A fortnight ago I had the honour of suggesting to this House the very great importance of nursery schools, and further, a method of using them in such a way as to lessen our national difficulties as to the two languages, and possibly even end them. Now, considerable publicity was given to this by the Press. One would certainly have been more able to consider it if a powerful microscope had been provided at the same time. I have here the report of the “Cape Times.” There was no unpatriotic waste of paper. The area involved is three-eighths of a square inch. The report occupies 1½ inches by ¼ inch. Now, I do not personally protest against that small area—brevity is supposed to be the soul of wit; but I have a fear that it may represent the great newspaper’s view of the importance of this question, which is a vastly greater one perhaps than the average editor of an average newspaper is disposed to consider it. Actually the words of this pronouncement are as follows—there are four and a half lines, two of which are occupied by my name and my address, and the rest is this:

Well, that was not my point at all. The point I made and want to repeat for the benefit of the newspapers of this country is this, that the “three forgotten years” of a child’s life, between the ages of 3 and 6, are the key to this question of improving our national education, and particularly the clearing away of this difficulty of imparting instruction through the two official languages. Education has been defined in a number of ways. The bitterest one I ever heard was that put forward by a cynical and presumably tired public-school master. He summarised it as the casting of imitation pearls before real swine. Now, fortunately, the Minister of Education has come to my relief, and with my little Latin and his much Greek I am able to suggest a much better definition than that. I would assert that education is mainly a nutritional matter, a matter of providing food for the mind and soul, a process of spiritual, intellectual, aesthetic, and physical nourishment. This in entire sincerity is my view. If it is accepted that education is a process of nutrition, a supplying of nourishment, this points obviously to early infancy as the time to start, and before I plead, for a couple of minutes only, for nursery schools, I want to point out that the duty of all schools is to provide the working tools which a child should use during the remainder of his life; and these tools are the ability to speak and to write and to read and think. I maintain that nursery schools have a very great bearing on this tough problem of ours, the attainment of equal and effortless facility in two media, without any sacrifice of general educational progress. Other people want to speak, and the time is limited. I therefore only wish to say that nursery schools have already been established to a very great extent in Europe, and especially in England, and I am going to quote Dr. F. A. Spencer, who was formerly Divisional Inspector of the English Board of Education, and later Chief Inspector of Education for the London County Council. These schools are in existence to a vast extent already in Europe and we undoubtedly are behind the times. Now, Dr. Spencer says this about children from 3 to 7 years of age—

You may ask, as in the capacity of inspector, in my primeval ignorance of years ago, I asked: “This is all very pretty; but can they read or write or reckon?” Then, if you happen to be among the six-year-olds, the headmistress, not without a touch of contemptuous pity, will seize a book, any book you like, from yonder pile, seize also a yellow or brown-haired urchin, give her (or him) the book, and say: “Please read for the visitor,” and you will be read to all right. For they do learn. They dare not be sent up to the junior school unless at least they can read, and write, and in a simple fashion reckon. But they have learned in joy and not, as of old, in sorrow.

I say so also can our two languages be learnt at that particular stage in the development of the child.

They will sing their little songs, play their percussion instruments, recite nice bits of verse; they will know many stories, including Bible stories; they will, at this stage, speak plainly, sounding their final consonants. They will eat their little lunch, and most of them have their glass of milk, and for the proper upbringing of their bodies will do their graceful physical rhythmical movements (not jerks) and play their games; they will be gentle or boisterous, but well-mannered; and when you leave they will wave you an artless but artistic farewell.

Such are the generalised possibilities of the nursery or play school. They have an extra and specialised usefulness in South Africa— the power to make our children, when they come to the age for formal instruction, equally at ease with both official languages. Two weeks back I suggested that the children should be taken in hand at that particular age when they are beginning to become a nuisance in the nursery, or anywhere else— especially in these days of small families— because it is difficult to know what is the wisest thing to do with one child in an average house. It is not a perfect solution to hand the infant over to the untrained native servant. These very young children would be much happier playing with toys and tools in a nursery school community, hearing and using Afrikaans and English every hour of the day. A great deal Can be done in a specialised way here and now in South Africa by nursery schools which familiarise every child equally and always with our two languages. I may be told that this will cost a great deal of money. It will cost a bit, but We should need one training college only, and for preference I would have it at Bloemfontein, where all the teachers who wish to be prepared for these play schools could go. Incidentally, much good would be done by mixing up all these teachers in this one college. It would not need such an enormous number of specialised teachers as one might imagine, because for every one such specialist who knows the psychological problems and the physical problems of these tiny children, you can have, I suggest, two or even three far less qualified people—you might call them “helpers.” All they need have is a knowledge of both languages, a good physique, a happy heart and a liking for children. I have two or three schools in my own constituency where a similar experiment is being tried, and I would suggest this to the Minister, that if he would be willing to pay for these additional helpers, who are not highly qualified teachers, and who would not expect an unduly big wage, he would do a very good thing. Of course, the real mission of these young helpers is to marry and have their own homes and families. An extensive and expensive method of preparation is, therefore, in their case beside the point. If we could take even one nursery school, a play school, where both languages are taught in the way I have advocated, and where this experiment was carefully and patiently made, I believe it would be found efficacious, and the plan in every way an advantage to this country, and we could go ahead very effectively. It would in the end cost a good deal, but there would be ample return for the money. It is not just a case of the training or of the attitude of the children to the future; I say the children are the future. I say you can remove in this way any disability, any uneasiness from the child, with regard both to English and Afrikaans. If the system is followed, at the age of six, children will be equally at ease in both languages, they will have no difficulty in being instructed in either language, and they will be able to follow each other’s speech and thoughts.

I do not know whether all members of this House appreciate the real implications of the amendment proposed by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister—and particularly those members who always like to be regarded as the protectors of the Provincial System. The Prime Minister’s amendment asks the Government to consider the amendment of the education acts and regulations and the educational machinery of the provinces, wherever this may be, necessary so that within a period of five years the following principles may be put into effect …. The Government has the responsibility imposed on it of considering the amendment of the education acts and regulations in the provinces, and all it has to do, so far as the provincial administrations are concerned is, to consult these bodies. I don’t want to say any more on this point, except just this: That I think this should be read in the light of the statement which the Minister of Education made not so long ago, and that statement amounts to this, that the days of the provincial system are numbered. This present debate has been described by the Prime Minister as one of the most important crises the country has ever passed through. He also said that it was not just a school question, but it was a great national question. I want to improve upon that and say that by this debate, by the motion proposed on this subject, and especially the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, a new chapter is opened in the history of South Africa. A ball has been set rolling. If this question is carefully adjudged it must be realised that if the Prime Minister gets his way the effect will be that a ball will be started rolling which will keep on rolling, and we won’t know where it is going to end. Like a rock which crashes down a mountainside, it will not only leave destruction in its trail, but it will eventually smash itself to atoms. The history of South Africa is linked up and connected with the language struggle. We have had repeated language fights, violent fights and struggles about language in South Africa. To a large extent the history of South Africa and the language struggle are identical. We have already had two fights about language in South Africa. The first language fight was fought to obtain equality of recognition and equality of treatment for what are now the two official languages of the Union. That struggle has gone on for more than eighty years. It started in the days of Lord Charles Somerset, who today is merely known as a mouthpiece particularly so far as racial relations in South Africa are concerned. That language struggle ended in 1910 when Union was established, and when the Act of Union was passed. But it did not end until the language struggle had put its stamp on South Africa’s history and on the relations between the races; not before our history had been given a definite course, and it had caused one of the greatest and most remarkable national migrations history had ever known, viz. the Great Trek; not before it had led to the creation of new States in South Africa, and it did not end until it had caused destruction and bloodshed in South Africa, and it disturbed the relations between the races in South Africa for many generations to come. The second language fight started after the other one had ended— it started in 1910 when equality of language rights was recognised. That fight was not for the paper recognition of equality of the official languages, but for the practical recognition of that equality, for the practical carrying out of that principle. Year after year the fight had to be carried on to get that principle put into effect in the Public Service, in the courts and in the schools. The fight, as all hon. members know, is still going on today, and we have proof of it year after year, almost from the beginning of every Session until the end of every Session of Parliament. If we talk over the telephone, which is a public institution, a Government institution, we often have telephone officials who cannot, reply in the language they are addressed and we often have to speak in the language an official wants us to use and often we meet with insults That is still happening today; I can testify to that myself. A few days ago we had the evidence produced to us in this House that the fight was still on—a Bill was under discussion here, and a request was made to the Government, to apply the principle of equality of languages, to apply bilingualism—which is what it meant; but we found that a large proportion of the members of this House were opposed to carrying out that principle. The fight which was commenced when the first fight ended is still on today. But if the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister is accepted and he follows the course he has outlined, it will mean that we are faced with a third language battle, and it is starting today. Speaking for myself, I am very sorry that the name and the, personality of the Prime Minister are to be connected with this third language tussle. He will not see the end of this struggle which is now starting. Lord Charles Somerset did not see the end of the first language struggle which he caused to flare up, Lord Charles Somerset, however, could be forgiven. He did not write ,,’n Eeu van Onreg”; he only started “The Century of Wrong.” The Prime Minister has witnessed this whole “Century of Wrong,” so much so that he could write about it. That being so his attitude is all the less pardonable because he must know the implications of the whole position. He has released forces just as the first and second language fights did, and he should know the power of those forces he has released. He should know what will happen if he offends the nation’s sentiments. If he offends the nation’s soul; if he offends the nation’s very being. He should know what it means if, where the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is concerned, he antagonises the church, the teachers, the cultural organisations; and the Prime Minister knows today that in the fighting he is now starting, those forces will eventually gain the upper hand, and those forces stand foursquare against him. But more than that. The language fight which started in 1910 after the. first tussle had ceased, year after year found its echo in this House and found its echo on the platforms throughout the country. Why? We not only wanted equality of language on paper, we wanted it in practice. Carry out this scheme of the Prime Minister’s and you will in carrying it out, in applying the equality of the two languages, so far as the two sections of the population are concerned, get evasions on an even bigger scale than before. If that was so under Clause 137, what will the position be now? If there were evasions before when it was simply a question of knowing whether equality of language was applied or not, and when it was a simple matter to stop evasions, it will be a hundred times more difficult, if this proposal is accepted, to prevent inequalities or to prevent evasions, and you will in this House and in the country year after year, and perhaps generation after generation, set going a continuous fight for real equality in its application in practice, in regard to the one language as well as the other. I want to say at once that our Party on this side of the House looks upon the Prime Minister’s amendment as a challenge, and we are prepared to accept that challenge. We accept it as members of Afrikanerdom in general, and we accept the challenge on behalf of our Party. We shall not allow ourselves to be put off by the usual charge that we are trying to make political capital out of it, and that we should keep education outside politics. The cause of education as well as the subject which we are dealing with now are more than politics. That we concede. There are others outside the political arena who are vitally interested in it. It is a question beyond and above politics, but at the same time it is in actual fact and in the fullest sense of the word a political question. It was a political question when the Treaty of Vereeniging was framed, it is a subject which is dealt with in the Act of Union, and it is political. It is, a matter which has been dealt with in various language ordinances passed by the various provincial councils. It is political. And if there is any doubt left whether in this case it is a question of politics, I can only say that the Prime Minister and his Party have seen to it that it has become a question of politics and of party politics. We are going to do our duty in regard to this matter and we shall do it on our own pitch as a political party. What the Church, the teachers and the cultural societies are going to do about this matter is their business; we shall not interfere with them. I can only say that the forces outside are already being mobilised, and I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that this is only the start. But. so far as we, as a political party, are concerned, this is a political question, whatever else it may be, and we accept the Prime Minister’s challenge. Call it politics if you like, call it racialism if you like. If it is racialism which will be stirred up over this question—I say let it come. There are questions more important than the relations of the races, and if this is to mean racialism, the fault is not ours, but the fault lies on the other side, and I say that a racial strife under those circumstances will be fully justified. I just want to say this to the Prime Minister. He comes to this House and tells us that he has a mandate from the public to follow this course; he speaks of the two general elections, one for Parliament and one for the Provincial Councils; these elections were held not so long ago. I want to warn the Prime Minister not to delude himself in this respect. The Prime Minister knows very well—better than anyone else—that in not just one of these elections but in both, he made it clear to the electors and to the country that the war question was the predominant one, and he said that he wanted the electors to give their verdict on that issue. So far as the Parliamentary elections are concerned this question of education was referred to only casually. In the Provincial elections, the question came more prominently to the fore; that is so, but what happened? At the start speakers opposite, and the Prime Minister and their party organs, emphasised this issue, but. as election day came nearer, we heard less about this question. They saw that their kite was not going to fly, and that they were going to get the worst of it, so they suddenly turned round and during the later stages of the election fight they made it clear that the great issue after all was the war, and that if the Government was beaten in the Provincial elections it would be disastrous to the war effort. And that is how the elections were run. To come and tell us now that the Prime Minister was given a mandate at these elections to introduce the dual medium schools, as he puts it, is nothing but giving the public the false impression that they voted for something which they did not vote for. And it is an underhand way of depriving the people of their rights. These are the tactics of the political assassin. I want to remind the Prime Minister that we had a by-election recently. The war issue was still in evidence, but it was not so prominent, and the Prime Minister specially sent a message and said that he expected a verdict from Zoutpansberg about the language question. He got it. I therefore want to repeat that the Prime Minister should not. delude himself about the mandate he got from the people, and that he should not delude others sitting behind him. Now, let me come more directly to the merits of the case and I particularly want to deal with the Prime Minister’s speech. This is an issue in which the Prime Minister is the leading figure. He is the leading figure in the drama or perhaps it should more aptly be described as a tragedy. I must assume that that being so he knows better than anyone else what are the grounds and motives which induced him to come forward with this proposal. First of all I must say that the attitude which the Prime Minister takes up on tins matter is based on a whole series of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Let me mention a few of them. I have studied Hansard carefully and the Prime Minister indicates very clearly that he wants to create a condition of affairs in this country under which everyone as far as possible will have not one mother tongue but two mother tongues. He is afraid that the one language will be a foreign language to us, especially in consequence of the single medium schools. All I want to say on that is that one may be bilingual, and the great mass of the people may be bilingual—and that is what we are all striving for—but the individual who is bilingual to such an extent that both languages to all intents and purposes are his mother tongues is an exception—and a very great exception.

Not two mother tongues, I did not say that.

Well, that is practically what the Prime Minister told us. I want to give an instance. We have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance sitting next to each other on the other side of the House—both brilliant students. Both know the two languages well. I think they excel in that they are bilingual. But the Prime Minister will pardon me if I say that notwithstanding the medium of instruction which he had at school, both in the primary and the high school, and notwithstanding the supplementary education which he had in England, he definitely cannot get away from the mother tongue in which he grew up. He cannot get rid of his platteland accent. It is perfectly clear that just as all of us have two hands, and only one right hand, so he, in regard to language, has two hands but only one right hand. The Minister of Finance sits next to him, just as brilliant a student, who has had just as many advantages as the Prime Minister has had. He also knows both languages, and he knows them both well. We have often listened to him in this House and outside, when he turns from one language to the other; yet when he has been speaking Afrikaans and he turns to English, one always feels : “Here is a fish which has been out of the water and it has now been cast back into the water.” No matter how many languages one knows, be it two, three or ten, one always has only one language which is really one’s own—one’s mother tongue. There is another inaccuracy and another misrepresentation which the Prime Minister takes his stand on, and that is that we, as he alleges, have departed to a degree from the system which we used to have, viz. the system of dual medium throughout South Africa. The Prime Minister wants to create this background as a preparation for his amendment —he wants to intimate that we have really departed from a more ideal position to a less satisfactory position, and that we must now go back to the ideal position. Let me remind the Prime Minister that that is an absolutely wrong presentation of the actual facts. He and I have attended the same school in South Africa, both the primary school and the high school. We had practically the same teachers in the primary school and also in the high school, and all I can say is this: That I think if the Prime Minister now wants to tell us that we were taught through the dual medium in dual medium schools, his memory must be at fault, and his friends must be feeling uneasy about his memory. Now, we know perfectly well that there was only one subject in the schools which one could take through the Hollands language in one’s examination, and that was Hollands itself, and in all the other subjects one had to give one’s replies in English when there was an inspection, and one had to reply in English when an examination was held, and that was the reason why that was the language which was used in the teaching of those subjects—it was exclusively English. A third misrepresentation on which the Prime Minister defends his amendment is that he wants the House to believe that the children in this country— English and Afrikaans-speaking—do not come together in the same schools. For that reason, because such an unsatisfactory position prevails in this country, we must now bring about new conditions, and we must bring the children together on the same school benches. What I want to ask him is this: does he not know—to refer to the Cape Province alone—that in 95.9 per cent. of all the schools for Europeans the children are together. They sit together on the school benches in the same school. So far as the high schools are concerned, the position there is that no fewer than 81.3 per cent. of the children sit together on the school benches. To the extent the parents request it to be done, they are taught through the mother tongue medium, and to the extent that the law requires it, but those are parallel medium and dual medium schools, and if the position which the Prime Minister talks about is so unsatisfactory and so rotten, one should blame the system under which the children sit together on the same school benches. I want to do what the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has already done. I invite hon. members to have a look at the Afrikaans medium schools and to satisfy themselves about the pupil’s knowledge of the other language. I want to invite hon. members to visit the Afrikaans medium schools. We have the Jan van Riebeeck school for instance in Cape Town which is one of the principal schools here. I am not referring to Afrikaans now but to English, and we have the remarkable fact that in regard to knowledge of English the Jan van Riebeeck school in free and open competition between all the schools in the Cape Peninsula has knocked out the English medium schools. I understand that the same position applies to the Oranje School in Bloemfontein. These are the facts. When we observe these facts, we would almost go so far as to advise hon. members who are English-speaking, and who have their children in English medium schools, to send them to Afrikaans medium schools, to learn English there. But now I come to what really is the gravest misrepresentation in the Prime Minister’s speech. It is his statement about the history and the origin of the Afrikaans medium schools. As the Prime Minister puts the position, the start and the growth of the Afrikaans medium schools was a departure from the original intention, and the original decision of Parliament. He told us that in 1911 a Select Committee of this House was appointed. That is so. That Select Committee of 1911 went into that issue. It was not a political question— there was no attempt to drag education into politics. It is political. But in those days the position was that there were four provinces which had only just become one and each of them had its own education system. In some respects they differed very much from each other. There was an outcry from both sides, that Clause 137 of the Act of Union should also be applied to education and a motion was introduced in this House by the then member for East London, an English-speaking member, Col. Crewe, one of the leaders of the Unionists. He objected to the Education Act in force in the Free State at the time, under which there was not only equal treatment for both languages, but, as he expressed it, under which so far as the learning of both languages was concerned, equal compulsion also applied. That was what he objected to and he therefore moved a resolution which led to the appointment of a Select Committee. That Select Committee enquired into the matter for months and eventually produced a report. It was a unanimous report. And that led to a unanimous resolution in this House. There was a minority report, that of Gen. Beyers. But after the matter was discussed Gen. Beyers withdrew his objection to the Report. Consequently, the final resolution was an entirely unanimous one, and it was supported by all parties. It was on that resolution, passed by this House, that the language ordinances were framed, which in the three provinces, viz., the Cape, Transvaal and the Free State, all contained the same provisions; Natal was the only province which did not have these provisions. Now, that was the decision which was arrived at? The Prime Minister told us what the decision was, but he presented the matter in a totally wrong light. He stated that in starting the Afrikaans medium schools that principle was departed from, and that we must now come back to the original principle. We all agree with the first portion of the resolution passed, and that resolution was this, that up to Standard IV there was to be compulsory mother tongue medium instruction for every child. We are still in agreement on that point. The second decision arrived at was that during that period from the time the child came to school up to and including Standard IV the other language was also to be gradually introduced as a subject, or, if the parents expressly desired it and expressed their wish, then the other language could also be used as a second medium. The third point of the resolution was that above Standard IV the schools were to be so arranged that if required there must be an opportunity for both media to be used for instruction in the school, but I want hon. members to take note of this—here too, above Standard IV the choice of the parents must be the determining factor. The choice of the parents or the mother tongue of the child above Standard IV until the end of the course must be used as medium of instruction; or the other language, if desired, or both, must be used as media. That is what Parliament decided. [Extension of time granted.] I want to say that the Prime Minister completely forgot this last part which I have mentioned, and that he completely lost sight of it and that he therefore gave the House a distorted representation of the position. What was decided by the Select Committee was as follows—

That is the object—

In other words, if the parent wants his child to be taught through the medium of its mother tongue from the time it comes to school until it leaves the school—that is a matter which the parent himself must decide. That is what Parliament decided. It is important to note that the Select Committee which produced that report did so on the motion of Col. Crewe—one of the leaders of the Unionist Party of those days. His motion was seconded by Sir Thomas Smartt, and he also seconded the motion when the matter was discussed in this House. He, too, was a leader of the Unionist Party, and the whole House without exception agreed to that proposal. The language ordinances of the three provinces are based on that. The three Directors of Education appeared before that Select Committee because the Select Committee wanted to take account of the possibility or of the practicability of giving effect to the motion, and the three Directors of Education said that difficulties would arise in giving effect to the resolution because above Standard IV, when provision had to be made, some parents might select that one subject should be taught through one medium, while another again might want another subject to be taught through another medium. The parents could choose just as they pleased, and because those difficulties in regard to carrying out the resolution were expected, we arrived at the logical conclusion of this in the language ordinances, and we said: “That all the children be taught through the medium of their mother tongue up to and including Standard IV as provided by the Law.” “After that it can be left to the choice of the parent, but if there are enough parents at one place who wants their children taught generally through the medium of Afrikaans, then for the sake of convenience and also from the educational point of view, as well as from the point of view of practicability, set up an Afrikaans medium school.” And that is how the Afrikaans medium school came into being, it came into being entirely in conformity with what Parliament had unanimously decided on the proposal of that Select Committee; and now I want to ask this: How can the Prime Minister come and tell us that we had this ideal condition, that Parliament wanted this or that in 1911, and that after that we created the Afrikaans medium schools and departed from the resolution of Parliament. It is not we who by the establishment of Afrikaans medium schools departed from that resolution, but it is the Prime Minister who departed from it. In those days it was a question of an agreement between the parties. I want hon. members to hear what Col. Crewe said in that regard. It is recorded in column 2459 of the 1911 Hansard, when he said this among other things—

That is how they looked upon matters in those days, and that is how the English-speaking people of those days looked at the position. It is a contract which the whole of Parliament and all the parties shared in, and they were all unanimous. We still adhere to that. We have not asked for any change. But the Prime Minister comes here now and wants to put that contract on one side and he wants to break it. He eulogised Natal. Natal is the only province which has not adhered to that contract. Natal refused to accept the very first principle of sound education, namely, that the child must receive its first instruction through its mother tongue, and until this day Natal still refuses to accept that and it still adheres to parental choice.

That is not so.

They still adhere to that. See what the principal organ of the party opposite in Natal—the “Natal Mercury” has to say on this subject. Discussing the debate in this House the “Natal Mercury” remarked that “Natal under no circumstances will surrender the principle of parental choice.” They are not going to submit to the principle of compulsory mother tongue education of the child. It is the parent’s duty to say what the medium of instruction is to be. What they want to do is to have one subject taught through the medium of the other language. It may be geography or any other subject of no importance. They want to destroy the Afrikaans medium schools, as they are doing with the aid of the Prime Minister, and they want to keep the door open through the ignorance of the Afrikaans-speaking parents and by bringing pressure to bear on them, to Anglicise them, and to Anglicise the Afrikaans-speaking children. I think we are entitled to scrutinise the motive behind this movement, which centres round the Prime Minister and of which he is the principal force. I do not ascribe any ignoble motives to all members opposite. There are members who even if they do support the Prime Minister’s proposal, are honest in their intentions. I do not want to judge them all alike. But on the other hand, when they come here today with their leaders, including the Prime Minister, and they tell us that they are so deeply concerned about bilingulism for the people of this country, I say that we on this side are entitled to ask what is the real motive behind it all.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at. 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

I hope not to detain the House very much longer. The question I asked just before the suspension of business was: “What is the real motive behind the movement in which the Prime Minister has become the leading figure?” Hon. members will be able to judge that motive best if I remind them of a few things: The first point is that the Prime Minister says that he has started this movement for the sake of bilingualism. By implication the charge against us is that we on this side do not want.

bilingualism.

Not at all.

I only ask this: Look at this side of the House and then look at the other side. On this side there is not a single member who does not understand both languages. The other side which is supposed to be in favour of bilingualism—look at them ! And let hon. members ask themselves how many members there are over there who cannot follow the proceedings of this House and who have to read in the Press the next day to see what has happened here. I also want to remind the House of the fact that it is this side of the House which has been fighting for the principle of equality of languages to be carried into effect for thirty years, and for thirty years hon. members opposite have been opposing us. The third point is this: If hon. members over there are in favour of introducing the principle of dual medium in all our schools, are they not forgetting that they can introduce it in any school after Standard IV so long as they control that school? We have heard what the basis of the language Ordinance is. After Standard IV we have parential choice— whether there is to be dual medium or not If it is harmful not to have dual medium, well, start with your own children in your own schools and apply it there. Why harm your own children now by refusing to do that? Why come here and say that we are doing harm to our children? Your earnestness in regard to this matter is tested by this criterion: whether you are going to use the rights you possess to apply the dual medium in your own schools? That is where the test comes in. But what I want to emphasise is that we know a thing by its origin. Where did this agitation against the Afrikaans medium schools start? Did it start among educationists? No, the educationists —Afrikaansas well as English-speaking—are, practically unanimously, opposed to the Prime Minister today. I therefore say that it did not start with the educationists. Did it start with the parents? The parents of children in Afrikaans medium schools are perfectly satisfied, and so are the parents of the English medium school children. So it did not start there. It started with the S.A.P. Congress. Read the proceedings of the S.A.P. Congresses of the last few years, and ask whether the reason why the Afrikaans medium schools are attacked is that they are not sufficiently bilingual, or that they do not teach the children enough English, or vice versa, whether the English schools dp not teach enough Afrikaans? Against whom is this attack on the schools and the teachers aimed? It is aimed at the teachers especially and why? The allegation was made that they were dragging politics into the schools and into education. The teachers were even threatened by political leaders opposite ! The Administrator who does not support us politically said to hon. members opposite: You accuse the teachers of preaching politics in the schools, give us one instance and we shall enquire into it and take action. Hon. members have been challenged but they have not come along with a single case. The teachers have been accused of bringing politics into the schools and of preaching politics to the children. Hon. members opposite and their friends have made that allegation, especially in respect of one subject at school, namely, history. The allegation was that history was being distorted and taught on racial lines. No, the real objection is not that the history that is taught is distorted—the racial objeciton is that the true history is taught. But afterwards things went even further and the supporters of hon. members opposite started accusing the teachers of being disloyal and of being Nazi’s. Not one bit of evidence was adduced to prove this charge. A whole band of khaki knights were sent out to spy on the teachers. I have read out in this House, and the Prime Minister knows it—I do not say that he was aware of it at the time, but he knows about it now—that a call was sent out from his head office to all members of the South African Party to spy on officials generally, and on teachers in particular, and even the children were used for that purpose. That was the start of the agitation against Afrikaans-speaking teachers and against our schools, and especially against the single medium Afrikaans schools. No, so far as this side of the House is concerned, there are no politics behind the Afrikaans medium schools. But it is the other side of the House which wants to introduce politics into the schools. That is what is behind this movement. This movement was started for political reasons. It is a striking fact that the Prime Minister in his speech didn’t say a single word about the educational aspect of the matter. He did not tell us whether educationally it was right or wrong. He did not even rely on Dr. E. G. Malherbe. That is quite understandable because Dr. E. G. Malherbe, if he is an educationist, has been pulled to pieces by other educationists to such an extent that there is no need for anyone else to do so—he has not only been pulled to pieces by Afrikaans-speaking educationists, or by people connected with Afrikaans medium schools, but he has been pulled to pieces just as emphatically and just as unanimously by English-speaking educationists. And so far as Dr. Malherbe is concerned, the Prime Minister perhaps also realised that he could not put his faith in Dr. E. G. Malherbe when speaking to Afrikaans-speaking people, and why not? The Prime Minister has put Dr. Malherbe into uniform and he has used him to make propaganda among the soldiers for S.A.P. ideals and S.A.P. principles. And what did Dr. Malherbe report in black and white? He reported that the ordinary means of propaganda were useless in trying to convert the Afrikaans-speaking people to the political attitude of the Prime Minister. To achieve that he said: “More subtle measures have to be resorted to.” What does that mean? It simply means that the Afrikaans-speaking people are ignorant enough to be deceived— put on an Afrikaans dress—it does not matter what is underneath the dress—and so try to deceive and to win. All I can say is that Dr. Malherbe is the very last man who should ever be quoted as an authority to Afrikaansspeaking people. It is simply an insult to Afrikanerdom. From an educational point of view there is one point which has not yet been emphasised. and that is that if one introduces the system which the Prime Minister advocates, the question is whether one will improve knowledge of the second language to any extent. It is very questionable. But what it will mean is that the vocabulary of the child, the words which the child uses. will become very much influenced. In one’s speaking language one uses words which one has learnt at school when one was taught the specific subject to which these words are related. If you have learnt arithmetic in English at school, then throughout your life, whether you count on your fingers, or in your head you will always be disposed to do so in English. And that applies to other subjects as well. What is the result of the dual medium school? The result is that the masses of the people will speak a conglomerate impure language because the masses of the people will be taught in these schools. In days gone by in South Africa we had the same thing largely among the Afrikaans-speaking children when their medium of instruction was English and their ordinary language— the language they spoke—was Afrikaans. In those days we had a conglomerate language. a mixture which to any learned or educated man in the world was a disgrace. What is it that has caused the improvement? Today we find very little of that sort of thing. And what is it that has caused this improvement? That the child at school has started to be taught in its own mother tongue. By doing that the language the child spoke was purified. When you hear anyone talking a conglomerate English and Afrikaans today you can be sure you have an uneductated man to deal with, or an S.A.P., or both. If the dual medium is introduced where one subject is taught through one language, and another subject through the other language, our youth will be taken back to this conglomerate language. The masses of the people in this country will revert to this conglomeration of the two languages. What is really at the back of this whole question— and now I want to speak frankly.

Always full of suspicion !

What is really at the back of it—I don’t say always but among a large proportion of those who are so strongly in favour of this dual medium, is fear—political and racial fear. That is why they attack the Afrikaans medium schools. That is what is behind it all. The Afrikaans medium school is not just an educational institution, but it has a greater significance among the Afrikaans - speaking Afrikaners of this country. It has gone hand in hand—the creation and growth of Afrikaans medium schools have gone hand in hand with the rise of the Afrikaans language and culture. Look at the great difference between the days of 1911 when the Select Committee sat, the Select Committee which the Prime Minister told us about, and which he now relies upon —lock at the difference between then and now? Look at the difference between the days when the language ordinances were passed, and today. In the days when we wanted to introduce Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in the schools, the objection which was invariably raised was that there were no books and that there were no teachers who could teach through the medium of Afrikaans. It was also said that the Afrikaans language was not suited to express all kinds of terms which existed in English—that one could not translate those terms into Afrikaans. For those reasons, it was argued, you could not use Afrikaans as a medium. Since 1925 Afrikaans has been the official language of this country together with English, and since that time a great literature has grown up in Afrikaans. For the information of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister I should like to say something which perhaps he does not know, that on an average twenty-five books are published in Afrikaans every month now-a-days. That does not include religious books, school books and reprints of books. The books I am talking of are literary works or historical works, books which are published— and there are no fewer than twenty-five every month. I know of one firm which states that the number of manuscripts which have been approved of, which they can print and which have been bought are no less than forty. The number is accumulating, but they have not got the staff or the machinery to cope with those books. The Afrikaner people, Afrikanerdom has learnt to use its language, to write the language and to read the language. It has built up its culture in a most remarkable manner in such short space of time. That is the position. In addition to that we have this, that, as the last Census figures of European schools in this country show. no fewer than 62½ per cent. of the children on our school benches have received their instructions through the medium of Afrikaans. That is the position. Consciously or unconsciously this has had its influence on that movement, but that is not all. There are other developments too. All these are signals, all these are results which show that the Afrikaner has secured his self-respect and his self-confidence. Now that the Afrikaner has achieved self-respect and self-confidence, his political opponents are becoming nervous and scared. The Afrikaner no longer suffers from an inferiority complex. In the past if Afrikaners went to the towns—and large numbers of them migrate to the towns— they used to vanish among the English-speaking population. In the past the Afrikaner stopped speaking his own language—he stopped being an Afrikaans Afrikaner. He had no self-respect and he was lost to Afrikanerdom. The position today is different. Today, just because his language occupies that position, because he has his own culture, because he has built up his language, and wants to maintain it, he feels that he can face the other section of the population as his equal, and he remains an Afrikaner when he comes to town. I say consciously or perhaps to a large extent unconsciously these facts have exercised their influence on the hostile movement against Afrikaans medium schools, they have had their influence on the movement to destroy Afrikaans medium schools. People who want to achieve that object try in all possible directions. One day they say that they want to import immigrants, and overwhelm Afrikanerdom. The next day they want to extend the native and coloured franchise so that the native and coloured people can help in the fight against Afrikanerdom.

What did you advocate in 1926?

And the next day we hear, “Extend the Union’s borders and let Rhodesia and other territories come in,” and the day after they draw attention to the schools and try by introducing a change in our educational system to destroy Afrikaans medium schools where the Afrikaner is himself a Citizen of this State. What is the real cause of division—and with these words I want to conclude. We shut our eyes to the real cause. The real cause of division, the root of the evil, is what hon. members refuse to disclose, although I think they are aware of it —it is not a language difference which has caused division and schism in this country. English and Afrikaans-speaking generally have the same outlook on life; to a large extent their religion is the same; they are partners in Western European civilisation. No, it is not the language of the country which has caused schism and division. What is keeping the division alive in South Africa is the difference in the national outlook—the difference in national ideals. Because they have different political ideas they live in two worlds, and it makes no difference whether they sit on the same school benches or not. The division is there. The enmity results from a duality of ideals and a duality of political outlook. When the Free State was a Republic, everybody was satisfied that it should be a Republic, and there was national unity between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking as nowhere else in the country. In Switzerland they talk different languages; in Zwitzerland there are even different religions in the various parts of the country, and yet they are not. potential Germans or Italians or Frenchmen simply because they speak the languages of the countries surrounding them. They are first and foremost and predominantly Swiss. That is what we in South Africa must achieve. We must get to the root of the division so that we may create a common patriotism for the two sections in South Africa. By patchwork such as proposed by the Prime Minister that object will not be achieved. Get to the root of the evil. In other words, see that Nationalism triumphs in South Africa.

I hope the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) will pardon me if in my faulty Afrikaans I take part in this debate. We have listened to the speeches of two leaders in this debate. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister took part in the debate on the first day, and the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now made his contribution. There was a very striking difference between the two speeches. The Prime Minister’s speech was interrupted continually by interjections, the speech of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition was listened to with courtesy and patience. It requires a lot of patience to listen to the drawn out, the sometimes unnecessarily drawn out speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.

What about the interjections from the “kitchen”?

The interjections during the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg came mainly from his own side. Of more, importance, however, are the different points of view disclosed by the two speeches, and it is to those that I more particularly want to confine myself. Before doing so I just want to say one word about the reply given by the hon. member for Piketberg to the Prime Minister’s contention that the country, so far as this matter is concerned, has given its verdict The hon. member for Piketberg was quite correct to this extent, that this matter played practically no part in the Parliamentary elections of last year, but. he is not at all correct when he tells the House that it was a question of secondary importance in the Provincial elections. The Prime Minister at the time of the Provincial elections was not in this country; I acted in his place, and I am speaking of what I know.

Zoutpansberg.

The hon. member may just as well say that the Zoutpansberg result is a protest against the tax on wine as that it had anything to do with the language question. I can only say that during the Provincial elections this matter was never pushed into the background. From start to finish I dealt with this matter in my speeches, and that applies to all the leaders on this side of the House. But we now have the two attitudes which have been adopted and interpreted in the motion and in the amendment. These two points of view are in dire conflict with each other; in the circumstances it may be well to call in a witness, and I am going to call in a witness who to my mind will be generally acceptable to this House. Whether his testimony will be generally accepted is a different matter. I have here before me the report of the Select Committee of the old Cape Legislative Assembly. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition went back as far as 1820, to the days of Lord Charles Somerset—I am only going back as far as 1906. In those days a Select Committee sat on the question of what at that time was described as the Hollands language, and one of the witnesses who gave evidence there was the late “Onse Jan”. He was not a Member of Parliament then but he was still the recognised leader of the Afrikaner Bond. Let me quote a few of the things he said. The evidence was recorded in those days in the language in which it was delivered, and I will consequently make my quotations in English. In doing so, I shall of course, again be like a fish in my natural element. This is what “Onse Jan” said—

And then further—

I am taking Onse Jan as my witness because surely no one will say that he was not a good Afrikaner. We are quite accustomed to our friends opposite calling us bad Afrikaners, renegades and all the rest of it when they do not agree with us. I know of slanderous statements which have been spread all round against people who advocate the dual medium policy. They cannot say these things about Onse Jan. He gave that evidence in 1906, just after he had made his “Are we in earnest?” speech at Stellenbosch. We know what the spirit of his speech was and Onse Jan gave this evidence before the Select Committee in conformity with the spirit of that speech. What better testimony can I produce than that of Onse Jan? Now, what is the difference between the motion and the amendment? There are two points of difference. The one is in connection with mother tongue medium; the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) advocates the principle of mother tongue medium in the primary school, in the secondary school and in higher education. The amendment says : “Start with mother tongue medium, and after that use the second language also as medium of instruction when the child reaches a suitable standard of efficiency”. I take Onse Jan as my witness. That is exactly what he said. Start with mother tongue as the medium—

And Onse Jan went further and said—

That was the system which was followed in those days and which we are now advocating.

Where was that system in force?

It is stated here.

He advocated its introduction.

That is the system which Onse Jan followed in the days of his youth. That is exactly what the Prime Minister said, and it is in harmony with our proposal. I cannot speak with authority on what the medium of instruction was when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition went to school and when the hon. member for Piketberg was still a pupil in the Prime Minister’s Sunday School class. The hon. member will perhaps admit that English was not the medium of instruction in that class.

It was not the dual medium either.

The hon. member spoke about educationally sound principles. I agree that the principle of mother tongue medium is educationally sound, but that does not mean that it should be applied from the bottom to the top. It does not mean that there should be mother tongue medium instruction in primary, in secondary school and in high education. I myself, as Administrator of the Transvaal, advocated that principle, and I introduced legislation in that direction. Nobody can doubt my bona fides in that connection, but that does not mean that it is educationally necessary to use mother tongue medium solely from the bottom to the top in education.

Does it become less sound as the children get to the higher classes?

Those who have visited overseas universities of any standing have met people at those universities who have all kinds of mother tongues. South African students have attended higher education institutions, not only in England and Holland but also in France and Germany. Their education has not been detrimentally affected thereby. The institution of the second language as the second medium, as the supplementary medium, is educationally not unsound, and in certain circumstances it is very desirable. The second point at issue is that the motion emphasises that single medium schools are the most suitable to South African conditions.

You are only reading a part, why don’t you read the whole?

Very well, I shall read the whole—

That is not the point at issue, the point to which the hon. member referred. I am dealing with the points of issue. Hon. members over there say that the single medium school is the most suitable for South African conditions. We were told this morning how few English medium schools there are. Apparently they are dissatisfied about that and want more. We on the other hand say that the school which is really suitable to South African conditions is the school where both elements are brought together. We say, as Onse Jan said—

There is my witness. I want to try and explain this matter and tell hon. members how we look at it, and I want to do so by laying down certain propositions. My first proposition is one to which the hon. member for Winburg will agree. He has done so in advance already, and that is that the object of education is not merely to enable a pupil to acquire knowledge, but to bring up a citizen, a citizen who will fit in with the conditions of the community in which he has to live, who will be able and fit to make his contribution to the community. In other words our object primarily is to train citizens of the State in our schools. That is my first proposition. I do not think there will be much difference about my second proposition either : South Africa is a bilingual country and it will remain a bilingual country—neither Afrikaans nor English will ever disappear from South Africa, but South Africa differs from other bilingual countries, such as Canada, Switzerland and Belguim, insofar that we have not got the position that the two elements in the main live apart from each other. Here the two elements live among each other, and those elements are brought more and more into touch with each other. Our future citizens must therefore be trained in our schools as bilingual citizens of the country, both in the interest of the community and in their own interest. It is not a question of sentiment, it is purely a practical matter. It should be as clear as daylight. This should be our motto: “A bilingual citizen for a bilingual State.” Now I come to my third proposition, and here we shall probably differ from each other. That is, that the standard of bilingualism today achieved by our schools is far from satisfactory.

If one looks at the Cabinet that certainly is so.

I am talking about the schools now and I say that the standard of bilingualism is still far from satisfactory today. Hon. members opposite apparently believe that the position is satisfactory. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), spoke about the excellent achievements of the Jan van Riebeeck School. One swallow does not make a summer.

What about the Oranje School?

Even two swallows do not make a summer. It is said that we exaggerate and that we are unjust in our contentions when we say that our schools do not promote bilingualism. Here, again, I can call in fairly good testimony in support of my proposition. Three years ago, as Minister of Education, I appointed a Committee of Investigation. This arose out of the new regulations which had been issued by the Joint Matriculation Board, and I have before me now the report put in by the majority of the Committee. The majority consisted of Prof. Mackie of the University of Cape Town, Prof. M. C. Botha, Rector of the University of Cape Town, Prof. Dr. Postma, Principal of the Potchefstroom University College, and Mr. Kreft, Director of Education of the Transvaal—all educationists. True, Prof. Dr. Postma is Professor of Greek, the same as Prof. Haarhoff, but hon. members opposite will probably admit that he is an educationist. Now, what does that report contain? It fully confirms the proposition which I have submitted here. In the first place the Committee sets out the evidence submitted to it in regard to the two official languages. So far as English is concerned there is agreement that the knowledge of the subject among candidates who pass in English “A” is not quite satisfactory; that the level achieved by candidates who pass in English “B,” that is English as the second language, is as a rule deplorably low. According to the report of the Joint Matriculation Board these candidates can write English reasonably correctly, and the report shows a tendency to put a large share of the blame on the method by which English is taught in the school. It is held that it is often too mechanical and too dogmatic, with the result that the pupils are not encouraged to learn for themselves, to use their own imagination and intelligence. The language is not taught as an instrument, but as a subject which has to be learnt.

What did they say about Afrikaans?

I am coming to that. The question has been put why we on this side say that English in the Afrikaans schools is weak. It is not we who say that. That was said by Prof. Postma, Mr. Kreft and Prof. Botha, and Prof. Botha is a man who knows a great deal about the Jan van Riebeeck School in Cape Town. What do they say about Afrikaans? Exactly the same.

Are they in favour of the dual medium?

They were not. asked to go into that question.

What did they recommend?

Their recommendations concern the matriculation regulations. So far as Afrikaans is concerned it appears from the evidence submitted to them that the level achieved by candidates who took Afrikaans “A” as a subject for matric was generally satisfactory, although the inability to use the language correctly and intelligently was sometimes a striking feature. In the case of pupils who took Afrikaans “B” as a subject for matric there was clear evidence that Afrikaans “B”’ in most cases was regarded as a foreign language—there was no question of the pupil being able to use the language as an intrument. Now I come to the findings of this committee. The committee says that its opinion is that the evidence submitted to it—

But they do not recommend a dual medium school.

My proposition is that the standard of bilingualism in terms of this report is far from satisfactory. My hon. friend has denied that, but I have given them the testimony of Prof. Mackie, Prof. Postma, Prof. Botha and Mr. Kreft.

Will they recommend the dual medium?

Ask them. My fourth proposition is this: The present unsatisfactory position is largely due to the fact that the second language is not used sufficiently as an instrument. That is emphasised twice in the report to which I have referred. The Leader of the Opposition went back to the 1911 Report, which the Prime Minister also did. But the development of the single medium school has to all intents and purposes made the carrying out of that report impossible so far as the use of the second language as an instrument is concerned. The hon. member apparently failed to realise that. In order to remedy the position and to find a way out of this unsatisfactory situation, which can be regarded as satisfactory, the second language must not be taught, only as a subject, but it must be also used as an instrument. If we did that our children would get a real working knowledge of the second language. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said that it did not lie with us to reply to the question how bilingualism was so promoted. He said that that was a question for the educationist and not for Parliament. Well, attention has already been drawn to the fact that Parliament in 1911 took up this question. The Leader of the Opposition is very nervous of the reaction in the provinces in regard to this matter. There was no such reaction in 1911. Parliament in 1911 went into the question of the “how.” The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) himself went into that question and he put forward his suggestion as to how the position in regard to bilingualism could be improved. I shall come back to that. But now they want the whole question to be left to the educationists, and we must not express ourselves on the matter. Now, who are the educationists? It seems to me that an educationist is a man who holds the same opinion, the same views as my hon. friend opposite. If he does not agree with him then he is not an educationist. The educationists, so my hon. friend says, and the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition repeated it this afternoon, are practically unanimous. Prof. Haarhoff is not an educationist.

What about the S.A.T.A.?

Prof. Haarhoff is not an educationist; he only wrote his thesis on an educational subject. Dr. Van Rensburg on the other hand is an educationist, although he is a Professor of Psychology. But Prof. Rayburn, who is also a Profesor in Psychology, is not an educationist. I have the greatest respect for Dr. Van Rensburg’s work, but in regard to educational statistics Prof. Rayburn stands very much higher than Dr. Van Rensburg.

What about the S.A.T.A.?

I am now confining myself to the questions which have been asked. It has been said that none of the educationists stand by Dr. Malherbe. Prof. Taute is looked upon as an educationist, but Prof. Cruse, who holds different views, is not regarded as an educationist.

Where do you get that?

I get that information from Prof. Cruse himself.

Has he ever made a public statement?

He told me so, and he told his students so, and it was his duty to tell them what his attitude was. Prof. Eybers is a professor of education, but he is not regarded as an educationist. Nor is the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) an educationist.

Go and ask the people at Prieska.

And of course, there is no question about me being an educationist. Prominent people overseas like Prof. Pierré Bovet of Switzerland, and a man like Prof. Saer of Wales, who spoke very highly about Dr. E. G. Malherbe’s work, of course, are not educationists either. No, an educationist is a person who thinks and holds the same view as hon. members opposite hold. In regard to Dr. Van Rensburg and Prof. Taute, the educationists who are alleged to have torn Dr. Malherbe’s work to shreds, both of them have expressed their dissatisfaction at the reports referring to them which appeared in the Nationalist Press. They have denied that they wanted in any way to give the impression that Dr. E. G. Malherbe’s work was a scientific fiasco. Prof. Taute has protested in “Die Huisgenoot” against this distortion.

And what was the comment by the Editor of “Die Huisgenoot”?

No, he was an educationist as long as he was thought to stand by hon. members over there, but according to the comments of the Editor of “Die Huisgenoot” he is no longer an educationist. No, this is a matter on which we as a Parliament must express ourselves. The hon. member for Winburg himself has given an answer to the question : “How?” How are we to promote bilingualism? His answer was that it must be done by means of a higher standard in both languages in the final examination.

That every pupil must be compelled to pass in both languages. Are you willing to accept that?

No, I am not willing to accept that. I do not want to close our universities to people coming from other countries. How many such pupils present themselves as candidates for the final examination to enter the university? 13½ per cent. His remedy will only apply to 13½ per cent.

And even that you are not prepared to accept?

† *The MINISTER OF FINANCE : No, my hon. friend is putting the cart in front of the horse. Let him pay attention first of all to the training of the child, and then to the examination. It is not only the examination which is important but the ability of a child to use the language. The question must be approached along a different road. Today the unsatisfactory position is due to the fact that the second language is not used as an instrument.

What about the private schools?

I intend to deal with all those points if my hon. friends will only give me the opportunity, and I shall not detain them as long as the hon. member for Piketberg did. One would have thought, when listening to some of the speeches from the other side, that nearly all the children today are already being taught through the medium of both official languages. I have before me the official bulletin of my department. These are the last available figures because the publication of this report was suspended during the war, and what is the position? In 1932 only 9.7 per cent. of the European children in all our schools were receiving instruction through the medium of the two official languages, and of the other 37.4 per cent. received instruction only through English and 52.9 per cent. only in Afrikaans. So far as the last available year is concerned, that is 1939, only 4.7 of the children received their instruction through both languages. The impression which my hon. friends have tried to create here is quite incorrect. That, in fact, is also proved by the report from which I have quoted—that the second language is not used as an instrument, but is only taught as a foreign language. If that is the position then the remedy is clear. The best way to learn a language is undoubtedly to use that language. In this connection I should like to quote again from what Onse Jan said—

The remedy is to use both languages as instruments.

But not as media of instruction.

The medium of instruction is the instrument. In any case, when Onse Jan spoke he spoke about the use of the second language as an instrument, and he contemplated the use of that second language as a medium of instruction. The language cannot be learnt as an instrument at school only. It has also to be learnt outside the school. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that my Afrikaans is not as good as that of the Prime Minister.

No, you’re wrong. He said your English is better than your Afrikaans.

Why is my English better than my Afrikaans? I grew up in an English-speaking environment here in Cape Town. The Leader of the Government grew up on the platteland, and there, too, is the explanation of the fact— partly, at any rate—of the achievements of the Jan van Riebeeck School. Those children learn English as an instrument outside the school, and not only in the school. The children of Afrikaans parents in Cape Town do not only learn English at school, they also learn it as an instrument outside the school, but the children of unilingual parents on the platteland, where they find themselves in a unilingual environment, and go to school where they have only one medium of instruction—they will never become bilingual. There we have the facts, and that is why we come here with this proposition and with this amendment; and we say that the second language must also be used as the medium of instruction from a specific point in the ordinary school curriculum. But now we are told that that is an attack on the Afrikaans medium school. We are asked why we do not apply that to Natal, and why we do not apply it to the private schools. Hon. members opposite said that we must prove our honesty. Well, the answer is a very simple one. Natal has proved its honesty. Long before this question was raised by the Party opposite, and long before the Provincial Elections—two years ago already—the Natal Provincial Council passed an Ordinance making it compulsory that the second language be used as a medium of instruction in all the schools. This year the Natal Provincial Council started …

Only now?

The other provinces have not yet started. This year the Natal Provincial Council started to have three subjects taught through the medium of Afrikaans in the training colleges. We have been told in this House that it will cause strife and discord if the children are compelled to receive their instruction in the second language. In Natal the children are now being compelled to receive their instruction through Afrikaans and no strife and discord has been created there. But what about the position of the private schools? We have heard a lot about them. I can say something in that respect, and I have some personal knowledge on the subject. Hon. members may perhaps know that for many years, for more than thirty years, we have had a Council of Education for the Witwatersrand. That Council was originally established in the old Republican days to provide for instruction through the medium of English. In later years the Council in the first instance confined itself to the building up of the Witwatersrand University, and as a result of that I became a member of that body. I believe I was the only Afrikaansspeaking member. I am still a member although I take ho part in its proceedings. That body is now giving its attention particularly to private schools. I have a report in my hand which was sent to me as a member of that body. It is today a purely English-speaking body. I believe the Minister of Mines is also a member, but like myself he probably no longer attends its meetings. Now. that purely English-speaking body, on the 19th May, before the elections were held, and before Dr. Malherbe published his book, called a meeting of the representatives of private schools on the Witwatersrand, and that English-speaking body with its English-speaking Chairman, Mr. Petyt, discussed the question of Afrikaans in private schools. The Chairman on that occasion stated that they should follow the policy suggested by Prof. Grant, Professor of Education of the University of Cape Town. Of course, he is not an educationist either. The Chairman went on to say this—

The Chairman of this Council of Education submitted three thing to those schools: The first was that Afrikaans as a compulsory language must be taught to all the pupils, in the school. The second was that there should be more facilities for training in Afrikaans, and the third was the use of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction. As St. John’s has often been referred to in the course of this debate I want to say here that the representative of St. John’s was the first speaker to reply to the Chairman, and he said this—

Now, what has been the result of this? We have the result of it here. The result has been that in the annual report of the Council of Education it is recorded that in practically all those schools steps are being taken in the direction desired by that body. The question has been put to what extent they have introduced the second language as a medium of instruction. I shall give the hon. members the names of private schools which have introduced the second language as a medium of instruction. In the first place there is St. Andrew’s at Grahamstown.

Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

I move—

Agreed to.

Then there is St. Andrew’s School in Bloemfontein, Kingsmead in Johannesburg, and Michael-house and Kearsney in Natal. We have been told that English children in Natal are running to the private schools. Well, if they run to private schools in Natal they will get the dual medium there as well.

What about Bishops?

Yes, the hon. member for Gordonia has mentioned the case of Bishops. He asked whether I, as Minister of Education, had warned the Principal of Bishops after he had raised this matter in his speech last year. This is a subject on which an election has been fought, but according to the hon. member the principal of Bishops stated that he would carry on as before and that the time was not yet ripe for the introduction of a change. He was not going to deviate from the old course, and create additional facilities for Afrikaans. That is an unfair interpretation of what the principal of Bishops said—quite unfair and unjustified. I would almost say that it is a shameless interpretation, or representation, of what that gentleman did say. What he said was that there were staff difficulties which at this stage made it difficult to use the second language as a medium of instruction, but he considered that when the necessary staff was available to make it possible to introduce it, Afrikaans would come into its own. He expressed himself as follows—

What did I say that was unfair?

The hon. member has created an unfair impression. I say again—we are not dealing here just with a section of the people, we are dealing here with the principle which we want to apply to all sections of the population.

If a law is passed I want to know whether it will also be applied to those schools?

The Prime Minister replied and said “Yes.”

No, he did not say that.

Now, there is another proposition and I come to the final part of the speech of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asked what is the motive and he answered his own question by saying at the same time that the motive was political fear, that we were afraid of the single medium schools, and that the Nationalist Party was being strengthened by those schools. The evidence of that apparently was supplied during last year’s elections which very clearly proved the fact that the Nationalist Party was not strengthened by those elections. We have no reason to be afraid of those single medium schools.

That’s a weak argument.

Yes, the argument of the Leader of the Opposition was weak. My next proposition is that the dual medium policy enables us to make progress in the approach to our ideal of a united nation, which we stand for. In our amendment special emphasis has been laid on the necessity for the promotion of that ideal and we feel we cannot achieve that ideal unless the two main elements of our country thoroughly understand each other and are able to speak each other’s language fluently and easily. That is not the position in this House today. There are members on both sides who do not speak each other’s language fluently.

Where are they?

I say there are members on both sides of this House who do not speak each other’s language fluently. There are members in. this House who do not follow the other language easily. Those members know the way it handicaps them. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) has sent his son to the Stellenbosch University. Mr. C. P. Robinson, a former member of this House, did the same. One of my English-speaking colleagues also intends doing so. This is evidence of the fact that there are members in this House who feel it is a handicap, and it goes to show that we must see to it that the next generation does not suffer from the same handicap. We intend to see to it that the next generation is thoroughly bilingual, which will result in the building up of a united nation. But why are our opponents so strongly in favour of single medium schools? Is it because they want to keep the children separated at their most impressionable age? They don’t want the children to understand each other. Their ideal is the building up of a “Boer Nation”, not the building up of a South African Nation. I have a speech here which was made by the late Gen. Hertzog about six years ago in regard to a certain body which had issued this statement—

The late Gen. Hertzog said that the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was a member of that body. The hon. member has never denied that, nor does he deny it today.

Are you a Freemason?

No I am not.

If you were you would not be allowed to say it.

Now we know the meaning and the significance of the hon. member’s challenge today. There is the challenge. That is what they want, “Domination” (Baasskap) in South Africa. I have before me a church paper, a congregational paper. I don’t want to say which congregation it pomes from, I just want to read what it says—

What are you complaining of? You have no children.

I prefer to accept what Onse Jan said on that point when he expressed himself as follows—

That is the difference. We stand for unity; they stand for isolation, for exclusiveness. It is almost pathetic to find that spirit today in a world such as we are living in now, where the spirit of the time is drawing mankind closer and closer together and is making isolation impossible. That same spirit has led a great nation, the German nation, to Nazism—to the tragedy which is being enacted in the world today. That spirit among the Afrikaans-speaking people will lead to deterioration, to our casting about in the desert as the late Gen. Hertzog predicted. The hon. member for Winburg said : “Afrikaans culture need not be ashamed of what it has achieved”. He asked why we wanted to stop it. That was his call to us. I say that we are as proud as he is of the achievement of the Afrikaans people; we do not want to stop them, but we do not need this spirit of isolation, of exclusiveness, to protect those Afrikaans traditions and develop them. I think of men like Onse Jan who were educated under that system. I think of men like President Reitz, Professor Moorrees—were they unworthy of Afrikaans tradition? Did not they promote and develop the Afrikaans spirit?

Have they ever pleaded for the dual medium?

Yes; Onse Jan advocated it. I feel that the best way of developing and fostering Afrikaans traditions is to carry on, not in a spirit of inferiority, but in a spirit of self-confidence, by being prepared in the co-operation and the alliance of a united nation to make our contributions and to receive the contributions from the other side, by being prepared, not as an isolated group, but as part of a united nation, to co-operate towards assisting South Africa to take its proper place in the ranks of nations in this world.

The Hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat has tried to slight the Leader of the Opposition.

That is what he did.

He tried to slight him by alluding in an ironical way to the length of the address that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made. He himself however was going to be brief with his address. What he had to say he would say in a much shorter time than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I would just say this to the Hon. Minister. If he …. [Interruptions.] May I claim your protection, Sir.

I would just repeat that unless these interruptions cease I shall be obliged to take very strong measures.

I hope that when the Minister next addresses the House he will not be guilty of such a lapse, in view of the fact that after this side of the House had, out of considerations of courtesy, acquiesced in an extension of time, the Minister used up almost all the time that was left over. I would just like to say this before I discuss further the Minister’s speech. Speaking on this matter today I want to address my remarks particularly to the English-speaking section, and to those hon. members on the other side who are still Afrikaners. I am not going to direct myself to those Afrikaners who have trampled upon the traditions of the Afrikaner people. I shall address my remarks to those who retain a sense of what is proper. The Minister said here that there were striking differences between the speech of the Hon. the Prime Minister and the speech of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with him, and the most striking difference is that the Leader of the Opposition delivered a speech here that in view of the facts stood out boldly while the Prime Minister made a speech that as regards the facts was a distortion of the truth.

The hon. member may not say that.

It is in conflict with the. truth. This is a most striking difference between the two speeches, and I shall come to that. The best proof that what the Leader of the Opposition said as regards the facts has an independent basis, is the fact that the Minister of Education has not endeavoured, in his reply, to deny any of these facts. I come to a further point. I should like to put this question to the Minister of Education. He was Administrator of the Transvaal. Today he has presented these propositions. I want to ask him whether he submitted the same propositions when he was Administrator of the Transvaal, or was he then a champion of education in the mother tongue.

Exactly the same.

He endorsed the educational policy of the Transvaal as it is today in all respects.

I laid down exactly the same basis as regard the second language.

There was at that time also an agitation that the Afrikaans medium schools should be abolished. Now I come to his reference to a famous personality, Onse Jan. If there is one thing that the Minister must not do it is to refer to Onse Jan. I am glad that he did not resort to the contention that Afrikaans is his language. I am pleased about that honesty on his part.

That is rather cheap.

It is neither cheap nor common. He admits that English is his language.

I did not admit that.

I am thankful for that.

I did not admit it.

Then I want to tell him now that English is his language.

That is not so.

He cannot fall back on that, that Afrikaans is his language. He must never quote Onse Jan here as support for his propositions. The hon. Minister goes back to the years before Union; he goes back to the year 1906 and he has quoted an appeal by Onse Jan that children must receive education in both languages. But what were the circumstances then? The position then was that English was the sole medium of instruction, and it was against that that Onse Jan was pleading, and it is that attitude of Onse Jan’s that has been rejected by his kinsmen. He forgets to add that the English-speaking people rejected that appeal by Onse Jan. Why does he not say that to his friends who are sitting on the other side of the House? I want to go further. He wants to show from Onse Jan’s statement that in the old days the dual medium applied in South Africa, and he referred here to Onse Jan’s school years; he wanted to intimate thereby that what the Prime Minister had said was true. He knows that that is not so. Was not the “Tot Nut van ’t Algemeen” school that Onse Jan attended merely a private school—because all the schools were English. Why did he not tell this House that Onse Jan and all the other children that attended that private school had later on to go to English schools?

That came about long after Onse Jan’s school days.

The Government schools of those days were unilingual, English and it was in making a stand against that state of affairs that Onse Jan delivered his appeal. It was in this same building just a little later that Onse Jan had to appeal for the right to speak his own language here. In those days one was not allowed to speak in Dutch.

What has that to do with the dual medium?

That just shows you the circumstances in which the Afrikaner lived in this country. Those were the circumstances against which Onse Jan appealed. Why does not the Minister of Education tell this to his friends; why does he suppress this? There is a world of difference between the conditions. It is not only Onse Jan who had to plead for the rights of the Afrikaans language. What about the late Gen. Hertzog in 1908? In 1908 he tried to effect by legislation what Onse Jan had pleaded for. Now I want to ask hon. members on the other side of the House what was the reaction of English-speaking people in South Africa. The late Gen. Hertzog tried to have dual medium schools adopted in the Free State, and he was attacked tooth and nail not only by the English-speaking element but by the present Prime Minister.

That is untrue.

The Prime Minister says that is untrue. When British jingoism in South Africa attacked Gen. Hertzog in those days, and called him a racialist because he wanted to establish dual medium schools, the present Prime Minister encouraged those people. If he denies this I want to ask him whether in those days Gen. Hertzog did not express his disappointment to him because he wanted to act differently in the Transvaal to what he (Gen. Hertzog) wanted to do in the Free State.

That is also untrue.

The Prime Minister says that that is untrue. Let me remind him of this, apart from the correspondence that exists in regard to his actions in the Transvaal in those days—he who today poses here as a friend of Afrikaans and of the Afrikaner child. In 1907 the Prime Minister was the Minister in charge of this matter in the Transvaal. Under the Milner regime everything was actually English. The Prime Minister came into office together with the late Gen. Botha. He had the power to restore its rights to the Dutch language. What did he do? He introduced an educational legislation, he who poses here today as the champion of dual medium education; what did he lay down in his Transvaal Education Ordinance? Let me read it out to him in case his memory in that connection is also weak. In Section 30 he says this, inter alia—

English is compulsory. I come now to Section 32, in which the following is laid down—

It was optional. English was compulsory throughout. This is the man who today poses as a champion of dual medium schools. Afrikaans was optional and English compulsory. Let us hear how it proceeds—

Now I come to the worst passage of all—

In the first place we observe that it is only if the School Board recommends that Dutch may be taught after the third standard; and if the English School Board does not recommend this, then it. was not necessary for Dutch to be taught.

Was that his work?

One can hardly believe it.

It boils down to this: Up to Standard III there was instruction in the mother tongue; after Standard III English was compulsory, and no child could pass his examinations unless he passed in English. English was compulsory at the school-leaving examination. As far as regards the medium of instruction, Dutch could be used if the School Board recommended it, otherwise not, but then only in not more than two subjects, all the others had to be in English. I only want to say this to the Prime Minister: He must not pose here as if he was, or is, the champion of Afrikaans. I want to direct my remarks now to the English-speaking members, and I should like them to try to understand our standpoint. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition made mention here of the steps that were taken by Lord Charles Somerset to kill the Afrikaans language. That struggle that the Afrikaner has had to engage in through the years to preserve his language was continued in the Transvaal. Eventually we came to the year 1908, and then we had the course taken by the late Gen. Hertzog in the Free State, and I repeat that Gen. Hertzog’s policy in the Free State was not only attacked tooth and nail from A to Z by English-speaking people throughout South Africa, but his policy was also attacked by the Prime Minister. There are sitting today in this House supporters of the Prime Minister, who in that Assembly of 1908 went so far in regard to Gen. Hertzog’s legislation, that they sent deputations to London to get the English Government to veto that Act, and those people who are sitting today on his side of the House, it is those people who come here today and pose as if their intentions are honest and sincere in regard to their so-called dual medium education. We come now to Section 137 of the Act of 1910. On paper we obtained equal language rights. We engaged in the same struggle that Onse Jan commenced in 1906, that the English should heed that appeal from us to allow Afrikaans to come into its rights. This again fell on deaf ears, and as a result of the Select Committee that was appointed by Parliament in 1912 eventually provincial legislation was forthcoming that rendered it possible for Afrikaans to be introduced in the schools as a mother tongue. As a result of this mother tongue instruction, as a result of the Afrikaans medium schools, Afrikaans literature and Afrikaans culture progressed by leaps and bounds. If there is one thing that has saved the Afrikaner from Anglicisation, if there is one thing that saved the Afrikaner from the results that were envisaged by the policy of Lord Charles Somerset and from the results of the policy that the Prime Minister envisaged in 1907, it was the institution of Afrikaans medium schools. There is nothing that has contributed so greatly towards preventing the Anglicisation of Afrikaans-speaking children. We have advanced and now that we have advanced to this stage, suddenly we had this attack renewed against our language and against the education of the Afrikaner child, and it has come like a bolt from the blue. I should just like to ask this: Have our children become less bilingual on account of our having Afrikaans medium schools, as the hon. the Minister of Education has endeavoured to show today? I leave it where the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) took it. The only answer that the hon. the Minister could vouchsafe to that was that one swallow does not make a summer. Now I want to bring along a lot of other swallows. I have here before me an extract from the report of the examiners of the Matriculation Examination held a few years ago. What does that reflect? I quote from the report in the “Star”—

I can refer you to those percentages. That is my answer to the assertion that one swallow does not make a summer. I repeat: Are our children today less bilingual as a result of our having Afrikaans medium schools? Let us test this. Let us take the Public Service. From the time that this side succeeded in the struggle for bilingualism to be enforced in the Civil Service, from that stage the number of Afrikaans-speaking officials in the Public Service has increased by thousands, and I might almost say by tens of thousands. Why? Because they are the bilingual people. When the Government has to make appointments in the Public Service they have to appoint Afrikaans-speaking people, and I make so bold as to say that if you take the younger members of the Public Service at least 80 per cent. of them are Afrikaans-speaking. Why? Because they, the Afrikaans-speaking people, are bilingual and not the Englishspeaking people.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says “nonsense.” Apparently he does not know the word “onsin.” Just look at what has happened in the stores and in industry. The Prime Minister has made a strong point of it that he is so sorry for the Afrikaans-speaking child because he is not bilingual and consequently cannot obtain positions in commerce and in industry. But what are the facts? From the time that the Afrikaans-speaking people insisted that they must be served in the shops in their own language, from that date the number of Afrikaans-speaking people engaged in shops and in industries advanced with great strides. They had then to appoint bilingual persons, and those bilingual people are practically all Afrikaansspeaking. The same thing occurred in the police force. Now I come to my hon. friend who exclaimed “nonsense.”

His face depicts “nonsense.”

I have before me a report of the speech made by the newly appointed Minister of Agriculture.

You should not call him Minister of Agriculture, he is very sore about it.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) delivered an address last year in Germiston, and speaking on this question he said—

What does this mean? He says that the Afrikaans-speaking people predominate in the Public Service and in the police force, and in order to prevent this apparently dual medium schools are to be established, in order to make the English-speaking child bilingual as well. That is my answer to the assertion of the Prime Minister that the Afrikaansspeaking child has come to grief because he has not been fully bilingual. The facts are that it is the Afrikaans-speaking child who is fully bilingual and not the English-speaking child, and if the English-speaking element in South Africa want to make their children bilingual we shall not place any obstacle in their way. We shall welcome that. There is nothing to prevent them doing that; according to the law of the land they can introduce the dual medium in any school. We shall not attempt to make this embarrassing for them. Let them begin it in their own schools, but in God’s name leave our schools alone. I want to put this question : Where have we got this sudden conversion of English-speaking South Africa? My hon. Leader has related here how right through the years in our struggle for bilingualism we have been attacked, might and main, by the other side of the House, and now we find this sudden conversion. Where we have got this sudden conversion I should like to ask the question whether it is meant honestly and sincerely? With some, certainly. I want to accept it that there are some members on the other side of the House who really mean this honestly, but is it so in respect of the large mass of the people? In respect of the overwhelming majority, certainly not, and let me cite you a few examples. Let us go to the big English stores in Cape Town; let us go to Stuttafords, Cleghorns, Garlicks, and see to what extent the principal of bilingualism is applied. Not a single notice in Afrikaans is displayed in their shops. Are their intentions sincere and honest? Take the English newspapers. Most of the English newspapers in this country have English editors that they have imported from England. I go further. In the Press Gallery of this House are the representatives of those newspapers, and many of them can hardly understand a word of Afrikaans.

And they have to report what we say here.

Take the hotels of this country that are under the control of Englishmen and Jews. At how many of them can you get a menu in Afrikaans? If a party of French people arrive here then you suddenly get your menu in French, but so little is thought of the Afrikaners that they do not deem it worth while to have the menus printed in Afrikaans. I want to refer to the mines. We hear today that 80 per cent. of the mineworkers are Afrikaners. But notwithstanding the fact that 80 per cent. of the workers are Afrikaans-speaking, you find hardly a single notice on the surface printed in Afrikaans. Now I want to put this question: Since when have the other side as a party suddenly become in favour of bilingualism. Take the mines. Today they say, 80 per cent. of the mineworkers are Afrikaans-speaking. Numbers of notices are posted up on the mines. Look round to see how many of them are in Afrikaans. Is that honest and sincere? I want to repeat the question. Are those people and is the party on the other side of the House sincere when they talk of mass conversion. Since when are they, as a party, suddenly in favour of bilingualism? When they started on this a couple of years ago, their cry was that single medium schools must be eliminated because they were a source of racialism. Bilingualism played a lesser role; and the United Party held a congress on the Rand in August, 1937. What was the resolution that they took there in connection with dual medium education? Let me just read it out—

They talk of parallel schools not about dual medium. The overwhelming majority of the schools in the Cape Peninsula are parallel schools, but when they see that the thing does not find favour, then they turn and now they are suddently anxious about bilingualism, and are anxious to have dual medium schools. The campaign was begun with only one object, and that was to sacrifice the Afrikaans medium school. But very interesting in connection with the congress at which that resolution was taken, is the following quotation from a report which appeared in the “Rand Daily Mail,” and hon. members, will, of course, not suggest that the “Rand Daily Mail” would give a wrong report—

A woman delegate: Will Mr. Jooste please repeat his Afrikaans remarks in English.

I object to my repeating my remarks in English. I have never yet heard an Afrikaans-speaking delegate ask an English-speaking delegate to repeat his remarks in Afrikaans. Unless the chairman wants me to do it I will not, and I want to. say that I am getting tired of it. (Laughter.)

That is the spirit that animated the congress. All that we ask is that we be left in peace. If hon. members on the other side want to have the dual medium, let them establish their own schools. We have not the slightest objection to that. But leave our schools alone. They say that they are doing this in order to achieve racial peace in South Africa. The answer to that has already been given. The first answer is that if dual medium schools promote co-operation of the races, or if they will wipe out racialism, and if hon. members say that today there is too much racialism in South Africa, then excessive racialism must be ascribed to the position in the schools, and here in the Cape the schools are almost all dual medium and parallel medium schools. Consequently, the position in the schools must, according to them, be the cause of the racialism that prevails there. You want racial peace in South Africa. The Afrikaner has fought since the days of Lord Charles Somerset for the right of survival for his language. We have had a large measure of success in the fight. Now again an attack is made on our schools and on our language, and I will say this to you: If you think that by this measure that you contemplate you will be able to obtain racial peace and co-operation in South Africa you are making the biggest mistake in the world. If you go on with this you will unchain racial hatred such as we have never had in South Africa. Do you realise against whom you are fighting? Not against us as a party.

The Broederbond.

Yes, I know that is a nightmare for the hon. the Minister, one of his nightmares. They are fighting not only against our Party but against every Afrikaner organisation, and they are fighting against the Afrikaans churches, which stand together like one man in connection with the rights of the Afrikaner child to receive education through the medium of its mother tongue, every Afrikaans organisation, every woman’s organisation and every man’s organisation. In other words, they are directing a struggle against everything that is Afrikaans, and it must inevitably lead to the result that there will be a racial struggle such as there has never been before. Why? Do you think that you can succeed in your purpose? With these forces arrayed against you you will never succeed, but you will cause more friction than in the past. You will never succeed in your object. Now I want to turn to those on the other side of the House who are still Afrikaners at heart. I want to ask them whether they feel happy when they are ranged alongside people who have always been enemies of their folk, especially on the ground of language. Do they feel happy when they stand on one side with the enemy of their people, and when they must fight against their own church and against all Afrikaner organisations which in the spheres of culture and language stand up for Afrikaans? Do they feel happy? Can they not realise that the whole campaign is dishonourable? I maintain that it is dishonourable, the whole campaign, and I want to produce a last proof, and that is out of the mouth of the present Administrator of Natal, Mr. Heaton Nicholls—he too has suddenly appeared in the rôle of a convert. He also wants dual medium schools now. The same Mr. Nicholls delivered an address in 1932 on bilingualism—he was reported in the “Natal Mercury”—and I want to read out what he said—

Here you have a man that in the sincerity of his heart said what had passed in their minds. This is now a man who has suddenly been converted to bilingualism?

Do you not welcome it?

I do not believe in him. In 1932 he fought with all his might at every turn against the practical carrying out of Section 137. That was his confession of faith which he announced.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 13th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

This is an extremely difficult matter to discuss in this House, and it is extremely difficult to oppose it, but I feel constrained to avail myself of this opportunity to say something which to my mind needs attention. What is happening today is that the Government has come forward and recommended to the Select Committee that Lady Duncan, the widow of the late Governor-General, should be allotted a pension of £1,200, and the Select Committee has now recommended it to the House. Now, we are faced with the position of having to vote in favour or against this proposal, and I wish to raise this point of view, that in connection with matters of this kind we are judging according to different measures in South Africa. It was done in the past, and apparently it is still being done. I do not want to say for one moment that Lady Duncan does not deserve this pension. I do not know whether she needs it. The Minister will perhaps be able to tell us whether he thinks she needs it or not, but apart from that I say we have had numerous other instances in our history where the treatment has not been so liberal. Let me mention a few cases. There was the widow of the late Gen. Christiaan de Wet. Gen. De Wet was a Minister in the Orange Free State, a man known as South Africa’s greatest soldier, a man whose name is famous throughout the civilised world. He did not occupy a high position for which he was paid £10,000 a year. The last few years of his life were spent in a state of poverty. The Afrikaner nation afterwards had to collect money for him so that he should not be in want during the last years of his life. He made sacrifices and suffered great hardships, and when he died his widow was left behind in what may be regarded as a state of helplessness. Parliament, after considerable trouble, granted Mrs. Gen. De Wet £120 per year—£10 per month—to live on. I don’t want to go into details now, but I merely mention this to prove that we are differentiation in our treatment of these cases. When the late Gen. Beyers, also a man who played a great part as a general in the Boer War, a man who was Speaker of The Transvaal House of Assembly, and who afterwards was a member of this House, and Commandant General of the Union, died, his widow many years after his death, was granted a pension of £150 per year. Three or four years ago a member of this House died, a man who for many years was a member of Parliament, a man who was a Leader, a man who had achieved a great deal for Afrikaner culture, and a man who had sacrificed his own private interests on the altar of our national well-being. He died suddenly and his widow was also left behind in needy circumstances. A number of us approached the Minister of Finance and asked him, in view of the long services which her husband had rendered to the country, to grant her a small pension. The Minister of Finance received us very courteously and promised to lay the matter before the Cabinet, but the Cabinet refused. I may say in passing that there have been similar instances in the past, such as that of the late Dr. Van der Merwe, where pensions were granted. Here we have the case of a man who was a member of this House, who was a Minister, and who for many years drew a big salary as Minister and as Governor-General, and his widow today gets a pension of £1,200. I do not say for one moment that we begrudge her this pension. Let her have it if she deserves it, but we do differentiate. As I said earlier on, there are other instances of members of Parliament who have died and whose widows have received pensions. And we now have this recommendation before us, while in other cases no such recommendation was made. One does not know why there should be this differentiation. These chings create a feeling of displeasure. People ask why one man’s widow gets a big pension, while another man’s widow gets nothing. They want to know whether these pensions are arbitrarily granted, and whether there are cases where pensions are really deserved and are really needed, but where the Government does not grant them? I do not say that that applies to this Government only—former Governments acted in the same way. But it creates an unpleasant impression if people are not treated alike. We apparently have no system to go by and I think it is wrong not to have a system and not to have definite principles to act upon. Pensions are recommended without any principle to go by. That is wrong. We have had men occupying high positions and earning big salaries, and on the other hand there have been other men who have served their country for many years to their own financial detriment, but differentiation is shown so far as their widows are concerned, and it causes displeasure. Is it not possible to lay down a system? Can the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance tell us whether there is any principle except that each case has to be dealt with on its merits? The unfortunate part is that the merits are not always considered in the same way but that it is a matter of gifts and favours, and those gifts and favours are not always granted in the right way. For that reason one would prefer to see the Government or the House laying down a principle on which pensions should be granted to the wives of people who have rendered the country some service or other. It is not only the Governor-General, or a Minister, or even Members of Parliament, who have rendered service to the country. Many other people rendered services to the nation by making personal sacrifices. Why should the one widow get a pension and the other not? It is high time we worked out a system on which to act because if we do not do so the impression is continually created that pensions are granted on the basis of gifts and favours. I am, sorry I have felt constrained to say these few words, but I feel that in future we must go into matters of this kind very thoroughly and not go into them on a loose basis. I shall be glad if the Minister will give this matter his attention and will see to it in future that these things are not done on a loose and unsubstantial foundation.

I am glad the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) is not opposing this proposal to grant a pension to Lady Duncan. I think there would have been discord had he done so, and it would have been a wrong step to have opposed such a proposal. Since the death of the late Sir Patrick Duncan the Government has gone into Lady Duncan’s case to see what her financial position is, and we are satisfied that her’s is a case where, for the sake of the country’s honour, we should step in and grant her a pension. I want hon. members to realise that this was the first time we had followed the practice of having our own Governor-General, a South African appointed as representative of the King in this country. It is something new in our practice. In the past when our Governor-Generals came from elsewhere there was no need to make such provision. After that, however, the country’s status and honour demanded our appointing a South African to that position. That being so we must accept the consequences and make provision so that in the event of the Governor-General dying, his widow, because of the position she has occupied, is properly provided for, and we are convinced that in this case something should be done. The only question in our minds was what we should do. We had the precedent of Mrs. Gen. Botha. After the death of Gen. Botha, who was Prime Minister for many years, Parliament considered it fitting to grant Mrs. Botha a pension of £1,200. In view of the precedent laid down by Parliament we felt we had no option but to grant Lady Duncan, whose husband had occupied an even higher post, that of Governor-General, at the very least the same amount. It is not only a question of merit, it is a question of position and status, and of the country’s honour, and that precedent having been laid down in Mrs. Botha’s case, we considered it necessary to follow that principle. In the circumstances I do not think we should argue about it. In regard to the point referred to by the hon. member, that there are many other deserving cases where a smaller amount has been granted, well, that is really a different matter. I do not blame the hon. member for having raised it. We have no law, we have no definite measure to go upon in such cases. We have to act according to circumstances. Sometimes more is granted and sometimes less according to the needs and the circumstances of the case. In this instance the individual has occupied a unique position in this country and his widow, being in need, and provision having to be made for his widow, action must be taken. In many instances we act on the merits of the case, but in this particular case we also have to take into account the position occupied by the late Sir Patrick Duncan, and we have to ask ourselves what the country’s honour and prestige demand. In addition to that we have the precedent of the widow of the late Gen. Botha. In view of all the circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that Sir Patrick Duncan occupied that high position in the country, the Government thinks it right to grant this amount, and I hope there will be no opposition. I think it would hurt the country’s feelings if there were any discord on this matter. In the circumstances the Government could take no other step, and I hope it will meet with the general approval of the House.

I would like to remind the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) of one thing. The late Sir Patrick Duncan when he was a young man had a pension of £400 a year, which he relinquished. That was given to him in 1907. Had he kept it his widow would have inherited at least £14,400 plus the interest up to that date. I would also like to remind him that this House passed a pension of £1,200 a year to the widows of both of our old presidents, President Reitz and President Steyn. I do hope that nothing further will be said, and that for the dignity of South Africa we will look after the widow of our late Governor-General.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this matter. The hon. member who has just spoken tried to make it appear that this side of the House objected to a pension being granted to Lady Duncan. I want to make it perfectly clear that no objection has been raised from this side. This was considered an opportune moment to draw the attention of the House to the position of other people who had not been granted pensions, or who had only been granted very small pensions, and the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) availed himself of this opportunity. He expressed a feeling which is very general, namely that widows of certain people who have played a great part in South Africa had been treated indifferently—they had been treated in a way which is not to the credit of South Africa, and the hon. member pointed out that those people had not been fairly treated. In the case of General De Wet, for instance, it was more than in any other case a question of the country’s honour. That was why the hon. member for Winburg got up here, and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) gave a totally distorted representation of the whole position.

I am a member of the Select Committee on pensions and we have dealt with a great many cases before that Committee, and we have always felt that every case should be treated on its merits. I am convinced that there is no objection to this grant of £1,200 to the widow of the late Governor-General, but I want to say in passing that the hon. member for Hospital has made false charges against us. Just let me mention one instance. I protested at the time against the small pension allotted to the widow of the late General Ben Bouwer. On that occasion General Collyer’s widow was granted a pension £300 higher than that granted to the widow of the late Gen. Ben Bouwer, and all the hon. member for Winburg did today was again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is discrimination. But there is no intention of protesting either directly or indirectly against the amount which is to be allotted to Lady Duncan.

I hope the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) will not raise any opposition …

He is not doing that.

I understand he has spoken of the disparity between this and other pensions. We do not want to do anything to detract from the wish of this House to grant a pension to Lady Duncan in recognition of the devoted service which the late Sir Patrick Duncan rendered to successive Governments in South Africa and also to the distinguished services which she herself rendered during her period of office as wife of the Governor-General of South Africa. I hope that we shall say nothing to detract from the wish of Parliament, and I am sure the wish of a very large number of people in South Africa, that this shall be done decently. I do not think this is the occasion to draw comparisons between the pension to be voted to Lady Duncan and the pensions voted to others. If there is any wish that other pensions should be increased let us, for heaven’s sake, deal with the matter on another occasion, and let us wholeheartedly give this proposal our support.

I am still a member of the Pensions Committee and when this matter was under discussion I, unfortunately was unable to attend. But I do want to say that had I been present I would not have objected to the granting of this pension. May I just explain to the hon. member who has just spoken that no objections have been raised from this side of the House. We do feel, however, as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has remarked, that we have nothing to go by in deciding such cases, and that the only thing we have to go on is the question of humanity and the honour of South Africa, which in fact we are doing in this particular instance. But if that is done in a case like this, there are many other cases where it can also be done. Take the case of widows of Oudstryders, take old age pensions and invalidity pensions. There is no method and no system by which the widows of Oudstryders can be assisted. We do not want anyone to think that we are opposing this proposal. We only say that where there is no measure to go by we want the measure of humanity and of the honour of South Africa also to be applied in many other cases.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

I move—

In my Budget speech I referred to the fact that further additional estimates were to be submitteéd to the House. It might be as well if I were to read what I said in that regard—

These are the additional estimates which I anticipated at the time, and which I am now asking the House to consider in Committee. Hon. members may note perhaps that the amount which is asked for is a little higher than what I mentioned in my Budget speech. Two additional items have come in which I was not aware of when I drafted my Budget speech. The one is an amount on Vote No. 19, Agriculture, £15,000, for material used in the manufacture of vaccines. It is owing to the fact that a consignment of these goods arrived earlier than we had expected, with the result that we have to find the money this year instead of next year as we expected. The second item refers to Vote 33, Social Welfare, where we have to make provision for £21,000 more than we had expected in regard to subsistence allowances for physically unfit people. That has become necessary ás a result of the increase of the number of people entitled to this allowance, and also as a result of the increase of the allowances for cost-of-living. Those two items therefore give an additional amount of £36,000, and the amount which I anticipated is therefore increased to that extent. I do not think, however, that this will make any difference so far as the general Budget position is concerned. I think that in all probability we shall be able to save this additional amount, or that it will be covered out of savings, and I therefore, as I originally did, estimate the country’s eventual expenditure for the year at £109,500,000 on Revenue Account. In any case even though it may perhaps have an effect on the credit balance of the Revenue Account it will have no effect on next year’s position, because as hon. members know we intend transferring this credit balance on Revenue Account to Loan Account, at least so far as it is necessary to cover the contributions to the Governor-General’s Fund. We need not worry ourselves about these two items so far as the general financial position is concerned. Then I want to reply in anticipation to a question which will probably be asked, namely why is it necessary every March to come to the House with a long series of additional expenditure? I dealt with that position last year. The position is this, that experience has taught us that every year, after the end of the financial year, various departments return to the Treasury fairly large amounts which have been issued to them. That, of course, is due to the fact that the departments are disposed to put their claims a little bit on the high side, and it is quite natural that a department always has in view the danger of having to spend more money than what Parliament has voted, and it may have to answer for having incurred unauthorised expenditure. Consequently, there is a strong tendency on the part of departments to put their requirements as high as possible. The Treasury tries to keep that tendency in check. From the general financial point of view, it is desirable to keep the repayments, after the end of the financial year, as low as possible. It is self-evident that the closer one comes to the end of the year the weaker that tendency will become on the part of the departments. They see the safety valve of the 31st March and they do not put their demands as they would otherwise do. We have therefore, during the past two years, followed the policy of waiting as far as possible until March to determine the additional amounts required by the departments. We have the first additional estimates in January, and on those estimates we put the items which we know are items that are urgently required and the other items we hold over for the second additional estimates in March. That is the explanation of this long series of items. In the main we are dealing here with comparatively small items which can best be dealt with in Committee of Supply. I don’t propose, therefore, saying anything about those items. They can best be dealt with by the Ministers who are responsible for those items. I only propose now to draw the attention of the House to the principal items appearing here. The first and the largest item is the provision of £2,500,000 for Defence. I referred to that in my Budget speech. A year ago we estimated the country’s requirements in regard to Defence at £100,000,000. We think now that £102,500,000 will be enough. We under-estimated the amount somewhat and for that reason we are now asking the House to provide this additional amount. Then there are a whole series of comparatively small items in connection with salaries, wages and allowances, which altogether, however, amount to £388,000. On a previous occasion I already gave the principal explanation of the fact why we require more money under that heading. The explanation is that we are today paying a great deal more by way of allowances to the Public Service than we expected a year ago. The reason for this increase is threefold. In the first instance the level of the increased cost-of-living is higher than what it was a year ago. At that time it was 18 per cent., and now it is 26 per cent. Secondly, we have introduced a new allowance, the Special War Allowance of 5 per cent., and thirdly we have increased the basis of the cost-of-living allowance considerably, particularly in respect of the lower paid officials. They are now getting the allowance on a much wider basis than was originally anticipated when the estimates were framed last year. Those are the main reasons why we have had to ask for an additional £400,000 under this heading. Then there is a fairly large amount under Public Debt, particularly in regard to interest on the Public Debt. The explanation of that is mainly the fact that oh calculating the allocation of interest on the Public Debt between the Treasury and the Railway Administration it was found that the repayments of the Railway Administration would be somewhat smaller than we had expected, which means that so far as the consolidated revenue fund is concerned we will have to find more money than we had originally thought. Then I want to refer to a further increase in the provision on Vote 20 for capital subsidy in respect of farm mortgages. This is a matter which I have already explained when I introduced the first Additional Estimates and when I said that in all probability a further increase would be asked for because that scheme was being used to a greater extent than we had expected. My expectation has come true. We originally thought that £500,000 would be ample for subsidy on redemption of certified farm mortgages. We now find that the full amount will be £1,050,000, but against that we can put the fact that we shall save an amount of £125,000 on interest subsidy. As a result of the redemption of the bonds the interest is reduced, and consequently the interest subsidy is also reduced. Then I want to refer to the additional provision on the Social Welfare Vote. There are several items, but there are four fairly large items there. In the first place there is the increase in the allowance to physically unfit people. Secondly, there is an increase in the allowance under the Children’s Act. In both cases this is partly attributable to the increase in the number of cases where aid is granted, and partly to an increased cost of living allowance which is being paid. The third item is the provision which is made for expenses in connection with the citrus scheme—for the distribution of fruit—which was introduced last year. The fourth is the item in connection with the milk scheme in respect of which it is found necessary to make more provision in consequence of the increased price of milk. Then I come to the Loan Estimates, and here I want to refer to two items. The first one, and this is the second largest amount, is that we are asked to provide a further amount of £1,000,000 for the Railways. This has been necessitated by the fact that greater progress has been made with approved Railway works than was Originally expected. In regard to this aspect of the matter the Minister of Railways will be able to give more information when the Additional Railway Estimates come before the House. Then, finally, on the Loan Estimates, we have made further provision for expenditure in connection with the standard stock account. That is. due to various facts. In the first place we are engaged on building up standard stocks with a view to post-war activities, and wherever possible we are trying to buy up goods in respect of which there will later on be an increase of price against us. Secondly, this is due to the fact that the shipping position has improved considerably and consignments reach us more promptly than we had expected. In view of that fact it is necessary to increase the standard stock accounts in good time. I believe that I have now given all the necessary information required at this stage; if there are any further points in regard to which hon. members want information I shall naturally give such information in my reply to the debate, and it may further be taken that the various Ministers will be prepared to deal with details when their votes are under discussion.

There is a very strong feeling in the country, and also in this House, that South Africa is gradually becoming a bureaucracy, namely, that we are creating a corps of officials which is becoming so powerful that neither the Treasury nor the Government is able to control their expenditure of State money. In my opinion the fact that the Minister of Finance was compelled this year to alter his original estimates of expenditure for the current year no less than three times, is proof that the Treasury is no longer able to exercise control over the departments which spend the State money. I think the Minister of Finance will admit that the annual estimates, the main estimates, are drawn up very carefully. Months beforehand all the State departments are notified that they must submit their needs and requirements for the forthcoming year. They do that as liberally as possible. Then the Treasury carefully investigates their requirements, and decides what the State departments can spend during the year in question, according to the revenue of the country. I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that it has become a matter of tradition in the Government that every State department regards itself as being limited to the amount of money made available for the department, that it must regard it as a matter of honour and duty not to exceed that amount. But what is the position today? At the beginning of the financial year the Government introduced the main estimates and told the country that, having regard to the revenue, that was the amount which it was proposed to spend; it told Parliament that that was the amount which was being made available to each State department for the year. The Government had no sooner done that when it came along with supplementary estimates, as it did last year. In other words, the Officials Corps, the bureaucracy in this country compelled the Government to give more than it considered necessary in the first instance. They compelled the Government to spend more than it considered necessary at the time of the compilation of the estimates. What is the position this year? First of all the Minister came along with additional estimates of expenditure. That involved a large amount. More than £2,500,000 extra was asked for on revenue account, and now we have these further additional estimates. In other words, bureaucracy in this country compelled the Minister on three occasions to alter his estimates of expenditure. Now something new has arisen in the administration of the country, something which causes one to feel a certain amount of concern. At first there was competition between the departments to keep within the limits of the amount which was made available by the Government. Today it seems that there was competition amongst them to see by how much they could exceed the Minister’s figure. I can only furnish the House with details in regard to the past three years. During the year 1941-’42 State departments exceeded on 25 votes the amount which the Minister had made available. The following year 33 State departments exceeded that amount.

You mean 33 votes.

Yes. This year we find that that was done in the case of 43 votes out of a total of 47. The only votes where that was not done, were the Senate, the House of Assembly, Customs and Excise and the vote of the Government Printer. With the exception of those four not a single vote was confined to the original estimates. That is a very unhealthy sign. I should like to say a few words in connection with these votes. I am glad that the Prime Minister is here, because I want to say a few words in connection with the Defence Vote. An additional amount of £2,500,000 is being asked for which will then increase the total provision for defence to £102,500,000. I just want to say to the Prime Minister that there is one thing which we cannot understand. Why is it that the further the war recedes from our borders, the smaller the rôle becomes which we apparently play in the war; the smaller the army which we have in the fighting line, the bigger the amount becomes which we have to spend? I remember a time when we had two divisions at the front. We could hardly open the newspaper at that time without reading something about the feats of arms of our men in the North. We heard what they did in Abyssinia and also in North Africa. We had two divisions and they did accomplish something. As far as I know there is at the moment only one division in the North. As far as I know that division is not in the fighting line, and although our fighting forces have been reduced, we find that whereas at that time our expenditure was £60,000,000 in the second year of war, today is is £102,500,000. It has nearly doubled. We reduced our fighting division by one-half, but our expenditure doubled. Can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister throw any light on this? Just imagine, we in South Africa are spending more than £100,000,000 to keep one division in the fighting line. I think Germany has approximately 350 divisions. At that rate of expenditure, Germany’s war expenditure would be £35,000,000,000. I think Russia has about 460 divisions, and Russia’s expenditure would then have to be £96,000,000,000. On investigation it will appear that that is not the case. Why is it that our expenditure on defence per division is so high in comparison with that of other countries? That is what I should like to know. It costs South Africa £100,000,000 to keep one division at the front. Why does it cost us so much more than it costs other countries? There is a feeling throughout the country that we are wasting an enormous amount of money in connection with the war effort, and I want to tell the Prime Minister that this waste of money is no proof of capable leadership. On the contrary this waste of money is proof that there is too much inefficiency in the army. Inefficient leadership has never led to success in any direction. Nor will success be attained in this case. The time has arrived for us to place our Defence Force in South Africa on a sound footing. Since I moved that a Committee be appointed in connection with war expenditure, I have received letters almost every day. These letters do not come from supporters of this side but from friends of the Government, people who support the Govenment’s war policy. I should like to quote a few extracts from letters which I received during the past few days, in order to indicate to the hon. Minister what the feeling in the country is. I have here a letter written by a man in Pretoria. He writes—

Then he goes on to mention cases to show what happens, but I just want to read this further extract to the Prime Minister—

The Prime Minister will remember that I raised this matter in the House last year and that I asked whether it was not true that when the war broke out—this is an important matter—senior officers of the Defence Force thought that this was an opportunity for them to make use or to take advantage of the embarrassing position in which the country found itself. They were close to the pensionable age, and they submitted their resignations. But they knew that the Prime Minister could not do without them. What happened then? The very thing on which they had relied. The moment they resigned they were told that they would be given their pensions and that they would immediately be appointed to their former posts; that they would then get a pension plus their salary. I want to tell the Prime Minister that I have not the slightest respect for that type of person, and the country has not the slightest respect for that type of person, and the sooner the Prime Minister gets rid of this type of person, the better it will be. People who take advantage of the embarrassing position in which the country finds itself, professional soldiers who in time of danger plan to draw their salaries plus a big pension, ought not to be allowed by the Prime Minister to remain in the Defence Force for another single day. I have received numerous letters in regard to this type of thing. The note on which this letter ends is as follows—

I think he is referring to the regulations which are published in the Government Gazette from time to time. We are now being asked to vote an additional £2,500.000 for Defence. May I just read an extract from another letter—

Then this letter goes on to mention other matters. A moment ago I received another letter, which reads—

That is the type of letter which I receive every day. I just want to tell the Minister that when we get to the Committee stage, we shall move that this vote of £2,500,000 be deleted, and I think that in doing so we shall be acting not only in accordance with the wishes of members of this side of the House, but also in accordance with the wishes of many members on the other side. There is dead wood in the Defence Force, and that dead wood must be eliminated in the interests of the Defence Force itself. Canada is busy doing it. May I just tell the House what is happening in Canada this year. Last year Canada’s war expenditure amounted to 3,890,000,000 dollars. The Minister of Finance of Canada recently delivered his Budget speech, and the whole world knows today that Canada’s war expenditure is being reduced this year from 3,890,000,000 dollars to 3,650,000,000 dollars. That is what Canada is saving on its war effort this year—240,000,000 dollars or £50,000,000. We ask that our Government should at least make an effort in the same direction. If this were done, a saving of £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 could easily be effected, an amount which we could devote to much better purpose. I want to tell the Prime Minister that we have to put our finger on those things in the Defence Force which are wrong. In these Estimates there is an additional amount in connection with internments. On page 14, Vote No. 27, we are being asked to vote an additional £9,600 in respect of internments. The manner in which our money is being wasted in connection with internments, ought to indicate to the Prime Minister to what extent money is being wasted in the Defence Force.

I suppose that is due to the fact that the internees are treated so well.

We have gone into this matter to some extent and I find that as far as is known, the expenditure in connection with internments in South Africa is the highest in the world per internee. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) says that that is due to the good treatment meted out to the internees. Let us examine that for a moment. May I say that our expenditure is 7s. 1d. per day per internee. I want to draw attention to the fact that we have interned people from other African States. The men whom those States want interned are sent to South Africa and placed in our camps, but they have found our expenses so high that they have refused to pay 7s. 1d. They say it is scandalous. Now the hon. member for Ermelo says that this may be due to the good treatment meted out to our internees. Our expenditure is 7s. 1d. per day per internee. Do you know what proportion we are spending on food? Exactly one shilling. One-seventh of the expenditure is in connection with food. Food, clothing, medical services and fuel in connection with the internees account for 1s. 5d. per day per internee. What becomes of the remaining 6s.? The administration of internment camps costs only 3s. 4d. per internee. One would think that if 3s. 4d. per internee is spent on administration, that administracught to be satisfactory. Does the Prime Minister think that our administration of internment camps is satisfactory? Does the Prime Minister know that there was such a condition of chaos that a special committee had to be appointed to investigate these things? Does the Prime Minister know that the report of that commission constitutes the strongest possible condemnation of this situation? I just want to read what the Auditor-General says. He says that there is a condition of chaos which must be ascribed to laxity of control, negligence, inefficiency. Then he goes on to say : “Apart from that, the commission expressed the opinion that there was dishonesty and that there was extensive scope for dishonest practice.” The commission then recommends that police investigation should be instituted. Our expenses in connection with internments are the highest in the world. We are spending 3s. 4d. per day per internee. And notwithstanding all this money that we are spending, the Auditor-General states that not only is there a condition of chaos and laxity and inefficiency, but that there is dishonesty. Here we have something on which we can fortunately put our finger. That is one thing. If that is any criterion as to what goes on throughout the Defence Force, it is high time to put our house in order. In conclusion I want to say to the Minister of Finance that our expenditure, with the exception of capital expenditure now amounts to £160,000,000 I do not regard war expenditure as capital expenditure, but the Main Estimates together with the Supplementary Estimate and the two Additional Estimates, and together with the two items on Loan Account, “War Expenditure” and “Contribution to the Governor-General’s War Fund,” amount to £160,000,000.

That is the appropriation, not the actual expenditure.

That is correct.

There were considerable savings.

Yes, there were savings. Our appropriation was £160,000,000. Now I want to deduct from this our war expenditure of £102,500,000. We then get the ordinary current expenditure which amounts to £58,000,000 per annum. That is the appropriation. I am deliberately saying nothing about the war expenditure, because hon. members on the other side are only too inclined to say that we dare not save on war expenditure. There the expenditure must be allowed to proceed on a reckless basis.

In any event, I do not want to enlarge on that. Then we find that current expenditure, apart from war expenditure, amounts to £58.000,000. Compare that with the current expenditure just before the war. I find that just before the war the current expenditure was £42,000,000. Included in that is an amount of £1,750,000 for Defence. On deducting that, there is a balance of £40,000,000. Today it is £58,000,000, an increase of £18,000,000 or of 45 per cent. The ordinary current expenditure has increased by 45 per cent. Now I want to ask the Minister of Finance what value we are really getting for this extra £18,000,000. Can the Minister rise and say that our administration is better, that the administration of the country is better than it was before the war? I think there are very few people either on this side or on the other side who really believe that. I think even the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) will admit that the administration leaves a great deal to be desired. We put up with this because of the war. But the services are no better; they are worse. One can go to any State department, and one finds the same state of affairs. Agricultural schools have been closed; the services generally are poorer. We are getting no value for this £18,000,000. Are we getting more social services? Are our hospitals better than they were formerly? Has a great deal been done to improve the welfare of the lower paid people in the country; to improve the welfare of the sick, the blind or the deaf? Have we got anything for this £18.000.000? As far as pensions are concerned, we did get a little. The Minister may say that the cost of living allowances have been increased. Granted, but that only means £1,000,000 per annum.

£2,500,000.

That will be in respect of the new financial year. If that is the case, the Minister created the wrong impression in giving these figures.

The figures which you have are in respect of the original appropriation.

You said that that was the amount which was being expended.

I drew a comparison with the previous appropriation. You missed the point.

Let uş take it for granted then that the cost of living allowances are somewhat higher. What else can the Minister show for this £18,000,000. It represents an increase of 45 per cent. over the normal current expenditure. What do we find? We have a state of bureaucracy. Our country is being governed today not by a Cabinet of responsible Ministers, but by a corps of officials who give the lead, and the Minister of Finance has no alternative but to acquiesce. The Government may resign itself to that position, but I hope this House will not do so. I hope that we shall make use of this opportunity to say to the officials’ corps that they cannot simply continue to spend large sums of money as they please; that they cannot continually come to Parliament and ask for more. At the beginning of the year the Minister frames his Estimates and tells the departments what they can spend. When additional sums are required in respect of cost of living allowances, we realise that that should be taken into consideration. But there is a tendency on the part of the departments to go on spending and the Minister simply acquiesces, and we in this House up to the present have yielded far too much. Where extra money is required for desirable services, we shall not refuse, but there is too great a tendency simply to allow costs to mount up. In the second Additional Estimates, for example, an additional sum of £60,000 is being asked in respect of additional subsistence and travelling allowances for officials. In the past that has always been a test whether the Government was using State money economically. We know how scarce petrol and tyres are. We have experienced that. We cannot travel about as we please, but here an additional amount of £60,000 is being asked for to enable officials to travel about. It is constantly increasing. I have already pointed out the additional amount which is sought in connection with internment camps. That is a scandalous state of affairs. I hope that in view of this scandalous state of affairs the Minister will say that he is going to close all the internment camps.

We listened as usual with great, interest to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). As a matter of fact, the hon. member for George is rapidly becoming the most celebrated caricaturist that this House has ever had. I wish him luck on the reputation he has built up in that direction. It is a most extraordinary thing that the hon. member for George and the Opposition are making attack after attack upon a number of civil servants who have been released for war services, and the absence of these officers from their duty, has resulted in less efficient service than would be the case were these men not fighting. These men have been released to fight for South Africa. I submit that the whole speech to which we listened this afternoon from the hon. member for George cuts out the fact that South Africa is at war. He wants better public services. He wants everything better. He did not say a single word about the handicap of this war. We have heard criticism from the Opposition benches that the Government has not got on this year with an accelerated programme of social services. They want us to spend far more money than we have spent in order to make provision and appropriations for the spending of money on social services. Take out. Defence from these additional estimates, and most of the additional expenses are for things like public health, social welfare and so on.

It is not 10 per cent. of the total.

These are only token payments; in other words, when the Minister of Finance in a small way yields to the pressure of this House, he is criticised. We cannot have our cake and eat it.

We have no cake.

In regard to the Defence Vote, this extra £2,500,000, of course, we get a long story about the inefficiency of the army and so on. How hon. members on the other side can get up and criticise our army, the way they do, and all the time they have done everything they possibly could do to prevent our having an efficent army, passes my comprehension.

You are dreaming.

We know how in the early days of the war these men scoffed and sneered, and even this afternoon in the House, we people who follow the Government are called Kakieridders. These are the people who criticised the Government. If the Opposition is not proud of our South African army, I can tell them that the world is proud of the South African army, and we on this side of the House are proud of our army. Now let me take this £2,500,000. The Minister of Finance told us that this is occasioned by the fact that materials are coming from overseas earlier than we expected. Does my hon. frined know how many aeroplanes can be bought for £2,500,000 today? Something like 25, and yet we hear of raids over Berlin where thousands of planes took part. Our trouble is that we started with “boskarre.” And we have the “boskar” complex in regard to equipment costs. When it comes to mechanising our army, we have to pay for it, and the elections have shown that the people of this country are willing to pay in order that we might have a first class army equipped in the best possible way. We do not want anything less than the best for our South African army. The Minister has explained this £2,500,000. Then let us take this question of the internment camps. When the history of the internment camps in this country is written, the necessity of these internment camps will not be laid at the door of this side of the House. Oh no; when feelings in the country were running high, when we thought that it would be enough to make provision for, say, 200 internees, we found overnight that we had 2,000 internees. Naturally there was chaos, and our trouble was in this effort that all the citizens of the country were not imbued with one desire, and that was to help the Government. The men who did come to the assistance of the Government were all imbued with this one desire.

To make money.

Order, order!

When this internment camp trouble arose, unfortunately for the Government, we did not have men like the hon. member for George to come and help us. He was helping to fill those internment camps, perhaps, and we were met with that position of chaos at the beginning of the war which we all admit; but the important thing as far as our Government is concerned, the important thing so far as our country is concerned, was that we got these men in the internment camps. That action on the part of the Government saved this country from bloodshed and tears and much more money than was wasted in putting those men in the camps. The hon. member for George is, however, now speaking about something that happened in 1940 to 1942. There is one thing about this Government and that is that when we find out what is wrong we try to put things right. Will the hon. member tell me that today the internment camps of this counrty are not run as well as the internment camps in other countries of the world?

They are certainly the most expensive.

I say that from start to finish the hon. member for George has only added today to his reputation as the inimitable caricaturist of the House.

It is a new distinction I was not aware of.

The hon. member referred to Canada. I begin to think that the hon. member is realising that he has so few political prospects in this country that he may be thinking of emigrating to Canada.

We do not want to lose him.

No, we cannot do without our caricaturist in this House. But there is a remarkable thing about Canada I would point out to him and it is this. I indicated in my Budget speech that I believe that the taxation in Canada is higher than anywhere else. It is true that Canada takes £100, and £50 of that taxation will be given back to the people after the war; but the £100 is taken to stop inflation on the one hand, to make provision for the people of Canada after the war, and deliberately and with wisdom and forethought, to try and reduce the standard of living in Canada. This point the Canadian Government made from the commencement of the war, that the standard of living is too high for a period of war such as they saw the world would pass into. Instead of spending as much money as they did on social services before the war, they have actually been cutting down expenses.

Not on social services.

I can vouch for my facts, and I tell the House that the Canadian Government deliberately started from the beginning of the war to cut down social services. In this country it is a remarkable thing that with all the huge sums of money involved in war expenditure we have increased the expenditure on social services all the time. This Budget makes provision for additional expenditure on social services, and these additional estimates are token payments of what we expect to do in the future. I am sure that we have all been very interested in what the hon. member has said about letters he has received. We are not going to waste the time of the House in reading letters on the floor of this House that we receive about our friends opposite. We do not do that sort of thing. It amuses the Opposition, but it does not make a very great contribution to, say, the Government’s war effort.

You are not interested in knowing how the bombs are wasted in these factories.

We agree about the waste. War itself is waste. The Americans go over to Berlin every night and £5,000,000 is wasted in loss of bombers. The American people, however, who have given these American planes and American lives believe that it is not waste. I agree that in times of war, in finance there is a tendency for slackness. I quite agree that it is the duty of this House to see that as far as possible the purse strings are tightened up, but do let us be reasonable, and do let us realise that we are still fighting this war and that the war is not won yet.

It would be unreasonable after the country has been at war for four years, and the Government has been charged with one of the most difficult tasks that has confronted any government in history, to be too free with criticism at this stage of the war. It is indeed true that the Government must be criticised on all occasions, but we must also pay regard to what the country and the Government has gone through in the past, and then taking into consideration all the circumstances we must be fair in meting out both praise and criticism. There are naturally many things that today are wrong; that is perfectly true; but we must not forget that the country has for four years been under a handicap, and that the Government has been burdened with difficulties, and in view of all the criticisms that we have hurled at the head of the Government, let us be frank and admit that what we have done has far exceeded our expectations. Let us be grateful; let us in the first place enquire a little into the policy of the Government in connection with the war. I say that we ought to congratulate the Government that in that respect under the most difficult circumstances it has acquitted itself well of its task, very well, and on behalf of the people who have to pay the taxes; and on that account I cannot identify myself with hon. members of the Opposition when, in these circumstances, they only criticise. After the Government has done everything in its power in connection with the war, and after the nation has been retarded for four years under the pressure of war, it is obvious that a certain amount of slackening must occur both on the side of the Government and of the people, and I ascribe most of the things that have occurred to the fact that the Government and the people had to be driven beyond their strength for a period of four years. Most hon. members in this House have in bygone years driven horses. They will know that if you allow the horses to travel fast uphill you must stop when you come to the top and give the horses a chance to draw breath. You must give the Government a chance to regain its breath, and we are now experiencing those moments; for those of us who are not blind can observe that there has been a general relaxation of effort, and instead of coming along today with destructive criticism we must say to the Government. “So far so good, but as soon as you have drawn breath the time will arrive to begin a new offensive.” Accordingly, I should not like to confine myself to what has occurred in the past, but I should like to devote myself more to what must take place in the immediate future. I think that this easing-off period has now been in progress for nearly a year, and that with the breaking of the new year new courage and new administrative efforts must be produced, in the first instance to tackle the war effort in a more practical way, and that the time has also arrived when the Government must make a start in that direction. The Government must now say to the people: “You have eased off.” Let us admit we have all, in a certain measure eased off.

May I remind the hon. member of the rule that I laid down on the 24th January, namely—

I shall naturally bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Under Defence, we have to deal with the Prime Minister, and I should like merely to develop somewhat the point that I previously made. I shall never forget when I was lying in hospital a little while ago I listened to a radio talk that was given by the Prime Minister in which he told us that South Africa was becoming the workshop of the whole of Africa. We naturally welcomed that announcement with open arms, but I must say that in my opinion that hope has not materialised, absolutely not. Instead of South Africa becoming the workshop of Africa, there has come a slackening of effort, and instead of a tremendous demand we find a miniature slump or depression. That is actually what is happening in the country today. In respect of Defence, I am anxious to see that the idea expressed by the Prime Minister is given effect to. The Minister of Agriculture is now in his seat, and I should just like to say that in my opinion it would be very improper to criticise him in connection with his department. He has only taken over a couple of days, and hon. members cannot expect that he will be fully au fait with matters. But I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. Before you call me to order again, Sir, I should just like to say that I will only dwell on this for a moment. I admire the attitude of hon. members in not being overready at directing criticism at the Minister. But I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied in the first place with the working of his control boards, and his marketing boards, and here I want to confine myself to “Inland Marketing Improvement.” That falls under “L.” I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the most practical expression is being given to the wish of the, Government to distribute the products of the country as they should be distributed, and in accordance with the way in which the control boards eventually should work.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

I am discussing Item L, Inland Marketing, on Page 9.

I hope that the hon. member will respect my ruling.

I apologise if you think that I am not doing that.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

Agriculture.

What item under Agriculture?

L, 5.

The hon. member cannot discuss it under that. That item is in respect of Salaries, Wages and Allowances. The hon. member cannot discuss policy under that.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister a few questions.

The hon. member will have an opportunity of putting questions in the Committee stage.

If I am not able to put questions now, then I have nothing further to say.

I should like to reply to the remarks made by the last speaker, but I do not know what it is I have to answer. He talked about a minor depression and something that he heard while he was in hospital—I do not know which hospital. I should like, with your permission, Sir, to talk things over with the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet). I am surprised that he who is regarded as the financial expert on the front benches on the other side of the House, who is also chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, who has seen there what waste is taking place, who ought to have delivered a cool· and reasoned speech here as a business man, has now stood up and abused and upbraided the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He has said that the hon. member for George is a caricaturist.

That is a compliment.

I do not want to be personal, but may I say that I am very disappointed over the attitude the hon. member has adopted here. He has stated that we are engaged in waging war, and so it is understandable that they are wasting money.

He said nothing of the sort.

I have listened attentively to his address. I expected that he would produce figures to justify his case, and that he would argue his case calmly. From beginning to end we merely heard: You must understand that we are preoccupied with the war; if there is mismanagement that is to be expected, because we are engaged in war. I have previously stated, and I want to repeat it today that if the hon. member looks into his heart, he will agree with me. I can understand that there must be a measure of mismanagement and of extravagance when a country is making war within the boundaries of that country, but if it is making war as in the case of South Africa, beyond the borders of the country, then one does not expect mismanagement and wastefulness. We are told that the costs connected with our internment camps are higher than the costs in any other country. It was also stated to the hon. member that the costs in the internment camp only come to 1s. per person per day, but at present the cost is 7s. a day. Has the hon. member made any effort to contradict this? Has he made any effort to prove that this is wrong, or that it is necessary that the costs should be so high? The position is this. He knows just as well as I do what mismanagement occurs there, and he simply must not place the country under the impression that this is not the case, because later that will land him in difficulties. The hon. member says that the Government expected to get 200 internees, and that 2,000 people have been interned in place of 200, and he added that the hon. member for George is responsible for that.

He must be a wonderful fellow.

He can produce no facts to prove that the hon. member for George is responsible for the fact that these people have landed in the camps. I will not tell him now what the reason for those internments is. I will not tell him about the hundreds who have been interned and who have been released again within a few days. We will not discuss that now. As a businessman he knows just as well as do that when you have institutions such as these you must at least have people who can keep books. He knows what the position is. He is chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and with the knowledge that he has I expected that he would agree with the hon. member for George and say: “We are sorry that the money has been wasted, but it must be ascribed to the fact that there was a shortage of staff, to the fact that the books were not well kept.” But to come here and scold the hon. member for George and then impute all sorts of motives to him, is more than we can understand We do not complain about the army; our. complaint is that in order to maintain one division of troops in the North it is not necessary to have thousands of soldiers in the Union today. The hon. member himself can see these people walking around here in Cape Town every day. Why must so many soldiers be kept here? Why have so many people to be paid? The hon. member knows that even members of Parliament drew salaries as soldiers while they knew that they never would be able to go and fight. He knows himself that there was one gentleman in the refreshment room in the building who was so big that he could hardly sit on a chair, but he was also in the Army.

What was his rank.

I do not know. He ought, of course to have been a general. If reproaches are made that money has been wasted it is no answer to say that the Army has done wonderful work. Members on this side of the House have received letters in which their attention was directed to the things that have occurred. I do not believe that the other side have received a single letter.

They would read them if they had them.

It does not help to talk this matter to death. The general public today realises what the position is. They realise that there is mismanagement; they realise that money has been wasted; they realise that it is unnecessary to maintain this large army here in order to keep one division in the field. The public are already tired of these stories. We have been hearing these stories now for four years. They can take Afrikaners who have not been guilty of any offence, and put them into the internment camps. Expense is thereby incurred, and yet they release those people a week later. If auditors are necessary why not have them? The hon. member opposite sits on the committee and he knows what statements have been made in connection with this matter. There can be no question about it. We know and the public knows that money has been wasted. The public knows that there are men in the service who have never done any service and who will never do anything. All that we now ask is this: Sift out the men and let those go who are unnecessary. That will bring down the expenditure. It is not only the hon. member for Vasco and his friends who have to pay; we also must pay, and as taxpayers we just like any businessman want 20s. in the £ for what we pay. We do not get it, and on that account we are complaining. I will just say this, that I am surprised that a businessman who is sitting on the front benches on the other side of the House has tried to ridicule the hon. member for George He has spoken here of a caricature and I do not know what else, but he has not replied to the criticisms. All that he is able to tell us is that there is a war on.

He was not able to answer the criticism.

But then he must keep quiet and not say things which are wrong. In connection with the estimates I have put a question on public health to the Minister of Finance, and I shall repeat it now because a larger amount is voted here. I want to ask what effort is going to be made to provide doctors in places that cannot support them. I am referring to my own constituency, where there is a place like Barrydale where the people are 25 miles from the nearest doctor. It costs the poor people £11 to £12 to call a doctor there. These people cannot carry on like that.

Order, order!

I will not proceed further with that matter, Mr. Speaker. Then there is the money which is being voted to provide work for the semi-fit. I should very much like to know from the Minister what has been done in this connection. Six years have now passed since I pleaded for these people. The Minister, on one occasion, came forward with legislation to help these people with pensions, but this fell away and from that time onwards nothing has been done for these people. They are in the most difficult position of all. Such a person is poor; he is perhaps a farmer, but he may have only one arm and you can realise in what a position that man finds himself. He cannot handle a spake and he has no chance of obtaining proper work. In the city he may be able perhaps to work a lift, but there is not much hope really of him being considered for that. He stays in a small village, and he has not the opportunities that people in the large towns have. He has small children, because he is not in the position of the old people whose children have all struck out on their own. I say that in the cities the semi-fit men have still a chance to make a living, but in the platteland they have not got that chance. Employers will not engage such people, because they cannot pay them a living wage. They prefer to have fit men. These people have a rough time. Apparently an effort is now being made to provide work for these people, and I should like the Minister to tell us what form this effort is taking and what opportunity there will be for these people to obtain work under the funds that are made available here.

Put that question in Committee.

I should just like to add this, that I think the time has arrived for the Government to give an answer to the appeal made by the public for the appointment of some commission or other to see what can be done in connection with the release of people who really are not required for the front line. If we discharge them then we can engage people who can do something, people who possibly can be used at the front. Afrikaans-speaking, English-speaking, Sap and Nat, all are beginning to feel, especially when they have to pay taxes, that an enormous amount of money is being squandered by the payment of wages to people who are not required except merely that they are provided with “jobs for pals.” It is high time that something was done to put an end to that sort of thing, and to fulfil the expectations of the public.

I was really astonished at the tone of the speech which we heard here this afternoon from the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet). That hon. member occupies a unique position in this House and he also occupies a unique position on a Committee of this House. He is the next responsible person to the Minister of Finance in financial matters on the opposite side of the House. He is the man who has to get up first to discuss financial affairs.

He is the Mbongo of the Minister of Finance.

Yes, as the hon. member says, he is the Mbongo of the Minister of Finance, but he occupies another and a very important position, and that is the Chairmanship of the Committee which above all others is entrusted with the work of checking up on the doings of all departments, so that it can lay its finger on any mismanagement, especially in regard to financial matters. The hon. member has an important function to fulfil, and what astounds me so much is that he, of all people—he, who has to fulfil that important function—when sound criticism is levelled in this House regarding the waste of public money, should, instead of welcoming that criticism, instead of dealing with it on its merits, get up and put forward no argument at all but simply repeat the old story of “Do you know that there is a war on?” I don’t think it becomes the hon. member, and if it does become the hon. member then it certainly does not become him as Chairman of such a Committee. Well, he went further than that; when we said: “Stop the waste of money which is going on, fill up the gaps, which are as large as the Grootrivier, through which the State funds are simply pouring,” and when we expect the hon. member for Vasco to do his best to stop this waste—instead of his doing so he tried to condone these things. He reminded me very strongly of the little boy who fell asleep while attending a Sunday School class, and who, when the Sunday School teacher suddenly asked him: “Who made the world?” woke up with a start and replied: “I did, Sir, but I won’t do it again.” That is what the attitude of the hon. member for Vasco amounts to. He was asked here emphatically to mention concrete arguments to prove that our statements were incorrect, and what did the hon. member reply? “Yes, I admit that there is chaos, but we are trying to put things right.” Now, let me say this to the House and to the country this afternoon, that is the reply which we get every time—every day and every year for the last four years—when we have spoken about the terrible chaos which prevails. “We admit that, there is chaos but we are putting things right.” We have always had the reply that they admit that there is chaos—they admit that the deeper we go into things the worse they become—“but they are trying to put things right.” May I be allowed to say this to the hon. member? I don’t want to talk about caricatures, as he has done, but. when he spoke about caricatures I was reminded of the fact that there was such a thing as competition. If he talks again in the way he did, then I would advise him to go and stand in front of a looking glass and look at himself to see what he looked like this afternoon; he may perhaps realise then that there is competition for a caricature. A particular matter has been referred to here and that particular matter is the terrible waste of money in connection with the management of internment camps. Instead of the hon. member, in view of the functions he has to fulfil, getting up here this afternoon and saying: “Yes, we agree that there is a waste of money and that that, waste must be stopped”—instead of him doing that, what does he do? He tries to cover up things, and he tries to joke about the mess which exists today. But let me, for the information of the hon. member and for the information of this House, quote from what the Auditor-General says in his report. I want to quote from the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into internment camp stocks. The condition in that connection was such that it was found necessary to appoint a Committee of Enquiry to look into the disgraceful disorder which prevailed there. That Committee has reported. Every member knows that this is not the first Committee of Investigation, which this Government has had to appoint to enquire into conditions of mismanagement. A Committee will very shortly have to be appointed to enquire into the whole subject of mismanagement in respect of this war, but let us see what this report says—

And then the following paragraphs appear in the report of the Auditor-General—

That was two years ago.

The hon. member need not talk about last year. He knows that this question is being investigated now. There is a state of chaos in the Department of Defence and it is argued that they need additional staff to clear up the mess. He knows as well as I do that the whole question is being investigated. He knows that they are complaining of insufficient staff to put the arrear work right. He knows it as well as I do, but he tries to dodge these things. Now let me go on and quote what is contained in that report—

And that is not all. He puts it very much worse than that—

That is the argument which the hon. member for Vasco has also used, but let us see what the Auditor-General has to say about it—

The hon. member this afternoon pretended that that was the only factor. He knows all about this report. He knows the details, and he comes here and pretends that that was the only factor. The Auditor-General then goes οn to say—

Without going into the report of the Committee, and the hon. member knows as well as I do that it is not necessary to go into the report, he knows what is in that report, but without going into it I just want to say that in connection with this matter I find in the report of the Auditor-General for this year (1942-’43) the following on page 114—

In connection with the unsatisfactory condition of affairs the Committee further found—

The report of the Committee confirms everything the Auditor-General has said. I have quoted these things to show what part that hon. member is playing.

That is a long time ago.

That hon. member knows little about anything and about this matter he knows nothing at all. I want to impress this on the hon. member for Vasco: I challenge him to deny that these things are correct and that they are being investigated. I challenge him to deny that this side of the House has given every possible support in connection with the tracing of these discrepancies in order to put a stop to them. Can he deny that? And now that we have come here this afternoon and proved that a disgraceful waste of money is taking place, and in view of the fact that we are asked for a further £9,600 in connection with internment camps, we have the right to expect these things to be properly controlled and managed. And when we propose this and refer to these matters then we expect to get support; we don’t expect the hon. member to take up the attitude which he did. I hope that in future he will display a greater sense of responsibility and that he will never again take up the attitude he did today, an attitude which one can almost call shameless. No, we expect the co-operation of the hon. member in order to put an end to these malconditions.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) tried to make out that the Opposition have nothing to do with the question of internment camps, and with pious voices and practically with tears in their eyes they make appeals to this House on that particular subject. But I want to say this on the subject of internees. Many of them are my own people and they were encouraged to the actions they committed by the very Opposition who afterwards turned round and said that they had nothing to do with their actions which landed them in the internment camps—but now those same members get up here and plead for those people.

The hon. member must not go too deeply into that question.

No, Sir, I shall try not to contravene your ruling and not go too deeply into the subject, but the point is this, that the Opposition are blaming the Government for the expenses that are involved in those internment camps, and I maintain that they are partly, if not largely responsible, for these expenses, because of their actions in the past. We know that early in 1941 those people, many of whom are in the internment camps today, were encouraged by the Opposition. Less than a year later they were called a gangster organisation. My submission is that the Opposition should not try and get away with arguments of the kind we have heard here today—and even if they get away with it in this House they will not get away with it in the country. Now, in regard to the additional expenditure, I want to draw attention to two items—the first is on Page 18, Item C. And the second one is at the very end of the Estimates. Now, under Item C we find an increase in allowances for the employment of semi-fit men. While one appreciates very much indeed what the Government is doing to help those unfortunate men, men who cannot do an ordinary day’s work, and must therefore receive a subsidy from the Government, I would like to point out to the Government—and I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not in his seat—that in many instances advantage is taken by a number of Municipalities of this subsidy which is paid by the Government. As regards the Johannesburg Municipality, I was personally responsible there in getting the Municipality to contribute its pro rata share to this vote, and the men falling in that category are today receiving 10s. per day with the subsidy they receive from the Government. But there are other Municipalities in South Africa which are not doing the same, which are not playing the game by the Government in this respect. Now, may I correct a wrong impression which might prevail in this House, and possibly also in seme parts of the country, that these men, because they are called semi-fits, cannot do any work.

The hon. member is discussing the question of a policy in regard to semi-fits. The only question he can discuss under this vote is the reason for the increase.

The reason for the increase, Sir, is the employment of these men. My submission is that the Municipalities’ contribution should be larger, thereby decreasing our contribution. With all due respect I think I am in order on that point, and the reason why I submit that their contribution should be larger is that if they did not employ these men they would employ nonEuropean labour and it has been proved abundantly that on piece work— which incidentally is the best class of work for this type of employment—these men even in their old age can do more than the physically fit non-Europeans can, or would do. Hence my submission. But these men are looked upon, if I may put it that way, as stepchildren. That should not be the case. My submission is that your so called semi-fit men are earning every farthing of their day’s wage, and I hope very sincerely that that position will be carefully watched, that the contributions made by the Municipalities, and that our contributions will be watched in a similar way, in accordance with the amounts contributed by the Municipalities. Then on page 26, vote 47—I had better give all the details—we have the vote in respect of the Directorate of Demobilisation. One appreciates the creation of this Department; one appreciates the creation of this Portfolio, and one appreciates the fact, too, that this Department has taken over the Civil Re-employment Board. It is unfortunate, of course, that through the creation of this Department an impression has got about in the country that the war is over and that recruits are no more needed. One is tempted to say that recruits are even more needed than before the creation of this Department, but one sincerely hopes that the Minister responsible for this Department, the Minister who is asking for this money to be voted by the House, will be in a position either now, or during the discussion on the Main Budget, to make a statement as to what we shall get for the money we are about to vote. You see, Sir, the country is looking forward with keen interest to the work of this Department, the country is waiting with great expectation for a statement from the Minister of Demobilisation and as this is the first vote of this nature one feels that one may make an appeal to the Minister and ask him to make a statement so that the House and the country may know what he intends doing. One appreciates, of course, that under a vote of this nature it is difficult to give details—and perhaps it is not policy to give details—but as a member of this House I think I am entitled to expect from a Minister of the Crown a statement of what he proposes doing. The time and the occasion are possibly not opportune to deal with this question of demobilisation generally, and if I did I should probably not be in favour with you, Mr. Speaker. But there is a lot still lacking, and I say this with knowledge of the fact, that the Minister has only recently taken over this particular Department. It is essential, very essential indeed, that the country should know exactly where it stands on this particular point. May I conclude my remarks by saying that the country’s war effort will definitely be accelerated by an early declaration of policy with regard to demobilisation.

I do not propose detaining the House. I would not have taken part in this discussion were it not for the fact that I feel more and more that the procedure of this House has changed during the past few years to such an extent that there is not an apparent but a real danger that the control of the country’s finances is not receiving the attention which it should receive. There is no place where such attention should be given to the country’s finances more than in Parliament. That is Parliament’s first function. To my mind that function is even more important than passing legislation. The fact that at this stage we not only get main estimates and additional estimates, but more than one set of additional estimates, proves to me that not only is there a slackening off on the part of the Department of Finance in insisting on careful estimates at the beginning of the year, but it also leads to more time being taken up than is necessary. I think it is necessary to raise this point. I think the Minister will agree with me that if second and third additional estimates are placed before the House, the officials under his control will more and more slacken off in their efforts to draw up accurate estimates at the beginning of the year. In the olden days one of the most outspoken critics who sat on the Government side, the late Mr. Jagger, always raised objections if it was found necessary to ask for an additional few hundred thousand pounds. We always listened to his criticisms although they were sometimes very “nagging.” But as things are going today there is less and less accuracy, and this may lead to serious dangers. If the officials have the feeling that they can just come along with additional estimates and ask for money it will have the effect of little care being taken when the estimates are drafted. But I want to go further and say that this relaxation, this slackening off in the conception of the standard which has to be maintained by the Department of Finance to go as thoroughly as possible into financial matters also leads to expenditure being automatically increased. That aspect has been touched upon today. If an amount of money is placed at the disposal of a department the department has to come out on that money unless special circumstances render a change necessary. In that way the country’s money is protected, and it is a protection for the taxpayers. But as soon as one gets this slackening off which we have now, more and more money will be spent, and it is an additional cause— perhaps it is only a minor factor, but still it is a factor — for the increase in the cost of living, and it is a factor which leads to inflation. Every little bit of money which unnecessarily comes into circulation in times like the present contributes towards inflation and increased cost of living. The Minister today said that an additional £2,000,000 would be required for cost of living. I believe that in all probability it is fair to the officials to grant that money, but we have to utter a word of warning again, as we have done on previous occasions, against this slackening off of control. This undoubtedly must have the Minister’s attention. The remarks of the hon. member for Vasco were particularly painful to me. He and I know each other fairly intimately. We have worked together very pleasantly in a different relationship and I definitely expect his judgment to be at least balanced; I do not want him to allow himself to be carried away by sentiment. This House is the place where the country’s finances must be discussed. This is the place where we have to look into matters to see whether the policy which is carried out is fair or not. This is the place where expenditure has to be judged.

But you must be fair.

That is exactly the point. I am afraid the hon. member has lost his equilibrium and his judgment. All he can say is that there is a war on—war, war, war! And when there is a war on one can just go on spending. When there is a war on one can just let the people’s money, hard earned money, go up in smoke and fire, and nobody is to be allowed to criticise. But this House is the proper place to level criticism. It is the duty of the House to do so, and now the hon. member for Vasco comes along here as the Government’s principal mouthpiece after the Minister in connection with finance, and he takes up the attitude more or less that war expenditure is something sacred which we must not tamper with.

I don’t say that.

That is the attitude of the hon. member, the aspirant Minister of Finance, that nobody must criticise war expenditure. He wants to create the impression that the taxpayer must pay and keep quiet, and that we here must keep quiet where war expenditure is concerned. The hon. member will admit that there has been a slackening off in control, and that in the interest of the people this should be changed. There are a few other matters to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention. I don’t want to go into any details, but I should like to have a reply to these questions when we are in Committee. The first question I want to raise is in connection with our public debt.

I shall deal with that in Committee.

Then there is the additional expenditure by the Department of Commerce and Industries in connection with war legislation.

I shall also deal with that in Committee.

Well, I am satisfied with that.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 13th March.