I move—

That the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (Repeal of Laws) (Private) Bill [A.B. 12—’61] be referred to a Select Committee, the members to be appointed under Standing Order No. 54 (Private Bills).

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act Amendment (Private) Bill [A.B. 13—’61] be referred to a Select Committee, the members to be appointed under Standing Order No. 54 (Private Bills).

I second.

Agreed to.

Before calling upon the hon. the Prime Minister I want to take this opportunity of pointing out to hon. members that this House is to-day commencing a debate on one of the most important Bills, if not the most important Bill, ever introduced into the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, namely, legislation providing for the establishment of a republic for South Africa. In the circumstances I wish to make a friendly yet most earnest appeal to hon. members to maintain at all times the spirit and tone of the debate on as high a level as possible and to refrain from indulging in personalities. I know that members will endeavour throughout to maintain the dignity and prestige of Parliament and will not lightly do anything which will bring the proceedings of this House into disrepute in the eyes of the public. I therefore feel confident that in making this appeal I shall have the full support of all hon. members.

I move—

In moving the second reading of the Constitution Bill, I want to announce immediately that, in terms of the right granted to me by the Rules of the House, I intend in the course of this debate to deal with various aspects in both official languages, some parts in Afrikaans and some in English. I do so deliberately in order to try to indicate symbolically that we are entering the republic of South Africa and are taking with us, as one of our most valuable possessions, the two languages which we have accepted and recognized as our official languages.

To-day this is a memorable occasion, an historic occasion, but I do not want to make use of it to stress to any great extent the emotional aspects which undoubtedly accompany this development with which we are dealing here. The time of achievement is not the time when emotional backgrounds should be emphasized too strongly. We want to state the case for the republic in such a way that it will be possible for all of us to face it with equanimity and with hope. It is a long-cherished ideal, the realization of which is now approaching, an ideal which has been cherished by certain sections of our population perhaps more than by others. It is one which throughout the years of political development has always been envisaged by the National parties as they developed during the various periods. It is an ideal which was also accepted at a certain stage of its development by even the United Party (and which was never rejected by the deletion of that part of its constitution). Already, shortly after the first years of Union, it was said that South Africa must once again become a republic. And gradually through the years, in times of stress, it became increasingly clear to the whole of the population that one day it would come. Through the generations we became accustomed to the belief that the natural process of development in South Africa was towards a republic, but precisely when and precisely how and precisely what it would be like were not equally clear. Since 1948, however, it has been stated in the most unequivocal language that the period of achievement was beginning to come nearer, and in the past few years, after the last election, it was stated even more clearly that the republic would have to come about within the present five-year period. The country became so accustomed to this idea that it surprised nobody when finally the announcement was made that the time had at last arrived. Last year this Parliament, as an act of preparation for the test to be put to the people of South Act, passed the Referendum Act, and in terms of that Act the referendum was held on 5 October last year. In consequence of the result of that referendum, and in terms of a promise given, the draft Constitution was published in the Government Gazette on 9 December, 1960, based on the South Africa Act, as had also been promised. On 23 January this year this Bill was introduced here. In this way we have progressed from the ideal to the initial steps of the reality.

These things that have happened have different meanings for the various sections of the population. From the Afrikaner’s point of view it was something which would inevitably stir his deepest feelings. Right throughout his history—long before the establishment of the two republics in the north—he had been by nature a republican. He was a republican because he helped here to develop a country far away—particularly when taking into consideration the conditions prevailing at that time —from his fatherland. Here he had to help to clean up his own country; here he had to establish a new nation or go under. In this way, both because of the fact that he was far removed from his country of origin and possessed the independence of the pioneer and through the natural conservatism of the farmer on his farm, which formed the basis of this nation, the Afrikaner steadily but energetically started to develop a Government for his own country. At first there was the realization of his ideal in a diversity of republics, but eventually the realization of his ideal was concentrated on two larger republics. When this period was over, the ideal was dampened but did not disappear. He longed for and pleaded for, and later exerted himself for the establishment once more of that same form of government. However, the feeling also grew in him that the new republic should be something bigger and different from what he had had before but had been unable to retain. Finally, the idea of a great republic of South Africa became his ideal. It was the ideal of a republic not only for his own section of the population, but for the population as a whole. To this ideal of a republic was linked the idea that the various sections of the population, despite former strife, should be welded into one nation, a single nation which could live in this country and create its own future here.

In this way, then, the ideal of a republic grew in the hearts of the Afrikaners until to-day. That is the position to-day. For that republic he is prepared to make sacrifices, sacrifices even of much of what he had earlier hoped would be characteristic of his republic. I must emphasize this, because the republic which we are going to establish now is not what many people throughout the years expected it to be. As it will now be established, it contains great concessions for the sake of the unity of the new nation. I may mention a few examples of this. The Nationalist, right from the earliest days, always thought of the constitution of the republic as something which to a very large extent would be based on and would be in conformity with the character of the constitutions of what were called model states by writers overseas. He, however, realized, when the time approached, that that could not be the position if all sections of the population were to be considered. He had to take into account the whole of the development towards a republic since 1910, and he would have to take, as the basis for these modern times, what had been born in the period which is now passing, viz. the South Africa Act with all its constant amendments. Therefore, there is inherent in the acceptance of this type of constitution (which is contained in the Bill before the House) a contribution to the growing unity of the people of South Africa, even though it will cause many people grief. The Nationalists are prepared to abandon the old constitutions of the republics for the sake of this greater cause.

I can mention a second example closely connected with that. There has always been in the mind of the Afrikaners the restoration, one day, of a President who would not only be the Head of State but also the Head of the Government, the combination of these two positions as it was in the old Republics. Here also the realism of our times in the minds of the generation which is now experiencing the achievement of this desire resulted in the traditions of the other section of the population being borne in mind. They had something to contribute from their history as well as us, and together with us, over the 50 years which have passed since 1910; the tradition which provided for the separation of the duties and the offices of the Head of State and the Head of the Government. In the draft Constitution which hon. members are now considering that has been borne in mind, and in that way another sacrifice is being made.

There is also much in the ceremonial of our Parliament and in its procedure which does not conform to what the Nationalist always regarded as being characteristic and inherent and which he would have liked to retain. It is rather characteristic of those things that form part of the traditions of the Mother of Parliaments, viz. that of Britain. These things have been proud memories and therefore are of importance to the other section of our White population. Whilst there certainly will have to be agreement about certain simplifications of procedures—not in order to resuscitate something out of our history, but purely for the sake of efficient working methods—the price has nevertheless been paid of accepting that this ceremonial, although it was inherited, has become part of our practice and our traditions. Therefore we shall have to build on that.

Apart from this, there are still other provisions reinstituted by this Constitution and which are not in consonance with the expectations of many people as to what would be done when the Republic was one day established. I want to refer, for example, to the symbol of independence, the Flag. There was an idea in the minds of many people that another flag would be accepted, not necessarily the flag of one of the former Republics, but something quite new, something which would symbolize not the past, but the changes to come. It was, however, realized that the flag we have was born out of strife and concessions made by the one to the other, and that it is a flag which has, as the only national flag, already become part of the South African tradition. It was also realized that to bring about changes in that respect now would result in renewed strife, strife over a symbol instead of obtaining a decision in regard to the nature and the form of Government. Therefore it was accepted as a fact—and it certainly caused pain in the hearts of many and still does—that the flag which was born through suffering here in South Africa should be retained. That is provided for in the Constitution.

In addition—let me say so frankly—membership of the Commonwealth was for a long time not recognized by the Nationalists as being one of the characteristics of a Republic of South Africa. That was firstly the position because at that time secession from the Crown would necessarily have meant secession from the Commonwealth. Thereafter, when the change came about and republics were allowed in the Commonwealth, it became an open question, but to many Nationalists it was in their hearts an open question which they considered would be decided along the lines of not remaining a member of the Commonwealth but rather becoming an ally and a friend of the other members of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, when the time became ripe for the establishment of the republic—recently—it was realized that in the same way as the desire to become a republic was deeply engraved in the hearts particularly of the Afrikaner Nationalists, the desire to retain the bonds with the Commonwealth were equally deeply engraved in the hearts of the English-speaking section of the population. It is, however, necessary that our English-speaking friends should realize that whilst all Nationalists to-day accept the fact that the republic should be a member of the Commonwealth, many of them did not come to that decision so much for materialistic reasons —although it is realized that it also has its material advantages, which, however, are not as great as some people would profess. Membership has been accepted by the majority of Afrikaner Nationalists as one of the means which will assist in welding us together into one nation in the new republic. That is a price which is being paid, just as on the other hand the price of saying farewell to the Monarchy is being paid. If that is realized, the mutual conception of what this change demands on both sides will perhaps be better understood.

Mr. Speaker, there is also an English-speaking South African angle to the whole problem of becoming a republic. May I say that in making use of the right, which the Rules of the House give me, to make part of my speech in English, I do so for no other reason than to symbolize, if I possibly can, in this eventful moment, the fact that we are entering the republic (in spite of many and big political differences between us) with the realization that there is much that we possess together. There is this one country which belongs to all of us. In particular it must be emphasized that we have two languages: not one language belonging to some and another belonging to others, but two languages belonging to all of us, and of value to all of us.

In South Africa there are English-speaking South Africans who are republicans at heart. There may be not many but they are here. They desire a republic because they honestly believe that it is the best form of government for this country of ours. They believe that in a republic the nation, which we all desire should develop here, can really be built, since then only the stresses and strains which have pestered our existence in the past will fall away. There are others, perhaps more, who are not so much republicans at heart, but who have realized for a long time that a republic is bound to come. They have accepted this with good grace, hoping that in aiding the republic to come about they may also aid in eliminating much of what has been bad in our history— conflicts which we all desire to forget. They also hoped that their support might aid in building up friendship, not only within the country but also without, friendships which may persevere for all time. They realized that the monarchial form of state has always been an impediment to the development of real friendship between the whole of South Africa and Great Britain, and were convinced that the substance of friendship is much more important to them than the form of state. They understood that while the English-speaking section of the South African population would always have this deep feeling of friendship for the mother country from which they came, a similar feeling could not easily develop among the Afrikaners as long as it was felt that the connection, in any constitutional sense, might again lead to some form of subservience, either legally and openly or otherwise in some underlying form. Whether this was right or wrong, they realized that here was a fundamental psychological impediment to the development of real friendship and co-operation. And so these English-speaking friends, who understood the Afrikaner, felt in favour of a republic in order to remove what was a disturbing element so that the basis of friendship—both between the two nations who have so much in common, economically and otherwise, and between the Afrikaner section and the English-speaking section of our population—could develop. Thirdly there are those English-speaking citizens of South Africa who were not and are not in favour of a republic, who even feel keenly antagonistic towards the process on which we have embarked. They need not think that we cannot understand their feelings or sympathize with their unhappiness. We have gone through all that ourselves. For many, many years we had to accept a constitutional situation with which we could not feel satisfied. There is some difference, however. In our case we had to participate in a constitutional situation which developed out of the subjection of our nation by theirs; in their case they only have to accept a constitutional situation upon which we are entering together in what will be our common land. But one can understand this heartburning. From the Afrikaner side therefore we felt that it was necessary to try to make this painful change— painful for them—as easy as possible. I have just said and I wish to repeat that for that very reason great sacrifices have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I made an appeal before the referendum for unity. It is sometimes said that we have made no sacrifice for that unity and we have been asked what we were prepared to do. I must emphasize again, as I have done often and often before, that we did make sacrifices. I do not think our English-speaking friends realize quite how big those sacrifices are to many of us. If they could grasp that, they might feel better and realize that while they must accept a republic, we must accept much that is written into this constitution which is opposed to our former ambitions and ideals. Perhaps we give up quite as much as they have had to do. For many, many years it was the ambition of the nationalist, of the republican, to create a constitution built on the lines of the republican constitutions of the past in South Africa. It was a deep and heartfelt desire, so deeply ingrained that until about a year ago it almost seemed impossible for any concession to be made in this direction, in the direction of a constitution based on the South Africa Act. If that remained so it might have been almost impossible to propose the change to a republic when we felt the stage had been reached, because it could have been a republic in which the different sections would have felt compelled to fight each other continuously. As the need for White unity became stronger and stronger during the past few years, it was realized by the Afrikaner, however, that that unity was much more important than the precise form of a constitution. In the interests of this unity, in order to be able to have a republic with which the English-speaking section of South Africa could also become satisfied, it became possible to convince us all that the only basis for a republic was to take what we have and to build upon it, namely the South Africa Act as it had developed throughout the years. This was, after all, continuous development in the direction of a republic. Therefore the constitutional situation as we know it will be retained. We have evolution, not revolution.

Part of the constitutional desires of the republican, a part he has had to sacrifice in the interest of unity, is the type of president. The presidency was always conceived as becoming something similar to the position held by President Steyn or President Paul Kruger, a president who would not only be head of state but also head of government. Again, realism of the Afrikaner republican makes him understand that that would be so strange to the British tradition, and therefore that of the other section of our population, as well as to the tradition built up in South Africa since 1910, that in this a sacrifice to unity had also to be made. This caused much more heartburning than is possibly realized by our English-speaking friends who seem to think that all the sacrifices are being made by them. Yet this has been done and republicans throughout South Africa showed by their support at the referendum after this had been stated clearly, that they were prepared to accept this form of republic. They knew exactly what was intended.

And then I come to the flag. The present form of South African flag was accepted after a prolonged struggle. It is not the flag which people thought in the course of time they would want. Many suggestions, not only for the resurrection of one of the old flags of former republics, but also others in favour of something quite new, have been brought to our attention from time to time. Here it was felt that the flag we know was the result of much argument and compromise, and that it would be invidious to make a change now and thereby let something which is a symbol become the centre-piece of renewed struggle instead of being quietly retained as formerly accepted. The decision was to let the development towards unity go on undisturbed at this stage at least by renewed strife about what is only a symbol.

There is also the question of parliamentary ceremonial, and parliamentary procedure. This differs from what was expected once upon a time would be the ceremonial and procedure in the republic. There, too, apart from attempts which will undoubtedly be made towards simplification in the interest of facilitating the work of Parliament—and that will be done by agreement—the acceptance in principle of the old procedure makes it quite clear that we are prepared to build on the procedure we know and the ceremonial that tradition has left us.

Most important of all probably is the fact that membership of the Commonwealth was not contemplated when the ideal of a republic was first mooted, and was not contemplated right through the long period of its development. It was not that friendship or alliance with members of the Commonwealth would not be something that would not be eagerly sought, but the idea of belonging to one Commonwealth in spite of separation from the Crown, was not until fairly recently, looked upon as possible. Therefore the republican ideal had then of necessity to be seen as a development outside the Commonwealth. That idea gripped the mind of the Afrikaans republican and had to be torn out of his conception of what should happen when we came to the stage when we finally had to make a decision. That idea had remained in spite of the fact that a change had come over the Commonwealth in recent times. I want to emphasize most clearly that, while it is quite true that membership of the Commonwealth holds certain advantages including certain economical advantages and while this is fully realized, and also that membership of such a group is of great importance in this present world of combinations of nations as well as that the natural combination to belong to is the one to which we already belong, nevertheless—and this cannot be over-emphasized—the main reason why Commonwealth membership as part and parcel of the republican development, unless we are turned away, was accepted by republicans, Afrikanerdom particularly, was the realization that give and take was necessary if we had to weld our sections of our population into one nation. Membership of the Commonwealth has been fully accepted as part of the development which we are trying to undertake. It has not only been fully accepted but been honestly accepted. I must stress this because it has been repeatedly said by people that I personally and my party are not genuine in our acceptance of Commonwealth membership, if it can be retained. We are said to be only bluffing. People are told that we want to become a member of the Commonwealth for a short time, just in order to tide things over, but that it is already our intention to remove our country from membership as soon as ever we can. Certain newspapers have even said that it would only be a question of six months, that we are accepting membership of the Commonwealth. I want to say clearly that we are not bluffers, Commonwealth while the Commonwealth remains as it is to-day. We are genuinely seeking to retain membership. According to newspaper reports much unpleasantness may await me when I go to London to try and make this possible. That won’t deter me from doing my duty. I shall honestly strive to achieve membership. I cannot, however, do so at the expense of allowing interference in South Africa’s affairs. I cannot seek membership at the expense of the sacrifice of principles of policy which are ours and ours alone to decide. We can fight about those matters here but no other nation has the right to veto or to intervene. Apart from an unequivocal stand on that, I shall make an honest and strong attempt and a sincere one to retain membership, and if South Africa is retained as a member of the Commonwealth it will be our earnest endeavour to co-operate as fully as is possible in all matters of common concern. We can actually do so better as a republic and with greater support from all the sections of our nation than we could in the past because no longer will our co-operation, if real and active, be seen as a possible sacrifice of independence or of standpoint. We can co-operate better as a republic of South Africa because misunderstanding of their leaders by their own people can no longer arise. The ideal whose fulfilment it was feared might be retarded, might be harmed, by such co-operation, will have been achieved.

All these prices have been paid for unity and they have been accompanied by much heartbreaking. It was quite as hard for some of us to sacrifice certain of these ideals as it is for some of our English-speaking friends to accept the coming of the republican form of government. If all of us could only understand that we are to-day contributing to greater harmony and unity, and better co-operation with our friends overseas, and if we could on both sides see the other man’s point of view in this and accept it as honestly held, then much will be gained which sometimes seems to have been lost.

It is said nevertheless that we must pay further prices for unity. What are they? I can only see a few suggestions clearly. The one is that we should take English-speaking members into our Cabinet. That is being suggested. That, we are told, would be a proof of our honesty of purpose and of a real desire for unity. Let us examine more closely the practical possibilities of such a step. If I am asked to take an English-speaking Nationalist, an English-speaking member of my party, into the Cabinet, then there is no doubt that—it suitable persons are available—we could take them into the Cabinet. There is no doubt about that being possible and, as far as I am concerned, desirable. The problem is that there are many English-speaking persons who joined with us in voting for the republic but have not as yet joined our party, or may not wish to join our party. If that is so, my difficulty in appointing a person from the English-speaking group into the Cabinet increases. I sincerely hope that this will not remain the position. I sincerely hope that the ostracism with which English-speaking people felt they would be faced if they joined the Nationalist Party, may disappear once the republic becomes a fact. And I also sincerely hope that once that change takes place, what happened in the past will not be repeated, namely that when an English-speaking person, either a member of our party or not, is put into high office, he is denounced as a stooge. That should never happen. In this new South Africa, common to us all, we will have differences of opinion in regard to policy and on political issues. Differences on policy and between parties in this new situation when we shall have one common fatherland, should not make a person from either group a stooge or traitor to his group when he joins up with the other. We will now be one nation. I say that I will not in this republic of ours be able to look upon any Afrikaner who accepts the republic but joins up with any opposition party as a stooge, or call him such.

There is another method which has been suggested. That is that I should take into my Cabinet independents who supported the republican ideal but might differ from us in respect of other points of policy. Any parliamentarian knows, however, how difficult that is. He knows there is joint Cabinet responsibility, and how impracticable it is to appoint an Independent in Parliament, who officially represents no other point of view than his own. He may not even speak for the majority of English-speaking republicans if they also wish to remain independents in their way of thinking. It would be impossible to take such a person into a Cabinet, i.e. in spite of the principle of joint responsibility, to appoint somebody who opposes in public and in private many actions and principles which the Cabinet must perforce support in fulfilment of the mandate given by the electorate who have put it into power. Besides, such an Independent would also have to be provided by the Government with a seat either in the Senate or in the House of Assembly in spite of his differences of opinion with the Government. Any parliamentarian knows that to do this is just not practical since no province or constituency wishes to be represented by somebody who does not support its approved policies.

There is a third possibility and that is that there should be a Cabinet including members of the Opposition. I have already mentioned the difficulties which would then be created.

Surely there are Independents …

That hon. member suggested a little while ago, in another debate, that Mr. Boydell was disappointed with us. [Laughter.] Well, I must say I don’t laugh at Mr. Boydell. I have the highest respect for his South Africanism, and for much that he has done or attempted to do overseas to make South Africa better known as the good country it really is. But I must point out that when he makes the suggestion of a pact or a coalition, or whatever it might be, hon. members must know how impossible that is to-day.

Hear, hear!

Apart from the fact that if we should enter into a pact with either of the Opposition parties, the leaders who would most likely have to be taken into the Cabinet would also be of Afrikaner extraction, there is the fundamental difference of principle between us which prevents this. I am glad that hon. members on the other side immediately” acknowledge that, because although we in Parliament realize the great impossibility of any coalition or pact arising, and therefore of members of the Opposition parties being taken into the Cabinet of the Government party, people outside are left to think that I am unreasonable in saying so. When I say that it is impossible, it does not mean that I do not wish for unity. Therefore I always saw fit to stress that there is a great difference between political unity, which is impossible to achieve, and national unity, the attainable ideal of being one people. In the past when a pact was arranged in South Africa, there was a quite different situation. Then you had two Opposition parties opposed to the then Government. There was no pact between a majority Government in power and one of the Opposition parties for no reason whatsoever. Two minority Opposition parties made a pact in order to achieve governmental power, and the diversity of views between them was not as wide as that between us and the Opposition parties of to-day, nor as fundamental. They certainly had differences of opinion, but on certain fundamentals they were at one. Between Colonel Cresswell and General Hertzog there was, for instance, at no time any doubt about their similarity of outlook on the colour question, which is the basis of the differences between us to-day. The Pact was concluded in those days to remove the then Government, to come into power jointly, and that was possible owing to common policies. As the one main Government party increased its support the natural process took place and the Pact fell apart. For anybody to suggest that something similar—a pact— could be expected of a very strong party in power, as we are to-day, viz. that it should compromise on its principles, deviate from the policies on which it was brought to power by the electorate, just in order to include in the Government a party or parties which the electorate rejected because of its policies, would not only be a deviation from parliamentary practice, but would also be impossible from the point of view of what is politically feasible. It would mean that the Government in power should relinquish its mandate in order to enable the Opposition which has been put out of office because of its policies, to carry out part of its policies in spite of defeat. Such a request is simply not reasonable. It does not happen according to parliamentary practice anywhere. Therefore refusal of a pact or coalition is not test of our desire for unity. The test lies ever so much deeper. After analysing these suggestions, it therefore becomes quite clear that as far as the Cabinet situation is concerned, there remains only one way in which we can get English-speaking members into the Cabinet, i.e. that they must be members of the governing party. There is an alternative, namely, if English-speaking people who feel with us on all the main issues, although they might differ in details of procedure, could create a party of their own with which we could co-operate, and if that party could succeed in being represented in Parliament. It might certainly be possible to co-operate with such a party, but whether such a creation is feasible I do not know. I am inclined to think it is not. I am inclined to think that the only way for English-speaking people to participate in the Government is for those to join up with the Government Party who believe in its principles.

Or to defeat the Government.

Another suggestion has been thrown out as to how to achieve unity. That is that we should sacrifice certain of our principles. By sacrificing certain of our principles we would make it easier for greater unity to come about, so say some opponents. I have already dealt with this in passing. It means factually that the party in power, chosen for the very reason that it holds dear those principles which are believed in and supported by the majority of the electorate, and supported because it not only enunciates those principles but carries them out, would have to throw those self-same principles overboard. It must also be remembered that these principles are also supported by many who vote for the other side, as a huge correspondence seems to indicate. How on earth is it possible, I ask, to achieve greater unity by sacrificing those principles which the electorate wants its Government to carry out? Therefore when further demands are made on us as to how to promote greater unity in the political field, these facts must be taken into account. In addition I wish to re-emphasize that sacrifices for unity have been made and the undertakings given in that connection will be fulfilled to the utmost limit. I refer to those five points in respect of which I have given a straightforward outline of our standpoint.

I shall now proceed to deal with certain demands made by the Opposition parties in the first-reading debate. The first point was that we should make acceptance of the republic and the republican constitution dependent upon the guarantee that we will be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I have already explained that there will be a sincere effort upon our part to remain within the Commonwealth, but that attempt cannot be made at the price of the republic not being created. Can hon. members suggest anything which would make it more certain that members of the Commonwealth of Nations would infringe on our domestic rights than if such a suggestion were entertained? If I were to accept the proposition that becoming a republic should be made dependent upon a guarantee that we are to be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, then certain other nations would most undoubtedly make use of this to try and stop the republican development by interfering in our domestic affairs. Since I would have to oppose that, they would threaten that we would not be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and thereby stop our becoming a republic. The will of the people as expressed on 5 October would be thwarted because of what is tantamount to a veto. Surely it is an unrealistic demand to make of us. Surely it is an impossible demand that other members of the Commonwealth should decide not only in regard to our membership but thereby be able also to decide on the future form of our state! In fact, an acceptance of such a proposal would mean nothing less than to invite a refusal for a change which we know some of the others would rather not have take place.

Apart from that, does the Opposition realize that if this happens it would perhaps be the beginning of the break-up of the Commonwealth itself? If we had to submit to such a form of interference, not only in our domestic affairs but in decisions over our future, the hon. members will realize that we would also interfere in the constitutions, the actions and the policies of other members of the Commonwealth including the United Kingdom. Do they realize what we and others could do if we wished to interfere in their internal affairs, if we wished to build upon what had then been done to us? If each member were to act in this way towards every other member, just imagine what a platform for continuous squabbles the Commonwealth would become instead of an organization for co-operation— in spite of all differences—in those fundamental matters of common concern which mean so much to the world to-day.

Therefore I say that if I were to accede to this part of the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I would not only be harming South Africa but I would also be doing harm to the Commonwealth itself; and it is in the Commonwealth that he feels he has such a big stake.

Then there was the second proposal, namely that we should introduce a number of entrenchments. If I had to introduce a number of entrenchments—not mentioned at present but possibly similar to those outlined in a recent Natal statement—then this would firstly mean, that I would be breaking my promise made to the electorate before the referendum, namely, that we would retain a constitution similar to that of the South Africa Act as it has developed to this day. It would secondly mean the introduction, presumably, of certain entrenchments creating more powerful Provincial Councils, which would be at least a partial development in the direction of a Federation. That is basically in contrast to what we have to-day, and to what the intention has been since Union. It is quite unfair to ask me both to break a promise and to change the character of the South African Constitutional set-up. I should like to remind the hon. member that the attack which was made upon us before 5 October was based on the suspicion that we wanted to change the Constitution. After it had become perfectly clear that we did not want to change the character of our Constitution but desired to retain the type of Constitution we have, the Opposition suddenly changed. Now it wants a different Constitution which we do not. Besides that, entrenchments of this kind would be nothing more than a bluff unless the sovereignty of Parliament was sacrificed. It would be a bluff because we would be changing from the British form of flexible system which we have had so far, to something similar to the American system. The latter system has however been based on quite a different background, and, unless followed with great consistency, unless we approach many matters quite differently, unless we change the entire character of the system in which we believe—unless we do all that, the American system would not be able to fit in with what would still remain of our present system. We as a Parliament have repeatedly decided that the sovereignty of Parliament must not be impugned. Consequently I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can ask me to introduce entrenchments within this Constitution, unless great changes were contemplated by him. I must also add that this would bring about all the evils of a rigid system. Nowadays, peculiarly enough, there seem to be quite a number of people who think that in a rigid system you get greater certainty instead of less. In the past one of the reasons for praise of the flexible system of Great Britain has been that changes can always be gradually introduced without any revolutionary action. If you look up Bryce, or any of the great constitutional lawyers of the time, you will find that much praise has always been given to the flexibility of the British system of Parliament, because, it was said, a nation never allows legal impediments to stand in its way. If people through Parliament cannot change laws by ordinary means then the people will change them by revolutionary means. It will not allow an entrenchment to stand in its way. The flexible system of Great Britain was praised by these constitutional lawyers for the very fact that it made gradual legal changes possible in accordance with the changes in the community brought about by time and circumstances. For that reason, too, I think it would be wise of us not to try to insist on a form of rigid constitution which would then mean that when changes have to be made they must be made in a revolutionary way. It would be wise of us to retain the flexibility of our present system, in accordance with the basis from which it has sprung.

The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party made another suggestion. He suggested that we should change this Constitution into a multi-racial constitution. It is true that he said that it should be provided with certain so-called safeguards. But no safeguards are of any value. If a majority of Bantu gradually achieved power in South Africa, does the hon. member for one single moment believe that they would be deterred from overcoming those safeguards by any revolutionary means if it should suit their purpose? You can lay down safeguards for the White man now, and you can suggest to yourself that those safeguards will help you in the future. But they will not aid anyone. Does the hon. gentleman believe that any outside nation will say “These safeguards were introduced by the Progressive Party and therefore we now have to help those people, the minority groups—be they Whites or Indians or Coloureds—against the increasing power of the Bantu who have overthrown the safeguards for the minorities having a majority of voters or members now ”? Does he think that a single nation of the world would protect such minorities here for legal reasons? Would they not say what they are saying about the rest of Africa, that Africa is gradually finding its feet in an unorthodox way? It will be the same in this country. Therefore, by just accepting a multi-racial constitution and so changing the whole picture of South Africa and its constitutional development, you would bluff yourself if you believe that you can safeguard the White man or any other groups and their authority for the future. This would be an illusion. Such theories are quite unrealistic. We are not prepared to make this change. The only way in which you can evade such dangers, and the only basically correct and just policy for South Africa, is to retain the Constitution on the lines that we have to-day. By retaining such a Constitution we would ensure that the White man’s Parliament will be retained as we know it. It will continue as under present circumstances. At the same time we will develop the opportunities for self-government for each of the other groups in our midst. This Constitution before you today is based on this fundamental principle.

I have tried, in this part of my speech, to show how, in spite of the major differences between us, we still can enter upon a republic together, with goodwill. While accepting that we basically belong to one nation, each one can strive in his own way for what he believes best. My appeal is not for any form of political unity. My appeal is for the acceptance of the republic in the form of this Constitution which means sacrifices from all sides, so that we can build South Africa together. I wish to quote from an article in the Rand Daily Mail of this very morning. This article is actually an appeal to the Opposition. I cannot quote from any newspaper which differs more fundamentally from this side than does the Rand Daily Mail. This is a newspaper which supports the United Party to a certain extent, but which possibly leans more towards the Progressive Party than the United Party. The appeal of that newspaper reads as follows. I will not quote the first portion which leads up to this, but the main point is in the second part.

The Rand Daily Mail, surely, is capable of expressing the opinion of a large proportion of the English-speaking population, and of the English-speaking anti-republicans. For once, therefore, I find myself in accord with the Rand Daily Mail.

You must be wrong. Be careful!

Very, very seldom can it be said that I am in accord with the Rand Daily Mail, but for this once I am. I add to what they say, this appeal to hon. members to co-operate in creating the atmosphere which should be present when a nation, in the process of building itself, acquires a new form of government which will aid in achieving that basic unity which we all desire.

*I then come to the details of the Bill itself and I want to discuss some of the principles on which this Bill is based. In the first place it is a consolidating measure. Together with what is essential and what we have to retain in the South Africa Act and in its amendments, it also consolidates what is already to be found in diverse other constitutional enactments. In addition to that, certain provisions which had already become obsolete have been omitted, and there are other provisions which now have to fall away. I shall also refer to certain provisions which will have to fall away after 31 May. At the same time I want to say that advantage has also been taken of this opportunity, of course, apart from bringing about this consolidation, to obtain a better classification of provisions and thus to bring about a more logical grouping than we have had hitherto in our Constitution. The Constitution as a whole therefore will, I think—and lawyers testify that that is so—be more compact. In the first place therefore the South Africa Act and its amending Acts are being consolidated, as well as other Acts or the relevant portions of the following Acts: The Flags Act of 1927, the Flags Amendment Act of 1957, the Senate Acts of 1926, 1955 and 1960, the Status of the Union Act of 1934, the Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act of 1934, and the Letters Patent and Instructions to the Governor-General of 1937. I want to give a number of examples of existing provisions which do not form part of the South Africa Act and which have also been summarized in this Bill, because it may be of assistance to hon. members in studying this Bill with a view to the Committee Stage. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the National Flag and have been taken over from the Flags Act of 1927 and the amending Acts. Clause 6 contains the provisions of Section 4 of the Status of the Union Act together with the necessary adjustments. Clause 15 contains the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Royal Powers and Seals Act of 1934, although we are now making provision for just one Seal of the Republic instead of the present two. Clauses 29, 30 and 31 contain a summary of the provisions of the Senate Act of 1955, as amended in 1960, which have not been incorporated in Clause 34 because there is this separate Act, and the old provisions of the South Africa Act are being omitted, of course, because they fall away. Clauses 32 and 33 repeat the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Senate Act of 1960. Clause 34 contains the provisions of the Senate Act of 1926 and the relevant provisions of the Senate Act of 1955. Clause 41 refers, for the sake of completeness, to the Members of Parliament who are elected in terms of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act and the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951. Clause 61 incorporates, in addition to the provisions of Section 59 of the South Africa Act, the provisions of Section 2 of the Status of the Union Act of 1934 (which declares Parliament to be a Sovereign Legislative Authority) and of Section 2 of Act 9 of 1956 which deprives the courts of law of the power to give judgement on the validity of an Act of Parliament, except as far as the principle of bilingualism is concerned. Clause 102 has been adapted where necessary to the amendments made to the Railway Board Act, 1916, in connection with the functions of the Railway Board.

So much then in the first place as far as consolidation is concerned. This consolidation has also made it necessary for provision to be made for the repeal of a long list of Acts and portions of Acts, in terms of Clause 117 and the Schedule. As far as the South Africa Act is concerned the whole Act is being repealed except for a few clauses. Section 115 is a section which relates to the admission of advocates and attorneys. This is something which should not really form part of a Constitution and that is why it is not being incorporated in the Constitution Bill but it is nevertheless retained as part of our legislation because that is necessary until such time as we pass some consolidating measure in which this clause relating to legal practioners can be incorporated. It is being kept in obeyance therefore with a view to subsequent consolidating legislation which the Department of Justice may introduce at some time or other.

Then there are Sections 150 and 151 and those portions of the Schedule relating to the Protectorates. These parts are being retained because it is perfectly clear that those portions which relate to territory that was under the control of the British South Africa Company at the time, and to the Protectorates, are not matters that we can deal with here unilaterally to-day. There are other interested parties and it is perfectly clear therefore that these portions of the South Africa Act must be retained until discussions can take place at opportune times with those who also have an interest and a say in this matter.

What about the schedule?

I have already mentioned the relevant part of the Schedule. First of all I want to give examples—because I should like hon. members to have clarity in regard to the changes which are being brought about—of obsolete provisions in the South Africa Act which have to be omitted. There is the old preamble which is no longer appropriate. There is the definition of the Sovereign’s heirs and successors and the application of the Act to the Sovereign’s successors; there is the proclamation of Union; there is the incorporation of the colonies in the Union; there is the application of the Colonial Borders Act; there is the appointment of and the application of the Act to the Governor-General; there is the original composition of the Senate; there is the Commission of Inquiry into the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces; there is the compensation to colonial capitals for diminished prosperity; there is the question of free trade throughout the Union. Obsolete provisions of this type must obviously disappear, and accordingly they have not been incorporated again in this Bill.

Then I want to refer to certain obsolete laws which fall away. There is, for example, His Majesty King Edward the Eighth’s Abdication Act, 1937. That is an Act which is mentioned in the Schedule as one which falls away. Similarly there is the Coronation Oath Act of 1937, the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1948 and the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1935. It stands to reason that these are Acts which have to fall away after 31 May 1961.

Apart from these provisions in the South Africa Act which obviously fall away, and apart from the other Acts which similarly fall away, there are also certain unnecessary sections. I want to mention just two examples. The one is that of an unnecessary section that we have omitted, not because it is not necessary for a change to a republic but because generally speaking it is simply unnecessary. The second is a section which should also fall away and which is tentatively being retained in the Bill but to which the Select Committee can give its attention. Because the necessity for its omission is perhaps not so obvious and apparent I thought I should retain it tentatively so that nobody can think that we are just deliberately leaving out parts. The first is Section 57 of the South Africa Act which is being omitted at this stage already. This section empowered Parliament to determine the powers and privileges of the two Houses and their members. Other legislation in this regard has been in existence for a long time, namely Act No. 19 of 1911. It has been possible to omit this section from the Bill even at this stage because as a sovereign legislative authority Parliament is in any event competent to-day to enact any law. That is why a clause of this kind which gives Parliament a specific power is no longer necessary. Then there is Section 35 of the South Africa Act which is still incorporated in the Bill as Clause 42 and which empowers Parliament to prescribe the electoral qualifications. We have retained this provision for the sake of completeness, but it seems to me it should also be omitted in view of the fact that Parliament has full legislative powers. The Select Committee can consider that aspect. That is what I wished to say about the consolidation and the elimination of dead wood. Those then are the provisions of the one part of this Bill.

Then a second principle is contained in the Constitution Bill. A number of new provisions have been inserted, and they all relate to the substitution of the Presidency for the Monarchy. It is these provisions therefore that are essentially new. I should like now to mention this series of clauses. In the first place there is a new preamble which is in accordance with present practice. I must say frankly that I as a layman would have preferred a preamble of a more emotional character, a preamble which would have said more about the fulfilment of ideals. However, viewed from a legal angle there is much to be said for simply retaining that which is essential and which relates directly to the contents of the Bill itself. For that reason the preamble is perhaps a little cold. But after all the preamble is a direct indication of the circumstances under which this Constitution is being created and of the spirit of the people and the nature of their legislation. Then there is Clause 3 which provides for the conversion of the Union into a Republic. It further provides that any reference in previous legislation to the Crown, the Union, the Sovereign and the Queen-in-Council, shall be construed after 31 May as references to the State President, the Republic, and the State President-in-Council, as the case may be. The clause further provides that the President will have the same prerogatives, powers and functions as the Queen possesses to-day, and that the present constitutional conventions will continue. This clause states specifically, and this is important, that the present constitutional conventions shall continue unchanged. Clauses 7 and 8—the other intervening clauses deal with the flag and such matters—provide for the election of the State President by an electoral college consisting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Assembly and for the procedure to be followed at such an election. Perhaps I might just indicate briefly why this procedure, that is to say, that of election by such an electoral college, has been decided upon. It is because the President will not be the head of the Government, but the State head. If he had been an executive President, the people as a whole would undoubtedly have had to make their choice themselves. On the other hand when the President is a constitutional head, the disruption caused by a nation-wide election is unnecessary and perhaps undesirable as well. The number of elections which have to be held and the decisions which the people themselves have to take, in addition to the provincial elections and the parliamentary elections, must not be further increased. That is why it was felt that in a case of this kind it would be best for an electoral college to take the decision. The already existing body which has been elected by the people themselves consists of the House of Assembly and the Senate. That is why the choice has fallen on them.

Clause 9 fixes the tenure of office of the State President at seven years, after which period he will not normally be eligible for re-election, unless the electoral college expressly decides otherwise. This method has been adopted because it is assumed that the person who is elected as President will normally be of a fairly advanced age, particularly since his function will be to be the focal point around which the love and desire for unity of the people must be united. Consequently the chances that a young man will be elected as President are not great. The intention is that he should be a person of dignity and a man of stature in the eyes of the people. Unfortunately it is a human characteristic that people are very ready to think that they should be re-elected. For that reason we are adopting the standpoint that the normal procedure should be that after having served for the reasonably long period of seven years, the person holding this post should not be eligible for re-election. That should be the normal procedure and the normal expectation. Consequently, as far as the President himself is concerned, he and his supporters cannot take the initiative in advance in order to make him available for nomination again. However, there may be a President who during his seven-year term of office has become such a force in the life of the nation and who is physically and mentally still so fit and well, that the people as a whole and the electoral college itself, which represents the people, will make it clear that they wish to retain that person. With a view to such exceptional cases, we are not making it completely impossible for such a person to be re-elected for an additional term. But then the electoral college itself must take the initiative. That then is the object of this somewhat unusual procedure. The same clause also provides for the procedure whereby the State President can, if necessary, be removed from office or resign of his own accord.

Clause 10 lays down who shall be the Acting President, whenever that becomes necessary. Clause 11 makes provision for an oath of office or a solemn affirmation to be made by the President or the Acting President. Clause 12 sets out the powers of the State President, powers which correspond to those at present exercised by the Queen or her representative under the existing law or the prerogatives and conventions as set out in the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions to the Governor-General of 1937. In this regard I just want to point out that there has been a controversy in the Press between certain lawyers as to what exactly the powers of the President are going to be, particularly with reference to his power to return Bills to Parliament. May I repeat quite clearly that the intention is undoubtedly that the President should be a constitutional head of State and that in all his actions, as has been the practice in the past, and as has also been the practice in respect of the Crown, he should act wherever possible on the advice of the Cabinet. I say “wherever possible” because there are certain functions in the carrying out of which such a head of State cannot be guided, for example in appointing the Prime Minister. In that case there is no Cabinet on whose advice he can make an appointment. The position therefore is that in such a case he has a certain amount of discretion. We appreciate nevertheless that even this discretion is hedged in by practical considerations. In practice it will be quite impossible for the President to make an arbitrary appointment. He must bear in mind the composition of Parliament and which person will enjoy the confidence and support of sufficient Members of Parliament to be able to form a Government. There is therefore an apparent absolute discretion, but both custom and practice ensure that he will have to act with a full sense of responsibility and in accordance with an established procedure.

In regard to the sending back of legislation, it is well known that the position in Britain is that the Head of State apparently has a right to veto, yet the King has never exercised it since time immemorial. In fact, much of the work in connection with legislation is not even handled personally by the Queen, as is the case here in regard to the Governor-General, but is delegated. The sending back of legislation, when that happens, therefore always happens in terms of the existing practice. Here also it only takes place in terms of the existing practice, as well as in terms of the Constitution, which means that it will take place on the advice of the Cabinet. Perhaps this is not specified as specifically in the Constitution as some people would like to have it, but to formulate it too narrowly would result in the President being practically nothing more than a glorified clerk in terms of the law. The responsibility for acting on advice flows, inter alia, from the fact that the President forms part of Parliament. At present Parliament consists of the Queen, the House of Assembly and the Senate. In future it will consist of the President, the House of Assembly and the Senate. Because of the inherent necessity for co-operation which flows from that, this means that in accordance with both practise and custom, the President, as far as the exercise of this duty is concerned, will exercise his right only in co-operation and therefore on the advice of the Cabinet. I hope that with reference to the dispute which existed, my unequivocal statement will now make it quite clear what the legal advice is on which the Bill as it stands here is based, and what is envisaged in the Bill. If the Select Committee wishes to devote further attention to it, we will give it all possible assistance.

Clause 13 provides for the protection of the dignity and honour of the President and his deputy. Clause 14 provides that there will be only one Seal for the republic instead of the Royal Great Seal and Small Seal. I may just say that experience has shown that we need only one Seal. In fact, a great country like the U.S.A. also has one Seal only. We are therefore doing nothing abnormal here. Clauses 16 and 17 provide for the salary of the State President and for the pensions payable to him and later to his widow. No change is being made there. I mention this merely in order to point out that, with a view to engendering due respect for the office of the President, better provision will be made administratively for the way in which his household is controlled and financed. There are existing provisions in respect of the household and certain expenses he is responsible for which make it appear that proper provision has not been made for the Governor-General, and in future for the President. These defects in the present arrangements, however, do not in the first place require changes to be made in the salary of the President. Changes are necessary only in regard to the organization and the financing of the household.

Clauses 18 and 19 provide for an Executive Council which will be different from the present position. As hon. members know, ex-Ministers to-day are also theoretically members of the Executive Council, but one never sees them there. It is practically a fiction. In future the Council will consist only of serving Ministers; for years already all governments function in that way. These clauses secondly provide for the appointment of Ministers of State by the President in terms of the present procedure, and also for the oath or solemn declaration which must be given. In this connection I just want to say that at a later stage I will refer to the number of Ministers. Clause 20 provides for the appointment and duties of Deputy Ministers, the oath they have to take, and also other details in regard to their remuneration, where a certain change is being suggested. Clause 54 provides for a new oath or solemn declaration which must be made by Members of Parliament to the President, instead of the present oath which is provided for in Section 51 of the South Africa Act. I just want to emphasize that the reason for the alternative of a solemn declaration in this case is mainly to cope with persons who have religious objections to taking an oath. There are such persons, but the circumstances which in the past made it necessary to take an oath or make a solemn declaration will be different in the republic. But at the same time this choice is provided for. The motive in providing for the making of a solemn declaration is nevertheless the possibility of religious objections being raised. We hope that no other objections will be raised, but if so, then there is this alternative.

Clauses 107 and 108 refer to the Judiciary. It appears to be something new, but the reason is that the provisions concerning the Supreme Court which were contained in the South Africa Act were provided for in 1959 in the Supreme Court Act. The reason for the insertion of these two clauses was that it was regarded as fitting that in the Constitution, in addition to the Executive and the Legislative Authorities, there should also be reference to the Judiciary. In other words, the details of the functioning of the Judiciary are contained in another Act, but it has to be indicated in the Constitution that there are these three pillars of authority in the State. Clause 116 provides that criminal prosecutions are to be instituted in the name of the State instead of the name of the King and that oaths or solemn declarations must be made to the republic. So much for everything which is new in the Bill.

Then there is a third principle. The first principle is that the Bill is a consolidating one; the second principle is that it indicates a new course, viz. the change from the monarchy to the republic. The third principle is that, whilst the State remains the same as before, the existing Parliament, in terms of the authority it has, gives a new form to the State and a new legislative authority. The State remains the same, but this Parliament, in terms of the authority it has, gives a new form to the State and creates a new legislative authority for the State, even though this new legislative authority retains all the characteristics of the present one, viz. two Houses of Parliament, a constitutional Head of State and a Cabinet. But seeing that these changes must be made and that this Parliament creates a new Parliament for the republic, certain transitional provisions are necessary. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) said in the Press that provision would have to be made for the transition period. He is correct, and that provision is being made. I therefore want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there are transitional positions in regard to the continuation, firstly, of the pensions payable to the former Governor-General and his widow, viz. in Clause 17 (6); secondly, the continuation of the Departments of State and the appointment of Ministers, in Clause 19 (6); thirdly, the appointment of Deputy Ministers, in Clause 20 (4); the continuation of the Senate and the House of Assembly and their activities, in Clause 25, subsections (2) to (6); fifthly, the continuation of the last session of the Union Parliament which, on the resumption after 31 May, will also be the first session of the Republican Parliament. That is in Clause 26 (2). Then provision is also being made for the continued existence of Provincial Councils, in Clause 70 (3); for the term of office of Provincial Councils, in Clause 71 (4); the continuation of the sessions of Provincial Councils, in Clause 74 (2); the continued existence of the powers of Provincial Executive Committees, in Clause 82; the continuation of the work of Provincial Councils, in Clause 86 (3); the continuation of the debts of the Union which will be taken over by the republic, in Clause 100; the continuation of the rights and obligations, in terms of conventions, of the Union which will be taken over by the republic, in Clause 113. Criminal prosecutions and civil cases instituted against Ministers of State or the Administration are continued in terms of Clause 116 (2) (b) and 116 (3). In this way, therefore, provision is made for the continuation of all the necessary functions and for the legalization of everything which will have to be done in future.

As a fourth and last basic principle, I may mention that the language entrenchment is being retained. Clause 110 provides that Afrikaans and English will be the official languages and will be treated on an equal basis. Clause 2 provides that Afrikaans will also mean Hollands, and Clause 115 contains the entrenchment. Now it will be noted that there is a difference in wording which does not result in any difference in meaning, and that is that where in the South Africa Act it said: “Hollands means Afrikaans ”, it says here: “Afrikaans means Hollands ”. In the present set-up it is obvious that it should rather be worded in this way. It makes no difference to the meaning or the force of the provisions. Therefore no changes are being made here, and taking into consideration the sovereignty of Parliament both as it exists now and as it will exist in future, these clauses will have the same force after we have become a republic as they have now. I must emphasize that the entrenchment was written into the South Africa Act by an ordinary majority of the British Parliament, which was the creator of the South Africa Act. In the same way it is possible for this Parliament, which is the creator of the succeeding Parliament, to bind that Parliament by an entrenchment like this. I want to add further that it has been ascertained after thorough investigation by the law advisers that there is no doubt about the legality and the legal force of the inclusion in the Constitution Bill in this unchanged form of the entrenchment which exists at present. Should, however, this be queried before a Court, viz. the legality of what is no more than the unchanged inclusion in the new Constitution of the existing entrenchment, and should what is highly improbable happen, namely that the Court maintains the standpoint that it could not have been done, it still would make no difference to the situation. Then it would simply mean that just as some other sections of the South Africa Act which we now retain will remain legally enforceable, these clauses will also be retained and be legally enforceable. In other words, the entrenchment retains precisely the same force whether it is included in the new Act or whether that portion of the old Act remains in force in the future. For those reasons, according to our legal advisers, there is no doubt about the absolute legality of the language entrenchment. At the same time I want to say that if the Select Committee wants to investigate this matter more deeply and is able to evolve some other method of making it absolutely certain, it can be assured of the fullest cooperation of the Government. Therefore, we have no doubt in our minds as to the legal force of the retention of the language entrenchment.

Now in fairness I must point out a few minor differences between the Bill published in the Government Gazette of 9 December and the Bill I introduced here to-day. A number of words have been changed and grammatical mistakes have been corrected. I am not referring to that. Clause 7 (3) now provides that the first election of a State President must take place on a date before 31 May 1961, instead of before the Act comes into operation. That is necessary merely to ensure that the election of the President can take place before 31 May. Clause 8 (1) now provides that the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency must be accompanied by the written acceptance of that nomination by the nominee. That is really obvious, but it was not stated quite so clearly. Clause 8 (5) now becomes 8 (5) (a), and we have inserted sub-section (b) to provide that when two candidates or more, who obtain the least number of votes, receive the same number of votes, the electoral college decides by means of a separate vote which of those candidates is to be eliminated in terms of paragraph fa). That is merely in order to prevent a deadlock being arrived at, because otherwise there must be an adjournment every time and a new sitting must be arranged.

The following words have been added at the end of Clause 26 (2): “And such a resumed session shall be the First Session of the First Parliament established by this Act.” That is to put beyond doubt, with reference to what I said was a transition period, what the legal position of Parliament will be after the recess of 31 May.

I have already announced that the Constitution Bill will after the second reading be sent to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses for consideration. I trust that hon. members of that Committee will co-operate in order to make something as good as possible of this Constitution. I just want to mention a few more points which will probably require attention by the Select Committee. The one is a matter of language. Hitherto in Afrikaans we have been referring to the “Republiek van Suid-Afrika There is no doubt that the English term “Republic of South Africa” is correct, and that will remain, but in Afrikaans the word “van” in this context has a somewhat different meaning from “of” in English. For that reason the philologists and the Taalkommissie of the Academie prefer “Republiek Suid-Afrika But “Republiek van Suid-Afrika” is not regarded as quite wrong philologically. It is described as not being equally good but it is felt that, because it will affect the name of our country, we would rather leave this decision to be taken after joint consultation. Therefore instead of changing it in this Bill, we refer this point also to the Select Committee. Secondly, it is suggested that perhaps we should not make the Chief Justice one of the possible deputies for the President. The idea hitherto has been that when the President is not available some impartial person of high standing should deputize. The President of the Senate is being indicated as the person who in the first place should deputize, and if the President of the Senate is not available either, then the Speaker of the House of Assembly. This also emphasizes the dignity and the link between the other two parts of Parliament with the first part of it, the President. We further had the idea that in case both of them were not available, provision should be made for that contingency, and that provision must be linked to a post. There should be no uncertainty as to the third alternative person to act as the Acting President. It may, however, create the impression that it derogates from the status of the Judiciary and its dignity if the person, who is then the Chief Justice, is placed in the third position. Therefore it has been suggested that perhaps we should keep the Judiciary completely away from the post of Acting President by, if necessary, giving the Cabinet the responsibility, in the very exceptional case where the first three persons are not available, for appointing somebody temporarily, until one of the others is available again. This matter will, however, also be left to the Select Committee.

Clause 19 provides for the number of Ministers, which is now 16. I did not initially want to make any change there because I had given a promise to retain the legal provisions as they stand at present as far as possible. However, I now want to request the Select Committee to make a change in the Bill and to increase the number to 18 in view of the new Departments, some of which I feel should be handled by a person who can practically give his full attention to them. I am thinking of Coloured Affairs, the development of a Department of Asiatic Affairs, and a Department of Immigration. We feel that this increase in numbers is desirable, but as compensation for it the provision for the number of Deputy Ministers in Clause 20 may be changed and their numbers may be decreased. This matter will also be submitted to the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have almost concluded. I want to point out that during the referendum campaign I gave an undertaking in regard to the Republican Constitution. I know there were doubts that I would keep my word, but I hope that hon. members are now convinced that what I have submitted to them to-day is in consonance with every iota of the promises I made, viz. that we would submit a Constitution based on the South Africa Act and the constitutional developments that have taken place; that we would retain unchanged our existing democratic institutions and practices, as was desired; that we would retain the Christian character of our State and write it into the Constitution, as has always been the position; and that we would guarantee the language and other rights and be just as faithful to them and claim them as a joint possession of the nation, as they have become or should have become in the course of our recent history. I hope hon. members will note that we are retaining the parliamentary form of Government with a different Head of State and Head of the Government, the two Houses of Parliament, a Cabinet and the parliamentary procedure, also completely in consonance with everything we undertook to do. We have faithfully carried out every single promise. Obviously the form of Government will, however, not only bring about another great change—a change both in the form and in the spirit of our country—but it will give our people a Constitution which for the first time will really be the creation of the Parliament of South Africa. With all due respect for what we have, viz. the Constitution which we have had for 50 years, and recognizing the fact that we ourselves could amend that Constitution and have often done so, the basis of it, the South Africa Act, was given to us by the Parliament of another country. This time we are giving our own Constitution to our own fatherland. In that sense it will have a deeper meaning for us because its existence is due to our own free will and our own deliberations alone. In saying that I am not belittling the fact the Act containing the Constitution which was given to us in 1910 by the British Parliament was the fruit of a National Convention which sat here in South Africa. I am not belittling that in the least. Nevertheless, whilst I appreciate what we had and how it came about, that cannot derogate from my gratitude and joy because of the fact that our Union Parliament is now itself able to give a Constitution to the Republic of South Africa.

In addition, the Republican Constitution which will be adopted by our own Parliament is being given to posterity. It is based on our traditions and in fact on the traditions of both elements of our population. It is not based only on the traditions of one element of the population alone; it comes from both. It is now our joint creation, and it is born out of our common history. In a certain sense it is also based on a common sacrifice, and in that sense it must bring us nearer to one another. It must have a great and intimate and deep meaning to us all. It is based on our own past; it is our own creation today and our own gift to posterity. At the same time this Constitution is the commencement of development, and not the end of it. No Constitution of any nation is always the end. It is the beginning of new life, of constitutional growth, the beginning of an evolution towards a future. We are leaving to posterity a foundation on which to build. I ask that we should give this foundation in a good spirit, wholeheartedly and in a nice manner. Those who follow us must be able to feel that they are building on something which was left to them as a great and rich heritage. We ourselves built on the heritage of the past. We were not satisfied to leave matters as they were. Nor do our heirs accept this new Constitution as being the end of all constitutional development. We ask them, however, to take every step in this development with the greatest respect for what has been given to them and, imbued with a great sense of responsibility, to change nothing which helps to create unity. The future is not in our hands, but the laying of the foundation is. I lay this Constitution in your hands and in the hands of those who will follow us. I move.

Sir, in his closing words the hon. the Prime Minister has referred to the legislation which is before us to-day as something of our own, something which has grown out of ourselves. I hope that history will prove that it is as much a South African creation as was the creation of the National Convention in 1909 and 1910, when we saw perhaps one of the greatest acts of faith in our history, when people who a short time before had been fighting each other were able to come together in a spirit of goodwill and true South Africanism to build up something for the future of South Africa. When I say that, Sir, then I say that the Constitution and the Bill which the hon. the Prime Minister has placed before us to-day, will have to live up to a very high standard if it has to achieve anything like that which was achieved in the past.

Listening to the hon. gentleman, apart from the extremely detailed and very thorough review which he gave of the Bill and its various aspects, for which I am sure everybody is extremely grateful and which was most helpful to an understanding of what had been changed and what was retained and what differences there were between the Bill as originally published in the Gazette and as published in the Bill now before the House, there seemed to me to be three very special aspects of the speech by the hon. gentleman. The first had reference to the sacrifices which he claimed those in favour of a republic had made in placing legislation before this House in this way. The second had to do with his reasons for refusing certain proposals made at the first reading and impliedly refusing in advance any suggestions of the kind made at the second reading, and thirdly the fact that the hon. gentleman seemed to think it entirely unnecessary to make out any case for his Bill at all. He seemed to assume that because it had had support in the referendum, therefore it was a foregone conclusion that it ought to be supported in this House. Now, Sir, let us examine first of all the sacrifices which the hon. gentleman says are being made by those who are in favour of a republic. He points out that it was not always the idea that such a republic should be within the Commonwealth and he shows how in the past it would not have been possible to be a republic and remain within the Commonwealth. Now it is possible, and it is referred to as one of the sacrifices which is being made by those in favour of a republic in the interests of getting a republic which everyone can support. Sir, we have always heard from hon. members opposite that whether or not we remained in the Commonwealth was something which was going to be decided purely in the interests of South Africa. Must we understand from what the hon. gentleman said to-day that they are agreeing to our continuing as Commonwealth members even if it is not in the interests of South Africa?

No, surely it is in our interests.

The hon. gentleman says that it is in the interests of South Africa …

… to have unity.

Oh, I see. In other words, it is not in the interests of South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth, it is only in the interests of unity. Sir, it is against illogicalities of this kind that one has to guard when a case of that sort is made out by the hon. gentleman, because when you look into the other so-called sacrifices that have been made, have they been made in the interests of South Africa or in the interests of a republic? I say that in every single case those concessions have been made because they are in the interests of South Africa and they are not concessions by the pro-republicans to the anti-republicans, and I think, Sir, that when you look at them one by one you will find out how really ridiculous that assertion made by the hon. the Prime Minister is.

Join a school debating society.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we listened with the greatest patience to the hon. the Prime Minister. I think we did not interrupt him once. I hope our leader is going to be given an equal opportunity of putting the case from this side without interruptions.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. gentleman has told us that were he to accept certain proposals made at the first reading, proposals in respect of guarantees in the Constitution, he would be breaking faith. But he has also told us that it was the desire of the republicans to have a Constitution based on the Constitution of the old model republic. The old model republic had an entrenchment in its Constitution providing for a three-quarters majority at two successive sessions. If they want that and we want entrenchment, where is the breach of faith? The hon. gentleman has said that for him to concede now that he is not to go ahead with his republic unless it is assured that it is in the Commonwealth is going to give a right of veto to other states to interfere in our internal affairs. Sir, the first point which arises is this: Should he not have thought of that when he first announced his intentions to go ahead with legislation of this kind? The second point is: Which is more important to him—becoming a republic for sentimental reasons or to have all the advantages of remaining within the Commonwealth? And then, Sir, one is faced with the third of the sort of departments into which the hon. gentleman’s speech fell. He says this is not the final end; this is but one stage in our development; we are going ahead by means of evolution. Where are we going, Sir? Is this just a convenient stopping place in order to get the republic and are we going to go ahead with a lot of those proposals which he and members on that side of the House favoured in the past once a republic has been obtained, or have those ideas been finally thrown overboard? We seem to have had an assumption on that side of the House that they have a mandate from the public for introducing this legislation, a mandate given them by the people of South Africa on 5 October 1960. I want to say at once that I cannot deny that they received a majority of the votes of those who cast their votes on that day, yet I think it would be remiss of me if I did not place on record that the hon. gentleman cannot claim the support of the majority of the people of South Africa. Because while it may be true that in consulting only the White voters of South Africa, he was acting in accordance with the Constitution of his party, he was certainly not acting in accordance with the South African Constitution as it existed at that time, because that Constitution made provision for the Cape Coloured voters to have a vote, and that vote was denied them on 5 October; nor was any effort made whatsoever to ascertain the views of the Native population of South Africa whose future form of government was also being determined on 5 October. Now, Sir, I cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Cape Coloured people. They have their own representatives in this House, representatives who no doubt will express their views and speak on their behalf, nor can I claim to represent the Native people of South Africa, although their representatives until recently in Parliament seemed to have no liking whatever for this change. But I can claim to speak on behalf of the 775,000 people who on 5 October voted “no” to the proposals of the hon. the Prime Minister. And, Sir, they constitute no less than approximately 48 per cent of the electorate who cast their votes on that day, and to them this Opposition, we on this side of the House, owe a responsibility and that responsibility is to place before this Parliament, which is to take a final decision, the objections which they have to the proposals in the Bill now before the House, objections which are as valid to-day as they were on 5 October when they cast their votes in that referendum. In my view we also owe a further responsibility and that is to keep fresh before the minds of hon. members opposite and to keep fresh before the hon. the Prime Minister himself the hopes and expectations of many of those who voted for a republic on 5 October, hopes and expectations which were to a large extent stimulated and exploited by the propaganda of hon. members opposite and of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The motives of those who voted against the republic were diverse as were the motives of those who voted for a republic. Amongst those who voted against the republic were many who voted in that way, possibly thousands upon thousands, because of their deep attachment to the institutions of the monarchy as such. There were many who voted against the republic because they believed that a monarchical form of government with the monarchy entirely out of politics, was a better form of government than a republic in which the President inevitably would be within the sphere of politics, with the best will in the world. There were thousands also who voted against the republic because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the bringing into being of a republic was against what they called the contract of Union. Many thousands too voted “no” although they were republicans because they felt that this was the wrong time for a change of this kind, and because they felt that this was the wrong Government to be charged with undertaking this task in South Africa.

They must have been silly.

The hon. member says they must have been silly. Perhaps they knew him a great deal better than he knows himself. But, Sir, in all this diversity I believe there were three considerations which were shared by the overwhelming majority of those who voted against the republic.

But surely the referendum is something of the past.

You are the Chief Whip; behave yourself.

You have it again: The referendum is past and what the referendum said must now be slavishly obeyed by the hon. members opposite. Anyone who had objections must forget about them because by the mere fact that a small majority voted against their objections, those objections have ceased to exist. That is the attitude of the Chief Whip, and if that is his attitude he is never going to get unity in South Africa and he is never going to get unity under this republic. Sir, I believe there were three motivating factors which were shared possibly by the overwhelming majority if not by every republican voter. I think the first was the very real fear that the establishment of a republic might endanger our relations with the Commonwealth and lead to even greater isolation of South Africa than that under which South Africa suffers at the moment. I think the second was the growing apprehension amongst those people that the establishment of a republic so far from creating national unity might stimulate, might accentuate, the unhappy divisions that already exist among our people at the present time; and I think the third was the suspicion, even more well-founded perhaps than one suspected at the time, that a majority vote for the republic would be interpreted by the Prime Minister and by this Government as an endorsement of the rigid and the negative policies which he has been forcing upon the Nationalist Party in the recent past, and as a mandate to apply that policy even more strictly and more severely than he had done in the past, and to apply them with even greater inelasticity. Sir, I think this House would be well-advised to bear in mind that all those considerations are still influencing the thinking and the minds of hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa; are still influencing the minds of approximately one-half of the European electorate in South Africa, because, Sir, they were not removed, they were not extinguished by the mere fact that the hon. the Prime Minister obtained a slender majority on 5 October for his republican proposals. There is another fact which members should note, a fact which is perhaps as significant, if not more significant, than those which I have already mentioned, and that is that the overwhelming majority of those who voted for the republic, those who supported the proposals of the Government, had motives which had a strong correspondence to the motives, the fears, of those who voted against the republic. One knows, of course, that they voted for the republic for diverse reasons. There were some who voted for the republic because they wanted revenge; there were some who voted for the republic because they regarded it as necessary for the seal upon their independence. There were even some who preferred a republican form of government to a monarchical form of government for what I can describe as academic reasons, constitutional reasons—matters of personal preference—but nevertheless on the whole the things that were the subject of our fears were, I think, very largely also the subject of the hopes of those who voted in favour of the republic. May I give you some examples Mr. Speaker. I believe that while we feared for our Commonwealth membership they, under the impact of the propaganda of the Prime Minister and of members opposite, believed that our continued membership of the Commonwealth was automatic, that it was in fact no problem, and I believe they believed more. They believed that once the monarchy in South Africa was abolished, a monarchy which to them was a source of dissension, as many of them believed it to be, our membership of the Commonwealth would be more secure and more generally accepted as the boon which it is to South Africa at the present time. I think, secondly, while those against a republic feared that national unity would receive a set-back with the advent of a republic, those who voted for the republic genuinely believed that its coming, by removing what they regarded as an impediment, as a source of dissension, as an impediment in the way of national unity, would make possible a wider and more embracing unity, certainly between the English-and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. I think, thirdly, while we feared a misinterpretation of the mandate by the hon. the Prime Minister, they saw the matter in a different light. In their opinion the republican idea of the Nationalist Party was over-riding to such an extent that it had the effect of stifling in that party any free thinking, any desire to act on their own or think on their own, any free interplay of opinion. They saw that the extremists in that party could always claim that anyone who has his own views and his own ideas should be forced into subordination because it would be insisted that any diversion of views, which was contrary to the party machine, contrary to the ideals of the party as such, was an act which would delay and hinder the coming of the republic in South Africa. I believe that many of them believed that the achievement of the republican ideal would make possible a greater fluidity and a greater moderation in the politics of South Africa. I think it would be simple to establish the accuracy of the statements by reference to speeches and statements by hon. members on both sides of the House during the referendum battle, but I do not believe it is necessary. I believe any member on that side and any member on this side of the House who searches his heart on those issues will come to very much the same conclusions and he will appreciate the truth of what has been said in that regard. It is because of that and against that background, Mr. Speaker, that I want to move the following amendment—

1. (a) the Government is unable to give an unequivocal assurance that the proposed republic will remain within the Commonwealth; and
2. (b) the legislation fails to guarantee such basic rights as will advance national unity in South Africa.”.

My purpose in moving this amendment in these terms is both to pinpoint the fears of the anti-republicans and to lay emphasis upon the aspirations of what I believe to be amongst those who supported the republic, because there is no doubt that the thought of a fresh start was uppermost in the minds of most of those who voted for a republic, and indeed this idea of a fresh start, this hope that with the advent of the republic and a change in the Constitution there might come a fresh start, was also present in the minds of many members of this party when members of three provincial councils put forward resolutions asking for guarantees and assurances that could remove their fears and their disquiet, their unhappiness, and that could found greater hopes for national unity in the future. Now, Sir, may I say at once that we are well aware in South Africa from our experience in the past that pious protestations written into a constitution are not in themselves inviolable guarantees that those provisions will be maintained and observed at all times, even if they are protected by one or other form of entrenchment. Nor do I believe it is possible to give absolute protection by way of entrenchment of any kind, for every right that you afford to an individual is subject to inescapable qualifications for the protection of other members of the state and the rights of society as a whole. But I think that ultimately history has proved, not only in South Africa, but virtually everywhere else in the world, that no constitutional guarantee can be stronger than the will of a nation to be bound by it, and that constitutional guarantees are only effective if they reflect the character and the genius of the people to whom they apply. It is here, Sir, that we South Africans may be missing a wonderful opportunity owing to the intransigence of the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite. Because when suggestions were made to the hon. gentleman by the provincial councils, he could have given a positive response …

Not all the provincial councils, only one.

To help the hon. gentleman, let me say that such a proposal was made by the Natal Provincial Council, and there was also a proposal proposed by the minority parties in two other provinces. Nevertheless, there could have been a positive response by the hon. the Prime Minister which could have led to a distillation, after discussion, of something in the nature of a South African manifesto which might have secured the support of all parties and would therefore have been truly binding upon us. Of course, Sir, I believe that you can only get real entrenchments to-day with the consent of all parties, and only then will they be effective if they represent truly the genius and character of the people concerned. I believe such an agreement could have been a source of pride, not only to the South African people to-day, but also to our children in the future. It could have been a declaration of faith to the world in regard to fundamental principles upon which all South Africans are agreed, fundamental principles which they all want to be observed in the future, a set of rules within the confines of which political parties could have fought out their differences but which would have operated as a general guide to all South Africans in the time that lies ahead. I think the fact that various proposals and varying proposals were forthcoming should have been proof that there was no attempt at dogmatism at all, no suggestion of intransigence on our part. They were only attempts at initiating the discussions which could have led to the formulation of common principles, common ideas, a common charter for all the people of South Africa. Sir, what has been the reaction of the hon. the Prime Minister and members of the Government opposite? By the very fact that this legislation has been introduced into this House at a separate Sitting of the two Houses of Parliament, a separate Sitting of a bi-cameral Legislature, it has been made absolutely clear that the hon. gentleman and hon. members opposite are not even prepared to give consideration to these possibilities. One knew of course that the Government’s view has been that because “we fought the referendum, we must accept the result ”, and that without any strings attached. Mr. Speaker, we had no alternative but to fight a referendum. We could not let it go by default, and it was quite clear that we had no choice. There were serious differences at the time when the Referendum Bill came before the House as to the form that the referendum should take and as to the manner in which it should be conducted. Be that as it may, we had to fight according to the Government rules or not fight at all, and the last thing we could do was not to fight at all. That is one difficulty, but there is a more serious one and that is that this Government has interpreted the result of this referendum according to its own ideas and not even according to the rules and the constitution of its own party. Those rules provide for a decision based “on the broad will of the people”. Can anybody on the other side suggest for one moment that a majority not even sufficient to fill Ellis Park at a rugby test match represents the broad will of the people of South Africa? Can anyone suggest that that is what men like Dr. Malan and Mr. Strydom thought of when they spoke of the broad will of the people? No, Mr. Speaker, from the moment the results became known we had one attempt after another to interpret this as a substantial majority, a large majority, a majority representing the overwhelming majority of the people. But, Sir, when you come down to it, what is it? Two per cent either way has given the decision in this regard, and, Sir, it is particularly noticeable and remarkable when one has regard to the fact that the electorate which made this decision is not even representative of all the people of South Africa. Now because of this bare majority, it must be faced that if the Government uses its huge unrepresentative majority in Parliament to force this measure upon the House, without any regard or consideration whatever for the views of practically half the electorate, then they must realize that in the nature of things this republic at its inception is going to be a sectional republic, is not going to be a truly South African republic, and whether it will ever become a truly South African republic, is going to depend upon this Government. The onus is upon them.

On you.

Why is the hon. Minister not prepared to consider certain of the desires of this side of the House in drafting this constitution?

Have you shown any desire to co-operate in any way?

Our offers have been made.

They were not offers, they were demands, an excuse to oppose the legislation.

I am so glad that the hon. Minister at last has been roused to make that statement, because that is the attitude of that side of the House: They are always right, nobody else is right, nobody else has a desire or claim, nobody has the interest of South Africa at heart. They know what is right and they are going to force it down our throats whether we like it or not. Up to now there has been very little indication that the Government dominated by those in power at present can create the atmosphere in which this republic or any other republic can grow into a truly South African republic. Look at the explanation the hon. the Prime Minister gave this afternoon. During the referendum we heard about co-operation, not between anti-republicans and pro-republicans, but cooperation between the races. We heard suggestions that the English-speaking people should form their own conservative party which could perhaps co-operate with the Nationalist Party. No sooner was the referendum over, Sir, than we heard that if they wanted any representation they should join the Nationalist Party. The hon. gentleman knows very well that it is not only the English-speaking people who were against this republic. Approximately one-third of the Afrikaans-speaking people must have voted against the republic if he claims any support from the other section at all. What about their views? No, Mr. Speaker, I see no signs as yet of any change of heart on that side of the House, I see no indication that this change can bring about greater national unity than exists at the present time. I want to warn very frankly and very honestly that, unless there is a change of heart, we will go ahead as a divided people because of the actions of that side of the House.

A change of heart on your side is very necessary.

I think at the same time we are entitled to ask whether the Government appreciates the very heavy onus that rests upon it to see that the suggestion is made to the people that our Commonwealth membership will not be affected by becoming a republic, is going to be honoured in fact. Hon. members opposite must be aware that for some years now certain members of the Commonwealth have harboured doubts about the propriety of South Africa’s continued membership. They have wondered whether it was possible for the Commonwealth to go ahead with such a divergence of views. They have wondered about our membership of that world organization, and we on this side of the House warned the Government last year in the no-confidence debate, when the hon. the Prime Minister first announced his intentions, of the dangers that lay ahead, that we were in fact creating an occasion for critics of our social policies to give practical expression to their doubts about it. We warned that it could mean exclusion from the Commonwealth. I want to say again that I sincerely hope, and every single member on this side of the House hopes, that that will not happen, and that we shall do everything in our power to see that it does not happen. I believe that all members of the Commonwealth cannot be unaware of the fact that the vast majority of the people of South Africa who have a vote and the vast majority of those who have not got a vote and did not vote in this referendum, earnestly desire to remain within the Commonwealth family. I do think at the same time that the duty rests upon the hon. the Prime Minister to see to it that the world knows that and that Commonwealth members are aware of it. We on this side of the House desire to remain in the Commonwealth, not only because of the advantages which flow from the membership, but also we believe that the Commonwealth experiment is something which is worth while preserving, worth while developing, worth while strengthening, and we are convinced that South Africa has a contribution to make towards its success. After all the Commonwealth owed much at its inception to the genius of General Smuts and in its years of development to the influence of General Hertzog. We can say that few dominions have played as great a part as South Africa in developing the Commonwealth to its present stage and its present status. It is not a foreign institution, Mr. Speaker, it is something to which we have made a very big contribution, it is something which we ourselves have helped to build up. And when we say that we can make a contribution, we think of the contributions we have made in the past and how we stood by the Commonwealth in difficult times, and we say that it has had many advantages for us which I believe are appreciated by all parties. It has been the organization in which we felt most at home, the organization which has understood our difficulties best and on the whole has been most sympathetic in respect of our problems. It has given us a status in the world, in international affairs, which no small country could have had otherwise, no small country which is without friends which are not powerful or was a member of some big alliance. It has given us sources of information, of technical knowledge, which has contributed to our spectacular development. It has given us opportunities for consultation and the exchange of views in an informal manner within the family circle. It has given us the opportunity to make informal contact amongst other members who share the same views and ideas as we do. It is something unique, something irreplaceable in the world as we know it at the present time. And within that framework we have enjoyed, and still are enjoying, certain economic advantages which originally derived from that membership, and the future of which is so closely bound with Commonwealth membership that there is no certainty that we shall continue to enjoy those advantages indefinitely should we cease to have membership of the Commonwealth. We too have made our contribution and I hope we can continue to do so. We have always stood firmly on the side of the countries of the West, no matter from what side they were threatened. Nor have we ever put ourselves up for auction to the highest bidder on the Western side or on the communist side. We have offered stable government over a large area of Africa, whether people agree with our policies or not, and we have offered it over a vast area of an Africa which has often been in turmoil during that period. And I believe that it is perhaps in Africa that we can make our greatest contribution to the Commonwealth by seeking solutions of the problems of people of different colours living together within the framework of one state.

Sir, I think insufficient has been made of the fact that should we be excluded, a precedent would be created in respect of the relationship between Commonwealth members, the compass and future development of which no one can foretell at the present time. The extent of its potential for future mischief is Something which no one can foretell or foresee with any certainty, as things stand at the present time. It might even hold in it the seeds for the future break-up of the Commonwealth as we know it at the present time.

It is against this background that we must judge the action of the hon. the Prime Minister He can give us no guarantee to-day that our continued membership of the Commonwealth is assured, and, at the end of this debate, we will be asked in Parliament to take a decision with one of the major factors which should be known in the interest of our people, completely unsolved. He can’t even say to-day that he has taken adequate steps to focus the attention of Commonwealth members, their Press and their public, on the position of South Africa and its desire to remain within the Commonwealth. The tragedy is that, should Commonwealth membership be lost, it will probably be lost for all time. In fact, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is asking us in this legislation to take two steps which will probably be final and irrevocable, because, in addition to Commonwealth membership, all the probabilities are that if the monarchy is once abolished, that, too, will have gone for ever.

Now the hon. gentleman has dealt in great detail with the Bill. I don’t propose to follow him in that discussion, save to draw attention to the fact that there are certain powers which the president can exercise without the advice of the Executive, which seems somewhat extraordinary. One is the power of veto. The other thing which is extraordinary is that while we have always thought we had an Executive, a Judiciary and a Legislature in South Africa, we now find that the administration of justice as stated in this Bill will be under the control of the Minister of Justice as part of the Executive. In other words, the Judiciary now becomes subordinate to the Executive. I don’t propose to take those matters any further. When this Bill after the second reading is sent to a Select Committee, these matters can be discussed in full detail. But I want to say very firmly that as things stand at the present time, we cannot support the legislation which the hon. Prime Minister has introduced to-day. We want to tell him that a very great onus rests upon him in the interest of future unity in South Africa. He has the power to force through this legislation. He has to run the risk of the hardening of the existing division and the hardening of existing animosity, or he has the opportunity of creating a situation in which it might be possible for him to bring about a new start, a new start which 80 per cent of the people of South Africa want and which they are not getting in the legislation before us to-day. I therefore move my amendment.

I second the amendment.

As the hon. the Prime Minister correctly stated, we are dealing here with one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before this House, and therefore it grieves me particularly that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a man for whom I have the greatest regard, introduced his speech in this debate by making a statement such as he did; in other words, that he said that we on this side, and he said it particularly with reference to the Prime Minister’s speech, are not interested in remaining a member of the Commonwealth, but are interested only in national unity and that we, because we say that we are interested in membership of the Commonwealth, therefore dare not take any step which would jeopardize our membership of the Commonwealth. I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made this statement. Surely he is also a man with a sense of values. He knows that there is something such as higher values, and the hon. the Prime Minister has said that because we regard it as being in South Africa’s interests we will try to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Not only did the hon. the Prime Minister say so this afternoon, but he said it throughout the whole of the referendum campaign we waged before 5 October, and not only did he say it but we all did. However, right throughout the people of South Africa were clearly told that although we regarded it as important for the Union of South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth, we considered it of greater interest to become a republic for reasons which we mentioned then and which I again want to indicate briefly, and on that basis we won and the people of South Africa gave a very clear decision. In other words, to put it very simply and clearly, we say that it is in the primary interest of South Africa to become a republic, but not only is it in the interest of South Africa to become a republic, but when the primary object of becoming a republic has been achieved we would regard it as being in the best interests of our country to remain a member of the Commonwealth, if possible. That was the standpoint we adopted throughout and the electorate of South Africa were under no illusions in regard to this matter. The electorate was given to understand that in the first place, if they gave their decision, South Africa would become a republic, inside or outside the Commonwealth. That is of primary importance, but if they decided that South Africa should become a republic the Government and everybody on this side would do their utmost to allow South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth. If South Africa cannot succeed in that it will not be as the result of her own actions, and then nothing can be done about it. Then South Africa at any rate becomes a republic because that is regarded as being of primary importance. This is the way the matter was put to the people of South Africa, and on that the people gave their decision very clearly. Therefore I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced the debate from his side in this way, because even he is a man with a sense of values who knows that one value counts for more than another.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made another accusation which I do not think was worthy of him, viz. that the Government in the struggle for a republic, framed this legislation in this way, and that the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon took the colour it did merely to enable us to become a republic, and that when once we have the republic we will make changes to it. Am I interpreting the Leader of the Opposition correctly?

Evolution and not revolution.

Precisely, that is the whole point, but still he and the people of South Africa were repeatedly told that we cannot bind future generations and all we can say is that we now view the matter in this way, that this is the republic as we see it now and this is how it will be, and the proof of the fact that the Government is keeping its word is this very Bill which is presently before us. But it is obvious that we cannot bind future generations. Of course there will be evolution, as we have had evolution in the past. Naturally in the course of time future generations will make changes if they find it necessary to do so.

Mention a few of the things you have in mind which may be changed.

As the hon. member knows, the monarchial constitution we have to-day has also repeatedly been changed. The position in a democratic state is that one cannot bind future generations, and in future it may happen that another generation views matters completely differently as the result of changed circumstances. Therefore we cannot bind them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came here to-day with suggestions for completely changing this constitution. I do not blame them if they think that such changes should be made. But by so doing he in fact proved that in no democratic state can one bind future generations to the present arrangements. Changing circumstances must always be borne in mind. That is why I am so very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has advanced the type of arguments which he himself knows cannot hold water.

Moreover, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and blamed the Government for now using the decision given at the referendum and interpreting it to suit itself. One of the arguments he advanced, and which was so often used before 5 October and thereafter, is that this Government has totally deviated from the principle of the broad basis of the will of the people, and because we departed from it we are now committing a terrible sin. When the Opposition speaks about the broad basis of the will of the people they are very fond of quoting the late Dr. Malan as to what the broad basis of the will of the people means. Now I would like to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the referendum was won by the republicans by a majority of far more than 70,000—almost 75,000. And for his information I would just like to quote what the statement of the Nationalist Party was, as stated by the late Dr. Malan, in regard to the broad will of the people. The late Dr. Malan conveyed the decision of the Federal Council in 1941 to the party congress, and this is what he said—

Then Dr. Malan continues—

I think that if we have regard to this it is sufficient to dispose of this argument that there is not a big enough majority, this argument that we are deviating from the principles of the past because, with this tremendous majority of almost 75,000, we now introduce legislation to give expression to the will of the people as expressed on 5 October.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition further complained that in this legislation we are not taking into consideration the points of view of the anti-republicans. He said, further, that not only English-speaking people but also one-third of the Afrikaans-speaking people voted against the republic, and what about their views? I do not want to argue with the Leader of the Opposition as to how many Afrikaans-speaking and how many English-speaking people voted against or for the republic. Personally, I am no longer prepared to divide my people into two camps. As far as I am concerned, the people of South Africa voted on the question of a republic, and whether they are Afrikaans-or English-speaking does not concern me. The people of South Africa voted in favour of a republic and decided on democratic principles that South Africa should become a republic. In addition, the people knew precisely on what principle they were deciding, what the republic would be like, and what the possible complications could be in regard to membership of the Commonwealth. Taking all this into consideration, the people decided by a majority of 75,000, and in order to act democratically after that decision, we have no choice at all but must give effect to the will of the people as expressed.

Mr. Speaker, finally I just want to say this, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would also tell the world that South Africa would like to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and that he would also explain it to the world. I really do not know where the Leader of the Opposition was during the past year; nor do I know where he was this afternoon whilst the Prime Minister was speaking, because the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly said that South Africa would like to remain a member of the Commonwealth if possible. But this afternoon, on this the highest platform in the country, the hon. the Prime Minister again announced to the world that we very much want to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I therefore do not understand at all how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could make such a remark.

I said in the beginning that there was the question of values and that we should see what the highest values are, and that we have decided, and that the republicans feel, that it is of primary importance that South Africa should become a republic. I also said that I would come back later to some of these reasons. I want to do so now and I want to tell you, Sir, that where we differ from each other on this important matter, as members of the same nation and as members of different parties and as persons with different points of view, we have the right to differ from each other. That is our right as democrats in this country. But when dealing with something which is of such vital interest to our nation and its continued existence we do not have the right to attack one another in a flood of fury or excitement, nor have we the right to ascribe all kinds of motives to one another. Then we should in this struggle put standpoint against standpoint in a calm and moderate manner. We owe that to one another and we also owe it to those who will follow. But not only should we be very serious; we should also be very honest, not only with each other but with ourselves. And when we debate this matter we must do so in a serious spirit, but in a spirit of absolute honesty towards ourselves, each other and our consciences.

Mr. Speaker, we must realize that to-day we are living in a world—it is a fact—which unfortunately does not understand the problems and circumstances of South Africa, and because it does not understand our particular conditions and problems it has not the necessary sympathy for us which it ought to have and which we would like it to have. In view of the fact that we live in these conditions, and that here and there are people who support us, it becomes of paramount importance, in view of world conditions, that we as Whites should find each other and in spite of political differences at least form a tightly knit national unit. For 60 years attempts have been made by the greatest men of our nation under the monarchial system to achieve national unity. Mr. Speaker, did they succeed?

They failed.

I regret to say that they failed lamentably. I level no accusation. I am not saying whose fault it was that it was a failure. I am merely stating the fact that it was a failure, that every time it seemed that the attempt would work, every time when the test came it resulted in failure. Why did that happen? It happened because it is quite impossible under a monarchy with all the inherent nationally disruptive elements which accompany it to build up national unity in South Africa, for the simple reason—and I have said that in these serious times it is high time that we should be honest with each other and with ourselves —that under this monarchial system both Afrikaansand English-speaking people suffer from certain complexes which keep us apart. The Afrikaans-speaking section, just as the English-speaking section, would rather die before publicly admitting that they suffer from those complexes. But seeing that it has become high time that we should be honest with each other for the sake of our own continued existence and for the sake of national unity, it is necessary to say these things.

What are the complexes from which they suffer?

Just give me a chance and I will come to it. The complex from which the Afrikaans-speaking people suffer, and although they do not want to suffer from it they cannot help themselves because it rushes up from the depths of their subconscious mind, is that they to a large extent continue to feel that they are the conquered people in the country of the conqueror. I do not say it is right to feel like that. I am not discussing that. The fact simply remains that he suffers from that complex, rightly or wrongly. The result is that he is continually suspicious of his English-speaking fellow South African. The English-speaking people, on the other hand, also suffer from certain complexes. They have, e.g., a love for the Monarch which, in spite of all the respect and goodwill, cannot be expected from the Afrikaans-speaking people, as the hon. the Prime Minister very clearly stated. But through their bond of affection for the Monarch or the Head of State, who is not a citizen of this fatherland of ours, but of a country overseas, of the country of origin of most of the English-speaking people, the English-speaking people also have a very close bond of affection binding them to their country of origin. Therefore there is a continual conflict in the mind of the English-speaking person between loyalty to his fatherland and loyalty to his motherland which he also has. That clash in his subconscious mind is the reason why he in turn views his Afrikaans-speaking fellow South African continually with suspicion. Unfortunately I must add that it is not only those conflicting complexes that bring him to regard with suspicion his fellow countryman, but unfortunately there are also some Whites here who, for their own advantage, in some way or another, or for political advantage, see fit to frighten the English-speaking people in South Africa and to incite their feelings by telling them that the people on this side of the House will interfere with their language and cultural rights. It is a pity that we have that type of person in our own ranks. But as soon as that last bond which is the cause of these complexes is removed, we will have paved the way towards eventually removing these complexes on the part of both Afrikaansand English-speaking people, and then we would have prepared the ground for the real national unity we all so keenly desire and which we cannot do without.

But, Sir, when I state these propositions and express the opinion that the severing of the bonds of the Monarchy or the Crown will prepare the ground for closer national unity, that is not wishful thinking, for the simple reason that I say so after having studied the lessons taught me by the history of my people. Surely this step we are taking this afternoon is not the first step we have taken in the constitutional direction. In fact, the whole of our history teems with constitutional steps. Because we are a dynamic and growing nation, changes in our constitution are made. So we had one step after another. When those steps were taken our nations originally were so widely separated from each other that one could hardly refer to it as a nation, and we continually had differences. I mention these things not to ventilate old grievances, but simply to prove the proposition that the removal of those bonds must lead to national unity. Sir, there was a time when a prominent son of our nation and a member of the Cabinet was kicked out of the Cabinet because he dared to talk about “South Africa first ”. I am referring to General Hertzog. But times have changed to such an extent that on both sides of the House there is to-day not a single member, nor a solitary person outside Parliament, who will admit to-day that he does not stand for “South Africa first ”. He may not feel it in his heart, but he will never allow it to show. Mr. Speaker, so we had one constitutional step after another, accompanied by bitter strife. I am reminded, e.g., of the Citizenship Act. When the Citizenship Act was passed, as another progressive step on the path of constitutional development, to make you and me citizens of South Africa alone, there was again tremendous dissatisfaction in the country. To-day there is hardly anybody who is not proud to be a citizen of South Africa. In that way we made progress. We had the first Flag Act in 1927-8. Feelings between the two sections were so bitter in those days that we were on the verge of rebellion. Nothing else happened then than merely the provision of a flag which could fly as the flag of the Union together with the Union Jack. Then, as a result of the severing of the various bonds, in the course of time we grew nearer to each other when the second Flag Act was passed a few years ago, which put the Union Flag there as the only flag of South Africa, and there was no talk of rebellion. On the contrary, although some hon. members did their utmost to organize a mass meeting of protest against it, not even in the most English-speaking province of Natal could they organize a decent meeting of protest.

The march failed.

Yes, the march failed. That proved to us that it could not be said that in the course of time we would not grow increasingly nearer to each other if this bond was severed, because it takes the dividing elements out of our national life, and because it removes these complexes which create suspicion in the minds of both English-and Afrikaans-speaking people.

Mr. Speaker, there are further reasons why we should have a republic and why we regard it as being in the primary interest of South Africa. The reason is simply that we should view this matter in the light of what is happening in Africa. In Africa the one non-White state after the other is gaining its independence. Why are they becoming independent? Because they are gradually busy shaking off the yoke of the old White colonial powers, the old Western colonial powers. In other words, the non-Whites are gradually getting rid of Western Imperialism on the Continent of Africa. But as they get rid of the old Western Imperialism, a vacuum does not accordingly arise in Africa, for a new imperialism is in the process of coming from the East. At this stage the non-White states of Africa regard the new incoming imperialists as their friends and consider that these people, with their ideologies and the spirit which they introduce, are entering the scene purely from an altruistic love for them, to help them to get rid of the White man in Africa. But, Sir, before very long they will begin to realize that this new foreign imperialism is not altruistic but egoistic, because in the first instance they are looking for living space for themselves and want to off-load their surplus populations in Africa. And in the second instance because they want the riches of Africa. It is when they begin to feel this grip on their throats, as non-White states in Africa, that they will realize that they now need assistance from somebody. That assistance can only come from the White Western powers. But they are the people who themselves drove the White Western powers out of Africa, or tried to do so. How can they now in all decency or honesty go and ask those powers for assistance? That is where we come into the picture. As long as the Union of South Africa is a monarchy, so long will we in the eyes of the non-White masses of Africa—the ignorant Black masses—be a member of a Western European nation, because our great chief, as they regard her, our real Head of State, the Monarch, is not a citizen of this country, nor a citizen of a country in Africa, but a citizen of one of the Western European countries— those people who in their opinion should not be here and should get out. Therefore they regard us as being part of Western Europe and in their view we are not entitled to be here; we are intruders and therefore we should get out. But the moment our Head of State, our great chief, is a citizen of South Africa and therefore a citizen of the continent of Africa, the knowledge will begin to take root in their minds that these people at this southern tip of Africa do not form part of Western Europe, but of Africa. They are, to put it that way, White Africans. Then they will realize that these people here have no other home to which to go. These people will live or die in the southern part of Africa. Mr. Speaker, if the realization begins to take root in their minds that the White nation at the southern point of Africa is part of Africa, at the stage when they begin to feel the grip of the new incoming imperialism at their throats, they will also begin to realize: But there we have our link with the White Western powers. This small number of Whites in Southern Africa are the people through whom we should work. And then their whole attitude towards the White people of South Africa will change. Therefore I feel that this is one of the most important reasons why we should become a republic. I believe that there are many other things to which we should attach value, many other things which will be of immense benefit to our nation and which we would like to have. But it is of no avail trying to achieve good things for our nation if we allow our nation to be destroyed. And we believe in our hearts that if we can obtain White unity—and we believe we can really get it only under a republic, for the reasons I have advanced—if we want to play the role in Africa which we should play as a White nation in the southern part of Africa, then we can do so only if we become a republic. In other words, we really believe in our hearts that we can only continue to exist as a nation under the republican system, from the very nature of these various circumstances. And for that reason, because in the first instance one should build a nation in order to achieve these splendid things, and because one can only do it in a republic, in this southern part of Africa, we say that a republic is of primary importance for our nation. When once we have become a republic we can look further, then we can see what will be best for our nation in those circumstances. After having become a republic, we believe that it will be best for us to remain a member of the Commonwealth. For that reason we shall do our utmost to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Although it has been repeatedly stated here and outside that in the economic sphere and many other spheres it is of importance for us to remain a member of the Commonwealth, I want to state very clearly that the importance of our membership of the Commonwealth should definitely not be over-estimated, and that the most important reason why we wish to remain a member of the Commonwealth is, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated, because in that way we seek to satisfy the sentiments of that section of our people who attach great value to membership of the Commonwealth.

My time has almost expired, Sir, and I do not want to touch on any further points. I just want to round off this point. Those people who are interested in South Africa remaining a member of the Commonwealth have no choice. They must ensure that we become a republic now, for the simple reason which has been clearly stated, viz. that this question as to whether South Africa will be allowed to remain a member or not can only be put after we have decided to become a republic. Let us understand this very clearly. In any case, South Africa will become a republic, because everybody in the country will admit that the republic is inevitable. The late General Smuts himself said that the eventual arrival of a republic could not be stopped. A republic will come as surely as day follows night. Now it is a question of when it will come, now or later. Remember, Sir, that we are not applying to become a member of the Commonwealth: we are applying to remain a member because at present we are a member. One can only apply to remain a member if one is a member. Otherwise one must apply to become a member. That is not what we are doing. At no stage do we cease to become a member of the Commonwealth. If we now apply to remain a member and that is refused, it means in effect that a member of the Commonwealth is being kicked out. And, Sir, in terms of the principle of unanimity, they must then unanimously say either that we can or cannot remain a member. We should, however, remember that we are dealing with people. Even supposing they abandon their old practice and proceed to decide that matter by means of a majority decision, then we are still covered by the fact that, as the Commonwealth is at present constituted, they will not get a majority to agree to kicking us out. But, in the meantime, one state after another is becoming independent and applying for membership of the Commonwealth. We have no guarantee that, if we do not become a republic now and put that question now, but eventually one day become a republic and put the question then after all these new states have become members of the Commonwealth —I say we have no guarantee that if then the principle of unanimity is abandoned, we will then be covered and protected by the principle of a majority decision. Therefore, we should ensure that we become a republic now.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I would like to congratulate the Government heartily on this important legislation before the House, to which I give my full support, and in this connection I pray that it will enure to the benefit of the best interests of one great, united and unanimous White nation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said we would remain a member of the Commonwealth even after becoming a republic. I suggest he is wrong. When we change our status we automatically cease to be a member and have to ask for re-admission. For him to go round and suggest that it would be the Commonwealth kicking us out. instead of us not being re-elected, is not true. The Prime Minister was anxious that we should remain in the Commonwealth, but he said the republic should come first. I will argue during the course of my speech why this Bill should be delayed until we have a more favourable climate. I will make the point that this Bill should not be rushed at this particular moment. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) made it clear that the republic will come regardless of what the loss might be to South Africa’s interests. Well, Sir, there we differ. We on this side say the interests of South Africa must come first, and not the pandering to the feelings of a certain section of the community. The Prime Minister said that no safeguard would protect minority groups and that the Bantu would overcome or discard any such safeguards, and to a large extent I must agree with him, because the Bantu has been set an example of how to bypass entrenchments, and break solemn undertakings, by such means as enlarging the Senate for instance. To many of the arguments used by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield I shall reply in the course of my speech, and so I will not deal with them now.

That lover of clichés, the hon. the Minister of Finance, started a speech the other day with one that has whiskers down its hocks. He said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Sir, the gods must have been extremely anxious to destroy the galaxy of mediocrity which I see opposite me now, for after a week of meetings the gods have turned their whole caucus apparently into a bedlam by allowing the Prime Minister to introduce this Bill at this particular time before he goes to the London Conference. Everybody except the Prime Minister, and a handful of faithfuls, not only realizes but is prepared to admit, as the Prime Minister did this afternoon, that our standing in the eyes of the world has, from a gradual deterioration over the years, increased in velocity to that of a falling stone, so that to-day we stand naked and almost isolated in a dangerous and hostile world. But even the Burger’s “Muishond” at that time had a coat of hair to temper the wind of change to the shorn lamb. To-day we do not even have that protection. All that remains over South Africa is the odour. The position has deteriorated since 5 October, and that is the important point. Surely now is not the time to step off the solid ground of our Commonwealth relationship on to the quicksands of uncertainty, should we declare a republic before we know where we stand vis-à-vis the Commonwealth. We are told that only a unanimous vote can put us out, but once we have to reapply for admission— and that is where I disagree with the hon. member for Smithfield—we place ourselves in the hands of the black-bailers; and that is the danger. The Government have got their so-called mandate. We admit that, but surely there is no hurry to put it into operation, with this Bill, until we know where we stand with regard to our membership of the Commonwealth? For Heaven’s sake, let the Prime Minister first test the climate at the London Conference in March. There is no time limit. He has his mandate. It does not mean that if he does not exercise it at once, it is nullified. Let him drop this Bill and test the ground first. That is what my leader put forward in his amendment.

The Prime Minister admitted that he had no assurance of any kind that we would be able to remain in the Commonwealth if we become a republic. He has not only admitted the utmost importance of our remaining in it, but more important, his specially selected referendum speakers (from which apparently the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was warned off) gave a clear understanding throughout the whole of that campaign that remaining in the club was merely a formality—the Minister of Finance was one, and I think he made that statement at Stellenbosch. Many thousands were misled by those speeches and were persuaded thereby to vote for the republic. That great sales-talk of the referendum, before 5 October, was only equalled by the sob-story of unity. Ministers wept with ecstasy as they pressed the English-speaking people to their tearstained bosoms. In fact, they were almost in danger of getting corns on their chests from the pressure. But never a word of it has been heard since then. In fact the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) bluntly said last week that unity means a change of heart and a change of heart be damned. That is the outlook now, after all we heard about unity, which made many English-speaking people vote for the republic. But what happened was that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs immediately after that made one of the most racialistic speeches ever made in this country. The promise of unity so affected people like Mr. Boydell that he was quite hysterical for this new-found love and ran out of tears and almost out of ink at one time during the referendum. But even that self-appointed roving ambassador is now turning sour. Whether the deplorable speech of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made this change, or whether it was something to do with the Senate elections, is anybody’s guess.

But to get back to the introduction of this Bill. At this moment, in times of great uncertainty, to risk losing the sheet-anchor of our friendship and safety which is the Commonwealth by forcing through the republic hurriedly, as if we were rushing to take up an option before the date line lapsed, to me is just sheer madness. Many people have forgotten already what South Africa stands to lose if we cease to be a member of the Commonwealth. Let me therefore give the House a brief summary of what this country stands to lose materially (apart from friends and safety) should we be deprived of our preferences. That is where I disagree with the hon. member for Smithfield. If we cease to be a member of the Commonwealth and lose these preferences, South Africa will be in a very dangerous position. I therefore want to give some details of them, because I think they are of the utmost importance to us. Take the figures for 1958. Of all the grapefruit exported, Britain took 93 per cent. It entered Britain duty-free when others had to pay 5s. duty per cwt. Citrus is worth about £5,500,000 to us, and more than half of it was sold to the U.K. South Africa paid no duty. All other non-Commonwealth countries, such as Spain, Brazil and the Middle East and the U.S.A., pay 3s. 6d. per cwt. If this preference were removed, the Union growers would lose about £500,000. Brazil, like us, is in the Southern Hemisphere. Their citrus comes on the market at the same time as ours: between May and November (i.e. the summer of the Northern Hemisphere). Europe and the U.S.A. market their citrus from November to May. Now Brazil is a very big consumer of U.K exports—machinery, implements and textiles, etc. Is the U.K. going to risk offending a big customer like that by giving preferences to us if we are outside the Commonwealth? They will demand that Brazil and South Africa be treated alike. Take grapes. Eighty per cent of our exports went to the U.K. in 1958. Should we cease to be a member of the Commonwealth the growers will lose 11 per cent preference, equal to something like 14s. per cwt. Forty-four per cent of our export maize (valued at £7,500,000) was sold to Britain, with a 10 per cent preference. The annual output of sugar is something like £40,000,000 worth, earning £7,500,000 in foreign exchange. We have to sell one-third; and the bulk of that goes to Britain, at a preference of £3 15s. a ton, but that is not all.

To help the Commonwealth producers, the Commonwealth Agreement sets a global quota to the Commonwealth producers, who share it out amongst themselves. Each member sells part of its export to the U.K. at a specially agreed price, which is much higher than the price it would fetch on the open market. The price on the world market is less than £30 per ton. The price on the local market is £26 10s. The price fixed in the U.K. was £44 8s. 10d. This would mean a much lower export price and lower export earnings should we lose our preferences: It will mean a much higher domestic price, because, unlike all other exports, where we have to charge a higher price internally to make up for the lower price overseas, in the case of sugar we get a much higher price overseas which: makes it possible for the local consumer to get it cheaper. With regard to the wine industry. Thirty per cent of our exports go to the U.K. at a preference of 10s. per gallon. Now take canned goods: Eighty-eight per cent is sold in the U.K. at a 12 per cent preference. It has been worked out by experts that if we lose that preference producers will have to reduce the prices here by 10 per cent to compete against the rest of the Commonwealth and the world. This would mean, at the present production prices, a loss of £1,250,000 to the industry, and £12 a ton to the producer of fruit. What makes the position worse is that many of our competitors have a very big inland market. For instance the U.S.A. has an internal market which absorbs 90 per cent of her total production. She only has to export 10 per cent, so she could give it away almost without great loss. With us the position is just the reverse. We only consume 10 per cent and export 90 per cent, and of that Britain takes 88 per cent, leaving only 2 per cent to be exported to other countries. Then we come to a very important industry: apples and pears exported into Britain are at present limited by a quota, except those from Commonwealth countries. If we lose our preference our export to the U.K. will be limited by a quota like any other non-member of the Commonwealth. New Zealand and Australia will be able to sell their products first and only if they cannot supply all that is required will we be allowed to come into the market in competition with the rest of the world, and it is possible that we might be excluded entirely. Our greatest competitor, the Argentine, produces 20,000,000 cases a year, and yet they are only allowed to sell on the British market £650,000 worth or 3 per cent of their production; because of the Commonwealth quota, and have to pay 4s. 6d. per cwt. on that 3 per cent. Canada is part of the dollar area. It is interesting to know that Nova Scotia, whose natural market would be Britain for her apples, has been ruined. In the last ten years 1,250,000 trees have been uprooted. Without access to the British market, our apple industry might suffer the same fate as Nova Scotia. If the primary producer is hit, every single trade and profession is also hit, because there is less money in circulation.

The wholesale and retail trade is hit and they must sack employees, who in turn have no purchasing power, and so it goes on like a chain reaction. If the primary producer is poor, he cannot even afford to have a court case, and that will affect the lawyers opposite. His wife and children have a lower purchasing power and that affects everybody. Much of the retail trade sells imported goods, which cannot be imported unless we earn the foreign currency to pay for them. A lot of very skilled assistants are needed to sell those retail luxury goods across the counter, and if we do not have the foreign exchange—and it is going down every day—we cannot pay for our imports and then those people will have to be dismissed. The primary producer is the main foreign currency earner, and if he cannot sell his products abroad our foreign reserves drop. Without foreign currency South Africa cannot buy and import the foreign goods we require, and all the people who handle the goods will be out of work. If we become a republic and cease to be a member of the Commonwealth and we cease to enjoy the preferences, producers will be in a very dangerous financial position.

I am not disputing the fact that we lost the referendum. It is obviously true that the enfranchised Whites of South Africa gave the republicans a majority. Nor do I at this stage want to use a very valid argument, viz. that all the enfranchised citizens were not consulted, although that argument can be used. Obviously the Coloureds are enfranchised citizens, or else how can they have four members of Parliament sitting here, members who will take part in this debate who can vote on the Bill? Yet they have no mandate from their people because they were not consulted in the referendum. So obviously, even the enfranchised people of South Africa were not all consulted. That is the position, but let that go for the moment because it is not germane to my argument. What I want to stress is that there is no hurry to force this change through now. Therefore why is the Prime Minister not prepared to delay this irrevocable step until he has attended the London Conference and found out what our position is vis-à-vis the rest of the members of the Commonwealth? I have already dealt with our dire isolation in the world to-day, particularly at UN, and I have tried to show what we stand to lose materially if we lose our preferences. But as regards UN we can still take our stand on (what is now in reality merely a technical objection) Clause 2 (7) of the Charter, and say that they have no right to interfere with our internal affairs. But since 5 October a much greater menace has come to a head, and one in regard to which we cannot shield behind Clause 2 (7). I refer to the South West mandate, which may create a very dangerous situation for us, especially if the International Court finds against us. It is true that we needed friends before, but we could take a stand on moral grounds on Clause 2 (7); but with the mandate issue the position is different; and if South Africa ever stood in dire need of friends it is now. The only friends we are likely to get at UNO are the older members of the Commonwealth. We could expect them to stand up for us not only for the sake of friendship but for sentimental reasons also, because they will remember how South Africa, by her action in conquering what was then German South West, played a most important role in allied sea strategy when we eliminated the biggest wireless station south of the Equator at Windhoek. That act broke the one link between the German Admiralty in Berlin and the whole of the German Fleet in the Southern Hemisphere under Admiral Von Spee. The older Commonwealth members will remember what it meant to the Allied cause in general, and therefore they may well stand by us in the dangerous situation which faces us over South West. They will remember that we went in and took South West at a time when it was of the utmost importance to Allied strategy to do so. They will remember that most of the disasters that befell the British Fleet were due to the orders and the information which came from the German Admiralty via Windhoek to Admiral Von Spee, and the great sinking of ships that took place in the Southern Hemisphere. They will also no doubt recall how our Government had to withstand the ruthless onslaughts of the then Nationalist Opposition. They tried to make people’s blood run cold by suggesting that young Afrikaner blood would seep into the sands, and that their bones would bleach in the desert; but that party now has the nerve to accuse us of not being patriotic because we criticize them. But at that period they actually stabbed that Government in the back in time of war. (Interjections.] But it is interesting to remember that the Nationalist Party which so attacked us for taking South West then, are now so keen to keep the spoils. The Commonwealth will remember that 50,000 Boers led by Boer generals like Botha, Smuts, Brits, Myburgh, Alberts and a whole lot of others—men who had fought against the Empire only twelve short years before—were responsible for the first Allied victory in a series of defeats in other spheres. That is a memory that might well remain with the older members of the Commonwealth, and cause them to help us when the South West issue comes to a head, as it will. At this critical period the Government is prepared to go out of its way to cut the one bond that still ensures our membership of the Commonwealth. Whilst we are not a republic they cannot put us out of the Commonwealth. The cliché I opened with is interesting. It is that whom the gods want to destroy they first make mad. Sir, I would like to substitute the word “stupid” for “mad ”, because a madman can very often be clever. Some philosophers see an affiliation between madness and genius, but with a fool nothing can be done. Give me a crook, any day, rather than a fool, because you at least at times guess what he will do; but you can never anticipate what a fool will do. He is the type who Trumps his partners ace at Bridge. What has disappointed me so greatly is to see the stupidity of this Government, going in the face of world opinion and obstinately continuing their stupid policies. Sir, you will remember Disraeli’s remark about stupidity. He said that assaults and brutalities you can combat; the wiles of diplomacy you can counter-argue, the cunning of duplicity you can defeat, but there is one force which no human agency can cope with, the unconscious machinations of stupidity. It is the stupidity of this Government which worries me. A few days ago a large number of thinking Nationalists were putting the welfare of their country above party interests.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted I was dealing with the foolishness of pushing this Bill through now. The Prime Minister has got the mandate and there is no hurry to implement it. He should first ascertain what the climate is at the important forthcoming Prime Ministers’ conference. I have only a few minutes at my disposal and so I should like to go on with the rest of my speech.

Haw-haw.

I wish the honourable gentleman would not always refer to his female associates when I am speaking.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, patriotic and thinking Nationalists who put the welfare of their country above the interests of their party, were showing their disquiet at the way in which the Prime Minister was running (or should say “ruining ”)—the country. They expressed their fear and their distrust of the way things were shaping. Suddenly the Prime Minister decided that this type of thinking criticism had to stop; and the order went forth. We saw a reaction similar to that when a headmaster walks into a preparatory school class room where the children are slightly boisterous: a terrified silence descends on all; a silence that can almost be felt. The order went forth to shut up, to shut their mouths or else! All the mouths were clamped down with vehemence that must have jeopardized some of the fillings in their teeth. Mr. Speaker, to me it has been the most tragic experience. In fact it has embarrassed me just as it would embarrass me to see even an enemy make a faux pas or gaff in public and be humiliated. This has caused me to feel sad and despondent. I started to wonder what has happened to those great independently-minded, moral fearless and courageous Afrikaners who up to 12 or 13 years ago, would not only have brushed aside with contempt any order to “shut up ”, but would have taken it as a challenge to do the very opposite and damn the consequences. When I look at my friends opposite, when I recollect some of the great names that a number of them bear—names such as Botha (whether spelt with one or two o’s), Strydom, du Plessis, de Wet, Coetzee, Sauer, etc.—names famous in the history of South Africa for their courage and independence of thought in the past, and I see their present namesakes, reduced to awestruck silence at the crack of the “karwats”, then my heart becomes sad. [Laughter.] That is very hysterical hollow laughter, Sir. But they know it is true and that they dare not open their mouths. If I were an emotional man, my heart would be filled with tears for them. I feel that if their illustrious forebears, whose name they bear, could see the craven obedience to the “big brother with the direct line ”, they would gyrate in their graves. Look at them. [Interjections.] There they sit; extinct volcanoes without the eruptive force even to blow their hats off; without the moral strength to pull a hen of her nest. And I say to those hon. gentlemen opposite in all seriousness: You know you are all worried about the position in South Africa to-day; you realize the dangerous waters that the ship of state is sailing into now. You yourself can see the rocks ahead: I beg of you to stand up and fight; show guts not servile obedience. Your ancestors were prepared to risk their lives for South Africa; aren’t you prepared to risk your political careers for your country? All that there is to relieve this tragic situation is to view their counterparts, the South Africans, on this side of the House, English-speaking, whose forebears some 150 years ago had helped to build up South Africa and the Afrikaans-speaking. We have members with English and Afrikaans names on this side of the House who will fight on whatever the cost is. I refer to the Graaffs, the Cronjes, the Mitchells, the Steyns, the Malans, the de Kocks, the Bowkers, the Smits, van Niekerks …

The van der Byls.

No, Mr. Speaker, I make no claim for my family. I am a retiring, modest, self-effacing man—aggressive, shy and timid person. I make no claim that my name should be included in that illustrious list. Eventually their independence of thought and their fearless courage will save South Africa. In a time of crisis a merciful Providence has on every single occasion given South Africa a man to save us—Botha, Hertzog, Smuts. We have that man now, a man who has dedicated his life to South Africa. When the call comes —as has happened in every single crisis in the past—it was the United Party who saved the country and it will save the country again under our going leader. Once again when the call comes we shall not fail to answer it and South Africa once more will be on a safe course to prosperity, unity and have powerful friends who will stand by us when the storm clouds blow up.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to quarrel with my hon. friend opposite. He had such a great deal to say about the things that would be lost to us; that story is as old as the mountains of the Cape. When the hon. member was trying so desperately to find something against the republic, he reminded me of a bad farmer who tries every morning to plough the most arid portions of his land and when the plough skims along the surface of the soil, he merely says: “I shall try again”. The republicans on the other hand wait until it has rained and then they plough properly. I do not want to reply to the speech of the hon. member, I want to confine myself in general to the behaviour of the United Party throughout this process of our becoming a republic, their behaviour right from the beginning. I find it difficult to understand how there can still be hon. members opposite who make the type of speech which we have had here to-day. Those speeches were made months ago; those speeches were made before the referendum; those speeches were made before the date was determined; those speeches were made merely to frighten the whole of South Africa and to make the world outside disgusted with us. Let us see how it all started, Sir. When the hon. the Prime Minister introduced the Bill which provided for the referendum, the Opposition went to the world and to South Africa, and wherever they went—the Black spots, the blue spots and the yellow spots—they tried to make us suspect. They said that Dr. Verwoerd and his extremist followers on this side did not wish to remain within the Commonwealth; they did not want the Commonwealth. They said that, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister had said that before he asked the public to vote on the question of a republic he would tell them whether it would be on the question of whether the republic would be within the Commonwealth or not. But that fell on deaf ears. Merely because they believed that we wanted to be outside the Commonwealth— remember those are the people who seek unity, to which I shall refer later in my speech— they accepted that that would be the position. Those are the people who said we did not want the Commonwealth. And after the hon. the Prime Minister had determined the date and said we were going to have a referendum on the question of a republic within the Commonwealth those hon. gentlemen immediately jumped up, the Leader of the Opposition included, and said: “Now the Commonwealth does not want us”. I want to put this very clearly: Firstly, we did not want the Commonwealth but when we said that we should like to remain within it, the Commonwealth did not want us, according to them. I have never seen such vacillation in my whole life, Sir, and they vacillated like that because they could not advance anything against the republic as such. Then they had to find something else. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, those gentlemen opposite are grown-up people, people who represent the electorate of this country, and as such one would not have expected them to grasp at such small things in order to strengthen their case. What did they do then? Then those hon. gentlemen thought of another plan, an old plan which has been used against the Afrikaner before; he is either a racialist, or he is a rebel, or he is similar to the hon. the Prime Minister as represented by them. When they could not find anything against the republic they tried to make a monster out of the hon. the Prime Minister; they started to accuse him of being a merciless torturer, a person who did not listen to anybody, a real monster from which everyone ought to recoil. It is peculiar, however, Sir, that hon. members of the Opposition could not even persuade all their own supporters to recoil, how much less could they persuade our people to recoil. Having put the hon. the Prime Minister through the mill to such an extent that one had to feel sorry for him—to think that one civilized person can belittle another civilized person like that in the eyes of his own people and in the eyes of the world outside—having reached that stage, they attached the republic to that monster. They wanted to show the world what kind of a republic his would be, the republic of that monster, that despicable being, that heartless being, because that was how they represented the hon. the Prime Minister to the world outside. That was how they represented the republic to the electorate. Then they went through the country displaying placards and making speeches: Do not accept a Verwoerd republic. In other words, there was nothing wrong with the republic. Right from the outset nothing was said against the republic, but they kept on hammering at the Government and at the Leader of the Government. If there is anything more petty than that I would like to hear of it. If there is anything more petty than that, anything more petty which a mature party can use to put its case to the world, I should like to hear of it.

Mr. Speaker, those placards were sent into the world and when they found that they did not achieve anything by besmirching Dr. Verwoerd, they embarked upon their most petty plan of all—those placards: “Do not be a yes-man; vote no.” When we think of that, Sir, and think that that came from the benches opposite, you cannot blame us if our respect for them sinks so fast, that we have to use a shovel to scoop it up again. “Do not be a yes-man: vote no.” What is a “yes-man” in the eyes of the Afrikaner? A yes-man is the type of person with whom you cannot do a thing; his word does not mean a thing; his undertakings come to nought; he himself is worthless; he is a “yes-man ”.

In other words, a good Nationalist.

That hon. member has now given judgement against himself and I am grateful for that. Not only is he an evil spirit, but a good United Party supporter to boot.

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir. Bui the hon. member should not start with his stupidities; he should take his medicine when it is administered to him. We say that that is the most despicable weapon that can be employed in order to state your case and to win it. When that happened I was more convinced than ever before that unassailable facts were the weapons of a wise man, but to make unpleasant and insinuating remarks and humiliating accusations, accusations which cannot be proved, are the weapons of a man who lacks facts as well as the weapons of the man who lacks wisdom, because a wise man would not go to the country with the petty accusations with which hon. members opposite have gone. Those were the accusations which they levelled against us when everything else had failed, those were the plans they resorted to because there was nothing left for them to do. We have heard nothing this evening, we heard nothing to-day, there has been no proof, that there is anything wrong with the republic. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day that what was wrong with it was that the people who wanted a republic, the Government who wanted a republic, were not right, and that is the gentleman who in the same breath talks about unity in South Africa. It is the same gentleman who said we should strive for unity in South Africa and who said that the National Party did not have the heart for unity. Another hon. member said that unless there was a change of heart on this side of the House there would never be unity. It is remarkable, Sir, that anyone can harden his own heart and do the things which I have mentioned, can level those insults and make those false accusations, and then have the courage to say “You should undergo a change of heart before we will believe in you ”. Is this side of the House the only side that is hard? I can say this, Mr. Speaker, that during the past years we have revealed that change of heart; I think that over the past years the Afrikaner has clearly proved that he wanted to make concessions to that side of the House, that he has made concessions, and for that reason I cannot do otherwise but despise the methods which were employed, the methods which were employed to fight this republic and the methods which are being employed at the present moment, to judge by the speeches which we are having here. The whole position appears hopeless to me. You would think that having entered the ring to fight, Sir, and you are counted out, you will at least observe the ruling of the referee, throw in the towel, and admit that you have been beaten. The fight which we have at the moment, Mr. Speaker, started even before the referendum and hon. members of the Opposition received a knockout blow; in spite of those methods of theirs, in spite of all their petty methods they have come to a fall and now that the referee, the people of South Africa, have counted them out, they return to continue the fight on the same issue. I can only put it this way, Sir: I have seen many of these cases—it has happened to me too—that when you receive a very hard blow on the chin you are unaware of the fact that you have been counted out. When you regain consciousness you carry on fighting until the referee calls you to order. It seems to me that that is what is happening in this case. With the next general election the referee will have to bring the United Party to their senses because they want to carry on with the fight after they have already been beaten. You know, Mr. Speaker, that if any-body had told me before the referendum that these things would happen, I would not have believed him. I would have thought that having lost that referendum, the United Party would have been prepared to assist in building that republic. We have here some leaders of the electorate outside—and there are many I think, United Party supporters, who do not feel the same way as they do, and you would have expected those United Party leaders, in view of the result of the referendum, to have said: “Look, we are now going to keep the Nationalists at their word; we are going to accept the republic and we are going to help to establish it, so that it may be our republic as well.” Had they done that they would have guided the people of South Africa, those who voted against it, into the republic, and those voters who voted against the republic would consequently not have found themselves in the humiliating position of having to submit to a republic against which they had fought to the very last. They ought to be placed in the position where they can say: This is my own creation; I assisted in building that republic. But now hon. members of the Opposition come and fight to the last ditch. It has become clear to-day that that side of the House will have no love for the republic to come. That is the lead which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has given his followers. He says: We are not going to agree with you. During the first debate which we had in this House on this matter, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) said: “We do not agree with your republic; ‘of course, we won’t’.” That is a leader of the United Party, a leader who exerted all his energies to organize his people throughout the plains of South Africa to vote against the referendum. Now they come here and remind us that a certain section of the electorate believed that the republic would be within the Commonwealth. That is wonderful proof of the failure on the part of the Opposition, because they went from platform to platform and told the electorate that the republic would not be within the Commonwealth; that the National Party did not want to remain within the Commonwealth. When they had no other ammunition they pretended to the world that we did not want to remain within the Commonwealth. Now the hon. member tells us that there were people who believed that we would indeed remain within the Commonwealth. Can there be a more straight-forward admission, Mr. Speaker, of their defeat, apart from the defeat suffered at the referendum. They put everything they had into that fight, they used all the language that could be used against the republicans, and in spite of that the public voted for a republic. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells us that we should remember that those people believed that. Has he still any claim to those people? Has the Opposition still a claim to those people whom they could not persuade to vote agáinst the republic?

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the arguments which have been used here constitute not only a crime against us who are sitting here, but a crime against the country. I can go further and say it is an atrocious act against the country; if the Opposition continues along those lines it will mean the end of what we could have achieved in this country. Would it have been strange had we developed a hatred in our hearts? We could have developed that hatred had we not been trained to realize that the greatest enemy of a clear brain is hatred. It has been proved to me, Sir, that it is the hatred which we find on the other side of the House that has so blunted the mental ability of the able men who are sitting there, that they quarrel with us the way they are doing to-day. It is hatred which destroys mental ability. That hon. member need not look at me so pointedly; he knows that is true.

Now I should like to deal with a few hon. members who are unfortunately not here. I shall address my remarks to their empty benches and trust that their fellow-members will convey to them what I have to say. When I look at the hon. member for South Coast, I see in him the type of Englishman that we like, that hard steadfast type with a great love for that which is his own. That is a characteristic which we like; that is a characteristic which we can use in future; that is a characteristic which can be transplanted and which can be of value to us. That is a qualification which can be utilized, but unfortunately that same person suffers from a disqualification as well, and that disqualification is this: the greater the love for that which is his own, the more intense his hatred of that other section with whom he has to co-operate.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I say that if we could separate those two characteristics and succeed in getting that steadfast Englishman to love that which is his own as well, namely South Africa, and what goes with it, as much as he loves that which he now maintains is his own, that characteristic can be utilized; then it won’t only be a “change of heart” on this side of the House; it will also be a “change of heart” on the side opposite. That is why we find it so difficult to accept it when hon. members opposite say we do nothing to promote harmony. Let us be honest with each other. Who are the people who continually say that we are not the right people? Have we ever said that we did not have the right people on that side of the House? Have you, Sir, ever heard us say that we cannot work together with hon. members opposite? That has never yet come from this side of the House in my presence. Why should that come from the other side? If that is what we hear from the Opposition, we can only accept that that is the position within their ranks. I am therefore entitled to ask the Opposition this: If your intentions towards South Africa are sincere why do these newspaper reports which besmirch South Africa go into the outside world? Why does that happen? The speech which I am making to-day will never be published abroad. Members may say it is not good enough. That is quite right, because my speech has not got a Black little brother clinging to it. In every speech which we get from the side opposite accusations are levelled against us in so far as the Coloured question is concerned. Their reason for doing that is this: The entire Western world is bidding for the friendship of the Black man in Africa, and now the Opposition wishes to pluck their courage from the Western world; they have now developed a love for the Black man and we are being accused of oppressing the Black man. Mr. Speaker, not a single hon. member opposite has risen and said a word about what this Government has done to uplift the Black man—not a single member. When we refer to the universities which we have established for them the reply comes: You removed them from the White universities.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

I am merely mentioning these things, Mr. Speaker, to show that hon. members opposite do not give us the friendship which they allege they have for us. That is probably why I overstepped the mark; I shall return to the Bill and not default again.

I am justified in asking hon. members opposite that if they are sincere in their intentions towards South Africa; if they are sincere with the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, as we are sincere with hon. members opposite, will they issue a statement on behalf of the Opposition, to the effect that the Opposition is prepared to accept the republic and that they want the hon. the Prime Minister to plead for Commonwealth membership for the republic also on behalf of the United Party. When the opposition does that I will believe that they too have undergone a change of heart.

Mr. Speaker, after your serious appeal this afternoon to keep this debate on a high level, the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) will forgive me if I do not deal in any great detail with his speech.

I do want to say this, however, Sir, that it is very difficult for anybody to act on terms of friendship with anyone who suspects one’s motives. The hon. member made it very clear in the course of his address that the one thing he does in respect of this side of the House is to suspect our motives. He made that very plain indeed. The hon. member forgets too that in putting the case, which we as an Opposition put in this House in this debate— which is a serious debate as you say, Sir—we speak not only on behalf of ourselves, but we speak on behalf of 775,000 people, people who expressed their view on 5 October very clearly in respect of a certain standpoint. A great deal, of course, has been said, also by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, in regard to the knock-out blow which the anti-republicans received, in regard to the adequate majority which was cast in favour of the republic. Let me say, Sir, that if any hon. member on that side regards 4 per cent as an adequate majority for this far-reaching change, I would recommend seriously that he should think again about it. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) in fact quoted the late Dr. Malan in 1941 and gave us Dr. Malan’s interpretation, in those days, of what he regarded as a majority based on the “bree volkswil ”. Without conceding that the late Dr. Malan was right then, I must point out that he did say that an adequate majority based on the “breë volkswil” did mean a safe majority—“’n veilige meerderheid ”. If a majority in a referendum like this of 4 per cent can be regarded as a safe majority for a step of this magnitude, my interpretation of “safe” in the past has been sadly wrong. Because this simply means that if two voters out of every 100 had voted the other way the result would have been different. I do not regard this as a safe majority.

What would you regard as a safe majority?

That is not for me to answer at this stage, but a 4 per cent majority is not a safe majority either in terms of the past dicta of leaders of the Nationalist Party, nor in fact for any reasonable person. In fact, in claiming this as an overwhelming majority, as a knock-out blow, hon. members on the other side are being asked to stretch their own credulity a bit too far. But let me say too, in passing, that we have not challenged the validity of this majority at all. There is a majority. I only contend that it is not an adequate majority.

What about Kennedy?

Kennedy’s majority was in the election of a president, not in respect of a change in the constitution of the United States of America. But we here are dealing with a fundamental change in our Constitution, not the election of a president. The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) who has just been to America, would perhaps know what sort of majority would be required in the United States for a change in the constitution. Certainly not a 4 per cent majority. Mr. Speaker, in passing I want to say also that it is quite clear from the referendum result that the overwhelming majority of the new vote, and I concede this—I am referring to the vote of people who turned 18 since 1959 —was in favour of a republic. Let me admit that. But who are these young people? Of course they are idealistic young people, highly idealistic, but in the nature of things they are unacquainted with the hard and real facts of life, particularly life in this hostile and dangerous world of to-day, and in so many instances (and this is not their fault) they are the end product of an educational system which is calculated to lead to national disunity and strife rather than to national unity. In fact in three out of four provinces they are the product of such an educational system, and in the Transvaal they have since 1945 been subjected to this system.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far; he should return to the Bill.

Yes, Sir, I will not continue along those lines. Sir, without reflecting on previous legislation of this House, we indicated at the time that we did not think that the franchise for the eighteen-year olds was a good thing. The referendum issue to a very large extent was decided by that vote, that young, idealistic, and almost in every instance immature vote. There are naturally exceptions, but these young people in these formative years are subject to “Sturm” and “Drang ”, are led more by enthusiasm than by judgement, by an enthusiasm which is very often evinced at public meetings. The hon. the Prime Minister has had some experience of the enthusiasm of these young people, so has the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the House, the hon. the Minister of Lands, and I also in my constituency have had some experience of enthusiasm instead of judgement.

Sir, the amendment proposed by my hon. Leader stresses two matters. The first is the question of our continued membership of the Commonwealth, and the second is the question of some sort of assurance in regard to or guarantee of basic rights in this new constitution of ours, for the sake of greater national unity.

In regard to the Commonwealth issue, there is no question that the vast majority of the electorate voted on the clear understanding, despite the hon. Prime Minister’s speech at Lichtenburg, that a republic would be within the Commonwealth of Nations. Everything, with one exception, said by hon. members on the other side, during the referendum campaign was directed at assuring the electorate that a republic for South Africa would not mean our isolation from the Commonwealth. The hon. the Prime Minister’s “Dear Friend” letter, addressed individually to every voter in this country stressed it. The speeches of people like the hon. the Minister of Finance all over the country pooh-poohed the idea, ridiculed the idea that we could be refused re-admission to the Commonwealth.

Readmission?

Yes. To quote a lesser authority, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), this is what he said on 15 September at Nelspruit—

This from a report in the Lowvelder, 15 September. So, as I say, the overwhelming majority of the electorate of this country went to the polls on 5 October having been assured, categorically assured, by hon. members on the other side who campaigned in this referendum that a republic would remain within the Commonwealth. Now of course we are told, after the result is known, that the question of a republic comes first. Then there was no question of being outside the Commonwealth. Now the republic comes first, and if we don’t succeed in remaining in the Commonwealth (I devoutly hope that we shall succeed in remaining in the Commonwealth) that does not matter—this legislation will be proceeded with regardless of the consequences in that direction.

May I ask the hon. member a question? He speaks of “readmission ”. At what time will our membership cease and when will it recommence if we are then admitted again?

If the hon. member wants & lecture on Commonwealth procedure, I am prepared to give it to him in the Lobby afterwards. I don’t want to waste the time of this House by giving this somewhat elementary explanation.

It is quite obvious that if we go out, we will have to be readmitted.

Order! The hon. member for Sunnyside holds the floor.

Of course there was always the question in regard to our continued membership of the Commonwealth, but I say in all sincerity, without wanting to make political capital out of it, that I am convinced that most of the people who went to the polls on 5 October felt and were satisfied that the future in regard to our membership of the Commonwealth was not in doubt. That is what we ask for now, an assurance that we shall remain in the Commonwealth.

The second aspect of this matter is the question of national unity. I want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on his language usage this afternoon in his introductory speech when he moved the second reading, and I want to say that I was extremely interested in all the concessions, the sacrifices by the other side of the House, the Afrikaners, in their approach to this whole question. I find fault with one thing, Sir, and this is the growing tendency on the part of hon. members opposite to identify “Afrikaner” with the Nationalist Party. That is not correct. As has been said already about 30 per cent of the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa voted against the referendum. Those people are also Afrikaners. I mention this in passing. But I want to say in regard to these concessions, these sacrifices, that many of them are in the nature of “I won’t bludgeon you to death with a club; if you behave yourselves, I will put you quietly to death in a gas-chamber As far as this whole question of national unity is concerned, I want to suggest with all respect, that the hon. the Prime Minister and members on the other side of the House are putting the cart before the horse. They are subjecting this concept of a republic, this ideal for many people, to a grossly unfair strain. They look at it as a deus ex machina, an instrument which will solve so many of the problems of our somewhat troubled times, and one of the problems which they think it will solve is this question of disunity in South Africa amongst honourable gentlemen on that side and many of the people who vote for them, and people on this side of the House. I think this is an unfair strain upon this new venture. I think it is unfair to expect it to lead to a universal panacea for all our ills, and particularly this ill of national disunity, which we on this side of the House and our predecessors have attempted to deal with since 1905, striving with all our might for national unity. As far as national unity is concerned, I believe that first things must come first. Rightly or wrongly, hundreds of public servants in this country believe that promotion in the public service does not go on merit, but in terms of political belief …

Order! I cannot quite see what that has to do with the Bill under discussion.

Sir, I think this is fundamental to national unity, but I shall leave that point. Rightly or wrongly, Sir, many hundreds and thousands of South Africans believe at this moment—and the coming of the republic makes no difference—that their heroes of the past, their great men, have been somewhat shabbily and contemptuously treated under the present régime.

Who for instance?

Sir, may I make this point: At the Gen. Botha Monument, in the Union Building grounds, an annual commemoration service is held. Gen. Botha was the first Prime Minister of the Union, one of the architects of Union, but I have not yet on any of those occasions seen any of those hon. members opposite at that annual commemoration, and in fact, the committee which runs this commemoration service year after year is refused the services even of the Defence Force Band, or even of one bugler of that hand.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

First things must come first, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have national unity in the republic. There must be in respect of these things which I have mentioned a change of heart. That is why I have mentioned them. There must not be the sort of attitude which was displayed by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who said “a change of heart be damned ”. That is not the way to approach this matter, and it is not the way in which we are approaching it. We have been told that this will be a new beginning, and I believe it. It is difficult to say where the future will lead us, we have been told, and that it is not possible for hon. members opposite to bind future generations, but that a constitutional change if it should come would be an evolutionary process, stemming from this foundation. Those were the words used by the hon. the Prime Minister. In regard to this evolutionary process I want to say that that depends to a large extent on the human material and the attitude of mind of the generations to come. These things which I have mentioned in relation to national unity, these things, which rightly or wrongly, people regard as being chasms between the two sections in this country, must be cleared out of the way first. Assurances should be given in this regard to people who are fearful as to the future in a republic, in order to ensure that the evolutionary process which will take place in the future in relation to our constitutional development, will be an evolutionary process which will lead to unity, not to further disintegration and a further conflict. I regret that I do not see in any of the actions of hon. members on the other side any foundation for the present generation which will lead them along evolutionary process to greater unity, to greater understanding, to greater tolerance and to a better appreciation of one another’s culture and traditions. I do not see that foundation. I do not believe that the simple effect of the introduction of this change will alter that situation. More is necessary than just this Constitution, and amongst the things which are necessary, as my hon. Leader has said, is some sort of assurance which will be believed and understood by the people of this country, who, rightly or wrongly, do not see in this Bill any guarantee whatever for their future as minority groups and do not see in it any future in which we can all come together as a great South African nation. That after all, is the aspiration of every one of us. I have dealt with the question of unity between White and White, with the evolutionary process which I hope will lead to such unity, and I have stated what I believed to be fundamental to the successful and satisfactory evolvement of a situation of that kind—a little more, as I have said, than this far-reaching constitutional step.

But what about the non-White situation? We don’t talk about national unity in regard to the developing, emergent non-White peoples of South Africa. But I believe that it is vitally important for all of us to engender in those people a common patriotism, a common desire to defend our Constitution, our way of life, our future and their future. I don’t believe that the simple passage of this Bill, the simple fact of this constitutional change is going to make one iota of difference in the right direction, in making those non-Whites develop towards a common patriotism, a common love of this fatherland. In fact I fear that this change, occurring as it does, without consultation of these people and with the exclusion of the Coloured voters from the roll for these purposes, is going to lead to the very opposite, to the halting of any march towards a common patriotism which might have existed amongst so many of those people. Rightly or wrongly again, many of those people feel a very deep attachment for the monarchial system, some of them for obviously fallacious reasons— some of them speak in terms of the great Queen Victoria. That is so. But it remains a fact that they have this attachment, and it is something I think in which consultation, explanation, might have assisted a great deal.

I fear, as I have said, that amongst these people, because of the lines along which this change is being effected, there is a great deal of suspicion and fear. I want to say that the simple fact of this change, of our reaching a republican form of government is not going to allay that fear and suspicion. More than that is necessary. That is why we ask for these things to be done before this Bill goes through its second reading. Sir, I am not a sentimental monarchist at all. I have a practical appreciation of the merits, the very great value of the monarchial system as it has been applied to us, but I am not a sentimental monarchist. Not at all. I am of Afrikaner descent entirely, and I have an intellectual admiration for the monarchial system, and I think we were doing very well, thank you, under this system. I believe that the introduction of this new constitutional form as a constitutional evolutionary process, provided all those factors I have mentioned are present, would probably be a good thing. But the factors that I have mentioned are not present. The cart is in front of the horse. There are so many other things that might have been done first and should have been done first before proceeding along these lines. Therefore I and my colleagues here, in the absence of those assurances for which we have asked, in the absence of all these things I have mentioned, will vote against the second reading of this Bill.

In introducing this Bill this afternoon, the Prime Minister has given South Africa, both the South Africa of to-day and of the future, a foundation on which we can and shall build for generations and many years to come. We therefore want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Prime Minister most sincerely not only for the contents of this Bill but also for the way in which it has been introduced and submitted to this House for consideration.

The hon. member who has just sat down made one reference which gratified me, and I trust that we are all deeply in earnest about this matter and that we are not merely paying lip service to this ideal, namely that we should all strive wholeheartedly to achieve greater national unity in South Africa. Allow me to give the hon. member the assurance that as far as I myself and hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, it is our deepfelt desire to seek greater national unity amongst the Whites both to-day and in future in South Africa; we are seeking to achieve that unity without surrendering the principles on which we must build. We do not expect one side to sacrifice its political principles in order to achieve greater national unity. All we are asking for is greater loyalty and a deeper love for South Africa in furthering and protecting the interests of South Africa and that South Africa should be put first. As a matter of fact this was the primary motive underlying the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister last year that the time had come to test the will of the people on this matter. We had the opportunity on 31 May last year in Bloemfontein. The golden columns were brought into the stadium symbolizing 50 golden years. Our hearts beat faster with pride and happiness at the thought that we formed part of this country and that we had been able to make our humble contribution towards these golden years which we had experienced and the achievements of which we could rightly be proud. This is true of both the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking peoples, and not only the White section of the population, but also the non-Whites whose labour was used to bring about these achievements. But when we see what debates are sometimes held in this House and outside at meetings, then with hesitation we have to say that we cannot be so proud of the way in which we have built a united nation hitherto. We have made progress, but there are still great weaknesses. And when we look back over the constitutional development of South Africa, then we find that greater national unity has been achieved whenever we have taken a constitutional step towards removing the symbols of division from our national life. Whenever we have adopted symbols of nationhood and unity and we have removed symbols of division, national unity has grown and become stronger, until we reached the stage when last year we passed the necessary legislation to hold a referendum on South Africa’s future form of government. And now we are removing this final and greatest dividing element from our national life. I now repeat that the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) told us that hon. members opposite also wish to strive for greater national unity. I should very much have liked to comment on his remarks regarding the 18year-old voters, and who according to him played a decisive role in the referendum, but Mr. Speaker, as you called the hon. member to order, I shall only say in passing that if it is true that the 18-year-olds played a decisive role on this referendum it is an admission which does not hold out much promise for the future of that hon. member especially. The hon. member for Sunnyside made certain charges against speakers on this side of the House in respect of statements which we are supposed to have made during the referendum campaign. It is true that many things are said during such a campaign, but I am not aware that any republican leader ever gave the assurance during this campaign that when South Africa became a republic we would remain a member of the Commonwealth. On the contrary the hon. the Prime Minister, other members of the Cabinet and members on this side of the House have repeatedly put this matter very clearly in this House, and the hon. member knows that we could not give such an assurance. I now want to give the hon. member the assurance that if it lies within the power of this side of the House or within the power of the Cabinet, or within the power of the Prime Minister, to decide whether we shall remain a member of the Commonwealth, we shall do so. The Prime Minister gave him that assurance this afternoon. It is our deep desire to remain a member of the Commonwealth and that was made quite clear during the referendum campaign. However, the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) has quite rightly and very ably said this afternoon that if we are not allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, South Africa will nevertheless become a republic. And that is how the matter was also put to the voters. But I should like to point out to the hon. member that we know that United Party speakers have gone out of their way and their Press have supported them in their efforts, to persuade the electorate that this assurance of Dr. Verwoerd that we shall try to remain a member of the Commonwealth is untrue and that Dr. Verwoerd only wanted to catch their votes but that as soon as we established a republic we would leave the Commonwealth. United Party speakers, monarchial speakers, repeatedly made that allegation during the campaign, and the hon. member must not come to-day and attribute such statements to us. But in their wisdom the electorate preferred not to believe the monarchist speakers and the liberal newspapers of South Africa, but voted in favour of a republic in the definite knowledge that we would make an honest attempt to remain a member of the Commonwealth but also in the definite knowledge that if we did not succeed in that aim, we would nevertheless establish a republic.

I stated at the outset that in introducing this Bill the hon. the Prime Minister has given South Africa a foundation on which we shall continue to build for many years to come. The Leader of the Opposition then moved an amendment in which he asked for two things, these two hackneyed old requests. The one is that the hon. the Prime Minister should give South Africa the assurance that we shall remain a member of the Commonwealth and the second is that greater national unity will be achieved. I have dealt briefly with the question of national unity. If that is what hon. members opposite want it lies within their power to achieve greater national unity in South Africa. There remains practically nothing which this side of the House can do to achieve national unity. But we shall not achieve national unity in this country if one of the two parties does not want that unity because its only hope of a political future lies in division. That is unfortunately also reflected by the speeches we have heard up to date during this debate. Now that the people have decided that South Africa should become a republic, we have an opportunity to achieve this object. No matter how disparagingly and contemptuously hon. members may refer to the majority of 75,000 in favour of a republic, no matter how disparagingly the Progressive Party, followed by the United Party, may refer to this referendum because only the White voters took part in this decision, I now want to put a question to the Opposition members which I hope one of them will answer: Let us assume for the sake of argument that 90 per cent of the White voters of South Africa (and under our parliamentary system this Parliament derives its authority from the White voters of South Africa) had voted in favour of a republican form of government, and we were to decide to consult the non-White groups in South Africa as well, as the Opposition apparently wish us to do, because they have made the reproach that only the wishes of the Whites have been consulted in this regard, and assuming the non-Whites were to be unanimously opposed to the republican form of government, would the Leader of the Opposition then accept the decision of 90 per cent of the White voters, or would he accept the decision of 100 per cent of the non-White voters? I do not want to put this question to any particular member. Seeing that we have now repeatedly heard these disparaging remarks, made in a reproachful voice, to the effect that this decision only represents the wishes of the White voters, that we only have a majority of the White voters for the republic, I want to assume for the sake of argument that we have consulted the non-Whites, and that a large majority of the non-Whites are in favour of a monarchy or opposed to a republican form of government. Whose wishes would the Leader of the Opposition then comply with? The wishes of the 90 per cent of the White voters or the wishes of the majority of the non-White voters? I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here at the moment because here is something about which we do not have clarity and I do not want to misinterpret his words or his remarks. Disparaging remarks have been made not only during this debate, but also during the referendum, and I am now going to put this question pertinently to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir de Villiers Graaff). For the sake of argument I put this question: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in favour of the non-Whites being consulted about the future form of government of South Africa?

You are optimistic if you think you will get an answer.

Mr. Speaker, I have reason to put this question because I say that hon. members are continuously referring reproachfully to the fact that only the White voters have had a say in this matter. From this one can only infer that they would have liked the non-Whites also to have been consulted on this matter. I wonder whether the Progressive Party has sufficient courage to answer this question?

We shall reply.

We should like to know, and I should like to put a further question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, while he is considering this one. I should like to ask him to ask one of his speakers to answer this question and to say whether only the will of the White man should prevail here, or also that of the non-Whites. But if the non-Whites should also be consulted, then I again put this question to the Leader of the Opposition: Assuming that the majority of the non-Whites are opposed to a republican form of government, whose wishes should then prevail; must the will of the White man prevail or the will of the Black man?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) will probably answer on that point.

No, he will not answer. Strictly speaking we should not have had a second reading of this Bill. Strictly speaking the people, as represented by the White voters of South Africa, have already adopted the second reading. The principle of this Bill has not been adopted by the House of Assembly, but because we decided accordingly in legislation adopted during a previous session the second reading was submitted to the electorate and the principle has already been adopted by a majority of 75,000 votes.

But no one knew what the Bill contained.

This Bill could have been moved this afternoon, and to be consistent we could have decided that the principle had already been adopted. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) says that no one knew what the Bill contained. Of course he would not know what it contains because he is not prepared to accept the assurances which the hon. the Prime Minister has given this House and the country. The Bill only contains those changes which are consequential upon the establishment of a republic and the new form of government. During the debates on the Referendum Bill and during the referendum campaign the hon. the Prime Minister gave the assurance that the basis of the Bill would be the Union Constitution with a minimum number of changes and no drastic amendments. The United Party speakers then tried to bluff the voters and I do not believe for one moment that this behaviour can contribute toward achieving greater national unity in South Africa.

May I ask a question? If that is so, why did the hon. the Prime Minister then not have the courage to have the Draft Constitution published, as the Opposition asked?

Mr. Speaker, this Draft Constitution was published as long ago as 5 December. I think it was as soon as the referendum had been held.

Yes, after the referendum.

Yes, of course, as soon as it was ready after the referendum. But there was after all no uncertainty as to the contents of the Bill. But whether it was published or not, the Opposition did not pay any attention. They did not accept these assurances. The Opposition refused to accept the assurances which the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly given, namely that we shall make an honest attempt to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I have already pointed out how monarchist speaker after monarchist speaker tried to persuade the electorate that this was only a trick to catch their votes and that as soon as we became a republic we would leave the Commonwealth of our own accord.

Would the hon. member for Springs have voted differently if it had been published?

Of course he would not have voted any differently if it had not been published. I think we must get away from this question of whether or not we shall remain a member. It is not within the power of this House to say that we shall remain a member. It is only within our power to say that we shall make an honest attempt to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, there must not be any uncertainty on one point. The day may come when South Africa of her own free will and choice may leave the Commonwealth.

So!

Such a day may come. If the hon. member over there thinks that we are going to tie the hands of the children of South Africa for all time to come by giving the assurance to-day that we will always remain a member of the Commonwealth, he is making a mistake. When the day comes that South Africa’s self-respect is being destroyed by the fact that she must remain a member, on that day will I strive to get us out of the Commonwealth. It will depend on the character of the Commonwealth and for so long as it remains in the best interests of South Africa to remain a member, I as a member of this House and of this side of the House will strive and work for us to remain a member. But just as sure as we stand here, when the time comes that we consider in the light we have that it is no longer in our best interests to remain a member, I shall work just as energetically for us to leave the Commonwealth so that the interests of South Africa can be put first. Because the primary aim underlying the establishment of this republic is to further the interests and welfare of the inhabitants of our country and the future of South Africa. I conclude by just repeating that here we have opportunity to give form to the republic. Here an invitation has come from the heart of the Prime Minister to the English-speaking people, to the Opposition members in the House, to co-operate with us in giving form to the republic, in turning out the best possible product, the common property of this nation and not of the National Party alone.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) say in the early part of his speech that what they expected from this side of the House was not national unity but greater love for South Africa and greater loyality. I do not know what the hon. member understands by loyalty and love but the best type of loyalty that one can give one’s country is to serve it at all times. I challenge the hon. member and every member on the other side to prove that their record of service to South Africa is equal to that of the United Party and its predecessor, the old South African Party.

What service?

I need only mention the establishment of Union, which was the work of the founders of the old South African Party, and that is perhaps the greatest service that has been rendered to South Africa. Let us come a little nearer. In 1914, when for the first time South Africa as a new country, as a young state, saw the dark war clouds, it was the predecessors of this party who loyally stood by South Africa and who did not hesitate to offer their services, even though it meant sacrificing their lives. Since we have heard such a great deal about national unity, can those hon. members tell us who the people were who at that time accused Generals Smuts and Botha of wanting to shed Afrikaner blood …

Order! I think the hon. member is wandering too far away from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the accusation which came from the other side that this side of the House has shown no love for South Africa, and I want to try to indicate that in 1914 we on this side heard all these accusations from members on the other side that the South African Party wanted to shed Afrikaner blood in order to obtain another colony for England, namely South West Africa. To-day they are the people who say that South West Africa belongs to the Union because it was won at the cost of Afrikaner blood. I do not want to pursue that except to say that the last war is still too fresh in our memories for us not to be aware who served South Africa and who did not. I think I have said enough in that connection.

It seems to me that the difference between that side of the House and this side is this, that when we talk about a republic bringing about national unity, our conception of national unity is not the same. We believe that co-operation between the two White races must take place on the basis of mutual respect, with two cultures perhaps but with a common loyalty to South Africa. The conception of the party opposite is that there can only be national unity if the Nationalist Party is able to swallow every English-speaking South African and if he is willing to become the servant and a member of the Nationalist Party. You see, long ago when the Nationalist Party was founded, it was founded on the basis of a two-stream policy for the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section, in contrast with a policy of national unity as advocated by the United Party and the South African Party. That is history and nobody can get away from it. We have heard the hon. the Prime Minister here to-day—and let me just say that I have no complaints against him; I think I can only say this about him that he is one of the very few people on the other side who has been honest and straightforward with this republican effort. He was so straightforward that he said that even if there was a majority of one only he would still proceed. On one occasion he was honest enough to say: “It does not matter whether it is a republic inside or outside the Commonwealth; South Africa is going to become a republic.” I must say that his “Dear friend” letter left some doubt in the minds of the voters, particularly after they had read the speech of the eloquent and impetuous member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in which he said that he would wager 100 to one that we would stay in the Commonwealth.

Do you want to accept the wager?

There the hon. member repeats it. And yet the member for Wolmaransstad comes along and says that no single responsible Nationalist ever said that South Africa would remain a member of the Commonwealth. Perhaps he does not regard the member for Vereeniging as a responsible member but in any case that is what he said. [Interjections.]

Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The hon. member for Vereeniging now admits what I wanted to say, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would have denied it in any case. I was saying that the impression that was created by every member on the other side and by the whole of the Nationalist Party was that there was not the slightest doubt that after the referendum South ‘Africa, if the Nationalist Party won the referendum, would remain a member of the Commonwealth. I held a meeting at Worcester, in the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and there I stated that I did not know whether South Africa would be allowed to become a member of the Commonwealth again, once we had become a republic, and that I did not know whether we would retain our preferential tariffs if we were not a member of the Commonwealth. A director of the K.W.V. then stood up and said that he could give the assurance on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance, who was his Member of Parliament, that it was purely a formality and that there was not the slightest doubt that South Africa would remain a member. How dare these hon. members now come along and say that there was not the slightest doubt in the minds of the electorate as to whether South Africa was going to become a republic within or outside of the Commonwealth? The question never arose. I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that if he visits the farmers in the Western Province he will find that not 10 per cent of his supporters would be willing to vote for a republic outside of the Commonwealth. I think it is only reasonable therefore that the hon. the Prime Minister should consider my hon. Leader’s amendment. On one occasion I saw a fine motto on the desk of the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, the then Administrator which read as follows (I wrote it down): “Is it the truth; is it fair? If it is controversial don’t do it unless it is urgent.” Let me say this to the hon. the Prime Minister. This whole question is contentious. If it is urgent, then proceed. But what is the hurry and why cannot this whole matter wait until he has more certainty or until he returns from oversea? What is the hurry? I am a farmer who also has to grow fruit, and I realize what difficulties we are already facing in regard to our markets.

[Inaudible.]

It is easy for the hon. dentist member for Mossel Bay and for other hon. members, who have no interest in farming, to talk; it is easy for political agents who do not have to make their living out of farming. I have no other home and I must see to it that the best conditions are brought into being in South Africa for my wife and my children. In asking that, I think it is only reasonable to ask that hon. members on the other side should at least be serious about the future. If we are excluded from the Commonwealth, I do not know what disadvantages it will entail for me as a fruit grower. The Prime Minister has said that our preferential tariffs will not necessarily come to an end. I understand that that is correct and I accept it, but I think the Prime Minister will be the first to admit here that it does not necessarily follow that we will retain those benefits, and he will admit that certain changes will be necessary. When hon. members who seek no other income for themselves apart from their parliamentary salary are perturbed about their salaries, then I can well understand why they place the political party, which gave them their seats, above everything else, whereas I make my living out of the soil of South Africa and I have to put South Africa first. That is the difference. And when the interests of South Africa clash with the interests of the United Party, I shall choose the interests of South Africa at all times and stand by South Africa. [Interjections.] But those hon. members who are making such unpleasant remarks are obviously bound to choose the interests of the Nationalist Party rather than the interests of South Africa, because the interests of the Nationalist Party are their interests while the interests of South Africa are my interests. That is the difference.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said—and that is what perturbs me, and that is why I want him to rise and to say that he accepts this motion—that membership of the commonwealth represents a concession.

A sacrifice.

He does not regard it as an advantage to us, but as a sacrifice on the part of the Nationalist Party. I do not want him to make such sacrifices and concessions. I only want him to consider what is in the best interest of South Africa. We on this side consider it in our best interests to retain our membership of the Commonwealth, and when the hon. the Prime Minister says by implication that he does not regard it as being in our best interests but as a concession, then I begin to have my doubts.

He did not say that.

He did. And I become doubtful particularly after having read the report of a speech by the hon. the Minister of Defence, in which he said this during the referendum campaign—

We shall remain in the Commonwealth as long as it suits us. When we listen to hon. members on the other side, we wonder, knowing their history, whether they are really in earnest about continued membership of the Commonwealth. As somebody who does not attend these major conferences, I can only go by the evidence at my disposal. But the hon. the Prime Minister knows that to-day in the military sphere we have free access to the military training colleges of Britain because of the fact that we are a member of the Commonwealth. We have no difficulty at all in sending our officers there for further training. As far as I know it is a privilege which we are able to enjoy only because we are a member of the Commonwealth. I should not like South Africa, in the dangerous times in which we live, to be treated as a stranger in that friendly partnership of nations which has served us so well in the past. I have already dealt with the way in which the position of the fruit grower may be affected. The hon. the Prime Minister was very honest. He said that we would not necessarily lose our privileges when we became a republic. But I shall be grateful if, when the Prime Minister replies, he will give us the assurance that if we become a republic outside of the Commonwealth, we shall retain those privileges.

Ask Jan Graaff.

Jan Graaff made it fairly clear that we would remain in the Commonwealth. I find myself in this difficulty that according to the Burger the people believed Jan Graaff, and now it looks as though he vas not entirely correct. I thought there was not the slightest doubt in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister that we could remain in the Commonwealth. I have mentioned the advantages that we have to-day purely as a result of the friendly relations between the members of the Commonwealth. I have mentioned the advantages in connection with the training of officers, and I do not want to go into all of them. Despite what the hon. the Prime Minister said here I think he was sincere in saying that it entails a sacrifice to remain within the Commonwealth. I believe that he will make a sincere endeavour to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth, and from this side of the House I can say to him that I know that there is not a single member here who would wish him anything but success in his negotiations to keep South Africa a member of the Commonwealth. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. the Prime Minister decides that it is such an urgent matter and that we must get the republic …

We will get it.

The Prime Minister says that we will get it. He says that it will not help us to oppose it because it will come in any case. Well, death is equally certain, but why should we hurry to go to meet it?

Order! That is not under discussion at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I say once again that there is not the slightest doubt that on this side it is our most sincere wish that the Prime Minister should succeed in his attempts to keep us in the Commonwealth. And if he returns without having succeeded, then the responsibility will rest squarely on him and the Nationalist Party if they lead us down the precipice. And then they must not search for excuses; they must not do what they did in the case of South West Africa. On that occasion they said “We will not yield; we refuse to send any reports ”. I still remember that story. I want to say this to the Prime Minister. This Government is taking upon itself a responsibility that I would not care to take upon myself. Their own people will not forgive them if on their return they have to report that they have failed. There is no necessity for the hon. the Prime Minister to be in such a hurry. Their story that 80,000 more voted in favour of a republic—well, it is true, but how was the majority obtained? Why is it that White South African citizens who are registered here, who pay taxes here but who were overseas at the time were not allowed to vote?

Order! The hon. member cannot now discuss an Act passed at a previous session.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, what I want to indicate is that not even all the White citizens voted in the referendum and that consequently it was not even a majority of all the White citizens. In other words, it is not a mandate for the Prime Minister. I do not want to go into this at great length but I do want to say that the cheating that took place during the referendum campaign was absolutely terrible.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill or resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to circumvent your ruling. I merely want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister need not feel, when he looks at the result of the referendum, that he is obliged to proceed with this matter in an unnecessarily hasty fashion.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said that the republic will bring about greater national unity. National unity does not come about through laws but through the conduct of a Government and an Opposition. On this side it has always been our desire and wish to have national unity, but we do not want to sacrifice our identity for the sake of national unity. We do not want to be forced to join the Nationalist Party in order to achieve national unity. The hon. the Prime Minister wanted to know what more could he do to bring about national unity. I want to mention a few things which he can do. In the first place he can take steps to ensure that apartheid between Whites comes to an end in our schools, that the Afrikaansand English-speaking children are able to meet one another and learn to speak one another’s language.

Order! That is not under consideration either.

But I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is being introduced to bring about national unity.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister in introducing this Bill described the road to national unity to us. My hon. friend is following that road and he is explaining his own opinion in that regard.

But he has wandered slightly off the road.

If I went a bit too far in discussing the schools, let me come a bit nearer and straight to the point by saying to the hon. the Prime Minister that another good thing he can do to bring about national unity is this: Let him sack Mr. Kruger, the cultural adviser on the radio network who stirred up ill feeling on the radio during the referendum campaign between Afrikaners and Britishers over acts perpetrated by our forefathers. I could also mention a few other people who ought to be sacked. Mr. Speaker, I say once again that the people who were tricked into voting for a republic as a result of the cry of national unity, are bitterly disappointed. I have in mind the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, for example. When the news came that the Liberals were going to support the Government on the question of a republic, although they did not agree on other matters, he was the first to say: “Vote for a republic; under a republic there will be a different colour policy.” He said so much on that occasion that he got poor Dawie into trouble, and many other people as well-including himself.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member says the wrong thing over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, in that case I shall say the right thing now. The Prime Minister must realize that national unity cannot be built up along the lines on which he is trying to do so at the moment; that national unity can only be built up when there is mutual respect and love coupled with a common loyalty to South Africa; that national unity can only be brought about by the United Party. And if he will realize that, he will be doing South Africa a great service.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was so consistently irrelevant that there is nothing to which I must reply because you would immediately rule me out of order if I were to answer his allegations.

The republican issue was settled outside at the polling booths on 5 October. We as the representatives of the people are here to-night with a mandate from the voters to give expression to their will and to establish a republic. This Opposition who now wish to disparage this majority, are in every respect the same people who were prepared to join battle on this issue. If they are not prepared to accept the result, they should not have joined battle. But the moment they did so, they bound themselves to the rules of the game, and they should as good democrats accept the result. We are being repeatedly told that there was only a majority of 4 per cent, and some say of 2 per cent. Whatever the percentage may be, I now want to put this question in all sincerity: If the noes had a majority of 4 per cent would they have allowed us to continue with the establishment of a republic; would they have regarded it as adequate to prevent us from continuing with the republic? It is quite clear to me that they are only trying to disparage this majority because they have lost the referendum.

Then they have gone further—and I shall come back to this later—and as Natal has done, they are laying down certain conditions; they are making certain demands and certain guarantees must now be written into the Constitution. This reminds me very much of a fight between two boxers. When the winner has knocked out his opponent and he has been counted out once and for all, the loser rises after he has been revived and says: I did lose the fight, but under the following conditions. The people have accepted the principle. And if the Opposition want to be democrats, which is how we have always regarded our English-speaking friends and fellow countrymen, they should accept the decision of the people and co-operate on a positive basis in the implementation of the mandate from the people.

Mr. Speaker, what is the background to this Bill; from where does it originate? The Constitution of South Africa, the South Africa Act which was passed in 1909, was in reality for all practical purposes a compromise between the two republics and the two Crown Colonies. It was therefore a compromise between the ideals, the wishes and the systems of the supporters of a monarchial form of government and of a republican form of government. It was only logical and I regard it as obvious that in this artificial amalgamation of two such divergent principles, there should be points of friction which over the years and as time passed would have to be gradually smoothed away by the mill of experience, by the mill of a South Africa culture and spirit of her own. And as a result of this process various points have gradually been smoothed away over the years from 1909 onwards. Points which at that stage represented an artificial theoretical unity have gradually been smoothed away and have gradually become blended. The mill of South Africa has gradually blended together the extremists on both sides, in both language groups and in both the traditionally different national groups. The problems of South Africa have brought all the national groups closer together. We have been brought closer together whether we wished it or not, and we have been brought closer together by South Africa’s unique character and her unique problems. In this way various problems have been solved over the years. The recognition of our language rights and the application of equal language rights is one of those things which has only gradually come about and which even to-day is not yet completely settled in Natal. There is the flag question. Although we entered into the Union of South Africa with the British flag, the Afrikaans-speaking people also gradually began to work for their own flag as their symbol of freedom, and eventually this problem was solved by the introduction of the Union flag which is the symbol of concessions on both sides. One after the other, all these problems have been solved over the years, e.g. by the introduction of a National Anthem and South African citizenship. The final remaining constitutional obstacle is the establishment of a republic in South Africa, by which we shall at last give the people of South Africa the form of government which is indigenous to South Africa. Over the years we have had a strange position, namely that immediately prior to the introduction of this Bill we were a monarchy without a monarch, with a Constitution which for all practical purposes was that of a republic. I read from the leading article of the Cape Argus of 21 January 1960—

What is the republican background of the Afrikaner? I should like to commence at that point, and I think that when the English-speaking section of our population understand the background and the traditional love of a republic for the Afrikaner, they may better understand how to approach this matter. Throughout the history of South Africa, whenever he has had the opportunity to choose his own form of government the Afrikaner has without exception chosen the republican form of government and no other. I am not referring to the early days when they had no say, but on the first occasion that the citizens of Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet rebelled against the Government of the time, they immediately established two republics and not some other form of government. These were not monarchies or dictatorships, but republics. Thus I can go through our history. After the Great Trek, when the trekkers found themselves in the Free State, the first thing they did was to draw up a Constitution and establish the Republic of Winburg. In Natal, after all the bloodshed and the attempts which were made to make the country inhabitable, after the battle of Blood River and all the pain and sorrow of Weenen and Bloukrans, what did the people do? They established a republican form of government, the Republic Natalia. In the Transvaal we originally had various small republics which eventually united into the South African Republic, and that name already indicated the ideal of a great South African republic such as we shall achieve on 31 May. Even later, when small pieces of land came under the control of the Afrikaners, they established republics such as Stellaland and Goosen. On every occasion, whenever they have had control over their form of government, the Afrikaans-speaking people have without exception chosen the republican form of government.

How many of them lasted?

This one will last and you will be a citizen of it. It is perhaps clear to the English-speaking people that with this traditional background of the Afrikaners’ preference for the republican form of government, it is only logical and obvious that the Afrikaner would continue to strive for that form of government and that he would not abandon the struggle until that ideal had once again been realized because at the same time the Afrikaner felt that the republican form of government had become a symbol to him of his freedom and independence. This is therefore the ideal for which he has striven. In the same spirit I want to say at once that the monarchial form of government is definitely and without question the most desirable form of government for Britain. We can study in history how the monarchial form of government has developed in accordance with the traditions and background of the British people and I say most sincerely that I do not begrudge them it. But the monarchial form of government is quite foreign to South Africa. Our history does not indicate anywhere that the monarchial form of government has ever formed part of the way of life even of the English-speaking people. A monarchial form of government presupposes titles, sirs, lords, etc. Is this the typically South African system? Would it be accepted here? This presupposes class distinctions such as we find in Britain, with upper and lower classes. South Africa would never tolerate a class system amongst the Whites because we are all regarded as equal. The whole monarchial system is therefore foreign to our background and traditions. This is the background to this Bill and our standpoint that we wish to establish the Republic of South Africa represents the development of a traditional background which is now merely finding its normal and natural expression in this legislation. It is merely the conclusion of a process of development which has lasted for centuries, and the sooner the Opposition understand this, the sooner they will reconcile themselves to this position and realize that as far as they are concerned, this is an unavoidable evil which they will have to accept.

In his motion the Leader of the Opposition has made two points which he wishes to emphasize. The first relates to our links with the Commonwealth, the second to national unity. I do not want to delve too deeply into the question of our links with the Commonwealth, because so many speakers have already discussed this aspect that it is really a waste of time to say anything further. The fact remains that the Prime Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to preserve our membership of the Commonwealth and that he is on his way to London to try to do so to the best of his ability—I assume with the support of all South Africa. But what I really want to discuss is national unity. I want to say at once that without national unity and racial harmony between the Whites of South Africa, no South African nation can ever be built up, and without national unity the White man cannot continue to exist in South Africa. I want to lay that down at the outset as my basic premise in discussing this matter, namely that national unity has been essential throughout our past history and is now more essential than ever as far as the future is concerned. I want to quote from a book which I read some time ago. It says that the Afrikaansand English-speaking peoples in this country are like two young wrestlers who are engaged in a tremendous wrestling match, so much so that they do not even notice where they are wrestling, and the author uses the allegory that they are wrestling on a railway line while an express train is rapidly approaching: If they do not cease fighting and resolve their differences, they are both doomed to destruction. I say that national unity is essential. This republic will in fact give us national unity and it is for that reason that I support this Bill. I am not referring to previous attempts to achieve national unity. We know of the attempt to achieve unity which was made in 1933 with the fusion of the political parties, of which the United Party is still a reminder. This was an artificial amalgamation of two political parties and it may have resulted temporarily in a politically strong alliance but there was no national unity because there was no unity in principle. National unity can only be achieved in a country when every section of that country has a genuine loyalty and love for their one fatherland. It is in this regard that I point my finger accusingly at the Opposition because to judge by their actions it does not seem as though they do love South Africa because in everything they do they are still providing ammunition to the enemies of South Africa. The speeches of each and every one of them up to date is going to be quoted outside against South Africa by our enemies. If they really loved South Africa, their speeches would not have contained this poison which our enemies can exploit.

I want to give another example. In Britain we find that in the schools, the churches and from the political platforms, the unity of Britain is emphasized, the language of Britain is praised as a world language, the flag is honoured as the flag which waves over all continents, the British Empire is held up as the greatest of all time, an Empire on which the sun never sets; the children are taught: “Britannia rules the waves,” and loyalty towards Britain as their only fatherland is inspired. I say it is right and proper that this is so. In this way the various speakers no matter to which party they belong, are promoting national unity, because there is genuine national unity. In France the pride of the French people is being aroused and they are being inspired anew with the ideals and the spirit of a man like Napoleon who made France great. The people are being united into one nation, and the same applies to Germany, Japan, China and the Congo. But when we rise in South Africa and say that this is the most beautiful country in the world, that our flag is the finest flag, because it is a symbol of our unity, and that we regard our two official languages as the most beautiful because the one is a world language and the other is the most modern language in the world, linguistically speaking; when we refer to our national anthem and we want to inspire our children with love for South Africa, the Opposition say that we are talking politics in the schools and that ministers are preaching politics from the pulpit. We dare not advocate South African patriotism because the Opposition regard it as politics It is because of that attitude that I accuse the Opposition of being responsible for the fact that we do not have national unity because they try to cast suspicion on everything. Here more than in any other country we need national unity to safeguard our future. But that unity can also be achieved by having a head of state who is a South African. A head of state has the ability to unite the people, just as the queen bee keeps the swarm together, because she is their queen of their own choice.

And now you are taking our Queen away.

If the head of state is not a South African citizen, does not come from this nation, does not know and understand the traditions, the background and the problems of this country, does not move amongst the people daily and understand their problems and conflicts, then such a Queen can never bring about unity. The head of state is essential for the unification of the people and this legislation will give us that head of state in the form of a President, a President who will stand above politics.

May I ask a question? Do you agree that the President of the Republic should be a born South African?

The President must be a South African citizen. [Laughter.] If we were to lay down the test that only born South Africans may hold this position, then I wonder how many members of the Opposition will fall into that category?

I am prepared to make the sacrifice. [Laughter.]

I just want to remind the hon. member that the British Royal house is not English but German. This head of state is particularly necessary in South Africa because we are a multi-racial country and we have the two language groups. I want to ask whether we should not adopt a new approach in this legislation and I want to take an example from our national life. Are we not all proud of the Soringbok rugby team which is upholding South Africa’s name overseas? And that team is campaigning and playing as a unit, and the team consists of Malans and Oxlees and van Zyls and Wilsons and Kirkpatricks. But they play together for South Africa. When will we have that unity of spirit in this House, or in this country? Just as they are faced with the enemy over there, while there are thousands of spectators who will not intervene or help, just as little can the outside world solve our problems. We shall have to do so amongst ourselves, and the sooner we are inspired by that spirit, the sooner we shall achieve national unity.

The Opposition ask for guarantees which should be written into the Constitution. Is it not a fact that it is due to the flexible British Constitution that there has never been a revolution in the constitutional development of Britain? When the upheaval of the French Revolution shook France and the guillotine took its toll every day, Britain survived that period because her Constitution was flexible. A nation cannot be halted in its attempts to strive for its ideals nor can it be kept from achieving its objects, and when the Constitution stands in its way, there will be revolution rather than development. It was the flexibility of the British Constitution which in 1830 saved it from the revolutions of Europe which resulted in many monarchies and empires collapsing. The fact that Britain in 1832 could pass the Reform Act by a parliamentary majority in order to make certain concessions to the people saved her from a blood revolution such as these other countries experienced. They are now asking for guarantees to be entrenched by two-thirds majorities in order to make our Constitution so inflexible that we shall inevitably have a revolution here so that they may be able to thwart the will of the people at a later stage. No, we cannot do that. I just want to give this advice to the Opposition, in all earnestness and sincerity. We as Afrikaners have a traditionally republican background. That is our ideal. We accept the British traditions. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) has said that he is not a monarchist; it is only the traditional respect which he as a South African has for the Crown. It is not such a serious matter to them. It is the Commonwealth which they regard as being important. Why can hon. members not adopt this new attitude and assist the Government in establishing the republic and why do they not make all their resources available to the Government to ensure that we remain within the Commonwealth, in order to satisfy their aspirations as well as ours? If that were to be the Opposition’s attitude, this republic would be accepted, the decision of the people would be accepted, and then hon. members would not regard this as a victory by one section of the people over another, but this would then represent the achievement of a joint milestone in our development as one nation and as the introduction to the new period which we shall be entering together as South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cover the ground covered by the last speaker, but I would like to mention one or two points he dealt with. He dealt with this question of Commonwealth relationship at length. I do not know why hon. members opposite simply will not face the fact that if the Commonwealth membership is in jeooardy it is simply because of the hon. the Prime Minister. Our membership was not in jeopardy because of something that South Africa had done, or the way we live, or our internal policy, or because there was a Nationalist Government or per se because we may change our constitutional form of government. It was the Government which brought us to the position of it being put into power of other countries to veto our re-admission to the Commonwealth. I wonder why hon. members opposite keep running away from this. They may have a guilty conscience in respect of the matter. I do not know. The precedents have been established in the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister and members of the Government know what those precedents are. They know the methods adopted by other countries in the Commonwealth, which upon becoming republics adopted a certain procedure, Before tying their country to the change, steps were taken timeously to ascertain the opinions of the other members of the Commonwealth in regard to re-admission on the change taking place, and on that approval having been granted they returned to their own countries and proceeded with the legislation which changed them constitutionally from the monarchial system to the republican system. It could have been done in the case of South Africa. There was nothing to prevent it, except a decision of the Prime Minister to go ahead even if the heavens fell, and to give us a republican form of government. But hon. members opposite for some reason have decided that they will not look at it that way; they will look at it from this angle, that if by chance we are debarred, because we cannot obtain a unanimous vote to be re-admitted to the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister must be able to come back to South Africa and say: I was not prepared to allow these emergent nations to dictate my internal policy and I would sooner be out of the Commonwealth before that happens. But who put us in jeopardy? Why has that stage been reached? The Prime Minister himself was responsible. He is the man who is putting it into the power of these emergent nations, Ghana and Nigeria, to prevent the obtaining of a unanimous vote for our re-admission. Hon. members opposite must be realistic.

Then I would like to say this to the hon. member who has just sat down, that his history has gone a little awry. Sir, he used to teach history. I wonder whether he taught his class that Napoleon was a Frenchman, because that is what we heard from him tonight. Napoleon was a Corsican; he was no more a Frenchman than the Prime Minister is a South African. [Interjections.] The hon. member was also one who followed the Prime Minister in his repealed assertions of what was dear to the heart of all Afrikaners. The Prime Minister for 45 minutes dealt with the Afrikaner and the English-speaking people this afternoon, as though the Afrikaner and the Nationalist Party and the Government were synonymous. Of course that is not so and the Prime Minister has no right to speak for the Afrikaners. I have a greater right to speak for the Afrikaners than he has, but I have no right to speak for the Nationalists, thank heavens. What is all this nonsense about what is in the heart of the Afrikaners? What Afrikaners? It may be in the hearts of the Nationalists, but not the Afrikaners. Let me assure the hon. member and the Prime Minister that this business of the Afrikaner and what he voted for and what is dear to his heart is absolute bunkum as reflected in the result.

March!

In my small province of Natal the anti-republican vote, which included Afrikaners, swamped the whole of the republican majority of the Transvaal and the Cape and South West combined. Where is this matter that is so dear to the heart of the Afrikaners? [Interjections.] The Prime Minister told the country that there were a few little white spots here and there in which there was anti-republicanism, but that there was a broad current of republicanism, and this was his mandate, but it was wiped out by Natal. Let us have no more of this nonsense. There has been a great deal of talk of the tradition of the Transvaal and the Free State, although the Prime Minister himself runs away from that. He talks in a tone, almost homesick, about the constitutions of the Transvaal and the Free State Republics. This feeling of homesickness for their wonderful constitutions and the nostalgia in his voice are quite moving. He tells us that here the people were prepared to have that kind of republic and made sacrifices as a sop to the English-speaking people, but in the very next breath he goes on to laud the system in Britain, which is the system of an unwritten constitution where the voice of the majority can change the constitution even at the caprice of Parliament. He lauds the system in Britain because he wants to model our Constitution on it, where the will of the majority, even at the caprice of the majority, can change the constitution. Therefore he will not give us any entrenched clauses. This feeling of nostalgia moved him to tell us what a wonderful constitution the Free State and the Transvaal had, but surely he knows what the position was in the Free State, with its entrenched clauses. There was entrenchment of the constitution, and not only two or three entrenched clauses. That might have been a very good idea and he might have got a lot of English-speaking people to have voted for that kind of constitution, but he must not talk with longing of those constitutions and then immediately run away and then in effect condemn them in his next sentence by saying that he wants the form of constitution they have in Britain, where Parliament is completely free and unfettered and can make changes by a bare majority of one, to change any part of the constitution.

In dealing with the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister virtually belittled it from the point of view of the Afrikaans-speaking people. Again, I say it should be from the side of the Nationalists. He made it appear that he was doing what he was to try to remain in the Commonwealth more or less out of consideration for the feelings of the English-speaking people, as a sort of sop to them. Sir, he knows that he would not even have won the referendum if he had told the people from the start that he would not stay in the Commonwealth. I suppose he now expects to get grovelling thanks from this side of the House for saying that he will try to keep us in the Commonwealth. He has put our Commonwealth connection in jeopardy. He has not tried to preserve it as a sop to the English-speaking section. He knows perfectly well that he would have lost the referendum if he had clearly said in the beginning that he is not interested in the Commonwealth, and the policy of his party was to be outside it. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) made it quite clear that there is a move on foot to get out of the Commonwealth.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1) and the debate was adjourned until 31 January.