I move—

I want to put to the Minister a report which I have seen in the press, which I want to have confirmed or denied. It is to this effect, that members of the Railway Board have recently passed a resolution voting themselves life passes over the railways. The Minister, as chairman of the board, should know. If this report is wrong, I have nothing further to say. If I am right—I shall proceed on the assumption that I am right—

You are not right. The position is this: the hon. member is not quite right that members of the Railway Board have recently voted themselves life passes. Life passes have been issued to them on specific Government authority.

I have now the information and I can discuss the matter. This board has been in existence for a great many years, and I have the authority of my hon. friend who sits in front of me (Mr. Jagger) for saying that at no previous period have members of the board been granted life passes. These gentlemen are appointed by the State to serve for a period of five years, and receive a very handsome salary and several other perquisites; and it is understood that their appointment is only temporary. This Government, which got into power on the plea of economy, and said it would show us how to conduct the finances of the country and replace the “costly and spendthrift” South African party Government, has during these three years in office done more to increase the cost of administration, both in the civil service and in the railway administration, than any previous Government that has existed in this country. This is one of the latest instances of the way they carry on. Here we have the railways budgeting for a deficit—the railways which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) handed over in a flourishing condition, at last having turned the corner, which are now budgeting for a deficit; and to signalize that achievement the Railway Board are now to receive passes over the railways for life. When they go out of office they are to be given perpetual free passes! I say this is a scandalous thing, and it is no credit to the Government to allow such a thing to go on. It is absolutely wrong. Next year we will be told that they are voted a Lincoln car! Any Government which does that, and says it is trying to conduct the administration of the country economically is itself convicted of hypocrisy.

It seems to me that this extraordinary procedure on the part of the Government needs more than the passing reference made to it by the acting Minister of Railways and Harbours. What justification is there for this priceless boon being bestowed on these gentlemen? At the short time at my disposal I have been looking round for what distinguished services these gentlemen have rendered, and I find from the Short Account of Labour Organization in South Africa that Mr. Whiteside, known as “The People’s Peter,” one of the gentlemen who has come in for this windfall, has had a long connection with the Labour party. People’s Peter, as far as I am able to find, has not done anything for the State beyond being a member of the Siemert Division of the first Transvaal Parliament, and he was subsequently appointed to membership of the inter-colonial railway council, and at Union elected a member of the first Senate. He continued in office until recently, when he was appointed a railway commissioner. That seems to me a very short cut to a life pass on the railways, and if all of us were to be rewarded in proportion to our modest merits, I do not think that there would be sufficient life passes to go round. We come to the case of another member of the board, Mr. Kuit, against whose qualifications as a member of the railway board I have nothing to say. I understand he occupies a very high position in the esteem of everybody who knows him, and I have heard nothing but good of Mr. Kuit; but what public services has he rendered prior to his coming to this high office that entitles him to a life pass on the railways? Mr. Wilcocks, as we all know, is a personality who is extremely popular in this House because of his very fine personal qualities; but there are other men with the equally good record of public services that Mr. Wilcocks may justly lay claim to; and surely we must have some justification for actions of this sort on the part of the Government, if we, as representatives of the taxpayers, are not merely here as dummies to sit with folded hands and give a nodding assent to everything that is proposed. This extraordinary action on the part of the Government is one of the indications of their absolute contempt for public opinion. In future we may expect that people with no stronger claims than those of the “people’s Peter,” who burst into office to-day, will to-morrow be given a life pass over the railways. I make the strongest remonstrance against the broadcasting of free passes for life to people who have no claims to such a privilege. The railways are supposed to be run on business principles. The railway commissioners are well paid—they get something like £2,000 a year each—they are not overworked, they do no overtime—in fact, they are not on the piecework system. I am in no way disparaging these gentlemen, but I am demurring to the bestowal of free life passes upon men who have done nothing, as far as I am aware, to place them in merit above their fellows in the public service.

I think that the grant of free passes for life to members of the Railway Board is on a par with the general reckless way in which the railways are being managed financially. Where does the idea come from to give these life passes to the railway commissioners? The Minister of Finance says that the Government approved of it by special resolution, but I presume that the idea came from the Railway Board itself which asked the Government to grant the passes. This shows that the highest board on the railways gives the tone, and I am therefore not surprised at the enormous expenditure of the Railway Administration to-day. What sort of feeling must it create among the people and among the railway staff when the Railway Board makes such a request? I am not dealing with the matter from a personal point of view but I consider it a question of principle. I have great respect for my hon. friend, Mr. Wilcocks, but it is not a question whether the life passes shall be granted to Mr. Wilcocks or Mr. Kuit. In principle I am opposed to the wrong step which the Government has taken in this regard. It will have a bad effect in South Africa, in the railway— and in the public service. A bad example is being given and we shall have to pay It has been done by the Government which promised the people it would economize. It seems a comparatively small matter but yet it involves a principle which the people will take note of, and as a result of which it may ask the Government why it is not fulfilling the promise of economy made at the last election. I did not see the report in the newspaper and if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) had not raised it I should have known nothing of the matter. I want to assure the Government that the publication hereof will have a far-reaching effect. In comparison with the expenditure for the financial year 1924-’25 there has been during the current financial year an increase in the railway expenditure of £4,600,000.

The railway mileage has been increased by 1,000 miles.

The Minister will possibly say that there has been an extension of the railway system, an increase of traffic and a larger revenue, but although I admit that the traffic and the revenue have increased the increase has not kept pace with the increase in expenditure.

What about the Worcester-Villiersdorp line which you have yourself proposed?

The constitution lays down that the resources of the country must be developed by the railways, but the development cannot take place if the administration is not able to lower the railway rates.

The rates have already been reduced by more than £1,000,000.

The people of South Africa are panting for a reduction of railway rates because it is necessary in the interests of agriculture, mining and industries. We find that the administration costs are so high that the administration cannot comply with the demands for development. We talk a great deal of economic and industrial development in the House, but if railway rates are kept high then it is impossible to talk of industrial development. We cannot compete with the imported articles, and the result will be that the farming population and the industries of the country will always be coming to the House for more and more protection. The position of the farming population is that costs of production ought to be as low as possible because we have to compete overseas insofar as fruit, wool and maize are concerned against countries where labour is well organized, and where industries stand at a very high level. On the overseas markets our farmers receive no protection. I say expressly that if we do not now become in earnest about the expenditure of the country then we shall not have prosperity in the future. We are now voting here £28,700,000 for the railway service, and yesterday we voted £41,000,000 on loan account and for the general expenditure of the country. This means in all an expenditure of about £70,000,000.

Move a reduction.

The responsibility is on the Government, and I say emphatically that South Africa in its present state of development is not able to stand such an annual burden. There is no sign of economy, especially not in the railway service. The Minister who is actually responsible for the railway administration is unfortunately not here now. One can go through the railway service from A to Z without finding any sign of economy. Then the railway administration is being used by the Minister of Railways and Harbours as a political machine.

Do you call it politics when poor people are assisted?

I am the last man to say anything against helping the poor man, but we must remember that people can be assisted from the bank into the sluit. In many respects that is being done now, because proper enquiries are not made whether the man who is taken on as a poor white in the railway service cannot make a living on the land. I know of cases where young Afrikanders with their wives and children who have had good homes on the farms applied for work in the railway service and were employed at 5s. or 6s. a day. In appointing such people care was not taken to see whether some of the persons appointed would not succeed better on the farms. To-day there are 14,000 white labourers in the railway service, but I think many of them ought not to be there, but on the land. Various young married men have come to me as their representative and said that they have left the farms where they had free housing and could make gardens and keep pigs and fowls.

No one stops them from going back.

Their places have in the meantime been taken by others with the result that they wander about from one village to the other followed by their wives and children.

It is their own fault.

Therefore, I say that there ought to be a proper system of enquiry and discrimination. If it is ascertained that a man has had a proper living on a farm then he ought to have been left there. That was not done and the result is that many of our people who made a living on the farm have to-day been attracted by the so-called policy of civilized labour and are in a worse position than they were in on the farms. I consider that the railway administration reflects the prosperity of the country. Notwithstanding the high revenue the Minister had a deficit during the past financial year, and this year another deficit is expected. This shows that there is a screw loose in the financial administration of the railways, and it is the duty of Parliament and of the Government to see that the mistake is rectified. The railways are the pivot around which the welfare of all our industries turns, and the railways again are dependent on the prosperity of the country’s industries. If the railways are not used to encourage agriculture, mining and industries, then the railways will also not pay. £150,000,000 has been invested in the railways. I do not object to that but such a large capital investment requires a strong and safe administration. We have these figures of high expenditure before us, and this grant of free life passes to the railway commissioners shows what spirit prevails in the highest administration of the railway service, when the railway board comes and recommends, and the Government unanimously agrees, that these passes should be granted. Where are things going to end if a person who is appointed for five years and who on one pretext or another can retire before the end of his term can thereafter travel gratis on the railways for life. Can the privilege be refused in future to other railway commissioners? The principle has been laid down, and the Government and the railway administration are bound by it. It is clear to me that there is a, spirit of reckless expenditure prevailing on the railways.

I think we ought to be grateful to the Opposition for bringing up this matter, and we are still more glad to see that they have a desire for economy. The matter did not, however, Mart here, and the incident mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is not the first which must be condemned. Therefore, we must go back to the time when the grant of free railway passes to officials and ex-Ministers arose. Perhaps it will be a good thing if the memories of hon. members opposite are slightly refreshed. It is necessary to notice that the system already was in force under the old Colonial Government, and that on a former occasion a select committee recommended that the system should be abolished because it meant the sacrifice of revenue. It was recommended that the regulations should be reviewed. That was done, and the regulations were consolidated and brought up in Act No. 22 of 1916. The principle of free passes was therefore incorporated in an Act passed by the S.A.P. Government, but why is it then such a crying evil to-day. I agree with the Opposition that the privileges in connection with free passes on the railways should be curtailed, but if it is wrong to-day, then it was wrong in 1916.

But you were going to rectify everything.

It was not only included in the Act of 1916, but one of the regulations leaves the granting of free passes to the discretion of the general manager, and it is not left in the hands of the Government. According to Regulation 55, the general manager gets the right to issue free passes to other people such as ex-Ministers and officials.

Free passes for life?

They are free passes.

Not for life.

I do not say that they are life passes but the issue of free passes is left to the general manager. Now I come to the matter of life railway passes. The principle was adopted by the previous Government, viz., that every man who has been a Minister—whether he has served for a day or a year— should have a free railway pass for life. Is that not also an unsound principle? We need not go into how many members of the Opposition there are who were Ministers for a short while and today have free life passes. I do not wish to mention the names, but of the 40 life passes which have been issued the majority are held by hon. members of the Opposition. If they are annoyed at the system then they must surely clearly point out who is making the most use of a system which they object to. I agree that it is an unsound principle to grant free passes to people who have served for only three or five years, but if it is an unsound principle in that case then it is also an unsound principle that ex-Ministers should have free life passes. I hope the Opposition will be logical and will support the abolition of free life passes to ex-Ministers. I want briefly to answer the statement of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that the Minister of Railways and Harbours is using the railways as a political machine.

It is true.

It is one of the most unworthy statements that we have ever had in the House, and it is unworthy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to say so. Those who make the statement should prove it and if they do not do so then they are responsible to the public and to the 95,000 railway officials for the accusation they have made. It is unworthy to make the accusation when the Minister has gone out of his way to create opportunities, by extensions and developments, for our youth to make a living. The Opposition must be honest and frankly say that in the first place they object to railwaymen being imported from overseas any longer, and in the second place civilized labourers being employed. Those are the two grievances of the Opposition. When the hon. member for Caledon says that people have gone into the railway service who ought rather to have remained on the land I admit that there are cases where it is true. It is not, however, true in principle. I know of cases where people have got appointments in the railway service, but it was then ascertained that they could make a living on the land, and they were immediately discharged. The Administration as a matter of fact uses a proper discretion. We are thankful to-day that there is a feeling amongst all in the country that we should keep a more watchful eye on the country’s finances, and we expect the assistance of the Administration to bring about retrenchment. If, however, incidents are referred to and the principles which prevailed in the past are suppressed then I regard it as a weak attack by the Opposition. I hope that this habit of making the accusation of political considerations—as the hon. members for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), Cape Town (Central) and Caledon have done in the House will not occur again. It is of course a hidden attack on the civilized labour policy of the Government.

I wish to support the hon. member in regard to the issue of life passes to members of the railway board. It is all very well for the hon. member opposite to say the previous Government had to pass an Act to regulate this. If he looked at it he would find that Act was passed in order that the varying provincial regulations governing the issue of free passes should be withdrawn and regulations for the whole Union substituted. That is what the Act was. That Act was passed to consolidate the regulations with regard to free passes in the several provinces. We had a report from the Auditor-General in regard to this matter, a rather interesting report which I am surprised the hon. member has not referred to. In Section 131 it is provided—

This is a strong report by the Auditor-General on the ordinary free passes, and here we have the case of the life passes. The only life passes granted were those granted to those men who it was laid down should nave these passes when the present Prime Minister was a member of the Government. They are the present Ministry, past Ministries, the General Manager of Railways, and Mr. A. J. Robb, Mr. T. S. McEwan and Mr. G. C. S. Clark, all men who have spent their lives in the service. These three men the hon. member is speaking of have spent only two years in the service, and they have higher salaries. Why should they have life passes? This new issue has been kept quiet and nothing would have been known of it but for a little paragraph in the papers. The Auditor-General has gone very far in his report this year. He has gone into the matter very fully and he takes strong exception to the passes issued by the Department. In regard to press passes he says—

This issue of free press passes is becoming a positive scandal. Let me give a few examples. I am not going to mention the names. I remember the time the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance were on the Railway Committee. They were very much opposed to free passes in regard to the press, but when they were told their own party press got the same privileges they kept very quiet after that. Take the first case. A free pass to a man for an article in “The Sun and Agricultural Journal” by “our special correspondent”; another for an article on the agricultural show, Johannesburg, and published in the “Natal Farmer”; another for an article on the Currie Cup cricket published in the Natal “Week End Advertiser.” There is another for an atricle on the “Truth about Electrification.” A select committee made a very strong report of the electrification scheme last session and immediately afterwards a certain gentleman was invited to write an article on the “Truth about Electrification,” and he got a free pass not only to visit Glencoe but to go to Johannesburg. The Auditor-General says—

It was given to us in evidence that some of these articles were not worth publishing and yet they had free passes. A free pass was issued to the editor of the “Natal Mercury on July 26th from Durban to Johannesburg, and return on 11th August, to report on the electrification system in Natal, made on the request of the general manager, to write an article on “The truth about electrification”— after the select committee had reported.

Order. I understand the hon. member is quoting from a report which is not available for other hon. members. I do not think the hon. member should do that.

I understand that this had been reported to the House.

The report has been laid on the Table of the House, but it has not yet been printed.

When a report of a select committee is laid on the Table of the House I understand it can be used by hon. members if it is not published. Cannot an hon. member make a quotation?

I understand that the practice in the past has been that hon. members could not use a report until it is available for other hon. members. If it is the intention to print a report I think the right time for hon. members to make use of it is when other hon. members can have it. If a report is on the Table of the House it is accessible to all hon. members, and they can make use of it, but where there is a direction that it shall be printed, hon. members should not make use of it until it has been printed.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there have been several reports laid on the Table, which have not been printed, and are accessible to hon. members? They have used the reports, or quoted from the reports, or made extracts. With all respect, I wish to point out that we are supposed to be in the last week of this session; the Select Committee of Railways and Harbours have sat for many days, and brought in an exhaustive report. There is no possibility, from what we have heard, that that report can possibly be printed and be in the hands of hon. members before Parliament is prorogued. Under those circumstances, would it not be departing from the privileges of hon. members if information is secured and laid on the Table and hon. members may have access to that report, and not quote from it? I maintain, with all due respect, that in the maintenance of the privileges of members of this hon. House, when a report of a select committee is laid on the Table, it is the property of every hon. member of this House, and, as such, every hon. member has access to it and the right and privilege of quoting from it, if he so desires. I think, sir, you will agree with me it is a very important point, and because it is so important, we desire to have your ruling. We might get into a condition where a report is laid on the Table a few days before Parliament is prorogued, and laid on the Table a few days before with the deliberate purpose of preventing discussion of the information obtained by that select committee.

I do not wish to curtail discussion in any way whatever, but there is rather a difference between the case to which the right hon. member has referred, where a report is laid on the Table, and is accessible to every hon. member; and the case when a report is brought up and ordered by the House to be printed, and has gone to the printers. In such a case the report is not available to hon. members, and it seems to me to be hardly fair to other hon. members for one hon. member, who is a member of the select committee, to make use of the information contained in the report when other hon. members do not have that information. There is much to be said for the point made by the right hon. member, namely, that we are far advanced in the session, and that there may be important points in the report which should be discussed, and under the circumstances, I think that the hon. member may proceed. I do not want hon. members to understand, however, that where the House has ordered a report to be printed, they are at liberty to make use of that report—until it is in the hands of all hon. members of the House. Seeing that the session is almost at an end, and I am not sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss the report, I will allow hon. members to refer to the terms of the report.

I am very much obliged to you, sir, for your decision, but would like your decision on this: When a report is referred to the printers and has not come up from them, there may be vital matters in it, and we may have no opportunity of using the information in that report, unless there is a certain amount of liberality. I hope it is a matter which will engage your attention, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry I did not appreciate when I started the old rule that the report had to be printed first. I thought the report had been laid on the Table, and I thought that an official document put in by the Auditor-General would be available to this committee. However, I shall not labour the matter further; I want to refer to one point only. A free pass is granted, and the Chief Accounting Officer has to certify that the article written is of sufficient general value. He has turned down the application because the article is not of sufficient general value, and his decision has been overridden, and a free pass given. Under these circumstances, I am perfectly correct when I say the issue of free passes has become a perfect scandal. Everybody who reads the report will agree with me—the method pursued is dangerous. Nobody objects to the old principle where a newspaper is required to report a speech, say, of the Prime Minister or a prominent member of the Opposition, and a free pass is issued to that newspaper; but here is a case of passes that have been issued to the writers of articles which are of no general value. The principle has grown. Here we have life passes issued to men of not four years of service. We should register our strong protest in this matter, and see that not only should regulations be issued in future, but they should be approved of by Parliament, as has been asked for by the select committee over and over again.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has raised a matter in connection with press tickets with which we all agree and about which the select committee has expressed its opinion. The hon. member now wants, however, to throw all the blame on the Government. We all know that it is a wrong system, but it has been going on for years, and the Government cannot be attacked in that connection. The issue of free tickets to pressmen is in the hands of the general manager’s office, and the Minister has nothing to say about it.

It must be altered.

We want to alter it and the select committee suggest it. I want, however, to point out to the House what is going on. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) has read out a number of cases where press tickets in his opinion were wrongly issued, and I now want to inform the House why the tickets were issued. The press are entitled to a certain number of forms which are filled in and handed over to the stationmaster. Then free tickets are issued. If we go into the number which the hon. member mentioned, then we shall see that in not a single case is a Dutch or Nationalist newspaper concerned. The abuse of the privilege has occurred with newspapers that support hon. members opposite. No Nationalist newspaper committed this dishonest act, because I think that some of the cases were dishonest acts. It is left to the feeling of honesty of the papers themselves to fill in the forms and to ask for free tickets. Most of the cases occurred in Natal newspapers. Not one is a Nationalist or Dutch paper. The bull fight and the ball on the occasion of the King’s birthday and the other cases were all made use of by English papers. It is a scandal that newspapers should so abuse a privilege, and I am glad to say that not one Nationalist or Dutch paper did so. That is not referred to, but now they talk about the sins of the Government. The system has always existed, and I hope that the Government will rectify matters. After the free tickets are issued the article which is written has to be handed over to the Administration. It is looked into and decided whether the occasion justified a free ticket or not. There is the case of Mr. Dewdney Drew, who was going to write an article about the Native Bills. He never wrote the article, but yet his free ticket was approved. No, we agree on the point that it is a scandal, but it is not fair of hon. members opposite to throw the blame on the Government seeing the system has already existed for years, and we have agreed that it ought to be altered. And especially as it has been abused by the press of hon. members opposite. If it were proved that newspapers supporting the Government had abused the privilege then we should have heard how the Government was, in an unjust way, preferring “Die Burger,” “Die Volksblad” and other Nationalist papers.

You are now trying to divert attention from the real point.

As soon as we tell the truth then that is said. Where the Railway Administration has sinned it was not in one case in favour of a newspaper supporting the Government, but always for the benefit of Opposition newspapers. The select committee felt strongly about the matter, and I hope the Government will put things right. I want, however, to ask hon. members opposite to be fair for once in their lives

The best plan is to abolish passes to the press, but give them reduced fares if they wish to report speeches by distinguished persons. The Minister would do a very good service indeed if he did away with free passes. However, we started to discuss a very much more important matter than that of passes to the press, and it is no use trying to draw a red herring across the trail by referring to press passes when the real subject of the debate is life passes to members of the Railway Board. I wish to add my strongest protest to giving life passes to three members of the Railway Board. What justification is there for that? These gentlemen have been in office for only three years, they are well paid, £2,000 a year, and travel about in a State coach.

So do your higher railway officials.

That is a very different story. They travel about on duty.

So do the members of the board,

Why do they want a special coach? I take very strong exception to giving these gentlemen free passes for life. I refused free passes when I was in office. As far as I can recollect, I gave only one free pass for life, and that was to the present Minister of Lands, and he was entitled to it under the law as he proved that he had been a member of the Executive Council of the old Transvaal. I had a similar application from a strong supporter of this side of the House, but I refused it. I also refused similar applications from some of the higher railway officials going on pension. As to the issue of passes to distinguished visitors, that is done all over the world. I also refused to issue passes to members of the Empire Parliamentary Association, and they have not forgotten to reproach me with it to this day.

And I have refused them.

Then we agree on that point, and I wish the Minister had refused these other passes. I did not appoint an additional member to the board when Sir Andries Stockenstroom died, as I wished to cut down expenses. This issue of life passes to members of the Railway Board is a grave abuse.

It is rather a gross exaggeration to call it a grave abuse.

What is it, then?

The general manager of railways has a life pass.

Exactly. But that is a very different story.

Other railway officers who have been years in the service have also got life passes.

I refused a life pass to the chief civil engineer and to two others besides when going on pension. Even that would have been more justified, because they had been years in the service; in fact, they had grown up in the old Cape service. I am not sure that I did right in refusing the civil engineer, but to think these gentlemen who have less than five years’ service should have life passes, is a gross scandal. Where are we going to end? What shall we do to prevent the Government some day giving free passes to its best supporters in the House. When I saw it first in the papers, I could not credit it, and thought it must only be a rumour. Somebody has got to pay for it, and it will be the people up-country who are the users of the railway. Then on the question of coal rates. The coal trade for export and bunker is falling off. In March it dropped 74,000 tons, and in April, 60,000 tons, and if you compare it with December, there is a falling off of 100,000 tons. This is a position where you cannot afford to wait. When I took office there was a question of reducing the rates, although we were losing money, but we did it on the principle that it is better to have half a loaf than no bread. It was a case of getting the traffic, because if the traffic once leaves the line, you get nothing at all. The question is a serious one, because the price of coal in Europe is falling rapidly. The best Newcastle steam coal is quoted now at 14s. 6d. to 14s. 9d., compared with 24s. 6d. at the beginning of the year. In six months it has dropped by 10s. a ton. If we do not give every facility and charge the lowest rates possible, we are going to let the coal trade slip out of our hands.

Is that price at the pit-head?

Yes, I suppose it is. The Minister should see if something can be done on behalf of the trade in the Transvaal and Free State for the export trade, because it is most important at present to retain this trade.

I should not have intervened in this debate at this stage, but Mr. Drew’s case has been mentioned, and I do not think the facts have been stated quite correctly, and that is why I wish to refer to it. Mr. Drew got this pass to go to Bloemfontein quite bona fide, in order to get the views on the Native Bills of the native congress which was then sitting. He was also supposed to go to report on an agricultural show in Natal but he was kept in Bloemfontein longer than he expected, waiting for instructions from the Transvaal, so he missed that. Nevertheless, he went to Natal and wrote some articles, but not on the show. When he heard trouble had occurred about the money, he sent it at once by postal order to the general manager, and the general manager, after considering the circumstances, returned the money to him.

There is one point in the Bill I would like some information from the Minister upon, and that is Clause 3. It appears to me a new principle is introduced in the clause, because it says, savings under the head may be made available for any excessive expenditure on any other head in the same schedules. That is based on a resolution passed by the select committee on railways and harbours, and, apparently, it relates to capital expenditure. In the past there has been some latitude of this kind allowed in connection with expenditure and revenue, but this is a new departure as far as it relates to capital expenditure. It applies to new work on open lines, rolling stock and working capital. I find from the report of the committee that this resolution emanated from a report of the general manager which went very much further. He represented that the operations of the administration were hampered by reason of the fact it was difficult for the administration to find money for certain works. The Auditor-General submitted a memorandum, and he was examined by the committee and nothing could have been stronger than the evidence of the Auditor-General who says it is not a sound principle. He says it is a negation of parliamentary control. He points out the practice and intention of Parliament has been to build up a proper system of parliamentary control, and the adoption of this proposal would do away with that system. In answer to objections put forward by the administration, that they were hampered by the want of latitude enabling them to get money to provide for excessive costs, the Auditor-General points out there are certain recognized devices sanctioned for overcoming this difficulty. On every head they have a right to take 10 per cent. for contingencies. It is true they stopped doing it in 1921, but there is nothing to prevent them starting again. At present £150,000 is provided for unforeseen works, and he says there is no reason why that amount should not be increased to meet the needs of the case. Further than that he points out that as the year goes on, it may be late in the financial year when these extra sums are required and then it is competent for the Administration to come to Parliament and to get sanction for this extra money that is required. Summing up his argument, the Auditor-General says that in his opinion there is not the slightest reason for giving this increased latitude to the Administration and the Minister and he protests against it as being a destruction of a system of parliamentary control which has been built up at great trouble for many years. Let us look at the practical application of this. It is limited in terms of the resolution to new works on open lines, on rolling stock, and working capital and the amounts provided for under these heads in the schedule are: New works and open lines, £2,254,946; rolling stock £2,030,701: working capital £221,790. There is in round figures £4,750,000 to be allotted for these three items of capital expenditure. Supposing in the course of the year that the Administration say that they flunk it is advisable not to spend so much money on new works on open lines or not to spend so much money on rolling stock, it follows that the whole of the difference between the money spent and the money not spent can, without any reference whatever to Parliament, be lumped on to one or the other of these three items, provided, of course, that the total amount does not exceed the total amount put in the schedule. It is obvious that that gives the most enormous latitude to the Minister and the Administration. I can quite understand the position of the general manager, but I do say that if this House gives away control which is now exercised in that way it is taking upon itself a great responsibility and introducing a system which is extremely liable to abuse. We know very well that Governments come up against questions of expediency and questions of popularity and what is to prevent a Government, going, for example, to the railway administration and saying: “You need not spend £2,000,000 on rolling stock. You can cut that down by £1,250,000 and the balance you can put on to new works on open lines,” as works for which there is a public demand, and which it would be very popular to do and very unpopular to refuse to do. The political element is bound to come in. Goodness knows you have got enough of it in the railway business now. If we are going to give the Administration and the Minister power to vary the expenditure in this way, it does seem to me that the statement of the Auditor-General that it is a negation of parliamentary control is entirely justified. I am at a loss to understand why the select committee should have brought in that resolution, which I see was supported by members on this side of the House. My own opinion entirely agrees with that of the Auditor-General, that it is a dangerous policy upon which to ask this House to embark.

As I was one of the members of the select committee who voted in favour of the resolution which has just been criticized by my hon. friend the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and in view of what he said, I think it is only right that I should make clear to the House why I voted for this resolution. One must admit that a measure of latitude of this kind does to a certain extent weaken strict parliamentary control. So far I am prepared to go, but it seems to me, after hearing the evidence, that in managing a vast concern such as the railway one cannot require the same amount of strict parliamentary control as one can expect in the administration of the ordinary votes of the Government, such as Public Works, or Interior, or anything of that kind. In the case, e.g., of the Public Works Department you can fairly say that when Parliament has sanctioned a certain number of works or services and has voted a certain amount of money for each of these works or services, the department should be held strictly to those particular votes and not be allowed to move from one to the other, because the requirements can easily be estimated beforehand. But in managing a huge concern like the railways you cannot apply these hard and fast rules, in my opinion. At the beginning of the year the department has to make up its mind far in advance in regard to enormous quantities of rolling stock, stores, and so forth and to make provision for the expenditure of large sums of money and as the year goes on it suddenly happens, and must happen, that it cannot carry out the exact programme which it had laid down for itself. Some works are found to be much more urgent than others, orders placed for rolling stock do not come in when they were expected to come in and those that came in in the previous year have to be paid for in the current year and so forth. These things happen and must happen, in my opinion. I do not share the view of the Auditor-General that a liberty of this kind is the negation of parliamentary control. It is a weakening of parliamentary control, I admit, but on the evidence put before us by the general manager it seemed to me reasonable to give this amount of latitude a trial. What does it involve? The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) anticipated that the result of it might be that the administration might come along and spend large sums of money which had been voted for rolling stock on some other purpose which Parliament had never authorized at all. That cannot be done. Not a penny can be spent on any work or service that has not been authorized by Parliament.

I never said that. I said it was within the total.

Not only within the total but the works must be specified. The resolution is perfectly clear—

So to say there is a negation of parliamentary control in my opinion goes much too far. What it does give the administration a right to do is, having got these sums voted for specified orders, it gives them power if they find owing to one circumstance or other they cannot carry out the particular work within the year they can use that money for some other service which has already been voted and passed. We also put in a proviso that the Auditor-General should report specially on any transfers made from one head to another and on the purpose for which it is used. So that this House in future years can see whether the liberty has been abused or not. Subject to these safeguards and realizing it gives no authority to spend money on works not authorized by Parliament, it seems to me it was safe to give the administration this amount of latitude and see whether the use they made of it was such as to require curtailment in the future or not, and having regard to the nature of this vast undertaking it seems to me it was a reasonable latitude to give them. I would like the Minister to give his mind to a matter that causes a good deal of comment and even uneasiness among people who travel by rail, and that is the rather alarming frequency with which we see accidents of various kinds happening all along the line, collisions and derailments and so on, which certainly seem to be happening with disturbing frequency. It is almost common for anyone who takes a long journey to be held up for an hour or two hours. I myself recently was held up for 14 hours by some accident on the railway. I do not want to go into that accident because I believe it is sub judice, but the facts reported about that accident and another not long before were not such as to give the public confidence. I would like the Minister to see whether there is not a certain slackening of discipline throughout the service and whether there is that amount of control and discipline which is an absolute necessity in a huge service such as this. It is not creditable to our railways to have these things happening so often and think the matter is one that should be looked into.

I am glad that the matter of free and of life passes has been raised in the House because I think it deserves the earnest attention of the House. We know that rates are based more or less on the expenditure incurred on the service, and if the number of free passes increases then it means that those who have to pay for their tickets will have to pay more. Otherwise there are deficits and the public have to pay. Life passes arose because someone who was a member of the old Cape Government even after he left the Government remained a member of the Executive Council. The Governor had the right at any time to summon such a person to attend the sittings of the Executive Council, and that is how the issue of free passes arose. That is no longer the practice in the case of ex-Ministers, but the life passes are still issued. It is certain that the free and life passes affect the revenue of the railways. I am not attacking the Government, but I think it is necessary for the matter to be seriously considered. I hope the Government will appoint a select committee next year to go into the matter so that there may be more stringent provisions and that abuse may be prevented. I think that the travelling public have to pay more for their tickets on account of the free passes. It is not only the wealthy portion of the population which makes use of the railways but also the poor people, and some of the persons who have free passes can well afford to pay for a ticket.

At the risk of being accused of flogging a dead horse by superior press-men, I want again to draw attention to the carrying forward of what I call excessive balances in certain funds of the railways. This point has been raised for many years by the Auditor-General, who, in my opinion, is justified in calling attention to the fact that these balances are very large. At the present moment, when the railways are budgeting for a deficit, we have the extraordinary fact that in the renewals fund they carry forward a permanent balance of something over two millions. I consider, as a plain practical man, that this is wrong— to have these large globular sums of money taken from railway revenue which are not apparently going to be used when the Minister of Railways is budgeting for a deficit. Is this business—I ask business men—that this large balance should be carried forward annually? The Act of Union provides that the total earnings of the railways shall not be more than necessary to meet the outlay for the working and maintenance of the railways, depreciation, interest due on capital and the like; but it makes no provision for a large permanent balance like this. I put it to farmers and business men, who want reductions in rates. The Auditor-General refers to this matter in last year’s report, and he has two or three pages devoted to this fund. He states the purpose of the fund, and shows that the balance at 31st May, 1926, was £2,463,062, and the increase for the year £505,274.

Would you not like a life pass? You had a narrow escape.

The hon. member who is trying to be funny no doubt would like a life pass, but I am speaking on a serious subject to which I wish to direct the attention of responsible members of the House. The renewals fund has been increased by £500,000 this year. The Auditor-General says that the value of new rolling stock charged to revenue account from 1912-’13 to 1924-’25 was £14,000,000, as compared with £1,500,000, the value of rolling stock actually withdrawn from service during that period. In my opinion the objects of the fund are being abused. Can the Minister tell us when we may expect to see the report from the technical officers who have been enquiring into this question since 23rd September, 1925. As far as rolling stock is concerned, the contribution to the renewals fund is based on an expectation that rolling stock will have a life of 25 years. When I arrived in South Africa in 1902 I assisted to build at Salt River some second-class saloons and dining-cars, and they are just as good to-day as the day they were constructed. Indeed, we have coaches running on the suburban line which have been in use for nearer 50 years than 25 years. We are taking out of revenue money we have no right to take for depreciation of rolling stock. This is bad business, and the matter should be discussed seriously by the House. Then the insurance fund amounts to about £1,000,000, and this shows that here again we have been contributing an excessive amount annually but the renewals fund is the one which calls for most attention. There should be a complete investigation into the working of this fund, and a systematic enquiry into the whole question of the working life of our rolling stock. We should utilize the money we can save by reducing the contribution to the renewals fund, by benefiting the farmers and the general public by reduction of rates, and also by giving much needed concessions to the railway staff, many of whom are still working very long hours and at low rates of pay.

The point raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) is a very important one. I happened to be in a minority on the select committee on this very point, and am entirely opposed to a fundamental change in the principle which has taken generations to build up —and that is that money saved on one vote should not be spent on another vote. We are, unfortunately, departing from that sound principle, and are establishing a dangerous precedent, because if it is permissible in regard to railways, there is no reason why it should not extend to other spending public departments. This diversion will lead to a danger of encouraging under-estimating on one vote, and over-estimating on another, and diverting the saving on the latter to expenditure on the former, with the result that work will be carried out which probably would not have received the approval of Parliament if members knew the full amount of the expenditure involved.

I am glad the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has brought up the question of the renewals and other funds in such a clear way, because what he has placed before the Minister is what is rankling in the minds of the whole of the railwaymen. They are not ignorant of the position. There are two men in this House who have the right to speak for the railwaymen. One is the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) and the other is the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), and both these hon. gentlemen thoroughly understand the position. The Minister may realize that those who always admire and never criticize are not the real strength of a party. I am delighted indeed that the hon. member for Salt River has not looked upon his duty in that narrow way. There is some £13,000,000 of former profits which have been absorbed and recharged as capital. The general manager of railways himself has remonstrated time after time that he should have to find the interest on that money from the profits of railway working. Reserve amounts, too, have been steadily built up and yet the men are told there is no money for them because the railways are being run on business principles. Business principles in this case means they are run to make a reserve profit. The South Africa Act imposing “business principles” means running the railways for the benefit of the State with model employment conditions as well as good wages. That is the real meaning of business principles. The hon. member for Salt River has brought the facts out clearly and I hope the Government will realize he has given expression to what is permeating the minds of the whole of the employees of the railways. When rates are reduced to users of the railways the workers say, “Yes, it is out of our blood and bone.”

And they are taking it out of the blood and bone of the people who use the railways, too.

I am glad the hon. member agrees with me. The first thing we should have among this large number of people employed in the service is contentment, which will produce the most efficient service. To do this sort of profit absorption is unnecessary because we all know the rolling stock built here lasts three times the life which is calculated and provided for by the redemption fund. That is another argument for those who preach South Africa first, and that the more we do in this country in that way the better. I am glad the Minister in charge of this is the Minister of Finance because he will realize it is bad finance to build up reserves at the expense of those earning their living in the service. I hope the remarks of the hon. member for Salt River will not be lost as so many other things are lost, by going in at one ear and out at the other.

I asked the Minister a question in regard to fruit export some time ago. My question was whether the Minister was aware of the fact that fruit which could have been exported was not shipped by the mail steamers and caused a great loss to the producer, and the reply of the Minister was that steamers other than mail steamers, which loaded a cargo, discharged it in as good a condition as that from the mailboats. On the 25th of February, the “Armadale Castle” had space for 85,000 packages and only loaded 42.000 packages. The fruit was there but was withheld from the “Armadale Castle.” What was the effect on the other side?

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

I asked the Minister of Railways a little while ago a question with regard to consignments of fruit. It was this—

I will deal with one of these instances only. The “Armadale Castle” with a loading capacity of 90,000 packages of fruit loaded on the 25th February. She was only permitted to load 42,000 packages, the balance, 48,000, being left over because the Control Board had some chartered space which they wanted to fill. They loaded it on the following day, 26th February, but the fruit arrived at its destination a full week later, although only loaded a day after the “Armadale’s” consignment, and the result was that the fruit naturally arrived in a stale condition on the other side. The Minister, in reply to my question, said that steamers other than mail steamers which loaded here in February last discharged their cargo in as good condition as did the mail boats. This reply clearly shows that the Minister does not appreciate the position. By the keeping over of fruit from the mail steamers in order to load it on one of these chartered steamers, not only did the fruit arrive a week later, but it also disorganized the market on the other side. Now, what was the other side? In the week beginning March 7th, 127,000 packages of South African fruit were delivered at Covent Garden market. In the following week with the “Armadale” limited consignment there were only 42,000 packages, while in the week after that with the fruit which had been held up and which was consigned by the chartered vessels you had 222,000 packages delivered at Covent Garden. The consequence was that in one week you starved the market on the other side and in the following week you glutted it: and while the fruit consigned by the “Armadale” realized fair prices, the fruit which went by the subsequent vessels when the market was glutted you got no price at all for. It seems to me that the Fruit Control Board understand this question of marketing as little as the Minister. I think it would be well if an inquiry were to be instituted into the matter by the Government, and find out how the fruit farmers fared this year with their export of fruit, and more particularly their soft fruit such as grapes and plums? In many cases instead of getting anything out for their fruit they had to pay in. This is simply due to the muddle in the chartering of space and the holding up of fruit to fill that space. Fruit is held over and not loaded on your mail steamers as it ought to be, and it takes a week longer to reach the market on the other side with the result that you disorganize your market altogether on the other side. For successful marketing you want a regular supply and even condition. You are not getting it in this way. The Minister seems perfectly indifferent, but if the Government is indifferent the fruit farmers are not; they are feeling it. If things are to go on as they have in the last few years your fruit export to a large extent will come to a standstill. There is only one way which the fruit farmers recognize to improve matters and that is by fixing up a mail contract which will provide for the lifting of all your perishable products, and we know that the Union-Castle Co. have made an offer to the Government to do so. The Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister were horrified at the idea of such information getting out, but it was well known that the Union-Castle Company have made a definite offer whereby they undertake to lift all your perishable products. This offer has been made months and months ago, and it was made to representatives of the fruit growers, but why the Government will not try to do something on these lines I do not know. Some of the members of the Cabinet at the time they took office had the idea of establishing their own mail service, but by this time they ought to have seen how ridiculous that is. I wish to say a few words with regard to this issuing of free passes. We look upon these issues as a very serious matter. Here you have three members of the Railway Board, who were only too pleased to be taken up, and when they have been in office only a couple of years you give them, in addition to their emoluments, a life pass, and other free passes are given very lavishly at present, and yet they cannot give a low export rate for farmers exporting their products. On the one hand the railways are lavish, and on the other hand they cannot assist the producers to get their products to the port. The country ought to take notice of this matter. Where is it going to end? Perhaps the Minister would tell us—it may be intended to give life passes to members of the Fruit Control Board. I know the chairman has been guaranteed his position for some years. We would not mind so much giving them life passes and get rid of this board if you were to fix up a mail contract to lift all our perishable products as soon as possible.

I am not acquainted with the facts of the particular case referred to by the hon. member in regard to this particular consignment of fruit, but the hon. member knows this is a matter which is in the hands of the Fruit Control Board, and they make the best possible arrangements under very difficult circumstances. What right has the hon. member to say that in this case the best possible arrangements were not made? He knows the mail steamers are not able to take all the fruit, and other arrangements had to be made.

My complaint is they allow the mail steamers to leave without being fully loaded.

They have to make arrangements for sufficient freight for the fruit on hand. Why should they take other space and increase the account for freight? The hon. member knows the whole question has to be treated as a whole. This board, to which has been entrusted the work of securing space, is composed of capable men who make the best possible arrangements. The shipping position is not an easy one at present. Things did not go, perhaps, as the fruit farmers expected; there was some disappointment, but in existing circumstances you cannot obviate that at all. The Government is fully alive to the necessity of doing whatever they can to help the fruit farmers to see that their products get to the other side so that they may be sold to the best advantage.

Is the Government alive to the necessity of fixing up the mail contract?

The Government is alive to the necessity of making the best possible arrangements for getting the fruit of the farmers to the other side. That is the position. This question of the life passes of the commissioners has been mentioned here. Now what is the position? First, let me say that the principle on which these passes have been granted in the past has nothing to do with length of service. There have been, under the present regulations, passes granted in virtue of office held. A Minister without portfolio, who has been Minister only for a few days, is entitled to a life pass. It is a fact that in the past every railway commissioner has had a pass. It is true that the incumbents have enjoyed other offices before, but if they had not, these passes would have been issued to them as a matter of course. The Government dealt with the matter on its merits, and came to the conclusion that these passes had to be issued to the commissioners. You find that in every country of the world where you have private railways, the directors, commissioners, members controlling the railways there, are entitled to these passes. In the past, every member of the Railway Board has, as a matter of fact, held a life pass.

Not for life.

Yes, a life pass. Now hon. members come along and are very concerned about the expenses of the railways, and the manner in which these passes have been given. Under the previous administration not only were the commissioners given passes, but their wives were given free passes. They may not have been life passes. Will the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) tell me what consideration weighed in giving the wives of the commissioners free passes?

When they travelled with their husbands.

No. Then we find the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) filled with horror at “this tendency of the Government.” But when the hon. member was Speaker, I understand he made application for a life pass.

Did he get it?

No, he did not get it, but what I want to point out to the House is this hypocrisy, on the part of some hon. members at least, who come here and raise the matter of what they say is the extravagant tendency of the Government, in connection with the granting of free passes, for instance. As to the other passes mentioned here—the granting of passes to the press—the hon. member knows that these passes are granted by the general manager, as a matter of course, to get an advertisement for the railways, or for helping on publicity. The hon. member (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) may be quite right when he says this whole subject should be reviewed, with a view to seeing that abuses are ended, but that is a matter which is in the hands of the Administration. Hon. members, I am afraid, are simply finding something with which to attack the Government, and they have been exaggerating the whole position. You cannot get away from the fact that every member of the Railway Board has had a life pass.

As a member of the Executive Council.

This is an extension of the principle.

Can the hon. member hold that if these gentlemen did not hold that office these passes would not have been granted? The hon. member has no evidence with regard to that.

It will be the chair man of the railway committee next.

Let me point out that great play has been made with the financial position of the railways to-day, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was supposed to have handed over the railways in a satisfactory position; then there was a surplus, and now there is a deficit, according to what the hon. member said. I may say we are not budgeting for a deficit this year, but it would be very easy to have a surplus if we kept on the practice which obtained formerly, not only on the railways, but right throughout the Government services—I refer to not meeting our liabilities, with regard to pension funds, for instance. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) righted the position by taking £2,000,000 from the renewals fund. That was a very easy way. We have been reducing rates.

Not much.

We are looking all our liabilities in the face with regard to pension and other funds; and the railways are paying.

Let us see. We have not come to the end of the chapter yet.

At any rate, the position is not as stated by the hon. member, and it is much better than when his party held the reins of office, and administered the country. The hon. member says: “Why, instead of incurring expenditure this way, not reduce the coal export rates?” They are only 8d. per ton higher than pre-war, but the hon. member says the coal traffic is going down, judging by the figures of last year. Last year,’ let me point out, we exported large quantities of coal as the result of the coal strike in England. That is not available now, and the conditions are quite different this year. That accounts for the large falling off of coal sent to our ports for export purposes. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) brought up the question of accidents and collisions on the line, and said people were getting nervous about them. I have no information at present, as to how the collisions and accidents in the past year or so compare with previous periods. I am not in a position to state whether the hon. member or the public in general are right that these accidents are more numerous than they have been in the past, and I quite agree with the hon. member that the Administration should give its attention to this matter, and do all they possibly can, not only to see that discipline is maintained, but that rolling-stock, and so on, is in such a condition that these accidents are minimized.

Until the Minister himself is held up.

I myself am often held up. The delays are mostly unavoidable. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has raised the question of the change we are making in our Appropriation Bill by applying savings on some votes to excesses on other votes. He is quite right in drawing attention to the matter. I may say the whole matter was gone into very carefully by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, which heard evidence and considered the whole matter on its merits. The committee came to the conclusion, which is shared by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who knows the difficulties in connection with the matter, that this was not an unreasonable request on the part of the Administration. As the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out, there can be no question of applying such savings to what has not been authorized by Parliament, It is only to allow the Administration, when they have a number of works on hand, and the work cannot be proceeded with, to apply this saving to another work of a similar nature which has been authorized by Parliament, There is no question at all of sweeping away parliamentary control. Parliamentary control remains as unimpaired as formerly, but it does allow the Administration to apply the funds to the very best advantage. If this is granted, I am assured by the Administration that it will be necessary to a very much less extent for it to come to the Treasury with large loan demands, and then not using the money.

Then why don’t you do it under all the heads?

We don’t want to extend the principle where it is not absolutely necessary. The whole matter was gone into very carefully by the select committee which sat as an impartial body, and this decision was taken with the support of an hon. member on the other side. I do not think the House need be afraid that it is parting with any essential parliamentary control. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has raised the question of the manner in which we are accumulating the renewals fund, which he thinks is to the prejudice of the members of the staff and the public. The whole question of the basis of contribution to the renewals fund is a matter of investigation, and we have not yet had the report of the officers who are conducting the investigation. The Minister told the House some time ago that we have large quantities of rolling stock which will have to be scrapped, and that will materially alter the position, and the case that we are unduly increasing the amount standing to the credit of the renewals fund will disappear. My own idea is that, in view of the fact that we have not a railway sinking fund, we are not doing sufficiently in the way of building up a reserve fund, when many of the lines will not be paying to the extent they do to-day as the result of motorcar competition.

That is a different matter.

In the meantime we shall have to await the report of the Commission of Enquiry. I now move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.

The select committee on this Bill failed to come to an agreement, and we now have two alternatives— the amended Bill presented by the select committee and the amendment moved by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It is not, perhaps, surprising that the committee did fail, for it was evident that unless there was to be a complete change in the spirit of those composing the committee, an agreement would be impossible. I think it has been made quite clear by the speeches delivered since the House went into committee, that no such change of spirit came about in the select committee. There has been a considerable amount of recrimination as to whose fault that was. I do not think anything is to be gained by that, and I am going to apply myself more to the amendment moved by the right hon. member for Standerton. There is only one point about that recrimination I would like to mention the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who is often very illuminating on himself, and he gave us a picture of what occurred in committee, where he sat watching the right hon. member for Standerton.

He needs watching.

For all his watching there was nothing he could take hold of in anything that the right hon. member said, so he took hold of the expressions on his countenance, and he holds that out to the country as proof that the right hon. member was not willing to come to any agreement. All this based on the expressions on the right hon. member’s face!

Actions speak louder than words.

That came from a select committee which was recognized of being of such a delicate nature that hon. members who were not appointed on the committee were asked not to exercise their light to be present at its deliberations. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) joined in this request, and yet he makes political capital out of the expressions on the face of the right hon. member for Standerton! I am glad to think that no other member of this House would take action of that sort. I would now like to deal with the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton. We English-speaking members, who have been accused of intolerance, are willing to place the fate of the Bill in the hands of two Dutchmen. The Speaker of this House, who cannot be said to have expressed himself as favourable to the Union Jack when he spoke, not as Speaker, but as the Nationalist member for Vryheid, and the hon. the President of the Senate. We who are accused of speaking in favour of the dominance of the English-speaking people are prepared to nut this in the hands of two Dutchmen, one of them without a predilection for the Union Jack. How then can the accusation of British racialism and the desire for dominance hold water? Included in that is a desire that the design shall include the Union Jack and the two Vierkleurs of the Free State and the Transvaal as an integral portion of it. Where is the claim for dominance in that? There is none. It is absolute equality. Then it says the design selected shall be submitted to the approval of Parliament not less than six months after the passing of the Bill. It was held by the Government that you could only have a satisfactory flag by agreement. We are not here as flag-makers.

No, flag waggers.

Our position is to give legal sanction to a flag approved after submission to the people and, therefore, approved by the public and this amendment makes provision for that. It is only then that Parliament comes in and gives legislative sanction to it. I cannot see in face of this amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) how any charge made by hon. members of that side of the House can hold water, when they say we wish for racial dominance in any shape or form, especially when, representing a large proportion of the British public of South Africa, we are prepared to entrust this matter in the hands of two Dutchmen.

There has been so much shedding of tears about the so-called failure of the select committee to arrive at an agreement that it would perhaps be well if I just said a few words now about this matter.

It is not we that have cried.

Notwithstanding the so-called failure of the select committee, I must still say that I am glad the committee sat because in the first place I think that the draft that we have got from the select committee is a decided advance and improvement on the proposals which were originally before us. Let me just say in connection with this that the reason why the Government chose the flag with the St. George’s Cross was particularly because we wanted to meet the sentiment exhibited on the opposite side, because we thought that the Red Cross flag went as close as possible to the possibility of arriving at a full agreement between the two sides. The reason we had for that was of course, that it was submitted, inter alia, to the conference at which there were not only representatives of the Government but also representatives of the organized opposition to the Flag Bill. That conference was not bound. It was previously demanded of the Government that no limitations should be made, and that request was complied with. There were no limitations, and all the flags which expressed the point of view of the two sides were submitted to the conference. That conference came to a unanimous decision, and a report was signed by everyone that that flag, embodied in the Bill, was “a genuine and friendly gesture” and the representatives of the organized opposition were ready to lay it before the flag committees of the whole country and to suggest to all the opponents to accept it, or a flag which was based on the same principles.

They denied it.

They cannot because it is in the report which they signed. The Red Cross flag was included in the Bill because it was the nearest approach to our idea of a solution. My own personal choice was a different flag. I should not have adopted the Red Cross flag if I had to decide myself, but the Government and I adopted it in spite of certain feelings in certain parts of the country against it, because it was the nearest approach to what we then thought could be obtained by way of an amicable settlement. During the debate in the House when the Opposition refused it and tried to ridicule it we decided that we would not go on with it but would try to come to an agreement. For that reason we adopted a different course. I say again that if we did not want to take count of the Opposition and did not want to come to the greatest possible agreement in the country then we would not even have chosen this flag. Our first attempt was to get a flag which consisted of parts of the Union Jack and of the republican flags, but when a compromise along those lines was prevented we tried to follow a different way, and to include the three historical flags in toto on the national flag so that it could not be said that they were insulted. We wanted to try to meet the Opposition in that way. The inducement to do so was given to us by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). In his speech at the second reading he did not follow the same line of reasoning as other hon. members of the Opposition, viz., that the Union Jack stood for the British connection, and that it had to be in the Union flag to indicate that, but he argued that the English-speaking people had done just as much in the past as the Dutch-speaking people to build up the country, and that those contributions by the English-speaking people to the development of South Africa should be acknowledged in the national flag. There should therefore be an indication of the history. The Prime Minister then said—

The flag as it has come out of the select committee is a new attempt to meet the Opposition in a different way, seeing that the first way of meeting them did not succeed. The matter must be regarded in that light. On the whole I prefer the new design to the Red Cross flag because it is a more beautiful flag and because it will give more satisfaction to English and Dutch-speaking people in South Africa. It has been said that the flag we are now proposing is the old Van Riebeeck flag. There is a certain amount of doubt about that. Granting that it is the Van Riebeeck flag then I think that if there is one historical figure in South Africa who is honoured and accepted by both sections of the population as one of themselves, then it is Van Riebeeck. His Statue at the foot of Adderley Street was, I think, erected by Cecil Rhodes. Every year, English and Dutch-speaking people gather around it to commemorate the inauguration day of the settlement at the Cape. As the one who laid the foundation stone of civilization in South Africa he belongs equally to English and Dutch-speaking people. If it was the flag of Van Riebeeck, and belonged to the House of Orange then I want to call to mind that the flag of Orange was not an unknown flag in England itself, and that there was a time—the most critical time in the history of England, just the time when constitutional rights in England, on which the English are rightly proud were brought into danger and hung in the balance—when the Orange flag was invited over to England. If there ever was a flag which stood for the co-operation between Dutch- and English-speaking people then it is this flag. Therefore, I think, that the argument can be used that this flag is not one which cannot be adopted by us. Suppose for a moment that the flag were to represent Dutch-speaking South Africa more than English-speaking South Africa, then we must not forget that there is a counter balance on the other side, viz., that the Union Jack which is included in toto in the national flag equally with the republican flags, and which represents the traditions of English-speaking South Africa, is also a flag which in its entirety will fly next to the national flag to indicate the British connections. Is that not enough? I am therefore certain that English-speaking South Africa has no reason for complaint. If there is any reason for complaint it is on the side of Dutch-speaking South Africa. For the reason I have mentioned I am glad that we have had a select committee, and that a better flag has come to light. This is a flag which puts all three the old flags on an equal footing, but in such a way that it clearly shows that they stand equally for the traditions of the two sections of the people. Another reason why I am glad about the select committee is because it was a test such as we have not hitherto had of the bona fides of the Opposition in coming to an agreement. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that he saw a ray of light when I announced that we were to have a select committee about the matter. He was not alone in seeing that because I think the whole House and the country outside saw it. The reason was because the debate on the second reading ended in the way it did. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stated in the House in reply to a question from me that he was prepared to have the three flags in the Union flag, “as far as possible.” When I specially asked the question if that meant that there was a possibility of a mutilation of all three flags so that we could break them up to be included compositely in the national flag then his answer was “yes.” He accepted it. If he had not agreed to it then it is diametrically opposed to the amendment which he moved at the second reading. I will now put the same question to him. Was not the hon. member prepared to have a compromise flag? If he was not prepared then hon. members round about him, at any rate, so understood it. When I went on with my speech there were voices from the opposite side—

In the select committee the hon. member for Standerton—although he was incited to do so— did not say a word about the episode. He did not deal with the matter in that spirit, and did not even abide by the amendment which he had himself proposed at the second reading. He was expressly asked when he put this amendment on the Order Paper in the select committee to state precisely in it what he at the second reading debate had included, viz., “as far as possible.” He was not prepared to do so. The hon. member and his supporters in the select committee simply took up the same attitude that they had done before and that they were going to stand by it, notwithstanding the amendment in the House and the statement by the hon. member for Standerton before the second reading was passed that the Union Jack —and the two other flags which were dragged along with it—must appear unmutilated in toto on the national flag. They did not depart from that by a hair’s breadth. Now I say that if there was a ray of light of our coming to a solution, then it is not this side of the House which has darkened the ray of light but the other side of the House in the select committee. It was said that we are, forsooth, still looking for a further agreement but that the hands of the committee which we are going to propose are bound, and that it is therefore no use continuing any further negotiations. Does not the hon. member for Standerton in his amendment bind the conference which he proposes? The conference which he proposes is absolutely bound by his amendment, at least as much, if not more, than any conference that we want. I am sorry to refer to it again, but let me say that the action of the hon. member for Standerton and of his supporters in the select committee is on a par with his action in connection with the flag question from the very beginning. The hon. member and his supporters made out that our attitude made an agreement about the flag impossible. Let me say, on the contrary, that one word from the hon. member for Standerton, not only now, but previously, would be enough to effect an agreement. I want to call to mind in the first place how last year we held a conference over the flag Question as representatives of the three parties and how that conference practically came to an agreement on the lines of our Bill of last year, and that at the last moment it became impossible. Was it the members of the conference who made it impossible? The chief member who represented the South African party, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) left immediately afterwards for Johannesburg and made a speech to which he himself referred yesterday in which he said that he would be prepared, if it would lead to an agreement, to adopt a flag on which the Union Jack did not appear, provided that other representation was given on the flag. He was prepared to accept a flag on which the Union Jack did not appear, and this shows what spirit existed in last year’s conference, and it shows that if the hon. member for Standerton wanted to say one word we should have come to an agreement in the conference last year. The hon. member for Yeoville in his speech last year said—

We then went and gave the best indication of the British connection which is constitutionally correct, viz., a Crown. Now I will tell you how that recommendation of a Crown was received. I want to indicate how the matter lay completely in the hands of the hon. member for Standerton and shall take first of all the words of a S.A. party newspaper, the “Rand Daily Mail,” immediately after the speech of the Prime Minister when he suggested the inclusion of the Crown. It was said that the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister was a very reasonable one and that it was such an improvement of the flag which had caused so much feeling that it was welcomed. The paper said that it meant a concession by the Government which represented the sections of the public that were also republican in feeling, and that it undoubtedly cut the ground from under the feet of those who said that the flag without the Union Jack in toto could not be accepted. That is what an S.A.P. newspaper said.

It is not an S.A.P. newspaper.

Then I will now come to S.A.P. newspapers. A paper which undoubtedly represents a section of the English-speaking people who are not represented by this side of the House comes and says that the proposal to include a Crown is quite acceptable. Now I come to other newspapers. What was the position last year? Even after the agitation by the Sons of England and the Empire Group in Natal began, and in spite of the failure of last year’s conference which was representative of the parties, we had an S.A.P. paper, like “The Friend,” which took the side of the Government in the flag question. The “Sunday Times” which surely is a S.A.P. newspaper took the side of the Government and went so far as to select a design without the Union Jack. A newspaper like “De Volkstem it, surely, is a S.A.P. newspaper—took the side of the Government in spite of the failure of the conference and in spite of the agitation. The two English dailies of Cape Town, the. “Cape Times” and the “Cape Argus,” for some days after the failure of the conference between the parties did not say a word about it. Why not? Because they were waiting on the hon. member for Standerton. If the hon. member had had the courage or the patriotism to say that we could arrive at an agreement along that road then the English newspapers, which have a powerful influence on the English people, would have seen that an agreement was arrived at. I want to go further and point out what influence the hon. member for Standerton had on his own party in the days when he held the same views as we did on this side of the House about the necessity and about the composition of a national flag. In the previous debate a reference was made to what took place in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, a council in which the S.A. party had a noticeable majority. As we know a resolution was passed that the Government of the day—the S.A.P. Government—should be urged to immediately provide a national flag, and it was said that it should be an exclusively South African flag. Now it is said “yes, but an exclusively South African flag was a flag in which the Union Jack was included.” I have here the report of “De Volkstem” of the speech delivered by Mr. Maasdorp who moved the resolution on behalf of the S.A. party in the Transvaal Provincial Council. It reads—

I ask anyone here to what other conclusion anyone could come than that the mover of the resolution—a S.A.P. man—said that he did not want a fusion of the Union Jack and of the five colour—by the five colour he meant the two republican flags—but that he wanted a pure clean South African flag. That was made clear by him, and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) who was then a member of the Provincial Council cannot excuse himself and say that there was any other meaning in the motion than what was stated by the mover.

When was the report published?

It appears in De Volkstem of 25th November, 1920, immediately after the debate had taken place, and the hon. member for Standerton had been making speeches in the country about our own flag. I say again that if the hon. member by a few speeches of that kind could take his party so far, the English and the Dutch-speaking people and the hon. member for Pretoria (West), to insist upon the immediate creation of a Union flag which was clean and did not include the Union Jack then he could in 1926, so many years thereafter when the feeling about the war had further died down and become a thing of the past, by one word have got his party throughout the country to agree to the proposal which was made as a result of last year’s conference. The motion in the Transvaal Provincial Council made by the South African party was passed. The whole party voted for it. What, however, did the hon. member for Standerton do? When a paper like the Rand Daily Mail regarded the offer of the Crown as a solution and it was also welcomed by some other S.A.P. newspapers, he immediately—I think it was at Vryburg—made a speech in which he said that he regarded the Flag Commission as a great joke and as a “trick” upon the country. He said that he would vote against Dr. Malan’s flag. Crown or no Crown. His lieutenant shows in this way that it is a method along which a solution can be found if the British connection is Indicated in the flag, and his own newspapers accept it as a friendly gesture towards the Opposition. A solution is, however, immediately made impossible by the statement by the hon. member that he would vote against the flag, Crown or no Crown. I say that this has been the constant attitude of the hon. member since the beginning of the flag question, and what he did in the select committee is merely a confirmation thereof, that he will not agree to come to a solution whatever we may do on our side.

I have not much time at my disposal, but I should like to deal with a few of the points which have been made by the Minister; and the first is this, that because some newspapers in this country at some times give support to this part of the House, and have taken up a certain attitude, therefore, he argues, we, on this side of the House, are bound to adopt the same attitude also, and the Minister quotes in particular, the “Rand Daily Mail” and “The Friend and the “Sunday Times,” and such papers. Let me say at once, the Minister may put this idea entirely out of his head. These are papers which not only are independent, but pride themselves on their independence.

The “Volkstem” too?

We on this side of the House cannot be bound by expressions of opinion from the papers; we, as a party, have to look at great public questions from our own point of view. Naturally we are not bound by the expressions of opinion which the Minister refers to. The Minister, instead of dealing with the subject, follows the example of his leader, and turns aside to personal issues. Instead of defending his proposals on their merits—and the country is looking for a defence of these proposals on their merits—he stoops aside and makes a personal attack on me and tries to discredit me in order to have some chance of getting acceptance for his new flag. I am not going to follow him there. I want to argue this matter on its merits. I want to deal with a few of the points he has made. Let me take the questions he has raised in historical order. He said that last year there was every chance in the committee which then sat to come to an agreement; they were on the point of agreement and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) had practically said as much, that he would agree, and then some sinister influence—of course, me again, who else could it be—appears on the scene. This man who has only to say one word and all South Africa listens to it, but who has not the courage and the patriotism to say that one word! This charge my hon. friend disposed of in this House last year. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) made that charge against my hon. friend in this House, that he had practically agreed to the compromise that was there presented but he had thereafter been swayed by this sinister influence in the background.

You did advise him, didn’t you?

My hon. friend then got up in the House and denied categorically in the strongest terms possible that he had ever adopted such an attitude in the committee, or that any construction of that kind could be placed upon what he had said or done. So this charge drops to the ground at once: this sinister influence goes. Last year the three members who represented this side on that committee had conversations with me once or twice in the course of the proceedings. There was no secret about it; I daresay the other side conferred with the Minister of the Interior. They were not there personally but were there to represent their viewpoint in the House. I say here in their presence—they can confirm me if they feel called upon—that they consulted with me, and in no case did I give them instructions; in no case was there disagreement between us, and in every case, whether there were four, five or six, they took exactly the same view over this question as the view that has been taken by me and by my party consistently right through the whole story up to to-day. If it is said we are so obstinate in so wavering, and in having stood firm to our original standpoint, then we have been obstinate. We adopted a sound, firm position at the start, and we have stuck to it. The Minister then comes to the flag which was in this bill—the red cross flag, and he says now for the first time in this House that he did not like this flag. For the first time we have now to hear that this flag, put into this Bill, which has created this turmoil and strife, and was to be forced down the throat of this country—we hear now this admission from the Minister. [Interruption.]

I said I prefer another—quite another thing.

He said he did not like this flag himself, and he did not approve of his own flag.

No, no; do not twist my words.

I ask the committee and the country—is this not playing with the country?

Are you not playing with language?

Do not let us get heated. We can deal with this quite coolly.

I am quite cool.

They have gone to any length to carry that flag; they went to the length of getting a revered figure like Mrs. Steyn to sign a document—which I reprobate— a document in terms of extravagant praise of it. She did not reckon with her Government and her friends, and the Minister now says he does not like it. I say this was playing with the people.

What a petty, what a small-minded argument!

I have not the large mind of the hon. Minister. Facts like these show that the Government were not dealing honestly, frankly and sincerely by the people of this country, but were going by subterfuge; and now, after the event, they tell us they did not like it. Then we come to the select committee. The Minister says he was very glad that that select committee took place; in the first place, because it brought about a better flag, and in the second place, because it presented a test of our bona-fides, and of my bona-fides in particular—and we failed. On the question of the flag I repeat what I said on a previous occasion, on the second reading debate. What has this flag which we have now before us to do with the history of South Africa? If our flag is to represent our historical past, in the words of the Prime Minister; if the flag is to stand for the traditions and the great things in the nation’s history, what relation has this yellow, white and blue flag to the history of South Africa—English or Dutch? None whatever. The only argument the Minister can fall back upon is that William of Orange probably took that flag to England when he saved England from Stuart tyranny. [Time limit.]

I want to say a few words in answer to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We must forgive him a great deal because it is very clear that he has so little to answer that if he does not have resort to evasions then he accomplishes nothing. He is particularly indignant that the Minister and the Government could never recommend a flag which they did not consider the best. I want at once to say that the flag which is now recommended is not at all the best in my opinion.

Then wait till you get a better one.

I could make another proposal which is better in so far as I am concerned, but I shall never take up the attitude of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and other hon. members who are out merely to think of themselves, and to selfishly look after themselves. They are always satisfied only with the Union Jack. There is no reason for the indignation of the hon. member for Standerton because the Minister of the Interior said that he did not regard the Red Cross flag at the best one.

Did you not like it?

No, but for the sake of others who did like it and said so we said that we would submit. Even to-day Dutch-speaking South Africa is doing its best to suppress its own feelings as much as possible in order to meet the other side. If there is anything which ought to count in favour of Dutch-speaking South Africa then it is this. The hon. member for Standerton has never yet shown that he cares very much for Dutch-speaking South Africa. I agree with what the Minister has rightly reproached him with here that he has never yet done anything to give a lead in this matter, and that every time something is proposed he quashes it. Now he said—

No, I think that however much value we can attach to the authority and words of the hon. member I have never yet attached so much value to them that he had merely to say a thing and that his word was a command. The hon. member, however, is leader of a party, and I regard the matter in that way.

That is true.

If I were to look at the hon. member for Fort Beaufort then I would not always say that the hon. member for Standerton was leader. The hon. member for Standerton is, however, the leader of his party, and I accept that he has influence with his party. Unfortunately he has never yet shown courage in this matter, and that is just where we blame him for never yet having had the courage on any occasion to use his influence in order to give a lead. With what right does the hon. member for Standerton come here to say to us—

Either he agrees with the feeling or he does not. If he does not then it was his duty to have long since said so. He did not do so and it can therefore be taken that he agrees with the Empire group and with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). Then I ask the hon. member for Standerton what sincerity there is in all his protestations and in his proposals to wait, wait, wait. Who does he want to be converted in the meantime? What alteration must be made? Must those people, his own party, and he himself, change, or what? No, if there is anything which has convinced me of the insincerity which is at the root of all the words and deeds of the hon. member for Standerton, then it is his failure to exercise influence in giving any lead. For him to come here to-day and assume a pious countenance, as he has done, makes him guilty of the charge which he deserved, and this is not only felt here but throughout the whole country. He will receive an answer to his attitude which he will not be able to evade. I have only said these few words because we must not be reproached that we have tried to meet him and his party.

Well, I have now to conduct a battle on two fronts.

Speak Afrikaans.

It is very difficult to change in the middle of a debate. I would gladly speak Afrikaans. Let me just say I do not want to go into the personal question the Prime Minister has raised. He accused me of not having the courage to give a lead. I have given the most consistent lead on the flag question to my party and the country during the last twelve months. It is a perfectly consistent lead, and as sure as we sit here in this committee that lead will lead to victory in this country. I do not want to pursue that personal aspect, but I do wish to say a word about something which I resent very much from the Prime Minister. He says that I do not care anything for Dutch-speaking South Africa.

That was a hit of the Prime Minister’s.

Well, well, we have some history in this country, and I resent this statement by the Prime Minister. I resent something else.

In connection with this matter, please.

I resent something he said yesterday. The Prime Minister in this House always pretends to speak for Dutch-speaking South Africa. You can do it only if you are possessed of an intolerant arrogance, because the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that he does not alone speak for Dutch-speaking South Africa.

For 90 per cent.

Order, order.

I hope the hon. member will calm down. The hon. Prime Minister has no right to arrogate to himself the position of speaking here exclusively for the Dutch-speaking population of South Africa. I speak just as much for them as he does—on this flag question I am speaking the Dutch-speaking mind much better than he is doing. I am sure there are tens of thousands of good moderate Nationalists all over South Africa who entirely agree with the position I have taken up.

Go and find out.

I have heard it from numbers of Nationalists that they think the Government has raised the question inopportunely and wrongly, and that the Government is going to force through this Bill in a way which is against the spirit and traditions of the people. Tire Prime Minister says on this matter I do not speak for Dutch-speaking South Africans. I am speaking not only for that very large number of Dutch-speaking people who belong to our party, but for thousands in his own party whom he does not represent on this matter. He says I am influenced by the Empire Group and other extremist bodies. It may be said with far greater truth that the Prime Minister has subjected himself to extremist influences in his own party. I snail not believe that in this matter he represents the real spirit of the National party. The intolerance of which the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior are the mouthpieces cannot be the spirit of the National party and must be alien to the spirit of the Dutch people. The Minister of the Interior says this is a new flag, but I maintain it has nothing to do with South Africa. You may look at its yellow, white and blue stripes and not the least sentiment will be stirred within you. Unless you have read English history and know about William of Orange the thing would be meaningless. In all probability it was not van Riebeeck’s flag. It is the Orange flag—it is the flag of the House of Orange, but the Dutch people themselves before they came to South Africa had abandoned that as their flag, for what reasons we need not go into. What, however, Holland abandoned in 1643 is good enough now for the Minister to pick up and make the flag of South Africa! I have accused him of picking up a dead English flag —the St. George’s Cross, which was the flag of England some centuries ago. He seems to revel in dead flags. He cannot get away from them, and having discarded an English dead flag he has rushed into a dead Dutch flag. It means absolutely nothing to us.

What do you suggest?

If my hon. friend will read my amendment he will see what I suggest. The Minister of the Interior went on to say that the select committee was a good test of our bona fides. The Minister is not the only person to refer to what happened in the select committee; I believe the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) both referred to the matter. Let me say what happened in the select committee, for here should be no confusion as to what took place there. When we met, myself and my friends did our best to induce the Government to postpone forcing this issue. We did our best for days. We argued with them from every possible point of view.

As you are doing to-day.

We did our best to extricate the Government from the impossible position into which they got themselves, but we failed. The Prime Minister told us that it was impossible for them to retreat. He said he made a mistake last year and should have forced the Bill through last year. Only think of that mentality—the mentality of a man who says that the flag was wrong, I dropped it deliberately, but yet says: “I should have forced it through last year!” I don’t understand that mentality. It is now again deliberately abandoned as a hopeless thing, but the Prime Minister still maintains here, as he did in the select committee, that this flag should have been forced through. When we were beaten there we went on, and I then proposed the amendment which is before us. We made an attempt to create a method of dealing with this question which might give us more time and get out of this heated atmosphere. The Prime Minister, however, waved my amendment aside and said it was impossible. We proceeded then to consider particular flags. The Government produced a number of flags, and we produced one. Out of the very large number sent to me, one appealed to me more than the rest, and I produced it. The Prime Minister says this was an insult, but that is not what he said in the select committee, where he was much more affable. He then said something quite different. He looked at the flag and his remark was this: That the first thing that struck him and made it impossible, as far as he was concerned, was that the old flags were too prominent. They obtruced themselves—the Union Jack and the two Vierkleurs were too prominent. He said that when a Transvaaler looked at the flag he would only see the Transvaal Vierkleur, and would clutch it to his bosom, the Free Stater would see only the Free State Vierkleur, and would clutch it to his bosom, and the Britisher would see only the Union Jack, and he would clutch it to his bosom, and they would all be satisfied. That is not what the Prime Minister wants.

That is not a correct statement.

Here again we have this strange mentality. He does not want a flag that will satisfy the people—he wants something that expresses his ideas. He is what the French call an “ideologue”—a man who is under the influence of abstract principles and ideas. His abstract idea is this. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was very optimistic just now, but I am sorry that I must destroy his optimism. I have a few telegrams which are in point on the remarks he has made. He said that not only his own followers, but that supporters of the Nationalist party were behind him. Now I just want to read out the telegram which was received from someone who knows the hon. member for Standerton very well for certain, viz., Mr. Troski Maré, D.S.O., of Parys, in the Vredefort constituency. He gave notice to the chairman of the district “bestuur” of the Nationalist party that he had resigned his membership of the South African party.

He is one of the leaders of the South African party in the Free State.

One of their leaders is, therefore, joining the Nationalist party.

One sinner that is converted.

He is a well-known leader of the South African party in the Free State, and the chief reason of his resignation is on account of the opposition to the Flag Bill by the hon. member for Standerton, and the other matter is with reference to the view of the South African party on the native question. I also have a telegram from my own constituency from South African party men which says that on the flag question they do not stand by their leader because he has made a party question of it. I have another important telegram which not only shows that Dutch-speaking members of the South African party are resigning, but also English-speaking members. The hon. member knows that the “Rand Daily Mail” had a leading article yesterday morning speaking in favour of the flag proposal of the Government. I now have a telegram from a highly trustworthy friend, and he says that the “Rand Daily Mail” says that it has received letters giving support to the paper’s sympathetic attitude regarding the new flag proposals of the Government, and that a selection of the letters is being published, inter alia, from well-known South African party men, including Mr. Ernest Lezard of Johannesburg. These are only a few examples which I quote, but I think they are in any case sufficient to show that the optimism which the hon. member for Standerton has shown in connection with support which he enjoys from the Dutch-speaking people is quite exaggerated, and that his idea that the English-speaking people are supporting him is becoming less and less justified. I have listened carefully to the speeches of the Opposition, and it appeared to me that their chief objection was that the Union Jack on the shield was too small and possibly also that it was square. Although they are now objecting because the Union Jack is too small, the representatives of the flag committees at the Flag Conference said that they would be satisfied even if the Union Jack were only as large as a rubber stamp. What, however, is the attitude of the Opposition? We know that the Opposition, some years ago, adopted mixed bathing, viz., by the South African party and the Unionist party, and since that time the new South African party is trying to cover its political nakedness by the Union Jack. A small Union Jack like the one that is in the flag cannot cover it, and, therefore, one can understand that the Opposition have a serious objection. I should like to suggest in all seriousness inasmuch as the shield does not satisfy hon. members opposite that it be removed. I am not in love with it. Let us obtain what the hon. member for Standerton advocated in 1920. I was a member of the Provincial Council when the resolution about the flag was passed. Let us have a clean flag and let the shield be removed. I am prepared to move it if hon. members opposite will support it, or if they move it I will support it. The Union Jack will surely still be flown alongside of the national flag, and I am prepared to go so far, if it will be any satisfaction to hon. members opposite, as to allow the Union Jack to be flown every day if we obtain a clean, national flag. In the Bill four days in the year are mentioned, although the British connection is surely a matter for every day. We must be honest amongst ourselves, and say that the Orange flag will be our flag, and that the Union Jack will be flown every day.

That will not assist.

We cannot help that. It surely shows that even at the eleventh hour we are still wanting a solution. Then there is another matter. I have spoken about the Union Jack which is used to cover the political nakedness of hon. members opposite. I think that something else should be put into the Bill viz., a provision saying that the use of the Union Jack and of the new South African flag shall be prohibited during elections.

Nonsense.

I know they do not want it because then they will have lost their chief election weapon. It is not a new idea, because it is in force, e.g., in America. The laws of the State of New York contain a provision that the State or national flag may not be used during elections. If the flag cannot be used as an election weapon in the future, then unity will be obtained amongst the people—a thing we very much want. In order to encourage love for our national flag, I want to suggest that the children should be taught to have respect for our flag. This is not a new idea, because it is done in other countries. If the children of both sections have respect for our flag then unity will come about, and I, therefore, want to suggest if the Bill is passed, that it be laid down that that flag should be present in every school in the country, so that the children can see it every day, and can grow up with a love for the common flag which will advance the unity of the people.

I do not feel called upon to deal with the speech of the hon. member. While we have been discussing serious things, he has been thinking of nasty subjects, and has blurted them out in his speech. The Prime Minister was evidently, and still is, under an obsession of abstract ideas regarding the formation of our flag, and it is embodied in the amendment he fathered in the select committee, and which now figures in Section 14 of the Bill. He says: “Let us now for goodness sake satisfy the Opposition. They want the old flags, let us give them the old flags, but on one condition, that these flags must appear on the Union flag as dead things; historical emblems of the past, and not real, vital, living entities of the present. They must not be a substantial part of the flag, but must be in some inset, stamp or shield.” And that appears to be the conclusion he has come to. His objection to our proposal was that we gave too much prominence to the old flags, and he did not want them to obtrude themselves too much on the attention of the people. In the House he has given another objection, and that is—it is an artistic insult. He seems to have got that idea from his artictic mentor. He told his expert adviser what the proposal was which we had made, the man was not actually shown our flag, and this expert came to the conclusion this was an artistic insult. This flag design has been seen by a large number of people in my office, and they have praised it on the whole as a pretty design. It compares very favourably with this orange flag he has adopted, with the dead inset on it. The only real objection the Prime Minister has is not the one borrowed from his artistic mentor, but that the old flags are too prominent on the Union flag. The Minister of the Interior tried to make a point all along that the Government has been making advances and trying to meet us and trying to evolve something satisfactory, and that we have not stirred an inch, but have, on the contrary, moved the other way. The Government have not made the least substantial concession on this point.

You ought to know that is not so.

It is so, and I maintain they have made no advance. They have made a semblance of an advance. They have said :“We will give you the flags in a form of invisibility.”

That shows how hopeless you are.

They gave those flags so that when they were on the pole they would be invisible. You must not see the emblems we want. That is no concession whatever. It is purely a verbal concession, and if the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior think we are going to be caught in that way, then they are making a big mistake. We want no more than we asked for originally, and we continue to ask for, and that is, that the flags of this country, the old republican flags together with the Union Jack, shall be represented substantially as integral portions of the new flag of the country. Reference was made to our words in the amendment in the second reading. “As far as possible,” those words did not mean mutilation. It was the Minister of the Interior who started this dangerous hare of mutilation. Naturally, when you put three flags together some overlapping may become necessary for artistic purposes, and the words were a concession to that difficulty. The Minister of the Interior made it impossible to go on with the idea, because he spoke of mutilation, and the people do not want their flags mutilated. What he did with the Union Jack was to split it up, leaving only one cross there, and that the people did not want. I think the Government have made no advance whatever. They have been playing round the subject with one flag after another. Their own party and newspapers have disapproved of their manoeuvres. The Minister said the “Daily Mail” approved of the crown. What did “Die Burger” say about the crown? They are playing with us and toying with us still. If we are to come together, let the other side come forward with an honest attempt to meet us. Do not meet us with dead flags, with invisible flags. I want to see the Vierkleur there. The Free Stater wants to see the Free State Vierkleur there, and the Cape colonists and the Natalians want to see the Union Jack. They must be prominent and must obtrude themselves. That is the way we want them, and that is the only way which will lead to a satisfactory solution. The day he comes forward with that I shall say the word he wants me to say and ask the country to accept it. But I am not going to ask the country to accept what is, to my mind, a patent transparent fraud. We are not going to be diddled in a matter which affects the deepest interests and the deepest sentiments of this country. There must be an equal settlement and an honest settlement, and we are not going to be side-tracked by these manoeuvres to which the Government have lent themselves. The Prime Minister says: “We must go on.” No man has spoken more in this House and in this debate on the question of domination than the Prime Minister himself. It is another of his obsessions, that there is domination, that we want to dominate the Union flag by the Union Jack, that there is this idea of British domination at the back of people’s minds here in this country. But, sir, I say this, what is the procedure on which he insists so strongly but domination? He wants to force this Bill through this House and force it through by way of a referendum. The minority in this country, although they may be almost equal to the majority, have not to be considered; they have to be steam-rollered. I say that is domination —domination in its worst form. To my mind, we established a different method and a different procedure, we laid down different codes for our behaviour as races in this country at union. We laid down that in the fundamental things in our country and our lives we were going to meet each other on the path of understanding, and not of domination. I should say it comes with ill grace from the Prime Minister to talk about domination by the Empire Group, or by whichever group he may be thinking of, when the whole essence of the Government position is to dominate the minority in this country, to force something upon them which they will not have. And he will not succeed. You may pass your Bill, you may have your referendum, you may even succeed on your referendum, you may formally succeed, but what substantial success do you really secure? You will have a flag in this country which the people do not want to have, which the people do not love, which touches no chord in their hearts at all, which to them is, indeed, a dead flag. It will be a dead flag as far as the peoples of this country are concerned, and you will secure absolutely nothing by forcing this thing through. Under these circumstances, I say there is only one way, and that is the way of understanding and agreement. I am prepared to wait. The Prime Minister says, yes, that is my old game. That is an open game. In truth, it is not a game; it is my conviction that this country is not ripe, things being what they are to-day, and with the knowledge we have that things are not ripe for a change—

The time was ripe in 1919.

I will take up that point. The flag question was referred to at public meetings and at congresses in 1919 and in 1920, amongst others, by myself, and there it dropped. No reference has been made here, no quotation has been made which shows that from 1920 to 1925, when the Minister took up this matter, the matter was even referred to. We have fought several general elections in this country since that time, and that matter was not referred to. At the last general election not a word was said about the flag. The Minister of Justice has repeatedly said here in this House and on the platform that there is no feeling about the flag in the country, and that it leaves him stone cold. [Time limit.]

I want to say a few words more and I hope that this will be the last time that I shall take part in the debate. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said that I have spoken a great deal about domination. I did do so. It is just on the ground of domination that I said that his proposal was impossible. He raised his proposal in the select committee and let me say at once that what he has said is for the most part quite right. I naturally did not feel myself called upon to explain all the objections I had, but the objection with regard to domination is the reason which I gave why the Union Jack could not be in the flag of South Africa. As I said at the second reading Dutch-speaking South Africa has the feeling that the Union Jack pains them every time they look at it. The hon. member for Standerton in the past felt that just as badly as I did, and he even gave expression to it by saying that it offended him. He admitted that he said so. To-day it is still precisely the same thing. It is clear to me, and I say, that Dutch-speaking South Africa will want to have nothing to do with a flag of South Africa on which the Union Jack obtrudes. I rightly pointed out that if the historical flags were so embraced in the national flag that they obtruded themselves, then the Freestater would look at the Free State flag and say, “that is my flag,” the Transvaalers would look at it and say, “the Vierkleur is my flag,” and the English-speaking people in South Africa would say, “that Union Jack is my flag.” I then said, you would not get consolidation but only division because no one would accept the flag as a national flag, and the Union Jack would remain there as something which constantly caused pain. Accordingly, I said I should have no pleasure in a flag on which the Union Jack or any of the other historical flags appeared in such a way as to be predominant. This attitude is maintained in Clause 14 of the Bill, as the hon. member for Standerton has shown. There lies the fundamental difference between this and the other side of the House, viz., that they want a flag on which the Union Jack, inter alia, will appear as dominating the flag.

No.

Yes, it is dominating in this respect that you cannot look at the national flag without saying, “there is the Union Jack”—

Now you want to put it on the badge so that it shall not be seen?

Let me conclude my argument. I used the word dominating in the sense that the flags will obtrude themselves on the national flag, and I said so in the select committee. There are others who cannot endure the Vierkleur, and to those people it will be just as dominating in the national flag. Why should we put it on the national flag for which it is expected that we should have love and respect. Now it is very clear to me that Dutch-speaking South Africa, with all respect to the hon. member for Standerton who wants to make out that he represents Dutch-speaking South Africa, do not insist that the republican flags should be included in the design. English-speaking South Africa in its entirety would like to have the Union Jack on it, but all do not insist on it. No, there is a small minority of kindred spirits of the hon. member for Zululand which insists that the Union Jack must be on the national flag and he told us yesterday why he wants it there. He stated emphatically that, of course, the Union Jack must be there otherwise there would be secession in South Africa. In other words the Union Jack must dominate it and its authority as Union Jack must mean something on the flag.

Don’t misrepresent.

Of course, the hon. member put his foot into it yesterday and now he wants to withdraw. We know him too well, however, because he has not only once but repeatedly shown bitterness to all who are Dutch-speaking.

No.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) cannot deny that if there is bitterness then it is bitterness which constantly comes from that place in the House.

That is not the last word.

I do not agree that that is the attitude of everybody because then it would make the position in South Africa impossible. There is, however, a section and a strong section, and I want to say that it is that section which is giving the lead opposite. I said unquestionably that I did not want those flags to obtrude themselves on the national flag, and I repeat it. I regard it as a matter of so fundamental a nature that I will say at once that I am sorry I took the trouble to include Chapter III. When we come to that I shall ask leave to propose that it should be deleted because it is very clear to me that there is nothing further to be done now. Now that the other side demands that each of the historical flags shall have one-fourth of the national flag. Then I say that we have arrived at such a fundamental difference that it is useless to think that anything further can be done by a conference. If we are to go to the people without an agreement then I want us to do so as soon as possible and without their being any further doubt about the attitude of the Government. I only say this because it is clear to me from what the hon. member for Standerton has said here that it will do no good. I intended it as a real attempt to give a further opportunity to the other side of the House after the end of the session to meet with us to see if we could not arrive at the basis of a compromise. I want to apologize for having spoke so often, but this will be the last time.

I think the Prime Minister has made his position very clear. Both yesterday and to-day the Prime Minister is absolutely adamant on this position that in the new flag he will not accord the old-flags—the Union Jack and the two old republican flags—any prominent or substantial position. That he has made perfectly clear, and he is not going to recede from that position, and he clinches the matter by saying he is going to withdraw Chapter 3 which still left room for a certain amount of bargaining, because on that position he will never give way. It is as well for the country to understand where it is. The Prime Minister has defined his position with absolute clarity, and for that, at any rate, we must be thankful. But I must say this, the Prime Minister has not acted like a patriot; he has not acted in a human way in this matter. He has been led away by certain preconceived ideas as to the part to be played by the old flags in our new flag. If he were more human, if he had consideration for the feelings of hundreds of thousands of South Africans, he would have dealt more kindly with their old flags, which live for them and stand for their positions in the past. I am very sorry we have come to this point. The Prime Minister now finally closes down and says, “I have this idea in my head; I am going to stick to it.” He is not going to consider the feelings of those who want a more prominent place and better recognition for the old flags than is accorded them in this inset or emblem or shield. The Prime Minister is taking a very grave responsibility upon himself. He may win politically, but it will be a disastrous victory for this country because this flag, so forced through this House and forced through the country by a referendum, is going, not to unite the people, not to consolidate them, but just the opposite—it is going to divide. This flag is going to be a bone of contention, and he is going to make matters worse by flying alongside this flag the Union Jack. The result in this country will be that you will see in one part of the country this flag, in other parts the old flags of the Transvaal and the Free State, and in other parts again you will see the Union Jack. This country will be torn to pieces and there will be no flag. The end of this forced procedure will be that we shall have no united flag and no united people in this country. I am sure the Government started with higher hopes. I am sure the Prime Minister when he took upon himself the responsibility for the people of this country had much higher ideas and ideals for the future. But there is an evil genius in his party. There is some spirit of evil which comes out at the testing time on great occasions. It has come out repeatedly. I am not going over the old history of this country for the last twelve or fifteen years, but on every critical occasion this evil genius, this chained devil in the background of the National party, has come to the front. Unfortunately it is prominent once more, and the power which has been given to this Government for economic reform and advancement of this country is now going to be used in order to rend the people, in order to drive them to extremes, in order to divide South Africa and to leave this country in the next couple of years in a state such as we have not seen for many years. A very great responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister. He may win or he may lose, but South Africa can only lose in the procedure which he is adopting.

I rise not for the purpose of continuing this debate but in order to protest as strongly as I can against a statement made by the Minister of the Interior and a statement also made by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that when the committee met last year, the committee representative of parties that tried to come to an agreement about the flag, I had agreed, or practically agreed to a solution of the question and was overruled by my right hon. friend and leader. When the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) made that statement list year, I got up and denied it, and stated the position as it was. I am very much surprised to find the Minister of the Interior, who was there right through the proceedings, making the same statement. I know of course why it is done. It is the insensate hatred which my hon. friends opposite pursue over against the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and to back up which they shrink from nothing. The present attempt is to use me as a kind of instrument to turn the whole of the blame of the state of things on my right hon. friend. I want to say again what happened in that committee, and I appeal to the memory of those who were members of it, is not correct. We had come practically to a deadlock on that committee, and the hon. member for Winburg, as far as I can remember, suggested that we might have a double flag; one a domestic flag, and the other to represent our external relations. I said that was an idea I had never thought of before, and it occurred to me as an idea that might lead to a solution. I said, “in any case do not let us break off, but consider that idea.” I told them I would consult my friends and see whether we could not come to a solution along those lines. The more I thought of this idea the less I liked it. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, an impossible idea. That is as far as I have ever gone towards accepting that idea. I trust that the hon. member for Winburg will not again make a statement to the contrary. This is being used by what I can call only an abuse of confidence of the most serious kind. I do not object to it, but we met on that committee to talk things over in a perfectly friendly and confidential manner, and the things we said there or threw out were to be used inside the four walls, and not brought up against a member for political purposes afterwards. But the committee had hardly come to an end before it was used by the hon. member for Winburg for political purposes, and it has been used again. I do object to this strongly; and if this thing is going on it will make conferences of this kind, which are most useful in our political life, impossible. As far as this other matter is concerned, I consulted my leader, as I was bound to do; and I am proud to follow his advice and stand by him, and hope I shall continue to do so. That I held an idea and was ordered by him or coerced to do something against my own judgment and of which my conscience did not approve is entirely wrong.

As a member of that committee, might I say what my impression was? As far as I can remember, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that nothing was said definitely that could bind the South African party to any solution suggested in that committee. I stake my political life on the perfect honesty of the hon. member for Yeoville, but I must say that, as a member of that committee, I came away from at least two meetings under the impression that the South African party was prepared to agree to the solution put forward. I think now that the hon. member for Winburg was mistaken, but I want the hon. member for Yeoville to realize that the attitude of his party leaders was such as to mislead us. A misunderstanding was arrived at. I want to know by what right members of the South African party, such as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), arrogate to themselves to speak on behalf of the English-speaking people of this country? These two hon. members in particular are not elected by the by the English-speaking people of this country; they are elected by two votes— in the first case, by the blanket vote, and in the second, by the support of Dr. Abdurahman. We have, on the one hand, backing them the mass of the ignorant vote of the native voter at the Cape, and, on the other hand, the support of Dr. Abdurahman—the gentleman who said that—

I speak for some English-speaking people of South Africa, and I say if the census figures are examined, it would be found that there are as many men born in England, Scotland and Ireland who voted for the Pact as for the South African party.

Never again.

We are going to put the matter to the test in this Bill. If people vote in favour of this we have put them to the test.

Put yourself to the test.

I have never failed to put myself to the test in peace or war. The plea of the South African party has been for “more time.” The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) last night referred to the desirability of more time. I wonder what the South African party are going to do with it if they forget it. Are they going to exercise a spirit of restraint, and soften the feelings between the two races; or are they going to use the time as they have done in the past, to stir up and incite bitter racial feeling between the two races of the country? Will the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) refuse to use the Union Jack as a table cloth at his meetings? Last time he spoke it was so big that it lapped over, and he delivered half his speech with both his feet on it. The hon. member said that Natal was praying for the successful negotiations while the select committee was sitting. I have taken the trouble to look through the newspapers of Natal at the time the select committee was sitting, and I found nothing but bitter venomous attacks on the Minister, the Government and the whole Dutch race of South Africa. There is one paper which is more bitterly racial than any other paper, and that is the “Natal Mercury,” which has been well named the polecat of journalism in South Africa. The hon. member said that no meetings were held at the time, but a gigantic meeting was held in Johannesburg at the time the select committee was sitting. The biggest Union Jack in the British dominions was sent from Durban to Johannesburg to use at the meeting. It was curious that they had no Vierkleurs at Johannesburg and they had to have them specially made.

And then they hung them up-side-down.

It has often been said by the South African party that we, on this side of the House, are forcing the Bill on the country, but they conveniently ignore the fact that the Bill provides that before the design is finally accepted it must be submitted to a referendum. Thus a definite opportunity will be given to the people to record their opinion on the question. In the select committee the South African party representatives voted against the taking of a referendum, and did their best to prevent people being given an opportunity of expressing their opinion. The South African party members of the select committee wanted to force a flag on the people without their consent. I am glad that the Minister of the Interior read that extract from the speech of the South African party leader in the Transvaal Provincial Council. May I reason a little with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), who has said that he wishes to have an exclusively South African flag?

How about a red flag?

The hon. member at the Transvaal Provincial Council voted for an exclusively South African national anthem. Did he intend that the British national anthem should be included as a substantial portion of the South African national anthem?

A wonderful argument.

It is said that the shield containing the Union Jack and the two Vierkleurs which it is proposed shall be placed on the new national flag, is too small. Yet the badge which the South African party was perfectly prepared to take as representing South Africa’s share in the red ensign is smaller than this badge. The truth of the matter is that they will not be satisfied with anything which takes away from them a weapon which they hope to use at the next general election. [Time limit.]

I just want to say a few words in connection with what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said about the sittings of the first flag conference last year. I am sorry that the hon. member thinks that there has been a breach of faith in referring to what took place there. I must say that I did not regard it as of such a private nature. While the conference was proceeding I regarded it so, but I remember expressly that when the committee had framed its report which was on the whole a very short report of what actually took place, and when it was decided that the report should be published it was said that we could further elucidate the matter and speak in the House about it. That is why last year when I spoke I asked the hon. member if he had not said so, and I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding about the matter because I realize that we must sometimes hold conferences of a private and semi-private nature. If a misunderstanding has arisen I am extremely sorry. As the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) said we were under the impression that there was going to be a solution, and we inferred that not only from the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville but also that of Sir Charles Smith. Even after he came from Natal and said that he thought that the Union Jack should be put on the national flag he said, after I had explained to him what our view was about the two flags, that he had come over to my view. It is true that the hon. member for Yeoville never stated definitely that he agreed with me. Even on the day when we decided to propose the Bill I asked, “Do you think that it does such violence to British sentiments?” Then he said that he could not say, but that in any case he would consult his friends. When we met the next day he said that the only satisfaction to his side would be to have the Union Jack on the national flag. That is how I understood the matter. I should like to say a few words in connection with the flag proposals before us. I was sorry to hear from the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) how little they thought of the Orange flag which is proposed, and to hear how contemptuously it was referred to in saying that it had nothing to do with South Africa and that it left us cold. I think that if there is one flag which can be adopted which ought to touch the heart of South Africa, both Dutch- and English-speaking, it is that flag. It embraces the tradition of English- and Dutch-speaking people, and it can be connected up with them whether Van Riebeeck’s flag contained orange or not. Blue and white certainly were in his flag. We know that for practical reasons it became difficult for the Navy to get orange, and that the colour more and more became red. There is, however, no doubt that it was the basis of the flag which Van Riebeeck brought here, and under which the war for European freedom was fought. That is the basis of the colours under which the East India Company did its word— viz., orange, white and blue. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said that if you went to the Art Gallery and looked at the Dutch flag of the 17th century then there is always red in it. He cannot at all go on that. If he goes to the Library he will see the magnificent maritime atlas of 1700. In that the colours, orange, white and blue, are given, but if he looks for the orange colour he will see that it is red. It was difficult in practice to reproduce orange, especially at sea, and therefore it became red more and more. That flag was surely the basic flag under which the war of European freedom was fought and the work of the East India Company was done. I say further that the traditions of both English- and Dutch-speaking people are associated with it, because the 80 years’ war was not only fought for the benefit of Holland and it was not only for political freedom, but it was the great fight for liberty of conscience. It had a meaning to Holland as well as to the other European States, and it is the flag under which the first ancestors of the Afrikander people were born. If it is a fact that orange was officially changed to red nine years before the establishment of the settlement at the Cape then the fact still remains that the first colonists were born under that flag, and that the holy traditions of the people came into existence under it. That flag, therefore, has a meaning to the whole of Europe and to the European civilization in South Africa. The Prime Minister pointed out the historical facts of which the hon. member for Standerton does not think very highly, but which are yet of great importance, viz., that it is the symbol of which it can truly be said that English- and Dutch-speaking people were united in history. This orange flag was flown above the palaces of the English Kings at the end of the 17th century, when William of Orange was King of England. That was a period of the greatest importance to England. The English people are proud of their constitutional liberty, but I want to remind them that the Bill of Rights was obtained under William of Orange. The English constitution rests on the Bill or Rights. The traditions therefore of both the English- and Dutch-speaking people are thus connected with that flag. Let anyone show me a flag in the past with which the sacred traditions of both races are more bound up. I think it would be impossible to find such a flag. I am sorry that we have to put a shield on that flag. I think it is absolutely unnecessary. I should have thought it necessary to do so if we had not acknowledged the Union Jack separately, but as the Union Jack is separately acknowledged as the Imperial flag I think it is unfair towards the Dutch-speaking people who have no sentiment for the Union Jack. If we are going to honour it and are going to adopt the flag with the shield and meet the demands of the Opposition then it can only be because on our part we say that we want to have an end to the divisions and conflict in the country. [Time limit.]

The Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) have waxed eloquent about this flag of the House of Orange. We have heard the Prime Minister was equally enthusiastic about three other flags, and, perhaps, to-morrow he will wax enthusiastic about a fifth. Listening to the explanation as to why we should adopt this new flag, the Minister of the Interior said it reminded us of William of Orange landing in England. But it was not the flag of Holland in those days, nor do I know what South Africa has to do with the landing of William of Orange in England. I do not mean anything disparaging to the House of Orange, it was a great dynasty, but it had its weaklings. The only occasion the House of Orange interfered in our affairs was in 1795 when the Cape was handed over to the British at the request of the then Prince of Orange. This flag, then, will remind us that the only weakling of the House of Orange fled to England and ordered the Cape garrison to be handed over to the British. That was the only case when the House of Orange had any connection with the history of South Africa. I do not say that in disparagement of the House of Orange, because they have been a great dynasty.

You do not know your history.

Oh, well, I have an interesting document here from the Cape archives. It is the one historical document connecting the House of Orange and this flag we are now to adopt for South Africa. The document reads as follows—

That was the only occasion the House of Orange intervened in our affairs. Is that the incident we are going to commemorate in this new flag? The average Hollander will tell you be was not proud of the action of the House of Orange on that occasion. Let me read what the commander of the British fleet said at the same time—

I do not want to delve into old history, but it does seem to be farcical to come and tell us, at their fourth attempt, that we are to accept this new flag and that it stands for all the wonderful traditions that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has just told us about. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior have both told us that they are not keen on this flag. They don’t like it. The people don’t like it.

Excuse me, I did not say I do not like it. I could choose a flag I would like more.

You could choose something better? So could we choose something better; so could the people of this country choose something better. Here we have it that the Prime Minister himself says that he could choose something better. Then why doesn’t he choose something better?

You would not be satisfied.

The people of this country would like to chose something better. Why should this flag, which, to the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, is not a satisfactory flag, be rammed down the people’s throats? Any old flag, apparently, will do so long as it does not contain a live representation of the old flags of this country. They have had four different designs now, and, apparently, they are quite prepared to take a fifth design so long as it does not retain the old living flags of this country. That hardly seems to be the way to do things. The Minister of the Interior is now facing directly in the opposite direction from which he started. He started by stating that he wanted a flag which had no connection with the past. He has now given us a flag which goes back to the time of William the Third. This change of face is the sign of a weak man, who has started on a road which he does not know where it leads him to. It appears to me that the Government are struggling in a morass, and they do not know what they want. I would put it to the Minister that it is absurd asking us to accept this flag of the House of Orange. To show how little thought they have devoted to this matter the Minister of the Interior tells us himself that he does not know whether this flag is the van Riebeeck flag. He puts it in on the chance that it may turn out to be the flag that van Riebeeck landed here with. Is that the way in which to have a new flag hurriedly inserted into a Bill at a moment’s notice?

It will make its own history in this country.

This is a flag that made history 300 years ago. I am afraid this new flag will make history in a way this country won’t like, if you are not very careful. Surely the way which this unknown flag has been dragged into the Bill shows that what we want is more time to consider this matter, and shows the wisdom of the amendment moved by the right hon. the member for Standerton. Quite clearly the Government do not know where they stand in regard to this flag. I have no doubt that if someone were to get up on the other side and propose another new flag the Government would hasten to accept that, too. I do, therefore, make a final appeal at the eleventh hour, let us postpone the whole thing and get into calmer waters and take more time to consider the matter.

I want to say a few words in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Hon. members opposite must not forget that there is strong feeling on our side. We have conceded a great deal. In the Bill it is now clearly stated that we acknowledge the Union Jack as an official flag in South Africa. They ask if we are really in earnest. I should just like to say that hon. members opposite must not forget that it was a great thing on our part to make that concession. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has said what our feelings in the matter are, and to us they are very deep feelings which we cannot forget. It is a matter of history. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) wanted to quote from the history of the past, and I know that the hon. member participated in some of the history. Many of us did the same. The Union Jack is being acknowledged in a very plain manner in the Bill, and it has never before been acknowledged in South Africa. It is a very great thing for us to concede and everybody feels it. The hon. member for Standerton now says that there is an evil spirit prevailing on this side of the House which is exercising an important influence. I am sorry to hear those words, because it is the greatest folly that I have ever yet heard. There is not an evil spirit, but a spirit of rapprochement on this side of the House. When the committee sat the parties could be seen approaching each other, but it is always said that the Dutch-speaking people ask too much and give too little. That spirit is noticeable amongst hon. members opposite, and to-day it is going from bad to worse. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Standerton, with the history which he has behind him, can speak of an evil spirit. He must not speak in regard to our leader of an evil spirit, bitt he must think of the feeling which he has aroused in the country by his action in the past. Many of us suffered severely under it I want to go further and to indicate the attitude of the Empire Group which is now repudiated by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The following appeared in the “National Review”—

An expert in history such as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), who has learnt his history from Whiteside and such-like books, can easily sneer at the Orange flag. He must remember that the Free State Volksraad in 1856 received a letter from the King of Holland, which read—

The House of Orange, therefore, in 1856 took an interest in us, and we must remember that the Free Slate flag was due to the House of Orange. We need not go back to van Riebeeck’s days. Now it is stated that the House of Orange had nothing to do with South Africa, but there, is always proof that the House of Orange did think of South Africa. Just remember, e.g., that Queen Wilhelmina sent the Gelderland at the time of the second war of independence to fetch President Kruger. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), a son of the Free State, shows that he does not actually understand the history of South Africa. If he will go to the archives he will learn what the House of Orange actually did for South Africa. We have to-day to do with the question of a South African flag, and hon. members opposite must understand it. The hon. member for Standerton said that he was speaking on the part of the Dutch-speaking population, but his imagination plays him many tricks. He has long since lost the confidence of the Afrikaans-speaking population. Dutch-speaking South Africa has hitherto always been the people to make concessions, and they are to-day still doing so. We have conceded with regard to the flag question in a way that our English-speaking friends do not understand. I will end with a few words to hon. members opposite by asking my English-speaking friends never to forget that the Union Jack is acknowledged in the Bill as a symbol. Here again the hand is being stretched out to them and a concession is made. There has been no rapprochement on their side, but only on our side. As that cannot be said of them it shows who the evil spirit of South Africa is that is swaying hon. members opposite. It is the Empire Group and the Sons of England.

My fiery friend opposite seems to have excited himself very much, and if the devil gets the same turning up as he has given us he will flee before him. I claim when I speak on this question of the flag it is in no spirit of animosity but to get my hon. friends opposite to meet the popular opinion in this country. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) made a statement that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was returned by the native vote. I can speak from experience. I have seen candidates of opposite views and I have never found one who did not try to get the vote of the native. My hon. friend had a majority of 1,000 votes and the total native vote of that constituency is 400. So I make bold to say that he had more European voters than the hon. member had. The next thing is this. He made a great point of Dr. Abdurahman, that he was the pivot that turned the election. I am sure his knowledge of Dr. Abdurahman is only obtained from the newspapers. We had a very strong factor working against us in Port Elizabeth, working for the Pact, to secure the native vote. That factor was Clements Kadalie.

I was amongst the Port Elizabeth people.

I am glad to hear it. I suppose that was the nearest approach to civilization you have had in your life. If there were 400 native voters there and there was a man like Kadalie working amongst them how many votes was my hon. friend likely to get? He did, not get the 400 so the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) is wrong there. Another statement he made was that the original Hertzog flag contained a smaller proportion than the present flag. I have here the flag. To my mind it does not give the proportion that should fairly represent the races, but this flag I hold went to German South West Africa, from there to France, then to Egypt and then back to France. I want to discuss the flag from the standpoint of friendship not animosity, but I only rose to get rid of the idea that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) sits here on the native voter. I make bold to say that very few of the gentlemen who throw stones at the native vote if they were in a constituency where it could be secured would not take advantage of it. I ask the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) did they nurse the native vote; did they go after it?

We did not nurse the native vote?

You want them not at the nursing stage; you want them to go to the poll.

We do not walk down the street arm in arm with them.

That shows the natives have not lost all self respect. I rose only to check the impression which might have been made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), because some of my hon. friends opposite laughed and cheered when the hon. member made his statement. I hold no brief for Central, but I hold a brief for the honour of Port Elizabeth, and that honour was impugned when that statement was made. There is no hon. member from the three constituencies of Port Elizabeth who has not a larger majority of European votes than those hon. members together. A man should not stand up in this House and make a statement unless it is based on fact, because what he says goes out to the world. The hon. member has not done it purposely, but it will go into Hansard that these hon. members were put in through the native vote.

I am rising to speak again only because the Minister of the Interior has made a reference to a discussion in the Transvaal Provincial Council in 1920, and poured scorn on me in regard to it. The Minister has not the slightest knowledge of that debate nor have hon. members when they jump to the conclusion that because Mr. Maasdorp, a South African party man, who was supported by the entire body of the South African party in the Provincial Council, moved for a South African flag, that therefore it meant excluding the Union Jack. There may be a flag “exclusively” South African, and it may include the Union Jack.

How could it?

This very flag which is put forward now is exclusively South African and does include the Union Jack. All this thunder is put up against poor me, without any proof that the Union Jack was excluded. I was delighted to hear that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) wax so enthusiastic in regard to this incidence of seven years ago. He comes and talks eloquently about the Union Jack in the new flag; oh how I recall his tall and commanding form, and his resounding voice as he gave expression to what was the only flag that he was standing for. May I repeat it to him?—

Then there is the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) who scorns Great Britain and everything British. I have always felt so sorry for him, as with a bleeding heart he looked up at the Union Jack. We did not know how greatly he was suffering; we did not realize the depth of his terrible emotion at the thought that this was the conqueror’s flag flying over his subjected country. But here he is, quite at ease now, with the Union Jack on the flag.

No.

Not at ease? Oh, I feel really sorry for him; and only a few days ago he was able to take his place as an executive member of the Empire Parliamentary Association. This hon. member, a republican so extreme that he cannot look upon the Union Jack without repulsion, accepted the position on the executive of the Association!

On a point of explanation.

Will the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) give way?

No. Only last night I had some part of my valuable ten minutes taken away in a similar manner. He can follow me when assured of a compensating balance—where one can go round the empire on trips at half price.

That is not British.

It is only “British” when I am attacked. Let me say seriously that I welcome the hon. member for Winburg to the Empire Parliamentary Association. Even as an irreconcilable republican he will find a welcome wherever the British flag flies, and where-ever he may go in the British empire as one of the Association. When my time expired previously I was drawing the attention to the Minister of the Interior saying that if Germany had imposed its flag on a conquered England the British people would have revolted. I put it to him that the parallel was not fair. It is he who is the jack-booted steel-helmeted Prussian imposing his flag on an unwilling people. He seeks to displace a flag which has flown over the Cape for 120 years, and in Natal for 80 years. That is his political crime and the crime of the Government. I want to show the absurdity of hostile action which brings about severance between the two races. I was closely associated with Transvaal affairs when the unfortunate Anglo-Boer war broke out. With others I tried my hardest to warn my English friends that the Boer had his back to the wall and would fight. I also tried to point out to the Dutch that the British were not bluffing, and that the end would be very terrible. Unfortunately, one could not persuade either of these parties that the other was not bluffing. The Boers said “we have seen the Transvaal given back to us after Majuba, and the Free State restored,” therefore, we are perfectly certain that the British are not going to fight over a franchise. Providence punished both. The British by great losses in men, money and prestige; the Dutch by the loss of their republican independence. [Time limit.]

After what the hon. member has said, I ought to offer some explanation. He said that I accepted nomination on the executive of the Empire Parliamentary Association because of certain material benefits which may accrue and therefore doubts the sincerity of my views with regard to imperialism. I was not present at the meeting, and have had no official notification of having received such nomination, so it cannot be said that I have accepted it. From the idea I had of the association, I never thought it was possible that it could be brought into a debate like this. The hon. member seems to think we are only shamming when we say we have certain strong feelings in regard to the Union Jack. I am sorry these feelings do exist. It is really a tragedy that the flag which is loved by one section of the population should be abhorred by the other section. I wish it were otherwise, but we have to face the facts, and the truth is that these facts are such that a large section of the people do look upon the Union Jack with a certain amount of abhorrence.

You help them.

I am only trying to interpret the feelings I have myself. I am trying to explain why it is necessary, if we want a flag to unite the people that we should not put on it an emblem which will tend to division. Hitherto the Union Jack has always tended to divide in South Africa. I know of no symbol which has more tended to divide us. This has been made ever so much worse by the use the flag has been put to in the past; the South African party has dragged it into politics. That is certainly a tragedy. If the Union Jack could possibly serve to unite the people, as far as I am concerned I would sink my feelings. We have tried to show that we are not endeavouring to put our personal feelings to the fore. We are trying to find a flag which will unite, and that is the main reason why we are coming forward with a design which, if we were the only section, we should not have chosen. There must be give and take in this matter. We have tried to give as much from our side as possible. In this flag I am really making a sacrifice when I say I am going to accept the flag and put a Union Jack on it, even in this small space. If I could have prevented it, I would have prevented it, although it certainly does not hurt us so much as when we see the Union Jack in a dominant form in the left hand corner of a flag. It would have been fair to the British section, if we had taken a new flag altogether, and flown the Union Jack as an Empire flag. They, on their side, would have been fairer to our sentiments if they had said, “Here is a new flag, it does not hurt us and we can attach to it all our common traditions of the past.” The very moment you accept the flag all your traditions accrue to it. It is madness to think that a small piece of bunting can have those traditions in itself. As such we are willing to make this sacrifice; although you may not look upon it as a sacrifice, it is a real sacrifice when we say we are willing to accept the Union Jack and the Vierkleurs in the shield on the new flag.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee put,

What about my amendment?

If this clause is adopted the amendment will drop.

The Prime Minister has moved one amendment and I have moved another amendment. Is there no way of putting my amendment to the vote?

I have to put the clause and if it is agreed to I cannot put any amendment in conflict with it.

If this clause is deleted there will be a blank. What do we put in?

The hon. member may then move his amendment. The amendment of the Select Committee is only a part of the clause.

Cannot you put this in favour of retaining the clause for the purpose of inserting the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton?

I am bound to put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Is it not rather special because the hon. member for Standerton moved his amendment to Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Clause 3 stood out on the understanding that the amendment would apply to Clause 4.

The right hon. member moved his amendment yesterday and I find no record of it in the Votes and Proceedings.

I moved the amendment to Clause 4 yesterday. I wanted to move it to Clause 3, but that was found not to suit the purpose of the Minister so I moved it to Clause 4.

The hon. member will notice I cannot put a new clause until the old clause is deleted. Until there is a blank nothing can take the place of it.

There is no record on the Votes and Proceedings that the hon. member moved the amendment yesterday.

But I did not put it to the committee. It can only be put after a blank is created.

I shall be glad if a way can be found for having the amendments of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) put to the vote, because I think there was an understanding that his amendment would be put to the vote. I shall be glad if he can be given the opportunity to have a division on it. I was under the impression that that was possible.

The rule I refer to is Rule 164. [Rule read.] This has been the old practice. The right hon. member may move it again in the report stage. I cannot put it now; I am bound by the rules. I put the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4, as amended by Select Committee, put and Dr. de Jager called for a division.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—71.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie. J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—51.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Clause, as amended by Select Committee, accordingly agreed to.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.4 p.m.

I move—

Before going on to Clause 3, or rather before accepting this motion of the Minister of the Interior, to which, of course, there is no objection, I would like him to take this opportunity of making a statement which he promised to make in the House. The Minister will remember that in the Select Committee I raised the point as to what flag was to be flown by vessels at sea, and I pointed out that in 1910 or 1911, shortly after Union, our Government adopted the red ensign with the coat of arms of the Union in the fly as the flag to be flown by merchant vessels registered in the Union and also that the naval vessels attached to our defence department fly the white ensign, and further that other Government vessels fly the blue ensign. I think the Minister will agree with me that we all at the committee agreed that it was inadvisable to adopt the suggestion I made, to make provision in this Bill regarding the sea flag, because that can only be done in consultation with His Majesty’s Government or after the Merchant Shipping Act has been amended. I did not officially move the clause which I meant to move, on the Minister’s assurance that he would raise the matter in the committee so that it might be put on record.

I gladly comply with the hon. member’s request. As I stated in the House during the second reading debate, the real reason why we have got a so-called South African flag which is, after all, not a South African flag, but is really the British red ensign, why we have got that for our merchant vessels is because under the old status we did not possess what is called extra-territorial jurisdiction. Every ship registered in South Africa leaving our shores becomes internationally a British ship as soon as it is outside the three-mile limit. We have no extra-territorial jurisdiction and for that reason the Government of Great Britain, through the King, alone had the right to determine what the flag should be which was flown on such vessels outside our territorial waters. That is the reason why we have got a so-called South African flag which is not really a South African flag. The question is, what will be the position in future if this Flag Bill is passed? My reply in the Select Committee was this, that the matter remains as it is until the whole question of extra-territorial jurisdiction in accordance with the new status has been gone into by the committee appointed for this purpose by the Imperial Conference, and that committee has reported to the Imperial Conference at its next meeting and some arrangement has been come to, specially in regard to the application or the operation of or an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act, and, that being so, the legal position of the flying of the ensign or of any flag on our ships remains as it is until we, in consultation with Great Britain and the dominions, have changed that position. As long as that is not done our flag upon which we decide to-day cannot be flown in place of the red ensign on our ships outside the territorial waters.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I wish to submit that South-Africa and its people, both Dutch-speaking and English-speaking, are at the moment heartily sick of politics—and politicians.

Especially Labour politicians.

The people desire to get on with the ordinary business of the country; for, after all is said and done, notwithstanding our new status, we are still a nation of shopkeepers and we want to get on with our buying and our selling, and especially the making of our profits. Perhaps that is best exemplified in a letter addressed to the Salt River workmen by the Prime Minister on his return from the Imperial Conference. In reply to a message of congratulation, the Prime Minister wrote to the Salt River workmen as follows—

The House, and especially the Opposition, have an opportunity of paying attention to the “economic advancement of the country we all love so well.” The majority in this House have now established a design for our national or domestic flag with which I perfectly agree, and I would like to say here and now that it is my considered belief that the large majority of the good fellows of the little Colony of Natal will also be of the same opinion. The Union Jack has found a place in our national flag and the only people who will object to the design in Natal are those who are pronouncedly anti-Dutch; the Nicholsons, the Molyneuxs, the Hodges and the other buzzards are all anti-Dutch. They object to a Son of South Africa coming to Delightful Durban to seek employment and yet at the same time they encourage a Son of England to go to Bonny Bloemfontein for a similar purpose. They are the same people who insisted in 1909 on a referendum taking place before they went into Union. I know them well. They are encouraged in their attitude by the South African party members in this House and by the press that supports them so strenuously. There are members from Natal in this House who, prior to the last election, said that if the people of Natal voted for the Nationalists the streets of Pietermaritzburg and Durban would run with blood.

Who?

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), in my presence, told a meeting of coloured men that if the National party got into power they would treat the coloured men in the same way as the natives, that they would be obliged to carry passes. I think the Government have gone a long, long way to meet the Opposition in connection with our national flag and I would like to say here that the silken cords that bind South Africa to the motherland are safer in the hands of the Pact Government than any other political combination in this country. I wish to move—

I am moving this amendment on behalf of the Labour members in this House, and I do hope the Government will be generous enough to accept it. We cannot possibly approve that there should be any limitations whatsoever on the flying of the Union Jack and we would like the Government to agree that there should be no restrictions on the flying of the Union Jack as the flag of the British commonwealth of nations. This is the intention of the amendment, twist it as you will, and I have no doubt the Opposition will endeavour to twist it; but I won’t be the first Labour member, nor the last, “to hear the words he has spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.” I wish the House to take a broad vision in this matter. Only statesmen, it is said, look to the next generation; politicians and especially the politicians on the Opposition side, only look to the next general election. Our children will laugh heartily at all the bother that has been caused over the establishment of a national flag for South Africa. I move the amendment standing in my name.

The hon. member will have to wait until the clause is rejected before the new clause can be proposed.

Clause put and negatived.

New clause proposed by Mr. Strachan put and agreed to.

Clause 5 put and agreed to.

There is so much noise that we do not know where we are. What has happened to Clause 5?

It has been agreed to.

On Clause 6,

New sub-section (4) proposed by Select Committee put.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Before this amendment is put I should like to have some assurance from the Minister about the regulations which have to be framed under sub-section 2. The committee will see that under sub-section 2 the Governor-General is given power to adopt the electoral regulations for the purposes of a referendum, and he may by proclamation in the “Gazette” make regulations prescribing that any such provision shall not apply, or shall apply with such additions or modifications as may in such regulations be set out. That is to say, the Government is given power to leave out any particular regulations that are now in the electoral regulations, and they can make any additions or modifications in the regulations that are left. The Governor-General may go further in (b) and—

That is to say, the Government is given power to make entirely new regulations not falling under electoral laws or provisions at all, and they may add penalties to these new regulations. We are here asked to give the Government an enormous power, practically carte blanche, and it must be clear to the Committee that it would not be safe for us to go as far as that unless we have definite assurances from the Government of what they intend to do. The Government here are given power for the purpose of the referendum to delete any regulations now existing or to modify them to any extent or add any new ones they like, and they may fortify them with penalties. I do not know what is going to happen. The Government certainly gets a free hand to do what it likes, and I think the committee would like an assurance from the Minister on a number of points so that we may know where we are. There are certain provisions which exist in the case of an election safeguarding the interests of both sides. Under existing regulations candidates nominate their representatives at the polling stations. The candidates are represented by their agents who can see that everything is fair and square and ultimately when a count takes place the candidates again are represented by their agents who can see that the counting is done properly. Here in the referendum we are up against the situation where you have not defined parties of candidates, and the question is how are you going to ensure impartiality and fair play. The Minister will remember these matters were discussed by us in Select Committee, and I think he ought to give this committee an assurance on these points so that the public may know that there will be fair play and that both sides in the referendum will be represented both at the polling stations and at the final counting which takes place. I think the Minister should be prepared to give some such assurance, and he should also be able to give some indication to us how far the Government intend to go with these deletions and modifications of the regulations it is proposed to frame for the purposes of the referendum. I admit we have to give a certain amount of discretion and latitude to the Government as the regulations will have to be adapted for the referendum. Still, we want some assurance that that discretion is going to be fairly carried out, so that the people may have some sense of security and confidence about the way in which the referendum is going to be carried out. Unless the Minister gives us some assurance it will be difficult to agree to these large powers.

I think the right hon. member is quite right in asking for the assurance. Of course we, on all sides of the House, want to have a referendum which shall be held in a perfectly fair and just manner, which must not be open to abuse in any way. These clauses look more dangerous than they are in reality. If hon. gentlemen will look up the Bill they will see that for 99 per cent. we are bound down not only to the principles, but the provisions of the Electoral Act in our procedure, and penalties are laid down for certain offences under the Electoral Act. The provisions must, however, be adapted for the purposes of the referendum, and, as the right hon. gentleman has already stated, there are no candidates, and that in itself makes a difference; then, further, according to the provisions here, the counting will not take place in the various electoral divisions. The voting will be in the various electoral divisions, and all the ballot boxes will be sent to headquarters at Pretoria, and there counted, which is, in a certain measure, a departure from the provisions laid down under the Electoral Act. No provision is made for the duty of the officials in regard to that, and therefore there is no offence committed, and there are no penalties, and the Government must have the power, under those circumstances, to make regulations affecting those particular points. That is why these clauses have been introduced in this way. The right hon. gentleman stated quite correctly that, seeing that there are no candidates, there can be no candidates’ representatives at the various polling booths to keep an eye on the responsible official to make sure he is doing his duty. We must provide for that; and I will repeat the assurance I have given in the select committee, which, I hope, hon. gentlemen will accept, namely, that I will give instructions to the returning officers—the magistrates in the various divisions—to appoint representatives of organized opinion on both sides at the various polling booths to represent them, and these appointments will be made after consultation with organized opinion on both sides. I think that will be quite satisfactory. The right hon. gentleman was good enough to accept that assurance in the select committee, and I am sure hon. gentlemen on all sides of the House will accept that assurance. With regard to the regulations generally, I also stated in the select committee that I am quite willing before they are issued to lay them for criticism, before the Speaker’s conference, if that conference is to be held. Of course, a difficulty will now arise that possibly that conference will not be held; in that case, I give the assurance here and now that I will communicate with the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and ask him to nominate certain persons on his behalf to represent him and his party, and lay the regulations before them for criticism; only after consultation with them will I publish those regulations. That is, as far as I can see at the moment, the best way out of the difficulty. With regard to the counting of the votes, the same will apply. I will communicate with the right hon. gentleman, and ask him, on behalf of his side of the House, and of the opinion in the country which he represents, to nominate; there will be an equal number from both sides to be present at the counting.

Will you have the same polling stations?

In other respects it will be the same as a general election.

Will the Minister also provide in the regulations for the sealing up of the packets and ballot boxes by the returning officer, before they are sent to Pretoria in the presence of scrutineers, and provide that a sufficient number of persons will be present at the counting of the votes at Pretoria?

Yes.

It will be a large task, and a large number of men will be employed; consequently there should be a large number of scrutineers to see fair play and to consider spoilt papers on both sides.

Yes.

Is it advisable to apply the very irritating provisions of the Electoral Act regarding the press in connection with the referendum? The Minister must be convinced that the provisions in the Electoral Act (which requires articles in newspapers dealing with political matters to be signed) have proved quite futile, and have not prevented people from expressing their opinions in written articles. This is very irritating, to have all these articles signed. You see a report by John Jones, revised by the editor, headings by so-and-so. It does no good. The Minister might omit this clause, as he has the power to do, under the clause we are now discussing.

Is it the intention to count these votes by constituencies, or by provinces? And will the results be published according to the voting that has taken place in the various constituencies? This matter has not been provided for, and is left to the regulations.

I hope the Minister will allow us to vote in our own constituencies, as we do to-day, with the men to whom we are accustomed, the officers who know the voters’ rolls, who know who have died or are absent in the division. In that way, we are going to get a result which will satisfy everybody throughout the Union. There can be no impersonation, and nothing can go wrong. Do not have a general poll with an army of men who do not know the local conditions. With your own trusted men it will not cost a penny more.

Another point, and not the least important, is, that this is the first time a referendum has been taken in the Union at large, although they have had experience of a referendum in Natal. If the results of the referendum go decidedly against the Pact Government, as the expression of the country, will the Government resign?

Certainly not. If we state beforehand that the Government will resign if they lose the referendum, what will be the difference between it and a general election? It is no use having a referendum then, because the opponents of the Government proposals will simply go to the members of the South African party, and say—

It will be a general election, and our whole purpose will be defeated. As far as the observations of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) are concerned, all I can say is that the ordinary machinery for a general election in the various constituencies will be used, and nobody will be imported into the constituencies from outside. We will use the local people who know the voters’ rolls, and the people of the district.

Will they count the results?

The question whether the result of the referendum will be declared by constituencies was discussed in select committee, and the majority of the committee thought it best for the Government to announce only the total number of votes on the one side or the other. The reason for that is that if we are going to have a flag in this country, whatever may have been the steps leading up to it and differences of opinion regarding it, we must, as soon as possible, remove that flag out of the arena of party politics. If we declared the result of the poll so far as the various constituencies are concerned, the possibility is open for the result to be used as either approving of the action of the member representing that constituency, or it may be taken as representing a vote of no-confidence in him. In that way we shall not quickly get away from the arena of party politics as far as the flag is concerned. We must not look to the interests of any party; it is not even a question of satisfying the desire to know what the result in the various constituencies has been. The question is we must keep an eye on the interests of the country generally. As far as the press clauses are concerned, I have not considered the matter very much, but I think they ought to remain in the Bill. As far as the working of the press clauses is concerned I can give the House the assurance that, to my consideration they have surpassed all expectations in their working. Of course, they have very much disappointed the members on the other side.

How do you make that out?

The press clauses have worked very smoothly and satisfactorily.

They have been condemned by the whole civilized world.

Will the papers in each ballot box be counted separately, or will all the papers be mixed together and then counted, so that it will be impossible to know how the electors voted in any particular constituency?

That is one of the points I could discuss with representatives of the other side of the House. Of course, the number of voting papers in each ballot-box will be checked in the ordinary way; the check to be observed at headquarters will be the same as if the papers had been counted in the constituencies.

The counting should be done at the various polling booths, although the figures need not be given out there. I think the Minister is quite right in proposing to publish the final results as a whole. Quite recently fifty ballot papers went astray, and it is quite possible that with thousands of papers being counted together there may be a repetition of this, but on a much larger scale. All our polling officers are men above suspicion, and they know their job well. Unless the papers are counted in the constituencies, who is to tell whether a spoiled paper is for or against the flag?

With regard to the question of declaring the result of the voting in each constituency, I intended to move here the same amendment as I did in select committee, but owing to the amount of talking going on around me, the Chairman put the question without my noticing it, and the clause was passed. But, at the report stage, I shall move to the effect that besides declaring the total number of votes for and against, the Minister shall also declare the result of the poll in each constituency.

It is the right of every province, even although it may not be the right of every constituency, to know the result of the referendum within its own borders. You are asking certain provinces to part with an emblem which has been theirs since the provinces have been in existence; this is not the trifling matter the Minister seems to think. Unless this is done, a very bad impression will be created, and it will only accentuate the existing impression that this referendum is not going to be an honest one.

Is that what you say about it?

That is what the public say. The abuse that has emanated from the Labour party on this question comes simply from the hysteria from which they are suffering. They know very well that in their own constituencies they are thoroughly suspect—there is scarcely any self-respecting man who would for a moment go by anything they say because they have so betrayed public confidence that they cannot lay claim—

Is the hon. member in order in saying that?

I must ask the hon. member to moderate his language.

Yes, sir, I will do so. I hope the Minister will realize that the public are not prepared to take as gospel what they are being told about a change of feeling, because there has been no change of feeling.

How do you know?

I am more closely in touch with the public than the hon. member. I am more democratic than the hon. member, for, to some extent, the Labour party is ostracized. It is the right of the public who are to be called upon to part with an emblem which they regard as a very vital one to know how the voting has gone.

I would like to add my appeal to what has already been said and ask the Minister if he cannot accede to the request to publish the returns in each constituency, that at least he will give us the returns in each of the provinces. Since the sittings of the committee I have received communications from my own constituency in which they suggested that I should urge upon the Minister to allow the results in each of the provinces to be declared. I understand that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is saying that there is a change in public opinion as far as the flag question is concerned. If he is right, and he rarely is right, it is eminently desirable that the province from which I come should know how public opinion has changed and that would be in the Government’s own interest. If popular feeling in Natal is entirely against this flag measure the people of the province want to know it, and if we have misrepresented, or wrongly interpreted, the popular feeling, then it is in the Government’s own interest they should know that. I for one would like to know the result in my own province. I do not urge upon the Minister that the result of each constituency should be given, but it should be given in each province. Strong representations have been made to me since the last sitting of the Select Committee that the people are desirous of knowing how the referendum goes, and I trust the Minister will give that matter consideration.

I hope the voting papers will be taken to Pretoria and counted there and the result will be given for the nation. It is only the extreme members of the House who are asking for the votes for the different provinces or constituencies and they want it for this reason. If Natal is in favour of the Union Jack and the Free State are against it, they want to say to the Free Staters, “You are rebels.” This fight should be over one way or another. The Government have already said they will accept the result of the referendum if it goes against them, and if it is in favour of the Government I take it the Opposition will accept it. The extremist members are anxious to know the results of each constituency. Say Salt River votes for the flag and Cape Town is against it, then the hon. members’ papers will say the Salt River workmen are sound, or if the result is the other way they will say Cape Town is sound and the workers at Salt River are traitors. It makes little difference to members of Parliament how it goes. I ask the hon. Minister to see that the press clause of the Electoral Act operates. Already there have been a lot of communications in the press on this matter and no names have been signed to the articles. They record that a little Labour branch here or there is doing this or that, and it is quite untrue and these articles are not signed. Certain communist trade union secretaries are interviewed but it cuts no ice. As soon as these things have to be signed nothing further will appear. That was my experience at the last provincial council elections; there was nobody to write on these matters. Previously Mrs. Harris, a friend of Sarah Gamp, always wrote these articles. But Mrs. Harris disappeared. There are two things the Government must see to and one is that the counting gives only the one total. At present Natal seems to be more a part of Madagascar than it is of the Union. On behalf of the Labour party I advise the Minister to be careful not to accept anything coming from this side of the House, and if he takes that advice we shall win this referendum. They have been fighting the Labour party on the two-flag suggestion for years. They have accepted it to-night without any protest.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) began and ended on a racial note, his usual tactics when he is bankrupt of arguments and facts. It is a pity that the Minister has departed from the means adopted by this country to enable the people to express their will. That is the Electoral Act of 1918 and its subsequent amendments. We know the Act is not perfect, but it is the best attempt yet put on the statute book to enable the people to express their will on important subjects. At the time of Union we deliberately resisted the tempting proposal for mass voting in the way of proportional representation and we went back to the single constituency method. It is a pity, while the Minister accepts the principle laid down in the text of the Bill, that—

He now announces his intention of departing from it in important particulars. It was discussed in select committee and it was, by a majority in the select committee, decided to make the change which he foreshadowed, that the results would not be declared by constituencies nor by provinces, but the counting would take place in Pretoria and be declared at once. If the Minister turns to the South Africa Act he will find he has departed from important principles. The South Africa Act is an important measure on which we have built our whole structure and great stress is laid on the delimitation of constituencies and specific instructions are issued to the Delimitation Commission. Thus it clearly shows it was considered very important at the time and has so been considered since, that constituencies should be treated as separate entities, and the country should know how vari-out districts thought on various matters.

It appears to me the hon. member is discussing a clause already adopted, old Clause 5.

I am speaking of the Minister’s intention of promulgating regulations which will go contrary to the spirit of the Electoral Act.

The hon. member will recognize these regulations cannot go contrary to the clause which has already been passed, where it is defined what is to take place.

Is it not competent to urge on the Minister in framing these regulations, the machinery, for which we are now discussing, that he should not go contrary to the accepted principles laid down in the Electoral Act?

Yes, but it stands to reason that no regulations can be framed contrary to the enactment which has already been passed, that is, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 5.

May I call your attention to sub-sections (a) and (b) which appear on page 8 of the Bill? [Sub-sections read.] Surely under that and the rest of the clause it is competent for an hon. member of this House to find out from the Minister, before he agrees to the passing of that clause, what he proposes to do in connection with those regulations which he is authorized to make.

What I understand the Chairman has ruled is this, that the question as to whether the ballot papers shall be counted and made known either for individual constituencies or individual provinces is not a question which can be discussed now.

He was not arguing that.

As I understood the Chairman, that was really the point he was trying to make.

That is as I understood the hon. member.

My point is this, that supposing there was a full stop in line 5 after the word “Assembly” then there would be no necessity for the discussion upon which I am engaged at present, but it is provided that the Governor-General may by proclamation in the “Gazette” make regulations for certain purposes. My point is this that we are urging on the Minister that he should not take a certain course.

What is the course?

I want to know from the Minister how far he is going to depart from the rules that govern the election of members for the Assembly. The Act provides that generally he is going to conform to those rules, but he seeks power to make regulations to enable him to depart from those rules. My point is this, that if there was a full stop after the word “Assembly,” the Minister would be bound to treat each constituency as a separate entity in regard to the results and the results ill each constituency would be known and, therefore, the results in each province would be known. I am urging that in proposing so to do he is departing from certain principles that have applied ever since the formation of the Union, and he is departing from the spirit of the South Africa Act, which provides that different communities shall have full opportunity to give expression to their particular views.

If old Clause 5 remains as it is, I must depart.

Yes, if the latter part is passed through. My suggestion is that by taking this course the Minister is departing from what we have been accustomed to, and I must say that the reasons he gave have not been very convincing. I think there is a strong case made out for adhering to what we have been accustomed to, for adhering to the principles laid down in the South Africa Act and the principles laid down in the Electoral Act. I think that the Minister would be well advised to retrace his steps and revert back to the principles of the Electoral Act. The Minister has adduced no convincing argument to my mind to prove that it is necessary to depart so much from the principles under which our constitution has been working since 1910 and the principles under which the various provinces had been working for a long time anterior to that.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has a somewhat irritating habit of making an exasperating speech in this committee and then disappearing into the lobby. I want to reply to that speech. For once in his life he appeared in the role of an attacker of the press. Usually he plays the lone hand in his own party where the press is concerned. If his party attacks the press then he says that he is an old pressman himself and he proceeds to speak in favour of the press. He said that the Minister would be well advised to apply the press clauses in the Electoral Act, because a systematic campaign of lying was going on at the present time in the press of South Africa with reference to the labour party. It was a lie, he said, to say that a meeting had been held in Greyville, which was antagonistic in a sense to the Minister of Labour. It was a lie to suggest that there had been a meeting of this branch and that branch of the Labour party antagonistic to Labour. One thing he did not say was a lie was the fact that in the constituency of the Minister of Defence who is now in Australia, the constituency of Denver a meeting of the branch had been held upholding the attitude of the hon. member of Pretoria (West).

He did say so.

If he did it shows that the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) knows as little about that as he knows about the general conditions on the Rand. He had the temerity the other evening, with his friend the Minister of Justice, to address a meeting at Wynberg, in which he told the public of South Africa that if we dared to turn this Labour party out dared to allow them to sacrifice that representation which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) was so anxious to sacrifice that would inevitably be followed by a period of industrial unrest and something approaching civil war in Johannesburg. He has been answered by what he described to-night in his speech as a set of communistic trade union leaders on the Rand. Mr. J. C. Mego, of the South African Mine Workers’ Union, said that Mr. Barlow could keep on yapping until he was blue in the face and that as far as the industrial world is concerned his opinion counts for nothing. Mr. R. Tennant, secretary of the Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Society, said that the feeling on the Rand was that they would not allow the flag issue to interfere with their conditions. He thought that if a referendum was taken the vote of the majority of the men would be cast in favour of the Union Jack appearing on the flag. He added that Mr. Barlow had no authority to make such statements as he had done concerning the industrial movement. Mr. Andrews, secretary of the trades union congress, remarks that the workers are not likely to cause an industrial upheaval on account of a change of Government, and Mr. C. F. Glass, who was a communist, but is now, I believe, a Labourite, says—

I think the hon. member ought to confine his remarks to the clause.

You allowed the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to speak for ten minutes on this, sir. I ask you to allow me to address you, and to stop these amateur chairmen from interfering.

I am only asking the hon. member to confine himself, as far as possible, to the clause.

I know—

Order!

I ask you whether I am to be prevented from replying when you put a point to me. May I answer you? I submit that what I am saying is a reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) which you allowed him to make, and in which he refers to these gentlemen. He actually raised this point himself in regard to these gentlemen, and said their opinion counted for nothing. He said he spoke with the voice of the Labour party and these gentlemen did not.

I think I have given the hon. member sufficient latitude. I think the hon. member ought to be satisfied.

May I just finish this one extract?

They don’t seem to like it—

I want now to return to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) and this question of the application of the press provisions of the Electoral Act, to the referendum. Why did the hon. member want these provisions applied? Because, he said, you were getting in the press, even to-day, all these unsigned letters and unsigned articles that, he said, were the curse of our political life, and he held it up as the most reprehensible thing a man could do to write an unsigned communication to the press. It is only 18 months since the hon. member was publicly accused by a member of his own party in the Labour party congress at Port Elizabeth of systematically contributing anonymous articles to the “Forward,” attacking his own colleagues in the House. At least, these unsigned articles in the “Star” and other papers have the merit of playing up to their own side, and not attacking their own side. The statement was publicly made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and was never so far as I know contradicted, that at a time he was a member of this House he was sending unsigned letters to the “Forward” attacking his own party. I think it is the height of impertinence for the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) to stand up and lecture our party on the immorality of newspapers. So far as we know, he does not shrink from anonymous attacks, either on his own party or anyone else in this House. I am only sorry he makes an attack of this kind, and then runs away.

I hope the Minister will not alter his mind with regard to the way this is going to be announced. You see what it would lead to. You have persons of different races and colour. Is it necessary that you should have a record of how different sections voted on the question of the national flag? It is most undesirable that we should perpetuate this difference on the flag longer than is necessary. I think the clause we have passed is a wise one, in that respect. Sub-section (2) of the section we are discussing says “subject to the provisions of this Act, and one of the provisions is the one we have already passed. Then there is the other question about the press clauses. I have a letter from a man whose opinion I value highly. He made a very valuable suggestion namely that members of Parliament should cease to speak upon the flag question entirely until the referendum is over. Surely it is time the country had a period of rest from this terrible division and dissension. What are members afraid of? Is there a single person in South Africa who does not know the issue? Are we going to keep the pot boiling day by day and render business at naught? Never mind who started it. Why keep it up? If the advice of those members who urged that the press clauses should not be put into operation is carried out, you are going to have no peace. If these clauses are put into operation, they will still be able to write to the papers, but, at any rate, their communications will be signed. The less press discussion there is on this matter, and the less newspaper discussion, now that the issues have been properly debated, the better it will be for the peace of this country. The public know exactly what the issues are, and they know whether they are for or against, and they will be able to vote. The idea that this thing is going to be a forum for public agitation until the referendum is held is to me a matter of great misgiving. You are going to have no business done. You are going to frighten people off by this perpetual agitation. If this fight in this House is going to be transferred to the country, and the newspapers of the country, then I think it is going to be a very bad day for South Africa. I urge the Government to apply the press clauses, which are perfectly fair and reasonable in this matter.

Can the Minister give us an indication of what the intention is in regard to the declaration of the provincial poll?

I thought I had already done so. Anyway I think that this discussion about the declaration of the results in the different constituencies is not very much to the point, seeing that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has given notice at the report stage to move an amendment to that effect. I think the whole discussion here is premature, and I can just generally say that if ever before I was convinced that it is the right thing to do to have the declaration in the total number of votes cast on the one side or the other, I am more convinced than before by what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has said, and the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) and other hon. members on the other side have said because from their speeches it is quite evident that they want to use the result of the referendum in the different electoral divisions for other party political purposes, and that is, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) rightly pointed out, to have a position at all costs to be avoided.

Why not the provinces?

To set one province against the other.

Why should we for generations to come fasten a stigma on Natal? In reply to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), if the count takes place in the various constituencies it is much better to come to a decision there with regard to spoiled votes and matters of that nature—his point I think is—and when the count takes place at headquarters and all these papers are mixed up there is a danger of confusion and inaccuracy. I do not think he has any real ground for that view, because, after all, the great danger exists at present when one returning officer will deal with spoiled voting papers in one way, and another officer in another way. If the count takes place at headquarters there is a possibility of getting uniformity. That is certainly the advantage of having the count at one place. As far as confusion is concerned, I think there are in the assurances I have given a proper guarantee that that will not take place. We will certainly see to it that the organized opinion on both sides will be properly represented there, and a proper test can be made of the count from beginning to end. I do not think there is any real danger.

I demur to the Minister’s treating this matter as though one’s views rest on a paltry wish to make a little party capital out of the referendum. He has to get this out of his mind. This is a much bigger question than he affects to believe. It is a question of great moment, and is not simplified or made easier by the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Strachan), which in due time will recoil upon him as a boomerang. It does not say that the Union Jack need ever be flown.

The hon. member must not discuss this now.

My intention was to supplement my argument by showing that not only will the people of certain provinces have to part with the emblem to which they have been attached, but in a certain portion of the law where a proposed provision had been made for the flying of that emblem on certain holidays, that no longer exists.

You voted against it.

The hon. member need not suppose he can make any sort of capital out of that. When the report stage is reached his mind will be set at ease. The position under the amendment is that there is nothing to enjoin that that emblem need ever be flown.

Order, the hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am speaking of the present state of the Bill, and of what the effect will be when it comes to be promulgated. I hope I shall be allowed to do that. That seems to be an additional reason why the people should be entitled to know the result, provincially, of the referendum.

The hon. member cannot discuss that either, because that would fall under Clause 5, which has already been passed. The hon. member will see that notice has been given of an amendment by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) to amend that clause and omit “total” and add “in each electoral division when the total number for and against such provision.” What the hon. member is now discussing is really what is pertinent only to Clause 5.

Is that amendment officially before the House?

No. May I point out that Clause 5 implies that there should be secrecy, and for that reason the Minister has inserted “total number.” The hon. member suggests that instead of that, each province should know what the votes cast were.

The total number can be arrived at by announcing the votes for each province.

In Clause 5 there is no reference whatsoever as to how the votes are to be taken or as to where they are to be taken. It simply says, “the total number of votes shall be given,” but it does not say how they shall be arrived at. They are arrived at by the provision in the regulation. There is nothing under the regulation under Clause 6 to prevent the Minister, while publishing the total number of votes for or against, also to publish the total number in each province for or against. If you will look up Clause 5 you will see there is nothing in the clause that prevents us, as some hon. members think ought to be stipulated.

The ballot-boxes are supposed to be secret, and unless specific power is given to divulge the figures you cannot communicate more to the public than is specifically stated in the Act.

I agree with that, and in the framing of the regulations that could be considered. It would be preposterous if all the ballot-boxes were sent to Pretoria and the papers thrown in a mass and be counted as a whole. If the votes are to be counted with any precision the ballot-boxes from each electoral area must be checked, and to prevent chaos the votes for the respective constituencies will have to be counted separately. The Minister will have information as to the voting of each individual constituency, and if he has that information, why should the public not have it as well?

In an ordinary parliamentary election a candidate is entitled to know only the general result, and he cannot obtain further details. It may be that the returning officer has additional details, but he may not divulge them, and they can be divulged only on an order of the court when very stringent precautions are taken to secure secrecy. Under Clause 5 there is a provision that the Minister may announce only the totals; therefore, you cannot in Clause 6 empower the Minister to publish the details.

The Minister has not correctly read Section 5, which says the Minister shall declare the total number of votes, but the reason the total number of votes is mentioned is to enable the Government to issue a proclamation stating the result of the referendum. There is nothing inconsistent, however, in returns being published showing the voting by provinces or constituencies. It has been suggested that all the votes should be tumbled together and then counted, but if that were done how could the provisions of the Electoral Act be observed, and also some questions might arise regarding impersonation and incorrect counting. The electoral law requires that every batch of papers in respect of each constituency must be kept separate.

It is no use the hon. member going on—I have given my ruling, and I am adhering to it. I have definitely said what my idea was.

I am sorry I wasted my time.

Is it possible to move as an amendment to add after “for,” in line 13, “the counting of votes and the announcement of the total number of votes by constituencies and provinces”?

In Clause 5 it is stated there shall be one announcement of the total number of votes. If the hon. member wishes to propose an amendment he should have moved it to Clause 5. He can, however, give notice of the amendment for the report stage.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On heading to new chapter III, and the new Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

I move—

I just wish shortly to again give the reasons why I move this. The chapter was put in at my request in the select committee and the reason was—as I stated there—that it was said, inter alia, by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that we were not able in the short time at our disposal to decide upon the best design for a flag. I then said that I could quite well understand it. As long as there may always be a better design—and one may be found better than the one which we have got—within the short time available I was prepared to suggest that a provision should be included in the Bill that after the end of the Parliamentary session the necessary opportunity should be given subject to certain requirements as in Clause 14 set out, to appoint a committee who under those conditions could decide on a better flag design. Well, as I said this afternoon, I am myself not now prepared to say that this design is exactly the best which we could have adopted, but I feel that it is actually the best which has been suggested up to the present. Moreover, I have eventually and this was the chief reason intended by it that however much the design might satisfy me and us we possibly might find another with an alteration which would give more satisfaction generally and especially to those who are stated to be so dissatisfied. Unfortunately the hon. member for Standerton made the statement here to-day that we have run away by coming here every time and saying—

He has used our proposals as nothing else than that the Government were running away every time. You can understand that if this is the impression which is to be conveyed here or outside then I am not going to give any further opportunity for that purpose. Then there was another consideration which made me do it, and that is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) stated here yesterday that he was not prepared to serve on a committee under the conditions laid down in the Bill, for the reason that it was there stated that the historical flags must not be predominant in the national flag. He is only in favour of that, and can only sit on such a committee if he can decide that the Union Jack will have a substantial place on it. I then asked the hon. member for Standerton what he meant by substantial, and then he said over and over again, and again this afternoon, emphatically that by substantial nothing else was meant than in the sense which I have already mentioned, that I and my party cannot allow it to be done. The hon. member still abides by that, and, as I said this afternoon, it is clear to me that there is a fundamental difference. There is such a fundamental difference between the position taken up by the hon. member for Standerton and by this side of the House that having such a committee will end in a fruitless effort.

I shall have to put the clauses in Chapter III one by one, and not altogether.

I can, of course, not object to the course proposed by the Prime Minister. He made this addition to the Bill in the select committee for reasons he has explained, and he finds it convenient now to depart from his intention and move for the deletion of these clauses. The reasons which he gives are very flimsy indeed. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has given umbrage to the Prime Minister.

He said he would not take part in the conference.

But I was not aware that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would be asked to take part in the conference. It is evident a decision has been taken and reasons are now being invented for it. I said the Prime Minister had run away from previous designs, and I said it in reply to a taunt in which he said it was lack of courage on our part that we never came forward with designs and in reply I said: “Designs you have adopted you have not clung to tenaciously.” It was quite a proper repartee in answer to his taunt of lack of courage on our part. Then he comes to the point of substance, and in that I see a considerable amount of force. He says that he can never agree to so prominent a part being assigned to the old flags in the new flag as we ask for on this side of the House, that he will only agree to that microscopic portion which is laid down in these conditions embodied in Section 14. He could never agree to anything more. As long as the Prime Minister takes up that attitude, and he is quite positive on it, it does seem almost futile to go to a conference like this.

It seems to me that it is quite clear.

But there is another reason which is even stronger, to my mind. The strongest objection to this chapter has not yet been stated by the Prime Minister, and it is this, that should there be by some chance an agreement in this committee, then, under Section 16, this design so agreed upon will become the law of the land, and the flag of the land without either the people or the Parliament of this country knowing anything about it. I cannot conceive that this Parliament and this House will ever agree to such a delegation of their power.

You did not divide the select committee on that clause.

We did not want to reject the olive branch which was held out by the Prime Minister. I do not know on what sections we did divide; we divided on most of the clauses. Section 16, on which I understand we did not divide, seems to me, I think the committee will agree, to be subject to the most powerful objection, and it is this—

It was open to you to move an amendment here in the House.

I cannot move an amendment here in the House. The clause has been withdrawn. What must I move an amendment to? I think the Minister is speaking per incuriam. I think we divided on practically every clause in the select committee. I do not think the country will ever submit to that, nor should Parliament submit to it, that same conclave of politicians here, called leaders, called together by Mr. Speaker, should sit and deliberate in secret, frame a flag, and that flag should be proclaimed as the natural flag.

Has the Union Jack been passed by Parliament?

Do not let us talk about the Union Jack in this connection.

Why should it not be done here?

We are living in a democratic country under a democratic constitution. The Prime Minister has dealt roughly enough with the Union Jack. I am talking of our own constitution, and I think that once attention is directed to Section 16, it is quite impossible to adhere to a scheme like that. The Prime Minister thinks there is no reasonable chance of agreement under this chapter, under the conditions laid down, and I must frankly admit that I am of the same opinion, that under the conditions, as laid down in Section 14, I see very little chance of agreement. That being so, I raise no objection to the course which the Prime Minister now proposes on his own responsibility.

Heading and new Clauses 11 to 16 put and negatived.

On Clause 7,

There is an amendment at the bottom of this clause—

When was the mandated territory brought into the Union? Perhaps we could have some explanation.

It has nothing to do with the annexation of South-West Africa It is merely a definition for the purpose of this Act; that is all.

I saw this morning a very learned article in one of the papers and I think that is where my hon. friend got it from.

No, where did you see it?

In the “Cape Times.” They were very much concerned that we would get into hot water with the League of Nations, etc.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

The short title I think ought to be altered very materially. All the sections dealing with “nationality” have been struck out and yet we retain the word nationality” in the short title. National and nationality are two distinct things. A national the word we use in this Bill, means a subject, a citizen or a member of a nation and these are the people we are dealing with. This is not a Bill providing a new nationality. I think the word “nationality” should come out and it should be “national,” and I move—

I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether, considering that the word “nationality” has been struck out of the Bill in every clause, this title is not inaccurate.

That is a question for the committee.

I hope it will not be accepted because there is not the least doubt about it that this Bill is really a Bill treating of South African or Union nationality.

It does not say so.

It does say so very much. If the hon. member reads it he will find it is a Bill to define Union nationality. It does so by defining who are Union Nationals. “National” is concrete, and “nationality” is the abstract which flows forth from the concrete being there, I take it, and it is a perfectly clear definition; and it and the short title are perfectly correct.

I cannot agree to that at all. There is no provision for a new nationality in the provisions of the Bill. The Americans have an old saying: “Never lie in the headline and give yourself away in the context.

There must be an abstract noun for the common noun “national.” The abstract noun is “nationality.”

The objection of the hon. member has a much wider application than merely to this Bill. In this Bill we have, as far as the terminology is concerned, followed strictly the Act we passed last year in connection with British nationality, which is in operation not only with regard to South Africa, but Great Britain and the dominions have passed that now. You have reciprocity. In the title of that we have “British nationality,” and in the text we speak of British nationals.” If this gives a wrong impression the other must give a wrong impression.

Amendment put and negatived.

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

On the Schedule,

I move—

Old Clauses 3 and 4 have been amended, and we must make consequential amendments there.

I may point out to the Minister that at the report stage all these cross references are put right.

Might I inquire why the Minister repeats schedule?

Too much energy on the part of the pi-inter.

In the Dutch version it says “Oranje Vrystaat,” and in the English it says “O.F.S.”

It must be Orange Free State.

The Minister is not prepared to put amendments now to the schedule, but will do so at the report stage. Shall we be entitled to discuss them then as if they had been moved now?

The rules of procedure for the report stage of a Bill differ from those for the committee stage.

Is it possible to report a Bill the schedule of which has not been made to comply with one of the preceding clauses? Will the Minister not have to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again? The Minister might find some member will object to going into the report stage because the Bill would have come from committee without the schedule being put in order to comply with Clause 3.

It frequently happens that the committee omits to make amendments, and then in the report stage the amendments are made. The rules of the committee are not the same. Then you can only speak once.

My point is, when you get on to the report stage of the Bill, you can speak more than 10 minutes, but you can only speak once. Is it not the privilege of the committee, before coming to the report stage, to discuss any amendment under the rules laid down for the committee stage of the Bill?

Yes, the hon. member is entitled to move an amendment, but if no amendment is moved, I must put the schedule as printed.

Is it competent for the Chair to put the Bill and to complete the procedure in the committee stage, if the schedule has not been made to correspond with the clauses of the Bill already passed? If so, you will then have two directly conflicting principles. You will have one principle in Clause 3, and another principle in the schedule.

I will satisfy hon. members by moving the amendment now. That amendment is—

That is moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan).

On a point of order, is not this merely a consequential amendment? The schedule points out what Section 3 is, and now we have only to alter it consequentially. It is only a copy of the section in the Act.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, you rule that a discussion can take place on this matter.

The question is whether the new Clause 3 should be put in here or not.

Can we ask the Minister what this clause means?

May I submit that if an hon. member wanted to know what a clause meant, the time to ask that was when the clause was moved. I submit that it is out of order to ask for an explanation now.

In reply to the hon. member for Umbilo, as far as I personally am concerned, there was such a noise when this clause was put that we neither heard the question nor did we hear that it was carried.

I do not think there was so much confusion. The hon. member did not know what was going on. Had any hon. member told me he would like to revert to that clause after it had been put, I would have done so with the greatest pleasure. I put it in English and Dutch, and I wanted some considerable time.

I asked you plainly for your ruling, is a member of this House entitled to discuss a consequential amendment? You most distinctly said “yes.”

The hon. member may discuss the question whether this should be inserted here or not, but the hon. member cannot go into the merits of the motion because it is simply a consequential amendment. The clause has been agreed to.

Amendments put and agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would not consider at the report stage whether it would not be desirable to print on the ballot paper a copy of this proposed new flag. It seems to me that people who vote would have a better understanding if they could see a copy of this flag before them. If it could be printed in colours all the better.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I would like to raise this question of the bridges again in connection with this avoiding line. We pointed out the very urgent necessity that there should be at least two bridges, one over the main road going north-east, and the other over the Koeberg road going north. Since then negotiations have been going on between the municipality of Cape Town and the Railway Department under which I understand the Department have agreed to give three bridges, the two I have mentioned and one at Church Street, Woodstock. I think it would have been far better if an agreement had been drawn up to be embodied in this Bill in the shape of a schedule. However, there has been no time for that. Perhaps the Minister will, however, make a declaration so that we can have it on record that a promise has been made that these bridges will be built under an agreement between the municipality and the Railway Department. We want to have it on record to fall back on later, and so that the Department will be bound to carry it out. On the other hand a large quantity of land has been given by the municipality for the benefit of the Railway Department, so there is a considerable quid pro quo for those bridges. Besides that, from the point of view of justice and right the Railway Department should build these bridges.

Unfortunately I have not yet been informed as to whether a final agreement has been arrived at. I discussed the matter last Saturday with the board and the officials were authorized to conclude the arrangement with the City Council under certain conditions. That is, if it was necessary on account of the amount of traffic to construct these bridges, the department would be prepared to do so if we could get certain land which we require. We are prepared to come to a reasonable settlement on these lines. I have no doubt this matter can be satisfactorily settled between the Administration and the City Council.

Let my hon. friend tomorrow get to know from the officials of the department exactly what is going to be done. Frankly we do not trust the department altogether in this matter. That is the long and short of it. If they got up against a rather expensive bridge they might want to get out of it. The business-like way to have done it was to draw up an agreement in black and white and attaching it to the schedule. If the Minister will give us the assurance that these things will be done we will be content.

Before we take the third reading I hope to inform the House definitely the arrangement which was come to. I have not yet been informed whether the officials have arrived at a definite result. In reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) I may say the officials were instructed to go into the needs of the traffic requirements. If it is necessary we will be prepared to carry out our obligations to the public in that regard.

Is it the intention of the Government to defray the whole cost of these bridges? The Pretoria municipality had to pay the whole cost of the subway on the line to Delagoa Bay, and they had to pay the cost of the flagmen at another crossing. The northern people have to pay the cost of these things. There was an awful row kicked up because of money to be spent at Johannesburg.

What we propose to do here will in no way affect the practice of the administration. If a municipality wants a bridge built, they should pay on the fifty-fifty basis, but here the position is different. We want to construct a line not of special benefit to the city itself, but of benefit to the whole country.