I certainly object. It is impossible for me and for this side of the House to accept the amendment. It merely reflects the view of one side of the House. If anyone hoped that the Senate would suggest a solution then he is to-day disappointed. It is no solution, but only states the view of one side of the House, and that the view of the minority. I think that we on this side can do nothing else in the circumstances than to say that it is impossible for us to agree to it. The principle laid down in the amendment, viz., that the national flag shall consist of the Union Jack, the Free State flag and the Transvaal Vierkleur in their entirety has been discussed for days and weeks in this House, and for months by various sections outside, and it was rejected in this House. In the circumstances I think that it is absolutely impossible for us to adopt the amendment. In my opinion it does not in the least contribute to a solution.

It is scarcely possible for the Minister to say that this amendment expresses the view of only one side of the House. The Minister is in the same position, as far as the original design is concerned, viz., that it also only expresses the view of one side of the House. In the circumstances his argument falls away. I think a long debate is unnecessary because the matter has been fought out and the subject is threadbare. Let me say that I still regard the suggestion of the Senate as a solution, viz., that the national flag should incorporate the historical flags in their historical sequence. The Union Jack, in the first place, which has waved for more than 100 years in two colonies; the Free State, in the second place, which originated thereafter; and the Transvaal Vierkleur, in the third place, which arose third, and in the fourth place, an opening should be left for the states that may join in any future extension of the Union. I hope that the four stars of to-day will become many more in the future. A flag like that will not only show our connection with the past, but will show us the way to the future. The objections of the other side to the flag have been so fully debated that I shall not quote them. However, I express my strong desire that South Africa will say that the flag proposed in the amendment is the best, and so I hope the House will accept the amendment.

It is common ground that all want a Union flag. Seeing the Prime Minister has said that all sections must be agreed, I ask if this is not the opportunity to accept the amendment by the Senate and secure a flag by general agreement. The Government has stated very definitely that this question is not one of confidence or no confidence; it has been raised above the arena of party politics; and having been raised above the arena of party politics is it not simply a question now of accepting the Senate amendment and so coming to agreement? I say and I think it is the general opinion of the country, that the Government could afford to accept this proposal. It would allay all the strife, bury the suspicions that have been aroused, and all the hatred and we could go to our homes feeling that our nation had some chance of peace, fully pursuing its natural course. The whole question has turned recently on the meaning of the word “dominance.” I noticed both in this House and in another place the Prime Minister made that a great point, stating emphatically that the position of the Union Jack in the upper quarter of our Union flag was a question of “dominance.” The Prime Minister is a master of dialectical argument and splitting hairs, and if I may cross hairs with him instead of swords, I would like to challenge him on his interpretation of the word “dominance.” He has been using it as if it were a matter of governance and ruling, but the British Government, having made no claim whatever of that kind in regard to our flag, there is no question of “dominance,” and that meaning has been imported into the controversy. It has no such significance as is given to it. We have acquired (what, indeed, we always had) sovereign independence, and there is no question in our common flag of “dominance.” The word is misused, misplaced, and entirely misinterpreted. If it is used in another sense, that of predominancy, then comes in the whole question, in which way is the word “predominancy” usually used? I think Lord Rosebery used the term “predominancy” in illustration of Great Britain being relatively predominant in the United Kingdom. How can it be argued, on fair grounds, that the position of the Union Jack in the upper corner is not due to the provinces of the Cape and Natal. We are making only a fair claim, and are entitled to say that the emblem of those two older provinces shall be in the principal corner, and that is all there is to it in regard to predominancy. Why should we not indicate our wish and desire of continuance in the British commonwealth of nations? Why should the Union Jack be included in the flags of other countries in the commonwealth and not in the flag of this Union? There is one exception, Ireland, but that exclusion will probably pass away when north and south have agreed to sink their differences. Even now the Irish Free State flag is indicative of Orangemen and home rulers. So far as the Union Jack separately is concerned, what right have we to say to the commonwealth of British nations that is your flag and you shall have it? Surely it is for the commonwealth to say for itself what its own national flag shall be; it is theirs to choose, and they will choose. I do not like either the flag of the Nationalist-Pact party, or that which comes as a suggestion from the Senate. Both are bad from the point of view of what a flag should be. They are both heraldic abortions, and I am glad to think the referendum will knock one out and we shall be “as we were.” We will probably have all this selection to do over again in another year’s time. So far as heraldic science is concerned, we have had trotted out certain persons who are proclaimed masters of the art and peculiarly fitted to decide upon arms and flags by a special course of study, but in reality there a,re only two authoritative bodies in the empire which can lay down what shall be the correct heraldic construction of flags, and neither has been consulted in our case. Professor Smith has been consulted, but any intelligent man can invest in a book and proclaim himself as a master in heraldry. You have merely to grow your hair rather long at the back, wear a shabby hat, go to a university, buy a book, and refer to it (as doctors and lawyers do) and pose as an authority on any particular art or science. And so one can become an authority even on heraldry. With regard to determining the value of the particular little escutcheon, or shield, which has been placed on our flag, I find, on reference to an authoritative book, when an escutcheon is placed on another it comes under the designation of an “escutcheon of pretence,” and I think the description very appropriate with regard to this superimposed shield on the proposed flag. Further, it is said that “it is a small escutcheon which a man places on his coat-of-arms if his wife is an heiress.” In this case, perhaps, Great Britain is the heiress. We find in this book that such an emblem “is more generally used at funerals.” I commend to the Minister in charge of the Bill, and to the Government the fact that an escutcheon of pretence is usually reserved for funerals, and if the is dead it is black on the sinister side. If both are dead it is blackened all over. In the shield on the flag, as designed, the superior, or dexter, position is given to the Union Jack, and thus disposes of the argument against the “dominance” of that particular emblem. If it is to be on the flag at all, why not give it the place we ask for? One does not want to say that the escutcheon is placed as it is for ease of removal, because one does not want to rake up again what has been raked up in the course of debate. One fault in the flag the people are asked to adopt is that it leaves out one of the most important reminiscences in our history, the fleur-de-lis, which stands for the Huguenots. If there is anything we are consciously proud of, it is of that wonderful strain of fine blood in our nationality. Why then do we exclude emblematic reference to the French admixture for which we are so grateful. If the flag comes back from the referendum for revision, why cannot the lillies of France appear on it instead of the proposed stars? Why cannot we have some reference to one of our proudest settlements in South Africa? Then, on the question of “predominance,” why should the tricolour of Holland be placed twice on the escutcheon of pretence, and the flag itself in another tricolour. I turn to my hon. friends of the Labour party and ask them seriously to consider if this proposal of the Senate does not afford another opportunity to settle all difficulties, and by accepting it, they can take the credit of ending the question peaceably without tearing the country to pieces. The responsibility to the people is theirs, and I ask them to appreciate that fact and not to fail in their duty to the country.

And make propaganda for the South African party?

We have presented the South African party with the finest fighting weapon they ever had. We have presented it as a gift to them. Accept the Senate’s resolution, and the South African party is again bankrupt. Seeing most of my Labour colleagues profess not to care for any flag, why do they persist in coercing the country into having this flag?

Leave the Labour party out.

I am appealing to the highly intelligent section. If they agree to solve this question in this manner, £14,000 can be saved and devoted to providing work for the workless. I appeal to the Labour party to save their own faces, and to be able to go back to their constituencies and say that they have secured tranquillity for the country. This will then be a victory, not of party, but of common sense, which is far above party advantages or personal pride. They can give the people peace.

It is regrettable we have arrived once more at this impasse, and that the settlement of this question is further off than ever. I thought the question was properly discussed in the other place, and it will be felt that genuine effort was made to reach a settlement. The opposition of the Government to any flag proposal was substantially on three points, firstly, that a new flag should not consist simply of the two Vierkleurs and the Union Jack, and, secondly, if they did come in they should not be in as part of the flag, but as historical symbols, and, thirdly, none of them should occupy a position of dominance. Now the Senate flag does not consist solely of the three flags. It has an additional portion, and, therefore, meets the first of the Government’s objections. As to the second objection, it is clear that even in the Government’s proposals the three flags form part of the whole flag. I cannot understand why the Union Jack should be regarded as in a dominant position, because it appears in the top left-hand corner. The Government have given the same dominant position to the Union Jack in the shield. I think there are further suggestions that might be made. Personally, I do not consider any quarter in the flag is a dominant position. In the American flag the top left-hand corner is occupied by the stars of the provinces. If there is a chance of settlement, let the top left-hand corner of our flag be occupied by the four stars representing the provinces of the Union. The flags of the American confederation during the American civil war had the seven stars in the top lefthand corner, and in their Southern Cross they had the seven stars diagonally across the flag both ways forming a cross. If the real objection is that the Union Jack is in a dominant position when placed in the top left-hand corner, it can be met by putting the stars of the four provinces in that corner and the other flags round. Would the Government accept that as a fair compromise? Another possibility is this—the shield occupies a small position, and one way in which the shield could be enlarged is by taking out the stars from the shield, and using the top half for the Union Jack, and the bottom half for the other colours. The stars could then be placed one on each outside corner of the shield, representing, the two on the top, the provinces whose history is wrapped up with the Union Jack, and the two at the bottom the provinces which came under republican rule. In both of these suggestions lies the possibility of a solution which would prevent all the trouble and misery which is otherwise going to be caused in the country for two or three years.

I am very deeply distressed in listening to the argument of my friend on the right. I do wish, Mr. Speaker, you would allow these two flags to be displayed in this House. We have heard a great deal of criticism on the Government design, but I think if the flag suggested by the Senate was displayed in its true colours, it would be ridiculous in the eyes of even those gentlemen who at present support it. I am sorry a flag has not been reached by agreement. If my hon. friend on my right (the hon. member for Pretoria West) had stayed with his colleagues in the caucus, and had fought for better conditions for the Union Jack, it would have been better, instead of coming to the House and ridiculing them.

But you kicked him out.

We decided that the present Government design was more in harmony with the wishes of the people than any suggestion from the Opposition benches.

We have heard the spokesman of Labour from time to time entrusting the whole of the future of the flying of the Union Jack to the goodwill of the Government. That is in strange contrast to the claim of his party that it holds the balance of power, and to its assurance at the election that so far as the British connection is concerned, the interests of the country were safe in their hands. On this vital occasion on which they can exercise their claim to hold the balance of power, and save all turmoil in the country, they have failed. They have put up the most modest spokesman they possess to voice their views to-day. We do not hear the parliamentary leader of the Labour party and one can only assume that the hon. member’s betrayal of the English-speaking section—

The hon. member must not use language of that kind.

Very well, I will say the hon. member has failed the English-speaking section on this question. To-day, when he could have made good and proper use of the Labour party’s balance of power, he is strangely silent. That is in accord with his whole conduct in the House. He was the instrument chosen to attempt to do away with the empire occasions on which it was subsequently claimed the Union Jack could be flown to symbolize our relationship with the empire. It was he, in fact, who introduced a Public Holidays Bill to do away with the King’s Birthday and Victoria Day. I now want to address a word to the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). Writing in the “New Guardian”—South Africa’s best Labour paper—(a reflection, by the way, on the only other Labour paper, the “Forward”), Mr. Reyburn writes—

I challenge the hon. member to stand up in his place and say whether the person he is alleged to have had this conversation with is a member of this House, and, if so, to give the hon. member’s name and constituency now. That, I think, is a fair challenge. This cutting has been sent to me from Natal, where it is not credited, with the following comment—

The writer of that apparently knows something. It rests with the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) to stand up in this House and make good the statement he has made in the paper with which he is connected. I venture to say that this statement is devoid of truth— the object obviously being to make political capital out of a statement which, I make bold to say, was never made.

Carried by the Labour party.

On Clause 9,

If the clause as amended by the Senate is adopted, then it means that the Opposition will have on their side, not only all the possible antipathy which they can create against the proposal, but also any indifference which there may be, and all the people that are already dead. The voters’ roll must be taken as it stands, and the people who are dead are not taken off it. It seems to me as if the adoption of this proposal by that side of the House, as they apparently intend doing, is a new capitulation to the extreme section of their party. A movement has been started at Durban—from where all movements of this kind come—to boycott the referendum and to abstain from voting. If the amendment is accepted, then it will only benefit those people. Although they abstain from voting their votes will still count. Further, the Opposition will be placed in an exceptionally strong position because, at the referendum, they will be able to reckon, not on actual interest and enthusiasm which they can arouse, but on all the petty things that people may regard as objections to the flag—anything which they would rather have in or out of the flag, or because it does not agree with their own ideas. All these trivialities can be employed to make the people careless and to abstain from voting. That is a privileged position which is impossible. Let me say that the principle laid down in the amendment is never followed with respect to very important matters. Members of this House are not elected by the absolute majority of the number of voters on the roll of their constituencies. Matters of peace and war which affect the whole future and existence of the people are not decided in this way if they are referred to the country. Why then should it only be done in the choice of a flag, and this although Parliament has the power of deciding what the Union flag shall be. The amendment of the Senate contains a constitutionally unsound principle and, therefore, I am not prepared to accept it.

I regret very much the attitude of the Minister. His attitude means this—

that the Government is determined to make this grave issue depend on something which is very much like a gamble. A majority of a couple of votes may carry this flag. Here we are dealing with a question which is going to throw the country into turmoil and strife. The Government knows it. They know they are letting loose forces which may tear this country to pieces. All we ask is there shall be a deliberate choice, a deliberate decision given by the country in one of the most far-reaching matters that has ever been before this House. In other matters a precedent has been laid down in our constitution. The South Africa Act says that if a constitutional amendment of first-class character is made in the constitution, it shall be carried by a two-thirds majority not of those voting, but of the total members of the two Houses, two-thirds of a total electorate. Here we have a matter of the most far-reaching importance to be dealt with and decided. All that is asked foils that it shall be decided by a majority not of the actual voters, but of the registered voters, that it shall not be decided by a snatch majority, which may be of the smallest possible dimensions. The Government does not care. The Government damns the consequences. That is what their resolution now means. This matter will be decided in a way which will not be accepted by either party in this country. The Government knows it, and if they are defeated on their referendum they are not going to accept it. We are threatened with what is going to happen. I cannot conceive that a vote taken in the way which is proposed here, is going to be accepted calmly and quietly by the defeated section in this country. The only safeguard would have been a proper method which would have given a sure majority such as is provided by the amendment now before us.

Do you know of any referendum on those lines?

The Government are determined to go on in their own way, and nothing will prevent them. It is for the people themselves to decide what they are going to do. The Minister says that any possible apathy among the voters will help to defeat the Government proposal and the Government flag, That is as it should he. There are thousands and tens of thousands of people in this country who are extremely dissatisfied with the attitude of the Government in this matter. The agricultural community over a large part of South Africa, has never been in such desperate straits as it is to-day. They say: “What is our Government doing? Instead of dealing with the distress in the country they are wasting the time of Parliament over this flag question.” They will abstain from voting as a protest against the attitude of the Government. The Government is determined to go on. Let them go on, but their sins be on their own heads. Their sins will find them out, and they will find out in the end that the procedure they have followed will not only bring the country into serious trouble, but will overwhelm them too.

You would not be sorry, would you?

I share the disappointment expressed by my right hon. leader at the decision of the Minister, and I do not see anything in the arguments the Minister has used to make us change our minds in regard to this amendment. He speaks of dead men on the roll, but he knows that provision exists for taking from the roll the name of anyone who dies. Under the new Electoral Act the roll can be made as perfect as it is possible for it to be. There is a point which the Minister has forgotten. Eight thousand, ten thousand and possibly twelve thousand people would vote against the flag, but are not on the roll, because of the tom-fool Act that was passed.

Order! The hon. member must not speak of an Act of Parliament in that way.

I withdraw the word “tom-fool”. Because we passed an absurd Act—

The hon. member must not speak in that way of Acts of Parliament.

I withdraw. Because of the Act we passed last year, there are not less than 8,000, and possibly 12,000, who should be on the roll to-day who cannot exercise their right. Even hon. members of this House are deprived of their rights.

What about the supplementary registration?

This referendum will be decided on an almost entirely fresh roll. There has been a fresh registration the last month or two. This referendum can take place on the freshest roll we have had in this country. If the Minister has half of the people with him, there is no reason why they should not go to the poll.

What about those who live 50 miles from a polling station?

If they are not prepared to travel 50 miles for the Minister’s flag, it shows they do not want that flag. Someone gets them to the poll at election time. I have no doubt they turned up to vote for the hon. member at the last election; and if they turn up for him they will turn up to vote for the flag. The Minister said that other questions are decided by a bare majority. But if an hon. member is chosen by a bare majority, he is chosen for five years. The flag we are choosing we hope will serve us for 500 years. For the Minister to stand by a bare majority—any belief I had in the Minister’s desire to compromise disappears when he refused to accept this. Would we decide to go to war in this House if there was a majority of one? I was one of those who thought that no flag should be chosen by the country, except by a two-thirds majority at the referendum. The Senate and this party, instead of adopting that, have merely introduced this change. A large number of people will not vote for either flag, and the dice are loaded against those people. The Minister will have the matter decided on catchpenny tactics— those on which members of the party opposite came into power. They did not have a majority of voters, but I will not say by manipulation, but by a turn of the wheel of fortune, they came into power. I hope the House will not accept what the Minister has said, and that on further reflection he will see it is an impossible attitude to take up.

I should have thought that this would have been an amendment the Government would have been able to accept. This has nothing to do with the nature of the flag. The Minister thinks it would be difficult for any proposal to get the assent of over 50 per cent. of the voters on the roll, but if a constitutional proposal cannot get the assent of over 50 per cent. of the voters on the roll, it should not be made at all. Every section on a national question should be represented. A bare majority cannot always rule, as otherwise you would not have passed the sections in the Act of Union requiring a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of both Houses in certain cases. There come occasions when you want something more than a bare majority, when you want a real, and not a sham majority, and it is a real majority that the Senate wants. There may be special circumstances making for a small poll, such as weather conditions preventing people going to the poll.

What do you mean by a “sham” majority?

A sham majority is something less than 50 per cent. of the people on the roll. There are some countries which are wise enough to say that before a man is elected he must have a majority on the roll, and I would not object to that. It is not a healthy state of affairs if members are elected on a minority of the electors in their constituency. The point here is that your are making a fundamental change, and you are providing for the first time for a national flag, and why not say a majority of the voters on the roll should decide? This is an entirely democratic proposal. The experience of Switzerland with the referendum has been that on a question of interest more people vote than at election times. There is no danger of there not being a large poll. Strachey’s book on the referendum shows that on the question of the nationalization of railways, 76.6 per cent. voted, as against 66.3 per cent. at an ordinary election. On the question of the capital levy in 1922, there was an enormous vote, and 735,894 voted against it, and 109,686 voted for it. With regard to dead voters, you are not supposed to have them on the roll, and the officials are not doing their duty if there are dead voters left on the roll. The names should be removed soon after the notification of death. With regard to the boycott, which I see some people in various parts of the Union are advocating, I would be glad if hon. members would do anything in their power to discourage that. There can be nothing more fatal than boycotting the referendum because people do not believe in the Government’s proposals. They would simply play into the hands of the extremists. As it is, people are not being given a fair chance to vote. The people have no chance of initiating a proposal of their own, nor do they have a chance of choosing between two or three proposals. You are limiting their choice, and surely the least you can do is to say you must have over 50 per cent. of the voters on the roll on the side of the proposal before the flag becomes a national flag. I regret very much that the amendment has not been accepted.

It seems as if the Government is beginning to be afraid of its Bill. There was much boasting when the Bill was introduced, but the nearer the Government comes to the decision of the people the more afraid it is becoming.

No, it is you who are becoming afraid.

They are the party who say that they are a people’s party, and that in all big matters the people are with them. To-day we hear so much about democracy, that the majority of the people must rule. The Senate must not only protect the vested rights of the people, but also the democratic feelings of the people. This amendment bears in mind that the feeling of the people shall be taken into consideration.

That is a peculiar view.

Hon. members on the cross-benches, who state that they stand for democracy, now refuse to accept the amendment. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has mentioned an important point with regard to the countryside. The referendum will probably take place in November or December, when the people may be prevented in various ways through the weather conditions from taking part in the voting. How many times have farmers not had to swim through full rivers on account of heavy rainfall? The weather conditions do not affect the urban population so much as the rural. I regard this matter as a very serious one. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) has already said, the people do not get an opportunity of choosing between designs, and the people should, therefore, have the protection that the majority of the voters on the roll should vote for the flag before it becomes law. If the majority are in favour of the flag, then people can safely abstain. The people who are satisfied with the Minister’s flag will go to the ballot-box to vote. If the majority of the voters do not approve of the flag, then it will encroach upon the people’s rights.

I wish to complement those who secured the referendum. It is one of the principles which the party to which I belong stands for. I am one who advocated it from the first, and it is a direct concession to us partners in the Pact. Therefore, I take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of it. The Labour party can now go to the constituencies and claim this is one of the principles we stood for and got. But I don’t hesitate to say the referendum is “loaded,” and is not a fair reference. A referendum should contain a choice for the people, but this is merely a restricted veto. It is, however, an acknowledgment of the principle, and I am going to vote for the original clause and not the amendment. It is the first instance on record of a Union Government referring a subject democratically to the people, and if it had not been for the Labour party, the referendum would not have been given by a conservative party. It would have been a case of take this or nothing at all, simply a coercive measure bald and simple. From that we have been saved by the Labour party.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I just want to understand what this motion means.

I only ask as an unopposed motion that the House sits tomorrow, that is all.

Motion put and agreed to.

We will have to wait for the work of the Senate, and it seems to me it is almost best that we should adjourn until to-morrow. As far as I understand there is every possibility of the Precious Stones Bill being completed as far as the Senate is concerned in an hour or an hour and a half, but it seems to me it is not going to get us anything much to consider that to-day. I would like to have all the work finished to-morrow in the forenoon, unless my hon. friend thinks it would expedite matters to meet again this afternoon. I find we will have to adjourn until to-morrow, because the Bill has to be printed.