I move the amendment standing in my name, and which reads as follows—

This amendment is more comprehensive, because the object of it is to prevent the present holdings that have already been allotted from falling under the provisions of this Bill. That is the first object of my motion. Contracts have been entered into with these settlers who obtained their land under the Land Settlement Act. They had a clear understanding about the conditions of the contract under which they obtained the land; and it is not right for the Minister of Lands now to insert new restrictions that will mean these contracts being altered. This amendment of the Minister of Lands conflicts, shall we say, with the sanctity of contracts. Contracts were entered at that time with these people, and they were not aware that in the year 1944 the Minister would come with new restrictions to modify these contracts. I want to indicate why it is not necessary to insert these provisions. Under the law as it stands, there is such a thing as unbeneficial occupation of a farm; and when a farmer has several of his adult children or his parents in his home, and the resultant position is that with all these people there the holding is being unbeneficially occupied, the Minister can instruct his inspectors to visit the holding with a view to informing the occupant that he must have fewer people on his farm, so that the farm will not be overcrowded. He could send his inspectors to advise the settlers in that sense, and he could bring a complaint against them in any court, and then the onus would rest on the farmer to demonstrate that it was not the case and that all these people were really necessary for work required on the holding. The Minister of Lands had full power under the old Act. But then he came here last year or a few years ago, after he was made Minister of Lands, to lay down in regulations that the settlers would not be allowed to retain their adult children on the farm and also that they might not even have their parents with them. On that occasion I told the Minister of Lands that he was really doing something that was illegal. He dare not do it, but those regulations were at that time never tested in the courts. I informed him that if he wished to bring the regulations into line with the law, he would have to introduce a Bill in this House containing such a provision. That is why this Bill is before us today, but my feeling is that it is unnecessary because the Minister already has the requisite powers under the old Act. Quite apart from the regulations that have been promulgated by the Minister of Lands, I consider that these provisions should not be made effective on farms that were allotted under the old Land Settlement Act. Now I should like to turn my attention to another matter. The Minister of Lands has stated here from time to time that we are dealing with small farms, and he has added further that in my constituency a farm of 3,000 or 4,000 morgen is a small farm.

I have stated that even if the farm is 12,000 morgen in extent, if there is only one borehole, the farmer can only graze on 4,000 morgen.

The Minister mentioned the case of Witpan, which was allotted to the settlers at 1s. a morgen. That farm was not allotted by the present Minister of Lands. It was given out by the previous Minister of Lands, the hon. member for Wolmaranssttad (Gen. Kemp), and the present Minister had only to do with the alteration of the boundaries. That farm is one of 15,000 morgen, and there are many other farms of 10,000 morgen and 12,000 morgen.

I know that.

There are many of them. The Minister of Lands appointed a commission to make recommendations in connection with water for the North West. He stated that it was his intention, after the war, to see that two or three boreholes were opened up on such farms, and then the people would be in a position to graze the whole farm. But if this provision of the Bill is accepted it will be unnecessary to find, these additional boreholes for the settlers, because a farmer will not be able to use the whole farm for grazing. He has stated that his ambition is to have two or three windmills on each of those farms, so that when they are erected the farmers will be enabled to have grazing not only on the 4,000 morgen but over the whole area of the farm. But if the farmer is not permitted to keep his sons with him on the farm it will be quite impossible for him to utilise the two or three boreholes; it will be impossible for him to attend to them, especially if he is getting old. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister. He always talks here with some contempt about my knowledge of the North-West. I believe that I now know more about the North-West than he does. If the Minister goes to the farmers along the Kuruman River and the Molopo River, and tells them that they will no longer be able to keep their adult sons on their farms, they will feel aggrieved, because as soon as a lad attains his majority he will have to pack up and go. It is not only this side of the House that feels that this measure is unjust, but hon. members on the other side also feel the same way about it. It runs counter to our feeling of justice, because the Minister has applied restrictions to holdings that were free of any encumbrance when the people made their contracts. Accordingly I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Lands to drop these provisions and to accept my amendment.

I second and I shall greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Lands will take this one point into consideration, and will abandon his proposition. This is the provision that is going to handicap our settlers severely, especially those on such lands as these. The Minister of Lands knows just as well as I do, and any member of this House, that our farmers are shorthanded. There are no labourers to help them on their farms and on their settlements. We have no coloured labour at all. The settler stands on his farm absolutely alone. I was there recently, and the settlers felt that this provision is going to hurt them a great deal in the future. The farmer will now not be allowed to have a grown-up son to help him. He will have to work day and night; he has to lead water and to harvest his crops; he must gather them in; he must cultivate the land, and in this he is absolutely unaided. I can give the Minister the assurance that this provision hits my neighbourhood very badly. There the farmers are struggling without any coloured labour. In these circumstances how is it possible for a man to make a living? It is impossible. Even the old father who would have been able to help him in one way and another, has now to leave. I feel that that is extremely unfair; it is unjust. The Minister has made the holdings habitable for these people, but the farmers have put much of their money into them. They have developed the holdings a lot. The work that has to be done is too much for one man. He cannot possibly manage it. I know the Minister does not want to drive the people away; he is not doing this to make the position intolerable for them. I should be glad if the Minister would visit my neighbourhood, especially Vaal-Krantz and Keckenaap, and see how these settlers have to struggle day and night. Their lives are shortened by it. They suffer tremendous losses. They cannot make a living, and if they cannot make a living, will the Minister come along later and say to them: “You have the land, and you are too feeble to make a living on it. Later perhaps he will get reports that the people are too indolent to work, and if this happens I can assure him that it will have to be ascribed to this measure. We have no coloured labour, and now the young men must bundled out of the holdings. I shall be grateful if the Minister would see the justice of the standpoint we are adopting. I have had expert experience in connection with this matter.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—38 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—55 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermannn, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment in clause 2 put and agreed to

I should like to move the amendment standing in my name. The amendment reads as follows—

1. (3) The provisions of Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by subsection (1) (b), shall only be applied after the Minister has made provision for any sons who are of age and who will be removed from holdings as a result of the application of the said section, by allotting other holdings to them or in some other manner.

I should like to draw attention once again to the fact that our Minister’s word has again to be taken here. He gave us the assurance that we ought not be worried about the people who will be displaced from the holdings, and consequently we want to accept his word now. But we also want to see this embodied in the Bill. We may not always have such a good Minister, and accordingly we want to see that provision expressed by legislation. I feel that that is reasonable. The Minister can accept as a fact that many of these grown up lads have been born on these holdings. They know no other place. Their development has been confined to this one channel. Now they have to leave the holding. What is to become of them. They are only agriculturists. They have had no training of any sort, except on the farm. Unless you make provision for them on other holdings, what is going to become of them? I feel that the Minister of Lands, who is the cause of their being turned off the holdings, should make provision for them. We are now proposing a reasonable amendment, in which we ask that they should be given the assurance that they will obtain another holding before they are asked to leave. We hear a great deal of the fine irrigation schemes that are going to be prepared for thousands of people. Here the Minister has an excellent opportunity to make provision for these lads who have reached their majority on the settlements. We ask him now before he does this un-Christian like, unfair deed of turning them off the holdings, to give them the assurance that their future will be safeguarded. The Minister’s department is aware of the facts in regard to the number of adult sons at present residing on these holdings. They know therefore to how many young men notice will have to be given and in respect of how many provision will have to be made. I should like once more to point out how unfair this proposal is that we should be limited in our discussions. We can only place four admendments on the Order Paper, because there is no time to discuss more. There will very likely be a division on every amendement, and a division takes six or seven minutes. This means that 30 minues will be occupied merely by divisions, and consequently we are limited to 30 minutes for the discussion of all these important amendments. I should very much like the general public to realise the manner in which our discussions are being limited by the Minister of Lands, through the action of the Acting Prime Minister, and that we have not received a proper opportunity to look after the interests of the people.

The House divided:

Ayes—38 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—57 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conraide, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I should like to move the following amendment—

The amendment purports to confine the restrictions to holdings that were allotted after the commencement of this Act. The reason for this amendment is obvious, namely, that here a contract that was entered into between the Government and these people who were allotted holdings under certain conditions, or purchased the land under certain conditions. They are principally people who bought under Section 11, and their holdings ought not to be subject to these restrictions. How can we place a restriction on them so that they may not sell or mortgage or have a servitude placed on their land? The essence of the unfairness is that the restriction is going to be made applicable for all time. In the law of 1925 the period was limited to ten years. The Minister thought then that there should be a limitation of ten years after the date the settler had exercised his option; but after that period all restrictions fell away, and the mán became completely master of his own land. After that we got the law of 1937, which has been so frequently referred to here, and in that the restrictions were only made applicable on the first transfer. I am not in favour of that, but it can be said in its favour that the Minister at that time believed that the settler selected land and purchased it only once, and that the Government had to protect him, so that he did not immediately mortgage or sell it, but would have first to make application to the department or to the Minister. But as soon as he sold the land, the restrictions lapsed. Now they are made perpetual, and this is especially unfair in respect of people who have put their own money into land, and who have paid back the whole of their debt with interest. It is a breach of trust in respect of those people that they should never be able to obtain transfer, and that their land should thus be reduced in value. This is most unfair, and on that account, I maintain that the restriction should only be made applicable to holdings that will be allotted in the future. If, a Minister will do it in the future, the people will know what restrictions attach to the land, but it should not be made to apply in respect of existing holdings.

I second.

I am sorry, I cannot accept the amendment.

The House divided :

Ayes—39 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booyen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stells, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Stydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers : J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—61 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. O.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Reubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Lands put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 3,

May I move the following new clause—

1. 4. The amendments made by the preceding provisions of this Act shall not apply in respect of any holding allotted to any person in terms of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act unless the lessee of such holding informs the Minister in writing that he desires the application of any such amendments in respect of such holding and the Minister states that such amendments are applicable in respect of the holding concerned (in so far as they can be applied).

In a nutshell it is this. The Minister of Lands gave us to understand that the lessees of Crown lands are all satisfied with this. If that is so, they will be prepared to accept these provisions, and then it will be no more than reasonable that they, as parties to a contract with the Government, shall have an opportunity of saying whether they want to have these amendments made applicable to their holdings or not. I thus want to move that only in those cases where the farmers have made written application for these restrictions to be applied, will this be done. I may say that this is not a new procedure, because Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1937, which has been so frequently referred to, contains such a provision. I have taken it over word for word from that section in the existing law, so that it will be precisely the same as appears there. Consequently I think that the Minister can accept this amendment, namely, that the settler must make application before these provisions can be applied to his holding. At that time the settlers entered into a contract with the Government, which was of course a mutual contract, and consequently it is no more than right that we should make the law follow these lines, namely, that the settlers will be considered before these amendments are made applicable to their holdings.

I second.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment.

The House divided:

Ayes—38 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—62 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

New clause to follow Clause 4,

I move the following amendment—

1. 5. The restrictions imposed by this Act shall not apply to a holding allotted in terms of Section 11 of the principal Act, as amended.

I second the amendment of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). I shall not detain the House long, because in the Committee stage we have employed all the arguments that can be introduced. I merely wish to remind the Minister of Lands that there is no district in the Union where there is not some land of this description. I want to go further. Many of these farms that were granted were in an entirely rough and uncultivated condition. In the districts of Kenhardt and Calvinia and other districts, there are farms of 10,000 and 12,000 morgen, and even of 15,000 morgen that were allotted, but they were entirely undeveloped. These settlers took over the lands and developed them to such an extent that more people can now make a living on them. These are people who bought land under Section 11, and there is in principle no difference between their position and the position of those who took out a Land Bank mortgage to buy land. Why should these restrictions now be made to apply to them. I should like to second the amendment.

The House divided:

Ayes—39 :

Bekker G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—63 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Madeley, W. B.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Willams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

It being 11.36 a.m., and the period of one hour allotted for the Report stage of the Bill in accordance with paragraph (1) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 20th May having elapsed, Mr. Speaker put the question: That the Bill, as amended, be adopted.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—62 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein. H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—39 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J., E.

Sertontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens. J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 24th May.

Cannot we be informed of the scope of it?

With your permission, I will explain it to my hon. friend. The law advisers say that this subsection (8) of Clause 41 is unnecessary, as the point is covered in the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. They say that this causes duplication, and they would prefer it out. As a lawyer my hon. friend will understand it.

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned on the 28th April I was pointing out that we, as the Nationalist Party, are in favour of bilingualism ánd that it is our policy to do all we can to foster bilingualism but we are not prepared to allow the education of our young people to suffer under a system which we regard as a wrong system, namely, that of dual medium schools. I also pointed out that the question of language medium is a very old one and that in most European countries where they have had to deal with it, it has been settled that mother tongue instruction is the soundest medium. And that is why we stand by it. I further pointed out, however, that the United Party was making an onslaught on mother tongue instruction. And, in doing so I said, they were making an attack on vested rights which had been in existence in the Union for years, Since 1910 we have had those rights under Clause 137 of the Act of Union but since the Act of Union has been placed on the Statute Book the system of mother tongue instruction has developed in South Africa, and we have gradually introduced it into primary education, secondary education and higher education. Today, after that system has produced excellent results, an onslaught has been made on it and that onslaught comes from the Government side. It is an onslaught against vested rights and against a system which has given satisfaction to English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking sections of the community, and we do not understand why such an attack should be made on that system today because the system has met with general approval. By implication the people of South Africa are accused by the Government Party of today of lack of unity in regard to their wishes. What they mean of course is that there is no unity in the United Party. They find that a large proportion of the people do not want to have anything to do with the United Party and they wonder why those people refuse to belong to this “good” United Party. Instead of looking for the cause in themselves and in the unnational outlook of their party on matters in South Africa, they put the blame on others. They blame themselves on account of the fact that they fail to put South Africa first in all their consideration. But they cast the blame off their own shoulders and try to put it on those of the poorly paid teachers. They know that the teachers constitute a part of the community which is not allowed to defend itself; the teachers are tied down by legislation and by regulations and hon. members over there now take up the reprehensible attitude of saying that the teachers and the system of education are responsible for the lack of unity which prevails today, and they go on to say that we can only achieve unity if we alter the system. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister said this policy of separation has been in force since 1925 and that he and his party are out to counteract it. There we have the charge in a nutshell. They are of the opinion that because we have not got dual medium education there is no national unity in South Africa. The attack is made mainly on the Afrikaans medium schools and not on the English medium schools, because in the days when there were only English medium schools there were never any complaints. But since Afrikaans single medium schools have been established and have proved a great success they have to be opposed. It shows. Clearly that the attack is aimed mainly against the Afrikaans medium schools. I am entitled to say this because of the remarks made by the Prime Minister that these difficulties have arisen since 1925, because it is more or less in that year that the Afrikaans medium schools started coming into prominence. But let us study the figures. Do the figures confirm the charge? Prof. J. Burger recently gave the figures. According to those figures in the Cape Province 1.4 per cent. of the schools were Afrikaans medium schools and 94 per cent. were parallel and dual medium schools. Now I ask if only 1.4 per cent. are Afrikaans medium schools, and 94 per cent. are parallel and dual medium schools, has anyone the right to say that the discord and division among the people is attributable to this 1.4 per cent. of the schools? If you want to be consistent you should say that the division is attributable to the 94 per cent. parallel and dual medium schools. It is also interesting to note that those people who in this House and outside fight so hard for dual medium schools are not the English-speaking section but the Afrikaans-speaking section of the Government Party— people who pose as champions of English. It is a tragic fact if an English-speaking person gets up and talks on this subject, one feels that he is speaking on behalf of the English-speaking section of the people, but one finds that the Afrikaans-speaking members on the Government side are the greatest advocates of the interests of the English section, and consequently we are very sceptical about the whole matter and we feel that the Afrikaansspeaking members deal with subjects which do not concern them. The English-speaking members laugh at them because they pretend to be what they are not and what they never can be. Mother tongue instruction is a question which has been settled, as far as most educationists of any standing are concerned. Nowhere in the world do you find a country where the children are educated through a foreign language. Look at Europe—I am particularly mentioning England because if I mention Germany or Holland or France there is a tendency on the part of many not to listen, but as soon as one mentions England they wake up. England of course is regarded as a model. Does England teach its children through the medium of English, or through the medium of a foreign language? If the Englishman wants his child to learn a foreign language, he has the foreign language taught as a foreign language. The child is taught through its mother tongue. The Englishman realises the value of the mother tongue for the child’s education. Why then should we in South Africa have our childlren taught through another language? Let the Englishspeaking child be taught through English and the Afrikaans-speaking child through Afrikaans. But we want it clearly understood that we do not mean unilingualism when we say that. That is a mistake that many people make. They think that as long as a child attends a dual medium school he is bilingual. It is most confusing. I say that the leaders of the United Party realise fully that the fact of a child attending a dual medium school does not necessarily mean that he is bilingual. Many people are under that impression I can assure you that a child may be in a dual meduim school for a long time and yet not be bilingual unless he is taught in the right way. There is another argument which I want to bring to the notice of the House and that is that people hold the view that children have many years of preparation for life. They pass their matric, they go to the universities, and they have years to become bilingual. That is the impression. But not all the children take their matric. How many go as far as matric? We should first of all think of the large masses who never even pass Standard VII. I haven’t all the data before me but I am convinced that 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the children in South Africa never pass Std. VII, and when you are talking about bilingualism we should first of all pay attention to the preponderating masses who never pass Std. VII. The children may have only six years in which to get their education and it is foolish to imagine that all the children can be made fully bilingual in six years. You need those years to give the child the necessary knowledge and to fit him for life. Later in life the child may get the opportunity of developing full bilingualism. No one becomes bilingual by means of education alone. What makes an individual bilingual is the use of the language. Take a native who is completely illiterate. After he has been working for English-speaking people for a couple of years he speaks English. It is the practical use of the language which makes him bilingual and I say therefore that we should not use the six years during which the child has the opportunity of going to school to make him bilingual at the expense of the knowledge he has to acquire to enable him to carry on his work as a member of the community. During the first six years we must fit him for life. When he goes out into the world and comes into contact with life he will learn the other language, he will learn it very quickly if he has to use the second language. Take the Acting Prime Minister who is an educationist. He has had practical experience of education in the Transvaal where he was Administrator. To be honest, we have to say that he is in favour of dual medium instruction, but opposed to parallel medium schools. Let me quote what the Acting Prime Minister said here last year as to why he was opposed to parallel medium scchools and I ask any thinking man who listens to the Acting Prime Minister’s arguments against parallel medium schools, whether we should not use those self-same arguments the one after the other against dual medium schools and even with greater force than they can be used against parallel medium schools. The Minister says this inter alia—

I quite believe that—

Now I ask any thinking person if the Acting Prime Minister, who is an educationist says that parallel medium schools foster racialism to a greater extent than single medium schools, does not that argument also apply to dual medium schools? Does not it apply more there than in the case of parallel medium schools? If the principal of a parallel medium school has to be an angel from heaven, then in the case of the dual medium school he will have to be the Archangel Gabriel himself if he is to give satisfaction to everybody. The argument of the Acting Prime Minister is the strongest argument we could use against dual medium schools. Let me point out that when we are dealing with dual medium schools, and the child, when very young, has to learn more than one language, we are handicapping the child’s development, because it is an educational principle that we must not teach a child two strange things at the same time. First of all teach the child one thing, and from there go on to teach him the next thing. It is now proposed that we should teach the child two strange things at the same time—the knowledge he requires and the second language. It is suggested that the language has to be the more important thing. Does the United Party contend that we should first of all teach the child the second language and let the knowledge he has to acquire take second place? I would like to point out that in Great Britain more than one language is spoken. The man in Wales does not always understand English. We have bilingualism there too, but in addition to that we have a greater unity. It is wrong to say that we must obtain bilingualism to secure unity. We must put things right politically and then we can get bilingualism. Let me quote from a book by D. J. Saer about the position in Wales, where he says this among other things—

The scond point given is this—

Their intelligence is not affected. Then I would like to quote further—

It appears from the above quotations that the child not only suffers because it has to learn a foreign language but that bilingual children are even less competent that the others. We do not plead the cause of unilingualism but we want to point to the danger of a system of dual medium schools. It creates confusion in the child’s brain, especially where you are dealing with children—and we have many of them in this country—who have to leave school before Std. VI or at Std. VI. I cannot imagine how a member of Parliament can be under the impression that a child can learn to think properly through the medium of a foreign language. There are members of Parliament who if they had to pass the test of bilingualism to which they want to subject those children after they have attended school for six years, will fail—and there will be more failures among members of Parliament than among the children. As I said earlier on, our main object should be to prepare the masses who are not able to go beyond Std. VI for their future lives, and we should not confuse their minds in their youth. The Free State is the cradle of Afrikaans single medium schools. The arguments used by hon. members opposite would make us believe that everybody in the Free State is unilingual, or otherwise that everybody in the Free State knows very little English. Let me repeat that the Free State is the only Province where it has been made compulsory for the child to pass his School Higher and his Matriculation examinations in both official languages. Let hon. members opposite who are pleading so hard for bilingualism obey their own convictions and make the two official languages compulsory for the Matriculation and School Higher examinations. Let them do so and we shall then believe that they are honest in their desire to bring about bilingualism in this country. I want to draw the attention of the House to the results which have been achieved in the Free State in regard to English, and then let us compare the position in the Free State with that in the rest of the country. We can take various years, but I have before me the figures for the year 1932. In that year 3.6 per cent. of the children in the Free State failed in English whereas on the other hand we find that 8.7 per cent. failed in the Union as a whole in English.

Was that in English A or English B.?

I speak subject to correction but I think it was English B. Still it makes no difference because the The point is that in 1932 3.6 per cent. of the children in the Free State failed in English, while for the same examination 8.7 per cent. failed in the rest of the Union. If the unilingual school has the effect of making the child weak in English or in the second language, why then did we get these results in the Free State? We should remember that while the child is being taught there are certain factors which must be regarded and which should assist us in teaching that child, and one of the strongest factors in the child’s education is the bond between the individual and the people as a whole. One of the strongest bonds in that regard is the child’s mother tongue. If that mother tongue is not used in the instruction of the child that child will very definitely suffer. That being so we cannot possibly allow this factor in the formation of the character of our children—one of the principle objects of education—to be neglected; and if we want to achieve bilingualism in the manner proposed by hon. members opposite, it means our destroying that bond between the individual and the people, and in consequence we shall not achieve good results. No, this type of instruction which we find in the dual medium schools has as its aim the creation of hybrids, by means of a neutral type of education. The Englishman by his instruction creates a good Englishman. The German by his particular form of education creates a good German. Why should we in South Africa not be allowed to bring up our children as good Afrikaners? In this connection we can achieve a great unity but we must have the right to instruct the children through their mother tongue and we must not create a species of hybrid in our educational system. Because if we do so, and we have a neutral system of education, we shall be raising hybrids who will have no part in our national past, in our traditions, in our language and in our customs; we shall produce people who will become an easy prey to any wind that blows. That is why we have so many people here in South Africa who are easily swayed, because they are the products of a neutral system of education which has turned them into neutral beings. That is what we want to prevent in our educational system. We want men who have been formed by our educational system, and who can take up a strong stand, men rooted in the traditions of our past, in our own language, men whose outlook on life is that of the Afrikaner nation. As an Afrikaner nation our outlook on life is Christian-national and we want to develop a Christian-national spirit in our children and we want to perpetuate it by means of our educational system. That is why we want single medium schools where our children can realise their own national character because we find that only in a single medium school, can the English-speaking child or the Afrikaans-speaking child give full expression to its national traditions. If we have such an educational system we can develop a healthy nation, a nation in which love of its mother country, love of its history, love of its own language and love of all these things which are ours will come to fruition. That child must have no other mother country; he must serve no foreign gods, and we can achieve that only by single medium schools. In addition to that we have on the other hand the practical difficulties in connection with dual medium schools. Our national unity depends on the two groups co-operating sincerely to build up South Africa politically and economically. Therein lies the solution—economically and politically, and that is why we on this side charge hon. members opposite of always having caused discord because they have not tried to bring about unity economically and politically. Their efforts have always been in the direction of dividing the people both economically and politically, and so far they have always succeeded in making South Africa’s economic policy subordinate to Britain. Therein lies the root of the evil. And the sooner we in South Africa realise that it is quite practicable to have two languages here and yet have economic and political unity, the better it will be for us. Let us take England as an example. There must be economic and political unity. That must be our common object, and we should not attempt to secure that unity by having the two races on the same school benches. The human element will always come in. Take the dual medium schools. If a dual medium school has to elect a school committee there are two sections, the English section and the Afrikaans section. Both sections want representation on the school committee, and it is quite easy to divide those people on racial lines by appealing to their racial sentiments. The objection which the Acting Prime Minister has to the parallel medium school applies just as strongly to the dual medium school. If a school committee has to be elected the members have to be elected on their merits, but if racial questions are raised it is never easy for the minority section to get representation on such a committee, and it will necessarily lead to discord. Nor does it end with the school committees. There is the question of the appointment of teachers. Who is going to suffer if the division has taken place on racial lines? That section which is in the minority on the school committee will suffer because if the English are in the majority there will be a great temptation to appoint more English-speaking teachers, and in that way discord and racialism will be created in this country. [Time limit.]

I have listened carefully to the hon. member who has just sat down and it is perfectly clear to me, as it must be to everyone in this House, that the hon. member hasn’t the slightest conception of what the attitude of this side of the House is.

Well, tell us clearly what your attitude is.

If the hon. member will exercise a little patience I shall tell him. The hon. member who has just sat down said that the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side of the House were the greatest protagonists of English.

Who’s talking now? Is it a man who has become anglicised?

I shall leave the hon. member in his ignorance. I think I can lay as much claim to the right of calling myself a good Afrikaner. You can look into my past ….

Your past is all right, it is your present policy that is wrong.

Hon. member on the Opposition benches still look at matters from the point of view of the dim and distant past. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) said that the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side are the greatest protagonists of English and that English-speaking members laugh at us up their sleeves.

On a point of personal explanation, I said that the Afrikaansspeaking members on the other side of the House claim for themselves the right to stand up for the rights of the Englishmen.

The Opposition has no conception of the strong attitude which we on this side of the House have taken up. They do not realise that it is our desire to apply bilingualism to the full and to put it into practice in the fullest sense.

Then you should apply it.

What does the hon. the Minister of Labour say?

But the Opposition wants unilingualism. That is what they stand for.

Nonsense! You know it isn’t true.

When we advocate bilingualism here they think that we belong to the same group as they do, but while they only want to apply the Afrikaans language, they think that we want to apply only English.

What does Madeley say?

It is perfectly clear to me ….

You are talking nonsense now.

It is perfectly clear, and it is an undeniable fact that if you want to have a happy home you must teach the children to love one another, to have respect for one another, so that they can live together in concord and happiness and build up their welfare and their future along those lines. We sometimes find a household which may have been less well-to-do, less prosperous than some other household, which gets on better and achieves more than the other one, so that it is worth more to the country than the members of another household who are much more prosperous and who have had a much better chance in life, simply because the members of the less privileged household respect each other and live together in love and amity. And what applies to the household and to family life also applies to the nation as a whole; we should foster a spirit of mutual respect, a spirit of confidence and love, so that we can develop our future along those lines. But if we continually cause discord ….

That is what you people are doing.

If we cause discord the result must be that we shall follow the course which hon. members of the Opposition want us to follow. How is that spirit to be fostered? You must start with the children in a country. And where can it be better done than on the school benches. Let them sit together on the school benches and learn each other’s language and learn to respect each other.

All of us here have been at school together and sat next to each other on the school benches.

But hon. members over there have been spoilt.

That must have been during the short while he was in England.

It is the policy of our Government, and it is the desire of our Government and of our party to foster bilingualism and to educate the children and teach them in such a manner that they will become properly bilingual.

Can you make a Standard VI child bilingual? Can you do it?

Then surely we have those schools.

This policy was confirmed on the 7th July last—-and it was confirmed in no uncertain manner—and it was again confirmed at the provincial elections.

The Free State didn’t want to have anything to do with you.

The position is this—I quite admit that we did not get a majority in the Free State in the Provincial Council elections, but if we analyse the figures we find that a very much larger proportion of the Free State than ever before approved of the Government’s policy. That is a fact which cannot be denied.

I challenge you to come and make that speech in the Free State.

It’s no use laughing at it; it is a fact. But let me tell hon. members what has caused most trouble. Most trouble has been caused by politics being dragged into the schools as a result of the policy of the Opposition.

Oh, no, it is your policy.

Give us one single instance.

It has been the Nationalist Party’s policy for a number of vears and the Nationalist Party has gone out of its way to get control of the various organisations. It has gone out of its way to get a majority on the Divisional Councils, to get a majority on the school boards, on the school committees and on the town councils, and that policy has even penetrated into the A.C.V.V. in the town where I live.

Knock out that organisation then.

It is an actual fact.

You know it isn’t true.

Order, order ! It is time these interruptions ceased.

The result was that we afterwards got political teachers. Hon. members can deny it if they like to, but it is so.

Mention one instance.

There are two on that side of the House.

And Hofmeyr on that side.

You are a little mixed up.

The hon. member who has just interjected is always mixed up, but it is because I am telling the truth that they are getting hurt. I know of a teacher in my own area who when he teaches Afrikaans history and he comes to a certain incident in history which one deplores, tells the children: “You know what my feelings are in regard to this matter and I shall allow the English-speaking children among you who don’t like it to leave the class.”

Did you report him?

How can you expect happiness and friendship if that sort of thing goes on?

Did you report him?

I am not a detective. In don’t mention any names and that teacher is still occupying the same post. Let me give hon. members another instance. There was another teacher who was secretary of the Ossawabrandwag and when the Provincial Council took action, his wife became the secretary, but even to this date that teacher is the correspondent of certain political newspapers.

He gives local news.

Very poor.

As a result of the onesided outlook which we find prevailing today in certain parts of the country many parents in my district have found themselves compelled to send their children to schools where they can be properly taught in both languages. The hon. member for GraaffReinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) knows that it is so.

Do you mean Greys at Port Elizabeth?

Yes, Greys and other schools as well.

I suppose Grahamstown as well.

A few months ago I met a man here whom I know well. I asked him what he was doing here, and he told me that he had brought his children to Cape Town. I asked him why he had done so and his reply was that he had brought his children here so that they would learn the second official language.

But surely they have an opportunity of doing so.

He told me that his children knew no English at all except “Yes” and “No” and he added that they didn’t always know when to say “yes” and when to say “no.” And one of his little boys remarked “Yes, that is because they are teaching us through the medium of Afrikaans.”

You should be ashamed to blackguard your own nation like that.

I am not blackguarding my own nation, I am only saying that our educational system is ineffective and that is why I say that we must accept the amendment of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister which is on the Order Paper. The Opposition may perhaps deny it, but the fact remains that the appointment of teachers in the rural districts leaves a lot to be desired. I know of instances where a man’s political views played a bigger part in his appointment than any other factors. I know of instances where teachers with poorer qualifications were appointed because they happened to be supporters of the political party which had a majority on the school committee. I want to conclude by referring to the third paragraph of the amendment—

If the necessary attention is given to the training of our teachers, and we see to it that they are bilingual in all respects, I feel that this difficulty will be solved to a very great extent. But what do we find today? We find that we have not got the necessary bilingualism among the people of this country. If we want to build up a happy nation in South Africa, with mutual respect, a nation which will live at peace and in amity, then it is necessary to have dual medium schools where the teachers will be fully bilingual and inspired by a desire to promote the welfare of the child—we do not want a condition of affairs in which the welfare of the child has to take second place to political convictions.

We are talking about a very important matter here, the education of our children. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister has proposed an amendment in favour of dual medium instruction. I do not know what the attitude of the Provincial Councils is going to be, because the laws of the land say that the Governor-General-in-Council has to give his consent to ordinances. In the Free State there is a general feeling in favour of our adhering to single medium instruction. Why have we got single medium instruction? Because we are fighting for what is our own. We in the Free State are bilingual. How is it that there is bilingualism in this country? You only get it in a country which has been conquered by a stronger nation—by a nation which forces its will on to the other nation. When the, Hollanders came here we had one language, namely, High Dutch. The English came in 1814 and conquered the country and since that time we have had bilingualism here. We, as Afrikaans-speaking people, feel just as strongly for our language, our culture and our traditions as the English people do. What actually does this motion means? I don’t want to mention any names, but I could mention names of children who have become anglicised in English medium schools. Take a province like Natal. About a year ago I was in Natal at Badplaats and I met a woman teacher there. She taught in Natal and she didn’t know a word of Afrikaans. In the Free State you will not get any women teachers who do, not understand or speak English. We are striving for bilingualism and we try to do everything in our power to make our children bilingual, but nobody is 100 per cent. bilingual. One’s mother tongue always comes first. You may learn to speak the second language fluently, but you’ll always be most at home in your mother tongue. I learned English only because I had to, and I can make myself understood to a man who doesn’t know my language. But if I were to say that I love the English language, that I love its culture, its greatness—if I were to say that I love that language which is spoken by 200 million people I would be telling a lie. I don’t love the language. When you are in trouble you speak the language you love— your mother tongue. I can also speak a number of native languages. We feel that these dual medium schools have one object only and that is to anglicise us. One can quite understand that if one takes the language of a great country with an old culture and puts a language like Afrikaans next to it—a language with a young culture—it is like taking a big tree and planting a small tree next to it and wanting the little tree to compete with the big one. It is impossible. The Nationalist Party aims at the upholding of Clause 137 which in 1910 was inserted in the Act of Union. That clause says that until the end of all days there shall be two official languages and these two official languages shall be spoken by the two sections of the population, and that is what we are striving for. There is not one member on this side of the House who doesn’t try to make his children bilingual. There is not of us who cannot carry on an English conversation, or write an English letter, if our English-speaking friends write to us from our constituencies. We do so but we are opposed to fusion. We do not want the Afrikaans language and the English language to become fused into one language. We have tried to have fusion in this country but it has not been a success and we reformed. We are strongly in favour of mother tongue medium instruction. What does one find in a country where two nations have fused into one. We find that the stronger language has taken the place of the weaker one. In this country we used to have the language of Holland. The Huguenots came here and they spoke French. But High Dutch swallowed French and there is no French language in this country today. England conquered Scotland, and the English language has destroyed the Scotch language. Every nation tries to uphold its own language and its own culture. What is so strange to me in this country is that if one section of the population tries to uphold its language and its culture it is called racialism. But if the other section does a similar thing it is simply carrying out its traditions and maintaining its language and its culture. We have heard talk here of teachers and of predikants who were members of the Ossewabrandwag and of similar organisations. A Dutch-speaking predikant is not allowed to say that he is a Nationalist, but an English-speaking predikant can come with you in your motor car if he is a member of the United Party and he is allowed to help you in your organisation. I am speaking about the 1936 election when I stood against a member who used to sit here. The English parson on that occasion assisted me with my organisation but nothing was said about it. On this occasion I stood for the Nationalist Party in Bethlehem. We had three Dutch predikants in the town and one missionary. Not one of them ever dared to come to my election rooms. When I asked them why, they said their church would suffer and they would be branded as political parsons. I assume that they all voted the right way, but they didn’t even dare to come to my office. But when I stood for the United Party, the Rev. Mr. Evans was always in my office, and he used to write whatever I wanted written. People talk about politics being introduced into the church and into schools and about politics being dragged into everything. The Dutch predikants refrain from taking part in politics but the English parsons go all over to make propaganda. It was decided in England some years ago not to ring the church bells except as a sign of invasion. Well, the bells were rung when North Africa was conquered. What would have happened if anything important had occurred, anything important to the Afrikaner people giving us cause for rejoicing and the church bells of the Dutch Reformed Church had been rung. They might quite possibly have been blown up. Parsons are blackguarded, teachers are blackguarded and missionaries are blackguarded. I know what happens if one goes round to collect. You are told that the missionary is only a political organiser or something of the kind. If you collect on behalf of the school you are asked who is the principal of the school. If you name somebody, you are told that he is a Greyshirt, or an O.B. or something of the kind. We who are Afrikaans-speaking must learn to put our language first. The English put their language first. We want to have a bilingual nation but we must respect each other’s language. Will the English-speaking people whose language is the world’s commercial language, give it up as their home language and will they accept Afrikaans? No, they fight for their rights and they fight as hard as they can. We, who are a young nation, also stand up for our rights. But when we do so they throw stones at us. The Free State child is bilingual. If you ask a child in the Free State to show you the right road, he will do so, but the child in Natal will not be able to do so. The Free State child may not know the other language too well, and may not be so well up in his grammar, but still he will assist you, and will see that you go on the right road. But we want to ask why the first onslaught was made on the Free State University College in Bloemfontein which is the most thoroughly bilingual university in South Africa. That institution, the most thoroughly bilingual in South Africa, is the Free State’s University College, the old Grey College, and that institution had to be attacked first of all. Why? Those members of Parliament who have been educated at the Free State University College know the two languages better than anyone else here. Now, I shall tell hon. members why that university is being attacked. It is because the old Grey College is producing our parsons and our teachers and it is producing men who stand four-square by their people, and that is why it is being specially selected for abuse. We feel that if our English-speaking friends want their children to learn English we should have no objection to their doing so. If the Afrikaans-speaking members and the Englishspeaking members opposite feel that their children are not adequately bilingual they should start an organisation to get Afrikaans-speaking teachers from the Cape Province and the Free State to go to Natal so that their children can speak Afrikaans. How many children in Natal can speak Afrikaans? I have been to five or six places in Natal, not in the North near Ladysmith or places like that, but in the neighbourhood of Pietermaritzburg, and if you address people there in Afrikaans the reply invariably is: “I beg your pardon, I can’t understand you.” They are the people whose children should be taught both languages. I am not concerned about my children knowing both languages. If their English is poor I shall see to it that they learn English, but I shall always teach them that their mother tongue comes first and must always be put first. I shall teach them to love that language, but as they grow older I shall see that they know both languages. Why do not the English-speaking people do the same thing? We should not forget that the school produces the nation of the future. If we take a child of six in the Free State and send him to a convent or an English school in Natal, and we keep him there for four or five years without coming into contact with his parents so that he speaks only English, I say that that child has lost his language, his traditions and his nationhood. By the time he reaches the age of 21 he will be like a sheep that has grown up amidst a lot of cattle. And he will run through a thousand sheep to get back to the cattle. If you take an English child and do the same thing to him in an Afrikaans school you will have the same results there. I want my children to be good Afrikaners and I am not ashamed to say so. I want to make the Afrikaner people stronger in this country— I want the major part of the people to be Afrikaans-speaking because if that end is achieved we shall not suffer these great hardships which we are suffering today under all these taxes which we have to pay for “Ouma” England’s wars. We want our children to be nationalists—and we want to bring up our children in such a manner that they will con tinue to be nationalists. Why should we hide it? Our English-speaking friends are not ashamed to say that they are bringing up their children to be English and to remain English and to uphold their traditions. We are putting up a lot of monuments in this country of ours. Why have we put up a monument in Durban to Dick King? Was it put up there to create racialism? No, the object was not to create racial hatred, but it was put there to enable the Englishman in South Africa to say to his child: “Look at that monument and remember what a man of your nation has done in the past to uphold the Union Jack in this country.” That hero of the English has to inspire the English people here. We built a women’s monument in the Free State. Did we put it there to create racialism? We know that the then Prime Minister of England said so but he didn’t know that the world was going to turn. England has never yet had the privilege of building a women’s monument, but after this war she’ll be able to do so, and then she will understand. I want to add this, that I hope that no Afrikaans-speaking person will ever say that that is racialism. No. They will respect it and they will say that it is a monument in honour of the women who stood by their people and sacrificed everything. They say that in our case it is racialism. They say that we built our women’s monument in Bloemfontein to foster racialism. No, that is not so! We put that monument there to tell future generations that those women had made sacrifices, and that we must remain faithful to our traditions and not water them down. The sacrifices made by those women were not made for racial motives and monuments are not put up for racial motives. It is a striking fact that we find statutes all over Cape Town. We respect these statutes; but what is their object? They are there to show the people what is right, to tell the people that they must be honest and true and stand for what is their own. I don’t know why my friends opposite are so afraid of a single medium school. I do not know why they are so anxious to have a dual medium school. We already have a dual flag. We have been told that in that respect it is a matter of fifty-fifty. As far as our own flag is concerned we go fifty-fifty, but in addition to that the English-speaking people have a Union Jack as well, and therefore if our flag flies alongside the Union Jack, it means that we have fifty and the English-speaking people have a hundred and fifty. We have our flag which is 50 per cent. ours, and they have their flag which is 100 per cent. theirs. That is why we are afraid of dual medium schools. If the English-speaking section ask me why I am so frightened of a dual medium school, then I would like in my turn to ask them a few questions. Do they want the two sections of the population in South Africa to become one nation? Do the English-speaking people in South Africa ever want to be anything but English people in South Africa? Does the Englishman want to have such a thing as an Afrikaner in South Africa? I put these questions to my English-speaking friends. If their answer is in the affirmative, then let them tell me why they refuse to break off the British connection. Why do they adhere so closely to British ties? We are descendants of Hollanders, but we have broken with Holland. We have nothing to do with Holland today. We are here in South Africa where we want to build up one nation, a happy country. If they reply in the affirmative, then why do they refuse to do away with the Union Jack as a flag in South Africa? Why must we have the Union Jack in South Africa? We have our own flag. Why must we have a second flag? No other country has anything of the kind, and yet we say we are a free and independent country. And though we say we are a free and independent country, we still have the conqueror’s flag here—first the conqueror of the Cape and then the conqueror of the two republics. If they answer my questions in the affirmative, then why do they want to preserve “God save the King” as a national anthem? It is theirs which they want to retain. We say that we in South Africa as a nation have only one national anthem and that is “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”. Why do our English-speaking friends speak of “home”? We know only one home and that is South Africa. But they speak of a home which many of them haven’t even seen. What sort of a home is that, if one doesn’t even know what it looks like; if one doesn’t even know the people there. Further I want to put this question. They talk so much about bilingualism and about dual medium schools. Have they decided to abolish the 272 English-medium schools here in South Africa where everything is taught exclusively in English? Why is there still a University in South Africa which uses English exclusively as medium of instruction? And another thing, why do they have their English societies, to which Afrikaans-speaking people cannot belong, such as the Sons of England? Have they ever heard us talk about Sons of Holland, or Sons of France. No, we only have the Voortrekkers, and they are sons and daughters of South Africa.

Although I am looked upon as an English-speaking member of this House, I think it might be useful if I were te tell hon. member of my experiences in connection with bilingualism. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Wessels) has made the object of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) very clear, and it would appear to me that the result of that policy will be that South Africa in days to come will always be a divided nation and a divided people. It appears from what the hon. member has said that the result of that policy would be that one section only would be protected by that policy. The policy which we on this side stand for is to build up one nation out of both sections of the population. I have been a member of this House for more than five years and I cannot remember one single occasion in the whole of that time when the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the other official language. To me it looked like showing contempt for the English language, because if the Leader of the Opposition regards himself as a leader of the people, the very least he can do is to express his views here in both languages of the country. It is perfectly clear that the object which the other side of the House have in view is to create a sort of hegemony of Afrikaans-speaking people in this country, and that if they succeed in that they will show no respect for the English-speaking section or for those who are of English descent.

This is the very first time you have spoken Afrikaans here.

My own experience of the language question is that it is essential for our children to be brought together on the playgrounds of the schools. I myself never attended an Afrikaans medium school. In the old Republican days in the Transvaal there were English medium schools and all the Afrikaans I know I learned in those years on the playgrounds where I used to play with Afrikaans-speaking children. I didn’t learn Afrikaans at school, but I learned Afrikaans on the playground at cricket, “bok-bok,” marbles and games like that. Not one of these boys was not bilingual.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 pm.

When business was suspended I was relating my own experience in connection with bilingualism. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mn Wessels) said it was impossible to be 100 per cent. bilingual, but it is not necessary to be 100 per cent. bilingual. In the circumstances prevailing in South Africa it is essential, however, for every citizen to have a practical knowledge of the other language.

It is necessary for every Minister as well.

I say that if we have more contact with each other at school we shall obtain a real knowledge of each other’s language. The circumstances which prevail in South Africa are identical with those in Belgium and the result of the present policy will be that the division between Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking people will widen and become more pronounced. In Belgium about 40 per cent. of the population are French-speaking and 60 per cent. speak Flemish. The result of that division is that there are certain conflicts between the two sections of the population, and on account of the fact that French is a world language the economic division of the Belgians is such that the richer section of the population is French-speaking and the poorer section is Flemish-speaking. I contend that the effect of our present policy in South Africa is having exactly the same result. Let me quote from a book: “The Language Question in Belgium.” The author is a medical man and represents Antwerp in the Belgian Parliament, and this is what he says on page 220 of the book [Translation]—

My contention is that the eventual position in South Africa will be identical with that in Belgium.

Do you want them all to speak Flemish?

Yes; yes, and that is what hon. members opposite want—one language. But it is impossible in South Africa. In Belgium it is impossible because the French people there refuse to speak Flemish.

And the English-speaking in this country refuse to speak Afrikaans.

In South we find that the result of the present policy is that we have division and that division will become more and more pronounced, and the richer section of the population will be English-speaking and the poorer section Afrikaans-speaking and we contend that our policy is the only policy which can prevent such consequences—our policy is to make the whole population of South Africa bilingual and there is only one way in which this can be achieved, and that is to teach the children at the same schools and to get to them play together.

But when we appoint commissions then the members of those commissions have to be unilingual.

And they do not have to learn the other language in the way they would learn a lesson, they have to learn it by playing with the children who speak the other language. We on this side want the two sections to understand each other thoroughly in days to come and I say that the policy laid down in the amendment of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister is the only policy that will bring about that result. We are building with an eye to the future and let me repeat that we on this side of the House kindle the flame that will bring about the fusion of the two sections of the population. I am reminded of the words of the poet Eugène Marais—

In we follow that policy the result will be a happy people in South Africa.

We have a motion before this House with an amendment by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. If we study the motion we find that it is a practical proposition; we find that the motion is a practical pointer to the road which South Africa should follow. If we study the Prime Minister’s amendment we find that it is clear in that proposal that the protagonists of this amendment are really scared to come forward with a definite policy. The amendment which is the outcome of an election campaign, which is the outcome of an attitude adumbrated during the election, does not say really and in detail what the other side wants. It leaves the door open. It asks for certain amendments to be made by the provinces in the educational system. If at this late stage the Prime Minister could still be induced—it is rather difficult because he is far away from here—if hon. members on his side of the House could be persuaded to withdraw the amendment, or if not to withdraw it, at any rate to put it in such a manner that they would try to find out the best course for South Africa to follow, they would be doing a great thing and they might achieve something. It is perfectly clear to me that the Government’s advisers are not at all clear as to the direction they want to take. It has been vaguely stated that they want to introduce the dual medium system. It is a first class tragedy that this question has been dragged into politics. It is a tragedy that the hammer is being wielded on the anvil of racial politics to produce a sort of grotesque monster. The Government will create nothing short of a grotesque monster by this proposal. The point is this—are we not really close to each other? I believe that we are not very far from each other. If we ask ourselves what we want to achieve we are not allowed to say that we have a political object. Hon. members opposite are not going to say that they have a political object. That being so, let us try and understand one another and ask what we really want. I believe that we are on common ground when I say that we want every citizen in this country, by his education through our schools, to be fitted to make himself understood in both official languages. We want him to be taught in such a manner in the schools that he has sufficient knowledge of both official languages to be able to converse with other people, to do his business or to carry on official work through the medium of the other language as well. If I lay down that doctrine I believe that we are on common ground. We all want to achieve that object. If we have to judge by the instance quoted by the Prime Minister before he left when he praised the attitude adopted by Natal because Natal, through its Provincial Administration in the first step it took in that direction, closed down the Afrikaans medium schools and announced that it was prepared to have one subject taught in its schools through the medium of Afrikaans—if that is to be the model then I must say that it is nothing short of a violation of right and justice to the Afrikaans language. If that is the spirit in which the Government intends this whole matter to be carried out, if that is the instruction to be given to the Provinces, then I say again that is no less than a violation of all right and justice as far as the Afrikaans language is concerned. It is even worst than that. What are we going to achieve and what do we want to achieve? If we want to achieve the object that every citizen in this country, through his education and through the school, should become bilingual then I can say most definitely that no child in the English medium schools is going to learn Afrikaans through taking mathematics through the medium of Afrikaans. There is not the slightest chance of the child getting any benefit from it. Now let us take a few other subjects.

History.

Let me tell the hon. member what happened in 1922 when we had our first opportunity of having history taught in our schools through the medium of Afrikaans. Our language ordinance in the Cape Province created the opportunity for the introduction of the dual medium and it was stated that while everything had been in English before, we were now going to have a few subjects taught through the medium of Afrikaans. At Graaff-Reinet, at the school of which Dr. Eybers was the principal, we wanted to have three subjects taught through the medium of Afrikaans. On the day when history was to be taught through the medium of Afrikaans all the children of the English-speaking people were taken out of the school and the parents stated that they were not going to have their children taught history through the medium of Afrikaans.

That was in 1922.

Yes. I quite agree that we should not allow what happened 20 years ago to stand in our way today. I believe that there is a greater desire today for people to learn Afrikaans just as there is a desire for children to learn English to enable them to take their places in the country’s economic life. But we have the clear statement—we have very clear documents, and we have research work by experts on this whole question. And it is not necessary for us to take any notice of the experts. Those of us who have, learned languages know what the position is. You learn a language if you take it as a subject through practical work in the class in that subject; you learn it by conversation, by writing it, by having discus-sions, by using the language. One of the best language teachers I have known was my mother. She taught any number of people—and some of them are occupying high positions in South Africa today—only by means of speaking and reading and writing. Numerous people have learned German in that way and they have learned it in such a manner that it has been of practical use to them. If in our schools we are really in earnest in wanting to teach everyone the second language we can do so in a practical manner which will have the effect of making everyone capable of using both languages. But that object will not be achieved by means of the Government’s proposals. What I see ahead of us is this—that they will try in Natal to teach one subject through the medium of Afrikaans. The children will not learn that subject through the medium of Afrikaans; the English-speaking child will at the end of the year know very little about that subject; half the time will be taken up in teaching the subject through the English medium and half the time will be used for teaching through the Afrikaansmedium, and the result will be a monster. The child will know only half of the subject. If we are in earnest we must see to it that in every school in South Africa language classes are conducted in such a manner that everyone will learn to speak the language, to use it in a practical manner and to write it. It cannot be done in the way proposed. The best expert opinion is opposed to that way of doing it. But let us take even the expert opinion which is not opposed to it— take the opinion of people who have written political pamphlets in support of the Government’s case. There can be no doubt whatever—nobody can deny it—that only by giving the child the opportunity to speak the language and to read it will he ever be able to use it in his daily life. The object we have in view can be achieved only by language instruction, and in no other way. What are we going to achieve by dual medium if it would be introduced? We are going to achieve this, that in English-medium schools such as those of Natal the children are going to learn nothing. We give in to Natal. If the Provincial Administration is to continue doing what it is doing today then we have to give up Natal, and we shall have to establish private Afrikaans-medium schools there if we want the children there to learn Afrikaans. But let us take the Cape and the Transvaal, and let us assume that the children are taught through the dual medium. Some people have the idea that a subject should be taught for three days through the English medium and for two days through the Afrikaans medium and the following week three days through the Afrikaans medium and two days through the English medium. Let us assume that the English-speaking children will learn a little Afrikaans, or later on perhaps even a lot of Afrikaans, as hon. members opposite assert. The question is whether the child will in that way have a language he is able to use as an instrument to give expression to his innermost thoughts, whether the child will be able to use that instrument in such a manner that he will be able to give the nation something of lasting value in the sphere of literature and culture. We have had the position in South Africa that people have had the greatest difficulty in making themselves conversant with a new language, a language which has at long last come into its own. I used to have among my friends the first people who really tried to establish the Afrikaans written language, the men who took great pains to establish a cultural language, who took great pains to give our language to the people, to give them a language in which they could express themselves in all respects, in which they could give expression to their innermost thoughts, and in which they could give expression to their national life. Some of these people are on the Government side today; others are not. But it does not matter on which side you find yourselves in politics. The subject is one which we have to consider in the interests of permanency for our people. It is a subject which we should consider from the point of view of literature, from the point of view of capacity for expression; the ability to give expression to one’s innermost thoughts. And when the opportunity presented itself to use the Afrikaans language, did those who could, not avail themselves of that opportunity to prove that that language was the instrument by which the soul of the nation was waiting to express itself? When we got that instrument there were immediate results and there was immediately a great contribution to our cultural life. The opportunity offered itself by means of the instrument which the people had secured to express themselves. I am now speaking about the Afrikaans-speaking section, but it is equally important to the Englishspeaking section that we should have one perfect instrument and not two weak instruments. It is of the utmost importance to us in South Africa. And is English in South Africa in such a wonderfully safe position? I would like to see the English-speaking section of the population in South Africa sharpening this instrument and strengthening it in such a manner that people will come forth from their ranks who will be able to give expression to the very soul of the nation—this nation which we want to unite—in clear and beautiful language which will be appreciated by the whole world. We have an opportunity now of giving the world something, but we are in the act of taking steps which may wreck everything, and those steps mean that we are giving the child of South Africa a weak instrument instead of one which is strong and which will be of further help to him.

One long and one short.

The hon. member is probably not interested in the cultural side. I want to add this. I never had the opportunity during the whole of my school career to pass through a single class by means of Afrikaans— I started in a very small village, Hopefield, with a population of 300 people; I passed through the high schools of Wellington, through the universities of South Africa, America and England, but I never had the opportunity of being taught through the medium of Afrikaans. I had to learn Afrikaans. I had to use it as far as I could, and if my Afrikaans is still faulty today it is attributable to the fact that in our day we did not have the written language recorded in the same way as it is today. We did not have it at our disposal as an instrument of expression. Today we have to embellish that instrument which we have developed; we have to put it into such shape that we can give the world something in Afrikaans and in English that would be beneficial to the whole world, and it can be done if we use the two official languages in the way they should be used. We have had Belgium mentioned here as an instance—two languages are spoken in Belgium. The position of those other countries cannot be entirely compared with that of South Africa, because in South Africa the two languages have to be used more intimately than in those countries. In Belgium there are two separate parts which use these separate languages. In Canada the two parts are also more or less apart from each other. In Switzerland we hear one language in one part of the country and other languages in other parts. There we also find that although the people know the two languages they regard the one language as their own language and the other as an additional language. They do not weaken both by the school process, but one language is the stronger instrument used to give expression to their thoughts. This is a very important matter in South Africa and I want to beg the Government at this late stage not to try to determine more definitely what steps it is going to take. I am not much concerned about the Prime Minister’s amendment. He says that a child in the early stages at school should be instructed by the mother tongue medium, but after that the second language must be gradually introduced as a supplementary medium. So far so good. But then we come to this, that such changes have to be introduced in regard to the training of teachers as are considered necessary to give full effect to this policy of bilingualism and national unity. That is where the political question comes in. We can attempt to achieve a political object by using the school as our instrument. I am by no means pessimistic, nor am I worried about the whole matter. The Prime Minister told us that it would take about five years to give effect to such a plan. I am perfectly satisfied about one thing and that is, that in five years’ time you cannot do irreparable harm to a nation’s soul, and before that time is up this Government will no longer be in power. My friends opposite of course think differently.

You also said so in 1939, and we have to differ from you.

Yes, we have to differ. I only want to ask for clarity on this subject; I want to ensure that no drastic steps are taken before we are sure. We have already had certain signs of the fact that the Government has to a certain extent come to its senses. The Administrator of the Cape Province for instance had an investigation made. We have not yet had any official information on the matter, but the Minister of Agriculture has let things filter through. He has admitted that experiments have to be made; in fact, he has admitted that the policy proposed by the Prime Minister is subject to certain experiments and has to be very carefully enquired into. I can quite conceive what happened when an investigation like that was made—an investigation instituted by the Administrator. Apparently there was a conference of his inspectors and advisors to deliberate about the possible steps that could be taken. We don’t know what these people decided but we do know from the Administrator that they felt that experiments had to be made and that an investigation should be made, and that a certain type of education should be given in certain schools and they would then see what the results would be. It might perhaps take five years, or even ten of fifteen years, and then we would see in those two schools what was the result of this particular system which had been applied to those particular children. We, who deal with statistics and numbers, know that an experiment of that character will perhaps take 15 years, but that possibly one can only test its results over a period of 50 years. Rather let us make our plans on the basis of the things we know. We know what things are like in our schools throughout the country where we have teachers who can really teach languages to the children so that they are afterwards able to use the second language as an intrument. We know that in that regard we are on a sound and solid foundation which cannot be upset by all the experts appointed to write pamphlets. It cannot be denied that in that way we are giving our children a strong instrument in the first language, and that they are also being taught to use the second language as a instrument of expression. I can quite conceive that at an inspectors’ conference of the kind recently held it was clearly pointed out that, first of all, we must make the teachers bilingual so that the teachers can give the children a good sound instrument as far as the first language is concerned, and then also a second instrument which they can use. We have never yet trained our teachers in South Africa in that way. If the Government carries on with this grotesque monster proposed in this amendment, will the English-speaking teachers ever be able to teach through the Afrikaans medium? What about that 80 per cent. of the English-speaking teachers who are not able to teach through the medium of Afrikaans.

That is no longer the position today.

I should be very sorry if the English-speaking teachers we now have had to teach Afrikaans.

Did you attend an English medium school?

I said earlier on that throughout the whole of my school career and my university career I never attended a single class in which I was taught through the Afrikaans medium. I was taught through the English medium.

That’s why you’re bilingual.

The hon. member of course doesn’t know that there is such a thing as an adult teaching himself something. The day I stop learning—the day I stop educating myself—I shall become as grotesque a monster as this amendment aims at producing. Unfortunately I speak only three languages. I wish I spoke four or five languages like some of my hon. friends on this side of the House. The time has arrived for us to put an end to this possible exploitation by political means of matters which are of vital importance to our people. This is a matter which concerns not only the Afrikaans, it also concerns the English section. I have come across examination questions drafted by teachers from England which we have had to translate into Afrikaans. Well, I would be ashamed if we in South Africa had to use English of that kind. I do feel that there is a definite deterioration. But I’m not going to worry very much about that. I am worried about it, but if I say so here my hon. friends opposite will no doubt say that it is hypocrisy. It happens to be a fact that the only novel I have written is in English, and the only poem which I had written until last night, was also in English. I had to write my scientific theses in English, and I am grateful that as far as language is concerned I have never been criticised, but that on the contrary I have been praised. I should like to see that as far as English is concerned we should attain to as high a level in South Africa as Afrikaans people in this country have attained to in Afrikaans. I also would like to point out that about 20 years ago we separated at Graaff-Reinet, so that we started an English medium school there, and an Afrikaans medium school. We had an essay competition there, and when the English parson had finished correcting the essays it was found the first prize for the English essay and the second prize as well had been won by children from the Afrikaans medium school. I maintain that the right procedure is that in a single medium school a fixed number of hours should be set aside for learning the other language.

How many hours?

At the moment it is one hour per day. That is probably sufficient; because I have already found people learning a language in one and a half hours per week. I am not proposing that, however, because the hon. member will agree with me that that is a question we should, leave to the experts. General speaking we have made progress in South Africa. We know that Lord Milner’s attitude was very clear when he was asked what place Nederlands should occupy in South African schools. His reply was—

That was only 40 years ago. We have made progress since those days. Do not let us take the wrong road now. Let us leave this question for investigation by experts who understand the subject. Let us make experiments not only on one side but on both sides. I want every citizen of the country in the country, without exception, and without private schools being excepted to be given the opportunity of being taught in such a manner that he will have enough knowledge of the second language to use it as an instrument.

Hear, hear. We agree.

Here we are on common ground.

That is my motion.

Let us leave the amendment of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister; let us vote for the motion; and let us have an investigation and look for a way outside the Poltiical field, outside the sphere of agitation and incitement concerning a matter which constitutes one of the nation’s richest possessions; and let us do away with the possibility of this subject being exploited in any way whatsoever and of being used to achieve certain political ends. I am not casting it at the Government that they are wanting to use it for political purposes, but I say that they are under a false impression. They imagine they can unite the people in this way. Let me read to hon. members what appeared in one of our newspapers—

Which paper are you quoting from?

This is from “Die Unie” of the 1st April.

He doesn’t know what that means.

It is the educational publication of the Cape.

I feel that we should go back a bit and try and find a practical solution. We should try and find each other because we want to give to this country a culture which it can preserve. I am not pleading here on behalf of the Afrikaansspeaking section of the country. I am pleading on behalf of the children of both sections of the population. Let us give the children of both sections of the population two things: First, an instrument by which they can give expression to what is supreme in the soul of a nation, and secondly, a knowledge and appreciation of the second language which will enable them to understand the other children and appreciate them as far as it is possible to do so. If we do that we shall be doing some good for South Africa. We shall wipe out the bad work which has been done of late, and we shall achieve something for which the country and posterity will always be grateful.

I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not invite the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) to take a seat on this side of the House.

He prefers to remain with the bilingual people.

You send your children to an English school.

There is really no point on which I differ from the hon. member.

Well then you should come and sit here.

It has been remarkable in the course of the debate, how often we have found reasonableness on both sides of the House, and in that there lies much hope for the future. But I cannot help feeling that that spirit of reasonableness, so frequently displayed, is dependent on matters which apparently have no bearing on the language question. There was a time when I felt concerned about the lines along which our language questions were developing.

And you sent your children to an English school.

I am not talking about the days of Milner; I am talking of the immediate past, not from 1907; I refer to 1942. I have here, for example, a cutting from one of the Opposition newspapers, and it read as follows [Translation]—

I do not know who the Afrikaners are who convened the conference. They are probably the intelligentzia on the Opposition side—

What are you reading from now?

Out of “Die Transvaler” of the 27th October, 1942.

What newspaper is that?

“Die Transvaler” of Tuesday, 27th October, 1942. The Federal Council of the Nationalist Party and Dr. Malan accepted this as building material for the new republic.

Do you know what “bou stof” is?

Yes. Amongst other things, as far as regards language, this clause appears, Section 3, sub-paragraph (f)—

How does that sound to you?

You see that in 1942 there was a different spirit. Now they are talking about bilingualism. At that time it appeared that the opportunity would present itself to force this sort of thing on South Africa— “Afrikaans will be the language of the country.” The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) spoke here about hypocrisy. I cannot help being very suspicious about the Opposition’s zeal in connection with bilingualism, especially when you study such a document as this.

Have you examined the constition of the Nationalist Party?

The Federal Council of the Herenigde National Party accepted this as building material. I admit that there might quite well be alterations. The following also appears in that cutting—

One would almost say that this is something out of Milner’s days. It is a spirit which is very easily revealed in the ranks of the Opposition. A good many of the speeches that have been delivered here have been sermons for the converted. The hon. member for Stellenbosch, and the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) expatiated this morning at considerable length over the advantages of instruction in the mother tongue. There is no one on this side of the House who differs from them in this respect. That is incorporated in the amendment of the Prime Minister.

What does Clause 2 say?

That is the policy of the United Party. The United Party stands 100 per cent. for instruction in the mother language, but ….

But!

Wait a moment; but there is an opening for misunderstanding, and that is where we are not in agreement in regard to the meaning of the term “mother tongue medium,” as to what the term really contains. There I differ from the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), where in his motion he talks of the sound educational principle of education in the mother tongue in lower, and secondary and higher education. I think I can make a good case out to the effect that the educational meaning of the term “education in the mother tongue” incorporates the idea of education in the mother tongue at the commencement, and no more.

No, right through.

Can you change from your mother tongue if you have only passed Standard IV?

Even the term “mother tongue” is in a sense a technical term.

It has not a technical meaning.

We do not mean exactly the mother language but the home language.

But that does not mean only to Standard IV.

We mean the language that the child learns at home, not necessarily the language of the mother. The hon. member for Winburg laughed very merrily, but now he realises he laughed too quickly.

It is not only to Standard IV.

The motion of the hon. member employs these educational terms as if an ordinary everyday interpretation was to be attached to the words. I say that the United Party stands by the principle of instruction in the mother tongue.

And your children are in an English medium school.

That is not so. The advantages that are offered here are those that accompany instruction in the mother tongue, and we want to use them. The children of South Africa will, under the policy of the United Party, receive all the benefits of instruction in the mother tongue.

And become tame Englishmen.

There is no one, for instance, who will maintain that it 1s necessary that university education should necessarily be given in the mother tongue. I stand firm by this that the United Party represents the principle of instruction in a mother tongue.

You know nothing about education.

Another expert.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch—I have followed the debate fairly closely—is the only one who so far has frankly stated that his opinion is that single medium instruction is the best manner of teaching the second language, and that you could acquire the second language in the most efficient manner by learning the second language as a subject. That is a standpoint that is not generally accepted, and I think that in any case the hon. member for Stellenbosch will agree that even educationists who subscribe to his standpoint as far as regards the dual medium, will differ from him there. It is remarkable, seeing that the Opposition advanced the claim that they are supported in their contention to a large degree by educationists, and seeing it is almost generally accepted that the standard of bilingualism attained in our schools on the whole, is lamentably low, that this should be the only inkling given by the Opposition as to how the second language should be learned. Even the hon. member for Winburg will not maintain that in his motion he has presented us with a remedy. There is no proposal even in his speech as to how the second language should be learned. It is true it is stated that the children, when they left school, should be bilingual, but he did not tell us what means should be employed to achieve this bilingualism. The hon. member pleaded that the question of how our children should learn the second language should be left to the decision of educationists, but he himself does not leave it to the educational experts. He himself comes as a layman and he prescribes that in any event it must not be done through the medium of dual medium instruction. There is another aspect of the matter which perhaps has become somewhat confused in the course of the debate, and that is what is really implied by bilingualism. Of course there are various standards and it may be that we even differ in this respect. I feel that the Opposition is prepared, so far as bilingualism is concerned, to pay homage to the principle that has been scorned of a working knowledge of the second language, and to describe anyone who has that as bilingual. We have always scorned that, but it seems to me that that is now their opinion. Reference, for instance, was made here to a conference of the three Dutch churches in Pretoria, which was addressed amongst others, by the educationists from the Opposition side, and one of the learned gentlemen said, inter alia, at that conference, that a 25 per cent. knowledge of the second language was quite sufficient in a bilingual land. What apparently is meant by a 25 per cent. knowledge of a language is a lamentable knowledge of that language.

Read Dr. Malherbe’s book, and you will see that 10 per cent. is sufficient.

But at lay conferences it has been held by educationists that a “working knowledge” is adequate. I refuse to be dictated to by educationists as to what course the events should take. The Leader of the Opposition, and now the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) have alluded to the fact that the matter goes further than language and education, and that it affects the whole life of the people. That is a proposition that is generally accepted—that what we do in our schools is not confined to the schools, that it is not the mere acquisition of knowledge that is at stake there, but something that will affect the course of events in South Africa in the future; that it is linked up, for example, with the question of “one-stream or two-stream” policy, as the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) has stated. Seeing then that on their own showing this subject and the policy arising from it is a national matter which must be viewed from a national standpoint, it is our duty as representatives of the people, to give a lead, and we cannot leave that in the hands of educationists. The educationists have no responsibility towards the electorate. It is for us to say what road we should strike out on.

Oh!

If hon. members want to deduct from this that it is a political issue, well and good. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has stated that he regards this as hypocrisy and a political game, but when this political game is played by the Opposition, then of course, educationists can be called in to strengthen their viewpoint. It is about time that those people knew who are bearing the responsibility, and whose duty it is to guide the course of events, and we should not be afraid to do that. South Africa has given a very clear mandate to the United Party. The case of Wakkerstroom is perhaps the clearest of all. When Wakkerstroom had to decide on the language question the candidate of the United Party was returned with a majority of 1,100. When the, issues were meat and suchlike things, then Wakkerstroom said: “The language policy is now safe; we can send someone else along.” There is one expression hon. members opposite are very fond of using. They are always talking about “our schools,” “just leave our schools alone.” This reminds me of the time when we used to hear: “Leave our Ossewabrandwag alone.” What is “our school?” I would like to know. If there is an Afrikaans single medium school existing in a neighbourhood where the majority of the people support dual medium instruction, then presumably the Opposition describe it as “our” school. Take my constituency as an example. If, for instance, an Afrikaans-medium school existe, is that “their school”? It is a United Party constituency and the parents are supporters of the United Party policy. If we want to have a dual medium school there, what right have the Opposition to raise any objection? The members of the Opposition are also confused in connection with the possibility of dissociating the interests of Afrikaans from the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking people. That is impossible. You cannot protect and develop a language if you destroy the people. That is the big mistake that the Opposition are making when they talk of the services that our Prime Minister has rendered to the people. The opportunities for Afrikaans would have been extremely limited had it not been for the Leader of the United Party. When the Prime Minister is under discussion, it is shocking to hear a member like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) talk disparagingly of legislation for which he shares the responsibility. It was one of the most fruitful periods in his life, when with the Prime Minister he supported the education legislation in the Transvaal in 1907. And now unseemly attacks are constantly being made on the Prime Minister, and it is high time that the people knew exactly what the position is.

The Prime Minister himself said that the language question left him cold.

In the sense that the Prime Minister does not want to make political capital out of language questions and cultural questions, they certainly leave him cold. In 1907 legislation was accepted from which the Afrikaans-speaking people are still deriving a benefit. It was first introduced by the old Transvaal Volksraad. It was the legislation of the old Republics. If the people who were responsible for the legislation in 1907 were today to hear how their descendants are making such a song over this matter, it would be very painful to them. It was the legislation of the old heroes of the Boer War that we had in 1907, and as always they were represented by the Prime Minister. That was not all considered in this connection. It was also the result of an agreement that was entered into in the interests of the Boer nation. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad talks about instances in our history in which sacred agreements have been broken, and by implication he hinted that our Prime Minister in the days of the old Republics also broke that agreement. Fortunately, that was not their conception of honour and duty. In the third place, I want to point out that the legislation that was enforced was in the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the first instance; and if the boast is made today that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people are more bilingual than the English-speaking section, the Prime Minister is more responsible for that than any other member of this House.

He is responsible for the English-speaking people being unilingual.

There are members sitting here who today revile him, but who in their old age will remember him with respect, and who will recall with pride that they sat in this hon. House with the Prime Minister. There is, for instance, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), or the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). If for no other reason than that people will point to them with respect in their old age, and say “Look, that man was a member of Parliament at the same time as Gen. Smuts!” I want to repeat that I feel that the United Party is prepared to accept the responsibility that the people have laid oh their shoulders, and that it is not going to be intimidated by all the cultural organisations and all these various organisations. They are indeed sepárate organisations, but they are all Nationalists. Today they call them this and tomorrow that.

It is a disgrace that the United Party do not take part in the cultural movements.

The people have returned the United Party to power to carry out this policy, ánd it is what the United Party are going to do.

I want to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that since we came together after the luncheon interval there has only been one Minister present during this debate, which is of so much importance to the country. I think that it is a matter certainly deserving of more interest; if any genuine feeling is held on this question on the other side one would like to have seen it expressed in a more tangible form by the presence of more Ministers.

Where are you front benchers?

Here they are. I am talking not of the present moment, but of 2.15. I am only stating the facts now. That is sufficient for my purpose. I want to deal with some of the arguments that have been use in the course of this debate. One of the arguments—I think it was used by the Minister who is conspicuous by his absence this afternoon, the Minister of Finance—was that there was a verdict from the country at the recent Provincal Council elections. I want to ask this, Mr. Speaker: Was that a fair verdict?

It was the verdict of the people.

I submit that it was not fair, and I give two reasons; the first is that shortly before the election a deputation representing the Dutch Reformed Churches waited on the Prime Minister, and he gave them certain assurances. Those assurances were broadcast throughout the country. What were the assurances the Prime Minister gave to the deputation? It was this that no existing mother tongue school would be touched. [Interruptions.] If hon. members would give me an opportunity of making my point there is no reason for their interruptions. I say that was an unfair thing as it stood because it sought to perpetuate the position of inequality in which the Afrikaans medium schools were in this country. We have in the Cape Province, which is indicative of what happens right through South Africa, 15 primary and 11 secondary schools, a total of 26 Afrikaans medium schools, and 51 primary and 34 secondary, that is 85 English medium schools in the Cape Province.” That was the position when the Prime Minister made that statement. Now this disparity that existed between these two classes of schools, were, on the Prime Minister’s assurance, to be perpetuated; those which were Afrikaans medium should remain Afrikaans medium, but no new Afrikaans medium schools could be established. Those which were English medium could remain English medium. Here you have a proportion of almost 4 to 1 in favour of English medium schools, and this assurance of the Prime Minister sought to perpetuate that proportion, and in that respect I say it is not fair. Still, the Prime Minister’s assurance did much at any rate to keep in being the status quo, and there were many people who were satisfied with that, not realising the fact which I have just stated here. They were satisfied with that and accepted it with a certain amount of relief. But what has happened? No sooner were the Provincial Council elections over than you find that the very first school that is attacked is the Afrikaans medium Voortrekker School at Pietermaritzburg. Now I want to be quite clear on this. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe), if he would only listen, would find out what is true. I will say what happened there. They said this school is too big for one principal; there are 800 children and we ought not to have more than 650 under one principal. They said we have to take away 150 children. And instead of saying it is high time that a school for 800 children should be split into a primary and secondary school, they said we are going to take away 150 children, force them away from this Afrikaans medium school and we are going to put them into an English medium school, where …

To be taught by— [Interruption].

Where, I repeat, they said provision will be made for teaching them through the medium of Afrikaans. [Interruption.] If hon. members will only give me the opportunity, I am trying to state facts correctly. There are 800 children, and 150 are to be taken away from that Afrikaans medium school and put in an English medium school where provision will be made for them to be taught through the medium of Afrikaans. The principal of that school and the general atmosphere of that school is unilingual, it is English medium. And what type of child do they take away? Are they taking the children in Standards 5 or 6? Oh no, they are taking 150 children from sub-standards and standard one. They are all at the impressionable age and they are to be taken away from an Afrikaans medium environment and are to be put in a school where the whole environment is contrary to their own language.

You want them Kraaled.

That is what is being done in regard to the Voortrekker School, and I say that that is in direct contradiction of the assurance that the Prime Minister has given to us. And you will see the object. The same thing has been happening in Durban. Here your lower classes are the feeders for the higher classes. After these 150 children have been in this school through sub-standards and standard one, when they come to standard two, many of them will simply remain there and you will bleed to death the Voortrekker school by withholding from it its ordinary flow of children. That is the position and there is no question of it being a temporary measure. The only way it will become temporary is when they have bled the Voortrekker School sufficiently so that its members have fallen below 650. There is another reason why this is not a fair verdict, and that is that you had during these elections a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue by a piece of political chicanery and deceit which I might almost say is unparalleled in our political history. I will say what that deceit was. The confusion of the issue was a confusion which still persists on the other side; we have had it today; it is effected by misrepresenting that bilingualism is equivalent to dual medium. Mr. Speaker, you may be bilingual and yet have attended a single medium school. Bilingualism has nothing to do with dual-medium. Bilingualism is possible when you have learned a second language as a subject and not necessarily as a medium of instruction. If you ask anybody in England whether they would teach French by making the students learn mathematics through the medium of French you would be laughed out of court. They will teach you French there as a subject, but if you want to teach a second language, in no civilised country will you see that second language used as a medium of instruction for geography, mathematics or Latin or Greek. It is only in this country apparently where this can be done.

Why didn’t they do it the old Free State Republic?

The hon. member is still in the past, he forgets that we have moved on. If there were any sincerity in this tardy conversion of members on the other side to the principle of bilingualism, one might have been tempted to regard it as a cause for jubilation. We on this side have stood and have consistently fought for bilingualism in this country, and who has opposed us all these years, who is still opposing us today? Members on the other side. I would be only too glad to welcome a conversion on the part of gentlemen on the other side, even a tardy conversion to the principle of bilingualism, but I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is accompanied by every symptom of insincerity. I will give you a few examples. In the course of this Session there have been two Bills before the House in which it has been sought to make the principle of bilingualism effective, and who has voted it down? Not gentlemen on this side; it is the people over there who profess themselves so keen on bilingualism who voted it down on every occasion. Mr. Speaker, after these last Provincial Council Elections, which gave a verdict of the people for bilingualism as we are told, what happened? The Provincial Council of the Cape proceeded to elect as one of their members on the Executive Council a unilingual member.

Why not?

Even “Die Suiderstem” had to condemn it. That is the way in which lip service is paid to the principle, but when it comes to applying the principle in practice then you find they are not up to the mark. I will give a further example. Take the University College of the Orange Free State. There the position is 80 to 20 in favour of Afrikaans, but the University College of the Free State is singled out for the first onslaught; it is to be made 50-50. But your Rhodes University College where the proportion is 100 to nil in favour of English, can be left at their 100 per cent. in the meantime, and the same with the Natal University College. If there were any sincerity, if there were any fairness in it Mr. Speaker, why single out the Free State University for the first onslaught? I want to go a little further. There has been published in the past few weeks the report of the Film Commission appointed by the Minister of the Interior. Now what has been the reception of that report in Natal, who we are told are the protagonists of the principle of bilingualism? They are objecting there, Mr. Speaker, to 2 per cent. of the films being shown in Afrikaans. Two per cent. is too much they say, we are not going to have Afrikaans forced down our throats; that is their attitude there. We on this side, Mr. Speaker, stand for bilingualism and we say that if there is anything wrong in the teaching of the second language, let a commission be appointed and let them report on ways and means for improving the teaching of the second language, as a language, as a subject in our schools, both primary and secondary, so that we can produce bilingual citizens. That is what we want in this country. The Minister of Finance, who is not in his place, put up an argument here which took the form of citing before the bar of this House certain witnesses. I see the Minister has now taken his place. I must congratulate the Government on being able to muster two Ministers to listen to this debate.

He was busy somewhere else, and you know that as well as I do.

The Minister of Finance has cited certain witnesses before this House and the first one is Onse Jan. But what was the position when Onse Jan expressed that opinion in 1905 to which the Minister referred? What was the position then? At that date you only had schools of one type, English-medium schools, there was no other type. Afrikaans-medium schools were simply unthinkable of in 1905. A second reason why this argument of the Minister’s cannot be accepted is because in 1905 there was no teaching of the mother tongue, even as a subject. The Afrikaans of his home was not the Nederlands of his school; both English and Nederlands were foreign mediums to the Afrikaans child. He was not taught in school the language that he spoke at home, and when the Minister tries to compare the position in 1905 with the position of 1944, he is trying to compare two things which are not capable of comparison. The Minister has gone further and quoted another witness, the hon. member for Vryheid, whom he quoted as an educational authority. But what about that Gamaliel at whose feet the hon. member for Vryheid sat—that doyen of professors of education in South Africa. Professor G. G. Cilliers of Stellenbosch? Well, Sir, I think it was Mrs. Malaprop who said “comparisons are odorous.” The Minister of Finance has also quoted Professor Grant; he has called him as a witness here to testify to this House. I want to call the same witness and I want to read from what Professor Grant has said, and I want to ask whether the hon. Minister of Finance agrees with this. This is what Professor Grant, his witness, said—

We know which—

One political party. And then he goes on and says—

That is not my witness—that is the witness of the Minister of Finance. Does he agree with that? If he were sincere in agreeing with that he would see that this amendment was immediately withdrawn and he would request that the resolution were also withdrawn and he would go back on his party congresses since 1937, and on the provincial elections in 1943. Now whom else does he cite? He cites President Reitz and Professor Moorrees. Where did they lend countenance to the dual medium policy? Can he say where they have ever said that they are in favour of dual medium instruction? I can cite one of these witnesses—Professor Moorrees. When he addressed the “Studente Taalkonferensie” in 1911 he said this—he is the man who is supposed to have expressed himself in favour of dual medium, but this is what he said [Translation]—

And then he goes on—

Now he has come to the subject pertinently.

Up to Standard IV.

I think the hon. member has Std. IV on his brain. Now what does Professor Moorrees say. He has put the position himself. He says what are we to have, dual medium or single medium? And here is his reply—

The Minister tells us that this gentleman is an authority when he himself states that he is no authority and that he prefers to leave this matter to the educationists.

I did not cite him as an authority. I said he was a product of the old system.

The Minister is wriggling— a movement associated with the lower forms of life with which one doesn’t usually assosiate a Minister. And then he said: “What about authorities like Pierre Bovet and Saer?” Why has he refrained from mentioning other authorities who do not support him? What about the eminent Swiss educationist, Charles Bally, and what about Michael West? Just let me read one short extract from Michael West from his Essay on Bilingualism. This is what he says—

It is the foundation of personality. I want hon. members to subscribe to that. I hope they do.

You should quote from “Mein Kampf”.

Let me come to another point. The argument of bilingualism. Now I want to say that it is not a major objective of education to make bilingual citizens. The man is more important than the citizen and the development and deployment of the innate spiritual forces in the child to its full maturity should be the prime educational target. Citizens without personality are no asset to the State, but the man whose personality has been carefully nurtured in the atmosphere and in accordance with his national instincts and through his mother tongue is bound to be a useful citizen. Because, in Plato’s sense, he is a “full man”, he cannot help but be a good citizen, and therefore first priority should be accorded to the education of our children to become the “full men” of Plato, and in that way they will be useful citizens of the country. Now, the argument of the bilingual citizen is sound. I have no objection to it, but it must not be pressed at the expense of the child. If the mother tongue is not the medium of instruction, then you find that the development of the child’s personality is retarded. Hon. members opposite have agreed with that. I say that if the mother tongue is not the medium of instruction then the development of the personality of the child is retarded and the acquisition of knowledge must naturally suffer. Hon. members apparently recognise this up to Standard IV. But after that this principle is no longer applicable! After that a foreign medium must be introduced! Why? To make a child bilingual! Remember, now the second medium must be introduced to make the child bilingual. But then hon. members are in this dilemma. If at that stage the acquisition of knowledge will no longer suffer, because the child is already bilingual, then what need is there to introduce the second medium to make him bilingual? Or, if the child is not bilingual, and the second medium must be introduced to make him bilingual, then his acquisition of knowledge must suffer. So they are on the horns of this dilemma. They cannot get away from it. Either the child is already sufficiently bilingual, or otherwise his acquisition of knowledge must suffer.

But on the whole he gains.

I say that in any case we have no objection if there are people who are prepared to retard the acquisition of knowledge of their children. We do not want to stand in their way. We do not want to force them to be reasonable men and sane parents; we want to give them the opportunity of doing that. We want to make this optional—as it is. If the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Fourie) wants to do that, let him, but do not force us to be such unnatural parents as to stand in the way of our children’s development. Make it optional, not compulsory. Then I come to another question. Is dual-medium the only way to bilingualism? I submit it is not only not the only way but it is not the best way. You have here the results of the Jan Van Riebeeck School and of the Oranje School in the Free State which have shown that you can become better bilingual students than those who have had instruction through the medium of the second language. What does the Minister of Finance say? He says: “Oh, yes, that is so merely because these schools are in cities in an environment where English is regularly heard outside the school. That is why the Oranje School in Bloemfontein and the Jan Van Riebeeck School here are so proficient in English.” Now I want to put this to the Minister of Finance. If that is the position, if where the Afrikaans-medium schools are in an English environment they are capable of producing fully bilingual citizens, very well, then in the cities there is no need to do away with Afrikaans-medium schools! Is the Minister prepared to accept that? Is he prepared to be consistent with his own argument and say where the environment outside the school is such that the children in Afrikaans-medium schools can become fully bilingual, “I shall not put my hand to any Afrikaans-medium school where they are in an English environment”. The best way to promote bilingualism is by putting a premium on it—putting a premium on bilingualism and a penalty on unilingualism. If we can have this position that no man will be considered educated unless he is bilingual, and no position of any importance in the commercial, professional or civic life will be open to anyone who is not bilingual, then we shall produce bilingual citizens in this country within a generation. Fame is the spur, and if it is not fame then it is self-preservation, which is the first law of Nature. Make it compulsory that you can attain no position of eminence unless you are bilingual, and then you will force everyone to see that his children are properly equipped for the fight of life. Now there is another argument and that is that racial discord is due to mother-tongue schools. Let us look at the facts. The oldest Afrikaans-medium school in this country is less than 25 years old. I doubt whether there is any member of this House who has had the opportunity of attending an Afrikaans-medium school. I doubt whether any of us is sufficiently young for that, so how can it be said, Mr. Speaker, that the racialism we find so prevalent in this country has been bred in those schools which are only 25 years old? Will those hon. gentlemen tell me there is no racialism in this House? That racialism could not have been bred in schools only 25 years old. In the Cape Province—let us have the facts again—there are only 111 single medium schools out of 1,841 schools Six per cent. of the total number of schools in the Cape Province are single-medium; 4.6 per cent. are English-medium schools and 1.4 per cent. Afrikaans-medium schools. Only 1.4 per cent. of the schools in the Cape Province are Afrikaans-medium schools, and yet they are supposed to be the breeding places of racialism in this country! Let us approach this matter not only in a logical but in a psychological way. Let me put it to hon. members who know anything about the psychology of children that an artificial and compulsory amity is psychologically inept and likely to have just the opposite effect. If you are going to have forced concord by making them play together, and by making them sit cheek by jowl on the same benches, it will leave behind a sense of grievance or a repressed hate. I want to warn hon. gentlemen on the other side who talk so glibly about national unity in this country, I want to warn them not to press the fruit of unity to ripeness. If they do that they are only going to spoil it. Do not spoil the fruit of unity by trying to press it to ripeness. The schools are not the breeding places of racial discord. [Interruptions.] At most the schools mirror the lack of unity that unfortunately prevails in our national life. This very amendment we are dealing with today, which seeks by force to put a strait-jacket on over 50 per cent. of the population, shows how unity will not be attained. If racial peace is our true objective then we in this country must seek to remove the causes of its absence from our society. That will in turn be reflected in our schools, but as soon as you have a divided society outside you will never have schools with unity of purpose. If we are really serious, let us try to remove the causes of racial discord in this country and not try to tinker with what is merely a symptom. There is only one blue print for racial peace in this country. There must be full equality between the four European races which constitute our nation, English, Dutch, German and French. In no sense, in not a single respect, should the one be at a disadvantage over against the other. Then and then only will the foundation be laid on which an enduring edifice of racial peace may be reared. That full equality must be absent, must necessarily be abent, when one of the four component parts enjoys, what in the eyes of the others though not perhaps in its own eyes, is some tangible or intangible advantage or preference. Let me ask hon. members on the other side who are English-speaking, just to reverse the position for a moment. Supposing the Queen of Holland was our queen; that our highest court of appeal was in Holland; that we were automatically involved in every war of Holland’s—in that case there on that side would have been the republicans and here would have been the sinners! Let me ask them again to assume that this is the position, that the dominant Dutch were to come along and say: We are going to force you to have the dual-medium in this country, what would the reaction be? I am asking the English-speaking gentlemen opposite? Their first cry would have been: This is a piece of racialism, you are trying to oppress our language. Now it is not racialism on their part, but a so-called attempt at racial unity! That is not the way to achieve racial unity. Three of the four component parts have shed their “home” complex, largely because the factual and spiritual umbilical cord which bound them to the countries of their origin has been severed. But that is not the case with the fourth. It still enjoys no independent life, no separate blood circulation. Factually and spiritually it has a mother, while the others are merely orphans. At most they can never be more than stepchildren if they desire that—which they do not. Rather let them all be orphans. Then they can stand together, work together and fight together for the common nation which it is their destiny to build in South Africa. Then we shall have no warring loyalties; no clashing fealties will then be able to disturb their peace of mind and turn them into homo-nationals which are as unnatural and abhorrent as their sexual counterparts. With the last vestige of inequality vanished, an era of racial peace and concord will be ushered in where one single and undivided loyalty is asked and freely given—loyalty to the Republic of South Africa! For 34 years we have tried to build a nation, to attain racial peace on the basis of the British connection. That experiment has proved a ghastly failure. The two races are further apart than in 1910, when we started the experiment. We should cut our losses now and make a fresh start, building on another basis. We require a new set-up, if we want to have peace in this country; not because we are racialists but because we love racial peace. Because we know that until the two races can co-operate on a neutral basis, the basis of complete equality, we shall never be able to solve the problems that lie before us, or to attain the destiny of a separate and distinct nation, which is our rightful heritage.

May the hon. member have an extension of time?

I object.

As an English-speaking citizen of Durban I am glad that Durban, or Natal, has once more led the Union along the path of advancement. I think the dualmedium schools will be for the good of South Africa, and that they will represent a notable step forward on the road to bilingualism. I have always attempted to champion the English-speaking section for the sole reason that the other side have endeavoured to force compulsory bilingualism. In 1933 when we had a debate on the language question, and the late Gen. Hertzog, who was then Prime Minister, defended compulsory bilingualism, I stated that it was not right that our English-speaking public servants should be penalised as they had been all these years, while we were dividing the children in the schools and preventing them from knowing each other and learning each other’s language. I said that if you put a ring fence round each section of the community you could never have bilingualism in South Africa, and that they had no right to force the English-speaking Section of the community to be bilingual, and no right whatsoever to prevent English-speaking public servants from receiving promotions and increases of pay to which they were entitled. I have not always found myself in agreement with the present Government, but certainly there is one matter that has been brought forward during this session, this question we are now discussing, that I am perfectly certain the whole of the people of South Africa will be pleased to know has been debated here, for they are anxious to put a stop to our racial division. It is very pleasing to know that all this has emanated from Natal. We in Natal are attempting to lead the country in the direction of achieving the abolition of racialism. It has kept South Africa back for too many years. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Donges) made a wonderful speech this afternoon; though Mr. Speaker, you have only to get a bunch of lawyers talking on any measure at all and they will completely destroy it if the people allow themselves to be influenced by the verbosity of the members of this profession. Every word the hon. member for Fauresmith uttered this afternoon deserves consideration, for he was putting up an excellent case for dual-medium schools. He alleges that the two races are further apart today than they have ever been, and he suggested that if you bring all the little children together at school, so that they will be playing together and talking together it is not going to help to bring about racial peace in South Africa. I maintain, however, that if we had had dualmedium schools twenty years ago we would have had no racialism in South Africa today. The hon. member wants to perpetuate the policy of the Hertzog Government when he states there should be some penalty for unilingual Civil Servants in South Africa. On the one hand he is deliberately refusing the opportunity for the English-speaking section to learn Afrikaans, and in the same breath he says keep on penalising them as we have done in the past. Surely there is something wrong with a doctrine of that kind. He also said that in Natal they are objecting to films in Afrikaans. Mr. Speaker, if every child had been taught Afrikaans in a dual-medium school twenty years ago, there would have been no such objection to Afrikaans films. Does the hon. member suggest that if children in Natal had been taught in that way there would be any cause to object to Afrikaans films in Durban today? He and some of his friends are anxious to perpetuate a system of the present kind which I maintain is definitely wrong. The hon. member seems to forget, when he speaks of English-medium schools in Cape Town, that we in Natal would like to see every English-medium school and every Afrikaans-medium school abolished, and as I said before, mix up the children in the playground and in the school; let them grow up together, let them learn everything they ought to know about South Africa together, and in one generation racialism will disappear. How can you expect to kill racialism when the policy of the Hertzog Government has kept the children apart as far as possible? Wherever Afrikaans-Speaking and English-speaking men come in contact with each other, on the sports ground or in the army, no matter where, when force of circumstances drives them together, racialism disappears. I am very glad that I have been able to say these few brief words and to testify my appreciation of the Government’s action in this direction. They make a lot of mistakes, more mistakes than anything else, but I do hope they will stand firm on this particular matter because I feel sure that the only reason why South Africa has not gone further ahead is on account of the racialism which exists today.

[Inaudible].

That’s all rubbish and bunkum. There is no racialism in Natal.

What?

When an hon. member gets up and talks about the Maritzburg school he must know it is overcrowded. You have an Afrikaans-medium school in Bartle Road and it is one of the best schools in Natal as far as the site and buildings and all the rest of it are concerned, but I would abolish it tomorrow if I had my way. I would abolish all English schools too, because I want to see the children mix. The friendships made at school you never forget. Little children know nothing of race or colour until they are taught. Children of all races and colour play together quite happily until they are taught to distinguish. The moment they are taught they must not mingle, then you set them thinking. The policy of the Hertzog Government was to keep the children apart directly they go to school and say they are not fit to mingle together. Is that a policy likely to unify the people? No, definitely not. I regret that I have lost my voice as I would like to have dealt with a number of aspects of this subject, but in conclusion I want to say I hope the Government will remain firm in this matter and mix up our children. If they do that, in another generation we will not have people coming to this House and saving: “We will wait until a Minister arrives who can understand what we are talking about.” All that will disappear and then we will become a nation and a people. There will be no such distinction as English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, we will all be South Africans and no-one will be open to the charge that he has one foot in England and the other in South Africa. I cannot understand our friends of the Nationalist Party objecting to this. Up to now the unilingual man has been at a disadvantage, has lost promotion or been kicked out of his job because he is unilingual, and now that we want to make everybody bilingual the Nationalists are objecting. They fear the Afrikaans language will suffer. Well, perhaps both languages will suffer. But let that happen rather than keep the children apart in the way we are doing. What we want in this country is to be able to speak in the language in which we are spoken to. I don’t suppose there are half a dozen Englishspeaking individuals in South Africa who do not feel the greatest regret that they are unilingual. In Natal it was most difficult for the people to learn Afrikaans on account of the Province being so predominantly English-speaking. In the Cape and the Transvaal and also the Free State it was much more easy for anyone to pick up the language. I hope when this debate is over we shall do all we possibly can to achieve the ideal we are seeking. It is never too late to start, and I am convinced that when the dual-medium school is in full force we shall achieve the object we all have in view. It is very difficult today in Government Schools to find an English-speaking teacher to teach English in English schools, and the reason is that they cannot get a job as teachers unless they are bilingual, although they have learnt to teach English in English-medium schools. It has been my unfortunate experience that almost every day I am approached, either personally of by letter, by Englishspeaking Civil Servants who complain bitterly that they have not been able to secure promotion in the Civil Service. Now these men will go to the grave with a grouse and their children will say that their fathers and mothers were penalised and they themselves might, under other circumstances, have been better educated and better circumstanced. Dual-medium schools will remove all that for future generations. In Natal we are anxious that everyone should become bilingual and we sincerely believe that the dualmedium school is the means to secure that. I am very glad the Government has adopted it. I appealed for this in a speech I made 11 years ago in this House, I begged and prayed the Government to introduce dual-medium schools. If our friends opposite object to the dual-medium school will they be prepared to support us when we plead for the unilingual men who are debarred from promotion? If my friends are not prepared to accept the Government’s policy, the least they can do is to say, “We will support the Natal members in any case of victimisation in the Civil Service which they bring forward”. If they are not prepared to say that I suggest that they ought to give the Government scheme a trial. If they are not the success they hope to be they can always be altered. Amendments can be made and if hon. members are sincere they will support the Government on this occasion.

I should like to refer to one point the Acting Prime Minister alluded to in his speech. I regard it as the climax of his speech where he stated that the motive of this side of the House is that we want to lord it over South Africa (baasspeel). He emphasised that we were out for dominance. That is true as far as this side of the House is concerned; we have dominance in view, but the Minister does not understand what we mean. It is not a question of domination or of tyrannising. When one talks of dominance (baasskap) one means that one wants to be master over one’s own culture and one’s own possessions. We agree with him entirely that it is our ideal to be master in respect of Afrikaans. We do not desire that anyone else should dominate. Nor do we want to dominate anyone in the sphere of culture. That is the idea of dominance. I have studied the speech of the Prime Minister and also that of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), as well as the speech of the Minister of Finance. I should like to make a few quotations. The Prime Minister said that we must go back to the old days when Afrikaans and English children were in the same kraal. It has been stated here that the idea is that Afrikaans and English children should sit on the same benches in school. A little further on he stated—

The hon. member for Vryheid also stated that the children must be brought together. That is the same idea. With all these members one gets actually the same idea that the children must sit on the same school benches. I should like to make this clear. That is advanced as the prime ideal. In spite of the assurance of the Prime Minister that nothing will be done to harm Afrikaans-medium schools, in other words that the Afrikaans-medium schools will be allowed to continue—that was promised by the Prime Minister—in spite of that we get this debate in the House during which it is stated that they must all be herded together, as the hon. member for Vryheid has stated, as also the Minister of Finance in reference to Onze Jan’s policy. I think that it is absolutely clear that until 1910 there were really no Afrikaans-medium schools. There were mainly English-medium schools. I attended those schools, and I think that the Minister of Finance, and indeed most of us on these benches were pupils in those schools. In 1910 Dutch schools were started, and there was a period when there were schools with English predominating, and Netherlands purely as a second language. After 1920 we obtained the Afrikaans-medium school. Before 1920 there was a continuous struggle. After that the struggle disappeared. Since 1920 until last year there was a measure of calm and peace and restfulness throughout South Africa. There was general agreement that we were at long last following the right policy, namely the single-medium school, whether English or Afrikaans. Now we are given this new lead. I have examined new tendencies. Thirty years ago I myself took part in this fight. I was a teacher for thirty years, and I can say here today that if this system is going to be reversed, it is going to be one of the biggest mistakes that we could ever make in this country—to disturb the peace that has settled down, and to go back to the days of that mixture that we had before 1920. I have asked myself whether the form that we now have is the correct form. My own experience is that we are now on the right road, but apart from that I have consulted other authorities. I mention first an English authority, a certain Mr. Howgrave-Graham. He was a member of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal while the Acting Prime Minister was Administrator, and all the time they worked together there he followed this policy of Mr. Howgrave-Graham. Thia gentleman said—

An English teacher, the principal of a high school, who has been a teacher for thirty years, says the same thing. He states that there was no racialism in single-medium schools, but that dual-medium schools cultivated racial strife. Can one want anything clearer? This was what was said by a man who was principal of a school, and who was for a period of years a member of the Provincial Council. Where can we find clearer language? I have also studied another authority, an inspector of schools, Mr. Van der Lingen. I think most of us know him. He states—

He goes further and says—

The Director of Education in the Transvaal, and the inspector who served under him have affirmed that the single-medium is the correct system, and that the dual-medium will generate racialism—

That is what was stated by an Inspector of Education and a Director of Education in the Transvaal. Clearer language than this it is not possible to have. I want to go further and quote from the Education Report of 1919. In 1919 an Education Commission was appointed in the Transvaal comprised of the following gentlemen: Mr. Malherbe, Dr. Nel, Mr. Stofberg and three English-speaking members. I want to state briefly what their policy was. They described their findings in their report. Their report was unanimous. I shall quote some of the more important passages—

That was a commission that was appointed on behalf of the State, comprised of three English-speaking members and three Afrikaans-speaking members. That was not in war time. There was no atmosphere of “there is a war on”. Their finding was unanimously in favour of single-medium and against dualmedium. But I go still further. In 1939 there was another investigation by a School Commission. This time it was the report of the Provincial Education Commission. This commission submitted a report after taking evidence over a period of two years. All the Directors of Education submitted memoranda, and the commission was duly constituted with the Director of Education as a member. Dr. E. G. Malherbe was a member for a period, but later he had to resign. They produced a complete report. I do not want to go into the report, but I should like to mention one or two things that appear in it. The report stated that as far as the evidence went it was overwhelmingly in favour of the single medium. The only objective expert that they consulted, namely, Dr. Petersen of Germany, declared himself in favour of the single medium. The Transvaal Education Department, the body that controls the administration of education in the Transvaal, the highest authority in the Transvaal, declared itself unanimously in favour of the single medium. The Education Association, the “T.O.” of the Transvaal with a membership roll of 4,000 expressed itself unanimously in favour of the single medium. The Teachers’ Association expressed itself in favour of the single medium. We have seen ourselves that the English-speaking teachers in the Transvaal expressed their agreement with this too. Not one authority was found in the whole of the Transvaal that declared itself in favour of the dual medium. I should like mention one or two other points from the evidence, or in reference to the evidence. It appeared from the evidence that Englishspeaking people in the platteland urged the establishment of separate single medium schools. I go further and point out that when an appointment of a principal has to be made there will be a tremendous lot of wire pulling behind the scenes. With a dual medium school the one section will attempt to secure an English-speaking principal and the other an Afrikaans-speaking principal. The result will be that the choice will not be made on qualifications, but it will depend on which section wins the day. You will often get a neutral principal who will know neither Afrikaans nor English. That reminds me of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). He is neither hot nor cold, he is lukewarm, therefore I will spew him out of my mouth.

Order, order.

I am just quoting the Bible text. I am merely stating that the principal who is chosen will often be a neutral person. He would have no pull with the pupils who are Afrikaner minded, nor would he have any pull with those who are English minded. What course should be followed if there are English-speaking children and Afrikaans-speaking children, I am at a loss to know. Take, for instance, celebrations like the Coronation. In many mixed schools the English-speaking children will not be able to participate to the extent that is their due in the festivities on account of the unfriendly feeling on the other side. Then take Kruger Day; on such an occasion antagonism will be displayed from the English side. There will be constant strife and friction. If both sections were kept separate they could indulge in their festivities to their hearts’ content. Take a movement such as the Boy Scouts and a parallel movement, the Voortrekkers. The Boy Scouts take an oath of loyalty to the King of England, and their flag is the Union Jack. The Voortrekkers take an oath to be faithful to South Africa, and their flag is the old Natal Voortrekker Flag. If they mix on the same playground you will have war. It would not take long for them to be at each other’s throats. They will call each other names. I have myself seen how they throw stones at each other to such an extent that you will hardly find a window pane that has not been broken. At one place a wall had to be built to divide the two sections. That is what you get at a dual medium school. Where you have separate English medium schools and Afrikaans medium schools even in the same village, peace and quiet prevails. If the children sit next to each other then you will have tension and trouble. Take the election of school committees. Just imagine what fighting there will be to obtain a school committee with members who are Afrikaans minded, or to obtain a majority on the committee who are English minded. You will have constant friction and antagonism, and the one side will always feel that it is being subordinated by the other side. Both sides cannot be accorded what is their due, but if you keep them apart you will have peace and quiet. No reference has as yet been made to time for religious instruction. There will be in the one school English-speaking children who will require religious instruction according to the doctrines of the English churches; there will be the Jewish section who will not want the New Testament to be read; and you will have the Afrikaans-speaking children with their belief. One must have religion and there will be difficulty about where to have the readings.

It does not make a jot of difference in what language you pray to the Lord.

One day in German, one day in English, one day in Afrikaans—our difficulty was about doing it in Yiddish, because we also had Jewish children. If the two sections are separated each one can live their own life fully according to their nature and their traditions. The whole matter in my opinion resolves itself into this: are we to preserve the two entities, or must we allow them to merge; or must we abolish both and have an intermediate entity? This education commission that held an investigation over the course of two years definitely recommended that, pursuant to Section 137 of the Act of Union two entities existed in South Africa, the Boer and the English-speaking, each with its own language and history and culture, and the Afrikaans-speaking with those things that are sacred to them in respect of language and culture. They have to develop alongside each other. That was laid down in the report of the education commission that conducted an investigation over a period of two years.

That is the minority report.

The minority report echoes the opinion of the majority. It was entirely fortuitous that that was the minority report, the reason being that Mr. Kuschke could not continue to act as a member until the end. But in any case the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the minority report. The Commission reported on race lines, and the Afrikaans-speaking members, including Mr. Slabbert, a member of the United Party, who was the United Party candidate at Pietersburg in the last general election. He also voted in favour of the minority report, but in the elections he opposed it. We discern the influence of politics. If you reflect soberly and objectively you must have an aversion to that sort of thing, but if a political seat has to be contested then you fall on the wrong side. I want to go a little further. I have quoted from Afrikaans reports, and I have referred to the evidence of experts. I have also consulted foreign experts to a certain extent, and I should like to quote some of their findings. There is the German authority Wackemagel. As far back as 1843 he brought the question of the mother language into the foreground. He published certain articles in which he pleaded for instruction in the mother tongue. In the magazine that I have before me they quote from one of his articles, “Education in the Mother Tongue”. This was a German authority of 1843 who pleaded for the mother tongue as a medium, and he was quoted in this magazine. The problem of mother tongue education does not go back very far. In the Middle Ages the classical languages constituted the medium up to an advanced stage, and to a certain extent that holds good today in England. In 1843 that German authority had already propounded a thesis that was quoted by this magazine as authoritative—

It became an international movement. The whole world moved in the direction of mother tongue education. I take English authorities. I have here an English Government report. In it is stated—

If you develop the language, you develop the person. Then the Dutch authority, Dr. Langeveld, states—

Here we have three authorities who all champion the mother language as medium, and the last one says that language is not only a medium of culture, but a means towards culture; or in other words, that the mother tongue must be used as a medium up to the university stage and as far as the student wishes to go. These are authorities who support our position. I do not want to bring my experience too prominently into the foreground. I refer to the reports of 1919 and 1939, and to our own authorities and foreign authorities. It does not appeaer necessary to refer to more authorities in order to support our contention. The day that the dual-medium is introduced into our schools it is definitely going to be a detrimental influence on the mother tongue. I should like further, in support of our view, to refer to the experiments that were made by Dr. Robb, school inspector in the Transvaal. I refer to his tests in connection with Standard VI and also Standard VIII. He found that where there is a school in an English environment the dual-medium was introduced, the standard of the mother tongue immediately fell. Where previously 72 per cent. of the pupils passed in English “A”, now only 50 per cent. do so. The same things occurs if the dual-medium is introduced into a school in an Afrikaans-speaking environment. The percentage who pass in Afrikaans “A” immediately falls, and the standard of the second language also declines. As far as higher education in the universities is concerned, experiments were made. Here I may refer to Mr. Schmidt of the Free State, the same Prof. Schmidt who is today an opponent of the single medium. His experiments proved that he was wrong, but when it was made a political issue he, in the same way as Mr. Slabbert did at Pietersburg, turned a somersault. The figures show that they are wrong, but when the subject was dragged into the political arena they viewed it through political glasses and you really cannot take any notice of the opinion of such people. That unfortunately has also been the case with hon. members opposite. I should like to make a few more references. I should like especially to sound a grave note of warning to Afrikaans-speaking people, that if we let the single medium schools drop we are going to be face to face with a very dangerous position. Scotland virtually let its culture drop, and allowed itself to be absorbed by English culture. In that respect Scotland really became part of England. Its language disappeared and there are only a few remnants left. The process almost succeeded in Ireland, where the English tried to ram their language down the throats of the Irish. Now the Irish language has been restored as the official language of the state. It is dangerous to give in to these dual medium schools and to a policy of neutrality, because the danger is that either English will be absorbed by Afrikaans or Afrikaans by English. I want to predict that in this case it is not Afrikaans that will be absorbed. I know the mettle of the Afrikaner child and also of the Afrikaner parent. They will not permit it. They will never allow themselves to be absorbed by English culture. The English-speaking people must put an end to this sort of thing or there will be retaliation. I will state definitely that these single medium schools are not the goal; they are but the means. We must regard them as having for their purpose the creation later on of a type of school in South Africa that will be the ideal from the standpoint of both sections. Go just outside the House, and you see St. George’s Grammar School. The school is in the church and the principal of the school is a minister, the Rev. Mr. Wilson if I am not mistaken. That is the type of school which has been developed from the English side, and a similar type of school is now being developed by the Afrikaners in Pietermaritzburg. There the school had to find accommodation in the church, and the teacher is the wife of a parson. The old C.N.O. schools were regarded by me as the Boer type of school as gainst the English school which the English section has developed in this country. This is the ideal. In our schools we have to train children who will be 100 per cent. Boer, just as in Germany the school produced 100 per cent. Germans, and in France 100 Frenchmen. We find that in every country, and why should we not find that in our country. That must also be the case in South Africa. If we go to England we see schools such as Winchester, Eton and Harrow. There they rear the pukka Englishmen, who later become the Cabinet Ministers of the country. Just look at the English Cabinet, and enquire how many of its members come from these schools. They are brought up in them, nor is it everyone who is admitted to these schools. They are nominated years beforehand, and the scholars are there prepared to become the leaders of the English people. So also in South Africa we should like to have schools where the leaders of the future can be trained, the English-speaking along their lines, and the Afrikaans-speaking on their lines. With that object in view let us develop our C.N.O. schools, or Boer schools, and let the English carry on with their church schools, such as at present exist to the number of something over 300, while we have now got our first one in Pietermaritzburg. Before I close I should like to move another amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). My amendment is as follows—

I should like to elucidate this amendment by saying that it is supplementary to and an extension of the hon. member for Winburg’s motion. Our commercial and trade schools are not always regarded as high schools or secondary schools and included amongst them. What I desire is that the commercial schools, technical schools and trade schools should be dealt with according to the proposition of the hon. member for Winburg, so that instruction in the mother tongue can be given to the children. We find that at the moment industrial expansion is taking place in South Africa. We find that everywhere Afrikaans stores and industries are being created, and why therefore cannot there be Afrikaans medium schools for commerce and for technical subjects? I wonder whether we shall have a technical school in the country where that principle will be observed. I did my best to get one started in Kimberley, and that has been promised to me. Whether it has materialised I do not know. As far as the commercial schools are concerned, provision has been made in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Bloemfontein. But as regards the technical schools, the Minister says that this cannot be done in connection with the trade schools. The Government will have to make plans to achieve this. We do not want in respect of the technical schools and the trade schools to have the position that we shall be simply a suburb of London. We want to stand on our feet and allow Afrikaans to come into its own as the language medium in those schools. I should like to propose this amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Winburg.

It affords me great pleasure to second this amendment by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink). Considerable misrepresentation has occurred in connection with the language question in our country. Members on the Government side have endeavoured in going round the country to distort our position in every manner possible. What they put forward is that we only want to learn one language, namely, Afrikaans. I want to start by denying positively that that is our position. We on this side of the House subscribe warmly to the proposition that every girl and lad in our country should become as bilingual as possible. I want to go back to the language position as it was shortly after the South African War. Shortly after that mighty nation, the Boer nation, had emerged from the attempt to extirpate it root and branch, we took the stand that our children should learn both languages of the country. We said that we wanted to be bilingual, and I challenge anyone on the other side to contradict that. I recollect how the protagonist of Afrikaans, whom one can truly describe as the champion of bilingualism namely Gen. Hertzog, was the most hated man in the country because he did this. Who are the people who on that account desired to make him the object of hatred? No one else than the members who are now sitting on the benches opposite.

Yes, and what did you do to him?

No, we did nothing to him, but if Mr. Speaker will permit me I shall prove here what you did to him. You ought to hide your head and not talk about this matter. Today we find that those people who stigmatise Gen. Hertzog as a racialist are holding out here that they are the protagonists of a policy of bilingualism. If they meant that seriously and straightly it is encouraging, and we should welcome it. But I am afraid that we shall have to wait for the future to show whether they will be prepared to stand by the policy which they have proclaimed here. We have not yet had proofs of this. What we postulate is that every Afrikaner child, whether English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, should receive instruction through the medium of his mother tongue. At the same time he should have a thorough knowledge of the second language. It is not the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners who are unilingual or who are against the promotion of bilingualism. It is the unilingual people who are always entering the lists against bilingualism and who described Gen. Hertzog as a racialist, the unilingual people who are sitting on the benches opposite. It is to be regretted that the unilingual-people are today being looked for in the wrong group. We are charged with being unilingual people. I fear that that is a political trick that is being employed against the Afrikaans-speaking schools. Small wonder that the Prime Minister has been so concerned over the Afrikaner boys and girls that he characterised them as “the poor urchins” who come to the towns—and what are they to do there? I should like to read out to the House what occurred at a recent conference of the South African Teachers’ Union. The principal speaker, a certain Mr. D. G. Malan, of a high school in Queenstown, was reported to have stated—

This is from a man who is well accredited, and that is what he said. The contention of the Government in connection with this matter appears to me to be intended to hinder the development of the Afrikaner child and to head him off in an entirely different direction. That is how it appears to me—that that is the object the Government has in view. Fortunately we are acquainted with these tactics of the Government. These attempts at anglicisation are attempts with which we have been acquainted in our country. We have come in touch with that in the past. Those attempts did not succeed in the past, and I can give the House the assurance that they will always fail in the future. We on this side of the House stand for 100 per cent, bilingualism.

Hear, hear.

We also want to put that into practice. But I want to go further, and I shall apply the test to hon. members opposite. I shall apply a test to the Government members who a moment ago shouted “Hear, hear”. We on this side of the House will now propose that any foreigner who wants to enter the country before he enjoys the right of citizenship, should undergo a test in bilingualism. What would hon. members opposite say to that? We want to go further. We want to say that the law-givers of the country, the members of Parliament, before they make themselves available as candidates, will have to ask themselves whether they are bilingual. We are living in a country where the population is bilingual or ought to be, and it is not unreasonable to demand in the future that anyone who makes himself available for election should be bilingual. We also want to go further. I want to go so far as to say that the editor of a paper that fills an important role in the country should be bilingual.

Why?

I shall tell you why. How can such a unilingual editor or such a unilingual law-giver reflect the mental processes of people whose language he does not know?

And over there are three unilingual Ministers.

I make bold to say that this side of the House is far and away more bilingual than members on the other side. Perhaps we are not so wonderfully bilingual, but what is that due to? The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said a moment ago that many of us in the past had not had an opportunity to learn. We did not have the opportunity to be so thoroughly bilingual as we should like to have been. But still I take it upon myself to say that if a test were applied 80 per cent. of the members on this side would succeed and only 20 per cent. of the members on the other side.

When are you going to give us a speech in English?

You would never understand it.

When are you going to give us a speech in Afrikaans?

I have already spoken twice in Afrikaans.

During the English war I was dumped in an English camp, deprived of all cultural facilities. Where was the hon. member? I ask him where was he in the English war.

Do you mean the Boer war?

No, it was not the Boer war; it was the English who made war.

I was in South West Africa, and there I did my duty.

I am talking about the war of 1902.

Where were you?

There is only one answer. The hon. member owes me an answeer. That is another proof of the hypocrisy that exists on the other side. This year we have had two instances where boards have been appointed, and in connection with which this side of the House wanted to make it a requirement that the members Of the board should be bilingual? But what do we find? Hon. members opposite wanted unilingual appointments. I think these few references suffice to show that they are not in earnest. Why do they now give out that the lack of bilingualism is on our side? Is this not proof that it is hon. members opposite who are deficient in bilingualism. If they are really in earnest then they should also give logical expression to that principle.

You must help us

There is sufficient to indicate that the agitation is chiefly directed against the Afrikaans-medium school.

Nonsense.

We have every reason for not taking them up seriously, because the real object is to obstruct the road which the Afrikaner is striking. The proof is there that the Government is trying to thwart the Afrikaner in his purpose. They are afraid that the Afrikaner girl and the Afrikaner boy will learn their history; and there is no better means of learning your history than through your mother tongue. They do not want the Afrikaner to learn his own history. That is obviously the object of their endeavours, that we will not allow our children to learn the true history of our people. If the Government, who today are supposed to be so strong; persist in this policy they have adopted, I should like to give them the assurance that the Afrikaner throughout the country will seek another opportunity whereby the sons and daughters of Afrikaners will preserve their spirit. We are frequently charged with misrepresenting our history through our Afrikaner teachers. Well, if that is so there are means of preventing it, but I fear that the Government have a new policy, namely, that when a man botches his job do not punish him; rather abolish his department, and then you can be rid of him. That is the policy that they are apparently Carrying out. The Afrikaner is pining today for something which is really his own in the national life, and one of the few things is our Afrikaans medium schools, and even there the teachers are afraid of giving offence to the other element in the country, and they are even afraid when they are teaching history that they will be accused of making political propaganda. That is the position in which we find ourselves today. Hon. members on the Government side say that we must build up a nation, and do that through the medium of dual medium schools. I say there is only one way of building up a nation, and that is through one loyalty and one allegiance, and that is to our fatherland, South Africa, and that is the only manner in which you can achieve unity in South Africa.

Why don’t you do it then? The majority are sitting on this side.

We can only secure cooperation if we are not baited the livelong day over the Afrikaners language and traditions. I will conclude by saying that the birth of a nation is not accomplished artificially; the one way to become a nation is by growth and not by force.

I think the best contribution many members of the Opposition have made to this debate, is their plea for the amendment as proposed by this side of the House; in other words, the majority of them advocated what we advocate, namely, the establishment of dual medium schools and dual medium education in South Africa. A few of them who are still groping in the dark, accused us on this side of the House of lack of policy, but one wonders whether they really have a policy as far as this question is concerned. When one looks at the various statements which were made by the Opposition, and especially by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), one finds that they have a policy as far as Afrikaans education in South Africa is concerned, but they have no policy as far as English education is concerned. In other words, as far as the Opposition is concerned, there is only a policy in regard to the Afrikaans-speaking section of South Africa, but no policy in regard to the English-speaking section. I cannot imagine that in a country such as this where we have two national elements, any Party which hopes to form a Government at some future date can have a policy only as far as one section of the population is concerned. I refer, for example, to a speech which was made in January, 1942—

English has to take second place. One could also refer to a number of similar speeches. We referred, for example, to the concept constitution of the so-called republic which was to have been established in this country. In that constitution no reference is made to the English language. One cannot picture a republic in South Africa without the co-operation of the English-speaking people in South Africa, without the co-operation of those who are descended from the English-speaking South Africans in South Africa. I want to refer hon. members of the Opposition to speeches which were made on the 22nd September, 1942, in Victoria West, on the 24th March last year at Stellenbosch, on the 7th July in Germiston, and on the 14th July in Christiana. What is the attitude of this side of the House towards that one-direction policy? While that policy of the Opposition is intended to protect only one national section, this side of the House stands for both national sections, for true national unity in this country, for a true South African nation, and not only one section. I have here before me a definite policy which was laid down by the United Party. It states—

In particular—

1. (i) It considers that it is the function of our schools to train bilingual citizens for this bilingual country;
2. (ii) It accepts the educational principle of the instruction of pupils through the medium of their home language in the early stages of their educational career.
3. (iii) For the furtherance of this ideal of bilingualism in the schools, the Party is in favour of: (a) The necessary steps being taken for the gradual introduction of the second language as a medium of instruction from the stage at which it is on educational grounds appropriate to do so; (b) the institution of such changes in the system of training of teachers as are necessary to make that ideal fully effective.

I think the accusation which is levelled at this side that we have no policy, can be hurled back at them, and we can prove by concrete documentary evidence that it is the Opposition which has no policy. In this debate a few important propositions were laid down. In the first place the English-speaking people were reproached. We continually heard reproaches against the English-speaking people, especially on that side of the House. There again,, those who are in favour of dual medium schools are accused of wishing to make an attack on the Afrikaans language. The impression is created that we want to exterminate the Afrikaans language through the medium of dual medium schools. This debate brought two other important phenomena to the fore, or let me say that two phenomena which are very important were overlooked by the Opposition. The first is that there is a new spirit, a spirit of co-operation and a desire to understand one another amongst young Afrikanerdom today—English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking—and in the second place they forget the importance of the language in connection with the building of a nation in South Africa. Two further propositions of minor importance were also laid down, to which I just want to refer. The first is the charge against the Prime Minister that he has done nothing to promote the Afrikaans language in South Africa. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) replied fairly effectively to that accusation, and it is not necessary to enlarge on it. I just want to add, however, that if the members of the Opposition know their history and the history of their language struggle so well, they will probably agree that if there is anything which contributed a very great deal to the cultural development of our nation and to the development of the language of our nation, it was these periods of strife. The Anglo-Boer war, which is often called the Second War of Independence, played a very important rôle in promoting Afrikaans in our country. The second language struggle is frequently coupled with the Second War of Independence. I want to ask whether any member of the Opposition doubts the rôle which the Prime Minister played in that war. I think they should rather direct that reproach against their own Leader. Yesterday was the birthday of the Leader of the Opposition. We congratulate him. But this morning “Die Burger” published an article in regard to the great contribution of the hon. member for Piketberg to the language struggle in South. Africa. I do not want to read the whole article, but this appears under “Van Alle Kante.”

Which newspaper does the hon. member propose to read from?

It is an extract from “Die Burger”.

Has it got anything to do with this debate?

In my opinion, yes. In any event, this is what is stated in the article [Translation]—

Then it goes on to say—

The Prime Minister took part in the language struggle as far back as the Second War of Independence. The Leader of the Opposition stated for the first time in 1908 that they were sincere.

If there is a language struggle, against whom is it directed?

It was a struggle which, started in the Cape Province, in the Western Province, and it was not a struggle against the English-speaking people but it was a struggle against those who felt that the language of our country should be High Dutch and not Afrikaans. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition, “We are sincere”, was, in fact, directed against High Dutch. Since that time the Leader of the Opposition has been the Chairman of a society at Stellenbosch. Well, on this side there are a number of members who have been chairmen of Afrikaans societies. In about 1930 we waged a fairly bitter language struggle on the Witwatersrand. At that time we established a society called the “Handhawersbond” in order to introduce Afrikaans into the business world. But I did not find the name of Haywood or of Van Nierop amongst the members. We fought. Let us be sincere. The hon. member spoke sneeringly of the rôle which the Prime Minister played and he said it left an unpleasant taste. This side of the House is now being accused of having dragged this matter of dual medium education into the political sphere.

You fought an election on that issue.

What actually happened on the Witwatersrand was that certain educationalists pointed out to the Government that there was a great defect in the educational system of South Africa, and they received the support of the Press. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) was editor of the “Sunday Express” at that time, and that paper also supported the educationalists. What happened then? The Government realised that there were defects and felt that it was its duty to remedy those defects in our educational system. As soon as that happened, this matter was exploited for political purposes, on sentimental lines. What did we do? We said: “Very well, if you want to exploit it and drag it into politics, we are ready to meet you. We will take off our coats and fight.” We did fight, and they got the worst of it.

Is this not a matter for educationalists?

We also have a few educated people on this side. When the session started this year, the Opposition came forward with a tremendously long marathon motion on foreign affairs, a motion which died a natural death. There were one or two other motions of which the same might be said. The only hope which the Opposition had of making political propaganda was out of the debate on bilingualism. But they sounded a false note They told the people that the United Party, the S.A.P.’s, wanted to make an attack upon the Afrikaans language. They then organised a congress at Bloemfontein. They said: “Brothers and sisters, clergymen and elders, you must come and help us; the S.A.P.’s want to kill us; the S.A.P.’s want to murder our language.” As someone who has also contributed a little towards our Afrikaans language, I shall not contribute to breaking down what we have built up. What is the English expression? “The chickens come home to roost.” I am sorry the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) is not in the House. What did the hon. member really do with this motion which he introduced. In actual fact the hon. member, by means of his motion, tried to administer a blow to Afrikaans in South Africa, and he did so in two ways. He is trying to prevent Afrikaans from being used more widely. If Afrikaans were read more widely, it would be possible to sell more books. It would arouse admiration for the Afrikaans culture, for our beautiful songs, for our drama, for our prose and poetry. The object, of the United Party, in fact, is to try to encourage the Afrikaans language and to have it used more widely, while the other side is trying to keep it stable or even to break it down. What is the complaint of the Afrikaans writers? They say that it does not pay to write books, because they cannot sell them. If we taught the English-speaking people to speak Afrikaans, we would arouse in them an admiration for our Afrikaans language and culture, and in doing so we would give our Afrikaans literature a better chance. In passing I also want to say to my English friends that the time has arrived for the English writers in South Africa to come forward; there are very few of them. That narrow-minded attitude of the hon. member for Winburg is an attempt to prejudice the Afrikaans language. The public in the country knows it, and if another election is held, the hon. member for Winburg will again discover that the public did not make any mistake in regard to his true attitude. The question is, what is a dual medium school really?

Now we shall hear!

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) says that now we will hear. I believe his “minister of the interior” is an English woman.

I ought to know therefore.

So it should be. A dual medium school is a school where Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking children associate with one another freely, so that they learn to know one another as well as each other’s language, and where the methods of instruction are of such a nature that every child, whatever the language of his family or school playmates may be, is guaranteed that he will become an educated bilingual Afrikaner.

Is that a dual medium school?

It means free association of the children on the playgrounds and on the school benches. Hon. members on the other side want to make us believe that they are experts on educational matters. They will have to admit that one of the important factors in learning a language, is to hear the language spoken on an equal footing, and not when it is forced on the child by the teacher. But they are afraid of the spirit of co-operation which is coming into being amongst the younger generation in South Africa.

Is that the definition of a dual medium school?

It is part of what will be achieved by a dual medium school.

Does a dual medium school mean that the children play together?

The hon. member should not take only one-half of my definition. If we had such a school, the children would learn to read the works of Totius, Sangiro and Jan Cilliers, if they are English speaking, and the Afrikaans speaking children will learn the works of Oscar Wilde, Shakespeare, Tennyson; and they will learn to appreciate those works. What we are dealing with is not the question of the language to be used at school. The question with which we are faced is whether we are going to build up in South Africa or whether we are going to break down. Are we going to help to build up an Afrikaner nation in our country, or are we going to help to break it down? Is our aim the establishment of a united South Africa, or is it to disrupt and break down our national ideals? Those who oppose the amendment of this side are in favour of a two-stream policy, a policy of division, dissension, hatred and envy. They do not want a united Afrikaner nation to be created in our country. As far as I am concerned, as a young Afrikaner, I cannot but agree with what was written by one of our great poets; I cannot but agree with the following lines from a poem by Jan F. Cilliers—

It is very clear to me from the speeches which have been made in this House by members on the other side in regard to this very important subject, that those hon. members do not really appreciate the significance of this matter. It is clear to me because they are groping in the dark; because they want to condemn us on this side of the House and because they level reproaches at us that we do not want bilingualism in this country. Let me say for the umpteenth time that this matter does not concern bilingualism in the least. Those hon. members know very well that we on this side have advocated and have fought for bilingualism all these years. The crux of the problem which faces us today is the medium of instruction. That is what we are concerned about and not the question of bilingualism. We have fought for bilingualism all these years, and hon. members on the other side are only now waking up. I feel that we are being very rash in making a political issue of this very important question both inside and outside this House. Our educational system in this country has only been in operation for approximately twenty years, and that system has not yet been properly tested. It has not been given a proper chance of being properly tested. It is much too early to meddle with it at this stage. We have heard educational experts quoted on both sides of the House; we have heard what their views are. But I am of opinion that it is an injustice to our people to deal with this matter in this way at this premature stage. Education is a living organism and if one continually meddles with that organism, as the Government has been doing of recent years, it cannot conduce to the welfare of that organism; it can only harm and injure and eventually kill it. Nor is this the time to subject our educational system which has functioned so well, and which has functioned well for both sections of the population, to such a test. This is not the appropriate time, when the country is at war and when the two national groups have views on that question which are diametrically opposed, to raise this question; this is not the time when there is so much bitterness in regard to the war question. This is not the opportune time to raise this delicate mattér. It is wrong on the part of the Government to raise this delicate matter at this stage for its own purposes and political ends. Not only do I regard this as the inappropriate time, but I regard it as a crime to meddle with our educational system at this stage. An agitation such as this on their part can only cause bitterness and opposition in the minds of everyone of us. I want to ask by whom this struggle was started, and what the reason is which even the Prime Minister and leading speakers on the other side have advanced to justify the struggle which they have brought about in this country? The first argument is that the people are not sufficiently bilingual and that our educational system must therefore be changed. They say that the present system causes racialism and keeps the two national sections apart. Is that the case? I want to put this counter-question immediately? I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister and all the hon. members on the other side since when they have been so very concerned about bilingualism in this country, as they pretend to be now? Were they asleep all these years when the Nationalist Party, from the very beginning, from the time when bilingualism became an essential in this country, fought and struggled for it, not only to have it on the Statute Book but to live up to it in practice in this country and to give effect to it? Were they asleep when we fought for our language rights? Where were the members on the other side during that time? Section 137 of the Act of Union was passed as far back as 1910, in which it was laid down that bilingualism was essential, and ever since then we have had to wage an uphill struggle for Afrikaans to come into its rights. Against whom did we have to fight? We had to fight against the members on the other side and their predecessors. Even during this session it became evident that we still had to fight for that right, and today they are shedding crocodile tears because the people of South Africa are not bilingual. The hon. member is laughing. I must say that we have heard the acme of cant (“ geveindsheid ”) from the other side in regard to this matter. I shall not use the word “huigelary” (hypocrisy), because Mr. Speaker would call me to order. In pretending to be so concerned about bilingualism the other side made itself guilty of cant and false pretences because when they have to apply it in practice, we find that they merely paid lip service; and it becomes necessary for one of their own members, like the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) to accuse members of his own Cabinet of merely paying lip service because they refuse to appoint bilingual members on committees, while they are prepared to appoint non-Europeans to those committees. Is their concern in regard to bilingualism genuine or is it cant on their part? If they are honest, why do they not apply these things in practice? Why do they not force their own Government to apply bilingualism in this country and to give us satisfaction? No, they are simply causing an agitation for their own purposes. We are told that the English-speaking people in this country started this fight, and that they want to promote bilingualism. If that is the case, why did they oppose us tooth and nail last week? We are now told that the other side is going to fight for bilingualism until the bitter end in the future. Against whom are they going to fight? Are they going to fight against us who have stood for bilingualism since 1910? What do they want to fight for? They were compelled by legislation to become bilingual, they and their children, and they have had an opportunity of doing so since 1910. Why did they fail to do so, and why are they so concerned about bilingualism all of a sudden; why do they throw this apple of discord amongst the people all of a sudden, while opinion is so sharply divided on the war question? I put these questions, and if hon. members on the other side are sincere, they will have to admit that they were asleep all these years while we fought for bilingualism and for some reason or other they have now suddenly woken up. But we shall test their sincerity in the course of this debate. I shall do it now. When the Prime Minister spoke on this motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) he made certain statements to which strong exception was taken. He stated, inter alia, that the educational system—or let me rather read it from Hansard No. 5 of the 22nd February in Column 1738. Here che Right Hon. the Prime Minister stated—

And that is right.

An hon. member on that side says it is right. I want to ask hon. members on this side of the House or hon. members on that side who come from the Transvaal whether they are going to leave that disgraceful accusation of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member’s endorsement of it unchallenged, the accusation that the teachers in the Transvaal have such a faulty knowledge of English that it is equivalent to the knowledge of a child who passed Standard VII in an English school.

But that is true.

I deny it emphatically. They produce good results and are definitely well trained and bilingual.

Where do you come from?

I might ask the majority of members on that side where they have drifted from. I am a son of the Free State.

He speaks English better than you do.

Do you think so.

If hon. members have any sense of justice towards those teachers, it is not their duty to besmirch the names of those teachers; it is their duty to defend those people who cannot defend themselves, against undeserved reflections and serious accusations of this nature. I shall leave it to hon. members of the Transvaal to take this matter further. I am speaking here as a Free Stater, and that hon. member now asks me where I come from. I want to tell him that I come from the Free State, and I invite him to come to the Free State and to learn from our educational system. Our educational system in the Free State has been arranged in such a way that we have made it compulsory for candidates to pass in English in the Junior Certificate examination.

Good.

We have followed this “good” policy all these years, only to be confronted now with these false accusations that we do not want bilingualism. We went even further. Candidates in the Free State cannot obtain a matriculation certificate unless they pass in English. In the Normal College it is compulsory for the teachers, before they can obtain a teacher’s certificate, to pass in English, and, moreover, to pass in the higher grade, otherwise they are not allowed to teach. Have we not proved that we in the Free State strictly carry out the policy of bilingualism? Have we not done so? Why are these people concerned about our becoming bilingual, when we give effect not only to the letter of the law, but to the spirit of the law in every sphere? But we want to ask them—and I particularly want to ask hon. members who represent Natal in this House—what the position is in Natal. The English-speaking people have now launched an attack against the Afrikaansspeaking people. In Natal a teacher is allowed to fail in Afrikaans, and he still gets his teacher’s certificate and is sent into the world to teach. It behoves that hon. member who has just cast a reflection on the Transvaal teachers, and it behoves the Right Hon. the Prime Minister better to concern themselves about that type of teacher which Natal produces, who is allowed to go into the world and teach although he failed in Afrikaans. So we test the sincerity of hon. members on that side; so we expose their dishonesty. I want to ask those people who do these things in Natal whether they are being sincere. They have done it all these years; is their cry of bilingualism sincere? Reference is frequently made in the course of speeches in this House to the amendment which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister moved on this amendment. For that reason I want to refer to his speech, because it would seem that everything which hon. members on the other side say revolves round the lead which the Prime Minister gave in this debate. He held out Natal as an example to us. I have just shown what the position is in respect of the training of their teachers in Natal. He said this, inter alia, in his speech, in Column 1736—

What the Prime Minister said here is not correct. He holds out Natal as an example to us, and he says that they are going to introduce an Education Ordinance in which they are going to make provision for these matters, but the Prime Minister failed to tell the House—and those hon. members on the other side apparently do not know it; they know very little about these things—that there is a proviso in that Ordinance to which the Prime Minister referred and which they propose to introduce. What is that proviso? That it will not be applicable to private schools. That proviso will appear in the Ordinance. That is their proviso.

Where do you hear that ?

If that is the case, what right has the Prime Minister to hold Natal up to us as an example, when it is connived at that they act as they have acted in the past. By what right does the Prime Minister mention Natal as an example. I have given an example of what was done in the Free State. I have shown the system which is in force in the Transvaal, and hon. members who represent the Transvaal will enlarge on that. Natal is now mentioned here as an example, to bring this dual medium policy into practice in our educational system. What is the position in Natal, and not only in Natal, but in the whole country, with regard to private schools? I got these data from the Year Book of 1939, the latest edition which is available. In that Year Book they tell us that there are 272 private schools in the Union, and all of them are single English medium schools. Everyone of them. There is not one single medium Afrikaans private school in existence in the country, but there are 272 private single medium English schools.

Shame!

And here the Minister comes and mentions Natal to us as an example, where they are going to bring in an ordinance that these holy rights of theirs will not be touched. Everything is asked of us, without any sacrifice on their part, when we have proved all these years that we have given effect to the letter and spirit of the Act, and are still giving effect to it. How many children are in those private single medium schools? No less than 27,000. If that was the position in 1939, then we can take it that there will now be many more. I have stated that that ordinance which will be introduced in Natal will contain that condition. The Hon. the Prime Minister got up and made a long speech, and he proposed an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Winburg. You can read his whole speech; you can listen to hon. members on the other side who can speak with authority—and very few of them have spoken with authority; the Government members are very quiet, they don’t speak—not one of them have said that they will force the private schools to give double medium instruction. They will not do that. It is the Royal Game.

What about Bishops?

We will show you.

The Prime Minister said that we have a state of affairs in the country which cannot continue. He said our children are not sufficiently bilingual. As an example he mentioned here the Afrikaansspeaking children who have to turn to the cities, and who, after the war, will have to turn to industries to make a living. He asked: “What must happen to those poor bloods if their knowledge of the English language is so defective?” There was a time when the Director of Education of the Free State gave evidence before a certain commission in the Transvaal, and on that occasion he was told that the applicants from the Free State were given preference because experience had taught that they were very well educated as far as bilingualism is concerned, and I say that to the credit of the Free State. The Hon. the Prime Minister is worried about the Afrikaans-speaking children of the platteland. He asks: “What will happen to those poor children if they are absorbed in industries with such a defective knowledge of English?” I want to ask him, and all the members on the other side, and particularly the members from Natal; what is going to become of these 30,000 pupils who are in private English single medium schools? What will become of those poor children? If they had to be employed in industries, with such a defective knowledge of Afrikaans?

They will become members of the Cabinet.

Is the Prime Minister not worried about those poor English children of his who are educated unilingually? No, we wish to assist hon. members on that side to promote bilingualism in the country, but we cannot allow them always to force us in a certain direction, while they reserve a loophole for themselves and are not treated in the same manner. The Prime Minister gives the lead in the country, he is the Leader of the Government Party. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Fourie) said that his party was placed in office to carry out a policy. Now the Prime Minister said that the policy would be introduced gradually, and I think he mentioned a period of five years, and he said it would be introduced after consultation with the various provincial authorities. He also said that a change must be brought about in the training colleges, in order to train teachers to be thoroughly bilingual. There is a great danger in this, especially for the Free State. Instead of waiting five years until teachers have been trained in both official languages, they are already trained in the Free State. He can introduce this dual policy in the Free Sţate tomorrow, and he will do it in order to strangle us. But in Natal it will take years and years to train the unilingual teachers there, or to introduce the policy. But in the Free State we will have to bite the dust immediately. I can just picture the shouts and lamentations which will be raised amongst the unilinguals in Natal. They will say that their vested rights are infringed. It will take generations before the policy is introduced there. But in the Free State it will be introduced at once in order to stifle us. In the meantime Natal will continue. We have heard the reasons why the Government is anxious to introduce dual medium education. The Minister of Demobilisation amongst others, last year at a public meeting at Salt River, gave reasons why dual medium education should be made compulsory in our education system. He said that it was because the teachers today do not teach history properly to the children. He let the cat out of the bag beautifully. What is behind his doctrine? He desires Englishspeaking unilingual teachers to teach the children the history of my people and my country. Then I suppose we will again have what I personally had when I went to school as a young boy, the few opportunities I had of attending school, namely English teachers who taught the history of my own people and country in bits and pieces, and who deliberately omitted the blots and bad patches which they, for the most part, had caused. Of course, the truth hurts, and had to be suppressed. It hurts when our teachers tell the true history of our people’s suffering, but it is the truth. I want to take my own case as a striking example. When I came out of the torture camps after the Anglo-Boer war, at a later time of life I still went to school. Who was my principal? A man who had been imported from England and who could not understand a word of Afrikaans, one Colston. My Latin teacher was a Scot, Gilchrist, who did not know the difference between Afrikaans and Russian. Those teachers were thrust upon us and they taught us history as they wished to represent it. What was the history we learned? We learned of the Battle of Waterloo, of the Black Hole of Calcutta, of Nelson with his telescope attached to his blind eye, we learned of Pitt the Younger, of the Chip of the old Block. That is the history which was taught to our Afrikaans boys in a town on the platteland in the Free State; and of our own history, practically nothing. And when we came to geography, then he said: “Listen my class, England is bounded on the South by … etc.” That is the type of geography that was taught to us. That is the type of history which the Minister of Demobilisation wishes to teach our children by unilingual teachers, people who know nothing about our own history. Our language of conversation outside and inside the school was compulsory English. If it were not for the fact that I was so hardened by what we had gone through, then perhaps I would also have succumbed and become a flatterer of everything which is “red” and English, and then perhaps I would also have sat on the opposite side and renounced my own people. Those are things which we do not forget lightly. If you touch the language of a nation, you touch his soul. We remember the policy which Milner introduced. Lord Milner said: “Destroy the Afrikaner nation with their language, exterminate them, and hybridise those that are left”, but they could not do that with cannon; our nation will not be degenerated into crawling animals who curry favour with the alien. All their murder camps could not kill the consciousness of the Afrikaner nation of itself, not its language. That is why we fight with every fibre of our being for our language, which is dear to us. We wish to preserve our national character. What a tragedy, when we think of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community, with the history it has, and we find on the other side members by the names of Steyn, Van der Merwe, Visser, Du Toit— I am not referring to the hon. member for the Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit), but to another Du Toit—if we see how they support the policy which, according to our deep conviction, is aimed at alienation. The saddest of all is to see how one Colin Steyn, the son of our beloved Free State President, sits there and connives at what is being done to his people. He trots in and out of the Assembly Hall and sees what his Government is doing to the Afrikaner nation, without uttering a word of protest. I wish to ask him whether he remembers that an Afrikaans medium school, “Oranje,” was established in the capital of the Free State, which was the favourite of his honourable father. Is he prepared to change the favourite of his honourable father into something for which it was never brought into being, into a monstrosity? I want to ask him if he does not think of our forefathers who died and sufferer and struggled for the rights of our language? We have a claim on him to help us to protect the rights of our nation. Our forefathers desire us, as Afrikaners, to protect in every way that which is our own in our nation. We may not pass it by lightheartedly. Are they already so deaf to the sweetsounding tones of their mother language, have they already learned to such an extent to listen to alien sounds, that they can no longer hear the whispers from the cold and cheerless graves of those who suffered and fought for the ideals of Afrikanerdom? They call: “Awake, arise, you are being false to everything for which we fought and died.” It must be a reproaching voice which sounds in their ears. They, together with people whose intentions are not sincere, are betraying their people through this measure. They will become a blot on our nation. It has been proved over and over again that people who act like that and who help in the alienation of that which is their own, are sucked dry like oranges and then discarded like empty shells by the enemies of our people. One who has been sucked fairly dry is the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), who is becoming thinner and taller than ever, an empty head and an empty shell.

The hon. member must not be so personal.

The Afrikaansspeaking Afrikaners have sensitive feelers and we realise what the Government is engaged on, and that is why we object timeously. We will not allow, without the utmost resistance, the destruction of that which is inherent to us. The fact of the matter is this, that the nice, sweet Nationalist wine has become too strong for that section, and now they wish to doctor it with Empire sauce. The Prime Minister has said that the election was fought on this matter. They have made this matter a political matter, and this is the acknowledgment of it. I am speaking here as a Free Stater, and I wish to say this to the House, that the Free State has given its verdict in this matter, and that in no uncertain manner. We in the Free State are convinced that there is nothing good in this movement for dual medium schools. We are armed to fight it to the last man and to the last penny, and we say it here so that you will know it. We shall fight for our dearly bought rights. The responsibility for all the bitterness and hatred which have arisen in connection with this matter up to now, and which will be caused when the members opposite really start the battle, rests on the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

I wish to say a few words on this question, not from a historical, political or sentimental point of view, but from a businessman’s point of view, one who has seen the disadvantages under which Afrikaans youths are placed through not being proficient in English. When I went to Johannesburg many years ago, there was very little Afrikaans spoken, and there were very few Afrikaans businessmen and very few Afrikaans assistants. Today things are different. We have in business in Johannesburg today, as we have all through South Africa, Afrikaans-speaking men holding some of the finest positions in commerce, and that is due to the fact that their parents did not keep them at a single medium school but saw that their children were educated in both languages. A firm I know of, 30 years ago had only one Afrikaans-speaking man in the firm, and he is still in it. Today at least 50 per cent. of the staff are Afrikaansspeaking, three of the branch managers today are Afrikaans-speaking, they are giving satisfaction, their work is appreciated, and I know that they are happy. There is no such thing as racialism spoken of, they are just doing their work and doing it well. I know that there are youths who have matriculated but are not able to take on a job that is offered them because they have not the necessary qualifications in English. One young Afrikaans boy I tried to get a job for in a mining house. That boy went to my friend who said he liked the look of him and he said to the boy: “Sit down and write me an application in English.” After giving the boy about a quarter of an hour he had only got as far as: “Dear Sir, I beg to apply.” That was a very likeable boy and there was something in him, because today he has learnt English and is in a very good way in Johannesburg. I can safely say that 60 per cent. of the employees in Johannesburg Municipality today are Afrikaans-speaking, and 95 per cent. of the employees in Johannesburg Municipality speak both languages. I had occasion the other day to visit some camps where young Afrikaans youths were employed on the roads. They are paid about 12s. 6d. a day after two or three years and I would like to ask my friends on the opposite side whether those boys would have stayed working there at that figure if they had been English and had had an opportunity to get into the town. I would like to mention that a friend of mine who is on the Education Commission told me that parents in the platteland, Afrikaansspeaking people, were anxious that their children should get English in order to give them a chance in life. The farms today are not so big as they used to be and these lads cannot be kept on the farms. They want a knowledge of English to enable them to get where a unilingual man can no longer hope to be. I am sure that if our friends on the other side would give more attention to the business side of this question and not so much to the racial side it would be far better for the Afrikaans youth. We have a very select school in Johannesburg, one of the most select church schools, and there they see to it that the boys who leave that school are educated both in Afrikaans and in English, not because they particularly love either language, but because they know that their job is education, and education, after all, has as its object to fit the student to make a living. That is why this school gives them both languages and sees that they are efficient in both. I am sure that in spite of racial difficulties the fusion of the races is taking place without either side losing their mother tongue or losing the characteristics of their forefathers. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Wessels) said that England had conquered Scotland. I am proud to say that has not happened up till this day. We fought with England for 400 years ….

That is why you still talk Scotch.

They have not taken my accent from me. I am proud of it just as an Afrikaans-speaking man is proud of his language and race.

Next time you give us a piece of Gaelic.

You will have to learn Scotch. I would like to say to my friends opposite, if South Africa gains as much from England as Scotland has gained from union with England, South Africa will have no cause to complain. Scotland and England have become good friends and are welded into one. I speak feelingly on this question because although in Scotland we are taught in English we have not lost our nationality nor our pride in our race.

I want to thank the Acting Prime Minister for the opportunity he has given us to continue this very important debate. Quite a number of important matters have been raised during this Session, but certainly none of them are of such far-reaching effect as this debate, and for that reason we are grateful for the opportunity he has given us to bring it so far, so that there may be clarity about the points of view of the various sides. I have learnt much from this debate, and I take it others have also learnt from the experience stated on both sides of the House. In view of all this, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will be prepared to agree to the adjournment of the debate now.

I have no objection.

I then move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 24th May.