from residents of Natal, praying the House to consider the prevalence of crimes of violence by native males on European women and children with a view to such steps being taken as may tend to mitigate the evil, and recommending more stringent forms of punishment in certain cases of outrage. (Two petitions.)

for legislation providing for the direct popular veto.

a similar petition.

a similar position.

brought up the report of the Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure, reporting the Railways and Harbours Estimates without amendment, and the Railways and Harbours Supplementary Estimates and the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds, with amendments.

The amendments were agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours, the Minister of Finance, and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bills in accordance with the Estimates as adopted by the House.

brought up a report of the committee appointed to draft and bring up Bills to give effect to the Railways and Harbours Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, and estimates from loan funds, as adopted, submitting two Bills.

By direction of Mr. SPEAKER,

The Bill was read a first time.

The second reading was set down for tomorrow.

brought up a report of the committee appointed to draft and bring up Bills to give effect to the Estimates of Expenditure from loan funds as adopted, submitting a Bill.

By direction of Mr.’ SPEAKER,

The Bill was read a first time.

The second reading was set down for tomorrow.

announced that His Excellency the Governor-General, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the King, had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills, viz.:

The Transvaal and Orange Free State Land Settlements Amendment Act.

Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Act.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the petitions from J. J. de Lange, of Bergman’s Hoek, district of Stockenstrom, and V. G. Fenner-Solomon, of Seymour, district of Stockenstrom, on the subject of certain grazing rights and privileges in that district, presented to the House on the-10th June, 1912, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

communicated a message from the Senate transmitting the Bill, in which they had made certain amendments.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

On the amendment to clause 1, Interpretation of terms,

said that he wished to express regret that the other place had excluded “Manager or managing director of any mine” from the definition of “miner.”

said that mine managers drew very high salaries and were very well able to look after themselves, and, secondly, they did not work continuously underground, and the object of the Bill was not for the benefit of managers, but for the miners who actually worked underground, and that was why he accepted the amendment.

asked whether the Minister was aware that all the mine managers on the Witwatersrand were men who at some time or another had worked underground. They might have been mining or surveying, and in all probability contracted miners’ phthisis, and it was not fair to argue that because they received high salaries they should not have their lives protected. The mine manager had to do what his directors told him, and if he was told to run a mine in such a way as to make certain profits irrespective of the condition of the mine, he had to do it even if his life were to be lost in consequence. He regretted that the other place had inserted this amendment.

said that he hoped the hon. members on the cross-benches would not press their opposition to the amendments made by the Senate. They should not have a squabble with the other place at this time of the day over this matter. It was an open question whether mine managers should be able to claim compensation. If they granted that it might as well be said that mine inspectors should be able to claim compensation. He thought that they should agree to the amendment if only in order to get the Bill through.

On the amendment in clause 8 to delete “section 26 of” in sub-section (c),

said that he did not wish to raise an objection to the amendment. He would rather let it pass if only to prevent an inconvenient squabble with the other place. At the same time the difference was very great. One might be a police offence and the other an offence against section 26 of this Act. He thought it was a great pity that the amendment had been made; in fact, it was a great mistake. There was a great deal of distinction between the general regulations made for the mines and the regulations framed under this Act.

said that the only regulations that could be made under this Act referred to miners’ phthisis, and the general mining regulations referred to those framed under the Mines and Works Act, which was passed last session.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Appropriation (1912-13) Bill. He said that when the House went into committee he would move a small amendment in section 3. The Bill was intended to carry out the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and the section, as printed in the Bill, had a different effect to the paragraph in the Public Accounts Committee. He would, therefore, move for the insertion of a proviso in section 3 which would have the desired effect.

said he would like to draw the attention of the House to a matter which appeared to be of very great importance. In this morning’s paper, the “Cape Times,” he found the following:

That paragraph seemed to him, and he was sure it would appear to the majority of hon. members of the House, to disclose a state of affairs which was inimical to the public interest. It meant that in all probability a very large portion of the public service of this country would be disorganised by reason of the repressive and oppressive measures that that particular department was adopting in regard to its employees. This House did not know the conditions under which the postmen of Bloemfontein had to carry out their duties. No doubt they would be surprised to hear that postmen in Bloemfontein, one of the cities of this country, where, perhaps, living was dearest, received £5 a month when they started, and, he might say incidentally, that they were recruited from messengers, who started at £3 a month and got increases, well—when they got them. (Laughter.) The postmen sometimes got increases and sometimes they did not. A case had been cited to him of a postman who worked in Bloemfontein for 6½ years—this case was brought to his notice four months ago—and was receiving the magnificent salary of £8 15s. per month, plus an annual bicycle allowance of £9, or in other words, an additional 15s. a month, or £9 10s. in all. They had another grievance. He might say that this little trouble, or rather big trouble, was not the result merely of the reduction of the bicycle allowance; that was only the culminating point. They had been subjected to a large number of grievances for a considerable period, and one of them was the very low rate of pay they received. They had another grievance in regard to overtime. Prior to Union they were paid for overtime, but not on the principle on which he should like to see them paid. He wanted them to receive time and a half or time and a quarter for overtime, and not the ordinary pay. Hon. members should realise that this was a bad condition of affairs, because Government should prove themselves model employers. This state of things in a Government department was even worse, when they came to consider those individuals who had been taken on three years ago. These individuals have had to do this work absolutely for nothing, and that seemed a disgraceful state of things. He did not want to detain the House, but this was a serious question. These postmen, who only received from £5 to £8 15s. a month, with an allowance of £5 for a bicycle, were worse off than those in the Transvaal who received £9. This was small indeed, also. The hon. member, referring to the general hum of conversation in the House while he was speaking, said he was sorry that hon. members were not interested in this. They had shown on many occasions great enthusiasm on much more trivial matters. (Hear, hear.) The postmen in Bloemfontein some time ago sent a list of their grievances. They received a reply from the Civil Service Commission stating that their communication had not been sent through the proper channels. They inquired what was the proper channel through which they should send this communication, and they were told that they should have sent it through the local postmaster. This they did, but after having sent it through that channel they received no reply whatever. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue any longer in a great department of the State, and he trusted that the Minister would go into the matter and see that their grievances were remedied.

said the Prime Minister, in answer to a question of his, indicating the serious condition of affairs in the Transkei, owing to the East Coast fever, and the failure of the crops through drought, stated that the situation was not so serious as his words had indicated. Curiously enough, he had just received corroboration of the statement as he had made it. The hon. member read the following extract from the “Territorial News” of the previous Saturday: “There can he little doubt that the native people of these territories are faced with an imminent risk of famine. Not only do the traders certify to this, but it is easily seen by those who come in contact with the official mind that it also shares the fears of the general public. To us it is not understandable how Ministers of the Crown, faced with the responsibility of averting what may be one of the worst catastrophes that South Africa has yet experienced, can shut their ears and their eyes to facts concerning which there can be no doubt. It is these facts that render the withholding of railway facilities from us so serious at the present time. We definitely and distinctly warn the Government and the country that these territories are on the verge of a famine. The outlook is most serious. It was anticipated that the natives might get half crops, but the prolongation of the drought has rendered their getting even quarter crops in places problematical, and—in case the reply is given that a famine only lasts over one season—next year the natives will not have oxen to plough their ground. The neglect of these territories, with their crowded population, by any Government that may be in power is nothing less than a wicked disregard of responsibility, and a neglect for which the country will have to pay dearly in the end.” The second matter that he wanted to bring before the notice of the Government was one that he intended to bring up when the Supplementary Estimates were before the House, but the Chairman ruled that he was out of order, and the only opportunity he had of bringing the matter up was the present one. It was with regard to the Department of Native Affairs in the Transkeian Territories by which they had altered the condition of things with regard to education. He knew it might be said that education belonged to the Provincial Council, but the matter belonged also in part to the Native Affairs Department. Grants had been made by the Provincial Council, and grants had been given by the General Council of the Transkei to education. The General Council had granted £20,000, which was a third of their revenue. The custom was that this should be applied to education up to Standard VI., and there were a few native scholars in the Transkeian Territories who were in Standards V. and VI. The Native Affairs Department sent out instructions that from July 1, 2s. 6d. was to be deducted from every pupil receiving instruction in Standards V. and VI. This was going back instead of forward. He did not say the Government had not the right to do this. Of course, they could always exercise me rower of veto. The natives were unwilling to give up this education for the children in Standards V. and VI., and said they were willing to pay another 1s. or even 2s. 6d. a head if there were no other way by which this education could be preserved. The only reason given why this reduction was made was that too much of the general revenue had been devoted to education and too little to bridges and roads. The highest grant out of the 10s. in any district for education was 5s. 1d., and the average was 3s., which did not seem too much. 1b seemed to him that this was a crotchety idea of someone who occupied a position of power. The hon. member, proceeding, quoted the following extract from the report in the “East London Dispatch” of the N.T.G. Missionary Conference, held at Umtata, in support of his statement: “The Government having announced that after the 30th inst grants from the General Council towards the work of Standards V. and VI. in the mission schools would be no longer available, a long and anxious discussion took place on the matter. Messrs. Carmichael and Brownlee spoke, setting forth the Government side of the question. It was stated that from the 1st of’ July the Council contribution towards the salary of any teacher would be reduced’ by, half-a-crown per pupil per quarter for each pupil in Standard V. or Standard VI. It was also stated that the great reason for the change’ was the inadequacy of the N.G.C. revenue from the tax of 10s. per man per annum. A disproportionate amount had already been spent on education to the detriment of other necessary matters, such as roads and the building of tanks. The Rev. Messrs. Bulwer, Callaghan, Morris, Ley, Rogers, Moths, Mure, Gavin, and others spoke against the withdrawal of aid to the higher standards, making it clear that it would destroy the work of these standards, and that many most promising native youths would be unable to proceed to the teachers’ course; that this would result in a serious dearth of teachers for mission schools in years to come; that it was contrary to the wishes of the native people, the N.G.C., and the Education Department.”

The hon. member went on to say that the following resolutions were unanimously passed by the Conference: “That in view of the extreme opposition to the withdrawal of General Council grants to Standards V. and VI. in location schools, both on the part of natives generally who pay the 10s. rate, and on the part of missionaries who have expressed their opinion strongly in various assemblies, this conference desires to record its strong disapproval of the action of the Government in withholding its sanction to the payment of Council grants to these standards, and moves: First, that this conference requests the Revs. A. J. Lennard, J. S. Morris, W. Hartmann. W. Gavin, J. M. Auld, Canon Bulwer and Bishop Van Calker, with power to add to their number, to proceed to Cape Town as a deputation to lay the case before His Excellency the Governor-General and the Minister of Native Affairs at the earliest opportunity. Secondly, that in the opinion of this conference missionary superintendents have had no adequate notice that the grants to Standards V. and VI. would be stopped at the end of June, but in view of the proposal of the Acting Chief Magistrate to recommend a quarter’s grace the conference will await the result of this recommendation.” Mr. Schreiner added that if the natives were prepared to tax themselves and pay out of their own pocket for the education of their own children beyond Standard IV., they should allow them and not put any obstacle in their way. He pointed out that the action of the Government would place great difficulties in the way of obtaining native teachers, as these had to pass Standards V. and VI. before commencing their three years’ teachers’ course. He hoped this discussion would lead to a better understanding of the subject, and that this wrong step, which he considered would be productive of very evil results, may be stopped before it had gone too far.

said that he thought the House was indebted to the hon. member for Springs for bringing forward this matter at Bloemfontein. He thought the Minister should make some inquiry into these grievances, which were apparently leading to a strike. Civil Servants did not rush into strikes, and there must be something at the bottom of this which they felt very deeply.

said it seemed to him that, unless the Minister got up to explain, he had been interfering in an unwarrantable way with the actions of the Transkeian General Council. Here was a Council dealing with the affairs of a large number of people taxing themselves for carrying on education amongst their children, and they had very liberally contributed the necessary funds. Now the Minister of Native Affairs put his oar in, and practically told these people that they were not to spend the money in the way that they considered advisable. That was a point that appealed to him (Sir W. B. Berry) as one that required some explanation. Another point that required explanation from his hon. friend was that he gathered from the hon. member for Tembuland that this matter must have been brewing for some time. Seeing that they had a Select Committee on Native Affairs sitting during the whole session, the least they could have expected was that the Minister would have submitted this matter to the Select Committee. He was not aware that the slightest reference was ever made in the meetings of the committee to this matter. He also wished to back up what his hon. friend had said in regard to the training of native teachers. The Minister of Education had put down £10,000 for the purpose of training European teachers in one part of the Union, and here was a Council prepared to tax themselves for the purpose of training native teachers, and yet they were refused permission. One would like to know if this was an instance of the watertight compartments in which Ministers carried on the business of this country?

said he wished to say a few words in reply to the unnecessarily vehement attack made upon his administration by the hon. member for Tembuland and the hon. member for Queenstown. If these hon. gentlemen had only had the courtesy to put the question to him before attacking him, he thought they would have been fairer to himself and his administration. The hon. member for Tembuland said, apparently, that they acted upon the advice of some vague, shadowy personality somewhere or other in authority, without giving sufficient thought to this matter. As a matter of fact, this had engaged the attention of himself and the Department for a very long time past. He had had the carefully considered advice of all his administrators upon the spot, and it was only after very careful consideration that he had come to the conclusion to act as he had acted; “but I am afraid,” he added, “even a heaven born Minister of Native Affairs would not satisfy the hon. member for Tembuland.” (Ministerial cheers.) The Minister went on to say that the hon. member for Queenstown took umbrage at his not having referred this matter to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. This was purely a question of administration, and he did not on pure matters of administration of native affairs consult the Native Affairs Committee. The matter of his relationships with the Transkeian General Council and the disposal of their funds was a matter for his own administration. The hon. member also suggested that it looked like carrying on their business in “watertight compartments,” and had referred to his hon. friend the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education and he (Mr. Burton) took, as it happened, exactly the same view in regard to this matter, but he (Mr. Malan) was not concerned with the administration there at all. What concerned him (Mr. Burton) concerned the Provincial Administration in this respect.

He would say in regard to this question that he had declined to sanction the expenditure of the funds of the Transkeian General Council upon the education of the natives in the Transkei beyond Standard IV., and he had done that not because he wished to put, as the hon. member said, his oar against the express desire of the Transkeian General Council, or because he wished to put any obstacle in the way of the progress of native education, although he had never made any concealment of his own view that to insist upon, or to attempt to encourage a high literary education of the natives of this country, especially in the present stage of their development, was a great mistake. The true view was to give them an opportunity of acquiring the elements of education, and then, in individual instances, in cases where they were fit for it, to enable the natives, those who were capable of it, to advance along any line for which they were fit, but not to insist upon the natives, when they had got beyond Standard IV., going on with all sorts of curricula that were applicable to Europeans. He was the last person in this House to stand in the way of advancement of these people along the lines best suited for them, but his view was that, when they had got the elements of education, their true line was to provide for a vocational and industrial course for which the great bulk of them were better fitted. Of course, in individual cases there would be a capacity for moving along the lines of literary education, as they knew it, and in those cases let that be encouraged, but for the most he said they were making a great mistake in encouraging them in going along lines which could never be of any value to them or their people.

What was the true state of affairs with regard to this matter in the Transkei? The Council was responsible to the people of the Transkei for the administration of the country in every respect, including education. For years past the Government had sanctioned the expenditure of what they had voted on education, for the funds had been sufficient to meet the needs—that was the funds that came from taxation. Now, however, it had been found impossible to meet the needs of all the people of the Transkei so far as the services were concerned, and yet allow the Council to contribute out of the general rate a certain specific sum for the purpose of education in Standards V. and VI. They did not doubt the good intentions of the hon. member, but he (the Minister) would just like to explain the position to the House. There were a certain number of the people of the Transkei who desired that their children should be educated in Standards V. and VI. He did not prevent them from doing that. He did not wish to place any obstacles in the way of these children obtaining the further education which their parents desired that they should have. But he did not believe in making the general taxpayer, who did not derive any benefit from it, pay for education in these standards. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) The mass of the people in the Transkei did not desire that their children should be educated in Standards V. and VI., and did not receive any benefit from it. The fact was that the great majority of the Transkei people who contributed to the general taxation would not derive any benefit as the result. The true view to take, when they found that the ordinary revenue of the country was just sufficient to meet the needs, was to say to these people that if they wanted their children educated in Standards V. and VI. they would have to meet the want in the ordinary way, and that was by paying school fees. He thought that that was the proper view to take, for they could not expect the general ratepayer of the Transkei to pay for this special education when they could derive no benefit from it. Then he would like to say something with regard to the training of native teachers.

He might say that for a considerable time he had been studying this question, for the purpose of placing this training upon a proper and more satisfactory basis. He had been in communication with the Commissioners and also in communication with the proper authority, namely, the Provincial Council—the Administrator of the Cape and his Executive Committee. He had been in communication with the Administrator and his helpers for the purpose of placing this matter on a more satisfactory footing. He thought that he had gone upon a sound policy with regard to the big question, that if these people of the Transkei wanted their children educated in Standards V. and VI. they would have to pay school fees. With regard to the training of native teachers, he hoped, in a very short while, to place this matter on a satisfactory footing. He did not want to unduly interfere with these people, but he would like to say a word with regard to what the hon. member had stated in so-far as his interference with the resolutions that had been passed by the Council were concerned. He would like to say that if they allowed the Transkeian Council to spend their money in the way in which it was voted they would find themselves in a sorry mess one of these days. They had to exercise a restraining influence, and they had to see that the money was spent in a proper fashion and upon proper lines. It was a matter of common everyday administration. The Council was probably more interested—he did not say this by way of offence to the members of the Council—in this matter of Standards V. and VI. than the bulk of the ratepayers of that part of the country. The mass of the people of the country would derive no’ benefit from such a changed state of affairs. There was only one other point upon which he would like to address the House. He thought that the Commissioners were unduly alarmed. He had informed them that he was willing to meet them and discuss the whole matter. This was not going to take effect from July 1, but would at least be left over for another quarter, so that the people would not be taken unawares. He was confident, however, that he had done the right thing.

asked the Minister whether he would be good enough to make a short statement on the third reading of the Bill, and tell the House what he considered would be the outcome of the Estimates which had been brought before the House, and which were included in this Bill. They were voting the largest sum of money that had ever been voted in South Africa for yearly expenditure. He would say, without the slightest hesitation, that in these Estimates they were proclaiming themselves as being the most expensively governed country in the world. This was an enormous amount of money to spend. Since the last statement of the Minister of Finance of the day, things had undergone a transformation. His hon. friend had come to his own and, perhaps, by and by, he would get a few more important positions. (Laughter.) Still, they were glad to see him there. Since the Minister spoke last the revenue had been increased by the amount allocated for debt on the railways in consequence of the finding of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It had been diminished by the amount which had been removed from the Estimates in connection with the bewaarplaatsen. That was about £75,000, which, however, was hardly worth talking about in these days. (Laughter.) At any rate, that altered that side of the account. The other side of the account had been swollen by extended Supplementary Estimates, of which they could hardly see the effect. They did not want a long Budget speech—they would not be as hard on the Minister as all that—but just a short statement which would be most interesting to the House and the public in general.

said that he saw the paragraph in the paper that morning with reference to the matter which had been brought forward by the hon. member for Springs. He regretted extremely the step which the postmen proposed to take for the reason that he thought that it was based upon a misunderstanding. In the telegram it was stated that the Free State men were paid a great deal lower than the men in the other Provinces. That was based on a misunderstanding. The Free State men were not paid less than the men of the other Provinces. The change had been due to the fact that the Government were placing all the men in the Provinces on an equality.

Reductions all round.

No. Continuing, he said that with regard to the cycle allowance there was no doubt that before Union the amount was £9. In the other Provinces, the Cape and the Transvaal, the amount was £6 per year. The Advisory Committee went into this matter very carefully, and they came to the conclusion that £5 would be a fair allowance.

And wages?

said that before Union the postmen of the Free State were on a graduated scale, which rose from. £60 per year to £120. The committee had now fixed a scale by which the men would start a £80 a year, and they would get the local allowance, so that the hon. member would see that the whole thing had been equalised. He hoped that the men would consider the position before they did anything further.

What about the maximum?

said that the maximum was £120, as it was before. They started at £80 instead of £60, and went up to £120. After three years at £120 they would be moved upwards. With regard to the uniforms, he would say that there had been difficulties about them in Europe. They should have been here last March, but they had since arrived and were in Bloemfontein, and would be served out. He hoped that the men would consider these facts, see that they were being treated the same as other men employed in similar positions in other parts of the Union, and see that any action they proposed to take would not be justified.

Retrospective?

It is now being applied. Continuing, he said that he would bear in mind what had been said by the right hon. member for Victoria West, and he would make a short statement when the Bill reached the final stage.

said he would like to make a statement with regard to what had been said by the right hon. member for Victoria West in regard to school loans in the Cape Province. During the last two and a half years of the old Cape administration only £150,000 was made available for the purpose of building schools. At any rate only £50,000 was spent during the two and a half years, with the result that when Union came into being and compulsory education was introduced there was a great demand in the Cape Province for school buildings. After consultation with the Cape Provincial Council, the Union Government agreed to give £200,000 for three years, making £600,000 in all for school loans in the Cape Province. That was on the £ for £ principle. (Cheers.) The two instalments of that had already been paid, and the third would be paid next year.

It is only £250,000.

The other £50,000 is provided in a different way.

Continuing, Mr. Malan said of this £600,000 the three large centres of population—Cape Town, Kimberley, and Port Elizabeth—would get £207,000—Cape Town and suburbs £90,000, Kimberley £70,000, and Port Elizabeth £47,000. The condition at Kimberley was a very serious one, and the expenditure there was thoroughly justified. As regards Port Elizabeth, a first-class public school was constructed there at considerable expenditure a short time before Union. It was now found necessary to have a boys’ school of a similar nature with a boarding establishment attached. The allocation of money for school buildings in the Cape Province took place after conferences with the Executive Committee, which allocated the money, and the matter was then submitted to the Provincial Council, which must confirm the allocation. The old system of allotting grants according to priority of application was abandoned a number of years ago. All the applications were dealt with on their merits. He would lay on the table the allocations of the first £400,000.

referred to á number of loans taken up by the School Boards. Did the Government intend to grant these School Boards further moneys before these loans had been repaid?

said it was quite new to hon. members interested in School Boards to know that the priority system had been done away with. How did his hon. friend arrive at the £200,000 for the Cape? He (Mr. Jagger) found only £150,000 on the Cape School estimates?

The motion was agreed to, and

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the House go into committee on the Bill, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the clauses stand over until the schedule had been disposed of.

Agreed to.

said the Minister of Education, who was a good Christian, had acted on the principle of giving unto those who had. What was the use of this school at Port Elizabeth? Had the people themselves asked for that amount of money to be spent, or whether it was a fact that the people would be satisfied with a very much smaller expenditure.

No, it is not.

If you said £150,000, the hon. member would be neglecting his duty if he did not take it. That I can understand, but I cannot understand this expenditure. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that the question of boarding establishments was a very vexed one indeed—(cheers)—and their success depended very largely on the character of the wife of the schoolmaster. (Hear, hear.) In the suburbs of Cape Town there was a large boarding establishment which was practically vacant, although a year or two ago it was full. This was simply wasting the ratepayers’ money. At Graaff-Reinet there was an enormous boarding establishment, at which there were only two pupils. And in the face of that their Magnifico—(laughter)—went about promising £47,000 for a boarding school. What they had to look to were the outlying parts, where the people wanted primary education. Money should be given to these people for this purpose, but instead of that, £47,000 was going to be squandered in providing for people who could pay for the education of their own children. That was really what it meant. This was an instance of “the gifts of rich men careless how they give.” He fancied he could see his hon. friend on his tour. The Minister said the money was allocated by the Administrator. That was not the right way to do it. The person who ought to have allocated the money in the first place was the Director of Education, and secondly, the Provincial Council, and not the Administrator at all. That was why he (Mr. Merriman) felt it was so wrong.

said perhaps the Minister would now state where he got the other £50,000 from.

said that what he stated was that £200,000 was allocated for three years, and the Administrator was allocating £200,000 for the next financial year.

said the Minister stated that £600,000 was going to be allocated to the Cape for three years. The Cape had £200,000 last year out of revenue, this year it was only £150,000, and next year the Cape was going to have £200,000, so that it was going to be £50,000 short.

said that the Minister of Education had been asked to allocate a very small sum for a boarding establishment, and the deputation which made the request was most emphatically informed that not a single penny would be granted for boarding schools until the whole of the requirements with regard to day schools had been met. (Cheers.) Was it fair to depart from that promise in the case of Port Elizabeth? He hoped his hon. friend would look into the matter, because if money were allocated for a boarding establishment people would regard it as a breach of a very solemn promise.

said it was very awkward to discuss details of Provincial Council expenditure in that House. He found that £1,000 was down for a boarding establishment at George, so evidently the deputation to which his hon. friend had referred had some result. (Laughter.) As to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, the balance of £50,000 would be paid the year after next. The Union Government intended to keep its promise.

said he wished to clear up a misunderstanding. The President of the Natal High Court had taken him to task for something he (Mr. Meyler) had said with regard to that Court. The Minister of Justice had put words into his (Mr. Meyler’s) mouth which he had never used. What he (Mr. Meyler) had said was that the judges of the Natal High Court should be paid more; that the system of trying natives without a jury and partly on hearsay evidence was wrong, and possibly there might have been miscarriages of justice. However, he had been mistaken with regard to hearsay evidence, because that was only admissible in civil cases in the Natal Native High Court. He had absolutely no intention of saying anything against the judges. He advocated that these judges should be paid larger salaries.

repeated that the people who had guaranteed loans taken up by the School Boards wished to know how matters stood. Were the old loans to be paid off before new ones were granted? He hoped that the Minister would give an explanation.

said that the Riversdale School Board was told by the Superintendent-General of Education that no grants had been made for boarding establishments. If grants were to be made, he thought that the Riversdale School Board, which was second in the Cape Province in regard to the number of schools under its control, was deserving of consideration.

said that they had already charged public revenue with £4,000,000, and the Bill ought really to charge revenue with £13,000,000, in addition to the £4,000,000 already voted, making in all £17,000,000. That would be the proper way to put it in the Bill. The present was a clumsy way of putting it. They had already charged revenue with £4,000,000, which they had already spent, and now they came forward and charged revenue afresh with £17,000,000. He thought that that was the wrong way to go about the matter.

said that they were only following the precedent set last session.

said that they had already spent £4,000,000, and now they were giving the Government power to spend £17,000,000 more.

said that the £17,000,000 was not in addition to the £4,000,000 already voted.

asked why “Exchequer account” had been substituted for “ consolidated revenue”?

Because it is more eloquent. (Laughter.)

On clause 2, How money to be applied,

moved the addition of “and to no other purpose,” in order to make the clause read: “The money appropriated by this Act shall be applied to the services detailed in the schedule hereto, and more particularly specified in the Estimates of Expenditure (U.G. 1, and U.G. 46, 1912), as approved by Parliament, and to no other purpose.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 3, Minister may authorise variation,

moved the addition of the following: “In the case of Vote No. 39, Buildings and Bridges, no saving on any work specified in the Estimates shall be made available for expenditure on any work or service not so specified, and provided further that” in order to make the clause read: “With the approval of the Minister of Finance a saving on any subhead of a Vote may be made available to meet excess expenditure on any other sub head, or expenditure on a new sub-head of the same Vote, provided that in the case of Vote No. 39, Buildings and Bridges, no saving on any work specified in the Estimates shall be made available for expenditure on any work or service not so specified; and provided further that no excess shall be incurred on the sums appearing in column 2 of the schedule hereto, nor shall savings thereon be available for any purpose other than that for which the money is hereby granted as indicated in the said schedule.” He said that the object of the amendment was to carry out the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with amendments.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

The amendments were severally considered and agreed to.

said that he would move the third reading now if there were not objection. Before moving the’ third reading, however, he would make the statement which the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had asked for in regard to the financial position as it stood now after the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates had been passed and after certain alterations had been made. Well, the position in a nutshell was this: His predecessor, the hon. member for Barberton, estimated the revenue for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1913, to be £16,112,000. That included a sum of £825,000 carried forward—

: Oh, no, no.

said that that included a sum of money coming from bewaarplaatsen proceeds, which he would deal with just now. To this had been added £176,000, revenue coming from the railways and harbours, so that the revenue would be £17,288,000.

£16,288,000.

Yes, £16,288,000. Now, the whole question depended upon what was going to happen in regard to bewaarplaatsen receipts. Hon. members had seen that the bewaarplaatsen amounted in 1910-11 to £30,000, and in 1911-12 to £40,000, and in 1912-13 to £186,000, or altogether to £306,000. If that were to remain in the revenue there would be a surplus of £153,000.

What; between the revenue and expenditure?

Yes; such as appears on the Appropriation Bill. Continuing, the hon. Minister said it all depended, therefore, on what was going to happen next year, when the bewaarplaatsen was going to be dealt with. Supposing the State were only to get a half of that amount, the result would be an approximate deficiency of £25,000. If they were going to get the whole, however, there would be a very considerable surplus.

seconded the motion.

said he did rise to draw the Minister’s attention to what was a most serious position. If he thought that for one single moment that the financial position of the country was as he stated it—and he had no doubt he did think so—because he could not imagine that he was sailing into this expenditure without thinking so—he was labouring under one of the most frightful mistakes that any Minister could get into. The revenue given to them was not 17 millions—it was £16,112,000. That was the revenue. Add to that £175,000 additional railway revenue, and you get £16,287,000. “Am I right?” queried the right hon. gentleman.

Your addition is right.

said he would deal now with the question of bewaarplaatsen. His point was that this amount of £356,000 could not be dealt with at all, because out of that a portion of the previous year’s was put into revenue, and the provision was that according to law—when it was pointed out that the Minister of Finance was breaking the law, they were taken out and put into a separate exchequer account. And they have gone “protanto” to diminish the surpluses brought up by the Treasurer in former years. The Minister expected to get a revenue of £356,000 from bewaarplaatsen. That amount, however, was not at his disposal, because according to law that had to be put into a separate account in the Treasury, and then the House determined the allocation of this amount. The whole amount concerned would be £356,000, but half of that might belong to the owners, and whether they confiscated the whole to the service of the country was open to argument, but it would be confiscation, and according to law not one half of that money was at the service of the Treasury for this year. Then they came to this fact that they had an estimated revenue excluding bewaarplaatsen of £16,287,000.

Less £500,000.

It includes everything that has to come into it, and it includes bewaarplaatsen that has to be taken out. The net revenue would be £16,109,000, including sums which they had to receive from revenue—that was estimated revenue—against which you have brought up here an estimated expenditure including the Supplementary Estimates of £17,129,000. So in other words they were budgeting for an estimated deficiency for the year of £1,020,000. Well, he ventured to say it was an unheard-of thing in a civilised country that they should budget without making a scrap of provision for that £1,020,000. Their estimate for this year included £500,000, which they were taking from the Railway revenue.

No; last year’s.

Well, partly last year’s. If the expenditure went on in the same way next year as it did this year, instead of having a deficiency of £1,020,000 they would have a deficiency of £1,500,000. This was a most careless state of affairs, and when people were going on cheering the Government on to additional expenditure, nobody who had these figures before them could tell what the results would be. He wondered if hon. members had learned anything from the lessons of the bad years they had been through, and if their memories were so short that they had forgotten what had happened in Cape Colony and Natal? This was a most improper way of conducting the affairs of the country. Ministers said they had a balance of £885,000, but that would not last long, and the Treasury would have to face a very serious state of affairs. It was an extraordinary position for the spending and the saving departments to be coupled together. The Minister of Defence could go from one office into the other and take what money he wanted. He could just imagine what would be the state of affairs if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of War in the Imperial Government were one and the same person.

said the right hon. gentleman had given a very complete idea of the state of affairs to the House. He could not understand how the Minister arrived at his figures when he spoke of a surplus of £156,000. He asked him if he had given them all the figures that he had brought down. The figures did not tally, and they did not show the surplus, and therefore he must have omitted in his statement some figures which had been supplied to him.

The figures placed before them by the right hon. gentleman he could not follow at all. They had a total revenue of £16,112,000. They were going to add to that railway interest, £176,000, making £16,288,000. In addition to that, the Minister estimated that he was going to add £855,000, the surplus of the previous year. That £855,000 was now diminished by the amount of the bewaarplaatsen, which was included. How much it was diminished by they did not know.

£170,000.

aid they had not got those figures before them. They had not got the whole of the amount at present by law set aside. If they added the whole of the £855,000 to £16,288,000, they had £17,145,000, against a total expenditure of £17,129,000. They were going to lose the amount of the bewaarplaatsen out of the £855,000. The Minister was also going to set aside the amount of the bewaarplaatsen he received this year. That he estimated at £180,000, so that he put on one side £350,000. Instead of having a surplus of £14,000, if they took the whole of the bewaarplaatsen, they would have a deficit of £335,000, roughly speaking.

That is nominal.

My hon. friend says it is nominal, but it is, of course, according to the estimated figures he has given to the House; it is only an estimate in any case. It is not a nominal figure if the Estimates be correct, or approximately correct. I do not know that the time is opportune for discussion of this question, but when the right hon. the member for Victoria West has alluded to it, I must add my warning to the Minister against the position to which we are drifting. Proceeding, Sir E. H. Walton said he did not want to repeat over and over again what had been said this session, but they had endeavoured to get these Estimates of Expenditure cut down, and they had been met with refusal from the Government to make any reduction of the expenditure. Their protest had been made in the House and it would be made in the country later. It behoved the Minister to cut down if he could the expenditure provided in these Estimates, and if he did not succeed in reducing the expenditure their position at the end of the year would be that they would have to face the following year in a far worse position. He saw his two friends of the Labour Party smiling. They had had their share in increasing and swelling these Estimates of Expenditure. (Hear, hear.) They glorified in that in a very short-sighted way, because they imagined that they and their friends would not pay the tax. But they would pay the tax, not all, but a very heavy portion of it. They had encouraged the Government in their extravagance. As much as their votes were worth, they had been given on the side of extravagance

said there was one point of importance which had not been brought out in this debate. They had been discussing the question of expenditure. Unfortunately, they had not got before them the question of the revenue, and they had nothing before them as to this peculiar question of the inheritance of £855,000. He wished to call attention to the fifth report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which they said that the balance of £855,000 for the year 1910-11 included large sums which ought not to go into the balance at all. Those sums amounted to £154,000. There was a case, under the circumstances, for which the balances surplus of 1910-1, but nothing whatever was to be said, as far as he could make out, for using money which ought to have gone to the extinction of debt at Union for meeting the expenditure during the current year. He trusted that his hon. friend would take a bold stand in this matter and say that these sums were to be appropriated immediately to the extinction of debt. It seemed to him that, according to the Estimates, they were going to have a deficit of £527,000, in addition to the 1¼ millions of balances which they were going to use. He hoped they would take the course suggested by the Public Accounts Committee. If they did not, it would give an unfortunate impression to the country that they were beginning on unsound lines.

said that he had listened just now to a reproof administered by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, in his usual august tones with respect to what he called their advocacy on those benches of increased expenditure. He submitted that where they had advocated increases it had been for a good purpose, and only for purposes where it would do some good. He should like to remind the House that they listened a little while ago to an advocacy on that (the Opposition) side of the House of an increased Government contribution to the Compensation Fund in regard to Miners’ Phthisis. It was suggested that the Government should give £250,000 to the Compensation Fund, not to the Insurance Fund, so as to relieve the mineowners, who had received profits of £11,000,000 last year from the industry. Was that the economy he advocated?

said he thought his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Fremantle) was not right in saying that they were not doing anything for the extinction of debt. The surplus from 1911-12. about £700,000, would go to the extinction of debt, with the exception of the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen. He thought, therefore, that they were doing a good deal for the extinction of debt. He was sorry that his hon. friend opposite (Sir E. H. Walton) did not follow the figures he gave, and that he seemed to be confused. The position was quite simple really. They had this amount of £850,000 carried forward from 1910-11. Then in respect of 1911-12 they could not carry forward anything except this amount for the bewaarplaatsen proceeds, which was not used for the extinction of debt. He assumed for the moment that this amount would also be available for their purposes in 1912-13. They had £855,000 and £140,000, and they had an original estimate of revenue of £16,112,000, and they had the interest from railway capital, amounting altogether to the sum which he gave.

What is this £140,000?

That is the amount from bewaarplaatsen in 1911-12, which was not used for extinction of debt. It is put in a separate account. We shall have to decide next year what is going to happen to the bewaarplaatsen. That fund at the end of 1912-13 will amount altogether to £356,000. It all depends upon what we do with that fund as to whether there will be a surplus.

That is not for one year.

No, I am simply giving the figures. Of course, if we do not get the whole of the £356,000 the position will be reversed and there will be a deficit. Proceeding, the Minister I said that he had gone very carefully into the position and he recognised the gravity of the situation and that the financial position was such that not only would there have to be large economies and the saving of expenditure where it was possible, but it seemed likely that next year additional taxation would become necessary.

said he did not quite understand the position, but it seemed to him that the Minister had forecasted fresh taxation for next year if the bewaarplaatsen moneys were not available. He (Mr. Van Niekerk) emphasised the point that if such a state of affairs were to arise, matters would be made very unpleasant for them. (Laughter.) He was not going to be scared by the jeers of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and was quite accustomed to hon. members having the opinion that “back-velders” should not express their views. He was going to say what he thought all the same. He would urge on the Minister to observe the strictest economy, so that there should not be a deficiency. Of course, hon. members of the Opposition would like to see a deficiency, as this would give them a strong weapon in their hands against the Government.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether in these Estimates any account was taken of the change which was predicted would be made by the Estate Duties.

No.

Nothing at all?

No.

The motion was agreed to, and

The Bill was read a third time.

laid upon the table statements showing allocation of loan funds for school purposes (Cape).

moved that the second Order of the Day—the Railways and Harbours Service Bill—be allowed to stand over until the third Order—the Public Service and Pensions Bill—had been considered. The language clause arose in both Bills, but he thought the clause in the Civil Service Bill was wider and gave more scope for a full discussion on the point.

I object.

was proceeding to put clause 82 when,

moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again. He would like to say that he had no ulterior motive in moving that the Public Service and Pensions Bill be considered in committee before the Railways and Harbours Service Bill. The point was that the language clause in the one Bill had a wider scope than the language clause in the other, and would give a better opportunity for a full discussion. He thought it would shorten the time that would be occupied by such a big debate.

said he thought the proposal of the Minister most extraordinary It was all due to the bungling way in which the members of the Government drew up the Order paper. Surely if the Government put this unfortunate amendment on the paper they ought to know what they wanted to do when making up the Order paper. He considered that the Minister had given no proper explanation to the House for reporting progress. The Minister had come before them with an extraordinary statement, and it seemed to him that on no occasion was the Government able to make up its mind. It seemed to him that the paper must be made up by the Minister, who happened to be last in the House, and that then the Government relied upon the goodness of the House to do what it wanted. For the last two days they had found on the paper that the Railway Bill was before the Public Service Bill. When had the Government made up its mind to effect this extraordinary change? The only thing they could do was to make a formal protest so long as the Government had a cast-iron majority, and so long as that cast-iron majority was willing to follow the bungling methods of the Government.

said he could not understand why the hon. member talked about bungling.

It occurs every day.

The two clauses are practically the same.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours says that they are not.

said that if that were so there would be no use in first discussing the principle of the clause in the Public Service Bill. The point was that the working was practically the same, but the clause in the Public Service Bill was more comprehensive than the other. He did not think there would be any inconvenience caused by the change, for the reason that hon. members could use their carefully collected arguments on either clause.

said that if the Minister would look at the Bill he would find that they were at clause 84, and there were a few amendments to go on at the end of the Bill. Then they had to revert to the clauses that were standing over. Before they got to this clause there was an important clause in connection with the powers of the Railway Board which was standing over. It was very important, and surely it ought to be discussed. It seemed that any Minister arranged the paper at will and left it to the goodness of the House to do what the Government wanted.

said that there was another point to which he would like to call the attention of the Minister. There was clause 3. This was altered by the Minister after a vote in the Select Committee, on the ground that it was contrary to the Act of Union. In the Votes and Proceedings they would find “In appointing any servant to a post—”

was understood to say that the hon. member must give his reasons on the point before the House.

was proceeding when,

ruled that the hon. member must give his reasons.

This stood down on May 2. Now it is June 20. Is any further condemnation necessary as to the bungling methods of the Government?

The motion was carried.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.

said that before the Chairman put the clause he would like to ask his ruling as to the position of the House in this matter. It appeared to him (Mr. Fawcus) that clause 137 being an entrenched clause in the South Africa Act, this clause 11 might be said, to a certain extent, to be either a tightening up or a slackening off of that clause. He would like the Chairman’s ruling as to whether that might not be ultra vires, and whether the committee had really the power to discuss this clause in view of clause 137 being an entrenched clause according to clause 152 of the South Africa Act.

To which clause is the hon. member alluding?

To clause 11. In clause 152 of the Act of Union it is said that no repeal or alteration in the provisions contained in clause 137 shall be voted unless the Bill embodying such repeal or alteration shall be passed by both Houses of Parliament sitting together, and the third reading be agreed to by a majority of not less than two-thirds.

stated that in his opinion the clause was in order.

With all due deference to your ruling, I should like the Speaker’s ruling to be obtained. I move that progress be reported and the Speaker’s ruling obtained, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

The House resumed.

stated the point which had arisen in committee, and that the committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon, and that he had accordingly been ordered to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Before you give your ruling, sir, I should like to call your attention—(cries of “Order”)—to clause 135, which specially deals with the Civil Service.

That is not the question put before me. I do not know who raised the question; perhaps he would like to address the Chair on the matter.

said the only point he wished to put was this—that clause 11 seemed to be in the nature either of tightening up or a slackening off of the Act of Union. He submitted that it was very difficult to introduce any language clause which made alterations of any kind at all, which might not be either in the direction of a slackening off or a tightening of the Act of Union.

My ruling is requested upon new clause 11 of the Bill which was incorporated by the Select Committee, and’ the question is put to me whether this clause is not in conflict with the provisions of section 137 of the South Africa Act, 1909, which section establishes the equality of the English and Dutch languages. Section 137 is entrenched by section 152 of the Act of Union, providing that that section cannot be amended unless the amending Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament sitting together, and at the third reading be agreed to by not less than two-thirds or the total number of members of both Houses. I am of opinion that this clause is in relation to but not in conflict with section 137 of the South Africa Act, and it is competent for the House in this Bill, not with standing the procedure laid down in section 152, to deal with the subject matter of this clause or any matter of a like nature. I therefore agree with the ruling given by the Chairman.

moved that the House resume in committee and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The House resumed in committee.

moved to omit new clause 11, proposed by the Select Committee, and to substitute: “11. (1) An officer entering the public service after the commencement of this Act, who is appointed to a clerical post in the administrative and clerical division and who has not passed in both official languages at any of the entrance examinations prescribed under section 4, shall not be promoted to any higher grade than that to which he has attained in five years from the date of his first appointment to such post, unless he pass such an examination in both official languages as may be prescribed; the standard of the last-mentioned examination shall be equal to the standard of the first-mentioned examination: provided that if such officer has passed in either of the official languages at any of such entrance examinations he shall be exempted from further examination there in: provided further that if Commission be satisfied that the officer has, during the said period of five years, been stationed in places where he had no facilities for acquiring a knowledge’ of the language in respect of which he has not passed a prescribed examination, the Commission may grant him such extension of the said period as it may deem reasonable. (2) In recommending any officer for a particular post in which the knowledge of either or both of the official languages is necessary the Commission shall be satisfied that the officer possesses the language qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post.”

The right hon. gentleman said he wished to make an appeal to both sides of the House, so that they might discuss this matter in a calm and dispassionate manner, but what was more important, in a dignified manner. This question was one which was apt to make people very warm, and apt to create a good deal of racial feeling. Last year this House had discussed the education question in regard to the two languages in a dignified manner, which had led to the matter being solved in a satisfactory manner, so that now general cooperation was taking place, or at any rate, was expected to take place very soon on matters educational. (Hear, hear.) The people of South Africa highly appreciated this, and the attitude taken up by both sides of the House had given the utmost satisfaction. To-day they again came to a question concerning the two languages—and the question undoubtedly was a very difficult and delicate one. Therefore when they had to deal with such delicate subjects he thought that he was entitled to appeal to both sides to deal with them as dispassionately as possible. The question did not only concern them personally, but it concerned the whole of South Africa in no uncertain manner. It was a great public question which could easily create general discontent, and for that reason he hoped members would do their best to come to a solution giving general satisfaction to the whole of South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

It did not help them simply to draft a clause and drive it through the House. They had to take into consideration the feeling of the whole of South Africa, and they had to deal with a large population, they must take their feelings into account. The amendment which he had placed on the paper had been drafted after considerable discussion and after serious deliberation. It was not a random amendment, but it had received the greatest care and discussion. In the circumstances, he hoped the Leader of the Opposition would see his way clear to accept it. He thought the amendment was perfectly fair towards every section of the community, because it provided for absolute equality of rights for both languages. It did not give more rights to one section of the community than to the other. It placed both on a footing of absolute equality. They had to deal with a service which they knew would render good work for South Africa, and in such case it was their absolute duty to create contentment—(hear, hear)—and they must try and solve this great question, and bring into practice the spirit of clause 137 of the South Africa Act. (Cheers.) In that clause they had established equal rights for both languages, but it was very difficult to put this into practice. They had to exercise great tolerance. In a Bill of this kind, however, it was absolutely essential that they should put that spirit, the meaning of clause 137, in as perfect a manner as possible. (Cheers.)

He thought, after a careful study of the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition, that if that were accepted it would not give general satisfaction. It did not solve the question. (Hear, hear.) A state of affairs under which they continued to have officials who knew only one language would lead to the greatest friction and dissatisfaction. That was never the intention of the Convention, and clause 137 clearly laid down equal rights for both languages. But the Convention, realising that the Civil Service at that time was practically unilingual, and not wishing that the Civil Servants then in the service should suffer through the bilingual nature of the country, had inserted clause 145, so as to give protection to everyone. That clause provided that no one in the service of the Union at the date of Union should be dismissed on account of his not knowing either Dutch or English. If that were so, and if that were the spirit of the Convention that people appointed into the service should only know one language, why then should they have considered it necessary to give that protection to those already in the service? To-day they went a step further. They now wanted to put into practice the spirit of the Convention, and they wanted to say that the people paid out of the money of the taxpayers—who spoke both languages and had equal rights should be people with a knowledge of both languages. (Hear, hear.)

Therefore, the amendment in his name provided, in the first place, that a man could enter the service knowing only one language, Dutch or English. But then there came a certain barrier, that was to say, that he had to get over that barrier if he wished to receive promotion. He would have five years to get through this first period, and until he qualified in both Languages he would not be promoted or receive a higher salary. That, he thought, was quite fair. A man got five years in which to learn the one language, and he (General Botha) did not know of any young man, who was worth his salt, who would be unable to qualify in both languages in five years. (Hear, hear.) But in order to be quite fair the amendment went even further, and said that where the Commission was satisfied that officials had not had an opportunity of learning the other language the time could be further extended. In South Africa one found places where officials had no opportunity of qualifying in the other language in five years. In Zululand, for instance, there were ten magisterial divisions. But in most of these divisions there were hardly any whites, so that the official had no opportunity of learning Dutch. In cases of that kind they would be fair and give these people the same privileges as they would expect to receive themselves in similar circumstances. (Hear, hear.) The Board would in such cases deal fairly with these people.

It had been said in the newspapers that if this amendment were accepted, and that if a man had done his best, but had not succeeded in learning the other language after five years, he would never afterwards be able to obtain promotion. That was not so. If he could not succeed in five years he would be able to get promotion as soon as he had succeeded in learning the other language. That was the intention of the amendment. Then another point was that in future in parts where Dutch and English were necessary, appointments would be made to suit the requirements of the public. The same point was contained in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition which he rejoiced to see, as they might conclude from it that the hon. member had no difficulty in regard to compulsion. Last year they had always heard a good deal about compulsion, and the hon. member for Pretoria East was always raising the point. But he now noticed that in the second part of his amendment the Leader of the Opposition proposed compulsion, and therefore he took it that this matter would not be continually raised again. He (the Premier) thought that his (the Premier’s) amendment provided a just and fair solution of a difficult question.

Under his amendment no one was treated unfairly in any way—no one was oppressed. Every member of the Civil Service was placed in a position so that he could work himself up. No one was excluded. There was only one possible objection which could be raised against the amendment, and that was this—that it allowed people to enter the service while they only knew one language, but it was his wish that no one should be debarred from entering the service. What they required in their service were capable men, and even if they only knew one language they could learn the other. (Hear, hear.) There was one view which he could not agree with. It was said ’‘You must leave compulsion out altogether.” But the principle of compulsion was laid down in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. But besides they should not forget that in this country they would get large numbers of people who only understood one language, whilst others knew both. Now, he asked, was it better to compel one man to learn the other language, or was it better to compel the public to learn the other language? (Hear, hear.) What would happen if they placed a Dutch official in the midst of a purely English community? Would it not be impossible to compel that public to learn Dutch—the language spoken by that one official, while this official was all the time being paid by the taxpayers? He emphasised that this official could be expected to learn the language of the taxpayers. They must either compel the Civil Servant or the public. And surely it was ridiculous even to think of compelling the public. (Hear, hear.) On that basis he doubted if they would give general contentment. In England they would see today that people who were being trained to enter the Indian service must learn the Indian languages. If they went to Egypt they would find that an official had to know Arabic.

Stick to things you know something about.

I do not wish to take any notice of that remark, I can only answer gentlemen. (Hear, hear.) Well, that was the principle they should accept in this country. In the Cape Colony an Act had been passed under which both languages were made compulsory, and that Act had not been passed by a “Boer” Government. (Hear, hear.) And yet he had never heard of any complaint against that compulsion. That Act had worked well and it had given satisfaction and contentment. But he maintained that they must be careful, as otherwise there was great danger of them dividing the people against each other. This was a most serious matter, but under his amendment no one would be unfairly dealt with, no one would be hurt.

In conclusion General Botha urged that in delicate matters of this kind they should proceed as carefully as possible. Language was like religion, if they touched it they would at once create the greatest strife and division, and the results would be disastrous to South Africa. His only wish was to be just and fair towards their Civil Servants—it was their duty to be just, and that was what his amendment aimed at. Therefore, he hoped it would be agreed to without much debate. (Ministerial cheers.)

moved to omit new clause 11, proposed by the Select Committee and to substitute: 11. A candidate may pass the examination prescribed in section 7 through the medium of either official language of the Union, both official languages shall be prescribed as subjects, and every candidate shall be required to pass in one. Before any officer is recommended for promotion to a particular post in which the knowlerge of one or both official languages is necessary, he shall be required to have passed in such language or languages as subjects either at one of the entrance examinations provided in this Act, or at the examination mentioned in section. 7, or else to satisfy the Public Service Commission that he possesses the language qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post. The mover said he had hoped that this discussion would have been unnecessary. A few days ago he had certainly hoped that, when they heard the earnest arguments which had been brought forward by his hon. friend the member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), on the motion that the House go into committee on this Bill, the appeal would have been fully considered by the Government, and that the Government would have seen the fairness of the plea advanced and have kept this unfortunate discussion out of the House. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister had said that this was a discussion of such a serious character that he hoped both sides of the House would discuss the question in a calm manner, and he hoped that the country would consider it in the same way. What made this appeal so serious was owing to the fact that this was one of the most unfortunate questions that could again be raised in that House. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister had referred to a discussion which had taken place upon another question, and the understandings that had been arrived at, he said, would have a good effect upon the country. He was not going to say whether these understandings had been kept or not. In moving his clause to the Bill, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had hoped the’ Prime Minister would accept this amendment. (Ministerial laughter.) Hon. gentlemen might laugh, but if they had listened to the speech of the Prime Minister they would have understood, at least as he understood him, that the efficiency of the public service would have been maintained just as well with his (Sir T. W. Smartt’s) amendment as the right hon. gentleman’s. He had thought that as far as he considered it that this matter was settled, but the Right Hon. the Prime Minister had referred to the understanding in the Convention, he had referred to the solutions that had been engendered by the Convention, but when he (Sir T. W. Smartt) heard this, his mind carried him back to the first year in office of the Prime Minister, when he went round the country proclaiming the doctrine of equal rights, equal opportunities and no compulsion. (Hear, hear.) That afternoon the whole strength of the arguments adduced was the compulsory principle. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) The Prime Minister went on to show that, as far as his (Sir T. W. Smartt’s) amendment was concerned, it also recognised the principle of compulsion. That was exactly the interpretation he put upon his words. What was the difference between his amendment and the amendment of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister? He recognised as fully as the right hon. gentleman did the necessity of the public service being efficiently served, and, when an appointment had to be made, and when it was necessary for the efficiency and for the proper discharge of this appointment, that certain provision should be made, that they should give that appointment to a person who had these bilingual acquirements, but he would have protested at all times, in the strongest terms, against compelling any officer to qualify within a prescribed time. What he said was this: that every officer should have an opportunity of qualifying in either of the languages he had not qualified in upon entering the service. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister proposed that every man should be absolutely debarred from promotion after five years, and that there should be no possibility, after a clerk had arrived at £160 per annum, of promotion, unless he qualified bilingually. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members cried “Hear, hear.” Did they read the speeches of the Prime Minister and the various speeches before and after Union? Did anybody ever deny the statement of the Prime Minister when he said that there should be equal opportunity, and in no case were they to have compulsion. He recognised thoroughly the necessity of equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone, and, even in the Convention, this was recognised, and they absolutely set their faces against this compulsion in every shape or form. If they had thought for a moment that compulsion was to be introduced, the Convention would never have been signed and ratified, and even if it had been signed and ratified, that ratification would have been repudiated by the public. There were members of the Convention in the House, and he challenged any one of them to get up and deny that the whole question was based upon equality of opportunity, and when Sir Starr Jameson spoke last, he made it distinctly and clearly understood in the last words that he uttered that there was to be equality of opportunity, and no compulsion. Under these circumstances he hoped that his right hon. friend would withdraw his amendment. (Hon. members: “Why?”) For the sake of carrying out a sacred pledge and solemn trust. Some members asked why; did they not recognise that there was something in keeping faith? Continuing, the hon. member said that if the Government, by the use of their solid majority, chose to force this question upon them, they could do no more than protest in the strongest possible manner against such a procedure. He believed that the good sense of the country would support them in their attitude, and he believed also that it would be one of the most ill-advised steps that the Prime Minister could take to allow the people to think that, owing to the exigencies of the situation, he had departed from the position he took up on every platform in the country. The right hon. gentleman had taken upon himself enormous responsibilities, and if unfortunately that feeling of bitterness, which had been referred to, should be engendered in the country, he alone would be held responsible, because he alone had the power to settle this business with the fullest satisfaction. (Hear, hear.)

On the Railway Bill the whole of this question was discussed in a committee upstairs, and in the calm and judicial atmosphere of a committee-room, when the whole of this thing was considered and the general interest of the service was considered in connection with it, the principle now advocated by the right hon. gentleman was repudiated, and two of the right hon. gentleman’s strongest supporters voted against this principle of compulsion. Under these circumstances, he hoped before this debate went much further gentlemen like the hon. member for Mossel Bay—unfortunately the hon. member for Potchefstroom was away—would get up in that House and express the views expressed in the calm and judicial atmosphere of the committee-room. Every possible interest of the Public was served by the amendment which he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had put on the paper, and he went further and said that they were never going to get the people of this country to learn English or Dutch by compulsion. (Hear, hear). If they were going to learn those languages they were going to learn them optionally. (Hear, hear.) Consequently, if all the right hon. gentleman required was to have the rights of the public sufficiently met in the public service, he would have accepted the amendment he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had put on the paper. He desired, in moving the amendment which stood in his name to protest in the strongest possible manner against what he considered a breach of faith by the Government using their majority to force compulsion upon the service of this country. (Opposition cheers.)

said he would not like this matter to go to the vote without expressing his views on the subject. He certainly could never be accused of having gone about the country talking about language, nor had he, as far as he could recollect, given vent to that ridiculous formula which had been enunciated by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. (Hear, hear.) He felt that, whatever they might say about equal rights and equal opportunity, to say that there should be no compulsion in this country or any other country was just a sort of shibboleth which had been brought forward, which meant nothing, and which was all sound and fury, signifying nothing. He listened with a great deal of pleasure, and very little profit, he was afraid, to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East. It was eloquent, and went into matters of lofty sentiment, but he listened in vain for those weighty arguments which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort seemed to have found there. There was plenty of that good old warhorse, “Convention spirit,” and all that kind of thing. He wished they had a little more of it. (Hear, hear.) He wished there was a little practical “Convention spirit” shown, because in the Convention, as far as he recollected—and he had not had the pleasure of consulting the very admirable work of his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) who had “lifted the veil”—but he thought he did notice that he said he (Mr. Merriman) had backed the Minister of Justice in this matter. Well, this very question was never raised at all. He did not remember the word “compulsion” being uttered in any way. They could not tell a man in ordinary civil life that he must speak one language or the other, but what was said was that there should be an equal opportunity and equal chance for either language. How were they going to have that if they had a unilingual Service? (Ministerial cheers.) To see that this was so they had only got to look at another clause, clause 145—(hear, hear)—in which it said that, no man should be prejudiced in the Civil Service if he did not know Dutch. Well, of course, a corollary to that was, reading the two clauses together, that it was intended that every Civil Servant after Union should have a competent knowledge of the languages. The one followed the other and, of course, his hon. friend the member Pretoria East only looked with one eye upon the one clause and his own recollection.

I looked at that specifically the other day.

Well, then, the hon. member must have misread it For it seems to me that that knocks the whole bottom out of his argument Proceeding, he said that they said in one clause that no Civil Servant should be prejudiced for want of a knowledge of the Dutch language, who was now in the Civil Service. What would any sensible person read from that but that it was contemplated that you should hereafter have people who had a competent knowledge of both languages in the Civil Service? They had heard a great deal from the two most eloquent members of the House. They came from a country, both of them, which was renowned for its eloquence, and they had been very great on the subject of compulsion.

It would be a horrible shock for the hon. member for Pretoria East—and he was sorry to be the hand that dealt the blow—to point out to him that his colleague and friend who sat next to him (Sir T. W Smartt), who had been so eloquent on the subject of compulsion, was himself a member of a Ministry that actually worked under the law which carried into effect what he deprecated so much. (Ministerial cheers.) Did he know that under the Cape it was a compulsory subject in this Civil Service disqualifying people from the Service, for years. Who chose to have introduced that? A dastardly Bond Ministry? It was the Ministry of that fine old patriot and Imperialist, Sir Gordon Sprigg. They heard nothing about this dreadful compulsion in those days. Did the hon. member know that in 1898 the law of the Cape was that any man who went in for the Civil Service examination was bound to have a competent knowledge of the Dutch language? Did he know that it was a disqualifying subject if he did not qualify in it? Then he came down there and talked m this eloquent way about compulsion, when he himself was putting compulsion in force. (Ministerial cheers.) They must look somewhere else for all this. The fact was, unfortunately—and he held himself, the Minister of Justice, rather to blame in that matter—there had been a good deal too much talk about this language question up and down the country, and the consequence was that it was thought to be a good battle cry. Get the old dead horse and flog it, and if they only flogged hard enough they might create a great deal of mischief in this country; they might, perhaps, set the heather on fire—a noble aspiration! He did not like the amendment of his hon. friend (the Prime Minister), he would go a great deal further. (Ministerial cheers.) He would go as far as the old Cape law. He held to Cape lines. He thought they were good lines. The country went on (happily and harmoniously under that law which laid down that anyone who went into the Civil Service should have a competent knowledge of the Dutch language It might perhaps refresh his hon. friend’s memory if he said that in that year, 1898, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) adorned the position of Commissioner of Crown Lands.

Wrong again.

said that among the compulsory subjects were handwriting, writing from dictation, arithmetic, the Dutch language, oral and written. His hon. friend was not content with merely saying that and leaving it to the discretion of the examiners, but he required an oral examination sufficient for the ordinary business of a Magistrate’s Court and Civil Commissioner’s office. The written examination would include translation from the Dutch language into English and vice versa, writing of letters grammatically, etc. That meant that if a man did not pass in that he could not get a post in the Civil Service. That was the law administered by his hon. friend, without, as far as he ever heard hearing any complaints. Was that an unnatural thing to ask? Did they suppose a man could enter the Union Civil Service without knowing one of the languages? They did not compel a man to go into the Civil Service. All they said was that if you wanted to be a Civil Servant in a country where more than half the population spoke a particular language you should have a competent knowledge of that language. (Hear, hear.) Was there anything irrational in that.

It was repealed.

Well, then, more shame to him. It was repealed so far that it was not made a qualifying subject, but it remained as a necessary subject. It was repealed in the time of the war. Must we go back to those times? Do you wish to drag in all those hideous memories? (Ministerial cheers.)

You are doing this to curry favour.

Who do I want to curry favour with? It is not very nice to hurl across the floor of the House that you repealed it. Proceeding, he said that they did not repeal it; it still remained a compulsory subject for examination, but it was not a qualifying subject.

It was compulsory—let them mark that. The compulsion was still there, but for fourteen years in the Cape Colony it was a qualifying subject, and it worked admirably. Any man with any sense who went into the service, when it was in the compulsory stage—not the qualifying stage—knew that he had got to take Dutch. Here it was stated to be a terrible infliction to tell a lad of 18 years that he had to learn a foreign language in order to pass into the Civil Service. It was done every day in every part of the world. Did his hon. friend know that any man who wanted to enter the Army had to learn French?

Shame.

It might also be the case in the Navy; it is certainly the case in the Army. Continuing, he asked whether any bold. Briton felt insulted because he was compelled to learn that language? Now the fact was that what exactly had taken place in this country before, would take place again. That was, that all the people who could only speak English were kept in the big Maces where only English was spoken. Now that was, he thought, the curse of the Civil Service. But the young Dutchman who could speak Dutch was placed in some place like Rietfontein or Carnarvon, or some such place, because he would be able to get on better with the people of those places. But they kept a gay young fellow who was too lazy to learn the Dutch language in a big place in some secretarial post, and later on he would be jobbed into some good billet with a big salary. Don’t let them hear any more about compulsion. They would now talk about the convenience of the thing. If they were really in earnest about what was done at the Convention, then he was sure that they would not be making all this fuss at the present time. They would remember that they had solemnly agreed that the Dutch and English languages were the official languages of the Union, and that they were to be treated on the same footing. If they were to put these languages upon the same footing, how was it possible to have in the Civil Service men who knew only one of these languages? How would they be able to do such a thing? They had an Act dealing with the matter, and they were breaking the spirit of that Act in another Act. He did not like the amendment which had been proposed by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister though he supposed that he would vote for it. He thought that the man who entered the Civil Service should know both the languages of the country. He would like to have altered the clause brought forward in the Bill by his hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, by saying that in the examination in connection with section 4 and section 7, both languages could be brought forward, so that, when the Dutch-man came forward, they would compel him to know English—(hear, hear)—and when the Englishman came forward, they would say to him, “My boy, you must work hard and learn Dutch.” (Hear, hear.) These men should learn the language they did not know, just as the Army man had to learn French. He wanted to say one more word with regard to this language question. He detested it always being brought up, and being used as a flag to hold up. He had never had any doubt at any time that if a man wanted to get on in this country that he must learn Dutch.

Now English was a world language. The other, too, was an old language, known to the greatest number of the inhabitants of this country, and for the public service it was necessary that the officials of that service should know the Dutch language. He was surprised at the hon. member for Pretoria East—a man who had a gift of imagination which very few of them possessed, who had showed them time and again that he could use that great gift of his—that he was not able to use that great gift in this matter, and to try and put himself in the position of the other section of the community. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) They were proud of the English language. They boasted that they “spoke the tongue that Shakespeare spoke,” but they must forget that in the matter of language the Dutchman had also feelings, and was proud of the tongue that William the Silent spoke. Do let the hon. member for Pretoria East exercise that great gift of imagination by putting himself in the position of the other section of the community, and trying to feel as they felt upon this subject. He must say he felt that they would be doing a grave injustice, that they would be perpetuating this source of strife and discord in this way; they should look at the clause in this Act from a broader standpoint. He thought they ought to insist, as was the case in the old Cage Colony, that when a candidate wanted to enter the Civil Service, he should at least have a qualifying knowledge of the Dutch language. (Cheers.)

said that he had no need to call up on his imagination to justify the attitude which he had taken up on this subject or to establish an interest in the Dutch language. He would answer the right hon. member for Victoria West with two or three facts. When this clause was brought forward he (the speaker) suggested a way out to avoid discussion and avoid making this question a war cry. His children had been taught the Dutch language for ten years and they were being taught Dutch at the present time—this was even before Union came about—and the way to avoid putting the children of other people off the Dutch language was not to try and force it. He would go further than that. What English-speaking people of this country wanted was equality of opportunity—they called it equal rights—for the two languages, and of those who brought that forward he was the very first. He said he would do it when he met the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in Pretoria, when the Transvaal delegation met before going down to the Convention. He told them he would do it. He told the Minister of the Interior at the same time he would do it, and he had done it. He had stuck to that position, and he would not waver from that position. What they wanted was equality of opportunity. It was no new phrase. It was used in the Convention by Dr. Jameson and President Steyn. It was used by Dr. Jameson when that party was formed at Bloemfontein, with the idea of giving President Steyn the opportunity of repudiating such a statement. It was introduced a hundred times by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister who applauded the attitude of the late leader of the Opposition on the subject. The right hon. member for Victoria West had referred to the Clause that had been in operation in the Cape Colony. They knew it. It was nothing nevi’. Did he quote any clauses that were in operation in Natal, or the Transvaal, or the Free State? Had it been forgotten that it was recognised at the Convention that there was difficulty in coming to a settlement on this big subject, that they all approached Union from different standpoints, and that there were extraordinary difficulties that had to be surmounted? Did his right hon. friend make that speech at the Convention? If his right hon. friend had done so there would have been no Union of the Colonies of South Africa. Did his right hon. friend make that speech at the National Convention? He hoped that hon. members who were not at the Convention would hot become impatient. He could understand that—

made an inaudible interruption.

My hon. friend will have an ample opportunity of talking on the subject; there is no necessity for interruptions. He could quite understand that hon. members on both sides of the House and of both races should have wanted something different to what they got from the Convention, should have built hopes on what was not afterwards justified, should have placed interpretations—perfectly sincere interpretations—on the worde of the Convention, as they were entitled to do, and say that this or that was the case or the proper meaning. There was bound to be a wide divergence of opinion on the subject, for the reason that it was approached from such different standpoints. But what he could not understand was members of the Convention coming to that House and asking them to read a written document and abstain from saying what they knew was the intention of the members of the Convention.

made a remark which was inaudible.

There is no need to be annoyed. There is no need to lose your temper over it.

It is a little bit thick.

What does the hon. member say?

He says he thinks it’s a little bit thick.

He should go on writing those notes—

That is his speech. (Laughter.)

said that what he could not understand was that members of the Convention should put such an interpretation upon this particular clause of the Act of Union without telling the House what took place at the Convention. He did not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but he would like the right hon. member for Victoria West to explain to him the draft prepared and submitted to the Convention by the Hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. member proceeded to quote the draft.

The hon. gentleman did not believe that, but it was withdrawn by the Minister of Justice himself. (A Ministerial member: “Why?”) They did not help their cause by interruptions. That was withdrawn by the Minister of Justice because he satisfied himself that the English were just as anxious as he was to, see justice done to the Dutch language, and because Union would have been impossible if the Minister had insisted on his proposal. The Minister of Lands contradicted him (Sir Percy), but the Minister of Justice, on February 20 this year, admitted it in this House.

No; I certainly did not. I certainly never said that there would have been no Union if that had been in the Bill, but I admitted that the facts with regard to what took place as stated by the hon. member were correct as far as my recollection went.

That is in the official records.

It was not the official record.

I recommend the hon. gentleman to read pages 18 and 22 of the records of the Nations Convention. What was withdrawn was the clause I have quoted. If the hon. member for Uitenhage will talk with the Minister of Justice—

Get on with your speech—

The Minister of Justice was a member of the Convention, and I am endeavouring to get his correction or corroboration of the statements I am making. It is with great difficulty that we have got face to face with the members of the Convention, and although we may be a contemptible minority as far as numbers are concerned, we are entitled to a hearing. We are entitled to have our case put forward as a matter of justice, not courtesy; we are entitled to a hearing from those who are able to check us or to corroborate us. Here is the kernel of the whole nut, that every appointment made in the Union shall be made with due regard to the equality of the two languages, and that all appointments should be given only to a bilingual person, and that every citizen of the Union shall have the right to claim either language as the medium of communication between himself and every officer of the Union. That means compulsory bilingualism in all appointments and in the existing Civil Service. That was submitted to certain members of the Convention, and was refused by the Prime Minister because in his judgment it would not enable them to carry Union in the Transvaal. When the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) put forward the case for the Cape he made up a perfectly defensible case if the thing were done by agreement, but it is not defensible to take that up as the Convention settled matters.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has shown that all that can be required in reason could be obtained by an impartial Public Service Board which the Government will appoint. You don’t want advertisement—it is the worst thing to drag out this language question. The Government will appoint a Commission which will have the power to recommend for all positions the people it thinks fit for them. I am very sorry that the Prime Minister and others have taken up this point as an indication of weakness on our side that we admitted compulsion. When you do make an effort to find a way out, and show your devotion to the country and a belief in the possibilities of a settlement by asking the Government to appoint a Commission, then all you get in return is to be told You have given away the principle of compulsion” Don’t you think one has a right to feel hurt and disappointed that it was taken in that way; can you possibly question the sincerity of it when the Commission is to be appointed by the Government itself’ You cannot make people learn languages. It has been tried before you give them every opportunity, and if they won’t take them, well, so much the worse for them. I cannot turn aside to consider the efficiency argument, because it all dates back from the Convention. (Ministerial interruptions.) When we entered the Convention, what was the position in the four Colonies’ I don’t want to discuss the rights and the wrongs of the laws in the four Colonies, but, as a matter of fact, there was no compulsory bilingualism, unless it had been introduced in the Free State.

In 1856 it was introduced in the Free State.

It was not obtaining in the Cape Colony, it had not obtained in the Transvaal, and, of course, it was never heard of in Natal. One of the most serious questions was the future of the Civil Service. It is impossible for one side to re-open the agreement and to say, on the grounds of efficiency or any other argument, “It will be better to have it so-and-so.

That is not justice. I want to put it to the hon. members who have been led off from the point we are most concerned about, and that is the obligation of honour. Hon. members can satisfy themselves that all that efficiency demands can be obtained in another way, but this way is not consistent with the obligation of honour which rests on hon. members who backed the Convention. I have, as far as possible, looked through all the speeches and records that led up to the formation of Union. I find in the Parliaments where the question was discussed, not a single warning of the intention to raise this point. How is it that the right hon. member for Victoria West did not say that if he thought it ought to have been said? Why did he not say it in the Gape Parliament? In the other Parliaments it was the same thing. You may go through all the records and not find one single warning to Civil Servants that they were going to be subjected to compulsory bilingualism.

In clause 145.

said that when the delegates to the Convention returned they addressed the public on Union, and if they were honest and straightforward they gave the warnings ás well as the inducements. He felt responsible—very much so, partly because he advocated the equality of the two languages and equality of opportunity. Any censure he might get now he could bear more easily than he could the censure of those who thought that he was not defending their rights. He had explained that while the English claimed equality they would not deny it to others. He had put this to the Dutch people in the Transvaal with the consent and encouragement of the Prime Minister. With the knowledge of the Prime Minister and his two colleagues he gave this assurance. He went through Natal when the issue was in doubt, and did his utmost to induce the people of Natal to support Union, and with him went the hon. member for Newcastle (Sir T. Watt). The hon. member would not say that he gave the people of Natal any warning.

Business was suspended at 6 p m.

drew attention to the fact that there was not a single Minister or member of the Convention present. He asked permission to wait. (An hon. member: There is a good muster on the back benches.) He could appreciate the courtesy of the back benches, but hon. members would appreciate that it was not much use making an appeal for consideration of this question if those who had the direction of the policy of the country were not present to hear the facts brought forth. (Hear, hear.) An hon. member said that the direction rested with the back benches; that might be, but with the Minister absent the telephone was out of order. Having asked the ruling of the Chairman as to whether he would be in order in moving that progress be reported he did so.

The motion was put, and was declared negatived.

said he would presume again to direct the attention of hon. members to the central point in connection with this important matter, because to those on that side of the House it was simply and solely a question of keeping faith, but he did not put it forward in any offensive way. He would like to draw the attention of, the hon. Minister of Justice in particular to this matter, and would like an answer to this question: “In what respect or particular wherever did the hon. Minister of Justice’s proposals in the Convention differ from the clause before the House?” The original proposal provided that every appointment should be made with due regard to bilingual qualifications. It also provided that every member of the public should have the right to get an answer from every public servant in the medium in which it was addressed. There could be no more complete provision of compulsory bilingualism than that. That was the same as was proposed in the present Bill. What he wanted to know was if this provision, which was now brought forward in the Bill, was in the minds of file members of the Convention? If it was in their minds why did the Minister of Justice withdraw his proposal? Why was it refused by the Dutch-speaking members of the Convention when they said: “If you insist upon this it will wreck Union?” Why was it brought forward now? There were only two explanations. Hon. members opposite did not understand the Opposition point of view. An hon. member said they did. He was sure they did not. The only other alternative was that they had a large majority and did not care two pence; that, however, he did not believe. If the reason that he had referred to was in the minds of the hon. members, who were members of the Convention, why did not the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony tell the. Cape Colony Parliament?

He did.

I have never heard of it. Continuing, he said that most certainly the Prime Minister of the Transvaal never told the Transvaal Parliament or the public of the Transvaal, and he (Sir Percy) acted at that time strongly in support of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal—the present Prime Minister of the Union. He did so because it seemed to him the Prime Minister had adopted a statesmanlike attitude, and he (Sir Percy) had nothing to regret or to withdraw in having supported nun. He had supported him, understanding that he was in possession of all that was in his mind, and that of his colleagues. He appealed to the people in the Transvaal to accept in good faith what was given in good faith. He repeated the assurance that had been given him. During that critical time the obligation must have rested with someone to correct him if he was wrong, and have said: “No, that is not what we mean; do not delude the people, but nothing of the sort was said. Rather was he encouraged. There were thousands of men in the public service whose votes would not have been in favour of Union if that obligation had been put before them. He did not say they should not have compulsory bilingualism anywhere. They were sitting there to compromise. The dual capital was a most inconvenient arrangement; did any hon. member by virtue of a majority in the House propose to upset the arrangement that had been arrived at in that connection. He would vote against that; they could not upset an arrangement like that; one party could not claim a right to break or depart from such a contract as that. This question of good faith they placed in the forefront. Would the Minister of Justice tell in what way his original draft differed from the clause then before the House. There was no difference that he could see. Again and again would he press this point of good faith, and sanity, too, required another course. It had been said that this question was brought up because it was a good horse, and was worth working; that it was a good political cry. Some hon. member said “Yes, but who raised the cry? The hon. member for Northern Natal was always ready to make mischief. “He said I did,” continued the speaker. “Did I draft the Pubic Service Bill’” (An hon. member: No, but you started it.”) That statement was not supported by the facts Proceeding, Sir Percy said he did not draft the Public Service Bill, nor the Railway Management Bill, neither did any member on his side of the House have any hand in it, but they all agreed that there would be no necessity to bring up this language question again. It the real object was to secure equality of opportunity, it could be done perfectly well without any advertising, or contention in the House, or unpleasantness between the races.

What they objected to was the making use of this opportunity to press forward one language or the other—to try to force it And that was what had to be resisted. He knew there was no divergence of news between the members of the Convention; he knew it perfectly well, and he recommended hon. members, who had doubts upon the subject, to read the book perhaps, of course, they would say that it came from only one side—written by his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton). In that book it was pointed out that the language question was referred to the President of the Convention, and the alterations which he suggested had been embodied in that book. Now this was a serious matter, because there were misunderstandings. He did not want to press forward—he did not want to analyse this—he did not want to provoke any further discussion, especially an acrimonious discussion, than was necessary, but there were illustrations which it probably would not do any good discussing, but nevertheless they were very illuminating. There was a serious difference of opinion as to what was really meant, and the matter had been subjected to the very highest authority, and endorsed by that authority. The Convention clearly had it in mind that there might be a possibility of alteration of this clause 137. The Convention provided that, in that case, the alterations should be made by both Houses of Parliament, sitting together, and that at the third reading a two-thirds’ majority should be necessary. Now his hon. friend the member for Umlazi (Mr. A. Fawcus) raised that point to-day, and it had been ruled by Mr. Speaker that the present clause had no reference to clause 137 of the Act of Union. Of course, it must be understood, and he spoke after having consulted the highest authority in this House, that it was open, and properly open, to anyone to raise this question in the courts of law as to whether this law, passed, not by both Houses of Parliament sitting together, would be valid, and no doubt that question would be raised in the courts later on. What he put to the Government was this: there were two parties to that agreement. One party held that it bore one construction, and the other held that it bore another construction. They were the two parties that made the agreement in the Convention. They had not changed; they were the same parties. Was it right for one party, because it had got a majority, to interpret it as not being a departure from the Act of Union? He thought that they might at least have assumed that it might be a departure, and submitted it to both Houses of Parliament sitting together.

But after all it was not necessary to force it. The whole of this discussion, the whole of this occasion, was unnecessary. It was not necessary to put in this clause in either of these two Bills. It was not necessary at all. The hon. members opposite had the appointing of the body which was going to decide the fitness of any man to occupy a particular post. The right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) had read out the qualifications necessary handwriting and a fair education, and all that. If a particular post required a knowledge of both languages, was the man who knew only one language fit for it? Was he not as unfit as the man who could not write? And why not leave it to the Board? They (the Ministry) would appoint the Board itself to determine the fitness of men for certain posts, and surely common-sense told them that the Board would not appoint a man who was unfit for a post. Surely they could leave it to the Board to decide. Therefore, why make all this trouble? Why throw down the bone of contention in that House? It was most unwise to do so, and he could not see anything to be gained by it except a party point. When the House adjourned at 6 o’clock he was asking why it was that no attempt had been made to give this reading of the clause to the country when the opportunity was presented?

It was.

What was?

That reading.

I would be obliged if the hon. member would not cut in; it is difficult enough to steer clear of troubles without being interrupted. Proceeding, he said that in common with many others he did his best to carry Union in the Transvaal and Natal. The Prime Minister knew that the people along the Reef, who had no knowledge of Dutch and had no opportunities of learning that language, were making material sacrifices, and that it was a difficult thing to convince them that they ought to go into Union. And why was it not stated that this was the correct reading of the clause? It was not hinted at, and it did not come out. Was it because they did not wish it to come up? And was it because they wanted to hide the fact in order to delude the people? He repeated to those people from time to time the assurances given to him. He quoted the words of the Minister of Justice and ex-President Steyn. He went through Natal, and did the hon. member for Dundee correct him? Did the hon. member for Dundee warn the people of Natal that having no knowledge of Dutch and having no opportunities of learning it, this clause was going to be imposed upon them?

It was a serious thing. It was going to apply to the Provincial officials as well as the Union officials. It was going to apply to every official in Natal. Every one of them was going to be subjected to this clause. He went to Ladysmith with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler), and there he gave the people the assurances which had been given to him. Did the Prime Minister of Natal (Sir Frederick Moor), when he spoke at Durban, warn the people of this reading of this clause? Did Mr. Smythe or Mr. Hyslop or Col. Greene do so? He was bound to say that they were very nervous about accepting the assurances themselves. Time after time he pledged himself in regard to the assurances given by the right hon. gentlemen opposite, and he appealed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues—it might be too late to see the question from the other point of view. Were they going to do any good by forcing this clause? They had got the power and the right to appoint the Board which would decide whether a man was qualified for a post or not. Before he sat down he wished to ask hon. members to consider the two clauses. The clause which was introduced was, of course, much stiffer and much worse than the clause proposed by the majority of the Select Committee. ít was recognised that there might be a difficulty, and the Commission had to determine whether a man had not had a fair time. Would hon. members tell him how they were going to give them a fair share in certain areas? For instance, in certain portions of the Eastern Province, of the Transvaal, and most of Natal. Did the Government undertake to provide facilities? They knew beforehand it was absolutely impossible. They knew that they were excluding from the field of employment in the Civil Service practically the whole of Natal, a large portion of the Transvaal, and all oversea immigrants. Hon. members knew well that the Dutch language did not exist outside of this country. They knew that it was difficult to learn the language, and there was the difficulty of teachers, and yet they put up a barrier like this. Surely that was not right. Was that ever contemplated in the Convention? It was not contemplated, because if it had been, Union would not have been accomplished. He would not say that Union would never have been accomplished, but certainly it would not have been accomplished at that time. In two years’ time there would be a distribution of seats in the Transvaal, and it was pretty well known how these seats would go. They would have the Provincial Council constituted in a certain way. They would have the Provincial Council in Natal constituted in the main of English-speaking people, and what were they going to say when their Provincial officials were burdened with this. They would say: “What do you mean by that? You are asking for something that is impossible, and therefore you have an ulterior design.” This clause was quite unnecessary.

Then again, another point occurred to him. Only last year they had a very difficult matter to deal with, and that was the question of education. Of course, teachers were going to be officers of the Union—he did not mean officers under this Bill—but the money that was to pay them would have to come from public funds, Were they going to exempt the teachers from the provisions of this clause? This was a perilous position they were taking up, and if they said this must apply to the public service what was to prevent them from saying that it might apply in other spheres? This he believed would cause great trouble and annoyance, and it was quite unnecessary. It never had been the business of the Opposition to trust a Government, but in this case they had departed from that, because they said if they should put this into the hands of impartial tribunals to deal with these things they would be satisfied. This, in his opinion, was a grave departure from the Convention. He would point out that the arguments that he had used with regard to the Provincial Councils were not new, they were all used and discussed in the Convention, they were all discussed at a time when the Minister of Justice’s proposals were first known. They were known at that time, and it was because they considered these things and knew the hardships which would be imposed upon a certain section, that they made a stand against compulsory bilingualism, and that was why he asked now why this question should be raised when the benefits of the Union had been secured? He would quote a query again he put to the Minister of Justice when this matter was broached by him in the Convention, that, if this compulsory bilingualism was agreed to, a man might ask a porter in Natal for a waybill in a language that he was unfamiliar with. The Minister had answered that he did not mean compulsion, but what he meant was when a man was asked a question in his own language he should have reasonable facilities of getting an answer. They did not suggest that there should be an interpreter following every official, but wherever necessary they should have bilingual men. They would get bilingual men by encouraging them to become bilingualists by the granting of bonuses and increase of pay. This was done, he believed, in the police, and he believed that it was done in the Department of the Minister of Justice. A man must realise that, by qualifying himself in this way, it would be very much more advantageous to himself, but they must be trusted to do their best to develop their knowledge of both languages. For three years the right hon. member for Albany, and even so lately as last year, emphasised time after time equality of opportunity and no compulsion, and for these three years the Prime Minister—who they all knew took a broad view of this question—did his best to remove racialism from the country. Did it ever cross the Right Hon. the Prime Minister’s mind that the right hon. the member for Albany was going too far, and did he ever say so? Could he understand what was in their minds now when they had to deal with this question of compulsory bilingualism? A compromise was arrived at in the National Convention; it was ratified there. It was a treaty of peace between two peoples, and it must be observed. Let him put another point. In the National Convention they were careful not to rouse bid feeling, and nobody raised this point, that English was the official language of the British Empire, but the President of the Convention raised it, and an appeal was made to them by President Steyn, who said it was a matter of national honour and sentiment that this badge of inferiority should be removed from their race, and everyone responded to that. He would ask hon. members to consider what this compulsory bilingualism meant. Today the whole order of the Public Service was changed by this clause of the Right Hon. the Premier. This clause had been introduced by the highest official in the country, and it was introduced in a language that half the members on his side of the House did not understand. The Prime Minister had addressed them always in Dutch, as he had an absolute right to do, and no questions had been asked for him to speak in another language. The hon. Minister who sat behind him did not speak Dutch. The hon. member for Boshof asked the hon. member for Barberton to repeat a financial statement he made in Dutch, and the Hon. the Treasurer replied that his vocabulary was not sufficient to do this, besides, he said he had a right to speak in English. Did it not appear to hon. members that this was not a time for coercion? They knew in the Convention that there would be some men here who knew Dutch, and who did not know English, and some who knew English and did not know Dutch, and did not this fact bring home to members the necessity of dealing with this question in a reasonable way?

said he agreed with what the hon. gentleman had just said that there was a very serious question at stake in this matter, namely, whether there was an honourable understanding in this matter. The hon. member had somewhat weakened the force of his eloquent suggestions on this point, the full force of which he felt, by the rather unguarded expressions which he used at the end of his speech, as, for instance, when he suggested that this would apply to the teachers. It did not apply to the teachers.

I said it does not apply to the teachers.

said that, if so, it was unfortunate that the hon. member referred to the teachers at all. It tended to a certain amount of feeling in that House and outside, for which there was no reason. There was another more serious matter, which he was sure the hon. member would not wish to pass uncorrected. He had referred to the President of the Convention and said that the remarkable book which had been written by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had got the approval of Lord De Villiers that it was vouched for by Lord De Villiers.

No, I did not say so.

I understood him to say that the correctness of this book was vouched for by Lord De Villiers.

No; I did not say that.

I am sorry I misunderstood him. But I think that hon. members may also have misunderstood him and I should like to say this, that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth has made it perfectly clear, as far as I understand him in his admirable book, that Lord De Villiers vouches for the reports of his own speeches and for nothing else.

said he did not want to have a misapprehension. He said that Lord De Villiers referred to the language question, that his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) had submitted the matter to him, and that he (Lord De Villiers) had made certain alterations in connection with the language question, and on page 357 of Sir Edgar Walton’s book they would find this note: “The alterations suggested by Lord De Villiers have been carried out.”

That does not refer at all to the questions we are dealing with.

I mean the signing of the Bills.

I thought he was quoting Lord De Villiers in support of himself. Other members may have been misled, and I want to prevent anything of that description. But if the book is only vouched for by Lord De Villiers in regard to his speeches about the signing of Bills, why refer to him in discussing the Civil Service?

Proceeding, the hon. member, said there was a much more vital question which he desired to call the attention of the hon. member opposite to. He lad said there was an honourable understanding. He suggested that that was a bound party, that they were bound to follow the Prime Minister. As far as he was concerned, nothing would induce him to vote against an honourable understanding, and he was sure that nothing would induce the Prime Minister to ask any of his followers to vote against an honourable understanding. There may have been two honourable understandings. He would like to call the attention of the hon. member who had just spoken to the fact that he was not the only member who had tried to keep to the understanding. He would like to call attention to the record of the right hon. member for Victoria West in this matter. He also had interpreted this matter. He spoke as Prime Minister of the Cape in interpreting this matter, and interpreted this clause of the Act of I inion under discussion as meaning that in future all Civil Servants would know both languages. Did the hon. member know that?

No.

said he would point out to the hon. member what was reported in Hansard. In 1909, when this question was before the Cape Parliament—and, after all, it was the Parliaments that had to ratify this, the Convention did not ratify anything, but only made proposals—the hon. member for Colesberg, according to the Cape Hansard, asked whether it would be expected that officers should: have to learn both the languages, seeing that these would be official, and Mr. Merriman said that in future they would be, but not at present. Not a word was said by the right hon. the member for Albany to contradict that. (Hear, hear.) It was on that understanding that the people of the Cape Colony, English as well as Dutch, agreed to this Act. (Hear, hear.) He was not competent to speak about the understanding in the Convention.

That is exactly our amendment. (Opposition cheers.)

went on to say that the Prime Minister of the Cape at that time gave an assurance that in future all officials would know both languages.

It does not say that.

I put the words before the committee and I hope the words will go to the country. I venture to say that, although in the heat of party, it is possible for hon. members opposite to pretend that that is not the meaning of the words, it is the plain meaning of the words which plain men in this House clearly understand.

Proceeding, he said it was on that understanding, agreed to by the right hon. the member for Albany, that the Cape went into Union, and he ventured to say that, if they were talking of honourable understandings and carrying out an honourable understanding, he had often had the misfortune to differ from the right hon. the member for Victoria West, but he said he (Mr. Merriman) was only acting the part of a man determined to carry out an honourable understanding when he spoke as he did that afternoon. He (Mr. Fremantle) was, for one, exceedingly sorry that circumstances had arisen which had made it undesirable perhaps to press that matter. He was entirely in support of the right hon. gentleman in this matter. His hon. and gallant friend (General Beyers), who had put on the paper an amendment making a knowledge of the second language compulsory on all future entrants into the service, had asked him to say, as he was speaking, that he did not propose to press his proposal, because he wished to do everything he could to avoid stirring up strong feelings in these racial matters. But he (Mr. Fremantle) did feel himself that they were going back on the understanding which was made in regard to the Dutch-speaking people of the Cape Colony in 1909—(hear, hear)—and he, for one, would feel that he was acting the part of a dishonourable man if he assented to that, except on one condition, and that was: that the Dutch-speaking people of the Cape Province were prepared to accept less than they were promised. (Hear, hear.)

He wanted to answer the hon. member opposite in regard to what he had said about the original proposal made to the Conference by the Minister of Justice. He could not understand the hon. member (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) having spoken as he did. He said: where was the difference between that proposal and the proposal now before the House? It was almost unintelligible that a man of the position of the hon. member for Pretoria East should not be able to understand the enormous difference between the proposal now being made by the right hon. gentleman and the proposal originally made at the Conference by the Minister of Justice. (Ministerial cheers.) There were two differences—a small one and a large one. There was a small one in that the proposal of the right hon. gentleman expressly met the difficulties of English-speaking centres. Nothing of the kind was proposed by the Minister of Justice ; a small but important matter which he, for one, was very glad to see, because in 1909 he felt the difficulty of Natal, and he then ventured co suggest in the Cape Parliament that Natal should be separately treated, in order that no injustice should be done to Natal, while they were trying to do justice to the Dutch-speaking people of the country. In addition there was an immensely broad difference, and it was that the proposal of the Minister of Justice applied to Civil Servants already in the service —(Ministerial cheers)—and this proposal did not. Could that be denied? He thought the hon. member was unintentionally misleading himself and the House. He would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the question of whether there was a breach of faith or not? He based his charge of breach of faith very largely on the withdrawal of this proposal. Surely he must see that if this enormous difference appeared between the proposal of the Minister of Justice and the proposal of the right hon. gentleman before the House, his charge of breach of faith entirely broke down and ceased to exist. (Ministerial cheers.) But even if the proposal withdrawn had been precisely the same as that now before the House, there would have been no breach of the Act. The withdrawal plainly meant that the Convention simply decided not to deal with the question either way. If the Convention had meant to say that it was not—should not be—possible for Parliament in the future to exact bilingual tests on people who came into the service, why did not the Convention say so? Why was it not done? Clearly because the Convention and the Act gave Parliament the power, and understood that it was giving Parliament the power, to do exactly what was proposed by the right hon. gentleman at the present time—(hear, hear)—and also to go further, and go to the length of the hon. and gallant member for Pretoria South. Indeed, the Act made it quite plain that this very theory was deliberately contemplated.

The committee of the Convention which decided clause 145, included the hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson) and the hon. member for Pretoria East; this committee drafted the clause. Why did not the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) answer the remarks of the right hon. member for Victoria West, who urged that clause 145 proved that a bilingual service in the future was contemplated? Because there was no answer. In this connection the hon. member for Fort Beaufort proposed an amendment to show that clause 145 applied to dismissal solely in connection with the language test, he clearly having it in his mind that those who joined the service in the future might be dispensed with solely in consequence of their ignorance of either language. It was put before the country by the Minister of Education that that was the meaning, that it was contemplated by the South Africa Act that bilingual tests should be exacted of future entrants to the Civil Service.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) made no special reference to this at all in his book on the Convention. There was general content. The important point was whether this was a breach of faith or not, and the existence of that clause in the Act clearly showed that there was no breach of faith. Serious as it was if such a charge could be established, if that charge could not be established then the charge recoiled or the heads of those who made it. (Ministerial cheers.) There was another point—the attitude of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Pretoria East had stated that the Prime Minister had expressly declared against compulsion. The hon. member was misrepresenting the Prime Minister, because what the latter had said had no reference to the Civil Servants, but was entirely in connection with education. (Ministerial cheers.) This was not the first time the hon. member had misrepsented the Prime Minister, no doubt accidentally, but he should be more careful in bringing charges of dishonourable conduct. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Pretoria East spoke as if everybody in the Unionist party agreed with him. Until the hon. member for Fort Beaufort stood up the Ministerialists had no reason whatever to suppose that the hon. member for Pretoria East was representing the party. They only knew that a most influential newspaper on the other side did not agree with the hon. member. He (Mr. Fremantle) was confident that in their hearts of hearts a number of honourable people who generally supported hon. members opposite agreed with the “Cape Times” in this matter, and not with the hon. gentleman. (Ministerial cheers.) Certainly the hon. member had no right to say that he represented the Unionist party in this matter.

I have every right; I have been deputed by my deader to say so.

said that if they proceeded on these lines the disintegration of the party will proceed, as it had proceeded for many years, in consequence of its taking wrong lines on matters of this kind. He believed that a very large number of English-speaking people agreed that such proposals as those of the Prime Minister were patriotic proposals, satisfactory to conditions of the country, and suitable to the circumstances of the present moment. This was not a racial question. The English-speaking people were divided on the subject, and a very large number agreed that the proposals of the Prime Minister were eminently sane and fair. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member opposite said that coercion had always failed in regard to the Civil Service. Coercion had been withdrawn at the Cape, but at a time when it was necessary to bring in from outside South Africa an enormous number of men to join the Civil Service. He challenged the hon. member to show that a petition was ever presented to the Cape Parliament in regard to compulsion in both languages in the Civil Service. It had worked perfectly well for thirteen years. The hon. member’s charge also broke down in regard to the Free State. The Free State Volksraad, in the second year of its existence, passed a resolution that every Magistrate and Magistrate’s clerk should be compelled to know English as well as Dutch. (Ministerial cheers.) Were the English going to be less magnanimous than the Dutch? That was a question which many Englishmen were going to answer with a determined negative. (Ministerial cheers.) The so-called coercion in this matter was not real coercion. If they did not require coercion of all important Civil Servants they would be doing a gross injustice to the Dutch-speaking members of the service. The point had repeatedly been put, but no attention was paid to it by the hon. member for Pretoria East. When the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr was giving evidence before the Select Committee on the Dutch language in 1905, the question was put to him: “ I find from the sixth report of the Civil Service Commission that they lay down as a principle that there shall be for an ordinary Civil Servant an entrance examination, at which Dutch shall not be required, but that after two or three years there shall be a qualifying examination, to pass which shall be essential for promotion—what is your idea about this proposal?” His reply was: “I am sorry that I cannot agree with it. In the first place, it is opposed to the bilingual principle. In the second place, in practice, it would be open to exactly the same objections as I have referred to in regard to a knowledge of Dutch being required only for officers intended for Dutch districts. Those who passed at once in Dutch would have the preference for appointments in some remote Dutch village in the achter veld, while those who failed in Dutch would be rewarded with appointments on some nighty-prized, up-country neighbourhood; and it would be almost as fatal to the homogeneity of the service and the interchangeability of officers as the other plan. Thirdly, if an unamibitious young Civil Servant had been allowed to spend years in pleasant up-country surroundings, and if he knew that as soon as he passed in Dutch he would have a chance of being promoted to the back country, he might hesitate to qualify for such doubtful promotion. Fourthly, it would be nothing like an incentive to acquire Dutch, as the plan which I have just sketched would be, namely, to give only temporary appointments to candidates who are only qualified in the one language, when fully-qualified candidates are not procurable, that is, to give only temporary appointments to those who have not passed in Dutch. Fifthly, in the case of a man who had not passed in Dutch, but who for a number of years had given great satisfaction in an office, and who had been married and reared a family in the meanwhile, it would be rather hard, and exposing him to great temptation, to give him no increase of salary or promotion simply because he did not know Dutch.” Continuing, the hon. member said that when hon. members said that they were animated by a desire to bring peace and contentment to this country, he thought that these remarks, this voice from the grave, these words of a great South African who had gone, were deserving of the earnest attention of hon. members of that House. Hon. members on the other side did not seem to realise that there were two sides to this big question, and that the views of the one side deserved as much attention as the views of the other section of the community. On his (the speaker’s) side they had done, and were doing, their utmost to meet the views of the English-speaking people of the country. The Prime Minister had gone out of his way to introduce something that should meet the wishes of that section of the community, and he hoped that the matter would not be discussed as if there were only one side to the question.

They were all concerned about this matter and it was only right that both sides of the question should be considered. But for thirteen years this principle of compulsory bilingualism had acted admirably in the Cane British Kaffraria, Griqualand West, and Bechuanaland had all been separate and almost wholly English colonies. They were added to the old colony one after the other. British Kaffraria was fully content with the operation of these clauses for thirteen years after her inclusion in the Cape Colony, the people of Griqualand West found no grievances, and Bechuanaland found that something more than these clauses worked fairly. Now that the Prime Minister wanted to do something of the sort, there was no reason to fear that the people of Natal would be treated more unfairly or more unjustly than were the people of British Kaffraria, Bechuanaland, and Griqualand West during the thirteen years which they had to do with this principle. There was one point of misunderstanding, to which the Prime Minister had referred. He hoped that the Prime Minister would accept a slight amendment to the amendment which he had moved, to make the point which he wished to express clearly a little more clear. He hoped that, the Prime Minister would allow the addition of the words “and until” in the sixth line of his amendment.

replied in the affirmative.

said that he confidently expected this because he knew that the Prime Minister was anxious to prevent the slightest suggestion of injustice. This would mean that men who were debarred from promotion owing to not passing the bilingual test would go forward as soon as they passed this test. He would make one appeal to hon. members on the opposite side of the House before he sat down. Hon. members on his side of the House would and did listen to what was said on the other side with the desire to avoid all unfairness, but there ‘was one thing which they could not give ear to, and that was the suggestion of mistrust which he ventured to think they had had in the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East. There was no reason for this mistrust. He thought that hon. members on the other side ought to meet hon. members on his side of the House and accept the moderate, patriotic and satisfactory solution of the difficuley which had been put forward by the Prime Minister. (Cheers.)

said he thought it essential that the English-speaking representatives of Natal should give expression to the views which they held on this important subject, and he would frankly say so far as he was concerned he was going to support the amendment which had been proposed by the Prime Minister. (Cheers.) The issue was important. They were standing again possibly on the parting of the ways, and he would not be doing justice to himself and his constituents if he did not frankly state his reasons for supporting the amendment which had been brought forward by the Prime Minister. (Cheers.) He had tried to place himself in the position of the hon. member for Pretoria East. He had gone carefully through the Convention proceedings so far as they had been published, he had gone through the very useful book which had been published by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, he had carefully read through the proposals of the Bill and the various amendments, and he had carefully considered the draft which the Minister of Justice wished to introduce to the Convention and upon which stress had been laid by the hon. member for Pretoria East, and he agreed with the hon. member for Uitenhage that anybody who took the original proposal of the Minister of Justice would come to the conclusion that it was no wonder that the members of the Convention found themselves unable to accept such a proposal. He could quite understand the standpoint of the Minister of Justice at the time. He was pressing his point on behalf of his language and his people. He was brought to realise that he was going too far and that the English-speaking people also had rights which must be respected, and the proposal was rejected before it came before the Convention. Step by step they went on with this question, and they had the results of the deliberations in the Act of Union.

Hon. members on both sides of the House should get rid of the English and Dutch view of these matters. The Convention said that no person should be penalised for want of his knowledge of one or other of the languages, a most reasonable proposition. They had four Colonies brought very suddenly together into Union, too suddenly, as some of them thought. They were very anxious in Natal to know whether they were going to have protection under this Act or not. He had been a Civil Servant, and knew the minds of the Civil Servants in that Colony. They found, when they read the clause, that so far as the existing Civil Servants were concerned they had their charter. There was no disputing that the Convention had protected their rights up to the hilt. No man, whether English or Dutch, would be penalised in any way for want of knowledge of either language. He was not present at the Convention and had little knowledge of what took place. He had read the plain Act of Parliament. Where would they find themselves if they accepted what was said at the Convention?

They should try and get rid of this party business; they did not want, on either side, any racial feeling in connection with this matter. At that present moment there was a great danger that racial feeling would be stirred up because they had on one side of the House a clear Dutch section devoted to their language, who had seen for years and had felt for years that their language was not getting that equality of treatment which they thought desirable—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—and not unnaturally there were some extremists. Their intentions were to get their language treated as the Act of Union laid down, on equal terms. They pressed that with all their might. As an Englishman, he thought sometimes they pressed it too far, and it was his duty as an Englishman to see that they did not press it so far as to prejudice his right to a heritage in this country. On the other side they had undoubtedly among the English-speaking people a certain section who rightly or wrongly felt intensely—he was speaking frankly to both sides—that in various parts of the country where they were living there was no necessity for them to be troubled with the other language at all. They felt that they should not have any laws which bound them to recognise that other language in that part of the country. They were quite willing that Dutchmen should speak their own language in their own part of the country, but thought there was no real necessity for coming together in the matter of these two languages. But that was one of the best guarantees for the future reconciliation of the two races. It was their duty in that House to secure a middle course.

With regard to the Civil Service, those already appointed were protected, but what of the future? They had a Civil Service which was homogeneous, with headquarters for the greater part in Pretoria, and consisting of Dutch and English. These Civil Servants were not the masters of the public, but the servants of the public, arid under the Act of Union as it stood every Englishman and every Dutchman had the right to reply to a question in his own language. They should be reasonable in these matters. Referring to the difficulties that would arise, he said that youths were growing up in Natal, thinking of the Civil Service as a career had no thought of this language difficulty, who would be placed in this awkward position, that if under the Act of Union the Public Service Commission established an entrance examination in both languages, a great many of these young people would naturally be ruled out. He did not think that the clause as it stood originally would help sufficiently, because although the clause provided that a man should qualify before he reached a certain barrier, that did not seem to be a sufficient incentive for one to learn the language. The barrier was placed too high at £360. The number of appointments at that sum were not so numerous as to justify their troubling about the matter. The barrier should be fixed somewhere between the entrance and the £360. The clause, as amended, did provide for that. They were fighting about something not worth fighting about. If the Civil Servants of this country were to be made the best use of, they must learn the languages of the country. He hoped that when the Public Service Commission was appointed it would see that those who were brought up in English parts and those who were brought up in Dutch parts would be afforded that opportunity of interchange which would enable them to become accquainted not only with the two languages, but with the thoughts and feelings of the two peoples. If there were that interchange, he was sure good relations would be established.

said it was not a question of Dutch or no Dutch, English or no English, or compulsion or no compulsion; it was rather a question of what policy was calculated to secure the greatest efficiency with due economy In the main he agreed with the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, and if he could not g t a better one he would certainly vote for it. He thought, however, that there was an element in that amendment which would bring about that which the Prime Minister desired to avoid. It looked to him that in principle and in practice the amendment would court failure. He referred to the introduction of the time element. When the question was raised in the Natal Parliament as to what would be required m regard to the Dutch language he was pointed to clause 145. Up to the 31st of May, 1910, things remained practically as they were, but the logical inference from clause 145 was for the future bilingualism in a bilingual country. That was understood when Union was discussed, and the reason why a large number afterwards jibbed in Natal was not on that ground but on very much larger grounds. For once he found himself in complete unanimity with the right hon. the member for Victoria West. The right hon. gentleman spoke of ridiculous formulae. One ridiculous and fallacious formula had been bandied up and down this country, namely the formula of equality of opportunity.” To his mind opportunity depended entirely upon a man’s ability to recognise and his capacity to use. Equality of opportunity had no meaning, and the sooner they ceased to talk about it the better it would be The same opportunity was not equality of opportunity. If he were to believe the hon. member for Pretoria East, that the South Africa Act did not mean what it said, then if that were so, it was an admission that those who drew up the Act knew so little of English that they could not express their ideas. (Laughter and cheers.) If they had kept to the letter of the law they would not have had this miserable contemptible squabble. (Hear hear.) Why was the question raised now? They were told that the matriculation examination was to be the wicket gate through which these candidates were to pass. Was that examination not compulsory from end to end? He was told that they could not make a man learn anything against his will; that was not in agreement with fact. Well, why was an objection not taken to the matriculation? Again, What about this Defence Bill? Did it not lay down the principle of compulsion? The real problem was what policy was best to secure the greatest efficiency. Then, again, they were told that there were many differences between the three systems of Dutch, but he did not hesitate to say that between the three languages the difference was so slight that any man with average intelligence could master these differences in the short space of an hour. (Heat, hear.) In the Transvaal when the famous or in famous circular was sent out, several of the men who would be affected came to him and said they had been told if they did not pass in Dutch they would all have to go. He asked a question, and learned that it was not because they could not do it, but they had been got at for political purposes. (Ministerial cheers.) What was the position? It was that men should be promoted according to merit and that fitness should be the qualification; but they were in a bilingual country, and surely they ought to recognise that. (Hear, hear.)

said he wanted to make it clear how this matter affected the generality of the Britishers in the Transvaal, many of whom he represented in that House. At the time of the Convention, it was stated on every platform and in every newspaper that there would be no compulsion and that the language would not be interfered with. That was never contradicted. He was going to take the line of argument that he adopted immediately peace was declared in the Transvaal. When peace was declared, he happened to be serving on Lord Kitchener’s staff, and he (Lord Kitchener) consulted him to a considerable extent on that occasion, and when peace had been finally settled. There were a number of informal conferences as to the manner in which the Dutch language should be treated, and whether the people of the country were to be given the franchise immediately, or whether they had to serve a number of years under probation. He said to Lord Milner and everyone else that they had taken these people in as British subjects, and that they were entitled to every right as British subjects in this country. What he said then he said again to-night, that if they interfered with the people s religion if they interfered with their civil rights or their language, it was only a question of time, and if they kept them on long enough, they would divide the races and bring them to the point of strife. They had many conferences, and he was glad to say that the broader spirit in time prevailed, and it was then agreed that the people of the country should have the same rights as an ordinary British subject, and that there should be no interference. He thought it was due to that fact more than any other that such a spirit grew up among the two peoples almost immediately after the close of the war. What had they gained by experience? Was experience of no use to them? Had they not had dreadful experience in this country? He took part in all the events that led up to the two distressing wars that had taken place in the Transvaal. After referring to the situation in 1881, the hon. member went on to speak of the events that led up to the war of 1899-1902. He proceeded to ask whether, with these instances before them, they were deliberately to-day going to tamper with the language of the people of the country?

The people in the Transvaal took it, on the whole, as an imposition that it had been forced upon them, and that feeling was gradually spreading, and was gradually extending, as it did in the early days of the Transvaal. He would like to ask the Prime Minister a very pertinent question. Did he believe, at the time of peace at Vereeniging, if they had ever claimed from Lord Kitchener the right that all the future Civil Servants in this country should be compelled to learn Dutch, he would have granted them this? There would have been no peace then, because Lord Kitchener would never have made a grant of that kind. Take the Convention. At the Convention they were represented by a large number of British men from the Transvaal. If those individuals had consented to this term of compulsion, there never would have been any unification, because the people would have declined it emphatically. With this understanding, he had not the slightest desire of any kind to interfere with the language of the Dutch-speaking people of this country. They had an absolute right to speak their language, and if they decided here and now that their children should not be taught a single solitary word of English, they had no right to find fault with them. But, on the other hand, when they entered into an agreement of this character, then he said, not only in the spirit but in the letter also, he felt to-day that if this were going to be carried, the old feeling of unrest and distrust was going to grow up again in the Transvaal.

He was prepared to associate with any party which would make the maintenance of supremacy of the white race in South Africa its object. If they chose a policy of confusion and not fusion the whites would inevitably go to the wall. The English in the Transvaal at the close of the late war, when Responsible Government was given to the country, sat under the present Prime Minister and accepted the position that had been foisted on them by their King and country. But when they went a step further and desired to put their heel on the English language it was time to cry a halt. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) That was an unjustifiable imposition, and if they were prepared to carry that to its logical conclusion then they were going to bring on this country all those distressing circumstances which had proved so terrible in the past. “As far as I am personally concerned.” said Sir Aubrey in conclusion. “I want to make my position absolutely clear. I have always been regarded by one side as a disturber of the peace, but no man has ever striven more to bring about a settlement of all possible questions than I have. But when it has dawned on my intelligence that the other side wanted to fight, then there has been no man more anxious to get into the field. If you carry this amendment, I shall never cease from striving until that clause is removed, and until this question is once more submitted to the final arbitrament of force.” (Loud cries of “No.”)

said he thought the House had rarely listened to such an extraordinary speech as that of the hon. member for Braamfontein. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member wound up by threatening civil war if the Civil Servants were asked to undergo an examination in order to get promotion. He had seldom heard a more trumpery reason given for threatening a disturbance and the speech was most unwise. (Hear, hear.) They had not to do to-day with the peace of Vereeniging, but with the interpretation of the Act of Union. (Ministerial cheers.) He did not think any man on that side of the House would endorse what the hon. member had said. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Pretoria East said that he was in Natal at the time of the referendum with him. If the hon. member would recollect, he would tell the House that he had made a slight mistake, for the only time they were on the same platform together was at Durban, when the hon. member for Pretoria East was simply a listener. At the end of the meeting he was called upon by the audience to make a speech, and made a few remarks wishing all success to the Campaign he (Sir T. Watt) was then engaged in. Nor had the hon. member for Pretoria East visited Dundee with him. He (Sir Thomas) had made a point of telling the people in Natal that both languages were to be treated on an equal basis—(Ministerial cheers)—and the Prime Minister of Natal when he introduced the draft Act of Union into the Natal Parliament said that one of the principal points was that the two languages were to be on terms of equality. There was no doubt whatever that everyone in the Natal Parliament and also every elector who had studied the question was perfectly convinced that the meaning of the Act of Union was that not only the two languages were to be treated equally on paper, but in reality—(Ministerial cheers)—and that it was likely that Government would impose a language test in the Civil Service. Then the hon. member for Pretoria East had said that Natal would not have accepted Union if it felt that a language test was to be imposed. He (Sir Thomas) believed the hon. member was entirely wrong in that. (Hear, hear.) After all, the question we are now discussing was merely a slight difference in phraseology; it was the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. There was no compulsion, for no one was compelled to go into the Civil Service. In the other sense there was compulsion in the amendments both of the Prime Minister and the (hon. member for Fort Beaufort, because the former had stated that if a man wished to obtain promotion he would be compelled to pass an examination in both languages.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort stated that before a man could get promotion to a particular post he would have to pass an examination in the English and Dutch languages. That also was compulsion. It seemed to him that the difference was very slight. He was not in a position to say what took place in the earlier stages of the Convention, but he did know this—that when the members of the Natal delegation discussed the effect of the Act of Union it was realised that in all probability all the Civil Servants would have to become acquainted with the two languages. That was the reason why the Natal delegates wished to secure the position of those who were in the service at the time of Union, and that was why clause .145 in the Act of Union was supported by them. (Opposition laughter.) It was all very well to talk from memory and tell the House about honourable understandings. As business men they had nothing to do with honourable understandings (Opposition laughter.) If hon. members would remain quiet he would finish the sentence and then he would be glad to hear them laugh They as business men had nothing to do with honourable understandings to which they were no party whatever and of which they had no knowledge. Until he heard the hon. member for Pretoria East he could honestly say that he had never heard of any understanding that Civil Servants should not be required to pass an examination in both languages.

Did you tell that to the people of Natal?

I believe I did. Continuing, he said that it was very difficult to remember every word that one uttered as long ago as three years. He remembered being questioned on one occasion when he said that the rights of men time of Union would be protected, but that in the future men would be required to pass an examination in both languages. He asked any reasonable man how it would be possible to give equality to both the languages of the country if their Civil Servants were not acquainted with both languages. If the English-speaking members of the House were to continue the policy they advocated, of objecting to the Dutch language, they would be committing a breach of faith The Prime Minister did not go so far as the hon. member for Pretoria East, who suggested that this clause applied to every member of the service. All the members of the Civil Service were not subject to this test, but only the members of the general division. It did not apply to the general division or professional officers. If they could only get rid of the heat that was engendered by the language question and the racial question he thought they would find that the clause was quite reasonable. They should get rid of the language question ‘and the racial question for the reason that more important questions were coming before the country. He was one who looked upon the dual language as highly inconvenient. He had tried to learn Dutch late in life. He did not know it very well, and it was difficult for him to follow the Dutch debates. But he wanted to keep faith with the Dutch race, who were a party to the Act of Union; he wanted to keep faith with those who framed the Act of Union. It was unfair and un-British in the Opposition to try to shuffle out of the bargain (Ministerial cheers.)

said he thought that if hon. members could forget that Civil Servants had votes and that there was an election going on within the Union at the present time less would have been heard about this question. They were giving it altogether too much importance : it was not the burning question in the country that it was in that House. (Ministerial cheers.) They would do better to study the interests of the country a little more instead of discussing things that he hoped would soon be relegated to the past. He thought the proposal of the right hon. gentleman was a fair one, and could not agree that the provision was weakened by the provisos added to the clause? A good deal of extraneous talk had been introduced into this discussion. They had heard all this over and over again in the House as well as during the elections. He had not taken part in it before, but he had listened to all the arguments that had been used, and been trying to understand the real difference between the two clauses, which, to him, not being initiated into any back-stair arrangement, seemed to be almost the same, except that the Prime Minister’s clause had stated the position in a little more definite language, which, he had no doubt, the Civil Servants would appreciate. He regretted that at least one more clause had not been inserted in the Act of Union. The Convention should have studied their feelings a little more and have provided some trustworthy person in the country as umpire, who could be referred to for interpretations of the true Convention spirit they heard so much about. Then they would probably have saved a good deal of the time of the House on this and other questions. The objection was to compulsion: was not every subject compulsory? He would not be able to keep a position if he did not know his trade. Every servant was compelled to have some special knowledge. It was ridiculous to drag in that matter the question of compulsion. They could not get the benefit of bilingualism if they did not make it compulsory, and it was their duty to see that the clerical staff of the Civil Service of this country was bilingual. He thought that the Prime Minister had really put the minimum of compulsion in the clause. There must be some test, and an examination was absolutely necessary in order to ascertain whether a man knew the languages or not. He thought that had it not been for the constant charges of breach of faith which were made in this House, the clause which would have been put into this Bill would have been somewhat different from the present one, but under the circumstances it was advisable not to incorporate anything vague and indefinite. A great deal had been said about compelling English-speaking people to learn the Dutch language in order to rise in the service, but he wished to remind hon. members that it was equally compulsory on the Dutch people to learn the English language in order to rise in the service.

said that he would not have spoken but for the fact that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had made special reference to him. He had said that in view of his attitude as a member of the Select Committee on the Railways and Harbours Service Bill he would not be consistent if he supported the amendment now moved by the Prime Minister. But what were the circumstances surrounding the position he took up in the committee? The hon. member would remember that they were discussing the clause having reference to the educational qualifications, which should be possessed by those in the railway service, and he supported the amendment that the test should be through the medium of either official language. But what were the circumstances of the case? They were dealing not with the clerical or administrative staff, but with the whole service, and he then saw no reason why engine drivers, stokers, fitters, and trimmers should be bilingual, and it was on that ground that he justified his vote in committee. He was, however, going to support the amendment of the Prime Minister because the circumstances were altogether changed. They were dealing with the clerical and administrative staff, where a bilingual knowledge was necessary. He was not going to deal with clause 137 of the Act of Union, because he considered that hon. members on his side of the House had refuted the arguments put forward by hon. members opposite as to the misinterpretation of the clause. He was fully convinced that the interpretation of the Act of Union which had been given by the hon. members on his side of the House justified the amendment of the Prime Minister. Therefore, he heartily supported that amendment because he thought that it would be doing a service to Englishmen who joined the Civil Service. As far as he could see, the argument of coercion which had been so often used by hon. members opposite did not apply. He thought that by applying a stimulus so as to make the English section of Civil Servants qualify in Dutch, they were doing a kindness to them.

said that two members from Natal had already spoken that night on this question. They had spoken from the same point of view, but he would not like it to go forth that Natal had only one point of view. One member went so far as to thank the extreme Dutch section for allowing English to be put on an equality with Dutch. The other member (the member for Dundee) did not speak in the same strain in Natal as he had spoken that night. He was not going to speak from an extreme point of view. This clause which they were now discussing was one that they were suspicious about in Natal, but they were told there was nothing to fear, but it was the fear of the imposition, among other matters, of such a clause that made many of them think that a scheme of federation would be better than a scheme of unification. (Hear, hear.)

It was the attempt to put an interpretation of clause 137 of the South Africa Act into every Act of Parliament that was forcing this question to the front. If the Dutch people, who believed in the equality of the two languages, were satisfied with that clause as it was in the Act of Union, why did they not let it remain there? Why did they insist upon putting it into every Service Act in some shape or form that was brought into the House? The right hon. the member for Victoria West had said that Dutch had been compulsory in the Cape Civil Service, and had argued that that was a very good reason for making it compulsory throughout the Union. But he seemed to forget that there were other parts of the country besides the Cape. They in Natal had never been used to that sort of thing, and it came very hard upon them that it should be thrust upon them now. His point was that they in Natal—he believed he was now speaking for a large proportion of the people in Natal—would prefer that this language question was not placed in any shape or form in any Civil Service Bill. They thought the matter should be left in the hands of the Civil Service Commission to be appointed. If that Commission were of the right sort, a strong and impartial Commission, then they felt that the matter could be settled on business lines.

He believed the Civil Servants who desired promotion would learn Dutch. But people in Natal had not the same opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of that language that people in other parts of the Union had and unless the Government decided what form of the Dutch language was to be used, and provided facilities for learning it the people in Natal would be just as badly off at the end of five years in this matter as they were now. (Hear, hear.) If the Government would only drop the thing out of the Bill and allow the Act of Union to speak for itself, or get the President of the Convention to give his interpretation of the clause, he believed that, to a large extent, would be acceptable to the people of Natal. If, on the other hand, the Government insisted on proceeding with this proposal the people of Natal would get a rude shock. They had been told by the then Prime Minister, after the returned from the Convention, that the language and race question had been settled for ever, but they would feel that they had been very badly used. If the matter were pressed too far it would alienate sympathy of the people in Natal from the Ministry. With regard to the amendments, he was not in favour of that of the Leader of the Opposition, for he would rather that no amendment of that kind were put into the Bill. (Hear, hear.) But if there were to be a choice between the two amendments, he should vote only for that of the Leader of the Opposition. (Hear, hear.)

referred to what was done in Canada, when a parallel state of affairs existed there. Clause 135 of the Canada Constitution Act stated that either the English or French languages might be used by any person in the debates m Parliament, that both languages should be used in the records and the journals of the House, and that either language might be used by any person in any court of law. As to the Canadian Civil Service, it was laid down that all the examinations should be held in the English or French languages at the option of the candidate. (Opposition cheers.) There was no compulsion there, and it was an example South Africa might have followed.

The hon. member for Dundee had stated that the people of Natal had not been misled. He contended that they were misled, but misled unintentionally by the late Mr. Morcom, who was the most highly thought of delegate that went to that Convention from the Province. He went on to quote a statement by the late Mr. Morcom, in the course of which the latter stated that the Act of Union only provided for Dutch being the official language of the Union, and not of the Province or of the Provincial Council. He agreed with the Prime Minister that they should lead, and not drive. They should not force men to learn the language they wanted, but give them an inducement to learn that language. There was no language clause in the Administration of Justice Bill, and he did not see where there was any necessity for it in this Bill or anywhere else. The Prime Minister had said that they must beware of sore hearts in the country, and he would put it to the Prime Minister that there would be many sore hearts in Natal when this was carried through. Natal had been wholesomely humbugged, fooled, and misled in this matter of language. New members of the Natal Civil Service could not get promotion after five years if they were not qualified in both the official languages. He pointed out the difficulties of learning Dutch in Natal, and acquiring correct pronunciation, and said that forcing Dutch there would be just as great a hardship as forcing Zulu in the Cape Province. Natal had accepted Union in sincerity and good will. Other Provinces had their prices nominated in the bond. Natal paid for Union with a blank cheque, and he felt bound to say that if Natal had known at the time what the amount of the cheque was going to be, there would have been a good many votes cast the other way. If Natal had known that there was going to be compulsory bilingualism in the schools and in the Civil Service, there would have been no Union of South Africa so far as Natal was concerned. He looked upon the whole of this clause as having the object of benefiting those people who lived in parts of the country where bilingualism already existed. He thought the case would best be met by the deletion of the whole clause and he would suggest that that clause be deleted.

said that he had listened to the debate that had taken place that night with intense interest, and as far as he could gauge, it was a question of compulsion versus non-compulsion. Hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, particularly the leader, evidently favoured non-compulsion. Were the members of the House consistent when they argued that they were in favour of hon. compulsion? He had listened to the speeches, and they took him back to his boyhood days, and to a certain book of Shakespeare’s entitled “Much Ado About Nothing.” If hon. members would carefully read the Bill right through, they would find there was no need for the amendment nor for the clause at all. He would direct their attention to clause 4, which stated that, except in the case of a female officer no person should after the, commencement of the Act be appointed to a clerical position unless he has passed the Marticulation Examination of the University of the Cape of Good Hope. That Matriculation Examination required that every candidate should take six subjects. He would point out that was not optional. One subject in groups Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and both subjects in group No. 5. Group 1 was English or Dutch. The candidate must take one of those languages. Group No. 2 was English or Dutch. Either of the two if not taken in Group 1, so that those two groups made it compulsory for candidates to take English and Dutch.

and other hon. members: “No, no.”

The hon. member is not capable of teaching me English better than I know it myself. He was sorry that this hit hon. members hard. It was another instance of involved methods of reasoning adopted when considering this language question, and it accounted possibly for the speeches that some of them made when they were stumping through the Union trying to influence people to vote British. He would read the clause again. He went slowly through groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 again.

Group 5, he went on, consisted of Latin and mathematics, and every candidate for matriculation must take both subjects. Now, he always understood that Latin was a language, and if every candidate were compelled to take both subjects in group 5 he must perforce take Latin, and he appealed to hon. members in the House, unless they were absolutely obsessed by racialism, to say whether it was not fairer that Dutch should have preference over Latin. Hon. members on that side (the Opposition side) had no objection to candidates for the Civil Service being compelled to learn Latin, but they did object to them being compelled to learn Dutch. Mention had been made by the hon. member on his right (Mr. Fawcus) of the Canadian Civil Service Act. That hon. member had read from the Act to show that all examinations were conducted in either the English or the French languages, and he somehow or other deduced from that that the Prime Minister, by his amendment, meant that every Civil Servant in this country should be tested through the medium of both the English and Dutch languages, but it was nothing of the sort. The hon. member (Mr. Fawcus) had argued that they were insisting upon Dutch and English being used as the media.

A candidate in Canada has the choice.

And the candidate here has also the choice. He has the choice of medium, but he has not the choice of subject, which is an entirely different thing. Proceeding, he said that mention had been made to the Indian Civil Service, and statements had been made that Indian Civil Servants must of necessity learn Hindustani, but he wished to point out to the committee that Hindustani was not on terms of equality with the English language. It was not recognised as an official language, but here the Dutch was an official language, and was supposed to rank on an equality with the English language, and so far as he was concerned he would endeavour to see that it did so rank. There was not the slightest doubt that if they were going to make a contented Civil. Service, and remove any charges of favouritism, then they would be taking away the only lash with which they had to whip the Government. (Opposition dissent.)

said he felt compelled to say what he thought upon this matter. The hon. member who had just spoken had brought up the old argument of the Indian Civil Service, as justifying the proposal of the Prime Minister. It was perfectly true that an Englishman who wanted to enter the Indian Civil Service had to pass an examination not only in Hindustani, but in the vernacular of the district where he was to be located. The hon. member at this stage hoped the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) would cease making insulting comments—he would withdraw the word insulting—because if there was anything that could make hon. members lose their tempers it was interruptions like those of the hon. member. Continuing, he said it was true that candidates for the Indian Civil Service had to qualify, as had been stated, but the argument did not apply. (An hon. member: “Why?”) Because in the Indian Civil Service they had a superior race governing an inferior race, but that was not the case here.

The English Civil Servant went to India to be one man among many hundreds of thousands of natives who spoke no other language but their own, and who were unable to make themselves understood in the English language, and it was essential for him to have the influence and the command over the subject population which was necessary for the welfare of the government of India that he should know their language and be able to communicate with them. In this country there was no such necessity, except in places where the Civil Servant had to deal with people who were more familiar with Dutch or with one language than the other. Then if the Civil Servant were more familiar with the language which was not the language of the people among whom he had to live, it was absolutely necessary that he should learn that language in order to be able to deal with those people. That was the effect of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He believed that they on that side of the House would be perfectly ready to leave this matter to the Public Service Commission. Wherever injustice could be shown in this matter, wherever it could be shown that in places where people spoke only one language in this country they had to deal with officials who did not speak their language, they were prepared, and they said it was only just, that that should be put right. It had been pointed out that that was not the intention of these clauses in the Act of Union, and the hon. member for Uitenhage had gone into a very elaborate argument to attempt to show that this could not possibly have been the case and that these clauses were understood in a different sense, in the sense of the amendment moved by the right hon. gentleman. The whole sense of that amendment was that the original proposal put forward by the Minister of Justice, because it applied to existing members of the Civil Service, therefore ought to be amended, and the present clause in the Act of Union ought to be substituted. The clause as originally proposed by the Minister of Justice was a clause which contained elaborate provisions for the carrying into practice of the principle of equality as between the two languages in this country.

If the only objection to the clause was that it applied to existing Civil Servants there was a simple way of dealing with the matter. The only way to make it apply to future Civil Servants was to insert a proviso to the effect that nothing it contained should be deemed to refer to present members of the service. (Opposition cheers.) That was a perfectly reasonable and simple course. But instead of that being done the clause had been whittled away, and it had assumed its present shape in the Act of Union. There had been created in the minds of those who sat on that side of the House and those they represented, an idea that something else was intended in the clause than was put in in the original proposal—(hear, hear)—a conclusion which was so irresistible that it could not be met by any of the arguments which had been brought against it. If the Minister of Justice could show to the House that the original proposal of his was altered because it applied to existing Civil Servants, and that the alteration was only to make it to apply to future Civil Servants, then he (Mr. Long) would believe that there was a real misunderstanding as to the meaning of the clause. Now he came to clause 145. By reason of its guaranteeing existing members of the service against dismissal owing to a lack of knowledge of English or Dutch, the irresistible conclusion drawn from that clause was that it was not meant to apply to anyone coming into the service after Union. The right hon. member for Victoria West argued from that clause that it proved that no Civil Servant should be prejudiced because of his lack of knowledge of either language. The difference between the actual wording of the clause and the impression as to the wording of the clause was very important, because it was perfectly clear that what was intended by that clause was to guarantee to the members of the service that security of tenure which they had in the four colonies prior to Union.

Why should it be said when they guaranteed the rights of existing men in the service they were throwing away the rights of the men who would come in the future?

That is your logic.

That is my logic, and I submit that it is just as logical as the view that has been taken up on the other side. Continuing, he said that when it was a question of not putting everything into the Act, when it was a case of putting in principle and leaving the details out and trusting to the good faith, they had gone further and insisted on guaranteeing the rights of future Civil Servants; it would have been an insult to the Minister of Lands, who was one of the chief representatives on the other side to that bargain. He did hope hon. members would believe that he wanted to deal with this matter not from the point of view of one section of the country, but in the interests of the future of the country. The hon. member for Uitenhage had put up another argument. He had said that the point of view taken up on his (the speaker’s) side of the House had not been supported by the chief Opposition newspaper in Cape Town. He would like to take the opportunity of saying that he respected the man who had taken the other side with regard to this particular question. He respected his independence and his courage in having taken that point of view. He did not question his right to take up that point of view; but he did say this, that it was a matter which the Minister of Justice should take cognisance of, because the Minister had repeatedly jeered at papers which took the point of view of hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House, and described them as parasites and bowing to the will of their proprietors. If there could be one signal illustration of the independence of these men it was the attitude of the chief Opposition newspaper. He only hoped the Minister of Justice in the future would do more justice to these men than he had done in the past. They had heard a great deal of the way the Prime Minister, in bringing the amendment before the House, had been trying to meet the wishes of those on the Opposition side of the House, and how he had felt it necessary to sympathise with their point of view. But what about the original clause put into the Bill by the Minister of the Interior as a compromise? Was it also put forward with the idea of meeting the wishes of the Opposition side of the House. No laudations had been poured upon the proposal of the Minister of the Interior by those who had spoken on the other side of the House that it met the views of the Opposition more than the amendment of the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister realise that the Minister of the Interior, in introducing the second reading of this Bill, deliberately went out of his way to say that he did not believe it was necessary in this country to have an arrangement with regard to language in the Civil Service which was now put into the amendment of the Prime Minister? If they refused to accept it they had the Minister of the Interior on their side. He was prepared to go considerably further in his patriotic attempt to meet the wishes of members of his side of the House than other hon, members were prepared to go. He referred to another grievance which he believed was the Teal one. In the past men who had been qualified in the Dutch language had been sent to outskirts in the country, and men who knew only one language were kept in the towns. He was perfectly sincere when he said that was a grievance that ought to be remedied.

Impossible.

An hon. member says it is impossible. But he would like to suggest a way in which he believed it was possible. Proceeding, he said that hon. members would say that the grievance only applied to certain departments of the service. It did not apply to departments like the Customs, nor the Treasury officials, at least so far as the Cape Province was concerned. He would suggest that where the offices to which officers were to be sent were in the country and where there could be no question of these grievances applying it should be presumed that for promotion a knowledge of Dutch only was necessary, and any man should be allowed to prove his knowledge of Dutch.

That would be compulsion.

I am extremely glad the Minister of Native Affairs has reminded me of that, because it shows how completely even the fairest-minded members of the Government have failed to appreciate the point of view we have on this side of the House. Continuing, he said they had tried again and again to put out that they did not want to insist upon officers who knew only one language being sent to districts where two languages were necessary. But, so far as that was required there, they were prepared to accept the principle of compulsion, because it was the principle of compulsion which was deliberately accepted by their representatives at the Convention. It was thought when equal rights of languages were granted this grievance should be done away with, and that if that principle were required, it should be granted. But that was not the principle of compulsion all round, of automatic compulsion, the principle of saying to every man who was a Civil Servant, because he was a Civil Servant he should automatically be forced to learn the Dutch language, whether it was required or not. In the one case, it was a question of compulsion in the interests of the country, but in the other case it was deliberately putting upon men a task which was not required in the interests of the country, and which was exacted on sentimental grounds by hon. members opposite, who believed that their language did not receive proper treatment.

Nonsense.

That is the whole difference between these two principles, and when the hon. member says “Nonsense,” it simply shows that he does not understand, and he did not believe hon. members on the other side of the House understood their (the Opposition’s) point of view on this matter, and the way they looked at it. Hon. members opposite were demanding and exacting a thing which was not required. The hon. member for Dundee had challenged hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House to agree with what the hon. member for Braamfontein (Colonel Sir A. Woolls-Sampson) had said. Well, he did not agree with everything the hon. member had said, but he did believe, and he would ask hon. members to believe, that the view put forward by the hon. member was the view which was held by a very large majority of the English speaking population.

No.

Yes, a very large majority. Proceeding, he said that he believed that if he went amongst the English-speaking people of this country, they would find that the universal opinion was that if this matter had been put up in this form when the Act of Union was passed, they would have said that they could not accept Union on those terms. He believed that because he was forced to be lieve it.

You believe wrongly.

Well, hon. members talk a great deal about our not trying to appreciate their point of view. They say that we are unsympathetic in regard to their language rights and their nationality, and they say further that we do not realise their aspirations, but have they realised that we have a grievance in that respect too? Hon. members on the other side of the House make no attempt to understand our national aspirations, our traditions, and our beliefs. (Ministerial laughter.) Hon. members laugh, but it is perfectly true. It is a matter which should be said in this House; it is a matter which hon. members on the other side of the House should realise, that there is a large proportion in this country who do believe that they are not being treated fairly, who do believe that this thing is being forced upon them in defiance of the agreement that was made when Union was passed, and who have a real grievance in this matter. Proceeding, the hon. member said: Do let hon. members realise when they talked about sympathy and knowledge that this clause applied one way as well as another. Did hon. members opposite not believe that they also had grievances on the matter? If this were adopted, it would be the beginning of very serious trouble in that country.

said the hon. member who had last spoken said that the English-speaking section of the people regarded this as a very serious matter, and that if they had known at the time that this was the interpretation which would be put upon the clause, they would not have agreed to enter into Union. He wanted to read to the hon. member the view that was taken by the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony (Dr. Jameson), who had as his colleagues the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, and the hon. member for East London. In 1906, after he (the Minister) had moved to revert back to the position in 19.01, a Select Committee was appointed, on which was the hon. member for East London as well as himself. That committee took evidence, and there was a majority and minority report. Both these reports were referred to the Government with a request that they should go into the matter during the recess, and report to the House during the following session. When this report was brought up, the Clerk of the House was asked to read it and the reason why the recommendations were not given effect to, was because they were retrenching from the Service. This was the report of Dr. Jameson’s Government as signed by them: “ Government is anxious to avoid any semblance of hardship and it is prepared to recommend that the entrance examination for the Civil Service shall include, as now, Dutch as an optional subject, but, in order to remove all the possible grounds of objection, it is prepared to make it obligatory upon all entrants to qualify in the Dutch language within a period of two years from their appointment if they were not qualified in Dutch at their initial examination.”

Before Union?

Yes; exactly. As far as the feeling of the English-speaking section of the population is concerned, the argument of the hon. member for Liesbeek falls away entirely. That was before Dutch was an official language.

said that this only showed that the hon. member did not understand one bit what they meant. (Hear, hear.} The whole point was that hon. members would keep going back to old things before the bargain was made. The bargain was made on deliberate terms when Union was brought in. That bargain was accepted by both sides and was clearly understood on both sides.

said the Minister had referred to old documents, and he had there a copy of Hansard for the Transvaal Parliament for 1909. There the Prime Minister of the Transvaal was speaking in the debate on closer Union, and he said that the language question had been a matter of constant trouble in South Africa. The proposal of his English friends was excellent, and there was nothing for which he had a greater gratitude than their attitude in this matter. He would like to tell his hon. friend what interpretation they put on that matter. In June, 1909, Mr. W. Hosken made a speech which was reported in Hansard, in which he asked for a definite pronouncement from the Prime Minister on the language question. Mr. Hosken said it was clear that both languages would have equal rights under Union. Speeches in the same strain were made by other hon. members in that memorable debate, and he, as a humble member of that House, acting on the strength of these interpretations, gave his vote for Union. (Opposition cheers.)

rising amid Ministerial cries of “Vote,” said he wanted to ask a question for the purpose of clearing up a difficulty in the minds of Civil Servants throughout the Union. He wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the present Civil Servants were in any way barred under the five years’ term of this clause?

No.

said he thoroughly endorsed every word of the admirable speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Orr). Could they imagine a Board, which would have difficulties enough apart from this, steering clear of charges of nepotism, having left to it this question of language to solve on its own initiative and with no instructions to guide it?

The hon. member for Pretoria East said the other day that they must trust the Commission. Did he trust it? Was he prepared to trust it? The hon. member went on to refer to an article in an evening paper which was written by one whose initials were two big D’s, and who said he was understood to say, that the Commission would be composed of tools of the Government.

Did I say that?

No, I—

Why saddle me with it?

said that the hon. member had said that he was prepared to trust the Board. In conclusion, he said that any Board that acted on its own initiative with regard to the language qualifications would be in a very difficult position.

said that he would only remind hon. members of one thing. The definite article was deliberately struck out by the Minister of Justice, so that there might be no confusion on the point that public servants should know both languages.

I absolutely deny that.

said he just wanted to say that the statement of his hon. friend was correct. The Minister of justice made the statement after a speech by Dr. Jameson. Dr. Jameson said that exception might be taken to some of the words in the second resolution, because they smacked of compulsion. The Minister of Justice rose, and after some other remarks, said he would withdraw the word in order to remove any trace of compulsion. Surely the Minister was not going back on that.

Clause 11 was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage was agreed to.

then proceeded to put the amendment of the Prime Minister.

protested that his amendment should have priority, pointing out that the Prime Minister moved his amendment first.

said the hon. member had moved a new clause.

asked if it was competent to amend a clause after it had been adopted.

said he wanted the Chairman to carefully consider his ruling. He had moved a new clause to take the place of clause 11. Before he did so, the Prime Minister moved a new clause to take the place of clause 11. If his (the speaker’s) clause were negatived it was his intention to move another amendment.

said this was an entirely new clause. The hon. member could move a new clause now.

asked could the hon. member for Fort Beaufort move his amendment to the clause now while he still had his clause upon the paper?

said the position was that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had moved a new clause and the new clause as amended was now before the committee. If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort wished to move an amendment to this clause to delete sub-section 2 of the new clause, he must do it now.

said his reason for asking was that he understood that every member of the committee, to the very last stage of the clause, reserved his right to move an amendment. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister had moved a new clause to the Bill, which made Dutch compulsory within a period of five years. He (the hon. member) moved a new clause that did not make for compulsion. If he lost that then he wished to take away the proviso to the Prime Minister’s clause. If it were not put as he suggested he would say with all due respect that he lost his right to move a modification to the clause.

said the point he wished to put was this. He quite understood the hon. member’s position. But could the hon. member now move an amendment to the Prime Minister’s proposed new clause with these two amendments upon the paper at the same time?

said that sounded a very pretty speech, but the hon. Minister knew that with a big majority behind him—(Ministerial cries of “ No”). They must not shirk a fair test. With the big majority behind them all they had to do was to carry the Prime Minister’s proposals, and then no other proposal could be considered. It meant the closure. Was that what the hon. gentleman wanted to do, to prevent discussion on this? It was the steam roller. This was the position as it appeared to them. Many members of this House and many outside were under the impression that if the Prime Minister’s clause was carried it provided for an examination, and anyone passing his examination would never be further tested or require to be tested as to his knowledge of the languages; that once they passed their examination and had got their certificates they were safe, and fit to hold any position, so far as the language was concerned. He took it from the indication the Minister of Justice gave that he would accept that. He still wanted the Board to test a man’s knowledge of the Dutch language for any particular post. Was that so? Could not they get information even? They could not get information. Not only could they not put it to the vote, but they could not get a Minister to answer the question.

said the ordinary rule, all things being equal, was to take the amendments in the order in which they were moved. In the other case, where they were not equal, they gave every member of the House an opportunity of his amendment being put.

But there is no rule which prevents an answer being given to a member. The clause, he continued, would be carried, there was no doubt about that, but an opportunity might be given a member to speak. What he wanted to know was, would a man who had passed an examination in the language be qualified for any post, or had he to pass another examination before a committee?

thought the difficulty would be met by the amendments being put in the order in which they were proposed.

The new clause, as amended, was put, and the Chairman declared the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

moved after “service” to insert “and to certain other persons

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, consideration of which was set down for the next sitting of the House.