from George C. Grant, late Deputy Inspector of Schools.

from J.N. Cock, ex-inspector of Native Locations.

from T. Hamilton, vice-principal Kokstad Public School.

from John Mons, Kokstad, who served in various departments.

from A. J. Cloete, instructor, Government Vine Plantations, Paarl.

from E. S. Harris, wife of John Harris, formerly police-sergeant.

from Mimmie du Toit, teacher.

against proposed abolition of High Court, Kimberley (two petitions).

gave notice that on February 27 he would ask the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether Mr. Sydney Penlerick, late general manager of the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., is being’prosecuted by the Crown for having rendered false returns of output to the Government for the months of March to July (inclusive), 1911? (2) Whether the inspectors recently appointed by Government to inquire into the affairs of this company found that this falsification was done with the cognisance of, and under instructions from, the chairman of the company and the membere of the Finance Committee of the Board? (5) If so, why has Mr. Penlerick, the waged servant of the c0mpany, alone been prosecuted, and why have the chairman and directors concerned not been indicted for conspiring to obtain commission of the offence for which Mr. Penlerick is being prosecuted? (4) If in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown there are no grounds for prosecuting the chairman and directors in this matter, does the Government intend to so amend the law as to secure that in future the real offenders who order the offence to be committed, in the hope of benefiting thereby, shall be punished, and that the punishment shall not fall solely on their paid servants?

Does that question arise out of proceedings now going on, as, if so, I think it particularly unwise to make any reference to proceedings that are now being taken—(hear, hear)—and I think I should not allow it.

The question, sir, has no reference to the proceedings being instituted, but it has only reference to proceedings not being instituted.

I cannot allow that.

Can I leave out the first part of the question?

If the hon. member will bring up the question I will go into the matter.

asked the Minister of the Interior how much money had been sent yearly during the Last two years by money orders and drafts from the four Provinces of the Union to India, stating how much of it had been sent via London?

I assume that the information desired refers only to remittances through the agency of Government institutions. These figures show that money orders drawn in the four Provinces of the Union on India during the calendar year 1910 amount to £243,164, 1811 amount to £269,647. Drafts issued by the Registrar of Asiatics on India during the calendar year 1910 amount to £4,279 3s. 2d., 1911 amount to £4,817 9s. 7d. Neither money orders nor drafts were sent via London.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he was prepared to state the amount due to Government as squatters’ rent by natives living on Crown lands in the Province of Natal, indicating the amount for each Magisterial Division, and the total amount in arrear for each year from 1902 to 1911, both inclusive?

The annual amount due to Government in respect of squatters’ rents by natives living on Crown lands in the Province of Natal is £4,582. The amounts oollected in the various Magisterial Divisions are as follows: Alexandra, £1,524 ; Alfred, £198 ; Babanango, £8 ; Dundee, £26 ; Estcourt, £28 ; Impendhle, £56 ; Ixopo, £880 ; Krantzkop, £76 ; Lower Tugela, £308; Lower Umzimkulu, £320; Newcastle, £88; New Hanover, £2; Ngotshe, £254; Paulpietersburg, £70; Pietermaritzburg, £2; Polela, £8; Pine-town, £62; Richmond, £36; Underberg, £56; Upper Tugela, £62; Vryheid, £94; Weenen, £372; Helpmakaar, £52.

The amount in arrear for each year from 1902 to 1911 is as follows: 1902-3, £4; 1903-4, £14; 1904-5, £185; 1905-6, £928; 1906-7, £1,528; 1907-8, £2,117; 1908-9, £2,360; 1909-10, £2,717; 1910-11, £2,894; 1911-12, £3,378, or a total of £16,125.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether it is a fact that the farms Newcastle and Tatelberg and the commonage of Gubenxa in the district of Elliot have been cut up into lots ; (2) whether the Government will grant the said lands on the same conditions as other tracts of land in the district of Elliot have been granted for settlement purposes ; and (3) whether, when the above ground is being granted, the Government will give preference to poor whites in Gubenxa, who have no land of their own?

(1) The farms Newcastle and Tafelberg have been cut up into lots, and authority has been issued for the survey of the Gubenxa Commonage into lots, but survey has not yet been commenced. (2) The Newcastle and Tafelberg lots are now advertised by Government Notice No. 85 of 1912, as available for allotment under Act 37 of 1882. The Gubenxa Commonage lots will be allotted on quitrent, in terms of Act 41 of 1908, to the holders of arable lots within the commonage. (3) The Newcastle and Tafelberg lots will be allotted to such of the applicants as may be recommended by the Land Board appointed for this purpose, in terms of section 5 of Act 37 of 1882.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date for the protection of the ostrich feather industry by prohibiting the export by sea of ostriches and ostrich eggs?

Negotiations are now taking place with certain foreign Governments with a view to the introduction of the legislation desired by the hon. member. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he was aware of the numerous representations made from time to time to the Forest Department by the woodcutters of the Zitzikamma as to the conditions under which they were working, and, if so, whether he was prepared to give effect to these representations as near as possible on the following lines, viz.: (a) That the annual sale by auction or otherwise be decided by the majority present and voting ; (b) that all timber be sold according to regulation prices ; (c) that no vary or section be sold outright to any individual or company ; and (d) that more money be voted for plantation purposes?

I am well aware of the representations made from time to time by the Zitzikamma woodcutters as to the conditions under which they are working. (a) The present method of disposing of standing timber in the forests referred to is a system of disposing of sales by public auction, the upset price being the tariff rate, which is the only feasible and rational way of disposing of timber from the Crown forest estate, where more than one person is desirous of obtaining the same tree or lot of trees offered for sale, and is the only manner permissible by law. (Vide regulation 18 of Proclamation 49 of 1903 (Cape). (b) All timber is sold in accordance with the published tariff. In the case of the Zitzikamma, the tariff will be found contained in Proclamation 49 of 1903 (Cape). (c) It is apparently desired that no vary or section shall be sold outright to any individual or company. What are known as “outright” sections and “public” sections containing timber are each year opened for disposal. In the public sections, individuals select the trees they require, and at the end of the season there is usually a number of defective trees that woodcutters will not purchase, and they therefore remain on the ground to the great detriment of the next timber crop. The “outright” sections, on the other hand, are sold conditional on the removal of every tree that is marked by a forest officer. The advantage of the latter system is that the ground is left ready for the next timber crop, or the planting with exotic trees, and does not need to be cleared departmentally. There is no good reason for departing from the practice of selling certain sections outright. (d) The current year’s Estimates provide a sum of £74,125 for plantation and forest purposes, being an increase of £3,319 on the previous year’s Estimates. All vacant spaces in the Zitzikamma forests are being planted up as fast as the present funds available will permit.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether Natal natives travelling to the Rand are charged considerably higher fares than natives from the Cape Province, joining at the same stations in Natal, and travelling the same distance ; (2) if so, what is the reason for this differential treatment ; and (3) who is responsible for this state of things?

(1) Yes, they are ; (2) In the Cape the natives travelling to the Witwatersrand, in connection with labour requirements, travel by goods trains or recognised labour trains, and in Natal in third class carriages, the fare of which is higher ; (5) it is exactly the same regulation which has been in force in Natal prior to Union.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he was aware that a sum of £210,000 appeared on the Estimates of Revenue of the Commonwealth of Australia for 1911-’12 from “coinage,” being, according to the “Economist” of the 16th December, 1911, seigniorage on the silver and bronze coins supplied by the London Mint, and whether there was any reason why a similar source of revenue should not be tapped for the Union of South Africa?

I am aware that in the Commonwealth of Australia Estimates of Revenue for the current financial year a sum of £210,000 is included in respect of the seigniorage on silver and bronze coins supplied by the Royal Mint in London. The question of the most appropriate means of supplying the oversea dominions’ requirements in the way of token coins was discussed at the Imperial Conference in 1907. The subject is by no means so straightforward or so easily decided as might at first sight appear. It would occupy too much of the time of the House if I were to go into particulars ; but, for a clear perception of the issues involved, I do not think I can do better than refer the hon. member to the memorandum (prepared by the Imperial Treasury) which was presented to the 1907 Conference and published with the proceedings. The Government has had under consideration for some time past the possibility of securing some advantage for the public of this country from the adoption of a similar arrangement to that which prevails in the Commonwealth, but the question is a large and complicated one and I do not think the present economic conditions of South Africa warrant any change. The matter will continue to receive the careful attention of the Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1). Whether it is true that in some districts of the Cape Province, Scab Inspectors have been appointed temporarily ; and if so, why ; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that appointments on such a loose footing do not tend to the due discharge of their duties, it is the intention to appoint scab inspectors permanently in the near future; and if so, when?

(1) All scab inspectors are appointed on probation ; (2) after the inspectors have proved themselves worthy, their appointments will be confirmed, so that ultimately all appointments will be permanent.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) What standard of education is required for admission to the service in the case of messenger boys and learners respectively in the different Provinces; (2) what provision is made by the Department for the education of its employees in general subjects and in technical subjects in the different Provinces ; (3) whether the Government intends to introduce uniformity as to the standard of admission throughout the Union ; and (4) whether the Government will consider the advisability of making arrangements wherever possible for the attendance of its juvenile employees at continuation classes until they have passed the Seventh Standard, and of making attendance at such classes compulsory on such employees?

(1) The standard of education for messengers in the Cape, Transvaal, and Orange Free State is the Fourth ; in Natal the Fifth. For learner ships, the Seventh Standard is the educational requirement throughout the Union. (2) Messengers are encouraged to continue their education by attendance at night schools, and a bonus is given each month to those boys who attend regularly. As regards technical studies, the Government grants bonuses of £5, £7 10s., and £10 to officers obtaining first-class and honours certificates respectively in the Technological Examinations held by the City and Guilds of London Institute. Certain officers of the Department conduct classes by correspondence, and the Government allows all correspondence connected with these classes to pass through the post free of charge. Books of reference on technical matters are also kept in the several official libraries throughout the Union, which are at the disposal of the staff. (3) The standard of education required for admission as learners is uniform throughout the Union. As regards messengers, the Education Act of Natal requires that a lad, if under fourteen years of age, shall have passed the Fifth Standard before taking up employment. In the Cape, Free State, and Transvaal, the Fourth Standard is the requirement. Uniformity in regard to messengers would, in present circumstances, be difficult to enforce. (4) It was a condition of appointment in Natal, prior to Union, that attendance at night school should be compulsory in the case of messengers employed at Durban and Pietermaritzburg, and this condition is still enforced. The practicability of extending this condition to other parts of the Union will receive consideration. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether it is a fact that the gaol at Humansdorp is to be closed, and that all the prisoners will have to be sent to Port Elizabeth ; (2) whether he is aware that the proposed step has given rise to great dissatisfaction to the inhabitants; (3) whether he considers it in the best interest of the inhabitants of Humansdorp to make the change, especially in view of the extent of the district, the size of its population, and the expense it will entail to transport the prisoners ; and (4) whether he proposes to take this step to effect economy, and, if so, what will the saving amount to?

(1) It is proposed to close the gaol at Humansdorp and to concentrate the prisoners on Port Elizabeth. (2) No protest or representation as to dissatisfaction has hitherto been received. The Magistrate has, however represented that there is a demand for local prison labour, and that prisoners should be drafted from Port Elizabeth to Humansdorp. (3) The reasons for the concentration are that Humansdorp gaol is only seventy miles by rail from Port Elizabeth, and only six prisoners per month will require to be removed to Port Elizabeth. The buildings also are very old, and would require extensive alterations and improvements, if not closed down. (4) The reason for the step is to effect economy, and the direct saving estimated is £134 per year.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether, in his opinion, it is necessary for the members of the Police Force to be kept in a state of constant unrest through change from one district to another ; (2) whether he would in future consider the advisability of making the transferences as far as possible applicable to unmarried men ; and (3) what was the cost last year to the Government in the removal and travelling expenses of members of the Police Force?

The answer to No. 1 is No ; to No. 2 Yes ; and to No. 3, £1,068 for the Cape Province.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether it is a fact that the Government is ceding mortgage-bonds, which it holds on behalf of the School and Guardian Funds on farms in the Orange Free State, to private persons or companies ; (2) if so, whether this is done privately or by public tender ; and (3) whether in consequence thereof the people of the Orange Free State do not run the great risk of having the money called up, or the interest thereon increased, or whether the result would not be an increase of the rate of interest generally?

(1) This question evidently relates to securities controlled by the Public Debt Commissioners under the Public Debt Commissioners Act, passed last session. Investments on first mortgage do not fall within the descriptions of investments that the Commissioners may undertake, and they are disposing of their holding in mortgage bonds in all the Provinces where this course appears to them to be in the public interest.(1) Arrangements for the disposal of bonds are made privately by the Commissioners, as it is obviously impracticable to negotiate in such matters by public tender. (3) The parties to whom bonds have been ceded by the Public Debt Commissioners have taken over such bonds as investments, and so long as the terms of the bonds are observed there is little risk of the bonds being called up, or of the rate of interest being raised—more especially if the Land Bank Bill which the Government propose to introduce during this session becomes law.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is a fact that East Coast Fever has made its appearance at East London, and, if so, how many herds are affected and what precautions he is taking to endeavour to prevent the spreading of the disease to other parts of the Cape Province?

(1) An outbreak of East Coast Fever at East London has been brought to my notice, and is receiving attention. (2) The outbreak has occurred on farm No. 63, Ward No. 3, East London, among a herd of 86 animals. So far one cow has died and another cow has since become affected with the disease. (3) All possible precautions are being taken to prevent the spread of the disease.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the great inconvenience caused by the removal of the stock inspector from Stanger to Verulam he will take such steps as will ensure that better facilities are provided for the issue of removal permits in the Lower Tugela division?

The stock inspector referred to was removed from Stanger —where there still is another officer of the department —to Verulam in order that he might be in a more central position from which he could reach the Inanda division, which division he is required to attend to as well as to the Stanger district. The transfer was made for economical reasons, to obviate the necessity of appointing another officer for the Inanda division.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is correct that coal is being carried or has been carried on the railways from the Transvaal collieries to Cape Town at a rate of one-ninth of a penny per ton per mile ; and (2) if so, whether he will arrange with the Administration that coal for snipping purposes will be carried from the Natal collieries to Port Natal at the same rate of one-ninth of a penny per ton per mile instead of at the rate of one-third of a penny per ton per mile as at present?

The answer to both questions is in the negative.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that the crane-drivers employed in the Cape Town Harbour are receiving in wages no more now that they are working full time than when they were working four days a week ; (2) if so, whether he will take immediate steps to rectify this injustice ; and (3) whether he will state to the House the actual wages per week paid to crane-drivers when working (a) four days a week, and (b) full time?

replied that the answer to No. 1 was “No,” consequently no injustice had been done. He was glad to see that his hon. friend was pleased. With regard to the other part of the question, cranedrivers were not limited to four days a week. At one time they were paid a minimum of three-quarter time whether they worked or not. Their earnings then when on short time averaged £12 10s. 3d. per month per man, as against £14 18s. 7d. at present, both figures being inclusive of overtime.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he will state to the House the facts in connection with the two contraventions of the Liquor Law by one Vermooten, of Belfast?

requested that the matter be allowed to stand over.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is a fact: (1) That concession fares are granted to artists connected with the various theatres and music halls in South Africa ; (2) that these concessions are denied to artists in the employ of the various bioscope theatres ; and, if so, (3) why is this distinction made between the two classes of entertainments?

(1) Concessionary fares are granted to theatrical companies numbering not less than eight persons, irrespective of advance agents. (2) and (3) Artists in the employment of bioscope theatres do not travel in companies ; they ordinarily travel individually or in groups of two or three persons.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Darling, a newspaper seller at Bloemfontein, for contravention of the Half-Holiday Act, by distributing mail papers, to his subscribers only, on Wednesday evening, after the arrival of the mail train ; and (2) whether he will take into consideration the desirability of introducing legislation to alter the law so as to enable newspaper sellers to distribute papers, to their subscribers only, in the same manner as is done by Post Office officials?

With reference to the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Darling, the matter is regulated by Orange Free State Ordinance No. V. of 1906, the amendment of which would appear to be a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Orange Free State Provincial Council, under section 85, sub-section VI. of the South Africa Act.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the standard of education required for admission to the various Agricultural Colleges is below the standard of Matriculation, and whether the Agricultural Department is now charged with the administration of Agricultural Colleges giving education other than higher education ; (2) whether the administration of such education is not assigned by the Constitution to the Provinces ; (3) whether it is not essential in the interests of the Agricultural Department to retain the administration of the Agricultural Colleges ; and, if so, (4) whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking steps either to bring the practice in this particular into conformity with the law, or the law into conformity with the practice?

(1) The standard of education required for admission to the various agricultural schools is below the standard of matriculation, but on the other hand students iare not admitted to the schools below the age of 16. The Agricultural Department is charged with the administration of the agricultural colleges and schools. (2) I am advised that agricultural education, being of a professional or technical nature and in no sense either elementary or secondary, is not such as, under section 85, sub-section (III.), of the South Africa Act, is assigned for a period of five years to the Provincial Councils. (3) The answer is in the affirmative. (4) No legislation is necessary, as the practice is in conformity with the law.

In connection with that question, may I ask the Minister if he has legal advice on the second question?

Yes, I have legal advice.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the report of the Railway Grading Commission has been received by the Government ; and, if so, whether it will be published for general information?

replied that the report of the Grading Commission had been received, and it was very voluminous. It had been considered, and was having consideration. Later on he would be able to say whether it would be published for general information.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether painting work is being executed for his Department under two systems of payment for work done, viz., day work and piece work ; (2) what wages are paid for day work, and what are the scheduled rates for piece work ; and (3) what is the basis for determining the rates to be paid in both instances, and who determines the same?

replied that with regard to the first part of the question he had to reply “Yes.” Regarding the next, it was:

1. (a) For day work painters are paid the standard rate in the workshop employed in according to grade. There are no minima rates, but the maxima, according to the class of work performed, are :

1. (b) The wages for piece work are fixed according to the nature of the work, are based on practice and experience, and are so arranged as to leave men fair margin of profit. (3) For day work, there are standard rates of pay for men in the different grades, and in regard to piece work the basis has already been explained. The Administration determines the basis for day work. The piece work prices are determined by the mechanical engineers, in consultation with the workmen and chargemen, and in many cases with the men themselves.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether it is a fact that the Irrigation Department, in calling for applications to fill posts as Irrigation Engineers, though advertising in English papers, omitted to do so in South African papers ; and, if so, (2) (a) was this omission accidental or intentional ; and (b) will the Government in future give South Africans the same opportunity as others to compete for posts in the public service?

(1) It is true that three temporary appointments of Hydraulic Engineers have recently been advertised in English papers exclusively. (2) (a) This omission to advertise these three posts in South Africa is intentional. (b) In recruiting engineers for the Irrigation Department, South African residents are given preference, and a very considerable local recruitment has taken place during the past year and is still taking place. The three posts, however, now advertised for require special qualifications which are not at present possessed by any engineers in the Union who are seeking employment, as the results of local advertising last year clearly demonstrated.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in view of the reports that grave unrest exists in the Durban and Salt River workshops due to the Department requiring workshop men to sign a new set of rules, he will allay anxiety by making a statement on the matter to the House?

said he was sorry to say he could not answer the question yet; but he would do so on Thursday.

said the other day the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. T. Schreiner) asked the following question, which he had then been unable to answer: (1) Whether, since last session of Parliament, any coloured or native employees on the Union Railways have been dismissed and their places filled with Europeans ; (2) if so, how many of such cases have taken place, and in what classes of employees ; and (3) on what grounds has such action been taken? Well, since last session of Parliament certain coloured and native employees had been dismissed and their places filled with Europeans. There were in all 346, and they were gate-keepers, locomotive labourers—64 of the latter and 281 general labourers engaged in maintenance work, station duty, etc. He should add that in view of increasing the number of Europeans on the railways, instructions had been given that where vacancies occurred and suitable Europeans could be obtained they should be employed. Those instructions were issued and the people who received them went somewhat beyond what was intended, and in some cases dismissed natives for the express purpose of finding employment for Europeans. He might state that was not the intention, because he held there was room and there was work for both Europeans and natives on the railways. He thought where Europeans could be employed it was proper that they should be. The position had been made perfectly clear and the policy which he had just stated would be carried out in future. Men would not be dismissed without reason no matter what their colour was. He might say that a dispute arose at Port Elizabeth the other day owing to the demand of some natives employed on the railways who refused to work unless they received the same pay as the white men employed. The remaining natives there, he thought about 34 or 35, came to the station and complained, saying the vacancies should be filled by natives, and at the same time, referred to their claim of equal wages with the Europeans. They said unless they got that they would strike. They also said they did not want to work in the same company as the white people. They were willing to work by themselves, and claimed to have the same wages as the whites. That could not be conceded, and they went on strike. It seemed to him at the time, from correspondence that he received, that there must have been some misunderstanding, and he gave instructions that their places were not to be filled until he gave instructions. After a day or two they came back, and asked for reemployment, and that was given them He would like to add, that although there had been some men dismissed the difference between the number of natives employed on the railways at the date of Union and at this month (February) was 1,176 or more.

said that arising out of his question, he would like to know, seeing that this matter was of such urgent public importance, when the Minister thought he would be able to give him an answer to his question?

To-morrow.

asked the Minister of Railways whether he was in a position to give the information asked for in his question of February 8th, in regard to the pay of certain white employees on the railway.

I have that information, and I will give it to the hon. member to-morrow.

said that, in reference to a question asked by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. E. Nathan), on the 13th inst., the attention of the Transvaal Attorney-General had been drawn to the answer given by the Minister of Mines on the 6th instant to a question on the subject of the trial of one W. Malone, for a breach of the Mines and Works Regulations. He was inquiring into the matter, and it would be for him to decide on taking or refusing to take any further steps against Malone.

moved that Sir Starr Jameson be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and that Sir Thomas Smartt be appointed in his stead.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that in the opinion of this House the provisions of Circular No. 420, of 27th October, 1911, issued by the Railway Administration, are in conflict with the terms and spirit of the Act of Union. The hon. member, who rose amid Opposition cheers, said that he had been supplied by the Minister of Railways with the circulars to which reference was made in this motion, and he begged to thank the Minister. Hon. members would be familiar with the terms of the circular. This motion had been described for him, as others had been, as a vote of censure or a vote of no-confidence But, whatever description pleased hon. members opposite would please him, and he was not going to dispute it, but he hoped they would be able to understand the purpose of this motion, which was certainly not to provoke feeling. In justice to the Minister, he thought he ought to read such information as was at his disposal in reference to this circular. At the Bloemfontein Congress of the Nationalist party, this question was raised, and he had a considerable reference. He did not want to read it all ; he would read what was to the point. The Minister on that occasion said it had never been in his head at any time in dealing with the public service that a man was going to be penalised because he could only speak English. As he had said, the circular did not deprive any man of any right that he had. He was going to legislate further to safeguard all the rights the railway servants possessed at the date of Union, but he would point out that a man who knew both English and Dutch would have preference in places where a knowledge of both languages was required. That, he the Minister) thought, was a perfectly frank and fair statement So did he (Sir P. Fitzpatrick). If people were concerned about the circular, the Minister went on to say, he would withdraw it. It would make no difference after what he had said. He (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) thought that was a reasonable statement. But the position they had to face was, that was not the circular. Therefore, it would be understood that, with that declaration of the Minister before them, they could not honestly say that this was a vote of censure upon the Minister, or upon the Government, because the worst point in the circular had been disowned. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the Minister’s declaration of policy was a fair one, but why was not the circular then withdrawn? It had not been withdrawn, and it was of importance to them, because it crystallised in a few words the policy which had been advocated in other quarters, and concerning which there was a considerable amount of nervousness in the country. (Hear, hear.) As the circular stood, it was tall that the employees of the railways had to look to. The Minister’s speech was not binding upon anybody. The circular was. The circular expressed the policy, and therefore, although he readily admitted the importance of what had been said, they had not to deal with the speech. The circular had been issued to two classes of men. This circular issued to the outdoor staff mainly concerned the daily-paid men. The circular said: “Officers and employees who are able to converse in both languages will, other features in regard to efficiency, experience, and general qualifications being equal, receive preference for promotion to the appointments that become vacant from time to time.” This qualification is actually demanded from men doing work which could be as well done by one who might be deaf and dumb.

We don’t employ deaf and dumb persons.

That is possible, too. It may be an improvement to put them in Parliament. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the circular was perfectly clear that the dominating qualification was bilingualism. What did it mean in practice to the men, as it appealed to them? It meant that there were preserves for the bilingual men. It meant the exclusion from that field of employment of the immigrant. (Hear, hear.) The second language, the Dutch language, did not exist outside certain parts of South Africa. If they wanted to learn it they could not. It excluded them in perpetuity. Heretofore the consideration had been efficiency in the work. He wanted hon. members opposite to take a rational view of this question now. Let them have a calm discussion on it. When they put this bilingual qualification where it was not necessary, it was taken to mean the deliberate and complete exclusion of the whole of the immigrant class and of the whole of the English-speaking class, because they could not learn Dutch, and they had no time, in the pursuit of their work, to learn it, and in many of the branches of their employment they had no necessity to learn it any more than in certain branches the Dutchman had no necessity to learn English. Men had been told, and properly told, that they must endeavour to qualify themselves in both languages so as to get rid of the real difficulty, but at what time were working men to qualify themselves in the language? (Hear, hear.) “Surely it was never intended that this thing should be forced. He would give an instance from his own experience. He travelled a good deal, as others did. He stopped at junctions and he always got out and talked with the men to see what was going on. He had this experience ; it was not at a junction, and he was not going to give the official’s name. A highly-placed man in the town came to the station, in his presence, and spoke to this man in Dutch. He could not understand Dutch ; he was a responsible official. The officer turned to his interrogator and said, “Surely you can tell me what you want in English ; you know English as well as I do.” The official told him (Sir Percy), “he is a good man, a friend of mine, but inside the station platform he will only speak Dutch to me. In the town he speaks English as well as I do.”

Hear, hear.

The hon. member said “Hear, hear.” Surely that was not the way to settle this difficult question. The hon. member would not do that himself. The stationmaster said, “I am desperate.” He (the speaker) replied: “Comply with the provisions of the Convention. If you cannot speak Dutch, and he cannot speak English, get an interpreter. If he can speak English, he will come round after half-an-hour’s wait.” It cut both ways. But was not that an example of unreasonableness? He would give another example, which would serve to ‘show how misunderstood this right was, and how abused it was by irresponsible people, and how difficulties were made which found reflection in that House. He would read a letter from the ofiice of the Schoonspruit River Board. A farmer in the district wrote to say that he got a demand in Dutch for the payment of certain rates. He wrote back that he could not understand this letter. The Board’s reply to that read: “Sir.—In reference to your letter of the 25th ult. re the Dutch notice of payment for river rates on your irrigable land, I am instructed by my Board to return you the attached Dutch notice, and to inform you that unless the amount specified in the said Dutch notice is paid in the place and at the time stated in the said Dutch notice, a summary warrant will be issued, as provided for in section 25.” This letter was signed by H. J. Weeber. He did not hold any Minister responsible for that. He had no doubt that the same thing happened on the other side.

What has that to do with the circular?

The hon. Minister asked what that had to do with the circular. If he asked questions like that, it would be taken to mean that he wished to burke discussion on the point out of which this arose. He hoped that the question would be discussed on its merits, and not made a debating ground on which to score. The trouble arose out of a misconception as to what really was the intention of the Convention. He did not intend to lay down positively what was the intention of the Convention, but hon. members who were delegates to the Convention would have an opportunity to express their opinions on this matter. It was not only the railway circular that warned them that there was a misconception on this point. They had the same misconception in different branches of the service. They had a ludicrous instance. Just think it—the cigarette stamp! No room on a bilingual stamp for the King’s head! Now, that did not matter but what a ridiculous way of asserting a right! No one objected to it.

This is a very specific motion, and deals only with the Railway Circular.

said he would leave that, but unless he was allowed to point out what was the spirit of the Convention he would be unable to continue to deal with the motion.

I must confine the hon. member to the motion. It only deals with the Railway Circular.

said that the motion set out that the circular was in conflict with the terms and spirit of the Act of Union, and unless he was permitted to deal with that it would be better for him to stop at once. The intention was to settle this difficulty without friction. That was what was meant by the Act of Union, and if he made mischief well, he ought to be expelled from that House. The hon. Minister laughed ; he would laugh afterwards.

I didn’t laugh. I am only thinking of the member for Cape Town. (Ministerial laughter.)

said that some light was thrown on the circular by the Minister of Justice when he said that in his judgment it was his right to appoint only a bilingual officer, an officer who knew Dutch, in any position where he thought it was necessary that it should be used, and he was to be the judge of the kind of Dutch required.

No; what I said was—

Is this in reference to the past debate? You know that you cannot bring up debates that are past.

said that he would refer to a matter that had not been debated, and that dealt with this very subject of compulsory bilingualism. The Minister of Justice had said that there was a clear difference between them. He (Sir Percy) was for equality of opportunity in the use of the language, while he (the Minister) was for equality in practice. Equality in practice as distinct from equality opportunity meant compulsion. It could mean nothing else. (Ministerial cheers.) During the last session there arose a question as to the authoritative version of any Act of Parliament —

I must point out to the hon. member that this is a very specific and definite motion dealing only with the Railway Circular. The hon. member cannot traverse the whole question. (Ministerial cheers.)

I do not quite know, then, how I am to prove the spirit of the Act of Union. Proceeding, he said that when the Act of Union was presented to the people he was one of those who dealt with this matter. He told them that it was not only with the consent and approval of hon. gentlemen opposite—

Hon. gentlemen opposite? Not all of us!

“The hon. gentleman is not opposite me.” (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that when they had to secure the adoption of this Act of Union, they had a certain difficulty in the Transvaal. He did not want to go into the matter. In fact, the Convention, at the early stages, was most unpopular. The English-speaking section in the Transvaal felt that whilst they were strong enough, in the Transvaal, to safeguard their language and educational rights, they were not strong enough in South Africa to do so. They (the delegates) were asked to appeal to the people, and did appeal to them with confidence. They appealed to the English-speaking people to adopt the same spirit towards the Act that his friends opposite felt when they came out of that Convention. To get them to realise the spirit of the Convention, they (the delegates) had to give the same assurance which they had themselves received, and they did.” They (the delegates) were told that they were foolish and careless not to have made some provision. They had been neither stupid nor careless. If they were trusting, it was not up to hon. members opposite to rebuke them for that. That was the position he took up three years ago: “We are in a minority. What chance are we going to have in the future, unless the spirit and terms of the covenant of peace are honourably observed.” He had been told that he had betrayed certain Convention secrets, and had referred to certain things that took place in the Convention. He would like to ask hon. members, “When?” He would tell them: it was that day three years ago, when he adduced, in support of his appeal to trust the Dutch, all those things criticised since then. He said then, “It is good enough for you, trust them ; I am satisfied to trust them. Have no fear! Go into the partnership! We are making a better start than before.”

That was the time when he betrayed Convention secrets. This was the third 20th of February that he had addressed the public on this question. It was the February when that ridiculous proposal for best men Government was brought tor-ward.

Yes.

Much laughter and much sorrow ; much sorrow because of its failure. It was the worst day’s work done in South Africa. Continuing, he said that that was the time when he ought to have been reproached. That was the time when he gave the details of the whole language question, and he would refer to them again to show that this circular and its policy was against the spirit of the Convention. To show that he was going to give those details again, and even more ; and it was a good opportunity. He would have liked to have done it before the 33 members of the Convention ; there were eleven on the other side of the House and five on that side. They would have their chance of defence and have to make their case, it was useless to say that things could be more efficiently or economically managed if they did not comply with the spirit laid down at the Convention. That was true ; but it could not be done, because there was a compact. They might say that the dual capital was expensive. It is true, but who is prepared to change it? If they were going to depart from what was done at the Convention, because of efficiency or economy then the foundations on which they stood would crumble away. What they should use, and all they wanted, was common sense and good faith. If they had these there would be no difficulty. But there were hon. members who held different views about the reading of the language clause.

You are continually trying to whittle away the compromise.

The hon. Minister will have an excellent opportunity later on, and I will give him a good lead. It can be settled before the rising of the House to-night, providing no cross-issues are introduced here and no one moves the adjournment. In this matter, he continued, he held two members of the House responsible. He held the Prime Minister responsible because he was in authority, not because he had said anything contrary to the settlement. He did not make any attack upon the right hon. gentleman. So far as he (the speaker) was aware the right hon. gentleman had not said anything contrary to the settlement ; of course, he was the head of the Government. He also held the Minister of Justice responsible. (Ministerial dissent.) Let hon. members opposite wait and see whether he (the speaker) made an attack on the Minister before they had anything to say.

It did not do a case much good to shout before any attack was made. He held him responsible for things he had said which, in his (the speaker’s) opinion, were contrary to the Convention ruling, and implied compulsion. He held him responsible to that extent. He (the speaker) did not know what this was due to, bad memory or change of opinion, but they ought to be able to find that out that day. When they began to deal with, the language question it was before they reached Durban to attend the National Convention. They had no misunderstanding, and he would like to say, that although he differed strongly on present policy, that he had no better colleagues than those who were with him from the Transvaal. But at Durban, when the language question was raised, it was then apparent that they were not seeing things in the same way. The first suggestion before the Convention came from the Free State, and that showed quite clearly the idea of compulsory bilingualism. He would make the matter clear and give every reference. That was refused, and that was withdrawn. Something else was substituted which was not compulsory bilingualism, which was deliberately, definitely and voluntarily repudiated by the Minister of Justice. Would his hon. friend deny that? For the purpose of getting peace and arriving at a settlement he had named the two hon. gentlemen opposite, and he hoped they would get up and make the matter once for all clear. They would never arrive at a settlement if they were going to allow these wrangles to continue. They had people all over the country taking up the Act and reading it this way or that. They had every lawyer laying ‘down the law on the subject. All this might be saved if delegates would get up and say what was agreed upon.

Nobody will accept the delegates’ opinions.

The Hon. the Minister of Education said that nobody would accept the reading of the delegates who were appointed by four different Parliaments. He said that it would be accepted by the people of South Africa. That would settle the whole of the question. He undertook to prove that in the discussion extending from October 17 until Tuesday, October 20 inclusive, the Minister of Justice receded from the position of direct compulsion to equality of opportunity, in which any sort or kind of direct or indirect compulsion was repudiated.

Can’t you give us the reference?

If the hon. gentleman will only keep quiet, I will give every reference that I can. The first proposal was one of compulsory bilingualism. He did not want to lay traps, so he would read the first proposal on the language question, which the hon. member for Uitenhage would notice was not in the Minutes.

He would read the original proposal: “In order to effect a closer union of the colonies represented at this Convention, and in order fully to attain the object of its establishment, it is essential that both English and Dutch be recognised as the national and official languages of the Union ; to be treated on a footing of equality, and to possess and enjoy equal freedom, rights, and privileges in all the offices, functions, and services of whatsoever kind or nature administered by or under the Union.” Now follows the portion which was afterwards deleted: “And that every appointment made under the Union shall be made with due regard to the equality of the two languages and to the rights of any citizen of the Union to avail himself of and to claim either language as the medium of communication between himself and any officer or servant of the Union.” That was the first proposal, and it was not submitted to the Transvaal delegates as a body—it was refused before it reached him (the speaker). It was refused —to their honour be it said—by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and was not even submitted to Sir G. Farrar, Mr. Lindsay, and himself. It was submitted to the Cape delegates, and there was a difference of opinion. It was never even shown to the Natal delegates. It was only through the right hon. member for Albany that he got to know of its existence. On Saturday, October 18, the proposal was submitted to the Cape delegates only, end it was shown to him by his right hon. friend. He was told that if it was not accepted that President Steyn and General Hertzog would walk out of the Convention, to which his (the speaker’s) reply was that if an answer was wanted, he could give it in one word, “Walk,” because they were not going to accept an ultimatum from anybody, but he added that he did not believe that they would do any such thing. They met face to face, and there was no difficulty. If they looked up the Minutes —

They are private. (Laughter).

The hon.gentleman does not know they were published a year ago.

On page 18 they would find the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice, with these words, which provided for “compulsory bilingualism,” left out. That was the second stage. On that day there was a short discussion, in the course of which his right, hon. friend the member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson) took exception to certain words in the amended motion. His attention having been drawn by the proposal of compulsory bilingualism, they looked for dangers in this, and on page 22 they would find the words “in all the various offices, functions, and services of whatsoever kind or nature of or administered by or under the Union,” were struck out. Why? Because his right hon. friend said it might be construed as implying compulsion on the public servants, and it was then that the Minister of Justice said he had no desire and no idea of compulsion. It was then that he (Sir Percy) made that statement which he made in Pretoria when he asked people to trust the other side. He put it to the Minister of Justice that if they put those words in a man could go to a railway siding in Natal and demand that a way bill be written out in Dutch, and if the official could not do so some political mischief-maker could appeal to Government to dismiss that man. The Minister of Justice accepted this position then, and made another step towards meeting them. He most earnestly hoped that the points of difference were simply due to their having forgotten some of the things that had taken place. Either he was right or the hon. gentlemen on the other side were right—let them know where they were and put an end to the mischief. Well, after the discussion on Monday, Mr. Jagger moved for a committee, consisting of General Hertzog, Colonel Greene, Dr. Jameson, General Smuts, and the President. That was not put to the Convention, but at five o’clock on Monday afternoon the committee met in the President’s room. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior did him (Sir Percy) the honour to ask him to go in the place of the Minister of the Interior. They knew that he wanted to settle the Language question liberally and fairly on terms of equal rights. They met, and the Minister of Justice discussed the question, and between them they drafted almost what was in the minutes to-day, but the one word of difference was the definite article. When he drew General Hertzog’s attention to the words “Dutch and English should be the official languages,” and pointed out that the use of the word “the” might be taken to imply that a public servant should know both, whereas we meant that he could use either, the latter took the paper from his hand and said “Give me a minute. It is not a very likely interpretation, but it may be taken so, and we will strike out the" ‘ the,’” and the definite article was deleted then and there. When that was put before the Convention on Tuesday, to his (Sir Percy’s) surprise, he saw that the motion was drafted with the definite article in it. When he rose to draw attention to the matter the Minister of Justice said “No, allow me?” and the Minister explained to the Convention that it was merely a typist’s error, and the reason why the definite article had been struck out was lest it might possibly suggest compulsory bilingualism.

And now they had been asked whether they were stupid, careless or trusting on this’ point. He (Sir Percy) thought he had shown that they were neither stupid nor careless, but they were trusting, and he was glad of it. He was perfectly certain that every member of the Convention who remembered the fact would say that they were right. He did not want to labour the point further, except that when his right hon. friend again raised the question as to whether it would be expected of an individual officer that he would be able to reply in either language, the Minister of Justice explained that what he meant by that was that there should be reasonable facilities for both classes of people to address the Government in the language which they understood and to get a reply in that language, adding “Surely in every Department there will be someone who can interpret.” That was the assurance on which they went in. They might have been stupid in not having put this in the Act of Union, but after making it absolutely clear that there was no thought of compulsory bilingualism it would have been nothing less than an insult to put it up against the other side that they did not believe their word. On that same occasion President Steyn, in reply to his right hon. friend, said: “Believe me, we have no desire whatever to force our language on anybody else.” (Hear, hear.) Do you blame us, continued Sir Percy, for accepting their word? Do you think we acted injudiciously? I would do the same thing again. What I am convinced is that this wants clearing up by another face to face meeting to know how far we are led astray by our feelings or by our eccentric memories. Everybody knows that a man may forget. I have been very careful to submit what I want to say to my hon. friends, and when they told me that they could not corroborate a thing I struck it out. I have struck out things of which I feel sure, but they cannot be endorsed. I have brought nothing forward which I don’t believe will be accepted by every member of the Convention. All we want on this question is commonsense and good faith. Continuing, Sir Percy said he might tell them another point which caused them great uneasiness. Of course, in practice it made very little difference. When they found that Bills were being signed in either language that made them uneasy. Sir George Farrar had put in a motion before the Convention, when everything had been settled with regard to language, that the Governor should sign the English copy of Bills, so, that the people would know where they stood, and for no other reason, and after every other point had been settled.

I must point out that we are only dealing with that circular, and the hon. member must confine himself to the circular.

I am very sorry if I trespassed, sir, because it is quite unintentional ; but I specially put in “the spirit of the Convention.’

The hon. member is perfectly ill order when he talks about what took place at the Convention and as to what hon. members thought as regards the meaning of Article 137, but the hon. member cannot travel beyond that; he must confine himself to the motion: that Circular No. 420 issued by the Railway Administration is in conflict with the terms —

The terms and the spirit —

But this only deals with the circular —

And the spirit of the Convention. It was undertaken in the Convention by delegates to accept this understanding, or whatever you like to call it—that the copy of the Bill to be signed should be the English one, with the result —

We know all about it.

I will put it to the hon. Minister that he is not ruling the House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker.

I must point out that the question concerning the signing of Acts in English or Dutch is not covered by this motion, which only deals with the circular.

I was referring to the Convention and the settlement of the language question. It was on the appeal of President Steyn that we consented to the clause as it stands, and against the judgment of the President of the Convention, who urged the insecurity which would otherwise be produced in South Africa, and it was only this most earnest and moving appeal from President Steyn that we left it at that—that we would have only English-speaking Governors and that it was inconceivable that a Governor would sign anything he did not fully understand. There is no binding power ; but it makes us uneasy when a solemn understanding like that—an appeal like that—is disregarded. It makes us uneasy. Before this goes any further we want to know how we stand on this matter. I have said a great deal which I know my hon. friend the Minister of Justice corroborates. Perhaps I said a great deal he did not remember, but will remember now. (Ministerial dissent.) I will say to the Minister of Education that he will do no good by jeering. It will never be settled by jeering or by force—you know that. I have not put it forward, as I have said before, in a spirit of no confidence or in a spirit of censure ; I know it is useless, and it is not the way to settle a question of this kind. It is no good appealing to party. All I can say in conclusion is: give us common-sense, give us good faith, and I have not the slightest fear about the future.

seconded the motion.

said that it was quite refreshing to hear the hon. member speak like that, and it was a pity that in his peregrinations through the country the hon. member did not adopt the same moderate and conciliatory tone. (Ministerial cheers.) When speaking to the House, he appealed to their common-sense, their good sense, and their reason, and they were always willing to listen to him, and, if possible, to agree ; but when the hon. member went about the country, he was like a roaring lion—(laughter)—here in the House he cooed like a turtle dove—(laughter)—and in wooing various constituencies some time ago he had not adopted the language in which he now addressed the House at all. In Pietermaritzburg he did not use the same language —

He did ; I was present.

What he said was this: “Why, they could not push a wheelbarrow unless they did it in Dutch ; and the people who were responsible for that position are your representatives.” He had also called them “political wobblers” and “renegades.” If that was reasonable and commonsense, he (Sir Thomas) was very much surprised. Then, again, at Ladysmith he used most extraordinary and misleading language: “There was a railway circular regarding promotion and bilingualism, which was a gross and deliberate breach of the Convention ; he thought that the Prime Minister had justified the boast he made last session, when, having been told that there was a danger from the Natal Independents, he cried: ‘ I will give them a month or two, and they will be so tame that they will feed out of my hand.’” (Laughter.)

And he caused racial feeling among the railwaymen in Ladysmith to such an extent that they almost called upon their member to resign—(laughter)—because he supported a Government that had issued a circular taking away their rights. He did not want to enlarge upon that aspect of the question, but he would put it to the hon. member (Sir Percy) whether it was fair to go stumping the country using such inflammatory language and misinforming the people? (Ministerial cheers.) The great point about that circular was that it was not put in force. He agreed with the hon. member that the circular was in conflict with the spirit of the Convention. (Opposition cheers.) Whether it was in conflict with the express words of the Convention was a matter to be argued, but there was no doubt that the circular had a very unsettling effect upon the railwaymen in Natal. (Opposition cheers.) He might state that prior to Onion he saw a deputation from the public service, who asked what their position would be under Union, and he frankly told them he thought their position would be improved, and advised them to vote for Union at the referendum. Afterwards several men came to him and said: “Are these promises not to be fulfilled, and are we to have men put over our ; heads simply because we can’t speak Dutch?” When it was remembered that over 95 per cent, of the railwaymen in Natal were English, and knew no Dutch, it was easy to see the unsettling effect the circular would have. The circular was wide and general in its terms, and applied to all Civil Servants. He mentioned the matter at the Congress in Bloemfontein in November, and he was perfectly satisfied with the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, to the effect that no man in the railway service would be penalised in any way, because he did not speak Dutch, and he went on to say that if it would ease the minds of railwaymen he was perfectly willing to withdraw it. He was sorry that the Government did not frame the circular so as to make it apply only in those districts where both languages were necessary. He was quite aware that under Union there was equality of language but in giving it effect, due regard: must be had to the vested rights of the men in the service. No injustice had been done to his knowledge to any man in the service by reason of his ignorance of the Dutch language, and the hon. member who brought forward this motion tacitly admitted by his silence he had brought forward no allegation that any man was penalised in any way. He hoped the hon. Minister would give effect to the promise he gave at Bloemfontein, either to withdraw the circular or to modifiy it and make it apply only to those districts where both languages are spoken. The hon. member for Fordsburg, during the recess, made a most admirable speech at Pietermaritzburg, which was moderate and lucid. He did not follow the tone of his colleague for Pretoria East. In the course of it he stated he would watch with intetrest the way in which the Natal representatives would vote when that matter was brought before the House. (Opposition cheers.) Well, if he had done him (the speaker) the honour of reading a speech he made a short time previously he would have seen that he said, with regard to the circular, “it was a huge blunder, and was issued without due consideration. He was relieved to hear it was not to be put into force. It ought to be withdrawn or modified. If it was acted upon, he was prepared to support a vote of censure on the Government.” He was not aware that it had been acted upon. He was aware, on the other hand, that the Minister had stated, in view of the circumstances, that railway men in Natal had never been asked to learn the Dutch language, he intended to modify the circular. He did not want to go into the discussions at the National Convention, because, as a matter of fact, he was not present when the discussion about the languages took place ; but what he gathered subsequently, was that, the two languages were to be on terms of equality, and there was to be no compulsion ; and he understood that was the view the members of the Government took of it. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought the uneasiness could very easily be settled by the Minister giving effect to the promise he made at Bloemfontein, which was quite satisfactory to the service. (Cheers.)

stated that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had issued a circular which gave preference to bilingual officials, and that was right. There was no question of preference for English over Dutch Afrikanders, nor vice versa. If one party demanded preference for the English, then the other party would want its language to have preference. In that way misunderstandings would arise, from which South Africa had already suffered so much. The great question between the two races had been fought out in 1899-1902, and then they had sworn to be faithful to the King. From him came the Constitution giving equal rights for both languages, but where were those equal rights? The Afrikanders were faithful subjects, but they must have their rights. They had already borne a great deal. Documents in the Dutch language always appeared in Parliament later than those in English, and so far they had tolerated it, but it must not be allowed to continue. Up to now in the railway station at Volksrust there had been no other than Englishmen, where bilingual officials ought to be placed. This motion and that of last week would wake the people up.

was pleased to note the good tone of the debate. He had, however, noticed that the Opposition were determined to undermine clause 137. The hon. member for Pretoria East had tried to explain the meaning of clause 137, but only made it darker. If the explanation given to that clause by the hon. member were to prevail, then the clause might as well be scrapped. He (the speaker) was rejoiced at the time of the National Convention at the attitude taken up by the English members. Those members had offered the hand of friendship, and the Afrikanders had accepted it. They did not agree, however, that such offer was conditional. He agreed that in Natal it was not so necessary that railway officials should speak both languages, but the hon. member for Pretoria East had tried to show that English was sufficient throughout the Union. When the Select Committee took evidence it was stated by the representative of the Natal railway officials that bilingual men were necessary on that railway. Why was there so much talk about these language rights? The Government had gone as far as they could, and he hoped the other party would also go a little way to meet them.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East had spoken on every subject except the subject matter of the motion. (Hear, hear.) As a fact, he had very little to say and, as a consequence, he (Mr. Sauer) felt that his occupation was gone. He really did not know what there was to reply to for his hon. friend had not given him one single point. The hon. member (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) laboured the point that compulsory bilingualism was contrary to the provisions of the South Africa Act, but in that he (Mr. Sauer) agreed entirely. He thought they were all agreed and, that being so, the argument that he wished to convey to the House in regard to the constitutionality of the circular he thought, could well be left alone. He should say that this tender solicitude for the integrity of the Constitution, coming from the quarter it did, was a little remarkable. He remarked the part these gentlemen formerly played in reference to the Constitution of the Cape Colony and he remembered the efforts that were made in the Transvaal with a view of keeping free institutions from the people. Therefore, he said when they came to discuss this question from the constitutional point of view and discussed it both in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, he regarded it with grave suspicion. Hence he said that he could hardly take it as serious, considering the quarter from which it came. The constitutional matter could very easily be settled. The best way of answering this matter was to say that the Government or the Railway Administration could do all they could in regard to promotion if that circular were not in force. That was the answer—a complete answer. It gave him no more power, no more right, and he could do exactly without this circular what he could do with it. (Hear, hear.)

What is the object of the circular then?

Act up to the Constitution.

said that he did not take the hon. member’s opinion on the Constitution. He preferred his own opinion. He might tell the hon. member that they had had no proof that it was unconstitutional. More than that, the most eminent lawyers they had consulted laughed at it. They said, “You can do without this under the Constitution just the same as you can under your circular. The circular gives you no more power than ever you had before” It was easy to talk idle words, but it was what they did that mattered. No opportunity had been allowed to pass without an endeavour in some way or other to defeat the provisions of the South Africa Act in regard to the equal rights of the two languages. It was not enough to say on a platform that the Dutch language had equal rights, but the moment they attempted to apply it! (Ministerial cries of “Ah!”)

He was not mad on this question—or on any other question—(Ministerial cheers) —but he maintained that the blind, deaf and dumb could almost have seen and heard that whenever an attempt had been made to apply the provisions of the South Africa Act in so far as giving equality to the two languages went, objections had been raised.

No! When?

The world is witness, and after yesterday’s exhibition I say to my hon. friends in all seriousness —

This refers to a past debate.

Be quiet! I can quite understand the hon. member for Fort Beaufort being uncomfortable. He is one of those unhappy persons who cannot control their feelings. Proceeding, he said that the Opposition, by their attitude on the race question, on the language question—which was the same thing—had already reduced themselves to a group. He assured them that the effect of their proceedings in regard to the question debated the previous day had done them incalculable harm, and it would do them more. Because a man must be very blind who could not see that these questions—whether intentionally or not—raised the racial question. Perhaps hon. members opposite were more stupid than wicked. (Ministerial laughter and cheers.) Many people would think that probable, but whether it was sin or the other thing they undoubtedly conveyed to the people—and to a great many English people—that they were putting themselves in the forefront in regard to certain questions which could only have one effect in regard to certain sections. Let them look at the events of the last twelve years. The Dutch had had to surrender what was as dear to them as to any other people in the world. They accepted the generous attitude the British Government took up in giving them equal political rights. But he was sorry to say that the attitude recently taken up on the other side did mot show that response or that anxiety which they were all anxious to see. It would happen, too. The difference between the races would be healed, and in time they would hare nothing of that in South Africa, but they were going too slowly. He said again that through the attitude taken up, especially within the last year, the Opposition had conveyed to a very large section of the community that they were animated by strong race "feeling, that they were determined to acquire all the rights they had a right to acquire under the South Africa Act.

You don’t believe it. (Opposition cheers.)

They may!

You don’t.

I am not saying what I believe. (Opposition laughter.) I say that is the effect you are leaving on a large section of the people. I say you do object to the full application of equal rights in South Africa. (Opposition cries of “No.”) That is my opinion.

That was our attitude when we asked to form a Government with you!

replied that his hon. friend was always anxious to go back to the best men Government. He wondered that the hon. member had not the self-respect to restrain himself from always reminding the House that they had lost office.

I would not exchange with you.

asked whether the people had not had the opportunity to say what Government they would have. Had they asked for a best men Government? He must say, too, after the exhibition of the last day or so, these “best men” were not very near them just now. (Ministerial cheers.) The people had had the right to say whether it was right to form the Government on the old party lines. At the elections their policy was endorsed, and a large number of people who voted for them belonged to both the great races in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) Let them look at the position! In the Union they had two races fairly equally divided. In the various departments in which the officials came into contact with, the public, 80 to 85 per cent. of them were English. If they included workshop employees the percentage would be very greatly increased. Railways did not only run from Durban to Maritzburg, or from Germiston to Park, or from Cape Town to Wynberg. They had railways in the outlying parts of the Union, and he hoped they would have more—(Ministerial cheers) —where only one language was understood by the great majority of the people. Continually it had been brought to his notice that loss, annoyance, and inconvenience were sustained on the railways because people were employed who could not make themselves intelligible to the patrons of the railway. Continually! Business people would rectify that. He found that the shopkeepers of Cape Town, who at one time looked for a living on forwarding goods from the Cape to Johannesburg, had now become wiser and catered for nearer home. They had people who could speak to their customers. It was business, and it was right that people should be employed, who could speak English where English was required, and Dutch where Dutch was required. What would be said if at Germiston, Cape Town, Wynberg, and Port Elizabeth they appointed men who could only speak Dutch? (Ministerial cheers.) Still, they cried against any attempt to remedy the state of affairs.

What does the circular say?

You didn’t tell us what it said. (Ministerial laughter.)

I read it.

I can quite understand the course you took. You’ve had your opportunity.

Not without interruption.

I didn’t make speeches every time. (Ministerial laughter.) I don’t know what would be said if only Dutch-speaking people were employed at those places. Naturally there would be indignation. Now, we say we want people who can speak in the language that is understood. That is the object of the circular. That is to say, we give some encouragement to people to learn the language. That is what the circular says. Let me say that I have not had a single complaint from the railway people of the Cape. (Hear, hear.) I have even been told that at a meeting called at Uitenhage to discuss the question that there was no objection. I have had no objections from the Free State or the Transvaal. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, he said that for some time there was no objection in Natal. But the political firebrands and the people in the employ of the Progressive party went round and stirred up a great deal of feeling, and the papers simply raved with indignation. The papers all sang the same tune ; but they had done his hon. friend the Minister of Justice more good than they thought. (Ministerial cheers.) These papers had a way of telegraphing what they said to other papers, and then called it public opinion. They also telegraphed what was going to be said on the following day as if the universe would be convulsed. (Laughter.) He wanted to say that from no other department of the Union had he had any complaints, for the good reason that they knew that they were not going to suffer.

How do they know that?

By the Act of Union.

Does my hon. friend believe they are going to suffer?

Yes, I do.

Then I am surprised. Continuing, he said that he understood his hon. friend the member for Pretoria East to say that if the circular did not apply to places where a knowledge of both languages would not be required, it would be all right.

I said that your explanation was reasonable.

Then you approve of it?

I said that it was a reasonable explanation.

Then you approve of it? Continuing, he asked if the Act of Union said that there was one special lot of rights for one place and another set of rights for another. He thought that the Act dealt with the matter differently. It apparently depended on the locality, according to his hon. friend. It just showed the hon. member in his true light. It was a crime in one place, and it was not in another. He would like to draw the attention of the House to the action that was taken in the Cape Colony, where, would hon. members believe, the same principle was adopted?

By whom?

My hon. friend had better be careful. (Laughter.) I believe that the circular was issued to the railway people of the Cape Colony.

When?

Wait. (Laughter.) Continuing, be said it was pointed out that in certain parts a knowledge of Dutch was essential, and that preference would be given, all other things being equal, to men who had a knowledge of both languages. Who issued that circular? Nobody but his hon. friend who sat opposite. (Ministerial cheers.)

Then you accuse us of being unfair to the Dutch people?

I don’t do that so far as my right hon. friend is concerned, but it is the policy of which he approves. (Ministerial cheers.) I am glad he takes credit for it. It is very clever. The principle is exactly the same: we are going according to the principle laid down by the right hon. gentleman. I ask: Why all this fuss? Here they had exactly the same principle.

Take Natal. He found in that enterprising colony they did exactly the same in regard to the teachers who were on the same footing, he believed, as our Civil Servants were. In Natal a circular was issued, stating that in certain districts headmasters who spoke Dutch would be preferred. That was exactly the same principle. The Opposition did not say that was against the Constitution. He thought the Constitution applied all over the Union. The railway circular said: “With the increasing necessity for servants of the Administration not already so qualified making themselves acquainted with both languages, so that patrons of the Administration who are only versed in one language may be placed at no disadvantage, it is notified for general information that officers and employees who are able to converse and correspond in both languages will, other features in regard to efficiency, experience and general qualifications being equal, receive preference for promotion to the appointments that become vacant from time to time.” That was exactly the same as the circular issued in Natal, with this difference, that in Natal it was made to apply to certain officials or to certain places, but the principle was the same. (Cries of “No.”) What did he say when he spoke at Bloemfontein? He referred them to the reasonable people. He was told by the hon. member for Pretoria East that he (Sir Percy) was not speaking to that House but to the gallery.

I did not say that.

You said “outsiders.”

Yes.

I am speaking to this House. I don’t speak either to the gallery or to the people outside, but to the House. You must recognise the necessity of having a large number of people on the railway who speak both languages, and I shall endeavour to increase that number without doing an injustice to anyone. (Ministerial cheers.) If A and B are equally efficient, with the circular the Administration can promote them, and it cannot do more under the circular. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said that if one man showed, in addition to his being equal to the other that he had a desire to become acquainted with the language of the other section of the population, it was impossible that, other things being equal, he should be passed over.

But not a single man had suffered, and not a single man would, or indeed could suffer, even if the provisions of the circular strictly were adhered to. He said at Bloemfontein—as he thought the circular itself showed—that the intention was to meet the wants of the patrons of the railways—surely they were the people who spoke the two languages. But how was he met when he spoke at Bloemfontein? He was met in the same way that they had been met on the education question and other matters when they wished to come near one or other and get over these difficulties which were so perplexing and so disturbing. He was met with a huge headline “Climbing down,” and he had no doubt that one of the papers to which he was referring would, probably before he had finished speaking, have a similar head line. Those papers with imported editors, who knew very little of South Africa, and who—he did not suppose—cared much for its future, were always ready to abuse, and call them cowards and to assail them in their position as officers of their party. They would be ready to say that the Minister of Railways had climbed down. He was told so after the Bloemfontein meeting. That was not the way to secure contentment. It was for that reason that he had listened with the greatest of pain to the discussion of the past few days. He had sat many years in that House, but never before had he heard so much talk of racialism and men quoting absurd things as they had done during the last few days.

Let them deal with that question, not as if it were one of Dutch or English, but let them look at its utility. They were carrying on the largest business in the country and they had two languages. When an attempt was made to suit the wants of the people who brought, say, fodder to the railways, they were told that they must do nothing to meet them. (Opposition cries of “No.”) He could tell stories of how men could not be served and of being treated rudely—he did not believe intentionally—only because people did not understand them, and the men had become so incensed that they had gone back to their carts. Were they to go in total disregard of the fact that the Government railways were built to serve the needs of both races? No ; it was impossible. Why should exception be taken to the circular which gave him no more power than he had before? The only object he could conceive with which the circular was issued was that it should be an indication to the men that it would be to their interest to learn both languages. At the time he spoke at Bloemfontein a different spirit prevailed to that which prevailed in that House—it was the only time when the Convention spirit reasserted itself. He then said what the object of the circular was. He also made it clear that no one would suffer Still, he felt that there was misrepresentation. People had been misled, political capital had been made out of it, there was general speaking on platforms, and the Press resounded from one end of the country to the other, and he thought, if that was the attitude to be taken up, whether he would withdraw the circular or not—he never changed his view of that, because, as he said, for no other reason, it would leave matters as they were. And to suppose that he was going to issue a circular to have two languages where only one was used, was absurd. Was it supposed that this circular would be so applied as to compel a man in Durban to know both Dutch and English? What they wanted, and what the circular meant, was that they should so arrange their staff as far as possible that people, whether they knew Dutch of English could be served. (Ministerial cheers.) And it was in that sense he meant to carry it out. Therefore he had no objection to meeting his hon. friend the member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), and say that he would modify the circular and make it applicable in cases where generally there was need for both languages. (Cheers.) But he had to say this: that he thought it would be just as much a breach of the South Africa Act amended or as it was now. He could say even more. But undoubtedly it would be just as much a breach of the South Africa Act as if it remained as it was now, and the position—if the hon. member had asked for that probably there would have been no discussion, but he came here and said the South Africa Act had been broken. He gave no reason for it, and the position was simple. It seemed to him at the time when it was fresh in the minds of hon. gentlemen, the resolution of Durban—which he would advise them to rescind after the debate of the last few days—mo doubt it was thought much political capital could be made out of it ; but he was glad they were now in a more sober spirit, and that they were prepared to deal with this matter on its merits, and he was quite prepared to say that he would modify the circular, at the same time doing what he could, without prejudicing anybody’s rights, to induce a larger knowledge of Dutch, while defending the existing rights of the people. He was quite prepared to so modify this circular that it would be only applicable where there was a necessity for it. (Cheers.) And he was very glad that he was able to show that the Cape in the past, under the Premiership of the hon. gentleman who sat opposite, led in that very good cause, because, let him say again, that it was impossible to work satisfactorily ; it was impossible to go and deprive a large section of the community of their inherent right—(Ministerial cheers)—to be understood when they went to do business. (Ministerial cheers.) And he would say it was contrary to the provisions of the South Africa Act, which in spirit said that if a man came to a public office or a public officer, he could converse in the language and get clear information in the language which he spoke. (Ministerial cheers.) This circular, not only was it not contrary to the South Africa Act, but it carried out the spirit of that Act. He never had, and never would be, a party in any way to the violation of the legal or constitutional or other rights contained in the South Africa Act. (Ministerial cheers.) He would give effect, if he was permitted to do so by this House—that is, if he was not displaced before that time —to the modification of that circular in the sense he had stated. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that after the speech by the Hon. the Minister, he did not think any good purpose could be served by carrying on the debate, but that speech only met part of the case. It had been one of the most insidious and subtle racial speeches he had ever listened to. The Minister seemed to have said exactly that which he knew would inflame racial passions, and he deliberately went outside the debate and harped on the debate of a few days ago in order to put the seal on racial passions. (Opposition cheers.) The Minister told them that the circular was not unconstitutional, and quoted an other to show that it was the same as the one he issued. But the Minister did not seem to see, or refused to see, the difference between the two. He had to say that so far as the Minister’s statement, that it had been upon an equality, whether he committed a breach of the Act of Union or not, reminded him of the police court attorney who was always ready with exceptions. The Minister stated that whenever the South Africa Act had been applied with reference to any question, he had found objections raised on the Opposition side of the House. He would like to ask the Minister to tell them how, where, and when any of those objections had ever been made by any responsible member on that side of the House. He was asked in the debate to specify in his reply, and the reply was that it was generally known. He would like him to specify the instances where they interfered with the Act of Union with reference to the absolute equality of the languages. The Minister continually referred to things said during the election, and, with regard to this racial question, he would like members on the other side to look at what happened on their side during that period.

He put it to the House that wherever the majority, or the large majority of the electors had been purely Dutch, had it ever been possible for any member on that side of the House to go and contest that constituency?

They are not wanted.

Why not? Because these men always vote race.

pointed out that the hon. member was travelling outside the subject before the House.

said that he was replying to some observations made by the Minister of Railways. Every time he (Mr. Botha) had had occasion to deal with his own countrymen, they always asked, “Who is your leader?” It did not matter what the policy was. They were convinced against one merely because of one’s leader. He would ask his right hon. friend (General Botha) was not that racialism? (A VOICE: No.) The strength of the party opposite consisted of a solid phalanx of the Dutch vote behind them and such English voters as they could persuade to come over to them. So that, if it came to a question of racialism, in effect racialism was far stronger on the Ministerial side than on his own side of the House. (Ministerial dissent.) Then it had been said that the Unionist papers sent telegrams to one another. His hon. friend the Minister of Lands was not unconnected with a very prominent paper in Bloemfontein. He also had some recollection that his hon. friend the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was not unconnected with a newspaper in Cape Town. He had reason to believe that his right hon. friend had some sort of a say in a paper in Pretoria. He dared say that these papers sent telegrams to one another. The Minister of Railways had put himself up as a strong advocate of the rights of the Dutch language. He would beg of him, in the interests of the Dutch language, if he wanted to keep it going, not to make it a laughing-stock to the whole of South Africa. He would like to give a few examples of the way in which the Dutch language was being treated by the Minister of Railways. That morning he came across a notice —

said that the hon. member was travelling outside the motion, and dealing with something which had nothing to do with the circular.

said he wanted to see that people who knew only one language were not placed at a disadvantage by the notices issued by the Railway Department. The first notice that struck him —

said he must point out again to the hon. member that the point he made now had no reference to Circular No. 420. The use of the Dutch language on the railways had nothing to do with the circular.

I bow to your ruling, sir. I recognise that a great deal of latitude has been given to the Minister of Railways and I would like to answer him merely in regard to his solicitude for the Dutch language. I want to show how the Dutch language has been treated by the Railway Department. I have got here a notice which I think the House ought to see, and which, for the life of me, I cannot understand. A little while ago the Minister of Railways delivered a sort of rebuke to me on this question of the language he uses on the railways. I then endeavoured to show him that, for the purpose of carrying on the railway administration in this country, we have a language which is perfectly capable of supplying the needs of this country, and that, we need not go to other countries and borrow words which are not known in this country, and call them “Dutch.”

The hon. member is going outside my ruling. The hon. member will have every opportunity of debating all these grievances on the Estimates.

said that, after the declaration of the Minister of Railways that he was prepared to amend the circular, he did not think that anybody in that House would desire to discuss this question any further. He regretted that the Minister had not accepted the very fair challenge put forward by his hon. friend with the object of getting the public of South Africa to understand where they were in connection with this language question. He was perfectly certain that if there was a frank exchange of views between his hon. friend and the Minister of Justice, the atmosphere would become much clearer on this very unpleasant and vexed question.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East had invited him to give an expression of opinion as to certain facts. It was only fair to accept that invitation. In so far as the hon. member had tried to justify his interpretation of the Act of Union historically by what took place during the Convention, he could, almost all along the line, admit his correctness. (Opposition cheers.) In most of these matters, though he naturally did not remember everything, he was prepared to accept the statement of the hon. member for Pretoria East. The hon. member had stated every point fairly, except one, in regard to the signing of Acts of Parliament ; but as that was outside the range of the present discussion, he would not dwell on it. He would speak in regard to the language question as laid down in the Act of Union. The interpretation sought to be set upon the Act of Union with regard to that question was based by the hon. member on historical grounds. That was where they had differed all along. If the hon. member came to the bottom of the whole question, he would find that they were really at one. He would point out later on where they separated: it was really in inferences drawn from facts, and not in regard to the facts themselves. The hon. member seemed to require that the application of the language clauses should be based upon that which was jettisoned by the Convention, whereas he submitted that the application should be based upon that which was preserved by the Convention as laid down in the Act. (Ministerial cheers.) But really they were not very far apart. The hon. member said, quite correctly, that he or somebody else in the Convention asked, “What would be the result if a man went to a little outside station in an English-speaking community, where there was an English stationmaster, and insisted on Dutch, if he wished to be served, as it were, in Dutch?” They all said, he with the others, that was not what was intended. There were two things which during that Convention they agreed upon. One was that they should not give unreasonable men an opportunity of being unreasonable, and the other was that they should not try and run the State into unnecessary cost ; getting, for instance, in Durban a man who must necessarily know both languages, and likewise in respect to some outside place in the Free State. It was in respect to this that he had all along said that the interpretation must not give rise to unnecessary unpleasantness. Now, the hon. member for Pretoria East—and that was where he differed in regard to the interpretation—said in regard to section 138: “You cannot, and the Government may not, insist or demand, where it is going to appoint an official to a certain place, or to promote him to a certain place, that he should know both languages.” That was how the hon. member had been reported. He (the speaker), on the contrary, maintained at Newcastle that that would reduce section 133 to a farce. The hon. member for Pretoria East wanted equality of opportunity, but what he (the speaker) wanted was that the opportunity must be with the public, who are to be served, and not with the servants of the Government, who are to serve. That was where they differed. He maintained that the masters of these servants must have equality of opportunity, so that a Dutch-speaking person could go to an official and converse with him in Dutch. He (the speaker) had then asked what the position would be if, acting upon the interpretation which he set upon his words as reported in the paper they were to go and place in Johannesburg, say, a Magistrate who knew nothing but Dutch. The hon. member would recollect that part of his speech. Therefore the difference was one of inference which had no historical basis. If they wished to settle what was meant by the Convention they must first consult their common-sense and their spirit of fair-play. Looked at in that light, nobody could deny it was incumbent upon the Government to supply the wants of the public, and if those wants demanded a knowledge of Dutch it must be supplied, and English likewise. Of course, his hon. friend might have been inaccurately reported. Both his hon. friend and himself were, he admitted, rather diverging from the motion, but he hoped under the circumstances that no hon. member would take them to task for this, because he considered it was of the greatest importance that they should see they understood one another on this question. Section 137 made it clear that the two languages should have equal rights. It was clear to him that the two languages should have equal rights. It was clear to him that if they were to be treated as equal then the Government should treat them equally by complying with the demands of the public and with the requisites of the country. (Ministerial cheers.) Section 145 stated that the services of officers in the public service in any of the colonies at the time of Union should not be dispensed with by reason of their want of knowledge of either the English or the Dutch language. Let them look at that for a moment! That safeguarded the interests and the positions of all the officers in the public service at the date of Union. In what respect? It was said that their services should not be dispensed with because of their lack of knowledge of one or the other languages. This clearly showed what was in their minds at the time: that in the future the Government should look to this as being a bilingual country, not in the sense of one man speaking both languages, but of both languages being in South Africa, and the Government would say: “We take it that the members of the Convention practically said the Government would say it was necessary to have servants who know both languages, and the Government will comply with the requirements of the country by appointing officers who know both languages.” But he did not say for one moment that the Government must always go to the extent of appointing bilingual servants. That had not been laid down. It was left to the discretion and bona fides of the Government to look after the interests of the country. He had always thought it would be a grave injustice to do what his hon. friend, he feared, thought they were doing, to penalise those unilingual people in South Africa who desired to go into the service. That was never contemplated. The Government of the Union would never go so far as that, but that did not take the obligation from the shoulders of the Government to see that the requirements of the Dutch and of the English-speaking sections were met. He thought his hon. friend had done a service to all of them in raising this question, because he thought that once again they were coming to the road they had travelled once.

informed the Minister that within a couple of days two specific cases had been brought before him in connection with the railway circular. At meetings, these railway servants had decided not to approach the Minister, because that might do them more harm than good. They treated it as a very serious matter indeed. The men put it to him that it was impossible at their age to acquire a knowledge of what was warned from them. The Minister had said that the matter ought to be looked at as a matter of convenience. If he maintained that attitude, he thought that nobody on his side would complain. The Minister of Justice was not blameless himself, because he had given instructions to Magistrates that evidence must be taken down in the language in which it was given.

said he was very glad the Minister for Railways had decided to withdraw the circular or amend it when it referred to such places as Durban, where only English was spoken. At any rate he understood the Minister to say that he would modify the terms of the circular in those places where only one language was really necessary. There was another point on which he wished to touch. He understood the Minister to say that the Natal papers were in the hands of the Corner House. They had four—the “Mercury,” the “Witness,” the “Advertiser,” and the “Times.” It was hard to say where the “Times” was at the present time—(laughter)—but with regard to the others, he could say that they were absolutely independent. So far as the Minister for Railways was concerned, he could say that they Lad bean absolutely kind to him, and he hoped that this would be remembered in the future. (Laughter.)

said there were one or two points with which he would like to deal, and he hoped that this was the last time the Act of Union would be interpreted in accordance with conversations that had taken place between the members of the Convention. He drew the attention of the House to the use of the words compulsory bilingualism. There seemed to be a misunderstanding on the point, and he thought that the use of the words should be explained before such incendiary words were uttered. It appeared that Sir P. Fitzpatrick meant by that only that some Civil Servants should be required to know both official languages. Compulsory bilingualism in this wise had been more the rule than had been recognised. For years it had been compulsory on all who entered the executive of the Post Office as learners. It had been accepted by hon. members on both sides of the House, and he did not see why new principles should now be laid down because of the Act of Union. He pointed out that in other parts of the British Empire where two languages were used, bilingualism was compulsory in the services. South Africa was the only place where this was not the case, and he did not see why an exception should be made in this country. He added that in his constituency, there were more than a thousand railway employees, and they had formed a non-party committee. When the circular was issued, he sent it to that committee, asking whether it would affect the men adversely. He read the reply, which was to the effect that they had no objection to the terms of the circular. The committee considered that the press had exaggerated the position, and had added in the letter that no hardship would be caused by the circular. It was regrettable that hon. gentlemen on the other side should go about the country creating ill-will, and he regretted that the motion brought forward was of such a character that he was unable to deal with the many inflammatory statements that had been made, statements which would tend to cause unrest and dissatisfaction where none existed.

said that after the speech by the Minister of Railways and Harbours the Opposition ought to be satisfied. He hoped the hon. member for Pretoria East would withdraw his motion, seeing that there was now no need for a formal vote. He (the Minister) appealed to the Opposition and also to hon. members on the Government side of the House to work more. They had already been there a month, and had really done no work. They were met together to advance the interests of the country and the people, but if they came to examine the spirit of the speeches which had been delivered, the question arose in whose interests those speeches had been made. They did no good for (South Africa. (Hear, hear.)Nor did they serve the interests of the British Empire. As British subjects they were working there for the attainment of a great ideal, namely, the union of the two races. But by the delivery of such speeches as had been made during the last few days, they were keeping the two races apart and dividing them. The time had come for work. That was not a house for talk, but for work, and the language question should not now be brought before them again. By means of concessions from both sides, the problem had been solved and settled last year, and the bringing up of smaller questions now could only have the result of creating bitterness. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had thrown a bomb, and if they all followed his example the future looked dark, a future for which he would not be responsible. He again appealed to the leader of the Opposition to prevent a division of the races.

said he did not quite agree with the Minister of Justice that equality of opportunity meant equality for the public only. The Civil Servants were also citizens of the country, and it was to protect their rights that the Opposition had taken this stand. Parents were also citizens, and he felt that Parliament had gone a very long way in curtailing the fights of the parents. However, he did not think that any good purpose would be served by carrying this matter any further. He was glad that the Minister had decided to withdraw the circular. He would not deal with the Minister’s gibes, but would prefer to take him at his best, and would not quibble about words. With regard to the charge that he had fomented discontent among the railway men in Natal, those men had expressed their dissatisfaction six weeks before he visited Natal in connection with political matters. He would adopt the suggestion of the Prime Minister and withdraw the motion. (Cheers.)

The motion was then withdrawn.