May I just say that yesterday I gave an undertaking to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) who wanted to insert a new sub-clause (b) that I would go into the matter and see whether it would be possible to insert such a clause. I consulted the Law Advisers and told them that it had been recommended that we should allow an owner to have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Minister under that sub-clause. They are of opinion that such a provision will be impractical, and impracticable. It will be difficult, for the court to find any basis on which to decide such an appeal, and they cannot recommend any practical measure to remove the hon. member’s objection.

Amendments in Clause 2 agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 1st May.

I wish to take this opportunity of giving the House, and the country, some information regarding the measures which the Government has decided to adopt to provide for the reinstatement in civilian life of our South African men and women serving in the Forces.

First and foremost in public importance at the present time, from the point of view of the Ministry of Welfare and Demobilisation, is the Government’s complete plan for dealing with ex-volunteers. If I gauge public opinion correctly in this country, then it may well be said that the manner in which the Government tackles this task will be the acid test of its ability to retain public support. While it is undoubtedly true that our paramount task still is the prosecution of the war effort with undiminished energy to a successful conclusion, it is, I think, equally true that we shall be hampered in our efforts to maintain a maximum war effort to the end if we do not now place before both serving and potential serving personnel a full and frank statement of our intentions regarding the discharged serving man and woman.

Up to now—and I think unavoidably—we have been dealing with these matters of re-employment, of re-adjustment and of rehabilitation in piecemeal fashion. It has been a case of trial and error. Hitherto volunteers on discharge have not been dealt with under any co-ordinated plan, but in terms of various individual requirements. This, of necessity, led in some cases to dissatisfaction and criticism and to the inevitable allegation that the Government was not sincere in the promises made from time to time to volunteers. It would be futile to delude ourselves into believing that such allegations have not been made.

But it must not be forgotten that during the early phases of the war the position was not what it is today. During the first four years of South Africa’s participation in this world conflict, the Prime Minister and the Government had to devote themselves to the task, not only of fighting the enemy outside our borders in order to safeguard the freedom of our sovereign independent status, but also of maintaining our internal security against those who sought, in moments of grave adversity, to stab us in the back. We had to build up a great military organisation from nothing. We had to create an industrial war machine upon a basis undreamed of in the placid days of peace. And while applying ourselves diligently and unrelentlessly to these pressing and immense problems, for which we were so unprepared, we were also called upon to restrain those subversive elements in our midst which, encouraged by the initial, spectacular successes of Hitler and his Nazi satellites, and certainly not discouraged by the public utterances of certain prominent politicians in this country attempted by means of propaganda, and overt action, to sabotage the Union’s war effort.

At such a time, and under such stress, it is obvious that the Government could not prepare for demobilisation on the same lines as today, when we are assured of victory.

Now, however, the situation has changed. After four and a half years of war, it is possible to deal with the problem as a whole, to plan on a complete and absolute scale, and to place before the country a comprehensive programme and general plan for the re-absorption of ex-volunteers into civilian life.

The formation of a Ministry of Welfare and Demobilisation is the Prime Minister’s recognition of this fact. Fundamental, so far as the demobilisation side of that Ministry was concerned, was the need for greater co-ordination in connection with schemes for discharged volunteers, and that all the various schemes and machinery in existence should be revised and overhauled where necessary. With so wide and formidable a task before one, it has naturally been essential to survey the problem in all its aspects and to plan with care and precision. This has taken time, and I am aware that some impatience has been expressed that the Government has not at an earlier date taken the House into its confidence regarding its demobilisation plans. But I feel sure that, in this matter, it has been wiser to wait until we have been in a position to place our plans as a whole before hon. members and the country. At this stage, to have dealt with our proposals piecemeal would, I am convinced, have been a source of irritation rather than a measure of satisfaction.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 29th April.

When the House adjourned yesterday afternoon I was dealing with the arguments advanced by the United Party in connection with dual medium. I want to refer to one other argument which was advanced by them. It was stated by the Prime Minister in this House on a certain occasion that our party on this side was intent on catching them young for political purposes. In August, 1943, an article appeared all of a sudden in one of the English daily papers on the Witwatersrand in connection with the medium question, and in this article it was stated that if a child got dual medium education at school from its early years it would not when it grew up, vote for the Re-United Nationalist Party. That again supports my argument that as far as they are concerned it is not an educational matter, but they raised this question for political purposes. We on this side want to say very clearly that we want bilingualism—multi-lingualism, if possible. And I think that the true solution is to be found in a more direct study of the language, as I showed yesterday evening. If there are defects in this respect today, let us remedy those defects. If Afrikaans as a language is taught badly in the English medium schools let us see to it that we appoint teachers who will teach Afrikaans well, and let us also see to it that we have teachers for English in the Afrikaans medium schools who will be able to teach English properly, even if we have to get unilingual English teachers for that purpose. We could easily do that. But there is a second big problem which we would have to solve, and that is the question of the salary of teachers. We no longer get the best boys and girls to take up teaching as a profession. One of the teachers of a high school told me a little while ago that out of that school only three candidates have expressed a wish to take up teaching as a profession. That is the result of the low salary scale. It is a very important question, because it is of importance to the future of our country that we get the best brains to educate our youth. Those boys and girls are the fathers and mothers of the next generation. Before I conclude, I just want to make a friendly and serious request to hon. members on the other side to consider this matter carefully before they come to a decision. We are faced with tremendous problems in our country, and we must not unnecessarily cause disputes amongst the people.

Why did you do so then?

I explained yesterday who was responsible for this struggle. We are faced in South Africa with a tremendous native problem. We are faced with the Indian problem, whether we want to admit it or not. We are faced with other big problems, and it is necessary that there should be co-operation in order to solve these problems. If we make a racial struggle of this matter we will do immense harm to our nation. We will not see the end of it. We cannot afford to have another racial struggle flaring up in this critical period of our national existence. That is one of the reasons why I want to make an appeal to the other side to think twice before they decide. I want to conclude by summing up briefly what our attitude is. In the first place we on this side say that a child learns best through its mother tongue. We cannot get away from that, and that is also the opinion of educationists. In the second place, religious instruction and instruction in other subjects, except the second language, must be given through the medium of the mother tongue, because the child must learn to keep his membership of the nation on a high level and to do his duty as a citizen. In the third place, we point out that the spirit which prevails at school has a tremendous influence in forming the character of the child, which is the main purpose of education. Teachers do not follow a uniform course, and if we bring about this dispute, there will be clashes between children and teachers, and teachers and children. We have shown that the evidence of experts is preponderantly in favour of single medium schools, as well as the evidence of experts overseas. We have also seen that the teachers’ associations have asked that the existing system should be maintained. In the past both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in our country tried to get their own single medium schools, and we knew a period of peace and quiet. Do not disturb that position today. And finally, the existence of a nation goes hand in hand with the maintenance of its language. For that purpose the language of a nation is the most valuable instrument. We cannot get away from that, and it applies in South Africa to Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking people. I want to make an urgent appeal to hon. members on the other side. I have indicated the road which leads to a happier and a more prosperous South Africa, which we all desire.

On a previous occasion when this motion was before the House the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) challenged me to prove that the results of the English medium schools at Rondebosch were equal to those of the Jan van Riebeeck School, which is an Afrikaans-medium school in Cape Town. I am not sure whether he meant the results of the examination or in reference to bilingualism. I do not know what the results of the Jan van Riebeeck school were in the recent senior certificate examinations, but I just want to say that the two schools which the hon. member mentioned, the Rondebosch High School and Bishops, recently did very well in the senior certificate examinations. Sixty-six girls attending the Rondebosch school entered for the examination. They all passed, 23 with distinction. It is not correct to make a comparison between Bishops and the Jan van Riebeeck, because the boys at Bishops write a completely different final examination. But I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Gordonia to the fact that we are at least making great progress with Afrikaans in our schools. We recently instituted special classes for Afrikaans at the Rustenburg school, not only for the teaching of Afrikaans but in order to learn to speak Afrikaans. We went further. At Bishops which is an English private school of the Church of England, the Debating Society conducted the debates alternately in English and in Afrikaans last year. On the staff of that school they have six Afrikaans-speaking teachers who do nothing but teach Afrikaans. Can the Jan van Riebeeck show that they have three or four or six English teachers in their school who do nothing but give instruction through the medium of English? The charge of the hon. member for Gordonia was without foundation. He mentioned this example that in the English examinations a student of the Jan van Riebeeck school had obtained first place. I am very pleased, and I want to congratulate the school, but one swallow does not make a summer.

Which children are most bilingual, those of Bishops or those of the Jan van Riebeeck school?

I am coming to that. I only say that one swallow does not make a summer. In any event I think we can say that serious efforts are being made at our schools at Rondebosch to make the scholars bilingual, and if the Jan van Riebeeck also follows that policy, they are doing the correct thing. The practice of keeping the children apart is wrong. It is the ideal of our country that the two races should work together. They must associate at school and in the university. This development of the single medium school has only taken place during the last fifteen or twenty years. Before that time that was not the position, and I am convinced that we cannot do better than to have mother tongue education up to Standard VI and thereafter to introduce the dual medium gradually. That is the only way in which we can make the people bilingual. The hon. member who spoke before me asked why time has been allowed for this motion, while there are other burning problems in the country. But the Opposition introduced this motion.

The hon. member referred to the agitation to do away with the single medium schools. That is an agitation which you started.

We are not agitating to abolish the single medium school, but to bring the scholars together.

What is it then?

We want to bring them together in the dual medium schools. I want to go a little further. The Administrator of Natal was blamed and the Opposition newspapers made a fuss, stating that the Afrikaans language was being suppressed in Natal. The impression was created that the Administrator of Natal only wanted single medium schools in Natal, i.e. English medium schools. The Administrator has clearly shown that that is not the position. This agitation arose because children of an Afrikaans medium school were sent to another school, where they are also taught through the medium of Afrikaans, but only in a different building. Then this agitation started. The Administrator stated publicly that he intended to make Natal bilingual as soon as possible and in the best manner, and he stated that this question should not be dragged into politics. We are all agreed, the Opposition as well as our party, that this country should be bilingual. On a previous occasion I supported the Opposition in connection with the appointment of bilingual members on the Board of Trade and Industries.

On which side did you vote?

I did not vote but I accepted the principle.

You accept principles, but then you do not act accordingly.

The position is that if we do not now make a start in dual medium schools to give both sections an opportunity to become bilingual, we will not in the future have people who are fully bilingual. I support the amendment of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. I look forward to the day when both sides of the House will encourage bilingualism in our country on sound lines.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on this very important subject. I have listened very carefully to the discussion and must say I was deeply impressed by the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) yesterday. It is to be regretted that the question of bilingualism in schools should be brought into the arena of party politics. The vast majority of electors during the last Provincial Elections have shown in no uncertain manner that the majority of electors in this country are in favour of bilingualism. The mover of the motion stated that this was an attempt to kill the Afrikaans-medium schools. That is not so. The English-medium schools have no animosity towards the Afrikaans-medium schools. English parents almost without exception are anxious that their children should become proficient in both official languages. The mover of the resolution would be surprised to know that today a large number of our English boys and girls and young men and women are proficient in both languages. All members of this House know that during the last ten years a great advancement has been made in bilingualism I am heartily in accord with the amendment which has been moved by the Prime Minister, and I say that the whole question should be argued from the standpoint of the good or ill which will accrue to the child. Most people wish to achieve a higher standard of bilingualism. Some of us are now in the sere and yellow leaf and we wish that we were better acquainted with the second language, and I make bold to say here that it is the desire of all English-speaking people to become thoroughly bilingual. It is a matter of the highest importance in a bilingual country. The primary object of all of us is to educate our children. We are all agreed that the instruction of the child in its earlier years should be through the mother tongue. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) referred during his speech to the nursery schools in the country. These schools are doing a very fine work, and I know from experience that the second language can be taught in the fairly early years of the child. I am not saying we should go into the question of grammar and so on, but there is nothing against a child being taught in the second language the names of familiar objects in the country—the school, along the roadside and so on; so that the child in its early years will have a good vocabulary when the thorough study of the second language begins. The question of the teaching of the second language in early years is mentioned in the Prime Minister’s amendment. According to the census only 60 per cent. of our white population speak both official languages. The Union census figures for 1936 show (a) 16 per cent. spoke Afrikaans only, (b) 64 per cent. spoke both English and Afrikaans and (c) 19 per cent. English only. I find from statistics that the home language of South African pupils is (a) 25 per cent. Afrikaans only, (b) 43 per cent. English and Afrikaans, and (c) 32 per cent. English only. In find in the last category that most of those who speak English only were domiciled in the coastal towns. We cannot deny but that bilingualism has considerably advanced since Union in 1910. I believe that we must abolish the system of putting Afrikaans children in one camp and English children in another. If we perpetuate that, we will perpetuate this friction for all time, and if that is the case we can never look forward to a united South African nation. If we are to create a really South African nation the children must be brought together. It is then that they will understand each other’s point of view. Some will argue that this is impossible. I know from long experience that it is possible. If the children are in different camps, the two-stream policy will be perpetuated. Each lot will grow up with a totally different complex. Allow me to show the effect of bilingualish as it affected the Boys’ High School at Stellenbosch. I want to quote from the “Bilingual School,” by E. G. Malherbe, and I want to say here that that was applicable not only to Stellenbosch but to schools in the Eastern Province, which were practically all English-speaking schools. This is what the writer says—

That has been the experience not only of the Boys’ High School in Stellenbosch but of other schools in the country. How can we attain that object? It will take some time. What is most important is the type of teacher. Such teachers must be 100 per cent. proficient in both languages, and I would like to say at this stage that I do not know what the position is in other provinces, but as far as the Cape Province is concerned, every teacher employed by the Provincial Administration today is qualified in Afrikaans either in Section A or Section B. With the facilities which we have in our training colleges this should not be insurmountable. It will take a few years, but it can be accomplished. I want to conclude by saying that ; we must do something in connection with this all-important subject because we are moving fast in the direction of separateness, which brings with it ignorance of other people and their language, fostering in consequence suspicion and strife. And that is what I and most hon. members of this House want to avoid—suspicion and strife. Let us work together in harmony, looking forward to a grand future for a country which we all love dearly.

This important debate has now lasted for a number of days. What is really behind this motion? We speak of bilingualism on both sides of the House. That is what is aimed at. What struck me yesterday during the debate was this. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Neate), a very straight man, comes here and says he is sorry that he cannot follow this debate. He only knows English. Just imagine; here the hon. member sits, 34 years after Union, and he still does not know both languages of the country. The question I ask myself is this: Is the English element of this country in earnest? Did they really exert themselves to learn Afrikaans?

They want to start now.

After 34 years?

How serious are you?

When I was a child at school I had to learn English only, and I remember that we were given a small book from which we had to learn. There were pictures in that little book. There was a picture of a pig, for example. The teacher was an Englishwoman. I had to spell the word “p-i-g—vark,” because I did not know what a pig was. Throughout all these years the aim of every family in the platteland has been to make their children bilingual as far as possible. And who is bilingual today? And who is unilingual? It has been shown here that the Free State children are the most bilingual children. Now I am told by someone here that : “We are going to make a good start after 34 years.”

Do you not think it is high time?

It is too late.

It is 34 years too late.

My contention is this. Are these hon. members really in earnest? It is easy to say that one is bilingual. The question is whether one practises that bilingualism in the social circles in which one moves.

Not one of them has got up and said that he is sorry that he opposed bilingualism.

Take the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) Dr. L. P. Bosman), for example. He is a moderate man, but he even goes to the length of anglicising Afrikaans names. He is bilingual. I would rather speak my own language first. If the other man cannot understand me, I speak his language, but I do speak my own language first. But there are members here who never speak their own language. The other day I attended a social function and a certain lady was introduced to me. I asked who she was. I heard that she was Mrs. Le Rux. I then asked her what her name was. She said her name was “Le Rux.” She then told me who her husband was, and it immediately struck me that she was the wife of Jacob le Roux. I then said to her: “Madam, but I’m sure I know you.” She replied: “Yes, Uncle Gert, I also recognised you.” I then asked her why she had changed her name, and do you know what her reply was? She said: “I changed my name because I move in an English circle, and they think better of me if I am Mrs. Le Rux.” Jacob le Roux’s wife now wants to be Mrs. Le Rux. I said to her: “I know the English people fairly well; I have nothing against the English language, but don’t you think this is going a little too far?” This morning I met ä woman on the tram, and I started to talk to her. She was a German woman, and I spoke German to her. She told me that she hated Hitler. I said I would prefer not to talk about it. Perhaps she thought that I was a member of the Gestäpo, because after that she remained silent. I just want to explain our attitude on this side. We do not want to promote racial hatred; we do not want to drag the language question into politics. We say that the single medium of the English in the Cape must come back; why did they have an English medium school only throughout all these years? We have only a few Afrikaans medium schools here, and the children in those few schools are more bilingual than the children in the English medium schools. The examination results have shown that our children attain higher marks than their children do. We do not want to make political capital out of this matter. We do not want to drag it into politics; we do not want to foster racialism. We only want our rights. We feel that after 34 years it should not be necessary to ask in this House whether or not one is bilingual. The other day I had to fill in a certain form in the Provincial offices. The form was printed in Afrikaans. I handed it over to the clerk; he looked at it for a while and then he said: “What language is this?” He went on to say: “I am fed up with these Afrikaans forms; I cannot read them.” I am not going to persecute this map but is that reasonable? These are still the signs of unilingualism.

They are the signs of the single medium schools.

One can walk into any public place in this country today and speak any language one likes; the Afrikaner youth in that office will not argue; he will speak your language. I do not want to reproach anyone, but take the members on that side of the House. Are they bilingual? There is not a single member on this side of the House who cannot address the House in both languages. But how many members on the other side can do so? Have they tried to do so?

Yes.

Who?

Even your Ministers cannot do it.

Take my old friend, the hon. Minister of Railways; he is trying hard; I admit that frankly. He even replies to the questions in Afrikaans, but he has had a long time to learn Afrikaans; by this time he should have been better qualified. He could have equipped himself better to comply with the demands of the country.

I am a product of a single medium school.

It has been stated here that we want to sow the seeds of discord. It has been said that we want to make political capital cut of this matter. We want to do nothing of the kind, but we must remember that if we want to apply a policy of bilingualism we must also apply it in practice. We must apply it in our social life. That is what we feel. When members on this side raise any particular matter, they are accused by members on the other side of a desire to make political capital out of it. No, those hon. members must remember that we have to live together in this country; this war will be over at some future date, and we will still have to live together. I have often been reproached because I sit on this side.

You are on the wrong side.

I adopt a moderate attitude in my political life. I do not look for trouble, but if anyone looks for trouble I am able to protect myself. I just want to say this. We are going to see to it that we win this struggle for bilingualism. We are going to see to it that we get into power. The writing is on the wall. This wonderful statement which we had from the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation this morning, pages and pages of paper, will remain on paper. I had the bitter experience of the last war. After this war we are going to give effect to the policy of bilingualism. No one can stop us. But let us be moderate. When one looks for trouble one usually finds it; it is only a matter of time. Only recently we had a conference of inspectors. They are all educated people, people who devote themselves exclusively to the education of our youth. I met a few of them after the conference. I asked them what then views were on this problem with which we are faced today. They did not hesitate for a single moment. They stated that they felt that we should go on with the system which we have today. Why make this drastic change today? We get that from people who know nothing about education. Those people who have made a life study of educational matters say that it is correct.

What about Dr. Malherbe?

He is one of the people who strayed from the fold, and he wants to make us believe that he is always right. I want to make an appeal to hon. members not to take this matter too far. Do not let us reopen the wounds of the past.

That is not necessary.

It is not necessary if we act in moderation. Reference has been made here to the church. I feel that when an Afrikaner goes to the length of leaving his church he is doomed. The church, as in the past, must give the lead. In every case where our nation was plunged into darkness the church came along and gave us new hope, and we must not speak contemptuously of the church. It is the duty of the church to give us a lead.

In the religious sphere.

In every sphere.

The hon. member who made that intèrjection owes his present position to the church.

I want to make an appeal once again to hon. members. Let us discuss this matter calmly; let us remember that we can very easily break down what we have built up in the past. It is very easy to destroy, but it is not so easy to build up. We waged this language struggle for many years, and I have had to suffer insults because of my language. I clash at once with any element which seeks to interfere with my language and my religion. In this case I feel that it is unnecessary to bring this subject to the forefront at this stage when the Government is prosecuting a war.

It seems to me that the language question has now become a political cry in South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not think there is a single member of the Opposition who does not believe that it is necessary, and 100 per cent. necessary, that our children should be bilingual.

We differ in regard to the method to be applied.

What do you suggest?

We have already suggested it.

The language question can only be solved by means of co-operation.

You have a hope.

If we want to build up our population with a division on the language question we are going to make a hopeless failure of it. As far as I know the Afrikaans nation is the smallest recognised European nation in the world. We are only a handful of people and we must stand together. It seems to me that some hon. members think that the two sections can stand apart. If there is one thing which is essential in our country it is that our children should be 100 per cent. bilingual. Do not think for a moment that I am speaking on behalf of one side of the House. I speak for both sides. I want to say that the English-speaking people in this country have frequently made mistakes. We Afrikaners have made the same mistakes. The English-speaking people put their English-speaking children into an English medium school, and the Afrikaners send their children to Afrikaans medium schools. I want to tell my English-speaking friends that the Afrikaans language has come to stay in South Africa, and it will be one of the future languages of South Africa. There is no danger of its being wiped out, and I want to ask my English friends to regard it in that light. I say that they made the same mistake which a large section of the Afrikaners also made, namely, to send their children to a single medium school. I fought a provincial election in which this very issue was contested.

We thought your Prime Minister said that the general election was fought on that issue.

In 1940 I was attacked on every platform because I sent my children to an English medium school after they had passed Standard VII.

You have become anglicised.

I wish every Afrikaans-speaking parent in this country had the privilege of being able to do that. I just want to say this to hon. members on that side of the House. It is no use making a political matter out of the language question. There is a necessity for bilingualism, and the position today is that we are anglicising the people in the big cities, while Afrikaans is gaining an ever-increasing foothold on the platteland. What will the position be if we have English-speaking cities and an Afrikaans-speaking platteland? The introduction of the dual medium at school is not aimed at wiping out Afrikaans, but to give the two languages in this country equal rights.

You want to become an Englishman.

What is happening today in the cities? The other day a man in Kimberley told me this: “My neighbour’s home language is English. In the past his children and my children were great friends; they always played together; they were bosom friends. But what has happened now? His children have gone to an English medium school and my children attend an Afrikaans medium school, and the result is that they have become estranged.” That is the mistake we make. The children are brought up as strangers. I say: Bring the children together on the same school benches. Bring them together on the same sports grounds; bring them together in every sphere. We must take the position today as we find it. We have two European sections in this country. These two sections have come to live here, and nothing in the world will wipe them out, and it is necessary therefore that we maintain these two languages on a fifty-fifty basis in the future. I do not know whether mine is a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I have always felt that there is only one way in which to solve this problem, and that is to have a uniform educational system throughout the Union. Today we have four different educational systems under the Provincial Councils. If we had a uniform educational system throughout South Africa we would be able to lay the foundation of future education in South Africa, and then it would be so much easier to give equal rights to the two languages. This immense struggle in connection with the language question takes my mind back to the past. It is said that during the Second War of Independence two little boys were playing. They started to talk about the war. One little boy said to the other: “You know the Boers are going to win this war.” The English boy replied: “No, you’re wrong; the English are going to win the war.” The Dutch boy then said: “No; that can’t be right because my daddy prays every night that the Boers should win.” To that the English boy replied: “You’re wrong; my daddy prays every night that the English should win.” The Dutch boy reflected for a little while and then said: “Oh no; the Lord does not understand English.” We are on that road. We have English-speaking people in this country—I do not want to exonerate them— who adopt the attitude that Afrikaans is not good enough. I say that they are on the wrong road, and the same applies to Afrikaners who adopt the attitude that English is not good enough. If eventually we want to build up a great nation in South Africa, we can only do it along that one road, and that is along the road of tolerance and co-operation. Which one of us had an option as to what our nationality would be? Is there anyone here who had such an option? But where we have got an option is in regard to the type of nation we are going to build up in this country. That is why we are here, and that is what we are responsible for, and as long as we have this struggle between the two European races in South Africa, I do not believe we have the slightest hope of eventually building up a great country and a great nation. With me it is not a question of the one section or the other section. As far as I am concerned it is only the big question that we must stand together to make a happy country of South Africa eventually; to have a happy South African nation eventually. That should be our aim.

When approaching this question every one of us should ask himself in how far he is in earnest about this matter. We know that education is the cornerstone on which the national edifice is constructed. In dealing with this matter we have to go back to the past. We have to ask ourselves what happened in the past in this connection; how far did we proceed along this road; how far did we succeed in our attempts towards national unity? My thoughts go back to the days of the republics. In those republics we found that the English language was taught thoroughly. Today insinuations are actually made that this side of the House, by advocating mother tongue education, does not aim at the bilingualism of the children. I maintain that this is a serious misrepresentation. It has been proved over and over again that children from the Free State are more bilingual than the others. On the other side of the House we have the example of Natal. But we should consider what the basic reason is why there should always be a language problem in this country. I want to say in all earnestness that we want to co-operate with the English-speaking section in South Africa. We are convinced that one cannot build up a great nation in South Africa unless those two European elements live together in harmony, but after this struggle for more than 40 years which we have gone through, the question involuntarily presents itself : In how far did the English inhabitants of South Africa show a love towards South Africa.

Business suspended at 10 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I put the question in how far did our English-speaking friends show their affection towards us in this country? On looking back we find that we have arrived at the following position. We find that a position of conqueror and conquered exists between the two elements, and the natural result of this is that the conqueror develops a superiority complex. There are, however, signs that thousands of our English-speaking friends are beginning to realise that a change has to come about. We are now beginning to see signs of that spirit, but after the Anglo-Boer War we found that there were only single medium schools. In those days single medium schools were not such a serious obstacle. Why not? Because it was a single medium school with the language of the conqueror. That was the position.

Then they did not object to it.

No, and what was their motive? Let us face matters as they really are, for to hide the actual facts will not help us in understanding each other. We have to face the facts as they are. It is often rather difficult to hear the truth, but let us be magnanimous and hear the truth, and then we shall understand one another. We then had single medium schools, and there were no complaints. When we obtained responsible government we heard that a certain measure of freedom would be given. We had to be satisfied with the crumbs which fell from the table of the conqueror. We had to take what we could get. Who was behind all these things? When I say that the British imperialists were behind it, all my friends on the other side should not always draw the inference that I include them too. During that time they noticed not only a nation coming into being but also a language coming into being, and the sooner they could kill that language by means of the school syllabus, the sooner they would succeed in their policy of domination. One simply cannot separate the political developments in the country from education. Politics always had a direct influence on the school syllabus. Before I come to this matter I want to ask my English-speaking friends the following question. I ask them in how far they have shown affection towards us. There is the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). He is bilingual. He told me the other day that the happiest days in his life were when he played “kleilat” in Pretoria. He was one of those who knows from experience that the two races can work together provided they know each other’s language. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is another example of these links between the two races, but I am sorry to say that we never heard their voice in our struggle for language rights. We never heard that they pleaded with their fellow English-speaking people and told them that the English-speaking section can live together with the Afrikaans-speaking section, and that they will get on well together if they know one another’s language. I feel that we should retain that contact, but as I said before, one always finds that the conqueror develops a superiority complex and afterwards suffers from it. Where can we find that? I am going to mention a few truths, and I want to ask my English-speaking friends to face those truths. I want to give the instance of our private homes. A unilingual English-speaking person knocks at our door. We open the door, and what do we find? He does not address us in our language, but in his own language. I can furthermore give the instance of what is happening here in the Lobby. So far not one of my unilingual English-speaking friends has shown me or other Afrikaansspeaking members the courtesy of saying: “I am sorry that I am unilingual, and that I therefore have to address you in my own language.” As I said, the conqueror is developing a superiority complex, and he should get away from it. It has been proved that this single medium school system is a result of the intentions of one section of the people. It is the natural corollary of the direction in which he wants to proceed. Let us take the example of the Free State and Natal. In Natal by far the greater majority of schools are single medium schools. The same applies in the Free State. There we have the proof that both these provinces are convinced that teaching through the medium of the mother tongue is the desirable education for their children. When we look at the Free State we find, as far as the Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned, the same phenomenon as in Natal, namely, that they preferred single medium schools. The difference is, however, that in the schools of the Free State the Afrikaans-speaking section realised that our children should be bilingual, and they put it into practice. Did Natal do the same? We now have to hear, as the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Neate) said here, that they had made a start. Well, Natal has made a start.

The English-speaking people there are not acclimatised yet.

They have had sufficient time to become acclimatised, and that is what we want. We want them to become Afrikaners, and not to remain strangers to us. We want to co-operate and live together with them. How can that be achieved? By knowing the other man’s language. But it is a proven fact that as soon as you introduce compulsory measures you start a blaze. If you allow matters to develop in their natural course you will be successful. I challenge anybody to tell me that that was not a success in the past. If it was not a success in the case of some persons who are so narrow-minded as to say: “My language is good enough for me in South Africa,” then I say that that is the section of our people who should be brought to their senses. But if you come along and say: “Do this and put the children all together,” you will only cause friction.

That was the old policy of the Free State.

But it was not forced down the people’s throats. It was a natural development. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) lived in the Free State where matters developed naturally, but what did he do in the struggle for Afrikaans? Did he ever raise his voice?

I shall tell you.

The fact remains that as soon as the slightest compulsion is applied, the people oppose it. That is a characteristic of the Afrikaner, and even of the English-speaking people born here. Do not force a man, for in that case he becomes rebellious. If you let matters take their natural course, you will solve them. The other side now asserts that we are proposing to drag this matter into the political arena. I want to ask hon. members what happened during the provincial elections. The Prime Minister dragged it in and the other day he declared: “I have received a mandate from the people to introduce the double medium.”

Do you doubt it?

Yes. My question is, however, this. In 1919 the present Prime Minister was also the Prime Minister of South Africa. Why did he not introduce it then? He now comes along and makes use of the war position because he knows that the war hysteria is carrying the people along and then he throws this bone of contention before the people.

You did that three years ago already.

When we fought our language struggle the hon. member was still wearing shorts. There were two policies. One school of thought favoured the one stream policy and the other the two stream policy. There were certain political developments and the result was the one stream policy of the Prime Minister. Our policy is that we must know one another’s language and must respect one another’s great men. Then only will we understand one another and work for a common ideal, viz., the development of South Africa and the building up of our nation. Here, however, compulsion is to be applied and I emphasise that however much we may dislike the development of matters in that direction, we take up the cudgels and are going to follow a policy which has shown results, the policy of education through the mother tongue. We are not going to accept a policy which leads towards disaster and racial hatred. Only when we let matters take their natural course may we expect to be successful. There are signs that the English-speaking members in this House are beginning to feel uneasy because they are unilingual only. We are glad to notice that. But it should not stop at words; live up to your principles for South Africa and for Afrikaans. Come to us and say: “I am sorry that I cannot speak your language,” then I shall also apologise to my English-speaking friends. Then we can meet on equal terms and will understand one another. Unfortunately this bone of contention has been thrown in front of our people at this critical time. There is a difference of opinion in regard to the war. In times of war conditions are not normal and I am convinced that this matter is going to cause a struggle as bitter as any South Africa has yet experienced. We advocate a policy of co-operation and we want the country to be bilingual and we shall see to our children being bilingual. Let them do the same; let them in thought and deed adopt the point of view that South Africa is their father-land. Only then will we build up a great nation and a great people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should take very seriously what the hon. member has just said. He talks very glibly, he is a man whom I respect and I know what he says he means, but I do not think we should take him very seriously on this grave question before South Africa. I was sorry to hear in the vigorous speech of my hon. friend the member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) that at a meeting the hon. member for Waterberg made the statement that the old Scottish predikants or dominees were brought here, or had come here so as to anglicise South Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) forgets the history of this country; if he knew the history of this country he would know that when the Voortrekkers trekked up to the North the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape, sitting in Graaff-Reinet, afterwards the parish of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, passed a resolution that no Afrikaans-speaking Dutch Reformed Church parson should have anything to do with the Voortrekkers, because the Voortrekkers were rebels. That is part of the history of this country, and if my hon. friends don’t know that they had better go down to the Archives where they will see the original resolution signed by the Moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church. There that church laid down that principle that the Voortrekkers must not be ministered to. That is a bit of history for my friend the hon. member for Waterberg. That is the true history of South Africa, that the Voortrekkers must not be ministered to because they were rebels. It was then, Mr. Speaker, that the Scottish predikants, Murray and Robertson, accompanied by Faure, went up and ministered to the Voortrekkers in the Transvaal and the Free State. Those were the men who carried the gospel and ministered to the Voortrekkers, these are the men who took the language up there. I know that Murray had a Scottish father and an Afrikaans mother, like many of my friends on the other side. There is probabaly more English blood in the Afrikaners today than any other blood. [Interruptions.] My friends won’t put me off. Andrew Murray went up there and Robertson, and they took the gospel to the Afrikaans-speaking people right up into the Magaliesberg, and they travelled round the Transvaal and the Free State, and if South Africa is indebted to one section of the people in this world, she is indebted to the Scottish predikants who came out here to this country. They carried the torch of civilisation, and their sons today, their grandsons and great-grandsons are carrying on the torch of civilisation. These families are spread right through this country, and they are amongst the greatest of the sons of this country. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), in the course of his speech sent out a challenge, and I accept the challenge. I am not going to talk about the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s work in the Empire, nor of his work now he has arrived in England, to try and assist in killing the brute beasts of Nazism, whom my friends have worshipped for so many years. I am going to tell the House a little of the history of this country in which I have lived all my life. After the Anglo-Boer War, which I know some of my friends allege I ran away from— I was practically deported from this country by the British Government, but I know they keep on saying that. After the Anglo-Boer War our country was burnt black and our people were down and out.

Who burnt it black?

The English of course, any fool knows that. Home were destroyed, and there was nothing left in the country. Some of us set about restoring these people, bringing them back to their homes and assisting them. We wanted responsible government in our republics, we knew that we could not get back the republics. I was only a young man at that time, but I was in touch with the leaders, and well do I remember how the hon. the Prime Minister who had been one of the generals in the war, had refused to take part in the government of the Transvaal under Milner until the country got responsible government. Then we were given the Lyttleton constitution, and we simply said we did not want to hear about it, we wanted responsible government. The Prime Minister of this country, a man unknown in England at that time except as a Boer guerilla warrior, as they called him, went over on his own to London. At that time the Chamberlain-Salisbury Government had been broken, and Campbell-Bannerman was in charge. The new government had been our friend, and the Prime Minister went from door to door and Minister to Minister in the British Cabinet, and when he got to Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill said to him : “Gen. Smuts, how can we give you responsible government; we have just conquered you, and can you tell me anywhere in history where a conquered nation has ever been given responsible government almost immediately, or even at all, by the conqueror?” Gen. Smuts said he could not give any instance from history, but he fought on and said : “I and determined to see Campbell-Bannerman.” He had the greatest difficulty in seeing him, because he was not a world figure then as he is today, but at last he saw Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman who said : “Gen. Smuts, I can only give you ten minutes.” That was at 11 o’clock. Gen. Smuts talked to Sir Henry, they had lunch together, they talked the whole afternoon, they had dinner together, and they parted at 11 o’clock. Gen. Smuts said to the British Prime Minister: “You know the decency of the Boer, we have fought against you the most gentlemanly war that has ever been known, but if we do not get responsible government and do not get equality of language, we shall turn it into an Ireland. Give us responsible government, and I give you my word that I shall do as I said in Pretoria in 1905, I shall give equal rights to both languages and both people.” When he had finished Campbell-Bannerman said: “General, you have convinced me.” I discussed this matter with the Prime Minister just before he left, because I wanted to get my facts right. The Prime Minister said : “Now you have got your facts right look up ‘Lloyd George’s Life.’” I have been over to look it up, and I find that Lloyd George said that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman spoke to the Cabinet for ten minutes with tears rolling down his cheeks, and he said: “We have done these people an unjust deed, and we must give them full responsible government so they can have equal rights for both languages.” Mr. Speaker, we got responsible government in this country and the country went on to flourish and we had our two languages. These are facts that I am telling the hon. members on that side. It has always been thrown up at the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he stands for imperialism and the English language. Let me read one paragraph—hon. members can read the whole article if they like—but I want to read only one paragraph from the “National Review” of January 7th last. This is what the British paper says about the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister—

That is what the English-speaking people in England think about the Prime Minister. Let me go a step further. When we were trying to get things right my hon. and gallant friend over there challenged me and said : “What have you done for the Afrikaans language?” Well, I am an English-speaking man, and why should I do anything for the Afrikaans language? However that may be, I make this challenge, that I have done more for the Afrikaans language than anybody sitting over there, and I will endeavour to prove it. When Joseph Chamberlain came to South Africa and called a meeting of the wild Boers I wanted to go to that meeting, but they would not allow me. I asked Gen. De Wet to let me send in one of my reporters, and by that means I got a full report of the attack Chamberlain made on the Boers of the day. I published it and I was attacked by Joseph Chamberlain at a public meeting. Thank God he did attack me because he made me as a journalist. I said to him : “I am fighting in this country as an English-speaking man for the Afrikaners, because my people have lived amongst them for 70 years, and they are the best people in the world, they are the greatest people in this world, they have tamed this country, and I am going to stand by them.” I was doing it with a small newspaper, and I could not succeed on my own because I had no money and I had all the trials and tribulations of the producer of a daily newspaper. I then thought of an old friend of mine, Louis Botha, and I went to Pretoria. I could not see Gen. Botha, but I saw the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and told him of my trials and tribulations. I said: “Our Afrikaans-speaking people in the Free State have no newspaper and they have no one to assist them. I, in my humble fashion, as a humble musket-bearer in the ranks, want to assist them, but I cannot get on. I want to help them in their schools, I want to kill this terrible Milner system and I want the children to be taught in their own language; can you assist me?” He asked me to go to lunch with Gen. Botha, and when lunch was finished Gen. Botha walked out and gave me a cheque for £9,000 in my own name, and he said: “Arthur, you take this money and give £2,000 to Gen. Hertzog, £2,000 to Brebner, £2,000 to Wessels, £2,000 to Fischer and £1,000 to Ramsbottom.” He said they can do what they like with that money. I saw David Graaff and he gave me £2,000, and we carried on a campaign. If it had not been for the Right. Hon. the Prime Minister we would not have had a newspaper. I started a paper, the only Afrikaans paper started after the republics, as my father had started a paper for the Voortrekkers in the Free State. I was attacked by the government of the day; my assistant editor was put in gaol. I managed to slip out of it. I was attacked from day to day over this question, and I fought it through to the end. Then I made a mistake which I will tell you about later. Then we got responsible government, and the Right Hon. the late Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) was the then Prime Minister of the Orange River Colony. This is what he said in the first Parliament and the first Bill he introduced into the House. He said what will be found on page 278 of the debates that one of the requirements for the future was a sound education for the children and he proposed to bring that about in a certain way. Gen. Hertzog proposed to do this in this way from the fifth standard up to matric. There were eight principal subjects and three of them must be taught through the subsidiary language, and three through the principle language—three Afrikaans and three English—and that proposal was carried without amendment, and that was the law of the Orange River Colony which afterwards became the Free State. All these younger men were educated through that system which they now want to deny in the schools. Gen. Hertzog laid down the principle which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister got up here the other day and defended, and which our friends here are fighting from beginning to end. When my friends go round and say I am making this a racial question, I say the man who led me into it was Gen. Hertzog and nobody else. He was the man who did it—Gen. Hertzog laid down in this country that the medium of education should be as I have said, equality of both languages as far as the medium is concerned These are facts, my friends; they are written in the records of the country.

You are fighting it. [Interruptions.]

That is very easy to say. You do not even know what you are fighting about. Well, Sir, I recognise, I hope the House recognises and I hope my friends on the other side recognise that South Africa has produced one great thing. She has produced very little in her time, but she has produced one great thing which will ring right down the corridors of history, and that is the Afrikaans language. I am proud of the Afrikaans language and so is the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), and others sitting in these places here: we are as proud as any Afrikaans-speaking man. We want to see it go from here right up through Africa; it is our language and we are going to protect that language, and we are going to enrich it as far as we can in our humble way. Nobody should take away the right from our children and our children’s children to be educated through that language in the future. We are a people of two languages, English and Afrikaans, and let me say to my friends when they throw this thing across the House, that the majority of men sitting on these benches are English-speaking men, but they respect the other language. The majority of men sitting on these benches are Irishmen, men of Irish blood. But I do not want to get into that, I want to get this country together on the quesion of language. I respect my friends on the other side for the way they have fought in the past for their language. I know the other side of the picture; I know if it had not been for some English-speaking people in this country there would not have been the racialism which exists today. I recognise that fact. I recognise that Lord Milner tried to kill the language, the same äs the old Governors of the Cape tried to kill the French language. Oh, yes, the Englishman learned this rotten system of killing languages from your forefathers. They killed the French language as far as this country is concerned.

You can’t kill Afrikaans.

But let us forget these things. Let us quarrel as much as we like—and no man has quarrelled more than I have—but don’t let us quarrel about our language or our race. When I came to this House for the first time, the whole of the front Opposition bench was made up of knights and baronets of the British Empire who would hear nothing about Afrikaans— they did not want to know it, they looked upon it as a kaffir language.

They were your pals.

And who destroyed those knights and barons? I did.

Good gracious.

Yes, it was not the father of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who introduced a Bill into this House that we should have no more South African knights and baronets. I did that.

Satan rebuking sin.

And when I came here, there were very few bilingual men on this side of the House—there were very few men of both English and Afrikaans descent on this side. But look at our party now— thoroughly representative of all sections. And what about the Opposition—a party pursuing a policy which repels every English-speaking man. Not that we dislike you—in fact we have many good friends among you. But here on this side of the House we have men of both races.

Look at them and weep.

But on the Opposition benches we have men whose stock in trade is Slagtersnek and the Boer War, who always harp back on the past.

You know very well that is not so.

I don’t. I don’t want to keep the House too long—nor do I want to strain Hansard too much. When I was connected with one of the biggest groups of newspapers in this country, I made up my mind that I would employ Afrikaans young men wherever it was possible to do so, young men who came from the universities. The hon. member for Winburg knows that—he worked for me.

Saints and sinners.

How have the mighty fallen.

And he was a good journalist.

Oh, thank you.

And let me say that with the exception of perhaps Chalmers Robertson and one or two others, we cannot find any South African in this country who can correctly write both languages. I am not talking about the Afrikaans that is spoken by my hon. friends opposite, which is just full of grammatical errors.

Who are you to judge?

And what about the English?

Oh, I am not speaking about the English sometimes spoken by hon. members from Natal. I am not saying anything about that. Some time ago I was talking to the Minister of Justice and I dropped in to give a job to a man who had rendered really outstanding services to the State in the past. We sent that man to Natal and what did he say? “Julle moet my terugbring van Natal want die Engelse is nog te wild daar.” But let me tell hon. members why I got up here today. I got up not to plead the cause of the English child, but of the Afrikaans child. I could not get young men to help me on that newspaper—Afrikaans young men—with the exception of two or three who really did wonderful work. If you go to the Free State, if you go to Boshof and places like that or if you go to Zwartruggens or Gordonia— you never hear a word of English spoken. What is happening there? I shall tell hon. members. Afrikaans is becoming the language of the platteland and English the language of the cities—it is all hopelessly wrong. I often have children sent to me. Time after time I get letters from friends of mine from the rural districts, telling me : “I am sending my children to Johannesburg, can you do anything for them”. And these are the people you want to help. And what do hon. members over there do for them? They have no one to help them really except these rotten politicians opposite, they won’t help them. And what do we find? These boys are so badly educated in English that you have the greatest difficulty in placing them. When the new figures for Railways come out—the Minister doesn’t know that I have got them—you will find that the knowledge standard—the standard of the majority—the knowledge of English among the railwaymen is very low. Well, it is not fair to these men. When I say to hon. members that it is not fair to the Afrikaans child to keep them away from the other language and not to see to it that he has a thorough knowledge of that language. And I say what I said before, that without the Afrikaner and without the Afrikaner child, we cannot make this a great country. I close on this note. We have one great shrine but we have two languages. The great shrine which we have is the Women’s Monument. And at the foot of that monument are lying three men. In the base of that monument is the body of one woman. The one man is respected as one of the greatest sons of South Africa—President Steyn. The other is Christiaan de Wet— whose grandfather was a Hollander—and the third is old father Kestell to whose memory we all bow—his father was an Englishman and his mother a South African. And the English woman whose body is lying in the base of that monument is Emily Hobhouse. That is English blood and Dutch blood mixed together. That is the greatest shrine we have in this country. Let us bow our heads to that in silent respect and do away with these petty squabbles and only then can we become a great country.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) continually wants to make this House believe that in the past he always did his best for the Afrikaans language in our country; that he championed that cause; that he put himself out for the Afrikaans language in this country, and that he helped the Afrikaans-speaking people to promote their language in South Africa. He told us a moment ago how he even raced to Pretoria to assist in promoting the Afrikaans language. I have here a book written by C. M. van den Heever in regard to the life of the late Gen. Hertzog.

He is running away now.

The man who always boasts in this House, runs away as soon as we want to talk to him. Nevertheless I want to quote from this book in order to show which role the hon. member really played towards the Dutch language and the Afrikaans language. It is stated in this book—

It was Dutch.

Of course it was Dutch in those days. What assistance did Gen. Hertzog get at that time from the hon. member for Hospital? Listen to this—

The colony would isolate itself from the rest of the world if Gen. Hertzog’s laws were to go through! The hon. member for Hospital went even further, he stated—

The same member who boasted today of what he had done for our language said these things in those days. Towards the end of 1909 when the struggle in the Free State had reached its peak, we find that the hon. member for Hospital addressed a meeting at Bloemfontein, and this is what the writer states in regard to that meeting—

Today we again heard the hon. member trying to flatter, but on that occasion he made use of the same tactics in an attempt to prevent Gen. Hertzog’s laws from being applied in the Free State so that Dutch would come into its own. He went further, and Van den Heever writes in these terms—

I find it remarkable that the man who continually gets up in this House and tries to besmirch this side and make this side appear ridiculous, who continually relies on his great deeds in the past in the interests of the Afrikaner nation and the Afrikaner language, should be the same man who played that role in the Free State. Is there anyone who can deny that those laws of Gen. Hertzog did a great deal in the right direction towards the full recognition of the rights of the Afrikaans language? Everyone will admit it. But in those days the hon. member for Hospital strongly opposed Gen. Hertzog in the Free State, so strongly that he even went to London to oppose him there. We also find, according to “The Friend” that in the same year he wrote a letter in the “London Times” in which he stated that the laws of Gen. Hertzog—

He fought as hard as he could against the recognition of Dutch in the Free State. He is the man who has the conceit to get up in this House and to tell us what a great champion he was of the Afrikaans child and of full bilingualism in this country. I do not suppose you will allow me to use the word “hypocritical” …

No, the hon. member cannot use that expression.

Then I shall say that the hon. member has the audacity to get up here and to lecture us, although he was a strong opponent of the recognition of the rights of the Afrikaner’s language.

Yes, and now that we reply to him he runs away.

He ran away, but we are not disappointed; we expected that of him. When he lost in the Free State he ran away to London to seek assistance against the Boer’s language. This matter with which we are dealing is one of the utmost importance. It is true that it deals with bilingualism, but in connection with this matter bilingualism is only a means to an end, but one of the means to a certain end. This whole question of education and instruction and of single medium schools does not only concern the question of bilingualism. It touches the root, in the true sense of the word, of our national existence.

No, of your party’s existence.

It touches the root of the Afrikaner nation’s existence, and also the root of the existence of the English nation in our country. We are not gathered in this House as a community of trained technical people in connection with instruction and education. We are here as practical politicians, and in connection with highly technical matters such as education, we must pay attention to the findings and the experience of men who were trained to deal with this involved question. If we look at what those men did; if we hear what their experience taught them; if we then decide what we want in this country and in what direction our people must be led, we must take those examples from the past and build on them for the future. That would have been very easy if we had had certainty in South Africa, in regard to what we want in the future. The unfortunate part of it is that even today we are not at all certain what we really expect in the future. There is one section of the community which has a certain outlook in regard to what the future of our nation should be; the remaining section of the community has quite a different outlook. Gen. Smuts himself stated that there were two diametrically opposed views in connection with the future of the South African nation. Gen Smuts very emphatically told us …

The hon. member must not refer to the Prime Minister by name.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said—and he told us that emphatically—that one section in South Africa wanted us to merge into one nation. He says equally emphatically that the other section wants to continue in South Africa as two separate nations developing alongside each other. We still have no clarity in connection with this matter. My question is this. If we are going to concern ourselves at this stage with these questions in connection with our education, are we not going to create the greatest confusion? We cannot build up a sound educational system if we are going to introduce a new system every year. Our education as far as the language medium is concerned has passed through various phases of development in the course of the past 20 or 25 years. We laid down a certain foundation which, in our opinion, would be accepted as a sound foundation. But now the United Party and the Government have come along and thrown an apple of discord amongst us in connection with the language medium. And the unfortunate part is this …

No, the Broederbond did so.

I say that they have thrown the apple of discord amongst us and the unfortunate part is this, that they coupled it with the war. The United Party knew very well that if it went to the polls with this language question out and out, if it fought the election on the issue of the single medium school, the result of the nation’s decision on that question would have been quite different from what it was during the recent election. The people did not have an opportunity to give judgment on this question as a separate issue, because it was coupled with the war.

That was not the case in connection with the provincial election.

Anyone who says that that was not the case in connection with the provincial election is a fool. Although the language question was mentioned, it was again linked up with the war. I have before me a report which appeared in “The Friend” of a speech which the Prime Minister made in Johannesburg shortly before the provincial election. He said—[Retranslation]—

That is the speech with which the Prime Minister opened the provincial election campaign. There he said very clearly in so many words, that no one could misunderstand him, that the election was being fought on the question of the language medium; but that if the Opposition succeeded in the provincial elections, it would be regarded as an election to decide the language medium issue, but it would be said that the people of South Africa gave judgment on the war issue. There again the question of the language medium was coupled with the war. The Government was afraid to go to the pplls in regard to the question of the language medium. The only evidence we have as to the views of the people in regard to this question is the result in Zoutpansberg. We are here dealing with a purely educational matter and in that connection we must allow ourselves to be guided by people who have a knowledge of this matter. We know that all the teachers’ associations in this country expressed themselves in favour of mother tongue education, that mother tongue education was the best form of instruction. We know that our churches expressed themselves in favour of mother tongue education.

You mean the Broederbond.

It would seem that the Minister of Lands has the Broederbond on the brain; when I say that the church expressed itself in favour of mother tongue education, the Minister says it is the Broederbond. If there is one body, apart from the educational bodies in this country, which ought to be capable of judging very clearly in regard to this matter of the medium of instruction, it is the Afrikaans churches in our country. We must not forget that the ministers of religion of the Afrikaansspeaking Afrikaners are amongst these who received the highest education in this country. They are all people with a sevenyear university career behind them, and when they go out into the country they daily come up against educational questions in a practical manner. And I contend that in a case such as this I would prefer to be guided, in the first instance, by the educational people who have made a study of this matter, and in the second place by the church of the Boer, because I know that the church has the education and instruction of the youth at heart. I say that both the teachers’ associations and the church expressed themselves in favour of mother tongue education. The system in our country, the single medium schools as they have developed, are responsible for the fact that the people progressed as far as bilingualism was concerned. But on the other hand we find that this argument is advanced against the single medium schools that they are responsible for the fact that we retrogressed as far as bilingualism is concerned; that the people are becoming less bilingual and that we are developing in that direction. What case was made out by the other side in support of that contention? We listened to the statistics which were quoted, and our contention is perhaps most clearly proved by the statistics which were issued by the Department of Census and Statistics. In 1918 42 per cent. of the people of South Africa were bilingual; in 1936 64 per cent. of the people were bilingual. Can anyone deny that that reveals tremendous progress as far as bilingualism is concerned? According to the Census Department something like 2.6 per cent. of the families were bilingual in 1936. We find that Dr. Malherbe, in his book “The Bilingual School,” says that in 1943 something like 23 per cent. of the families were bilingual. By means of these figures we can therefore prove that progress has been made as far as bilingualism is concerned. What support is there for the argument that the development of the single medium school contributed to a decrease in bilingualism, and that for that reason our people will be less bilingual in the future?

Why did you not have single medium schools in the old Free State Republic?

Because in those days we did not have the experience in connection with education which we have today. Allow me to say this. We have had evidence here of the achievements of individual single medium schools in every sphere. We have had the example of the Jan van Riebeeck, the example of the Oranje Girls’ School, and yesterday we had the example of a single medium English school such as St. Cyprian’s; we were told how well they were doing in connection with instruction in Afrikaans. The position is clear to us. It cannot be disputed that the single medium school is in a position to give thorough tuition in both official languages. Take the Free State. Why are the people of the Free State more bilingual than the people of any other province? Again according to statistics we find that in the Free State 69 per cent. of the inhabitants are bilingual, while in the rest of the Union only 44 per cent. are bilingual. We find that there are 446 single medium schools in the Free State, 21 parallel medium schools which for all practical purposes can also be regarded as single medium schools. There are no dual medium schools. There is also a private English medium school, and although that is the position we find that 69 per cent. of the people of the Free State are bilingual. In the Cape the position is just the reverse. Of the 241 secondary schools in the Cape Province 34 are single medium schools, of which 11 are Afrikaans medium schools, 9 parallel medium and 187 dual medium and parallel medium. If the argument of the other side holds water, the people of the Cape Province should be more bilingual than the people of the Free State. But we know that the position is just the reverse. Why? Because we in the Free State concentrate on letting every child learn the other language also. Here we have a report which comes from the Free State, and in that report, inter alia, we find the following [Retranslation]—

There we have the real test. We have heard of racialism and lack of goodwill on the part of the Afrikaner. In the Free State we established out and out single medium schools, but both official languages were made compulsory. The Free State concentrates on teaching both official languages thoroughly, and it makes them compulsory. I find it remarkable that a plea should be made in this House that we must become more bilingual. I find it remarkable that the accusation is continually made that it is the Afrikaans-speaking people who must be assisted in the future to become bilingual. We must be made bilingual, as though we are the least bilingual section. No, we resent that, and it really seems to me that there is something behind this whole agitation, that the object of the Government is not to make us bilingual. I really believe that it is not the Government’s intention at all to make us bilingual; the Government’s intention is to do away with single medium schools so that a different political spirit can be created in South Africa.

You yourself know that that is untrue.

Is the hon. member allowed to say that?

The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it.

I would have dealt with him personally in any case. I have here a speech which was made by the Prime Minister. He describes how they must set about winning the provincial elections, and then he says—

Hear, hear!

I am still coming to the point which I wanted to make. I say that the whole effort on the part of the Government is sanctimonious and that there is something else behind it. He goes on to say—

He then goes on to say—

That is how they regard the future of South Africa.

Is that right?

It is wrong. Allow me to say as an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner that we as a nation never want to sacrifice our identity in this country. We settled that question years ago. Years ago we said that we were opposed to this; we then decided how we should develop in South Africa. Would we become one nation or would we remain two nations developing alongside each other, each nation with its own culture and each nation with its own language. That is how we must fit in with one another and learn to understand and appreciate one another, and that is the only foundation on which we will get true co-operation in South Africa. And it must be remembered that the Afrikaans language is the younger language; our culture is the younger culture; we are isolated in South Africa. Our culture is a local culture. Our language is a local language. Our English-speaking friends who live with us represent a nation which is spread over the whole world; their cultural treasures are not built up in South Africa; their cultural treasures are built up throughout the whole world. Can the English-speaking people who are well disposed towards us expect us to merge with them at this stage; that we should unite into one nation at this stage? I am being honest. It is so obvious; it is obvious to any person who wants to be honest that if that happens we as Afrikaansspeaking people will lose our language. We know that where you have one nation with two mother tongues, you can never expect those two mother tongues to exist side by side in this manner in the years to come. The Afrikaans language will be placed in the background. I notice hon. members on the other side are smiling. I notice the Minister of Lands is also smiling. This is a matter on which I feel very strongly, and I want to make an appeal to the decent English-speaking people in this country not to destroy the Afrikaans culture.

Who says we want to do so?

I do not say that they want to destroy the Afrikaans culture and the Afrikaans language or even the Afrikaans nation because they bear us any ill-will; but if this policy of merging into one nation is adopted; if we are not to be allowed to retain our separate identity as an Afrikaner nation, the Afrikaans culture and the Afrikaans language and even the Afrikaner nation will eventually die out. I want to make an appeal to the English-speaking people in this House and to the country. We have believed for years that we can live side by side as two distinct nations, and I make bold to say that before the war there was less racialism in this country than ever before in the history of this country. If a certain estrangement has taken place, that estrangement came about not as a result of that fact but as a result of political upheavals in this country.

To which nation would one belong if that policy were followed?

That would be determined, of course, according to one’s language and one’s culture. I want to ask hon. members to be clear in regard to this matter. Gen. Smuts ….

Order, order !

The Prime Minister went on to say that the educational system should be used to change the outlook of the people. I have before me the newspaper of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). He states—

His whole plea is in regard to dual medium schools. It is clear that there are many in this country who want to bring about this change in the school system simply and solely in order to bring about a change in the political outlook of the nation. I have before me “The Friend” of the 6th September. Here it is stated—

It is now clear to us that this struggle is not in connection with the question of bilingualism at all. This struggle in regard to dual medium schools is only a means to an end, and it is clear from what “The Friend” says; it is clear from what the newspaper of the hon. member for Hospital says ; it is clear from what the Prime Minister says, that they want to change the political system of South Africa, and that is why the school system has to be altered. I want to make an appeal to the Government not to pursue this contentious matter. After this war we will again have to live side by side.

Really?

There are some people who have so little brain that they do not know whether they are alive. If a language struggle again develops in South Africa, we are going to have racial strife in this country such as we have never had before, and that will decrease our chances of living together in decency.

I shall not take as much time or make as much noise as the previous speaker to say what I have to say.

You made enough noise in Port Elizabeth.

Did you understand what he said?

In attempting to add my quota to this very serious discussion, I am in the unfortunate position of not knowing the other language.

You never wanted to.

How long have you been in this country?

If the hon. member will give me a chance I shall tell him in a moment. Unlike the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), the mover of this motion, I have never been compelled to learn the other language as he was compelled to learn English. I wish I had.

You might have compelled yourself.

Did you compel yourself?

I would have done so.

The hon. member for Winburg complained when he was speaking on this subject that he was compelled by his professors at the university and by his teachers at school to learn the English language.

You are quite wrong. I said I was compelled to take it as a medium of instruction.

That is quite a different thing.

You are talking nonsense.

Order, order!

You do not know the difference.

I want to tell you quite honestly that I would give half my salary to be able to understand your language.

Why don’t you learn it?

Regret is a good thing, but it usually comes too late.

Why don’t you learn it?

I never had the opportunity that you had. I remember you as the gentleman who brought round the Voortrekker waggons and gave me a very bad time in Port Elizabeth.

[Inaudible.]

Order, order! I must warn the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) that if he does not stop these interruptions I shall have to take action.

It’s all right, Mr. Speaker, they won’t put me off. I hope the mover of the motion will appreciate the difference between his education and my education in so far as the single medium schools are concerned. I must say, however, I was most agreeably surprised by the way in which the mover of the motion brought it forward, and while I differ from him in regard to the dual medium school, we must all appreciate the way in which he brought it forward. It was done, to my mind, in a statesmanlike manner. The hon. member was followed by the Leader of the Opposition, who told this House with the characteristic flamboyancy of a misguided thinker, that a new struggle, lasting for generations, was being started. These were his words. Not, be it noted, by the motion brought foward by his own side, but as he said, by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s opposition to that motion. Strange logic this. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is so wanting in good arguments to support the position he has taken up that he found it necessary to pass adverse comments on the Prime Minister’s accent. He unfortunately forgets that our great Leader’s accent is known throughout the length and breadth of the world. It is known as one of the chief characteristics of a native-born South African. It is a characteristic which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, by attempting to imitate the other language, lacks—as was evident in his telegram to De Valera. I maintain that if the Leader of the Opposition was really in earnest to bring about a better feeling between the two white races he would be well advised to look behind him and notice the depleted number of his followers. He will also be well advised not to glory in the fact that the motion now before the House will bring about another racial struggle which, he says “the Prime Minister will not see the end of.” These were his words. It must surely be evident to the Leader of the Opposition that a weak Opposition is very bad in any Parliament. I feel certain that the members on this side of the House and the country generally would welcome a stronger Opposition than is in Parliament today.

What do you expect at Wakkerstroom?

He is paving the way for Wakkerstroom.

I said we would welcome a stronger Opposition if there were any possible chance of improving it. But as far as I can see, under the present Leader of the Opposition there is no possible chance of improvement.

You will get a rude shock one of these days.

I maintain that as long as the Leader of the Opposition refuses to cultivate that particular characteristic of South African nationalism, which has been made known throughout the universe by the ascent of one of the three greatest thinkers in the world today, Gen. Smuts, the progress of this country will be seriously retarded.

Order, order!

You ought to join his party

The mover of this motion missed the most important aspect of the question. The most important aspect of this question is the psychological effect which dual medium schools have on children attending those schools. I want to give the House a short sketch—within the time at my disposal— of my scholastic career in a dual medium school. But before doing so may I ask the Opposition to ask themselves what is education? To my mind the main object of education is to teach one how to think reasonably and how to live happily. I taught in single medium schools in this country and in my native country for a period of thirty years. I asked in the last three years of my scholastic career to go to a dual medium school in Port Elizabeth. I wanted to go there because I wanted to find out what really did happen in dual medium schools. And what did I find? I found that so far as the future happiness and prosperity of those children were concerned, the education they were getting and giving to each other was invaluable. Some people imagine that a child receives more education in school than he does outside of school. But I can tell you that that is not so in a great many cases. As a matter of fact when you are talking about languages, I know a child of five years of age who has never been to school and she knows three languages. I want to give the House a picture as to what happens in a dual medium school. Let us take the children in the playground, to start with. They speak each other’s language; they even fight in each other’s language. They play together on the sports ground. I will never forget a match I saw between two of the high schools in which I had taught. This match was the topic of conversation in the dual medium school at least a month before the match took place. The boys— and there were almost equal numbers of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking children—were the heroes of the school. I am convinced that if people who are advocating single medium schools today had been on the grand stand and seen that match, they would change their minds regarding single medium schools. You should have heard the children cheering when Jan Venter scored a try. You should have seen how the crowd jumped about and roared when Tommy White, as the scrum half, diddled the referee on the blind side of the scrum. I tell you if you had seen that match you would never have suggested for a moment that these children should be separated. The whole crowd cheered, whether the boy was English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. Those youngsters do not know politics. They were children in their natural state. Let us now take another part of school activities. What do you find in the class rooms? If the most advanced boy in the school happens to be, let us say Paul Sauer ….

It would not be he.

I am talking about the boy at school. If he happens to be the most advanced boy in the school and he goes to the platform to receive his prize, everyone cheers him. If it happens to be Jessie McLean, who receives the chief prize, they still all cheer, and the spirit which prevails in that school is completely different from this atmosphere. If you ever want any experience in regard to the single medium schools, you must study the children in these schools.

What about their results?

Do not talk to me about examination results. I knew of one man who could pass almost any examination after three months’ cramming. I knew another who could not pass any examination to save his life, yet he was a successful business man. I know other men who have received a training at a university, but not an education. I want to ask hon. members who advocate single medium schools to look around and they will find that an inevitable dualism bisects all nature. You cannot have a top without a bottom; you cannot have an inside without an outside, and if I were to give a simile of what this discussion is leading to, I would say that you cannot put the restrictive chain of single medium schools round the neck of your children without having the other end of the chain fastening around your own neck.

It is strange how you forgot it all these years.

Forgot what?

The position in Natal, for instance.

And Port Elizabeth.

Well, it is never too late to learn. After all, what have we been sent here for—the chosen representatives of the country?

Don’t bluff yourself.

Order, order !

We are the representatives of the people. I ask, what were we sent here for? We were sent here to be ré-formers. We are sent to this House to be re-makers of what man has made. We have been sent here, if we are going to be true to ourselves and true to our children, to imitate that great nature which embosoms us all, giving us with each morning a new day and with each pulsation a new life. I say that we will do an untold injury to the children of this country by placing them in single medium schools. It is not a question today of where best the languages can be taught. Today in this country it is a question of where best the children can become educated and yet friendly. If ever we are going to get rid of this racialistic idea which has muddled the minds of the Opposition, and particularly the mind of their leader, we will see to it that they are allowed to mix with each other during their school days. Mr. Speaker, is it not a peculiar thing that in this country we have a dual capital, dual schools, dual flags and dual languages? I say South Africa stands unique amongst the British Commonwealth of Nations as one of the most dual countries that is known, and yet the misguided people in the Nationalist Party still imagine they can change it. They will never do it, never. I ask the members of the Opposition to give the children a chance to mix with each other in a way that they cannot do in the single medium schools. If we do that we shall find by and by that this country will become what it ought to be, one of the happiest, most contented and most glorious countries in the world.

It is very amusing that the hon. member who has just sat down should, in these times, plead that we should give our children an opportunity to become bilingual through dual medium schools. When the hon. member had the opportunity to do something to build up a happy country, which he now pleads for, what did he do? He was mayor of Port Elizabeth and he had an opportunity to prove that he was sympathetic towards the Afrikaners; but he was one of the most malicious persons in Port Elizabeth. When the Afrikaners asked him for a small piece of ground to build a school to educate their children it was refused. He was mayor of the town. He has now walked out of the House, but he is now one of the people who now plead that we should eliminate racialism. When one hears this kind of language one expects that those who use such language will set an example, but the hon. member did exactly the opposite. Is it not hypocritical to accuse us of racialism when we want to retain the single medium schools? Allow me to state clearly at the commencement of the few words I want to say, that if it is regarded as racialism when we defend our mother tongue then they can gladly call me a racialist as long as I live. Which language was first introduced into our country? The Dutch language from which the Afrikaans language is derived. The second language is that of the intruder, the language of the conqueror. In the past 130 years the Afrikaner has had to fight for every step he has progressed and today he still has to shout for his language. Refer to past history. Much is said here about history. When the Cape was annexed in 1812 the Huguenots were told that “you will retain the rights and privileges which you have in South Africa.” A beautiful promise, a beautiful agreement. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) spoke of a sacred agreement. But sacred agreements must apparently be respected only by one side and not by the other side. How many years passed before a proclamation was issued that the language at the Cape and in the courts shall only be English? It was a violation of the promise of 1812. Not long after another proclamation was issued that all correspondence with officials had to be in English. It was one of the major grievances of the Afrikaners and it still exists today. We hear many beautiful promises but in practice we find something different. We are accused of racialism but it is the opposite side that encourages racialism; that always wants to oppress the Afrikanerdom. I do not want to go into the whole history but the hon. member for Potchefstroom referred to the solemn agreement of 1902 at Vereeniging, that the Dutch language would be instructed in the schools. What did Lord Milner do? He regarded the agreement as a scrap of paper and imported 300 teachers into our country to make Englishmen of the Afrikaners. All these years they have tried to keep the Afrikaner under and to trample on his rights. They did not succeed in destroying our language and they will not succeed in the future either—not even with the amendment of the Prime Minister. The amendment will be adopted because the hon. members on the opposite side submissively vote for anything that the Prime Minister proposes; but you are starting a language struggle as there has never been before. We were destroyed in 1902 but we did not bemoan our sorrows, and in 1903 we commenced with our Christian National schools. Our people were poor but they contributed their share. They sacrificed their pennies and kept the schools going until 1907. Then the financial position was such that we could not continue any longer. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) said: “What did the Free State do?” The Free State has had a language struggle like there has never been in any part of the world before. The hon. member for Losberg knows it very well. But he has slept through all these years from 1906 like Rip van Winkle, and now the poor member asks what did the Free State do in those days? It is due to that struggle that the Free State is today the most bilingual part of the Union. And they will stand firm even if the amendment of the Prime Minister is adopted. The Transvaal will stand firm. We will not give up our single medium schools. Just like Natal took up arms, the Transvaal and the Cape will continue the struggle. But how must I understand members on the opposite side.

When we discuss agriculture it is said that we should accept the advice of experts; it is said that the people have been educated in the subject and have investigated the matter and that we should follow their advice. Quite correct. And in the field of economics they say that we should accept the advice of economists. But in the educational field, if the educationist or the linguist does not agree with them, then they say we should not accept their advice. Then they suddenly know better, those clever people on the opposite side. When the educationists maintain that the child should be educated through the mother tongue medium, the members on the opposite side are cleverer than the philologists and state that they are wrong. Do you see how hypocritical the whole matter is? They want to kill our language and suddenly the experts are ignored if they do not agree with hon. members on the opposite side. As I have said, if it is racialism when I back up my own language then I would like to die a racialist. The Minister of Lands accuses the Broederbond.

Yes.

It is now such a troublesome body.

Absolutely.

Is the Minister a member of the “bond”? It is possible that he is a member of another “broederbond,” the Free Masons; but the “broederbond” of the Afrikaners consists of respected men—men of our church and teachers of our best people. But just because they back up the Afrikaner like the Sons of England back up the English, they are called everything that is bad. You simply cannot argue with the hon. members on the opposite side. The hon. member for Losberg yesterday stated that his church did not, with the other two churches, express itself in favour of mother tongue education. Let me state that the three churches are unanimous on this point. There may be an exception here and there of a minister, but on the whole they are unanimous.

Is it incorrect what the hon. member has said that the Hervormde Church did not join in with them?

The hon. member for Losberg mentioned his own minister, but the Hervormde Church is in favour of single medium schools. In 1942 the three churches held a conference in Pretoria together with educational authorities. Here is the resolution which they adopted—

When was that?

In December, 1942, in Pretoria. The resolution continues—

That is the resolution they adopted; it is a clear straightforward resolution. But because there are a few ministers who are perhaps staunch party-men, who hold a different opinion, hon. members allege the opposite. That congress did not decide on political lines, but on educational principles. We appreciate and they appreciate that if the Afrikaans language goes to rack and ruin, our church will also go to rack and ruin. That is why some people are so opposed to the Dutch church. The Dutch church must also be undermined. I repeat that we are determined, no matter what the decision is of the House. There are 350,000 European electors who did not bow their knees unto Baal. They will see that the single medium schools continue to exist. If it is necessary for us to put our hands into our pockets we will do so. We have done so in the past and we will again sacrifice for our language and people. We will sacrifice what is necessary. But I go further. In connection with the amendment of the hon. Prime Minister I would like to point out something. The amendment of the Prime Minister reads—

Equal rights were laid down in the Constitution of 1910. Today we are 34 years later and there are four Ministers in the Government who must have interpreters when Afrikaans is spoken, and the interpreters do not always interpret correctly. Now after 34 years they are concerned. Why? Because they see how Afrikaans is progressing. It is said that the country is becoming more and more Afrikaans and the towns more and more English.

Is it true? It is not so. Take Johannesburg. It was practically an English town after the Boer War. Only after 1918 the Afrikaners made their entry into Johannesburg. Blood was shed. Gen. Hertzog and his followers could not even hold a meeting there. They were attacked. But the Afrikaans language came and it will continue to exist in South Africa. Today Johannesburg is no longer a purely English city. A few Afrikaans newspapers are published there, and half the residents are perhaps Afrikaans-speaking. What truth exists that the towns are becoming Anglicised? The Afrikaners are determined to maintain their language in the country and in the towns. We will continue with the language-struggle if we are oppressed. We will fight for our mother-language. It is ours. And as the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has said: “We love what is ours.” We learnt the language at our mother’s knee. But why has the language been thwarted all these years? Considerable jealousy exists because the Afrikaner nation is the only nation who has developed a language of its own in the last few hundred years. Now they must endeavour to kill it. Every time reference is made to the Leader of the Opposition and the question is asked, what has he done in the field of language. Go through the Votes and Proceedings of Parliament and Hansard and you will see that the Leader of the Opposition got a motion adopted in this House that the Afrikaans language, together with English, shall be the official language in our country. They ask what we have done for the Afrikaans language. We built up the language and fought for it. Then they say we are busy encouraging racialism. Very well, let them accuse us under the circumstances. I am not afraid of the future. Still, every time our language has been attacked and every time there has been dark days ahead for the Afrikaner nation, we have emerged stronger on the other side. If we look back and see where we stood in 1812 and where the Afrikaner nation is standing today, then we can face the future with confidence. The progress made in 130 years is marvellous. No wars and oppression can kill the Afrikaner nation. Now they want to do it by means of flattery. They say our children must now go together to one school, and racialism will then be exterminated. Is it true? The Afrikaner is proud of his past, his history and his parentage and knows what he wants and is going to get it. We have only South Africa as our home; here we have to live and die. We stand with both feet in South Africa. We will fight with our back against the wall for the maintenance of our language and the preservation of the Afrikaner nation.

Who wants to take away the language?

People like the hon. member, people who lose touch with their nation. The people who have in the past oppressed everything that is Afrikaans and with whom the hon. member has joined, are the people who want to destroy our language. Now they approach it in a clever way. They now cherish our language. But we know what happened all the years. Look at Natal, the most unilingual part of the Union. There the hon. member can see who wants to take away our language. I am sorry for the hon. member. President Steyn said that the language of the conquerer in the mouth of the conquered, is the language of slavery. Unfortunately there are many who speak the language today. I refuse to let my language be oppressed. Even if they call me a racialist I will not let them trample on my language. As far as I am concerned, I support the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). Why should our educational system be tampered with? The people are satisfied, the nation is satisfied, the educationists are satisfied, but the Government wants to achieve political advantage. The hon. member for Winburg quite rightly showed the nation what they were busy doing. I wish the Natalians who took up the fight succeed in the most unilingual part of the Union. We will support them. And if the struggle is unchained by the members on the opposite side in the other provinces, they will meet with a struggle as they have never experienced before. We are determined. We will not allow ourselves to be taken by surprise. The more they try, the stronger we will emerge on the other side. A motion in connection with the matter has been moved in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. Then the by-election of Zoutpansberg took place and there they replied to the challenge of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal.

What about Bredasdorp?

The coloureds spoke there.

The nation will again reply to the challenge of the Prime Minister. I know what the answer is going to be. That the Afrikanderdom must continue to exist. It will continue to exist.

Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a predominantly English-speaking constituency, and having some claim to represent educationists, I feel I must take part in this debate. Those of us who look on this great national question objectively regret very sincerely that it has been thrown into the cockpit of party politics. I want, therefore, if I may, to take a line very different from the line generally taken throughout this debate. I want to consider this question of dual language medium against its socio-economic background. It has been argued in this House, both explicitly and by implication, that single medium education is one of the root causes of racial bitterness in this country. Now, I do not believe that that proposition can be maintained; nor do I think that dual medium is the sovereign panacea which many of its protagonists are claiming for it. I believe that whatever racialism we have is due to more fundamental causes; those causes lie in the economic and social injustices to which large masses of our people are subjected today. I believe that the most effective way of getting racial harmony and co-operation in this country is to develop our economic life; increase our social opportunities; extend our social services; and reach out to an increasingly higher standard of life with security from want and fear. So long as there is the present unequal standard of social justice in South Africa, so long will racialism remain and flourish. All sections of the community are affected by social injustice. Only two evenings ago, in addressing a considerable number of natives on social questions, I sensed the suspicion and distrust and even the hatred of these people for us as Europeans. This became evident to me in regard to their economic relationships, as far as we are concerned, and our social intentions towards them. It is the existence of social and economic injustices which constantly frustrate our progress and happiness as a people. Therefore, the question of language instruction must be considered parallel with economic justice if we are going to make our schemes for dual education work out, as we want them to. Then again, there can be no ideal language training unless we have a complete reorganisation of our education system. In July last year the S.A. Teachers’ Association drew attention to the urgency for this reorganisation. Among the matters which require urgent consideration are, first, the question of establishing a Union Education Board, which will co-ordinate all the activities of education in the country, and would by-pass the provincial differences in policy and finance and methods of instruction, which under our present system are quite unavoidable. Secondly, it is time we had a national system of free education right through to matriculation and applicable to all vocational schools. An important point was also raised in this discussion and emphasised by the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), that is, the necessity for having a more co-ordinated system of teacher training on a national basis. Then there is the need of control of our teaching service in regard to certification, salary grades, even the appointments to posts; above all it is necessary to make the salaries much better, so that we shall attract into the profession the best men and women available. Then I would emphasise the need for organised adult education. It is a happy augury that the Minister of Education has appointed a committee to go into this question of adult education. Such a plan is highly necessary to take up the slack and neglect of the past generation. There is still another important question. That is to endeavour to get our Press to be more socially conscious and to put less emphasis on vested interests; whether these be financial or party interests; and above all to expose the guise of racial politicians of all parties in South Africa. On this language question I speak from considerable experience. I have seen many experiments in language teaching working themselves out. There has been a great deal said about our Natal system of dual medium. For some years I was attached to a big educational institution in Natal, and was responsible for the training of vocational teachers. It was a single medium (English) institution; yet our teachers were turned out so bilingually efficient that in one case three were sent to posts in Potchefstroom, there to teach the subjects in that school through the medium of the second language. I believe that in Natal, using the methods of language training, which are not really new, as was the impression given by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) yesterday, but which have been in existence since 1920— using that system and aiming not merely at bilingualism, but rather at cultural values, I believe that the moral and social outlook of our English boys and girls has been enriched. Many of us who are English-speaking and have learned to appreciate Afrikaans literature have found that our first-hand acquaintance with the pictures of South African history, as painted by the late Gustav Preller; that the pastoral beauty and high moral tone of the Afrikaans novel; that the simple but noble imagery of the Afrikaans poetry of Totius and Leipoldt and others, have given us and our children a nobler conception of those spiritual values, resident in all Afrikaners, English- and Afrikaans-speaking— spiritual values on which alone we can make our people great and united.

One would have thought that after the result of the last Provincial Election ….

Zoutpansberg.

No, Bredasdorp. One would have thought that after the result of the last Provincial Election it would not be necessary, shall I say, to waste so much time of this House in regard to this subject. I want to speak on this subject not as an educationist—I cannot. I want to approach it from the point of view of a layman. But as a layman I have the right to judge, and I am in a position to judge on the results of the present educational system over the last 25 years; I am able to judge on the results of the single medium schools, and in doing so I am not going to accuse anyone of being responsible for the introduction of the single medium schools— I will not reproach anyone by saying that we did not have another and a more effective system of education—but when I take the results of single medium schools over the last 25 years I can only come to the conclusion that it was a total failure, and that it did not achieve its purpose. Apart from the fact that this desired national unity practically suffered shipwreck as a result of that system, we still have this fact that today—and I want to make this statement; I am not going to quote figures to prove it because we have seen this afternoon and we saw yesterday afternoon that one can do anything one likes with figures to prove one’s point—but I want to make this statement on the strength of the practical experience which I gain in my daily life, that is, that today our country is less bilingual than it was 25 years ago. I say that in spite of the figures which have been quoted on all sides. As I have said, it is easy to juggle with figures for one’s own purposes.

Is that what you do with them?

I am not quoting figures. I have already said that I base the statement which I made here on my experience in everyday life. My statement is also proved by the fact that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) made provision in his motion for better tuition in the second language. That is proof that he feels, as is felt on all sides of the House, that it is essential to have an educational system in the future which makes better provision for improved tuition in the second official language.

Show me where the word “better” occurs in my motion.

I am not going to enlarge on what the system should be ; whether it should be the dual medium system or any other system. I leave that to the expert educationists. They can work out the system. But what I demand of the educationists is that they should give us an educational system which can better equip our children for the future, a system which will make our children more bilingual. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) created the impression in his speech that this side ignored the educationists as far as this matter was concerned. The hon. member knows very well that the opinion of educationists is divided on this matter. There are equally strong opinions on both sides. But nevertheless this side of the House is willing to leave it to the educationists to decide which system of education we should have in this country. That is why the amendment of the Prime Minister does not stipulate that we should have dual medium schools or any other system. We cannot get away from the fact that the future of our country will demand bilingualism. No one knows that better than hon. members on the other side. That is proved by the fact that hon. members on the other side take good care to see that their own children receive the best possible bilingual education, which is quite correct. Whereas hon. members on the other side are in a position to send their children to the Jan van Riebeeck school, to the Gymnasium, or even to the Hoër Jongensskool in Stellenbosch so that their children can become fully bilingual, they must not forget that there are large numbers of parents on the platteland who are not able to send their children to those schools. Do those hon. members really want to tell me that they want those children to grow up as unilingual persons in our country.

How can you say that?

We are led to believe that, and only yesterday it was emphasised by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) that it was only through the medium of mother tongue education, and mother tongue education throughout the school, that that advancement which is required can be given to our children. What about the big percentage of children in our country who only enjoy primary education and who cannot study further; must they remain unilingual? Do hon. members on the other side who plead for the system which they are now advocating begrudge the children of poor parents who have not got the opportunity of sending their children to the schools I have already mentioned, the privilege of becoming bilingual? Do they begrudge the poor child the right to be able to take up his position in life just as their children will take up their positions in the community?

Read the motion; apparently you have not yet done so.

I know that the hon. member for Winburg read this motion with great emphasis. It does not stipulate that we should do away with mother tongue education. It only states that a better plan for the education of every child, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, poor or rich, should be evolved, so that every child will have an equal opportunity in life. That is the object of the amendment. I do not want to attribute motives although many motives have been attributed to this side of the House. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said that we wanted to denationalise the Afrikaners.

I still say so.

The hon. member for Boshof said that the plea for bilingualism on this side was nothing but a plea for a process of anglicising the Afrikaner child. That sort of statement is the language of people who have developed an inferiority complex. It is the language of someone …

That is the case as far as you are concerned.

Anyone who makes that statement in regard to the Afrikaans child has developed an inferiority complex. I go further. It is only the language of someone who has no confidence in himself and no confidence in his own nation. Let me say this to hon. members on the other side, that it is no credit to the Afrikaner nation to come to this House and to make out that the Afrikaans child has so little backbone that if we let him learn the second language, it will denationalise or anglicise him. I need only refer to members on the other side. They have all learned the second language. They are all bilingual; have they become denationalised and anglicised? No, I want to give those hon. members the assurance that such statements will not go down with the people in the country. I want to give them the assurance that the people have found them out long ago; they delivered judgment at the last provincial election in no unambiguous manner. That type of statement does not convince the public. It may have the effect of keeping that political party alive a little longer and give them a few more votes, but the people in the country are not going to believe those stories. It was also said on the other side that a tremendous struggle has been set in motion. I want to ask who set that struggle in motion; who brought this motion before the House? Did the motion come from this side? No, it came from the other side, and if a struggle has been set in motion we hold the Opposition responsible for the fact that this question has given rise to a dispute.

What about the congress of 1937?

When we hear hon. members on the other side one would think that members on this side have forgotten their history. Why should it be necessary to quote what happened a hundred or more years ago? We know all those things. They will never disappear. They are recorded. We ask ourselves what our country needs at the present time and we want to do what the future demands. No one will deny that the Afrikaner’s language has passed through a great struggle. No one on this side ever denied it. Because the Afrikaans language passed through such a struggle it stands on a firm basis today; it has taken root in every Afrikaner heart. The acquisition of the second official language will never denationalise the Afrikaner child.

Who said so?

No one can deny it. The people in the country know better than members of the Opposition do, that we are engaged in creating a dispute where no dispute exists. No, we on this side of the House definitely refuse to take part in a dispute, the object of which is to rake up past history. The time has arrived to maintain what we have accomplished. The fight for the rights of the Afrikaans language was fought with success in our country, and this side of the House will maintain Afrikaans in a way that the Opposition could never maintain it. Allow me to say this to hon. members on the other side, that if the Opposition thinks that by means of this agitation which they have set in motion and by inspanning Afrikaner organisations, organisations which are as dear to us as they are to them—if they think they that can maintain the Afrikaans language in that way, they are making a big mistake, because they are to them—if they think that they can engaged in destructive work. I want to make an appeal to them not to go on with that destruction of organisations which are dear to the Afrikaner.

You are talking nonsense now.

If the hon. member had known Afrikaans he would have said “onsin” (nonsense).

Apparently I should attend a dual medium school.

I am speaking of the Afrikaans organisations which are dear to us, and I say that hon. members on the other side, by means of this agitation, are engaged in destroying those organisations. They are damaging those organisations and the language which is dear to every one of us. My hon. friends in making false statements that this side of the House wants to denationalise and anglicise the Afrikaner and destroy mother tongue education, are engaged in breaking down the one common ground on which we could meet in the past. I challenge any member on the other side—and I challenge those organisations which have stated outside this House, throughout the length and breadth of the country, that the United Party wants to destroy mother tongue education— to produce the evidence. I challenge them to prove that any responsible member of this side or any responsible member of the party made such a statement. What we want is an opportunity to be given to every child, whether rich or poor, to become bilingual, just as hon. members on the other side have an opportunity of sending their children to English schools to become 100 per cent. bilingual. Why do they begrudge the poorer parents that privilege?

No one begrudges them that privilege.

This side of the House will never destroy, mother tongue education.

That is not the amendment.

We are in favour of mother tongue education and our amendment also states that.

Up to what standard?

Let the educationists work that out; but if the educationists tell me that we must have mother tongue education throughout the whole school in order to make a success of the education of those children, then I would point to the same educationists who did not receive mother tongue education for half an hour in their lives, and who now state that in order to make a complete success of the child’s education he should receive mother tongue education throughout his school years. The greatest percentage of members on the other side did not receive mother tongue education for half an hour, and did they not make a success of life and did not they progress just as rapidly as other people?

Who says that?

I will never believe that if we have a system which gives the child an opportunity to learn the second language, we are thereby going to retard the education of the child. That was not the case in the past, and I say that educationists who say that today did not themselves receive mother tongue education for half-an-hour in their lives. They received their education either through the medium of Dutch, English or German and they made a complete success of life. Why should all those false and wild statements be made? Is it to keep our people unilingual so that we will have a dissatisfied nation in the future? Because it is the man who is unilingual who will be dissatisfied in the future. It is that type of man, of course, who will support the Opposition, because he is dissatisfied. Is that really the intention? No, we on this side of the House will go on like the ox wagon, slowing but surely, and we demand that the Government of the day should give us a system of education, in consultation with the experts, which will make this country a bilingual country, and which will give every parent, poor or rich, the satisfaction of seeing his children leave school as bilingual children.

I would advise the hon. member who has just sat down, before he takes part in a debate, first to take the trouble of reading the motion which is before the House.

I did so.

In the second place, I want to advise him to read the amendment which was moved by his own side.

I did that too.

Then I want to advise him to go to the doctor to find out whether there is anything wrong with his memory. The hon. member says that he read the amendment. Very well. Then I say that his memory is at fault, because the first of the three propositions which are laid down in the amendment of his leader is that the child should in the early stages of his school career receive training through the medium of his home language. Thereafter the second language must also be used. The idea of mother tongue education is that it should be used at school right through from the very beginning to the end, and that is negatived in that motion. Apparently the hon. member does not understand English or Afrikaans. It was stated in the course of this debate that we should discuss this matter in a calm and quiet manner. My hon. friend, the member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), also made that request in his opening speech. I want to say frankly that when I have to deal with political hypocrisy, I find it particularly difficult to discuss the matter in a calm and quiet fashion. In the course of this debate this matter was also discused from the point of view of educational principles. I admit that in the normal circumstances and in the normal course of events, when a debate is conducted in regard to educational matters, we must fully take into consideration the educational principles and doctrines involved. But I repeat that as far as I am concerned I find it extremely difficult to confine myself to questions of education principles when dealing with a matter which is obviously being made a political issue. Here we are dealing with political hypocrisy on the part of the Government and on the part of hon. members on that side. In the second place we are dealing here with ….

Set a thief to catch a thief.

My hon. friend says : “Set a thief to catch a thief.” In a moment I shall show him what is at the back of this. I am coming to that. It is more particularly in the light of that political hypocrisy and of the political game which is being played here, that I want to make my contribution to this debate. For 34 years since the establishment of Union, the Nationalist Party has been waging a struggle for bilingualism in South Africa.

At that time the Nationalist Party was not yet in existence.

With the establishment of Union Section 137, which lays down the principle of language equality, was incorporated into the Act of Union. For thirty-four years, and especially since the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924, we have been fighting for bilingualism in South Africa. It is we and not hon. members on the other side who have fought for bilingualism in South Africa since 1910. And against whom did we have to fight? We had to fight against the Prime Minister and those who supported him, to have Section 137 applied in practice. In the Civil Service and in the Railway Service the provisions of Section 137 were not applied in practice in the fullest sense of the word until the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924. I am sorry that there was no Hansard between the years 1918 and 1924. It is a great pity, because it appears from the reports of the debates in this House, as published in the newspapers, that the Nationalist Party had to fight, and fight very hard, for the practical application for the provisions of Section 137. It was not only a fight as far as the civil service and the railway service were concerned, but there was a terrific struggle even as far as local bodies were concerned. It is only as a result of this struggle which was waged by the Nationalist Party that we got so far that effect was given to the principle of language equality in local bodies, in municipalities, in divisional councils, and in school boards. There was a time when one had to fight to be served in one’s own language, not only in Government offices but in the offices of local bodies. In my own town, as a young man, as a member of the School Board, I had to fight hard to have the minutes drawn up in Afrikaans. That was in the year 1921, eleven years after Union came about, twelve years after Section 137 was placed on the statute book. We know how we had to struggle to have effect given to this principle in businesses. One could not walk into a shop in Johannesburg and Cape Town and be served in one’s own language. That is still the case today to a great extent. Solely as a result of the struggle we fought, and only after the Afrikaners of Cape Town and the rest of the province threatened to boycott shops in Cape Town, and only after they sent back to the shops the unilingual catalogues they had received, did the shops gradually begin to realise that they had to serve their Afrikaans customers in their own language. I mention these few facts to prove that it was this side which had to fight all these years for their language rights. A few months ago, however, all of a sudden out of the blue sky, we had this concern on the part of the Prime Minister and his followers about bilingualism. He has been sitting here all these years and never worried about bilingualism. All the years that our present Prime Minister occupied the position of Prime Minister of South Africa, he did not make the slightest attempt to put bilingualism into practice. What did he do? He not only did not endeavour to further the Afrikaans langauge, but he fought this side in the application of bilingualism, and today he has four unilingual Ministers in his Cabinet. Three of them have to make use of an interpreter during the debates. The fourth one, the Minister of Transport, is trying; but with all deference to the Minister of Transport, I want to ask him first to go through the replies to questions before reading them out to us, so that we may be able to understand them when he reads them out. But in any case he is trying. The others are not even trying. Apart from the Prime Minister, I think the Minister of Labour is the father of this House as far as length of service as a member of Parliament goes. He always has an interpreter by his side. In all these 30 to 40 years he has not made the slightest attempt to learn the other language.

That is why we need dual medium schools.

I am coming to that. One continually hears the story that the English-speaking people are not able to learn the second language, because they are not good linguists. I am coming back to that. The Prime Minister, as I said, has always fought us. I ask him what interest he has ever shown in the cultural achievements of the Afrikaans people to whom he belongs? Did one ever hear of the Prime Minister taking part in an Afrikaner function or being interested in Afrikaans literature? No, but we do see him when a foundation stone of a Jewish Synagogue is laid. Then he is present, and as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, who made a big speech when we on the last occasion discussed this matter, one continually sees him at functions of some English cultural society or other, or the Young Israel Society; but do you ever see his name mentioned in connection with an Afrikaans cultural function, when Afrikaners meet? These are the people who have suddenly become so concerned about bilingualism; but that is not all. The Prime Minister has behind him about twenty parliamentarians who are also unilingual. How many of them ever went to the trouble of learning the second language, although they come here as members of a legislative body with two official languages? How many of them went to the slightest trouble to learn the second language? The Nationalist Party is the party which in 1924, for the first time, put Section 137 into practice, and the hon. the Prime Minister and the others behind him have ignored this question during all these years and have looked upon it with contempt. There are three classes of people on the other side who are now suddenly worrying about bilingualism. In the case of most of them it is not a matter of having any feelings about Afrikaans, but they come with their agitation merely for political reasons. In the commercial world business people suddenly began to realise that they also had Afrikaans-speaking customers, and for business reasons—not because they had any affection for the language—they have begun to be interested and to serve Afrikaans-speaking people in their own language. During all the years of this struggle we received no support either from the Prime Minister or from his supporters. Now we suddenly have to hear how concerned they are, and an election has now to be fought on this question. Several members yesterday proclaimed that we on this side were dragging this matter into the political arena.

Exactly.

I just want to ask the hon. member this: If you make the language question a plank in your platform during an election, are you not dragging it into the political arena? Can there be a worse method of dragging something into politics?

That was a provincial election.

Do you see, there is something wrong with the hon. member. What about his party congress—or was he not present there? Or was it “just a congress?” Does the hon. member want to say that the provincial elections are not being fought along political lines?

I admit that.

Otherwise he would certainly be a stranger in Jerusalem. But the Hon. the Prime Minister in his speech on the 22nd February said the following—

Surely the hon. member believes what his Prime Minister says. Then he goes on—

And then you find members on the other side of the House who say that we are dragging it into the political arena. They are fighting an election on it, and the Prime Minister has said that the people decided about it. But was that the only question before the people? The Prime Minister, in his speech, furthermore said—

I ask how many English-speaking people during the latest provincial elections went to the polls with the express purpose of voting in order to abolish their English medium schools. According to the Prime Minister that was the only question during that election. I am prepared to say that if one had selected a hundred English-speaking people at any meeting before that election, and had asked them what they would vote for, they would have told you: “In favour of the war.” Does the hon. member want to deny that?

I deny it.

I have got the “Argus” here.

Aha!

That usually is your Bible, is it not? I know these things hurt. Here I have the headlines of the “Argus” after the provincial elections: “Another Smuts’ Triumph”; “Three Provinces Vote Pro-war.” But the Prime Minister says that the only question during the election was the language question. Surely one does not expect such statements from a responsible Prime Minister. I therefore say that we are faced here with a political hypocrisy, the like of which we have seldom or never seen in the history of South Africa. They cannot get away from that. They have fought against us all these years, and they did not lift a finger to help us in regard to the application of bilingualism. Now they are all of a sudden concerned about it: but this is not only a matter of political hypocrisy. We are dealing here with a political game, a public political game, and they know it. Even the hon. member over there who was so concerned today about the language which he loves—all of a sudden—which he loves so much that he wants to contribute to the destruction of Afrikaans medium schools.

It was not a case of sudden conversion; the concern is not genuine; it is merely a political football. Those elections were scarcely over, elections which according to the Prime Minister were fought only on the question of bilingualism, when we met here in Parliament, and in connection with a Bill which came before this House, we then moved an amendment to test the honesty of hon. members on the other side. Appointments are to be made on the Board of Trade and Industries, a board which comes into contact with the public. We then proposed that a qualification for the members of the Board of Trade and Industries should be that they are bilingual. But look, those people who are so terribly concerned about bilingualism voted against it as one man. Was there ever a better example of political chicanery and hypocrisy, and what did we soon afterwards hear in connection with the English schools? That they would not be prepared to accept the system. Does the hon. member want to tell me now that the principal and teachers of the St. George’s Grammar School, Bishops, St. Andrew’s, S.A.C.S. and the Rondebosch School all voted at the polls in order that justice will be done to both languages in the schools in future? The hon. member knows that they went to the polls in order to vote in favour of the war. “Three provinces vote pro-war.” Now the Prime Minister comes along and in the same speech says—

Who are “we”? It is not hon. members on this side. This is a wonderful sentiment, but what was the point of view adopted by the Prime Minister and his followers during the past thirty-four years? There are three kinds of “we” in this House and in South Africa. The first are the English-speaking people— out-and-out English. The second section consists of the anglicised Afrikaners, and the third section are the Afrikaners who still talk the Afrikaans language. Now let us look at the first section, the English-speaking people we find in this House and outside. We know their record. We know that one is told continually that they cannot learn the other language. I think even one of the hon. members today came with the same story. That is what they always pretend. Suddenly they have become so feeble-minded that they cannot learn the second language, but at other times they pretend to be such clever people. The question is not that they cannot learn the language, but that they do not want to. It is a characteristic of the English people. I know them well; I have lived with them for years. It is a characteristic of the Englishman that he refuses to learn another language. We have heard so much about the “Herrenvolk” idea of the Germans. As far as language is concerned one finds the same position amongst this section of the English people in South Africa and in other parts of the world. They are not all like that. One finds that “Herrenvolk” complex amongst them. Their language is English, and anybody who cannot speak English has to see how he fares. In Prance, in Paris, I met Englishmen who had been managing businesses there for fourteen, fifteen and twenty years, but who could not speak French because they did not want to learn it.

What have they got to do with us?

There are exceptions. The hon. member over there is an exception. But as the hon. Minister of Finance said the other day: “One swallow does not make a summer, and neither do two.” The largest section of the English-speaking people in South Africa do not go to the trouble of learning Afrikaans, and do not want to learn it.

That is not true.

Our experience in South Africa has been that they not only do not want to learn our language, but that a large section of them have never shown any sympathy towards our language, and on the contrary we are being insulted time and again when we speak our own language. The other day I again heard that expression “kitchen Dutch.” That is the term with which they frequently stamp our language. This is one of the “we’s” the Prime Minister referred to. The contention of this side of the House is that you will never have bilingualism in the country unless …

You are hypocrites.

Well, there is one thing hon. members can never say about me, and that is that I am a hypocrite. For that reason I have no time for hypocrites.

Must we believe that?

I am straightforward, and therefore I have no time for hypocrisy, and that is the reason why I hold the view that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are showing nothing but hypocrisy. I now come to the second section of the “we’s.” And who are they? The anglicised Afrikaners. Some of them cannot help themselves. They have grown up in an English atmosphere, and they can be blamed just as little for being anglicised as for belonging to some church or other, but there are anglicised Afrikaners who were born that way because their fathers and mothers were like that, whilst others have become anglicised in the course of time. There are, for instance, people who used to be “Van der Byl” and now they are “Ven der Bial,” and Cloetes who have become “Cloetees.” They have even tried to anglicise their surnames.

And Louw is Low.

I now come to the case we had here yesterday, namely, the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman). He took part in yesterday’s debate, and I am afraid he is well on the road of becoming a member of the second section of the “we’s”, for he no longer talks about Stellenbosch, but of Stellenbush, and he must not take it amiss, but the time may come that he will not call himself Dr. Bosman but Dr. Bushman. Well, the hon. member for Gardens said something which I cannot ignore. I know the hon. member and he is a good fellow to get on with, but he did something which I did not expect of him. He read out a letter here from a junior messenger of this House …

I did not mention names.

The hon. member spoke disparagingly of that messenger, because he made two spelling mistakes in the English of a letter which he wrote to the hon. member.

On a point of explanation, I made it clear that I received that letter just after I had started speaking. I did not say where it came from. I only said that I felt sorry for the young man, a boy of seventeen years of age who had been to an Afrikaans medium school.

How did you know that he had been to an Afrikaans medium school?

I found that out. I knew who the boy was but I did not mention his name.

But you only found that out afterwards, if your statement is correct.

The hon. member read out that letter and it was clear that it came from a messenger of this House.

I knew that.

But nevertheless the member says that he did not mention the name. It was obvious that it came from a young messenger, and there were two spelling mistakes in it. The hon. member who is now so terribly in favour of bilingualism should ask his English friends to sit down and write a letter in Afrikaans. Or does it matter only if a man cannot write English?

That is just as deplorable.

I want to go further, and ask the hon. member himself to sit down and write a letter in Afrikaans. Then we shall see. But he comes here and ridicules a young messenger.

I did not ridicule him.

Before he comes here again to ridicule a young messenger who makes a few spelling mistakes in the other language, he should ask his English-speaking friends over there to write a letter in Afrikaans. Let the hon. member try it himself.

I write just as many letters in Afrikaans as in English.

Show us some of your letters, so that we may see whether you do not make mistakes. I regret having to go even still further. The hon. member spoke in English yesterday. As he complained about two spelling mistakes in a letter which a young messenger wrote to him, I must ask him that when he speaks English in Parliament he should speak better English than he did yesterday. His speech was full of grammatical errors, and you could cut his accent with a knife. Before the hon. member ridicules a young Afrikaans-speaking messenger, he should first try to improve his English, which he believes to be so good …

You are unnecessarily insulting.

The hon. member yesterday spoke about the two spelling mistakes made by a messenger. I would like to ask him to hand me the letters which he receives from his English-speaking voters, so that I can see how many spelling mistakes they make.

You are now mean about it. Are you sure that your name is spelt correctly?

You had no right to read that letter in the manner you did. I did not expect it from you. But let us leave this matter alone. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The hon. member came here and stressed two spelling mistakes. That is the kind of argument one gets in this debate. Can hon. members blame me when I say that I cannot approach this matter in a calm and considered manner, when we are faced with such hypocrisy.

I want to remind the hon. member of a ruling of Mr. Speaker Jansen which was given in this House—

Hear, hear; withdraw.

I can quite understand that this is a great relief to hon. members. I can understand that the “hear, hear” comes from that side. It is a great relief to them, but I again say that when we are faced with the arguments we had here in connection with this matter, then we are entitled to doubt their motives. I then say that we are faced here with political hyprocrisy, I maintain that we are entitled to doubt their motives, as I doubt the motives of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). I now come to the third section, namely, the Afrikaners themselves. We now come to the Afrikaansspeaking people. We know them too. I want to say straightaway that I have still more sympathy for the anglicised Afrikaner who sometimes could not help becoming anglicised. His father and mother were anglicised, and he may have grown up in English surroundings. One might still defend him; but new we come to the Afrikaner who has grown up in Afrikaans surroundings, the Afrikaner who learned Afrikaans at his mother’s knee and who has always spoken Afrikaans, practically the only language he knows, but who belongs to the section of Afrikaners who like so much to flatter the Government, that class of Afrikaner who on account of his political convictions is now prepared to support the policy which actually will mean the annihilation of our Afrikaans medium schools. They maintain that that is not their intention. Well, let us accept that for the sake of argument; but then I say that the effect will be the following. If their own amendment is put into practice, it can have only one effect, and that is that our Afrikaans-medium schools will disappear, and they are Afrikaner people. They tell you they are proud to call themselves Afrikaners, but when necessary they are prepared to act against the interests of their own language. That makes me think of the saying : “Lamsak, ou maat, gee my jou hand; ons is burgers van papbroekland.”

And you are the “pap-broeke.”

I want to repeat that we did not receive any support from this Prime Minister and his Cabinet as far as bilingualism is concerned. We are entitled to ask what the reason for the sudden conversion is; I still maintain that it is a political football and nothing else. We have already had certain statements from Ministers on the other side in this connection, inter alia a statement by the Minister of Social Welfare. Time and again we have heard that it was stated at special congresses that the children in the Afrikaans medium schools were guided in a certain political direction. That is their motive; that is the cause of their sudden conversion, which was noticed after the last election. What is the reason? It is based on fear. They notice the growth of nationalism in South Africa, and possibly they read the article by Prof. Gray in the paper “Commonsense.” We now had the statement of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister about the way they are going to fight for bilingualism. That statement was given shortly after this article by Prof. Gray was published, and in his article Prof. Gray says—

He studied the figures and what was his conclusion? He said that he found that at the last election nearly 70 per cent. of the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa voted Nationalist. The figure was 40.3 per cent. Afrikaners who voted for the United Party during the previous election, whereas 33.69 per cent. Afrikaners voted for the United Party during the last election. He says—

And then he comes to his final conclusion and says—

[Time limit.]

I rise not to make a speech in this debate, but merely to correct a misrepresentation by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). The hon. member gave a completely wrong description of what happened. He said this, among other things, in the course of the debate—

Now that is a very clear statement that that was the decision arrived at without any dissentient.

Was there a single dissentient?

The hon. member is entirely mistaken. I have received the permission of the Administrator of the Cape to inform the House what actually took place to show that the statement of the hon. member is devoid of all truth. The actual position, as I am told by the Administrator, is this. Listen to what he says—

Order, order! I am sorry but under the rules of the House no hon. member is allowed to quote from a letter in connection with a debate which has taken place during the same Session in the House.

This is not a letter which has been sent to me. I am merely quoting from a communication made to me by the Administrator himself.

What is it then?

The communication reads as follows—

Order, order! Rule 62 of the Standing Rules and Orders reads as follows—

What I am referring to is not includled in any of the matters mentioned in that rule. This is a communication made to me by the Administrator of the Cape, and it is carefully committed to writing in this document. This is not a document which was sent to me by the Administrator; it is a communicaiton made to me and it has been carefully recorded.

Cannot the hon. member give the House the information without quoting that document?

I can quote from the actual report of the conference. I take it that that will be in order. But what I have already said shows conclusively that the information that the hon. member has given this House is devoid of all truth.

Will the hon. the Minister give an undertaking that he will lay all the documents in connection with this conference on the Table of the House.

That is a matter for the Administrator.

I challenge the Minister to lay the complete documents of the Conference on the Table of the House. What objection can he have to doing so?

I shall quote from that report to show the House what actually was decided and the first point of importance is that a question whether the dual medium was good or bad was never submitted to those people. The inspectors were not asked to come to any decision on that question. The hon. member said that they had expressed their opinion on the subject. So far as they did express their opinion it appears that that opinion was quite in the opposite direction and the Administrator has told me he has every reason to believe that if the question had been put to them they would have said the very opposite. He goes so far as to tell me that what the hon. member has said about the inspectors casts an uncalled-for blot on a body of honourable men.

Lay the report of that conference on the Table of the House.

On a point of order, are we not entitled to claim that the Minister shall lay those documents on the Table of the House?

All the proceedings. We also know what happened at that conference.

The rule is that a Minister ought not to read or quote from a State Paper not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it on the Table. When such a document has been quoted from it ought to be laid upon the Table if it can be done without injury to the public interest.

This is not a document of his Department. But if he quotes from a document is he not then obliged to lay that document on the Table of the House if an hon. member asks for it?

I have already ruled that the Minister cannot quote from the statement he has received from the Administrator; and so far as the report of the conference of school inspectors is concerned I have stated that the Minister is not bound to lay it on the Table if he considers that it would not be in the public interest to do so.

I should like to know whether under your ruling the position is that the hon. member for Waterberg can say that a certain conference of school inspectors has unanimously arrived at a certain decision, and that if I had a report that these people have decided something which is absolutely contrary to what the hon. member ber says, am I not allowed to quote from that report?

In explaining the rule I tried to make it clear that Mr. Speaker cannot prevent a Minister from reading extracts from a document not before the House.

The report say this, inter alia—

Well, that by itself goes to prove quite clearly that the position was by no means as the hon. member for Waterberg put it. And then the report goes on to say and finally recommends—

And finally the report recommends—

Where is the recommendation for a dual medium school?

I am astounded to hear the hon. member ask where is the recommendation for a dual medium school. He got up in this House and said that the inspectors had unanimously decided against dual medium education and in favour of mother tongue instruction. First of all, these people were never asked to decide on dual medium school. What they were asked was to make suggestions about the introduction of the dual medium.

That is not so. They recommended an experiment.

I only got up because I could not allow this incorrect representation of the position given by the hon. member to go into the country without the true state of affairs being shown and I think that that has now been done.

On the other side of the House speakers have mentioned a large number of facts in connection with this language question in order to prove how concerned they are about the bilingualism of our children. I just want to say at once that if the dual medium system which is advocated here by the other side of the House is to be applied in our schools, it will certainly cause the greatest disaster which has ever befallen our people. It will put us back about one and a half century. It will disturb the relationship between the two European sections and it will make our living together unpleasant and unbearable. We should at once ask the question: What are the reasons behind their so-called concern? What is the secret? Why is the Prime Minister so concerned about the bilingualism of our children? My reply is that there is only one reason for it and that reason is that they suffer from a fear complex. What is the reason for that fear complex? The reason is that the English-speaking section of the population of South Africa have failed completely in the second language. They have failed and have stayed behind. What is the reason for their staying behind? It is because they deliberately refused to learn the second language and to have the second language taught in the schools. That is one of the reasons why this so-called dual medium has now to be introduced. But that is not the most serious aspect. There is much more behind it. The aim of this amendment of the Prime Minister is to throw our educational system completely out of gear and to uproot and steer it in an entirely different direction, a direction which will be to their liking. I just want to read out his proposal to show what the purpose of the amendment is. It reads as follows—

The aim of this is to completely recast our educational system, and who wants to change it? Not the educationists or the Provincial Councils, but the highest authority in this country, the Government, and it says emphatically that it should be gradually introduced during the first five years. We furthermore find in this amendment—

The second language should be used when it is thought appropriate to do so. By whom? Again not by the authorities or the educationists, and this is where we find the barb; it will not be in the interests of those who are prepared to be taught, but in the interests of those who do not want to be taught. Take the Public Service for instance. We have often heard when complaints have been made about civil servants being unilingual, that they are placed where they do not come in touch with the public; in spite of the fact that section 137 of the Act lays down that they must be bilingual, there are still people in the Public Service who cannot address you in Afrikaans. This is still the position after 34 years and the same will apply when our educational system is re-cast. The amendment goes on—

Our teachers have therefore to be trained also in such a way that they will be able to further that national unity, so that they may put the ideals of bilingualism and of national unity into practice. What lies behind this all? The national unity which is envisaged is to let one section of the population disappear from the stage. The training of the teachers will be cast in such a mould that they will have to educate the children in one direction only and that is by means of English. That will be laid down and we shall not be able to do anything about it, for once that has been laid down, it will be in the Government’s hands to act as it thinks fit and then we as Afrikaans-speaking people will simply have to be satisfied, as usual. I want to appeal to all who still have some Afrikaner feeling in them not to allow the existing educational system being tampered with. There are today two provinces, the Orange Free State and Natal; the Orange Free State is predominantly Afrikaans-speaking and Natal predominantly English-speaking, and how do these two provinces compare as far as bilingualism is concerned? The Afrikaans-speaking province is 69 per cent bilingual; whereas the English-speaking province is only 24 per cent. bilingual. Who is at fault? Where should matters be tightened up? The danger is not in the Free State; the danger is in Natal. It is that province which should be put right. I have travelled through Natal myself and English-speaking persons told me that they will rather have their children learn Zulu than Afrikaans.

Nonsense.

That is a fact. They look down with contempt on Afrikaans and they rather see that their children learn Zulu. Now that they find that they are lagging behind, this method is to be applied, but the secret behind it all is that they want to anglicise us. That is the secret. They want to see the Afrikaans-speaking people disappear from the stage and I say that dual medium schools are absolutely impracticable. It cannot be done successfully in this country, for if a child has to receive its education in a dual medium school, it will reach a stage when it thinks in one language and speaks and writes in another language. We know ourselves that when you discuss a matter or subject and do not understand the language, you also cannot understand the subject you are dealing with. What then is the best solution? The best is of course to transmit the subject to the brains of the child by means of the mother tongue. The dual medium schools will only make weaklings of our children. A child taught in that way will not be able to live it owns life culturally, politically and socially. In every respect it will practically be forced to stand back and that child will be no credit to any section of the population. It has been asserted here that the aim is to obtain national unity. Where can you wish for a better chance to obtain unity than in the parallel schools which are mostly found in the Cape. There the children come together on the sports grounds. They are always together; they are only separated when they attend their classes. Then they are separated; but they play together and they have the best chances to learn one another’s language. Here in the Cape one finds the best examples, and in spite of that the Free State ranks much higher still as far as results are concerned, in spite of the fact that the children in the Cape play together and that they are continually in contact with one another. So there is no proof that the children cannot do their work in that respect. We are in favour of single medium schools and the reason is the following. When we speak of single medium schools, we do not want to say that we are not going to teach the second language in those single medium schools. It is quite superfluous to point out that both languages are being taught there, and the purpose is not to exclude one or the other section or one or the other language. When a child receives its education in its own mother tongue, it understands the subject much better than when that subject is taught in the second language. It is and remains a fact that the thought of both animals and man are only expressed by means of their mother tongues and not the other way about. We can find excellent examples of this. If we hear a dog barking without seeing him, we know that it is a dog because he barks; it is an expression of its soul, and the same applies to children. The language through which a child learns must be its mother tongue. We do not say that the language is everything in the school. There are many other things which go together with the language. The child should not develop intellectually only. It should also develop morally and spiritually. That can only happen to the fullest extent if the child receives its education in a single medium school. It must be spontaneous, there should not be any compulsion on the child. In the dual medium school the child has to learn certain subjects through the medium of its home language and other subjects through the medium of the second language. What results can one expect from such a system? Take the subject of history. How can a child live a full life if it cannot develop its personality through its own history. Teach that subject in a foreign language and where do you land? We had to learn a lot about Henry VIII and his wives, whilst we did not learn our own history. No, I maintain that that concern about bilingualism is not genuine. It is a farce. We know that when an artery of a man or an animal is severed, it means its death, and when the language of a nation is eradicated, it means the death of that nation. I just want to quote a few facts from history to prove that an attempt is being made to anglicise our children. If we go back for about 150 years, we find that the process started then already. I shall mention a few episodes in order to show what actually happened in the past as far as the language of the Afrikaner is concerned. In 1806 when the Cape capitulated to England, a promise was made that the rights and privileges of the inhabitants would be respected. What was the result? Only a few years later, in 1813, a proclamation was issued making English compulsory for officials. Furthermore all correspondence had to be in English. Please notice how cleverly the thing was staged. When this trouble started, only one-eighth of the population of the Cape was English-speaking. Seven out of every eight persons were Afrikaansspeaking. At that time they wanted to remove the Afrikaner people from the stage, and they did not stop at that. In 1822 the British authorities ruled that the only language tolerated in the courts would be English. Accused as well as complainant have to appear in court; the accused and the complainant are there and everything has to be interpreted. That was a disgrace to the people at the time. It was a step taken against them in order to humiliate them. It was a scheme aiming at the disappearance of their language. In 1939 the English authorities themselves declared that in the appointment of predikants those with a knowledge of English had to receive preference. In that way the struggle was brought into the churches. In every sphere of life they tried to introduce one language only in the country, and that language had to be the language of the conqueror. In 1865 they went as far as dictating that the only language which would be recognised as the medium of instruction in schools would be English. They even went as far as hanging a poster with a donkey depicted on it around the necks of school-going children who had been speaking Dutch on the school grounds. The only aim was to anglicise them. But they could not succeed, in spite of all the tactics they employed. They did not succeed in eliminating the Afrikaner people. The result was that when the Dutchspeaking section of the people, a peace-loving nation, could no longer stand it, we had the Great Trek. They went and lived in an uncivilised world amongst barbarians and wild animals. Hundreds of them were murdered for the sake of the justice and freedom they went to look for. The undermining of our language rights and the methods which were employed resulted in happenings such as Slagtersnek, which our people will never forget. Finally the Boer nation brought into being the two Republics, where they could live in rest and peace. It did not take very long when they were again persecuted and we had the three years’ war of liberation which cost us 27,000 women and children who were murdered in the concentration camps. All these things resulted from the language struggle, because our people were not prepared to succumb when another language was forced down their throats. What happened then? After the Anglo-Boer War, when we were conquered, the first problem cropping up was again the language question. Ï was a child of the concentration camps and when I went to school for the first time, there were two dyed-in-the-wool Scotsmen as our teachers who could not understand a word of Afrikaans. That is how we had to make a start, the purpose being once more to kill our language. We all know of the struggle of the Afrikaner with his N.C.O. schools. Those schools and afterwards Section 137 meant a revival of our language, with the result that we now have the right to use our own language. The final result of that revival we are experiencing now: to be again involved in a language struggle. Members on this side have already mentioned that the struggle which began in 1806 has to be fought once more. We are coming here and we are told that the difficulty now is that the people cannot become united and that for that reason we must make a start in the schools. I call it a farce. We should be honest about it. We are being accused from the other side that our attitude is a political one. Well, I do not know a language without politics. If there is such a language it is certainly not a language spoken by human beings. When a small child begins to walk it has its politics already, and there can be no people without politics. Politics were made use of in order to attempt to eliminate the language of the Afrikaner. As hon. members on the other side are now again trying to undermine our language in this manner, I want to warn them that we are reverting again to this language struggle and this racial struggle in the highest degree. The other side of the House is to blame for that struggle. We shall not tolerate our language being killed. In that respect we are like the burning bush. The more the fire sweeps over us the deeper our roots will penetrate. If the friends on the other side are at all concerned about the well-being of our people, they should abandon this so-called struggle for bilingualism. There is only one way to achieve unity in this country and that is by respecting each other’s customs, traditions and language, and the first step in that direction is to learn one another’s language and not look upon it with contempt. This is the only manner and we shall not get it in any other manner, if our friends on the other side stand with us and help to uproot the evil from which all these troubles spring and from which all these undermining tactics originate, the Empire and the British connection. If we get a free and independent republic in which everybody can live his own life, then and then only shall we be a happy nation.

I have listened to this debate and every member on the other side who got up, put up a popinjay, shot it down and then exclaimed: That shot went home. The popinjay is that the Afrikaner and the Afrikaans language are in danger. There was ä time, four years ago, when the Afrikaans language was really in danger. That was at the time when there was the danger that we would come under the heel of Hitlerism and Nazism. If that had happened, it would have meant the end of the Afrikaans language. This side of the House prevented that, and we can now rest assured that the Afrikaans language in South Africa has come to stay. The Afrikaans language is no longer in danger, but we on this side have seen to it that that danger passed. Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to speak of political hypocrisy.

The hon. member may not use that expression.

I do not want to do so, for you will tell me that it is unparliamentary language. But to me it looks very much like political bankruptcy. The members on the other side get up one after the other and proclaim that the Afrikaans language is in danger. In what way is the Afrikaans language being endangered? The hon. member who has just sat down went back to Slagtersnek. What has that got to do with this question? Did the hon. member forget that we obtained a Union in South Africa? Did he forget the history of his country and did he forget that when we achieved Union, the principle of bilingualism was incorporated in our Constitution? In that Constitution the principle of one people and two languages in this country has been laid down. What right do they have now to say that the Afrikaans language is in danger? No, the Afrikaans language is not in danger but that dwindling political party of theirs is in danger. That is the danger they see. They ask why the Afrikaans language is being attacked. Who made that attack; this side or the other side?

Your side.

Why did this question become a bone of contention and why was our Prime Minister compelled to tell the electors that we would fight a provincial election on this principle? Because there was political bankruptcy on the other side. Their war policy and neutrality had become stale. The people of South Africa made its choice and the other side became politically bankrupt and for that reason they again dished up the language struggle.

No, it was forced upon us.

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) stays on a little island and he may also disappear just now.

One does not talk like that about one’s neighbours.

It was not meant in earnest. The hon. member knows that. But the danger still remains. The friends on the other side were politically bankrupt when they had to fight the provincial elections and for that reason they raised this racial problem and told the electors that their language was now in danger. Well, the country gave its verdict. We received the verdict at the provincial elections and the country of course rejected the policy of unilingualism.

No, we want education through the mother tongue.

Education through the mother tongue! The other day I spoke to one of our predikants. He is a man I respect. He does not belong to my party, but we were sitting in the train and talked and I told him: “Domineee, don’t you think that our Afrikaans children are being done an injustice when they leave the schools and the universities without being bilingual?” He told me that that was a fact. The children do not become bilingual. I am telling you that a teacher is living in my neighbourhood and when he has to commence his English lesson he tells the children: “Now we have to be busy for an hour with the language of the enemy.” Those are the things that threaten our language. The friends on the other side speak of two nations in our country, the Afrikaner nation and the English-speaking nation. The constitution of the Union does not lay down that principle. In 1910 the principle was adopted that we shall have one nation but two languages. All we want to achieve by means of the amendment of the Prime Minister is that every child on leaving school or the university shall be properly bilingual. The friends on the other side have so much to say about the Voortrekkers and the Republics. Do they forget the history of the Free State and what the educational policy of the old Free State was? I sat on those school benches. I am not going to talk about Slagtersnek and those other things which have nothing to do with this matter, but I am going to say a few words about the educational policy of the old Free State Republic. When I was a small boy the Free State passed a law that every child had to attend school until standard IV and afterwards until Standard VI. Every child was obliged to walk three miles or more to and from school. It was compulsory education. Afterwards I was a member of the Provincial Council of the Cape and in 1920 I was on the Executive Committee. An ordinance for compulsory education was then introduced and I told Dr. Viljoen that here in the Cape Province the people were far behind the Free State. That shows us where the Free State stood, and do you know it was compulsory in the Free State for certain subjects to be taught through the medium of English in the old Free State? They therefore chose dual medium education and not single medium education. Now our friends there want to tell us that our language is in danger today and that we want to denationalise the Afrikaner. Did the Free State denationalise its children? No, they definitely were not denationalised. In the Free State English-speaking children sat together on the school benches with Afrikaans-speaking children and they played football together. Those English-speaking children were neither denationalised, but when the Anglo-Boer War came many of those English-speaking people fought on our side with us.

Because they had been sitting together in school.

The hon. members on the other side should not drag party politics into this matter now. I realise that their party is bankrupt and I want to give them some advice this afternoon if they want to rehabilitate their party and want to bring together the Afrikaners who are so divided, they should do one thing—they should aquiesce in the decision of the people and they should tell the Prime Minister that they are going to accept the verdict of the people. That is their duty. But they are politically bankrupt and they are sinking deeper and deeper into the mud and one of these days they will land in the insolvency court. Yes, the Afrikaner is no longer to be scared. To come and tell me that when an Afrikaner child receives tuition in a few subjects through the medium of English, it will become denationalised—well, they simply do not know the history of the Afrikaner people. The Afrikaner nation is a people with a back bone. You can put the Afrikaner child into any position. He is born an Afrikaner and you cannot get that out of him, and why should we put him in such a position that when one day he leaves the university he is practically unilingual. We have listened to the letter read out by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman), but it is not the general rule that children become bilingual in that way. The dominee admitted that our children leave school without being bilingual. To me it is scandalous that children even come from the universities with degrees and cannot talk English properly. No, we should do our duty towards our children. We have obligations towards them, and one of the first of these is to see to them being bilingual and to take steps so that the racial hatred of the past may be eliminated. If we have to continue inciting one another, to remind one another of Slagtersnek, of the Anglo-Boer War and all those things, what is it going to help us and where will it lead us to? We say that we are going to bury the past. We are not going to forget it, for it is our history of which we are proud. But we are not going to use that history in order to reproach each other in future. We are going to apply the proposal we introduced, not only to Afrikaans-speaking children but also to English-speaking children.

Also to private English schools?

We shall also apply it to the single medium English schools. It is our avowed policy that everbody in the country on leaving school shall be bilingual. He must be properly bilingual and if we follow that policy, we shall in future no longer hear of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, but only of Afrikaners. The Afrikaner nation will accept the two languages as its language.

Two mother tongues?

The policy of the United Party leads straight towards a united nation with two languages.

With two mother tongues?

With two languages. The friends on the other side talked so much this afternoon of the danger to the Afrikaner people in regard to their language, and that the Afrikaans language would be attacked. I cannot understand why they say these things. I shall tell you when the danger will come for the Afrikaans language. That danger will come when we stir up this racial feeling, when we speak of two nations and put Afrikaans-speaking people against English-speaking people, when we remind one another of Slagtersnek, the Anglo-Boer War and all those things. If we do that, then we endanger our Afrikaans language. For if there should come about another situation such as that of four years ago when we had to stand together for our freedom and our rights, there would again be a section that would make common cause with the enemy. The proposal which the Prime Minister moved, is leading in the direction of building up a common love for our fatherland in this country. We shall bring the children together, the English-speaking children and the Afrikaans-speaking children, on the same school benches, on the football fields and everywhere in their school life. They will quarrel and when they have had their fight they will again be friends. That is the manner of building a nation and those friends over there must not come and tell me that they are afraid that the Afrikaner child will not mix with the English-speaking child. If they say that, they insult their own people. Our people are a people with a backbone. We have history of which we are proud. We have fought a struggle for a hundred years and more. Where does the Afrikaans language come from? Those friends over there talk about Slagtersnek and the Anglo-Boer War and that we did not have equal language rights. I as an old Republican know how I felt after the Boer War. I told myself that that was the end of the Afrikaner people, but because the conqueror was magnanimous, we achieved this, not through neutrality, but because with the history we had made we commanded the respect of the conqueror and in that way we obtained our language rights. That is the reason why we have equal language rights today. Now the Prime Minister of this country comes with a proposal that we should follow a policy that every child should learn both the Afrikaans and the English language in the schools of our country. We do not want to let a state of mind continue that when children learn English, they should believe that they are learning the language of the enemy. Let us learn both languages as our own language. That is our policy. The friends on the other side also tried to frighten us by saying that the churches would fight us. I do not know why they should try to frighten us with the church. I am a member of the Dutch church and I shall be very sorry if the church is going to interfere in this matter.

The church has been doing educational work for years.

If the Church interferes in this matter, we shall do our duty. We have already made history in that respect. The hon. member for Gardens has already pointed to that. When the Voortrekkers loaded their wagons and went into the wilderness, what did the predikants say? Not one of them wanted to go along.

What exactly are you driving at?

I mean that I am not going to be led by predikants only. I have just as good a commonsense as the predikants, and if they interfere in this matter, about which the people have given their verdict, then they must be satisfied with that verdict of the people. The members of the church went to the polls and the majority of them voted for our policy.

Do you want to attack the church?

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is a very good Afrikaner and I have nothing against him. He is fully conversant in both languages and why is he now so worried about this matter.

I only want to know whether your contention is that the church will see what is going to happen to it.

We shall do our duty. We govern this country, and in the interests of the future of our children and in the interests of South Africa we must see that justice is done to them and that they do not leave our schools and universities as unilingual people. Hon. members on the other side spoke about clever people. It was not only the predikants who were against the Great Trek. Even the advocates were against the trekkers and not one of them went along.

And neither did the attorneys.

No, neither did they. I am not reproaching anybody, but that is the history. So do not come here and tell me that some clever people said this and that. No, we have brains ourselves, and our intellect tells us that in this country it is in the interests of the Afrikaner people to be bilingual, and that is what our proposal amounts to. We are going to follow the old policy of the Free State. I am not talking of all the others, but of the old Free State Republic, about which the hon. members on the other side also love to talk. I see their Leader is laughing now. The Free State policy was one of bilingualism and education by means of both languages. I am glad that i enjoyed that privilege in the Free State schools. I am not a learned man, but because of that policy of the old Free State I have today the privilege of getting up here and if necessary of addressing the House in English. I represent Kimberley (District) and a section of my voters are English-speaking. When I go into my constituency I can address them in English and if it had not been for the policy of the old Free State I might not have had the privilege of representing Kimberley (District). But my friends sitting on the other side, e.g. the hon. member for Winburg who moved this proposal, are simply putting up popinjays. It is purely a political popinjay to say that the Afrikaans language is in danger.

We on this side of the House keep our politics clean.

They are merely busy putting up political popinjays. No, the Afrikaans language is not in danger. But they are in danger.

The Minister of Lands levelled an accusation against the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). He quoted certain documents and he was asked to lay them upon the table. So far he has apparently refused to do so. I do not think it is fair towards the hon. member for Waterberg to make such accusations and then to refuse to table the documents. This side of the House is in favour of bilingualism, bilingualism in the fullest sense of the word. How can we achieve that? Our point of view is that in order to achieve bilingualism, we should proceed in accordance with the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). The United Party is accusing the people of South Africa by implication that they are not united and do not want to be united. They are now looking for a scapegoat, but unfortunately they are not prepared to indicate the actual scapegoat. Who were picked out? The poor teachers who cannot defend themselves, the people labouring under laws and regulations. I think it was an unworthy accusation. The true facts are that it is the policy of the United Party which prevents us from co-operating in the interests of South Africa. An unfair accusation is now being levelled against the teachers and the educational system, and it is said that they are responsible for it. We have two races in this country and they will remain here for ever, and if we do not have such politics as will bring the people together, no dual medium school will achieve it. The policy of the United Party is the real culprit, but they do not want to admit their guilt. They want to put the blame on others. Natal is quoted as an example and how wonderful they are proceeding there and that we should now be grateful to Natal. We owe no thanks to Natal. On the contrary, in Natal they have always created hatred and envy, and 34 years after Union our language is still being treated with contempt in Natal. The position there today is still practically the same as it was after the Anglo-Boer war. All these years we had to fight for our rights and in Natal the Afrikaans-speaking section has again to battle hard and establish schools with their own private money in order to have their children taught in their mother tongue. The policy which has always sown seeds of dissension is now being followed again. One nearly feels inclined that we in the Free State should out of revenge proceed in the same way and also refuse English-speaking children in our schools. But we do not want to do that. That is, however, the United Party policy in Natal and it is creating the most serious dissatisfaction. The single medium schools are not causing the trouble. We know *how the late Gen. Hertzog and others at the time advocated dual medium schools in the Free State. We admit that. But we should not lose sight of the fact that in those days that was the maximum concession our leaders could obtain. We were in the position of a conquered people. But after 1910 we had Section 137 and since then the position has changed entirely. There we obtained our rights and the nation developed, and the single medium schools came into being. An attack is now being launched against the single medium schools. They maintain that the system which is now being developed in Natal is the right one. Well, the old system worked well in the Free State and elsewhere, but now an attack is made on the established rights of the people. That is what causes unrest among us. The single medium school is our established right in South Africa and we feel annoyed that it should be attacked. But in addition to that the attack is directed against the single medium Afrikaans schools and not against the single medium English schools. That lets the cat out of the bag. All the members on the other side who spoke here referred, largely unjustifiably, to the poor English of the Afrikaans-speaking child, but did any one of them refer to the poor Afrikaans of the English-speaking child? There you can notice what the motive behind it all is. They want to attack the growing first-rate Afrikaans single medium schools. Why don’t they point to the poor Afrikaans spoken by the English-speaking child? That shows us the subtle propaganda behind it all. The instigators of this movement know better, they know that the education through the medium of the mother tongue is the correct one, but now they have invented a slogan which attracts a section of the people. The impression is created that the product of the single medium schools, the Afrikaans single medium schools, is a single medium child. This is a flagrant untruth. An attack is now being levelled against our schools and misleading slogans about “dual medium” are being used. We on this side of the House who are in favour of single medium schools, are just as much in favour of bilingualism as the other section will ever attempt to be. But the disunity which is prevailing cannot be ascribed to the single medium schools. Allow me to quote the evidence of a man like Prof. Burger at the beginning of this year. I take the Cape, for the largest number of Nationalist members have come from the Cape. Prof. Burger says that in the Cape Province from four to six per cent. are English medium schools, 1.4 per cent. are Afrikaans medium schools and 94 per cent. are either parallel medium or dual medium schools. So if the schools are the cause of the lack of unity, then, in view of the fact that 94 per cent. of the schools here are dual medium and parallel medium schools, the hollowness of the arguments used by the other side is clearly demonstrated.

At 6.40 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 29th April.