Mr. LOMBAARD thought the Raad was bound to refuse the request, and it would be useless to discuss the matter.

Mr. DE BEER could see no harm in granting the request, in fact it was their duty to do so.

Mr. SPIES considered there was no necessity to teach English in the State.  Trade did not require it, and they could get on very well without English.  Let the English remain in their own country.

The PRESIDENT was opposed to extending the hours.  He did not object to English being taught, but then it must not interfere with the language of the country to the prejudice of the latter language.  He had schools upon his farm, and parents objected to their children being taught English in those schools.  After a very little while they could write English as well as or better than their own language, and neglected Dutch for English. The Dutch language could not be maintained against English in competition.

Mr. WOLMARANS also spoke against the English language saying that if they went through the list of those who had signed the memorial for the annexation of the Transvaal by the English, they would find without exception that those who signed were English-speaking.  He was against children being taught English so early, as when they were taught young their minds became poisoned with English views.

Mr. OTTO agreed with the spirit of the Committee’s report.  This was a Dutch country, with Dutch laws, and why should they be asked to exchange the Dutch language for the English?  What had the English done for the country that this should be asked?

The CHAIRMAN thought many members made too much of the English language already.  One language was sufficient, and if a man was properly educated in his own tongue that should suffice.

Mr. LE CLERQ and Mr. PRINSLOO both cautioned the Raad against foreign languages in their schools.

Mr. LOVEDAY pointed out the absurdity of saying that the National Independence depended upon one language only being used, and pointed to the American and Swiss Republics as examples.

Mr. LOMBAARD in the course of a violent speech said those people who wanted English taught in the State-aided schools were aiming at the independence of the State.  They wanted to bring dissension in the midst of the burghers by teaching new and wrong ideas, and they became indignant because the burghers would not allow it.  He was ashamed that members should argue in favour of injuring their independence:  English should not be taught in the State-aided schools.

The law remained unaltered by 12 to 10.

1895.