! “Where does the Opposition want the Union Jack?”

On the flag.

I put it to every hon. member that it is impossible to embody those three flags on the national flag of South Africa unless one of those flags is placed in the dominant position. We know that the place of honour, the dominant position, in a flag is the top left-hand corner, nearest the pole. Do hon. members on the opposite side press this point of view as expressed by the Empire Group of South Africa, that they insist that the Union Jack shall be embodied in its entirety as an integral part in the top left-hand corner? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says “no.”

Where are you putting it’ Answer!

You must answer.

If hon. members are not insisting, as the hon. member for Yeoville says he is not, that the Union Jack shall be in the top left-hand corner, I ask every English-speaking citizen if you place the Vierkleur in the top left-hand corner and the Union Jack in the outside bottom corner, what would they say? This House is facing a very serious question. As far as votes are concerned, and as far as members of the Labour party and I are concerned, we realize that whether we are going up or down in the election, the Labour party is in South Africa, and it is there to stay. Winning or losing seats has never affected the Labour party or the Labour attitude. I say we are not given a fair chance with all these threats being held over different sections. I want to ask hon. members on the other side it they think it is in agreement with the British spirit of fair play that men should pass resolutions to ostracize hon. members of this House simply because of their attitude on the flag.

What about the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay)?

Our attitude in connection with the hon. gentleman is that it is not so much that he voted against the Bill, but he put himself under the control of the South African party. The hon. member has gone against his party, and chose to sneer at the honesty and integrity of his fellow-members; and as an honest man he ought to have left the party To return to the point, The Government has repeatedly advanced towards the Opposition and the English-speaking section of the community, but it seems to me that for every step the Government has advanced, the Opposition has taken two steps backwards. First of all we were told by the English-speaking section of the community that if the Union Jack were embodied on the flag, even if it were only the size of a postage stamp—

Who said that?

The Union Jack has been embodied. When we took the St. George’s Gross, which signifies the English-speaking section we were accused of having simply an English symbol. Now the present flag represents all sections of the community, but still hon. members opposite say they are not getting enough. The South African press has not been fair on this question. They accuse us of vilifying the British connection and the Union Jack, and members’ words are twisted round. I as a colonial, have as much right to my opinion as any man who happens to be born in England. Scotland or Ireland. In Australia, Canada and South Africa are a large body of British citizens who are good, loyal citizens of the British commonwealth of nations, and we members of the Dominions have as much right to claim to be represented on the Imperial flag as people from England, Ireland and Scotland have to claim that the Union Jack should be represented on the Dominions flag. We often find many men who come from overseas unconsciously taking up the attitude that Great Britain is the dominant partner in the British commonwealth of nations, and that is repugnant to the feelings of men in the Dominions. This same spirit is animating the Empire Group, when they say they must have the Union Jack in the top left-hand corner of the flag.

On a delicate matter like this it behoves every one of us to speak with circumspection and to do nothing further to exasperate public opinion. But the country will have listened with despair to the speech the Prime Minister made this afternoon. I would like to think that the speech made just now by the Minister of Justice was purposely designed to efface the deplorable effect of the Prime Minister’s speech. The Prime Minister told us in effect, “I am sick of the other side, they have to take their medicine. I am going to show them. I have put my foot down.” The Prime Minister ought to know that South Africans can be led but not driven.

We want to drive you— you deserve to be driven. We drove you from Bloemfontein to Port Elizabeth.

This is an example! The Prime Minister seems to think he can drive the people. Let me ask the House if the atmosphere created by the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon and the tempers shown by the hon. member who has just spoken is to prevail here, in God’s name, what is going to be the atmosphere in the country?

The atmosphere you created there.

I do not think a single member on this side has said a word in an angry spirit which could arouse evil passions on this subject. I have never said a word that would arouse bad feeling. No patriotic South African will introduce into this debate if he can help it, anything which will arouse feeling, and that is why the country to-morrow will read the Prime Minister’s speech with despair, when they read that the people of this country are to be bludgeoned and dragooned. You cannot do that sort of thing on a question of sentiment. You may pass a law on an ordinary economic question by a majority of one, but you cannot pass laws on a matter of deep sentiment. The spirit of the House shows that the question is not soluble. It would have been soluble if it had been approached from the right angle, and in the right spirit, but after the bitter speeches, the thing is not possible. I am not going into the question as to who is responsible. For the sake of my argument it does not matter, but the Prime Minister should have said, “I am not going into the question whether the feeling which has been aroused is reasonable or not, but into the possibility of evolving a Union flag which will stand as an emblem of unity.” No flag which emerges from this controversy will stand as a symbol of unity, rather it will stand as a symbol of division.

Who divided the country?

We must discuss this matter from the broad standpoint of South African patriotism, and it does not matter who divided the country. Give the public a chance to calm down.

What is your solution?

The solution was for the Prime Minister to have awaited the psychological moment. In the history of every nation comes such a moment when you know you can do certain things. But it cannot be done in the way the Prime Minister suggests after he has aroused angry feelings. But do not let us go into the question as to who aroused angry feelings. I an prepared to leave that to the judgment of the public; but no matter who is to blame, at the stage we have arrived at it is clear that no Union flag can emerge from this turmoil. The Prime Minister must realize as a patriot that he should drop the matter for the time being, or accept the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Is this medallion on the new flag a concession? If a man were to rob me of my home and say, “You cannot have your own house, but you can have the inferior building next door, and to console you for the loss of your own home I will paint a picture of it on the wall of your new and inferior house.” That is the analogy. To paint a picture of a flag in miniature on another flag is not giving me my flag. A little escutcheon is not a flag. We are told that this is van Riebeeck’s flag. I went down to the Michaelis art gallery, which contains old Dutch pictures of the period from 1600 to 1700. There are several well-known Dutch pictures showing the Dutch flag used during the period when van Riebeeck landed here, and I challenge anyone to show me this new flag in those paintings.

Whose flag was it?

It was the flag of the old House of Orange—the very proud flag of the Beggars of the Seas, with many proud traditions, and it would not lie with me to speak disparagingly of it. It is, however, a meaningless flag so far as South Africa is concerned. In introducing the Bill, the Minister of the Interior said he wanted to forget the past. We have nothing but the past in this flag.

An honest past.

What do you mean by an honest past?

Do you mean to suggest our past was dishonest? We have a proud past. [Time limit.]

The remarks of the last speaker have made it obvious why this question has not been solved. He might have said, “We want to use the Union Jack for still another general election.” The member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says this flag might be called “a blazer flag,” and he said it was a kind of badge that would be worn on a schoolboy’s blazer. Well, I never saw a schoolboy who wanted the badge of his house all over his blazer. Then why would it symbolize less on the flag? We remember the blue ensign pulled out by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), and, to denote it was a South African flag, it had a small badge, and that was the only thing Connecting it with South Africa. The hon. member was quite satisfied South Africa should be represented by that small badge. The present flag symbolizes the South African people and the badge represents our connection with the overseas people. I agree with what the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) says that you cannot allot a position of dominance on a flag to an overseas nation when that flag is the house flag of South Africa. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) spoke the truth two years ago when he said that if the hon. member for Standerton had accepted a design and said it was not to become a party matter but that agreement was to be reached by solution, that agreement would have been reached. The English-speaking people are now divided in this country; the Dutch-speaking people are not divided, and hon. members, like the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) will find that out. The people who do not advertise their patriotism are none the less patriotic and hon. members will find that a large section of the English-speaking people who have had little to say on this question will prove themselves South African enough to take the broader view. Those hon. members who were before satisfied that South Africa should be represented microscopically in the flag of the mercantile marine are now dissatisfied with the present proposal. I do not believe South Africans are going to reject the proposal. The Government has shown its willingness to go to extremes in concession, in fact their pathetic anxiety to reach an agreement must be evident to the people of this country.

I have been waiting to see if we have made any further advance from the position we reached at the second reading and whether we can discuss this question in a national and not a party spirit. I find we are just as far away now as on the second reading. No sooner did the new design become public than we found people in Natal calling it the “dead man’s duster,” a leading paper here called it the “coffin flag,” and somebody to-night called it “the blazer flag.” These remarks from responsible people are unworthy. Every moderate man in South Africa will recognize that a great advance has been made by the Government since the second reading. The Union Jack and the two Vierkleurs are now represented as part of the flag.

But only as a footnote.

Is the hon. member serious in saying that? When we had a flag with the badge of the Union to suggest it represented South Africa, did anybody say that was an insult to us? Did anybody say it was a badge or a rubber stamp? There we had a Union flag with South Africa represented by a badge used on mercantile ships at sea, and I have never heard anybody express anything but pride concerning it. Let me refer to the dominion of Canada. They have a coat of arms of Canada—what you would call a rubber stamp or a badge or a footnote—but the Canadian people are satisfied that that little part of the flag represented Canada, and no one has objected or has said it was an insult to Canada. There has been a real advance for South Africa. It is a question now of space or degree, and no one can say that the Union Jack or the Vierkleurs have been excluded because they are there. We are told these flags must be an integral and substantial portion of the new flag and in that respect I agree with some of the remarks of the Minister of Justice, because if you take this badge out you would leave a hole in the flag. Now with regard to the word integral I find this means by the Oxford dictionary “a constituent component forming an intrinsic portion or element as distinguished from an adjunct or appendage, whilst Webster’s dictionary gives the meaning “essential to completeness—constituent—as a part.” With regard to the word substantial the Oxford dictionary has not got as far as that yet, but the definition in Websters is “not seeming or imaginary—not illusive—real—true.” I am no more now in favour than I was at the second reading of forcing a flag on people who do not want it. You cannot force a lady to come and marry you. You have to wait for her consent. The Minister of Justice said the turn of the tide is coming, then let us wait a little longer until the tide has reached the flood.

You have one foot in both camps.

It is unworthy of my hon. friend to make that remark. I opposed the second reading.

And you voted for the first.

I was not here; I was in Johannesburg, and was paired with a Nationalist member (A. A. Cilliers) and that only shows how impossible these gentlemen are. They do not want an agreement. When I appeal to the Government for delay I do not appeal for these gentlemen but on behalf of the moderate man. I am not standing in two camps because I do not want to be in the camp of these hon. gentlemen here and they know it. I expect to be opposed by these hon. gentlemen at the next election and I am quite willing to meet them. In the conclusion I have come to on this Bill I am doing what I conceive to be right.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has been kind enough to allude to myself. That gentleman is the self-appointed custodian of the Labour party conscience, giving to it that delicacy of touch for which he is so famous. I give a complete denial to the statement he made that I had placed myself under the direction of the Whip of the South African party.

made an interjection.

I say it is quite untrue, a calculated invention of a peculiarly warped and vindictive mind. That gentleman comes out of the caucus, where he put a question to me.

I did not, I never put a question.

You did. The question was put to me there by the hon. gentleman, and he comes here and makes a misstatement in regard to it. He asked if I had approached the Whip of the South African party.

I did not.

I said I had sent a note to Mr. Speaker intimating my intention to speak on the Bill, and I said to the Whip of the opposite party that I intended to speak and I would like to get an opportunity. Is there any crime in that?

No.

It is the first time I have been charged with that incident as an offence against the party warranting expulsion. It is done every day, and the hon. gentleman does it himself. That, however, is a very small and paltry matter. If I had any ill-feeling towards the Pact or the Labour party I would say: “Push this clause through. Use all your influence and all your power and your combined majority to push it through.” That is what I would say if I had feelings against them. The Pact in this clause has, in my opinion, dug its own grave.

No, you have dug your grave.

And in two years’ time from now they will probably be able to read the epitaph and regret they did not realize, as sound men and experienced politicians, that they had no mandate from the country on this Flag Bill at all, failing entirely to realize that it is the people’s will that shall prevail and they are not the people, only a portion of the people. The electors who put this Government into power were not the Nationalists and the Labour parties. They were the men in the street, those who desired a change in the Government; and the hon. gentlemen on my left will find out that it is that element which always determines the political life of Ministers and of governments. It has made up its mind in regard to this Bill. The voters have made up their minds that this Government has seized this opportunity to force this their own policy without a public mandate, and therefore without any constitutional authority whatever. As far as the proposed flag itself is concerned, the issue is misconceived. The question to-day is not whether we shall have this flag with its variegated shield and colours or whether it is to be a flag with the Union Jack in the top corner of dominance. The actual issue now before the country is whether one half of the people have the right to dictate to the other half. We have in this country, unfortunately, two large and somewhat distinct bodies of people. I may describe them, roundly, as Dutch-speaking people represented by the Nationalist political party; and the English-speaking people, roughly speaking, represented by the South African party. [Interruptions J Yes I know that the distinction is not clearly demarcated. I say largely represented. We have mixed nationalities on both sides. My friends in the Labour party (who are still my friends in spite of our differences) are mostly British. I say largely speaking we have those two bodies of people. Where the Government has made a mistake, and a complete mistake, is that they do not realize that those who do not agree with them on this question are just as eager defenders of freedom as they are, and will not be coerced. Therefore, when it comes to the Government in power forcing their will on the people, they have made the great mistake of their lives. The question is really one of equal rights. The English-speaking people have exactly the same right as the Dutch-speaking people. When the one party, representing Dutch-speaking constituents, deliberately say to the others: “You shall not exercise your choice,” that is an absolute act of coercion which will recoil in time on those who use it. It is an act of exclusion. What will be perfectly fair will be to say: “You are entitled to your choice, and we are entitled to ours.” Then there is some possibility of agreement. If you, the Government, take up the position, “We shall not consider what others want; we shall decide, not on the mandate of the country, what you shall have; and we definitely say you shall not be allowed a choice.” then agreement is impossible. [Interruption.] If we are going to have a referendum, let it be at least a perfectly fair referendum. We have had sundry “gestures of friendship.” We had the gesture of the Malan Vierkleur, and another gesture on what is termed the “hot cross bun” flag. Now we have still another “gesture” with this coat of arms superimposed on a tri-colour field. Let us have another gesture, a gesture of fair play. There is still time for Government to consider its ways, and even to strengthen its position, before they meet their ultimate judges, the public. A fair way to deal with this matter, seeing that the two bodies cannot agree (and it is impossible that they can because while the Minister of the Interior said it was elevated up above all party politics, yet it has now become the sport of parties), let the South African party design the flag they want, and let the Nationalist party design the flag they want; then put both flag designs to the public and asking “which will you have?” —deciding by a fair majority. But no, the idea of the Pact is “We are now in power, and we are going to force this flag through whether the country likes it or not. Our opportunity has come and we shall force the position.” The whole country is already sick of this question. The Minister of the Interior brought up an illustration a short time ago that if Germany had been the victors in the late war and had given England the freedom we enjoy and then imposed its flag they would have revolted. The parallel is not there. [Time limit.]

When I spoke on the second reading of this Bill I expressed my disappointment, and as I understood it, the disappointment of my constituents, at the proposed flag in that Bill. I know that the people of Natal when they heard a committee had been appointed to go into this question again were very hopeful that something better would be evolved which would enable this question to be settled for ever. I can say definitely that the people of Natal refrained from holding meetings in connection with the matter until the committee had come to a decision, so that nothing might be said that might disturb the position or do any harm. Though we have not yet had time to hear from our constituents as to what they think of this new Bill, still I am perfectly sure that they will not be satisfied with this flag, because it does not meet with what they consider are the elements of fair play. We have, at various times, suggested flags, and I myself called attention to a flag which had been recommended and suggested by ex-President Reitz, and that was a combination of the flag of Holland and the flag of Great Britain. President Reitz thought that would meet the aspirations and wishes of both sections of the community, and it seems to me it embodied the history and traditions of both sections of the white races.

Do you know your own leader is against that?

I am giving you my own impression. I have not asked my leader whether he accepts it or not. I ask the Prime Minister whether he would accept it.

What is the use of my accepting something your leader would not accept?

You asked us for something constructive, and I am putting before the Prime Minister a suggestion which was very much thought of by his own people at one time and which, I think, would satisfy them even now.

Your leader insisted upon the Vierkleur and the Orange Free State flag being in on an equality with the Union Jack.

But if you won’t accept that, why not accept this other in its place? I am only reminding the Prime Minister of what a highly respected fellow-country-man of his suggested as a proper solution there has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of the words “integral” and substantial.” The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has been consulting the dictionary and has told us what the dictionary said upon it. I also consulted dictionaries, and I have a different version from his. According to Webster’s dictionary “integral” means complete, perfect, uninjured, whole, entire. I ask the Prime Minister if he can honestly say that the Union Jack on his proposed flag is uninjured.

Entirely.

It is not. It is not the shape of the Union Jack. It is square, and the Union Jack is not square.

It is obvious to me you do not know the shape of the Union Jack.

I do know the shape of the Union Jack. The Minister of Finance does not know it if he says that what is on the flag is a Union Jack. Take another version of the word “integral”—component parts which together constitute unity. Will the Prime Minister tell me that what he has put on this flag is a unity?

In every respect.

Well, I disagree with him entirely, because you could take that medallion off that flag at any time and you would not know it had been there. It is not part of the design at all. As regards “substantial,” it is not illusive, it is real, true, veritable. I do not think you can attach any of these adjectives to this flag. This is a manoeuvre apparently to give the British section what they are asking for, but in reality not to give them what they want. I am perfectly certain it will not be satisfactory to the people of Natal. It is as well the Government should realize at once that it will not be received with open arms. I hope the Minister will take the advice given to him by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and accept the amendment, which is really the best and safest and wisest way out of this impasse. The feeling throughout the country is becoming very tense indeed. It is bound to lead to trouble if the Minister forces this flag through, whether the people wish it or not. He is going to cause trouble, the effect of which will be felt for many years to come. I would like to quote to the Prime Minister the words of a statement I read recently. This, I think, in much better words than anything I can say, described what this country is asking for—

And again—

Does the Prime Minister endorse these sentiments?

They are very good!

That was taken from the manifesto of the National party in the Cape Province, September 16th, 1915, and adopted on the motion of the Rev. Dr. D. F. Malan.

Excellent! I thought it was a Nationalist expression.

I am very sorry for my old friend from Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). It appears that he quite lost his balance. He never was such a very balanced man, but now he has lost his balance. He has now gone into the desert and is preaching like Jeremiah. But his constituents will deal with him. My hon. friends of the Opposition are on the defence—there is no doubt about that. They are speaking in very quiet tones to-night. They and everybody in the House and the country know to-day that the Government has taken a very big step forward, and the moderate people of South Africa are welcoming this step. Telegrams are being received by hon. members on all sides with regard to this flag. Hon. members of the Opposition know that some of their leaders in the Orange Free State have crossed the floor and have gone over to the National party on account of the flag.

Who are they?

We know in the Transvaal it is the same thing, but they are afraid to tell their people. There is one thing that struck me on that select committee more than anything. It is the second time I sat on a select committee with the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I never had anything against him, and never said anything against him. I challenge hon. members on the on the other side that I ever said anything nasty about the right hon. member. I quoted from his books. There was one thing that struck me on the select committee, and that was that the right hon. member was determined, from the word “jump,” not to have a solution. If that committee had been left to the English-speaking men of that party, we would have got a solution. With the tactful way in which they were dealt with by the Prime Minister they would have got a solution.

Absolute nonsense!

My hon. friend is not English-speaking, but even he would have been brought to heel. The right hon. member, gambler as he is, threw his stakes and had his last throw. Bankrupt in policy, and found out by his own people; even Natal is suspicious of him, because they wanted secession and he did not, he decided to have no solution.

Come to Natal.

I am not afraid of Natal. I have been there. They are not very strong in Natal, and I will go again. I say, if the Prime Minister had offered to the right hon. member the whole Union Jack, even if he had offered him two Union Jacks, he would have been very disappointed, and he would have found a reason for abusing it. He had made up his mind that there was going to be an election on the flag, and the whole of his cry of “delay” means that he wants to fight this thing out at the polls, and fight the general election on the flag, knowing that if he is beaten, he is in no worse position than he is to-day, and if he wins, he will be restored to power. He will use the best feelings of the English-speaking people to climb back to power. I believe we have found a solution, and that this flag is a solution. Large numbers of Labour men who were against us have come with us. There has been no cry that the Union Jack is being pulled down. What I was surprized at in this select committee was how far my hon. friends, the Nationalists, went; and when they produced a flag with the Union Jack on it, I was astounded. Then we found the press again working up trouble. On Friday afternoon reporters of the big newspapers at once picked out the most extreme men in the House—men from Natal and the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider)—and telegraphed their opinions to Johannesburg as if they were the general opinions. Then extreme opinions from Johannesburg were telegraphed back to the Cape— three red-hot South African party men wired back, so that the people of South Africa should know that that was the feeling of Johannesburg. They were working up public opinion—an old newspaper dodge. What did the right hon. member for Standerton do in the Select Committee? He kept on changing his position. We have practically to a very large extent adopted his amendment and have included the three flags. In his first amendment he did not use the word “substantial” only the word “integral.” He changed his position three times. The grand president of the S.O.E. was here at the time and stuck very closely to the S.A. party. I took it that the right hon. gentleman was taking his instructions from him, for this gentleman told the “Cape Times” that he and Dr. Bennie Hewat were putting this question right. However, you may take that pitcher to the well too many times; it may break. I have a telegram from the Grand President of the S.O.E. stating that his society are irrevocably pledged to secure the inclusion of the Union Jack in the S.A. flag. If the Union Jack has not now beep included I should like to know what has happened. The people are going with us. We have the “Manchester Guardian,” a paper which the right hon. member for Standerton said was the best newspaper in the British empire, and I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will bear him out. The “Manchester Guardian” said—

[Time limit.]

We have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. members opposite, and I ask myself especially whether the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was the speech of a statesman. The late Gen. Botha always said that it was the duty of a statesman to bring the two races together in the interests of the country, but in connection with the flag question, the hon. member for Standerton has not done so. I feel that there is nothing in the world which will bring us so close together as a common flag. I still remember how in 1899 we went into the field to fight for the Free State flag. We stood by it and loved it. At Vereeniging it was pulled down into its grave but it still lives in our hearts. We should have liked to have seen it again on the Union flag, but my great difficulty and the great difficulty of every Freestater was where it could go on the national flag so that it should not be dominated by the Union Jack. We felt that that if the Union Jack was to predominate on the Union flag we should be insulted. There we agree with the Prime Minister. The Government has step by step tried to get unanimity and let me say that I believe that the Government has actually lowered itself to the Opposition. If the Government, however, takes a step forward the Opposition takes two steps to the rear. One can see that the Opposition does not want to arrive at an agreement. What is the reason? I ask the hon. member for Standerton if it is right to keep the people apart seeing he is always preaching the doctrine that we must build up one people in South Africa and must get rid of race hatred. When the Government comes and makes a proposal—practically the proposal for which the hon. member for Standerton has pleaded, viz., the three flags on an equal footing—then it is said that it is not enough. I am certain that the people of South Africa thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior for all the attempts they have made to satisfy the Opposition, and to get the people together and agreed upon the flag question. I am certain that the people have already seen that it is no longer a case with the Opposition of a national flag but a matter of party politics. The people will see that the flag which is adopted will be the symbol for which the sons of both Dutch and English-speaking people will be prepared to sacrifice their lives, and the people will see that the Opposition are trying to make political capital out of the flag question. I am certain that the people of South Africa will not approve of that action, and that it will settle with the South African party in due course. I am certain that the people will put South Africa above party politics and I am certain that it will stand by the Government which is doing everything in its power to find a solution. I again want to appeal—not to the hon. members for Standerton and Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) because I know that would be in vain, but to the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for whom I have the greatest respect, and who. I believe, mean well, and would like to see the country go ahead. I appeal to them to show that they are big men who will put themselves above party politics, and will take the hand of the Government and not regard the flag question as a party political matter, but as a national matter, in order to give the people something which both section, the Dutch and English-speaking jointly, can love. With these few words I hope the hon. members, especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will take the hand of the Government.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) with that irresponsible way he has of talking can be trusted to bring any debate down to his own peculiar level and he has probably surpassed himself in that respect to-night. His speech was one of the most contemptible I have heard in this House for many a day. He dared make remarks about our leader who has a love for South Africa in his heart ten thousand times more than the hon. member has and yet the hon. member makes these charges and insinuations. Parliamentary words fail one when one attempts to deal with a contemptible speech of that kind. He said that the hon. member for Standerton went into the committee determined from the jump not to have a solution.

That is quite true.

I will go as near to parliamentary language as I can and say that is an absolute lie.

Order. To whom is the hon. member referring?

To the statement of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)

The hon. member is not entitled to use that language.

If you say I must not use it I will withdraw it.

You cannot use that language.

Then I say it is absolutely untrue. He said if the matter had been left to the English members of the committee there would have been a solution. The whole of the members of the South African party on the committee, worked with harmonius feeling, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is not entitled to make such a statement which is absolutely untrue. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) made an appeal just now and the sentiments of that appeal are sentiments we reciprocate heartily. In the present state of feeling we seem unable to get together to the state of mind the hon. member has prayed for. For that reason the hon. member for Standerton has set down this motion on the paper and it is for that reason, in spite of the sneers of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), we support the amendment. What other method can we have except that for giving us time to try and soften things. The hon. member for Albert says the people will take the South African party to account for their attitude on this matter. I say that if it comes to a question of testing the feelings of the people we will go with withers unrung to the people of the country, proud and confident that the line we have taken respects the sentiments of the two great races of the country, knowing that they will realize that neither of the two great races is going to be dominated by the other. The speech of the Prime Minister has again produced bitterness and unhappiness for the people He told us this afternoon that the time had now come to settle it and he was going to settle it and if we did not like it he was going to make us take it.

Did you want me to say I was going to withdraw it if you did not.

I hope the Prime Minister, will.

It is just as well I told you emphatically that I was not going to do so.

Are you referring to the statement of this afternoon.

I am referring to the Bill. Do you take exception to my saying if I could not get you to agree this Bill will go through?

I listened to the words and I say a threat of this kind is a regrettable thing in a debate of this nature. It makes the solution impossible. When you have a threat of that kind held out to the people it is going to make settlement by consent absolutely impossible. That is why, in spite of what the Prime Minister says we beg of the House to see what is contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and to see what the implications are and also to see that along that way alone a safe solution lies.

I want to repeat what I said this afternoon. We must understand one another and it is well we do not any longer labour under misapprehension as to what will or what will not happen as far as the Government is concerned. And I say if the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) thinks he is going to have the Union Jack taking a quarter of the flag of the Union he will certainly not have the consent of this part of the House, and in this case this Bill will go through as far as I am concerned.

And the other two flags? What about the Vierkleur and the Free State flag?

No, I will not have the one, so I will not have the three on the flag in that way. I am prepared to take them as indicated at present, and I am prepared to take them in a revised form even, subject to what is said and laid down in Section 14 of the Bill. But I certainly will not have either the one or all of them in that ridiculous form in which the right hon. gentleman put them when he came before the select committee. He knew, or he ought to have known, and the other members of the Opposition ought to have known, that that was an impossible flag.

Why?

There was not a single rule that has to be observed in connection with a flag that was not violated by that flag. From the heraldic point of view there is not a single man who would stand up and say that it was a possible flag. From the aesthetic point of view I must say this, as I said this afternoon, it is nothing but a disgrace, an insult to me and to others if we are so devoid of any sense of what is proper and what is not proper in an artistic thing. I hope that all of the Hag is also to be artistic.

Where does the insult come in?

Well, there are, of course, men whose sense is of such a kind that they will not be insulted by anything.

Don’t debate it.

Of course, I can only speak for myself. If the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has not that same sense perhaps it may be an exceedingly good thing for him, as I believe it is a good thing for some people if they have not got a proper smell. I leave him with his possessions, but as far as I am concerned I say this, and I repeat it, not that it was intended to be an insult, no, in all probability the members who put it forward really had the same want of sense as the hon. member for East London (North). But that does not take away from the fact that a more ridiculous thing I am positive has never been submitted seriously.

interjected.

I am not speaking to the hon. member.

Speak to the country.

I am at present speaking to the House. I say we must be absolutely sure about what we mean. If there has been any false impression so far, I want that false impression to be taken away. This Bill, as far as this party is concerned, no matter how earnestly desirous we are of arriving at a friendly settlement of this question, if we cannot arrive at that, we are determined to go through with this Bill, and I say that if there has been any misapprehension with regard to that the sooner it is removed the better. I say this because it has seemed to me as though there are some people who think really we are here and just pretending. I say this most emphatically, that we shall go through with this as far, at any rate, as we are able to do so.

It won’t be the final settlement.

Well, we can do no more. How far it is going to be a settlement, that the country will have to judge. That is why we are going to submit it to a referendum. I do not know whether my hon. friend thinks that if the people by referendum have selected a flag, that won’t be a settlement. As far as I am concerned, I think it is going to be a very good settlement, a better settlement than the mere authority of this House. I want my hon. friend, and anybody else who has been under a misapprehension as to the seriousness of the Government to go on with this—

We don’t doubt that for a minute. We doubt its wisdom.

I do not see why the hon. member has been so shocked by what I said this afternoon.

The most unfortunate part about the whole of this business, the selection of the flag, is the fact that the Prime Minister has abdicated his function as the Prime Minister and become the mere leader of a party. The Prime Minister owes a duty to the minority of this country. As Prime Minister he should respect their point of view, yet he has selected this flag with the party majority behind him and is determined to force it upon the country. It is two years since this Bill was first introduced, and during that time it has completely divided the country. This merely demonstrates to every fair-minded man the utter impossibility of any political party, either that party or this, choosing a flag for the whole of the country. I will take the Prime Minister on his own ground, upon the grounds of our constitutional position. The argument, as I understand it, is this: the Union Jack is not to appear on the national flag of South Africa because that flag is the flag of Great Britain; it is a foreign flag. He is prepared to see it on a flagpole four days a year and do honour to that foreign flag of Great Britain. That flag can appear on a flagpole for four days a year in order to show our constitutional position, the position which we occupy as a partner in the British empire. That, apparently, is the sole reason in the mind of the Government for the existence of the Union Jack—to show our Imperial connection. From that point of view the Prime Minister had a magnificent opportunity, an opportunity which comes to few men. When he was in London sitting round the conference table, with the other Prime Ministers, he could have evolved a national flag for South Africa containing this Imperial connection and brought it back to represent that higher status which this flag is supposed to represent. I put this to him. This flag is to be a national flag. In addition to showing the national aspirations of the people of this country, it should also be a symbol of the connection with the greater partnership outside; it should also betoken our relationship with the Empire at large. Otherwise, why is this flag necessary? We have had it said many times by the Minister of the Interior that it is necessary to demonstrate our higher status, that our national independent status demands a flag. That is the sole reason for it. Where did that national status come from? Where did the Prime Minister obtain it? He went to London and there, in conference with other Prime Ministers, from other parts of the Empire, they set forth in a solemn document the status of this country They told the world this independent status was recognized as such by the whole of the Empire.

It was not obtained there, it was recognized.

It was recognized there, very well. Where is the recognition of our place in the commonwealth of British nations on this national flag? Is the symbol of our relationship with the British empire to be something separate and distinct from the national flag? If so, it is a denial of our constitutional position. If I had to choose a national flag, I would say both things should be represented, on one flag, not on two—our partnership in the British empire, as well as our own national aspirations. Any flag which does not do that is a sham, it is false. Otherwise you have to get over the difficulty by putting another flag on the flagpole, and saying, “That denotes our imperial relationship; we have no national symbol on our own flag, and we have to fly a separate flag.” Apart from any sense, the English section may have in this country that their own traditions in this country are not represented—I am not arguing that point of view, which is separate and distinct from the imperial connection—the imperial connection is not on that flag. The history of the last two years has shown conclusively that it is utterly impossible for the Government to arrive at a settlement, whether they have a referendum or not. If a referendum is taken and you win, where are you? You are no nearer a solution. You have merely obtained a vote from the people, and a very unsatisfactory vote, as to this flag, which settles nothing. The ultimate result will be, undoubtedly, inevitably, that agitation will grow in this country until the next Government comes in, and will have to repeal this Bill. If you get the country on a better footing—

Will you repeal it by a referendum?

Every principle of wisdom, of consideration, of justice should teach the Prime Minister to go slowly on this matter and see if he cannot follow another path. In pursuing the course that he is pursuing to-day he is abrogating his function of Prime Minister, and has become merely the leader of a party. On ordinary political questions the Prime Minister is justified in putting his opinion through; political parties have certain broad policies to which the electors have agreed, but on a vital issue like the flag question it has been demonstrably proved that the most sacred feelings of the people have been aroused, and whatever legislation he may pass, for the future those feelings will prevail. No settlement has come along this channel. From the point of view of logic, of our status and our position in the empire, a satisfactory solution of the national flag demands that the Prime Minister should pause on the way he is going. I will prophesy this—that two years hence the Prime Minister will be a wiser and a sadder man.

I hope I will be even a wiser man to-morrow, but I am positive of this, that my wisdom will not be the result of the logic and the legal knowledge I have just been listening to. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has been trying to reason. While I am quite prepared to reason with him, and I am glad to hear, at any rate, that there is somebody in the House that is prepared to reason in this case—

We all do.

No, I am afraid not. I have heard them speak from the opposite side, but I have heard no reasoning. That does not mean that the reasoning of the hon. member for Zululand is quite as logical as he thinks; and it is merely because of that that I have risen to say a few words. Of course, the hon. member for Zululand has his own particular theory about our status and the empire, and you cannot get him away from it. He is one of those men who still come along with their “colonial complex” of from twenty to thirty years ago. He has never ceased to be otherwise than a crown colony apostle. That is what they all, or rather the majority, in Natal are—those who are the leaders there, at any rate. It is exactly because of that fundamental error in his logic that I cannot agree with him; it is exactly because of that that I am not prepared to adopt a Union flag on the lines indicated by him and his party. He wants, of course, he tells us, on the Union flag an indication of our belonging to the empire If you ask him what the empire means he will tell you at once: “Of course, that is something of which we, Canada, Australia, etc., are all subjects.” Therefore you must say, “look at this big man standing on the flag.”

What funny ideas you have.

It is not my idea, but my hon. friend who comes here and produces it on almost every occasion. He must realize that we are as free and as independent as Great Britain herself. If he could only realize that, he would at once realize that we have as much right to have a flag as Great Britain has. Then he ought to realize that there is nothing wrong in our having a flag of our own apart from the Union Jack. Surely if any logic is required one would say, that is logic. My hon. friend is not quite so sure as he was a few minutes ago whether he goes with me. Would he tell me?

I will tell the Prime Minister by asking him the question.

Do ask me.

Why is the Prime Minister flying the Union Jack for only four days a year under the Bill?

According to this Bill this is done because it symbolizes the fact of our standing in a certain relation to the empire.

Why should it not be one flag instead of two?

That is a difference of taste merely.

Where is your logic now?

It is very logical only it is a difference of taste. My hon. friend tells us that if we don’t do it we are sinning against the sentiments of every Britisher and are despising and offending them. Why should that be the case?

Are you feeling the pulse of the country now?

The hon. friend cannot get away from the elections which I should say are two years ahead, so we need not trouble our heads about them now. I am trying to meet my hon. friend on a logical basis. Where does his logic come in now? The hon. member reminds me of our constitutional declaration and insinuates that we should really feel very grateful. I ask him what is the real reason for wanting the Union Jack on the South African flag?

If the Prime Minister had tried to evolve a plan in consultation with the empire Premiers to obtain a symbol of our Imperial connection it need not necessarily have been a Union Jack as long as you could assure the British people in this country that by the Empire symbol you are adopting you have not some motive of secession behind it. The Prime Minister, with his career and his speeches, with the bulk of his party in power because of the secession issue, cannot wonder if the British people cannot take everything he says smilingly. Can he expect the British people of this country with all the declarations of the past to take at their face value the fair words which he said about the empire to-day? That is a fair question. If the Prime Minister could have evolved a South African flag having some symbol on it which would have betokened to everybody the determination of the Minister to recant from anything he said in the past and adhere to the principles he adopted in London recently, there might have been no trouble whatever about the Imperial connection. He has not done that. What he has done instead is to bring a national flag from which not only the symbol of partnership in the Empire is excluded, but also every vestige of British sentiment as well, and he has put up instead a flag which represents the British section of the community, to fly four days in the year. I hope the Minister appreciates this.

Oh, I appreciate it very greatly.

The Prime Minister has said so much in the past that is recanted to-day, that it makes it difficult to know where we stand. If the Prime Minister had set out to get a national flag for South Africa, which would show indisputably the connection of South Africa with the rest of the Empire, with the secession issue banished, the difficulties would have disappeared.

I am glad we have at last got it. The reason why the Union Jack must be on the national flag is because of my past, and I must give a pledge of my good faith, and I take it I do not stand alone, the Nationalists—

They follow you.

I thought so. I like to make it clear. Because of the bad past and the bad record of myself, and of the Dutch-speaking and other Nationalists [interruptions] I thought the Nationalists counted only the Dutch-speaking [interruptions.] Oh, I see, at any rate it includes 90 per cent. of the Dutch-speaking. Just because of the bad faith and the bad record of myself and the Nationalists, Dutch and English-speaking, we are called upon by hon. members opposite to give a pledge on our honour of our good faith, and I wonder what more. Let me tell the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), I dare say he has had to do with a good many cowards and cads in his days, but let me give him the assurance I hope I am not yet a coward or a cad, and I speak on behalf of the rest of my party, and I have never yet found them either cowards or cads, and if he thinks we are going to satisfy him or anybody else by giving proof we are neither cowards nor cads, he can go back to Zululand. I have no doubt you may find men like that who will or may do such things where he has been accustomed to associate with such men. You will not find them with me, or in this House. It is clear to me that that, of course, is really what is at the back of these people. They do not know very often what honour is, and the result is that they do not see, they have not that feeling sufficient to make them realise when they are trying to get something which is dishonourable. You are not going to get me, you are not going to get Dutch-speaking or Nationalist South Africans to submit to your branding them as dishonourable in any way. Fortunately there are not many, no, they are that small minority which will voice their feelings, and which will misunderstand, as his leader has said a few weeks ago in this House. They are a small minority, but that is exactly the kind of mind with which they are imbued, and I say again this evening, that that is something which is being felt more than what the majority of people in or outside the House realise, by Dutch-speaking South Africa. Dutch-speaking South Africa has been feeling that stigma long enough, and Dutch-speaking South Africa is determined that that stigma shall cease.

What stigma?

I have told the House this afternoon, and I will say it again, the wrong under which they have been labouring, at any rate, since 1910, that wrong when English-speaking South Africa could go, as they are going to-day, about with their Union Jack—

Some of them.

Of course I am speaking of that small section again, because it was asked me, “What stigma?” That small section goes about. The Union Jack is their flag and nobody else’s. That flag must be used to dominate everybody that does not belong to their small coterie, and every time the Union Jack must be floated in the face of Dutch-speaking South Africa without any reason but to show their own superiority naturally over the others.

And this is the Prime Minister!

Yes, it is the Prime Minister who is telling some of the hon. members a truth which they have never heard before. Dutch-speaking South Africa, I repeat it, feels that this is a wrong that has to be settled in South Africa. They are as much entitled to a flag which they can call theirs as English-speaking South Africa, or any section—

Hear, hear.

Then may I ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), why should they not have their flag?

The two sections have got to be represented on that flag. You forget about that.

How are they represented in any better form than any other section?

We said the flags of the old republics should be on the one side, and the Union Jack on the other.

No, we shall not do it, because we know this, that there is no equality then.

Why not?

Because you are still dominating the whole position through your Union Jack. But my hon. friend forgets what his colleague has just said, that he wants the Union Jack—why? Because he does not trust me. In other words your Union Jack must be in a dominant position. It is no use my hon. friend trying to wriggle out of that.

I am not trying to wriggle out of anything.

That is the position taken up by his friend. My hon. friend is quite genuine and sincere. I will concede that. We have just had an admission that the Union Jack must be there on a quarter of the flag at any rate in order that it may symbolize the dominance over me and others, we faithless, bad Nationalists, that is why it must be there.

That is very unfair.

I leave it to the House whether that is fair or not. Dutch-speaking South Africa has been waiting these many years. It has patiently waited. It has done everything in its power to get this flag business settled by agreement. It has failed. Why? Because of a small section, of which the hon. member for Zululand is representative, a small section who will never be got to show to the Dutch-speaking South Africans anything like fair play.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) when he spoke a few minutes ago suggested a new flag. What I would like to know from the hon. member is whether he was speaking for himself or whether the right hon. member for Standerton is about to make another change and withdraw the amendment at present before the Committee and substitute another one. The point that the hon. member also made was apparently that the Government was relying upon its majority to impose something upon the minority. That is absolutely inaccurate, because the provision is made that the decision of this House shall not be binding until such time as the electorate shall have had an opportunity of giving their mandate to the House. The only reason I can see for the S.A party attitude is that they are really opposed to the referendum, and they do not want the people of South Africa to have any say in the matter except at an election, when they can raise the flag issue. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) accused the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) of having made mis-statements of what had taken place before the Select Committee. I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that anyone who sat on that committee and watched impartially what was taking place could have come to no other conclusion than that there was no desire on the part of the right hon. member for Standerton to arrive at a settlement. Because after all if you want settlement and compromise you must expect that not only one side should make concessions, but the other side should also do so. In the House and in the Select Committee not a single inch was moved by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his party. All they said was—

When it comes back before Parliament you will have it all over again.

Can you set the example by the speeches we have just been listening to?

These speeches are very moderate in comparison with some we have been listening to from the South African party. May I say without any hesitation that I had taken up a certain attitude in connection with the matter, and that a mistake had probably been made in bringing the matter before the public when it was satisfied with the work the Pact was carrying on. But the Government showed throughout, and particularly our Nationalist friends, not only in this House, but in Committee and in the Select Committee, that it was their honest and earnest desire to arrive at some solution. The “Rand Daily Mail,” which has been an ardent supporter of the South African party, and attacking the Government right up to when the Select Committee sat, and which represent the opinion of thousands of people, stated that they were looking to the Select Committee for a solution and settlement, and that that settlement was made impossible by the attitude adopted by the South African party. That opinion will be as valuable as that of hon. members opposite. The “Rand Daily Mail” stated—

and in the same article it continues—

I do honestly believe when the people of South Africa come to give their decision at a referendum they will be faced with two positions—on the one hand, with definite evidence given by the present Government of their desire to unite the two sections of the people, as evidenced by the great work of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference and by the Prime Minister at the Select Committee, whereas on the other hand, the South African party, by their absence of any attempt to arrive at a compromise, have shown that, although they talk a great deal about a united people, their desire is to rouse racial passions in South Africa. They realise that the chances which have been given to them are fast slipping away from them, and you can see that by the subdued manner of the South African party in the debate. They recognise that although Sir Abe Bailey told us that as the result of the policy of the Government the South African party were taking the crape off, they can now put it up again.

The best way to decide whether the crepe has come off the South African party hat and the tide has turned, is to have a general election. I don’t think the Prime Minister has been fair. He appears to be very much prejudiced against the use of the Union Jack and he has laid it down several times that he will not allow the Union Jack to be in a predominant position. But nobody wants it in a predominant position. He maintains that several hon. members want the Union Jack on the flag to show the connection with the old country in a dominant position. Nothing of the kind. We demand that the Union Jack be there because it is our flag—the flag, at any rate, of 45 per cent. of the people of this country. Surely they have a right to demand fair representation.

Where would you have the Union Jack?

Mind your own business.

That is my business.

The Prime Minister’s speech was not worthy of him. I have received considerable support for the attitude I took up on this question at the second reading stage. I am an Englishman, and descended from English people and we have done as much as any people in South Africa to help to build up this country. Who have done more to build up South Africa than the English-speaking people?

German capital.

Nonsense.

Don’t you get the same position on that flag as the others?

If you had not English brains, English people and English capital the country would not be in the position it is today. We claim the same right to representation on the flag as do the Dutch-speaking people.

Where is the inequality in this design?

The Union Jack is too small. It is no use trying to put us off. It is a mere button. Why don’t you give us the right to select our own flag? We claim the right to have some say in the matter. You claim that you are going to force the flag through. Where is the inequality of our point of view? I remember the Prime Minister and President Steyn coming to the National Convention. My friend said then, “Give me the language rights, and I will work heart and soul to bring about Union.” Did we raise the slightest difficulty about Clause 137? Not the slightest.

Where is the inequality to-day?

There will be inequality. We do not consider the English-speaking people have a fair representation on that flag.

You want predominance in your design.

We say, “Give us a quarter to represent the sentiments and the past of the English-speaking people of this country, and take two other quarters to represent the sentiments of the other two republican peoples.” We stand exactly where we stood at the first. We claim one quarter representation for the English-speaking people of South Africa,

You have got it on the shield.

The shield is not good enough for us. And let me tell the Prime Minister if he takes the Labour men as representing the English-speaking people, he is absolutely wrong.

They do not represent the jingo element.

The Prime Minister will find it out. Let him try an election if he likes.

It will come in time.

To suggest that we want to use the flag for election purposes is absolutely untrue. The best thing to do is to take the Union Jack out of the shield and put it in the quarter.

Which quarter?

My hon. friend talks about heraldry, so I leave it to him. I simply lay down that principle.

But you have not told us all you want.

Yes, I have, we want the Union Jack in one quarter.

In which quarter?

Tell us where you want it.

It is said the English people are divided; you are mistaken. I have never known the feeling amongst the English-speaking people more disturbed than it is to-day. It is remarkable the extent to which it is disturbed. English-speaking people do not talk much about it, but when it comes to the voting time, they will express their opinion. [Time limit.]

I would like to say a few words in respect of what the hon. member has said. Let me tell him that I am not going to be frightened anymore with these things about whether this is not worthy and that is not worthy. This is a case where I am going to have plain speaking. The hon. member complains about inequality. I have asked him for ever and ever where is there any inequality? He says—

Right, that is exactly what we have done in this flag.

It does not give adequate representation to the English-speaking people.

That is a different thing. He says give us adequate representation.

A quarter.

Which quarter?

No, I know they won’t say. They know what they want. They know very well that no artist nor anybody who has to do with heraldry nor any man of business would approve of a flag containing those three flags and another quarter. They know that is impossible, but they want the Union Jack. They don’t care where they put the Union Jack, because that will be the only flag eventually if there is to be a flag upon it.

How do you make that out?

For the rest you will have all colours. Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) be good enough to present us to-morrow with a flag such as he wants? I asked him this morning.

That is how your flag was made.

It is quite likely. We were not afraid so as to hide under a bushel what we wanted. No, we had the courage of our convictions to say what we wanted. We did not by vague words first take up one position and then go to another position and then come back to the previous position.

How many times have you run away from your flag? How many flags have you run away from?

At any rate if it has been a running away it was always to come and meet you. It was not to try and obscure the issue as the right hon. the member for Standerton did. To come back to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Let him come with his design. Surely it is not such a difficult thing. Surely a few hours ought to be quite sufficient to come with a design such as he wants. They know very well it is an impossible thing. He knows he cannot do it and he wants to pretend by saying “the Union Jack must be equal.” He thinks in that way he will get us not to go on with the Flag Bill and then eventually come to us and say: “Well you see it is impossible, we had better let it stand over for two or three years.” That was the idea underlying the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Even in his amendment before the House at present there is nothing else but that. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has no right to say “we must have an equality,” as if there is anything unequal in what is suggested. No, there is perfect equality. If he says it is inadequate I say you must show something which is adequate, and if you cannot do so you must not tell us we cannot go on with ours. Oh, no. You see, if we did that and we tried to meet you again we would be running away again as your right hon. leader has just said. Surely my hon. friend does not want us to run away constantly. I think we have run away quite sufficiently. You cannot blame us if we say: “Here we make a halt; here we are going to make a stand.” I was going to tell my hon. friend what I suggested in Committee as far as the Union Jack is concerned if that would offer a solution, but after he says he does not want the shield, then unfortunately I have nothing more to say. Again I have to say we must go on.

And damn the consequences.

It is no use wasting anymore time over this, and I hope we shall come to a vote very soon.

I move—

I would like to move an amendment—

I think we ought to have an opportunity of voting whether we want this Bill to go forward or not. I am going to suggest to the Government that instead of proceeding with this Bill they should call a conference of the Flag Commission and Flag Committees and see if a suitable design could not be arrived at and brought forward next session, taking the design now suggested by the Government as a basis.

The hon. member cannot move that amendment. It must be moved as a separate motion. We must first dispose of the motion before us.

Motion put, and Mr. Alexander called for a division.

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mr. Alexander) voted against the motion, the Chairman declared the motion agreed to.