from W. J. Louw and others, inhabitants of the Ward Zoutpannen, district Lichtenburg, praying for the construction of the connecting line of railway from De la Rey Station to the Bechuanaland line, already provided for by Parliament, or for other relief.

from G. G. Glennie, formerly examining officer, Customs Department, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1889, praying that he may be allowed to contribute certain arrears to the Pension Fund, or for other relief.

Reports on Land Settlement (1 to 13); Reports of Surveyors-General of the several Provinces; Reports of various Registrars of Deeds, 1912; Government Notice Nos. 512 and 513 of 1913, having reference to amendment of forms of Crown Grant issued under the Townships Amendment Act No. 34 of 1908 (Transvaal).

Report of Under Secretary for Education for two years ending 31st December, 1912.

Extracts from the “Gazette” containing Union Military Discipline Code and additional regulations.

announced that the Governor-General, on behalf of His Majesty the King, had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills, viz.:

That the fourth annual report of the Commissioners of the Land and Agricultural Loan Fund, Natal, for twelve months ended 31st March, 1912, presented to this House on the 14th June, 1912, be laid upon the table.

Agreed to.

stated that the report was on the Table.

The That the report be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration.

Agreed to.

who was cheered on rising, said: The important question of the establishment of a teaching University in South Africa has been engaging the attention of the thoughtful section of the community for a considerable number of years. I say the important question advisedly, because whatever decision is taken on this matter it is bound to have very far-reaching effects indeed on the national life—I may say on the civilisation—of South Africa. (Cheers.) Because it is such an important question and touches the hearts of the people of South Africa, it is one of those questions which may very easily lead to impassioned speeches, and the raising of feelings which will militate against due consideration being given to the country’s needs, and I would ask the House in dealing with this question to deal with it as dispassionately and calmly as possible, because we are dealing with something which affects the life and vitality of the people of South Africa, and when there are differences of opinion, as undoubtedly there are, I think we should be charitable in dealing with those differences. (Cheers.)

Give us an opportunity.

Yes; but I am not satisfied that you are all educational experts. Under the circumstances I think you will be wise in referring this Bill to a Select Committee, and thus give all the experts their opportunity.

Surely we ought to pass the second reading first.

If you pass the second reading first you stereotype your scheme, and it is possible that another scheme or that a material alteration, which will be in the interests of the country, may be evolved in the committee. I don’t want to refuse, because I think it is too important a matter to deal with in a party spirit, or to rush through. There is no doubt there is a certain amount of feeling in the country, and a certain amount of suspicion has been aroused, and the best way of allaying that feeling is to give the people an opportunity of stating their objections. For that reason I beg to move that the order for the second reading be discharged, and the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, which will have power to take evidence and call for papers, and which shall consist of nine members.

then made a brief statement in Dutch.

seconded the Minister’s motion to refer the Bill to Select Committee.

said that he would like to know the position of the House in regard to this measure. On the order paper there was a notice by the Minister of Education, on behalf of the Government, for the second reading of this Bill. Was that notice in the possession of the House, seeing that the Minister had moved for the discharge of that order and the relegation of the measure to a Select Committee? Was it open for the House to discuss the whole question? Was the order for the second reading in the possession of the House?

said that the question before the House was that the order be discharged and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Instead of moving the second reading, the Minister moved that the order be discharged, and he thought it would be perfectly competent for an hon. member to move an amendment which would practically have the effect of compelling a discussion on the second reading. An hon. member could move the deletion of all the words after “that” for the purpose of inserting the words “this Bill be now read a second time.”

said that the House had been listening with considerable interest to the speech of the Minister. Hon. members of that House and the country in general interested in the question had been wondering why this order had been falling down the order paper. But when they saw the order for the second reading of the measure appear at the top of the paper they really thought that they had been misjudging the Government, and that the Minister had taken his courage in his hands and was going to stand or fall by the measure which he had placed before the House. This was not a hasty measure; it had received the careful consideration of the Government for the last three years. He referred hon. members to the reference made in the speech of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught at the opening of the Union Parliament, and the speech of His Majesty’s representative at the opening of the present session. That afternoon they had listened to a speech that had lasted almost two hours, pointing out the necessity of the House adopting a Bill which the Government, after mature consideration, had introduced, and when they were beginning to think that they had been misjudging the Government the Minister did one of the most extraordinary things that had ever been heard of in that or any other Parliament. After a speech of two hours in favour of the measure, after meeting criticisms from every part of the House, and when they were waiting for the eloquent periods of the peroration showing that he would stand or fall by the measure, the Minister moved that the order be discharged. There had been criticisms of the Government. There had been criticisms of his right hon. friend for want of strength in carrying out his policy, but if anything had shown that these criticisms were just, it had been the attitude of the Minister that afternoon. It was a motion that had not been evolved in the brain of the Minister. The House must have recognised that the motion moved by his hon. friend came from the caucus room upstairs, and the Government was compelled to run away from its own measure. Having run away from his measure, there still rang in his (the speaker’s) ears an eloquent speech by the Minister not so long ago. Was his hon. friend able to locate a place called Camps Bay? (Laughter.) Did the Minister ever make an eloquent speech at that place? (Opposition laughter.) Did he not make a most eloquent speech pointing out to the people the necessity of introducing this Bill without delay? Notwithstanding all these speeches, the Government were so indifferent to the dignity of their position and to the dignity of the House that they proposed an amendment to defeat their own measure. Had his hon. friend told the House what was the meaning of the resolution he proposed? Had he told them that this was done simply for the purpose of shelving the measure? Because when the Bill came down from the Select Committee, it would be a new Bill; but if they had taken a second reading, the principle of the Bill would have been adopted. Did the right hon. gentleman tell them that the speech was made to cover up the sins of the Government ?

The Government was becoming a bye word. They were told that unfortunate legislation was being framed in the lobby and the streets by people who had no responsibility to the House at all. This was a very important question, and he would far sooner have seen the measure dropped further down the paper than allow it to be treated in this way. If anyone on the Opposition side of the House had moved that the Order for the second reading be discharged, the Minister of Education would have got up and said, “I cannot accept, because it means a vote of censure upon the Government.” But his hon. friend proposed a vote of censure upon himself, and he was going to carry it. (Laughter.) They could humbug some of the people all the time, but they could not humbug all the people all the time. The system of Government was simply opera bouffe. Surely they had never seen anything quite like this before. He deprecated in the strongest possible manner this power without responsibility, and that the policy of the Government should be dictated by people outside the House. He deprecated the speech of his hon. friend when, in referring to the correspondence, he was afraid to give one word of praise to the donors of this magnificent contribution. Surely they had not descended so low that a member of the Government refused to give a word of praise to those who had given this magnificent contribution? They had heard of people leaving the country and forgetting their obligations to it, and surely, when they received this splendid gift, the Minister might have taken his courage in his hand and have thanked the donors, if only for the purpose of encouraging others to go and do likewise. He had hoped that the Minister of Education would have spoken in no uncertain language in connection with the names of the two donors of this magnificent contribution.. They knew that this Bill had been criticised outside the House. They knew that people purporting to represent a section—and only a small section of the people—had issued a manifesto condemning the Bill in every possible manner. A speech was delivered at Stellenbosch in which reference was made to the donors in a manner which was a disgrace to the country. (Hear, hear.) A gentleman holding a high and honourable position, a leader in a Church that had done a great amount of good in the country, saw fit to say that the existing colleges in South Africa had not been established as a result of the donation of a couple of Semitic gentlemen. It was unnecessary for him to go on into this question, although he would like to point out that one of the donors did not happen to be a Semitic gentleman—in fact, he was of pure Teutonic blood. But whether he was or whether he was not, it was surely no disgrace to be a member of a race that supplied the world with its greatest poets and law-givers. (Cheers.) The House should recognise that when a statement of this kind was made, the Government should have taken the first opportunity of repudiating it. When his hon. friend began speaking, he thought that, despite rumour the Government were going to stick to the Bill and move its second reading: but when his hon. friend got to the end of his address and moved his amendment—which in future he would look back upon with shame—he was reminded of the verse:

(Laughter.) The Minister was trying to walk before the hearse. They were now in the third month of the session, and the Minister had desired that his own motion be discharged. He would be obliged to put sufficient members on the Select Committee who were in agreement with the criticism outside the House. The committee could not bring up a majority or minority report: all they could do was to bring in a new Bill. (Mr. FREMANTLE: Hear, hear.) This was the first “Hear, hear,” that they had heard from the hon. member. He (Mr. Fremantle) had secured the tactical defeat of the Minister of Education, and so the Minister of Education had to go to him.

Proceeding, he said that when they had done with it, its parent would not know it. Its sacred principles would have to give way not only to the necessities of education, but also to the necessities of Ministerial difficulties. (Opposition cheers.) What were, he believed, expressively called the “ moeilike positie ” in which they found themselves at the present time. Everybody must recognise that the Government had done nothing which had shaken their prestige as much as that had They were beginning to realise that the Government had no policy. All they were trying to do was to stick to the Treasury benches, and to get through the session as well as they could. Why did not the Government do their duty, and give an opportunity to the young men of the country? His hon. friend had given up the Bill, not in the interests of the population of the country, for the Bill, although far from perfect, would have been a great advance, and by degrees things would have improved. His hon. friend knew there were two things which would have done an enormous amount of good: one was the Defence Bill, which would bring the people together and enable them to recognise their obligations as common citizens, and surely the hon. Minister for Education and the Prime Minister knew that the next best thing was to bring the intellect of the youth of the country into juxtaposition at the most impressionable period of their lives. (Cheers.)

Do you want to abolish Stellenbosch?

Did not his hon. friend know that this Bill was a compromise. Kindred colleges could train their students so that they could get to the university. The idea was to attract the best intellect in the country.

The Government, he continued, had a magnificent opportunity. It had sufficient voting power in that House to have sunk minor differences and have voted for a measure of that sort. They had lost a magnificent opportunity in the attitude they had taken up. He (Sir Thomas hoped that they would never see an attitude of that sort taken up by the Government in the future, for he felt convinced that the Government knew the Bill was dead. That they were trying to bam boozle the party, the Opposition, and the country, by the extraordinary attitude they had adopted in connection with that matter.

said there was one point on which he agreed with the hon. member. He agreed that it was possible for the Government if they had wanted, by brute force, to have put through the second reading of the measure They could have done so, but there was a larger principle. It was not a question of the dignity of the Government or of the House. It was a question of the good of South Africa. He asked hon. members and the country what would have been the good of forcing through by a mere majority the second reading of the Bill, and so attempting to create an institution which would have had no chance in South Africa whatever. There were institutions which it was not possible to create in any artificial manner. His hon. friend had referred to one matter, to one institution which had been created within the last couple of years, which was brought about by the mutual goodwill of the people of South Africa. He was referring to the defence scheme, and he did not see any difference between the University Bill and the defence scheme. There were institutions which it was only possible to bring about by the co-operation and mutual goodwill of all sections of the community. His hon. friend opposite despaired that now that the second reading of the Bill had not been forced through the Bill was doomed. He did not agree with him, but felt certain that if they approached the matter, not in a spirit of invective, and not in a purely rhetorical display as his hon. friend had done, but in a national spirit, and discuss it calmly, frankly, and sincerely, it would be possible to carry it as far as his hon. friend had in view. Proceeding, he said that if by sending the Bill to a Select Committee would mean it was doomed, he would be very sorry indeed. His hon. friend was not making the motion with a view of killing the scheme, but he hoped, by the method they were adopting, they would succeed in convincing the people of the country of the great national utility of the institution.

With regard to the criticism to which his hon. friend had referred, he (the speaker) recognised the generosity of the magnificent gifts of the two donors. This generosity had been recognised on several occasions. He himself was present at a meeting at Camps Bay when suitable recognition was expressed, and on other occasions the gifts had been officially recognised, notably in the Governor-General’s speech, on which occasion the fullest recognition was made. He regretted the expressions which had been used in the heat of discussion recently in this country. He regretted it extremely. He had not the same power of invective as his hon. friend, and even if he had he would not have used it. (Ministerial cheers.) But he felt just as strongly as his hon. friend that such expressions should have been used in that connection. He hoped that hon. members would follow the advice given by his hon. friend, and that it would be possible to discuss that measure dispassionately, and make suggestions for alteration. No doubt the scheme was capable of improvement, and would come back to the House again, to be gone on with. He thought that that was the best way of dealing with the matter at the present stage. He was sure that none of them would despair of that Bill going through—no doubt, in some altered form.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had made a very clever, he would not say speech, but discourse, in which he hoped to cloud up what the Government was doing. But, might he suggest to the hon. Minister, that he had not distinguished between the temper of the public mind and the temper of the Ministerial mind? The public temper was much disturbed at the absolute want of constructive policy on the part of a responsible Government holding responsible office. The Minister had compared the procedure of that Bill with the procedure in regard to the Defence Bill, but in introducing the Defence Bill—a national measure, as the Minister had rightly said—the Minister had not said that the Order for the second reading would be discharged; but the Government then had a little more manliness than they had now, and stood or fell by the principles of that Bill. That was what ought to be done in the present case. The veriest tyro in Parliamentary procedure must know that the action which the Government had taken was tantamount to a confession that they could not carry on the business of the country as a responsible Government ought to, and that they did not dare to move a step in any important matter. The extraordinary attitude of the Opposition had largely helped that extraordinary position. When the hon. member for Barberton had resigned his portfolio the previous session, the ink of the resignation had scarcely been dry before the leader of the Opposition was accusing the leader of the House for discourtesy for not informing the House of what had led up to it, but, although he (Mr. Creswell) had asked for information on behalf of an hon. member, none had been vouchsafed, and not one word had been said from the Opposition benches. They could not carry on the government of the country with a Government like that and with such an Opposition. The temper of the public mind was in a much more constructive frame than the temper of the Ministerial mind or of that of the official Opposition. The hon. member also alluded to the desirability of a general election.

said that he did not want to deal with the question whether a general election was desirable or not at the present stage, but he did want to deal with the reply which the Minister of Finance had given in regard to the criticisms of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) as to the extraordinary procedure in regard to that Bill. Dealing with the principles of the Bill, the hon. member asked what were they? What were the principles of that measure? Not those contained in the Bill now before them, because the Minister did not say that they should take the second reading first, because it might be necessary to make radical alterations in the Bill—that was, the Government were not prepared to stand by the Bill as before them, and even a new Bill might come before them. Was it not a waste of time to discuss principles which might or might not have any reference whatever to the Bill which might be brought before them? If these were the principles of the Bill, why did not the Government stick to them? If they were not the principles, he suggested to the Minister that they should first agree among themselves as to what the principles should be for the University of South Africa, and then come to the House with them. He thought there was one principle which was fundamental in that Bill—a principle which had been approved of by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance—and that was that the University of South Africa, if it was going to fulfil the work of such an institution, must be placed where both races could be educated together. Was the Government agreed on that principle? Were they prepared to put up their might in support of that principle? They heard a great deal from the outside which had led them to believe that there was anything but unanimity amongst the Ministerial party as to whether the two races should be educated together or not. That, he suggested, was the real difference, and there was no agreement on that essential principle. If that was so, the difficulty was not one which any Select Committee was going to cure. (Opposition cheers.) If they were agreed on that essential principle that was the real principle of a University for South Africa; let them read the Bill a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee, if they liked.

It is not in the Bill.

If it is not in the Bill, we don’t want the Bill. It is not a Bill, then, which is wanted by the majority of this House. Continuing, the hon. member said that if that was not the principle he agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that the only purpose the Select Committee could serve was the burial of the Bill, and let it be a decent one. (Laughter.) He agreed with the Minister of Finance that there were times when constructive work was difficult, and he had said that the present was one of these times, and if that was so, he would say to him that such a very important matter should wait until the people were in such a constructive frame of mind. They were doing no good service to the country if they tried to build up an institution such as the University of South Africa if they were not agreed as to the foundations of such an institution; and it was far better to wait until they had settled their fundamental differences. In the meantime there were about 300 of their South African youths studying abroad. They in this country were not yet agreed as to whether it was safe for the youth of both races to be educated together, but they were prepared to run the risk of their being educated outside of South Africa altogether. He did not think it altogether wrong for a young man who wanted education in a young country like that, to go and receive such education in an older country. (Hear, hear.) They could get much there which they could not get in a country such as South Africa, and as they would never be able to get there. But that did not meet the case of all young men in that country. (Hear, hear.) There were young men whose means were such as not to permit them of going to study oversea, and with regard to these there was a great responsibility resting on the shoulders of those people who kept alive differences of opinion among them and prevented them founding and maintaining an effective University. The Minister of Finance had told them that he was only trying to do with regard to that Bill what he had done in regard to the Defence Bill, and the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had clearly shown them that that was not so. Why was there the difference? In regard to the Defence Bill, the Government party were agreed as to the principle of the Bill, and that was why they could not adopt a proper and legitimate course with regard to the University Bill—because they were not agreed as to principle. They must wait until they were either in a more constructive mind, or wait for the mind of more constructive successors. (Hear, hear.)

He was struck in listening to the Minister by the manner in which more than once he described one particular provision and then another and then ended almost in the same way. “ This, of course, is what I think, but if hon. members don’t like it can be changed.” He said so in regard to language and entrance examination requirements, and what he meant exactly in regard to the constitution of the University and the share which the colleges were to take one had great difficulty in understanding. It seemed to him that the Bill, in its fundamental principles, was an attempt to please everybody. It appeared to be an attempt to get difficulties out of the way by smothering them up. They must, he urged, in this matter be careful not to start on wrong lines. He would take the constitution of the University College Councils. The Minister began by asserting that he thought at present there was no room for more than one Teaching University in South Africa. There he (Mr. Duncan) agreed with him. The Minister went on to discuss the question of a federal University, and he said that, after careful consideration of the matter, he had come to the conclusion that a federal University in South Africa was impossible. There again he agreed with him. But when they came to the Bill itself they found that the Minister’s determination to preserve at all costs the interests of existing institutions had led him into introducing something which, if it were not a federal University, he was puzzled to know what it was. (Hear, hear.) He wished to say that what the Minister had introduced was to all intents and purposes a federal University. (Mr. FREMANTLE: “Hear, hear.”) That what he had produced was not going to be, or lead to the one South African University of which he had spoken so enthusiastically, but that it was going to add one more to the existing institutions for higher education which we possessed at present.

Some of the existing ones will be merged.

All I can say is, if the Minister himself understands the provisions of his own Bill about the merging of colleges, he must possess a mind of the most remarkable subtlety. I do not know, and I cannot remember, any distinction between what is called merging and what is called affiliation, if merging can exist without the institution which is merged ceasing to exist. If we hold the view that there is not room in this country for more than one Teaching University, we must carry out that view, even if it costs some local heart-burnings, even if it means that certain students will not develop along lines which they have marked out for themselves. I say we shall not be doing our duty if we allow considerations of that kind to interfere with the clear principle that there is not room for more than one Teaching University in South Africa at the present time.

Proceeding, Mr. Duncan said that the Minister had stated that the existing institutions could do one of two things—they could merge or affiliate. They were to be allowed to start local faculties of their own. Those that did that were going to be represented on the Council of the central University by two members each. How did that differ from a federal University? If these colleges carrying on University faculties in different parts of the country were represented on the Council of the institution, what was that going to be but a federal University in reality, if not in name? He said, first of all, that that was not what they wanted. The Minister had told them that not only by reason of distance was it an impossibility in this country, but that the weakest of these institutions was going to set the tune. The Minister had said they could even allow these local colleges, which were allowed to exist, to frame their own curriculum. He thought it was the duty of the Government to take a firm line about this. There was plenty of room in South Africa for good work to be done by the local colleges which existed in different parts of the country, but there was not room for one central University, and eight local Universities. (Hear, hear.) We in this country had built from the beginning not in excess of our present requirements merely, but in excess of our future wants, and now the Minister was going to continue that policy, because he would not take the responsibility of saying to these University colleges, “ There is one place for you and there is another place for the University of South Africa.” On the Council of this University there were, first of all, twelve members to be appointed by the Government, and then two members to be appointed by each of the colleges which had local faculties. He could not say offhand what the constitution of all these colleges was, but let them look at some of the new ones, and see what their constitutions were. The University College of the Transvaal had a Council appointed by the Government and the Grey College at Bloemfontein also had a Council appointed by the Government. The effect of this provision would be to tie the University to the least progressive of the colleges. He was speaking in no sense of hostility to these colleges, but he did say they were going to do no good to the colleges, no good to the University, and no good to the country by tying the new University to the wheels of the existing colleges. He thought the Minister would do well, if it were any use discussing this Bill at all, to reconsider that point. Another thing was that the constitution of local faculties existing in different parts of the country merely made the University continue to be what it was now, a merely examining body. (Hear, hear.) Its examinations would be controlled to a large extent in the interests of the weaker colleges. We were going to be tied up to the weakest and not the strongest sides of these institutions, and the University would suffer in consequence. The same thing came out again in regard to the entrance examination, it being said that they must not have too high an entrance examination, because of the local institutions.

With regard to the language question, the Minister said that section 137 of the Act of Union did apply to the University, he (Mr. Duncan) supposed because the legal advisers were of opinion that this was purely a Government institution. He supposed they must accept the conclusion that it was a Government institution. He had not much confidence in Universities which were Government institutions—(Opposition cheers) —and whose procedure had to go to a Minister’s bureau for approval. (Opposition cheers.) The Government, if it wished the best for the future usefulness of the University, would recognise that the best thing they could do for it was to leave it alone. (Opposition cheers.) Let them put men at the head of it who were educationalists, who had the widest interests of South Africa at heart, but do not let it be governed from a Ministerial office, and therefore be subjected to waves of political passion. The Minister did not say exactly what the application of article 137 of the Act of Union to the University carried with it, and he (Mr. Duncan) did not know what was meant by that. Did it mean that every official letter, and every lecture, must be in the two languages? If that were so, it was a very serious thing. He would like hon. members who were anxious about the rights of the two official languages to consider very seriously whether any educational institution—still less a University—was going to be successful which was tied up by a rigid rule of bilingualism. He would like hon. members to try and look at the question from the point of view of the interests of education, and not necessarily from the point of view of the necessity of providing for the strengthening of the position of one of the two languages as against the other. He suggested the matter should be looked at solely from the educational point of view, and the question of the growth of one or the other of the two official languages should be left to the people themselves. (Hear, hear.) And they should be free to follow their own instincts and ideas of what was right in regard to the matter. He absolutely disbelieved in the two streams view, of which they had heard so much. (Cheers.) There was certainly no one on the Opposition side of the House so far as he knew, who had ventured to claim that South Africa would be the better if there were only one stream, instead of two. At the same time, there was not one of them on the Opposition side of the House, as far as he knew, who did not think that the only destiny for South Africa was that these two streams should mingle—(cheers)—for keeping them apart would lead to nothing but mischief.

You cannot keep them apart.

Some people are trying to.

I hope the future will show us that you cannot keep them apart. (Hear, hear.) But the Government should be careful not to throttle the usefulness of an institution such as this University ought to be, by deferring too much to the ideas of the people who think the reverse. Proceeding, Mr. Duncan referred to what the Minister had said with regard to Article 137 of the Act of Union, and clause 18 of the Bill.

I said if it were found incompatible with Article 137, rather than have resort to the machinery for altering Article 137, I would abandon clause 18.

I hold that Article 137 was not meant to drive people along lines they did not want to follow, but gives them full permission to go along lines they do want. (Cheers.) So long as the Minister holds the view that the clause is one of freedom, everyone will agree to it. (Opposition cheers.) We on this side of the House look to the University Bill to make one of the great ties which we hope will prevent the disintegration of the South African nationality into two sections. We think it is capable of fulfilling such an object if the Government and its supporters are agreed that it is a principle to be operated upon, but if they are not agreed upon that, it is no use trying to make a compromise with those who differ fundamentally, and if there is that difference, rather than affect to bridge the gulf by sending the Bill to a Select Committee, let it drop altogether. But if there is an agreement on these fundamentals, let the Government read the Bill a second time, and, if they like, afterwards send it to a Select Committee: but let them beware, in their natural desire to maintain existing local institutions, of giving way to local pressure. Let them beware of setting up an institution which will not be workable, which will not grow, and which will not serve the best interests of the country. (Opposition cheers.)

said that, although the hon. member for Fordsburg did not like the Bill, yet he wanted it read a second time. He (Mr. Fremantle) almost despaired when he listened to the hon. member’s speech, because he had hoped that from the hon. member for Fordsburg they would get some guidance, and, at any rate, that some principle would be laid down by him. But when the hon. member started talking about principles, he forgot the University Bill He started talking about the two streams, and that had very little to do with the matter. (Cries of “Oh.”) Surely the question whether they were going to concentrate education at Groote Schuur was not merely a raciai one. It was a question concerning University considerations which ought to be discussed on University grounds alone. The hon. member did not realise that the idea of having Universities only at Oxford and Cambridge had been abandoned in England. Might not the same view be argued in this country ? The hon. member came from the Transvaal. One of the Transvaal professors said he was convinced that if University education were concentrated, 70 per cent. of the students in the Transvaal would get no University education at all.

Continuing, he said his hon. friend now wanted to discuss this on university grounds, but he had imported racial considerations, and the result was that he was going right against university opinion at the present time. They were all in favour of one stream, though they might differ as to what this meant, but concentration was absolutely contrary to the best interests of university education in this country. He, for one, would never be in favour of such a doctrine as that enunciated by the hon. member. He agreed with his hon. friend where he said that this Bill did not appear to have any distinct policy. He could not see the principle or the policy of it. In dealing with the question the Minister of Finance referred to the Defence Act, but in that Act they had a definite policy laid down for the defence of this country. In this Bill they seemed to halt between two opinions. He regretted it, because he felt the arguments in favour of concentrating higher education and against it. On the one hand, if they concentrated higher education, they brought all their young people together and they formed associations that would never be forgotten; but on the other hand, there were those considerations which he had been putting forward and which had induced the University men all over the world to be against concentrating higher education. He would ask whether the Bill set its stamp on concentrating University education or the reverse. He did not know, and he did not know if his hon. friend knew, because he said he was in favour of voting for the second reading, because he was in favour of a policy that was not in the Bill. But it seemed to him the time had come when the country and this House was bound to make up its mind on this question, because if they started dealing with the University without knowing what they desired, and what was the right policy for the future, then they were liable to shape the policy of this country in the dark. He regretted very much the tenor of the speech made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) because his hon. friend became most extremely militant upon this question. As the hon. member for Jeppe had said, all the session his hon. friend had been in a quiescent and comatose condition. He had had plenty of opportunities of dealing with this question before, but had done nothing.

I have been hypnotised by your constant movements in and out of the House. (Laughter.)

Why has my hon. friend suddenly wakened up? It is a sort of resurrection of the Opposition, quite unexpected. But my hon. friend has made this resurrection quite in the wrong place. Proceeding, he said they had come to the House that afternoon in an academic mood, anxious to discuss the University question, but they had been disturbed and dragged back into turbulent political distractions by his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt). He was also disappointed by the assault made upon him by his hon. friend, because he timidly interjected the word asking what his hon. friend wanted himself, because he (the speaker) could not understand it. He could not understand whether he wanted to concentrate all higher education at Groote Schuur or not. He would suggest to his hon. friend that he also should make up his mind on that point. He certainly thought this was a great national question which ought to be discussed in a different mood from the mood suggested by his hon. friend. He quite agreed with what had been said in that respect by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education said he could have got the second reading of this Bill through as it stood.

Yes.

Well. I don’t know how the majority would have been composed. (Laughter and cheers.) Proceeding, he said that so far as he was concerned his difficulties were that the Bill did not carry out one policy; that the Bill did not go far enough along the lines he thought were intended by the Government, and that it was not efficient enough educationally. The question had been prejudiced by extraordinary occurrences, but he hoped that at last the House and the Government was going to make up their minds.

Continuing, the hon. member referred to the laying of the foundation stone by H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, of the new University building, and said that immediately after the ceremony the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance went to Camps Bay and made speeches in which they said that the building, the foundation stone of which they had just seen laid, was to be put upon the scrapheap. Shortly before, the Minister of Education caused to be put in the papers a little suggestion, the intention of which was left to be surmised by the readers of it. Afterwards it began to leak out that his hon. friends had made up their minds to establish a University at Groote Schuur, and that they had gone in for a scheme of concentrating higher education there. He felt from the first that there would be great difficulty in annihilating existing colleges and uniting them at Groote Schuur. He was met with sour glances from the occupants of the Treasury benches because he suggested there would be some difficulty in carrying out their policy. Now they had changed their ideas. It was not a policy of concentrating higher education at Groote Schuur, but of developing six or seven colleges in South Africa. He wanted the people of this country to grow up as one people, but in England it was found necessary to multiply their Universities. (A Voice: Population.) He personally had been converted many years ago, and had come round to the opinion that it was unwise to concentrate the education of a country. It appeared to him that the Government, having changed their policy, might have gone a step further. If they were going to discuss this question of concentration or otherwise, they should discuss it on academic lines; but they should not take measures now without knowing what the policy was to be, for, by an indiscreet move at the present moment they might prejudice the future of the question. In regard to the matter of exporting students, he did not think that was an argument in favour of supporting the University here at all, because if it was put before people that by starting a University here they were going to prevent their young men leaving South Africa for higher education, it would be a strong argument against the Bill.

He did trust that more and more of their students would go outside this country. He was thankful to think that by establishing this University they were not going to check the healthful flow of students to other parts of the world. Continuing, he said that the Minister did not seem to have really grasped what was being done in this country with regard to this question. He said that nothing had been done with a view to turning the examining University into a teaching University. But that was not so at all, and he would point out that the Council at present was principally composed of members of the teaching staff of the Universities. Then he said that nothing had been done with regard to research work. How could he say such a thing? Surely his hon. friend knew more than that ? If he turned to the records of the South African Association for the Advancement of Science—

But that is not a University.

said that his point was that the work was being done by the teachers of the University. If his hon. friend only took the trouble to read the records he would find that a considerable amount of scientific work had been accomplished in South Africa by these teachers. It was the same in England in connection with the British Association. It was an injustice to the teachers to say that nothing was being done in regard to research work. He pointed out that professional education and technical education had been making enormous strides, and these things seemed to have been overlooked by his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg. If a University was founded it would only be doing the same work as was being done by the South African College, with the difference that it would be on a larger scale and go a good deal deeper than it did at the present time. It was the same sort of work though hon. members seemed to think that the new institution would not do the same work as the existing institutions, but would have to start afresh. Continuing, he said that he was glad that it was only by an accident that the Minister had omitted to thank the donors of the gift. It was a red-letter day in the history of South Africa when such large sums from private fortunes were devoted to work of this character. He thought that the Government had treated the representatives of the donors in a most unfortunate manner. The last long letter from Mr. Hawkesley was the laughing stock of those who knew what was being done in this country, and in that letter University matters were dealt with in a most amateurish manner. That was not the fault of the writer of the letter; the point was that he did not think that the representatives of the donors had been properly informed of the conditions that existed in this country or the requirements of the country. The question could only be settled if they recognised facts. The Minister at first in his speech said that there were no conditions attaching to the gift, and then referred casually later on to a clause in the deed that was of a most far-reaching character. This condition laid down that the Minister only got his money once Sir Starr Jameson and the hon. member for Yeoville were satisfied. He would like to know what was in the head of the hon. member for Yeoville. (Laughter.) The fact was, they did not know to what these two gentlemen were prepared to consent. He thought that the experts—those well versed in University matters—should have a say. These experts wished to have certain improvements made in the measure, but, unfortunately, the final control was in the hands of Sir Starr Jameson and the hon. member for Yeoville. Then there was the question of the entrance examination, and if the B.A. examination was laid down almost all educationists thought that the institution would be a fiasco and a failure. Then there were other difficulties of other kinds. Unfortunately the language question had been brought into this matter. He was very sorry.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his remarks, said that his hon. friend the Minister had said that the language clause in the Bill did not conflict with the Act of Union. That was a question upon which he had asked Mr. Speaker’s opinion, and, if necessary, would ask his opinion again, but it seemed to him clear that it was in conflict. It certainly did conflict with the official interpretation of the Act of Union on which Cape Colony, at any rate, went into Union. When the Act of Union was before Parliament an amendment was moved in both Houses. That amendment was referred to the second meeting of the National Convention which was held at Bloemfontein, and when it was discovered that the amendment had not been carried by the Convention, the hon. member for Victoria West was asked why that amendment had not been adopted, and the hon. member then said that the question of clause 138, now 137, was raised in the Convention, but they found the universal feeling of the delegates to be that no need existed for any alteration in the direction indicated by the Cape Parliament, as the clause applied to every public service or institution, and gave the right to every citizen to require the use of either the Dutch or English language; that view had been expressed in the Convention and no exception was taken to it. Under those circumstances it was not necessary to press the amendment suggested by the Cape Parliament. That interpretation plainly applied to the language question, and it was made with the consent of all the members of the Cape delegation, including the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Cape Town, and the hon. Minister himself. It was also the opinion of the University Council that section 137 does apply to the University in this sense, and the council had acted on it. Therefore, whether or not it was an infringement of the Act of Union, it was plainly an infringement of the authoritative interpretation of the Act of Union given by the right hon. gentleman with the consent of hon. members on both sides of the House. (An HON. MEMBER: It does not bind this House.) Proceeding, Mr. Fremantle said that surely the hon. member realised the gravity of the question. He was astonished at the action of the hon. Minister, who was a consenting party to the interpretation. Some years ago he and the hon. Minister sat on a committee—a Cape Parliamentary Committee—and they agreed that there should be a settlement of the language question with that very clause put in as far as possible. He knew the storm that had arisen, and must have remembered this when he drafted this clause in his Bill. He would not have regarded it as a laughing matter, even if it had come from hon. members opposite, but they would be far from wanting to tamper with the Act of Union, and that it should have been left to the hon. Minister of all persons to propose an amendment of that kind struck him with astonishment and made him wonder what had brought about that great change. With regard to the language question, there was still a great deal of misapprehension. It seemed to be supposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg that it was their desire to insist upon an unreasonable condition that every professor should be able to speak in both languages or that professors shall be duplicated. The hon. Minister said the clause gave the students rights which they did not otherwise get. Under the Ordinances which had been passed in three of the Provinces in South Africa the children or their parents had language rights under certain circumstances, and now he proposed to give the right to the students themselves in regard to University education. What he wished to point out to the Minister was that under the language clause of the Bill they did not leave it for the schoolmaster to define what was practicable or not. Here his hon. friend did not define what was practicable, and that clause in the Act, as he read it, and the whole of the country read it, left to the University Council to decide what was practicable or not.

Not as the country reads it.

My hon. friend cannot be aware of the feeling of the country on it. There is not one man in ten in the country who is in favour of that clause. (Dissent.) Continuing, the hon. member said that he had visited a number of constituencies besides his own, and there was grave anxiety with regard to that clause. It was possible to raise Dutch as a language of culture, but was it likely that the Dutch people, who felt as strongly in regard to their language as he did for his, were going to leave that question to a chance decision of the University Council? He viewed with a jealous eye that clause in the University Bill, and he was glad that the constitution made it, necessary to go through all sorts of arrangements to pass a clause of that kind, and he thought that they might be satisfied with the clause in the Act of Union in regard to that. As to a certain speech made by an esteemed friend of his recently at Stellenbosch, he was sorry that there should have been any reference made to the racial origin of the two gentlemen, and he could not understand how a slip like that could have been made. Proceeding, he said that there was another complaint which he had to make against his hon. friend the Minister, and that was that he had again said that no alternative had been presented to him, and he could not understand that. He (Mr. Fremantle) had presented his hon. friend with what he thought was an alternative, and what a large number of people had thought to be an alternative.

was understood to say that the hon. member had given an alternative policy when he agreed to the Bill.

said that what had happened was that after he had agreed to the Bill late in November the Minister had torn up the language clause. What had happened between the period of late in November and the meeting of Parliament to cause the Minister to repeal clause 137 of the Act of Union? It was a question he did not think the House should find any difficulty in answering.

What is the point of order?

There is no point of order. I did not raise any. The hon. member went on to say that he had agreed to that Bill with one reservation. The alteration which he had proposed was exactly the alteration he proposed to the Minister. What had happened in the interval? The Prime Minister had thrown away the confidence of a large section of his party. He knew it. He did not wish to say anything to the Prime Minister, and he did not wish to throw abusive epithets at him—(laughter)—and he did not propose to do so. He had had the same feeling with regard to the Prime Minister, exactly the same as he had long before some of those who now supported him began to support him. (Laughter.) Undoubtedly there had been a struggle between different sections of that House for the possession of the Prime Minister, “and,” said the hon. member, “we have lost him.” (Laughter.) Whatever might be the case with regard to that, surely the whole House realised, surely the hon. Minister realised, surely the Prime Minister realised, that they were now dealing with a great national question, and that the settlement which might be possible in November assumed a different aspect after the events which had happened between then and the meeting of Parliament. They had made a solution by the present Bill impossible, and every solution impossible, unless they could find a different basis, or extend the Bill to such an extent that it would be a different Bill. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he would put forward his scheme with diffidence. He must say he had discussed the matter with a large number of those concerned in academical questions. That day he had received a telegram from one of the professors at Pretoria to say that he did not think his scheme would be acceptable there, and that, he might say, was the first information he had received that it was not acceptable. He had consulted representative authorities of the South African College, and they thought the scheme he had proposed a great improvement on that of the Minister.

He had seen many of the responsible people of Stellenbosch, and they thought the scheme was satisfactory. He had seen people from Natal and the Free State, and they also thought it was a satisfactory scheme. Proceeding, Mr. Fremantle said that he did not gather from the Minister of Education that that gentleman was quite clear as to what he wanted. We wanted to improve the higher education of the people. That need the Minister did not propose to meet by this Bill so much as by another Bill. And it was a pity that the Minister had not taken the two Bills together and moved to send them both to a Select Committee. There were several matters we were unable to give proper instruction in at the present time, but medicine was not one of the most happy instances that could be mentioned, because a most marked advance had been made in the teaching of medicine at the South African College. But no beginning had been made in the way of giving veterinary instruction; we should start as soon as possible training experts who would have to deal with the diseases of our own land. (Hear, hear.) It was a strange thing, too, that in this country, bristling with political difficulties, we had no provision at all for the study or teaching of political economy or sciology. (Hear, hear.) At present there was one half professor dealing with this question at the despised seat of learning at Stellenbosch. (An OPPOSITION MEMBER: “In Natal too.”) He agreed to a large extent with the hon. member for Fordsburg that the present situation had become unworkable. When he joined the University Council, 13 or 14 years ago, the whole situation was entirely different from what it was to-day. Then practically the whole of the higher education of South Africa was given in the immediate neighbourhood of the Peninsula —Cape Town, Rondebosch, and Stellenbosch. The University constitution was fitted to the circumstances which prevailed then, but it had become unfitted to the circumstances of to-day. Fourteen years ago the colleges doing higher education work were fully represented on the Council of the Cape University. Since then the circumstances had entirely changed. Vigorous teaching institutions had grown up at Bloemfontein, Pretoria, Johannesburg, Maritzburg, and Wellington. The result was that if they desired to have a single Teaching University for South Africa, and wished to bring the colleges into touch with the University, they were bound to have an enormous mob of a Council.

A federal University was impossible, because they could not get people to come long distances to attend meetings of the Council or meetings of the committee of the Council, and people in Natal, the Free State, the Transvaal, and the Eastern Province felt that they could not exercise their due influence in the Council. That, unfortunately, was going to be continued in the Bill, as he had told the Minister from the first.

I do not agree with you.

He may not agree with me, but, at all events, let him say that I agree with myself. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said that, as for the gift of half a million, they did not like looking a gift horse in the mouth. It was a most magnificent offer by men who had made their money in South Africa, and it was desirable, in the interests of the country, not only financially, but in the interests of good will, that we should put ourselves in a position to accept this gift. For all these reasons, it was very desirable that action should be taken. We should be wilfully and foolishly blind if we shut our eyes to the fact that it was a people’s question, affecting not only the different races, but different classes of people. We wanted a University—one or more—which would do work, not only for English and Dutch, but also for those who were not born with gold spoons in their mouths. Do let his hon. friend realise that the races were being educated together to a very large extent. In the Transvaal, the Free State, and Natal University Colleges, there was no racial cleavage at all. At the S.A. College the old traditions of the college were being carried out. At the present time a very large number of students of Dutch speech were being educated there, and he was glad that he could not say whether the students with Dutch or English names were in the majority.

: About half and half.

said there was a time when the S.A. College was the National College of South Africa. Unfortunately a breach was made, but not by Stellenbosch. Do not let them go into that unhappy history, and he was glad to say that there were large numbers of men, of Dutch as well as English speech, who still sent their sons to the S.A. College. One must have some sympathy with the college at Stellenbosch. He confessed with the greatest regret that Stellenbosch was almost entirely Dutch, so far as its pupils, but not so far as its professors, were concerned. It must be recognised that Stellenbosch was doing a work for a large, important, and weighty class of the community, and the reason why it was mainly a Dutch college was not because it desired it, but because it was established to meet the needs of the older class of the country people. The result was that they were getting a larger number of English students at Stellenbosch, because a larger number of English people were going on to the land. Stellenbosch was not essentially at all a racial college. Do not let his hon. friends, and those who desired with him (Mr. Fremantle) that they should have no racial feeling in this country, by violently disturbing the present situation, arrest the healing tendencies already at work, because, let him assure his hon. friend, that so far from any policy that he had adumbrated tending to racial healing, it would only tend to a further breach. They should let well alone.

He thought, when they were deciding on the policy which was the right policy for South Africa in regard to the University question, it was right to get clear as to what a University was, because that did not seem to be clear to some hon. members. A University had four functions—three of them important ones, one less so. The first function was to teach: the second function was to give professional education; the third function was to carry on research work; and the fourth function was to examine students and to give certificates. He thought it was of the utmost importance to keep those distinctions in mind, because it was only by that means that a solution of this question, that would give general satisfaction, would be found. The least of these functions was the examining function, but unfortunately that was a function that had become the most closely identified with a university. With regard to the rest, naturally, the ideal university covered a broad field. As the name itself implied, it assumed within its province the whole universe of knowledge, and tended to cover the whole of that by large numbers of highly gifted and talented men. But they might have partial universities. What he wished to represent was that they might have in various centres the teaching of ordinary university work, which was in the main teaching up to the level of the B.A. degree. It was that which had made Oxford dear to all Oxonians. It was in the early years of the university career that the university twined itself round the affections of the students, and without that he was afraid a university would not do what was in a way the most important of all the functions of universities, and that was teaching students up to the grade of B.A.

What he thought was the right policy for this country was that they should concentrate to some extent in regard to the second and third of these functions of universities, and that was professional work and research work. He quite agreed it was impossible to expect at the present time that there would be many universities carrying on research and professional work of high grade in South Africa. But it would be a great mistake to confine all their research work, such as veterinary work, to Groote Schuur, and it was impossible to suppose that they could confine their professional training in regard to mining to Groote Schuur. An attempt was made to have mining classes at the South African College, but it had broken down because it was found essential to have those classes at Johannesburg. And he did not see why they should interfere with the work already going on in connection with the university training of people. They needed a certain amount of university training in life. They needed it for their clergymen, and their lawyers, and their doctors; but now they said they needed it for their agricultural men and their commercial men. Originally it was proposed to confine it to one part of the country. But the Government had dropped that policy, and he did not see why they should not say, once and for all, that that policy had gone for good, and the alternative policy had been put in its place. He saw no objection to a policy of five universities in South Africa He thought that was the right policy. He implored the Government to say which policy they agreed upon. He was in favour of five universities because he looked at the distances in South Africa. Nobody in the Eastern Province wanted to concentrate higher education in Cape Town, and hon. members must know the great advantage the Rhodes University College had been to the Eastern Province. Were they going to develop the Rhodes College to a university or not? Let them make up their minds.

There were some hon. members opposite who seemed to be in favour of concentration, which he (the speaker) thought was a mistake, and he trusted that those hon. members would not commit themselves to a course of that kind. But he did not know the policy of the Government. He thought at one time that it was a policy of five or six universities, but he was not sure. Let them understand each other in this matter; let them know their position. His policy was one of a university in every province of South Africa. (Laughter.) Whether that was the policy of the Government he did not know, but he had no hesitation in saying that it was the only sound educational policy that could be pursued in this or any other country. He longed at one time for one great teaching University for the Western Province. It was no use blinding themselves to the fact that it was not possible. Stellenbosch did not desire that it should be uprooted and disturbed. It was not prepared to agree. It was growing stronger and stronger, and he did not think when they realised the good that Stellenbosch was doing that it should be tampered with. He was confident that force was a thing to be deplored in a matter of this kind. Continuing, he said that five years ago the right hon. the member for Victoria West committed himself to a course of this sort. The right hon. gentleman then said that he thought they would have to have several universities in South Africa, and, in his opinion, the first would be the University of Stellenbosch. He thought that a policy of this sort would ease the situation. If the system were adopted it would give the professors the independence that they desired. It would give the representatives of the donors and the dream of Cecil Rhodes a real University unhampered by bodies that would drag it down to the level of the weakest. It would be a stronger institution than a federal institution. Granting the charter to Stellenbosch would ease the situation. The people had been roused there. It was a feeling that prevailed in other Provinces, and it was the right feeling. By developing on these lines they would have the real capacity of growth. Concentration in England had dropped on account of distance. In Sweden, Australia, Canada, France, and the United States they found the same state of affairs prevailing as he suggested should be adopted in this country. The most striking case of that was Italy. They had great Universities at Naples and Rome, and they had a larger number of small Universities doing great work for the people and many of them proud of ancient history and deserving their place under the sun. The lines upon which he thought the country ought to move might not be the right lines, but he claimed that they were lines which had proved right in every other country except this one. (An HON. MEMBER: We have not the population.) We have the population. Did his hon. friend know the population of Scotland when four Universities were started there? It seemed to him that those were the lines upon which it would be wise for them to move. With regard to the site of Groote Schuur, it was unfortunate that we in South Africa should attempt to impute perverse motives. They should recollect that Rhodes was a man who was brought up in the bosom of the University of Oxford. His college had fixed itself on his feelings in precisely the same way that Stellenbosch had fixed itself on the feelings of hundreds of men in this country. It was unfortunate that people should impute unworthy motives to Sir Julius Wernher. Rhodes had fired his imagination, and that was the way in which he had sought to show his gratitude to South Africa.

Something of the same tolerance might be displayed towards Stellenbosch College. Stellenbosch did not represent the idea of separatism between the races, it represented rather the ideal of the higher education of the older country population. It was for that reason that Stellenbosch was created, and for that reason it existed and was as strong as it was at the present time.

The speech of Professor Moorrees quoted by the leader of the Opposition expressly disclaimed the policy of separatism. It did not desire that there should be one stream if that meant that one of the existing streams should be entirely lost sight of, but it did desire one stream if in that stream both racial streams were to be found room for and that stream amalgamated. That was the policy of his hon. friend for Smithfield, as he understood it, and of all good South Africans. At any rate, Stellenbosch would do its best, and would not advocate racial separation in the future any more than it had done in the past.

Dealing with some special reasons why in his opinion the Bill should be radically amended, he said that he agreed on the whole with the criticisms which were brought forward by hon. members opposite. The Bill might have been a step in the right direction if racial feeling had not been raised as it had been done, that was the Bill without the language clause, but at the present time he did not believe it was a step in the right direction, for it would have the effect of rousing racial feeling much higher than it was at the present time, and make more unfavourable the prospects of progressive action. In his opinion the Bill could not be amended on its existing basis, that was having one University for South Africa. The hon. Minister referred to a post-graduate University, but that was not practicable. They could not get a solution on those lines, and he did not like the intermediate. It was a bad examination which ought not to exist, and secondly, matriculation meant an entrance to the University, and he thought students ought to enter at the entrance. Then again, the matriculation was rising every year, and they had quite a different set of circumstances from what they had three or four years ago, and would have improved circumstances in the near future from what they were at the present time. For that reason, and because the present Bill, was undesirable, he was convinced they must seek for a solution by one of the two policies which he had brought forward; by having one great institution at Groote Schuur, and as that was impossible going in for a policy of six Universities in South Africa. That was the policy he would put before the House, and he hoped it would be considered by the Select Committee. The hon. Minister had proposed a Select Committee, and he (Mr. Fremantle) was not sure that that was the wisest course. Perhaps he would be reminded that he proposed a Select Committee himself, but that was a long time ago. It would have been very different if a Select Committee had been proposed a month ago. They were going to take evidence on a technical subject from all parts of South Africa, and they were left within about two months of the end of the session. Even if they had done it one month ago it would have had some chance of a successful solution. It Would have been wiser if the hon. Minister had taken the plunge one month earlier, but his courage did not rise to the occasion, and why it should have come to him now he really did not know. But the hon. Minister had proposed a Select Committee, and although he (the speaker) thought it was more a matter for a Commission, and as he did not want to prove an embarrassment he would support the hon. Minister as much as he could. The hon. member went on to say that he had gone to the Prime Minister and told him he had a solution, but he had not been able, although he had tried several times, to have an opportunity of talking to him about the University question. Proceeding, he said that in 1907 there were 905 students who passed matriculation, and in 1912 there were 923, but the number of candidates had Increased from 1,433 to 1,680. This showed that the standard was rising. And in regard to the successful B.A. students, the number had increased from 49 in 1907 to 134 in 1912. Did his hon. friend recognise what a revolutionary change that was? What had been impossible when there were only 49 students was perfectly possible when they had 134. What he would suggest was that they should lay down at the present time that a separate charter should be granted, as had been asked for some years ago by the South African College, to a college which had 300 matriculated students, which made a fair selection of students. The South African College and the Victoria College had 300 students, and they would therefore become separate Universities in that case.

What would be the extra cost?

said that there would not be any extra cost, as far as he was aware, unless in examining. He went on to say that he laid special emphasis on co-operation, and if they had co-operation it would be a far better thing. Why could not the colleges in South Africa co-operate in a way they did not do at the present time. They should, as in Germany, have a common matriculation examination and recognise for degrees at one university residence at another. There were minor questions, such as the question of Wellington, which would naturally be associated with Stellenbosch, and Johannesburg, which would naturally he associated with Pretoria, and also such questions as University property. Continuing, he said that they desired to create a national institution, and that the University question should be settled on national lines. It was not suggested by that Bill that they should have only one institution. The difference between his proposal and that of the Minister was that he (the hon. member proposed separate Universities, and that the Minister proposed separate colleges, but whatever he proposed in name, the Minister did not propose one national college or one national University. He claimed that his solution was more national and more South African than that of the Minister. His solution offered them a peaceful solution of the University question, and it offered the donors far more than was offered by the Bill. The hon. member then proposed to add to the motion of the Minister, “ and that the Select Committee be instructed to consider the following: That in the opinion of this House the solution of the university question is to be found in the policy of developing colleges into universities in the Cape Peninsula, Stellenbosch, Graham’s Town, Bloemfontein, Pretoria, and Pietermaritzburg, the Government contributing to their maintenance on a basis defined by law; that the relation of the colleges at Wellington and Stellenbosch and at Johannesburg and Pretoria should be decided by the mutual consent of those colleges; that colleges should be entitled to charters as universities as soon as they have 300 matriculated students; that in the meantime the examining work for the colleges with less than 300 students should be done by a university on the council of which those colleges should be fully represented at a central place, allowing a large measure of liberty to the colleges in regard to syllabus and teaching: and that the universities and colleges should co-operate in regard to the matriculation examination and also in regard to the recognition of attendance at lectures.” In conclusion, Mr. Fremantle said: I have not approached the question with prejudice on either side, but with the fullest sympathy for the donors and for all the existing institutions in South Africa. The Government must excuse me if I do not sympathise with them, because I do not know what their policy is.

I don’t think they know themselves.

I don’t believe my suggestion will involve any extra expense whatever, but it will bring us nearer to an amicable solution of the question. The suggestion is not an original idea of my own, but it has sprung up in the minds of many who are interested in education, and if is because of that that I commend it with some hope to the House.

seconded the amendment.

said it was quite impossible for him to read the hon. member’s amendment. (Laughter.)

said there was no one in the House who did not recognise the deep interest that had been taken in educational matters in South Africa for several years past, and the ability brought to bear on these matters by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), but, at the same time, no one could help feeling that the hon. member had been led right away from the true interests of South Africa in the speech he had made to-night. (Cheers.) It did not matter how much real interest and capacity one could bring to bear on the subject, if one allowed one’s self to be led into tortuous paths, for then one would never succeed in carrying out good work. The hon. member had afforded the House a typical instance, illustrating the sort of attitude which influenced and paralysed a person who approached the question, not from the pure light of criticism, but from prejudice, and who, consequently, was drawn into all sorts of devious paths. The hon. member himself admitted that he cordially agreed with the terms of this measure.

It is not true. I was prepared to support the Bill with a different language clause cordially, but I reserved the right to press what I considered desirable educationally, viz., the splitting up of the University.

First of all, there was the language question, which, as it presents itself to me, really lies at the very bottom of all his objections to the Bill, as it lies at the bottom of almost nine-tenths of the objections to this Bill. (Cheers.) It is a great pity it should be so, because it is entirely unnecessary. (Hear, hear.) The language question is not affected by this measure, except so far as it is affected favourably in regard to the rights of the Dutch language.

This Bill does not derogate from the position occupied by the Dutch language by one jot or tittle. If the truth were told to them—(cheers)—if instead of all sorts of bogies being raised, if the real truth were presented to the people, and they understood it thoroughly. I believe the bulk of the opposition to this measure would vanish. (An HON. MEMBER: No.) The objections in regard to the language question are entirely unnecessary. Continuing, Mr. Burton said that it would be difficult to find an eminent lawyer in this country who would differ from the position as it had been explained by the Minister of Education. All that the clause did was to give to the students of the new University opportunities which, under Article 127 of the Constitution, as it stood by itself, they did not have. No students would have the right to demand being taught in their mother tongue. What the Bill proposed to do was that, in so far as the thing could be carried out, students should have their requests in regard to language, whether for educational or examination purposes, respected. There was an entire misunderstanding with regard to the phrase “if impracticable.” He did not believe that hon. members on either side of the House desired to prejudice the language of either race, but he believed it was the wish of the whole House to establish a University on a sound basis. They must have the word “practicable,” otherwise they could not have their University. If they said they must have it laid down hard and fast that there must be bilingual professors, or there must be duplication of professors, they would then simply be putting their pen through the Bill. Such a proposal was simply hopeless, and they must provide for practicability. But if it were thought the Dutch language might suffer at the hands of the governing body of this University, then nothing was easier than to limit the operation of this practicability by saying it should be subject to statute, and that the regulations should be laid on the Table of the House, and be approved by the House. If they did that they cut away all objections to that portion of the Bill. But the language clause must contain the elements of practicability. The hon. member for Uitenhage merely based his objection to the Bill largely on the language question; it merely showed how little he understood the motive which had actuated him.

He expressed himself so, but had forgotten it. He gave as one of his main reasons of objection against that Bill, the language clause. With regard to language he (the Minister) only wanted to say one word, and that was that although the Dutch language was not his mother tongue, he yielded to no one in this House or out of it in his affectionate regard for it; not only in respect, but affection and regard—(cheers)—and he hoped it would live and flourish in South Africa for many years to come—(cheers)—and he thought that probably in practice he did a great deal more to show his respect and regard for that language than a good many of his friends who prated about it. (Cheers.) The difficulty about this matter, and really he feared his hon. friend was falling into this fatal error, was that once they departed from the true and pure aspects, and imported into a matter like the language matter, matters affecting politics, and used them for political purposes—and he regretted to say with pain that he feared this admirable sentiment, a sentiment not only admirable, noble and generous like all matters of national feeling—those noble and generous sentiments were being used and turned to false account in this country. (Cheers.) The hon. member began by basing his opposition to the Bill upon the language clause. Then when he found out what the provisions of the Bill were going to be in regard to the language question, he began to see he was on rather unsafe footing, and he shifted his ground. If the House would bear with him (the Minister) he was just tracing out the working of a mind—a capable mind—in regard to this matter, and judging by that, of the sort of thing that was going on in South Africa to-day. First it was the language question, then he said “Oh, no.” Now he found that since recent events occurred— since the break up of the Cabinet, or the change which took place in the Cabinet— he had lost faith in the Prime Minister and was bound to abandon the Bill. Well, the Prime Minister might have defects—he had no doubt he had, like most of them— but what his defects might have to do with the merits or demerits of this University Bill he could not see. (Cries of: “Ah,” and cheers.)

Now, when the hon. member, after having shown why he did not want this Bill, came to his constructive programme, he (the Minister) thought they all felt relieved. (Laughter.) The hon. member not only seemed to have had some labour to deliver himself that afternoon, but for weeks he seemed to have had this matter on his mind. He dwelt upon the period when the undergraduate gained his affection for a University. It would be excellent if they could have a University in South Africa where every young man could be taught as the hon. member had described; but, unfortunately, they could not have it in this country unless they had some such scheme as the hon. member proposed. It seemed to him that the mountain had been in labour and had produced not a mouse, but six mice. (Laughter.) Well he was afraid they were all blind mice. (Laughter.) What was the hon. member’s solution? That they should establish, first he said five, then he proceeded to advance it to six, and seeing there were eight colleges, he (the Minister) thought he was certain to extend the scope to eight; but for some reason he did not get to eight. Why the other two were left out he could not for the life of him see; but the hon. member proposed that a country like South Africa should proceed to have six Universities. Well, he did not suppose any responsible person who had taken an interest in education could have proposed a scheme of that sort. It had been condemned. Really they had no desire to make any closer acquaintance with the six mice than in the capacity of the farmer’s wife with the carving knife. (Laughter.) The scheme had been considered over and over again. One’s natural disposition was in favour of some such scheme, because by it they must easily and naturally solve their difficulties. They had great difficulties in this country because of the large distances, and it was nice to say that they should give each part a piece of the cake and they solved their difficulties. They did—on paper, and that was where the solution would end. They knew perfectly well that the Colonial Conference, which he thought was the last representative body sitting on a matter of this kind in this country, had condemned such a scheme.

You are wrong.

The hon. member says I am wrong. I have a document here called “ The Report of the Colonial Conference on University Education.” I find here, on page 2, a resolution entitled Introductory (No. 1: “ That this Conference is of opinion that it is not expedient at present to establish single college universities in South Africa. ” (Cheers.)

At present!

“At present.” Is that the last refuge? The last refuge of the hon. member is the words: “At present.” In 1908 this Conference sat, and I am bound to say if they sat again to-day they would come to the same conclusion. Continuing, he said that the hon. member for Uitenhage then reeled off a long list of Universities, admirable institutions, in different countries. Well, there were numbers of institutions, and they would continue to exist as long as the world goes on, and money has some value, because they had all been richly endowed with money. But for that, in all probability, they would have been merged or have found a grave. The hon. member had handed in an amendment. He came there with a tale which he (the Minister) thought was unnecessary. He said it had been introduced by someone’s laughter. Whose he (the Minister) did not know; but he understood it was something that had nothing to do with the case. He hoped the House would not accept the amendment. (Cheers.) He would like to say a few words with regard to what had been said on the opposite side of the House on this measure. He only wanted to say that it was regrettable, he thought, that so little substantial criticism had been directed from the other side of the House against the provisions of this Bill.

You have withdrawn the Bill.

Oh, no. My hon. friend contented himself with a voluble and resonant appeal for a little party advantage.

You have withdrawn the Bill.

No, we have not. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has risen to the level of trying to extract a little party advantage from the situation—a situation with regard to this measure which is unhappy—

Humiliating.

Unhappy; but everyone is desirous of seeing a measure of this sort carried out, and no One regrets more than I do that it is not possible to proceed with the measure—

Why don’t you proceed with it?

I will tell you why.

Nobody regretted that more than he did. What had his hon. friend to say about the measure beyond that? Nothing. Let him come to the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg. He thought his hon. friend would forgive him if he said it proceeded to riddle the provisions of the Bill, and when he had shown that the provisions were as bad as they could be, he complained that the Government did hot stereotype them in the second reading, after which they could not be altered. Too much stress had been laid on the opposition to the Bill by a particular section. It was not a sectional or a racial opposition to this measure at all. The opposition was largely based upon the feeling of the existing institutions in this country, who were apprehensive of their own future. It was very largely a question of site. They heard about Stellenbosch and other places. The Rhodes College was as strongly opposed to this measure as anybody else; they hoped that the Bill would not go through. It could not be said that the Rhodes College was guided by sectional or racial feeling. The truth was that the opposition was based upon sectional interests of a particular place. It was forgotten when all this criticism was made, that many years ago Cecil Rhodes himself endeavoured to do something of the kind, but, of course, not on such a large scale. He failed, and had to abandon the scheme for exactly the same reason—he failed to realise the full force of the influence of existing institutions. Let his hon. friend read the book of Sir Thomas Fuller, and his account of the negotiations. It was not a question of racial feeling or national feeling or sectional feeling, but the feeling that institutions would be done away with. He understood the hon. member for Fordsburg to say that if the Bill did not make provision for the joint education of the youth of both races, it would not be worth the paper it was written upon. He complained that the Bill did not carry out that object. No measure could provide for a thing of that sort in so many words. He would tell the hon. member what would have happened if the Government had used this power and driven the second reading through. The fact was it would have driven away the youth of the country they were so anxious to secure. Yes; the hon. member for Fort Beaufort smiles, because he thought of the little party advantage that was gained.

It was with regret that the Government was forced to admit that it recognised the existence of such a feeling in this country— that was, if they had pushed through the second reading and forced it down the throats of the people. They would then have succeeded in driving away by main force exactly the people they wanted to keep here. He was not defending that feeling. He did not approve of it, but he said their only hope of dealing with that feeling and of overcoming it was by meeting it face to face on the floor of the Select Committee, where the people who had other schemes, other plans, or perhaps modifications of the existing plan, would have an opportunity of explaining themselves. In the Select Committee they would have an opportunity of personally examining and criticising these schemes. It was possible that they might light upon some sort of alternative plan or some modification which might commend itself as a solution. The Government most regretfully —no one admitted it more than themselves —recognised the state of things, and in the best interests of the country, in the best interests of the two sections of the people, they had deemed the course proposed the most advisable. He could not understand the objection taken to the site chosen in the Bill. All this talk about Cape Town and its English associations had nothing to do with Cape Town being chosen as capital. Continuing, he referred to the splendid records of the South African College, and pointed out that many of those who had passed through the college were prominent leaders of the South African people. To mention a few, he would refer to such names as Reitz, Jan Hofmeyr, Sauer, De Villiers, Schreiner, Beck, Moorrees, and Pienaar. In conclusion, he said they were running away to win another day. They believed that by adopting the course they had they were doing a great service to South Africa, and that it would be recognised in the future as the best means of arriving at a solution of this difficult problem.

said that anybody who had listened to the speeches that afternoon and evening must have been amazed. The Minister of Education introduced his measure and made a speech in favour of it, and he was followed by the Minister of Railways, who, though he had everything good to say about it, ran away from it. Why? Within the last few days it had been at the bottom of the paper, and everybody thought that the difficulties were so great that it would not appear again. Suddenly it made another appearance, and was brought into the House with a flourish of trumpets. The second reading was moved, and then the Minister put it to the House that it should be sent to a Select Committee.

No one believed that the measure could go before a Select Committee and be dealt with this session. No doubt the Bill was susceptible to improvement, but he thought they could have made all the necessary improvements in that House. The action of the Government showed that they were pandering to the clamour that had been raised outside. They were really frightened. The University Bill was a matter upon which they had formed a definite opinion. The Minister of Education had been studying it three years, but they were prepared to run away from it because of this outside clamour, which they themselves admitted was unreal. The Government was lacking the moral courage to face the position and put the Bill through. One of the most lamentable things in this country was that lack of moral courage. He felt that there was no measure before the House on which to speak, for the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Uitenhage were so complicated and long that they could not deal with them that night. It made him think and view with alarm the establishment of a University when he found the hon. member talking three hours and telling the House so little. Regarding the remarks that the people connected with these donations had nothing to do with Universities and knew little or nothing about such matters, he would point cut that Mr. Hawksley, whose name had been referred to, was a scholar at Oxford, and while he did not know whether Sir Julius Wernher had had a University education or not he was certainly a highly-educated man, and was considered sufficiently eminent to be put on the Council of the University of London. The whole idea was to see that which would make South Africa a worthy nation, namely, that it should be a highly-educated nation. That was the spirit in which the money was offered, and not with the idea of gaining any political advantage or of encouraging anything of an antinational character so far as South Africa was concerned. In South Africa there was a white population of 1,250,000, and yet it was not possible to have more than one teaching University worthy of the name, and that being the case the Minister was face to face with the difficult task of trying to combine proposals that should give a teaching University on the one hand and not imperil the utility of the existing universities in various parts of the country. He regretted that the hon. Minister had withdrawn the Bill, which he thought was on the right path. It had its defects, but it provided for the establishment of a Commission, which could have done a great deal in the way of modifying anything which was not working satisfactorily. The measure would have placed the country in a much better position than it was going to be in now. It was perfectly futile to think that in the remaining short period of the session—for that certainly was going to be closed as soon as it was possible to close, as soon as the necessary supplies were obtained—they would see very little of new measures. The Government should have been honest and have said that they were going to withdraw the measure, and that they were going to proceed next year with a measure somewhat on the same lines for the establishment of a University.

He could only say that there was a great deal of force in what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had said in regard to the Prime Minister. He had said, in effect, that the Prime Minister had thrown away a lot of support. He (the hon. member) thought that the Prime Minister had thrown away a lot of support in regard to that Bill, as he had gone about it in such an extraordinary way. If rumour was correct, he understood that that matter had been debated in meetings upstairs, not for one day, but day after day, until all the forces of retrogression and all possible objections that could be raised had been raised, and such a storm had been raised that the Government found that they could not go on with it. No Government would gain prestige for doing such a thing—either with their own party or with the country. (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister was thrown in such a strange light as to remind him of the scene in the “Taming of the Shrew,” where Catherine, if she was prodded sufficiently, would call the sun the moon and the moon the sun. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said he could claim that ever since he had come back to South Africa, seven years back, he had tried to bring the people together, and not to put the clock back, and he would not forgive himself if he did not try to bring the people together now. (Hear, hear.) If there was one thing which showed the spirit in which the donors had given the money, it was that the Government had the right to appoint twelve members of the Council, and each Council could appoint two. Was that not evidence that the donors were able to trust the Government? (Hear, hear.) Much as he regretted that they were not going to have a University that year, he did hope that they would still have an opportunity of getting for South Africa that great institution which they so very much needed, because there was no doubt that their standard of education was very much lower than the standards in older European countries, and the tendency here was to examine students for the passing of an examination, rather than to investigate whether they were properly grounded in education. In the various newspaper articles which had appeared, and the various discussions dealing with the University matter, there had been a great deal of talk about national heritage. In that country they had inherited a good deal of jealousy, suspicion, and disunion, and it rested with them whether they were going to change that, and bequeath to their successors union and peace, toleration and enlightenment. (Cheers.)

said that he was very sorry that they had come to that state of affairs. They had got to this position in South Africa: that the whole sum total of education, of all learning, and of all culture, was summed up in the letters “B.A.” (Laughter.) He had been hoping that they were going to get, not a mere examining University, which simply conferred degrees, but, in the true sense of the term, a teaching University, which would give the young men of this country an idea that there was something more in University culture than merely putting the letters of a degree after their name. It was perfectly clear that they were never going to see that measure passed that session, so that, after the long incubation, they had to wait another year. It was a very hard thing on existing institutions, because they did not know where they were, and the position they were in. They got all kinds of statements made by the Ministry, and they did not know what their position was going to be. It was no use trying to discuss the principles of the measure when there were no principles. When he listened to the Ministers of Railways and Education he wondered whether he was living 100 years ago, and whether we were living in the days of Responsible Government, or in the days of Crown Colony Government. (Hear, hear.) One Minister had said that if they passed that measure they would be bringing about a state of affairs which they wished to avoid. (An HON. MEMBER: If it were enforced.) Might he ask, in the name of common-sense, what the measure was brought in for, when a Minister told them that if it were carried that it would be the worst thing that ever happened to the country? (Opposition cheers.) Surely when a Government introduced a measure it did so because it thought it was for the good of the country. Had anybody, in his wildest dreams, ever conceived of a responsible Minister saying to Parliament: “We introduce this measure, but we don’t want it to pass ” ?

“ Because if it does our seats will be in danger.”

said it surely ought to have been palpable to the Minister that if that were the state of affairs he should never have brought the measure forward. One did not like to talk about Ministers sticking to their seats when they had lost the confidence of their supporters, but really it was too ludicrous to bring forward a measure and say: “We will not pass it, because if we do it will be a very bad thing for the country.” The Minister said he expected criticism from outside—criticism of what? What was the use of criticising a measure from which the Government ran away ? If the Cabinet thought that the measure would be detrimental to the country it was not for the Opposition to force the Bill through. He hoped that when reconsideration did take place, and when Parliament saw the measure again, they would not hear anything of that absurdity, that in a country with a sparse population like ours we should have five or six Universities. (Hear, hear.) If we were going to have a University he supposed it would be one where people could get the best teaching from the best men. He understood that some institutions were afraid that if the University were founded a number of their students would leave because they expected that the teaching at the University would be better than that which they now received. If that were the fear, let us have a University at once. (Cheers.) In conclusion, Sir Henry said that he had prepared a number of amendments, but what was the use of taking up time in bringing them forward when they knew that they were going to hear nothing more about the measure until next year? (Opposition cheers.)

moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

appealed to the Minister of Education to allow the adjournment. He wished his amendment to appear on the paper so that hon. members would have an opportunity of considering it.

said that if there was any idea of going on with the second reading of this Bill one would get more time for its discussion, but one of the reasons why they proposed to send it to Select Committee was to gain time. (Cries of “Ah.”)

I think you had better resign.

said they hoped this measure would come before the House again this session and that it would pass with the goodwill of the people of the country. He could quite understand the hon. member for Fort Beaufort making party capital out of it.

It is not making party capital out of it. It is a ludicrous position.

said the hon. member for Uitenhage said he would like to see his amendment on the paper. But it could be sent to the Select Committee. He thought the debate had been fully thrashed out, and if anything could be done in this matter they should begin at once.

said the Minister said his object was to gain time, but so many things had arisen to-night upon which they wanted to say something that the Minister should give them the opportunity of saying it.

hoped the hon. Minister would agree to the adjournment as a great many hon. members had been instructed to say something on the matter.

The vote was declared in favour of the “ Ayes.”

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—42.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray.

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner. Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

J. Hewat and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

Noes—60.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Philip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johanes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

said he did not wish to deal with the Bill at any length, but considered that the thanks of the country were due to the donors of the gift. Remarks had been made to the detriment of the givers of the £500,000 which were not justified. He had one great objection to the Bill as it stood at present, and that would be met by the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. Inland Universities and colleges would be endangered by the Bill. There were hundreds of men who had received their education at inland colleges, and if it had not been for those institutions these men would not have received the benefits of higher education at all. No one would deny that those colleges had done much useful work and were continually making further progress. Why then attempt to cripple these institutions, whose work should rather be extended ? Why not expand their measure of usefulness in accordance with the requirements and the demands of the public? When these colleges were extended it would be found that they would serve the purpose of the country, and there would be no need for a single University. He had already said how grateful the country was to the donors of the gift. Each one of the colleges should establish a faculty— for example, a Chair of Agriculture. In Johannesburg there already existed a technical college, which was doing excellent work. They must not commit an injustice to the up-country colleges, but try gradually and along natural lines to make them more effective. He believed the donors of the money had so much interest in higher education that they would allow the money to be used on behalf of the existing institutions. Coming to clause 18, he said that the explanation of the Minister was not very clear. The Minister had stated that clause 18 went further than clause 137 of the South Africa Act. But in clause 18 of the Bill it was laid down that there should be bilingualism as far as practicable. That was not only weakening the Act, but also was very vague, and they were not told what would happen when it was not practicable and when it was practicable. He thought that the clause diminished the rights of English-speaking people, and still more of the Dutch-speaking. They would simply say, “It is not possible,” and thus the rights of the Dutch language would be endangered. If the number of Dutch-speaking students was small, then it would be considered “ impossible ” to give effect of clause 137 of the Constitution. For the English-speaking students that danger would not so easily arise. Clause 137 of the Constitution ought to be fully respected—nothing more than that, and nothing less. By the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage nothing was laid down but to give instruction to the Select Committee to consider the position of the inland colleges. The speaker did not object to the establishment of a University, but he did object to a central University. He was sure when a central University was established, it would have to be strengthened by Government by bursaries, and so forth, and the attractions offered would be so strong that smaller colleges would suffer. As students were withdrawn, faculty after faculty would be withdrawn until colleges would be bled to death. That was why he objected to a central University.

said they were on the point of passing one of the most important Bills, and one which had undoubtedly given rise to a great deal of feeling. There were many points which still needed to be cleared up. Had the Minister reckoned up what a medical faculty would cost? Would they get the necessary professors? Did the Minister know that they had not here a sufficient number of hospitals? The speaker feared that the bulk of the medical students would still elect to go to foreign Universities, so as to study under the most capable professors. The existing colleges had become dear to the public, and it would not do to say, as was said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour: “ Let the existing colleges disappear, provided only we get a central University.” The speaker considered the explanation which had been given by the Minister of Railways on the matter of language rights had been quite unsatisfactory. The Minister had stated that nine-tenths of the objections to the Bill were based on its language stipulations. Well, the speaker denied that, but assuming it to be correct, it was only a reason the more why they should be very prudent. He hoped the Select Committee would give all these points its close attention, and in the meantime take steps to ascertain the opinion of the public.

asked if at that stage (11.30 p.m.) the Minister of Education would not revise his former decision, and agree to the debate now being adjourned.

shook his head.

protested against the Minister’s decision.

thought Mr. Fremantle’s amendment was of such importance that it might have received more consideration from the Minister. He asked the Minister if he would not now permit the adjournment of the debate. He moved the adjournment of the House.

seconded.

said this was moved only for the purpose of moving again the adjournment of the debate. He thought it would be unfair for him to say now that the Government did not intend to bring this discussion to a definite close this evening. The hon. member for Uitenhage had an amendment, and the hon. member for Ladybrand had instructions. He would undertake to give them every opportunity of putting their cases before the Select Committee, and therefore he would ask them not to delay this matter unnecessarily.

said the hon. member for Uitenhage had laid a most important proposition before the House. He personally thought it was a very sound proposition. Why should not the amendment be discussed by the House for the benefit of the country? The amendment was a most important one.

thought the Minister had overlooked the fact that the subject had been before the House for seven hours, and out of that members on the Government side had occupied six, and the Opposition had not had one hour out of the seven. Surely that was not fair play. Now the Government was going to shut the Opposition down, or compel them to speak at an unreasonable hour.

said he would like to appeal to the Minister to allow the debate to be adjourned. The amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage was so long that it was impossible to get the full import of it as the hon. member read it out, therefore hon. members would like to see it on paper. Considering the Government had been maturing the Bill for three years—it was now scrapping it evidently in a fit of temper—it was not too much to ask the Government to allow the debate to be adjourned at that late hour—11.35 p.m.

said the Bill was of the greatest importance, and he regretted that the Minister would not accept the motion. The Minister had spoken for two hours on this Bill, and the speaker held that it was not fair that members should not be given an opportunity to express their opinions. He had certain views on the matter and wished to express these views.

also regretted the Government’s refusal to accept the motion. He said other matters of less importance had been discussed by the House. This was an all-important matter, and he did not see the reason why the question should be finished in one afternoon and evening. The Government could give another day to the debate.

urged that the motion for the Bill to be referred to the Select Committee should be concluded. If hon. members did not want the Bill to go to a Select Committee let them say so. If they adjourned now nothing more would be done and his side of the House would be responsible. When would the Select Committee sit if the question was again postponed ? The Select Committee should be given as much time as possible to go properly into this matter. If they postponed the debate they would destroy the Bill. If they wanted to destroy the Bill they should say so.

asked whether the Prime Minister should not confine himself to the motion.

said the Prime Minister was not out of order.

said that if the debate was postponed it would not again come before the House, and they might as well tear the Bill to pieces. The speaker made an appeal to hon. members. What good would it do to discuss the amendment now? The subject matter of the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, and how then, he asked, could they now discuss the merits of the general questions? Let the debate be closed and the Select Committee put to work, so that the Bill could again be brought before them.

said that the right hon. gentleman had been absent from the House for a considerable time.

No.

Then I don’t understand the tenour of his remarks. My right hon. friend made some remark with personal reference to myself. I did not move the adjournment. It was moved by one of the stalwart supporters of my right hon. friend.

I have just said so.

suggested that they should negative the motion for the adjournment of the House, and then the adjournment of the debate could be moved. He could quite understand that, having been in the pillory all day, the Government would like to get out of it as well as they could, but there were many members who wanted to address the House on that most important measure which the Government had brought before the House, and because the Government wanted to run away from it, it was no reason why they should throttle those who wished to express their views on the matter. He had made a fair proposition, and he hoped they would act upon it. The hon. Minister himself had taken up two hours and then had run away from the measure. The supporters of the Government had an equal right to express their opinion, and he hoped they would all be given a full opportunity of expressing their views upon that important question.

said that the right hon. gentleman had charged members with wanting to wreck the Bill. Let it go to a Select Committee he said, but they did not want to do that. The Prime Minister must have been absent—

I never said so.

said he regretted his knowledge of the Dutch language was not good enough to enable him to follow in detail. In any case, there was no doubt about the petulance of the Prime Minister whatever was the fact with regard to the language. Although the Bill was not a perfect one, they were prepared to accept it He wanted to support the Government against itself. The Government now wanted to do the very thing which they had deprecated that afternoon. He hoped his hon. friend the Minister would see the utter unreasonableness of the House not getting a further opportunity of discussing that Bill.

The motion was negatived.

then moved the adjournment of the debate. He said that the hour was very late, and the question was very important.

pointed out that the hon. member had already moved the adjournment of the House.

thereupon moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

said that they wanted to refer the Bill to the Select Committee, with the honest intention of getting a move on. They could not get a move on without giving people who were opposed to the measure an opportunity of stating their case. It was not a case of the Government running away from their measures, or that they did not believe in them any longer. He hoped that the House would not agree to the motion.

said it was a pleasure to the whole of that House to realise at last the Government was honestly intending to get a move on. He did not think there was one member in 50 who had understood the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. The amendment was rather lengthy, and contained matters not correlated. Perhaps the Government did not want the adjournment of the debate, because they were afraid of members studying the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. He thought it would become more and more impressed upon the minds of members, if the debate went on, that the Government was not only running away from their own Bill, but that they were afraid of hon. members understanding amendments.

said the Minister said he wanted to send this Bill to a Select Committee in order to remove any misunderstanding. If he wanted to remove a misunderstanding the best way was to let it be discussed here in the House, fully and freely. The Government was trying to do its best to squelch the debate. What impression was that going to give to the country? Was it going to remove misunderstanding. No?

said really the Government was not treating the House fairly. If the Minister, after proposing the course he had just proposed, put it simply to the House that the second reading be discharged and the Bill sent to a Select Committee, it would have been all right; but the Minister spoke for two hours before moving, and thus started a discussion. Now he wanted to stifle that discussion. The Ministers took their own time. They put their own views before Parliament, but when it came to hon. members’ views, that was another matter. It was not right to close down a discussion the Minister had deliberately started.

said the Select Committee to which it was proposed to refer the Bill should know the feelings of the House. The debate should be adjourned so that the House could calmly and seriously consider a matter of this importance. It would save time if the Prime Minister would agree to the adjournment. Bitterness was being created over this matter, and taunts were being thrown about the House. He did, therefore, suggest that it would be far better to put an end to that at once by adjourning the debate.

was pleased that the Minister refused to have the debate adjourned. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) lad spoken for two hours, and he (Mr. Geldenhuys) for one was not anxious to have to listen to more speeches of that kind. He felt sorry for the officials and for the Press, but if necessary he would sit there for another twenty-four hours.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was declared carried.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—41.

Alexander Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton. Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

J. Hewat and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

Noes—60.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry.

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert. Jozua Adriaan

Langerman. Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrick Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

said he had never known a more insane procedure than that adopted by the Government in this matter.

The hon. member must keep to the matter before the House.

The matter before the House was the motion for the discharge of the second reading of the Bill and with regard to that he thought he had never seen in that Parliament a more insane procedure than that adopted by the Government. It was a policy of running away to fight another day. The Government expected them at such short notice to give a verdict on that measure, which was making a farce of Parliament. Could not the Government bring measures before the House in an assimilable condition? That afternoon was the first time he had seen the Minister of Finance with his tail between his legs, although he had sat opposite to the hon. member for six or seven years.

said that he regretted having to speak on the matter at such an early stage of the morning, but he had to do so. His constituents had strong views on the matter, and they had sent him to the House to express their opinions; if he could not do so he could not represent them any longer. (Mr. MADELEY: Hear, hear.) What he objected to was that having come to the understanding, the principle was discussed and debated, and they were supposed to say nothing about it. He knew what Select Committees were. Things went to them and were returned cut and dried. He had received confirmation from the Minister of Railways of the fear felt throughout the Free State, when he said all that was left was for the House to act as the farmer’s wife to the six blind mice, and cut off their tails with the carving knife. The establishment of a central University would mean the decline of the inland colleges. If they were going to break up those colleges it meant that a great many students who now went to college would not go at all. At the Grey College they had 130 students; but if that institution was wiped out, only perhaps 60 students would go to the University. In face of the warnings conveyed to Free State members by the resolutions adopted by the University Council in Bloemfontein, he would ask them how they could vote for any central University. The man who was the leading educationist in the Free State said he would prefer the withdrawal of the Bill altogether rather than have further compromise, and spoke of the unfairness of placing the Provincial Colleges under the control of the Cape Town University. He thought that the time had not yet arrived when they could establish such a University in South Africa, and thought they should rather develop their existing colleges. The scheme was one that they could not support at the present moment. With this warning before them, they, in the Free State, could not support the proposals of the Minister. So far as the Select Committee was concerned, he was suspicious, and he did not see how any tinkering could improve the measure.

was satisfied with the Minister’s statement that the Bill would be referred to Select Committee, and could not understand the attitude of hon. members in refusing to let the motion pass. If they went on in this manner, this session would be prolonged for another six months, and he appealed to the hon. the leader of the Opposition to co-operate in getting the motion passed.

put the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage.

said he did not think it wise to ask the House to decide the question at that hour. He had the permission of the seconder, and he would withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

then put the main question, namely, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—61.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrick Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert. Jozua Adriaan

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johanes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers

Noes—36.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie. James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Phillips, Lionel

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson. Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

J. Hewat and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

The original motion was accordingly agreed to.

intimated he would give the names of the Select Committee, to which the Bill is to be referred, at the next meeting of the House.