announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Industrial Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, viz.: The Minister of Labour, Messrs. Brown, Eaton, Haywood, McIlwraith, Nel, Maj. Roberts, Maj. K. Rood, Messrs. Steytler, Sturrock and Waterson.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a public or a private Bill ?

The hon. member may take it as he likes. I am complying with a promise I made to this House some few years ago.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time; second reading on 6th March.

I move—

The Bill is so thoroughly bad and so based on ignorance and prejudice that I feel it is wrong that it should be passed without some final protest. In the discussion some of my hon. friends on the Government side complained that the racial issue had been introduced. No one regrets that more than I do, but the blame for that is entirely on the shoulders of the Government, because it is not possible for anyone reasonable to examine this Bill and avoid the conclusion that it is aimed at a particular race, and if any evidence of that were necessary, apart from the implications and details of the Bill, it is to be found in the statement made by the Minister of the Interior, who, speaking on this very question, said—

I submit a statement of that kind is the strongest possible evidence that can be produced in so far as the Government and the Minister are concerned, that they aim at a certain section of the South African community. If that were not enough, we had the statement of the Prime Minister who, in replying to the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), said—

One is constrained to ask what possible meaning is to be applied to this, because it can be applied to no other community than the one to which I have the honour to belong. Hon. members on the other side have been complaining of some of my references to their attitude towards the sanctity of family life. These references were made more in sorrow than in anger, and that contempt was aroused, not so much by the attitude of the Minister and his friends who sit behind him, as by the actual details of the Bill, which showed that no consideration was given to the sanctity of family life. The Minister himself, when I proposed that some amendment should be made, as a result of which that family life could be maintained, and those who were domiciled in South Africa would have the right to bring their wives and children, admitted that if this amendment was accepted, the whole value of the Bill would be upset. As far as the Minister is concerned, and the party which sits behind him, I take it, surely they are more concerned with the question of restricting immigration than the sanctity of family life. I was justified then, and I am justified now in referring somewhat contemptuously to the attitude of the Minister and his party towards the sanctity of family life—the vindictive and unchristian spirit which has actuated the Minister.

The hon. member must not use the word “vindictiveness” as against any other hon. member.

I submit, in attributing vindictiveness, or an unchristian spirit to anyone, I am not going contrary to the rules of the House. While the discussion was going on, I read, with great pleasure and admiration, the very beautiful principle enunciated by the Minister—who is very good at enunciating principles, although the application thereof is a different thing—who speaking in another part of this city said—

I have looked in vain for human charily and loving-kindness in this Bill and in the Minister’s attitude, and applying the Minister’s own test one is constrained to believe that his Master will also say to him: “I have never known thee.” I want to deal with another aspect, and that is the illogical nature of the Bill, and the ignorance underlying it. One of the points raised by the Minister in support of the Bill is that we must safeguard western civilization in South Africa. The Minister seems to have forgotten that western civilization is based on two great factors—the culture of the Greeks and the ethics of the Jews—and here we have a Bill which seeks to exclude the two peoples who are responsible for the development of western civilization. It is assumed that the great thing to do is to allow Nordic people to come into the country, and yet we have the people of Finland excluded, and the people who come from Lithuania, also Nordic, excluded. We have the peculiar position that people who, prior to the war, formed a part of the German empire, are now to be excluded from South Africa. Large portions of Germany which but for the war would still have belonged to the German empire, now belong to Poland, and because they now belong to Poland the people of that part of Europe are to be excluded. We have the case of Czechoslovakia, formerly part of the Austrian empire, and yet the Minister to-day excludes Czechoslovakians from entering South Africa. He allows people to come here from Italy and France. I have no objection to them, but on the one hand we have the people of Italy and France allowed to come in, and on the other hand we have the people of Roumania, of similar race origin, excluded. The Bill is very illogical. We have the peculiar circumstance that while some of these people to whom I have referred are not allowed to come into South Africa, the Senegalese, the Malagese and the people of Algeria, races which would otherwise be excluded, are allowed to come in by reason of the fact that they belong to France, and are French citizens. I want to take another point in connection with this matter. The Minister gave us many platitudes about the trend of immigration to-day from various parts of the world to other parts of the world, but if he had examined the immigration now taking place, he would have seen that the greatest force which brings about that immigration is not economic or racial, so much as the fact that people tend to go to a certain country because their relatives and friends are there. That is what has influenced immigration to the United States to a large extent of recent years. The people who are largely hit by this Bill are the people whose relatives and friends have come here. Now they are to be stopped from coming to South Africa. The Minister, in attempting to stop them, has made various statements, and one of his statements in particular deserves attention. Dealing with this immigration from Eastern Europe, he said that the census disclosed that of these who came from that part 22 per cent. were dependents— that is women and children—to whom he did not object, less than 3 per cent. were agricultural, and no less than 80 per cent. belonged to other occupations in following which they must subsist on what others produced. The Minister could not possibly have investigated those figures when he submitted them. I have an analysis of the immigration from Lithuania, Poland and Latvia into the Union of South Africa for the seven months ending 31st December, 1929. During those seven months 1,664 immigrants landed in South Africa from those countries, and of these 749 were women and children. Of the 915 males 436 were actually producers, and of the balance of 479, 91 are students, doctors, artists, musicians, teachers and clergy; leaving 388 who are made up of jewellers, butchers, travellers, clerks, salesmen and general dealers. I have all the details. Take, for instance, joiners and carpenters 48; farmers 22; electricians 14; locksmiths 12; upholsterers 13; mechanics 14; watchmakers 45; and so you may go through the figures, and find that there are 436 of these people who are useful producers helping in the development of South Africa. I have given one or two of these details to show how ill-informed the Minister is, and how he has framed this Bill on unreliable and inaccurate information. I want to take another point in connection with this matter. We are faced, in South Africa, with the peculiar position of a very large disparity between the white and native races. I remember that since 1921 a statement which was made by Mr. Cousins, then Director of Census, has been mainly relied upon by the Government to justify their native policy. In 1921 Mr. Cousins said—

Yet the Government has now shut the door on white immigration. That is bad not only from the economic point of view but from the national point of view. From the economic point of view it is bound to retard the economic progress of South Africa, as I have already indicated by figures in the debate on the second reading; and from the national point of view, as a result of this policy very little will be done to break down the disparity between European and native races referred to by the Director of Census. I am justified in saying by this Bill you are virtually closing the doors, because by the figures we have it is clear that a very large percentage of the immigration hitherto flowing in has been also flowing out again. More and more of the English-speaking people are leaving South Africa; and I pause to ask the hon. Minister and my friends on the other side of the House, what are we doing? On the one hand the enforcement of bilingualism is being urged; on the other hand we have a regulation by which an English speaking person coming to this country from overseas cannot enter the railway service for a period of two years. Further, the general commercial policy embarked on by the Government is bound to discourage immigration. The policy of which the present Bill is the culminating point is a policy of prohibiting immigration. On the one hand western civilization, about which we are hearing so much, is to be excluded. On the other hand commerce is being discouraged by the policy of the Government, and now a measure which is about to be forced upon this House by the Minister will barricade the windows of South Africa to learning from overseas. This policy is leading South Africa in the wrong direction; that of narrow nationalism and little Africanderism. The policy I have advocated would lead to greater progress and development. I want to protest on these grounds against this Bill.

I do not propose to elaborate the many arguments which have been adduced against this measure, but I am astonished that most of the hon. members on the other side did not show the slightest interest in the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge).

Your side?

When people in general are prejudiced against an issue, the soundest arguments fail to induce them to reconsider their attitude. Whilst the hon. Prime Minister is in his seat, and fearing he may run away— speaking recently in Johannesburg at a dinner given to Dr. Brainen he is reported to have said that the Jews are “Fine citizens, and an asset to any nation”. I ask the Prime Minister did he mean that or not? The present Bill is nothing less than a miserable piece of legislation against which we should strongly protest. I believe the hon. Prime Minister must have meant what he said. Why, then, this attempt to keep out a certain section of the population? I have challenged the Prime Minister on many occasions to say whether he did or did not mean what he is reported to have said, yet there he sits mute and dumb. As for his adjutant who introduced this Bill I ask him what was meant by that statement? But not a word is said. I am horrified to find we have men in South Africa who will make public pronouncements and then decline to say what they meant. I contend most strongly the Government has all the powers necessary for the effective control of immigration by means of the 1913 Act. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), when he held the post of Minister of the Interior, gradually reduced immigration, not on the ground of race but on the ground of occupation. This was justifiable. But when the present Minister came into office, what did he do? He opened the flood gates. Why did he first of all open the flood gates, and why does he now suddenly seek to close them again? I have asked the Minister to reflect and with draw the Bill; the time will surely come when it will recoil upon him, and he will say “What a pity I did not listen to the hon. member for Von Brandis” (Mr. Nathan).

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I should like to explain the object of the amendments. In consequence of the amendments which the House has passed, only in the English text, the English texts of the Acts of the University of Witwatersrand, and that of Pretoria, do not agree, but there are other points of difference between this Bill and the Dutch, or rather the Afrikaans text of the University of the Witwatersrand Act. I think that as the English text coincides, it is also desirable for the Afrikaans text to do the same, and the object of these amendments is to remove the differences. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is desirable.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted and read a third time.

I move—

1. (3) Any registrar of deeds in whose deeds registry is filed any document relating to either of the original companies shall, upon production to him of the duplicate of such document, make, free of charge or stamp duty, such endorsement upon both duplicates and such entries in the registers in his office as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of sub-section (2).

seconded.

Agreed to.

New Clause 9, as amended, put and agreed to

When the debate on this subject was adjourned last Friday I was trying to draw the attention of the House to the importance of the matter we were dealing with. This is a private Bill, and that fact brings with it a certain advantage, because it enables hon. members to regard the matter without party feeling, and extraneous considerations. It has, however, its disadvantage because it possibly causes hon. members to lose sight of the importance of the Bill, and the public outside also do. We are concerned with an important matter. The creation of a new national university is a matter of great importance to any nation. The character of the nation is to a very great extent what it is made by the universities of that nation. The university is the protector of the traditions, the past, and also the future welfare of the nation. Up to a certain point it is also the university that guards the conscience of the nation. Therefore, however favourably disposed the House may be towards the Transvaal University College and its aspirations to a higher status it is still necessary for us to very fully consider the matter from all aspects. We are asked what the effect of this proposal will be. In a few words it is the creation of another university, the fifth in South Africa, and we shall then at once hear the criticism which we have had to listen to so often—“another university”! Have we not enough universities? We often hear this question. With regard to it, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) has said. The passing of this Bill will make no difference in that respect. The important point is this; will it involve an increase in the number of university institutions we have in the country? At present we have three universities and a federal university which consists of six university colleges. As a result of the acceptance of this Bill we shall have four universities and a federal university, which will then consist of four university colleges. The number of institutions therefore remains unchanged. It may possibly be said that there are too many university institutions in the country, and much could be said in support of that. There is, however, another side to the matter, and it comes to the front when we ask the question which of the institutions we would like to eliminate? Everybody knows that the existence of a university institution, at any rate in its own circle, does good work, and even indispensable work. However attractive the ideal may possibly be of a single university for the whole country, we must still admit that South Africa is rather richer than poorer because at the time three instead of two universities were established. We must also admit that South Africa rather was enriched than inpoverished when the University of the Witwatersrand separated. The country is so much the richer that in Pietermaritzburg, Natal, and in Bloemfontein in the Free State, and in Grahamstown in the Eastern Province there are university colleges. Therefore, I cannot now identify myself with that line of criticism. But there is another line of criticism which should be followed. There are certain objections which must be mentioned. I do not do so to wreck the Bill, but to find a way by which those objections can be removed, and I hope that a way will be found as a result of the debate of this measure, of the statement by the Minister, or as a result of the passing of an amendment by the House to one clause in the Bill. I spoke of criticism. Now there are Hon. members in the House who know that I am connected with the University of the Witwatersrand. The hon. member for Brits specially appealed to hon. members who were interested in that university. He did so and I do not want to create the impression in making the criticism I do, it is because I take an interest in the Witwatersrand University. In the past the relations between the two institutions were not always friendly. Opposition came from the Transvaal University College to the development of the Witwatersrand University College into a university, but fortunately those days are long since past, fortunately the relations to-day are of the most friendly kind. The best possible spirit exists between the two institutions. The Witwatersrand University notices with the greatest satisfaction the development of the Transvaal University College, and when that college asks for the higher status of a university the University of the Witwatersrand, apart from general views in connection with the university development of the country, will make no objection to such a proposal. The interests of the Witwatersrand University are not affected by this Bill. It will have no effect upon the number of students. But even if it had that effect we would still be ready to look the facts in the face, if we could maintain and preserve the good relations between the two institutions. The Witwatersrand University therefore makes absolutely no objection to this Bill, and if the Transvaal University College achieves its object, then the University of the Witwatersrand will be the first to wish Pretoria success and prosperity. That also is the spirit in which the matter is regarded by the town of Johannesburg, and by the part that I represent in the House. The town of Johannesburg is in this connection favourably disposed towards the town of Pretoria. This possibly was not always so in the past. I remember the mayoral polemics between the two mayors about university questions in which the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), as mayor of Pretoria, took part. Those days, however, are past. The town of Johannesburg has attained its ideal in university questions, and will place no stumbling block in the way of the fulfilment of a similar ideal in the case of the sister town, Pretoria. When, therefore, I have to make certain criticisms on the Bill, I do not speak on behalf of the Witwatersrand University, nor as representative of the town of Johannesburg, but as a member of this House who, like all members I think, takes an interest in the healthy development of university life in South Africa, and who feels that the importance of the creation of a university demands that we should consider the proposal from all sides. There are two points to which I want to draw the attention of the House in connection with this matter. Firstly, it is necessary to put the question what the effect of the Bill will be on the University of South Africa, and on future university development in our country. The University of South Africa consists of six constituent colleges; from the nature of the case it is wrong to regard that university as a permanent institution. In the select committee the University of South Africa was described as the children’s nurse, the “wet nurse” of the constituent colleges. That possibly goes a little far, but if we look at the Act on the University of South Africa we can, at any rate, compare the university with a parental home in which the daughters are still living without its being the intention that they should always continue to live there. In such a case it is necessary for us, when the most important of the constituent colleges wants to leave the home, to ask what the effect will be. When in 1920 the University of the Witwatersrand, which at that time was also a college in the University of South Africa, made an effort in the same direction, the Minister, at the time, specially left this question to the council of the University of South Africa, and he tried to get the opinion of the Senate of the University of South Africa. In this case that procedure has not been followed, because the last meeting of the Senate was in September last, and the movement for the university was only started in October. The next meeting of the Senate will probably take place in April, so there has not yet been an opportunity for the Senate to state its views on the matter. But perhaps it is of interest to see what statement was made by the Senate of the University of South Africa in 1920 with reference to the scheme of the University College of Johannesburg in the same direction. The statement was that the secession from the University of South Africa will have the tendency to disorganize the University of South Africa, and would weaken the staff, and the Senate also thought that in consequence of the geographical position the secession of the Johannesburg University College would lead to serious administrative difficulties. The view of the Senate on the University of South Africa held in 1920 was, to a great extent, contradicted by the occurrences of subsequent years. It was in the first place, due to that that instead of the Johannesburg University College another college was introduced, viz., that of Potchefstroom, but in the second place, in 1921 and subsequent years the number of students in South Africa increased very much. Those were years during which the number of university students rapidly increased, and as a result the University of South Africa overtook in a few years what it had lost as a result of the separation of the Johannesburg University Cellege. To-day, however, the separation of the T.U.C. will undoubtedly have far more serious results. Circumstances in university matters are not to-day the ease as in 1920-’21. The number of students in our colleges and universities are in the main stabilized. We cannot expect any large increase in the number of students during the next few years, and therefore the separation of the T.U.C. will administer a heavy blow to the University of South Africa. I shall certainly not go so far as to say that the latter university is not strong enough to-day to stand the blow, but I want to correlate the fact with what I consider as a further effect which the passing of this Bill will have. It is that it will open the way for secession of still more of the constituent colleges of the University of South Africa, and the establishment of still more universities. If we examine the figures given in the supplement to the report of the select committee we find that the Rhodes University College, e.g., does not come far behind the T.U.C. to-day. The Transvaal University College has, in fact, more faculties, but the number of faculties are, in my opinion, of very little importance in the establishment of universities, and financially the Rhodes University College is probably stronger than the T.U.C. There are, indeed, fewer students at the former, but when you remember that a very large number of the students at the T.U.C. are not full-time students, but external students, who only pass a part of their time there, then we find that even to-day the difference between the two institutions is not too great, and I think we can certainly assume that if the Bill passes we shall very soon commence to hear of a movement in favour of the establishment of a university in the Eastern Province, as well as another movement for the establishment of a university in Natal. We are already beginning to hear of this movement. Recently attempts have been made and with success to start university work in Durban. I understand fairly large amounts have been subscribed there in support of university work. I should, therefore, imagine that we may expect to take place in Durban in university affairs what took place in the years after 1918 in Johannesburg in similar matters, in other words, that Natal will, within a few years, also be in the position to ask for a separate university. When Natal does so the Free State will certainly not remain behind. The Free State will certainly see to it that the necessary support is given to the old historical Grey College also to make a claim for a separate university. There is already talk in Bloemfontein of a movement in that direction. If that is to be the outcome then we must enquire what the position in South Africa will be, when we shall no longer have four universities as we have to-day, or five, if this Bill passes, but eight universities. We must also remember that the University of South Africa will then be left with only two colleges, those of Potchefstroom and Wellington, and those two will probably inherit all the existing assets of the university of South Africa, including the Currie-Hiddingh Fund, which was recently established. In view of that we must enquire whether the University of South Africa, if it is left with only two colleges, which are today the weakest, will maintain the standard of its degrees. The hon. member for Brits said that we could solve the difficulty by making use of the powers granted in the Bill, and joining the two colleges to the universities of Pretoria and Stellenbosch respectively. I want, however, to draw the attention of the House to the possibility of these two colleges themselves not being prepared to join up to the University of Pretoria and Stellenbosch with all the assets of the University of South Africa. Another result of eight universities of South Africa cannot in my opinion be avoided, and it must lead to the lowering of the standard of the degrees of our universities. In this connection I want to refer to the statement before the select committee of the Secretary for Education. He said—

The hon. member for Brits told us—

I want to ask the House to take note of the statement of the Secretary for Education, that he hoped never to see eight or nine universities. These are all questions we must bear in mind, and in view thereof the standard which we set for the establishment of a new university must be so high that we shall in the future obviate premature secessions of university colleges from the University of South Africa. It is time for us to form a clear idea of our future policy in university matters. I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not in the House now because I should like to ask him to take this opportunity to explain his policy on this important point. I come to the second point, and want to leave the future university development in our country. I now want to consider the application of the T.U.C. on its merits. On the whole they have a good and a strong case. The hon. member for Brits called me as a witness on most points, and I am quite willing to give my evidence in favour of the T.U.C., but on one point I cannot do so, and that is more particularly the financial side of the matter. I think that the position of the T.U.C., especially with reference to what I shall describe as its free capital (the Endowment Fund), of which the proceeds are at all times available for general university purposes, is not satisfactory. It is something of the very greatest importance in connection with the acknowledgment of university status of any institution for the reason that the financial question, and especially the control of free capital funds is a necessary guarantee that the institution can maintain a proper standard for its degrees. If the State gives a charter to a university it grants such an institution the right to fix its own standard without any extraneous control over its degrees. It is, therefore, necessary for the state to demand all possible guarantees in this respect. This is always necessary, and especially to-day when the Minister of Education wants to introduce a stabilizing policy, and one which is intended to put limits to the increase of grants made by the state to universities and university colleges. The universities have three sources of Income, viz., students’ fees, Government grants, and the proceeds of capital which a university has at its disposal. As for the expenditure, the universities are not to-day in such a position as to expect the expenditure to be decreased if an institution can maintain its standard of efficiency. If a university wants to keep pace with modern development in educational matters, it must be prepared to see its expenditure increasing. It is, therefore, clear that, when the grants from the State are stabilized, and the increase of students is limited—which will probably be the case not only at the Pretoria institution, but at all the university institutions during the next few years—a university which has no free capital will be placed in an extremely difficult position. Such a university will very soon find out that it is not able to keep the standard of the works of its departments sufficiently high, and the standard of its degrees must necessarily suffer in consequence. There is further the fact that such a university must necessarily be tempted to lower the standard of the degrees in order to try to compete with other universities, and to attract as many students as possible. Hon. members will possibly think that that does not happen in our universities, but according to my experience I must unfortunately give evidence that it has actually happened in the past. Therefore it is extremely important that before a new university is established the State should take care that such a university has sufficient free capital available. This has in fact been admitted in the past in South Africa, and only after the John Marais fund was established, after the Victoria College, Stellenbosch, had £100,000 at its disposal for capital purposes, was the matter of the establishment of the Stellenbosch University seriously considered. As for the position of the T.U.C. the figures are far from satisfactory to anyone who is acquainted with the meaning of figures regarding university administration. On page 11 of the annexure for the select committee’s report we find that the T.U.C. to-day Has 102 departments, and a revenue of £76,000, exclusive of the veterinary department at Onderstepoort. I will assume that there are about 20, or shall I say 27, departments in the faculty of veterinary science, so that there are 75 departments in the other sections of the college. Seventy-five departments with a revenue of £76,000 in all. A university with that number of departments, and that income is pure nonsense, and I hope that no one in France, Germany or America will ever see the figures. I would rather assume that a mistake has been made, and that there are not 102 departments in the T.U.C. I want, further, to go into the total expenditure of the T.U.C. If we include everything, apart, of course, from the salaries, we find that the T.U.C. to-day spends no more than £5,000 annually in the upkeep of its department. If we look at the University of Johannesburg, we find that they annually spend £14,000 for that purpose. Let us, however, leave out the faculty of mechanics, because, so far as the T.U.C. is concerned, the veterinary science department is not included in the expenditure, then we arrive at a figure of about £11,500 for the Witwatersrand University. My personal experience is that the sum of £11,000 is far from adequate for the work the university is doing to-day, and therefore I must come to the conclusion that before the Pretoria University college can even do the work that it is doing to-day, it is necessary for the institution to increase its annual income by at least £6,000 or £7,000. In the light of these facts we come to the free capital which the T.U.C. has available. It was said before the select committee that a sum of £69,000 was available, or promised, for that purpose. I have gone into the figures in the report, but I found it extremely difficult to arrive at the figure of £69,000, and I can only assume that a part of the £69,000 is in the form of monies given for special purposes, and which cannot be regarded as free capital; the proceeds whereof are available for ordinary university purposes. When I look at the returns on pages XV and XVI of the annexures I find, in the first place, a sum of £3,000 as “Rhodes Trustees Mortgage Buxton Hostel,” and a further amount of £3,000 for the Louis Botha Chair of botany, and the there next succeeding amounts are sums that are only available for bursaries, and which are therefore not free capital. The money can only be used for special objects. In addition there is a further amount of £500 for agricultural development. Then, further, loans are given to students, and it is extremely difficult to regard them as free capital, but I find that the loans produce an annual income of £260. I want, therefore, to put that amount on the basis of a capital fund of £5,000. When I go further I see only one item which can be regarded as free capital, and that is government property to the value of £1,000. In all we find that the T.U.C. to-day has free capital not exceeding £12,500. In fairness it must also be noticed that the Pretoria Municipality has promised the college £25,000, which will only be paid in 5 or 10 years, and the promise of the municipality in the circumstances is not exactly a thing with which you can go to the bank. Yet, I will assume that Pretoria will find that money. To that must be added another £6,000 promised. I know nothing of the nature of the promises, but if I add those two amounts to the £12,500 I find that the college can reckon to-day on £43,500. When I review the figures I can say nothing else but that they are entirely inadequate to establish that university to-day. It is quite inadequate for the equipment. I know that it was stated in the evidence before the select committee that when once the college became a university it would get much more money. It was said that that was so with other institutions, and it was alleged that large grants to other universities only came after they had become independent universities. The last statement is not supported by facts. The South African College received its chief grant before it applied for a charter; Stellenbosch got its £100,000 from its John Marais fund before it applied for the charter; Johannesburg collected £180,000 from the public, and had a further £100,000 at its disposal as the result of the sale of buildings in connection with which promises for building loans had been made, before the institution there applied for the charter. In most of the cases the amounts which the institutions achieved were obtained before they got their charter, and in the hope of getting it. In the case of the Witwatersrand University, we find that to-day it receives about £20,000 annually in interest on monies invested. Ninety per cent. of the invested monies were received or promised before the university got its status. The T.U.C. on the contrary has to-day only got free capital to an amount of £50,000 which is available or promised. I want again to repeat that it is undesirable for a university to be created when it is not adequately equipped, and that is also apparently the view of the Minister of Education, because I understand that when the T.U.C. approached him the first time he expressed his readiness to approve of the grant of the charter, but added that the university college should first provide sufficient capital funds. The Bill he was prepared to introduce was taken out of his hands under the rules of this House. Therefore, the condition that he made fell away. The last word, however, still remains with the Minister because he, or rather the Governor-General, under Clause 1 fixes the day, when the university college will become a university, and I hope the Minister of Education will continue to take up the same attitude as at the time when he was first approached in the matter, and that he will make it clear that he is not prepared to fix the day before he is satisfied that the T.U.C. possesses at least £100,000 free capital, the proceeds of which will be available for general purposes. In that way the Minister will, undoubtedly, render a great service to university development in South Africa, by making the condition which will apply before other institutions get the higher status. So he will also prevent the collapse of the University of South Africa, and put a brake on the premature advancement of other university colleges. He will certainly also render a great service to the future university of Pretoria because he will certainly in that way accelerate the collection of funds considerably, and he will make it possible for the institution shortly to be properly equipped to commence its career as a university. Therefore, I once more appeal to the Minister, if possible, to make a statement as to his policy, and I hope that he will be able to remove the objection I have to the Bill.

I think that in the case of a Bill like the one now before the House, which not only affects education in general, but more particularly higher education, I shall be expected to explain my own attitude with regard to the matter. It is for that reason that I take the first opportunity of contributing my share to the debate. In the first place, I want to say that I have heartily welcomed, from the commencement, the promotion of the T.U.C. to university status, in principle, and for that reason I was not only ready to support it, but, if the rules of the House allowed it, to personally introduce the Bill into the House. The first step was taken by me, as Minister of Education, to introduce this Bill as a Government measure; unfortunately the rules of the House did not allow it, and the Bill was placed in the hands of a private member. The fact, however, remains that I was prepared to introduce it as a Government measure, and it proved that I was prepared to co-operate on behalf of the Government in connection with this matter. If it were a question here of the establishment of a new university institution, then I have no objection to saying that I would not for a single moment have thought of it. South Africa is possibly sufficiently well provided with institutions for higher education. With the exception of one, our institutions for higher education arose before Union. The Union, therefore, succeeded to all the institutions which exist to-day, and everyone knows that when an institution of that kind has once been established, there is so much attachment to it, and so much provincial patriotism, that it is an impossible matter to abolish it. For that reason, South Africa has all these institutions, and it is practically impossible to close down one of them. If they die automatically, then it is another matter, but it is impossible to destroy one of them by means of an Act of Parliament. However, it is not here a question of an establishment of another institution. The question here is the further development of an existing institution which has exhibited extraordinary vitality. I do not think that any member of the House can object in principle to the raising of the status of the T.U.C., and for the reason that the principle which is here being followed, is not one which has been laid down for the first time in this Bill. It is a principle which was adopted as long ago as 1916 when the Universities Act was put on the statute book. That principle was then finally considered by the House, and, if the House had not wanted to adopt that policy or principle as incorporated in the Act of 1916, then it certainly would not have inserted the section in question in the Act of the University of South Africa, that anyone of the constituent colleges of that university would have the right to come to Parliament by way of a private Bill to be admitted to the status of university. In 1916, therefore, Parliament, itself, gave these colleges the right to come to the House with a Bill of this kind, when they thought that they had the right of admission to the ranks of a separate university. For that reason, it is not a new principle which is included in this Bill, and I do not think that we can at this stage object to it in this House on that ground. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) said that if we permit the T.U.C. to become a university what will happen to the Rhodes University College, to Durban, to Bloemfontein, and the others. It is a good thing that he asked that question, but it is one that ought to have been put in 1916, because it was then that the right was given to those institutions to become universities along this road. The hon. member forgets that the T.U.C. in more than one respect is further advanced than even the Rhodes University College, which, if this Bill is passed, will be the most advanced college of the University of South Africa, and which will be the chief constituent college in the rank. The figures laid before the select committee prove that the T.U.C. in regard to the number of students had almost as many as the Rhodes University College and the four other colleges of the University of South Africa together. I believe the T.U.C. has 918 students, while the remaining university colleges have from 1,000 to 1,100. For all practical purposes the T.U.C. has, therefore, as many students as all the other five colleges together. It will take quite a little time before the Rhodes University College or the Bloemfontein University College will come near to the tradition of the T.U.C. The hon. member further said that if we now apply this principle and carry it to its logical conclusion, so that Rhodes, Durban, etc., can become universities, we would later on have eight universities in the country. He asks whether this will not hurt our higher education, and give our degrees a bad name. It may be so, but what real difference is there between the position that will then exist and that of to-day? As I said, we are not dealing with the new university institution, we are dealing with one that already exists; and which, in conjunction with the other university colleges, surely grants degrees in precisely the same way as the universities of Cape Town, Stellenbosch and the Witwatersrand. Thus there will be no change if we have a few universities more. The one question that is decisive is this: has the Pretoria institution to-day reached that stage in its development that it can reasonably take advantage of the right given in 1916 to the university colleges to come to Parliament for a higher status? I may say this, that when Parliament has to deal with a Bill of this kind in connection with the place which has an institution for higher education, we ought to be a little more accommodating with Pretoria, because Pretoria is the administrative capital of the Union.

What has that to do with the matter ?

It has this to do with it: that there is a great deal bound up with the administrative capital of the Union. It gives considerable safety regarding the basis on which the university must be built up in future. Just because Pretoria is the administrative capital, it gives the status to it which other towns do not possess, and puts it on a safer basis than other towns. I would, therefore, be much more accommodating in the case of Pretoria, but now what is the number of students? I need not go into this side of the question. The number of students more or less indicates the size of the institution. The number is considerably greater than the number which the existing universities had when they were admitted to the status of universities. As for the scope and thoroughness of teaching in the institution, there can be no doubt the quality of the work is equal to the quality which is done in the existing universities. If we bear these two things in mind, then I think that the T.U.C. stands the test well. Whether it is on a fixed base as regards the number of students, I say that Pretoria is the administrative capital of the Union, and there is more safety than in many other towns. I also want to point out that it is admitted that Pretoria fills a great need in the Transvaal, which the other institutions do not supply. If we look at the students that attend the Witwatersrand University, it seems that that university especially serves the urban population of the Transvaal; children of urban dwellers go to Johannesburg chiefly. Pretoria, however, chiefly draws its students from the countryside of the Transvaal. As long as that is so, and as long as the T.U.C. retains the full trust of the countryside population, it stands on a proper basis. As for what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said about the financial basis of the institution, I agree with him to a great extent. The financial requirements are very important. Now I think that I read in the report of the select committee that the actual amount of the endowment fund which is at the disposal of the institution is £69,000.

Where is that?

I did not quite understand what the hon. member meant by “free capital.” If he means capital which is available at any time for the institution—

Capital for general purposes.

Then I only want to say that Stellenbosch did not have it either. Everybody knows that it was the Marais fund of £100,000 that made the elevation of Stellenbosch possible. But that fund is certainly not free capital. It is earmarked by the Will. Only the interest can be used by the institution, when it is made available by the board of trustees.

That was my definition of free capital.

Unfortunately, I did not hear it. If that is the hon. member’s intention, then Stellenbosch did not have it either. I do not think that I am prepared to make a statement here that I will not allow the T.U.C. to become a university until it has the disposal over a certain sum, say, £1,000. I think the hon. member would accuse me in connection with the other motion on the Order Paper of grasping after autocratic powers. If I were to do what he suggests, I should be a greater autocrat than hardly ever existed in the world. It would mean that Parliament would pass the measure here, and that I could stultify Parliament.

Will you support my amendment ?

I will not say. I first want to see what the hon. member proposes. What I can, at any rate, satisfy him on is that Pretoria to-day is making every endeavour to have £100,000 collected when it assumes its higher status.

Possibly in ten years.

There is an invaluable opportunity next year. The institution will then be 21 years old, and Pretoria will, on the 10th October, be proclaimed a city. A great effort will then be made to reach £100,000. My predecessor, on a former occasion, mentioned a certain amount in this connection which Pretoria must have before it could claim the higher status; I think it was £75,000.

No.

I was informed so. If it is so, then this amount is not far off it. When the day comes for them to accept the higher status, they will have that amount. Before I sit down I just want to say that an amendment was introduced in the select committee about which I think the House should think twice before accepting it, viz., to provide that the Senate of the future university shall have no representation on the council. If we pass this amendment, then Pretoria will be made an exception from all the other universities in the country. I think that I hear—I do not know if there is any truth in it—that the amendment was introduced because trouble had arisen in another institution, and, because bad feelings arose, the question was asked whether it would not be best to give the Senate no representation on the council of the university. I think it is very dangerous to make a general rule of the difficulty in one institution. The amendment would, in any case, not rectify the matter in the other institution. Why do it in connection with this proposed university? I think the view of the select committee was that the professors of the Senate are in the service of the council, and on that account they should not have seats on the council. There is so much truth in it, of course, that the professors are in the service of the council, but there is a provision in our university legislation that the government of the institution should not be in the hands of the council alone. It is vested in the council together with the Senate, and there are matters in connection with which the Senate has a much closer knowledge than the council. The council consists of persons outside universities, and in connection with many matters they do not have the intimate knowledge that the members of the Senate have. The two bodies must remain in close touch with each other. I, therefore, hope that when this Bill comes before the House that amendment will not be passed. I further wish to give my hearty support to the Bill.

I am not rising to oppose this Bill. I think we shall all be pleased when we find a new university appearing on the scene in South Africa, but I think it is our duty when this little baby is laid on our doorstep, so to speak, to ask ourselves whether it has the germs of life in it, whether it is going to be a credit to the life of South Africa and uphold the standard of South African university education or not. The criticisms expressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) have been directed to that point, and I think have been entirely sound. I hope the hon. members who are the parents or godfathers of this Bill will take note of what he has said, because these criticisms go to the root of the matter. I was disappointed to hear the Minister’s reply to the first criticism made by the hon. member. That criticism was that this charter now given to the Pretoria university college would leave the Federal University of South Africa in such a position as to encourage and almost compel its constituent colleges to seek the same course as Pretoria is now seeking, and if that result is brought about, we are faced in the near future with the prospect of eight teaching universities in South Africa. I agree with my hon. friend, and I think most people in this country will agree, that it would not be a good thing for university education in South Africa. I think every man who looks at the position without prejudice will see we cannot properly support eight separate, independent, degree-conferring universities. The Minister said the question had already been settled, and that in 1916, when the University of South Africa was constituted by an Act of this House, it was laid down that any of the constituent colleges should have the right to come to Parliament to promote a Bill to give it a university charter. That is so; but it is a long step from giving one of these colleges that right in due time, to accepting it as a principle that whenever it comes that right should be granted. The point is not whether the Pretoria University College has the right— of course it has—but the question is whether this House should give it that status. That is the question to be decided. I should be very sorry if it were laid down as a principle that this House has given away the right to criticize and object to any university college coming here and asking for university status. We have a right to ask whether it is in the interests of the country that such a change should be brought about. The real difficulty about the application which is now being made is the question of finance. The Minister tells us that because Pretoria is the administrative capital of the Union, he thinks that is a ground why this application should be granted. I wish that the citizens of Pretoria would rise to the height of their great privilege as the citizens of the administrative capital of the Union, and that they would not merely put forward the fact that Pretoria as the administrative capital as a claim why they should get a university. I wish they would back their application with some local support, some financial support, by way of showing their consciousness of the privilege conferred upon them by Pretoria being the administrative capital of the Union. I would like to see them doing more to support this high position that they have got. I think that before they came to this House with a Bill such as this they ought to have provided for a more reasonable endowment fund than they show. When I was a Minister they approached me with a proposal that they should promote a Bill, and when I enquired about a possible endowment fund, they said that they were going to raise £250,000. I said, “when you have raised that, come along,” but they never came. I am afraid that something like one-tenth of that amount would cover what they have been able to raise. I hope that the Minister will see that before the appointed day is fixed, they will satisfy him that they have got an endowment fund adequate to keep up the status of a university, and not merely the status of a university, but the status of a university worthy of our administrative capital. What do we mean by endowment? My hon. friend behind me said that an endowment fund is a fund, the interest of which is available for the general purposes of the university, and not tied up for a specific object. The income of the university comes from three sources—from the Government (Government grants), from students’ fees, and from the proceeds of endowments. It is perfectly clear that if a university is started within adequate endowments, it is almost inevitably bound to endeavour to swell its income by attracting students in competition with other institutions and the temptation is also very strong to do so by a reduction of the standard of its degrees. That has happened elsewhere. That is the real difficulty, and the hon. member who is in charge of this Bill gave no answer to the problem in regard to endowment. There is no doubt that the endowments possessed by the Transvaal University College are not even within measurable distance of the amount mentioned by the Minister, £75,000. Even if you count the £25,000 given by the Pretoria municipality —it is spread over ten years—any impartial person examining these figures will see that the present endowment fund of the Transvaal University College is well under £50,000, and that is not an adequate endowment fund for a degree conferring university. I hope the Minister will see to it that before he fixes the appointed day, he is satisfied on that point. He will not be setting himself above the law in that respect. The law gives him that power, and we suggest that he should use it. The only other point I want to make is with regard to the representation of the senate on the university council. I was very sorry to see that the select committee amended the Bill by excluding the representative of the university senate from the university council. I hope that that representation will be restored when the Bill is in committee, as I cannot imagine anything more calculated to prevent the harmony that should exist in the governing of a university than the clause now in the Bill relating to this matter. We are glad to see a new university appearing on the scene in South Africa, but we think that the Government should lay down a definite rule with regard to applications for a higher status by university colleges that, before they will offer support to a Bill of that kind, in this House, they will see that the endowment fund is there, and that it is adequate for the purposes of the university, and that they will make that an unalterable condition to promising support for a Bill of that kind in this House.

I think we all appreciate hon. members taking so much trouble to get institutions for higher education on a very high and good standard before they actually become universities. We appreciate this in the last speaker and also in the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr), but I, nevertheless, think that the latter created a bit of a smoke-screen because he wanted to hide a little from us that the Johannesburg University was the sinner, in this connection, which pointed the way to other institutions. Originally there were only two separate universities, those of Cape Town and Stellenbosch, except, of course, the University of South Africa. The first which was brave enough to secede was not the T.U.C., but the Witwatersrand, and, consequently, they were the people who pointed the way to other colleges of obtaining independence. It seems to me that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) wants to camouflage that fact a little, and to throw all the blame on to Pretoria. I think the majority of us, especially after the Minister’s assurance that he has gone fully into the matter, are in favour of Pretoria getting the higher status at which any institution of higher education in South Africa aims, and I think we can congratulate Pretoria that they have already come so close to the realization of their ideal. I should like to say a few words in connection with Clause 26 of the Bill, which contains the so-called conscience clause, which is also contained in other higher education Acts. The matter has several times received attention in this House, and it has been fully debated at congresses and church meetings, and the attention of the outside public has been strikingly drawn to the matter. I fear the clause, as it stands, will not do. I do not wish to discuss the whole matter, but I want to point out two things, the first is that the conscience clause, as contained in Clause 26, prevents the free development of science, while in the second place I contend that the conscience clause overlooks the rights of the parents in regard to the teaching and education of their children. In the first place, I say that the provision hampers the free development of science. Science is not merely knowledge of fact, science is systemized knowledge, which behind the facts has theories and principles on the basis of which the facts are arranged. Then only does it become science. The scientist must be absolutely free in educational and research work, and I think he is free, but when we come to the investigation of facts, the systematic arrangement of facts, then the conscience clause is a decided hindrance to the free development of science, for the reason that when we come to systematized knowledge, i.e., when a man puts his findings in scientific form, science is definitely divided into two groups. The first is the neutral group, and the other is the Christian group; one is neutral science and the other is Christian science. Christian science and Christian scientists, when adopting their theories and principles, hear in mind the complete Christian world-view, and the source and form of the Christian life, viz., the scriptures. Let me here mention what Advocate Terpstra from Holland said in this connection, viz., that neutrality in connection with science meant that an independent line was adopted, just as the Christian line has a direction of its own in the scientific world, and the neutral direction is one that simply puts on one side the religious beliefs, and the conscience clause puts a premium on the neutral tendency. Let me then point out that no one in South Africa, e.g., can be appointed under the conscience clause, not even in Pretoria if it becomes a university, because he is a supporter of the Christian scientific view. It says expressly at the end of Clause 26 that no one shall be privileged or prejudiced by reason of his religious belief. If there are two, three or more applicants for an appointment, and two of them are equal, but one has a Christian view of the world, as will be seen from his thesis or essay for the doctor’s degree, then he may not be appointed, because he follows the Christian scientific view. What is more, I want to show from the fact that this clause prevents an institution from calling itself a Christian institution. During the discussion of the policy of the G.U.C. at Bloemfontein, it appeared when they wanted to adopt the view and the spirit of the majority of the Free State population, that it could not be done. It is not permissible to say that an institution follows a definitely Christian national view as the majority in the Free State wish. The section forbids it. I want to point out that the T.U.C., before it was incorporated in the University of South Africa, was the “Potchefstroom University College for Christian higher education,” but on incorporation in 1921, the institution was prevented from continuing to hold the last part of its title. Under this clause all must be neutral institutions for higher education, and no definitely Christian institutions may be included with the sole exception of the Native College at Fort Hare, which may be a definitely Christian college. I think that such a clause which hampers the Christian scientific development is not fair; that it is not fair that a college cannot appoint a man because he follows a Christian direction. It simply means that a premium is given to the so-called neutral institutions, and that the Christian direction is hampered; but the clause further hampers the right of parents to decide in what direction and spirit their children shall be educated. The child does not belong to the state, but to its parents. No one can contest that, but what do we find? The parents cannot decide on what lines, whether neutral or Christian, their child shall be educated, but the state decides. As if the child belonged to the state! The state can decide the direction, but the organized parents ought to be able to do it. What is the position to-day? The parents have no say, are powerless with regard to higher education even in our country. I only want to mention one theory in connection with higher education—because I think we should speak frankly on this matter—and it is evolution theory. That hypothesis has already changed its colour very much in the scientific world; there has been a big departure from the original view of the supporters of the theory, as preached by Haeckel, Darwin and Lamarque, and you find, e.g., the view now held by learned men that man does not descend from some kind of animal or from apes as was the original theory, but from Madagascar cats. I mention these things not to scoff, but I want to point out that one of the greatest supporters of this theory, the American Professor Osborne, has again stated quite recently that he does not believe in it any longer, although he, at first, always was a follower of that supposition. He does not believe at all now in the common descent of men and animals, but that they were separate from the start. This is not the point now, but what I want to come to is that the theory, which has already changed colour so much, nevertheless, contains extremely dangerous tendencies for the South African people as for any Christian people. I just want to mention a few names of learned men who have spoken in this connection. In the first place, Professor D. M. S. Watson, when the British Association was here last year, and debated the matter, replied to the question as to why the evolution theory was accepted by many scientists, that it was not because it had been logically and consistently proved that it was true, but because the other alternative, viz., the creation was incredible to them because they could not accept it. This shows that evolution in its deepest germ is diagonally opposed to the Christian teaching derived from the scriptures. I still also want to quote the great scientist Kuyper, who expressed himself very concisely on the matter, when he said that evolution was a new belief, which had put itself diagonally opposite to the Christian belief, and could only build its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession. Those are the words of that great man, and I only want, in addition, to refer to W. J. Bryan, who was more than once a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and who said—

Then he goes further—

Those are the views of great men in other countries, and we see a continuous and great danger in the evolution theory, but here it is once more protected in the clause, and the University of Pretoria will also come under it. Now, in conclusion, I want to add, and I believe that I speak on behalf of other hon. members who feel the same as I do, that we do not intend, because the conscience clause is included in the Bill, to move an amendment in committee in connection with it. The reason for the attitude is that the Secretary for Education distinctly said in the select committee that the matter was being considered by the Government. We therefore feel that it is best not to touch the matter at the moment, nor do we want to oppose the institution in Pretoria on this account. I believe we are in the position of being able to say that we are approaching the time when the difficulty will be got rid of, and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), our present honoured speaker, wrote some time ago in the public press that in his opinion the matter could be settled by a compromise; that the dispute was not at all of such magnitude that it could not be settled by both parties without their sacrificing their principles, and he added that thousands of readers would heartily welcome such a solution. I agree that the time is approaching when the matter will be solved without the sacrifice of principles in such a spirit that the conscience clause in the future will, indeed, prohibit religious tests, and will, indeed, prohibit that advantage, or detriment should be occasioned by reason of church membership, but that yet an institution shall not be prevented from appointing a man because he respects the Christian scientific point of view, I hope that that day is very close, and I am sure that the T.U.C. will help us and will join the movement to obtain it, because in answer to a question by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe), the head of the T.U.C., on behalf of the council of the college, definitely replied that they would like the institution to be known as a Christian national one. He was then asked if that would be in agreement with the wishes of the large majority of the parents who sent their children to the institution, and his reply was “yes.” I hope the new university will co-operate to arrive at a satisfactory solution in connection with this important point with regard to science in South Africa.

The hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) have placed their fatherly hand protectively on the Bill for the future university of Pretoria, but the former did not omit to give rather a slap to the university he wants to protect, towards the end of his speech. I do not think those hon. members, or any other member, have any reason for objecting to this development of the T.U.C., because the fact is that the bond between Johannesburg and Pretoria is always increasing. When we drive along the road between Johannesburg and Pretoria to-day, it is practically a succession of houses, and we can almost talk about one big city. In the development that is taking place in Pretoria in the iron and steel industry, and other industrial developments, even in scientific matters, Johannesburg may one day be promoted and become one of the big suburbs of Pretoria. I want to point out that the arguments used by the hon. member for Yeoville do not hold water. The reserve fund which the University of Pretoria will dispose of amounts to about £69,000, and the hon. member for Yeoville, when he was in office, said that he would be satisfied if £75,000 was available. That £6,000 could easily be obtained. The question has been asked whether the time has come for the T.U.C. to become a university, but Mr. C. C. Grant, the Registrar of the University of South Africa, and, therefore, an official of the university, who is in the position of giving the best information, told the select committee that the development of the T.U.C. into a university was only a natural development. He says further—

Then I want to refer hon. members to another witness before the select committee, Dr. Gie, also an expert whom we ought to take notice of. In answer to a question whether there ought not to be a certain amount of competition between universities, he replied affirmatively provided the universities were strong enough. He continued—

I think that if the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is really sorry for the University of South Africa, which the registrar of that university is not, then he ought not to come and feel sorry now, but he ought to have been so in 1921, when he was pleading for the university of the Witwatersrand. With reference to what the hon. member for Edenberg (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said, I want to point out that he dealt with the conscience clause in a thorough way. It is a matter which has already provoked great interest not only in the homes of parents, but also in the upper House and in this House, where it has been debated several times. We not only declare ourselves against that clause, but it is laid down in our constitution, and, in addition, in Clause 1—

Can anything be clearer than this declaration? Is that the God of the doctrine of evolution, or the God of the Bible? This section of the constitution refers to no one other than the God of the Bible. Compare it, however, with Clause 26 of this Bill and the clauses in other Acts with reference to our university, because this clause unfortunately applies to all our universities, and it is directly in conflict with the provisions of Section 1 of our constitution. What are the facts? It appeared from the evidence before the select committee that it was not only a matter of principle, but also of practice. An instance was quoted where professors abused the freedom under this clause, and tried to educate our youth in conflict with Section 1 of the constitution. There is also a private intimation to establish this. I think that Victor Hugo is quite right when he said that various people suffer from different kinds of blindness and the blindness of the scientist is that he does not know how stupid he is. If that is true, then it is our duty to see to it, even if it is not done now, that this matter is put right in future, and to see that the conscience clause becomes such a clause as no longer to hurt our conscience. I do not think we ought to do so in this Bill. As hon. members opposite are fairly doubtful with regard to this question, we shall have in the future to make efforts to put the matter right, but it must be put right as certain as Section 1 is to-day contained in the constitution.

After the remarks of the last speaker, I cannot remain silent any longer. I was a member of the select committee to which the measure was referred. Evidence was given before the select committee with regard to what is called the conscience clause, and I would like to read a reply I received from Professor du Toit, the Rector of the Transvaal University College, on this clause. I put the following question to Professor du Toit—

He replied: “Undoubtedly.” My next question was—

The answer was: “Academically, certainly great harm might result.” I then asked—

The reply was—

When I asked Professor du Toit if there were any means of dealing with professors who perverted the views of students, Professor du Toit answered—

Replying to my question whether the council could sit in judgment on its staff and decide that a man was unsuitable, Professor du Toit said—

I then put the question: “Or his influence is undesirable ?”, and received the reply that that would be a breach of discipline in extreme cases. I protest strongly against anything which would subject professors and teachers to persecution and inquisition regarding their religious beliefs. My test would be whether a man lived a decent life and was fit for his post. Whether he belongs to this, that or any other religious denomination means nothing at all as regards fitness to teach. The danger of applying religious tests is that you may have unscrupulous men, who, in order to obtain an appointment, would be prepared to subscribe to what they do not believe to be the truth. With regard to the constitution of the council, when it was proposed to omit sub-section (d) of sub-section (1) of Clause 7, I was the only member of the select committee to vote against the suggestion. I maintain that the council should be a true reflex of the university, and that undoubtedly it should comprise members of the senate. The Bill, as originally drafted, provided for three members of the senate to sit on the council. The argument against the inclusion of members of the senate was that the senate might have its actions reviewed by the council, and therefore—so it was urged—it was wrong that members of the senate should be on the council. If that were so, to be logical, the Rector himself would have to be excluded from the council, as he is not only a member of the senate, but its chairman. I told my fellow-members I was going to oppose this amendment in the House, and I hope the clause will be restored. I want to emphasize what has been so clearly stated by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) that the Minister shall use every discretion before allowing this university to come into being. We are not opposed to the establishment of the university qua university. I think it is deplorable that we are breaking up into so many universities; with our population we are not able to carry so many fully-fledged ones. However, it is no good arguing that point, and it is there for better or worse. I do hope, and more than hope, I pray, that this university will not gradually drift into an Afrikaans-speaking university, but that it will be truly South African without any trend to that division which is so deplorable. I would like to see the youth of this country mixed up as much as possible, without regard to the language they may use. Reverting to the Minister’s reply on the financial provision, it is somewhat misleading to say the assets are such and such. Most of them are not revenue earning, and, even so, if this £69,000 were a certainty, it would be different. Most of it is due to promises which come to an end at a certain date. I would like to see a consolidated revenue earning fund, the interest from which could not be touched except for university purposes. Then, as regards the number of students. In 1928 the Transvaal University College had 775 students and collected £14,705 in students’ fees; Rhodes University College with 454 collected £11,584. I quote that to show that there must be something wrong in regard to the former figures; either the fees were remarkably low, or a number of students were not in permanent residence. What number are extra-mural? There is no doubt that the point raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) as regards other colleges following the example of the Transvaal college in claiming full university status, is perfectly true. In every case I hope the Ministry of the day will see to it that the institutions claiming university standing answer fully the requirements that we lay down. I would like to know whether, being one of the capitals of the country, is, as has been stated by the Minister, a qualification for having a university. The Minister said that one of Pretoria’s great claims for a university is that it is the administrative capital of the Union. That claim I wish to traverse from the start. Leyden is the leading university of Holland, but whoever heard it said it was the capital city? Amsterdam has two universities, but how many has the Hague?

Amsterdam is the capital.

Where are the ambassadors, and where does Parliament sit, and where is the seat of Government and the monarch? No, the Hague is the capital. If a place deserves it by the number of pupils and the work it can do, that is something else, but it is the most futile reason to give to say that it is because it is the capital.

I shall not detain the House long, just a few words about the learned and eloquent speech of my hon. friend the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). We are thankful for the magnanimous attitude he and other Johannesburg members have adopted in connection with this matter, and we appreciate it. The hon. member will agree with me that if we follow history, and I believe in the historical line, the T.U.C. certainly has the right of becoming a university. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) will remember that in the republican days there was a gymnasium in Pretoria. Higher education was given there by persons of a high scientific rank. Yes, the quality of the education in the S.A. Republic was such that they got the gold medal at the Paris exhibition in 1899. That was the start of the university which is now coming into existence. Pretoria has a right to a university, not only because it is the administrative capital, but for historical reasons. Secondly, there is the number of students and the faculties there are there. The number of students has now nearly reached a thousand, and as the Minister has already said, those students chiefly come from the countryside. There are many hon. members who agree with me that there are parents in the Transvaal, in fact throughout the Union, who do not like sending their children to the big towns. It is also the case in other countries that you do not find the universities in the big towns. In America there are Yale and Harvard. We have the university of Leyden, we have Oxford and Cambridge, none of which is a big city, but are remotely situated. That is one of the reasons why parents prefer sending their children to Pretoria, than to Johannesburg. With regard to the right of the T.U.C. to become a university, the question was asked what is to become of the other colleges. The Minister has already replied to this. I should like to give a different answer. I do not share the convictions that the others will all become universities. My reason is that the number of students at the other institutions, with the exception of Rhodes is very small, and the only solution is for them to affiliate with the other universities. Potchefstroom belongs to Pretoria, and Wellington to Stellenbosch. Where the university students will slowly increase and the colleges, excepting a few, will become smaller and the number at the University of South Africa will be about 1,200 which is strong enough. I do not, however, want to follow the example of other members and play the prophet, but, at the same time, I do not want to go into this matter because I am convinced that the other university colleges during the next twenty years will not take this step. In this connection I should like to quote from the evidence of Dr. Gie before the select committee. He said—

Here we have it plainly and clearly stated that there is no danger where other university colleges are concerned. It is very plain and clear. The hon. members for Yeoville and Johannesburg (North) spoke about the establishment of the Witwatersrand University. I have carefully read the report of the select committee about the Bill concerned, and did not find anywhere anything being said of the “Endowment”, not even in connection with Stellenbosch. When the Witwatersrand University was established, the University of South Africa and the Department of Education protested. The University objected. In this case no objection is made by the University of the Minister. It is accepted as the necessary solution, that the T.U.C. must become a university, and I cannot understand why all these considerations are referred to in connection with the matter. If we look at the speeches on the Federal University in 1913 then we find that Minister F. S. Malan “condemned the federal system in no measured terms and the federal system could be justified only as a temporary scheme”. That was the view of the Minister of Education at the time. Then I come to the last point, the financial position. The laboratory at Onderstepoort is equal to about £500,000 in the endowment fund. I should like to say this, that we can be assured the money will be there. When the Witwatersrand University was established it had promises of money for the endowment fund. We have the same promises, and when we have become a university the funds will be there. £69,000 has been promised when we, become university. I can assure the House that Pretoria and all the towns of the Transvaal will see that we have the money when the T.U.C. is made a university. Sentiment rules the world, and we feel that on the 10th October, the birthday of President Kruger, when Pretoria celebrates her 75th birthday and is proclaimed a city, we can make a great appeal. All these things will co-operate and assist us, and therefore I am glad that such a measure of unanimity exists in the House to pass this Bill. The money will be there. Class fees have also been referred to. The £14,000 does not include agriculture, hence it is not so high. The agricultural section at Onderstepoort is not included, otherwise it would have been £2,000 more. I do not wish to detain the House. We are glad that it is felt on all sides that the University of Pretoria should be created, and I trust the House will unanimously pass the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.

I think it will be agreed on all siles of the House that the second reading of this Bill has been approached in a non-party spirit by almost every speaker. That was what took place in the discussions on the original Bill in 1923. The views which have been expressed during this debate have been of the most varied character, and I think they are a true reflection of the confusion of thought and of purpose which exists widely throughout the whole of the Union. Under the circumstances that we have to-day, when, at this very moment, a select committee is sitting considering the whole of the native question in a spirit of national responsibility and probing fully into every aspect of the question—I am very sorry, very disappointed and very much surprised indeed that the Minister has not chosen to dismiss the second reading of this Bill and send it to that select committee. Naturally the full effect of native policy or lack of it at the economic point of contact must come into consideration. The Urban Areas Act will form, no doubt, one of the points of discussion. This Bill limits us to the existing machinery without furnishing it with any greater driving force of principle. It merely endeavours to tighten up the existing Act in certain respects, but it is doing nothing whatever to prevent the growth of that great native population in our urban areas which everybody sees as a menace to our future. The Bill provides for more effective segregation in the urban areas, and sets out to improve the conditions of the natives in those areas; it gives power to the local authorities to deal with the idle and the dissolute and to arrest, now and then, an unemployed native. But the creation of huge native cities adjacent to our European towns is still left entirely to chance; we are not touching that problem at all. For these reasons I think the Bill should go to a select committee. There is a lack of real understanding of the policy to which we are committed in the urban areas. I quite realize the difficulties with which the Government is faced. All sorts of interests bring their influence to bear upon the Government to take this or that step, and its path becomes very difficult. The debate has revealed a certain unanimity of opinion along certain lines. There seems to be a general agreement that there is a menacing drift of the natives to our towns, and there is also general agreement that the drift should be prevented. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in discussing this emphasized the drift and its attendant evils; he also pointed out that the better conditions created in the towns for the natives offered a lure to induce them to come to the towns. The Prime Minister also dwelt on this drift, and practically every speaker has referred to this aspect. Witnesses before the select committee also laid stress on this matter. The representatives of the Cape Town Municipality stated in evidence—

Bloemfontein says the same thing. They have an influx of 1,000 redundant natives a year whom they cannot employ. Johannesburg tells the same story, and paints a picture which we ought all to look at—

Here we have a picture of the whole country from which it would appear that this drift was becoming alarming. The fact is that since the passing of the 1923 Act, there has been an increase in the native population of Johannesburg of 15 per cent., excluding the mines, and in Durban of 20 per cent. To get the true aspect of these figures, the fact should be considered that the increase of the European population of Durban during the same period has been only 17 per cent. But these figures do not tell the whole tale, nor give the true perspective. Seventy-five per cent. of the total urban population of natives are males, and less than .05 are under 15 years of age. Now the evils inseparable from the state of affairs when 75 per cent. of the native population are leading unnatural lives, separated altogether from the influence of family life, cannot be too much emphasized. They strike us in the face. There is the recent incidents in Johannesburg, of so gross and immoral a character that the natives had to take the law into their own bands. When a murder gang can exist for years and the natives are driven to kill in self-defence, matters are coming to a bad pass. When every European town has as its adjunct a very much larger body of natives —and there is no difference of opinion on these facts—they have been emphasized by most of the speakers, matters will be serious. There is a slight difference of opinion as to the cause of the drift to the towns. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) on this question said the cause was due in some measure to lack of laud in the reserves, and to our not doing all that is possible to keep the natives in the reserves. The Prime Minister seemed to think it was a world phenomenon, and, in this connection recommended us to read a book by Thorald Rodgers. The causes, no doubt, are many and varied. During the course of his speech, the Prime Minister said a most amazing thing; he said the drift of natives to the towns cannot be stopped. If the Prime Minister is correct we may as well throw up the sponge altogether. If the drift is to continue, we must visualize a state of affairs when we have huge native cities dominating all our European towns. What the position would then be, I do not care to contemplate. But the Minister of Lands thinks the drift can Be stopped, and the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) thinks it can be stopped: I share their opinion. But do we want to stop it? Are we prepared, if measures can be adopted to stop the drift to adopt them, or are we satisfied to let things slide and say “sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”? Is it merely a debating point, this drift to the towns? Are we bent on tinkering with the machinery without the wish to set it right? If we are sincere in this matter then the one thing necessary is a national objective in South Africa. Without it, we can achieve nothing. This debate has revealed the fact that no two individuals think alike. Everybody approaches the problem from his own individual angle, in the light of his experiences or his predilection. But the debate has revealed this, that there is an insistent need throughout the whole of South Africa for a clearly defined objective in our native affairs. Not a mere generalization which everybody interprets according to whim or fancy, but a clear-cut understanding as to what we in South Africa are aiming at, whether, indeed, we are on the lines to develop a black proletariate, or whether, on the other hand, we are endeavouring to create a bantu nation. During the course of this debate considerable doubt has been cast upon the underlying principle of the Urban Areas Act of 1923. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) contended that the underlying principle of the 1923 Act was that the native was a sojourner in our midst. He was in our urban areas solely to administer to the needs of the Europeans, and only so long as his services were needed, only so long could he remain in the urban areas. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) disputes that. He takes the old traditional attitude of the Cape. He says that was not the avowed purpose of the Bill; that the 1923 Act was meant solely to improve the housing of the natives and improve conditions generally in urban areas. Here we have the old tradition, which always rises before us whenever we discuss native affairs, the conflict between the north and south. The views of the north were expounded before the select committee by the mayor of Bloemfontein in these words—

But before the same select committee the representatives of Cape Town expressed themselves as being diametrically opposed to this, and said that the principle which governed the administration of the Cape Town Municipality was the recognition of natives rights of ownership in their urban locations. In other words if the right to create a native city. Here is a conflict of opinion which it is absolutely essential in the interests of South Africa, that we should reconcile and not allow to continue, as it simply prevents all lucid exposition of the native question. What really was intended by the 1923 Act? I have before me here a report of the debates on the Urban Areas Act of 1923. In the light of the position as we see it to-day, these reports make very strange and ominous reading. The principle which the hon. member for Roodepoort has enunciated as the underlying principle of the original Act, and which is being disputed in the course of this debate, was brought out very strongly in 1923 by no less a person than the present Prime Minister who was then the leader of the Opposition. It was confirmed unmistakeably by my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition. Let us go back to the actual reports themselves. It must be remembered that the Native Urban Areas Act was drawn up in 1923; the Native Commission was consulted, and the Native Commission, I presume, inserted a clause in the original Bill that natives could obtain title to land in all locations in urban areas. The Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Opposition strenously opposed it, together with the members of the Labour party, and he used these words in the second reading debate—

What an echo of the words and ideas used by the hon. member for Roodepoort! He also said—

The leader of the Opposition was not alone in this opinion. The present Minister of Lands was emphatic on this matter. He said that natives had no rights in urban areas, and if it was so, it was in direct conflict with the Act. The present Minister of Defence, then the leader of the Labour party, was also very positive about the evil which would arise if natives were allowed rights in urban areas. He said this—

The whip of the Labour party in those days, Mr. Mullineaux, strangely enough, quoted a memorandum written by Col. Stallard with very great approval, putting forward the views expressed by that hon. member the other day; and finally the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) the then Prime Minister, said—

Without a shadow of doubt the policy adopted by the House on that day in 1923 was that urban areas are merely places in which natives could reside while ministering to the wants of Europeans. Where are we now? One ought to ask that question after seven years of administration of the Urban Areas Act in 1923. During the second reading debate of 1923 an endeavour was made to estimate the effects of the Bill when it came into operation. The drift of natives to the towns was just as acute in those days, and various speakers dwelt upon it; it was estimated that the coming into operation of the Act of 1923 would expel from the urban areas 100,000 natives. Where do we find ourselves to-day? Not only did the Act fail to expel the 100,000, but it has encouraged an increase in the native population in seven years of 20 per cent. in certain areas. It is obvious in respect of stopping the drift of the natives to the towns that the Bill has completely failed. It has failed solely because we have not recognized the underlying principle of the Bill. There is only one thing to be done in order to get back to where we were in 1923, and that is to place a better check on the entry of natives into urban areas. More effective machinery is required than that proposed in the Bill. Powers should be taken, if necessary, as suggested by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), but it is impossible to explore these objections if we are going into committee of the whole House. Several amendments have been drawn up, but it is perfectly certain that the Chairman will rule that they cannot be accepted as they are against the principle of the Bill. It is, therefore, essential that the Bill should be referred to the joint select committee now considering the native problem. If this measure is considered in conjunction with other legislative proposals, we may arrive at a better Bill than the one we are now discussing. It has been emphasized in the course of the debate that if the natives are driven out of the urban areas, they have no place to which to go. Where can they go? It is useless to say they can go to the reserves in certain areas which are under populated. You cannot send strange natives to Zululand without the risk of their being killed, nor can you send strange natives to squat in native reserves under tribal control and expect them to leave peacefully. It is essential in order that the machinery which the Minister has provided in the Bill should prove workable that we should determine where the natives are to go, and that point can be considered only by the joint committee on the native problem. I suggest the time has come for a thorough overhaul of this whole problem and that we should not push forward a Bill which merely deals with some evils which have arisen over the administration of the Act. If the Minister will do that and the committee which has been set up in the convention atmosphere—an atmosphere which, I hope, will continue—will also consider this measure, we shall achieve a much better result.

I am very sorry that under the existing circumstances I cannot, on this occasion, convey the congratulations of the town council and the inhabitants of the Kroonstad to the Minister with reference to the provision about trading licences in locations. It is not easy to object to a measure introduced by the Government, but the matter has been so seriously entrusted to me by the public of Kroonstad that I cannot neglect it. We know that the whole of the Free State agrees on this point, that we should not only object, but that we should also call the Minister’s attention to the fact that we feel very much hurt about the provision which will leave it in the hands of the Minister to issue trading licences in locations when the local authorities do not approve of it. It may appear merely a small question to hon. members, but it is an important principle, and if there are people who feel very much hurt about it, then it is the Free Staters. It is, therefore, necessary for us to oppose this motion. I do not wish to enter upon that groundless argument that the Free State is opposing this from sheer obstinacy, or selfishness. Why should it be applied in the Free State if we do not want it there? If the Bill is passed in its present form, then the principle is sacrificed which was laid down by the old pioneers of the Free State. It is an existing principle, and if we repeal it, we cannot reintroduce it. It is one of those principles which we are much attached to. I want to ask the Minister why at this period he wants to force something on it that we do not want in the Free State at all? Hon. members from the Free State have opposed it as one man, and hon. members opposite have expressed the view that our opposition is very strange. In the past we went so far as to exclude the Free State in various Acts, e.g., in the Liquor Act where the Minister of Justice two years ago exempted the Free State from certain provisions. All we now ask the Minister of Native Affairs is to take count of the people of the Free State, and to also exclude them in this case. We do not want the provision about trading licences in locations enforced in the Free State, and we do not come as children, but like children to the footstool of the Minister, and ask him, seeing we are so absolutely opposed to it, not to apply it to us. In Kroonstad, e.g., we have a white population of about 7,500 and between 9,000 and 10,000 natives. Suppose we were to allow the granting of trading licences to people in locations, then in the near future we shall have two big trading villages next to each other, and there will be great competition between the whites and the natives. That position would then be exploited by the kind of person who is already to-day exploiting the native. Therefore it will not be advantageous to the development of the native. If we sacrifice the principle we open the door, and the consequences will cost us dear. If one or other hon. member has turned a somersault, ft makes no difference so far as the Free State is concerned, all the other members stand together in opposition to the repeal of the principle. I further want to point out that the hon. leader of the Opposition, Gen. Smuts, said in 1924, while he was still Prime Minister, that the old Free State laws were the best we had in the country. Why then should he abandon that principle when we have already made exceptions for the Free State before, and have asked the Minister not to apply it to the Free State? We come to the feet of the Minister and beseech him not to apply it in the Free State. If the second reading of the Bill is passed as it stands, we shall do so with a despondent mind.

I also welcome the Bill because it will result especially in the towns and villages that segregation will be more effectively applied than has possibly been the case in the past, and, secondly, because the Bill will result in and aim at the restriction of the streaming of natives to the towns and villages. Just on this matter I agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) that, as regards the restrictions and controlling powers, sufficient powers are not granted to the local authorities. I will not enlarge here on the principle of segregation whether in general or in part, because I am convinced that all who mean well with the white race in South Africa, the continuance of the white race, respect the principle of segregation. It is universally acknowledged that, rightly or wrongly, total segregation is no longer possible in South Africa, and that all we can effect to-day is partial segregation; whether that is so or not, the fact remains that so far as towns and villages are concerned, it is still more easy to apply partial segregation to-day, than on the countryside. One of the most important amendments that are being made is that the power is granted to the local authorities to restrict and control the streaming of natives to the towns and villages, and it is just in this respect that, in my opinion, the Bill does not give sufficient powers. Before the power can be granted to local authorities, two things must take place. Firstly, the Governor-General, under Section 3 (1) of the principal Act, must proclaim that from a certain date all natives must live in a location within the boundaries of the town or village area, or within a definite portion of the town or village area. In the second place, according to sub-clause 3 (6a) of this Bill, all local authorities that are proclaimed in their entirety under Section 3 (1) of the principal Act, must hold a meeting and pass a resolution after which the Governor-General, if he thinks fit, can proclaim that after a fixed date no native can enter the urban area to look for work, or to accept it, or to live there except under the condition stated in the proclamation. It seems to me that the policy which must be followed before this provision comes into force is much too circumlocutory, and I further think that the right to make use of the power is much too dependent on the discretion of the person who may be the Minister at any particular time. As long as the present Minister is in office, or as long as there is a Government which wants to enforce the principle of segregation, there will be no objection, but somebody else may be Minister of Native Affairs, and another person may be there when the provisions of the Bill have to be administered, and, therefore, if we do not now grant quite adequate powers to the town councils and local boards, the whole object of the Bill may possibly be rendered futile. Further, I think that provision must be made for the sending back of superfluous natives that are found within the borders of our towns and villages. It will be impossible to send all of them back because they have possibly already been living for a generation or more in the town or village. There are, however, thousands in whose case it can be decided from what territory, location or farm they have come, and when it can be proved that they are superfluous, then the Government or the local board ought to have the power to send them back to the location, farm or native territory whence they originally came. I do not want to enter upon all the reasons why these natives go to the towns, enough has already been said on it. I only want, with all my force, to protest against the complaint made by certain negrophilists, and which has been repeated in this House to the effect that the natives rushed to the towns because they are economically oppressed on the countryside, and because the farmers repress and grind them down by paying starvation wages. I want to protest most strongly against it. People who make that kind of complaint are not acquainted with the method of life of the native, and with conditions on the countryside. The native workers on the farms are not people that are starved. There are two classes of workmen on the farm: the first is those who work for wages, and the second is those who do not work for wages, but who are entitled to sow, and to graze stock on the farm in return for working for the farmer for three or six months. They are the class that is known as squatters. I should like to enlarge on this aspect of the matter, and, therefore, I should like to ask the Minister whether I may move the adjournment of the debate because it is already late.

No, just go on.

I first want to deal with a group known as squatters. This type is much better off than the natives in the locations or in the native territories. He usually gets more ground than what he and his children can properly work. He gets the right to graze a certain number of cattle and small stock on the farm, and still further assistance from the farmer. These squatters are usually better off on the farm of a farmer than the natives in the locations and the native territories. The other class is those who work for wages. Here I also want to enquire into the position he occupies. He earns from £1 10s. to £2 a month plus rations, and this forsooth is the labour which is ground down and receives starvation wages. People who make such statements have not the least appreciation of the method of life of the native. Those wages are quite adequate to provide for the needs of the native. As the Minister of Lands has already shown on a former occasion, the native in this respect is quite different to the European. The demands he makes and his needs differ as the heavens from those of the white man. I do not reproach the native. He only works until he has enough to supply his needs for a certain time; that is a characteristic which cannot be contradicted. If we pay him £2 for his labour, then he only works until he thinks he has earned enough for his needs, and then he goes to rest. What will be the result if we pay him £5 a month? He will only go and rest all the sooner. The only difference will be that he will merely work three months instead of possibly nine months.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.