from C. J. Stewart, Messenger on the establishment of the Civil Commissioner, Stellenbosch.

from inhabitants of Harrismith, Orange Free State, praying the House to influence the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State to give redress by repeal of sections 15 and 16 of the School Act, 1908.

from H. W. Willmer, Assistant in the Post Office, Cape Town.

from John Ball, ex-stableman in the Table Bay Harbour Board.

from John Fourie, labourer and ganger in the Railway Department, Cape.

from W. Brown, Clerk in the office of the Assistant General Manager of Railways.

from F. Z. Smyth, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from A. Molloy, ex-chief constable, Cathcart.

from H. M. Shedman, Locomotive Department, Cape Government Railways.

from G. Jeffery, engine-driver, Cape Government Railways.

from J. T. Harrop, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from A. E. Gee, carriage trimmer, Salt River Railway Works.

from R. B. Matheson, carpenter, Salt River Railway Works.

from A. Janson, labourer, Salt River Railway Works.

from J. H. Greentree, machinist, Salt River Railway Works.

from T. D. Bliss, screwer, Salt River Railway Works.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in view of the need of railway extension in the Humansdorp and Uniondale districts, the Government will request the members of the Railway Board to visit those districts for the purpose of making investigations?

said it was not the intention of the Government to ask the Railway Board to proceed to the districts named. He added that the question as to whether a railway was to be built was not a matter for the consideration of the Board at all. The initiation of railways was a matter for the Government; after that had been decided upon, then the Railway Board inquired as to whether a railway would pay or otherwise. But in the initiatory stages the Railway board was not required to indicate whether a line was desirable or not. When the time arrived for considering the question of railway construction generally, no doubt the districts named in the question would receive attention.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will suggest to the Railway Board to have a survey made of the proposed railway line between Somerset East and Kliplaat, with a view to the construction of the said line?

said it was not the intention of the Government to have a survey made now.

asked the Minister of Justice whether applications from members of the Transvaal Police to be placed on the married strength of the force are dealt with in order of the seniority of the men making the applications, and, if not, what principle is observed as to the order in which such applications are granted?

said that the applications were dealt with in order of priority of application. This system had been in vogue since the amalgamation of the forces in 1908.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in order to give the inhabitante of the Vryburg and Mafeking districts the advantage of the principle laid down in section one hundred and twenty-seven of the South Africa Act, 1909, the Government intend to expropriate and acquire the section of railway between Vryburg and Ramathlabama Spruit?

said that the Government had no power to expropriate. It could only be done by the consent of the British S.A. Company. No power was reserved to the Government to expropriate, and it was not the intention of the Government immediately to acquire, the section of the line referred to.

asked the Minister of Finance: (a) Whether his attention has been called to the difficulties in which druggists in the Cape Province are placed in consequence of the indefinite provisions of the Licences and Stamp Act, 1908; (b) whether he has been approached by any responsible body to suspend the operation of the Act in connection with certain grievances, until some more uniform method of taxation can be adopted; and (c) whether he is prepared in the meantime to consider the advisability of issuing a list of taxable articles, so that druggists may be freed from the chaos in which they at present find themselves?

said that the answer to the first part of the question was in the affirmative. With regard to the second point, representations had been made on the subject, but it was manifestly impossible to suspend the operation of the Act as suggested by the hon. member. As to the last part of the question, he had given instructions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to confer with the persons affected by the Act, with a view to drawing up a list of articles which were not subject to taxation.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the Government has received a report from the Railway Commissioners regarding the extension of the railway from Stuartstown to Union Bridge; and whether it is the intention of the Government to construct the line at an early date?

said that no report had been received from the Railway Commissioners. He would have been exceeding his power if he had asked them to make a report. He did not know what his hon. friend meant by “an early date”; but it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the extension immediately.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether it is his intention to introduce legislation during the present session to bring the Municipalities under the control of the Provincial auditors?

said that this was a matter entirely for the Provincial Councils.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether it is a fact that on the Rand men, who are neither mining engineers, nor certificated mine managers have been appointed mining inspectors; (2) whether it is a fact that in the Transvaal there is no legal or definite qualification required for the position of inspector of mines; and (3) whether he will consider the practicability and wisdom of reverting to some such provisions as were required by Transvaal Law, No. 12 of 1898?

said that in regard to the first question, all inspectors of mines on the Rand were either mining engineers or certificated mine managers, with the exception of one, who was a certificated mine overseer. The answer to the second question was in the affirmative, and with regard to the third point, it had been the invariable practice during the last nine years to appoint only persons who had such qualifications as those mentioned, and under the circumstances it did not appear necessary to alter the present law.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a Mint in the Union?

said that the question had been engaging the attention of the Government for some time past. Steps were being taken to collect all available information on the subject, especially from the Mint authorities of the United Kingdom; but there was no prospect of any legislation in the direction indicated by the hon. member being introduced during the present session.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that several of the Witwatersrand Gold Mining Companies are now requiring drill-sharpeners to sharpen drills underground; and (.2) whether, in view of the unhealthy and dangerous condition of the mines, the Government will, in the mining regulations, introduce a clause rendering illegal the sharpening of drills and repairing of machines anywhere but on the surface?

said that the practice referred to had been in progress for a considerable time on the Witwatansrand, mainly as the result of the increased depths at which mining was now being conducted. Inquiries made during the last year showed that, with the exception of a few cases, which had since been rectified, the mines in which the practice was in progress were well ventilated, and in no way dangerous for the men engaged in such sharpening. In the draft regulations provision was made against the carrying on of the practice wherever it was injurious to health, and this provision would also be embodied in the new regulations.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware: (1) That a number of the daily paid staff employed on the Cape section of the South African Railways suffered deductions in pay varying from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. in May, 1907; (2) that although two increases have recently been given, and a portion of the 5 per cent. returned to certain members of the staff, no redress has been meted out to these servants, although from time to time representations have been made to the authorities; (3) that the period of service of these men varies from 10 years to 20 years in some instances, and that they have been, and are still, performing duties side by side with other servants who have only suffered the loss of 5 per cent. for one year; and (4) whether the Government is prepared to consider the question of granting the men redress?

said it was difficult to answer the question either in the affirmative or in the negative. It would require a good deal of explanation. Some of the statements were correct, and others were what they might call otherwise. As to the latter part of the question, he could only say that if they had grievances he would be glad to hear them, and redress them if possible.

asked the Minister of Justice whether the Government intends to introduce, during this session, legislation consolidating the laws relating to patents in the various Provinces of the Union; and, if so, whether such legislation will provide that patents taken out since May 31, 1910, in any one Province, are protected throughout the Union?

said that the Government did not intend to introduce during this session legislation consolidating the law relating to patents in the various Provinces of the Union. It was their intention, however, to introduce legislation in the matter during the next session of Parliament.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether the Government will take into favourable consideration the question of extending the “agricultural packet post” system of Natal and the Transvaal to the rest of the Union?

said that information and figures were being collected, which he hoped would show that an early extension of the system was justifiable.

asked the Minister of Finance what steps the Government intend to take to secure an audit of the expenditure of the several colonies forming the Union, from July 1, 1909, to May 31, 1910?

said that the auditors of the various colonies had carried on their work continuously up to May 31, since when it had been proceeded with under the direction of the Union Controller and Auditor-General. He would report with all possible despatch on the position of each of the colonies at the date of Union.

I presume the report will be laid before Parliament.

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Lands: Whether the Union Government has purchased for use in Natal steam ploughs and other agricultural implements for use with mechanical traction, and also plant for mechanical traction and transport; and, if so, (2) by whom were these articles ordered, on what authority, and from what firms; (3) what was the cost of the various implements, machines, and plant landed in Natal; and (4) in what district and for the benefit of what individuals have the various implements, machines, and plant been utilised so far?

said that information was being obtained. He asked the hon. member to allow the question to stand over for a few days. He pointed out that it was not always possible to give answers to questions at a few hours’ notice.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the principle of granting a local allowance, which had hitherto been applied to Civil Servants residing in up-country districts, where the cost of living is higher than in other parts of the Union, will be made applicable to Civil Servants who have recently been appointed to similar districts where rents and the cost of living are excessive?

said that the question was one for the Civil Service Commission, and until that Commission had reported no decision could be arrived at.

Reports and correspondence on the provisions of the Education Acts of the four Provinces for the teaching of the English and Dutch languages and their use as media of instruction.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House the provisions of the Orange Free State Education Acts are in conflict with the principles of freedom and of equality of opportunity embodied in the South Africa Act, 1909, inasmuch as such provisions compel children to receive instruction through the medium of both English and Dutch, constitute an infringement of the rights of parents, operate unfairly against certain sections of the teaching staff, make it impossible to obtain an adequate number of efficient teachers, tend to accentuate racial divisions, and inflict grave injury upon the education of the country.” In moving the above, the hon. member said that he did so with the fullest feeling of responsibility. He knew that that question was one of the most difficult which could be faced in the House. He knew full well that the question of education and of language was one which had caused more differences in the past than anything else, and he knew that any member of the House who moved a matter of that kind in the House was face to face with a responsibility for his words, which he, for one, felt most deeply when he addressed the House on that most important subject. Surely that House was the place in which to discuss such differences, if they had them. They were far more likely to come to a solution of their differences if they faced them in that House, and if they considered and discussed them in reasonable language and reasonable terms, face to face, when outside the House they had a discussion going on which was quite unnecessary, and passions being raised which were best left alone. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. member quoted the words of an eminent South African, who had said that each race was fully justified in maintaining its language rights. When he came to the House with the motion which stood to his name, he wished it to be fully understood that on his side there was no opposition to the Dutch language as a language. There was no prejudice on their part, and there was no desire to do any damage to that language. They fully recognised the rights which were given to that language in the Act of Union, and all that they asked was that that Act should be carried out in its entirety in South Africa. Surely everyone in that House did fully accept the terms of Union. (Cheers.) “My hon. friend laughs,” said the hon. member, referring to an hon. member on the Ministerial side of the House; “my hon. friend is accustomed to laugh in this House, except when the House is addressed from the back benches of his own side, and on this subject I think it would be better for the hon. member to listen to the debate and to the imperfect language with which I address the House, rather than to sketch in the House.” Proceeding, Colonel Crewe said that what they objected to, and what, had not been provided for in the Act of Union, was that there was in one of the Provinces a dual medium, and that that dual medium should be compulsory. That was the whole objection they had to the Act in the Orange Free State. It might be asked: why did they select the Acts of the Orange Free State, and those Acts alone? For the simple reason that the Act of 1910 had been passed after the Act of Union, after the sittings of the Convention; after the Act of Union itself had been adopted in 1910, Undoubtedly there was a certain uproar in that Province, and there were a certain number of people who were suffering from injustice, or who thought that they were suffering from injustice — (“ Hear, hear,” from the Ministerial benches) — and, therefore, it was their duty to direct their attention to that Province. In the Cape Province they had had Education Acts in recent years—they had the School Board Act in 1905, which had been brought into effect while the right hon. the leader of the Opposition was in power, and both sides of the House had on that occasion come to an agreement on the measure. A modified Act had later been introduced, and had been adopted by both sides of the House; and education in the whole of the Cape Province might be said to be at peace, although there had been ebullitions at times. (Laughter.) In Natal there was no compulsion of any kind, and in that Province he believed that there was everywhere a feeling of satisfaction as regards the Education Acts of that Province. In the Transvaal, although there it was not quite so satisfactory as his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Nathan) had tried to make out, on the previous day, still it was a matter of detail, and they were not going to have perfect Education Acts in each Province; but in the Transvaal an Act had been introduced by the present Prime Minister, when Prime Minister of the Transvaal, which, on the whole, had given satisfaction. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, when one came to one Province where there was a position which naturally caused everybody in South Africa very grave anxiety, what were they to do? The right hon. gentleman (General Botha) had proposed that there should be co-operation, and did they object to that? Not in the least. They (the Government) had got to put that into practical effect if they wanted a solution—(hear, hear)—and it was because they wanted the Prime Minister to put that into effect that he (Colonel Crewe) said that they must come to that House for an expression of opinion; and they could only do so on points where there was serious trouble. He hoped that he was not going into details of election speeches; they all, he supposed, got a little warmer sometimes on the platform than in that House, but he thought that on the platform there had been some declarations of policy which they had a right to ask should be carried out by the hon. member who made them at Johannesburg. If the Government was anxious to find a solution, there were a number of people who sat on his side of the House who would be only too anxious to assist the Government, as had happened in 1905 and 1908. He could only say that they might rest assured that they (the Government) would get the co-operation of anybody who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, if the hon. member translated the policy he had enumerated at Johannesburg into deeds. (Opposition cheers.) Only on Tuesday last the debate had taken the line of education, and he hoped that the argument would not take that dine that day, but if it did, it would only be natural. But apart from that altogether, would the hon. gentlemen who sat opposite, when hon. members who sat behind them and said that they had serious grievances, give them the same answer which they had given to members of the Opposition? No; hon. members who sat behind the Government would say: “You must find a way,” and so they (the Opposition) said to the Government, “You must find a way, too.” He did not desire for one moment to disturb the amicable relations which had existed in the House during the short period in which it had sat. An hon. member had come to him and had said: “You put that resolution on the paper, and you are going to disturb the whole pleasant relations which have existed in the past.” His answer was that it was all very well if one had got everything which one wanted, and one was perfectly satisfied. You had nothing to complain about. But they had the right to complain if people were suffering from injustice. They had the right to address their remarks on that injustice to that House. How would their silence be construed, if they were silent on that point? It would, first of all, be construed as an approval of the state of affairs which existed in the Orange Free State. They had already been asked why they had been so silent since September 15. The reason was because they (the Opposition) wanted to bring their arguments to that House. They held very strongly the view that Education Acts were wrong if they brought about injustice, and were doing most material harm and injury. (Hear, hear.) Well, if they did not move in this House they would be told that they condoned the Act and if they did move they would probably be told that the time was inopportune, and that they were exciting passions and feelings best left alone. Well, he made his friends opposite a present of the two arguments, because they could not have it both ways. If he might sneak to Dutch members he would only say this: On his side of the House there was absolute admiration for their patriotic devotion to their language, and all they (the Opposition) asked was that their friends on the other side would consider that they were other people in this country who were equally devoted and patriotic to their language. (Hear, hear.) And he knew this: if they could bring it home to the Dutch members that education was suffering for that Act, at some future time there would be a rebellion in their ranks on this Act, which was doing their children damage, for there were no people in this country who looked to the education of their children more than the Dutch. But there were other people in the country. And what was found in the Free State? Any advantages were spoken of as gains, but if they were gains to some they were losses to others, and one felt so much the necessity for the consideration of both people that one felt that there should be no desire for gains, but to carry out the Act of Union and give equality to both languages. They had a position in the Free State which was very unfortunate. There a language which was used the world over was wholly insufficiently taught, not only to children whoso mother tongue it was, but to others also.

Question!

Question? Sir, the answer to that is, there is no question. There is no question; but, sir, it is not because, knowing that, we desire to place disabilities on another race whose mother tongue is not English. Proceeding he said they desired to put no disabilities on them, for their language was useful to the country; but he was perfectly certain that there was not a single Dutch parent in this country who did not realise to the fullest extent the benefits to be derived from his children learning English. (Hear, hear.) He knew in the Cape Colony, where there had been a good deal of trouble, a person of Dutch extraction who had a great deal to do with School Board management, and said he must have Dutch for this and that; but his own child was being educated in an English school in an English centre. That was the answer to his hon. friend, who was, very likely, having his own children educated in another place where English was taught. Every child should have Dutch taught to him, and the English parent who did not have his child taught Dutch was very foolish, for they would find it was a disability not to have learnt it. A great many members sitting on his side of the House, in which Dutch was spoken very much, regretted very sincerely that they were not able to follow the debate fully. But he had put the point which he wanted to make: “To the parents be left the decision,” and if the parent wanted his children taught in the Dutch language through the medium of Dutch, and only Dutch, he would regret it; but would leave it to the parents. (Hear, hear.) That was one of the grievances in the Free State Act—that it left the parents no choice. It was upon that that they (the Opposition) based their case. The Education Act in the Orange Free State had led the hon. member (the Minister for Justice) to make a statement which he (Colonel Crewe) was sure he must regret. It only showed the damage done to education, when, in his own Parliament, he found it necessary to say in 1910 that if the English children refused to learn Dutch they might stop up their ears with wadding or mud. Was that a statement to be made by a responsible Minister, when he turned round in his own House, and set an example for extreme language and extreme temper, which he (Colonel Crewe) hoped would not be followed in this House? What was the state of affairs arising out of the Acts of 1908 and 1910? He would put all details on one side, for he was not going to attempt to take the House into detailed cases. He could only say that in the Orange Free State there was very serious trouble indeed, and no hon. member on the Government side of the House could deny it. There was very serious trouble. They might close their eyes to it—

Caused by whom?

By you, by the hon. gentleman, the Minister for Justice, because he would not listen to the warnings that came, as they in the Cape listened. In 1905 we had to have a compromise, and in 1908 we had to have a compromise. It was only compromises that kept us from, dropping. His hon. friend had a huge majority behind him, and forced his Acts down their throats, despite the warnings he (Colonel Crewe) had read. There was immense dissatisfaction, and although possibly that was exaggerated in some cases, still, brushing that aside, it must be admitted that parents would not, without good reason, pay school taxes, and at the same time send their children to separate schools here to be educated at greater cost. That had been done sometimes by Dutch and sometimes by English, but never without reason, for parents did not make sacrifices of that kind unless there was some very serious ground. The chief object of the motion he had put before the House was to find a solution of the difficulty, and to obtain some expression of opinion on the matter, which might be of use in guiding the Provincial Council in the O.F.S., when it met, in whatever course it might decide to take in regard to educational legislation. That brought him to the question of the responsibility of Parliament and the responsibility of that House. He was perfectly certain in his own mind that the Act of Union fixed the responsibility as far as possible upon the central and sovereign Parliament. Without having been a member of the Convention, and without, therefore, knowing the secrets of that body, there was quite sufficient in the Act itself to make good this ease. First of all, section 59 said: “Parliament shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Union.” Was there good government in the Free State? (An HON. MEMBER: “Yes.”) Good for those people who had a majority, but not for those in the minority, It all depended from which side they looked at it. If they were prepared to say that good government was that which satisfied the majority, that doctrine would hit hon. members opposite some day very seriously, because they would not sit on the Government benches for ever. Clause 85 of the Act of Union stated that subject to its provisions, Provincial Councils might make Ordinances in relation, among other things, to education other than higher education for a period of five years. Clause 86 laid it down that any Ordinance made by a Provincial Council should have effect so far as it was not repugnant to an Act of Parliament. He maintained that the Free State Education Act was repugnant to the Act under which that Parliament existed, and to the Constitution or Grondwet, of the country. He now came to the Act of 1908, which was passed prior to the sitting of the Convention. It contained principles of compulsion—of that there could be no shadow of doubt, although there were exemptions here and there. But exemptions were not principles, and the principle was compulsion. Then there was the Teacher’s Act, which was passed by the Free State in March, 1910. That that was an infringement of the Act of Union he (thought none could have any doubt. Section 157 of the Act of Union laid it down that both English and Dutch should be the official languages of the Union, and should be treated on a footing of equality—(his hon. friend went on equality of compulsion)—and should possess and enjoy equal freedom, rights, and privileges. Clause 135 stated that subject to the provisions of the Act, all the laws in force in the several colonies at the establishment of Union should continue in force until repealed or amended by Parliament. He questioned whether the Free State Act of 1910 had the force of law, because it was subject to the provisions of the Act of Union. The Free State Classification of Teachers Act was passed in 1910 in a dying Parliament. Since May 31—the date of the coming into force of the Act of Union —there had been only one body which had any power at all, and that was the Governor-General-in-Council, until the meeting of Parliament. As the Provincial Councils were not in session, that Parliament was the only place where the matter could be discussed, because he did not suppose that hon. members opposite were going to suggest that the Opposition should go to the Law Courts over the matter. If it were desired to find a precedent for Parliament giving its opinion on a question of law, if the hon. gentleman (General Hertzog) would look up the “Hansard” of the old Cape Parliament, he would find that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) came to that House for an opinion as to what the law was and meant. So long as the Governor-General was responsible to the House, and there was no Provincial Council, they had a right to bring this matter to the House. And they came because they said that if these Acts were in violation with the Constitution of the country, and there was only one place to which they could come, and that was the House. Now, he wanted to deal with his hon. friend the Minister of Railways. He (the Minister for Railways) was good enough to say, in the course of the campaign, that this was only an election cry. The Minister for Railways, during the course of the election, said that this was only an election cry and that nothing further would be heard of it after September 15th. For once the Minister for Railways was wrong. He had heard a great deal of it since that time, and he would hear a great deal more. He (the Minister) went on to say while, on this question that what was in the Free State would in time be voluntarily adopted throughout the Union. He said that the majority—that he looked upon it as possible, that the provisions of the Act in force in the Orange Free State might be extended over South Africa.

Voluntarily.

Voluntarily, yes. Like his moral suasion. It is his moral suasion which means his majority. Continuing, the hon. member said that he (the Minister of Railways) had it in his mind in the course of that speech of the possibility of the Education Act of the Free State—or, at any rate, the principles of that measure—being extended over the rest of South Africa, and that was one of the reasons why they were there debating that very question. They wished to see the Act stopped, and not extended, so that it might not do harm to any other part of the Union. What was the history of this affair? Plenty of warning was given before the election as to what would take place both before and after the election. The Minister of Railways must in the excessive zeal he displayed and the work he did in his department have lost sight of what was happening in the Free State—from 1907 in the Orange Free State. From 1907, through 1908, through 1909, and in 1910 there had been trouble in that (Province. He must have closed his eyes and his ears, as the objections began to be raised long before anything was done, because he (the hon. member) must deal with the whole of the trouble from the very start. It had caused all this disturbance, and gone on for something like three years. Surely he must have closed his ears to the appeals of the majority there. Surely they could not have paid attention to the warnings given by more than one member of the House when the (Bill was under discussion in 1910. That hon. member had said: “How were the English-speaking people going to take it? These people would take it in this way: they would say, ‘ Here is the top-dog policy again, and so long as we are the underneath dog we will bite as hard as we can.’ If that top-dog policy went on it would be carried into the Union Parliament, and instead of leading statesmen having the opportunity to construct, as they all wanted to construct, and as he felt even members On the Government side wanted to do, they would be discussing these Bills, and cries would go up from all over the country to the Union Parliament in order to have the existing state of things altered.” Then he wont on: “If that sort of thing was going to be the election battle-cry, good and well, let them know it: but he hoped that the Prime Minister would not go out in about a week’s time and talk about broadening the platform of the Unie.” What was the history of the affair? In 1905 there was an agreement. That agreement was signed by, amongst others, the Minister of Justice. In 1907, when the country was given Responsible Government, he did not adhere to his agreement of 1905, and he started on his career of bringing about—as he was eventually successful in doing—compulsion. In 1908 he introduced the School Act, when the objections of the minority were carefully put forward. But he over-rode the minority, and gave them very little relief—a little relief on some minor matters. If anybody wished to see vituperative language he had only to go over some of the speeches that were then made from the Government benches. In 1908 the country became excited by the dismissal of three inspectors, who had been transferred by the Government of the Crown Colony regime to the Responsible Government regime—transferred to the tender mercies of the Minister of Justice, and turned out on the flimsiest of charges without being given an opportunity of stating their case or defending themselves. That caused a disturbance. In spite of that he was not satisfied. The Crown Colony Government generously handed over those servants, and one would have thought that these servants would have been treated generously by the Government in office. But the acute stage of the trouble came in in 1910, in the Teachers’ Act. The Minister for Justice—who was then the Minister for Education in the Free State—was warned in careful tones in the House of the trouble that would be likely to ensue. What was the result? The retirement of an excellent servant—the then Director of Education in the country— because he had said that the Acts were impossible and unworkable. And he believed that he was right in saying that the present Director of Education took the same view—that the Acts were unworkable. He believed that that was the view held by the present Director of Education. The Minister for Justice was perfectly right the other day when he said he had only dismissed one teacher, but there were other ways of getting rid of people than by dismissing them, and the hon. gentleman had succeeded in driving out of the Free State, without dismissing them, an extraordinary number of extremely good and competent teachers, many of whom had found employment under the more liberal methods of the Transvaal and of Natal, and some of whom had gone to Rhodesia, He (Colonel Crewe) had sent to him that morning a copy of a Free State paper, called “Het Schoolblad,” which was written in Dutch and English, and apparently had the support of a considerable number of Dutch teachers, as well as English. This paper spoke of the examination of teachers in these terms: “Our worst fears have been realised. … It has been reserved for the teaching profession of this Province to drain the cup of gall and bitterness to the (last drop.” There was an article which he commended to the Minister for Justice, because he should read it.

I have, thank you.

I am very glad you have, because it is one of the strongest condemnations I have seen vet.

Condemnation of what?

Of the hon. gentleman’s methods in getting rid of teachers in the Free State. He read an extract from the article in “Het Schoolblad,” in the following terms: “Had these men deliberately set themselves to outrage the feelings of the teachers, to spread dissatisfaction in their ranks, to render their work still more arduous and distasteful, to pour contempt on foreign Universities and the degrees conferred by them, to make teaching, even more than it is at present, the stop-gap profession, they could not have succeeded better than they have. Is it not the gravest possible aspersion upon the honour and integrity of the Education Department to be told that, out of the many hundreds of teachers in its employ, only about a score are worthy of being graded in the second class—the vast proportion unqualified, incompetent, not even worthy of receiving a third-class professional certificate?” Proceeding, Col. Crewe said he knew of a case in which the teacher concerned had been vice-principal of a very excellent school in the Free State for eight years. Eighteen months ago she was appointed principal of her school. She had very high qualifications, and she had had something like ten years’ teaching experience. Well, she had got a second grade certificate. The Minister for Justice laughed. Well, he (Colonel Crewe) was aware that the hon. gentleman looked upon the whole thing as a means to an end. He had not considered, as he should have done, the educational qualifications of teachers. That, too, was one of the few troubles in the Transvaal, for they found that the Transvaal Administrator had taken on a number of teachers who had less qualification than was usually required. The Minister for Justice must remember that the Government, with these powers, could easily send individuals adrift if those individuals felt that promotion could not come to them. The trouble in the Free State was very largely due to the precipitateness with which the Minister for Justice had forced this Act upon the Free State, when it was not ready to receive such a drastic change. It was not only the English teachers who complained. The effect of the hon. gentleman’s administration had been to cause trouble throughout the ranks of the teaching profession, both Dutch and English. The result had been that separate schools had been started, schools in which, he was thankful to say, the people who had established them had not insisted on the teaching of one language only. What had caused these separate schools to be started? The Prime Minister, speaking in Johannesburg on July 13, said: “I see a great movement today in the direction of establishing private schools. Now, I can only, as a friend, warn you not to do so.” At this there were cries of “Why?” and ironical laughter. “Rather,” the Prime Minister continued, “than that we start a movement to Separate ourselves from each other, let, us co-operate together, and try to get an Education Act in South Africa acceptable to both races. Private schools can only lead to disunion, and to a spirit of hatred.” That speech was made on the 13th of July, and here they were on the 24th of November in no better position. He (Colonel Crewe) said the time had conic to translate sentiments of that kind into deeds, which would put a stop to this dangerous policy. In the course of the same speech the Prime Minister said: “This Province need not trouble about an Act in any other Province.” Surely the spirit of the Convention was forgotten then. If there was this excitement in the Free State, it must spread over the whole of the country, and it was for that reason that they on that side of the House hoped that the Prime Minister would translate his admirable sentiments into deeds and acts, and would endeavour to assist somehow in putting an end to a position of affairs which was becoming intolerable. They had had speeches from certain Ministers, but they had had no signs of repentance from the Minister for Justice. Certainly his election speeches and those he delivered following the election showed he was determined to carry out his Act if he could, and if he believed in his system, he (Colonel Crewe) knew the (Minister of Justice to be sufficiently honest to endeavour to carry what he believed to be good for one part of the country over the whole. It was for that, reason that they did not trust the whole of the Government. They might have faith in one section, but, unfortunately there were two sections on this matter. (He asked that the Prime Minister should control his Government; he asked that the Prime Minister should carry out his own stated words and his own stated (policy. And what was the (Prime Minister’s policy? It was perfectly definite and perfectly clear. Speaking at Johannesburg in that very large hall to an audience which received him well, he said: “Now, gentlemen, there are three points in the education policy which I want to lay before you to-night as being the expression of may Government. It has been said in the papers that my Government ought to speak out upon this education question. Now gentlemen, the policy—not only my policy but my Cabinet’s policy—is as (follows: (1) (Equal opportunities of language; (2) medium in the mother tongue, even if it costs the State a little more money; (3) no compulsion.” (Cheers.) continuing, the lion, member said it was remarkable with what unanimity the House received those statements, and those statements being received with much unanimity, he took to be a proof that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and his friends who sat behind him were going to vote for the resolution before the House. He claimed the support of the Prime Minister in a policy with which they all agreed, though the question of details required a little attention land a little working out. At the same meeting to which he had referred, the Prime Minister went on to say: “When I first made this statement in Standerton, certain papers criticised it. In the first instance, they said: ‘This is acceptable, but still, General Botha, it is not enough. General Botha must give us something more.’ The paper is said: ‘General Botha must pledge himself at once to repeal the Orange River Colony Education Act.’ That was the first demand. The second demand was that I must promise a Uni-on Act to be passed to make the Act of the Orange River Colony illegal.” That (continued Colonel Crewe) was not what they asked. What they asked was that the Prime Minister should translate his words into deeds, and that he should carry out his avowed principle of equal opportunities in both languages education through the medium of the another tongue, and no compulsion. And that policy must be Carried out in a proper spirit, and not in the spirit which had actuated the Minister for Justice. It was an extension of the trouble that had arisen in the Free State that was feared, and therefore they came to the House to get, if they could, some reasonable assurance from the Government that the policy enunciated in Johannesburg by the Prime Minister would be faithfully carried out. Everybody desired the maintenance of the principles of equality laid down in the South Africa Act and the avoidance of all causes of estrangement between the two races. There was one serious cause of estrangement in the Free State, and he earnestly asked the Prime Minister to remove that. He (Colonel Crewe) believed that if the Minister for Justice went to the Free State and told the members of the Provincial Council that he said this Act was causing trouble amongst the minority of the people, and that he wished to change it his advice would be taken and acted upon, and a change would be made. They all knew perfectly well that the Minister for Justice was a sincere man, and they also believed him to be an honest man, but on the question of education they could not do otherwise than consider him something of a fanatic. His (Colonel Crewe’s) motion did not cover the question whether education should be in the hands of the Provincial Council, it simply asked for an expression of opinion on the part of this House, which could be given to the Provincial Council of the Free State. The trouble he had found all the way through was that the hon. gentleman would not trust the parents in the Free State on the question of education; he would not trust his own people. On August 14, 1908, the hon. gentleman said: “Once granted that it was for the benefit of the child that he should toe instructed through the medium of his mother tongue, then the question was. ‘ What had the parent got to do with it?’” That was the root of the whole trouble. That was very nearly his own trouble at one time an connection with the School Board Act of the Cape Colony in 1905. He contended for the preservation of the control of the parent, and believed that in the preservation lay the solution of the difficulty. He held that the parent was the proper person to say what his child should be taught, and through what medium he should be taught, and he was prepared to throw the whole onus of decision on the parent. There bad recently been a conference of Directors of Education, which he took it was called by the Minister for Education, and the Minister for Education, addressing a deputation on the 21st said: “He felt he might say at once that the four Directors of Education of the four Provinces had recently met with the object of trying to arrive at some uniformity with regard to the Dutch language.” If it were right for the Ministers to call the directors together to discuss this matter, then the Government realised the responsibility which lay upon them, and therefore lay upon the House, to go into the question of language in connection with education. It was certainly a comment upon the statements which have been thrown about that this House was not the proper place in which to discuss education that the Minister of Education had called the Conference together to discuss education, and so possibly arrive at some uniformity with regard to the Dutch language. Well, they all welcomed such a Conference. The Directors of Education were the proper people to deal with the language in connection with education. No doubt they held different views, but if they had arrived at a solution of the question, he thought the House ought to be told what that solution was, because the Directors of Education were not infallible, and one would like to ask what was the result of that Conference. He hoped the Minister of Education would tell the House what the result was. So far Conferences—he was going back to the Free State—had not been very advantageous. There had been Conferences in the Free State, but they seemed scarcely to have fed the hungry, but to have sharpened the appetites of those who had already had sufficient. Let him say this again, that if there was anything arising out of the Conference that the House could be told, if there was any solution possible, let them know about it, because they were anxious to assist them. He was perfectly certain that unless some general solution could be found that would put right the state of affairs in the Free State, the trouble was going to spread further. They had only to take the report of the Director of Education of the Transvaal, who quoted the Minister of the Interior, and who said: “‘ The educational progress and development ’ of the pupils—to quote the precise words—is to be the touchstone in medium questions, and as regards the study of the two languages, the Colonial Secretary in his speech to the Conference was able to point to the fact that the number of those pupils who are not learning both Dutch and English is a negligible quantity.” What he had seen from reading carefully through this report of the Transvaal was that, where there was no compulsion with regard to the Dutch, there was a very general desire on the part of the English-speaking people to learn Dutch, and on the Rand, roughly, 90 per cent. of the children were learning Dutch. That was the result of the principle of toleration. “It is especially encouraging,” said the Director, “to read in the report of a Dutch inspector: ‘The example of Johannesburg cannot fail to have a favourable effect on the teaching of Dutch throughout the colony.’ A second Dutch inspector says that on the West Rand the interest of the non-Dutch-speaking portion of the population has surpassed his expectations, and that about 98 per cent. of the pupils in these schools receive instruction in Dutch.” Well, sir, that was one of the strongest arguments that could be adduced to show that there was no hostility on the part of the English-speaking people to learn Dutch. But, sir, that was without compulsion. That was the whole point. Where they had given toleration they had got everybody practically learning Dutch, but where they had intolerance they had the people standing up and declaring that they would not be dragooned. But that was not the point he wanted to make now; he wanted to make the point that bilingualism, even in the Transvaal, had had a very considerable effect upon the class of teachers taken on during recent years. The Director’s report said that 431 teachers were recruited during the six months ended June 30, 1909. He said: “Take the standard of general education first. Fifty per cent. are below a matriculation standard. In other words, 50 per cent. have not completed a school education before beginning the responsible work of teaching. Moreover, nearly half of this 50 per cent., i.e., nearly 25 per cent, of the whole number, are below the Transvaal school certificate standard; that is to say, they can only be regarded as makeshifts.” One did not want to condemn the policy of the Transvaal, but one wanted to see that bilingualism did not—it must not—be allowed to damage the education of the children, and it is because of the difficulties of the case that he thought that they were not wasting their time in discussing the whole education position. Now, sir, in Natal, toleration and every encouragement is given to the teaching of the Dutch language. There was no sign of hostility to the Dutch language. In the Cape they had absolute peace, though they had troubles in 1905 and 1908. But there was no serious difficulty. What was the position in 1905 and 1908? They introduced a School Board Act, to which hon. members opposite took considerable objection, but which they were able to settle by a Conference, which recommended certain things, to which both sides of the House agreed. In 1908 there was an amendment, an attempt to introduce the language clauses, which were very unsatisfactory to a certain portion of the House. This time a Select Committee of equal numbers from both sides of the House arrived at a solution.

interrupted with a remark, which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

You agreed. I am afraid you would agree to nothing else but equal rights. Wait a minute. Here was the report (he proceeded). He found there was no minority report attached to it. The report was signed by the chairman, and therefore the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) agreed with it. If the hon. member had forgotten, he should look up the report of the Select Committee on Education in 1908. He was glad to see he had got it, and therefore he had willingly forgotten it. (Opposition cheers.) They had had differences of opinion, of course they had had differences of opinion. They had come out with a unanimous report, because they recognised what the result would be if they had not come out with a unanimous report. They had troubles in 1905 and 1908 on that very question, and they would probably have them again in South Africa in different degrees and cases; but in the old Cape Parliament they had recognised that where the two races existed, remained, or would remain, it was possible, and they had found it possible, to find a solution. Neither side got what it wanted, but they had arrived at a solution, and their education in the Cape Province had certainly done marvellously well. Proceeding, he said that he was not speaking without some slight knowledge of education in the Free State, and he had gone there to look at the existing condition of affairs. He went to see two schools, one of which, he was told, was a fair sample of what was going on in Bloemfontein. He had gone to see what was transpiring in that particular school, and be found that there was a bilingual medium, and that the result of that was that in a science lesson given by the teacher to the children—practically all the children understanding Dutch and English, the one exception not understanding Dutch—40 minutes were devoted to teaching it in the one language, and 20 minutes in repeating it in the other language. That existed right through the school. One-third of the time was lost in instruction, as a result of the bilingual medium. He had asked the principal, who he would like to point out was now a member of the Board of Examiners, what advantage he saw in instructing the children in two languages? He replied that if one taught a child in one language, the child is apt to repeat like a parrot, but if it were taught by means of the two languages, the child would understand the lesson better. He (Colonel Crewe) then said: “Would you not do even better with three languages?” The principal replied, “Yes.” Well, one might as well go to four languages, and so on, and there would be no end. He saw that the Hon. Minister of Justice had, in his argument, fallen into the same trap. He now came to the question of compulsion: and he asked: “Is there, or is there not, compulsion in the School Act and under Act 13 of 1910?” The hon. member proceeded to quote from the Act, of 1910, which clearly showed, he said, that there was compulsion. In section 21 of the Act of 1910, which dealt with the nature of the normal course, it was laid down that Dutch should be included. Clearly that was compulsion. Section 62 of the Act, laid down: “All examinations in English and Dutch as languages shall be conducted exclusively in the language which is the subject of examination. In all other subjects the questions of each paper shall be set in both English and Dutch, and the candidates shall have the right to answer such paper either for the one-half of the questions in English and the other half in Dutch, or exclusively in the one or other of the said languages, provided that in the latter case such candidate shall by supplementary examination, to be determined by the Council of Examiners, prove to the satisfaction of the Council that he is competent to give through the medium of tile other language the necessary instruction in the subject of every paper answered exclusively in the one language.” Section 71 stated: “In the case of any teacher appointed. … and who, but for failure to comply with the requirements of this Act as to the necessary knowledge of either Dutch or English, would have been entitled to a professional teacher’s certificate, under this Act, such teacher shall be allowed to pass a supplementary examination which shall be both oral and written, in such language, and such teacher upon passing such examination shall be entitled to be classed according to the class to which he would, but for such want of knowledge, in the opinion of the Council of Examiners, have been entitled. The hon. member added that he thought he had read enough of the clause to show anybody that there was compulsion. In the Act of 1905 there were again these bewildering clauses that ended up with these provisos and exceptions. There was no doubt that under the Act of 1908 there was compulsion, both as regards medium and as regards language. The former Director of Education in the Orange Free State (Mr. Gunn) summed it up thus: “That from the clauses and circulars it, was necessary for a child to learn both languages, except through ill-health or temporary residence in the country.” It was only that morning that, in the “Cape Times,” appeared a portion of a very interesting letter. It was a warning to any bilingual country to avoid as far as possible allowing the language question to damage the education question. That warning was not that of a man who was hostile to the French-Canadians. There was another question there bound up with it, and that was a religious struggle. A certain religious body had endeavoured to keep education from the children to a certain extent. It was the statement of a man who, at any rate, was a strong advocate of the French-Canadians. He was not in absolute opposition to any of his own people, but he put very firmly and squarely the condition of affairs in his country, and he drew attention to the very trouble which they were likely to have in this country if they considered only the language question. It was an extraordinary statement of a condition of affairs which he had seen with his own eyes. The whole question was not a contest between the English-speaking and the French-speaking people. But he would go no further. A statement that he wished the House to notice was that made by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), on August 20th of this year. Speaking at Victoria West, he said: “I am not going to say whether the Orange Free State Education Act is right or wrong, because I have not studied it sufficiently.” Well, he (Colonel Crewe) hoped that the right hon. gentleman, who had long been a very prominent figure in the country, had since studied the conditions of the Education Act. He went on to say in that speech: “I am not certain that all the people who have criticised it have understood it.” Well, he did not know this— that the people who criticised it most seriously were the people of the Orange Free State, who had suffered from it most. Mr. Merriman further said: “It is quite sufficient for them-to shout about Hertzogism and try to create racial and party feeling.” He (Colonel Crewe) hoped he had not fallen into that error, because he did not desire to have the question of education considered from any other standpoint than that of the benefit of both the peoples in the country. What did his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) go on to say? He said: “I am perfectly sure it has been taken up by General Hertzog after careful study, and he would be the last man in the world to force on any particular section of the people any scheme of his own which he did not consider fair to them.” Well, that was a tribute to one who had studied the question. He then said: “If you take a strong and firm man, who has done something which you think is wrong—and it may be wrong—and you want to get him to alter it, would you kick his shins or pull his nose? No, you would argue with him, and wait until a full and free discussion could be had, and then if there was anything wrong with it, then would be the time to alter it.” Well, they had taken the advice of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). They had come there for full and free discussion, in the hope that they might, get it altered. They had not come there with their hats in their hands, for they had come with what they considered the inalienable right that every child should have the right to be instructed in the tongue chosen by the parent. Their experience was that the parent was the person best capable of judging. It was of no use quibbling over details in the slightest. He had endeavoured to leave them out. It was of no use to say if they had this exemption, or that, everything would be all right. The point was that there was great trouble, and they had come to the House to say to the Prime Minister that he made a statement which enunciated his policy of equality of opportunity, no compulsion and distinction in the mother tongue. If that policy was carried out, as he enunciated it, and in the spirit of the Act of Union, he would have the support of both sides of the House. If he carried out his promise of no compulsion, they would be satisfied. That speech was made on July 13th. He (Colonel Crewe) knew of nothing he had done to that until the other day, when this question was pending, he summoned a Conference of the Directors of Education. That was a considerable period since the speech had been made, and he wanted to know now not only that he had a policy, but if he proposed to carry out that policy so that it would be fair to both languages and both nations. (Cheers.)

said he had to confess that he rather sympathised with the hon. member (Colonel Crewe), who commenced his speech very apologetically, and had found himself in a very great dilemma, and wanted them to Say whether he should go on with the motion or not. (Government laughter.) It seemed that he found that during the elections others made very strong statements, and came to the House now, and had adopted very different tones. He had to say his hon. friend (Colonel Crewe) kept on to his satisfaction right through his speech, and his only criticism was that it came a bit late in the day. If that tone had been adopted at the time of the General Election, there would have been something in it, but now be came and practically told the House that if he had not been twitted by the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sauer) that after September 15 nothing more would have been heard, he would not have troubled the House. Well, he (Mr. Malian) rose for the purpose of attempting to raise the debate a little higher than of mere election, or aftermath of the election, and if there was one point in connection with that matter and discussion of it in the past that he hoped would not be repeated, it was that they had bad too much agitation and too little education in it. Today he heard for the first time from the mover that the children had to be considered, and that the matter must be looked at from an educational point of view. During the elections that was a note that was never sounded. (Opposition dissent and Ministerial cheers.) If that note was continued during that debate, he felt confident that it would have an educative effect on the public generally, and would serve a good purpose. This was a question which very easily could lead to bitterness and to Strong views being expressed, for it touched very closely on the racial question, which had led to great difficulties in the past. He thought the example set by the mover in the moderation which he had shown should be followed by other speakers, and he hoped that he (Mr. Malan) would maintain that tone. (Cheers.) He regretted that the motion had been introduced. He regretted it from the Constitutional point of view. He fully admitted that from the Constitutional point of view the motion was in order, and if that were not so he felt confident that Mr. Speaker would have ruled it out of order. The Act of Union gave the House the right to discuss matters of that kind, but he would point out that Article 85, sub-section 3, with regard to education, was arrived at only after a considerable amount of discussion and difficulty, and probably we would not have had Union in the form in which we had it to-day if that had not been agreed to. If that were the understanding at the time if that were the basis on which men were led to vote and to give their assent to this document, then it was a matter of serious consideration before they lightly tampered with it, on a matter of pin-pricks small matters violated that understanding. If it were a matter of vital importance, then he said, “Certainly, the interests of the Union as a whole should Prevail.” But that was an instrument that must be used with caution and discretion. Another reason why he regretted that the motion had been introduced was thos—that at the beginning of Union, when we were only just starting the machinery, if they interfered with the Provinces, the day might come when the Provinces—especially the smaller ones—might feel that a right which was given under the Constitution was being interfered with. (Ministerial Cheers.) They had had the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) and other hon. members declaring against centralisation and the taking a Way of powers from the Provinces. What did they find them doing now? Laying down the broad principle that the Provinces had absolutely no rights. (Opposition dissent and Ministerial cheers.) There was another reason why he thought it would have been wiser not to have introduced the motion—that was that the questions of language and race were so intimately connected. The right hon. member for Albany (Dr. Jameson), shortly after the result of the Convention was published, made a speech in which he said that before the Convention sat he did not understand what the language question meant, but that after listening to ex-Presidents Reitz and Steyn, he saw the intimate connection (between language and race, and when his eyes were opened to that fact the right hon. gentleman said, “It is time for me to reconsider my views.” And he did. He (Mr. Malan) quoted that as a case in point—as an acknowledgment that when you deal with the question of language you are also dealing with a large question— with the question of race. Under the South Africa Act there were two principles dealing with equality of race. One was “one vote, one value,” and the other “equal opportunity for both languages.” (Cheers.)

And compulsion for none.

I am coming to that question by and bye. The language clause, proceeded the hon. member, was much more than a sentiment to them. He thought he heard the echo of a speech by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick), in which he quibbled and tried to explain away the meaning of that clause. If that were the spirit in which they were going to approach a question of that kind, he (Mr. Malan) did not know what language meant. The documents of the National Convention would soon be published, and it would then be found that what was now article 137 of the Act was settled in the first week, and it was perfectly understood that if no settlement had been come to on that clause, there would have been no Union. (Ministerial cheers.) For any member lightly to deal with it—(Ministerial cheers)—seemed to him to be taking a very grave responsibility. Let them honestly accept article 137 as it stood. The principles were laid down at the National Convention once and for all. He hoped that they were doing what practical men had to do under the same circumstances, and apply the principles of article 137. And they surely need not get heated about that. It was really a matter of seeing what was practicable. He was pleased when he saw the hon. member the mover of the motion try for once, at the start of his speech, to bring it down to a practical level. But he forgot about it later on. He started and read letters and speeches and election speeches, and all that sort of thing. His own resolution showed no way-out. They were excellent speeches, he must say—(laughter)—but did they lead anywhere now? (Laughter) And they could not have led anywhere at the time, because there was no Provincial Council to deal with the question.

There is one now.

I am coming to that. Well, article 137 laid down equality for “both,” not “either.” A good many people mead it “either.” (Hear, ear, and Government laughter.) During the election it was read one way, but when it came to interpretation it was read in another. He did not know if this was an aftermath of the General Election; at any rate, it read that both the English and Dutch languages should be the official languages in the Union, should be on a footing of equality, and should enjoy equal rights and privileges. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear those “hear, hears” from the other side. Very well, they had accented the principle, and now they had to go further and see that these principles were applied to the Union. (Hear, hear.) He said that the resolution of the hon. member for East London threw stones at the Orange Free State Acts, and nothing more. (Hear, hear.) He did not suggest any way out. He did not say where this inequality was.

The Government.

No; the policy of the Government has been laid down by the Hon. the Prime Minister. Continuing, he said that one big point made by the hon. member was that regarding the views of the parents. He (the speaker) was also for the rights of the parents. But he did not think it would be wise for the ignorant parents of children to decide upon the syllabus for the B.A. Examination. Nor would it be wise to go to the parents of the children in regard to the qualifications of higher-grade teachers. (Hear, hear.)

Or any grade of teachers.

Or of any grade. (Hear, hear.) Is that what the hon. member was feeling? (Ministerial laughter.) Continuing, he said that apparently the language clause was too strong for the hon. member in the clear atmosphere of the House, so he directed himself more particularly to the Teachers’ Act of 1910. Never mind about the Act of 1910. That was not the finish of it by any means. The speaker went on to say that under the Act a Commission was appointed, and he furnished the House with the names of those who constituted the Commission. They had made an inquiry to the best of their ability, and they had furnished the Government with a report. He did not know whether the report had anything to do with that discussion; but in the papers he had seen a great deal about this matter and this report, and the people on the press at Johannesburg had been writing themselves blue in the face about the matter. (Laughter.) But there was another clause in that same Act of the Free State—clause 112—which distinctly said that if a teacher felt aggrieved, he could appeal to the Director-General of Education, and in case the Director-General of Education disagreed with the finding of the Commission, the final say was left with the Governor. So that the matter was really at an intermediate stage, and the hon. member should have exhausted all the possible remedies before coming to that House. Before they came to that House, they must not only exhaust all legal but all ordinary remedies provided in the Act of Parliament itself. He had no doubt that before long this matter would be properly settled, and to the satisfaction of all. In July the Hon. the Prime Minister laid down the policy of the Government, and laid down the three principles, so far as medium of instruction, equality of opportunity to learn both languages, and no compulsion, was concerned. That was before Parliament, and they could not possibly deal with the matter then. They had to wait till such an opportunity presented itself. What had the Government done in the meantime to give effect to its policy? On October 15 he the speaker) addressed a letter to the Administrator of the Orange Free State asking him to give an explanation, an authoritative explanation, as to the working of the Education Act in that Province. He got what he wanted through the Administrator. Well, he was not going to trouble the House by reading the full report of the Director of Education of the Free State, but he would read a part of it and he might say that the report and the correspondence had been printed, and would be laid on the table of the House. In chapter 3 of his report, under the head, “Exemption from language and medium,” the Orange Free State Director of Education said: “With reference to the question of exemptions, it should be noted that these are of two distinct kinds: (a) Exemption from either language as a language; (b) exemption from either language as a medium. Exemption from the second language as such can be obtained if application to the effect is made in writing by a parent to the Director of Education. As to exemption from either language as medium, the law expressly provides that, up to and including Standard IV., every child shall be instructed solely through the language best known by such child. The second language may up to this stage, only be used, if no exception is taken by the parent to its gradual introduction as an auxiliary medium. Beyond Standard IV. any child may be granted exemption from the one or the other language as a medium at the request of the parent. It is perfectly dear, therefore, that all the School Act, as I read it, aims at is to equip the future citizens of the State for the business of life by: (a) Enabling every pupil to receive all his instruction practically from start to finish, through the medium of the home language; and (b) by extending to all pupils alike equal facilities for acquiring as much knowledge of the second language as will be found essential under the new conditions. South Africa is a bilingual country; English and Dutch are official languages. These two languages must, therefore, in the Government schools at least, enjoy absolute equality of treatment, both as subjects and as mediums of instruction. According to the department’s interpretation of the Act, there is: (a) Full recognition of South Africa as a bilingual country; (b) absolute equality of treatment of English and Dutch as languages and as mediums of instruction (o) perfect equality of opportunity of the two languages, without individual compulsion; and (d) instruction through the medium of the language best known by the pupil.” Continuing, Mr. Malan said that if the Free State Act infringed any of the principles laid down by the Prime Minister, he was against it so far, He had also got reports from Natal and the Transvaal; but, owing to the changing of offices by the Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape, he had not yet received a report from that official. The first object in obtaining these reports was to find out what was actually the case in the different Provinces. The second point was to ascertain in how far the actual practices in these Provinces were uniform with the principle laid down in Article 137. and the following step was to find out if they were not in accordance with the terms of the Article, or if they were not uniform, how they could be altered and improvised upon. But that was not what the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) wanted; he only wanted to throw stones at the Free State. He did not know whether the hon. member was a great expert in educational matters, as regarded the curriculum and syllabuses, and so on. At all events, the Government had thought it better to get the advice of their educational experts, and he had therefore addressed a letter to the several Administrators.

When?

On November 2, long before notice was given of this motion.

When you heard it coming on.

If I had listened to the election threats of the hon. member and his colleagues, of course, I could have seen it long ago. Proceeding, Mr. Malan said he had asked that the Directors of Education of the several Provinces should proceed to Cape Town to discuss the application of Article 137 to the different educational systems, not with a view to dictating to the Provinces, but with a view to getting a solution, if possible, of what they must all recognise as not a very easy matter. The Superintendents-General of Education met on November 15, and two days later he got their report. The Administrator of Natal declined to allow the Director of Education of that Province to sign any report or to make any report, excepting to him (the Administrator of Natal), while agreeing to allow him to take part in the Conference. The position the Administrator of Natal took up was that Article 85 gave him certain rights, and he insisted upon them. And he (the Administrator) was a member of the National Convention. So that he (Mr. Malan) was not prepared on this point to quarrel with the Administrator of Natal. Now, he would not read the whole of the reports to the House, but he would read the recommendations. First of all, the Directors of the Transvaal and of the Free State were in absolute agreement; they brought forward the same recommendations. As regarded the Superintendent-General of the Cape, he regretted to say that that official’s recommendations wore, to his mind, useless, because that official commenced his recommendations by saying that, “apart from the wording of Article 137,” whereas the very object of the discussion was how to apply Article 137. He would now read to the House the recommendations made by the Superintendent-General of Education for the Cape of Good Hope, and of the Directors of Education of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State with regard to the teaching of the English and Dutch languages and their use as media of instruction, recommendations which arose out of the recent Conference of the heads of the Education Departments of the Union. The Superintendent-General of the Cape said: “(1) Apart from the wording of Article 137 of the Act of Union it is desirable that all pupils should have equal opportunities of learning and using both Dutch and English, but no pupil should be compelled to learn and use both if the parent or guardian objects in writing (2) In the Cape Province, compliance with the desire here indicated should wherever possible be made at once by School Boards and the Education Department. (3) As, however, the providing of equal opportunities everywhere is a matter requiring considerable preliminary planning and time for the planning to take effect, no sudden general demand should be made; the attempt to do so would not end in success, and might arouse trouble and racial strife.” The following were the recommendations of the Directors of Education of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State: “No solution of the language difficulty will be permanent and satisfactory unless due account is taken of the following fundamental principles and general truths: (1) The principle of equality between the English and Dutch languages as laid down in section 137 of the South Africa Act, and interpreted so far as its educational implication is concerned to mean equality of opportunity as between English and Dutch, regarded both as subjects and as media of instruction. (2) The general desire of parents that their children should learn both languages well. (3) The principle that there should be neither direct nor indirect compulsion of any individual pupil in respect either of language or of medium, (4) The principle that instruction should, as far as possible, be given through the medium of the language best spoken and understood by the pupil. The first five of the following recommendations will, in our opinion, indicate how these principles may be put into practice. The sixth is, in our opinion, an essential if the principle of compulsion is not to be operative in respect of the teaching staff; (A) Medium.—(1) In order to ensure that there is no hindrance to educational progress and development, the Language best spoken and understood by the pupil shad be the medium of instruction as far as is practicable, and this language shall continue to be the medium of instruction unless the choice indicated in the next succeeding resolution is exercised. (2) The second language, either English or Dutch, as the case may be, may on the recommendation of the responsible local educational authority and with the approval of the Education Department, be gradually introduced as an additional medium of instruction, provided that this is in accordance with the wishes of the parents concerned. (3) The standard at which the second medium is to be introduced and the subjects to be taught through this medium in the various standards or classes shall be fixed by departmental or statutory regulations, on condition that provision is made in such regulations for ascertaining, and as far as possible complying, with the wishes of the parents concerned. (4) If in the administration of the provisions proposed in resolution (1) or resolution (2) it is found that there is a group of pupils which as regards either the first or the second medium or both requires different treatment from the rest of the pupils the needs of such a group shall as far as is practicable be met. (B) Language.—(5) Adequate provision for the teaching of English and Dutch shall be made in every public school, and each pupil shall be taught both languages, provided, that any pupil shall be exempted from instruction in either language if the parent expresses in writing a wish to this effect. (C) Teachers.—(6) No English-speaking teacher shall be penalised on account of a lack of knowledge of Dutch, and no Dutch-speaking teacher shall be penalised on account of a lack of knowledge of English, provided he is fulfilling satisfactorily the duties for which he was appointed.” Proceeding, the hon. gentleman said it was the duty of the House carefully to consider these recommendations and to find out in a calm, collected, and common-sense manner a way out of what certainly was a difficulty. He hoped that matter would be settled once for all, and that was why he hoped there would be no quibbling about the wording of Article 137. He trusted that would be left as settled at the National Convention, and that they would try now and find a practical solution of the difficulty that had arisen. If they approached the subject in that spirit he had not the slightest doubt that the commonsense of the House would prevail, and that the House would take a broad, national view as against a provincial view of the question. If the House adopted that attitude it would afford a solution which would not rob the present generation of the advantages of Union, nor pass over to their children the prejudices of their parents, and they would then succeed in realising the true ideal of the Union of South Africa. (Loud cheers.)

said he was sorry hon. members had not had an opportunity of reading the reports of the Directors of Education, which bad been referred to by, the Hon. the Minister for Education, because it was rather difficult to follow all the recommendations which had been read out.

said he forgot for the moment that members had not had copies of the reports, and he would beg leave to now lay the paper on the table.

Thank you; that will help those who have to speak on the subject to-morrow. (Laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said he wished the Hon. the Minister for Education had answered his direct question: “ Do you approve of the Free State Act?” It was quite true that it was a difficult subject that was before the House. It was quite true that language and race were mixed up. It was perfectly true, as everyone knew, that although it could not be said they were sitting exactly on a powder magazine, yet there was plenty of powder lying round, and the man who threw matches about and lit that powder would find that it would injure him. But he thought they could get through their difficulties by following the little piece of advice which was given to them at the opening of Parliament by the Prime Minister of Australia, when he said, “Talk it all out in Parliament.” And he (Sir Percy) thought they could talk it out perfectly straightly, leaving nothing out, and at the same time not giving offence. They wanted peace, but a very eminent bishop once said, “I am for peace—peace at any price, even at the price of war.” (Laughter.) Now he hoped they were not going to have difficulties as to the price of peace, but he thought they could speak out. This was the first opportunity they had had of discussing the matter face to face with the Minister of Justice, and of being able to get an authoritative explanation. As to the operation of the Orange Free State Act, if there was one thing that had been perfectly dear to him all the way through, it was that there was compulsion both on the children and on the teachers. He did not think it was worth while to go into all details and rake up all the things that were called scandalous, but there was one main fact, and that was that the people a large section of the people of South Africa, were profoundly dissatisfied, and in a state of turmoil which did not synchronise with an election, but at a time when the whole of South Africa was inspired in making a national effort to bring about a mutual understanding. But, in spite of that example, this discontent arose, and surely there must be some solid ground for this disturbance in South Africa, It threatened to go further and reopen the old divisions. And to a great many people this was considered as what they had had to pay for Ministerial concord, because hon. members who formed the present Government had made no secret of their convictions. They had given credit to the sincerity, honesty, and patriotism of the Hon. the Minister of Justice (General Hertzog), but they had a difference, and the majority of the members of the Ministry had told their personal friends of their difference, and it interested him to look round the House when the motion was moved, and to find that he was able to count eighteen hon. gentlemen on the other side (Ministerial side) who had expressed the opinion that things would be better otherwise. Well, were they going to divide now simply because there was this division of politics? He thought something could be done. He knew that the motion introduced was awkward. It would oblige a great many hon. members to vote against the Government, perhaps to vote with it, but one way or the other it Would make it awkward in their relations to the Government or their constituents. But they had to face these awkwardnesses, and they had to give their honest opinions there. It could not go on as it was. There was discontent, and they had got to remedy it. They in the Transvaal were threatened with a very similar experience. Be appealed to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, as was perfectly well known, and they met and averted the danger, and if they had not got the best possible system in the world, it was infinitely better than they would have had if they had attempted to settle it on the lines of party. He wanted to go back to the point, which his hon. friend had described as a quibble. He wanted to refer to the omission of the definite article. It would be seen in that clause that the Dutch and English languages should be the official languages. Now, he put it to the Minister of Justice, when this question was discussed, he (the Minister) and the speaker discussed it, and the object then was to frame the clause so that there would be no compulsion. He (the speaker) used the word optional either, not compulsory both. When they were drafting this clause the definite article was in, and he put it to him (the Minister of Justice) that if they put in that the Dutch and English should be the official languages of the Union, might it not be read that it would be compulsory for an employee to know and use both languages. His (the Minister’s reply was, “It might. We had better leave it out.” By an error of a typist that was introduced into the Convention, and when it was noticed and read out, the Minister of Justice got up and said: “I wish to make a correction. You must remove the definite article, because it might be construed as meaning the compulsory use of both languages, whereas we meant the optional use of either.” Now that was no quibble; it was a very serious matter. During the Convention, members of that body would recollect the little illustration that was brought up of the railway porter in Natal. Supposing the languages were made compulsory, somebody might go to a siding and demand his waybill in Dutch, knowing that that man could not speak Dutch. Somebody might go up-country, up to the Free State, and do the same thing wnowing that a man could not speak English. Were they going to place individuals at the mercy of anyone who came along to put the whole force of the Convention and the Constitution against him, and make him lose his position? That was one of the illustrations to show that there should be no compulsion. That was the meaning of this provision in the Constitution about Civil Servants, that they should not suffer by the mere want of knowledge of either of the languages. The hon. gentleman who had just spoken had said—quite rightly—that if they had threatened to use the power of the Central Parliament to take away, belittle or whittle down the rights given to the Provinces, there would have been no Union. He agreed with the hon. member, but he would like to say that if that interpretation of compulsory both languages had been put forward in the Convention there would have been no earthly chance of agreement: they could never have got the signatures; they could never have been Union, and everyone who had been there knew it. As he had said before, he believed the Hon. the Minister of Justice to be absolutely sincere throughout, single minded, and patriotic. He believed, however, that the hon. gentleman had made a mistake for which there was now an opportunity of making a correction. It was a question of point of view. The hon. gentleman was representing a strong majority, and he was a man of very strong convictions, but liable to mistakes, which the hon. member thought arose from an assumption of infallibility, which had brought down many great institutions. The cap of infallibility did not fit any human being or institution. If the hon. member could place himself in the position of those who were in the minority and see what their point ’of view was, he would, the hon. member was understood to say, get a different point of view. They had had the same experience in the Transvaal, who had lived there for 25 years, and they knew how much grief and trouble had been caused by the attitude which was now being taken up by the hon. gentleman. The hon. member advocated generosity in regard to the minority. Continuing, he said that most of them who had children had them learning both languages. There was not the slightest desire on their part to hinder the teaching, the learning, or the use of Dutch. And if it were attempted to hinder it, it would not only be a most wicked thing, but one of the most futile things to attempt. Everyone knew that one could not stamp out the language of a people, and, by attempting to do so, one only made a martyr of it and promoted its use. He would quote some words of the late President Kruger, and there were many wise words he said. He had once said, “You can lead my people, but you cannot drive them.” Now that was as true of the other side. There was coercion in that principle (compulsory bilingualism), from which he thought it was possible they could get away. It is no good saying that there should be exemption. Why should there be exemption to give one a right? There ought to be that right there. He thought it would work better if that right were there. They said that a teacher need not know Dutch or English, provided he carried out the duties for which he was appointed. What were the duties? Any teacher knew at the beginning of any term that he might be put in a bilingual school and have to teach both languages. Where would they get efficiency? The question of cost was a minor one in that matter, but it was no use talking about compulsion, because it would not work. They knew that a perfect bilingualist was a rare bird indeed. In that House there were a number of gentlemen who, from experience or opportunity, were equally proficient in both languages; but they were in the House, and were not earning £200 a year as teachers, and they would not do it as teachers. The hon. member went on to say that, behind it all, there was in the minds of a large number of people that it was not fair play which was wanted, and that the efficiency of education, had to be subordinated to the propagation of the language interest. That was the suspicion in the minds of many, and it was best for his hon. friends to hear it direct, rather than to read it in the papers. It could always be equality if they removed that compulsion, if they came down to the basis they took in the National Convention, and gave equality of opportunity —freedom in that sense—but no equality of compulsion. So far as efficiency was concerned, wherever they had the bilingual medium, they were giving their people change for 10s. instead of a sovereign. That was all they were getting out of it. He did not at all agree with the Minister for Justice that it was better for children to be taught through two languages, as they would learn better. They could not possibly learn under those circumstances. That, as an argument for educational efficiency, was absolutely impossible. The child must suffer. The people of South Africa would find that out. Even if they thought it was right; if they pursued that policy, it would not be successful. He knew that members opposite were not going to treat their children in that way. It was going to be the failure they believed it to be. The people in the Free State were making heavy sacrifices in the belief that it was an injustice, and that their children were being sacrificed. Children were not going to come out with some educational advantages at the end of the time set out, as the others instructed in either medium. Children taught through the dual medium were going to be as easily picked out in the future as were best quality sheep in a flock. Half-time never gave the same average as full time. The people of South Africa wanted efficiency, and it was no good turning out children who were half educated. On the question of the commercial value of the languages—he dealt, he hoped, fairly with the sentimental value, in which he absolutely agreed with the members of the other side. Every word he subscribed to. But there was something else. They could see, and they all showed they did, that there was a commercial value in English which appealed to a number of people here. They wanted it, and were paying for it, and were getting it. It was only in public places that somebody took offence when they said there was a commercial value that was not to be found in Dutch. It had been pointed out that the laws of the other Provinces did not comply with this. Take, for instance, the Transvaal Act, If they had been in the position of the Government, it would not have been possible for them (the Opposition) to introduce the Transval law, because there was a provision in that law which violated the spirit of the Convention, inasmuch as it made English compulsory after a certain standard. That was introduced by the Minister of the Interior (General Smuts), and he (Sir Percy) had to say that no wiser, or more patriotic, or farsighted measure had ever been introduced for a Dutchman by a Dutchman. He did the best possible to educate and equip the Dutch children from the commercial aspect. If it was put forward to-morrow that that provision should be swept away, they had the right to sweep it away, and he would offer no opposition to it. It was a wise thing for the Minister of the Interior to do, but it would not be wise for an Englishman to try to do it. Give them, in the Orange Free State, equality of opportunity, and no compulsion, and they would have conditions that would satisfy the people, and would have the backing of the whole of South Africa. (Applause.) He had noticed that a discussion about teachers often turned upon the imported teacher. It was always a difficult question. In other colonies they were certainly more advanced in population and education, and did not import their teachers. Of course, he thought they did extremely well if they did import a certain kind, and limited in number. But there was a feeling of prejudice” against the imported teacher, because he or she was an emigrant. He would like to know where it began. They were all emigrants, or children of emigrants. At one time it was a great distinction, and at all times it was a greater distinction. In case they despised the emigrants because they got like old port —better with years; because they could trace their ancestors back two or three, generations-—

Like cheese. (Laughter.)

No. You may like cheese; I like port. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said it did seem to be carried a good length when they found prejudice against a teacher be-, cause he was an immigrant. He mentioned that for a particular reason, and it affected the whole of the position. One hundred years ago there was a fair number of immigrants here, but among them there were no English. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) at a banquet the other night gave them a most interesting address, bidding the different sections of the community to remember what their brothers had done. He (Sir Percy) wished to carry that a, little step further to show how it would work. One hundred years ago there were, comparatively speaking, no Englishmen here; 50 years ago they were less than a quarter of the population; to-day they were one-half —and the tide was still flowing. Every country wanted immigrants, but it was not every country that could get them. Nothing could be more fatal than that an impression should get about that the Dutch people, when starting on Union, wished to force things. Immigrants would keep on coming and finding that this spirit of coercion existed they would be thrown into one camp. That was not desirable from any point of view and least of all from a Dutch point of view. It was a puzzle to realise another’s point of view, but at least we could try. “Put yourselves,” said Sir Percy, in conclusion, “in the position of the minority in the Free State Some of us struggled not to let this become a public question, and we did everything that mortal man could do to get a good understanding. We failed. I am not going to tell the hon. member that it is his fault, and I am not going to say that it is ours. But we may restart in the spirit of the Convention. Never mind about election speeches. Make an effort to realise each other’s point of view, and remember that this development is going on, and that nothing can stop it, and that the best thing for us to do is to make terms, to come together and pull it off together, instead of acting in rivalry.” (Loud cheers.)

who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said he was afraid that they had somewhat wandered from the motion before the House—not that he found any fault with that wandering. He went further, and said that if this wandering had taken place considerably’ earlier we would then not have been forced to discuss that matter at all in that House. The motion was for a judgment of disapproval of the Education Act of one of the Provinces—an Act for which, let him admit, he pleaded guilty, and was mainly responsible. But he shared his responsibility with 95 per cent., if not more, of the population of that Province. (Ministerial cheers.) And notwithstanding anything that had been said in the past, or that could be said to-day or to-morrow, that Act would be found to be—if not in full harmony with article 137 of the Constitution—the only Act in force at the present moment which could in any way be said to approach it. He had never stood by that Act as if it were like the Koran— dropped from Heaven—but they had made an honest attempt at meeting the requirements of the people of the late Orange River Colony. That was more than could be said of any Act of any of the other Provinces. So far from having tried to avoid any discussion of that subject in that House, or so far from having been sorry that the Opposition bad taken upon itself to enter that motion. He wished to extend his thanks to the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) for having moved it. (Hear, hear.) They had had months he might almost say years, of the greatest animosity shown through the public press, unfortunately from election platforms, and by private men off public platforms, whereby nothing but the greatest detriment had been done to that good feeling which was a condition precedent to this country ever becoming a country for Europeans worth living in. (Ministerial cheers.) But he had felt at the same time, and he had all along maintained it, that those who had spoken and written as they had, had done so—it was true, he had not the least doubt— with ulterior motives, but the great and vast majority because they had been misled. (Hear, hear.) He would like to know how many of the opponents of the measure had ever read it before probably the last fortnight—(Ministerial cheers)—or before the motion was tabled? He did not blame them, but if that were the case with members of Parliament he would like to know what must have been the state of things outside? The vast public never knew anything of that Act, and that was one of the reasons why he was so exceedingly glad that the question had been brought before the House. In the first place hon. members would have an opportunity of themselves inquiring what the contents of the Act were and of knowing what the views of others were upon that subject, and not being merely led by newspaper reports. But, above all, that was the public outside. We could not in South Africa continue to have the public in a state of excitement and of hatred, almost, of one against the other. They would have to take thread, and through that House they would have to see that the public was better informed, and if there was anything wrong in that Act to rectify it. He welcomed the resolution even if it only helped to reinstate truth to the position which she ought to have held all along. (Cheers.) Continuing, he said that he was pleased at the tone which had been adopted while this motion had been under discussion. So far the tone had been level and dignified, and he hoped that it would continue in that tone, and so be worthy of the House. (Hear hear) What he wished to do that afternoon was simply to lay before the House the facts, through the laws, as they were, so that they might no longer leave the public outside to depend upon the press for the rights and wrongs of the case. Now, he wished to say this before he went any further—that he certainly deprecated any interference by that House in any subject, and especially in that subject, which had been left by the National Convention especially to any of the Provinces. He said especially because, as it had already been stated, there was no subject in the Convention which was so well fought for by one of the smaller Provinces as this very question of education. And no matter what they did, or what opinions they expressed, or what measures were recommended, they would have to see that they did nothing to interfere with the authority of any of the Provinces. But let not hon. members think that he had been induced to say this, because he desired to maintain anything that was in the Free State Act. No; he was quite prepared—provided all the other Provinces were willing, he was quite prepared—that anything in the Free State Act which might be contrary to the spirit of the Union Act should be changed. (Ministerial cheers.) That was provided the other Provinces consented. He was exceedingly glad that he could see no reason why it should not be; and he was convinced that when he was finished what he intended to say there would even be lees objection even by those who were at present as suspicious as the hon. member for Pretoria East. Before entering upon his task of discussing the laws of the Free State, of which the House was asked to disapprove, he wanted, in the first place, to lay before that House three points, which he wished hon. members to remember. The first was this: that out of a total of 21,000 children in 1908 in the schools when that Act was passed, there were between 16,000 and 17,000 Dutch-speaking and between 3,000 and 4,000 English-speaking children. That was the first point.

Going to school?

Between 16,000 and 17,000 Dutch-speaking and between 3,000 and 4,000 English-speaking children. The second thing was this: That in the Free State there was—and was today—not one unilingual English-speaking class anywhere in the public schools. In other words, there was not a single class in a public School in the Free State where they had only English-speaking children whereas they had hundreds—at least, five hundred—classes in the Free State with nothing but Dutch-speaking children. (Hear, hear.) These other classes were partly Dutch and partly English. That was the second thing he wanted hon. members to remember. There were about 400 public schools in the Orange Free State. In not more than five did English-speaking children predominate. Those were the three facts that he wished hon. members to remember. Now he would take them into the historical part of this question. What was the position of the schools and education generally in the Orange Free State in 1908, when this School Act was passed, an Act which it is now sought to condemn. It was the object of the Government of that colony, after the war, the set intention of that Government to anglicise the Dutch child The hon. member for Cape Town shook his head. He (the speaker) repeated it, The express object with which the law of 1903 was introduced into the Orange Free State was that it meant to have the English language as the language for the Dutch child, that the English ideals should be substituted in the place of their national ideals—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—and that the Dutch-speaking child should be taught the greatness of British Imperial ideals. They may have been excellent ideals to attain, but they were to be attained only at the expense—(hear, hear)— at the cost of the sound education of the Dutch-speaking child. (Cheers.) Proceeding, General Hertzog read a letter written after the departure from this country of Lord Milner, by the then Director of Education—Mr. Sergeant—to Lord Milner, in which the writer said: “I was about to write to you this evening, when the post brought me your letter written on board ship… Before saying anything about its contents, I wish to congratulate you on the honour which I know you value solely as evidence that the King, the Government, and the whole nation endorse your policy in South Africa. This brings me at once to the question of camp schools. I send you with this letter a report of the educational work already accomplished in the refugee camps… I had the advantage of discussing with you the point of adequately supplying camps with the right sort of teaching material. We must appeal to England, and ask the sisters and daughters of those who have been fighting for the Empire to come and complete that part of the work which their male relatives were unable to accomplish. Our military policy has gathered the greater part of the male children into these camps, and I feel that the opportunity during the next year of getting them all to speak English is golden. What you want out here at present are women—thoroughly good teachers, with patriotic minds, who would come out … and put up with the inconveniences of camp life … in order that they might teach the children of the burghers our language and our ideals.” And the writer went on to say: “And eventually teach these children our great Imperial ideals.” These objects (continued General Hertzog) may have been very laudable, but they were to be reached at the expense of the child’s education. (Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of “No, no,”) Hon. members opposite said “No.” Well, what was the result of that letter? First of all, a law was made by which it was provided that any scholar should, at the request of his parent or guardian, receive instruction in the Dutch language. English should be taught compulsorily, but as to a child’s only language, it should only be taught to him as a favour. (Opposition cries of “No.”) Well, not perhaps as a favour, because the provision was there. Then it was provided that English should be the medium of instruction in schools. Later on, they heard of that great sacred principle in education that the child must be taught through his mother tongue. It was so sacred that members of the Opposition in the Free State Parliament were sent to England to protest and to ask the interference of the British Government, because that principle was hot observed to the extent to which they thought they had a right to demand. That sacred principle was not a sacred principle at the time of which he was now speaking. Dater on, he would point out that it was not even a sacred principle at present under the various laws of the other Provinces. The result of the old legislation was that out of 30 or 35 school hours per week, three hours were given to the instruction of Dutch, and there were two hours during which it might be used as a medium. This was in a country where there were 16,000 Dutch speaking children as against 3,700 English-speaking children at school. That was what some people would call equality— (Ministerial laughter)—but he appealed to the hon. members opposite, he appealed to the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) whether that was a state of things which any responsible Ministry could allow to continue? The parents naturally did everything they could to have these things remedied, but they were in despair while the Grown Colony system of government lasted, and had to wait for Responsible Government to come. And now he wished to refer to a point mentioned by the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe). The hon. member had twitted him (General Hertzog) with having gone back again. He did not intend to refer to anything which was really personal, but this was of more than personal interest. The hon. member said that, in spite of signing a certain agreement in 1905, when Responsible Government came, another Act, containing other and different provisions, was introduced by him (General Hertzog). Yes, he did frame another Act. The agreement referred to was signed under Crown Colony Government at a time when nobody knew when Responsible Government was going to come. He thought, and he had always been under the impression that Responsible Government meant that the Government of the day had the right, with the aid of and through Parliament, to do absolutely anything that was necessary in the interests of the people they represented, and how it could be contended that he was bound by any agreement which he made under Crown Colony Government when he became a Minister under Responsible Government was to him a marvel. At the time when the agreement was signed, he happened to be one of five or seven delegates who approached the Governnor with Mr. Gunn, praying to get more rights for the Dutch language, and at the meeting, where the terms which were later on subscribed to were agreed upon, he said this to His Excellency the Governor: “After first having refused to give my consent to them, I shall sign them, but only under one condition, and that is that the moment that a fitting opportunity occurs I shall go and agitate against those conditions, because I consider them to be against the interests of the colony.” (Ministerial cheers.) The result was that the Governor turned to Mr. Gunn, and said: “I am sure that Mr. Gunn understands that these are only temporary conditions, and if, later on you feel that they should be abrogated, you will have the right to do so.” He was very sorry to have to say that the statements made by the hon. member for East London were based on the pamphlet that had recently been issued, a pamphlet which was simply brimful of mis-statements, of falsehoods, and of actual untruths. He regretted that Mr. Gunn, in his anxiety to adduce proofs of his bad faith, did not adhere to veracity, and did not have the manliness to admit that what he (General Hertzog) had told the House was the attitude he took up at the time the agreement alluded to was made. When Responsible Government was granted, the people of the Free State were insisting on the educational requirements of their children being met, and with that object in view a new Act was undertaken to be introduced. That Act was the School Act of 1908. That was the only Act against which all the agitation went on until a few months ago, when people thought they had discovered something else which they might also introduce into the agitation, namely, the Teachers Act. The agitators discovered the cause for which they had been fighting was one that could not bear investigation, and was one that had to be propped up by something more. He wished it to be clearly understood that what he had to say he did not say in a mood of acrimony against any man or any member of the House; but he could not help feeling that the manner in which the Jaw of 1908 had been abused outside Parliament was a disgrace, and it was so detrimental to the people of South Africa that he had felt compelled at times to use hard words. That Act of 1908 contained three sections only. He wished to go into those sections one by one, and he would like to know what hon. members could possibly find against those sections or the provisions thereof. Seeing, however, that It would take some time to go into them, he would now move the adjournment of the debate.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until the following day.