I have to announce that notice of objection to the adoption of the first report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, presented to this House on the 14th February, having been handed to me by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) it now becomes necessary for a date to be fixed for the consideration of the report.

I move—

Mr. KEYTER objected.

Report to be considered on 17th February.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 21st February.

seconded.

This is a consolidating Bill and, as usual, you are trying to rush it through the House. Why can’t you give us a fortnight in which to consider it? It is impossible to study all the Bills in the few days now allowed. To take the second reading on Thursday will be a perfect scandal.

This is not the first time that the Government wants to have a Bill read the second time without people up-country having an opportunity of studying it. This is manifestly unjust. The Bill has never been published in the “Gazette,” and people outside do not know what is in the measure.

If the Bill is put down for Monday that is not to say that it will come under discussion on that day. In any case it is a non-contentious measure more or less, and it is a Bill which is to go to a select committee, so the House and the country at large will have plenty of opportunities to know what its contents are. To meet the convenience of hon. members on the opposite side, I would say let us take the second reading on Monday week.

Will the Bill go to a Select Committee before or after the second reading?

After the second reading.

That is no good.

Amended motion put and agreed to; second reading on 28th February.

I move—

Mr. LE ROUX seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. STRACHAN seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I have always taken up the attitude that matters of a religious or moral character should be raised above party politics, and I have the same view with regard to this motion. It well-known that the Minister of Education last year declared himself in the House and elsewhere against the tendency of this motion. I think, however, that it is also clear that the Minister does not regard it as a party matter which concerns confidence in the Government. If that were the case, then the Minister is in the difficult position of having motions of “noconfidence” from all the National party congresses, except that of the Cape. I am going to treat the motion as being a non-party question. It speaks of a so-called conscience clause. To make this plain, let me read the section appearing in the various University Acts and in the Higher Education Act—

This conscience clause also found a place in our higher education Acts in 1916 It is furthermore true that something of the kind appeared in the old Cape Act or 1873. As the old Cape University was, however, only an examining body, no objection was made to the clause. When, however, it was incorporated in 1916 in the Higher Education Acts, when our universities were created, an objection was raised to it. It was demanded of the Minister concerned that it should not be inserted to create trouble and wake sleeping dogs. For various reasons, however, it was included, and from that time protests have constantly been raised by private individuals, as well as by church bodies. I do not know the attitude of all the English churches, but the Church of England has taken up a very clear standpoint, In 1920 the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Transvaal passed a resolution I well remember the discussion, because I introduced the motion—with the object of giving the churches the privilege which is to-day asked for in my motion. The Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province, the largest church body in South Africa, discussed the matter in 1924, and appointed a commission of four influential persons to go into the matter and to lay a resolution before the synod. Two previous moderators, the Rev. Mr. Pienaar and Dr. H. P. van der Merwe, the Rev. Mr. de Villiers of Worcester (a man who is known in the Cape church as one of the most moderate ministers), and the Rev. N. J. van der Westhuizen, served on the commission, considered the matter, and drafted a resolution. Finally, this resolution was unanimously passed (and it must be remembered that practically every congregation in the Province was represented by a minister and elder)—

The Reformed Church, the other large Dutch church, has already ranged itself most strongly against the conscience clause for years. We know how it had its own institution at Potchefstroom, not so much a church establishment as one under the leadership of men who appreciated the necessity for Christian higher education. The Potchefstroom college stood on the broad basis now asked for in the motion. The institution in question always most strongly opposed this clause, and remained outside the University of South Africa for that reason. It was, however, compelled to join up by two circumstances, firstly to get recognition of its degrees, and secondly for financial reasons. Yet there was nevertheless a constant protest against the clause. As for the Hervormde Church in the Transvaal, that is the only Dutch church which has declared against the removal of the conscience clause. We know that this is the smallest Dutch church in the country, with the smallest number of congregations, especially in the Transvaal, and that under influence which can easily be understood if we know the same kind of struggle in Holland did not meddle in this matter. My motion does not ask that we should simply go and delete the conscience clause from the Higher Education Act. I do not want to interfere in a university where it is not demanded. Our universities are not purely Government institutions, but are supported privately as well as by the State. They are subsidized by the State on a certain scale, and as such I should be the last to interfere in the business of universities who wish to retain the conscience clause, and do not wish it removed from their Act. My motion does not ask for this, but it asks the Government to pass legislation which will make it possible for a university or university college, if it so desires, to have its basis described, and to go on the principle on which Potchefstroom stood and the free university of Amsterdam stands to-day. The motion simply deals with a matter of equality. I know that it is the crux of the whole matter on which the Minister stated that he differed from me. In this connection, I want to quote from the speech of the Minister at the Cape National party congress. According to that, he had said the following to a committee that called on him about the matter—

I know that the Minister used those words in a warm debate, and think that he did not mean them. I mention it, however, to remove all doubt, because if there is a church which has shown that it is in earnest, it is the Reformed Church. I do not belong to it, and differ in some respects from it, but I can say that it is a church which has made great sacrifices for its convictions. It was established at Potchefstroom in 1869, and made tremendous sacrifices for that purpose and to maintain itself. It would, therefore, be entirely unjustified to doubt the earnestness of these people. Why is it that Potchefstroom and other people who are concerned in the matter are not satisfied with the offer of the Minister, viz., to have a private Bill introduced and to give grants on the £ for £ principle? In the first place, they object to the manner of introduction, because we all know how private Bills are dealt with, when it is a matter concerning a great difference of opinion. The expense, too, is high. Then undoubtedly the offer of the Minister to assist the university or university college wanting to operate without the conscience clause on the basis of the £ for £ principle, is a thing which will press heavily on such institutions in comparison with the other universities and university colleges. There is no doubt that the Minister will agree that it will kill the universities and university colleges. Things are bad enough to-day, although the grants are not made on the £ for £ principle. For the first £2,000 which a university or university college collects a subsidy is granted on the basis of £3 for every £1, then £2 for every £1 for the following £13,000, and only thereafter on the £ for £ principle. So far it is a question of students’ fees. As regards other revenue, such as, e.g., legacies, the grants to-day are on the basis of £2 for £1 for the first £2,000, and thereafter £ for £. It is not only in the matter of grants that other institutions will be privileged. There are, e.g., bursaries granted by the State as well as the pensions of teachers, all matters of the greatest importance of which one must not lose account There is still another reason, the weightiest of all, why people interested in the matter and why Potchefstroom objects to the offer of the Minister, viz., a matter of conscience. They ask why, in a country like South Africa, where even this exalted body has laid down that this is a country acknowledging Christianity and a belief in a Supreme Being, and has put it in the Constitution, less rights should be given to the Christian point of view than to the neutral or even indifferent point of view. Why should the universities that want to stand on a Christian basis be penalized? Why should such a university be asked to make special sacrifices for its Christian convictions? In the quotation I have made, the Minister says that Potchefstroom does not wish to make the sacrifice for its religious convictions, but the question at Potchefstroom is—why should we in South Africa, a Christian country where we are all taxpayers, make sacrifices, and yet the indifferent or neutral basis be preferred to the standpoint of the serious-minded man? The Christian who wants his son to go to a university with a Christian basis should not pay more than the other man. It is a matter of principle about which to-day the fight is the strongest. Let me point out that the standpoint which the people take up in this connection is very fair. The fact that an institution is on a neutral basis already indicates its basis in a certain direction. It provides that a lady or man can act as a teacher who is irreligious or anti-Christian. It must not be forgotten that many of the students to-day are only 17 years old. I do not wish my sons to daily sit at the feet of a man that I know to be anti-Christian, materialistic or to hold an irreligious philosophy of life. I want a university where I know that Christian knowledge will at least have its rights. The Minister has already said that by the abolition of the conscience clause we are seeking an incubator for the Christian religion, and want to make the universities incubators thereof. That is far from our thoughts. We know that Christian knowledge can maintain itself and does not need an incubator. If it was a mere matter of rivalry in the universities, it would be another question. It is not, however, the case to-day when we are going to put an inexperienced student at the feet of a learned professor with an entirely different philosophy of life. In that way a student is brought under an influence which he cannot stand against, because in his first years at the university when he is unformed—many do not stay on longer—he is easily influenced. It is stated that there are universities in the country to-day which are breeding places of anti-Christian views. It may be that the matter is exaggerated by some people, and I do not want to go into the merits of it. There is, however, no doubt that there are professors to-day in more than one place acting in such a way, even if it is done innocently, that the Christian views of the young students are undermined. Consequently the supporters of the abolition of the conscience clause want to have a place where Christian ethics will have its rights. I do not mean a kind of university where only biblical doctrine will be taught, but where the Christian standpoint will also be clearly stated when the other standpoints are being stated. No one wants a kind of incubator. Our people have been frightened by the statement that if our request is granted, the State will be obliged, not only to distinguish our church and university, but that there will also have to be a university for Mohammedans or Buddhists. May I point out that even today under the existing statutes the State will pay for the higher education of a person, whether his convictions are Roman, Buddhist, or anything else. There are believers in the doctrines of Buddha and Mohammet among the whites, and if we have a professor who holds one of those convictions, the State will pay him as a professor. It seems to me that I hold a much broader view than the Minister himself, if at least I understand him correctly. My point of view is that we are following a wrong line and are doing violence to the personal convictions of people if we follow the injurious system which is more and more defended in educational matters, of seeking general uniformity in the world. My standpoint is: Give absolute freedom to all sections of the population, and even if the Roman church can show and guarantee that there is actually a need for a university sharing the convictions of Roman Catholic students without the standard of the education suffering, then I say—if the Minister is really convinced of there being such a need—I can without any hesitation give my support to a scheme to give such a university to the Roman church and even to the Mohammedan church, always under the proviso mentioned. We are not, therefore, preaching any mediaeval intolerance. We are merely asking for freedom for all portions of the population, and the sovereignty in his own circle which will enable every man to educate his children according to his religious convictions. Now the question is asked what religious doctrine the various denominations with their different views will allow to prevail at a university. I do not want to go into that, and I do not think the Minister should put the question. The only question he should ask is whether there is any danger of the State being undermined, whether it is a question of an anarchist plot or something of that kind. The Minister need go no further, so long, of course, as the university complies with academic requirements, so long as science is provided for. Beyond this, the Minister has nothing to do with the religious convictions as such. He must only put the question whether the profession of faith is not a danger to public order and to society. The objection made to the principle I am defending, and which the motion advocates, is of a still deeper kind. It appears in the words that Senator Langenhoven used at the congress which dealt with this matter when he said—

I do not know whether Advocate Langenhoven said that intentionally, or whether it was political cleverness or far-reaching superficiality. We can certainly not attribute it to ignorance. There is no question of fear for science. There is indeed an objection to those people who in the name of science defend propositions resting on no scientific proofs. The unscientific institution he is so afraid of is less unscientific than the tendency he is defending. If it is a fact that Christian ethics stand under unscientific authority, as he there said, then it is undoubtedly also a fact that the material science is also under unscientific authority—itself is under unscientific authority. Let me just say first of all that the idea some people still have about exact science is a fiction. That has been well tested, and people have defended it, but science cannot merely remain at what is called exact science. On the first road of enquiry, all investigation are equal, unbelieving or believing, Mohammedan, Buddhists or Christian. So far as it is a question of weighing and measuring and perceiving, it is all the same, and it is not a matter of belief. Where it is a matter of mere perception, there is no question of religious convictions and all follow the same road, but anyone knowing anything about science must agree that the human mind cannot remain at the mere question of perception. There the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will also agree with me. He sits here also as a philosopher (and I want to congratulate him on his recent book, a book which sometimes makes one wish that he had become a professor, and not leader of the Opposition; perhaps he would then have done more good, although I do not say that everything he does to-day is bad). To commence with, everyone goes the same way, but as soon as it comes to the higher flights of the human mind, as soon as one gets to asking questions about origin, existence, predestination, the perception cannot be definite, and there the religious conviction begins to stand in opposition to those who have no, or a different, religious conviction, and then the views differ so much that the cleverest people are ultimately in irreconcilable conflict with each other, and as, when there is a question of the higher thought of the human mind, there can be no question of reconciliation between the Christian view of life and the other material or atheistic view. What is the believer’s view of life? The view which regards facts from a believing standpoint, while the unbeliever’s view is that which regards facts with an unbelieving eye. One cannot get away from this, that there is a religious and an irreligious view which are opposed to each other. There is no middle way. As this is so, we have the right to ask that the science of religion shall come into its own, and although material science can also be studied and enquired into at the various institutions, the certainty should at least exist that the religious tendency should be taught and come into its own at the universities. That is what is asked for. It is not a matter of fear of science. If we could regard the matter from an unprejudiced point of view, from the material as well as from the religious standpoint, then we must conclude that the science of religion should be just as free as material science. We are not afraid of science as such. We are afraid to allow our youth to only see things through the tinted glasses of unbelief. The standpoint of the church, on the contrary, has always been reasonable. It is foolish to speak of the unscientific authority of the church, as if the church wanted supreme authority over the universities. The point of view, at any rate of the church to which I belong, the Dutch Reformed Church, has always been that we do not wish for any church universities. People confuse Christian society with church institutions. We ask that people holding a religious conviction shall be given the same rights as those who do not hold them, and that their religious convictions shall be respected at the universities. The standpoint taken up by the church has always been grounded on the Bible, viz., that science is no more a function of the church than of the State. We now find that the State is interfering more and more, and wants to dictate, and we allege that the State has not that right. All the State has to look after and may look after is that the money granted by it to universities is properly spent, and that academic teaching is properly given and is of such a high standard that the grant can be freely given. The church indeed operates in a negative sense, viz., that it does not wish the universities to become incubators of a material view conflicting with Christian convictions, but it goes no further, and does not want a church university. Senator Langenhoven can therefore not speak of the position of the universities under an unscientific authority. This same absurdity is preached by arousing the impression that the church recently had been engaged in shuffling its work on to the State. That is the last thing the church wants to do. I think I have made our standpoint clear. We feel that a portion of the population, and I think the greatest part of it, is being unjustly treated. The Minister has taken up the attitude that we want to exclude a part of the population, and that is the reason why he could not give any grant. He argues that we will be throwing a burden on the State, because the State will also have to supply institutions for those who would be excluded. That, in the first place, I think, is incorrect. The State did not establish the universities. They are not mere State institutions. The State merely grants allowances to private universities and colleges. But what the Minister says is precisely what has already become the custom to-day. He says that a burden will be laid on the State to establish institutions for those who are excluded. The very people, however, who are behind the motion and are protesting feel that they are excluded by not being allowed to have their children educated according to their own views, and they ask for equal treatment with others of the so-called neutral point of view, for which the State in fact makes provision. I trust I have made it clear that we are not taking up a mediaeval point of view, but a standpoint of granting the same rights to those who now feel themselves excluded. The Minister has argued that if what is asked for in the motion were granted, every denomination could come and ask for a university representing its tenets. I have already said that I have no objection to that. Any church, if it is willing to take upon itself the private burdens connected with the university, if there is an actual need, and if the grade of teaching is guaranteed, should be allowed to have the right. I therefore ask for equality for all Darts of the population, liberty and acknowledgment of Christian ethics, and I ask that we should no longer permit Christian ethics and the people who stand for them to be excluded from the university, and that the universities should also acknowledge the principle—

I second the motion. The matter is again before the House and we shall hear more of it in the future if this motion is not passed. There is a strong movement in the church to have the conscience clause removed from the Higher Education Act, and it is not only in the Dutch churches. The Dutch churches have fairly generally spoken in favour of the abolition, except the Hervormde Church in the Transvaal, which only spoke through its church council, and not through its synod. The church council—or the majority, at any rate—has decided against the abolition of the conscience clause, but the synod has not yet done so, and that is another matter. When the matter comes before the synod then it will be found out that there is a considerable number of adherents of the church who identify themselves with the view that the conscience clause should be abolished. The English churches have not yet expressed themselves on the point, but we have the best assurances of support from a large portion of the Church of England and of the Wesleyan Church, not to speak of the Roman Catholic Church. The last-named has had the wisdom never to allow education of children to be taken out of its hands. Moreover, formerly we never had the conscience clause. It was only incorporated subsequently. I do not know whether it is apeing other countries, but formerly the previous system worked well in South Africa. The church thinks that higher education has too great a tendency to make the young people, who get a scientific education at the universities, lapse from the Christian religion. I do not know whether the church is not right in its view. We do not want the State to come in by means of the universities and assist in maintaining religion. The church does not ask this, and does not want it. It wants the maintenance of religion to remain in more suitable hands. We do not here ask anything with which to make church propaganda in the future. Not at all, because the church does not need to ask assistance from the State for propaganda of one or other denomination. The church only asks that the State should not interfere where it, the church, is trying to maintain the Christian religion. The church does not want religion to be pushed down the throats of the children in the universities, nor do I want unbelief to be so instilled. The church wants to be left in peace about this matter. We shall hear more about the matter. The feeling in the church is already fairly strong to-day. If it does not get its way then we shall hear of the matter being made an election cry. I am not in favour of this, and it will be a pity if it occurs, but as I read public opinion and from the enthusiasm I notice it will yet become an election cry. I do not approve of this, but I am not the master of the feelings of the public. I think the church is here making a very fair request, because they merely want to be free in the choice of a professor, and do not want professors in the universities and university colleges who speak contemptuously of religion. When I want my child to learn about religion I will not put him under a man who has never studied theology. It would be foolish to think that the Christian religion is merely a matter of feeling and sentiment. It is a science, and the great truths of the Christian religion are based on science. One must know before you can believe. One cannot go and speak about religion if one has never made a study of it. If any one wants to study religion he must go to a theological faculty where he can make a study of it. We do not want professors in our universities who express hostility towards the Christian religion. They should be prohibited from uttering their feelings inside the university. A man’s convictions are free, but we do not want anti-Christian doctrine to be preached within the walls of the universities. Let them go and speak in public where others can contradict them, but they must not in a secret way in their lectures in class-rooms wheedle the children away from Christianity. We merely want the maintenance of the Christian religion to remain in the hands of the Christian churches. I think we are making a reasonable request, and I think the dissatisfaction will increase if the people cannot get their way as regards this motion. We cannot stop it, because a strong Christian feeling exists in the country, and I am thankful that it is so. I am not responsible for the feelings of the public, but I can observe and see that it, is increasing. The movement will go further than it has hitherto done. Why should such a limitation be put on the Christian religion. Why should religion be mentioned in the Higher Education Acts as a matter about which an enquiry may not be made? Anything can be done except that. If there is a university college which wants to place a premium on religion as against science and appointments are made for religious reasons, and the parents of the children are satisfied, let it continue. The parents will, however, soon object if a professor be appointed merely because he is considered a religious man. If you cannot get both, religion and science, then the man with scientific capacity should have preference. But let him keep his mouth quiet where he is teaching physics, chemistry, zoology or philosphy. I think the Minister will be wise if he sees this, and will give the churches liberty to appoint people and to do what they wish. I know that the argument has been mentioned that, in appointing a man, you require him to be a Christian and that hypocrisy is very ripe in the world. It is stated that anyone can represent himself as religious just to get the appointment, and that after a year he may appear a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What is then to be done? The governing body has the same means of objecting to a man who is called in to teach physics, philosophy or chemistry, and then speaks contemptuously of religion. If there is an objection, then the governing body can be given power to act. If there are universities which do not wish to abolish the conscience clause then they need not do so, but if the people want it then they must be given the freedom to appoint teachers who hold religious convictions. I think that if we concede this we shall hear no more of the matter, and there will be less annoyance in the future.

It is very difficult to speak after the Ministers, but I have no hesitation at all in rising to heartily support the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). I hope the Minister of Education will use his common sense, because a reasonable request is being made today. The hon. mover has clearly explained the matter, and I do not want to repeat the same arguments. We know, however, that we have to do with a very important matter, and for my part I am very sorry that such a clause was ever placed on the statute book. I do not want to blame any one for it because, perhaps, I am myself just as much to blame. The mover has explained the standpoint of the churches. The Minister, according to the mover, went so far as to promise support for private institutions for higher education on the £ for £ principle if they choose not to use the provisions of the clause, but I regard this as nothing else than penalizing people for their Christian principles. The matter is not a party question, but the Minister has stated that the whole movement has arisen at the Potchefstroom University College. I deny that. A. commission was appointed and the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province is represented on it by such men as Professor Moorrees, Dr. van der Merwe and the Rev. Messrs. Botha and Meiring. Even if it comes from Potchefstroom, then I am glad that there is a body in the country to move in the matter. I cannot understand why the Minister opposes it. We know that he is an obstinate man sometimes, but the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) has very clearly stated that this is not the last time the Minister will hear of the matter. I can assure him that the church bodies—not only the Reformed Church—will not rest until the request is complied with. We are assisting the institutions for higher education who want to abolish the conscience clause and to be put on the same basis as other institutions with regard to grants. I hope the House, and especially my friends on this side, will feel that this is a matter of conscience. I object to the existence of the clause, because our young people are slack enough, and if they once go to the university then they will be their own masters. Things are in a sad state to-day. I think we have done wrong in the past in incorporating the clause, but as we now have the opportunity we ought to rectify the wrong. It is a great pity that the Minister of Education attaches so little importance to the debate as not to stop in the House. I regret that the Minister has no respect for the feelings of hon. members, and of the Dutch churches, seeing he will not take the trouble to remain in the House and listen to the arguments. I, however, do not know the reason why he did not stop here. I can assure the House that this is not a matter which will end here if the motion is rejected and, if the Minister does not wish to bump his head, he ought to give in.

I must say that I regret that the Minister thinks so little of the Christian church and Christian principles that he left his seat while this important matter was being debated. It is a matter of great popular interest, and concerns a great principle, the unalterable faith on which the Afrikander people has been built up for the last 100 years and more, and we cannot play in this way with the Faith. As the conscience clause now reads in the University Acts it means nothing else than that a penalty is put on the Christian communion. If they want to see their Christian principles maintained in the universities then the latter will not get the same grants as other institutions. It, therefore, amounts to a penalty on the religious convictions of our people. I do not say this because I am a believer, but it is a fact that the man who does not believe in God is nothing else but an animal. Our whole future as a people depends on the principles of faith on which the race was built up. I need not go further into the matter. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has very ably dealt with it, but we have here to do with a big principle which affects the greatest part of the population of South Africa. We have the great principle that we are maintaining freedom of religion, but now the Christian principles are to be encroached upon in this way and religious people are to be penalized because they want to see their principles maintained. This is altogether wrong, and even if the motion is defeated in the House we shall hear more of it.

I did not intend to participate in this debate, but after listening to the hon. members I was wondering whether we were living in the days of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition or the twentieth century. If these hon. members had their way, I would not be allowed to stand up and speak to-day, because the logical result of their speeches would be the application of a religious test to every member of Parliament, for they do not mean belief in God, but belief in the Christian form of religion, and that only.

And their own denomination.

The thesis of the mover and his supporters is that there is only one form of religious belief that you can recognize, and that is the Christian form.

That is not so.

“Christelike” means Christian.

I claim this right even for Mohammedans and Buddhists.

But the motion deals with the matter on a Christian basis, and the result of the motion would be that all the large colleges founded on a Christian basis would have the right to ask every student, lecturer and professor if he believes in the Christian religion, and if he does not he would not be allowed to go there.

No.

Hon. members do not seem to see the road they are taking. The words in the motion are there and they can mean only what I say. I am proud to live in a country where people, irrespective of their religious beliefs, can all meet on a common platform of humanity and brotherhood, and the way in which we believe in God makes no difference. But the hon. members who support this motion want to take us back to the rule of the Spanish Inquisition. As soon as you begin to introduce religion into your educational system you are going to have nothing but trouble. This has been the history of every country. The hon. members referred to this conscience clause as though there was something wrong about it, but I regard it as the Magna Charta of all religious minorities in the Union who worship God just as sincerely as these hon. members do, although in a different way. The Minister of Finance does not ask me when I pay my income tax or licence monies what my religious belief is, but these hon. members want those who do not belong to a particular denomination to pay money for the maintenance of institutions from the benefits of which our children would be excluded. But they do not ask for a remission of taxation for those who do not belong to the Christian faith, and so we shall have to be taxed for the upkeep of institutions which our children cannot attend. Parliament was wise in 1916 when it passed this clause. I was a member of the House then, and not a voice was raised against it. The conscience clause lays down that no test of religious belief shall be imposed on any person as a condition of his becoming attached to the university as a professor, lecturer, teacher or student, and preference shall not be given or advantage be held out in consequence of religious belief. One hon. member said the matter would be introduced at election time. I can assure him it will be like a boomerang that will recoil on him, and the effect on the voting point of view may be very different from what he expects. Nothing could he more deplorable than to introduce this question into an election. It would be another apple of discord introduced into South Africa in addition to the differences of race and colour. We know the result would be not to allow any person, who does not belong to the dominant faith, to send their children to these institutions. My children were born in South Africa, and if the hon. member gets his way, I shall have to send them out of South Africa. That is the logical result of this motion. It is the only possible meaning of the motion.

It does not mean that.

“Christian” does not mean “Christian”? I must confess I am not used to casuistry of that kind. I am used to a word meaning what it says. We can only judge the meaning by the word used. All those people who do not belong to the dominant faith will no longer have the right to have their children educated at the university, and will have to send them away, yet those people will be taxed all the same for the upkeep of the institution. The education, teaching, training and examination of students, the promotion of research and the advancement of learning in the Union are in the preamble of the University Acts declared to the objects of legislation. It is for that the universities are established, and there is nothing religious about the preamble. Surely the hon. member is not going to tell me that to prevent people thinking for themselves on religious matters it is necessary to produce retrograde legislation of this kind. There must be something wrong with the home and with the church if it does not infuse the right religious spirit into the children. In every community you should see that the churches get a better hold on the people by convincing them. It is in the church and the home where the work should be done, and it cannot be achieved by the introduction of retrograde legislation. To ask us to vote money for institutions to oppress those who do not belong to the dominant faith is asking us to go back to the dark ages. Surely these people are descendants of those who left Europe because they were persecuted for religious belief. If these people read their own history, they will know that sacrifices had to be made to maintain the principle of their religion. Why should they think hardly of a people who are prepared to make the same sacrifices. As they have gratefully received, let them be a little generous in giving. If an institution has to have a particular religious tenet, then it limits the area of its portals and its educational value. It is said the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Are not all these people God’s creatures? When you talk of religious belief you must consider whether the person believes in the Almighty, and not what particular form he adopts for worship. I deplore this motion as the most retrograde move I have ever heard of. I admire the firm stand taken up by the Minister. It must have been very difficult for him, in view of the pressure brought to bear upon him. There are many thousands of people throughout the country who do not belong to the faith of the Minister, but at the same time admire the stand taken up for the cause of religious freedom and freedom of thought. We must keep the liberty we have got, political, religious, civic and otherwise. Let us not land ourselves back into a position that, in a few years’ time, will remind us of nothing so much as the dark ages of Europe.

I cannot differ from what the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has just said, because the motion expressly stated what he is advocating. It clearly says: “Christian basis,” and we know what that means, and although it includes the majority of the denominations there are others who are not included. I also thought that the motion was not sufficiently exhaustive, nor do I believe that it ever was the intention of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) or of any church to give that definition which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) rightly reads into it. I think the hon. member for Winburg will agree with me that the use of the word “religious” instead of “Christian” will solve the difficulty of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). I am convinced that if there are professors at our universities of the religion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) even if they are loyal to their religion there will be no difficulty, and the motion is not directed against them; but it is another matter if there is a professor who has no religion whatsoever, an atheist under whose influence our children remain. I am opposed to our children running the danger of some such person undoing everything and taking away what the children learned at home. The children, in my opinion, are very impressionable at the colleges and they begin to ask, how is this and how is that possible, and I do not think that parents can be expected, when they are religious and have given a religious upbringing to their children, to be satisfied that some lecturer or other should lightly undo all the fruit of their labours. I certainly hope that the Minister will accept the motion, and that the Government will meet this great section of our people. If the Minister retains any sympathy for the people he will adopt the motion, and promise during the recess to again go into the matter fully and to introduce something during the next session which will remove the difficulties. That, I think, would prevent quite a lot of friction in the country. I need say no more about the matter because the hon. member for Winburg spoke so clearly. I am especially against the persons who have no religious convictions at all and who are without any religion, and I am frightened of the influence which they exercise on the children. I, however, trust that the hon. member for Winburg will accept an amendment to replace the word “Christian” by “religious.”

If that removes the objection of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) I am prepared to accept it.

I also hope that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) will be satisfied with that. I hope the Minister will favourably consider the motion.

I rise to congratulate the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) on framing a resolution that apparently means one thing and actually means another thing. The resolution as it reads is somewhat innocuous, but in reality I think that it involves a very serious state of affairs. As far as I understand, what the hon. member really wants is that the conscience clause in the university regulations which prevents an inquiry into the religious professions or beliefs of the professors shall be abolished. I submit that this takes us right back to the dark ages. Take, for example, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, when it was decreed that all members of the university staff must be in holy orders, must subscribe to the beliefs of the Church of England, and all students in those days on entering the universities had to make profession of public faith in the Church of England. That has gone to-day, and a good thing that it has gone. If a university wants a bacteriologist it wants to get the best bacteriologist, whether he be Christian or Buddhist. Let these religious tests be imposed upon your university professors and you limit the value of the know ledge that may be obtained from the teachers. I would like to add my congratulations to those of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) to the Minister for the courageous attitude he has taken up on this particular question in public. I also come of a faith that has been persecuted in the past. My stock have been barred from certain walks of life for their religious opinions, and I warn the hon. member (Dr. van der Merwe) that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are not saying much at the present time because they do not know much about this matter, but if he enters on the path of religious persecution in this country he is doing untold harm to the people of this country.

It surprises me that the hon. members for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) and Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) so wrongly understand this motion, and I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw). In the first half of his speech he was against it, and in the second half he was in favour of it, and finally he did not know where he stood. As for the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) I want to say that, as a supporter of the motion, I read it in the opposite sense, viz., that it has no other object than the advancement of freedom of conscience. The hon. member spoke about the Spanish Inquisition, but the ancestors of members of this side of the House fought against the Spanish Inquisition in the 80 years’ war, and attained the freedom of conscience which enabled the Jews to come into the country and enjoy their first liberty. As for England, we know that it supported freedom of conscience. The descendants of all races represented here can be proud of it and say that their ancestors were people who gave their blood for liberty of conscience. The whole object of the motion, as I read it, is to advance liberty of conscience, and if the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) is not satisfied with it he ought to move an amendment. As I understand him he is satisfied with the present position. If he, however, thinks his liberty of conscience will be interfered with, then there is nothing to prevent him moving an amendment. If it will advance liberty of conscience I will be the first to second it. What is the position? My opinion is—and I think it is a reasonable one—that the parent has not alone the right, but is called upon to look after the spiritual interests of the child. It is his duty and calling to see that the child is educated in such a way as he thinks desirable for it, because the parent is responsible As the case now is the largest part of the people of South Africa think that the education of their children should take place on Christian lines, and I think we as representatives of the people, have the right to demand that. In scientific matters we are at a very dangerous period. The doctrine of evolution has commenced to develop more in recent times, but needs further evolution itself to make it clear what its basis actually is. The danger exists in the development of scientific training, viz., the doctrine of evolution will go in a direction detrimental to the children in their Christian training. As this is so, I think that it is necessary for the motion to be passed, so that Parliament will go into the matter and express the voice of the people. I do not want to go further into the matter but just to express my opinion. I am in favour of the motion because I think that individual liberty of conscience should be advanced. If any members want to make any improvement with this in view then I shall be prepared to support an amendment.

I also wish to support the motion and I cannot see why there should be any difference of opinion in the House we are a Christian people—both sections—and it is only fair that the parents shall have the right of demanding that the man educating their children shall be a religious man The religion taught in the home should not be undermined by the professor or teacher. As I understand it the conscience clause was never included in our University Act, but I understand it was only introduced in 1912 or 1913.

1916.

In 1916 then it was put in although the former system had worked well all those years. I regard it as quite wrong, but do not now want to go into details. We now come and ask Parliament to abolish the conscience clause so that universities, when considering applications, can enquire into the religious views of applicants. The professors have a very great influence on the students, and if one of them does not believe in the Supreme Being, and is an atheist, it will have an injurious effect. Let me assure the House that the people feel very strongly about the matter, and that the Dutch churches support the motion. I have not yet heard of one Minister who is opposed to the motion.

Does the church consist of Ministers?

It certainly doesn’t only consist of members of Parliament. I was a member of the committee which is making propaganda for the abolition of the conscience clause and my impression is that the Dutch churches are unanimous in the matter. I am certain that if the people understood the matter they would also be unanimous. I want to appeal to the Minister of Education to meet us and not merely to say: “I have taken no this attitude and will maintain it.” We have a people’s Government in the country, and if the people want anything—history has taught this—in connection with its religion, and it asks for something which it thinks is right, then it will ultimately obtain it. I hope the House will not vote against the reasonable request in the motion.

I will commence by immediately admitting that this afternoon’s motion is undoubtedly one of the most important and most all-embracing problems which has ever come up for discussion in the House. There is undoubtedly a section of the people, an important section, which is behind the mover who has introduced the motion and it goes without saying that they are people of whom the House must take cognizance. On the other hand if the motion of the hon. member is passed, then something will be done here in the administration of the country which I cannot describe otherwise than as one of the most far-reaching and important matters, and before the House resolves on that I think it should think twice or thrice about it. While I am on the point of the supporters that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has behind him, I want to answer the statement he made here, viz., that the National party congresses were behind him with the resolutions that they passed, excepting the Cape National party congress. Let me in the first place say that he is entirely wrong with reference to the reeling of, and resolution that was passed by, Ills own congress in the Free State. I was present there myself, and the hon. member will remember that on the motion there made in connection with the abolition of the conscience clause several amendments were proposed, and that there was one amendment which was precisely the same as the motion to-day before the House. That amendment to the same effect was, however, rejected by an overwhelming majority. I think it cannot be denied, and there were other members of this House present. Therefore, if it is stated that the Free State National party congress agreed with the motion now proposed, it is not quite in accordance with the facts. As regards the attitude of the church, the hon. member for Winburg has already explained it. It has been freely stated by members, and I think repeated this afternoon, that the three Dutch churches in the country fully support this motion. The other churches outside the three Dutch churches have not made their voice heard. If it were a matter on which they felt strongly, then in the two years that it has been under discussion they would have made themselves heard about the subject. Not one of them, as far as I know, has made itself heard in favour of the abolition of the conscience clause. I go further, and say that, as far as I know, none of the prominent ministers of the churches has declared himself in favour of the abolition of the conscience clause. As regards the three Dutch churches, there is an authoritative body of one of them, viz., the church commission of the Dutch Reformed Church, which represents the synod when that is not in session, from which I have received official information that they do not identify themselves with the movement for the abolition of the conscience clause. As regards the other churches, we can, I think, safely assume that in the Reformed Church there is strong unanimity with reference to this matter. In the Dutch Reformed Churches in the four provinces there does not exist among the ministers, certainly not among the leading ministers, any unanmity, but a radical difference of opinion. I am glad that the hon. member for Winburg, in introducing his motion, did not take up the attitude which has been adopted for years by supporters of the movement that we should have a general repeal of the conscience clause in all universities. Such a demand is not made to-day, and I am glad at the change in this respect. I have called attention to this repeatedly, and I will do so again to-day, that we have not one Higher Education Act, but sixteen, and that each of the universities and colleges comes under its own Act. Those Acts were introduced as private Bills. Time after time those private Bills have been amended, and it would, in my opinion, be absolutely wrong for any Minister of Education to tamper with the University Acts to remove an important corner-stone from them over the heads of the governing bodies of the universities and colleges. The least that a Minister can do if anything radical is to be altered in private Acts is first to get the opinion of the board of those institutions, and I have already said, and now repeat, that there is only one institution for higher education which demands the abolition of the conscience clause, and that is at Potchefstroom. I can inform the House that an attempt was made at the University of Stellenbosch by a member of the University Council to induce the Council to give its support to the abolition of the clause, just as at Potchefstroom. It was one of the chief members of the Council, the minister at Stellenbosch, and the members of the University Council, mostly members of his congregation and religiously inclined people, when it came to the vote, left him standing alone on his motion to induce the Council to give its support to the minister for the abolition of the conscience clause. The proposal was opposed by another minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, also a member of the Council. And what applies to Stellenbosch also applies to all other institutions except Potchefstroom. Should, under these circumstances, a Minister of Education go and introduce legislation into Parliament over the heads of those boards? As Minister of Education, apart from my personal convictions, I will not do so. I am glad that the hon. member for Winburg clearly sees what the actual consequences of his motion will be. He has told the House that if there are objections to the conscience clauses in the Acts, and if we are to meet the people, we shall also have to do the same thing with reference to people of other religious convictions, and give them grants on precisely the same basis. He is right. He has argued for the principle that if we want Christian universities and colleges, we must, on the other hand, also provide for neutral institutions, and he had to go further and say that we should also have to have institutions of a decidedly anti-Christian tendency. We ought just as well also to give Mohammedan, Buddhist and any other groups in the country the same privilege, and the hon. member admitted it. He sees himself that that follows from his motion. If we were to do that, then we should depart from the principle which has been respected here for 100 years, and I ask, if we adopt that principle in our higher educational institutions, whether we should then have any reason for not applying the principle to primary education. I would even say that if we must choose between the two, higher and lower education, that I would rather select primary education, because children coming to the primary schools arrive with an undeveloped mind, with still unformed character, and they are far more amenable to influences on the part of the teacher, and if there is a question of the principle here advocated, then we should begin with primary education. At the universities the students who are no longer mere children are not so impressionable. They no longer adopt another’s philosophy of life from anyone, but come with a cut and dried view, and if there is anything which gives value to his conviction, then it is the opinion of things which he has got for himself. Truth is worth nothing to a person if it is forced upon him from without, but is valuable if he has fought himself for that truth. And if one seeks after truth, then light from outside must not be excluded, but he must have the opportunity of judging and choosing. I say that if we are to choose where we are going to apply the principle which the hon. member pleads for, whether in higher or primary education, then we must say it should be in primary education, and the principle has not yet been adopted by anybody that we should apply it to primary education. Why, then, to higher education? I am glad, too, that the hon. member, in his speech, did not tell the House which here and there has been done by other people on many platforms, viz., that our universities and colleges are hotbeds of unbelief. That was stated, but it was found on closer investigation that it was always much exaggerated. I took a little trouble to find specific instances, and made enquiries whether a lecturer or a professor at our universities had abused his position to wilfully undermine the religion of the students, and I must say that, notwithstanding my trouble, not a single actual case was brought to my notice. The allegations made were in each case exaggerated. I do not say that there are no unbelieving professors. It would be remarkable if that were so when one finds unbelievers in all other institutions. There are people who are unbelievers although they have grown up in the shadow of the church, and how, then, can we expect that there should be no unbelievers at universities and colleges? But as regards abusing their position, not a single case has been brought to my notice. I want to point out that what is actually asked for in the motion is that the governing bodies of the universities and colleges shall have the right to apply a conscience, a religious test, without on their side sacrificing anything for all the rights they are obtaining. I have already said that we should be introducing a perfectly new principle. In the second place, if we are going to give liberty to institutions to fix a specific basis by virtue of the conscience clause, it would burden the country with a potential financial burden, because the State would have to provide for the people who were excluded from the specific institutions because they could not pass the religious test, provision would have to be made for their higher education. We cannot exclude people from universities and colleges without providing proper education for them elsewhere. Thus some of the people who want this privilege will also have to make a sacrifice. The year before last this House passed a Financial Relations Act, and that provided that the State would give an allowance for every child in schools coming under the Provincial Council, but in the case of a private school the State would not give a grant on the same basis as in the ordinary schools. Therefore, in the past action has been taken in accordance with that principle, and if the hon. member wishes us to pass his motion, does he also wish us to depart from the rule we have hitherto followed? But suppose, therefore, that we were to act on this principle, and should allow institutions to escape from the conscience clause, and to come under their own specific basis, will they then be able to expect the same allowance as institutions that do not come under the basis described? And the worst is that if the motion is passed, it will lead to a religious feud of the worst kind in and outside of those institutions. There will be a portion who will try to get a majority on a university council to get rid of the conscience clause, another portion will try to remain where they are, and so the feud will arise. The second, however, is: Suppose that there are a number of institutions who cannot even get a majority in their own council to go out and to stand on their own basis. What will the result be? It will be that the application of that test because a test has now to be adopted—will be a dead letter. It will create a church and religious dispute in connection with each of the institutions. Let us clearly understand that if the test is applied, then it cannot only be when a man applies for an appointment as professor. If the test is only to be applied at the entry to a professorship, then it puts a premium on his honesty. The man who is irreligious will be able to represent himself as religious just to get the appointment, and when he is once appointed he will be able to preach whatever he wishes. Thus the test will have to be applied at the time of the appointment, and also subsequently, and it will have to be applied from time to time to make sure that the man is still a believer and orthodox. Coupled with this test there has to be one that if the professor, in the opinion of the governing body, is no longer orthodox and a believer, he shall he dismissed. I ask you if there are teachers in the various institutions who are to he dismissed on account of their belief, what sort of position you will get in the country? There will be a religious dispute in practically all our higher educational institutions. This presupposes that it is possible to apply such a religious test. If that is to be done, then it must be done by (he governing body. With all respect for the University Councils in our country, I ask how many people there are on the University Councils who can apply a test for the complicated religious and theological problems? With all respect for these bodies, I do not think that our University Councils are in a position to or can apply the religious test in the case of people applying for an appointment as professors. Once suppose that we are to have people in the governing bodies who can thoroughly apply the test, then I still ask what test is to be applied? It has been said here that we must apply the test of Christianity, and that is what the hon. member wants in his motion. Another hon. member who is just as good a Christian has, however, said that that is too narrow, and he only wants the word “religious” to be used. That will mean that a Buddhist or a Mohammedan, if he is only a religious person, may be appointed. There is only one formulary and creed which all Christian churches agree upon, and that is the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God the Father.” There is no other. Why does this agitation exist to-day? It is because it is said that there are professors in some institutions who preach the doctrine of evolution, and it is said that this doctrine is not Christian. Now I want to point out that there are many ministers who say that evolution is not contrary to Christianity, and can well be reconciled with the Bible. Apart from that, suppose the Apostles’ Creed were used as a test, then any person who believes in evolution can subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed and say he accepts it without its preventing him from holding the doctrine of evolution. What test, then, can be used if not the Apostles’ Creed? Hon. members say, or rather it has been said outside the House, we do not wish, in repealing the clause, to put anything else in its place. I say that if we do that, then in many cases it will be left to the option of the governing body to apply any test it likes. It may also be a church test, and because nothing is prescribed, any of the institutions will be able to make a purely church establishment of the institution. They will have full liberty to do so. I have said before, in and out of this House, that I believe in Christianity and Christian ethics, and the standpoint which I have taken up with regard to this matter is not because I do not believe in a Christian philosophy of life. I think that in this respect I am just as much in earnest as the hon. member for Winburg and other members of this House who support him, but I do not think this is the right way to maintain or advance Christianity. Christianity need not be afraid of showing itself in the world and in the scientific world, and for this very reason it is not necessary to take it and preserve it in a hot-house. The right way to go to work is for the churches to see that in every centre where there is a large number of students, there is a man who is equal scientifically to any man of science in the institution. He must teach the students the Christian view of life and the science of Christianity. Let me stats my experience when I was for some time a student in Edinburgh in Scotland. That is a place where there are thousands of students collected from all parts of the world, mostly medical students. A minister of the Church of Scotland is appointed who every Sunday evening used to hold a meeting for students in the largest theatre in the town, and he especially invited the medical students, and at his meetings dealt from a scientific and Christian standpoint with the difficulties of the students. The theatre was packed every Sunday night, and before his last meeting he asked the students to send in in writing any difficulties which he had not solved. The last meeting was employed to answer and solve these difficulties. The church in this way exercised great influence on the young students, a thing the professors at the university can never do. That is the way in which the church should try to throw its influence on young students, and not by establishing institutions where Christianity will be put into a hot-house, and the students be led to think that they ought to be afraid to bring Christianity to the notice of the scientific world. Therefore, in the interests of Christianity and if the church, I say that it would be injurious to pass the motion.

After listening to the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), it was quite clear to me that he had not followed my remarks. To say that this motion will bring us back to the dark ages is the kind of cheap criticism I expected. The intention is very opposite to the attitude take up in the discussion. The attitude I am taking up with this measure is even more liberal than that of the Minister of Education I believe in freedom for all sections of the community, and what I claim for the Christian community I should be ready to support for any other section whether Jewish, Mohammedan or Buddhist, so long as they are not bolshevists or a special danger to the community as a whole. Society, to use a phrase often heard after the Imperial Conference, consists of autonomous communities so far as their beliefs and disbeliefs are concerned and I am prepared to give them all their full rights. I do ask, however, that a minority shall not tyrannize over a majority. Often, in order to meet the wishes of a minority, a State will tyrannize over a majority.

The Flag Bill.

Yes, even the Flag Bill, if you like. It must not be forgotten that religion plays a big part in the education of the children. Exactly the same type of education that you have at home you should also further develop in your schools and universities. This certainly is not the point of view which people took intolerantly during the middle ages. I am willing to allow all the different sections of the community, if they are prepared to make out a case that it is necessary, to have the same privilege. I wish to claim for our universities the same right as has been given, for instance, to the South African Native College under the Act of 1923, they have this declaration in regard to the basis of that college—

That goes much further than I intend to go. It is certainly not my intention, as I said when I introduced my motion this afternoon, that it should be looked upon as a party political question. It is a religious, and to a certain extent, a moral question, and I think it should be kept out of our party political arena as much as possible. I claim at least this much for my motion, that it is not in any way retrograde, nor do I wish to introduce any inquisition into our universities. The Minister of Education has portrayed the awful state of affairs that would be brought about if this motion of mine were to be carried into practice. Why did we not have that awful state of affairs before 1916, when this clause did not exist? Why have we never heard of all this religious persecution going on in a university like the Amsterdam university? I know what that university has done, and I never heard of any sort of inquisition or persecution there. The Minister of Education says that the Stellenbosch University is not in favour of this proposal, and that he thinks all the universities, with the exception of Potchefstroom, will be in favour of abolishing this test. It that is the case, why are we afraid of Potchefstroom? I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of any of the universities. If the University of Cape Town wishes to remain under this clause let it do so, and if the University of Stellenbosch holds that view, then let it also remain under this clause, but I do say that if a university desires to have its own basis circumscribed and fully laid down, then that university should be given the privilege and liberty of doing so. It has been said this afternoon that because the State contributes we must have our universities on a neutral basis and so enable the different sections of the community to be treated in an equal way. I may be allowed to point out that if we refuse to define, by the very act of that refusing we do define. That negation means an affirmation. By saying that you are not allowed to find the religious belief of a professor—and I think those people who are agitating here are only thinking of the professors—people will recognize that by refusing to allow certain universities to lay down a certain basis for themselves, you are laying down a basis. Naturally, a professor cannot prevent himself from influencing his students from a certain point of view. It comes out in every lecture, whether it be in law or physics or chemistry.

How can a man’s belief affect his teaching of law or higher mathematics?

I admit that there is not so much danger so far as mathematics are concerned, but you have your tenets of law. All authority, for instance, is derived from your belief in God.

Have you ever studied law?

I can quite see that you have never studied law from this point of view as the final authority from which you derive all law.

I am not speaking of church law, but of the ordinary law of the land.

I believe that all justice depends upon the original law giver. I now wish to refer to one or two statements made by the Minister of Education. Can I speak in Hollands?

No, the hon. member must proceed in the language in which he began.

The Minister referred to the resolution passed by the Free State Nationalist congress. I was at that congress and there were three motions placed before it. One was introduced by a member of the Bloemfontein branch, the Mayor of Bloemfontein (Dr. H. J. Steyn) and his motion was exactly the attitude taken up by the Minister himself, that certain subsidies should be granted to these universities which wished to have their basis circumscribed, but he refused to insert the words “equal subsidy.” The result was that this motion did not receive a seconder. There were two other amendments. One was by Mr. H. J. Otto and the other by the Rev. Mr. C. W. M. du Toit. The resolution introduced by Mr. Otto asked the Cabinet to take into favourable consideration the doing away with the clause altogether. Mr. du Toit only went so far as to say some subsidy should be given. Congress by an overwhelming majority decided in favour of asking the Government to do away with the clause altogether. The Government was specially asked to take this into favourable consideration. That is as far as my recollection goes. This is the real principle we are fighting for—we believe in such a thing as a Christian science, not in the sense that the Christian scientists declare it, but science from the Christian point of view. All people cannot look at things in the same way; we are all different. Those people who look at things from a Christian point of view are just as scientific or unscientific as those who look at them from an un-Christian or neutral point of view. We have not the freedom to say in our universities that we want the Christian point of view put as well as any other point of view. That is the only thing we are claiming. The last thing I want is any sort of mediaeval inquisition. I hope hon. members will find, when they consider the matter, that at least they are voting on a liberal basis, and for all the different sections of the community.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—21.

De Villiers. A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Malan, M. L.

Naudé. J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rood, W. H.

Steytler, L. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: Swart, C. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—61.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates. F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy. E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J. C.

Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Pienaar, B. J. Motion accordingly negatived.