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.

as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Report considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:

Internal Arrangements: Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Krige, M. L. Malan, Dr. de Jager. Messrs. Sampson, Munnik and Nathan.

Library of Parliament: Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Krige, Werth, Robinson, Dr. Bremer, Messrs. Close and Reyburn.

Native Affairs: Messrs. Keyter, Marwick, van Niekerk, Conroy, Sir Drummond Chaplin, Rev. Mr. Mullineux, Messrs. Moffat, Nieuwenhuize, Reyburn, Steytler and Payn.

Crown Lands: The Minister of Lands, Col. D. Reitz, Messrs. Mostert, Madeley, G. A. Louw, Nicholls, Swart, Deane, Christie, Conradie and Struben.

Before we go on with the first Order of the Day, I would like, with permission, to make a statement in reference to the negotiations that have been proceeding in connection with the ocean mail contract. I have here a statement on the negotiations in connection with the ocean mail contract and outward freight agreement between the Union Government representatives and the representatives of the Union-Castle Company and its associated steamship lines.

Statement of negotiations in connection with the ocean mail contract and outward freight agreement between the Union Government representatives and the representatives of the Union-Castle Company and its associated steamship lines.

1. 1. In 1912 a contract was entered into for a period of ten years, between the Union Government and the Union-Castle Company for the conveyance of ocean mails and Government outward cargo, and fixing certain maximum rates for the conveyance of South African produce.
2. 2. In 1922 an extension of this contract was made on revised terms for a period of two years, and provided for the continuance of the mail contract indefinitely thereafter, subject to twelve months’ notice on either side.
3. 3. The revised terms included the abolition of the maximum rates for maize, wool and several other important products and the substitution therefor of rates based on the freights obtained in respect of full cargoes by chartered steamers during the previous three months. Experience has shown that this method has proved most disadvantageous to South African interests.
4. 4. In August, 1924, negotiations were opened for the making of fresh contracts, and in consequence thereof several conferences have been held in South Africa between the Government representatives and the representatives of the Union-Castle Company.
5. 5. At the first, conference held during November last Dr. Robertson Gibb intimated that he had come out from London with plenary powers to act, not only on behalf of the Union-Castle Company but also the other steamship companies associated with them in the South African Shipping Conference.
6. 6. At these sittings, which lasted several days, agreement was reached on the following points after a most exhaustive discussion of principles and details:
   1. (a) Duration of new contract to be seven years.
   2. (b) The maximum freight rates to be charged for fruit, dairy produce, and other cold storage exports (eleven items).
   3. (c) The maximum freight rates to be charged for maize, wool, hides, skins and other South African exports (24 items).
   4. (d) All rates to be subject to deduction by arbitration if just cause could be shown.
   5. (e) The rates to be paid by Government for all Government cargo from Europe.
7. 7. It was in consideration of the Shipping Lines meeting us in the matter of the various rates which were to be maximum rates that the Government agreed to the contract being for seven years instead of a much shorter period as it originally contemplated, and also conceded an increase of 2s. 6d. per ton on Government outward cargo.
8. 8. An agreement having been arrived at on these matters the question of the amount of the ocean mail subsidy—the only important point remaining for consideration—came up for discussion. The amount of the subsity at present is £225,000 per annum which includes the sum of £27,000 in respect of the voyage to Durban and the other coast ports.
9. 9. In accordance with the statement which I made, as Chairman of the Conference, right at the opening, the Government representatives then suggested a reduced subsidy as a basis for discussion. It was pointed out to the Shipping Conference representatives that the £27,000 coast subsidy was no longer justified. The cargo and trade now offering at Durban and the coast ports was so much in excess of the trade available when the coast subsidy was first instituted that the Government did not think a special subsidy was any longer necessary. Furthermore, the mails were not taken round the coast by a steamer but went overland by train. For these reasons the coast subsidy should no longer be paid.
10. 10. Then it was stated there should be a further reduction owing to the general fall in prices and also to the fact that the British Post Office, as from October next, will no longer pay to the Union Government a pro rata share of the subsidy in proportion to the extent to which it uses our mail service, but will then pay on what is termed the sea transit rates. This means an increased financial burden on the Union. For these reasons the Government representatives suggested as a basis for discussion a subsidy of £150,000.
11. 11. At this juncture it was also pointed out that under the present arrangements, whereby gold is carried as freight, and not, as provided in the Post Office Act of 1911, as mail matter, the Union Postal Department lost something like £40,000 per annum in revenue and the company benefited to the extent of the freight on gold—which amounts to over £124,000 per annum.
12. 12. Mr. Gibb and his two colleagues, Messrs. Pargiter and Duff, then stated that to them it had been on the understanding that the subsidy asked for by them, namely £250,000 from Southampton to Durban or £225,000 from Southampton to Cape Town, had been agreed to by the Government representatives that they had agreed to the rates and conditions previously arrived at. No such undertaking, however, had been given at any stage of the proceedings by the Government representatives.
13. 13. The Government representatives then pressed for a discussion on the merits of an increased or decreased subsidy, but Mr. Gibb declined to continue and said that the question was so important he must have time to submit the matter in writing to his principals in London.
14. 14. Negotiations were then suspended and at the request of Mr. Gibb it was agreed that on resumption he would have the right to review any agreement arrived at on any particular commodity.
15. 15. On February 10th the Conference was resumed. Mr. Gibb, acting on instructions from London, then submitted entirely new proposals under which the agreements reached during the November Conference were practically wiped out and the maximum rates on maize, wool and other South African exports were withdrawn. These new proposals were admitted by Mr. Gibb to be even more onerous than the existing conditions under the present contract.
16. 16. To these new proposals the Government representatives could not agree. They felt that the country would expect, if a new contract was made, that it would give some additional benefit or relief from the present position and that it would succeed in stabilising for South Africa reasonable freight rates for a considerable period.
17. 17. The Government representatives at once returned to the question of the subsidy. They again asked that this should be discussed on its merits. In order to prove that they were willing to meet the Company in the most reasonable manner they eventually agreed to give the amount asked for by the Company in consideration of and on condition that the November agreements should stand.
18. 18. Mr. Gibb, however, declined to accept even his own terms. He said the position was now changed. At this point it was quite apparent that the amount of the subsidy had not been the chief concern of the Company but rather the desire to repudiate the principle of fixed, maximum rates on maize, wool and the other commodities agreed to by Mr. Gibb in November—principles and rates which had been evidently disapproved of by the Shipping Conference in London.
19. 19. As the new terms put up by the Shipping Companies were such a departure from the principles agreed to in November, and as it was felt that the differences could not be bridged, negotiations were terminated yesterday. The present contract therefore continues and is subject to twelve months’ notice on either side.
20. 20. As an instance of the way in which the new proposals would operate take the case of maize. The maximum rates for maize agreed upon at the November Conference were 20s. 3d. per short ton for bulk export, and 22s. 6d. for bagged export. Under the new proposals the rate payable must be based on the average freight rates by chartered steamers with full cargoes. The effect of this would be to enable the Companies to increase the rate at the present time to 29s. 6d. per short ton as compared with 10s. per short ton in 1912 and subsequent years.
21. 21. Another instance as to how the new proposals would operate is that of wool. In this case it has been proved that as this commodity is not carried in full cargoes by chartered steamers to Europe the basis proposed is impracticable and in effect leaves the Shipping Companies to fix their own rates.
22. 22. It might be added that the Government is somewhat perturbed at the increases in freight charges on various commodities to and from South Africa since July 23rd last, on which date, at Hamburg, agreements were signed between the German and Holland Lines of Steamers and the Union-Castle Company on behalf of the South African Shipping Conference, whereby the German and Holland Lines became members of the Shipping Combination. Under these agreements there is to be no competition in rates by any of the parties thereto.
23. 23. In conclusion it should be said, as stated at the Conference, that the Government is not unappreciative of the services which the Union-Castle Company and its Associated Lines have rendered to South Africa. The sailings have been regular and the service and the class of boat have been good. I think this is appreciated, not only by the Government, but also by the country. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that the benefits have not been altogether on the one side. It would be reasonably safe to assume that the Union-Castle Company and its Associated Lines have, generally speaking, prospered and done well out of their trade with South Africa.
24. 24. It was the earnest desire of the Government representatives to meet the Conference Lines in the most reasonable way and it regrets that it has not been successful in its efforts to secure for South Africa a new contract that will give the country a greater measure of security and stability in regard to its freight rates and so enable it to compete more favourably with its products in the markets of the world. Under the circumstances the Government has no alternative but to consider the whole position and take what steps it may find to be necessary to protect and secure the best interests of South Africa.
25. 25. A verbatim report of the Conference proceedings has been taken, and in order that Parliament shall be in full possession of all details, a copy of the report will be laid upon the Table of the House.

I move—

I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether this is the Report which was approved by Committee of this House last year. The hon. Prime Minister will remember that last year before the dissolution there was a similar message from the Senate and the matter was referred to a Committee of which Mr. Speaker was the Chairman and we considered the Report and we approved the message. Is this the same message?

I do not know.

I understand that this is the same message with a few alterations as suggested by this House.

I would second the adoption of this report.

The motion was agreed to.

This is a matter of somewhat serious import to the profession, and I regret therefore that the Minister in introducing the Bill on this occasion treated it in a manner which was somewhat flippant. In no way did he touch on the principles of the Bill, and in no way did he touch on the changes he has made. We are entitled to some explanation about these changes. I have considered the changes in the light of his promises of last year, and I do not think the promises he then made are now kept. The Minister speaks of this Bill as being a little matter and therefore to be lightly disposed of. The littleness of things have formed the basis of many futile excuses in the past. He tells us this is a copy of the Bill found in the portfolio of the Minister of Justice. He says he has copied this Bill, but surely he has gone further and embodied in it principles different from those originally embodied. He tells us also that he has followed the previous Government’s policy of appointing no Pact members or supporters. Here again he is wrong, for he forgets that Mr. Pienaar, who now represents the Government in an important capacity overseas, and who is a strong supporter of the Pact, was the Government attorney appointed by the previous Government. The Minister advises that we should read his speech published in Hansard. I have done so. He made certain promises then which he has not now fulfilled. He also made certain statements. He referred, for example, to public policy. He said the Bill was in the interests of the public and it was public policy to introduce such a Bill. An old English judge once said “Public policy is a very restive horse; when you get astride of it there is no knowing where it will carry you to,” and I would advise him to be careful. The hon. Minister last year said that he took exception to our claiming that the Crown was an unqualified person. I do not think any person on this side of the House made any such claim. We know the Crown is not an unqualified person, but we know that in practice we have all sorts of Government servants giving instructions to these professional men, and in that respect my complaint was that the professional man will be under the rule of the unprofessional man. Another statement he made was that the functions of all legal professions are derived from the Crown. Surely he is overlooking the true position. I do not now wish to go into the history of the position, but let me refer to the latest authority. In a case which was gone into fully in the Free State— the case of de Villiers v. McIntyre, afterwards taken on appeal, the whole question of the legal status of an attorney was fully gone into. The reference of the Chief Justice in the case of Pienaar (1902, T.S. 16) was “the Courts of South Africa possess the rights of the Roman-Dutch courts, to regulate the conduct of practitioners and to prescribe the general lines on which they shall be permitted to exercise the privileges conferred upon them.” That clearly shows that the Supreme Court alone has jurisdiction over the attorney. The Crown has no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has, and such jurisdiction is given by Acts of Parliament and by rules of Court. Sir Wm. Solomon in the same case said: “Certain regulations on the subject are to be found in the Placaats, but the Court is not limited to enforcing these regulations, but possesses and has in the past exercised its inherent powers in cases not covered by the Placaats … the Court in exercising its disciplinary authority did not purport merely to give effect to the Placaats but interfered by virtue of the inherent powers which it possesses over its practitioners. …” So that it is perfectly dear that the attorneys are under the Supreme Court and under the Supreme Court alone. The hon. member might tell me that that was a judgment in favour of the finding of the Court I read also a judgment of the Chief Justice, who was against the majority finding of the court but who strongly supported the principle advocated by Sir William Solomon. (Quotation.)

Then let me touch on the changes in this bill. Clause 3 sub-section 2 of the previous bill is left out and he amends clause 4 according to the promise made, but in section 5 he refers only to notaries and conveyancers. I would like to know why attorneys are left out there. Does he mean that any person who may be appointed by the Minister must be an admitted person only if he wishes to do notary’s and conveyancer’s work but need not be an admitted person to do attorney’s work? When we turn to section 7 we find something quite opposed to sections 4 and 5, which says he can only practise in the province in which he is admitted, That is a distinct change and we ought to have some explanation on that. So far we have had no explanation at all.

With the leave of the House I wish to state that I am prepared to accept the position that an attorney must be qualified to practise in that part of the Union in which he is appointed, for instance, that a person appointed in the Transvaal must be a man who is entitled to practise there as an attorney.

I wish to emphasize again that our profession is ruled by Acts of Parliament. In every separate Province there is a separate Act ruling the profession. Those Acts were passed after a lot of trouble and expense on the part of the profession. It is the only profession in the world which is under real control. I consider that this Bill constitutes a very serious infringement of the rights of attorneys. Not only is the Government attorney to be permitted to practise not under the supervision of the Supreme Court, but under the direct supervision of the Minister alone. He has thus a great pull over every other attorney, and if I read the Act correctly he is even freed from the jurisdiction of the Court. He has a pull which is certainly an infringement over the rights of the profession, I do not believe that any single law society in this country has agreed to the principles of this Bill. Every single law society has strongly opposed and has, I understand, made strong representations to the Minister opposing the principles of this Bill. The Minister may say: “I have nothing to do with the principles of this Bill; I am dealing with what has been done in other countries,” but I say that in other countries is there a similar Bill to this. I am sure there is no country in the world where they allow by legislation an attorney appointed by the Government acting under a non-professional man to do certain things which the admitted attorney may not do even to the give an allowance to a non-professional man. The principles of all those Acts of Parliament governing attorneys have been laid down not only for the benefit of the profession, but also for the protection of the public. The public, as the position now is, are very fully safe-guarded and, to show how fully they are safe-guarded in the opinion of the highest authority in the land on legal questions, I would like to inform the House what one of the Appellate judges said in regard to this matter, and also incidentally to show how important it is to keep this profession pure—

The position is the same whether he is a branch-manager or whether he is an ordinary layman acting under the Government for the time being. The only reason that I can find from the Minister’s speech for introducing this Bill is that the Government wants to make a little more money by getting legal fees. As far as I can find, that is the only principle underlying this Bill. The Minister has admitted that in the past the Government has been well served by the general practitioner, and he has admitted that everything that has been done in different parts of the country, on instructions, perhaps, of the attorney at Pretoria, has been satisfactorily done. There can be no reason for this change except the one that the Government wishes to make fees out of our profession. I do hold that the principle is bad. There are several reasons why I say this. The Minister and not the Public Service Commission is going to make the appointments. The Minister, also, can fix the conditions of the appointments and the remuneration. Everything is in his hands. He may appoint also “such other persons as may from time to time be necessary for such purposes aforesaid.” Are these to be qualified persons? I think that is a very important matter. If they are not to be qualified persons, are they going to have the rights of attorneys in signing documents. There is nothing in the Bill to show what rights they are to have The Bill does not restrict their rights in any way. Presumably they are going to have the rights of attorneys, that is, of doing all an attorney may do. I would like to know from the Minister also whether such employees of the Government are to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to discipline. No matter whom attorneys are employed by, the Supreme Court should not lose its rights over these men. The Government attorney, in addition to performing recognized functions, may carry out such other functions as the Minister may prescribe. Are those functions to be such functions as another attorney may not perform? I want to know what these functions are for which the Government attorney may charge inter-departmental fees. I understand now that this great department of one attorney and one typist which the Minister promises us will make an income of between £20,000 and £30,000 per year, is going to do the work free for different departments. There is another very important matter, and that is that the Government attorney has the right to collect fees for the Government. In the past an attorney acting for the Government naturally had the right to collect fees, but an attorney acting against the Government never had the right to issue a writ against the Government either to fees or for the amount of the judgment That right is not given to the ordinary individual. Now that the Government are taking further powers, I think they should give the right to collect fees and the amount of judgments from them by writ. I feel that the Bill fails because we are not going to get the best practitioners to go in for this position. The best practitioners are not going to give up their practice in order to go into Government service. If these men are going to carry on their work as the Minister suggested, and they are going to sit in places like Cape Town, with a typist, and give out their work to other attorneys, we shall find before long that they are going to stagnate, they are going to find nothing but routine work to do, and we shall see the same position as we saw in the case of the attorney who was here some years ago. The Minister has stated that this is to be a small department, and he will see that it remains a small department. That may be his intention, but I do not think he is always going to be there, and it seems to me that if the work of the attorney here is going to be carried on efficiently he will have to have a large staff, certainly much larger than the Minister suggests. Another point is that the expenses are going to mount up enormously. The Minister said that he anticipates that they are going to make an income of £20,000 or £30,000 per year. Let me tell him that if he is going to make that income he will have to have a staff of at least a dozen qualified men besides an army of typists. Not only are the expenses going to be enormous, but the department is going to be a burden after a while, and the Minister will find that the work is going to be less and less well done. This department is also going to make a substantial increase to the pension list. These men will enter the service at an age when they will not be able to carry on for more than, at the most, fifteen years, more especially if the Government carry out their present policy of retiring men at fifty-five. To my mind the worst point of the Bill is that it requires that the ordinary practitioner shall give the Government an allowance on work sent to him. That is doing away with the principle for which the law societies have fought for years and years. We debar attorneys from giving an allowance even to law agents. Here it is proposed to give an allowance to the State. The principle is bad. If for no other reason, I think we should oppose this Bill for the reason that it proposes to arrange that allowances should be given by qualified practitioners to men who are absolutely unqualified. I think that, before we can be asked to go much further, the Minister might fairly be requested to give an explanation on the points I have raised.

In supporting this measure I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) on the way in which he has put his case. I think there is no real substance in it, but the case has undoubtedly been well put. I understood the hon. member to emphasize, amongst the other points which he put forward, in the first place this one, that the Government attorney would be an unqualified person and that the Government employing such Government attorney would be accepting allowances from legal firms to whom work would be distributed. The hon. member has entirely lost sight of one fact. There are at present qualified members of the legal profession, viz., barristers, receiving fees through the present Government attorneys who have not even the status which the Government attorney about to be appointed on this Bill will have. I understood the hon. member to say that they can receive fees from anyone. They most decidedly cannot. They can only receive fees from attorneys duly qualified and recognized by the Law Society, and yet I know of no South African barrister who has refused to accept fees when appointed by the Government attorney. It is quite obvious there is nothing in this objection. The hon. member went on to say that attorneys appointed under the Bill would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is impossible for me to follow that argument, because at present practising barristers are in the employ of the Crown and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is quite obvious that the Government attorneys would have to be under that jurisdiction. Then the hon. member raised a point which seemed a strange one. He suggested that if the Government is allowed to issue a writ against litigants then those litigants can issue a writ against the Government. We know that no payment of capital or costs by the Government can possibly be refused. Then the hon. member stated that the Government attorney would get rusty. When the hon. member had said he had been in the unfortunate position of not receiving sufficient Government work he showed that perhaps if he had received the work which was undoubtedly due to him he would have been in a position to say what the Government attorneys have to do. As it is he is not. The present Government attorneys have such a variety of work that they have more experience than most practitioners outside the Government service. I am afraid the hon. member is speaking less as a member of the legal profession than as a staunch supporter of the South African party. I am afraid the hon. member is influenced to a large extent by the general feeling of peevishness we find among the South African party today This kind of opposition should cease simply for the reason that we have a large amount of work to get through.

I think it was with great pleasure we listened to the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down: I mean to those remarks of his which refer to the good taste and ability shown by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in his speech against the Bill. The only regret is that having recognized good taste when he saw it, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) was unable to follow the example set and make the speech which he has made. He talks of the criticism of the Bill as due to “peevishness” and of the critics as having no case. Well, already the Bill has been improved as a result of the criticism passed in the little time spent on it in this House; and we are promised other improvements by the Minister. The case against the Bill was fairly and moderately put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl). There is no doubt about it that the interests of the public are very largely concerned with the interests of the legal profession, with the maintenance of the dignity and the standard and lines of professional conduct which our courts have been at such pains to uphold. The present Acting Chief Justice has pointed out that attorneys play an important part in the administration of justice. I am referring to the case of Macintyre and de Villiers. That is the position stated by the highest authority in the land—the Appellate Division. What are the lines on which the courts have repeatedly had to come to the assistance of the law societies to see that the profession is kept on a proper footing? The courts have repeatedly had to see how tar professional standing is undermined by things which to the lay mind may seem unimportant. One of these is the question of an attorney being in the employ of a lay employer and another is the sharing of fees with laypeople. Our courts have repeatedly had to give the gravest pronouncements on these subjects because the courts know that the gravest consequences follow those practices if they are permitted. The question of the independence of the attorney was stressed by the learned authority in the case to which I have already referred. The learned Chief Justice pointed out that the inducement not to run counter to the views of the private employer in any circumstances where the attorney was so employed would be a very strong one, and that there would be a real danger that the independence of the attorney would be impaired. When we criticize the Bill we criticize it amongst other things on those grounds. The two dangers to which I have referred characterize this Bill. Then in Natal you are going to have all sorts of complications and difficulties where you have the two professions amalgamated. The sharing of fees and the putting of attorneys under the control of a lay person are very real dangers. The next point I wish to touch upon is that of cost. That was the ground which the hon. Minister mentioned in support of the Bill. I think the Minister is going to be an incurable optimist if he thinks he can run this proposed new department on the lines of an attorney and a lady typist at each branch. We do not want another Government department created unless there is a most vital need for it. We have a very large public service in this country. Compared with other countries it stands out very markedly in this respect. The Minister talks of three offices with an attorney and typist alone at each? Will the minister consent to an amendment to the Act which will embody this and provide only for a Government attorney at Pretoria with a branch at Bloemfontein and one at Cape Town and a typist at each place? The Minister node his refusal: of course he will not consent: and the minister will find in the course of time that this is going to be a big department. I doubt very much, when reasonable statistics are taken, whether there is any prospect of a saving of from £20,000 to £50,000 a year. The work is at present being done very well indeed. What reason is there for the change? An objectionable feature is that the department is inevitably going to be a largely-growing one. The method of appointments is going to be a serious matter. We have built up in our legislation the principal that the appointment of people to the public service shall be as far as possible free from any form of patronage. This Act, if it goes through, will mean that whoever in power as Minister of Justice will have great powers of patronage, and it is going to be an unpleasant thing for any Government to be suspected of patronage every time an appointment is made to this department. If the public service commission is excluded the department will, I fear, become a back door to the public service. Clause 1-2 says every person appointed under the section shall be a member of the public service. Does it mean that he shall be a member of the public service and that his position shall be governed by the existing provisions of the public service? I hope the Minister will make that point quite clear. Has the Minister taken pension liabilities into account when discussing the relative costs of the existing system? That pension liability in future is going to be a very serious one. Another point I wish to get at is this: Not only can the Minister appoint the Government attorney, but every assistant in the office can be appointed by the Minister of Justice. The Bill apparently excludes the Public Service Commission from the question of appointments in this department: but there is one clause which may be interpreted in the contrary sense. I ask the Minister if it is his intention to exclude the Public Service Commission. I see from his nod that he does. An important point again is whether the men who are appointed as professional assistants will have the right of private practice or not. Will the Minister allow provision to be put in the Bill excluding them from such right?

Yes.

The Minister promises acceptance of an amendment to that effect. That is another amendment that the discussion of the Bill has brought about, which will be somewhat distasteful to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to hear. But, if so, what kind of a man are you going to get to fill this appointment of Government attorney? There will be a comparatively small salary; and as he will have no private practice there will be a very limited choice. I would like the Minister to refer the matter to a Select Committee for the purpose of hearing professional views on the subject as well as expert evidence regarding the cost of the establishment; also as to the powers of appointment and the dangers of patronage. I give notice to the Minister that I will move that after the second reading the Bill be referred to the Select Committee. If it is not referred to a Select Committee I am prepared to vote against the Bill as it stands.

I have studied the Bill carefully; it is substantially as promised by the Minister though a few verbal emendations may be effected, but these are only minor points and in dealing with a second reading one wants to give most attention to the principles of the Bill. A few points have been mentioned to which I would like to draw attention. First of all that the Supreme Court will not have control over these attorneys; secondly, the question of private practice; thirdly, the question of the Government getting the benefit of the fees. I cannot understand how it can be suggested that these Government attorneys would be any less under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of whom they are officers under this Bill than they were before. That objection, it seems to me, falls to the ground. There is nothing to indicate in this Bill that these men are not under the discipline of the Court. The matter of private practice the Minister has undertaken to clear up. In regard to the question of fees, it does seem to me that the argument is very much strained there. Of course, we know that an attorney cannot share fees with a person who is not qualified, but to compare the State employing a person who does its business—a professional man—with a number of private individuals who employ an attorney for profit seems to me straining the argument to such an extent that it cannot possibly stand examination. The practice has existed from time immemorial in other parts of the world of the State employing professional men on full salary and of their fees being paid into the Revenue. This is not a new practice which is now being introduced; it is only proposed to legalise the practice. The Government have been seriously penalised in the employment of their attorneys and the man who has had the benefit has been the unsuccessful litigant. Under this Bill if the Government wins a case against a litigant with a Government attorney, the Government will be entitled to be treated, in the same way as if a private individual wins the case. When the money is paid into the Revenue it goes to the relief of taxation and all the community benefits. It does not go to the benefit of the private individual, as in the cases which have been quoted. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) said he did not know of any part of the world where the practice existed. I could give a number of cases where the money is collected and paid into the Revenue. It is a recognised practice for one attorney when he sends work to another attorney in another part, although the other attorney does the bulk of the work, to get a share of the fees. That is called an allowance. If a private attorney in Pretoria sends some work to an attorney in Klerksdorp he will get an allowance and the man in Klerksdorp will have to give up a portion of his fees to the attorney in Pretoria. But if the attorney at Pretoria is the Government attorney he would not get such an allowance and the result is that, if you do not make some provision in the Bill, the Government attorney at Pretoria who sends work to an attorney at Klerksdorp gets no allowance, and the Klerksdorp man gets the full fees. Why should this differentiation be made? The principle of this Bill seems to me to be a perfectly fair one. It follows a practice which has existed in other countries for a very long time. The Government of South-West Africa, some time ago, made provision by which its legal work was to be placed in the hands of the Government attorney, and the arrangement worked so well that, I believe, the Auditor-General of the Union recommended that this practice should be adopted here. The reason why you have to make this provision in the Bill in regard to fees and allowances is because under the existing bye-laws of the law societies, it could not otherwise be done. With regard to writs in execution, I would put the Government on exactly the same basis as a private individual if a judgment is obtained against them. Though there is this difference between judgments obtained against private individuals and judgments obtained against the Government, that the judgment obtained against private individuals may produce no return, while I do not know of any case against the Government where the judgment, although there may have been delays, has not eventually been satisfied. A point was made by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) in regard to the control over these appointments. It is said that the Public Service Commission is deprived of its right in regard to the appointment of these men. I am one of those who want to see appointments kept as far as possible in the control of the Public Service Commission, but the hon. member apparently overlooked the fact that under the Act of 1923, certain appointments are taken away from the Commission. I refer to appointments in the services, the Defence Force, for instance. I do think there is something to be said for the fact that so long as you have a legal professional man as Minister of Justice he is in the best position to know who should be appointed to these offices.

You might as well scrap the whole Public Service Commission.

No, no. My hon. friend must read the Public Service Act a little more before he makes a statement like that. To say that because these three appointments are not to be subject to the Public Services Commission you must scrap the whole Commission is an absurd argument. The Public Services Commission will still have control of the administrative, clerical, professional and general divisions of the service. It seems to me that this Bill is simply going to regularize and legalize an existing practice. The Government attorney is here and has been for years. This is going to put the appointment on a proper basis. It is not going to introduce anything new. For these reasons I am going to support the Bill.

I believe the hon. Minister of Justice will approach this question without descending to the level reached by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) in his criticism of members on this side of the House. The hon. Minister of Justice is, especially in this House, the guardian, and custodian, of the liberties of the profession to the higher branch of which he belongs. The principle which underlies the opposition to this Bill is one of great importance to all the members of that profession, and it has been so clearly demonstrated this afternoon that I need not refer to it in detail. I think the hon. Minister will recognize that it is in principle wrong that an attorney, a member of our profession, should be employed at a salary by a lay employer. To say, as I understood him to argue, that the appointment of a Government attorney rests upon the Crown prerogative, is entirely wrong. Whatever prerogative the Crown originally had in this matter has long since lapsed. It is quite clear that if we appoint this salaried official we set up a precedent which is repugnant to the principle I have mentioned. I would ask the Minister to note the implications which result from the breaking down of this principle. We shall find that each of the provincial administrations will assert their right to have a Government attorney; we shall find municipalities claiming that they should also employ their own salaried attorney, and other bodies down to large private corporations will be doing the same. Then, passing to the reasons of economy referred to by the hon. Minister, when I hear the Minister speak of the possibility of earning £20,000 in fees I feel certain that he has been very badly informed as to the costs of running a legal practice. And is a mere saving, if it occur, the sole test to apply in a matter of this kind? Does the Minister think that if he pays an attorney in Johannesburg £500 and so saves the difference between that sum and the £2,400 which is paid as a retaining fee that he will get efficiency? If so he will be disappointed. So far from securing any reduction in his expenditure he will find he will have to employ to supplement the efforts of his appointees specialists who will not be prepared to work for the remuneration to which he has referred. But if a Government attorney is to be appointed at all, I think his work should be confined to that of supervising. I think it will be necessary too to make it perfectly clear that the Government attorney in addition to being a fulltime officer should also be confined by statute to professional work. If we are to give any person the prestige which will attach to a Government attorney, he should be debarred (particularly as the appointments are to be confined to larger towns, principally provincial capitals) from discharging such functions as those of a broker or auctioneer, and so on. I counsel members of this House to delay proceeding with this Bill until the principle involved in the Public Trustee Bill has been discussed, a principle identical with that now at stake, and which there, as here, is being in-pinged upon by the hon. Minister. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

stated that as this amendment did not conform with the rules governing amendments to the second reading of Bills he was unable to put it to the House.

I move—

seconded.

I do not quite follow the procedure. What is the object of moving the adjournment?

I understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) wishes this debate to be deferred until after the matter of the Public Trustee has been considered.

The amendment was negatived.

I was sorry to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Zoutspansberg (Mr. Pirow). Everything has been discussed temperately and with every endeavour to assist. The proof of that is that the hon. Minister has agreed to three alterations already. When the Minister made his all too brief statement last night I gathered that a somewhat similar Bill had been drafted by his predecessor in office. I have not seen the Bill. We have a Government attorney and it seems anomalous that he should not be entitled to recover fees. To that extent I agree with his Bill, but this Act goes much further. It gives the Minister the right to dot the country with Government attorneys. The Minister says he is not going to do so and I accept his word for it. But we are legislating for all time. Some Minister may consider it his duty or a matter of party policy to appoint an incoming number of Government attorneys. I have been personally lobbed by young attorneys, They may have mis-read the Bill, but certainly there is an idea abroad that this Bill is going to result in a large number of appointments. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. The Minister says he is going to appoint three, but there is nothing to prevent him next year telling us that he has found it necessary to appoint additional attorneys for other towns. I feel sure the Minister will be lobbed and a great deal of pressure brought to bear on him in reference to these appointments. We have had a great deal of economy in the service of late, but this Bill creates a brand new department in the service which may end in our being saddled with many Government attorneys all over the country. It is left purely within the discretion of the Minister, the Bill does not say the Governor in Council, to make these appointments. We have no inkling as to the salary, and it is possible for the Minister to appoint a young attorney and say: “I cannot give you a salary, but take 25 per cent, of the takings.” I understand the Minister has agreed that these government attorneys will have no private work.

It makes them Civil Servants.

Yes, but it does not deal with private practice. Every person appointed may be required by the Minister to do anything. I think the Minister will agree that it may be possible to have an attorney subjected to the jurisdiction of the law society while the Government attorney may not. We have two types of attorneys in this country; one being subject to the stringent rules of the law society, while on the other hand you may have the bureaucratic attorney who is subject to nothing but the whim of the Minister. The appointment of Minister of Justice need not necessarily be filled by a lawyer; and on some future date the office may be filled by someone who has not been trained in the legal profession, and he may innocently order a man to do unprofessional work. Section 33 gives the Minister power at discretion to order the Government attorney to do any sort of work; he may order him to do auctioneering or even to act in a deceased estate. As long as the Government attorney is restricted to the work done by attorneys in the past I see no objection. The Minister may appoint such other persons as may from time to time be necessary for the purpose of functions under this Act. That seems to be vaguely worded. He may be directed to attend a magistrate’s court; to do conveyancing, and so on. I think that law should be tightened up. What is to prevent the Minister saying; “I cannot be bothered with the Government attorney, I am going to send along some clerk in the office?” I am not opposed to the principles of this Bill, but I must confess it goes against the grain to find the Government running a department as a money-making concern. The Minister of Justice is bound to agree that if this principle were applied to the Bar instead of to the side Bar there would be serious trouble. It seems to me that as the object of the Minister was merely to remedy this existing anomaly, which prevents the Government attorney from collecting his fees. I think this Bill might well confine itself to remedy that anomaly. If the Minister were to insert a clause conferring upon the Government attorney the right to tax his bills, the whole object he is aiming at would be achieved, so that I see no necessity for the enlarged scope of this Bill. The opening is there, and therefore I think the Minister should confine his Bill to remedying that anomaly. All the Minister wants—he said so in the second reading last year—is to enable the Government attorney to tax his bill, so I don’t know why he should attach to the measure all this superfluous matter.

The hon. member who just sat down has raised a lot of tiny objections, but there is only one that seems to worry him and that is an unscrupulous Minister of Justice is going to appoint a lot of Government attorneys in the country. But what is the position to-day? The Government attorney, if he likes, can retain an attorney in every little town and village of the Union. Is it that the hon. member does not trust his own party? The Minister has given us the assurance.

Do not descend to the level of Zoutspansberg.

It is easy to say that the present Minister will not do it, but it is thrown out that an unscrupulous Minister may do it. We have had a very good department established by the Act of Union on exactly the same basis as is proposed to be attempted by the Minister of Justice to-day. We pay a salary, and the men are appointed by the Minister of Justice. There is no objection to a Government attorney being appointed, and receiving his fees. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, it is a system which prevails throughout the British Empire, and it also works well in Great Britain. Actually the late Government did want a system similar to this and in principle agreed to it, but now that it is brought forward by the Minister of Justice, we must have the idea thrown out that it is to make room for a large number of friends of some future Minister of Justice.

No danger at all?

Not a scrap! Not from that side because you will never get in again, and certainly not from this side.

I only want to refer to it in passing, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) gave a very unfortunate illustration when he said that Mr. Pienaar’s appointment showed that my remarks yesterday afternoon were wrong. Mr. Pienaar was appointed before Union, and it is a very unfortunate illustration to give as showing that the present Government appointed a man who supported the Pact. As to the first point, that attorneys should be allowed to practise in those provinces to which they are admitted, I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) is right in saying that this is not specifically provided for in this Bill as notaries and conveyancers are provided for under section 5, but that I think can be remedied by inserting the word “attorney” in section 5. Practically the whole of this debate has proceeded on a misconception which underlies the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and other members—that there is no Government attorney functioning in South Africa. He raised the point that it is wrong that an attorney should be employed by a lay employer; I presume for legal work. The Government attorney has been functioning for more than ten years, and doing full legal work for the Government, but he has not been allowed to take fees. He has signed process and done the professional work. The whole argument falls away therefore that it is wrong to employ an attorney to do legal work for a salary. Surely it follows that the mere recovery of fees cannot make that employment wrong? It must be equally wrong to employ him and employ him for a salary. The objection should have been taken when the late Government appointed a Government attorney in South Africa, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz) was quite right in saying that he could have no objection to a Government attorney charging fees. The moment that is admitted the objections fall away entirely. In principle, there is no reason why three Government attorneys should not recover fees if one is allowed to do so; I say in principle, although there are practical differences. If he can charge fees in the ordinary way and pay these into the coffers of the Treasury, why cannot he get an allowance in the same way that an ordinary attorney does? The whole contention of hon. members on the other side falls, and the whole fort has been surrendered by the admission of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz), a right admission, because there was no substance in the objections made. The crucial point in the matter is the question of fees. We have our law advisers, who are advocates, also the attorneys-general, and the professional assistants to the attorneys-general. They are all officials who obtain salaries, and in respect of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, in accordance with old practice, he is allowed to have certain private practice in respect of civil work for the provincial administration for fees. My view is that it is better that where you have an official of that nature he should confine himself to the functions of his office. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government attorney is not entitled to carry on private practice, and that is provided for by making him a civil servant.

He said the terms of remuneration might include private practice.

It would strain the construction to be placed on these words, and the idea has never been to have him carry on private work. The point raised that he would not be under the jurisdiction of the Law Society and the courts is one I cannot follow, because the moment the position is taken up that the incumbent must be an attorney he remains subject to the court which has admitted him and of which he is an officer. As has been pointed out by an hon. member, if a member of the Bar becomes an official he remains subject to the jurisdiction of the court; this is so even if no special language is used in the Act, provided the incumbents are attorneys and advocates. I could quite understand the point if the incumbent of that position were not a professional man. As to the point raised if the Government attorney is struck off the roll, he could no longer perform his functions. In case of misconduct he would in addition be subject to the proceedings for misconduct under the Public Service Act.

Has the Minister power to dismiss any of these Government attorneys?

No. The moment they are appointed they become members of the public service and fall under the public service laws, and they can only be dismissed under the laws dealing with dismissal in the public service. That brings me to the point that Government attorneys are not appointed in the ordinary way; under paragraph two; and I gave reasons for this. There are various cases in which the Public Service Commission does not function—Railways, Defence, Police Prisons, the Land Bank, the Enemy Custodian Office, and so forth. In some of these cases the person appointed need not be a member of the public service.

Are any of them?

They are members of the public service. There is the Custodian of Enemy Property.

He is seconded from the public service.

Then the Land Bank is in the same position.

They are not permanent officials.

Many are. They receive pensions on retirement.

Yes, but they are not paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I would be prepared to pass through this provision through the House even if there were no precedent for it, for this reason, that I am always very much afraid of a department being swollen beyond proper dimensions, and my own opinion is that the Public Service Commission does not always serve as a useful factor in that direction, or at any rate it does not serve as a sufficiently useful factor in that direction. I do not believe that any member of the Commission is in the same position to judge as a member of the legal profession in regard to work of this kind. The only reason why I have inserted that provision in the Act is, for the purpose of controlling that office and carrying it on with the smallest possible dimensions. I do not wish that office to swell, and you will see by the estimates that for this year we are going to carry on with this skeleton staff. I am asked what will happen when you have work coming in of such a nature that you cannot cope with it with the staff that you have. As far as the head office is concerned you can always fall back upon some part of the department of justice which is not fully occupied. In times of stress and emergency when you have a considerable amount of work to do that work can be distributed in such a way that you can get the best results from the larger staffs, which are not always fully occupied. If you are going to make these ordinary Civil Service appointments you are going to have the result which has always flowed from that practice in the past. Now that we have taken on the railway work, we shall have to have a branch office here in Cape Town. It is also possible that you will in time be forced to have a branch in Natal and a branch in the Free State. No more, as I certainly would object to have the country studded with Government attorneys. I am sure that if things are run upon the basis that I have laid down or upon a slightly larger basis at the end of the financial year you will find that my expectations have been realised. At all events, whether they are realised or not, the position is that here we have a Government attorney functioning, who has been functioning for a long time. I would not anticipate that success if you are going to allow your Public Service Commission to recommend clerks to these posts in the same way as they are recommended in the service to-day. I am not referring to quality; I am referring to quantity.

Section 9 (b) gives the Minister the right to decide what is the number of persons who shall be appointed. You have just said that that should be left in the hands of the Public Service Commission.

No, I said that it should not be left in the hands of the Public Service Commission, because then they are going to appoint on the same basis as they appoint throughout the whole service, and we know that that is an extravagant basis as far as the Government service is concerned.

Hadn’t you better abolish them altogether?

If you ask me for my personal opinion, I would say “yes.” But of course, that is another question. I am convinced that no Minister of Justice is going to appoint anything like the staff that would be appointed by a body which is accustomed to the “Government Civil Service stroke.” This is a matter of detail and it could be hammered out in the House. On the question of principle, I do not think there is any difference between the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and myself. We differ on questions of detail. But the principle of having a Government attorney is conceded and the principle of recovering his costs by way of fees and paying them into the office is also conceded by him. The hon. members from whom I differ are the hon. members for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). The principle of appointment has already been accepted in the service. I am not introducing that principle. I am carrying it on and engrafting upon it the principle of allowing the State to recover money in connection with that office. That is the only thing that I am engrafting upon it. I may say that I do not propose to send this Bill to Select Committee, for this reason that I think there are sufficient members in this House who are qualified to judge not only as to the principle of the Bill but also as to the details of the Bill. I do not think a Select Committee would assist us in any way whatever. In addition, we are going to send so many Bills to Select Committee that I am certain the House is going to be very fully occupied in that respect. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

The motion was put and the House divided:

Ayes—68.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—45.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Shall I be in order now in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee?

The hon. member will be in order to move that.

One reason for my motion is connected with the hon. Minister’s principal argument that there would be a saving of expense. I believe nobody but a Select Committee can properly go into the question of the saving of expense after having heard the evidence on the matter. There may be very different opinions indeed on this subject, and a Select Committee will be best able to get the facts. Another reason for my motion is that there may be evidence as to the desirability of the principle introduced into this Bill of the appointment of members of a public department without the co-operation of the Public Services Commission. The Minister of Justice made a very grave, serious and dangerous statement to the effect that the Public Services Commission ought to be ignored in this case because they would not be able to organize a department of this kind as economically as would a businessman: and that the commission might as well be dispensed with altogether. That is striking at the roots of an important principle of the Act of Union. To make the statement the Minister did is to make a most serious charge against the Public Service Commission of this country. I ask the Minister to allow us to have an opportunity of going quietly into these questions in Select Committee. The Prime Minister was not in the House when that argument about the Public Services Commission was advanced, nor when the question by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz) was put. The hon. Minister for Justice gave us the impression that for all practical purposes the Public Services Commission might be abolished. I maintain that that is striking at the very root of the Act of Union. If we are to do this let us realize what we are doing.

I think the proper method will be for the Minister to move the Committee stage and then the hon. member can bring forward his amendment afterwards.

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I must say I am very surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I simply gave my personal opinion that where you have people who have been for years and years in the public service they would not form a department of this kind in the same way as would men who have been in business.

You were attacking the Public Services Commission.

I did not attack anybody. I said your Public Services Commission deals with matters of this kind in a different way from the ordinary business man, and I said the ordinary business man would deal with this matter best. The hon. member then asked if there was any reason for the Public Services Commission existing. I said as far as I was concerned I would like to see it abolished.

The Public Services Commission?

Yes. I simply gave my own personal view, and I repeat it. I will say more. I will say this, that in my personal opinion the large majority of the people of this country do believe that the Civil Service has been too highly staffed by the Public Services Commission, and would like to see that changed. Two members of that commission are public servants seconded to that body, and the third is a public servant who has retired on the ground of superannuation.

I would like to point out that it is not the Public Services Commission which forces officials into the public services. On the contrary it is exactly the opposite. The Commission is a check. I do not see how the Minister will be able to control the number of officials in that department better than if he allowed the Public Services Commission to act. The head of that department will have to give notice to the Public Services Commission that more staff is wanted. The Public Services Commission only comes into the matter when the Minister has requisitioned for more staff. It is only when appointments have been recommended that the Commission steps in and decides who shall be appointed. How can they force officials on to the department? This is absurd. It is not done. I thought that was the weakest part of the Minister’s argument. If the Minister cannot keep control through the Public Services Commission he cannot keep control at all. I think he is most unjust. If the public service is overstaffed it is not the fault of the Commission. It is the fault of Ministers and heads of departments. The plan of the Minister will not work. He can just be as economical in the staff of that department under the Commission as in the way he proposes.

I desire to support this amendment to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. My one reason is that the Minister of Justice has set forth a doctrine which practically nullifies the importance of our Public Services Commission. Our Public Service Commission was created by the Act of Union. It was created as a safeguard to the service and to the public of this country. It was created with the object of removing any political influence which might be exercised in appointments or promotions. If there was one healthy provision in our Act of Union it was that there should be a Public Service Commission. I say that that was the greatest safeguard, but especially that the public service of this country might look to as their safeguard in the management of this department of the service. The Minister wishes to lay down for the first time that he shall have the right to appoint public servants without consulting the public service. I ask this hon. House is that a fair proposition? It is a serious matter. I ask hon. members, irrespective of party: Are you prepared to give the Minister that power in any Government? If so, then I look in despair to the future of our country, and I ask hon. members to consider it seriously before agreeing to this new principle, and for that reason, I think the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is amply justified in asking that this matter be fully enquired into before we take this step without consulting the heads of departments and hearing expressions of opinions from them on this subject. I hope hon. members of this House will safeguard the public service and safeguard the interests of our country and accept the amendment drawn up by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

I hope the House will refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Here we have the Minister of Justice telling us that in this Bill he is taking all these very wide powers because he disapproves of the Public Service Commission. He says it is only his own private opinion. I know of instances where the Minister of Justice turned up at congresses at Bethlehem and other places and apparently appeared in the dual role of Doctor Hyde and Mr. Jekyll. At one time he appears as Mr. Roos; at another time as Minister of Justice and at another time as leader of the Transvaal party. These political acrobatics may be all right at the party congresses, but I think it is due to the dignity of this House that when he makes a statement such as this he should not try to escape from his responsibility as a Minister by saying that it is only his private opinion. As the Minister has to deal with the Act his private opinion may prevail. I hope this amendment will be passed. We have experienced the vagaries of Ministers to such an extent recently that I think we ought to know where we stand regarding this important matter of the Public Service Commission.

I want to ask the hon. Minister why is he taking the appointment of State attorneys from the purview of the Public Service Commission. This raises so serious a question that we are justified in taking up the matter at once. The Minister of Justice has told us, in a moment of caution, that we must not take his private opinion as the opinion of the Government, but I think we are entitled to ask the Government for their views on this most important question. The slogan of the Pact was laid down by a very important member of the Pact as “Jobs for pals.” If there is one thing in South Africa that stands between the doctrine of “Jobs for pals” and its fulfilment it is the Public Service Commission, whose functions are to act as a non-political body and to prevent the Government of the day from granting jobs to their friends. The whole of the civil service wants to know where they stand in regard to this doctrine of jobs for pals. The hon. Minister of Justice says that the three appointments he has already made are not of pals. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Barlow) is a whole hogger, and he wants the appointments to go to pals. We now know that when the Government has an important member of its party coming forward and laying down this doctrine that in future all the jobs must go to pals, and if we find all the jobs going to pals we are justified in asking where the civil servants stand.

Before the question is put I think the hon. Minister of Justice might be prepared to reconsider his decision, especially as he has the Minister of Labour sitting beside him. If the Minister of Labour were to look upon his attitude in the past he would be the last to support a position of this sort. The hon. Minister of Justice in his action in connection with this Bill, and in his many speeches throughout the country, has done his best indirectly to terrorize the Civil Service Commission into giving support to every appointment made by the Government. It was to prevent that sort of thing that the Public Service Commission was appointed, and if the Minister desired to depart from the voice of the Public Service Commission he would have to justify himself before this hon. House. If the hon. Minister of Justice will consult his department he will find that in all cases of appointments, except heads of departments, the Public Service Commission has to report on these appointments, and these reports are laid on the Table of this House and the public has an opportunity of judging them. The hon. Minister of Justice said that the men appointed would be members of the public service of the country. They are not temporary appointments. If they are to become members of the public service of the country surely there is nothing more important than that a Select Committee should inquire into as to whether it is just and proper that such a material alteration should take place in the service of this country. I doubt if the proposal made meets with the approval of the majority of the Cabinet. I see the hon. Prime Minister has thought fit to leave the House. I am sorry, because this is a question upon which I think we are entitled to have the opinion of the Prime Minister. I wish the hon. Minister of Justice would read Oliver Twist. He seems to me to fill the post of the artful dodger. He is trying to dodge the House and to dodge the Public Service Commission. If there is anything that this House should inquire into it is a proposal of this character. I am not a lawyer, but I think that common sense will show that his proposal to make appointments without submitting them to the Public Service Commission is entirely illegal and that if it were tried before the courts it would be found to be illegal. The Minister holds a responsible position, and I hope he will reconsider his decision. If a position comes into this country whereby Government after Government got rid of officials and put other people into responsible positions in the service without having any check upon them whatever, then I think it would be a most unfortunate step to take.

Who is the organising secretary of the South African party in the Free State to-day? Col. Jordaan, formerly of the sheep division. Our friends of the other side need not talk about the spoils system—my trouble with the present Government is that there is not enough of it.

Have you got anything out of the job?

All the men the Minister has put in are members of the South African party and it is only a feeble attack. You are behind the country; the country has gone far ahead and left you on the other side of the House behind. I hope the Minister will stick to his guns and go on with the work.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I feel that after some of the remarks made by the Minister, on information he must have received from his department, he must have been misled on other as on these points. I have had the assurance from the previous Minister of Justice that he accepts no responsibility of this Bill as introduced by the present Minister of Justice. He denies that it is his draft, and says that he does not recognize this Bill, and even if it were drafted by his department, as it possibly may have been, he did not accept it nor did he lay it before the Cabinet. There the present Minister of Justice acted on wrong information. I have also been assured that the member appointed at Johannesburg is not as the Minister said a member of the South African party, but a member of the Labour party. If the Minister has been misinformed on these two important points he may have been misinformed on other points as well.

You are wrong on the last point.

I have the assurance. Does the Minister deny it? I think, under the circumstances, we ought to press that this Bill goes to a Select Committee where it will be possible fully to enquire into it.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—72.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Key ter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—45.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuizie, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

I move—

I have only ten minutes in which to say something about the proposed amendment of the Housing Act; but bearing in mind that it is a very small Bill, and, as I hope, altogether non-controversial, I hope that in the ten minutes I shall not only be able to make a short introductory speech; but I hope also that the second reading of this Bill will to-day be adopted within those ten minutes. The Bill aims at an amendment of the Housing Act of 1920 by the amendment of the definition of dwelling so as to give it a wider application and a wider use in the Housing Act. This is necessitated because the question has arisen whether hostels, as described in the Bill, are not included as “houses” in the meaning of the Housing Act. This question has been referred to legal advisers and they say no, this cannot be done unless the Housing Act is amended. Now everyone knows that one of the saddest things to see in our country to-day is the streaming of people from the country to the great towns; and that many of our people who come from the country and try to make a living in the towns endeavour to secure an income not only in shops and offices, but also in factories; and many of the persons to whom I refer are young people, young men and young girls. The commencing wages which they receive are in most cases very small—so small that it is impossible for them to obtain proper housing accommodation. They are obliged, out of their wages, to provide other necessities of life; and therefore try to save on accommodation. The danger is therefore great in all centres of industry; and let me just cite the case of young girls who, earning 15s. per week, can barely provide for housing accommodation alone. They go, then, to little rooms in the slums of the great towns amongst surroundings altogether undesirable and demoralizing; and which are often the root occasion of their going wrong. It has become a necessity to care for such persons by means of hostels, which are houses held under good supervision. In some of our industrial centres a good beginning has already been made with the work. There is for example in Port Elizabeth a proper institution where young girls, besides being under good supervision, have a room to themselves and yet at a small expense. They pay for everything not more than 10s. per week; so that there still remains 5s. over for other expenses. But there is the danger that it may come to an end. They have been given notice to quit. The Port Elizabeth Town Council has been good enough to allot them a site on which they can put up a building, but the trouble is to get the money for capital expenditure. The body which under the circumstances is best able to help is the Government by virtue of the Housing Act, but the law as it to-day stands makes it impossible to help such hostels. If we adopt this small amendment the trouble is surmounted. This has become a great necessity and will be able in an important degree to contribute to the solution of our poor white problem; and it is therefore with great pleasure that I move the second reading of the Bill.

I would like the hon. Minister to tell me whether the definitions in this Bill would cover a girls’ club. For example, in Port Elizabeth there is a club run by girls for girls. The intention at present is purely to run it as a recreation club. There is a reading room, and so on, but they are trying to raise funds in order to build living rooms, too. This club serves a useful purpose for these girls; it is run on the lines of a Y.W.C.A., and I would like to know whether this club would be covered by a definition of that sort.

Yes, I think that would be covered: if the administration is satisfied that it is under proper supervision.

I was just afraid that the definition was not quite wide enough. It says “hostel or other institution.” Is the hon. Minister satisfied that that would cover it?

Yes.

I want to ask if it would cover the Louis Botha Hostel.

I think when we come to deal with this matter in Committee, it would make the working of this amendment very much more simple, if the two qualifications at the end of this clause were excluded. In the principal Act there is no necessity for proving that the dwelling house shall be conveniently situated as regards employment or that the people themselves have to prove that suitable accommodation is not procurable within their means. I think it would make the clause very much more workable and useful, and very much clearer, if the hon. Minister were to make the definition wider in that respect. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered when the Committee stage is reached.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. dagger) about the Louis Botha Hostel whether this clause is intended to exempt that kind of institution.

Yes, I should like to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member. I have very great sympathy with the Louis Botha Hostel, and I wish that under this amending Bill we could do something to assist that little institution, but I am very much afraid it cannot be done, simply because the Housing Act, taken as a whole, and this amendment, applies only to new buildings and not to existing institutions.

communicated the following message from the Senate:

The Senate begs to inform the Honourable the House of Assembly that it agrees to the request contained in the message from the Honourable the House of Assembly, dated the 17th February, 1925, and has appointed a committee of three members to join with a committee consisting of an equal number of members appointed by the Honourable the House of Assembly as a joint committee on the substitution of Afrikaans, for the present form of Dutch in Bills, Acts and all Official Documents before Parliament.