in support of the petition from George Montague.

praying for legislation fixing the age of consent at over 16 years, or not below sixteen years (two petitions).

Preliminary Draft Union Military Discipline Code framed under the South Africa Defence Bill.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that he be discharged from service on the Select Committee on the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. He was not, he said, in any way up against the Bill, but unless he possessed the qualities ascribed to a certain bird referred to by his hon. friend, he could not be in two places at once, because he was also serving on the Public Accounts Committee, and they were meeting every day.

seconded the motion.

said it was true that unfortunately they could not be in two places at the same time, but this Miners’ Phthisis Bill was a matter of very great importance, and his right hon. friend’s great abilities would be of enormous value to the House if he served on that committee. (Hear, hear.)

said if there had been a strong committee it would have been possible to have attended both committees, but he felt that every moment of time must be given up to the Public Accounts Committee.

said he did not know if it would be any use asking the right hon. gentleman personally to remain on the committee, but the committee met that morning and they decided not to call for a great deal of evidence. It was the unanimous feeling of the committee that they should report as soon as possible. If the right hon. gentleman would reconsider his decision he did not think they would keep him there until the final stage of the Public Accounts Committee was reached.

said the reasons that the right hon. gentleman stated really added to the necessity for his going upon this committee. It was essential that they should have someone upon the committee who was thoroughly cognisant of the finances of the country. Personally, lie was rather astonished that the Minister of Finance had not seen that someone acquainted with finance was upon the committee. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. gentleman would reconsider his decision.

Well, sir, it is a very great sacrifice for me to do this, but if it is really the wish of the House, I have no desire to set myself up against it, but I wish to say again how bitterly disappointed I was at what took place yesterday. However, I do not wish to say anything further about that, but will simply withdraw my motion. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

Memorandum referring to grant of an additional pension of £11 2s. 3d. per annum to Mr. A. H. Garcia, I.S.O., late Chief of the Detective Department and Commissioner of Police.

This was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

Report on petition of J. H. Grobler, and 1,799 others, inhabitants of the towns and districts of Jansenville, Pearston and Somerset East, praying for railway connection between Klipplaat and Somerset East

First report of a Commission appointed to inquire into the grievances of the Railway and Harbour Staff.

said before they proceeded to the business of the day he would ask the Hon. the Minister for Railways and Harbours a question in connection with Order No. 6—Railway and Harbours Service Bill. The report of the Select Committee upon this Bill was not yet before the House, and he would ask whether his hon. friend intended to go on with the Bill before the report came up? It was not fair to hon. members not to see the discussion that took place in committee.

said it was not his intention to go on with the Bill until the report had been published.

moved that on the consideration of the South Africa. Defence Bill in committee of the whole House, Standing Order No. 403 having reference to the amendments made in private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Select Committee on Public Service and Pensions Bill have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

said that the difficulty of that scheme, and of every scheme, was—he did not say that by way of disapproval—whether they were carrying out what they wanted. He had seen so many of these irrigation schemes which did not carry out what was hoped for. They had another Bill before them—the Land Settlement Bill—and the Government were going to spend a large sum of money, because if they calculated the interest they were going to pay on that ground under that little Bill, it would be a good deal of money. The question was whether they were carrying out what they wanted—intensive cultivation. He would suggest to the Minister of Lands that he took power to acquire part of that ground by arrangement. They would have suitable ground on which to experiment with land settlement. What he would do if he had the power was to settle people on that land who had some practical experience of intensive cultivation, such as the people of the South of Europe, where the utmost possible value was got from the ground. They should show the people who were called the poor whites—at any rate, people of that class—what they could make out of small plots of ground, and then they would do something for that country which would be of permanent value. While they were settling down they could give these people some work to do, such as digging canals, so that they could in the meantime provide for their families. Unless they did something of that kind, they would never turn the fruitful soil of that country into what it should be.

moved, as an amendment, in line 15, to insert “or” instead of “and” after owner.” He said that he was fully in sympathy with what the right hon. gentleman had said, and he hoped that they would be able to work that Scheme in that direction. A man who did not cultivate his ground would be rated. The Government had already taken steps to acquire land which would be worked under the Cape Colony Labour Colony Act. Power was given to the Government to acquire more land. There was a fairly large population there who were not doing as well as they should, but it was hoped that they would be encouraged to do more. He was glad that when it came to something practical his right hon. friend was not opposed to giving some authority to the Government in order that the land might be improved. He cordially welcomed the suggestion of immigrants, and hoped that the success of this scheme would lead to the establishment of others.

That shows the hopelessness of the whole thing. What clause in your Bill introduces anything of the kind? You don’t suppose you are going to advertise the ground and let people go to the High Commissioner in London. It is such a hopeless thing. Continuing, he said they must do something practical. It was no use telling two hundred Spaniards to apply at the High Commissioner’s office. They must make an arrangement for somebody to get hold of these people and bring them out here. As for the Bill it was so much waste paper.

said that this practical labour scheme was going to be encouraged.

moved in line 19, after the words “Good Hope,” the insertion of the words “or any amendment thereof or any Act passed in substitution therefore.”

congratulated the Minister on his sound principles He had spoken of rating as a means of encouraging people with big estates to break up those estates. Would he accept an amendment giving him power to expropriate?

supported the principles of the Bill, and he thought it was a very good suggestion to bring out certain immigrants to show people now the land should be worked.

said he could not vote for the principle of State expropriation of ground. It appeared to him that the clause assisted private rights.

moved to add at the end: “It shall further be lawful for the Governor-General either by purchase or by arrangement to acquire a portion of the ground to be irrigated by the proposed works.” He said he did not propose expropriation or anything of the kind. Rating would not make a man break up his estate; it would encourage him to hold on until there was a rise.

said that when the Bill was brought before the House it was lauded to the skies. This was the first measure of the kind, and it was going to do an immense amount or good. Now they heard a great deal at talk about expropriation. He did not think hon. members quite understood the meaning of the Bill. He was very sorry the right hon. gentleman had suggested expropriation.

I did not. You don’t listen to what is said.

said the right hon. gentleman spoke about the Government acquiring this land. How could the land be acquired in any other way than expropriation. He thought the principle of the Bill was sound. If they started the principle of expropriation they would never have an application for another scheme of the kind.

ruled the amendment cut of order on the ground that its adoption would involve increased expenditure.

Why does it mean increased expenditure?

You can’t purchase without money.

I thought money was mentioned in the first clause of the Bill?

Money for loans.

said he thought the proposal of the right hon. gentleman was that if a man had five hundred acres, instead of all this land becoming ratable he could exchange portion with the Government, with the result that the rest of the land would be exempt from rates.

said the clause did not charm him, as it only contemplated the expropriation of ground for agricultural purposes.

considered that the proposition introduced by the right hon. gentleman was a reasonable one.

said that no irrigation works would be carried out unless the Government had the power to expropriate ground. In the case of necessary dams and trenches, expropriation was necessary in order to compel obstinate people to give way. Although he did not profess to have any personal knowledge of the conditions in Spain, he was of opinion that the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman would not prove a success in South Africa, as the conditions were quite different from those prevailing in Spain.

said that the clause was the usual one that they found in a measure of this kind and he failed to see any necessity for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis.

urged that some amendment of the kind he had moved was necessary, and he added that he would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Native Affairs

The amendment moved by the Minister of Lands was agreed to.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis was negatived.

On the second schedule,

moved to omit the following words in the last four lines of the first paragraph, viz.: “Generally as described in the plan, description and estimates presented to the Parliament of the late Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, and published in Bluebook G. 52 of 1909.”

Agreed to.

On the Preamble,

moved, in line 9, to omit all the words from “River” to the end of the paragraph on line 13.

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendments were agreed to.

The Bill was set down for third reading on Friday.

in moving the second reading of the Private Bill Procedure Bill, said the measure did not require much introduction. It simply provided for the care, custody and inspection of documents deposited with Parliament for the purpose of private Bills being introduced. The Bill should have been passed last session. The only matter that was novel was the clause which empowered private Bills to be referred to Provincial Councils either during the session, or when Parliament was not in session. Power might sometimes be necessary to refer a private Bill for inquiry to a Provincial Council and to wait until Parliament was in session before that could be done would involve too much loss of time.

said the Bill required a few amendments, particularly in clause 9, which protected the landed interests, but there were other interests to be protected. He would therefore propose an amendment to protect those other interests. There might be other interests which people desired to have protected, and people might come before the committee for the purpose of placing their position balance it. If they were bona fide in their contention, there was no reason why they should not have the same protection as those interested in land. Subsection 2 of clause 10 put it in the power of anybody who obtained costs to institute an action for their recovery without having the bill taxed. He would suggest that no action should be taken on any bill of costs until it had been taxed. In clause 13 an amendment would be suggested with regard to the taxing of bills of costs. He had known bills of costs unduly swollen. (Hear, hear.) The amendment he would suggest was that if 25 per cent. be taxed off the fees then the costs incurred by reason of the taxation should fall on the solicitor presenting his bill That law already existed in the Transvaal.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for committee stage tomorrow.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that the Natal law of 1866 that it was intended to repeal provided exceedingly cumbersome machinery for giving effect to an arrangement for a sale of the Natal Bank to, or amalgamation with, another bank. For instance, no less than five months’ notice of meeting had to be given, a majority of not less than two-thirds of the shareholders must agree, and even then one-fifth of the shareholders might interpose and prevent the sale going through. It was further provided under the old Act that if any one shareholder wished to stand out from the arrangement he might desire the Bank to indemnify him specially. These provisions were totally out of keeping with the present practice with regard to other banks and public companies, and the sole object of the Bill was to introduce more modern, efficient and fairer machinery. The Natal Bank had played a very useful part. Its nominal capital was two million sterling, and subscribed capital of about 1¾ millions. It had seventeen branches in Natal, fourteen in the Transvaal, and one in the Free State. In the event of a suitable offer being received for the sale of say a portion of the assets, shareholders should be in a position to carry out a sale or amalgamation for the common advantage with the least possible friction. It would be almost impossible to get any institution to bind itself for five months in advance with regard to a possible sale. It was the intention to provide for a notice of ten weeks instead of five months, and also to provide for a majority of two-thirds voting at a meeting or by proxy for the sale or amalgamation with another bank. The Bill had been through a Select Committee, which had made several amendments, which, on the whole, were improvements, as for instance, the substitution of a two thirds majority in favour of a sale for a bare majority of shareholders, as originally provided in the Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved as an unopposed motion that the House do now resolve itself into committee on the Bill, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved in clause 5, line 47, to insert the word “private” before the word “act.”

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

objected.

Where upon the third reading was set down for tomorrow.

in moving the second reading of the Gill College Bill, said the Bill had been before a Select Committee, and under the circumstances it would not be necessary for him to detain the House for any length. The matter was of some public importance, and there was quite an amount of history attaching to it. The college was founded some years ago by Dr. Gill’s will, and had done very good service throughout South Africa. But the college fell upon evil days, and it now became necessary to consider what was to be done with the considerable amount of money that had been left by Dr. Gill. The present Bill commended itself to the approval of the people of Somerset East, and he hoped there would be no difficulty in passing it. It would have been better for his hon. friend the member for Somerset East to have moved the second reading, but he was debarred on account of being a trustee, and so the duty devolved upon him as representing a neighbouring constituency. It was proposed now that after the heavy administrative expenses had been deducted, the remainder should be devoted to the founding of additional bursaries in connection with the schools, to enable students who had been in the schools to carry on their studies elsewhere. It was a serious matter, he knew to interfere with the will of a public benefactor like Dr. Gill and the question arose whether they would be carrying out the wish of the testator by doing this. It would be unfair to reopen the whole question de novo, but it was necessary that some relief should be given He was afraid also that other legislation would be necessary, because the trustees were overloaded with a considerable amount of responsibility which it might be desirable for them to get rid of. It seemed desirable further that they should consider the whole Question whether the whole of Dr. Gill’s money should be devoted to bursaries. In his opinion it would have been best to devote the money to enrich the teaching of the Gill College in other ways, but he did not wish to press that point. On the whole it was a satisfactory settlement and he hoped the House would agree to it.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved as an unopposed motion that the House do now resolve itself into committee on the Bill, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

put the insertion in line 17 of “not less than one year.”

moved, as an amendment, to omit “one year,” and to substitute “two years.” It had, he said, originally been two years, but the Select Committee altered it to one year.

said that if the House read the preamble of the Bill, it would be seen that under the will of the late Dr. Gill it was quite true that other places in the Eastern Province had an opportunity of applying under the will for a grant, and that they had been able to find the money for the building in Somerset East and therefore it had a claim to the use of that fund, but one must not lose sight of the fact that the money had been left for the benefit of the Eastern districts of the Colony, and therefore he had a feeling that they should not exclude all the rest of the parts of the Eastern Province from benefiting under the will. It was still necessary for any student applying for a bursary to be a student of that College for one year. It was felt that it would be no hardship that instead of the period being limited to two years it should be one year. If it should be a close monopoly for the people of Somerset East, then the hon. member might as well move five years as two. If the period were altered to two years it would not be, as the last speaker had said, in accordance with the expressed desires of the testator, and would tend rather in a contrary direction.

said that it was quite clear to him that the hon. member did not understand the history of the whole of that matter, nor that he had made a close study of the Bill. It was not the case at all that the rest of the Eastern Province was to be excluded. His intention was that they must be on the same footing as the other students, and must be at the College for two years. Dr. Gill’s wish was that Somerset East should have the preference, as he had been a resident there, and as it had provided the buildings. In the old days getting together a sum of £7,500, as had been done in the Somerset East district, was no easy thing. It was the wish of the trustees, who were the promoters of that Bill, that the period for which a student should be at that College should be two years, which was the time it took, according to the present regulations, to work up to the matriculation from the examination prior to that. If the one year were accepted by the committee, it would be directly against the wish of the trustees, and he believed that the public of Somerset East would feel even more strongly on that than the trustees.

said that the hon. member had told them that the money had been subscribed by the district of Somerset East—(Mr. VOSLOO: Both the town and district)—and there were other schools in that important district. It was quite clear that if the hon. member’s amendment were adopted, the boys and girls of the district would be the sufferers.

said that, of course, the people of Somerset East always had the preference, because they were on the spot; but it might be that there were people in the district, who were not very well off, who wanted to send their children to their own local schools first and then for the last year to Somerset East. The longer these children had to be at Somerset East, the longer they would be excluded. He did hope that the amendment would not be accepted, and he certainly believed that the proposal of one year would be in the direction of liberalising it and getting more children to get the benefit of that fund than would otherwise be the case.

said that it was not a quite fair attitude for the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) to adopt to say when anyone disagreed with him, that he knew nothing about the subject. He (Dr. Watkins) had been on the Select Committee and had carefully listened to the evidence and waded through the will of the late Dr. Gill. There was not a word in it, or a suggestion in any way, that Somerset East should be the centre of the Gill College, although they admitted that it had a claim upon the fund. In spite of the fact that the Somerset East people only contributed 25 per cent. to the fund, the committee felt that Somerset East had the biggest say, and that the bursaries should be attached to the High School at Somerset East. But they did not think it should be tied up so strictly as to exclude the children of the district, and that the time limit should be one year instead of two. This was done with the free consent of trustees who gave evidence before the committee.

said there was a lot to be said for the argument that the whole of these funds did not necessarily go to Somerset East He wished to put it to hon. members that one year was not sufficient when the circumstances of education in the country were taken into consideration. It had been suggested by the hon. member for Queenstown that the district of Somerset East was being excluded, but he would point out that the school was both for the town and the district. They had two alternatives. One was to say that this was not a Somerset East fund, and the other to say that it was a Somerset East fund. If the latter course were adopted, then there was reason for making the period two years. He thought it would be wise and proper for the committee to go according to the wishes of the people of Somerset East. He thought the amendment should be accepted.

said he would be the last person in the world to shorten in any way the education of children. He thought that there would be some hard cases if the period were extended to two years. It would not affect one in ten; he doubted whether it would affect one in twenty.

said that the committee must judge on the merits of the case.

said he could not help feeling that the Bill was going to do away with the association of Dr. Gill’s name with education in this country. He moved the following proviso: ‘Provided, further, that such bursaries be called ‘ Dr. Gill Bursaries.’”

On the motion of Mr. VOSLOO,

put the insertion in line 19 of “one year.”

moved as an amendment, to omit “one year,” and to substitute “two years.”

said that the word “matriculation” did not appear in the Bill.

pointed out that reference to the examination appeared in the schedule.

The several amendments were agreed to.

The Bill, with amendments, was thereupon reported.

moved as an unopposed motion that the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The several amendments were agreed to and the Bill set down for third reading on Monday.

moved that the next Order, No. VI., House to go into committee on the Railways and Harbours Service Bill, be discharged and set down for Friday next.

said he would like to ask a question with regard to that matter. They had already passed over the second Order, second reading of the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Bill, and he would like to know whether, if the motion now proposed by the Minister were carried, it was intended to take next the second reading of the Customs Management Bill (Order No. VII.).

Does the hon. member object?

said that he objected if it were proposed to take the Customs Management Bill next.

The hon. member cannot make any condition.

said he would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw his objection.

said that he could not allow any discussion. If any single member objected, the Order must be read.

Might I explain to the House—

No, the hon. member cannot.

moved that the House do now resolve itself into committee.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, supposing my hon. friend the Minister says—

The proper course at this stage is to move the adjournment of the debate.

said that he would move the adjournment of the debate, and would give to the House his reasons. The report of the Select Committee had not yet been printed; consequently, it was impossible for the House to go on with this Bill until they had the amendments before them which had been recommended in committee.

seconded the motion that the debate be adjourned.

in supporting the adjournment of the debate, said that the second Order on the paper was the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Bill. The Minister of Justice was not in the House, and he presumed that that Bill could not be taken. The next Order was the Customs Management Bill. As a matter of fact, looking at the paper that morning, they never for one moment dreamt that they would reach the Customs Bill, and he knew at least two gentlemen behind him who had not brought their notes. He thought it was extremely unfair and extremely unsatisfactory in regard to the conduct of business that they should have matters like this sprung upon them in the afternoon when, if the ordinary course of business had been taken, it would not have been reached.

said he was very much surprised at the hon. member. The Railways and Harbours Service Bill was on the paper. He was quite prepared to go on with it, and was very anxious to go on with it. The delay was due to the printers. He had hoped and believed the report of the Select Committee would be ready that day.

said it was impossible for them to know in the morning what was actually going to come before the House, and, as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said, this Customs Management Bill was a most important Bill.

said that the Customs Management Bill was not at present before the House. The hon. member must confine himself to the question of the adjournment of the debate.

said he would say that it was very awkward that this matter should be taken for the purpose of bringing on the other Bills. He must say that he could not exonerate the Minister of Railways and Harbours in connection with the matter, because, if he had brought in the report earlier, as he was asked to do by various members in that House—

It has nothing to do with this Bill.

said he hoped, at any rate, that the Government would turn over a new leaf in this matter, and arrange the business so that hon. members would know exactly what was coming before them.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned until Friday next.

said that, as the Minister of Justice was engaged elsewhere, he would move that this Order be discharged and set down for tomorrow.

Which Bill will you take next? Perhaps my hon. friend will tell the House which Bill will be taken next?

Does the hon. member object?

Yes, sir, I do object.

The Clerk will read the second Order.

The Order having been read accordingly,

moved that the Bill be now read a second time.

was about to put the question, when

rose and said that really they were not going to take the second reading of the Bill without any statement to the House as to what the provisions of the Bill were.

Whose fault is it?

I am not going into the question of whose fault it is. The Minister of the Interior took advantage of the good feeling in the House the other night on the Public Service Bill and allowed the second reading to pass without replying on the debate. It is not the way to add to the dignity of this House to take an important Bill like this and pass the second reading without any explanation as to the provisions of the Bill and the Government’s reasons for introducing it. As to the Railway and Harbour Service Bill, it is utterly impossible to get the reports out, so that hon. members could have them before them for to-day. I beg to move that the debate on this Bill be adjourned.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned until Monday next.

in moving the second reading said he had ventured to hope that the peaceful atmosphere which had existed in that House during the afternoon would have continued while this matter was under discussion. He noticed, however, distinct signs of trouble from the opposite side of the House. This was one or the numerous Bills which had been rendered necessary by Union, and, except for one important clause which appeared in it, he had not anticipated any trouble whatever in getting it through the House. The particular clause of this Bill on which he did anticipate some trouble from his Free-trade friends opposite was what was known as the “dumping clause.” It was not necessary to tell the House what a dumping clause meant. (Laughter.) It was introduced to prevent the surplus products of countries which enjoyed Protection from dumping their surplus goods into this country. The utility of Protection without a dumping clause was very much discounted. As a matter of fact in Canada and Australia, where they had high protective duties, a dumping clause was in force. This country had been crying out for such a clause for many years and many Commissions had been appointed. Two Commissions in Natal in 1906 and 1908 both recommended a dumping clause, and so, too, did one which sat in the Transvaal in 1908. He expected a big discussion on this clause in committee, and he would not weary the House by saving anything more on that subject. To a great extent the Bill was simply a consolidating measure, with one or two exceptions. Great trouble had been caused by the difficulty of getting invoices clearly describing the value of merchandise liable to duty, and clause 40 provided that the production of these invoices could be demanded. Another clause enabled an agent to act for a ship master. However, he (Col. Leuchars) would not detain the House by explaining a Bill which he knew hon. members opposite thought he knew very little about. (Laughter.) For that reason he intended, after the second reading had been taken, to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill had been drawn up by the technical advisers of the Government, and they had drawn it up from an official point of view, but it was necessary to have the importers’ point of view, and he had no doubt that they would get that in Select Committee, and it might be possible to amend the Bill in some directions. He had seen a long list of amendments suggested by the Gape Town Chamber of Commerce. He could not promise the House that anything like all those would be agreed to. He was afraid that the Chamber had been misled; it objected to clauses which, in cold print, looked very drastic when, as a matter of fact, they might have been in force for very many years.

said that after the speech of the Minister he was sure it would be necessary for the House to think over for a considerable period the cogent arguments in favour of a dumping clause and other important proposals. Under those circumstances, seeing that the Bill was one of such importance and that many hon. members desired to speak on it, it would be rather unfair to ask them to do so that afternoon. When hon. members saw the order paper that morning and saw the measures in front of this Bill, they naturally thought it would be utterly impossible to reach it that day. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to and the debate was adjourned until tomorrow.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said he did not intend to go very much into detail, because he wanted to Say at once that they proposed to send it to a Select Committee. (Loud and prolonged Opposition laughter.)

A Select Committee Government

In the United States they have adopted a system of not taking a Bill until it has been referred to a Select Committee. Proceeding, he said that when Union was established there were eight State institutions carrying on University education—four in the Cape, two in the Transvaal, one in the Free State, and one in Natal. But these eight institutions were on quite a different footing in regard to their relation to the Government. Those in the Cape were on the basis of State-aided institutions and received from the Government on the £ for £ principle grants towards salaries and maintenance. Those in Natal and the Free State were Government institutions pure and simple, and got every penny they required out of the Treasury. The two in the Transvaal were on a slightly different footing in that they got lump sums from the Treasury which they divided between them. During the recess the Government appointed a Commission which had gone very fully into the matter and had presented a report which had been laid before Parliament. The Bill was for the purpose of giving effect to the report of the Commission. Clause 3 proposed to put all the eight institutions on the same basis—that of State-aided institutions. (Hear, hear.) From the regulations it would be seen that the basis of contributions and grants to these institutions had been altered. The Bill had nothing to do with the relation of these institutions to the University. The University question was not touched by the Bill at all. Whatever became of the University question, or of the relation of these institutions to the University, the Bill regulated these institutions as they were. The University question would have to be settled afterwards on its own merits by itself. The financial provisions of the Bill were for the purpose of regulating the loans which might be granted to these institutions. Some of these institutions obtained whatever they required for buildings as free grants, whereas in the Cape the money was granted on the condition that it was repaid. In this matter all the institutions would be put on the same footing. As to the basis on which contributions should be made to the salaries of professors, a difference had been drawn between the basis in the Cape and the Northern Provinces, very much on the same ground that allowances were made to Civil Servants removed from the Cape to the inland Provinces. These matters were fully set forth in the regulations, and they could better be discussed in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House. He might say that the report of the Commission upon which the Bill was based was sent to the different College Councils some time ago, and no serious objection was raised to the provisions of the Bill. Only yesterday a deputation from the South African College met him, and although they criticised some of the details in connection with the regulations, as far as the Council was concerned, they were very anxious that the second reading of the Bill should be taken and that it would become law during the session

said he would move, as he had done in the previous question, that the debate be now adjourned. He hoped his hon. friend would agree to that.

seconded.

asked whether the Minister would repeat his speech in Dutch. The Bill was important, and ought to be explained in both languages.

opposed the motion to adjourn the debate. The Bill had been on the agenda long enough for hon. members to study it.

said that, of course, the Government was anxious to get on with the business of the House, but, unfortunately, owing to two reports not coming up, reports which he had expected the day previous, he was not prepared to go on with the Railways and Harbours Services Bill that day. It was a very long Bill, and would take some considerable time. Unfortunately, the report had not come up, and, in consequence, the Bill had been moved off. No doubt this had brought about a state of things that would not have existed otherwise. They had taken a number of Bills which hon. members were not prepared to discuss and the debate on one Bill after another had been adjourned. They did not want to lose any time, but no good purpose would be served by proceeding, and as a wish had been expressed that they adjourn now, he thought, if they were to consult the dignity of the House, it would be best if they agreed to that.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned till tomorrow.