By leave of the House, may I ask the Minister of Education whether he is serious in proposing to go on with the notice of motion standing in his name? I want to remind the Minister that the Prime Minister, when giving the details of the work which he would take up this year, indicated that the Higher Education Bill would be one of those which would not be taken, but that Higher Education Bill is still on the order paper. These regulations are, in effect—

I cannot allow the hon. member to go on. He must wait for the Minister to move the motion on the order paper.

I want to ask the Minister if it is not a fact that these regulations embody the Higher Education Bill, and whether, under these circumstances, he thinks it is right—

I am sorry. I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed.

Does the Minister intend to go on with these regulations?

Yes, I do.

Will the Minister of Lands say whether he intends to answer a question I put to him on the 20th May?

I have not yet got the information.

Will you post the reply to me later?

Yes.

On a point of order, are not these regulations in the nature of a hybrid Bill in so far as they will affect individual universities in South Africa. The point occurred to me in this way, and to appreciate my point I think you ought to have a copy of these regulations in front of you. Under these regulations, as I read them, it is competent for the Minister not only to lay down the basis upon which moneys are to be advanced, but he may stipulate also how those moneys are to be withdrawn. May I point out—

I do not know to what the hon. member is referring. There may be a hybrid Bill, but not a hybrid regulation.

Might this not apply to universities just as a Bill does?

That is a different matter.

Do I understand it is competent for the House to introduce something which may injuriously affect universities, and there is no means by which the universities can bring this before the House?

That depends on the powers bestowed by the Act itself.

The University Act gives the Minister power to make regulations. I submit this has the effect of bringing in a new Act of Parliament affecting the universities.

These regulations are either ultra vires or intra vires. It is a legal question.

The fact that it is on the order paper means that it is before the House.

It has not been moved yet.

There is nothing to prevent a Minister moving that a certain order shall be taken with regard to what appears on the paper.

The Prime Minister has already stated to the House that the order paper is not to be proceeded with.

We know the Prime Minister may change his mind; he may change it between now and mid-day; he has done so before. The matter to which reference has been made is not an order because the Prime Minister says he is not going to take it. May I refer to Rule 74, which reads—

Rule 74 bears out just what I have been saying. There is no chance of this matter coming before the House within a reasonable time.

Perhaps before midday—

I have to deal with the probability.

Suppose the Prime Minister is within his rights, and says he is going on with the eighth order?

I shall then know how to rule.

I move—

First of all I would just refer for one moment to the objections which have been raised by hon. members opposite. In connection with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister as to the business to be dealt with, I wish to say these regulations are purely financial. It is not a Bill, and because of that, and because it is very intimately connected with the estimates already passed by the House this session, the Prime Minister certainly could not have meant, when he intimated what Bills would be dealt with this session, that this should not be included. These regulations have nothing to do with the other Bill. They have been drawn up and published by me as Minister of Education in conformity with Clause 12 of the Act of 1917, which states—

These regulations deal with these matters only. Sub-section (3) of Act 20 of 1917 says that these regulations are to be drawn up by the Minister and must be specifically approved of by both Houses of Parliament, and that is the reason why I have to approach this House and the other House. These regulations in the ordinary course have been submitted to the law adviser, who finds that they are perfectly in order.

Would you put their opinion on the table?

No.

Did you get a written opinion from them?

All regulations are submitted in the first instance to the law adviser, and only after he approves do we approach the House for approval. A distinction must be made between regulations drawn up under this Act in connection with universities and university colleges on the one hand, and similar regulations drawn up in connection with technical colleges under the Act of 1923. I wish to make this distinction clear, because only in the case of universities and university colleges is it required by the existing Acts that the Minister of Education shall get the approval of both Houses of Parliament. In connection with similar regulations dealing with technical colleges the Minister has full power under the Act, and does not come to Parliament for approval of the regulations. It has been customary so far in connection with the regulations for technical colleges which are on the same lines as those dealing with the universities and university colleges for the Minister only to approach Parliament for the specific approval of those regulations, so that the whole discussion this morning will have to deal with the universities and university colleges directly, and only indirectly has it to do with the technical institutes; and in any case if the House refuses its approval of these regulations I now submit I have power to proceed on the lines suggested as far as technical colleges are concerned. That makes the legal position quite clear. What I propose here is merely carrying out the very definite recommendations made by the Higher Education (van der Horst) Commission appointed some years ago. It was quite clear that for a number of years, even in a period of financial stringency in the time of the previous Government, that the expenditure on higher education was increasing year after year to a very alarming extent, and criticism with regard to that was heard in this House, not only from this side, but that side. I will give some idea of how the expenditure on higher education has increased. In 1919, the expenditure was £186,000, but in 1928—less than 10 years after—the amount spent on higher education was no less than £393,000. That is to say, that in that comparatively short period, the expenditure increased by 133 per cent. To anyone going into the matter, it was quite clear that that position had arisen merely because, under the system then in existence and still prevailing, it was impossible for the Minister of Finance to control the increase. Subsidies from the central Government to higher educational institutions were based on income, but it was stated in the regulations at that time that there could be automatic increases in the subsidies up to 10 per cent, of the expenditure of the previous year and higher institutions could claim that increase as a right. Two years ago I asked the House to approve of the 10 per cent, being reduced to 5 per cent., and the House agreed. The regulations, as they are, make it impossible for the Ministers of Education or Finance to control the expenditure of these higher educational institutions, especially in times of financial stringency. Their expenditure bears no relation to what the country can afford, and in times of financial stringency when the Government has to curtail expenditure it is impossible to cut the expenditure on higher education. In other words, when contributions towards economy are made on all sides, no contribution is made by higher education.

Is that the only reason for these regulations?

Yes. The van der Horst commission, in its report on this subject, said—

The regulations are altogether in accordance with that recommendation, and are merely made to carry out that recommendation.

The commission did not recommend that you should become a virtual dictator.

Not more than I am a dictator under the existing regulations. I did not merely adopt these recommendations of the commission in any photographic manner, but I submitted all the recommendations to an educational conference generally held in Pretoria, where all the education authorities of the country were represented, including, among others, the teaching profession and the provincial administrations. After that I convened in Cape Town a university conference where I submitted the report, and these recommendations in so far as they concern university colleges. I merely opened the conference and did not take part in the proceedings. The official report of the conference states—

Are you giving them what you regard as a reasonable period of transition?

It is not a question of what they regard as a reasonable period. It is what the country can afford.

Hear, hear.

In any case, here is a definite resolution adopted unanimously by the universities and university colleges, adopting this principle of stabilization of grants, with the proviso that there should be a transition period. Whether we can stabilize as the van der Horst commission directly recommends, is a matter for the Government to decide. For two years now these institutions have accepted the position, and we stand in the position this morning that the estimates are based on this and Parliament has approved of the estimates.

You did not tell us that at the time the estimates were before us.

Why did you not pass these regulations first?

The resolution passed by the university colleges reads—

I repeat that I consulted the universities and the university colleges, and they agreed to the principle laid down in the van der Horst commission report that we should stabilize the gram, for a number of years. Now I come to the regulations. In the first, it is laid down that there shall be a block grant which has been passed by the House in the case of the various institutions. Now, as I said before, this block grant which has been passed in the case of these various institutions, has actually been based on these regulations.

We had no power to move increases when those estimates were under discussion.

What I ask the House now is to give approval to what has been done during the passage of the estimates. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) should be the very last to raise objections in this matter. I believe during the debate he stated emphatically that this country is fast becoming a country of university education and poor whites. He wanted to decrease the expenditure on higher education more drastically than I intend to do. The first part of the regulations deals with the block grant, and lays it down that the block grant—that is the grant from which we jump off—for the future shall be the general purposes grant included in the estimates for this year. Then, further provision is made for the possible reduction of these grants in future, as occasion may arrive.

At the will of the Minister.

There is nothing new in that, if Parliament approves. If it seems that the conditions of the institutions have altered to such an extent that they do not require the Government subsidy any longer, that subsidy can be reduced. An objection has been raised in the case of these higher education institutions that if the regulations stand, as I had it at first, it will mean an encouragement to them to waste instead of to economise. I saw that point and that has been altered in the regulations in this way. As it now stands, any surplus may be devoted to any special purpose approved by the Minister and such an institution. Further representations have been made to me with regard to the inclusion of the words “special work”. It has been said there might be some difficulty in connection with the definition of “special”, and I have agreed to propose to the House to omit the word “special” so that the surplus in the case of any institution can be devoted to any purpose which is approved by the Minister. I would much like to see those higher educational institutions in a position to strengthen their general financial resources. Some of these institutions have, to my mind, not built up a sufficiently large endowment fund, and certainly I would encourage them to economise as much as possible and devote any surplus to the strengthening of what I may call a reserve fund. Therefore, I would agree to omit the word “special” and allow these institutions to devote their surplus funds to any purpose approved by me.

Where does the word “special” come in?

Well, it is already deleted, and that should suffice. The further provision is that these subsidies can be reduced in case a higher educational institution does not comply with the conditions attaching to the general purposes grant.

What are the conditions?

They are laid down in the regulations. It is laid down that the surplus must be devoted to a purpose approved by the Minister. If they devote that money to any purpose not approved by the Minister, the Minister may have the power to deal with that institution and it lays down that he may deal with it in the way that any educational institution deals with any institution that comes under it.

You are taking power here to make any condition you like.

I will come to that. The third point is that it may be reduced, according to the decision of the Minister, in the interests of higher education. That looks as if it is giving wide power to the Minister—

It does, a little bit.

But surely if you are going to carry out the principle laid down by the van der Horst commission—a sound principle for the Minister to proceed upon—if you are to have co-ordination between our higher educational institutions as far as possible—for instance, we cannot have medical faculties in every institution—

You have power to stop that now.

I can stop that now, but if a higher educational institution with funds at its disposal ignores the will of the Minister, the decision of the Minister is required in order that I can deal with it.

Why not leave it to the Minister entirely? Why have any regulations at all?

On the other hand, provision is made in these regulations in the case of an increase being necessary. First of all, it is provided that the Minister may grant, by additional subsidy, assistance to any particular institution requiring such assistance; that does not go further than the power of the Minister under existing regulations. Then, further, when it is in the interests of higher education—

According to what the Minister conceives—

Surely the Minister is the person entrusted by Parliament with these powers. The Minister is responsible for everything he does to Parliament. When, in the interests of higher education, a further provision is made that for special purposes special grants may be given. This is in accordance with the principle or co-ordination. A special institution may be entrusted with the doing of a special work. For instance, we have a special branch in the case of Bantu studies, and it may be necessary to give the Minister power, after we have stabilized this work—to give these grants. A further alteration deals with loans. There the provision remains unaltered, only we have carried out the recommendation of the van der Horst commission in this regard. That is, we leave the position untouched so far as loans before 1925 are concerned. After that, no special contribution is made towards the payment of interest and redemption of loans, only the Minister gets power to take into consideration in determining the general purposes grant of any particular institution, the fact that an institution has contracted a building loan or has extended its operations and that it is liable to an increase in its liabilities as far as interest and redemption charges are concerned, and he may include that as an additional subsidy in the general purposes grant. As far as hostels are concerned, we assume that hostels should be paying institutions and, therefore, loans in connection with hostels are treated on a different footing than those for tuitional purposes. I want to remind the House in conclusion that, in drawing up the current estimates, we have actually acted on the basis of these regulations. The higher educational institutions were given timely notice that we were going to do that, and, in consultation with them, estimates were drawn up for the current financial year, and we told them that these regulations, which have been published for months, will be submitted for approval to both Houses of Parliament. They have accepted the position that on the basis of these regulations the estimates for this year shall be drawn up. We have to face the estimates for the next financial year at the end of the present calendar year. I must know where I stand in regard to these estimates, and I propose, during the next financial year, to repeat what I have done this year, and base the estimates again on these regulations now submitted.

seconded the motion.

I do not think this debate can be allowed to proceed without the registration of an emphatic protest against the action of the hon. the Minister in bringing on this matter at this stage of the session. The Minister thinks this is a minor matter. He has framed certain regulations, and put a pistol at the head of the universities and the university colleges. He has had the estimates passed by Parliament on the basis of those regulations, and now Parliament is to put the rubber stamp on his proceedings. But this is not a minor matter. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the universities and the university colleges in its financial aspect, and it is also of wider importance, because of the restrictions on our freedom which the Minister proposes. These regulations were framed long before the end of last year. They were submitted to the universities before the end of November of last year. The Minister might have introduced them into the House at the beginning of the session. The universities made their representations in the first days of the session. The Minister published these regulations in the Gazette at the end of February. Then we heard no more about it. When the estimates were under discussion in committee of supply I asked the Minister to tell the committee the basis on which these estimates had been framed. He did not even think my point worthy of the honour of a reply. It was not until the middle of May that he gave notice of this motion. Having given notice of this motion, he allowed it to drop to the very bottom of the order paper, and it has remained at the bottom of the order paper. Only now, in the dying days of this session, he comes along and asks us to affix our rubber stamp to his decision. Surely this is a matter for protest, and for angry protest. We have the right to ask him why he has adopted this procedure. He shelters himself behind the argument that the House has accepted the estimates, but why did he not bring this resolution forward before the estimates were discussed by the House? We want an answer to that from the hon. Minister before we can reasonably be expected to accept this motion. Only on Wednesday the hon. Minister tried to rush one of his Bills through this House while no one was looking. If, today, we come to our own conclusions as to the motives of the hon. Minister in this matter, he has only himself to blame. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister would not be likely to accept what would be a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances I have mentioned, namely, the request that this matter should stand over until next session, and so I shall proceed to move an amendment. It is as follows—

1. (a) to stabilize grants-in-aid to universities and university colleges as from the financial year 1930-’31 at the amounts set forth in the schedule proposed;
2. (b) to confer upon the Minister power to impose conditions in respect of the application by the council of any such institution of its general purposes grant, and
3. (c) to confer upon the Minister wide discretionary powers in connection with the increase or decrease of the general purposes grant of any institution;

I think I owe the House an apology for the length of this amendment, but it is not possible for a private member to propose an amendment to these regulations, which provides for more generous treatment of the universities, than the Minister in his autocratic discretion has thought fit to make, and for that reason I have had to put the amendment in this particular form. It falls into two parts. It consists first of a reasoned negative. It gives reasons why we cannot accept the proposal of the Minister in regard to the regulations. Secondly, ft provides an alternative with a view to ultimately effecting that object which the hon. Minister, and his colleague the hon. Minister of Finance, have in view. Our grounds of criticism of these particular regulations and of this motion are twofold. In the first place we object, and we object strongly, to the proposed immediate stabilization of the grants to universities on the present basis. The hon. Minister tried to shelter himself behind the views of the universities expressed at the conference. He did not place any emphasis upon the fact that they said that they would accept the principle of stabilization as an ultimate principle, but that its application should be postponed for at least three years. In regard to what should be done after that, the conference was more or less evenly divided. Although the hon. Minister read large chunks of the report of that conference, he left out a material section of the report.

What was left out?

The statement that the universities and the university colleges were, more or less, evenly divided on the question of when stabilization was to come into force, though they were all of the opinion that nothing should be done before 1932’33. This statement the hon. Minister has left out.

Where is that?

It is on the second page. Perhaps it has been omitted from the hon. Minister’s copy. The hon. Minister proposes to come down with a heavy sledge hammer upon the growth and progress of our universities. He says, so far as the state is concerned, “Thus far and no farther.” Against that we protest, and we think we have every right to protest. But while we protest, we want to make it clear to the Minister, and also to his colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, that we are not forgetting the position of the taxpayers in this matter. We are prepared to meet the position which the Minister wishes to arrive at, provided there is reasonable delay, provided the universities are given time to prepare themselves. There is a definite proposal to that effect in this amendment, going further than practically half the universities and university colleges were prepared to go. We are prepared to meet the reasonable position of the taxpayers, provided reasonable concessions are likewise made to meet the difficulties of the universities and the university colleges. The second point against which we protest, and protest even more strongly, is the point that in these regulations the most arbitrary powers are conferred upon the Minister. The Minister has told us that, while he is stabilizing the grants, he is retaining the power to increase or decrease those grants. He is retaining those powers in a manner in which, even though this proposal comes from the present Government and the present Minister, we can only feel surprised at the arbitrary powers he proposes to take. We have here a step in the evolution of the new autocracy, the new despotism. In recent years and especially in the last few months we have looked on with patience, while one liberty after another has been taken away from the people of this country. But so far we have retained academic liberty, the liberty of the universities as the safeguard of our freedom. It is the present policy of the hon. Minister to rob us even of that freedom, and these regulations represent an important step in that act of robbery. I want to deal more specifically with the two points I have mentioned. The first point is the point of stabilization. Seeing that the Minister has been historical, I shall also be historical, but I will go back a little bit further than the Minister has gone. These regulations, which he proposes to scrap, are regulations passed in 1922. Now before 1922 the system of grants-in-aid was probably of such a kind that the Minister would delight to give his blessing to them. Prior to 1922 the university institutions obtained grants in three ways. In the first place, there was paid a salary grant of £3 to £1 in respect of the salaries of all posts approved by the Minister. No post could be created without his approval. Secondly, they received a pound for pound grant for general expenditure, and further, they received such special grants as they could succeed in extorting from a reluctant Minister.

There are weaknesses in the pound for pound principle.

I know there are weaknesses in it, and I do not suggest that we should go back to it. The report of the van der Horst commission contained the following, which shows up the weaknesses of the pre-1922 system—

That system had its weaknesses. It was a bad one for the state. The weaknesses of the pound for pound system in relation to the provinces were, if anything, exaggerated in regard to the universities, despite the reluctance of the Minister to agree to increases of the grants. But it was a bad one also for the institutions, because before they could do a single thing they had to go, cap in hand, to the Minister. In those circumstances, the lot of the Minister of Education was not a happy one. He had the universities and university colleges always round his feet like a pack of yelping curs, trying to gather up the crumbs which fell from his table. From the point of view of the institutions it was a great game. As one of the participants in the game, I look back to it as an exhilarating experience, where one had the opportunity of measuring one’s wits in the art of persuasion against one’s rivals and against the Minister of Education. But the system was a hard one. Certainly, I agree with the Minister of Finance that it was unsound, and that it had no justification on the grounds of science or of objectivity. These proposals of the hon. Minister, I emphasize, are open to some, at least, of the weaknesses of the pre-1922 system, those very weaknesses which the Minister of Finance so strongly deplores. As the result of those weaknesses, the present regulations were framed in 1922, and the central feature of the 1922 regulations is that the various institutions got what is called a block grant, a general purposes grant, and that grant in terms of the present regulations, and I ask the House to note these words, “shall be applicable by the council at its discretion to the general expenditure of the institution”, Note the words “applicable by the council at its discretion”, That system has worked well. It has worked well so far as the universities are concerned, although they have got less money than they otherwise would, because they have enjoyed more freedom. It has also worked well so far as the state is concerned. The increase in university grants has been much less rapid as a result of its adoption, and whilst comments are frequently made about the increase of the education vote, whilst it is true that in the last six years that vote has increased from £354,000 to £889,000, the important fact is that only £96,000 of that increase over a period of six years is accounted for by the increase in grants to universities and university colleges. What then is the reason for that great increase in the vote? It lies in the fact that the hon. Minister has taken responsibility for technical and industrial education. That is where the reason for the increase lies. It is not in the increase of grants to the universities and the university colleges. And there lies the secret of this present motion now before us. The hon. Minister has set himself the laudable object of increasing still further his provision for technical and industrial education, but he is constantly being attacked because of the increase of his vote. And so his solution is to cut down the grants to the universities, and so he will have more money for technical education. That is the policy of the hon. Minister, and that is why he has resorted to this system. It was for that reason that he was appointed to the van der Horst commission, of which we have heard so much. If ever a commission was appointed with a clear indication of what it was expected to say, it was this van der Horst commission. Here is one of its terms of reference—

If ever a commission was appointed with a clear indication of what it was expected to say, it was this van der Horst commission. If ever a commission made the recommendations it was expected to make against the grain, it was this van der Horst commission. The Minister has quoted from the report of the commission. He has not quoted very fully. Let me remind him of some of the things this commission said. It pointed out that in 1911 the average cost of a student to the state was £63, and that the average cost per student had in 1926 been reduced to £47. The van der Horst commission pointed out that the comparisons of the cost per student between 1911 and 1926 shows that there has been a substantial decrease in the total cost of university education per student, and a greater relative decrease in the cost to the state, and affords no ground for the prevalent idea that the cost of university education has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. The decrease becomes more marked if we take into consideration that the value of money fell considerably between 1911 and 1926, that the salaries of professors and lecturers are now on a higher scale, and that there has been a marked improvement in respect of class-rooms, hostels, laboratories and apparatus, and libraries. There can be no doubt that in these respects there was better value at less cost per student in 1926 than in 1911.” The commission went on to say—

Nobody proposes a decrease.

The Minister of Finance would like to. After these remarks, implying that we are spending so much less per student and getting greater value, the commission comes along with its recommendations for stabilization. I do not know of any greater non sequitur in all the commission reports ever laid before this House. With that proposal of the commission the Minister has now come to us. He is, of course, overflowing with goodwill towards the universities. He has spoken comfortable words to them. He has brought them butter in a lordly dish, but the universities do not want butter, they want grants. They do not want comfortable words, they want financial assistance. The Minister proposes to stabilize the grants to universities. What does he propose to do about technical colleges? It is true that he has made a threat in regard to those institutions, the meaning of which will be apparent to many hon. members. But for the moment he has not carried out that threat. Under the present estimates the technical colleges do not come off any too badly. In the last five years, since he took over this work from the provinces, there has been an increase of 110 per cent, in the grants to technical colleges and similar institutions, and of only 25 per cent, to the universities. Yet although he has provided no increase for the two colleges in Natal, he has given the others increases of 10, 15, up to 45 per cent. I want to go on further to object to the basis on which the Minister proposes to stabilize these grants. That basis is contained in Schedule B of these regulations. How, we would like to know, have those figures been arrived at? In some cases the grants set forth in the schedule are still the grants which the various institutions drew last year, in spite of the fact that on the basis of existing regulations some at least of those institutions are eligible for the maximum increase in grant. In the case of other institutions the proposed stabilized grant is considerably higher than the general purposes grant of last year. Why this discrimination? If the Minister is going to stabilize, he should apply a fair basis all round. On what basis has the Minister worked? I have asked him that question twice in committee of supply, and the hon. the Minister could not or would not reply. I am now asking him that question again. I am sorry that on an occasion like this one has to make comparisons between the various institutions. We used to make comparisons before 1922, but since the 1922 regulations came into force, we knew that the grants were determined on an objective basis, and the need for comparison fell away. But when one looks at a schedule like this, one cannot avoid making comparisons, and the Minister is to blame for the necessity of making them. I want to make two comparisons. In the first place, I am going to choose two institution with neither of which I have any connection whatever, and then I am going to choose two with which I am equally connected. I choose, first of all, the Natal University College and the Grey University College. I find that to-day on the basis of the figures supplied by the Minister, the Natal University College has 341 students. If we confine the number to matriculated students, there are 333. The Grey University College has a total of 300 students, and the number of matriculated students is 290. The range of work is, if anything, wider at Maritzburg than at Bloemfontein, and the staff of the Natal University College is larger than that of the Grey University College. Natal, with its greater number of students, its wider range of work, and its larger staff, is to be stabilized at £12,700, and Bloemfontein with its smaller number of students is to be stabilized at £19,000. Surely we have a right to ask a question with regard to that discrimination? May I make another comparison between the two institutions with which I am equally connected, in the one case as a former student, in the other as a former teacher. I refer to the universities of Cape Town and Witwatersrand. According to the Minister’s own figures, the Witwatersrand University has a total number of students of 1,544, and matriculated students to the number of 1,451. The Cape Town University has a total of 1,779 students and 1,336 matriculated students. The total in the case of Cape Town is swollen by a large number of students in the college of music, which is an institution which can hardly be expected to derive any considerable financial help from the state. Johannesburg has 115 more matriculated students than Cape Town, the staff is larger in Johannesburg, and the range of work, if anything, wider. Yet the grant in the case of Johannesburg is only £80,935, as compared with £88,795 in the case of Cape Town. Again we have a right to ask for an explanation. It is enshrined in these regulations that higher salaries have to be paid at Johannesburg than at Cape Town to the extent of £8,000, and yet the Minister proposes this discrimination between the two institutions. I know what the Minister will reply. He is going to say that Johannesburg receives £9,000 more in respect of interest and redemption than Cape Town, but if the Minister uses that argument he also has to face the counter-argument that the University of Cape Town gets the equivalent of £25,000 per year, the interest on £500,000, which was money not intended for it, but diverted to it as the result of state action. There is no justification whatever for the discrimination between these two institutions, and those of us who come from the Witwatersrand have the right to press for an answer to our question as to the grounds of discrimination, and we shall continue to fight for a square deal. I come now to the second main point—the powers of the Minister under these regulations. He will tell us he is not really stabilizing finally, he is overflowing with goodwill towards the universities; he retains the power to increase the grants to the universities. He merely wants the money’ to be spent in a wise way. But look at regulation 5. At present the general purposes grant is applicable at the council’s discretion; in future it shall, subject to such conditions as the Minister may impose, be applicable. I want to question the legality of such a provision. The Act under which these regulations are framed gives the Minister power to make regulations only to deal with the basis of contribution. What has this provision to do with the basis of contribution? The Minister said these regulations have been submitted to the law adviser. May I point out to him that this regulation is not in the original draft form, but has since been changed? I challenge the Minister to say that the present clause has been approved by the law adviser. He knows it has not been approved. I therefore say this clause is not intra vires. But there is a further point bearing on this. The Minister has this session introduced legislation which would give him power to make regulations to impose conditions on the grant; here, however, he takes this power of imposing conditions without reference to Parliament. It is a further stage in the rising tide of ministerial autocracy. It means giving the Minister a blank cheque in regard to our universities and university colleges; it means giving him a strangle hold on them. He may impose the condition on the University of Cape Town that it should not run a college of music, but hand it over to the Technical College; on the University of Johannesburg he may impose a condition that it must abandon its faculty of medicine; to Pretoria he may say that the proportion of lectures in Afrikaans has been shown to be only 20 per cent.—“correct that! to Stellenbosch he may say that the professor of chemistry has satisfied him that he is not getting enough for his department— “give him more money!”. Is there any self-respecting university and university college which can be expected to brook such interference from such an inquisitorial authority? But the Minister goes further. In regulation 6 (a) (3) he takes this power, that, if, in his opinion, a reduction in the general purposes grant to an institution is justified in the interests of higher education, he may reduce it. Not Parliament, but the Minister. Once again we have the new autocracy—another step in the evolution of ministerial dictatorship. Presumably, if he increases a grant provided by Parliament, he will have to come to us for approval. But if we may judge from his refusal to answer my request for his reasons for discriminating as he has done in this schedule, we may assume that in such a case to a similar request he would not vouchsafe the courtesy of a reply. If, however, he reduces a grant, he will not even need to come to Parliament, nut can do it of his own free will. Let us just reflect what that means. There are many people who think we have too many universities, and that it is in the interests of higher education in South Africa to reduce the number. If there is such a person in the seat which the Minister now fills, all he will need to do is to say: “I have decided that Bloemfontein, Natal and Huguenot shall cease to exist—in the interests of higher education I am of opinion that there are too many institutions—therefore I shall reduce their grant to £10 per annum.” That is the power this clause gives the Minister—the power of slow strangulation. He will become the unquestioned dictator of the universities without reference to Parliament. But Parliament has created these institutions, and it should not give to the Minister the power, at his irresponsible whim, to sign their death warrant. Once again we are driven to ask ourselves, is the time so far distant when Parliament will appear to be only a solemn farce—a mere registering authority which awaits painless execution by a humane killer. But the Minister tells us he has based these regulations on the report of the van der Horst commission. That commission never recommended that the Minister should have powers such as those in Sections 5 and 6. The Minister quoted from the last paragraph of its report, but he stopped short, and did not read the following sentence—

It is no doubt in this mood of exalted cynicism that the Minister has submitted these regulations. We on these benches are, perhaps, unable adequately to protect the people against the Government of its choice, but we can at least protest and we can bring to its notice the extent of the excesses of which the Government of its choice is capable. For these reasons I have submitted this amendment, and I hope it will be accepted. I hope the Minister will accept it. But at the very least this motion should be withdrawn for further consideration. I have already raised the question of legality. But this is a further point which, if the Minister will do me the honour of listening, he will find to merit his serious consideration. In Section 6 (a) (2), the Minister takes the power of reducing the grant where an institution has failed to comply with the conditions as laid down. But in the Afrikaans it reads—

That is, “as laid down by the Minister.” In English the Minister takes power to make regulations which have to be approved by Parliament, but in Afrikaans, all the power is given to his own arbitrary self. The very least the Minister can do is to tell us which version he intends us to adopt. I hope he will consider this seriously, and tell us how he proposes to set this anomaly right. He cannot ask Parliament to say two contradictory things at the same time. He cannot ask us to accept in their present form these ill-digested, ill-formulated, and contradictory regulations.

I wish to second the amendment, and to support the hon. member in the protest he has made against rushing this matter through on the last day of the session. Earlier in the session the Minister tabled the Higher Education Control Bill. This has not been taken off the order paper, and is now order No. 7. I would like to know why he has not proceeded with that Bill. He told the university representatives what the regulations he intended to frame under the Bill were. They are the same as the regulations published in the Gazette, and which are now under discussion. If it was thought that the existing regulations could not be amended without special legislation, then we would require a very much clearer explanation from the Minister than we have had up to the present, as to his reasons for endeavouring to obtain by regulation what he thought necessary in the first instance to obtain by an Act of Parliament. The Minister, by these regulations, may impose penalties on all the universities. These penalties are bound to have a very serious effect on universities, an effect which may even ruin them. Under these regulations there is no power of appeal; whatever the Minister decides is final, and the powers he takes to himself will enable him to strangle the work of any university, should he wish to do so. If the regulations are adopted, the Minister will have power of life and death over the universities. He can determine their future, and certainly he will cripple the development of the larger institutions. There will be endless friction and irritation, which will militate against the smooth working which is so essential if we are to advance. One would imagine that when the Minister wishes to take to himself such autocratic powers as he is now taking, he would give the very fullest explanation as to why he wishes to do this. This morning the Minister told us that it is purely for financial reasons that he wishes to make these changes, and then he said that the regulations have nothing to do with the Bill tabled by him this session. The regulations now before us are those he placed before the university authorities in connection with that Bill. The Minister also made the excuse that the expenditure is increasing to an alarming extent, but that point I shall deal with later.

But you give so many different replies to the question.

Only one reply has been given to-day.

To day! But what will it be to-morrow?

The Minister says the regulations are purely in regard to financial matters. But if we look at a considered interview which he gave to Die Burger, we find a very different position. He told that newspaper—

So, after very careful consideration by the University Senate and Council, they are to be told that they are incompetent to decide whether an applicant for a position is competent, and that the final decision will rest with the Education Department. The Minister is taking away all the powers of the University Council. In his interview with Die Burger, the Minister added—

That was to do with the Higher Education Act.

The regulations the Minister submitted to the university under that Act in no way differ from the regulations submitted to us to-day. He then held that the regulations were necessary to see whether sufficient care had been taken to protect minorities, but to-day he says the reason for the regulation is purely a financial one. The powers it is now proposed to give to the Minister may lead to a very serious position. A member on the Government side has argued in favour of a conscience clause. Suppose that member occupied the Minister’s seat. He could, by a stroke of the pen, introduce the conscience clause. The regulations submitted to the universities provided that no appointment shall be made to any post before the concurrence of the Minister has first been obtained. He goes further now than the old regulations, which lay down that no new prefessorship, lectureship or department should be established unless the Minister has agreed. He now says no appointment of any kind shall be made unless the Minister has agreed. At this meeting, when these regulations were submitted, we find that all universities and university colleges were represented: Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Witwatersrand, Grey University College, Bloemfontein, Rhodes’ University College, Grahamstown, Natal University College, Pietermaritzburg, Transvaal University College and Huguenot University College, and they all condemned these regulations. It is interesting to note that among those who were present, representing Stellenbosch, were Professor G. G. Cillie, Mr. A. F. Markotter and Mr. P. O. Sauer, M.P. These are the representatives of one university, and these regulations were unanimously condemned by them. Surely the Minister should give a little heed to the unanimous opinion of all these representatives. The Minister simply listened to them, and told them he had to look after the interests of the minorities. Nothing was said about financial stress. The Minister now has to approve of every appointment, and in this regard, therefore, there is a substantial change. He now approves the appointment of any lecturer or teacher, whether the post is a new one or not. Then we come to regulations 5, 6 and 7. According to these, after 1931 the Minister can, at his will, increase or decrease the subsidies. These proposals will tend seriously to discourage any private endowment in future. One of the principal functions of university councils, at present, is the appointment of the university staff, and that is being taken from them. It seems to be a deliberate attempt to humiliate these members of university councils who attend regularly and do all they can for these institutions. They are now to be told that what they have done is of no value because the Minister or some member of his staff does not agree. The Minister can decide whether or no any applicant should be considered as fit to occupy any position. His reasons are twofold, first that he supplies the money and, therefore, should have the full say. But does he supply all the money? He seems to have an idea that it is only on the money supplied by him that these institutions can exist at all. As far as the general body of universities is concerned, the average cost per student in 1911 was £94 a head per annum, of which £31 was paid by the institution and £63 by the state. By 1926 this had greatly changed. The average cost per student was then £85, of which £38 was paid by the institution, and £47 by the state. At this rate of progress, at an early date the state would not be paying even half the cost. Take the case of the Cape Town University. The Government this year will be paying £90,000. Of this we pay back to the Government £40,000 by way of interest and redemption. At the best, therefore, the Government is not paying us £90,000, but £50,000. We also get as fees from students about £50,000 per annum, and if the Minister’s dictum is to be accepted, that the party who pays the most is to have the most say, then the students, and not the Minister, should have the veto. The Minister, a little while ago—he was careful not to refer to it to-day—quoted the position in Germany, and held very strongly that as the Government there control appointments, he should have the same right here. But when he upholds Germany as an example, he forgets quite a number of points. In the university of Berlin—a typical example of a German university—98 per cent, of expenditure is paid by Government, and all buildings for the university are erected free of cost to the university by the Government. If the Government here did the same, they would have the right to claim the veto in regard to any appointment. But what is the true position? If we take into consideration the cost of building, then the expenditure is well under 30 per cent.

made an Interjection.

The second reason which the Minister gives is that of safeguarding the interests of minorities, and he says there are some institutions which are predominantly English-speaking and others which are predominantly Afrikaans-speaking. In one case he wants to protect the Afrikaans-speaking students and in the other case to protect the English-speaking students. Take the universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch for example. One is purely English-speaking and the other purely Afrikaans-speaking. Why should a man not be chosen, or why should the Government refuse the choice of a man simply because he does not know the other official language, when it is perfectly clear that the other official language will not be required at all? I cannot understand why this language question should stand out above everything else in such a case. Where it is necessary to know both languages, you can make your choice accordingly. In regard to the question of selection, the Minister has on the university councils his own representatives. I want to know, so far as the Cape Town University is concerned, on which the Government had as one of its representatives the present Minister of Mines, whether that representative has ever made any single complaint in regard to the choice of any professor or lecturer. The council and the senate are eminently suited to make their own choice. The Minister of Mines and Industries represented the Government on the council of the Cape Town University. He was a regular attendant at the meetings of the council, and he was present when appointments were considered, and, so far as I know, he never raised his voice against any appointment. I should like to know if there was ever any reason for him to object to any appointment—

He did not have the power.

The Minister must not interrupt unnecessarily. He suggests that his own representative had no power to object, and had no power to complain to him when things were not done properly. If that is his argument, then I can only say it is a very poor argument, and I cannot support it. He certainly had the power to register his vote against any appointment, and, as a Government nominee, he certainly should have reported to Government when he was dissatisfied. I should like the Minister of Mines and Industries to say whether he ever opposed any appointment made by the university council. If he did so object, did he ever go to the Minister and tell him that the council of the University of Cape Town was not acting fairly in regard to the second official language? Unless he is absolutely satisfied that what is done by the university council was not done in the interests of education generally, as well as in the interests of the university itself, it was his duty to complain to the Minister, and to get up in this House now and say so. I personally cannot see how the Minister can expect a man of standing to take his seat on a university council when he finds that all he does is subject to the veto of the Minister. I think we shall find that the first result of these new regulations will be the withdrawal of gifts, as has already been threatened, I understand. The Minister quoted previously the case of Germany. We know that in Germany, endowments are simply unknown, because the people know that the Government pays for everything, and they do not worry about endowments. I have a letter from a prominent man who has done, perhaps, more in regard to endowments than anyone else in South Africa. He feels very strongly in regard to these regulations. He says definitely, and he is referring to the Bill previously mentioned—

That is by a gentleman who feels strongly in regard to the matter, and if he withdraws his support, it would be a very serious thing for one university I know of. The Minister already has, under the old regulations, tremendous power. He has, I think, all the powers he requires, namely, to have a veto in regard to the appointment of a new lecturer. A quotation from the minutes of the university conference has already been referred to. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) referred to a little passage which the Minister evidently thinks is not important, and which he omitted in his quotation. Here is another omission by the Minister—

The conference passed further resolutions, one of which stated that they desired specially to endorse Section 22, page 39, of the university commission’s report, the van der Horst commission, reading: “The prevalent feeling that state expenditure for universities has increased, and is increasing to an alarming extent, and that it must be diminished is not justified, and a recommendation to change the present system of state subsidy to universities for the sole purpose of effecting economy would be an unwise expedient.” This also was omitted by the Minister. The universities are against this change. They have by conference summoned by the Minister unanimously decided against the change.

Why do you not read what I read?

I am pointing out that the Minister read certain sections and left out other sections. We are really trying to fill in the blanks, and we think it is only right that the House should know what was said by the commission. Where they passed unanimous resolutions, the Minister ignores them entirely, and goes off on his own line. How can he expect peace in these universities if he has the power to veto everything they do, and to give grants and withdraw them simply as he thinks fit? The position is a very serious one, and unless the Minister is prepared to go a long way in the direction of amending the regulations and putting them on a basis that would be fair to everybody concerned, and to leave the control in the hands of the senates and councils, and not in the hands of the Minister, we shall never have satisfaction, and the whole of the university education of this country will very greatly suffer. I have very great pleasure in supporting the amendment, and I do hope that the Minister will be reasonable. We are in the last days of the session. We can come back next year and not be hampered by having the House empty, and the matter rushed through to the detriment of higher education in this country.

One almost despairs of speaking to this resolution, looking around this depleted House, and conscious of the fact that the great bulk of the members who have gone away went away not knowing that this important resolution would be brought up this morning. Our only hope is that through the medium of the press, at any rate, the view some of us have on this particular resolution may go forth to the public of South Africa, because the great bulk of their representatives in Parliament are not here to listen to us. We know inevitably that what the Minister says will go, and this resolution will be passed. I am one of those who have spent the best part of my life in cultivating, protecting and advancing the interests of technical education in this country, and I want to raise my voice in a most emphatic protest against what is being done here to-day. I know from experience that the only power left to the technical colleges and practically to the universities to-day as well is to spend the money the Minister gives them, and not the money they want. Under the terms of this resolution, the Minister may determine the terms upon which these grants may be made, and he may withdraw them if his conditions are not carried out. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has spoken of this as the worst indication of despotism which has come to his knowledge in this House to this day. I will go so far as to say that if this resolution is adopted, the whole scheme of self-government will be undermined in this country. If this bureaucratic form of legislation is going to be tolerated, I say in every sincerity the whole scheme of self-government in South Africa is going to the wall. These regulations are the worst example of the intention of the Minister to abrogate powers which should be used by Parliament itself, or by the universities. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) referred to the recent publications by Lord Hewart, the lord chief justice of England, with regard to this growing method of legislation by regulation. The first of these books is “Principles and Practices of Law To-day”, and the last one is “The New Despotism”. In those books, the lord chief justice pointed out the dangers which are accruing from this process of bureaucratic legislation. Since these books were published, a case came before the King’s Bench Division in England, the case of Rex versus the Minister of Health ex parte Yaffe. It was heard in January last. The short point in this case arose out of the Housing Act, 1925, under which the Minister of Health had made an order confirming (and materially altering) an improvement scheme, so-called, framed by the Liverpool Corporation. Mr. Yaffe, whose property was affected by the scheme, contended that the confirming order of the Minister was ultra vires, on the ground that the improvement scheme was not in reality an improvement scheme at all, but merely one which gave the corporation powers to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, as the council might think fit, the cleared area. The Attorney-General’s argument which prevailed was that if an order merely purported to be made under the Act, that was sufficient to give it binding force. This he stated quite unreservedly, as the following interchange will show—

The Attorney-General: That is so, my lord. Of course, it doesn’t sound very pretty in that form [laughter], and I would prefer to say that the court will not enquire whether it is within the Act.

The Lord Chief Justice: Do you say that if, under the name of an improvement scheme under this Act, the Minister sanctioned anything whatever, it would have statutory effect?

If the Minister can lay down the terms on which money is to be advanced to the universities, why not give him a blank cheque and allow the Minister to say: “I am going to run the universities as I like.” This is even more unique than the Riotous Assemblies Act. The Minister is purporting to introduce these regulations under the Education Act of 1917. I know that these regulations are going to be passed, but I hope some university will have the courage to test them in a court of law, for all the Act says is that the Minister has power to fix the basis on which the grants are to be made, but not the terms on which they are to be granted. The Minister is now far exceeding the powers that Parliament intended to entrust to him, namely, the basis on which the payments have to be made, so as to regulate the amount of money to be given to the various institutions. The Minister has interjected frequently this morning that the public must be protected. We are all agreed on that.

No.

Yes, just as much as the Minister of Finance. If the taxpayer says that a certain college shall have, say, £90,000 a year, well and good, but the taxpayers have not said that they are going to leave it to the Minister of Education to decide the terms on which that money is to be given. What, under these regulations, becomes of the powers and discretions of universities? How can they develop? What right has any Parliament to place in the hands of a gentleman with the reputation of the Minister of Education such important powers as these? In his own statement the Minister showed clearly how he intends to use this power. Reading the extracts from his speech quoted by my hon. friend on my right (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), the Minister has clearly indicated in an interview what his intentions are, and how he will use these powers. Is that in the interests of the taxpayer? Is that to safeguard those interests? No, I have no false idea of what these powers are which the Minister is seeking, and how they will be exercised. My objection is that the regulations will be imposed by the will of the Minister in the administration of our universities instead of giving them a local independence such as that existing in England and Holland, and carried by them to North America, and to the various colonies and dominions. The foundations of the university system of England and Holland have subsequently developed in America and in this country, and have always been based upon the freedom of these universities to develop according to the exigencies of the localities in which they are, not, as in continental cities, by the Government of these people. I go further and say that the implication of this resolution is this. The Minister is practically saying that these institutions have failed to govern themselves, they have failed to govern themselves efficiently and economically. I say that the onus is upon him to prove that these universities have done so. It is not for the universities to defend themselves. The system of education that exists in this country is the same system which, I say, has been established overseas, and which is the principle of university education of the British-speaking and Dutch-speaking world. The effect of these regulations, coupled with those presently existing, will mean that the Minister can fix the policy of these institutions and also the type of education to be provided. Now this is the German system. This is the Prussian system. May I quote to the House very shortly from the latest book in our library called “The New Education in Europe”? It is probably the most erudite work published on education during the last 50 years. It is by Professor Frederick William Roman. It is a question of the comparison of methods dealt with in extenso in this volume. It shows clearly the facts, the different processes, and the different systems adopted in Anglo-Saxon institutions. On page 206 appears the following—

Again on the same subject, at page 215, he says—

The significant words are “that German education was dominated by bureaucracy.”

When the House adjourned I was endeavouring to make an impression on a not over-crowded House. The first point I endeavoured to make was that the regulations were ultra vires of the powers contained in the Act of 1917, and that the Act itself only gives power to the Minister to lay down the basis upon which funds are to be contributed to the university. I also endeavoured to point out that the effect of the passing of these regulations would be to give the Minister power altogether in derogation of the powers of Parliament and the powers of universities, and represented the very worst type of bureaucratic legislation that we have had before the House this session. I now come to this point—if the Minister is dissatisfied with the method of education as carried on by Anglo-Saxon people in this country and America and if he is looking around for a further precedent—I will be glad if the Minister will give me his attention for a few moments—why could he not have gone to Denmark? Denmark is acclaimed by all educationists as having the most admirably developed educational system of any part of the world, and a recent writer on the subject has said that “the keynote of the whole system in Denmark is freedom.” That is the point we hear from the opposite side of the House—we hear when the occasion seems to demand it of the beautiful qualities of freedom, and of freedom to do this and that. That is their own freedom. I am speaking for an extension of that principle into education—certainly not an extension of this principle to a complete abrogation of it. I now come to a portion of the discussion which is of particular interest to myself. The Minister in his opening remarks this morning, looking straight at me, said the powers which he proposed to take to himself as regards universities he had, so far as technical colleges were concerned. I beg to differ with him, and I endeavoured to point out that the Minister has power to fix the basis on which money may be used in regard to technical colleges, and that while he might fix the basis of their emoluments I doubt if he has power to make payment to those colleges containing any stipulation in advance or coupled with any threat that if certain things are not done he will withdraw those payments. When he attempts to pass that type of legislation it will be possible to contest it. If he adopts this principle in regard to technical colleges, he will ruin them and take away from their councils the small power they still possess, which has been of the greatest possible advantage to them. I place the greatest stress on the continuance of these councils and the utter undesirability of curtailing their powers to a greater extent than is the case. To-day they have practically no autonomy left except to spend the money the Minister gives them, in the direction they consider desirable. If the day comes when the Minister takes that power away I prophesy he will break down half of their utility. For 16 years we carried on without a constitution and without the Minister at all, and we had a perfectly free hand in regard to determination. When the Government came along, in 1916 I think it was, and took over those institutions, they took them over holus bolus, and were completely satisfied with what we have done. Now we are told that the Minister has power without the publication of any regulation whatever to do what he seeks to do.

Not without publication; without the approval of Parliament.

It is practically the same thing. Without anybody’s consent the Minister can do this. I differ from him, and I am equally confident that these regulations are ultra vires; the language of the Act is perfectly clear; it does not give him such power. In conclusion, I want again to draw attention to the way in which these regulations have been tabled. There was not a word said about this on Wednesday last, and practically every newspaper stated that the session, for practical purposes, was complete; that we would simply be called together to await the decisions of the Senate. I know that several hon. members who are interested in universities and technical colleges would not have left Cape Town had they known that the Minister would have brought these regulations up today. It is no excuse for the Minister to say that he has to pass them because the estimates are based on them. No one would mind if the Minister introduced a short resolution to enumerate the colleges which would be placed under the terms of the estimates and placing them under these terms. He could get a Governor-General’s warrant to cover those payments. But this will take away from these institutions the material authorities and discretions left to the universities, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) truly said. For a depeleted House like this to pass these regulations will leave an extraordinary impression on education for many a long day. [Time limit.]

I rise to add my voice in support of those hon. members who have already spoken in urging the Minister not to proceed with the motion. If it was only a financial matter, as he said it was, I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House who would object to debating it today; if it was only what the grant should be to the different universities; but it is not that, and the Minister knows perfectly well it is not that. Behind this question of the grant lies an attempt on the part of the Minister to bring about a revolution in higher education in South Africa. That is no exaggeration, but an absolutely plain statement of what the Minister intends doing. I say that is not fair to this House and to the interests involved; it is not financial, but of a far higher character than that if a motion like this should be introduced on the last day of the session with a depleted House and without due consideration of the issues that are involved. What has been the principle on which we have proceeded so far in higher education in South Africa? That the universities and the university colleges are not state institutions—that is clearly laid down in the law— but they are state-aided institutions. They are not like the University of Berlin, to which I understand the Minister referred, which is a purely state institution, controlled by the Government of the day. They are, and it was intended that they should be, independent and self-governing institutions, receiving, if is true, large grants from the state, but with power, subject to the rules and regulations passed, to manage their own affairs as they think best in the interests of their institutions and of higher education. The Government has always retained certain powers—the power to say, for instance, whether a certain faculty should be instituted in a particular university or not. It is right that the state should say where a particular faculty should be—medicine in Cape Town and not in Pretoria, or a certain faculty in Johannesburg and not in Stellenbosch, and so on. That is the power they have always had, and it is right that they should have it, but where the Minister takes a revolutionary step is where he takes power in interfere in the day-to-day administration of these institutions. These institutions cannot spend a grant they may get except under such conditions as the Minister may lay down. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has already called attention to that, and I do not want to do it again. The existing regulations provide that when once a grant is paid over to the university the governing body is the authority to say how that grant is to be spent. But what do we find? They can only spend their general purposes grant subject to such conditions as the Minister may impose. He can enter that institution and dictate every article of its policy. He can say, “I make it a condition that you shall teach certain subjects in English and certain subjects in Afrikaans,” and he can make conditions with regard to appointments, and in any other way he may think fit. Are we going to tolerate that? If this goes through, the universities of this country will no longer be state-aided institutions. They will be state institutions, subject in every detail to the Minister’s office, and I say it is intolerable that a thing like this shall he done in the last days of the session. What harm can there be in delay? What harm can be done if this matter stands over to another session? Parliament has already voted the grants.

How about the estimates of next year?

I suppose Parliament will be meeting in the early days of next year, and I tell the Minister quite frankly that, objectionable as it is to have the grants stabilized without notice, I regard that as a far less evil than the powers he takes to interfere with the universities and to put the Minister’s office in the place of the governing body of the university. The universities have got to submit their estimates of revenue and expenditure to be approved by the Minister. What more is necessary to turn these institutions into pure state institutions? They cannot spend a penny without his approval. I cannot understand what the reason is for this proposed complete revolution in our ideas with regard to higher education. The point has been raised by hon. members on this side as to whether these regulations are legally valid. The Act of 1917 contemplated that these university institutions should be subject to regulations to be approved by Parliament. Any alterations in the regulations have also to be approved by Parliament. Now what do we find? We find that the Minister makes a regulation which gives him complete control over the affairs of these institutions. What is the need for any further regulation? Where is the consent of Parliament? The Minister by this regulation, supersedes entirely the Act of 1917, and says that they have to spend their grants and regulate their expenditure and their institutions in accordance with his desires. If these regulations are passed he can say, " I can impose a conscience clause without coming to Parliament.” There is no need to come to Parliament, and there is no need for a Higher Education Control Bill if these regulations are passed. This is a sorry state of things. I do not think the precedent of continental universities is very attractive. We know what were the results in Germany of this principle of state control of universities. We know of men of high eminence in their respective branches of learning who have been either refused appointments or dismissed from appointments because their political leanings were not approved. Do we want our universities to be subject to political dictation from the Government of the day? That is the precedent we are invited to follow, the precedent of Germany, where we have state control. The very object of making these institutions state-aided institutions is clearly laid down in our University Act, and was to avoid political control, but by this motion of his, and by these regulations which he is introducing, the Minister is going contrary to the principle upon which our university institutions have been built up. He is dealing a blow to the freedom of our intellectual life in South Africa. If these regulations pass, any man who is thinking of a career for himself as a teacher or a professor at a university will have to see that he stands in with the Government of the day, or his chances will be small. He will have to be careful what he says, once he is appointed, or the university may get its grant reduced. By these regulations we are handing the freedom of our universities and the freedom of our intellectual life to the Minister, and I say it is a bad thing that that should come about. It will be a bad day for the education of South Africa, but still more for the intellectual freedom of South Africa, if that comes about. Why does he want it? It is not a matter of economy. We will give him his economy, and the stabilization of the grant, but we will not give him this autocratic power to make the administration of our universities and university colleges an annexe of the office of the Minister of Education.

I very much regret that a matter of this kind should be brought in at this stage. I know that hon. members on these benches were under the impression that business of any importance has been dealt with. But for the fact that the upper House has held up the work of this House for a few hours, probably this matter would not be before us now. It was understood that, so far as possible, we were to complete the business of the House on Wednesday night, and on Wednesday I found that this motion was the last item, so that it could not have been the intention of the Minister to introduce it at the time, and it seems to be only an accident that we are now called on to deal with a matter of such importance. With all deference, the hon. the Minister strikes me as being quite different from all other Ministers. Some Ministers do the right thing at the wrong time, others do the wrong thing at the right time, but the Minister of Education seems to have a tremendous capacity for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

You are thinking of the Quota Bill.

No, I think the hon. the Minister will be thinking of the Quota Bill, or the electorate will make him think of it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has the intention of introducing a quota system in higher education, because that might be the effect of the regulations now before us. I would urge the hon. Minister that he should reconsider and leave the matter over until next session. Under this notice of motion it seems to me we are going to apply Government by regulation as far as higher education is concerned. In some directions it may not be possible to avoid government by regulation, although it is a principle which we do not favour, but if there is any matter in which we should avoid government by regulation, it is in higher education. So far as education is concerned we want progress and new ideas even if those ideas come from overseas in order to secure the best form of education for young people in this country. Under government by regulation—which means government by the civil service—however highly one may think of the civil service, there is no doubt that it has a tendency towards bureaucracy and that the tendency of bureaucracy is to avoid anything new or progressive or likely to cause any trouble, and to keep to a commonplace rut, as things were done yesterday or a 100 years ago. I suggest that, given control in methods of this kind, it is bound to lead if not to actual retrogression, at least to a stationary condition of affairs in higher education. These regulations, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said, are likely to revolutionize higher education in South Africa. They give the Minister such control as to make it impossible for the university councils to carry on their work without undue interference from the Minister or from officials. In connection with Clause 5, dealing with grants-in-aid, powers are to be taken by the Minister under which the Minister can lay down any condition he likes. He can lay down conditions, in the same way as under the quota Bill, that no person can be appointed to a chair or a lecturership of whom he does not approve. I stand second to no one in the desire that the sons and daughters of South Africa may have opportunities of securing whatever posts may be available, but we must take into consideration qualification, and with all our desire to push forward South Africa, and to see that chairs shall be occupied by South Africans, one must realize that in the matter of higher education qualification must be the first essential. There may be chairs or lecturerships where applicants from overseas are better qualified for those positions, and yet under these conditions the Minister may lay down regulations which amount to an educational quota Bill. He may lay down complete prohibition as far as applicants from certain parts of the world are concerned, and as a result, education will become, if not retrogressive, stationary and decadent. He has a right to do something which he may be opposed to, but which some other Minister may not be opposed to—to introduce the conscience clause so that anybody who does not conform to certain political and religious views is not eligible for appointment. I do not think the Minister will do it himself, but we may have a Minister who will. We are not legislating for to-day, but for a period. It may be that at an early date another Minister will occupy that post who is in favour of introducing a conscience clause. It has another had effect. Clause 6 will not even bring about efficiency as far as higher education is concerned. Clause 6 seems to me to be somewhat peculiar. It provides that in dealing with these estimates, where a university shows a surplus, its grant will not be increased and may be diminished. On the other hand, where it shows a deficit, the grant may be increased. That is encouraging inefficiency and wasteful expenditure on the part of universities, because universities have no incentive towards efficiency and economy. They will say: “If we show a surplus we shall be penalized in the coming year.” It has another bad effect. It is going to discourage private benefactions to universities. There is one instance in regard to the Witwatersrand. In Johannesburg, some years ago, we came to a decision, which has been perpetuated to the present day, by which Johannesburg municipality contributes £10,000 annually to the University of the Witwatersrand, half of which goes towards the cost of administration and half towards bursaries for students along the Witwatersrand, who, without such assistance, could not take advantage of university education. With a provision such as is laid down in Clause 6, it will mean that people will be discouraged from granting such subsidies or granting anything in the nature of benefactions. If they do grant these benefactions or subsidies, it will mean that the Minister will come along the following year and say. " Because you happen to have a surplus, I shall reduce the amount of the state contribution to the university.” It will have a bad effect in that direction also. Personally, I must join with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) in protesting against the manner in which these grants are laid down. It undoubtedly has the effect of differentiating against the Witwatersrand University. After all, the Minister should not be concerned with whether it is Johannesburg or Cape Town or Stellenbosch. He should be concerned with them all, and, with the education given, their requirements, the number of students and their professors, and he should look at it from that point of view. I submit that the Witwatersrand is being treated unfairly, because it is getting less than it is entitled to. It is a growing university with students attending it from every part of the country, and it is taking its share in the life of the Witwatersrand and the Transvaal. It is not only educating those who attend the university, but it is doing a great deal towards raising the spirit and tone of the population generally along the Witwatersrand. In the past, Johannesburg had the reputation of being only a university of crime. It has always had more or less the reputation as being a place to dig out gold in order to make the rest of South Africa rich. Under the provisions laid down here, as regards the amount of the subsidy, it is unfair to Johannesburg. The Witwatersrand is becoming one of the leaders in the intellectual life of South Africa. The Minister, knowing the progress it is making and knowing the requirements and facilities required, should at least see that a contribution should be made for education for the Witwatersrand University. I hope before he rushes through this matter he will decide to delay it for another twelve months, so that not only shall the education authorities have the fullest opportunity of making representations to the Government, but that the House generally shall have an opportunity of studying the position in all its aspects, and when we deal with it next session, we can deal with it with a full sense of responsibility, and have sufficient leisure to deal with every item. Today that is impossible. We may be dragooned by the whips into passing this, and then it will be sent to another place, where it will be disposed of in five minutes. If there is one question where such hasty and ill-considered legislation should not be indulged in, it is in connection with this matter. I hope the hon. the Minister will get rid of his obstinacy, take a reasonable point of view of it, and take this matter back.

I take exception to the manner in which this matter has been brought before the House. We take this exception, also to the way in which the regulations have been brought before us. They were published in the Government Gazette three or four months ago, but apparently no prints were made for the use of members. The result has been that when we tried to get hold of copies of the regulations it was found impossible to obtain them except from the Government Gazette, and then we couldn’t get the Gazette! The regulations run into ten closely printed columns of the Gazette. They are very long and complex.

They are the old regulations.

You mean they are being re-enacted.

We are only asking for approval of the alternations.

I do not understand the Minister. The notice in the Gazette reads—

Then follow ten columns of regulations, which number 52, together with the schedule and so on. In other words, the existing regulations are being repealed, and these present ones are being enacted. We are referred in our order paper to a Government Gazette, and when we send for a copy of the Government Gazette the clerk of the papers informs us that he has no more copies. That is an additional reason why the Minister should give ear to the plea not to insist on carrying the regulations into effect this session. He has told us—and it is one of the most ingenious pleas I have ever heard—that one of the reasons for passing the regulations is that the House has already, in effect, agreed to them by passing the Higher Education Vote. I do not want to misjudge the Minister. Did he or did he not tell us that when we considered the higher education estimates, that they were based on this new set of regulations, and that by accepting them we were, in effect, adopting the subsidy contained in this new set of regulations? If we were not told that, does it not savour of a confidence trick for the Minister now to tell us that we have already bound ourselves? The Minister distinctly said that the House, in effect, had accepted the regulations so far as the financial provisions are concerned. We can accuse the Minister of a good many things, but stupidity is not a thing one can accuse him of. What point then did he intend to make when he made that remark if the inference was not, in effect, that we had already bound ourselves to accept the new rate of subsidy by passing the estimates? If that were not the inference, then there was no point whatever in his remarks. In the ordinary way, just as one cannot accuse the Minister of stupidity, one cannot accuse him in many things of narrowness. I remember the stand he took against members on his own side in regard to the conscience clause. I remember with gratitude and respect the telegram he sent to Professor du Plessis about two months ago. I gather from these two incidents that he is not a mere narrow doctrinarian, but a man of liberal ideas, and if that is so I cannot understand how one of his eminence in the educational world, and a man of his university training and outlook on university ideals, can put his name to these draft regulations. I would be glad if he would defend himself from the charge of illiberality which seems to be brought against him by these very regulations. Let me frame the charge: that in drafting these regulations he seeks to constitute himself virtually a dictator so far as higher education is concerned, that he should be able to say to one university, “You must pursue one particular line, or refrain from pursuing one particular line under penalty of my displeasure, which means that I can curtail or cut down to nothing, the grant you receive from the state. If you do not agree to my ideas as to how your university should be run, how you shall select your professors, and what particular faculties you give instruction in, then I will cut off your subsidy,” like the Queen of Hearts who wanted to cut off everybody’s head, he will go round the educational world threatening to cut off their subsidies. Does he not thus stand charged with illiberality of the very worst description? I hope he will try to acquit himself of that charge. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) talked as if this were a bad form of government by regulation. I wish it were only government by regulation. But it is very much worse than government by regulation. It is the very negation of regulation, it is government by ministerial ukase. This is government of higher education by a single individual at his own unfettered whim. I want the House to recognise that in these regulations we are taking the most evil form of a retrograde step, because we are stepping down from government by regulation subject to Parliament as laid down in the Act of 1917 to government by ministerial ukase. The Minister will not deny that whoever has control of the subsidies of the universities has control of the universities, and he is asking that we should hand over those bound hand and foot to him. The House will be shirking its responsibilities if it allows such a thing to happen. I am surprised, if I have any capacity for surprise left, that not a single hon. member on the opposite benches, including the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen), who takes such an interest in these matters, has bad sufficient courage to give us his real views on this question. I remember only three days ago, on the Motor Carrier Transportation Bill, the Minister of Railways and Harbours grew almost cold and sick with horror at anyone wanting to put up a board of control with the elimination or the side stepping of “parliamentary control.” That is apparently the shrine at which he performs morning and evening worship. Yet two or three days later the namesake of the Minister (and a brother Minister) asks Parliament to surrender to him the very last vestige of the parliamentary control it possesses over the institutions of higher learning in South Africa. That is the sort of Government we have; it offers incense to a principle one day, and it is callously scrapped the next. The Minister of Education was pleased to remember a saying of mine in my budget speech when I referred to the alarming growth of our expenditure on higher education, which, to my mind, has been mounting at a rate quite disproportionate for the country to absorb. I said then, “It looks to me we are fast becoming a country of university graduates and of poor whites”; and because of that phrase the Minister claimed my support for these regulations. In so far as their financial part is concerned I am with him because I feel that we have reached our limit. In times of depression the universities must be prepared to do their share in bearing the burden. I am not objecting to the subsidies, but to the other portion of the regulations to which objection has been taken. I shall protest in the strongest possible way I can against the suggestion that we should hand over to the Minister of Education the entire control of these grants. I want to recall to the Minister a little past history. Does he remember the years 1921 and 1922, when the South African party Government was passing through a period of financial stringency far worse than what is happening now? Does he remember that in those days we used to give the provinces a subsidy on the pound for pound basis proportionate to the revenue they raised from other sources, just as we now give to the universities? Does he remember that Mr. Burton had to cry a halt to this haphazard way of increasing the subsidies to the provinces? Mr. Burton came forward with proposals in the House that that should stop.

What * year was it?

It happened in two stages. In 1920 at first, and then in 1922. Mr. Burton said his revenue was shrinking, but the demands of the provinces were always increasing, and what they had to do was to stabilize the amount given to the provinces by making it the amount of the previous year plus 2½ per cent., which was a liberal proposal; for not only were they not to get less, but to get a little more, and that was in time of economy when revenue was shrinking. What help did the Minister and his friends give the Government of the day in that reasonable request? I will tell the Minister in his own words. The Minister of Finance, who now knows and is beginning to realise what it is to pilot the country through a period of depression, so far from helping Mr. Burton in that, was one of the first to criticize him. The Minister of Education at that time said—

It is an open secret to-day that the Minister has met with unanimous opposition from the universities with regard to his proposals—

The whole burden of his story was that Mr. Burton, in reducing the basis of those subsidies was inflicting a grievous blow to the cause of education. But circumstances alter cases. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here because he said the same thing. Now he comes along and says, “Look here, we have got to tell these universities that they have to curtail their expenditure”.

You were of the same opinion the other night.

I am of the same opinion still. I am with the Minister of Finance on the financial part of this, but why should he put a blind eye to the telescope with regard to these other provisions, this proposal to constitute the rev. doctor, the Minister of Education, a sort of Mussolini of the educational life of this country.

Tinsel Mussolini !

No, not a tinsel Mussolini. Knowing the character of the hon. gentleman, I think they will find him a real and not a tinsel Mussolini if these regulations are agreed to. Now the Minister of Finance comes forward and asks us to help him to economise. Under the same circumstances and with the same basis of contribution he and his colleagues made the welkin ring in opposition to the stabilization of the subsidy when Mr. Burton proposed it in a time of much greater depression. I think the Minister will agree with me that the regulations must be within the four walls of the enabling section. If they fall outside of those four walls, the fact that Parliament passed them cannot validate them. Has he received a written opinion of the law advisers that these regulations are intra vires? If not, I would like to put to him my view on this particular matter. The “enabling” section is paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 12. It says—

It was at that time quite clearly taken to mean that the Government would lay down the scale and the manner in which these subsidies are to be arrived at. It was done. It was laid down that for every £1 the university raises the Government would give them another £1. Inasmuch as these regulations substitute a block grant for a fixed amount, they are within the section, but when they go on to say that that grant shall be subject to such conditions as the Minister may impose, they are importing something into these regulations which the “enabling” section never provided for and never intended. All that these or any other regulations, may do is to lay down the financial principles on which the amount payable to the university may be determined, but they may not lay down conditions on which the grant, once determined, may be paid over. I am not taking this point lightly. I have discussed it with other members of this House whose legal knowledge probably exceeds my own, and this is a matter into the validity of which the Minister will have to enquire. I do not know whether it will be possible for one of the universities to test this matter. I hope it will be possible. I hope that the matter may be tested in the courts, and the Minister shown that it is not in his power to fetter the handing over of a grant with a condition of this sort. I always thought that the Minister of Finance, in common with his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, was a stickler for parliamentary control, and recognised that the most fundamental thing in parliamentary control was its control over finance. Yet in this very regulation that power is being taken away from Parliament and put into the hands of the Minister, because, if we have voted money, the regulation lays down that the Minister may withhold it. Then it goes on to say that he may pay over subsidies which we have never voted.

No money can be paid out of the Exchequer unless Parliament has voted it.

I have heard of Governor-General’s warrants. The Minister may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, where the estimates of revenue and expenditure for any year, as submitted by an institution and approved of by him, indicate that the institution will have a surplus of revenue over expenditure, and such surplus is not being devoted by the institution to some special purpose approved by the Minister; or where any institution has failed to comply with the conditions attaching to the payments of the general purposes grant, as laid down in regulations framed in that regard; or where, in his opinion, a reduction in the general purposes grant is justified, reduce the grant of such institution by such amount as he may deem necessary. What will the Minister of Finance say to that?

That does not interfere with the right of Parliament eventually to vote the money.

Then it becomes the increased vote of that institution, and Parliament is told that it has already become the increased subsidy of the institution. Is that the Minister’s idea of parliamentary control over public expenditure? Up to this moment, moneys spent, on higher education have been moneys of which the Minister could not touch a single penny.

We know that every penny is automatically controlled on the pound for pound principle.

If that is the case, we shall know that the Minister of Finance has decided what is to be the grant of the institution. He can promote one university and debase another. He could abolish Rhodes’ University College to-morrow. He could come to the conclusion that it was not necessary, that he did not like it, and close it down either by a process of slow exhaustion, or kill it outright by withholding the grant. The Minister quoted, in defence of his argument, the van der Horst report. But the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has supplied one of the two deficiencies in his quotation of that report. Comparing the report with these regulations, they appear to have the same relation to the van der Horst report as the Minister of Railways’ Transportation Bill bears to the Transport Commission’s report. I think it is due to the House that the Minister should give us the clearest indication of why in fixing the new subsidies he has favoured one institution at the expense of another. If he had set down subsidies without fear or favour, at least no question could be raised of partiality. But the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) stated that on two occasions he had asked for information as to why figures had been varied, and that he had failed to get a reply from the Minister. Does the Minister expect us blindly to vote for these new subsidies without an explanation? Does not the fact of the variation show that the dangers which we presage at his hands, if these regulations pass into law, are very real dangers. This will, in effect, give poor little Natal £12,000, and give Bloemfontein, with a smaller number of students, £19,000, by fixing a schedule which is no schedule at all, because it can be increased or reduced at the Minister’s will. If these regulations are passed you will get members drawing comparisons between their own and other institutions, and a discussion will follow which will develop into a parliamentary bear-garden. At present there is no such discussion. Each university college is treated the same as all the others. I must say the Minister is doing himself a disservice when he allows these subsidies to be fixed at his own will. I would not like to have his job—to have to decide who is to get more and who less, especially as he has laid down no criteria by which to judge. For these reasons I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter.

I get up, not to pursue this subject, but to hold out an olive-branch to the Minister. This discussion has gone on from half-past ten this morning until this hour, and it promises to go on into the night. I would like to come to a conclusion on the matter. Possibly there is misunderstanding and the Minister will be able to explain. I would like to put forward the view adumbrated by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The regulations before us now can be divided into two sets of provisions, one set establishing a scheme of stabilization of these grants, by which the universities and university colleges are put on a certain basis of grants under these regulations, and, besides this, there is another set of provisions which gives the Minister far-reaching powers of control in regard to the universities and university colleges. The Minister gets power under these provisions to lay down, at his own will, conditions as to the use of the Government grant. There is no limit to the discretion which he can exercise. He can, at his own will, lay down as to his own idea of right or wrong, the conditions under which the grant shall be utilised, by the university colleges. Then he gets the power to control expenditure of the estimates which must, according to this section, be approved by the Minister. Although this side of the House has objected to both sets of provisions, its main objection has been directed to the second set giving the Minister power of arbitrary interference, and the laying down of conditions and approval, which are placed in the hands of the Minister. We say—I think with reason—that these powers committed to the Minister here may be so used as to be destructive of university liberty, and on that ground we have been doing our best to persuade the Minister that these regulations should not go through in their present form. The suggestion I wish to make is this, that we do not go on with the approval of these regulations here to-day, but that the matter stand over and we can discuss it next year—but there must be some understanding about these regulations. In principle, a certain basis of stabilization is laid down here, and I understand that is necessary. The stabilization in some way has to be approved. I suggest from this side we should be prepared to agree in principle that the stabilization basis be not objected to, and the Minister be in a position to go on with the estimates on the basis here laid down, but as regards the rest of the provisions we would be prepared to give our consent. If the Minister will accept our assurance that, in principle, we agree to the basis of stabilization, then I submit to him that he might withdraw these regulations, and the matter might be raised again next year. Then he has all he wants for financial purposes, and the position as regards the powers of the Minister to interfere with university management in future, will not be conceded and will not become law. If the Minister will accept this basis, and will agree to it, the regulations framed on a different and more acceptable basis next year might then be considered by the House.

I am taking up the same position as every other hon. member who has had something to say upon the subject. I have something to say and I want to say it. I say to the Minister that it seems a pity that, at this stage of the session, we should be faced with a discussion dealing with regulations that are going to govern our universities. It is either I an insult to the universities, an insult to those young men who are taking their degrees there, an insult to this House, or it is an insult to the Minister. To this extent we can say this, that it is better such a position should arise to-day than that we should be dealing with any other subject, because in dealing with education and the attitude taken up by the House and the Minister, we are dealing with a subject that is safe in the hands of the various people concerned. I put it this way to the Minister. It was only the day before yesterday that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) in opposing Clause 2 of the Miners’ Phthisis Amendment Act, took up the attitude that he would fight that Bill right through stage by stage, and that he would not allow those stages to be taken other than according to the utmost limit laid down by the House. In taking up that attitude the hon. member felt that position very much, because that Bill was dealing with the poorest and most uneducated section of the people. It was dealing with the uneducated raw native, who had lost his health and almost his life, in the work he was doing on the Witwatersrand. On that occasion we were dealing with a totally opposite point of view. The hon. member for Benoni, however, gave way on representations being made to him. I spoke to the hon. member, and said, “If you persist in this attitude, you will keep the House here until Monday.” When we discussed the matter the hon. member said, “All right. I do not desire to proceed further. I shall oppose it no further; I am finished,” and he booked his passage and went off this afternoon. The fact of my hon. friend doing that will be best realised when he sees in the Johannesburg papers to-morrow that a discussion such as this has taken place in connection with the universities. That is not the way the parliamentary game has been played all the time he has been in Parliament. He has been in Parliament for twenty years, and I have been here for ten years, and we have not been accustomed to this way of playing the parliamentary game. Irrespective of the merits of the case, we think it is not right. I heard the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) speaking about stabilization. Stabilization is stabilization if you have a definite interpretation of the word " stabilization.” It cannot be stabilization in the sense we understand it if it is creating a feeling that one section of the community has not been treated fairly. How can it fairly be called stabilization if the Witwatersrand University feels that it is stabilization in the sense in which the hon. Minister has spoken of it? There is only one actual interpretation of the word “stabilization” and that is to stabilize and make stability strong in the sense that will appeal to and satisfy every section concerned. It that is to be the compromise, knowing all the time that certain universities say that they are not being treated fairly, it cannot be stabilization. We cannot be hypocrites to that extent. I feel this in regard to this position. Irrespective of the merits of the case, it is to be hoped that it may be a lesson to this House. I have supported the Government side, and I have supported the Opposition, when the Government was in opposition. To-day we stand in the position that we put forward the point of view from that of a party that is prepared to vote for the Government or for the Opposition accordingly as we realise and see what we think is best for the interests of the people in this country. I am not concerned with the Opposition’s cries about this thing, any more than I am concerned with the Minister’s attempts to get certain powers. I am not concerned with either side in this respect. I am only concerned with this to-day, that after all these years I have been in this House I have never seen such an exhibition of not playing the game.

I just want to say in starting that I am quite prepared to accept the motion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Before I sit down I think that it is due to the House and to myself that I should reply to certain criticisms that have been made here in connection with the matter, and especially that I should remove a great deal of misunderstanding which undoubtedly exists in the minds of more than one member of the House. Let me begin by saying something about the word “stabilization.” It is a pity that the word was ever used in this connection. It was used by the van der Horst commission in their report, and it acquired currency in that way, but it gives a completely wrong impression. The word “stabilization”, moreover, does not express what is embodied in these regulations of which the approval is asked for from the House. Stabilization gives the impression that the regulations on higher education lay down precisely what is to be given to such institutions from year to year. No school or university or college could, however, be conducted in that way. They are partly living and growing institutions, and partly—as is the case frequently in connection with some institutions in our country—languishing, moribund institutions. Therefore it cannot be definitely laid down what is to be given from year to year to the institutions without any possibility of increasing or reducing it. That was not intended, moreover, and therefore proper provision has been made for a reduction or increase according to circumstances. What is ment by stabilization is no more than that we are breaking the principle laid down in 1922, viz., the principle of automatic increases in the expenditure of the previous year, while the Government of the day can do nothing in the matter. That is actually what is intended. Now I want to come to the criticism made, and to the misunderstanding that exists. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Holmeyr), for a great part of his speech, argued as if it was here proposed that in the case of higher educational institutions a general reduction of the grant should take place, and to give grounds to his statement he quoted what the van der Horst commission, itself, had said after they had gone into the whole position, and found out how much was spent on education in South Africa as a whole, including lower and secondary education as well as higher education. They came to the conclusion that for higher educational purposes a comparatively small percentage was spent, in proportion. What I want to say about that is that neither the van der Horst commission nor the Government, with the regulations it is now submitting, proposes to spend less on higher education on the whole than in the past. What is proposed is to take the grants to the universities, and university colleges, that have been given this session when the estimates were passed—and which are a maximum of what has ever heretofore been given in grants—as the jumping off place for the future for eventual increase in case of individual institutions where it appears necessary, or eventual reduction in the case of languishing institutions. That is all, and it is not at all proposed here to make the grants for higher education less than in the past. The hon. member further accused me of having omitted, when I introduced my motion, a considerable part of the report with regard to the resolution of the university conference that sat in Cape Town to discuss the report of the van der Horst commission. I examined the report again to see where I had omitted anything, but I can only find that I did not mention something which was subsequently mentioned by one of the hon. members here, viz., how they would like the restriction in detail. They want, i.e., the university conference, that the automatic increase of 5 per cent, should continue until 1932, and thereafter 4 per cent., 3 per cent. etc. That is merely the practical effect of the general principle, which I have clearly submitted to the House. They say that they are accepting stabilization in principle, but they only want a certain easy period of transition. I think, however, that in reality I left nothing out when I dealt with the report this morning. He spoke, to some extent, about an attack by myself or the Government on the freedom of the university institutions. Well, I want, in the first place, to ask if we are to accept the principle that the state shall contribute, to the extent to which it actually does contribute at the moment in South Africa, to the expense of the institutions for higher education, although the state will have practically no say, or precious little say in the management of the institutions, is that a sound principle?

The state appoints members on the councils.

I am coming to that in a moment. The example that was followed when regulations were drafted in 1922 was that of Oxford and Cambridge. The position in Scotland is entirely different. In Scotland, except, I believe, in Glasgow, there are quite a number of professors who are appointed directly by the Crown. The university councils do not even have a say in the appointment.

They are asked for nominations. The appointment by the Crown is merely formal.

In any case, the Crown makes the appointment. The example of Oxford and Cambridge was, however, followed. It must not, however, be lost sight of by those who take up that attitude that up to some time ago the universities of Oxford and Cambridge did not receive a penny from the treasury. The universities could, therefore, be independent, because they were financially independent of the Government. I believe that only recently they received a small grant in proportion to the general administrative costs. We can hardly, therefore, follow that example in this country where the university institutions are so largely dependent on the support of the Government. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) further said that the Government had nominees on the councils of the universities. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) made the same point. He asked: “Why is the Minister taking these powers? He surely has representatives on the councils, and why does he not instruct them ?”. If the Minister were to do that he would be departing from the sound principle that has hitherto been followed by us, viz., to leave those persons free to use their own discretion. They are nominees of the Government, but not representatives of the Government. If the Government were to give them instructions, it would put a mark of inferiority on them, and they would be in a slavish position, so that no person with any self-respect would accept such a nomination. This is quite an unpractical motion. But I now come to whether the regulations are an attack on the freedom of the universities. Hon. members must not forget that the regulations are based on the Act of 1917. That Act gives the Minister the powers provisionally to make such regulations, but thereafter they have to be submitted to Parliament for approval. The first regulations were issued in 1918. In 1922 those regulations were radically altered, of course with parliamentary approval. What I am now proposing here is to amend the 1922 regulations. But have hon. members referred back yet to the regulations that were made in 1918, and which were in force for five years in the university institutions? If hon. members will compare them with what I propose here, they will see that the regulations now before us, considered as to their autocratic character, cannot hold a candle to the regulations which were issued in 1918 by the leaders on the other side of the House. At that time the Minister did not give a “block grant” to the university, but each small item of the expenditure, e.g., when they wanted to buy an inkpot or paper, had to be referred to the Minister.

That is why we altered it.

It was not autocratic then.

The point is that the Act of 1917, on which these regulations are based, and also the previous regulations were based, is so wide that it gives power to the Minister to make autocratic regulations, if hon. members want to use that term, without his going outside the limits of the Act.

Do you want to go back to the regulations of 1918?

Not altogether, but I do want to go back to the regulations of 1922, which gave so much autonomy to the universities. I want to go back to those regulations which mislead the universities into expenditure which we cannot bear. When a vacancy arises in the public service, we think twice before filling it up. The institutions for higher education can, however, without our being able to do anything, automatically increase the expenditure of the state. I do not want to go back to the 1918 regulations, but I do want to go back a bit to the position in 1922. I want to follow a middle course, which protects the rights of the Government in this connection, and which still leaves a large measure of freedom to the university institutions. The difficulty we have been faced with since 1922 is that the higher institutions can incur all their expenditure, and all they are required to do is to report it to us. The Minister is faced with an accomplished fact. He must judge of the expenditure ex post facto. This is an impossible state of affairs. The system that we must introduce is that the higher educational institutions will have to do what Parliament itself has to do with the country’s finances. This is, that we introduce a budget at the commencement of the year, and they must consult the Minister about their expenditure, so that he can investigate the possibility of their leaving out certain expenditure. If the Minister approves of the budget, then they must for that year keep within its boundaries, unless special circumstances arise, and the Minister approves of their incurring the expenditure. That is the way Parliament does its business, but it is a system which was not applied to universities under the 1922 regulations. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) spoke about the “block grant” which is now laid down as a basis, and he called it unjust, and said that in that way one university was preferred to another. Let me explain that the additional grants which have been laid down for the future are arrived at on the basis of the amounts approved of in the budget.

How did you arrive at the figures?

We arrived at them because originally when universities and colleges were established by law there was a jumping-off place. Under the existing regulations those grants are increased from year to year according to necessity. In that way we arrived at the present position, and granted the amounts which were contained in this year’s estimates. That occurred in the regulations which the hon. member does not want altered.

Why have some universities got more this year than others?

Well, that happened under the existing regulations.

According to the existing regulations, Johannesburg would have got 5 per cent, more than they have got, and I ask why they are not getting more.

Johannesburg, like any other university, got the increase that they were entitled to under the existing regulations.

I deny that.

The universities of Cape Town and Johannesburg are the best treated in the whole country. Cape Town got £89,000 this year, plus £7,660 for interest and redemption, i.e., about £96,000 in all. Johannesburg got £80,000 for general purposes. Although Cape Town is a much older university than Johannesburg, the interest and redemption of the Witwatersrand University amounts to over £16,000. Therefore, Cape Town gets a total of £96,000, and Johannesburg £97,000. That is the largest sum that any institution in the country gets, and, according to my information, Johannesburg has less students than Cape Town.

They have more matriculated students.

Well, we calculate according to the number of students generally. The position is this: that these institutions arrived at this figure appearing on this year’s estimates, which we are now taking as the basis for the stabilized Government grant, by virtue of the grants they received when they became universities and colleges. That occurred under the existing regulations.

What is the reason for the distinction in the increase between Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg?

If the Natal University College had been entitled under the existing Act and regulations to a larger grant, they would have got it.

Why does Bloemfontein get 15 per cent. more?

No university got more than it was entitled to under the regulations.

Under the regulations there is a restriction of 5 per cent., why are they now getting 15 per cent, more in Bloemfontein?

If any institution were entitled, under the existing Act and regulations, to more than they have really got from year to year, then it is, of course, possible that they might get more the following year than another university.

If then there are universities who can still show that they were entitled to more, will you still grant it?

The time to prove it has gone by, because the estimates have already been passed. I can, however, assure the hon. member that neither Bloemfontein nor Pietermaritzburg has got more than it was entitled to. Only the university of the Transvaal and the university of Cape Town asked for more than what they got.

I am sorry, but the Minister is wrong. Johannesburg also asked for more.

Then they only did once more what Johannesburg has always done, i.e., to ask for more than they were entitled to. Now I come to the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who said that if these regulations were passed, that the public would be discouraged from giving donations. Let me point out that practically all the gifts and donations that our universities received were all obtained during the time the 1918 regulations were in force, i.e., when the Minister had very much more power than what I am now asking for here. They got their donations under those circumstances, and now the hon. member uses the argument that if those powers are given to the Minister, the stream of donations will stop. All I can say to that is that the facts are in conflict with what the hon. member says. I will not go into the question of the right of veto, because I will bring it up before the House next year. I only want to point out that, according to the existing regulations, a decided injustice is being done to the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners. In some cases, e.g., the medical faculty where Afrikaans-speaking, as well as English-speaking, students get their training, and because we must have co-ordination, the Afrikaans student is compelled to take his training there, but their rights have, up to the present, not been considered in the least. As for me, I would like to see that neither the English-speaking nor the Afrikaans-speaking students should be treated unjustly. I am of opinion that this matter must be put right. It does not matter whether it is done this year, or next year, but if ever we are to get satisfaction, and want to attain the unity of our nation, then we must see to it that each section gets its fullest rights, and the only way in which that can be done is that the Government should have, at any rate, a certain amount of say in the appointment. The assurance has been given here by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), that they would have no objection to the position already created by the passing of the estimates continuing, i.e., that the alterations are approved for this year on the principle of stabilization. Further, I shall have the liberty in the coming year to fix them according to that principle. Now as to the regulations themselves, I am prepared to allow them to stand over until next year, but let me say here, and I shall be glad if attention is given to this notice, as far as the higher educational institutions are concerned, that they, in preparing their estimates, in view of the budget of the Government for next year, will have to bear in mind that the Government will act as it has acted this year. If that is clearly understood, I have no objection to accepting the suggestion of the Opposition, and I am prepared to move the adjournment of the debate.

On the motion of the Minister of Education the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 2nd June.

May I be allowed to move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

It is not quite certain yet what is happening in another place; otherwise I should be prepared at this stage to move the adjournment. In the circumstances I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.