I wish to say that I have examined the provisions of the Sundays River Settlements Administration Bill, the second reading of which stands on the Order Paper for Wednesday, the 25th instant, and find that although the Bill may be regarded as one dealing with a question of public policy it may prejudicially affect the water rights of certain private individuals. For these reasons I consider that the Bill should be proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill. The order for the second reading should therefore be discharged and the Bill referred to the examiners for report in terms of Standing Order No. 182. If allowed to proceed the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

I move—

seconded.

I want to ask the Minister does “two of whom to form a quorum” mean two out of the six?

No, two out of the three.

Six will form the joint body, will two out of the six form a quorum?

No, two out of the three appointed by this House.

The motion was agreed to.

Before proceeding to move the motion which stands in my name I want to ask permission to amend slightly the motion as printed by the insertion of a few words. The motion will then read as follows—

In the past a motion of this nature has always been introduced by a private member of the House; and it is perhaps a little unusual that this time such a proposal is made from the Ministerial benches. But the reason is that, as the experience of the past has taught us, there is a very small chance that with the heavy business of this House, a motion of this nature brought forward by a private member would come under the consideration of the House, and the House be able to take a decision concerning it. The matter is of so much importance and has become so urgent that the Government, seeing it really ought to support a motion of this nature, has this time taken it over, so that it will enjoy all the facilities of debate and decision which was usually given to Government business. It is for this reason that I, and not a private member of the House, bring forward this motion to-day. As hon. members will see, there is, where the Afrikaans and the Netherlands languages are spoken of, the greatest care exercised in the choice of words. As hon. members will observe, it is not simply of Afrikaans that is spoken in the motion; but of the Afrikaans form of the Netherlands language: similarly, the Netherlands form of Dutch is spoken of. In other words, it is clearly indicated in the motion that, as a generic term the word “Hollands” includes the two forms of the Dutch language: namely Afrikaans on the one side, and Netherlands on the other side. I say that this description of the Afrikaans and the Netherlands languages is a terminology which has been chosen purposely and with care. There are certain persons, I will not say even a section, here in this country who reason on the premises that the Afrikaans language differs altogether and stands apart from the Netherlands language— that it is not included where under section 137 of the Constitution equal rights are granted to the English as well as to the Dutch language; and that a motion of this nature in order to be adopted and made effective, necessitates an amendment of the Constitution, which can only occur by means of a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. Now in this motion the attitude is taken up, that when in the Constitution the word Dutch is used, this includes the two forms of Netherlands and Afrikaans, and seeing that the motion is based on these premises and that it is in agreement with the opinion of the only official body in the country that has the right to decide as to whether this measure is needed or not; I will point out that this body, namely, the South African Academy for Language, Literature and Art, which is charged with the stabilizing of the Dutch language, literature, and art in South Africa; already, years ago, resolved that the Afrikaans, as well as the Netherlands form of language, should be comprehended as Dutch. I will further point out that in 1918 this House adopted a resolution which was altogether in agreement therewith: namely, that this House considers that Afrikaans is included as Dutch as one of the official languages of the Union. In order, therefore, to occasion no miscomprehension and confusion this terminology is chosen in this motion which I now bring before the House. As it there appears, it is clear that Afrikaans and Netherlands are both forms of language which in our Constitution are called Dutch. For this reason also is there no occasion for a joint sitting of the two Houses to resolve this question. There is no occasion therefor because the constitution is in no shape or form affected by this motion. Afrikaans and Netherlands are forms of one and the same root language, and are of the same nature as regards vocabulary. The only difference really exists in the grammar more than in anything else. Netherlands is also understood in South Africa. If a Hollander comes to South Africa he will understand Afrikaans, although perhaps he will not be able to talk it quickly and easily. A Dutch-speaking South African arriving in Holland understands the Netherlands language almost from the outset, although he himself will not at once be able to talk it properly. Therefore they cannot be considered as two separate languages. They are two forms of one and the same language, namely, Dutch. The motion which I to-day bring before the House is a step further made in the direction as when Parliament, as I have already said, in 1918 (seven years ago) the resolution was adopted by this House that the House considers that Afrikaans is included, as Dutch, as one of the official languages of the Union for all Government and official purposes, except in the case of Bills and Acts of Parliament, and of official documents of both Houses of Parliament, in which cases only the simplified form of Dutch shall be employed. Thus, so long ago as seven years, a resolution was taken to employ Afrikaans in the administration of the country. There was just the small reservation made, and that reservation applies to a certain section of the business of the House, namely, Bills and Acts and official documents of Parliament. As I understand the resolution of 1918, it looks as if Parliament at that time saw clearly that Afrikaans was the form of language of the future, and that this form would gradually reach a position of influence and use in South Africa, and that the Netherlands form on the other hand was a declining factor. All that the Parliament then did was to exert a restraining influence on the transition from the Netherlands form to Afrikaans; but it was only to avoid excessive haste that this action was followed. This was seven years ago, and I think the greater portion of the people and the majority of the members of the House feel that the time has now dawned to remove that restriction, and to give full freedom for the use on all occasions of Afrikaans in the place of Netherlands. Since the House in 1918 took the said resolution about Afrikaans this House has perhaps in its procedure somewhat exceeded what the Parliament at that time intended in this matter; but the reservation for the use of Netherlands for Bills, Acts and official documents of Parliament is still effective, and is applied. But official notices are in several departments issued by the Government in Afrikaans, and in many cases these notices and proclamations are official documents of the House. Since 1918, also, it has been the custom in many cases to lay similar notices on the Table of the House, although they are composed in Afrikaans. I want further to point out that since last year another official document, namely, the “Hansard,” which contains the debates in the House, is published in Afrikaans so far as concerns the Afrikaans speeches. I would point out to the House that the majority, or at any rate a great proportion of the evidence which is given in Dutch before Select Committees, is not given in Netherlands, but in Afrikaans, and if on the face of it illogical and unnatural, then to lay on the Table of the House the blue book containing the evidence, not in the form of language in which it was adduced, but in the Netherlands form; and if the House then decides that the report of the debates, that is, the “Hansard,” shall appear in Afrikaans, then it has certainly also the right that the evidence adduced in Afrikaans before the Select Committees be in that form of language. This motion which I now bring before the House is intended to cause investigation as to the desirability of doing away with this reservation, and it is proposed to appoint a Select Committee of three members of this House, acting as a joint committee with a similar committee of the other House, to examine and investigate as to what extent it is desirable and possible to do away with the reservation, and to employ Afrikaans in the place of Netherlands. Really and truly I consider we have now reached the stage where this is necessitated. When this happens we shall get more uniformity; and it is in every respect desirable for the composition of official documents of Parliament. It is difficult to compose anything in Afrikaans and then again in Netherlands. It is also much better for the translators to do it all in one form. It is very seldom that you get anyone who is a good translator in Netherlands as well as in Afrikaans. It is better for the printers, because the danger of printers’ errors will be reduced thereby; and I say it is also better for the readers who at present have to read now one form and then again another form. The question has been advanced as to whether it is at this stage really desirable and practicable to bring about the change. I will not deceive myself that a certain section is in doubt regarding this; and that there is also a section in this House which says: no, the time for a change has not yet dawned. Amongst those who take up this standpoint are undoubtedly people who do it purely and simply out of ultra conservatism. These are some of the people who as a rule put on the brake. Every time when there is a step made in a forward direction they declare that the principle is good, and that they are not against the principle, but that the time has not yet arrived for such a step. I say that I have great respect for people who take up this standpoint; but with these people it is not a fundamental objection—they are just conservative. Their objection is against a forward movement in every direction, and amounts in fact to this, that they offer objection that the world turns on its axis in 24 hours and not in 30 hours because it perhaps disturbs them too much in their early morning slumber. There is still another objection brought forward of a more concrete form, and this is that the Afrikaans language has not yet taken a definite form. They say that the Afrikaans language is still in being and we must wait until it one of these days has attained a more definite form before we take this important step. I myself see that the Afrikaans language is still in being and has not yet attained to altogether definite form and feature. But what is true of the Afrikaans language is undoubtedly true of every living language, and is true of the language of every people which not only has a history of the past; but which is engaged in the making of history. A people which not only produced good thoughts in the past, but which to-day also think, have a language which constantly evolves—possess a living language organism. It is something which continually grows, and because it grows, it changes. It is the expanding of the thought world of a people; and absolute unchangeable definition of form will never be attained or will only be attained when, just as is the case with Latin, Greek and Sans, it becomes a dead language. But I want to add this: it is necessary for the evolution of our sphere of thought that the Afrikaans language—or any language which is employed—grows, and such a language will never reach definition. What is necessary in the use of a language is that such a language should possess a sufficient vocabulary and sufficient adaptability for the correct expression of the great variety of thoughts and shades of meaning which are usually attributed to words. And I say without doubt, with the concurrence of at least the majority of the members of this House and the great majority of the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa, that the Afrikaans language has without doubt reached this stage. To what extent the language possesses the vocabulary and adaptability for the utterance and the proper expression of the great variety of thoughts and meanings which are usually attached to words, depends on the literary stage reached by such a language; and I will here quote a few facts to see how it stands with that objection. Everyone knows with how much opposition the young Afrikaans language movements has had to contend to this day. And yet in spite of all the opposition there has appeared in South Africa during the last ten years more literature in the Afrikaans language than in the English language. I speak here of literature in the English language which has its origin in South Africa. This is the case notwithstanding all the difficulties of the language which is in being—notwithstanding that the English works produced in South Africa undoubtedly have a greater currency out of the country than the Afrikaans literature. And this in spite of the fact that the English language so far as regards school and university education has enjoyed a great advantage. I say: in spite of all the difficulties which stood in the path, there has appeared in South Africa during the last ten years more literature in the Afrikaans language than in the English language. I will further point out that the literature in the Afrikander language has already reached a fairly high standard. The Afrikaans literature has already attracted the attention of scholars and literary people overseas. Afrikaans literature has been translated or is being translated into several European languages: in the English language, in the German language; and, I believe, already in the French language. I will point out that in Holland the two prominent critics of the literary world: namely, Querido and Verwey, have talked with great praise and appreciation about the young, flourishing Afrikaans literature, and that it has become a rule that Afrikaans literature is discussed in newspapers and periodicals in Holland. I will further point out that Afrikaans literature is to-day taught at the Dutch universities, and not only at the universities, but at the secondary schools in Holland. There is at the university at Berlin a professor charged with the investigation and teaching of the Afrikaans language and literature in that university with 17,000 students. I, therefore, say that so far as regards literature, the Afrikaans language has incontestably reached such a standard that we as the result thereof have the right to say that we have already reached such a stage as to have obtained foothold for taking the step which we to-day propose. I will point out further that Afrikaans is not only to-day taught in South Africa as a subject, but is employed as medium in teaching in the place of Netherlands in all the lower schools of the Union. The Provincial Councils of the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal had already in 1914 resolved, in three instances unanimously, for the admission of the use of Afrikaans form of the language in the place of the Netherlands form. I say, from 1914 the Afrikander form of language has made such progress that there is to-day no longer any other form employed as a medium for teaching in a single school. There are still a few cases in high schools where Netherlands is employed as medium, but only in the case of classes which in the lower standards employed the Netherlands medium— gradually there also Netherlands makes way for Afrikaans. Respecting the universities, I will point out that for years long already the University of South Africa has resolved to admit the Afrikander taal form as medium for the answering of examination questions. Professors have been appointed at all three of the universities who are charged with the teaching in particular of the Afrikaans language and there as many cases—I do not know if it is general—where this is also done at colleges. So far as the Transvaal University College and the Grey University College at Bloemfontein are concerned, at least half of the subjects are taught through the medium of the Afrikaans language, and this is the case in many other universities and colleges. I will further point out that in Holland since 1910 theses by Dutch speaking Afrikanders wishing to obtain their doctor’s degree at Dutch universities were allowed in the Afrikaans form of language; and that at present this happens regularly. Sometimes the objection is made that the spelling of Afrikaans is not yet altogether definite, and that if this form becomes introduced confusion can be caused in the composition of Acts and Bills. I will say in answer to this objection that even if it is true that the spelling of Afrikaans has still not attained a fixed form, this need not be a valid objection. Many of our laws exist to-day in a spelling which is no longer in use. We employ in our laws the simplified spelling of Netherlands, but in earlier laws the spelling of de Vries and te Winkel; and because in the earlier laws the spelling of de Vries and te Winkel was employed they are not less intelligible and they do not lead to confusion. In the English laws we find the same. There are laws still in use to-day in a spelling which is now no longer used and it gives no occasion to confusion or trouble. In some countries such as France and Germany the spelling is from time to time officially altered by the Government, and this usually happens every five or ten years in order to bring the spelling more in agreement with the linving form of the language and the form found in the mouth of the people. So far as concerns the Afrikaans form: the spelling was already fixed in 1915 by the South African Academy for Language, Literature and Art. Small changes were effected therein in 1920, and the spelling which thus became fixed is to-day in general use in the Union where the Afrikaans taal is employed. It has been adopted in the schools of South Africa, at the Universities, and even also in the legislation of the Provincial Councils of the three provinces where more particularly the Afrikaans language is used: namely, in the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape. They print their official documents, their minutes, etc., in Afrikaans; and experience no difficulty in connection therewith. They do produce their ordinances in the Netherlands form, but if this House make use of its right and also puts its Bills and Acts in Afrikaans, then it is simply a question of time before they will follow the example. The motion which I here move, concerns not only this House, but also the other House, and for that reason my proposition is for the nomination of a joint committee consisting of a committee of three members of this House and a committee of three members of the other House; to investigate this matter thoroughly, and, if necessary, to obtain evidence; and to report to Parliament.

seconded the motion.

I do not rise with the object of opposing the proposed joint Select Committee, but I think that it will be well if the Select Committee which is to be nominated shall have at its disposal as much information as possible when it considers the very important matter which has been referred to it. For there exists, from a constitutional and practical point of View, many and great difficulties in connection with this matter; and I am therefore very glad that the Minister has tackled it Governmentally. It is a matter of great importance, and it is not more than right that it should be introduced by the Government itself. During the time when I held the office of Speaker—you will permit me to refer to that time—I gave very serious attention to this matter; and I am possibly in a position to help the House, and particularly the members who will be chosen to serve on the Select Committee, to come to a fit decision in connection with this question. For I feel that unless the said Select Committee gives its serious attention to certain considerations, the report of the Committee as a whole will not be acceptable to Parliament. I will say that although our people—a great proportion of our people—are attached to Dutch, (and let me say that I do not employ the word Netherlands but Dutch and Afrikaans) I say that notwithstanding our people may be attached to Dutch, the people to-day feel prepared to accept the position that Afrikaans is going to be the future language of the people of South Africa.

What are you worrying about, then?

If my hon. friend knows anything of the great and inspiring language and literature of Holland, he will not look so lightly down on the matter; and we are here engaged in helping each other with a serious matter. Now give me a chance to make my opinions clear and the hon. member will have an opportunity to answer thereto. Mr. Speaker, our people is a practical people. Our people are willing to meet facts face to face. What the people complain about, however, is, that amongst the protagonists of Afrikaans, there is a spirit of excessive zeal in connection with the present position and application of Afrikaans. And this is not unnatural when we think that by inheritance from generation to generation; by our national life; by our Bible; by our Church; by our hymns and psalms; by correspondence and otherwise, the Dutch language has become one of the traditions of our people; and it is not going to be easy straight away to outroot and replace such a language. The hon. member has spoken of ultra-conservatism. I call it commendable conservatism. I am of opinion that Afrikaans will have to be adopted as the coming language of the people; but it is wrong to go hastily to work with it in all walks of life. This is particularly so in this case, where we are trying to cause the disappearance of a language, and the putting of another language in its place. The hon. Minister has spoken of the growth of the language. I am not a language expert; but I agree with him that the language grows together with the people. All the same, a language comes to a point where it practically ceases to grow; or to a stage of generally recognised rules of spelling and grammar; although perhaps later small alterations may be introduced. For me it is today a serious question that we must put to ourselves as members of the House who must discuss this matter: namely, if Afrikaans has yet reached this definite form. Has the language reached this stage, with such a recognised literature, that the Parliament will be justified in setting its official seal thereto? I am personally grateful to the men who began the Afrikaans language movement and for what they attempted in giving our people our language in a definite form; but even the leaders, and also the South African Academy for Language, Literature and Art will be the first to admit that Afrikaans is only now a language in being. I think that there are many who will agree with me in this. Even the Academy has each time felt the necessity of altering the language and spelling rules, and the vocabulary. They have admitted that the proper certainty has not yet been attained. I understand that a little while back the Academy resolved to alter the spelling rules and add others. The publishers of books then declared that all these alterations would make it impossible for them to publish books and meanwhile the Academy abandoned its proposal to carry out the alterations, etc. The hon. minister laid emphasis thereon that Afrikaans is a form of Dutch; and here he has touched on a serious constitutional question in connection with the interpretation of the Constitution to which I shall later refer. He has emphasized the fact that Afrikaans is only a form of Dutch. He wants to make out that to-day Afrikaans is an altogether independent language, and that it can stand alone as a finished language. I want to put the Minister a question; and I hope that he will realize the importance of it. The question is: if a person has not a good knowledge of Dutch—which the Minister calls Netherlands—will he be able to read and write Afrikaans well? This shows that Afrikaans is not yet a fully independent language. We must govern our feelings, and because we to-day work at impressing the official seal of Parliament on it we must look facts in the face. I am afraid that we tackle the question over hastily, the Minister and I, who tenderly cherish the matter and that we shall perhaps do more harm than good. I will now shortly refer to a few practical difficulties in connection with the adoption of Afrikaans, should this be adopted on the proposal of the Committee for which the Minister asked in the motion. If the change is going to be introduced, what are not going to be the practical difficulties in this House if Afrikaans becomes official Parliamentary language in accordance with the resolution of the Parliament? I admit, Mr. Speaker, and you will agree with me, that whenever an altogether new Bill is introduced as projected legislation, it will be possible to employ Afrikaans if we are of the opinion that the language has already reached the proper form. But now we come to another question, and that is, what is going to happen with an amending or revising Bill? Then it is altogether impossible and impracticable to amend an existing Dutch text through the medium of an amending Afrikaans Bill.

That won’t be the case within a 100 years.

Give me time: give me an opportunity to make the matter plain, and I will just endeavour to suggest a remedy. If we bring in a Bill in Afrikaans and we bring in a sentence out of an existing law composed in Dutch, and we then want to add in another place, what we are going to do? Then you will have a mixture of the two languages which will be unworthy of this House.

No.

My hon. friend is a lawyer and he knows that every word in law is of importance, and you sometimes get words in the Dutch language which are capable of quite another interpretation than what the words signify in Afrikaans. For this reason I am of opinion that it will be alright in new Bills; but that it is impossible so far as concerns amending Bills. How can we get over this difficulty? I have thought over it and I am of opinion that this is the only way out which the Select Committee must suggest to Parliament—that the Parliament adopts legislation authorizing the Minister to see that all existing laws are translated and published in Afrikaans. This must be done before we can practically apply the wish of the Minister as he has brought it before the House. The Committee will also have to make the recommendation to Parliament to authorize the Minister to see that a standard dictionary is compiled. Unfortunately no standard dictionary has been issued by the Academy. There exists to-day no recognized dictionary and if we go on with our legislation without compiling a recognized dictionary of Afrikaans, we will get words in our legislation which will cause us regret a year or so after, when a recognized dictionary is in existence, because the words which we have used are altogether wrong. I consider that two great things are necessary before we can carry out the Minister’s idea. The first is, the translation of every Act; and the second is that the Government shall have power to see about a standard dictionary. I will now devote a few words to my constitutional position. It is impossible for me to answer the important speech of the Minister. Let me just say this: that he laid great emphasis on the resolution of Parliament in 1918. We must recollect that that resolution was only a resolution of the House and that it does not possess the virtue of law. It is merely a motion of the House. But the Government is the responsible party to give effect to that resolution; and it remains a great constitutional question whether the proclamation and penalty clauses which have been issued in Afrikaans are lawful. This remains a question which we as legislators must put in the House. The Prime Minister will fully appreciate my question as to whether the proclamation and penalty clauses are lawful, should a person object to the same in Court. My friend there opposite shakes his head. But I suggested it in order to show what the difficulty is. The Minister now feels that the alteration which he proposes —in view of what I have here said, a radical alteration—that he can do it by resolution of the whole House. His whole case is based on the argument that it is not necessary to amend by means of legislation art. 137 of the Constitution. Allow me to tell the Minister: before he does it he must consider the matter well and reflect seriously over the matter before he and his Government take such a step.

That is why there is a Select Committee.

I am glad that the Minister agrees that the Select Committee must consider this side of the matter. If the Minister agrees to this, then the case is won; and it will be unnecessary to propose the amendment in that direction as we had intended to do. The Minister is convinced that Afrikaans is not a separate language for the purpose of art. 137 of the Constitution. From a linguistic point of view I acknowledge that Afrikaans is narrowly related to Dutch; but this does not do away with the opinion of the language experts that, notwithstanding this, Afrikaans is a separate language. There are such language experts in our own land; and if this is true what is then the constitutional position and the position of the Minister under art. 137 of the Constitution?

Could not be worse.

Yes, but then the Minister cannot alter matters by means of a resolution of the House. Do let us be serious.

But we can differ in friendly manner, can’t we?

If my standpoint is correct, the change cannot be introduced by a resolution of the House. I hope the Minister realizes this. I want now to show what the National Convention intended by the words concerned in article 137. If we allow our memory to go back and we think about the men, then we remember that they were there before anything was done regarding the development of Afrikaans. The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) sit to-day in the House as members of the Convention. They, were the persons who drafted article 137. They will be able to tell the House what was going on in their thoughts when the word “Dutch” was placed in article 137 of the constitution. Did they mean by it Afrikaans? No, Mr. Speaker, I shall wait for the opinion of the two gentlemen. But I feel, in view of what both will say, that what was in their thoughts was not Afrikaans but “Hollands.” If it then was so, see in what a difficulty we can land if we do not follow the right path; and the correct way is to bring a Bill on the Table in an honourable and open manner. If we think that Afrikaans has reached this measure of development, let us take up the manly attitude and alter art. 137 of the Union. If we do not do this, and difficulty occurs, the Prime Minister will ultimately have to shoulder the responsibility. It will come down on him. If we do not go to work the right way the position may be that the legislative authorities in the land will come into collision with the judicial authorities and this will be a very serious collision. If we do not alter article 137 according to the Constitution, and difficulty arises later, it will be tested in the Courts, and then discovered that we have acted on a resolution instead of going to work in the proper way. The court will declare that we have acted unlawfully, and what will then be our position as a legislating body? Will this heighten our prestige and dignity as legislators? I hope that the Select Committee will consider the constitutional question in a proper manner so that the people may afterwards know that we are acting in the right way in all earnest; in a practical and on unconstitutional lines. I hope that the House is going to adopt the Minister’s motion in this spirit, so that it will inspire us in our development, and so that we may arrive at an agreement.

I think that I will at once say a few words after the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) I wish to congratulate him on the manner in which he handled it. It is in fact a matter of very great importance otherwise we should not as a Government have taken it on ourselves to bring the matter before the House. I feel that it is such an important matter for our people and their future that I think we must now finish the matter. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has brought in various objections. I will deal with these and I will begin where he left off. I may here say that article 137 of the Constitution was in the first place drafted by me and the, word “Hollands” is purposely used there instead of Netherlands. I opine that I can justly make the remark that the Minister who has proposed the motion and the majority of members of the House are “hollands” speaking. “Hollands” is the language of half the population. We say so, but no one means Netherlands by it. When we mean Netherlands, then we talk of high Dutch. “Hollands” is a stereotyped form. In those days we introduced legislation for the Province in Dutch for Dutch-speaking people but not for Netherlanders. The general term is, we are Dutch-speaking, and we say it still to-day. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has lost sight of the fact that Dutch, as language of South Africa, indicates Afrikaans and nothing else. The Leader of the Opposition will perhaps remember—I think he was also present—that we had a meeting in Cape Town during the National Convention in a hall in Queen Victoria Street. The late Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr was also present there. We there discussed the question of the word “Hollonds” and it was there agreed that “Hollands” is the right term to use because it comprises Afrikaans as well as Netherlands. If we go back to history this is also quite clear. If we talk of Dutch-speaking then we mean not Netherlands but “Hollands.” “Hollands” was the language of the small province, Holland. With the Union of the provinces they ceased to talk any longer of “Hollands” hut of “Netherlands” as the language of Holland. Our ancestors who came from Holland Brought “Hollands” with them as a language, and therefore we still talk to-day of the “Hollandse” language. But in Holland they never talk of the “Hollandse” language, but of “Netherlands.” History shows that Afrikaans is just as much a development of the old “Hollands” as Netherlands is.

What was resolved on in 1910?

The Dutch of South Africa. It was the habit to try to talk high Dutch; but it came never further than an attempt. We did not feel at our ease; and if we did it in the presence of a Hollander, he laughed at us. Anyone placed as we are who attempts to master high Dutch may become as old as Methusala but he will never learn it. We wrote high Dutch and also read it, but we never thoroughly mastered it. We always talked of “Hollands” and we never intended by this “Netherlands.” We always meant Afrikaans; and the fact that I can sit and talk Afrikaans here puts the seal on our language. I know that I was for long a sinner against Afrikaans, and always talked “Hollands” until two or three years ago when I said to myself: No, it must now change.

It was difficult.

Yes, it was difficult because I was educated in “Hollands.” I am, however, happy to say that I am able here to-day to employ my own language without groping for words or for sentences; and as regards South Africa there exists as far as I am concerned no more doubt that if we talk of “Hollands” we mean nothing other than our own language. I on my part expect not the least constitutional difficulties, and if a person were to make a court case about the right to existence of Afrikaans, then I am pretty well certain that the judge will just listen to one or two witnesses and then dismiss the case. There exists with me only a little doubt if we reason from the supposition from which the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has, that we have to do with a separate language entirely different from Netherlands. But is this so? Our vocabulary differs in no single respect from the Netherlands vocabulary except that we still use a few terms which are no longer used in Holland, while there exists terms in Netherlands which we no longer use. On the other hand, we have imported new terms which have never attained footing in Netherlands. In respect of Netherlands we stand on the same footing as the American toward English. We have possession of the big vocabulary of the Dutch language and we have besides a large amount of words, to which we as a people have become accustomed to, to meet our circumstances and peculiarities. But this does not make Afrikaans a separate language. Just as little as was the old Anglo-Saxon in Luther’s time a separate language apart from German. The present-day German language springs from more than one form of the language, and there exists to-day also low German. Afrikaans is another form of old Dutch just as Netherlands is. And does the hon. member who is so concerned about the change of the language know that only 50 years ago Netherlands underwent a revolution under the leading of Professor de Vries? The Dutch language has undergone periodical changes. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) will remember how a change came to pass when we were sitting on the school benches, and how we made a little joke about it and said: “Die benoudheid is verkort en die vrolikheid is verleng.” (The oppression is contracted and the fun is lengthened). All languages change constantly. Has the hon. member perhaps read any old French books? He will find there another spelling and another grammar than that of to-day; and not just here and there, but almost in every line. But we are not talking of another language. It is still all the time French. Alterations will always take place as long as a language lives. The hon. member has said that Afrikaans has not yet a definite form; but we find this in any living language. This is just one of the reasons why we can do nothing else than get rid of high Dutch. That form does not live for us: we cannot absorb it in our lives. You feel that you are using something which is not your own, and which you cannot properly handle. It is altogether different with Afrikaans. We feel it. It is a living language which grows along with the people. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said that Dutch literature pleads for our retention of the Netherlands form. This can be; but it pleads no less for Afrikaans. The old Dutch literature is not less to us in South Africa than the old literature of Chaucer’s time is for the literature of the present day English. Then the hon. member talked of the Bible. The Dutch bible translation is one of the most beautiful that exists; but here again we must not forget that our people feel to-day that the Bible in great measure is unintelligible to a considerable section. I say this from my own experience; and the longing for a translation of the Bible in Afrikaans is the proof thereof. There exists no reason whatever why the translation of the Bible in Afrikaans should not be just as beautiful as in Hollands. Some of us perhaps will take offence at small alterations in the language and style, but this must not be allowed to deflect from the rights of the people to their own language. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), acknowledges the right; but he says that Afrikaans must be introduced gradually. Good, we have now been 14 or 15 years engaged in gradually carrying it out. So long as eight years ago Afrikaans was acknowledged as one of the official languages, and it has made very great progress. We must not forget that although Afrikaans 10 years ago was still tottering; to-day it stands fast. The language has been gradually introduced. The Minister of the Interior has talked of academical theses. I have lately had in my hands such a thesis, namely, on humour, by Dr. Malherbe. I was struck by the precision of the language, the power of the language and the richness of the language in expressing and making clear any matter. To-day there exists no further trouble in dealing with any subject in the language, and therefore there is no objection to legal compositions in Afrikaans. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said that we employ words in Afrikaans which have an altogether different meaning in “Hollands.” This exactly proves the need for the introduction of our own language. Now we use words the meaning of which we do not comprehend, because in “Hollands” they have another signification than that which we attach to them.

The Prime Minister must understand that I was talking about the amendment of existing “Hollandse” laws.

I only employ the fact. The scholar will understand the other signification but the countryman will give the word the signification to which he is accustomed, and then he will not be able to understand his own laws. Let us think of the words of Cicero, who said: nothing fits and suits you so well as that which is your own. I say nothing suits and fits us better than our own language. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has complained about the lack of stability in the spelling rules in Afrikaans. He says it changes every time; but does the hon. member know that it is just the same with every language. What concerns grammar, I believe that “Hollands” is more irregular than Afrikaans. But presuming the objection of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) to be well based; it will immediately disappear if we adopt Afrikaans as a language for the laws of the land, because then we imprint the official seal on the language as it is to-day accepted by the Academy. We all admit that there must be as much uniformity and permanency as possible; but so long as we do not acknowledge the language as our own the permanency which other languages have will never come. Just see the form in which English was formerly written. It has changed so much that to-day an Englishman no longer understands it. It was, all the same, the official language in which the laws were written. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) spoke of amendments to laws. Well, it will look altogether too much like patchwork if we bring about Afrikaans amendments to “Hollands” laws. We have, however, two ways of doing it. We can repeal the whole Act and make a new Act; or we can leave the changes in Holland. This is one of the small technicalities which we shall surmount, and also in a satisfactory way. I have just spoken these few words because the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asked me what I think of the meaning of the word “Hollands.” I do not doubt in the least that we may no longer go on ignoring ourselves, in respect of literature, as a people. Some of the friends from Australia, whom we recently visited, said that we do not value ourselves enough. We do not respect ourselves enough, By acknowledging our language we must show that we acknowledge ourselves —that we respect ourselves. Seeing that Afrikaans is admitted as the educational language of the child at school I opine that we as a Parliament have not the right to disrespect our language. We must employ the language to exhibit our respect for the language which we teach our children. I am of opinion that the time has come; and, seeing this, the Minister of the Interior has taken on himself to move the motion in the name of the Government, and no longer to leave it over to a private member. I hope we shall set an example for the country because a matter of very, very great importance for the country is concerned. I know that many of our Dutch-speaking people—old people—feel very strongly for “Hollands.” I know this so well because I had a mother who never spoke a word of English and who always saw to it that we spoke good “Hollands.” I am convinced that there are still thousands of such people; but notwithstanding this I consider that we are called to close a period which now belongs to the past. Let us adopt the motion and ask for the co-operation of the Senate.

I am very sorry that I cannot give preference to the Deputy-Speaker (Mr. de Waal) because he is now in the Chair; but I will take advantage of my opportunity to say a few words. The hon. Prime Minister must not think that there exists with me any difference of opinion about the motion. We on both sides of the House, I take it, are unanimously in favour of the nomination of a committee to investigate the matter. I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches of the two Ministers; and while they spoke, the question arose for me: what a loss this is for the world of learning and particularly for the professional world, that these two scholars have lost themselves in our midst. I listened with great attention and great pleasure to the speeches. There are, however, points to which I think must be referred. The whole argument of the Minister of the Interior amounted mostly to a classification of “Hollands” that the Afrikaans and the Netherlands form of language are included in the word “Hollands.” He said that Arikaans and Netherlands are species of the genus “Hollands.” If the hon. Minister were to say this to the Dutch language experts he would learn differently. I do not think that this classification will help him much, and I wonder why the hon. Minister, who is so zealous for Afrikaans, does not apply this at all in his own work and practice. The hon. Minister does not talk Afrikaans; he talks Netherlands minus grammar. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) talks Netherlands with grammar; and the Hon. Minister, without grammar. I am just afraid that a wrong deduction will be made from the argument of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said in his very interesting and well-reasoned speech that the judicial aspect will have to be very seriously investigated by the Select Committee, and the hon. Prime Minister has given the impression that the constitutional question does not need investigation. It is in my opinion a question which demands the serious attention of the Select Committee. It is not the question as to whether Afrikaans is not the best language, to which I am objecting. Admitted that it is so, we must still be very careful to see that if we employ the Afrikaans language for the laws, it is in a proper manner. The hon. Prime Minister said that in the National Convention “Hollands” was employed in order to leave it an open question whether the Afrikaans or the Netherlands form should be used. It is true that the door was left open in the National Convention. I do not think that we have troubled ourselves much whether it was to be Afrikaans or Netherlands. We had more troublesome questions than this to decide. After this the House of Assembly began to adopt a particular form and the Hollands form was adopted for Acts. This has been the practice for the last 15 years and I say, from a judicial point of view, this is a question of great importance seeing that at the commencement the choice fell on Netherlands as the form for the Acts. We have for 15 years hardened in the resolution. It is not the question whether Afrikaans is a better language. Afrikaans is our own language; but we must keep in view whether we do not come up against legal difficulties. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has already pointed out that this point must be seriously investigated by the committee. We have article 137 of the Constitution. We must carry out the Constitution and not mutilate it and potter with it in a manner which we shall afterwards regret. This has not only been the procedure for Parliament but also for the courts. If you want to become a sworn translator you can be one in the “Hollands” language or in Afrikaans. Distinction is made between the two separate languages, and we must remember that legal procedure is a portion of our business. We cannot lay down for Parliament a line of conduct different from the Courts. We may resolve to adopt Afrikaans, but the Courts may say: the resolution of Parliament is unlawful. I myself will not decide the question, but in my opinion the question must be investigated by a committee. Besides the courts, we must also consider the Universities. It is not two forms of language, but practically two different languages that they acknowledge. The examination papers for the two languages differ altogether. Thus we must not in a spirit of progression—in a spirit of helping forward of Afrikaans—make a fault which is neither constitutional or defensible. We are all convinced that there is very great difference between Afrikaans and “Hollands.” Perhaps the lion. Prime Minister went a little far when he said that many people in South Africa would find it difficult to understand the Dutch Bible. I doubt if we should go so far; but I know that there is much feeling in support of what the Prime Minister says. It shows again how far the two forms of languages are already separated, and to what extent they have already become two separate languages. This strengthens the argument to exercise care; because we have to deal practically with two separate languages, not with two different, separable forms of one language. We know what the case is to-day with our children; how difficult it is for them to learn Hollands. I have had experience with my own children who at home talk only Afrikaans. They have found it just as difficult to learn “Hollands” as a totally different language—for example German. I just point out therefore that we must be careful. I agree that Afrikaans is good enough and do not oppose the merits of the case. Afrikaans is quite possibly good enough for drafting our laws, but the question is to strike a right path, and this matter must be investigated by the committee. The other question which my hon. friend, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) mentioned must also be investigated. We must not be frivolous and endeavour to help Afrikaans in a wrong fashion. It is without doubt a great question. Afrikaans has become a mighty flood in the country. There are many people who regret this: who say, we have separated from Hollands too soon—that this early cutting off from a great, cultural language of the world which for South Africa is almost indispensible for the civilizing of our Dutch-speaking population. We must not act over-hastily; but, however it is, there is no doubt what the preponderant feeling amongst our people is. As mouthpieces of the public feeling in the country we must do what we can to act directly in accordance with their wishes. I am in favour of investigation of the matter; and I hope that it will be thorough and that the joint committee will obtain evidence from different sides—also from the side of the courts of justice—in order to ascertain that we are not taking a step when we are not ripe for such a great change. I repeat that on the merits of the case I support the motion. The matter has often been debated here and is ripe for a thorough investigation. I think the Government has acted rightly in proposing this joint committee for investigation.

I think that a motion like this should have been brought before this hon. House years ago, and I am glad to see that the “langauge” coldness which has been imputed to the right hon. gentleman opposite, rightly or wrongly, has vanished to-day before the warm eloquence of my two colleagues. I am glad to see that the right hon. gentleman has remained here throughout this interesting discussion and taken such an interest in it. There is one aspect of the question which I think has been lost sight of entirely—that is why I am addressing the House in English— and that is the great importance of encouraging the English section of the community to become acquainted with the spoken language of the majority of the people of this country.

Dutch.

It is obvious that if there is one form—the Afrikaans form, you will facilitate matters materially. To my mind it has been an injustice not only to the Afrikaans-speaking child, but also to the English-speaking child, because, as the right hon. gentleman himself has illustrated—he has had the experience with his own children—he has told us that while they speak Afrikaans they have to study Netherlands, or what we call simplified Dutch. And the difficulties that are experienced by the Dutch-speaking children must be enormously emphasized in the case of English-speaking children. The two forms of language in use in our country must be very disconcerting to English people. On that ground I support the motion very strongly, but I also support the motion on its merits, viz., that if the whole of our population, were Afrikaans-speaking I should also support the motion. Now I come to the second part of the question discussed by the member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman is a lawyer of repute, and he knows that when the British Parliament passed the South Africa Act it must be taken to have contemplated the two forms of language in South Africa. That is an elementary principle of interpretation. To my knowledge cases have been argued in Afrikaans not only in the Provincial Courts but also in the Appeal Court at Bloemfontein, and I have never come across a Judge who has not agreed with the interpretation of this section of the Constitution, namely, that the British Parliament in adopting the ipsissima verba of the National Convention’s draft had in mind in reference to section 137 the two forms of language (neither of which is Nederlands) in vogue in our country, namely, what we call “kansel Hollands” and Afrikaans. The right hon. gentleman referred to my friend’s classification (to genus and species). What my honourable colleague really meant was that Nederlands or Nederduits undoubtedly is the genus, but the Dutch referred to in section 137 is the “kansel taal” (the “pulpit form”) and “Afrikaans,” the other form. It is too absurd for words to pretend that Netherlands, the language of Holland, is written or spoken in South Africa. Preachers of the Dutch Church will admit that they do not speak Nederlands. Ever since Union we have been speaking Afrikaans here in the House. In another place it has also been spoken, and it has been spoken in the Provincial Councils. It has been spoken in our Courts, and I can assure the right hon. gentleman that pleadings, drawn in Afrikaans have come before the Courts of this country. The use of Afrikaans will never be questioned. I have no doubt at all as to the result of the interpretation of section 137, if the question were ever to be raised, even in the highest tribunal of our land. I do not think we ought to raise these little difficulties. We ought to take it after this lapse of years that the two forms of language, “Dutch” or “Hollands,” namely, the pulpit Dutch and Afrikaans, were intended by section 137. The practice has been in this House and elsewhere in our country for Afrikaans to fall within the intention and letter of section 137, and I very much doubt whether the resolution of this hon. House in which there was a reservation in certain cases that Afrikaans could not be used was constitutional in view of section 152 of our Constitution; in other words, you could not affect the rights of honourable members of this House under section 137 except by the two Houses sitting together and passing a resolution. However nobody is going to raise the question and I can pass it over. I do not share the difficulties anticipated and apprehended by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). One of his questions was: “Can a person speak Afrikaans if he does not know Netherlands or High Dutch?” Well, the question answers itself. As a matter of fact every Dutch-speaking person in South Africa, literate or illiterate, is acquainted to-day with both forms of Dutch. I hope there will be no difficulty about this motion, and I hope the other place will also adopt it. I hope it will be merely a matter of a short time before it will be adopted in this House and in other places. The leader of the Opposition mentioned the case of a person applying to be admitted as a sworn translator. I doubt whether there have not been admissions re English and Afrikaans but if the applicant were to apply to be admitted in English and Afrikaans he would be admitted in our country. I do not want to touch on the merits of the two languages. I am convinced that Afrikaans has made such rapid and enormous strides that it is in every way a language fitted to express every thought, and to express the finest distinctions. Of course Nederlands has a literature which is the property and possession of the world. The day will come when Afrikaans will also be the property and possession of civilized humanity. I think that as French is a softer and more euphonious form of the Latin language so is Afrikaans compared to Nederlands. From every point of view—in dealing justly with the Afrikaans speaking child; in dealing justly with our fellow citizens, the English community we will be doing the right thing to have one standard of language, and by doing so they will have all they could wish for. I wish the motion every success both here and in another place.

It is with a certain measure of disinclination that I come before hon. members in connection with this matter, because in their hearts they will think that I talk here as Hollander, and that I take party for my own language. Allow me to say at once that it is so, and I do not believe that I am to be blamed if I say that I am attached to my own language and that I cherish tender feelings for the language which during my life I have learned to love. I take it that I have the same right thereto as anyone who has learned Afrikaans at his mother’s knee. Thus I must admit that it is with regret that I have seen how Afrikaans in every Province has replaced Netherlands; until I at last thought that Parliament was the last bulwark of my language—Netherlands. The arguments which are employed by the two Ministers are for me not convincing. The hon. Minister of the Interior, for example, has cited that it is permitted to print the Hansard in Afrikaans; but no objection is made against that on the supposition that Hansard is not exactly an official document of Parliament, but is treated as a semi-official document; and on this ground no objection was made last year to reports in Afrikaans. In the second place, the hon. Minister said that we are already so far advanced with our own literature. I doubt if the Minister is correct. I have here only one book on Afrikaans literature. It is said in this book that the Afrikaans literature is still in being. I believe, therefore, that the allegation of the Minister is a little premature. I read here that for Afrikaans we must always go back and draw on the rich treasure of Netherlands literature. Then there is here repeatedly spoken about fixed rules for spelling. I have here a book written by an Afrikander and what does he say?—

Who is the writer of the book?

“Dorre Suid-Afrika,” by J. J. Schonken. Now to give an example of a quite recent case I take yesterday’s “Die Burger.” In “Die Burger” of the 16th February a correspondent asks what the plural of “vorm” is—whether it is “vorms” “vorme.” And what does the editor answer. The plural form “e” or “s” is still indefinite in Afrikaans. But the formation of the plural is one of the very first rules of spelling, and “Die Burger” editorial must acknowledge that it is still indefinite. I just quote this. I do not attach too much value to it. I quote it because I think that the hon. Minister is a little rash in his allegation that the spelling presents no difficulties. Now what concerns laws in Afrikaans, what will not the difficulties be in respect of spelling and the choice of words? Is it not dangerous to compile and approve laws in a language that is still not definitely fixed? The attention in the making of laws is that they shall clearly express what the law maker wishes. One must not forget that the personal freedom of people can be taken away through laws: that punishment and penalties can be inflicted. In short, laws not clearly expressed can result in the conviction of guiltless persons; and it would be much to be regretted if the step now proposed should lead to such a thing. In my opinion there is still not enough stability concerning the rules for Afrikaans to go so far as to make laws in this language. I admit, however, that we are on the right road. The great step which was made in the language movement was when Afrikaans as medium was introduced in the teaching in schools. Have we, however, yet attained results which justify proceeding to the composition of all official documents and laws in Afrikaans? Take the examination paper reports of the examiners. Then we shall see that nearly half of the remarks are always made about the Afrikaans of the candidate. Take book reviews. If we read book reviews in the English or Netherlands newspapers we find that they deal with the contents of the book; with the characters; and not with the spelling; but if we read reviews in the “Die Huisgenoot,” or “Die Burger”—papers which I highly value—then we see that more than half, more than fifty per cent., are usually a criticism of the language; the shortcomings of Afrikaans; wrong construction, and faulty use of words and faulty spelling. All this indicates that Afrikaans is still unfixed and uncertain. There is another matter that has struck me in reading of books in Afrikaans; and that is that various words in books written by Cape writers are not in use in other Provinces. It is not necessary to name some words; but I remember, for example, in a book written by a Cape writer, to have read that a girl says to a boy: “Ek het opgemerk hoe orig jy en Anna voor mekaar is” (in the sense meaning “loving each other”). By the word “orig” would in the Transvaal be understood something altogether different. One would not dare to use it in the connection. So are there various other words which have a varying meaning in different provinces. Another reason why I oppose this motion is that I think that the Academy has not had time to make school books and teachers altogether acquainted with one and the same form of Afrikaans. Therefore we must not be too hasty. I hope that I do not arouse the feeling that I am one of the implacable conservatives. I recollect how the hon. Minister, when he still sat on this side of the House, made a witty remark about my Dutch. He said that the Dutch that I spoke was not pure, and that if I spoke so in Holland people would say: we are also able to understand Afrikanders like that. Naturally a stay of 40 years in this country makes its influence felt. In my view is Netherlands, which has been a firm and trusty guide for our ancestors, still of great worth for South Africa, particularly in the pulpit; in divine service; and in Parliament. I recollect to-day the caricature in “Punch,” with the superscription “Dropping the Pilot.” It was in 1890, when the German Kaiser dismissed Bismark. I fear we shall also in the earlier years wander round without a reliable finger-post. It has become clear to me in the course of the debate that I can only row up against the stream; but I wish all the same to voice my opinion. I hope that what I am now going to say will not be taken up as a political or party argument. But last year, when the present Government acceded to the head of affairs, I read an article of the editor in the Utrecht “Dagblad” in which, writing about the new Government in South Africa, he said “the chances for the flourishing of the ‘high’ Dutch have risen out of all knowledge owing to the new direction.” I think that he would now talk otherwise. Last year a similar motion was proposed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Rev. Mr. Hattingh) and this year the Government itself comes forward with such a proposal. I believe that we can also arouse opposition amongst our Dutch friends overseas. I believe, therefore, that this step is a little rash, although I am convinced that in the long run Netherlands will be entirely crowded out by Afrikaans.

I consider it is a little inappropriate for the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) to come and lay down for Afrikanders what their language ought to be. The hon. member is a Hollander, who should rather leave such a question to the Afrikanders. His predecessor in the House, Mr. Schurink, acted better, because he had seconded Mr. Speaker’s motion in 1918 in favour of the use of Afrikaans in the public-service. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has in opposing the adoption of the motion quoted the fact that some Afrikaans words carry differing significance in different provinces. But if this argument is to be enforced against the recognition of Afrikaans, to what extent would not so an argument apply against the recognition of Netherlands. In Holland there exist various dialects: Brabants is so different from Amsterdams that the people can hardly understand each other. Afrikaans compares in this respect very favourably with Dutch, and even with English and German. In South Africa there are provincialisms, but no dialect. The Transvaaler has no difficulty in understanding the Free Stater, and the Cape resident has no difficulty in understanding the Natalian. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhiuze) declares that he will not acknowledge that Afrikaans can become separate from Netherlands until you can use _ Afrikaans as medium in the highest faculties of education. Does the hon. member know that students at Stellenbosch and Cape Town have attained their M.A. degree through medium of Afrikaans? A compliment has been shown to Afrikaans by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and Caledon (Mr. Krige) who while they doubted if the time is ripe for the full official acknowledgment of Afrikaans, delivered their speeches in pure Afrikaans. They have therefore in practice acknowledged the rights of the language. Ten years ago both those hon. members had delivered their speeches in Parliament in a sort of Netherlands. Then it was “wij is”; to-day it is “ons is.” The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had been an implacable opponent. His honouring of Afrikaans to-day in the exercise of it speaks volumes. He has, however, still expressed the doubt whether the use of Afrikaans by Parliament is lawful, and has in regard thereto called in the opinion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). May I, however, point out to him that it was the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) himself who last year moved that Hansard should appear in Afrikaans in the place of Netherlands. Through that was acknowledged what to-day has been doubted; and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who in 1918 was Minister, in that year advanced no objection against my proposal to introduce Afrikaans in the whole public service. At that time he was not afraid that by such an acknowledgment of Afrikaans he would be sinning against the Constitution. This is not compatible with the holding that he to-day cherishes such a dread. The late Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) points out that you cannot separate the language of the legislature from the language of the courts of justice. But if this is an objection against the use of Afrikaans in our laws, then such an objection should have made itself felt long ago. Several proclamations have already appeared in Afrikaans, and for a long while ordinances of the Cape Province have appeared in Afrikaans. The language of the ordinances—and ordinances have also the power of law—has never been questioned in any court. This objection is therefore far-fetched. For those who doubt whether Afrikaans is suitable for laws those ordinances, constitute a good answer. The language of them is as clear and plain as it could ever be in Netherlands. This refutes also the allegation that the language is poor: as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) wants to make out. The whole Netherlands vocabulary is at the disposal of Afrikaans. The Afrikaner may cut off a suffix or letter of a Netherlands word and alter the pronunciation a little; but the word is at once at home in Afrikaans. Furthermore, Afrikaans has also its own words and idioms, making it, in fact, still richer than Netherlands. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has pointed out that our Bible and psalm and hymn books are still in Netherlands; and that our people will find it hard to separate from that “tradition” as he calls it. Is this any argument against the recognition of Afrikaans as the language of our law books? I do not see it. The church was always conservative regarding language. In the Roman church in England one still hears Latin prayers; and in the Malay church in Cape Town, Arabian prayers; and the Jews still to-day use their Hebrew Bible. The ordinary bible still appears in old English. Who uses “thou” and “thee” colloquially? This has been no reason why modern English should not be officially recognized. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has alleged that the Afrikaans manner of spelling is not yet fixed regarding certain words. Is this an argument against the full recognition of the language? Where spelling methods altogether fixed in England in the days of Chaucer? Did he not himself spell some words in six ways? Did not Father Cats do the same with certain Netherlands words? Did this count as reasons why English and Netherlands at that time must not be properly recognized as languages? In connection with Afrikaans, there exists to-day fewer spelling troubles than in connection with the English and Dutch languages of those days. The only counter-argument of value is, that there is still no great standard dictionary in Afrikaans. Undoubtedly it is an urgent necessity that such a dictionary be speedily compiled. I hope the hon. Minister of the Interior will see to it that that question also comes before the Select Committee. A standard dictionary is certainly necessary for all public officials; all judges; all university professors; all teachers—who also in certain respects are public officials—and all members of Parliament. It is thus the duty of the Government to set a sum on the estimates for procuring such a book. Meanwhile, the absence of such a work detracts nothing from the deserts of Afrikaans. I hope that English members of the House will leave it over to the Afrikanders to choose which form of language they want and will not vote against the motion.

The matter before the House is non-contentious in the party sense. I am sure that the hon. Minister of the Interior desires to convince the judgment of every member of this House about his motion. How lamentable that until the Minister of Mines and Industries spoke, not a word of English had been heard in this House this afternoon on this matter. There are members on this side whose misfortune and not their fault it is that they have no working knowledge of the Dutch language. Why should they have not been appealed to in that older language made classic by Shakespeare? It would have been good tactics to have remembered that some hon. members speak English only.

Rot.

After this debate I am not going to detain the House long. I will only say that some of the speeches which have been delivered have astonished me. I refer particularly to the portion of the debate which has to do with the first part of the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). It is an anachronism that it is to-day necessary to carry on a discussion about Afrikaans; as to whether it is really fit to be employed in the highest council of our land and in our laws. This was appropriate ten years ago, but not this year. I looked at the hon. member for Caledon and wondered. The second part of his speech with reference to the constitutional position was otherwise. But what concerns the first part, I wondered if I had here to deal with a Rip van Winkle who had now startled into wakefulness after having slept for 20 years. The suitability of Afrikaans is a question of the past. So far there is certainly not one branch found— judicial, scientific, or literary—in which it has appeared that Afrikaans is unsuitable. Previously we heard that Afrikaans was suitable for the man in the street; but that when we talk over exalted subjects as in church, or about the bible, then it is not suitable. I have had the privilege of helping with the translation of the bible; and we have never had trouble in finding the exact word for giving expression to the most exalted thoughts. The only trouble was about subordinate points in grammar. I have never yet heard of a Netherlands without grammar.” The Minister who has moved the motion speaks good Afrikaans; but there are such questions for example as the use of “die” in place of “wat” where he is wrong. But as to the suitability of the language we really need not waste the time of the House. The allegation that Afrikaans is not a definite language belongs to the past. Everything changes and develops and if Afrikaans one of these days no longer develops then it is dead. The argument that we cannot use Afrikaans and that we have to resort to Netherlands makes me think of an occurrence which I experienced at a Dingaan’s Day celebration. An old “oom” there said: “I believe still in the old ‘sanna,’ and not in you fellows with the new rifles—the Lee-Metfords and the Martini-Henrys.” I have the greatest respect for the old “sanna,” which formerly saw our people through in times of storm and strife. Just so have I the greatest respect for Netherlands. It has helped us to weather the storms. The time of the old sanna” is, however, past. Likewise is the time of Netherlands past in South Africa, and we do not need to go back there. I come now to the constitutional position about which the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) spoke in the second part of his speech. He suggested one solution, namely: that the laws must be translated. It is also possible that just the Act which has to be amended be translated. But that the Netherlands form is really the language intended by article 137, there he is wrong. The whole intent of article 137 was chiefly to ensure justice to the Dutch-speaking portion of the people, so that the Dutch-speaking population would be given the opportunity of expressing their thoughts in the language more particularly theirs; and whenever the Dutch-speaking people choose to alter or amend their written language they have the right to do it. Therefore, as the Minister of Mines and Industries has shown, has the judicature given a ruling to this effect. I am glad that the motion is supported by this side of the House; and I am also glad that men who on the other side of the House stood up to speak did not venture to talk against Afrikaans as such. Formerly, if a man talked over the question it was said: “You talk politics.” I can understand this because the people who at that time championed the furthering of Afrikaans are to be found principally in the Nationalist party.

Quite wrong.

It will not be difficult for me to mention their names. It was men of the Nationalist party who stood up for Afrikaans. It was because the Nationalist party always said: “we will be ourselves, and will not be an imitation of a Hollander or an Englishman, and we will talk as an Afrikander when we talk or write,” that it was said that the championing of Afrikaans was political. Members of the other side of the House may have spoken for Afrikaans, but it makes me think of the American saying: “your deeds talk so loud that I cannot hear your voice.” It was particularly those of this side of the House who were always protagonists and supporters of Afrikaans. For this reason we are now so glad that the friends on the other side do not speak against it.

What about your own leader?

He has never opposed it so far as I know. He has cooperated with the Academy and has gone so far as to place at the disposal of the Academy for the furthering of the Afrikaans literature a sum of money which was given, as an acknowledgment of what he had done for the language, for his own use. It is the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who has opposed it.

I deny it once and for all.

I am very glad that you deny it. I know all the same what implacable and irreconcilable opposition we had here in the “Boland” 14 years ago. I am very glad that this opposition now begins to subside and that we are going to take care that in our council and legislative halls we are going to be ourselves.

I do not intend to take up the indulgence of the House for any length, but I must say I have listened carefully to the discussion here this afternoon. I have come to the conclusion that the question regarding Afrikaans is right and that the position to-day is such that it should have the fair and just treatment it richly deserves. I am delighted to find that the Government has appointed a Committee of both Houses to investigate this matter, and I am sure that with a good Committee means will be found to at least give Afrikaans what is due to it. I have very much pleasure in supporting the motion.

The matter is of long duration and has been exceptionally well discussed and I think that it is time that our discussion be brought to an end. I have made quite a number of notes while hon. members stood up to discuss the matter, but I have ultimately resolved not to answer to everything because I think that it is not necessary. The motion goes no further than to propose that a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament shall be appointed which will bring out a report and who will bring this report forward for decision. Under the circumstances it is thus unnecessary now to answer all the arguments. I will only take advantage of the opportunity, in my own name and that of the Government, now to express my appreciation of the good spirit of the discussion. This is an exceptionally good omen for Afrikaans and for the motion. Because if a motion of this nature had been brought forward ten years or so ago, there would have been bitterness in the debate. That it has been discussed here by both sides in such a good spirit shows how far we are advanced. There is just a little remark of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) which I will now bring to light. He found fault with my classification; and I will refer to it seeing that he said that it was the basis of my reasoning. He said that I stated that “Hollands” was the generic term, and that Afrikaans and Netherlands was the species; while he opines that Netherlands is the generic term. I am unable to agree with him. “Netherlands” and “Hollands” in Holland stand parallel with and equal to each other. What to-day is called the Netherlands language is really nothing other than the language of North Holland. Because North Holland had a great share in the national life of Holland; and because the “statevertaling” of the Bible was in North Hollands, the dialect of North Holland became the language of the Netherlands. And because North Holland is only a province, they had then called the “Hollandse” language “Netherlands.” There is another generic term and that is “Nederduits”; and I opine that it would be more correct to say that Netherlands and Afrikaans are both forms of the “Nederduits” language. Unfortunately we have here and in Holland almost forgotten the term “Nederduits.” Therefore, when we think of Afrikaans conditions then it is better if we classify thus: “Hollands” consisting of Netherlands (or kanseltaal, as my friend the Minister of Mines and Industries called it) and Afrikaans. I wish further just to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) for the excellent Afrikaans which he employed in his speech. I observe that he also has made surprising progress in that respect. He had previously also spoken Afrikaans; but it was not so good. He had then also spoken of “wij zijn.” Then he had advanced and spoken of “wij is.” Fortunately, Hansard was always intelligent enough to make it right and to put it “ons is.” I am glad to say that to-day in his speech he has just as often said “ons is” as “wij is.” I am glad that the motion has received such a good reception, and I do not doubt that if the committee is appointed the discussion which has today taken place in the House will be of great assistance.

The motion was put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

communicated the following message from the Senate:—

communicated the following message from the Senate:—

Message referred to Committee on Standing Rules and Orders for consideration and report.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I propose to be very brief in moving the second reading of this Bill because the second reading was moved last session and the events I suppose are remembered by the whole House. We have a report of the second reading of the debate on page 566 of the Hansard Reports (English version). Now with regard to the principle of this Bill; we have two Government Attorneys functioning in this country who have been functioning for a large number of years and the only different principle in this Bill is this that the Government Attorney should be able to charge fees in, the ordinary way, in the same way as an ordinary attorney and these fees go to the benefit of the State. This principle is in general practice in the United Kingdom and I believe throughout the Dominions. There may be come exceptions but. if there are they are very slight in the British Empire. As far as our Government is concerned their policy is precisely the same as the rest because in 1921 we find in the records that a Bill of this nature was drawn and we also find in reply to a question the Minister of Justice said it was proposed to introduce legislation in 1922. The draft we have prepared practically follows the other one, so that there is no difference in policy on this point so far as the late Government is concerned, and the present Government is concerned. There may be personal differences of opinion so far as members on both sides of the House are concerned, but there are no party differences on this point. So far as the offices go, I thought it was unnecessary to have an office in Cape Town when the debate was heard on the last occasion. My proposal is to continue the Government Attorney’s office in Pretoria and have branches in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Since the last debate took place in this House the Railways have given the necessary notice to the railway attorneys to terminate that contract. The contract terminates on the 30th of April and we have agreed to take over the railway work and to do that railway work, not for what I said when the matter was last before the House, £500, instead of £2,400 charged by the railway attorneys, but we have agreed to do the work free of charge to the Railways, at any rate for a start. In regard to the staff: that is probably to a certain extent going to be the weak point; not the weak point which the Opposition foreshadowed, because their fear was that we should have too large a staff. When, however, the estimates are placed before them, they will find that the staff will remain practically the same as it has been. In Johannesburg we propose to place one official and an attorney. The man that it is proposed to place is Mr. Durham, who is connected with the department and has been Public Prosecutor for a large number of years in Pretoria. There will also be a lady typist. In Cape Town there will be merely an attorney assisted by a lady typist. I do not imagine for a single moment that this skeleton staff will be able to do all the attorneys’ work that can be done, but I do believe it will do a large amount of the office work and that it will act as a distributing centre, distributing some of the work to the ordinary practising attorneys. I have been trying to avoid the creation of a large new department; that is the one danger I have always set my face against, and it is a danger that we have seen growing up very much in the past. Take your Agricultural Department and the large number of other departments where you had a large number of sub-departments duplicated unnecessarily. I do not want anything of that kind to happen in future and that is why I am prepared to go as far as I can with a skeleton department. Your work must be always a bit in advance of the personnel doing the work; in other words, this department is going to be run on a proper business basis. We are not going to have any slow work, any incomplete, inefficient or insufficient work in the department. I propose to show that this is the best run department in the whole service in the country. I thought it necessary to make this point clear because there seemed to be a fear that we were going to create a large number of new officials. That fear can be placed out of count at once by hon. members on the other side of the House. With regard to the people whom it is proposed to appoint, we appointed Mr. Hoal when Mr. Pienaar left to take charge of the whole office. I hope to appoint Mr. Durham in Johannesburg, and Mr. Thackeray, of the head office in Pretoria, to take charge of the office in Cape Town. The result will be we shall have three gentlemen appointed none of whom is a Pact supporter so far as I know, and I hope that will please hon. members on the other side. There is no danger whatever when you appoint anybody not a Pact supporter, but the moment you do that you are suspected of all sorts of corrupt motives. I am following closely the policy of the Opposition when they were in power, because they never appointed Pact supporters. I am therefore very glad, Mr. Speaker, to be able in this instance at all events to say that I have not departed from the policy of the past. I may also say that the three gentlemen I have referred to are appointed because they are very good men. I do not propose to deal with this Bill at further length because the matter has been already fully discussed, and I now move the second reading.

On the motion of Maj. G. B. van Zyl the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.