as Chairman, brought up the Third Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, as follows:—

1. (1) Your Committee begs to report that sums amounting to £45,783 12s. 4d. are shown in paragraph 60, pages 87 and 88 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report on the Railways and Harbours Accounts for the financial year 1923-’24 as Unauthorized Expenditure and requiring to be covered by Vote.
2. (2) The £45,783 12s. 4d. is apportioned as follows:
   Revenue Services—Railways £5,783 12 4
   Capital and Betterment Services—Railways £40,000 0 0
3. (3) Your Committee recommends the sum of £45,783 12s 4d. for Appropriation by Parliament

J. H. Brand Wessels, Chairman.

Report to be considered to-morrow.

I wish to move an unopposed motion.

I am afraid the hon. member is too late now.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported yesterday; Clauses of the Bill to stand over until after the Schedules had been disposed of; First Schedule under consideration.

It had been agreed that the items be considered seriatim; and following new item to follow Item 9 had been moved by the Minister of Finance.

10. A tax on the income or the profits or on the premium income of insurance companies subject to the limits specified in sub-section (4) of section eleven of the principal Act as amended by this Act.

Upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Blackwell: To omit “the income or on the profits or on” and to substitute “any one of the following (a) the income, (b) the profits (c)”.]

With reference to the points raised last night by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in regard to the desirability, or otherwise, of allowing the provinces to tax the income of insurance companies, and especially the income of mutual insurance companies, I have made enquiries from the provinces, but, unfortunately, I have not been able to get replies from all the administrators. The Transvaal has certain objections, but in view of the fact that I know there is a very strong feeling in the House against the taxation alto gather, I am prepared to leave the whole matter to the decision of the House, so that they may delete this new item which I have proposed, if they wish to do so.

Would you not in any case take off the tax for all companies so far as premiums are concerned?

I am leaving it to the House to negative the whole thing I have proposed, and not to deal with mutual insurance companies separately. I think the principle is really the same, and the item as proposed by me deals with insurance companies generally, whether we propose to tax the income, profits or premium income. If the House negatives that there is no tax to be levied on insurance companies.

I understand that the position of the hon. Minister with reference to new paragraph 10 which he proposed last night is that he now leaves the whole matter to the House in Committee. Hon. members are therefore under no party obligations. The hon. Minister leaves it entirely to the House to vote as it thinks fit. In these circumstances I hope that the house will unanimously vote against this section. I think that tax on life assurance companies is a mistake, because it is nothing else but a tax on the savings of the people.

I quite agree with the Minister as regards life insurance companies; but surely you are not going to let off the fire insurance companies; because the only thing the other insurance companies want is not to be taxed on their receipts; but on their actual profits. To tax a company on its receipts is just the same as putting on a turnover tax. I agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as to the life insurance companies.

That is not the idea. For instance, in the previous item which we have passed, we have made it “other than insurance companies.” and I propose at a later stage to move that the word “life” be inserted in that item.

The amendment and the proposed new item were put and negatived.

On Item 10,

My trouble is that this paragraph leaves no door open for a provincial council to pass anything in the nature of an increment duty tax. In the Transvaal there was such a tax for some years. If a man bought a property and resold at a profit, he was taxed on a sliding scale, and it was considered that it was a fair tax. I move to add at the end of the item—

Or in the form of an increment duty tax.

I am sorry that I cannot support the amendment. It is nothing else but a tax on farmers and other people in the villages. When these people develop and improve their property my hon. friend for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) wants to levy a tax on that improvement. I think that the matter is as clear as it can possibly be and hope that the committee will immediately reject the proposal.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment. In the first place for the same reasons as the hon. the Prime Minister gave last night. The position is that taxes are laid down in the schedule, and for weeks hon. members opposite have made their voices heard because the taxes were not restricted more. Now my hon. friend wishes me to increase the taxation powers of the provinces. I cannot accept it.

I get up to thank the hon. Minister for his refusal to accept the amendment. It is one of the most unpopular taxes that we have ever had in the Transvaal. A whole election was fought about it to have the tax removed. I am therefore glad that the Minister will not accept the motion.

I hope the Minister will re-consider his attitude. With the exception of a very small number of people who were opposed to it, the increment duty tax went very well in the Transvaal, and its incidence was particularly fair. The tax only applied to the increased value of a property which in the majority of cases was brought about by the community as a whole. I hope the Minister will not say that because certain hard and fast agreements were come to at Durban, Parliament must not pass anything else. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope he will leave it to the House to decide whether it will pass it or not.

I should like to urge something on the Minister of Finance. I do not want to ask that this tax should be struck out, although I would gladly see that the provincial councils should not have the right of taxing lands. But what I now wish to ask is that he will prohibit the provinces to tax a mortgage bond when the ground is taxed. If a farmer’s ground has been valued at £5,000, and he has a bond of £2,000 on it, then he should not pay on the £2,000, but only on £3,000, because otherwise the farmer would have to pay on something that he does not possess.

I am sorry that in this case I differ from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I think that my hon. friend has not studied the matter carefully, otherwise he would have come to a different conclusion, because experience, not only our own but also in Germany (where they were obliged after the war to impose a tax on value), has proved that the tax is paid by the man who buys the ground, i.e., the poor man. With us in the Transvaal, e.g., it appears that the large tracts of ground belong to companies who sold the ground to the poor people who had saved a few pounds, and the increased value tax fell directly on the small purchasers, and not upon the companies. Not only this but the companies increased the price of the land still more than the increased value tax. Hon. members such as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) and Caledon (Mr. Krige) have now arrived at the conclusion that the tax although it was the S.A. party tax is a wrong tax for the country, because we must understand that the increased value tax is a tax of the South African party. I remember quite well that in 1919 the election was fought on that issue in the Transvaal, and we obtained the victory in many divisions, because we said that the tax should be abolished. I hope that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will also see that the unearned increment tax is a wrong tax. I am glad that the hon. Minister is not prepared to accept it.

I think it would be interesting to know what my late colleagues in the old provincial councils are going to take with regard to this tax on immovable property. I remember when this came before the old provincial council that members on the opposite side, the hon. members for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) Somerset (Mr. Fourie) and Albert (Mr. Steytler) and others denounced these principles in the most scathing manner. They said they would never be a party to a tax of this kind. I have not the eloquence to explain the force of the denunciation which rang out in that House against the policy of taxing immovable property. One of the hon. members over there quoted a precept to me. He said, “To change is life; to change rapidly is perfect life.” I think many hon. members over there are enjoying a good measure of perfect life. They are changing rapidly. The hon. member for Albert has raised a very legitimate point and I agree with what he says in respect of a tax being placed on immovable property without cognizance being taken of any bonds that exist on that property. At present no such allowance is made.

Since when have you become converted to that view?

If my hon. friend will remember. I voted with him on that occasion. The Minister told us yesterday that a land tax might be chosen by a province or the income tax. I would like to know the position when both of these taxes are imposed, because it is permissible to impose both taxes. If a province has been subjected to an income tax, is it not unfair that you should single out a certain class of people for the additional land tax? That seems to me undesirable. That brings me back to the principle I tried to explain the other day, that as soon as you departed from your income tax and began to single out certain individuals you are at once embarking on an unjust policy because you require certain individuals to contribute over and above their fellows. For that reason I am quite opposed to this tax. I always have been because I think it is unfair. In order to meet the hon. member for Albert we should have to change the divisional councils ordinance.

I have had a great deal of experience in the effect of this tax in connection with the transfer of land in the Transvaal. Instead of taxing unearned increment every man who sold land passed the tax on to the purchaser. I was in business as an estate agent in the Transvaal and we had very important sales pending and in one case it took five or six months before the purchaser would agree to pay the increased amount to the provincial authorities. This tax instead of being a tax on unearned increment was a tax upon the people who wished to purchase land and to make good use of it. It did not turn out as they thought it would. From practical experience we found it held up the sale of land and kept it idle. As far as the hon. member who has just sat down is concerned, I would point out to him that every member of this House could go through the schedule and find certain things they disagree with in principle, certain methods of taxation they disagree with entirety on principle. We are not agreeing to these particular taxes being levied on the people, but we are agreeing to allow the provincial councils to decide in their wisdom which of these taxes they shall impose to raise the necessary revenue to carry on their work. I don’t like the amusement tax, I don’t like the employers’ tax, I think it is a wrong tax, but I do agree with leaving it to the people in the different provinces to say what method they will adopt to raise revenue.

Why are you opposing my amendment?

Because it does not in practice in the direction the hon. member wishes It to work out. As long as you keep the provincial councils you must give them some means of raising revenue. If you are going to abolish them, well and good. If the House were left free to decide on each item of the schedule we should probably find that we were individually sufficiently against them to band together and defeat the whole lot. We are not voting on the principle of the tax but to give the provincial councils the right to decide themselves.

While in item 8 the powers of the provincial councils are restricted in so far as their rights are concerned to impose an income tax up to 20 per cent. of the Union income tax, under this item which we are now discussing we are giving them carte-blanche to tax land to any extent without any restriction. That is a state of affairs which any member of this House who represents a farming constituency should never agree to. I will never agree to it. I will never agree to give carte blanche to the provincial councils to impose a land tax without any restriction whatever. There are very good reasons why we should take up this attitude. In the Transvaal, for instance, should there be any development of platinum fields, it is quite conceivable that the towns or urban areas would at no distant date absolutely dominate the farming community and taxation measures introduced which would ruin the farmers. I submit that we ought to impose some restriction and limitation on the provincial councils’ powers to pass a land tax. I do not know whether hon. members on the other side realize what dangerous powers are given to the provincial councils under this item. You may have a land tax—

They have got it now.

They have got it to-day, it is true, but we are now limiting these taxes to certain items. I say, where you are giving them power to impose a land tax, you ought to have some limitation and safeguards in regard to the tax. I do submit that one of the restrictions should be that they should not be entitled to tax any improvements on land. They ought only to be entitled to tax land which is not occupied or land which, if occupied, is not beneficially occupied. If there had been that restriction, I feel that there would not have been such a great objection to the tax, but we are giving them the right not only to tax unimproved land, but to tax all land, whether it is improved or not. Another restriction which I think we should have imposed is that, where land is subject to a mortgage, that mortgage should be taken into consideration in arriving at the assessment of the tax on that land. That provision is made in other countries. Another point is this, is it right that we should give power to the provincial councils to impose not only a land tax, but also an income tax? I do submit that we should give them the option of imposing either of these taxes, but not both on the same person. A state of affairs might arise if you impose both a land tax and an income tax which will ruin many a farmer. He would have to pay both ways. I trust the Minister will agree to an amendment on these lines and thereby provide that a provincial council shall only be entitled to impose either an income tax on an individual or a land tax, whichever is the greater. I must express in the strongest terms possible my disapproval of the unlimited powers which this item gives to the provincial councils. We are practically inviting them by the very fact of limiting their powers of taxation to certain items to impose both these taxes—both the income tax and the land tax—and I have no hesitation in saying here that within the next five years the unfortunate farmer will find that he will be burdened by the provincial councils with both these taxes. Are there any farmers sitting on the other side who will be in favour of that? I believe there are a few of them who have been so much influenced by members on the cross-benches that they would be in favour of it, but I do not think that is the case with the majority of them.

Farmers are not the only owners of land.

I know, but the farmers are the people who are going to be hit harder than anybody else. I represent a farming constituency, and I speak on behalf of the farmers. The farmers have gone through a bad time, and they are worse off than the majority of the people represented by the Labour party who are earning a wage, who own no land and who are simply carpet baggers and don’t care what happens. Their policy is to borrow, boom and bust. That is the motto of the hon. members on the cross-benches.

Why don’t you give us something original?

We have to be very careful that we are not influenced to such an extent by these gentlemen on the cross-benches as to allow both a land tax and a provincial income tax to be imposed upon the farming community.

Hon. members clearly do not appreciate the fact that the members of the provincial councils are not responsible to their electors like members of the House. Why are members such as the former speaker so concerned then about their making a false step? He is much concerned about it that the provincial council will impose an income tax as well as a land tax. The amount which they must get in is the same. Let us assume that the provinces impose both taxes then I think that the one will be reduced by the amount of the other. If they only impose an income tax it will have to be increased by the amount of the land tax and vice versa. It therefore makes not the least difference whether they have the right or not. But I actually want to speak about the tax on the increased value of property, and I do not at all agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). He says that it is passed on to the purchasers of property. I do not agree. The purchaser knows what is demanded for the ground. If £1,500 is demanded he knows that apart from the fact whether it represents £1,300 for the ground and £200 for the tax it is his business to decide whether the ground is worth it. I am in favour of this tax, because we find that a farmer works his ground, the neighbouring ground possibly belongs to a company, and it is not worked, but the value thereof increases because the farmer’s ground adjoining is cultivated. The same happens when a railway is built through an area, and why should not those people pay on the increased value of the ground? If the principle is well applied then it is the only form of land tax that we may compel people to pay.

The item represents an astounding change of front on the part of the Nationalist Party. Up to quite recently land taxation was one of the seven deadly sins to the Nationalist Party. Anyone daring to suggest taxation of land was anathematised, and yet here we find the Minister is actually giving a direct command to the provincial councils to tax land. That is what it amounts to. In answer to an objection yesterday, the Minister said it was not a command; they could take or leave it. It was purely optional.

The tax exists already in one of the provinces.

If you put a starving man at a table and set ten dishes in front of him, and then suddenly whisk away nine of them, surely you are forcing him to eat the last dish. That is the position here. By depriving the provincial councils of certain avenues of taxation you are leaving them no option but to tax land. That seems an astounding change of front on the part of a party to whom land is sacrosanct. To-day if you address a country meeting anywhere in South Africa, the Nationalists will tell you they do not want to have anything to do with the South African party because the South African party joined up with the Unionists, and the Unionists wanted to tax land. That is the charge against us, and yet here we have the Nationalist party, conservative of the conservatives, forcing the provincial councils to tax land. I will tell you what will be the result of all this socialistic spirit emanating from the cross-benches. I would like to see the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) and the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) preaching this doctrine in the Free State. The result will be unfair discrimination. The small man may escape, but the big landowner is going to be singled out by the provincial councils for special taxation.

They have always had the right.

No, they have not. This is the first time in the history of South Africa that the Government is forcing the provincial administrations to tax land. I agree with the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), that we are not only forcing them to tax land, but we are giving them carte blanche. We say “tax as much as you like.” The Union Government themselves have not the moral courage to tax land, and yet they are forcing the provinces to do so. A somewhat curious light is thrown on the subject in a recent speech by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who is always giving the game away. He said—

In this item we have proof of the fact that by holding the balance of power they are forcing upon this country views which would never have come before the House if the Nationalist party had had a clear majority in this House. That being the case, I sincerely hope the farming community will take notice of what is going on. Yes, hon. members may laugh—the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is entitled to laugh; he is on velvet. The going is good, so far as the Labour party is concerned, I admit, but I do not think Nationalist members will do much laughing when they face their constituents.

Come and stand against us.

I will challenge the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) to go and tell his constituents the full implication of this item. He will not tell them; he will say it is the Unionist wing of the South African party who want to tax land, not we. Look at the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) grinning from ear to ear. The hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux), is also looking very cheerful. They have it all their own way. The Labour party is using the Nationalists very effectively from their point of view. The country should be informed as to the true effect of these provisions, and I hope the public will take full notice of what is taking place.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) Col. D. Reitz) actually believes what he has said. His representation of the matter was certainly incorrect. He says that the hon. Minister is forcing the provincial councils to levy the tax. In other words, that the Minister is giving an order to them to impose the tax. This is incorrect and untrue. The former Government was so concerned about the land tax that the late Minister of Finance said that the recommendation of a land tax in the Baxter report was the best recommendation. But the Government do not say that the provinces must impose the tax. If that were the case, I should be the first to protest and to propose to delete the tax. Considerable sources of revenue are given to the provinces, and why should the provincial councils then actually impose the tax. If the Cape Provincial Council should do so, then it will be the rope by which it will hang itself. We already pay a road tax and a property tax. We cannot be asked to pay a land tax in addition. I hope that if it ever comes to it that the tax is imposed that the bond will be excluded from the tax.

A tax on the sale of land in the abstract seems quite a fair tax. When a man has bough land and afterwards sold it to considerable advantage, it seems reasonable that if money be required the State should take a share of the profit, but there is, no doubt that in the concrete this tax in the Transvaal as imposed by the Transvaal ordinance, has in some cases created considerable hardship in its operation.

There is no land tax there.

That was a tax on profits.

Call it a tax on the increment or profit on the sale of land if you like, the ordinance has caused considerable hardship in some cases. I have had representations made to me in regard to the hardship caused, by a friend of mine, F. He was a director in a land townships company. This company was heavily in debt by way of a mortgage bond. The Transvaal ordinance did not permit of a deduction of interest paid on the mortgage, nor was any allowance made, or deduction permitted, for the running expenses of the company, office rent, secretarial salary, directors’ fees, etc. The ordinance also only allowed a deduction of 5 per cent. to be deducted from the purchase price, whereas the company was bona fide paying its agent 15 or 20 per cent. In the circumstances the company decided that the only remedy was to pass the tax on, which it happily was able to do. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that this tax has thus in some instances had a bad effect.

This is a very clever attempt on the part of the Government to force the provincial councils to impose a land tax.

Nonsense.

Are you against it?

Of course I am against it. There has never been a Government in power yet, no matter what they said when in Opposition, who did not as soon as they got the reins of office into their hands turn a hungry, covetous eye towards the land, but they have never had the courage to do it themselves.

What about Natal?

They once imposed a tax on unimproved land, but were really glad to get rid of it. It was only imposed for a special purpose. They took it off in two years I am not surprised that the farmers in the Transvaal and the Cape do not appear to be opposed to this measure, but I am surprised at the farmers in the Free State and Natal not raising their united voices in protest, because they contribute more in income tax than any other farmers in South Africa.

No.

I do not know who said “No,” but evidently he does not know the true facts. These figures will prove what I have stated, and they are correct, and have been checked by the Receiver of Revenue, and are for last year. They represent the income tax paid, per head, by individual farmers. Transvaal farmers, 25s.; Cape farmers, £3; Free State, £8; Natal £15 10s.

What were the totals?

Transvaal £264,312; Cape, £764,739; Natal, £870,320; Orange Free State £985,962. I want to say to hon. members opposite who are inclined to let this go through without a murmur that if they were considering the interests of their constituents, the farmers in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, they would cut this out altogether. It is most dangerous power to hand over to the provincial councils, because once you let these people exercise their right and impose a land tax, it never comes under the control of this House again. Whenever they are short of money, up will go the land tax, either 6d. or 1s. in the £. Although some province may have the right at present as in the Cape for instance, you are now forcing them to use it. And this is the point which I am particularly anxious to drive home to the usual occupants of the empty Government benches opposite. By their silence they are giving tacit approval to the principle of a general tax on land, the first principle of socialism.

I warned the Nationalists in the country times out of number as to what was coming to them under this Pact.

At Klerksdorp?

Yes, at Klerksdorp also, but they would not listen to me. But this chicken is coming home to roost at last. I think they will admit that what I told them was correct, and that a land tax will come through the Pact. It seems to me an unsound principle to allow a province to tax land where the Union Government is not doing so.

Why don’t you take it away?

I propose to do so now by moving to omit this item and to substitute the following—

That is what they call a party joke.

I am afraid it is going to prove anything but a joke. It appears to me that an important avenue of taxation like this should not be handed over unconditionally to the provinces.

The provinces have always had it.

The principle has never really been accepted in our legislation. The principle of taxing a farmer’s land has never been introduced before. The farmers should not be thrown to the wolves in this matter, as is being done by the Pact Government. If the principle is to be introduced it should emanate from the Union Government, for it is a very important and far-reaching principle. If the provinces have to raise money let them tax in the wake of the Union Government. Every land owner in this country—especially every Nationalist land owner—will in his heart of hearts welcome the amendment or should do so, for it will curtail the unlimited taxation of land. It is an amazing somersault that the Minister of Finance should dare to hand over wide powers or that sort to provincial councils.

I would point out that if the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) wishes to have the item deleted he should just vote against it and propose his amendment as a new item, for I cannot accept the amendment in this form. The first schedule heading reads—

You cannot call the amendment the source of revenue. Perhaps the amendment may be put in in the body of the Bill.

My amendment is exactly on all fours with item 8: “Taxes on individual persons,” under which the provinces are able to tax incomes, but the tax must be limited. My intention is exactly the same as the intention of item 8.

Item 8 starts “Taxes on individual persons.”

Say if I propose to substitute that for item 10?

I am afraid you cannot do that. The amendment does not read with the title to the schedule. I cannot put the amendment in this form. It is competent for the hon. member to vote against the item when put, and, if it is negatived, to propose a new item to give effect to his views; but to be inserted in the Schedule the new item must be in the form in which the other items are drawn.

I do not know whether I am supposed to take the hon. member seriously.

Very seriously.

I will extend an invitation to the other side of the House. I understand the hon. member has been busy the last half hour inveighing against me in giving the provinces a tax on land. Everybody knows the attitude of the Nationalist party on this question. The tax is scheduled because it exists to-day in the Cape Province, which derives £200,000 from it. To enable the Government to decide its attitude to this question, I extend an invitation to the other side. If any front bencher on that side of the House will tell me that the hon. member proposes the amendment in the name of his party, I shall accept it on behalf of the Government, and will look out for some other tax to enable the Cape Province to obtain £200,000.

It is your funeral.

If a responsible member of the other side will indicate that the hon. member is not vote catching and is not wasting the time of the House, but is moving a serious amendment, I shall at once accept it on behalf of the Government, and I shall indicate to the Cape another form of taxation out of which it will be able to recoup itself for the loss of this existing tax.

It seems to me that the Minister, realizing the predicament that he is in, is now threatening the Cape. Item 10 does not confine this form of taxation to the Cape, but extends it to the other three provinces. If the Minister inserts words confining the tax to the Cape there may be some force in his remark. I would like to hear what the other three provinces have to say about it. Now they are being given a new commandment by the Nationalist party, “Thou shalt tax the land.” Subject to the Chairman’s ruling as to the wording of the amendment I shall certainly move it when I have licked it into shape, and I implore the Minister and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to disillusion themselves at once of the idea that this is a party manoeuvre. We have reached a strange pass when land taxation is treated with ribald laughter by the Nationalist party. This seems to be the strangest somersault of all when a serious threat of introducing a land tax is met with thus. Objections to land taxation are being treated with levity; apparently the Nationalists have gone over in a body to the principle of land taxation. Certainly we are living in strange times.

I am very sorry indeed for the terrible position of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) for his bluff has been called—

I have a “full house.”

What supporters has the hon. member got for his proposal? I thought the Minister’s challenge was rather a dangerous one until he developed his argument, but now I find it is serious and cannot be accepted by the front bench, which the hon. member adorns. I am sorry for the hon. member for another reason. I thought at first that he moved his amendment based on principle, but I find it was no principle at all, but is merely vote-catching. The hon. member was speaking with his tongue in his cheek.

Don’t be Toddish.

My hon. friend has associated with him so long that he is responsible for his characteristics. I am wondering what has become of the old Unionist party preaching of the land tax? Here is a front bencher who says we shall not have land taxation, the mere contemplation of it arouses the hon. gentleman’s ire, and yet he aspires to be a shining light of the party that has always thundered throughout the country that land taxation was to be desired and should be imposed. Cheers from certain parts of this side supported the hon. gentleman, but the whole of the rest of the front bench was strangely silent. The hon. gentleman said this was a principle which had never been introduced in this country at all. I think he should make himself more closely acquainted with the history of the country. I don’t know a single province that has had land taxation. Natal—

We scrapped it very soon.

Because of the influence brought to bear upon you.

No; because it was intolerable.

These backwoods men, of whom the hon. member is one, having influence in the councils of the Government of Natal, had something to say with regard to withdrawal of land taxation there. It was never seriously contested as a matter of principle. In the Transvaal we have had it on record that the old Transvaal Provincial Council, when there was a Labour Government there, and it is a significant fact that we had a Unionist Government in this House, introduced land taxation, passed an ordinance, and it was held over for the consideration of the Governor-General and was allowed to lapse at the instance of the leader of the Opposition in this House. The fact remains that the leader of the present Unionist party in this House—yes, it is nothing else—

Who says so?

I say so, and I am an authority on the subject, deliberately allowed that to lapse in the Constitution. At the present time, although it is not a provincial tax, there is a land tax in the Transvaal to-day. The Free State has the same thing, and here you have in the Cape Province to-day, land taxation deliberately introduced without this particular clause which the hon. gentleman proposes to introduce into this Bill. What about that historical example of the introduction of land taxation proposed in this very House by no less a person than the present leader of the Opposition? It was rendered inoperative because of influence brought to bear when it was being considered in the House. We remember what happened when the present hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) got up and moved the closure whilst a certain gentleman was on his feet at the time, a very gentlemanly act which we protested against at the time. It was introduced, it is on record, it is in our Votes and Proceedings, and no doubt the Bill itself, as printed, could be obtained from the Clerk of the Papers. The hon. gentleman on that occasion was careful to limit the application of land taxation to farms of not less than 10,000 morgen; he might as well have said a province. I cite this example, not to go into the merits and demerits of the taxation, but to demonstrate the futility of the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), that there has never been land taxation in this country. We have had an attempt, halfhearted, it is true, on the part of the Opposition when in power, to introduce it into the Union Parliament.

I would like to see the Minister so amend the sub-section and limit these councils to the taxation of unoccupied land. It would be a great virtue in every province if this was brought into operation. There is any amount of land in the four provinces, unoccupied, which is no use to the owner nor to the State, and any taxation on this land would force it into the market, it would become occupied and become a producing factor. We had a land tax in Natal for two years, it was introduced for two years, and hon. members who say this tax was forced by pressure to be repealed are wrong. It was brought in for the specific purpose of bringing unoccupied land into the market. It had that effect, and when it was accomplished the tax was withdrawn. I would welcome a land tax on unoccupied land in the various provinces, but I don’t want to see a land tax on occupied land, because I don’t want to see a tax on industry. I hope he will give the provincial councils the power to tax unoccupied lands.

Personally, I am strongly in favour of a land tax. I belong to the old Unionist party, and it was one of the taxes we wanted. Why all this cry about vote-catching? Because we differ from you in opinion we are vote-catching. When people cry that this is vote-catching very often those opinions are in their own mind at the time. We have always had a property tax in the Free State. I am not only in favour of making it a provincial council tax, but I would bring it down to districts and make it a district tax for the purpose of getting better roads. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is making a great fuss about the land tax, but he did not tell us that it was 1s. 6d. for 100 morgen. I hope this amendment will not be carried, but I must say I regret to have heard a responsible Minister say that if two front benchers got up and proposed a thing he would withdraw his proposal. That is a dangerous statement to make. I trust that the Minister, who has generally been very courteous and very considerate towards us, will see that his position is possibly due to a little irritation and that he has made a challenge which it would be dangerous to accept. I, for one, will vote against the amendment, and I am sure many others will. By giving this tax to the provincial councils you place within their hands the right to impose it or not.

I wish to repeat the invitation here. I said that if there was a front bencher got up and gave me an assurance that he was moving an amendment on behalf of his party, then I would deal with it. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is present now. Of course, he speaks for his party. Very often we do not know, when other hon. members speak, whether they are speaking on behalf of their party. If an hon. member brings forward an amendment on behalf of his party than I will abide by the offer I have made.

This is not a land tax. It is a tax which should not be allowed, for it is a tax on thrift, and a tax on capital. We heard a lot the other day about civilized life. I presume hon. members on the cross benches do not want the amenities of civilized life to apply to the farmer. You have to remember that if a farmer wants to bring a water service to his house he has to put down his own capital. He is unable to find a municipality to do it for him. If he wants waterborne sewerage or electric light connected to his house, he has to put down his capital. That capital is the result of hard work and saving, and you are now going to tax his savings and his industry. Tax unoccupied land, if you like; I would even go further and say tax lands that are occupied, but unimproved, but to go and tax improvements due to the hard work and savings of the owner is entirely wrong. If there is one thing that this country is crying out for it is the development of the land, not to sit and look at wide acres going to waste and blowing away with the wind. The man who plants trees on his property and puts up fences is going to be taxed more for trying to improve his land. You are going to tax the poor farmer at his source of revenue. We have heard a good deal about the man who tries to make this a better country to live in, and who tries to live up to a civilized standard, but evidently the farmer does not count as a civilized man, he does not come into the picture, because the more he improves his land the more taxation he has to pay.

How about the big companies?

Well, tax them, for goodness sake—unoccupied lands or lands occupied but unimproved, but don’t tax the man who is doing his utmost to make this a country fit to live in, not a country for wild beasts and savages to roam in.

I am afraid the Minister of Finance missed the whole point of what I was saying. I was not discussing the attitude of the South African party towards land taxation, but the altered attitude of the Nationalist party. I was not discussing the ethics or the pros and cons of a land tax. I was trying to point out the inconsistent attitude which the Nationalist party have now assumed. For years it was one of the seven deadly sins charged against us that we were in favour of land taxation, yet to-day this system is being introduced by the Nationalist party.

Nonsense.

Here it is in black and white. Land taxation is being forced upon the provinces by the Nationalist party, which, for years, charged us with being in favour of land taxation as being a grave, almost criminal, offence.

It is fortunate that the country does not take the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) seriously, because he can say the most irresponsible things and he is supposed to be a leader of the South African party. He says that the Government wants to impose a tax on fixed property in the provinces. It is quite incorrect. It is, however, repeated, and it looks as if the leaders of the South African party cannot understand a clear matter. We are giving no new rights of taxation, and we only allow the provincial council to retain certain of their rights. What is the history of the tax on fixed property in the Cape Province? The South African party imposed it. In the Transvaal, where the Nationalists and Labour party have had the majority for years, there is no tax on fixed property. In the Orange Free State the Nationalist party is in power and there we have not got the tax. In the Cape Province the South African party in 1918 levied a tax on fixed property, and I, the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), the hon. members for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) and Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) voted against it; also the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton), who was then the only member of the South African party who voted against it. The tax has existed for seven or eight years, and the House of Assembly does not tell the provinces to do it. I hope that the Cape Provincial Council will next year levy the income tax and take off the land tax. I believe they will do it, but this year they will not be able to do it, because where will the £2,000 come from? The Nationalist party is in principle against the land tax, but the party has not yet got the majority in the Cape Provincial Council. There are now 21 out of 51 members, and after the next election there will probably be 26. Then they will take it off. Let me repeat this, that the Nationalist party is against a tax on fixed property, and the only tax which there exists on fixed property was imposed by the South African party, and now they want to come and make capital by alleging that we are forcing a land tax on the provinces. When one repeats an inaccuracy then one later on begins to believe it one’s self. It is possible that the people outside may be misled by the repetition, and that is why I have got up to make these observations.

My reply to the speech by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) is that it would have been a simple thing for the Minister of Finance to have said at Durban, “I cannot agree to the land tax being included in the schedule”; that is my reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres. If the Minister had insisted upon that we should not have seen this tax appearing here to-day, a tax to which I, personally, am totally opposed to. What about the turnover tax? Why has that been excluded?

That has been abolished.

Yes, your party has agreed to retain this land tax and abolish the turnover tax.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell was put and negatived.

Item, as printed, put and agreed to.

On item 11,

I wish to move the deletion of this item from the schedule. As I have already indicated on a former occasion, I tried at Durban to get the provinces to consent to this, but there were difficulties in the case of the Transvaal. Of course, it is impossible for me to make provision this year for the additional subsidy which they will have to get. I shall put in a clause that the tax will remain in the Transvaal for this year only. It will not be a tax which can be imposed by the provinces. The taxable year ends on the 30th June; they will get their receipts for the present financial year and will then not be able to levy it again.

I wish to congratulate the Minister upon this. There is no doubt that the employers’ tax was a real blot on the provincial system, and I think all sides of the House will heartily acclaim the decision to which the Government has come.

Item 11 put and negatived.

On item 12,

I should like to see the hon. Minister withdraw this also. This is the well-known importers’ tax for the Cape Province; it only applies to the Cape Province. It runs from £1 up to £300, the latter figure being the maximum. It is felt rather seriously in the Cape Province, because every importer pays exactly the same customs duties and the like which importers in all other parts of the Union pay, so that this is really an additional tax. I know very well it would be a difficult thing to spare the money, but I wish my hon. friend had seen his way to delete this.

We have a general schedule of licences which the Union is going to impose, and I understood that the principle which the Government worked on was that all licences throughout South Africa were to be made uniform and were to be imposed by the Union Government. That is a thoroughly commendable principle. It is certainly a change for the better, and a change upon which the Minister may very well congratulate himself, to lay down that in future there shall be one uniform scale of licences paid throughout South Africa, whatever may happen to the proceeds, is an entirely admirable thing to do; but why is the Minister departing from that principle in this regard? In all other respects the licences are to be imposed on a uniform scale, and by the Union Government, and yet in this particular respect it seems the Minister is going to allow the provinces to impose licences at their own sweet will, not on a uniform scale, and these licences apparently are to be paid in respect of the import, for sale within the province, of goods from beyond the borders of the Union. Goods that come from beyond the borders of the Union have to pay customs tax when they reach the borders of the Union. Ought not that to be sufficient? The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), speaking earlier in the day, uttered some profound words of wisdom. He said that you should never impose a tax which does not make for the general progress of the community, and may I add that, that you should not impose a tax which can, and will necessarily, be passed on to the consumer. Such a tax as this, which has to be paid by the importer, will of necessity be passed on to the consumer; so that on those two grounds, namely, that a tax like this will tend to increase the cost of living and that it is departing from the wholesome principle of uniformity of licence taxation, I ask the Minister whether, in the complacent mood in which he finds himself this afternoon, he will not very seriously consider whether it is necessary to continue this. What revenue is it thought can be raised under this particular head? Would the sacrifice under this item really involve any serious financial detriment to the province? If it is a comparatively small amount, may I suggest that uniformity should be the paramount consideration and that we should not allow the province to impose a tax of this kind.

When I give the hon. member the figures, he will see that it is impossible to comply with his request. This item is provided for under Cape Provincial Ordinance No. 16 of 1920, and the province gets £100,000 from it. If they surrender this, the Cape Province will have to find the money from some other source, and if they do that, it will probably mean that the tax will be passed on to the consumer. The Cape would not consent at all to surrender the tax, and I am afraid it is impossible for the House now, at this stage, to agree to the deletion of this item.

I personally should like to see the importers’ licence transferred to the general schedule of licences which the Minister is going to bring in; but if he cannot do that, I think some limit should be put on the province’s power of taxation in this regard. As the wording is now, the importers’ licence can form a kind of subsidiary tariff. There is no limit to the amount they can levy on any given firm. It could really form a subsidiary tariff on the importation of goods.

The idea I had in view was to safeguard this existing revenue from the Cape Province. I do not think there is a danger of this taxation being exceeded. Even if the other provinces should levy a tax, I do not think it will exceed the Cape scale. I have no serious objection to limiting this if hon. members think it should be done. I have no intention of extending it and do not think there is much danger.

I think the tax should not exceed a maximum amount of £300. I therefore move—

It will be necessary to consider the drafting of this limitation. I do not think it will work in the manner proposed by the hon. member in his amendment. It would be better to pass it and at another stage we can introduce the limitation.

with the leave of the House, withdrew his amendment.

Item, as printed, put and agreed to.

Item 13 put and agreed to.

On the Second Schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

On paragraph (a),

I move—

This does not mean any increased expenditure by the Minister, but it means that at the present moment the University of Cape Town runs two schools—a primary and a secondary. The latter is, without doubt, the most successful secondary school in the country. There are 1,150 pupils in both schools, which were instituted by an Act of Parliament of the Cape of 1879, and they have been under the control of the South African College and the University ever since. The college council, which acts as the school committee, is subsidized by the Cape Administrator on the £ for £ principle. Probably, so far as results are concerned, that school has been more successful in examinations and the like than any other school in the Union. We have a system by which one pupil in every twenty gets a free scholarship, and it is usually the children of poor parents who show most promise and obtain the scholarships.

Is that not Government money you use?

It is part of our expenditure. We set aside £400 a year out of the receipts for that special purpose. We do more in the way of free scholarships than any other school in the Union.

It is Government money.

No; it is very largely money we take from the fees of other pupils. Up to now we have got grants from the Provincial Administration, but the whole of the administration of the school rests entirely with the University Council. It is now proposed that the school should come directly under the School Board, but that will reduce the status and prestige of the South African College School to an enormous extent. There are in the Cape Peninsula no fewer than 12 secondary schools, and we don’t want this school to drop down to the level of the ordinary secondary school in the Peninsula. It enjoys considerable prestige through its close connection with the University, and we have pupils there whose grandfathers used to attend “Sacs.” We have something like 160 children from the country; in fact, it is more like a national school for pupils from all over South Africa, than any other school you can mention. If “Sacs” is to be put under the School Board, and its traditions are broken, its prestige will depart, and it will merely become a secondary school in the Gardens. I ask the House to leave us as we are. We shall not get anything more than we are getting to-day, which is £9 to £10 per pupil.

Why get more from the Union?

The Administrator will get the balance. This is as you have drawn the schedule up; we can’t help it. You will pay £14 per scholar to the Administrator, who, however, will continue to pay us on the £ for £ principle. It is not by any means a private institution. What are Church primary schools? So far as my information goes they are Catholic schools—not that I object to Catholic schools, but if you give a grant to Church primary schools why can’t you continue the grant to a school which has been intimately connected with the Dutch Reformed Church since the school was started? “Sacs” was founded in 1874, and one of the most active members of the controlling body is a Dutch Reformed Church minister, the Rev. Mr. van Heerden.

That does not affect the position.

No, but if you can afford to give grants to Church schools you can afford to give us a grant, and from every point of view we are entitled to it.

I doubt whether the amendment is in order, as it will increase the payments which will have to be made by the Treasurer.

Not another sixpence. It will get the subsidy out of another heading.

Very much less.

Oh, no.

It is really a matter for the Minister of Education. What I wish to point out is that this is the basis we have accepted in connection with these grants on pupils receiving education in schools established and maintained in the provinces. In the case of the Cape we have added a special clause, because they made out at the conference a good claim for these schools. There are schools where the provinces pay absolutely everything, except the buildings, which are provided by the church or the institution concerned. The cost of the salaries of the teachers, the cost of material, etc., is being supplied by the province.

Who appoints the teachers?

The Cape Administration, and not the church. The only connection with the church is that they provide the building. What would be the result if this is adopted? Schools like the Marist School, Oranjezicht, will have a claim, and I dare say there are dozens of schools run by churches which do not want to become State schools, and which do not get the privileges of schools which are State schools. They get a grant, which is a very much smaller grant. I propose to move an amendment to one of the existing clauses when we come to the Bill. Where, at present, we are going to deal with the aided schools separately, and provide that the province should give a subsidy of nine-tenths for each individual school, we are going to make it in the aggregate. In that way they will get a little more, and the Cape Province will be assisted. If we adopt this in the Cape Province schools, we shall get demands from schools run by churches and institutions which do not wish to come in under the Government, and that was not what was adopted under the recommendations of the Baxter report.

This school to which I refer was established in the old Cape Government days. As a matter of fact, when we passed the Act of 1905, constituting the school boards, a special exemption was made leaving these schools out. In every other respect it is an established school and run on exactly the same lines as every other school which is under the school board at the present moment, except that it has the prestige of a position of connection with the University. It is conducted on undenominational lines, exactly the same as other schools in the Cape Peninsula, and I think my hon. friend must agree it has been a remarkable success.

I must ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether this amendment is in order. I don’t think it can be disputed what the hon. member wants me to do. It is to take these schools out of the grant where they receive £5, and put them under the £16. That would be the effect of the amendment and would impose additional expenditure.

If it is left out, it comes under the board, and then you would have £14 to pay. The result in the other grant would be that at the present they come within the ordinary pension fund. If he brings it under the smaller grant it is cut off from that. Here are teachers who have been for some considerable time—

I may just say for information that what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says, namely, that the school, if only £5 is granted to it under this Act, will fall automatically under the school board is not correct. The school is in connection with the university, and unless the University Act is amended, it remains under the university and cannot come under the school board. Therefore I think that the Minister of Finance says quite rightly that this is only a matter of an additional allowance from £5 to £14.

It would involve additional expenditure, and I am afraid I cannot take the amendment.

How does it involve additional expenditure? His idea is to put these schools under the school board and give the grant of £14 per head.

No.

Then, if not, why has the Administrator told us it is so? The Minister of the Interior knows that the Administrator has been agitating about it for months past. He is asking for the £14 a head, and not for the £5 a head. All we ask is that you leave us to manage our affairs as we have been doing in the past. Everybody will admit they have been well managed, and we have a school second to none in the Cape Province. Instead of giving the Administrator £14, which he can use as he likes, and put the school under the school board, give him the £14 and allow him to make us a grant which is more than £5. That is the intention of the Minister.

How do you know what my intention is?

We know from what the Administrator says. Is the Administrator wrong when he claims that to be the position?

The hon. member is referring to the South African College School. Might I ask the hon. Minister what is the amount the institution is getting at present from the Government.

He does not know.

This is a question which does not fall within the meaning of schools established and maintained by the province, and therefore it will not be able to claim this £16 7s. 6d. grant. It is a school aided by the province, and will therefore come under “D,” but what my hon. friend wants to do now is to assure that this school will qualify. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) talks about an agreement with the Administrator. I know of no agreement whatsoever. The agreement I have with the Cape Administrator is to pay a grant of £16 7s. 6d. in respect of the first 30,000 pupils falling under this description, and if the South African College School does not fall under this description it will get the same as the others—the smaller grant. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wants to put the school under the larger amount, and that will amount to increased expenditure, and accordingly the amendment is out of order.

I would like to know from the Minister what the schools are getting at present under the existing law.

Under the existing Financial Relations Act the provinces get a certain grant. I do not know what they pay to these schools; that does not concern me at all. This is a new Bill.

I know perfectly well there is no agreement so far as my hon. friend is concerned on this point. My point is that if we don’t get the grant we shall be bound to have to go under the school board, in which case we should get the higher grant. That is the position.

That I cannot help.

Therefore, in that case I claim that there is no increased money involved in this.

There is, as far as I am concerned. They must first qualify.

It seems that considerable misunderstanding exists about the position. I was approached about the interests of this school. The position is that if these schedules remain as they are then the school falls under the grant of £5. The school would like more because at the moment they get £8 or £9 per pupil. The administrator, of course, would like the school to come under the £14 basis, because he would then pay over to the school £8 for each pupil and keep the difference. They just want to know if it is not possible to put in the words that the school shall still remain under the same control. I was never a pupil of the school, but one feels that there is a certain tradition connected with such institutions. The old gymnasium at Stellenbosch and the school there are in the same position, and one feels that it is an inherent part of the university institutions which have there been established. These universities have all faculties for pedagogy. It is in the interests of the country that the universities should make experiments to lay down the best educational methods. Such work can be done in those schools in as much as they are under the control of the senate of the university. If the school, however, came under the control of the school board, they would be hide-bound by fixed systems. Those experiments then become impossible. I say, therefore, that in the interests of the country the school must remain under the senate of the university so that they can follow their own course in order, possibly, to arrive at methods which may be of great interest and importance to the country.

I hope and trust that the Minister will not concede the point that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) requires.

It may save further discussion if I state at once that, after the announcement of the Minister of Finance, that it is going to involve increased expenditure, I cannot accept the amendment.

Though we may not be able to move an amendment, cannot we discuss a particular school coming under this clause, and what the effect is going to be on that school? I would like to discuss the matter, which is one of some importance as affecting our schools.

The hon. member is entitled to speak now on this.

I don’t think the House can understand the position thoroughly if it is going to allow, without a great struggle, a serious injustice to be done to one of our best schools in the Union. This is a matter that is agitating thousands of people and not merely those who have received their education at the old S.A.C.S., and those who have their children there now. It is generally felt that the suggested step is a retrograde one, a bad one—

What suggested step?

The retrograde step that is suggested by this financial arrangement, which is going to have the inevitable effect of putting this school under the school board, instead of remaining as it is at present.

Why?

It has been explained. The Minister knows perfectly well. The Minister of the Interior has a Bill up his sleeve to confirm this financial arrangement. It is a very serious matter. I do not want to take up much of the time of the House, but I feel very deeply on this question. This particular school is unique in the Union. It is a national school, not a Cape Town school merely, but a school that attracts students from all parts of the Union. I do not know any other public school in that position which has the characteristics of a national school, and to put it under the school board is simply going to reduce it to the status of a Cape Town school, instead of a national school. Why you are doing it, I do not know, because it is costing the State less as things are now than it will cost under the new regime. Why are you going to interfere with an institution that has its roots as deep as the roots of the old Cape Town University? These two institutions go together and have gone together for a long time. A large number of the students who come to this school pass on to the university.

It is a school for the elite.

I am glad that the hon. member (Mr. van Niekerk) referred to that, because let me tell him that there is no school in the Union that encourages the poor student who has any ability so much as this school. There are a number of bursaries. Let me tell the hon. member that this school makes more provision for the poor student than any school in the Union. About forty a year are provided for in that way. Of course, ability is necessary. You don’t want to encourage a person to go to the university if he has not the ability. A boy’s poverty does not come into the question at all. I can assure the hon. member that I am speaking of something I know; I am an old student of the South African College. The people who can afford to pay the fees are, of course, only too glad to send their boys there. The history of South Africa has been made more in schools of this kind than in any other schools. Now, under this proposed scheme this school will become like any of the other schools in Cape Town. The children will go away, and it will be reduced from being a national school to a little local affair similar to any other school in the Union. This school has a special and unique character in the history of the Union. It is going to cost more money to make this new arrangement, it is going to reduce the school to a parochial level, and not a single thing is going to benefit by the proposed change. I hope the Minister will consider leaving the school as it is. If he does so, it is going to cost less to the State, and you are going to keep in existence a unique institution closely allied to the university.

I hope the Minister will not give way. I object to any institution or private individual having all the power in the expenditure of Government money in any shape or form. At the present time the school under discussion receives approximately £9 per student. The Act lays down that we are only giving to private schools £5 per student. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) say that this school ought to have a preference over other private institutions.

It is not a private institution.

It is a private institution; it is governed by private individuals.

No, it is nothing of the kind.

I believe the school Can refuse pupils if it wishes to do so.

Every school has that power.

The position is quite different from school board institutions. At this school not only do they receive approximately £9 per student, but I believe I am correct in saying that they get assistance indirectly and directly from the Government grant to the university.

Absolutely incorrect. There is not an iota of truth in it.

The building they occupy was built out of Government money indirectly.

That is absolutely incorrect as well. There is not a word of truth in it.

The position is the school borrowed £30,000. I would like my hon. friend to read the Controller and Auditor-General’s report and he will see the large amount of money the university of Cape Town receives, and I take it this school is part of the university. The point is—

The point is that you know nothing at all about it.

I can see no difference between the St. George’s Grammar School and the university school which we are now discussing. I hold that this is a private institution and that it is governed by private individuals of whom the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is one.

No more by private individuals than any school board.

But a school board is elected by the people, by the ratepayers. It is wrong in principle to allow a school which gets 56 per cent. of its money from the Government to be ruled by private individuals. If you allow this school to be tarried on as at present with a grant of approximately £9 per scholar, besides the amount given to the university, you have no right to refuse to allow any Church of England or Catholic school the same advantage. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will agree that he still wants the university school to have a grant of £9 per pupil. If that is correct, why should not all undenominational schools under the agreement be in receipt of the same amount?

What agreement?

If you take the sum now granted by the provincial authorities it works out at approximately £9 per pupil. If you once allow any school to have the preference it will surely be impossible to refuse it to any other school. I oppose any grant in any shape or form to any school unless controlled by the people’s representatives, such as we have in the ordinary school boards in the province. When all is said and done, each child when it grows to manhood has to a certain extent had its character moulded by the different environments through which it has passed, and if you once start to classify your schools with State money you create in different classes of individuals, different ideas. Now I think, in the interests of all concerned, all schools should be put on the same footing when they receive money from the Government or from provincial councils; for these reasons I hope the Minister will stand firm and compel all schools to occupy the same position that receive money from Government or the provincial authorities.

I am not going to follow the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), because I do not know that in any single particular he was correct. He has even gone astray in regard to the Bill. Apparently he has forgotten to read it, because he says that the Minister wants to bring the schools under one system. There are at least three systems mentioned in the Bill. For the information of some hon. members who apparently are not aware of the position, I would like to mention that the South African College school is faced with three alternatives at present. (1) To be transferred under the school board, as suggested by the Administrator; (2) to maintain the school as at present, with a grant of £5 per head, as suggested by the Minister, and (3) that the school should receive a special grant. The first alternative, to our mind, is very objectionable for several reasons. The school now is a portion of the Cape Town University. Gradually, class by class, has been cut off from the old S.A. college and put with the school. We started with the junior class and gradually added class by class, until now even the matriculation class comes under the school. For from 30 to 50 years, first the college, and now the university, has supported the school and the school has grown under the care of the present university. Everything has been done to bring the school to its present high standard. I am not going to claim that it is the best school in the country; but it certainly is one of the best. All that has been suggested is that instead of putting it under the school board the Minister pays to us a grant of, say, £10 per head, instead of the £14 paid to the Administrator, or pays £14 to the Administrator, and lets us get the £10. We do not care which way it is done. In either case it cannot damage the central Government in any way in regard to the grant; because I take it they are going to pay the £14 whatever they do. I want to impress on hon. members that, as I have said, the classes have been cut off from the college from time to time, and that the schools are an integral part of the university to-day. Let me remind the Minister that in 1905 both this school and the Victoria College school were exempt from the School Board Act, and there, again, the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) goes wrong. They are not like ordinary church schools, nor ordinary undenominational schools. Both these universities felt these schools were necessary to the university. Stellenbosch has changed because there was only one high school in the whole of Stellenbosch. If we give up the rights of this school, as we are asked to do, instead of having the University Council, which is a body well versed in university education, over them, they are going to be under the school board, and it is going to bring the school to an equality with all the other 11 high schools in the Peninsula. We feel we must put the position before the country. The expansion in this school has been somewhat remarkable. Since the time the school was exempt from the school board in 1905, the number of pupils has increased from 400 to 1,154, in 1924. That shows that the school committee were able to go ahead at a tremendous rate, and the grants were given not per pupil but on the £ for £ principle. Since 1905 there has been considerable development and to-day the school owes the university for buildings no less than £30,000. No school board will spend the money which the university spends on this school. The school continues to get the best teachers and comes under a strong university council. Now the school is going to be starved. The buildings will be inadequate, and there is no elected school board in Cape Town that can do the work the University is doing to-day. We know the school is the largest secondary school in South Africa, and as the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) says, the school draws pupils from the whole of the Union and also from Rhodesia. The resident pupils alone, who come from beyond the Peninsula, number 156, but that shows that it is not an ordinary local school, but is representative of the whole Union, and I think the more such schools we can have the better it will be for the future of the Union. There is a much larger number of pupils in the University from this school than from any other.

Both the university and the school are local.

As I explained, the pupils who come to the schools and go to the university are to a large extent from other parts of the Union, so the claim that it is a local school does not hold water. In 1924 out of 1,000 students in our university—exclusive of music students—241 were former pupils of the South African College school. The success of this school, I think, is somewhat remarkable, in the winning of honours in scholarships, and in the matriculation examinations. Everybody admits our success has been quite remarkable. There are twelve high schools in the Peninsula, and in the 1st matriculation examination alone, the South African College school had 16 pupils who passed in the first class, whereas the other eleven high schools had only 13 pupils.

What is the average?

The average also is remarkable as we had 70 per cent. passes in the matriculation examination from the South African College school as compared with 50 per cent. from the other high schools. Surely that is a position that should demand a very great claim for consideration. Perhaps the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) will appreciate this position. What is making the matter very serious here is that the moment the school comes under the school board, the provincial authorities are going to demand, as they are now demanding, that the pupils, instead of passing the junior certificate, shall pass the provincial examination. The provincial authorities have examinations of their own, and prefer students to enter for these rather than for the university examination, for it means a larger income in examination fees. The Cape Town University draws its students from those who have passed the matriculation examination, but those who pass the ordinary school board examination cannot do so well in the matriculation If you obtain a second class in the provincial examination it is almost impossible to obtain a second class in the matriculation within two years; whereas a second in the junior certificate usually means a good second in the matriculation. The university junior certificate examination allows candidates to enter for six subjects. In order to gain a certificate they must get a certain minimum aggregate of marks, pass in arithmetic and in one of the official languages taken on the high grade, and in at least three other subjects chosen from specified groups. On the academic side the selection of subjects is usually English A, arithmetic, Afrikaans B, or another modern language, mathematics, or history, science (either botany or physics or chemistry), Latin, or another modern language. The departmental junior certificate examination allows candidates to enter for six subjects or pairs of half subjects. In order to gain a certificate they must get a certain minimum aggregate, pass in one of the official languages taken on the high grade, and in a total of 3½ out of 4½ other subjects taken, history or geography counting always as half subjects. On the academic side the selection of subjects will be something like this: English A, Afrikaans or another modern language, science—any two of these three, biology, physics and chemistry; hygiene and physiology, history (or geography), arithmetic and mathematics (each counted as a half-subject), Latin, or another modern language. A comparison of the two shows that the departmental course takes in two sciences instead of one, it looks on arithmetic and mathematics as two parts of one whole instead of being each a separate whole, and it includes history (or geography) as a subject for examination. Consequently there is more work to be done—that is, there is a greater range of subjects to be covered. On the other hand, it relieves the situation by making arithmetic no longer a failing subject, and there is a shorter period of geography and history to be covered. But if candidates are to be at the standard of work required to pass the university matriculation examination two years later they must be as far advanced in every subject as they used to be when they took the university junior certificate with six plain subjects; and a pass in arithmetic becomes thus essential. [Time expired.]

I am very glad that the hon. Minister refuses to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), because I can assure the hon. Minister that if he once makes an exception in the case of the S.A. College school in Cape Town, then quite a large number of schools in South Africa will come and ask to be put in the same privileged position, and I, at any rate, will ask for the privileged position for the Grey College school at Bloemfontein, because every argument that hon. members have used for the local school also applies to the school at Bloemfontein. The Bloemfontein school is also not a local school, and is even more still than a Free State school. When I was at Grey College the school drew pupils from all parts of South Africa, from Rhodesia, East London, and even from Stellenbosch and Cape Town there were pupils. It was a national school just as much as the S.A. College school can be called a national school. The second argument that hon. members have used is that the S.A. College school is an integral part of the university of Cape Town. This is precisely the case with the Grey College school at Bloemfontein. The school is just as much an integral part of the Grey University College as the S.A.C. school of the University of Cape Town. The position previously was also different there, but the Grey College school is now a departmental school, and the chief point is that the Grey College, which is not now treated differently to other schools in the Free State, does not suffer any damage. The respect for a school does not depend upon the management, but upon the quality of work that is done, and the Grey College stands first in the Free State not because it is a departmental school, but on account of the good work that is done there. The same applies with reference to the S.A. College school and what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says, namely, that if the S.A.C.S. is placed under the school board that then education will suffer, is a terrible reflection on the school board. Does the hon. member then allege that the school board has a deadening effect on the good work of a school? I cannot understand that argument of the hon. member, and repeat that if one exception is made, then there will be other schools that will ask for the same privileged position, and certainly we will demand that position for the Grey College school.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of how S.A.C.S. came to be what it is. Under an Act of 1879 the South African College was given express power to establish in Cape Town an undenominational public school of the first class. That school did very excellent work, and when in 1895 the School Board Act was passed, this school was specially exempted. S.A.C.S. carried on by itself quite apart from the school board, and up to that time a very definite policy was followed in the old Cape Parliament of keeping the college school entirely apart from the school board. When the Cape Province in 1921 passed its monumental Education Ordinance, S.A.C.S. and the Victoria College, Stellenbosch, were expressly kept apart from the school boards. Ever since 1879 the studied object of all educational authorities has been to keep these schools out of the control and sphere of the school board, because these schools were fulfilling a very special function, and fulfilling it most satisfactorily. They were being governed on lines which the college authorities from long experience, knew to be sound lines for training for the university, and which were found to be most advantageous. I would like to refer to section 14 of the Cape Town University Act of 1916, under which, by section 35, the council of the college is vested with all the powers which were vested in the council of the old South African College. I want to point out this has been the studied definite policy, not only of the Cape Province and of the old Parliament, but of this Parliament as well up to now. If, after long experience, an institution like this had broken down. I would be the first to welcome the change under this Act. On the contrary, we have the evidence this school is not only an historic school carried on traditional lines of the highest credit to the university and the State, but it has proved a tremendous success and its position is unique. I think the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education will be the first to admit that this school has satisfactorily and eminently filled a great want in this country, and the responsible authorities have discharged a very fine work indeed and a very fine service to the State. I think it was the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) who said we were belittling the school boards. No. They are performing a fine function in regard to the particular sphere of work in which they are interested, but the continuous policy for nearly 50 years has been to separate the functions of the college school and the school board, because the school board is doing one class of work and the college authorities, through their committees, are discharging another, and a very useful work indeed for the particular purpose for which they were created. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member for Kroonstad would look at section 106 and onwards of the provincial education ordinance of the Cape Province, he would find the managing bodies of these schools were invested with all the powers imposed and obligations given to a board or committee under that ordinance. They are, in fact, under the statute a school board in themselves.

Are they maintained by the province?

They have their grants-in-aid.

That is the whole point.

I am coming to that. We have heard that a large number of other schools will make their demand to be admitted to the same right as the South African College if that school is treated in this way.

And not an equal claim.

I think if you investigate them they have no claim at all in the majority of these cases. The whole thing turns upon the interpretation of the words “established” and “maintained by the province.” Are the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance going to suggest that the word “established” means entirely established by the provinces originally, and “maintained” means entirely maintained throughout? If so, I ask him to give us a return of the number of schools actually established by the provincial authority or the administration themselves. In the Ordinance of 1921 the Administrator is expressly authorized to establish and maintain technical colleges, and you do not find that except in very rare cases. The establishment of schools is placed under the boards, who are statutory bodies created by Act of Parliament for the purposes of establishing these schools. If the Minister says the board schools are established by the provinces, they are only established because they are created by statutory bodies. In what respect do they differ from the statutory bodies created by Parliament in the case of the South African College School? That is a material point. The establishment of these schools is in hardly a single case an establishment by the provinces directly. Take the case of the private schools, which have existed for many years in this colony. Under the Education Act of 1905 and the Ordinance of 1921, the school boards are from time to time—and the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) had something to do with it—possessed of the right to take over schools which have been so privately established. Is he going to say these schools are not schools established under the Act for the purpose of such grant? Does he mean by “maintained” wholly maintained or partially maintained, because if he means wholly maintained then I give to him the same answer as I have done about the question of who originally established the school. Schools throughout the Cape Province under the Cape School Board Acts of 1905, and the Provincial Education Ordinance of 1921, are, and have been, maintained to a large extent by fees. What the Government has done through this period is to make grants-in-aid on the £ for £ principle, and the sole part the Government has taken has been to make a grant on this basis or on some other basis, leaving the school board to manage their own affairs, their own finances, and raise their own fees. The method in which the Government further financed the school board was, after raising money through fees or investments or otherwise, and grants on the £ for £ principle, If there was a deficit the Government footed the bill altogether or footed half the bill and left the remaining half of the deficit to be raised by levies from the municipality or the provincial council. That has been the history of the maintenance of schools. The Government has liberally contributed, but the Government has not maintained the schools. I challenge the Minister’s interpretation.

I have not put any interpretation on it.

An hour ago, when dealing with expenditure, you said the college schools were not maintained and established by the provinces.

If they are there is no need for the amendment.

You made the point that there would be increased expenditure because at the present time they do not come under—

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I have not considered whether S.A.C.S. comes under it or not, but I take it the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has done this, and that is why he has moved the amendment. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) says they will be qualified for the increased grant. If so, why quarrel? What is the whole position in a nut-shell? We are dealing with two classes of grants. The one is an increased grant in the case of a school established and maintained by the province, and the other is a smaller grant in the case of an aided school. It does seem to me that if a province does not pay the salaries of teachers and does not pay in any case the larger part of the expenditure of these schools, they are aided schools. I take it that that is what the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) realizes and, therefore, he moves his amendment. If the province is entitled to claim this increased grant in respect of the pupils attending the S.A.C. School, they will get it, but, of course, if it is an aided school they will get the smaller grant. But we must distinguish between schools where the province has a larger responsibility, that is, a school established and maintained by the province. The principal consideration, of course, is “maintained” and, therefore, to avoid any difficulty and to remove any misunderstanding which might arise, we specially put in the case of the schools which were represented to us by the Administrator, viz., the church schools, where he said they are really Government schools, but, in case a difficulty might arise in regard to the interpretation, we put them in to qualify for this grant. The Cape Administrator made out a strong case to my mind when he pointed out that really all the expenditure in connection with these schools was being borne by the Cape Province, only the buildings were being provided by the church. I understand that in the case of S.A.C.S. it is really an independent institution, they find a great portion of their income from other sources, and they only get grants similar to what is being paid to scores of schools in the country, schools that for their own reasons do not want to come in under the Government conditions. They qualify for the smaller grant. They do not fall under (a) where we deal with schools established and maintained by the provinces. The chairman has ruled the amendment out of older. I think we have had a very full discussion now, and I hope hon. members will not pursue the subject.

My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, is a proof that we have not had sufficient discussion. As a matter of fact, S.A.C.S. is not an aided school in the ordinary acceptation of that term. There is no difference in regard to the grant to this school, than we will say to the Rondebosch High School. The money is paid out to the committee in exactly the same way as it is to the Rondebosch High School, that is on the £ for £ principle, but there is this exception, that at Rondebosch, if they have a deficit, they come on the Administrator to make it good, while S.A.C.S. school does not do that, it pays its way.

You owe £30,000 to the university

We have not had a single sixpence in running this school from the university. What is done is this, that, instead of going to the Administrator for money for capital purposes, for the building of schools and so forth, the university, having funds for investment, endowments and the like, has advanced that money to the school committee, really a sub-committee of the council, who pay interest and redemption exactly in the same way that they would pay to anybody else. It is run entirely apart, as far as that is concerned. It is an advantage to the school, instead of going to the Administrator for an advance of money, to get money from the funds belonging to the university, but interest is paid and redemption is paid exactly the same as it would be to an ordinary individual. There is no charity about it in any shape or form. The university has £500,000 from the Beit bequest and we raised locally over £200,000. The remarks of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) are nonsense. Really, if one were outside, one would use stronger language. There is no difference at all. The Minister who is really upsetting this business is the Minister of Education. Why does he not get up and explain the whole position from his point of view? He sits tight and says nothing.

I think that I ought to say a few words at this stage. Let me in the first instance say that this is not a matter that only concerns the S.A. College there is also another school which is affected by it, namely, the Boys’ High School at Stellenbosch. I also wish to make clear that we have to do here with what is, undoubtedly, an anomaly. By the South Africa Act of 1910, higher education has been entrusted to the provincial councils. In other words, elementary education would be looked after by the provincial councils, but an exception has been made with regard to two schools, namely, the S.A. College school and the Stellenbosch, school, which were first affiliated with the colleges and subsequently to the respective universities. With a view to the general system in the country it is, therefore, a decided anomaly and we must remove it unless we can justify it. The position gradually became such at least with reference to one of the schools that it led to decided injustice. At Stellenbosch free elementary education was introduced with the result that there was a deficiency and the school went year after year to the university of Stellenbosch, which then had to devote its money to ordinary elementary education, money that was intended for higher education which was an intolerable condition of things. As we treat one, so we should also treat the other schools. The school at Stellenbosch was accordingly subsequently placed under the provincial council with the result that we have only one individual university in the country that is permitted to have a school under its control. This makes the anomaly still greater. But within a short time it will become worse. The Cape Town university will move to Groot Schuur. We shall then have a university at one place which controls a school at another. Now there are various arguments used in the House why this anomaly should continue to exist. The first argument is that of tradition. The persons who came to see me about the matter, including the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) have acknowledged that is the chief argument on which they rely. I said to the hon. member that I yield to no one in my respect for sentiment and tradition but I would not permit it to be a stumbling block in the way of putting right what is wrong. I believe in the history of the past, but still more in the history of the future. The second matter is this. Much is made here of sentiment and tradition, but let us regard the facts correctly. This school is not a school with a great tradition. There are other schools which have done a great work and which have the tradition. Until 1894 this school did not do so much as junior matric, work, because the classes that we call junior matric, and senior matric, were, at that time, taken in the colleges. This was, therefore, a school of much lower status than the Good Hope Seminary, the Normal College, the Wynberg School and the Diocesan College. Those are the schools which have tradition in the Cape Peninsula and which, in their way, contributed toward the development of higher education in the country. Now hon. members want, that we should treat the schools with the tradition in one way and that we should make an exception in the case of the school which has not got the tradition. The other argument is that this school is used by a university. That is not done in any way at all. It is not a model school, and I can give hon. members the assurance that it will never be so because it is a school for the elite and just as soon as the classes are used as training classes for pupil teachers the parents will object. It is said that the schools send so many children to the Cape Town University. The same can be said with reference to Stellenbosch. But why is this so? Simply because the parent who sends his child to Stellenbosch naturally sends his child to the university there, that applies also to the university of Cape Town. But if the school was not in Cape Town, but in one of our villages, would it be the choice of the university by the pupils on the same footing towards the Cape Town university as the other schools. It has also been said that the teaching is very good. I admit that, but it is because the schools are, to-day, in a privileged position over against the other schools in the country. The school draws the same grant from the provincial administration as the other schools and then it has in addition class fees which are twice, thrice, and four times as high as those of the other schools. They use the surplus for two purposes. The first is to pay high salaries to their teachers and in the second place to draw the best pupils away from other schools and to get them together into one school. Further, it has been said that these bursaries are also given to the children of poor people. Yes, to the particularly clever children of the poor man, but where the door is opened by these bursaries for ten poor children it is closed to 500 on account of the high class fees. The whole idea of the school is just that it shall be a school for the elite. It is there for the formation of a sort of aristocracy. I do not know whether I am possibly too democratic but I have no sympathy with such quasi democratic nonsense. Hon. members now want sentiment to be considered in connection with the school. How far this sentiment will be observed if the school is transferred to the provincial council is a matter between the Administrator and the management of the school. In this respect I have a draft ordinance of which notice has been given by the Administrator. I quote from the draft ordinance (rough translation)—

Is that an agreement between yourself and the Administrator?

No; that is what the Administrator proposes if the provincial council takes over the schools. The provincial council is therefore willing to regard the University Council as the school committee or to allow the University Council to nominate the school committee in order in that way to retain the connection between the university and the school. With this, however, as Minister of Education, I have nothing to do. I shall, however, assist by means of legislation that I will propose to free the school and to transfer it to the provincial council.

I feel the Minister does not know much about school committees if he thinks the college council is going to agree to be a school committee under the school board. We would rather give up the school than be a committee under the school board. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the school committee is an absolutely useless body, they have not an atom of power. They meet and pass resolutions and send them to the school board, which accepts or rejects them as they think fit. We can suggest a particular school teacher for appointment, but that is rejected or accepted by the school board as they think fit. As a member of the college council, I say I should not think of acting on such a committee—in fact, I would rather see the school taken away altogether. The hon. the Minister referred to two points in particular. I think he wanted to know if there is any precedent for schools being run in connection with a university. One of the most progressive nations in the world is America, and perhaps the two largest universities in America, Chicago and Columbia, both have schools in connection with the university, and these are feeders to the university. The Columbia university has a kindergarten class where they start training teachers; I understood the Minister to say we were not doing much for the training of teachers.

I did not say that. I said we are not using schools for that purpose.

Would the Minister be surprised to know that the Cape Educational Department has, by agreement, left the training of secondary teachers to the university, and that in 1924 there were some 125 students taking courses for secondary training at the university? They use the school to train these students as part of the university course, and they are using it by special agreement with the provincial authorities.

They are not schools.

Yes, they are, junior and secondary, too.

They are using these schools by special agreement with the provincial authorities to train teachers.

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

At the adjournment I was drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that in America the system is to establish schools in connection with the universities, and also in some of these universities they start these schools right from the kindergarten so as to enable the training of teachers to be carried on most effectively. I feel that the time has arrived when we should consider, and very carefully consider, our whole scheme of training teachers in this country. We have a long-established school in the South African College School, and we have one that is directly under the university. That is a principle which we should adhere to. These schools for training should be directly under the university which is training the teachers. Many of our leading educationists here hold very strongly that it is the only system by which you can effectively and properly carry on the scheme of training teachers. Our school has a very strong and stable staff, a staff which, I claim, and many others claim, is second to none in this country, and we have a staff and a school which naturally adapt themselves to the system of training. To train teachers properly the university must have the sole control. You cannot have a university training teachers under one body while the schools are under the control of an entirely different body. How can you co-ordinate the work under those circumstances? It seems to me to be quite impossible. The educationists of this country who have given the subject much thought and careful study hold that you must have the two working in conjunction, otherwise you can never have much success. If the schools of the South African College are brought under the school board the capitation grant then for each pupil, both primary and secondary, will be £14. The secondary pupil, we know, is very much more expensive to educate than the primary pupil, but, taking the two together, it works out at something like £9 or £10 per pupil to make it a paying proposition at all, and the suggested grant of £5 will mean that for each pupil in this school, which is doing such useful work in the country, the authorities will lose £4. It was said by the Minister of Education this afternoon that the South African College School is really a school for the elite only. Let me remind him that one out of every 20 pupils in this school gets free education. At the last meeting that I attended, when we passed, I think, 14 names, we had no idea of the educational qualifications of these boys. They showed that they had poor parents and, naturally, where the parent was previously connected with this school or the college, we gave that child preference. I can remember three cases, children of very poor parents (one a policeman), who had nothing to do with the college previously. The parents were shown to be worthy men, and it was shown that they could not afford to put their children to school unless they got free education. I may remind the Minister that there are several members of the Cabinet who have been to this school. I do not think they claim that it is a school purely for the elite. The Minister mentioned the Normal College. I was at the Normal College, and so was the Chairman of Committees (Mr. de Waal), and I think he will agree with me that we never had so much snobbishness at “Sacs” as we had at the Normal College.

It is for the wealthy.

I am told that we can give the Minister details, if he is so very anxious for details, to show him that the wealthiest people have not their children at the South African College School.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I am sure that hon. members must have been surprised at the bitter and hostile tone of the Minister of Education. Let us debate the matter on its merits, and if we do that, I do not think there is much doubt as to how the proposals of the Government should be dealt with. I submit that every one of the arguments used by the Minister can be answered. To say that this is a school for the elite is going entirely beyond the facts of the case. I will just give the history of the pupils. There were less than 400 in 1905, and in the last quarter in 1924 there were 1,154. What is the good of talking about it being a school for the elite? It is nothing of the sort. Those of us who have our children there know it is not so. That is why we implore the Minister to ascertain the true facts of the case. It is a school for every deserving class in the community; it is part of the public school system of the Union. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) said that State money was used for building. That is absolutely untrue. Not a single 6d. from the State has been used for building purposes. The first buildings in this school were erected with funds raised by public subscription in Cape Town. Other monies used were loans by the university, which were advanced out of the bequests made from time to time. The school has not had building loans in the sense that other schools have had them from the State. Let us now deal with the standard of education. At the last matriculation examination there were students from twelve high schools entered for the Cape Peninsula. Of the twelve, of which this school is one, this school obtained 16 first classes, and the 11 others obtained altogether 13. This gives some idea of the standard of education at this school.

What about percentage?

Yes, I will give the percentage; and I am glad that the hon. member mentioned this point. The average percentage of passes among the schools was only 50 per cent.; at the South African College school it was 70 per cent. That is why poor people scrape up every penny to send their children to the school, because they know they are getting full value for their money. The Minister of Education said there was an anomaly. There is no anomaly about it; it is the Minister himself who has established an anomaly by taking away a practice that has been established all these years. He mentioned the case of Stellenbosch, but because Stellenbosch school has been a financial failure and wants to come under the school board, why should a school which has been a success have to come under the school board? The argument does not apply at all. Somebody said there was a reflection on the school boards. It is nothing of the sort. The school boards at the moment find the greatest difficulty in raising money to deal with elementary education, therefore how could they take upon themselves the responsibility of dealing with secondary education in this way? There is no reflection on the school boards, but what we say is you cannot compare the members of a school board, so far as academic training and experience are concerned, with the members of the University Council. There is no comparison; one set of men are experts, and the others are amateurs compared to the University Council, so far as secondary education is concerned. That is the reason why we prefer to see the school remain under experts. There is no reflection upon members of the school boards; they do their job exceedingly well, but they are not suited to look after a large secondary school of this kind.

Do not they control secondary schools at all, then?

They control no school of this national character. I have already shown the difference between schools managed by school boards, and the one managed by the University Council. The national character of the school has been referred to, and was rather belittled by the Minister. Let me give the figures. In 1924 there were 154 boys from all parts of the Union and Rhodesia boarding there in the five boarding houses. The reason that we do not want this school to come under the school board is, in the first place, because we want expert management, and secondly, there is freedom in methods of organization, and there is the unreserved use of all annual surpluses for new development.

I want to reply particularly to the Minister of Education. He said it was an anomaly, but it was sanctioned by the old Cape Parliament in 1905.

That is wrong.

It appears to me, if I may venture to say so without offence, that the Minister lays too much stress on the logical side of things. Surely you must judge by results. Here you have a school which in 1904 had only 400 pupils, but has now 1,150. Surely my hon. friend will judge by results such as that. It has been an eminent success; that is the position. It has done good work, as has been shown over and over again. Furthermore, I could have understood if we had been asking for something extra, but we are not. We believe that if you leave this alone it will cost the taxpayers of the country less. My hon. friend says that because Stellenbosch wants to come under the school board he must treat them both alike. Why? Stellenbosch of its own free will wants to take this action for two or three reasons. In the first place it is the only secondary school at Stellenbosch, and, secondly, it has not been a financial success. The Minister himself stated that deficits had been made up by the university. That has never occurred with us; the school has never been a drain. I have been 22 years on the college council, and for many years chairman of the Finance Committee, and I say advisedly that the school has never been a drain on the university in any shape or form. As I have stated, we have advanced money for building and the like from the capital funds belonging to the university, but that was an investment. It bears a full rate of interest, and they pay us redemption at the same time. Why one school which wants to go under the school board because it has been unsuccessful, should be used as an example to the other, I must say I do not understand at all. It is an advantage to the Cape School Board and to Cape Town that this school should remain as it is. If we came under the Administrator’s regime, any demands we might have to make for new school buildings would have to go to the Administrator. As things are at present we never go near him; we find the money in the manner I have described. My hon. friend says that there is nothing in sentiment or tradition. All I can say is that we find it very valuable indeed to this school. I know one member of Parliament here who attended the school, and whose grandson is there now. That is only one case, and there may be more, and it frequently happens that where men have attended the school they send their sons after them. I know of another case where a Dutch Reformed minister sends his sons there.

They would still be able to do that.

Yes, but it is the old tradition, the connection with the university, that gives it the standing, which it would never have under the school board. As a result of this the school is flourishing, and we value this tradition and we also value the sentiment which attaches to it. My hon. friend pointed out that we are going to move the university to Groot Schuur. That will not make the slightest difference. It cannot make the slightest difference, the fact of the university going to Groot Schuur, so far as the school is concerned, as it is in the same municipality. The Minister said it was not a model school. Well, he cannot have made enquiries. I made enquiries during the dinner hour and I find it is used as a training school for teachers at the university. An official of the university told me that if the school is taken away they will have to start another. Both the preparatory school and the secondary school are used as model schools for the training of teachers in practical work.

Not more than other schools in Cape Town.

It is used all the same. Then I do not know where he got the idea from that this is a school for the elite—the rich. It is not. I could mention a school in the Cape Peninsula where on an average, all round, the parents are wealthier. I was once on the school board, so I know something about it.

What about the school fees?

I agree that the fees are high, but the school is valued for its education, and many people make a struggle to send their children to the school.

For the poor man it is prohibitive.

No, no. Could the Minister tell me a single school which puts aside part of its fees for free education? I do not know of any other except the Grey School, Port Elizabeth. £400 out of the receipts from fees are put aside for the purpose of giving bursaries to poor pupils in the school, so there is quite a number of the poorer children in school. But I will tell you why we have to resist this proposal so strongly. Here is what the Administrator intends to do. I want to quote from draft ordinance of 18th April, 1925, of the Cape Province, clause 6. It is to the effect that in the event of the passing of an Act of Parliament regulating the financial relations which shall exist between the Union and the several provinces, and providing for the payment of subsidy by the Government of the Union to the administration of the province of the Cape of Good Hope on a per caput basis in respect of the attendance of pupils and students, the provisions of chapter 7 of the Consolidated Education Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15 of 1921) shall be repealed with effect as from 1st October, 1925; and it shall not be competent for the Administrator out of provincial funds to grant aid in respect of the South African College High School, Cape Town, the South African College Junior School. Cape Town, and the Victoria College Boys’ High School, Stellenbosch, at a higher rate than that paid by the said Government to the said administration in respect of pupils attending aided schools. He bars himself under this from paying more than the £5.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I am sorry to have to contradict the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He is absolutely wrong when he says that this school is used for the training of teachers in the true sense of the term, meaning that the provincial authorities are using this school for the training of teachers. It is true that they are training their own teachers for the university; but in every other secondary school they are also training teachers on behalf of the provincial authorities. It has also been stated that in this secondary school there are a vast number of free scholars. As an old member of the school board, I wish to say that there is not a secondary school in existence in the Cape Province which has not got its quota of free scholars, equal to, I believe, if not greater than the South African College School. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) spoke about America and said the universities not only train teachers but go in for primary education, but the universities in America are not financially supported by the Government to the extent they are in this country. On the estimates we have £73,000 this year for this university, and in the Controller and Auditor-General’s report it shows that for this university the Government contributes 56 per cent. If that is so, and this university is so rich that it can advance money to build a primary and secondary school, I think it is time we contributed less to the university. It is absurd for the Government to support a university that is in such a flourishing state that it loans out its capital.

What about the buildings they are putting up?

If they are in such a position that they can keep a school for the elite, it is time we had a little say in this matter and put the school on the same footing as other schools. It is creating a class distinction which, in the present age of democracy, we want to remove. The Controller and Auditor-General’s report states that the cost of each student in the university is £112, which is more per student than in any other university except one. If they are in such a position, it is time we took a strong stand and took the primary and secondary schools out of their hands and put them under the control of the people who are elected by the people of this country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) stated that on the university council there are experts. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is an expert, but he was also an expert when he was a member of the Cape Town School Board, and if he is good enough to manage the university schools, he is also quite competent to manage the ordinary schools under the control of a school board. I cannot see any difference in the matter at all. But they also tell us that they want an increased grant above what is laid down in this Act. They do not want £5 but £9 or £10.

We say: Give what you are giving now.

Why should we give it? It is a private institution, and we refuse to give it to other schools. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has stated that all educational authorities have agreed to the point of view as expressed by him. I wish to say that Dr. Viljoen is in favour of the school being taken over by the provincial authorities, and as Superintendent General of Education, he ought to understand the matter. I trust the Minister will stand firm in this matter.

One is always interested in the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) when he enters the tourney and takes a tilt, because no matter what figures are brought by others, he will contradict them, and it is difficult to get at the sources of his information. One also knows that very often the information he gives is incorrect. This afternoon he dealt with the college school as if it were a private school. If only he had looked at the Act he would have seen that it was a Government school in the highest sense of the word. I would like to test the last assertion he made, and to know when Dr. Viljoen ever expressed such an opinion in public. The Consolidated Education Ordinance of 1921 which was passed by the Provincial Council under the regime of Dr. Viljoen as Superintendent-General of Education, expressly and definitely continues this definite provision of keeping this school separate from the board schools. Did Dr. Viljoen hold these views before that Ordinance was passed, or has he changed his views since then?

You had better ask him.

I am asking the member who made the assertion, and I think it was a bold assertion to make. I want to say a word to the Minister of Finance who seems to have been neglected for the past hour or so. I was urging on the House the consideration that there is a great deal of force in the contention that these schools are provided and maintained in the sense provided in the Bill, but there is possibly another point of view, especially as the Minister of Finance with all the weight and authority of his position, had stated the opposite a few minutes before. I will, therefore, support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), for we want to know if the Minister will make it perfectly clear in the Bill what the position of “Sacs” will be, so that there shall be no legal disputes afterwards. The Minister says it will come in under clause (d) of the schedule, but that clause deals only with aided private schools. How can you call “Sacs” an aided private school? The result will be that “Sacs” will probably fall between two stools I ask the Minister at least to make it clear that the college school is not to be treated as being shut out from grants.

No one wants to shut it out.

Where does it come in?

Under the aided private schools.

The Minister of Education made a speech this afternoon which I think many members must have listened to with the deepest regret. Why on earth he should have shown such bitter antagonism to this particular school is incomprehensible. I challenge anyone to say that anything whatever has been stated here to justify such a bitter attack.

Nonsense.

I am entitled to think what I said, that the Minister made a most bitter personal attack on that school, when he sneered at the traditions of the school of which many members of this House have shown they are proud, and when he talked with contempt about this school being an institution for the elite of the country. What justification is there for that? The Minister is a master of gibes and sneers, but that does not alter the position one single iota. What justification has he for saying that the school is maintained for the aristocracy? What we want to know is the reason behind the proposed change. The Minister has told us that it is an anomaly, and that there is no other university with a school attached to it. Of course not. The university of Stellenbosch has failed to keep its school attached to it, but why should that affect the South African College, which has made a gigantic success of its school? The question which the Minister of Education has not been good enough to answer is the reason for departing from the long-continued and definite policy which commenced in 1879 and was endorsed on other occasions, and whenever a change was considered either by this Parliament or the Provincial Council, it was deliberately resolved in every instance to maintain this school. Prima facie there must have been a good reason for maintaining this consistent attitude in regard to this school. I admit that if the school had been a failure one could not justify its maintenance, but the thing has been a great success, so why should this change be made? The Minister has given no reason except to call it an anomaly, his text being: “You must make right what must be made right.” But that was not the text which was taken by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the other afternoon. What is there that has to be put right? It is a thousand pities that change should be made which will adversely affect a school with the traditions of “Sacs,” even though they are traditions at which the Minister of Education sneered. No one has made comparisons reflecting on the Wynberg or Rondebosch schools. We are proud of the traditions of those schools, but “Sacs” is a school entirely on its own lines.

I would like to make a personal explanation. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) made an accusation that what I said was not the truth.

Inaccurate.

I have just rung up the Administrator, and he bears out the statement I have made, and it was on his information that I made the statement that Dr. Viljoen recommended the taking over of this school. I hope this will be the last occasion that the hon. member will doubt my honesty.

I did not doubt the hon. member’s honesty, but his information.

I should still have had considerable sympathy with the hon. members who have spoken in favour of the S.A.C.S. and admitted that the school was a private school and supported by the State, but that on account of certain traditions and descent the school could not become a Government school but should continue to exist in the present position. This school surely falls under (d) as a private aided school. I have listened with attention this afternoon to what has been said this afternoon. I believe that if we were to apply what has been said this afternoon that then the majority of the arguments can be used for a system which many members would not be disposed to support, namely, the system of the free school with State aid. I, personally, am much in favour of the system. Now we have heard here this afternoon of the success of this school in the past, and the question what weighs most with me is whether the new arrangement that is proposed will be in the interests of education. That is really the only question that should weigh with us. I ask myself what the consequence will be if the persons who feel strongly on behalf of the school were to say, “Good, we will just add £5 to the grant.” What will be the upshot of that? It seems to me that the result will be that the school will then be just as much a school of the elite. Snobbishness has been mentioned here, but is there not a great danger of our actually assisting that snobbishness by this measure? If the leading people of the school come together and decide that they will go on without State aid, will not the school go on more and more just being the school of rich people and of the elite? I chiefly rose to say a few words in connection with State aid to private schools. I think this ought to be much larger and that the State in this respect must go much further. When we, e.g., think of the Orange School at Bloemfontein, then we have a good example. For this school the public contributed more than £40,000, and today the school is suffering in consequence because it only gets poor support from the Government. For my part I cannot see why, if the State is satisfied with the teaching given in such a school (the State can send its inspector), why the State cannot increase the aid to such a school, although the public indicate in a certain measure the tendency of the education and want the education of the children to be in accordance with their feelings. We must, moreover, not forget that the people who attain that end collect money and give immeasurable help to the State, and I think that the State in such instances ought to go further with regard to the aid to the schools. I think that we make a great mistake in our country to want to cast our schools more and more in one mould. I am for it that the parents should have an opportunity to a certain extent of deciding the tendency of the education in accordance with their own ideas. This should not prevent the State from aiding such a school. Just look at European countries where the schools are most developed. There parents can send their children to a school where the education is given in accordance with their views, and yet the State supports such a school and pays practically everything. Hon. members are divided on the point whether the S.A.C.S. is at present a State-aided school or not, but if they will admit that it is such a school and that through tradition and history the school should continue to exist as it now is, then I feel much in favour of it, and I hope that we will eventually get such schools over the whole country and that the State will support such schools fully when it is fully proved that there are people who can carry on the teaching to the satisfaction of the State and the teaching will provide for the necessities of the country and people. But I feel that so long as we do not have such a system in the country the hon. Minister cannot do otherwise than to give the grant of £5, but I still hope that the hon. Minister will see his way to increase in the future the grants to the private schools. I feel the value of the sentiment attached to the history and traditions of the S.A.C.S., because I know what our feelings in the Free State were in connection with the Grey College school. I know what it means if a school is divorced from the past. At that time, shortly after the second war of independence, the State came and said that the Grey College should be turned into a Government institution. Then also the history of Grey College was not taken into consideration, and yet possibly the history was just as interesting as that of the S.A.C.S. We know how Mr. Grey made a large sum available and how much the church helped and the public contributed to establish that school. I can therefore somewhat understand the feelings which exist with reference to the S.A.C.S. But, in the circumstances, the Minister cannot act differently. I hope that in our country we shall one day get so far as to have a system of education which will also allow full right and justice to be done to private schools.

It seems rather strange when discussing a matter relating to the finances of the provinces, that the Minister should be found dealing with a matter that primarily concerns one of the provinces alone, and really if viewed in its true aspect is a parochial dispute between two local governing bodies for the control of certain schools. If the Minister had framed a schedule and had classified these schools in the way they are now classified by law they would be entitled to £14 per pupil. He would have done this by adding to paragraph (a) of the schedule, after the words “primary and secondary schools, established and maintained by the provinces,” the words “aided public schools.” That would have been sufficient to bring in the aided public schools, of which there are two in the Cape Province. But by omitting that very obvious classification—

Why is it obvious?

I should have thought he would have noted in addition to the church primary schools and ordinary primary and secondary schools that we have two schools that have been placed on a special footing.

I am carrying out the agreement with the Cape Province.

I want to know why the Minister felt it so important to take part in a purely local contest. The Minister himself has laid down this principle that he does not wish to interfere with the existing provincial legislation, and claims that in their own sphere the provinces should be allowed a free hand. Whatever may be said by the existing provincial administration it is clear that these schools are entitled to absolute recognition. There has been no indication on the part of the provincial council that seems to necessitate any change in the existing law, and one wonders what grounds were put before the Minister to justify him in exercising the enormous power he has to assist this dispute without first finding out what the views of the school authorities are and if they were shared by the provincial council. If he does not wish to interfere with the free choice of provincial councils why seek to repeal a section of the Act that gives these people the right to aid? He is prepared to make a grant for the 1,500 children there. It is, or must be, part of his scheme to afford them £14 or £16, but by this omission he takes part in this particular contest and so we find ourselves compelled at length to deal with the Minister of Education and examine in a Bill that does not concern him, the arguments he puts forward in favour of this particular change. I have some of the arguments here, used by the head of the permanent department concerned, and he gives what is the high-water mark of their views and if you examine these reasons they strike one as being exceedingly unsatisfactory, almost flimsy, if it is on these the Minister relies in making this important change.

What department?

The Education Department of the province. It is an unofficial representation of the views, but it is an accurate statement of those views expressed on an occasion of some importance. It was pointed out that these two schools have over 1,500 pupils and that the high school buildings were satisfactory from a structural point of view, and provided sufficient accommodation, but the junior school buildings are unsatisfactory. If further funds are required the university would be able, sooner or later, to remedy the complaint. In itself, that is not sufficient for the change. Coming to the teaching, it is said that general criticisms of a general nature have been cast on the curriculum of the high school, but that both schools, without reservation may be described as efficient. If efficiency is the test, I can therefore quote this high authority that both schools are highly efficient. Therefore, it is not on that score a change is desired. Then we come to the anomaly which the Minister is said to have discovered as a reason for the change. It is an anomaly he states that the schools should be under the University Council. Surely the test is how have they managed them in the past? Has it been done well and efficiently? And if this anomaly connotes efficiency then the more anomalies of this kind we have the better. Then we come to the true explanations of the intended change, “that it is eminently reasonable and wholly desirable that all public and denominational schools should be under the jurisdiction of one body.” It is just this passion for uniformity, which I hope may come to an end with the impending change in another place. This passion for uniformity has largely destroyed the value of self-government in this province. This particular fight has been a long-drawn-out fight. It has gone on for seven or ten years, during which there has been an attempt to over-ride this institution and compel it to conform to the rules and regulations of the school board. It has been said that there should be nothing but uniformity and centralization, a course which robs all local government of efficiency. What reason can there be for this uniformity? It cannot be that there is a lack of efficiency. Whatever other test would you have to judge education if it is not to be by its efficiency? Is this change to make it more efficient? No; it is merely to maintain this desire for uniformity. The minister should say, before acceding to the demand, that he will enquire whether they would do better and whether they would be cheaper and more efficient. So far as the cost is concerned in the Cape District, the school board cost is £11 per child, with overhead costs for administration at the central office. [Time limit.]

I certainly take very strong exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), where he has laid down here that in co-operation with the Cape Administrator I have lent myself to do something to get this school out of the control where it is at present. I know nothing at all about the whole local dispute to which he refers. Why I should go and specify this school here in this schedule in the way he describes I fail to see. I do not specify any particular school. I am accepting the broad classification laid down in the Baxter report. Why does the hon. member want me to mention particular schools?

Because they are in the law to-day.

What have I to do with the law? I am giving the administrations a grant based on two principles. The Cape Administrator at Durban pointed out that if we do not specially mention these schools some difficulty might arise. I knew nothing about the position of the South African College School. The Cape Administrator was quite satisfied with this classification, and so were the other Administrators.

Did you put in the classification?

I had to put it in as a result of the agreement arrived at Durban. Why the hon. member should go and insinuate that I was playing a sort of underhand game with the Cape Administrator I fail to see. I think those remarks were entirely unjustified.

I think I should rise to a point of personal explanation. I asked the Minister to particularly note that I did not wish, in any way, to make any such suggestion. I pointed out that the frame of this schedule was to make him take part in this dispute between local parties.

Let me tell the hon. member (Mr. Coulter) that the whole schedule was drawn up to give effect to the agreement arrived at in Durban, where all the Administrators agreed that this is the way we should deal with the matter. I have accepted the classifications of the Baxter report. They laid down a certain grant in respect of schools maintained or established by the provinces where the Government had control, and then the other schools where merely a grant was paid. I do not know under which class the South African College School will fall.

It is an aided public school.

I can inform the hon. member that there will be no difficulty in dealing with this school under (d).

It is not an aided private school; it is an aided public school.

That is a very fine distinction. I believe there are many schools in South Africa in exactly the same position that fall under the private schools. Let me inform the House that actually under this we are making a bigger grant than we formerly paid in respect of this school. Formerly the grant which the provincial administration paid was about £10,000 on the £ for £ principle. Thus the Union Government would have contributed £5,000. Here we propose to pay £5 per pupil in respect of 1,200 pupils, which would make £6,000. As I pointed out at the start, I fail to see what the whole of this discussion has got to do with this Bill.

I would point out to the Minister of Finance that the reason why this discussion is very relevant to the Bill is that here you have got a very large scholastic institution in regard to which there is the gravest doubt as to whether it will come under this Bill at all. The Minister says it will come under (d), which is clearly limited to European pupils in aided private schools. The Minister of Finance says there is a very fine distinction between them and public schools. There is all the difference in the world. I would like the Minister of Finance, before he comes to any decision on the point, to look at chapter 7 of the Cape Province Education Ordinance, No. 5 of 1921. He will see that the heading to that chapter is “Aided Public Schools.” At the present time, in other words, the statutory legal classification of these schools is that they are aided public schools. Therefore, they clearly do not come under (d). The Minister of Finance has also said that they do not come under (a).

I shall pay grant in respect of (d).

But how can you? The Minister talks about an agreement. There is no question of the Minister lending himself to anything underhand, as he appears to think was elsewhere suggested. The Minister has been a white man throughout the whole of this session, and in his capacity as Minister nobody has imputed a single motive to him other than a fair and honourable one. But, taking it on that basis, what I would like to bear in mind is this, legally he will be unable to make the payment to the college school under (d), and, if there is a question of altering anything at all, I do ask that we should make it perfectly clear that the college school comes under (a). As far as the agreement is concerned, it is true that the Minister says that this agreement was arrived in terms of what is set out here. If the agreement is so hide bound, you cannot alter (d) either. But, in regard to the two classifications laid down, quite probably these schools are within the meaning of—

And that is the reason why the special point was made about these schools. They were probably treated by the Baxter report and in the agreement and all the rest of these places, as being public schools in the sense that they were established and maintained on probably the same footing as every other public school was established and maintained. I wish to suggest that the Minister should hold this particular point over, and that he should have a further opportunity of reconsideration, because you will have to make it perfectly clear what is the position of the college school under this. It cannot come under (d) and the Minister says it cannot come under (a). If that is not done, the future of the school will be viewed with very great apprehension. One difficulty is that we are dealing with this matter piecemeal. Here is a grant under a schedule. We have this draft ordinance of the provincial council, which has not yet been brought forward, but it is a draft ordinance with the express contemplation of such a provision as is put in the schedule here being carried. Then we are also told that there is likely to be some other legislation in this House which will affect the position. I should like to ask the Minister of Education whether any other legislation is contemplated affecting the position. Where are we going to be with this sort of piecemeal procedure? I would like the Minister of Education to give us an answer as to why this change has been brought about, as to why the college school is to be taken from the position it has occupied so far. Every one of the arguments used in support of the change have been so completely demolished in the course of discussion that one again asks what is the reason for the change.

I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I must agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), and I also am disappointed with the very sharp attitude of the Minister of Education. He has made a sharp attack on the old South African College.

No, on the arguments of hon. members.

No, the Minister has spoken here jocularly about quasi-democratic nonsense. The system which is there in force is described as a sort of aristocracy which the Minister can no longer permit. I would like to ask the Minister what the reason of that was. We have here to do with a case where people for 50 years have had control over the institution, an institution which has developed from a school which, as I understand, was established as long ago as 1820. We can, therefore, understand that there is a deep sentiment attached to this school, and that alone is the most earnest reason why the Minister should be brought to break the bond between the university and the school in order to place the school under the school board. I am speaking here as a Stellenbosch man. If there was one thing of which our people were proud then it was the old college at Stellenbosch, and also the school which there grew up in connection with the college. When we adopted the school board Act in 1905 there was a very strong feeling in Stellenbosch that the school and the Victoria College should not be separated from each other and the bond was strengthened. That also happened when the University Act of 1916 was passed. At Stellenbosch matters altered after that time. I am sorry about it, but perhaps financial difficulties forced them to it. I think that Stellenbosch did wrong when it went in for free education. That they did not pay for, and the university of Stellenbosch had consequently to use its money for the school. But because that happened at Stellenbosch, why should it also be applied to the South African College? The South African College did not go in for free education. The university of Cape Town is willing to bear the expense and the responsibility which there are and there ought to be the strongest educational reasons before we should upset a system which has already existed for 50 years. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. If he cannot mention any educational consideration then it is wrong of him to introduce special legislation to separate this new university and the school from each other. If there is one thing of which I feel proud then it is the local interest in education, and that the people are willing locally to contribute something. How was this school established? People prepared a list—a guarantee list—just as was the case in other places where a school has been established. The institution grew and now the whole thing must be rooted up by the Minister’s legislation. No, I hope that the Minister and the Government will feel that if there is anything which should be taken into consideration, then it is the local love for an educational institution. This school will now be handed over to the school board of the Peninsula which has no powers of taxation on which has no money to assist the institution. I am not astonished that there is concern about what will become of the institution. All local ambition to do anything locally is taken away. I regard this Bill as a forfeiture of the rights of the people. Stellenbosch in 1905 and 1916 felt just as strongly about the matter, and I desire that the Minister should take the matter into further consideration and meet the people, seeing that they are willing to pay for the institution.

It was really an earnest appeal that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) made to us. But now I should just like to ask him what it has to do with the matter? The hon. member also appreciated quite well that it has nothing to do with the matter, because he continuously appealed to the Minister of Education and not to the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Education made a declaration.

But what has the declaration of the Minister to do with the case?

There is the chairman.

And as for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) he declared himself in so many words that it has nothing to do with the matter. He stated with much eloquence that we ought not to think that anything more would be given them than if they were placed under the board. He allowed us to appreciate thoroughly that not a penny which would be paid by the Government under the school board would go to the Administrator. But then I ask what hon. members opposite want. I will mention what they want. It is quite clear. Clearly there is something afoot to put that school on the ordinary footing of a State school, and to remove it from the privileged position (if I may call it so) in which it now is. And because the. Provincial Council will now have the right of doing so hon. members wish to make use of this opportunity to protect the school in the position it is in to-day. But again I say: What has this to do with the matter which we are discussing? The hon. Minister has clearly shown what the position is. He said to the Provincial Council, you have those school children, and the schools where the children are, I must support. Good. Which school? Government schools. Good. How much? £16. Good. But the Administrator then said: We have also other schools. What schools? Schools that are not Government schools but only get grants, and the Administrator said that these schools had to be paid £5. The Minister then says that he will pay the £5. Now it is clear that a school must belong to one of the two classes of schools. It is a Government school if the province pays everything, covers all expenses, and then there is another class which only gets assistance. Thus the school about which so much is being talked must also come under one of the two classes, and the hon. Minister said at the commencement that he did not know whether it fell under (a), or (b) or (d). Whether the school fell under the Government school or only under State-aided schools. That is a matter which we should not discuss now. Well the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has used the most foolish argument that I have heard for a long time in this House. He seems to think that the hon. Minister is qualifying the schools instead of the province, and he accuses the hon. Minister (this he did not do directly, but his arguments amounted to that) that the Minister is affecting a qualification by which he puts the schools in the position in which the hon. member is afraid that they will be. That is the hon. member’s argument. It was a particularly extraordinary argument. No, the whole position is that this discussion about the school has nothing to do with what we have under discussion. But then I just want to say to my hon. friends that we must elect. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has quite rightly asked whether we want Government schools in South Africa or private schools which are properly supported. Well, the decision has been taken that in South Africa we shall have Government schools.

Yes, but an exception was made.

Yes, the exception is the University of Cape Town and the school connected with it. But there are yet other exceptions such as, e.g., the Grey College at Bloemfontein and the Eunice School. Those are also exceptions, and the position now is just this, that the hon. member for Rondebosch and other hon. members are not satisfied with the position. They now again want further special privileges for the school. They do not want that the school should be an ordinary school like other schools which are aided by the State. That is clear.

It is not a private school.

Yes, but a State-aided school. It is not a Government school.

Yes.

But why then should not the school fall under the ordinary regulation?

It was laid down as an exception.

Yes, and just in that way it was removed from among the Government schools.

The exception only exists in this, that it is under the management of the university.

In other words, the control. But that is the whole peculiarity of this kind of school. It is just this control which characterizes the schools. It is nothing else than falling back again on private schools with special privileges. When the hon. Minister of Education said this afternoon that this was in a small way a school for the elite it looked as if a shock had been given to the friends on the opposite side. Don’t let us mince matters. I know nothing about this school. Everything that I have heard about its status I have heard to-day in this House. But what I do know about is the circumstances of other schools in the Free State and elsewhere which I know well, and it seems clear to me that what has happened there is precisely the same as what faces us now in connection with this school. Our friends went out from that principle and published it until I had to bow under it with the whole Free State, that we had to have public Government schools, because your child is no better than the child of the poorest man and that we should have Government schools, free schools. So we got public Government schools in the Free State where the position formerly had been quite different. What the hon. members opposite now say amounts to this: Although the child of the poorest man is just as good as my child, and I approve this in principle, I will not allow my child to go to school at the same free school and allow him to sit on the same benches as everybody.

I am sorry, but the time of the hon. the Prime Minister has expired.

I will then only say, verb, sap.

I am very sorry that we have to fight this battle against, apparently, the Minister of Finance, for I quite accept what he says that he did not know anything about this when he entered into this arrangement. The quarrel we have is with the Minister of Education, and we only regret that we could not fight it out on his suggested legislation. However, we are compelled to take this course, because if this goes through on the lines set out here it means that our assistance from the State is going to be reduced to £5 per scholar. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance do not understand the origin of the school. Prior to 1905 we have the voluntary system in the Cape. The Government took no initiative as regards schools, the responsibility resting entirely with the parents of the children who, if they wished to have a school established in their district, raised a guarantee fund, and then obtained from the State grants on the £ for £ principle. These schools were examined by inspectors of the Department of Education, and were to all intents and purposes State schools. “Sacs” arose in exactly the same way. In 1905 the Cape Parliament took education under its more immediate control and established school boards, which also started schools which were subsidized on the £ for £ principle. That system is still in existence. When the Act was going through the Cape Parliament it was suggested that owing to their exceptional position the schools attached to the South African College and to the Victoria College, Stellenbosch, should be treated on a different basis, and this was agreed to by the Cape Parliament. We maintain that these are not private schools in any shape or form, but are just as much public schools as the one at Rondebosch. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should leave us as we are until we come to fight the matter out with the Minister of Education. The Minister of Finance may say, “If I do this for you I shall have to do it for others.” But we are entirely and absolutely different from, say, the Diocesan College, which is essentially a church school, and was started by the Church of England, in the interests of the Church of England, and has never got 6d. from the State. The same with St. Michael’s School, in Natal. “Sacs,” on the other hand, is entirely undenominational. It was rather exceptionally treated by the Cape Parliament, the justification for that has been the tremendous success which we claim we have made of that school. It now has 1,158 scholars, and the school is a good feeder to our university. We are proud of the school, and we believe it is doing a lot of good, and its sole justification is the success we have made of it.

I only wish to add to what I have already said, that I hope my hon. friend for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will not think that what I said is directed against him. My whole position is that the discussion is entirely superfluous and that the subject never should have been brought up if it were not for the possibility that subsequently the school will be placed on another basis. I wish to say that I do not want to decide in favour of one side or the other. Regarding tradition, I am also fairly closely bound to the institution for which my hon. friend speaks, but that does not yet make me feel that I have the right to ask for special provisions for that school. What I feel is this. No mention of this school is made anywhere here, and, in fact, as my hon. friend said, he never knew anything about the school.

I believe that is perfectly correct.

And he provided for two broad classes. Under which of the two classes do these two schools fall? I don’t know, after all the discussion which has been going on. Under which class it has to fall is a question which has to be decided when the Minister of Education deals with it or the Administrator. I don’t see how my hon. friend can ask now that special mention be made of that school as falling under (a) after what he has said here himself, because (a) refers to what may be called, and what we call in the Free State and elsewhere, State schools.

He has included these 1,500 children in his figures.

Then, if that is so, my hon. friend is providing for them, and they will get the £16 if they are under (a). The gentlemen on the other side are afraid, in fact they are fairly certain, that the school does not fall under the schools the children of which will get £16. They feel that, and the only reason they want this school specially mentioned is in order that it may be got, and the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) admitted that this afternoon.

The Administrator has passed an ordinance which puts him in that position, and he only pays £5.

A draft ordinance?

Yes.

Then I am right in saying my hon. friends have taken fright at a shadow in advance. I don’t think my hon. friend can really expect the Minister to do what he wants. He has an agreement with the provincial authorities, and in this that he has laid before the House he complies fully with the agreement, and I don’t think my hon. friend can ask in this Bill that he should now come and assist him to prevent a mishap that may occur in the future.

I rise, not to join in this debate, but to make a suggestion. I have not been here for much of the time, and I am surprised that so much heat and eloquence and such a great deal of time has been consumed in the discussion of one particular school. There is a great deal to be said for the point of view of my hon. friend on my left. There is no doubt this one is the main school of the province, and it appears that an exception has been made before, in educational legislation, of this school and a similar school at Stellenbosch. Whether right or wrong, the exception has been made. This schedule deals with four classes, (a), (b), (c) and (d). The question is where to place this school. Unless we make provision for this school it may fall nowhere. It is not a private school. I see (a) is defined in the Bill. I cannot move an amendment, but I make a suggestion which may, be a way out. (a) is defined in clause 2, and he will find there is already an exception included in section 2, sub-section 2 (a)—

And now comes the exception to the Cape, including in the Cape Province the special clause—

Therefore in regard to item (a) the Bill introduces for the Cape Province one exception. I suggest for the consideration of the Minister that he introduce this other exception, and we say for the Cape Province—

There are only two schools that would fall under the provision, Stellenbosch and the school in Cape Town. Provision would then be made where an exception has already been made in the case of registered church schools, in connection with those schools connected with the university here. In this way we will be providing for this school, it would maintain its status and we should not be leaving this school hanging in the air, falling under neither (a) nor (d). It is an exceptional case, and has already been treated as an exceptional case, and there is no reason to switch on to logic; even if I admit the argument of the Minister of Education is accurate and logical, but don’t let us overdo the logic of the business. It has been an exception; we recognize the exception here under (a). Let us add a second exception and, in addition to these primary church schools, let us refer also to the schools that are controlled and run by the university.

I really do not understand all this pleading for this school to come under (a), that is to share in the increased grant. This is not a grant to the school, it is a grant to the province, and wherever we place this school the amount which it will receive from the province depends upon what arrangement the province makes for this school. We are really only dealing with two broad classes and this one exception which the Cape Administrator pointed out in Durban at the time, that to remove all doubts we must make special provision for these schools. It either falls under (a) or it does not. If it falls under (a) why mention it specially? If it does not fall there, why should I give this increased grant to the Cape Provincial Administration of over £12,000? The Administrator does not now claim that the school is entitled to the higher grant. He is quite satisfied with the position; and why should I give an increased grant of £12,000 out of the Union Treasury? Of course, it is possible that I may be forced later on to give this increased grant. Why should I go out of my way to make the Union Treasury liable for an additional £12,000, not to the school, but to the province, when the province is perfectly satisfied with the position as it is?

It is no credit to the province.

I think you can trust the Cape Administrator to look after the interests of the province all right. He has tried to get as much out of me as he possibly could. I think this is a part of the game.

No, no.

What I mean is that both parties are trying to get an advantage in the fight which is coming. This is not going to benefit the school financially, but the hon. member thinks that if I agree to this he will be in a stronger position to fight the Bill of my hon. friend when it comes on. We have had a full discussion on this matter now, and it does not really affect my Bill at all. This is just a preliminary fight which I can see looming in the distance.

Will my hon. friend assure us that we won’t be prejudiced by any action on the part of the Administrator if this schedule stands?

I do not see how you can be prejudiced.

The Administrator is drafting an ordinance which he can put through without much trouble. That ordinance lays it down that if this schedule goes through it is embodied in his Bill, and he can only pay this particular school £5 per head.

How can we prevent him from passing that ordinance, even if I bring that school under (a)?

Then we know that he will have to pay us as an (a) school.

Not at all; this is a grant to the province, not to the school. I have pointed out to hon. members earlier in the afternoon that if we start specifying we shall have a pretty big list. If you concede the principle to this school, you cannot exclude Orangia.

I think the Minister will agree that the whole reason for the confusion is this schedule. He has provided us with five thimbles, and he has put six peas on the table and one thimble is missing for the Sacs’ pea. I will read from Ordinance No. 5 of 1921, chapter 7, headed “Aided Public Schools”—

The Minister omits to say anything with regard to aided public schools. He has dealt with primary and secondary schools, the church primary schools, and with what he calls aided private schools, but what he has failed to provide for are these aided public schools. It is no use giving a classification and leaving out one class. We have heard a great deal about giving powers to the provincial councils. If the Cape Provincial Council wants to do away with aided public schools let them do it themselves. Why should the Minister do it? It seems to me that what the Minister ought to do is to put in the words “and aided public schools.” It only applies to the Cape. In the Cape the Minister is altering the position radically. Surely aided public schools cannot be aided private schools? When you say in an Act of Parliament that a thing is public you cannot say that means it is private. The whole thing has arisen from the fact that the Minister when he went to Durban was not aware of the provisions of Ordinance 5 of 1921. “Aided Public Schools” is the proper thimble for that particular pea. In regard to some of the arguments that have been used, the Minister of Education foreshadowed legislation. I think it would clear the air if the Minister would tell us whether he proposes to send his Bill to a Select Committee.

It is only one clause.

No matter. When an institution has had a status for over 50 years, surely the least they can ask is to be allowed to put their case before a Select Committee.

No.

Well, I think it is a hopeless position. The Minister is seeking by legislation to do away with things that have been in existence successfully for over 50 years without giving them an opportunity to state their case. I think it is unfair to deprive this university of this school, which is like depriving a university medical school of its teaching hospital. My information is that out of 750 male students at the Cape Town University last year, 240 came from this school. You are going to injure not only the school, but the university as well. I appeal to the Government for fair play. There is no classification under which the school comes. It would appear that it was entirely forgotten in the classification which pretends to be an exhaustive one.

I can assure the hon. member that I will find a “thimble” under which to put the “pea,” but I shall find my own “thimble,” and not his. I shall simply alter the Bill to make it “Aided schools, whether public or private.” The hon. member finds fault because I did not have the full Cape classification. Why should I? I never adopted the legal classification of schools in the other provinces. The Cape Administrator pointed out that he had another class, and I agreed that was entitled to come under the higher classification, and the Cape Administrator was evidently satisfied that this particular school should come under that, and I shall make the necessary arrangement to see that this particular “pea” comes under its proper “thimble.” I certainly was under no obligation to make provision for the Cape classification. I had my own classification, and as long as I can have this, and the provinces are satisfied, I am satisfied.

Did the Cape Administrator give the Minister figures showing the actual number of pupils attending each school, or all the schools under each class?

Not at Durban, but I presume my department were subsequently furnished with the numbers for the purposes of the estimates.

We ought to be able to ascertain from those figures whether the college school figures were included or not.

Does the Minister intend that these schools shall fall under the classification in sub-section (d), which entitles schools to receive a grant of £5 per pupil? If the effect of the amendment is to put them under (d), the Minister would give them £5, but the Administrator, if he chooses to make them into board schools, can claim up to £15 per scholar. At present they receive £11 per head. It means that with the aid of this schedule the management of this school will be told “If you will not concede your position and come under the management of the school board, you take a lower grant, under which it is impossible for you to come out.” The whip that is to be used against them is the second schedule of this Bill. Why should the Minister set out to make such a whip to be used by the Administrator to chastize this particular school? I appeal to the Minister to say that he will not be drawn into this controversy. It seems to me that when the estimates were put before him by the Administrator, whom he describes as so astute, that 1,500 children would have been put under the category of £15 per head. If this arrangement is adhered to the Administrator will be given a lever to bring about a change of policy to which the Minister should not lend his authority. Why should Parliament be asked to interfere in the dispute? It will be sufficient to bring in this school in the classification under (a), and then the Minister of Education, if he thinks it necessary to make a change, should bring in a Bill repealing or amending the Act which entrenches the position of the school, and then the Minister will meet his opponents face to face on an entirely straight issue. He should say to them, “I don’t wish this matter discussed with the extraneous introduction of financial matters affecting the relations of the provinces. I am prepared to fight and contest it on its merits from an educational point of view.” The Minister would then be able to say that he had certain arguments and reasons which he claimed to be sound, and we could be prepared to meet them. The Minister will find that a large body of opinion and advice would be brought to bear from outside this House to assist him in dealing with this particular matter. This is not the proper time or occasion to settle an important departure in our educational policy, but I suggest he should rather fall in with the view to allow sufficient description of the classification to go into the schedule to enable this school to enjoy the full benefit of the £14 per pupil, and if he feels as a matter of sound educational policy that a change should be brought about in the classification, then bring it in a Bill for that purpose.

I have been asked whether, when the estimates were prepared, or had we, at any given time, received from the provincial people certain figures in connection with these figures. I find in December last when we called for the estimates they gave us 1,560 pupils in university schools, and claimed £5 per pupil for them, a total of £7,800.

The hon. Minister should not be surprised at that.

But members say we are wrong in thinking these pupils were included in the higher category. This is also the interpretation placed on this by the Cape administration.

I don’t question the correctness of that. The Minister should not be surprised at receiving those figures from the Administrator. The hon. Minister’s colleague at Durban, the Minister of Education, had agreed to those figures.

I had nothing to do with it.

Then the Administrator must be wrong. He said in an interview with the university authorities that he had discussed with the Minister of Education the possibility of these schools being recognized for the purpose of the grant, in the same way as schools to which he had referred, and by “the Minister” I take it he means the Minister of Education.

No.

Then he must mean the Minister of Finance, though I do not see how that is possible. He told us that the Minister replied that the Government was anxious that these schools should be placed under the school board, and that if they continued to be controlled by the university councils, under the present circumstances, the provincial administration would receive in respect of these schools a capitation grant of £5 in accordance with the proposed general principle applicable to State-aided private schools. We were discussing with the Administrator at the time the arrangement come to in regard to this matter at Durban. I take it that the Minister of Education discussed this matter with him at Durban.

Yes, we did at a much later stage, only a few weeks ago.

The Minister will excuse me if I say that cannot be so, for this interview was held on Monday, January 26th, 1925. That is more than a few weeks ago. The Administrator made the statement to us then. I must say I do not know where we are in this matter. We have it definitely from the Minister of Finance that this is a matter entirely for the provincial council, and yet the Administrator says that this is the suggestion of the Government. I, personally, think we are entitled to some very clear explanation in regard to this matter. The Minister of Education, we know from the whole of his attitude, not only this afternoon but on other occasions, is determined to bring this school into a position which the authorities do not wish it to come to. We know that he is determined to bring it under the conditions laid down here. His attitude has been such that there is no compromise. I go further, and say that there has been no reason in the attitude he has taken up. The Administrator says he is not to blame for it; the Minister of Finance says he is in the hands of the Administrator, and the Minister of Education says, “You must do this.” Now, where are we?

At the Durban conference the Minister of Finance and I were present. I took part in the conference only in so far as the transference of technical and trades schools from the provinces to the central Government was discussed. I took no further part in the conference. The grants for education are regulated between the Minister of Finance and the various provincial administrations. It only subsequently came to my notice that this definite arrangement had been made, and whether this school was included in a certain class or not. At a later opportunity I also met the Administrator, whether it was in January or March it makes no difference, and I said to him that it was my conviction that those schools should not be connected with the universities. That was always my conviction. I was for a long time member of the council of the Stellenbosch university and I always maintained there that it was an anomaly and that it should be removed as soon as possible, although the school then paid. I also said that to the Administrator that was my conviction, and it is probably to that reference is made. I was consistent but as regards this specific measure, I had nothing to do with that in Durban.

Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), as printed, put and agreed to.

On paragraph (d),

Here I wish to move—

I thought this was a sacred agreement that could not be altered. Here the Minister is withdrawing one “thimble” and substituting another. It is not providing what I want, that is a place for aided public schools. It is better to leave in the word “private” and to make special provision for aided public schools.

This is carrying out the agreement.

It is possibly carrying out the agreement, but the classification did not carry it out. This is going to lead to greater confusion than ever. The word “private” should not come out because it refers to a special class of schools. If the Minister will look at the Ordinance of 1921, he will find that is the class referred to there as church schools.

Other provinces have Ordinances.

I hope the Committee will not agree to leave out the word “private,” because it will make the confusion worse than ever.

I agree with the last speaker; it is really rather unfair and places us in a worse position than ever.

What about Natal?

They are all private schools in Natal so leave it as it is.

The whole argument has been that this particular class of school does not fit in any classification. I want them to fit in the classification agreed upon.

The lowest.

What difference does it make to this particular school? The school does not get the grant.

It makes all the difference.

It does not make any difference. I have to make the necessary financial provision to enable the province to carry out its educational functions. I have nothing to do with the dispute between the school and the provincial administration. I am carrying out the agreement with the provinces, and the provinces are satisfied. I did not consult the provincial council, I consulted the provincial administration. The hon. member said I need not consult anybody, that this House is supreme.

I said you did not consult the provincial council.

Surely you do not mean that I should consult them?

You should have allowed them to decide under what classification it should come.

The responsibility rests on the Government. I tried to get a settlement satisfactory to the responsible people, and the provinces agreed to the settlement. The Government has decided this is to be the classification, and I am sorry I have to abide by it. If I take out “private” I take away the advantage. The word “aided” is comprehensive enough to include “public” and “private.” Even if I did not except the classification of the Cape Ordinance, I never intended to do so. Other provinces have their own ordinances, and what I was out to do was to have the term comprehensive enough to include all the schools I intended to benefit.

I think the Minister has missed the point we are making, that this ought to come under clause (a), to which it truly belongs.

That has been decided.

You said it could come under clause (b), and we pointed out that it could not. We did not ask you to bring it under (b). The Minister told us that he could not make any alterations in clause (a) because of the agreement with the Administrators. Now he makes an alteration in clause (b). I presume it makes a great financial difference.

The hon. member was not here when I answered his question as to whether they had given me an estimate of the number of pupils. I gave the number as 1,560 in the universities which got this £5, which shows they accept this principle that they are only entitled to this particular £5. That shows that we are carrying out the agreement.

I understood the Minister to say the whole of the schedule was as agreed with the Administrators.

Of course we had not the schedule ready in Durban; but what we agreed was that we would have two classes of pupils.

The same applies to (a).

The pity is that my hon. friend takes sides. There was some possibility of bringing this school into (a) before putting this amendment, because it does not come under private-aided schools. Now he is definitely taking away any chance of the school being put under (a). The Administrator proposed to put an ordinance through, but he need not do so now under this classification. Leave this business as it is.

I hope the Minister will leave it as it is, because it is worse as he proposes it now than it was originally, for he is going to ask the House to agree to the principle that church primary schools will get £14 per head, but public undenominational schools will receive only £5 per scholar. I can hardly think the Minister is serious when he makes such a suggestion.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

If you leave the word “private” out you will make the position much worse.

It is very dangerous indeed to leave the matter as it is, for supposing the House decides not to place the schools under any other classification at all, it really means that these schools will get absolutely nothing. With the Minister’s amendment, however, at all events they will receive £5, and hon. members can fight just as hard to have the amount increased from £5 per head as to have it increased from nothing. If it is not intended to increase the amount any further, hon. members had better take the £5 and be satisfied.

I understood from the Minister of Education this afternoon that he was reading a document which he claimed was an agreement between the Administrator and the college authorities. I drew his attention to the fact that there was no agreement.

It was a concession.

An offer of concession is no agreement. The Minister of Finance proposed one thing while the Minister of Education claims there is a contrary agreement. He have Ministers playing off each other to such an extent that we do not really know whom to follow.

Don’t follow either of them.

Now the Minister of Railways is going to intervene. We are told negotiations are actually proceeding, but the Minister of Finance will cut them out by saying, “I will decide that you must accept the £5.”

The provinces get the £5.

Then why not give the provinces a say in the matter? The Minister of Education does not agree with that, or why should he refer to the negotiations? We have two voices in the Cabinet. Which are we to accept as the voice of the Cabinet?

I may point out to the Minister that by deleting the word “private” the scope of the grant is widened, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment now. I could only accept it as an amendment when the Governor-General has given his consent thereto.

It is rather serious. We might not be able to find a thimble at all for this pea. The Treasury does not mind, but I am afraid if it is correct what the hon. member says and we cannot bring this pea under this thimble, I shall take steps at a later stage. If I withdraw it what is going to be the position?

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

Very well, I withdraw it.

What is the policy of the Minister? What does he intend? In what category does he intend to bring these schools? I think it might be advisable to report progress, and I move—

The MINISTER OF FINANCE called for a division,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—20.

Alexander, M.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J. Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—42.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé. A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; van Heerden, I. P.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Business suspended by the Chairman at 11 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.