as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs on the Native Lands Further, Release and Acquisition Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report and evidence to be printed; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 16th May.

I move—

I move, as an amendment—

I want again at the third reading to bring my objections to the notice of the House. I have already done so several times and then I said that I was convinced that the Bill was unjust, unnecessary and unfair. South Africa is a country for all to live in and we must not draw a fence round a section of the population and protect that section and push the rest out into the cold. I have lived for 32 years on the Rand and I know the people and the circumstances there, and I know what this law will mean. Many people will have the bread taken out of their mouths and their wives, and little children will suffer. This is not a matter to joke about but a very serious one. If one has done a certain kind of work all one’s life and in consequence been able to maintain one’s wife and children, one must not suddenly be deprived of one’s living and put on the street. The man has built up his future in that business and now this Parliament is asked to draw a fence round certain people. It does not only concern the public servants and municipal officials that are excluded, but also individuals who will suffer damage and whose livelihood is being taken away. To-day the municipalities have accountants who make up their balance sheets and they are sent to the bank every month. What will the banks do after this Bill has passed? They will demand that a chartered accountant should sign the monthly statements, and the banks will put the people who are now doing the work out of work because they are not chartered accountants. The people will therefore lose their livelihood. What applies to municipalities applies also to other companies and businesses. I protest for the last time against such a law. It hurts me that such legislation is possible nowadays. When the South African party were in office similar things also came before the House. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and other members struggled to get a similar Bill through the House but they did not succeed. What now about the members of the Nationalist party? They are used to get the Bill passed, but as long as I am in the House I will raise my voice against such an injustice.

I second the amendment. I have not the same complaints as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) yet I want to make a final protest against the Bill. This is the first time that the House has passed a Bill in which an agreement made under it is not incorporated in it. If the other party to the agreement consists of honest men then the agreement can be carried out, but if they are honest then the agreement could also be put into the Bill. Now it is said that our sons will suffer if the Bill is postponed, but if it is postponed until next year and the agreement is then made a part of it, our sons will know that they have something to go on. Here there is an agreement which will not help them, and there are in Cape Town accountants who know nothing of the letter to the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). We shall have the bitter experience that they may repudiate the agreement. One can expect nothing else from the hon. member who introduced the Bill. He is a townsman and a lawyer, and pot in sympathy with the countryside and his constituents who sent him here. He may be in touch with a few accountants, but not with his constituents. He does not go on the principle that he must serve his constituents, because he does as he pleases when once they have sent him here. Now he wants to commit an injustice to a number of people but he does not mind as long as his name is connected with the little Act that he has put through. It is a kind of cheap advertisement for him.

The hon. member is now going too far.

I am sorry but I second the motion for the postponement of the Bill with one object and one alone, viz., for the agreement to be incorporated into the Bill.

I also want to make a filial protest against the Bill. What annoys me is that this Parliament passes legislation which is against the wish of the people. It is also against the wish of the House, but the House is now going to pass the Bill because there is an agreement. The Minister of Finance relied on that agreement which was sent by the accountants to a member of this House. Is it right that farmers should pass a Bill on the excuse that there is an agreement outside? If there should be a court case in connection with this law will anything then be heard about this agreement? We must not pass legislation on such a lame excuse. I protest once again against the drawing of a ring fence, and the passing of legislation on the ground that a certain agreement is in existence.

I wish to bring one point to the notice of the hon. member in charge of the Bill in regard to the examination and admittance of chartered accountants. In the Architects Bill I introduced an amendment which was accepted, and I wanted to introduce a similar one here, but was not able to do so. In a similar society in Edinburgh they passed, I understand, only a sufficient number to suit themselves. I hope the hon. member will emphasize the matter, so that they will treat candidates for examination as other bodies treat candidates. I have proof that in Edinburgh they do not, and they refuse to pass candidates when they think they have a sufficient number in hand. The public is not going to be satisfied if the society is going to carry on as the Edinburgh society does, and keep men out of the profession who are fit to join.

I may say to my hon. friend that he has been misinformed as far as the Edinburgh society is concerned. The admission is high. If I understood the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) aright, he stated that the only thing which guided the hon. member who introduced the Bill was to see his name on the Bill. Could a lower motive be attributed to any man than that? How would the hon. member like it if I said he did not care twopence for Namaqualand, and was making a fuss about the diamonds only to get his name before the public? This system of attacking a man personally because you disagree with him is one Parliament wants to be above. The hon. member has mistaken his place and should be in the village pub to make such an attack. No doubt the hon. member thinks he is honest, but there are different standards of honesty. There is such a thing as honesty even in politicians, and the hon. member who introduced the Bill belongs to that group. The hon. member who attacked him may belong to the other group. The other day the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) made a statement that chartered accountants were admitted in Great Britain without examination. He acted, no doubt, on information he had received, but I can assure him that no such thing happens, and every man has to serve five years’ apprenticeship. No one of the four big societies is admitted without examination. The law examination deals with business, partnership, executorship, bankruptcy, company and mercantile law, and arbitration awards. The hon. member who is now a judge in Rhodesia, sitting as chairman of the committee, admitted that it was a stiff paper in law. You should open your door within reason to everybody who can possibly be admitted, and the society desires to meet all they can with that purpose in view. Very few of the men who are promoting this Bill need this Act. The Cape society to-day has 50 per cent. of its members admitted by examination, and nobody is admitted without it. There is no gain for anybody except to place a hall mark on the profession.

I also want for the last time to raise my voice against the Bill. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) also now sees that there are dangers, because at the last stage he now warns the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). This indicates that he also sees the danger if the Bill is passed as it stands. I object to the Bill because an agreement has been made which is not incorporated in the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to insert the agreement next session and then I shall be satisfied. I shall, however, not be satisfied unless that is done.

This is Friday and the 13th of the month. Superstitious people think that if the 13th comes on a Friday the day is very unlucky, but I hope that this will not be an unlucky day for this Bill. I am grateful to the House for the help and support which I have got from the large majority of hon. members for this Bill, my first-born. I especially also wish to thank the Minister of Finance for his valuable assistance. I am sorry that at the committee stage and at the report stage I had no opportunity of replying to the various points. My friends who opposed the Bill then spoke so much that the closure had to be applied. I had nothing to do with it, but I am sorry that as a result I did not have a chance of removing many of the misrepresentations in connection with this matter. Hon. members who opposed the Bill have now protested for the last time, and I hope it is the last time that they will make so many misrepresentations. Motives have been ascribed to me which I consider beneath me to answer. One hon. member in a dramatic way spoke of wives and children whose bread would be taken away and whose protectors would be thrown on the streets. That is all imagination on the part of the hon. member, and I am sorry about it because I respect my friend, and I am particularly sorry that the misrepresentations are made in connection with an attempt to do something for the helping on of South Africa. I am sorry about the accusations because they are entirely inaccurate and unfair. No one is being excluded, and no bread is being taken away from women and children. The agreement has been mentioned, Hon. members surely know at this stage that it was impossible to include it in the Bill and that it was probably entirely undesirable because it would lower the status of our chartered accountants as against those of other countries, and would create the impression there that we had not yet advanced so far as they thought. My hon. friends need not be afraid that the agreement will not be carried out. The Minister of Finance has practically given his assurance that if it is subsequently shown that the associations promoting this Bill are not keeping their word, he will be willing to investigate the matter by action of the Government. I can assure my hon. friends that these men are men of honour whose word is taken in the highest courts of the country in connection with important matters and they will carry out this agreement. The point about the desirability of including public servants and municipal officials was also discussed. I have said nothing in this connection and have not exercised any influence. I thought that it was not desirable and the House has also used its good sense and not included the provision. The reason why provision was made for the inclusion of a certain class of people but not for public servants is very clear. The agreement only makes provision for person’s who make accountants’ work their life’s work, and whose profession it is to-day. Why should special provision be made for public servants? If it is done for them what about people in trust and insurance companies and in the large business houses. Why then should not provision be made for them as well? Provision is made for people who, e.g., have had ten years’ experience as accountants and have made their living out of it. I hey are permitted to assume the designation without having any qualifications. Public servants and others can still, when they retire on pension some day, do accounting work and they can take any title except the one which is protected in the Bill. It is stated that the Bill is unfair and ungodly, because certain people are excluded and deprived of their livelihood. That is not the case. No fence is being drawn and there is no exclusion. The Bill only provides that qualified persons can assume the title just as the man who has passed his B.A. is given the title of B.A. The man who is more clever than the graduate but who has not passed the examination does not get the title. There is no exclusion, but South Africans are being done justice. I hope that those who have tried to wreck the Bill and have introduced amendments will now give the Bill their support because we are doing something for our young South Africans by it. We give them the right to obtain this title in their own country which to-day they have to go and acquire overseas. I can point out cases to hon. members where fathers wanted to make accountants of their sons, but could not send them abroad, so that they could hot acquire the title. Now we are giving South Africans the chance to obtain the highest qualifications in our country. In the past it happened that South Africans could not afford to go overseas to acquire the title while overseas people came in with the title although they admitted that our examination was just as stiff. If the sons and grandsons of the opponents should ever read the votes and proceedings of the House then I hope that they will not see their fathers and grandfathers voted against the Bill, because they will then fully appreciate that they had been given the right over against foreigners which they did not have before. The designation “chartered accountant” is one which is acknowledged throughout the whole world.

Why cannot they get a South African title?

We have the degrees B.A. and M.A. to-day, but they are not original South African degrees. They are derived from the Latin, but because they are everywhere acknowledged we have adopted them in South Africa as well. In the case of the designation for accountants we also want to have a title acknowledged throughout the world. I will mention a further reason for the passing of the Bill, viz., that you find foreign houses which have branches in South Africa and the articles of association of the foreign companies demand that the books of the branch offices shall be audited by chartered accountants. The South Africans who have passed their examination in South Africa therefore do not get the work, but only the foreigners. There are many of us who speak about “South Africa first,” and this is actually an attempt to give practical effect to the slogan. Those who are voting against the Bill to-day are voting against young South Africans having the same rights as foreigners and they ought to think twice before doing so. Therefore I hope that the third reading will be passed without a division so that the opponents may be spared the shame of their posterity saying that they voted against it.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. I E de Villiers, Giovanetti, Heyns, Mostert and J. S. F. Pretorius) voted against the motion. Mr. Speaker declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius dropped.

Original motion then put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I see that the Minister has put £30,000 more for technical education on the Estimates than last year. I do not now want to go into the argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that too much money is being spent on higher education, but I am thankful for the increase of £30,000 although I shall be glad if the Minister will give us a little information in connection with it, especially with regard to the policy in relation to agricultural education. We know that in connection with this important matter the whole country one might almost say is to-day anxiously enquiring what the precise policy of the Government is going to be with regard to agricultural schools. We on the countryside feel very anxious about the matter. We feel that the Minister should have proper time to consider the matter, but after his three years of office he will doubtless be able to tell us more now about his policy in that direction. Last week I saw a statement by Dr. Gie, the under-secretary of education, which is very important, and about which I should like a little more information. He says that in the Transvaal three-fourths of the children in the secondary schools do not take the whole course, but for financial and other reasons leave school before completing the course. I think that if one looks at the figures in the Free State he will come to the same conclusion. Three-quarters of the children do not know exactly what they are studying for. They feel that they ought to have better education, at least the parents feel it, but the position is that they do not exactly know what they are going to do when they leave school. This brings me to the desirability of knowing now what the exact policy of the Government is going to be in relation to technical schools and agricultural education. I know that many of the children who go to the secondary schools afterwards take a course of higher education, but not many of them. Dr. Gie further says in his statement that the Union Department has a large scheme which they want to carry out. The whole Union will be divided into 30 areas, divided according to the conditions of farming in the various parts of the country, and that agricultural schools will be established; in other words, farm schools, where children of 14 and 15 years will take a three years’ course in bookkeeping, arithmetic, the two official languages, and where farming work will also be done under inspectors. That statement is very important, and if the Government are going to follow more or less the policy indicated then I think that the country ought to be very thankful. He says further that the Free State is showing great enthusiasm in connection with the new system of agricultural education, and that some town councils have promised practical assistance. I am very glad that the Free State is setting such an excellent example in this matter as well. Then I should also like to make use of the opportunity to thank Chief Minister very heartily on behalf of my constituency for the assurance that he intends to commence an agricultural school at Boshof, and I think he has chosen a very good spot. I think that it really deserves to be the first of the 30 into which the Union is to be divided. How many districts will not be served by such a school at Boshof? Boshof is very centrally situated in the middle of an agricultural area, and I am very thankful that the Minister has decided to open an agricultural school there.

How is that?

I haven’t merely been sitting quietly on my bench asking every year for an agricultural school. We have worked hard for it. It was before the Union took over this branch of education from the provincial councils that Boshof commenced agitating for an agricultural school. And there would long since have been an agricultural school, if it were not that the central Government took over agricultural education, but from the day it was so taken over we have been trying to get an agricultural school there, the Government had an enquiry made and unavoidably reached the conclusion that Boshof was the best place for a school. I shall, however, be glad to hear from the Minister when a start will be made. Even if it is only on a small scale so that we can see that something is being done. I know that the financial side always creates difficulties, but I should like to know when a beginning will be made.

There are one or two matters that I want to call attention to before this vote is passed. In the first place, I would like hon. members to realize that this vote has increased by £300,000 since the time when the present Ministry took office. It is true that £170,000 of that is represented by the transference of vocational and industrial training from the Provinces to the Union, but still there remains a very large increase. Although this increase has taken place and though the Minister has been in office all this time the last report that we have dealing with Union education only brings us to the 31st December, 1924, so that we are two and a half years in arrear with our information. This state of things is getting worse and worse. I do think that the Ministers in charge of departments ought not to bring their estimates before this House until they have presented hon. members with a report of their activities for the past year. To show what is happening, the press on March 24th last had an abstract from an annual report of a certain department. That report is not in the hands of hon. members yet. Why should the press be so favoured? If for any reason we cannot have all the reports, let us have same as they come out. These departmental reports, what are called abridged reports were first instituted in 1922. With what object? In order to avoid delay in presenting the more cumbersome and Complete reports to hon. members. It was thought that by printing them in abridged form at all events they would be available for hon. members during the session and before Supply was reached. That good intention was no doubt carried out in 1922. These reports were issued on February 27th of that year. The following year there was a falling away. We did not get the reports until April 30th. In 1924 they were issued as early as January 29. In 1925 they were not issued until May 26th and last year they were not in the hands of hon. members until June 8th, when practically all the effective business of the House had been disposed of. I think that that is a very regrettable state of things. I know that the various departments are filled with good intentions. If hon. members will look at the preface to this book, the annual departmental reports for 1925, they will find it stated by the Director of Census and Statistics that under the new system it was decided in order to enable the volume to be ready at the opening of the parliamentary session that the last day for receiving copy should be June 30th of each year. He proceeds—

In a closing note he says—

This is the 13th May. The rigid adherence to the 15th October evidently has not produced the desired results. The consequence is that these discussions lose much of their point because our information is out of date and I know there has been a reluctance, on the part of the Chair, a proper reluctance, too, to allow members to revive old corpses and to deal with things rather too far back. We have to go back a very long time indeed if we are dealing with the activities of the Department of Education this year, because, as I have remarked, the last report only brings us to 31st December, 1924. There is no doubt a very wide and profound discontent with the question of the matriculation examination, its standard and everything else connected with it. Passing the “matric” means passing the barrier to most of the professions, not only to the universities, hut most of the professions, I believe they do not take learners on the mines now unless the students are in possession of the matriculation certificate. It is obvious from the figures, and especially from the complaints we hear from parents and students, that these examinations are becoming more and more difficult every year. At the June examination in 1924 out of 463 candidates only 204 passed, while at the December examination out of 2,355 who presented themselves only 1,365 passed, so that, taking the combined figures, very little over 50 per cent. of those who sat for the matriculation examination got through. More remarkable still, in the supplementary examination for candidates who had only one subject to take, who had passed in everything else but had failed in one subject, out of 213 candidates only 127 passed. It is obvious that a standard exists which I submit bears evidence of being a false standard of education which is being set for this matriculation examination. The general complaint, in a few words, is that students are encouraged to become mere memory machines, rather than getting an education that will fit them for the practical uses of life hereafter. The whole thing wants looking into. I wonder whether the Minister himself or any hon. members of this House could to-day pass the matriculation examination. I doubt if they could. This would rather indicate that our standard of education is ceasing to be practical. Students learn and commit to memory a great many things that will never be of any use to them hereafter. The number of failures is very disconcerting. Surely, the matter wants looking into, especially in regard to the nature and standard of the examination for the second language. It would be very interesting indeed to know what has happened in the two and a half years that have elapsed since this report was written and presented for our consideration. I think that a very strong case indeed has been made out, first of all, for bringing these reports forward in accordance with the original intention, that is to say, having them in the hands of hon. members before Supply is discussed at all events. Really it should be earlier than that. Again, I would ask if anything is being done, any enquiry being made, into the whole question of the matriculation examination. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point.

I endorse and support to a great extent what the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has stated. We do want further information. Even those tables, which are printed on page 238 of the Auditor-General’s report, are incorrect to a very great extent. We know full well that the Government, at different periods, have given money in the shape of grants to help in the rebuilding of schools and universities; these sums are not included in the amount the Government has spent on scholastic education in this country. It has been acknowledged in another place that these tables are incorrect, and that they do not include certain expenditure. We know it is the duty of the State to assist in the education of the people of South Africa, but we also realize that the enormous amount spent on scholastic education is not of the same material benefit to South Africa as would the same amount spent on technical and vocational training. I realize the Government has done a great deal for technical education. In fact, it has done more in three-and-a-half years than the previous Government did in 15 years. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the State contributes to scholastic education far in excess of what it should do. There is no country in the world that contributes to the same extent. I hold that instead of there being an increase in the sum voted for scholastic education, there should have been a decrease; by so doing we could assist to a greater extent in the building up of young South Africans into mechanics and artizans. I thank the Government for what it has done for the technical education of South Africa. I would like to see technical education made free to a very great extent. Directly and indirectly we find that the State has contributed roughly 85 per cent. to the total cost of education of the scholastic students attending the universities. I would like to see the same percentage in regard to technical schools. I feel that has not been done. It is true that some of the money the State has contributed to the universities was given by the Old Cape Government, and also by the Transvaal before Union, but nevertheless the people of South Africa have contributed to a greater extent for the education of boys and girls from a scholastic point of view than for technical training. I protest against that differentiation. I want the same opportunities to be created for boys and girls who are following technical and vocational training. After all, this Government has taken up a policy of having the requirements of South Africa manufactured by South Africans, and I hold that in carrying that out they should concentrate upon technical and vocational training more than has been done in the past. I would like the Minister to state what openings there are in South Africa for the enormous number of boys and girls turned out from the universities, compared with the possibilities of employment for those who are attending technical, vocational and training schools in South Africa.

I would like to ask the Minister about the Port Elizabeth Technical College-. Last year the grant for general purposes was £6,000, and this year it is only £5,000. It is true the total grant is considerably increased. I have had no complaints, but seeing there is a reduction, I would like the Minister to explain what it means. Then on page 128, under G, there is a new item, Psycho-technical tests, £200. Will the Minister be good enough to tell us what psycho-technical tests are, and whether they have any intimate relation with what is known as Holism?

I think that the House and the outside public may receive a wrong impression as a result of the figures quoted by the hon. members for East London (North) (Brig.- Gen. Byron) and for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). It goes without saying that more is being spent this year on Union education, but the question is in what direction the extra money is being spent. In 1925 Parliament passed an Act by which industrial and technical education was transferred from the Provincial Administration to the Union Department, and I am surprised that those hon. members did not know it, seeing the Auditor-General makes mention of it in his report. The Auditor-General says that 20 State controlled and 25 State supported institutions, with 37 continuation classes connected with technical institutions—some of a primary nature—were taken over, and therefore we must ascribe the additional expenditure to a great extent to that. I am quite content with this year’s estimates, and I should further like to know from the Minister in what direction the technical schools have developed. The Auditor-General, in his report, says that there were 36 technical schools, and I should like to know what the present position is, viz., how the schools have extended, what the increase in students is, and what the general progress is. Then I should like to support the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) in connection with opportunities for technical education on the countryside. I should like the child of a farmer and digger also to have an opportunity to get a practical education after he has passed through the primary school. I did not know about the information which the hon. member got from Dr. Gie, and I should like to know how far the scheme has been elaborated, and when the countryside will be able to get the opportunities that the urban children receive to-day. We do not grudge the towns their privileges, but we deplore that the rural children and the children of the diggers do not have the same opportunities The Minister knows my views about the diggers’ children, and I hope that if the scheme has not yet been settled, that it will be completed in the immediate future. I hope also that for the north-western portions which were not included in the statement given to the hon. member for Boshof provision will also be made in the estimates.

I only want to say a few words in connection with the matriculation examination. It has been shown here that a large percentage of the children fail every year, but it is probably not at all because they have not received proper education. Only the other day I looked at some of the matriculation papers, and when one sees the questions put by the examiners you must admit that they are so put that no one can understand them The questions are actually riddles. We cannot get past the fact that a child has to reach a certain stage before he leaves the secondary school. The matriculation examination must always be so arranged that it does not demand from the child what is in advance of his age, and I think the Minister will do well to instruct the examiners that the questions should not be made so impossible. The children should surely be able to understand what the examiner means. Then there is another point that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and it is in connection with the granting of bursaries for technical schools. He will remember that I applied last year for certain private children to be sent to the technical school at Pretoria, and that I was not successful. In a country it often happens that there are children who are especially clever and show particular aptitude for technical work, but the parents are not in a position to pay the balance over and above the bursaries; that is to say, the amount that is required in addition to the bursaries. The bursaries are too small to send the children from the countryside to the towns to be educated and to live there. It is very unfortunate in the case of children who show marked ability. It will be said that the schools are already over-full, and if the children were to get more bursaries, the number would be too great, but I want to ask the Minister to consider a little what he can do for the children of the countryside. Because what is the position? The children in the towns, who board with their parents, can, with the assistance of the bursaries, make use of the opportunities, but not the children of the countryside. They are entirely deprived of the advantages, and I hope that the Minister will look into things and see if he cannot make provision for increasing the bursaries.

The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has given expression to views that are common to our party in regard to technical education, and I can assure the Minister seriously that had our party known that free technical education in the Transvaal would be taken away, the Pact would have finished on the 17th of June, 1924. Nothing that can be given in its place, no emblem of nationality even, will make up for what is taken from these deserving children of workers, willing also to work and to learn. There is the insufficient excuse that we are levelling up to the other three provinces. We are levelling down, and we want the other provinces to enjoy free technical education. As to the total cost, what is it on the whole budget? When the opportunity comes, our party comes to express its opinion, it will be made a very strong plank in our platform and of our indictment. The hon. gentleman wants “South Africa first.” Let him, therefore, have our boys and girls trained so that they can compete with others elsewhere in the world on an equality. In education the other provinces have had far better financial treatment than the Transvaal has. Take Natal. I hope the matter will not be treated lightly, as if the Labour party is in favour of the policy. There is a point at which it will stick: it will most certainly on education facilities being open to all classes. Then there is also the question of the Workers’ Educational Association to which I want to direct the Minister’s attention. It is doing work of a most admirable character around the whole world on behalf of those who have not been able to get the opportunity of higher education. Lucky little Natal, which does not have to tax itself a penny for education—it is so spoilt—gets £400 a year for its branch of this association, and the rest of the country goes without such assistance. Why should it? It is comparatively a recent gift, and not one of those ancient things to which Natal can lay claim, such as to the free grant of £75,000 consolation money. On technical education I say again we on the Labour benches are not getting a fair deal. With reference to the vote for the South African Geological Society, that has been doubled in the estimates. I am supposed to express grateful thanks. Yes, it has been raised—from £5 to £10 per month! This is a purely South African institution, and it has done wonderfully good work. Remembering the mineral wealth of the country, one would have thought that with a Government having “South Africa first” as its slogan, our South African Geological Society would have wanted for nothing. The vote was cut down from £240 to £60 by the previous Government; under a stupid idea of economy, and now is to be increased by another £60—a ludicrously inadequate sum. I apologize to the Minister that the-society’s reports cannot be printed in Afrikaans, but the amount of money subscribed does not warrant it. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if a sufficient sum is provided, I will do my best to see that the proceedings of the Geological Society are published in Afrikaans, and even in “Die Burger,” if thought necessary. This Government was put in by the people to do things for the people, and I am astonished that only a miserable £60 more is to be given to the society. Much of the development of the mineral riches of the Union is due to the unrewarded services and real patriotism of its members.

I wish to ask the Minister to give the committee a little information about medical training to native students. I understand that at Fort Hare they have a first year course, and I believe last year a commission was appointed on which Dr. Loram sat, and which travelled through the Union to ascertain which would be the most suitable centre for a training institution for medical students. We know we are going in for a segregation scheme in this country, and also that the Minister has legislation to prevent the native herbalists from carrying on that cult, or whatever the Minister calls it. There is not yet a sufficient field for many medical men to practise in the native areas, where they have the herbalists, who meet the present-day demands, but eventually we shall need more medical men in these areas, and if the Minister is going to prevent native herbalists from carrying on their practice he must make provision for natives to be medically trained. I would suggest that the Minister inquire into the system which pertains in Central Africa, where a simplified training is given to the native students. Natives cannot go to Europe for medical training, as it is too expensive. Under such a simplified training, natives might work under the direction and control of qualified doctors, and these men would take the place of the herbalist, who is to be eliminated, but it is futile to attempt to prohibit the herbalist from practising unless he is replaced under such a scheme as I suggest might be considered.

Is the Minister getting value for the £70,000 spent on technical education in the Witwatersrand? A position is being created there which is causing some concern at the present time. The Union Government took over the trade schools of the Witwatersrand on the 1st of April, 1925, and appointed a director. One does not like to criticize a public servant, but the Minister was a little bit unfortunate in the selection of that director, Immediately that appointment was made changes were brought about which will have a far-reaching effect on the skilled trades of the country. At that time there was a governing body of twelve. The board was composed of practical men nominated by the employers and employees. The boys that were then turned out were well trained, so much so that it was decided that instead of having to undergo the full period of five or six years’ apprenticeship a two years’ training in the trades school should be equivalent to one year’s training in the workshop. The boys from the trades school were also paid 2s. 6d. a day more than boys who had not had the advantages of obtaining training in these very practical establishments. Unfortunately, all this is now passing away. The practical board has been done away with, and in its place there is a technical council of thirty on which there is scarcely a practical man. The places of the practical men have been taken by scholastic men who have no definite idea of the functions of a trades school. Then changes were made in the hours of attendance, and the old order of things which had been going on splendidly under the Education Department of the Transvaal was altered into a classroom system. Commissions which have investigated the subject in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all condemned the system now adopted in South Africa, they expressing the opinion that it is useless to put a diagram on the wall and try to get a boy to understand the theories of the respective trades. When the council took over these schools the hours were 35 a week, but they have been reduced to 25, a part of which is devoted to cadet training and organized sports. The South African employer is not looking for people who will teach him how to conduct his business, but for a man who, knows how to do his job. A few weeks ago the Minister and the Minister of Labour attended a function in Cape Town in connection with the technical institute, and the one thing which brought enthusiasm to them was the fact that certain of the boys attending that institute had been able to take degrees overseas. We have this anomaly in the Transvaal, that when a boy leaves a primary school, he can obtain secondary education free, but technical training has to be paid for. Employers now complain that the boys they are getting are not so well trained or so useful as those trained under the old system, and some employers with the trade unions are considering discontinuing the practice by which two years’ training in the trades school was regarded as equivalent to one year’s training in the workshop. South Africa is going to suffer materially unless the Minister will investigate the new conditions and put these trades schools back on the old basis; unless that is done, we shall head for disaster. If the Minister does not want to accept my word, let him appoint a commission of inquiry of practical men, and they will arrive at the conclusion that precedence should be given to practical training. The Minister could very well waive the payment of fees to students at trades schools. The amount contributed by the Government to the universities could be reduced, and the saving devoted to technical institutes. This would be a reproductive investment.

I want to ask the favourable attention of the Minister for a deserving matter which hitherto has been treated in a very step-motherly way, not so much by him as by the provincial councils under which it formerly came. I refer to the spinning and weaving schools in the Free State, or the Free State home industry schools as they are called in the estimates. The matter has, of course, a certain sentimental recommendation when we go into its history, but I think the value of the institutions has not been fully appreciated. As most hon. members know, the spinning and weaving schools were established in 1904 and 1905 by Miss Emily Hobhouse to put the people on their feet again after the great struggle of the second war of independence. In 1908 they were taken over by the Free State Government after the colony got responsible government, and a grant of £4,500 per annum was made. The institutions were then put under a, board of nine persons, who had general control. Eight spinning and weaving schools were established, and further a lace school and a knitting school at Kopjes and a needlework school in Bloemfontein. At the moment there are altogether 84 women workers in the spinning and weaving schools. Fifteen in the lace school, three in the knitting school at Kopjes, and twelve in the needlework school at Bloemfontein. All the schools depend on the amount voted, and I should very much like to recommend these institutions to favourable treatment by the Minister, because they now come under the Union Education Department, The £4,500 was a drop in the bucket, but on account of the pressure of circumstances the Provincial Council of the Free State reduced the amount to £3,250, and now I see that provision is only made on the estimates for £3,250. Even if we only want to maintain the existing schools, I think it is no more than fair that a larger amount should be granted. I understand that the implements that are used to-day were bought quite at the beginning with the money collected by Miss Hobhouse, and that it is difficult to carry on the work to-day with them. Even if provision is only to be made for replacing out-of-date ones, it is necessary to spend money. Then it appears that pressure is exercised in order to injure the schools. Even the Railway Administration, who used to provide the lady inspector with a free ticket and carried the necessary requirements, stopped this concession last month, so that the expenditure of the schools in the future will be larger. I hope the Minister will give his full attention to these institutions. I myself have had experience of the work that is done in them, and had to do with the establishment of one of them. I know what good influence such an institution has in the neighbourhood, because they especially enable a certain class of girl to learn something practical for earning money. Those who are not able to attend the expensive domestic economy schools get an opportunity in these schools. The educational value of the work done in these schools is particularly great, especially in the small villages where large institutions cannot be established, Even the school at Bloemfontein is doing good work. The educational value of the schools is so great that even if they are not able to maintain themselves they must be kept going. I may also ask where there is a school which can maintain itself. I know of girls who have come from poor families, but on account of their training in these schools, have got into quite a different atmosphere, and eventually made good marriages. It seems to me that it would be difficult now to get a larger sum on the estimates, but I hope the Minister, during the recess, will give full attention to the matter, and will make an attempt, not only to give further assistance, but will go on extending these schools to other places, possibly also to the other provinces. There is actual proof that the schools meet an existing need, because, notwithstanding the fact that they have been treated in a step-motherly way since they came under the care of the State, they have continued to exist. 114 women workers to-day are being trained, arid the number is very small. They are certainly the cheapest educational institutions in the country, and I am sure that the Minister, if he attacks the matter sympathetically, and properly investigates it, will find that they are institutions that deserve very strong recommendation. For reasons I need not mention the schools have been hampered by highly-placed officials, even in the Free State, and in consequence the amount was brought down from £4,500 to £3,250. [Time limit.]

As the Minister went through the eastern districts of the Transvaal last year, I want to ask him whether he did not come to the conclusion that a change ought to be made with regard to the education of children on the countryside. The Minister fortunately came to Bethal, and he saw what was being done there, and what the need was. There are good primary and secondary schools at Bethal, but education is on wrong lines for those parts. Every child that goes to the primary schools and then to the secondary schools has only one way open to him, viz., matriculation. In my opinion, the reason why the children need education is entirely lost sight of. We find to-day that there are already enough doctors, parsons, attorneys and advocates in the country. In agriculture, however, there are still great possibilities, and yet we find that agriculture is the most neglected. If the proper kind of agricultural schools are established where the children can get the training for farming, it will be a great improvement. Experienced and educated persons can obtain jobs as farm managers. Take, e.g., the co-operative societies. In other countries cooperation is done on a large scale, and at the head you have people who are capable and who know how to manage them. We do not need these in our country. I hope the Minister will increase the number of agricultural schools, and that the teachers there will be people who have a practical knowledge of agriculture. There is a great need of such a school at Bethal, and it is a very suitable place. The Minister went to Bethal, and the Town Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the School Board there showed the greatest willingness to assist and help. The Town Council went so far as to put at the disposal of the Minister one of the best pieces of ground in Bethal for the purpose, and the school board, in conjunction with the municipality, even favourably considered making available a certain building there which was quite suitable. When the Minister comes to Bethal again, we will take him about a little, and he can then see for himself what an important centre Bethal is for agriculture, and what a good place it is for an agricultural school. I do not think there is one member in the House who is opposed to a large sum appearing on the estimates for education as long as it goes on right lines. It is always said that agriculture is the backbone of the country. It is, but then measures must be taken to educate the people and to make the backbone as strong as possible, so that it can carry something. I shall be glad if the Minister will be very clear, and will be able to give a satisfactory reply as to his intentions for the near future.

I see that in comparison with last year, the vote has increased by about £90,000, which amounts to about 15 per cent. in 12 months. We admit that education is a necessity, but if we go on like this every year, then we must also admit that it will become an intolerable burden to the State. I should think that much could be said in favour of the universities being a little curtailed and made more available for technical and industrial schools. There are many M.A.’s and B.A.’s walking about without work, but in the matter of industrial and agricultural education we are practically at a standstill. Let more bursaries for those purposes be granted to needy students, and let the rich people who want their children to become B.A.’s and M.A.’s pay for them. Let the Minister make £5,000 available in bursaries for technical and agricultural education, and let the rich people themselves pay a certain amount per child. [No quorum.] If we go on as at present, the burden will become intolerable.

I would like a little information from the Minister in connection with the increase of grants to schools on page 128, head E.3. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has called attention to the enormous increased grant under the vote, and I should like to know the necessity for it. Oudtshoorn Industrial School, £9,000 this year, against £2,630 last year. Uitenhage Industrial School, this year £9,600. against £4,675 last year. Adelaide Industrial School for Boys, £7,500 this year, against £3,125 last year. Adelaide Housecraft School for Girls, £3,300 this year, against £2,135 last year, a net increase of £16,835. I know these schools have been established for some years now, and I should like to know the reason for this enormous increase.

Early in April I put a question to the Minister in connection with a letter written from his department to the technical colleges at Maritzburg and Durban, practically instructing them to make provision for technical education for Indian children in Natal.

Read the instruction.

It was an official request which was practically tantamount to an instruction. The reply to my question to the Minister was that “the Secretary of Education wrote to the principals of the technical colleges in terms of my instructions, which contained no directions to provide technical education for Indian children in Natal. The cost would be borne by the council of the colleges aided by the Union Government.” Natal has suffered sufficiently in her finances under this Government, and here the Minister is attempting to create a further imposition on the people of Natal.

You don’t understand it.

I should like to refer to the resolution passed yesterday by the Provincial Council, which indicates the feeling of the Provincial Council in this matter. The resolution reads as follows—

I have only risen to ask the Minister not to take any action until he has given the Provincial Council in Natal an opportunity of expressing their views to him.

They have got nothing to do with it. It is Union education.

Yes, but I understand that, at all events, they have to contribute towards this education. Does the Union bear the whole of the cost of the two technical colleges in Natal, or does Natal also bear a proportion of those costs?

What has the Provincial Council to do with it?

They have got to do with it in this way, that a portion of the costs is borne by the people of Natal. The whole of the cost is not borne by the Union. I just want to read the reply that was given by the Maritzburg Technical College—

I put it to the Minister, does he expect the people of Natal to sit under the same roof as Indians?

You know nothing about it.

I think I know a little about it, and I think the Natal Provincial Administration must also know a little about it. I submit that the whole of this movement has come, not from the people of Natal, but from Indians, led by a man of the name of D. G. Satya Deva. He is the secretary of this Indian organization in Durban that has brought pressure to bear on the Minister, and, because of that pressure, the Minister is now trying to impose upon the technical colleges that they must make provision there for the technical education of Indians. I submit that at the present time there is not even sufficient provision for all the Europeans who require technical education. If the Minister wishes to expand technical education, he should so expand it that our sons, at all events, would have a full opportunity of qualifying there. We object to Asiatics receiving technical education under the same roof as Europeans.

Who is wanting that?

I just want to say something to the members who talk in that way about the estimates and the extra cost of education. If hon. members study the reports, they will find that thousands of pounds are provided under the heading “technical education,” and we are thankful for it. This is what makes the Union expenditure on education much greater. We feel that it is very necessary to seriously tackle technical education. Everyone that feels for the future of our children feels that it is a matter of serious and necessary kind, and therefore I am thankful that the Union Department of Education has taken the matter in hand. The hon. member for Witwatersberg talked about primary education, which does not fall under us, and with which we have nothing to do. We all feel that education in the Union, especially primary education, must be dealt with on other lines. The examination microbe must be exterminated. But I want to speak about another matter, viz., the preparation of the dictionary of the Afrikaans language. We feel thankful that a man like Professor Smith has devoted himself to the task of preparing an Afrikaans dictionary, but an opinion has been expressed by the Academy of Language, Art and Literature about which I want to say something. That academy takes a great interest in this matter. We have in this House a few shining lights of that academy, such as the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), and also the Minister of Education. We should all like to find something in the dictionary grounded on the purity of the Afrikaans language, and the question, therefore, is whether the work can actually be done by one person. We shall have to keep that question well in view. We can understand one person being more or less held responsible, but the work must be the result of co-operation of, and consideration by, South African authorities on the Afrikaans language. Take, e.g., the Dutch dictionary. I know that in Holland during the last few years they have already been busy on a new large dictionary, and various men have already been working for years on it, and are not yet finished. The same applies to the large English dictionary. As for the Afrikaans dictionary, I am only thinking of the difference between the Afrikaans of the Cape Province and of the Transvaal and the Free State. I make bold to say that the Afrikaans in the north is purer than in the Cape Province. I have not the least doubt about that. In the past in the Transvaal, we for a long time had Dutch as the medium of instruction, and the Afrikaans in the north is much purer. I consider it, therefore, of greater importance that our authorities in the north should also be consulted, such as the Philologists of the Transvaal University College and of Bloemfontein, and especially also the men of the board of the academy, who are authoritative. Take, e.g., the translation of the Bible into Afrikaans. When it is completed, the translation will undergo revision by some expert who will go into it. Therefore, I want to bring to the Minister’s notice whether it is not desirable, before the Afrikaans dictionary is published, that he should arrange that Afrikaans experts should for the last time thoroughly go through the dictionary with Professor Smith, so as to give the people absolutely the best Afrikaans dictionary. I think that the various experts should be heard and be allowed to express their opinion. There are certain Afrikaans idioms which are different in the south and in the north, and we often get Afrikaans here which is just a literal translation of English. That is not what we want. We want pure Afrikaans. Therefore, I want the Minister to give his attention to the matter. We all have respect for the knowledge of languages, the scientific knowledge and capacity of Professor Smith, but there are possibly people in South Africa who are equally capable, and possibly more so, who can collaborate with him in the last stage and decide, people with convictions and sympathies and knowledge of language who we have in South Africa, and who should be consulted on the matter, the best and cleverest men who really can do good work. I feel that this is an important matter, and I ask the Minister to give his attention to it, so that the Afrikaans dictionary can be satisfactory in the highest degree, and be a source for our children after us to draw on. I just want to ask the Minister to seriously consider, after Professor Smith has completed his work, calling together possibly the best men for the purpose, and giving them a few months to go into the matter, so that the work should be what it ought to be in every respect. Then there is another point I should like to mention which has already been raised by the hon. members for Bethal (Lt. Col. Grobler) and Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). It is agricultural education. I am thankful that technical education is now being tackled, so that our sons can be trained to a trade, and obviate the importation of tradesmen. But agricultural schools are just as necessary. The complaint is made that too much is being spent on education, but I think that it is almost impossible to spend too much in order to make our children technically efficient. Children are sent out into the country every year who cannot get work, and it is only because we have not enough men suitable to be agriculturists, masons and carpenters. We need people who have been trained in agriculture. It is necessary for the countryside to get what it requires, and that agricultural courses should be included in our rural schools.

I should imagine the Minister of Finance has given the Minister of Education a pretty free hand if we look at these increases. Take, for instance, administration. There is an increase in the personnel from 42 last year to 51 now, and an increase in money of £3,800. Let me call attention to one or two other increases. Take the Witwatersrand technical institute. There there is an increase of £12,000. In these institutes and courses there is a total increase of no less than £28,000. I can only imagine that the Minister and the department must have had a fairly free hand. Attention has been called to the industrial and housecraft schools, where there is an increase of £12,000. The grant last year was £12,555 and this year it is £29,400. Then the State-aided schools were last year £13,210 and this year they are £15,700. There are State aided special schools which are increased from £5,200 to £10,250. There is also a minor thing here. It is psycho-technical tests, £200. What are they for? It seems to me a very curious thing. Here we have these enormous, increases in the technical grants and yet the Minister has abolished the adviser on technical education and created the post of an under secretaryship on Union education, again at the expense of the State.

What is your objection to it?

My objection is that you abolished him and put another man in his place. It is not the first time this has occurred. Where a man is not as convenient as he might be he is got rid of by putting him on pension. You then proceeded to put in a man on a scale from £950 to £1,000, a, professor of the University of Stellenbosch, who was immediately put on the top notch of the scale. You get rid of one man and put in another to a post as under-secretary.

Because it was not convenient to me?

I have not the slightest doubt about that. It does seem a very strange thing.

What right have you to say that?

Because I infer that from what is written here. Here we have a man who is brought to South Africa for the purpose of advising on technical education, and at a time when we are paying thousands of pounds more, he is got rid of and put on pension and another man from Stellenbosch University is put in his place at a high salary. It is a little difficult to understand these things. This under-secretary recently appointed is drawing now £1,205 a year and besides that we pay the pension. That does not tend to economy at all. I think the Minister of Finance has been extraordinarily liberal. He seems to have given a blank cheque to the Minister of Education to simply go ahead and spend the money as he thinks fit.

I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is perfectly correct. I want the Minister to consider how far we have already gone with free education and how much further we are going. I believe in compulsory education. I believe every child should have education, but I say that an obligation should rest with the parents who are in a position to pay for that education. Speaking generally, there are many instances, well-known instances, and on a large scale, where parents are in a position to pay for their children, but no, the State comes forward and because there are a few children whose parents cannot so pay it is made a general thing. I would like the Minister to seriously consider whether he is going to continue that policy or not. I know that when free education was introduced in the Transvaal parents who had paid for the whole of the quarter— and it was instituted during the course of the quarter—had their cheques for the fees returned. The time has arrived to cry a halt, and to consider carefully whether we are on the right lines. Education should be given free only where the parent is not a position to pay for it.

The hon. member is mixing up higher and free secondary education.

No, I am talking in general.

This is not the place to deal with what we have fortunately got in the Transvaal, and which we hope to have in every province, free primary and secondary education. Honours have recently been bestowed upon the hon. member, and it is because of his education, not superior intelligence, that he sits here. Others with almost equal ability should also have a fair deal. It is manifestly unfair to take scholars into any State-aided school and make a difference between One and another. There is really no such thing as free education. It is free of fees, but it is paid for by the production of the workers. There is no Other source of taxation. The Labour party is against preferential treatment. We wish the children to know that one is as good as the other, apart from energies and natural abilities. I want to draw the attention of hon. members opposite to a privileged class for whom it is claimed that they pay for their education. Every university student in Bloemfontein costs the State £120, and in Johannesburg £58, the average being brought down by the large number of students there. We advocate making this heavily subsidised education free, paying the cost from general income tax. Select students who have proved fit for the higher university training, and give it to them free. We shall fight the S.A. party at every stage until we have secured free education— free fee—right up from the primary school to the university. I appeal to the Minister on a matter which, I am sure, is always on his mind, namely, bilingual teaching and training. I refer to the vote for the Afrikaans “Woordeboek.” Why we spend £16,000 on it and not make it bilingual, astonishes me. The accepted principle of this country is bilingualism and we are anxiously Waiting to have this dictionary produced. The months are passing, and we are not getting on fast enough. I hope Professor Smith will hurry up with the job, for which I understand he is drawing £3,000 a year. It is required as much in English as in Afrikaans. I finally make an appeal to the hon. gentleman to assure us that adequate arrangements have been made to teach Afrikaans. The railway administration is arranging for adult classes, the difficulty having been that adults were put in classes with children, and when in difficulties with pronunciation, are laughed at. An adult cannot stand being laughed at by a mere child. I ask the hon. gentleman to devote his attention, and great abilities, to the important matter; and with whatever money the Minister of Finance will put at his disposal for the purpose, see if greater opportunities cannot be given for the people at large to learn Afrikaans. There is really no prejudice against it. English-speaking people are willing, even delighted, to acquire it. The time is coming when no child of South Africa will come through the schools without attaining bilingual qualifications. We are all eager for that consummation. There must also be a large number of Dutch adults in the Services who have difficulty with regard to English. I hope the wants of these, too, will be met.

I should like to ask the Minister why the agricultural school at. De Lagers Drift has been closed. We had to plead for years and years to get the school near the settlement. We built it up gradually and now suddenly it is closed down. The agricultural school is situated in the Low Veld and there are many children who would like to make use of the opportunity of attending this school. I may say that we are bitterly disappointed. There is, as a matter of fact, a secondary school but it is not suited for that purpose. If, then, it is not possible to continue the school at Delagersdrift transfer it to Middelburg. That is also situated in the constituency and then the children of De Lagers Drift, the Low Veld and Senekal can attend it there. I can assure the Minister that it is a very serious matter to the people in my constituency and I hope he will try and meet us.

I have gone through the estimates, but can find no trace of a grant to the Workers’ Educational Association, although that grant has always been given since 1920. Has the Government decided to discontinue the grant or is it included under some other head? It would be regrettable if the grant were not continued because very good work has been done in Natal by the Workers’ Educational Association, which last year appointed a full time teacher, who has been dividing his labours between Durban and Maritzburg.

I want to mention a few points with regard to agricultural schools in the country, and particularly agricultural education in primary and secondary schools. Last year it was decided to establish a certain number of agricultural schools, but, unfortunately, much has not been done in the matter. Heidelberg is a large educational centre, and there is the best possible opportunity of establishing an agricultural school there. At the present time agricultural instruction is given on a small scale there in the secondary school, but it is not sufficient for a proper training. The primary school has nothing of the sort, Close to the town there is a Government farm which is extremely suited for an agricultural school, because there is a good water supply and excellent soil. I think the Minister will act wisely if he establishes an agricultural school there. It will be in the interests of education and of the country generally. Then I also want to touch on the question of educational bursaries to children in the country. The people on the countryside feel that they do not have the same privileges as those in the town. I think it is the duty of the Minister to do his best even with the provincial administration, so that the countryside shall get its due share. I am certain that the Minister will render a great service to the countryside if he will support this In connection with the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), I also feel that it is necessary that we should have a dictionary in English and Afrikaans, because it is very difficult for our English friends to learn Afrikaans if they have no dictionary. I support the suggestion of the hon. member, and I hope the Government, as soon as the Afrikaans dictionary is ready, will take steps to have a dictionary prepared in English and Afrikaans.

Recently I had the opportunity of going over the George and Knysna vocational schools, and was very much impressed with the very fine results they obtained, both as regards the work and the appearance of the pupils. I also visited the Oudtshoorn Industrial School, and I am very glad to know that the Government has taken it over. Considering the source from which the lads come, and some of them are taken from very unfavourable surroundings, they were as fine a looking lot as one can possibly wish to see, and I understand that their services are in great demand on the completion of their training. I hope the Knysna school has not been dropped.

Quite a number of hon. members have spoken in connection with this debate, and it is impossible to mention the names of everyone unless he has asked a particular question which has not been asked by another member. If I omit names it is not on account of discourtesy on my part, but merely because I only use the name of the hon. member who has dealt with the point. First of all, I will deal with the general question of increased expenditure under this vote. That point has been raised at the beginning by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He pointed out that the general expenditure under the head of Union education is very large, too large, and he also complained of the comparatively big increase since last year, £93,000. Then he pointed out that South Africa had got a comparatively small white population, and that the expenditure for education is out of proportion to the population. He further points out that we have too many higher education institutions in the country, and names more particularly Huguenot College, and asks if it is not possible for that college to amalgamate with one of the existing universities. He further points out that there is a movement on foot in Durban for the establishment of a university college at that centre. I know about that movement. It was evident to me on visiting that centre some years ago, that there was a strong movement on foot to start a college, and eventually to have a university in Durban. I did not in the least encourage Durban to expect this Government to approve of the starting of another higher education institution in Durban. I told them they must be satisfied with one college in Natal, and that has been established at Pietermaritzburg. I am going to repeat what I said to the people of Durban—

With regard to Huguenot College, it is an existing college, and is quite a different matter, though in the abstract we may think it a good thing if that college ceased to exist, and the students go to Stellenbosch or Cape Town University. We have vested interests here, and it is difficult to touch them, and I, for one, will not propose it being closed down. We must make the best of it under the circumstances, and I can only express the hope that some arrangement may be possible between Huguenot and either Stellenbosch or Cape Town. If Huguenot continues as a branch of either of the existing universities, I do not see how much saving financially can be effected. With regard to what the hon. gentleman said about the white population of South Africa, and the large expenditure for that population in connection with higher education, I can only say that these colleges have to cater, not merely for the white population, but for the population generally in South Africa. We get our doctors to attend, not only to white patients, but to coloured and native patients, and in the same way our teachers are trained and very largely do work, not for white people only, but for the non-Europeans, and so it is wrong to say our higher education institutions exist merely for the white population.

You have only European students there.

But they are trained professionally, not for one section of the population only, but for all sections. We see the necessity of, in time, training natives and coloured people professionally, but so far they are making use of the services of white people professionally. If we compare the number of students in our higher education institutions in the country with the percentage of the population in other countries, I do not think that we are over-educating our people in South Africa. I know quite a number of civilized countries where the proportion of students in the higher education institutions is very much larger in comparison with the population than to-day in South Africa. In connection with this, I might say this idea expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been voiced in the House repeatedly year after year, that we have too many students in the higher education institutions, and for that reason I promised the House two years ago that I would ask the Census Department to go into the whole-question, in how far students leaving our higher education institutions are being absorbed into professions and occupations. The first report I received in the course of last year, and I must say it surprised me. I expected a fairly large number of students leaving the colleges and universities would be unemployed for a considerable time. The report comes to this, that of all students who left these institutions the year before, practically all were absorbed in professions or other occupations within three months of leaving the institutions.

Does that include the medical people?

Yes, all. That disposes of the argument being voiced in the House year after year. What the position will be eventually I do not know. It might be different next year or the year after, but the position is not at present as stated by the hon. gentleman, or by other hon. gentlemen, that we are over-producing. Although we have expended a good deal of money in recent years on higher education, I think it has effected one thing for South Africa, for which we ought to be very thankful. That is that it has made it unnecessary for this country to import people from overseas or to send our sons and daughters overseas to get their education there. I think our educational institutions in the country generally have reached such a degree of efficiency that the country can provide, as far as all the professions and occupations are concerned, for its own needs, and that is certainly something which we as a nation ought to be thankful for. Coming to the expenditure on higher education generally, I think I ought to give information to the House which may be a surprise to some hon. members, including the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), just to show the increase over a number of years. I will take the percentage increase for each year over the previous one. Beginning with 1916, it was 1.5 per cent., and in 1918-’19 it was 33 per cent. increase. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was in the Government at that time.

No.

I will come to the time when he was in the Government. I think he joined the Government in 1921. The increase in that year over 1918 was 90 per cent.

What are the actual figures?

In the former year the amount was £32,000, and then in three years it increased to £112,000, an increase of 90 per cent.

Oh no.

The first year it was 1.5 per cent., then 33 per cent., and then 90 per cent. My return goes back to 1915-’16, and gives the following percentage increases: 1915-’16, 1.5; 1918-’19, 33, 1920-’21, 90; 1923-’24, 9; 1924-’25, 8.8; 1925-’26, 6.7; 1926-’27, 3.6; 1927-’28, 8.4. Anyway, the percentage increase over the previous year is certainly slowing down. Take in comparison with that the increase in the number of students, because the expenditure rises in the same proportion or may be expected to rise in the same proportion as the number of students attending these institutions increases. The students have increased over the numbers for 1911 by 2.6 per cent., 83.9, 201, 257, 312, 342 and 395 per cent. The increase in expenditure during the same period, that is 1926-’27, over 1911 is 243 per cent., while the increase in the number of students is 395 per cent. That shows that the rise in expenditure is certainly not out of proportion to the rise in the number of students. Hon. gentlemen must not forget that we made, during the last few years, a new departure in connection with higher education, which was very important and very necessary. The complaint has always been, and the complaint has again been voiced in the House here this afternoon, that our education is too cultural, that we train only the mind and not the hand and the eye, that we do not educate for life. That has been the general complaint, and that complaint has been justified. To meet that we had to start technical education in the country. Until a few years ago there was no technical education of any kind in the country. We had to start right from the beginning and, that being the case and the need being great, naturally we had to face a big increase in the expenditure on higher education year after year, until we have brought technical education into line with other education in the country, and provided for the needs of the country, in some way at least, as far as that is concerned. All that must be kept in mind when we speak of the increase in the expenditure on Union education, but I agree to a large extent with hon. gentlemen that the position cannot remain as it is, and I have told the House so before, and I am telling the House that again, that our expenditure is increasing too rapidly on higher education, and we must try to find a new basis of subsidy or otherwise restrict the increase. We must not forget that when I took over this department, there were two legacies left by, amongst others, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

I had nothing to do with that department.

One of these, at any rate. The one I am speaking of, for which, of course, the hon. member is not responsible, is that we began Union with practically all the higher education institutions, except technical institutes, which we have now got. One was added during the time of the previous Government, and when the hon. gentleman was a member of the Government. That was the Potchefstroom institution, but, apart from that one, all the institutions were existing at the time of Union. The hon. gentleman will admit that it is impossible for us to go and destroy these institutions round which a good deal of sentiment and local patriotism have been built up. That is one legacy from the past which we cannot get away from. There is another legacy for which the hon. gentleman is jointly responsible with others, and that is the almost complete measure of autonomy which all these different institutions have got. Not only have the universities got autonomy, very largely in financial respects, too, but also the colleges. The colleges constituting the University of South Africa are practically small universities. They have as much right to extend and to grow as rapidly as they like, and also as far as finance is concerned, within certain limits. Now all this has been laid down under regulations which were drawn up, hot by me, but by the previous Government, and were laid on the Table of the House and approved by the House. I cannot simply by regulation alter that. The best thing I can do under the circumstances, until I can act later on in a manner I am going to explain, the best thing I can do I did last year when I laid before the House for its approval a new regulation that no new professorship or lectureship could be instituted by any of the colleges and universities unless they are approved of by the Minister. Before that was approved by Parliament last year these institutions could extend aS much as they pleased and the Minister could not interfere. That is altogether an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I tried to remedy that partially last year, and I am going, as soon as possible, to revise the whole situation. For that reason I have appointed a Higher Education Commission to go into the whole question, and to report to me, I hope, before the end of the year, and in any base, I hope to take account of the recommendations of this commission, as far as finances are concerned, in the estimates of next year. One of the reasons why this commission had to be appointed was that we have two kinds of institution in the country, technical institutes and universities, and university colleges. The line of demarcation, of division, between the functions and the subjects taught in these respective institutions is certainly not clear, and there is a great deal of danger of overlapping between institutes of this nature. It is impossible for the Minister simply to go and apply a line of division; that must be done by a committee going into the whole matter thoroughly and reporting to me. There is another matter. Universities and university colleges in former years have been competing with each other on the examination lists. That is fortunately done away with. Now the time has come that they are competing with each other for the highest number of students. They try to attract as many to themselves as possible, and in that way to show to the country that that is the most important institution in the country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is a member of one of these university councils. I do not know whether it was done with his approval, and in any case he could not have prevented it, but that council of which he is a member opened its doors to, among others, a large number of music students.

That is a paying proposition.

It may be paying, but that can be said with regard to a good many other things.

They don’t come on the State for assistance.

Oh, yes, they do.

But here we find a position where universities not only teach—as is the original idea of a university—students who have matriculated, but there is a large number of students, I understand, now included among the students of the Cape Town University who, perhaps, have passed only Standard 6. They are not university students in the real sense of the word. That is certainly not a position which we can call sound, and the only right thing to do under the circumstances—and other institutions are going to try and do the same thing —is to appoint a commission to define what should be considered to be university education and what not.

I quite agree.

That commission has been appointed. It consists of men in whom I think the country will have the utmost confidence, and when they report, I will try, looking at the matter from the Government point of view, and from the Treasury point of view and the educational point of view, to benefit by that report as much as possible. We come now to the increase for this year. That increase has been called altogether abnormal, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been indulging in throwing stones. Let me say that a very large proportion of that amount I can do nothing to. It is beyond my control altogether. I have stated that these institutions have a large measure of autonomy, also financially, within certain limits. Let me point out that the automatic increases under the regulations which were drawn up by the previous Government, and which were a legacy to me, automatic increases in universities and university colleges and technical institutes, including pensions fund, amount to no less than £59,000. To that I can do absolutely nothing. Then there is the increase on the administrative staff, £2,000. That increase is simply because the volume of work under the department has increased. The hon. gentleman knows that we have taken over vocational institutions from the provincial administrations, and, of course, that meant more work for the department, and the staff had to be increased. The whole position has been gone into very carefully by the Public Service Commission, and it was their recommendation and it has been approved of by the Treasury, so we can do nothing to that. Then there is this amount of about £10,800. It is accounted for in this way: in practically all the industrial schools we have workshops, but the expenditure on materials which are required now figures in the estimates, whereas it did not figure there before. Previously, the institute had the right to buy the material itself, to pay for it out of its receipts, and then only the balance that had to be contributed by the Government figured on the estimates. Now we pay for the materials as a department, and the receipts go to the Treasury. In that way that £10,800 is accounted for. There is an amount of about £2,000 also, which is accounted for merely as a matter of bookkeeping. The Post Office Department provides continuation education for its messengers. There was one school here in Adderley Street, and in other centres they have had schools. It is not economical for the post office to have these schools while we have a technical college in the neighbourhood doing practically the same work, so that the Union Department simply took it over. If it is an increase in the Union Educational Vote it is a decrease in the Post Office Vote. Take the increase on examinations, £1,300; of course, if the number of candidates for examination increases, your expenditure in connection therewith also increases; but we must not forget that that rate of expenditure is reflected in the receipts, because candidates pay fees, which go to the Treasury. This is a merely nominal increase which we cannot avoid. These practically automatic increases come to £38,000, and I can do nothing to that. What is the use of criticising me or the Government?

You are getting the regulations revised.

That is something the hon. gentleman ought to be thankful for. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) complained that the reports of the Union Education Department are not published in time for the sessions of Parliament, and he states that the last report he knows of was in 1924. I must say he is rather behind the times, not only in connection with his political views, but also as far as this matter is concerned. I have here in my hand the annual report for the calendar year 1925, and I have been in possession of this for quite a considerable time. It cannot be later than 1925, because it is for the calendar year. The calendar year for 1926 ended only last December, or five months ago; but the hon. gentleman must not forget it is not merely a departmental report but a report in connection with a very large number of institutions in the country which are autonomous and keep their own accounts. We must wait year after year very often very long before we get the reports, to embody them in the report of the department. That is a very good reason for the publication of the report being so late as that.

Why have other members not the report?

I do not know about that.

How can we criticise you or your department without having the report?

The hon. member has the explanation now that the report has appeared quite a considerable time already.

Have you laid it on the Table?

Yes, it was laid on the Table. The hon. gentleman also complained in connection with the matriculation examination, These complaints have been voiced before in this House and in educational circles outside, where there is a good deal of discontent. I am dealing with that matter too by appointing a departmental committee in conjunction with the Matriculation Board itself and other bodies concerned, to go into the whole question and revise the whole position. The hon. gentleman must understand that I have nothing directly to do with the matriculation examination, the control of which is under a statutory board, which is defined or called into existence by one of the Educational Acts. But I am dealing with the matter now through the department. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) complained, as he complains I think every year, that comparatively too much attention is devoted to scholastic education and too little to technical education. I have already dealt with scholastic education, and as far as technical education is concerned, I can only tell the committee that we are doing what we can. Most of these technical education institutes which we have started and which are being started, for instance, at Port Elizabeth and East London, have shown a very remarkable vitality, which shows how great the need was and to what an extent these institutes provide for that need. I can take the institute in Cape Town as an example. Four years ago it had 600 students, and these have grown to the total of 4,200 or 4,400, I think. I do not think the hon. member for Liesbeek is right in his accusation that we discriminate, as far as subsidy is concerned, against technical institutes, and in favour of universities and colleges. They are subsidised by the Government on a similar basis. Of course, the hon. gentleman from his standpoint desires that all technical education shall be provided free. There are other hon. members who have criticised me during this debate and take the very opposite standpoint. I think we are following the correct medium to subsidise these institutes on such a liberal scale that it is not necessary for them to have high fees. We must not forget that students who attend the technical institutes are to a very large extent not full-time students, but part-time students who are actually employed in commercial pursuits or work in factories; but in any case they are in employment, and attend these technical classes during their spare time, or during the time given to them for that purpose by their employers, who see that it is to their interest to have them further trained. Seeing that these young people area actually in employment I don’t think we would be justified in giving them education in the technical institutes altogether free. With reference to the Port Elizabeth Technical Institute £2,500 was given it last year, when the institute was just started. The subsidy from the Government is on the basis of the fee income. To begin with, when, of course, it is not known what the income from fees will be, the grant must be on a more liberal scale until the institution is in such a position that it can come under the ordinary regulations, and the Port Elizabeth institution is doing that. As to the vote of £200 for psycho-technical tests, I wish it had been very much larger, because the investigation is most important. Students who are being trained especially in technical subjects are tested before the training starts to see for what special occupation they are best fitted, so as to prevent misfits as far as possible. These tests are being carried out only in connection with the industrial schools working under the Children’s Protection Act. The inmates of these schools are taken away altogether from their parents, and the Government is responsible for placing them in employment after they leave the industrial schools. The tests are carried out by Dr. Wilcocks, professor of psychology at the Stellenbosch University. He does the work gratis during the vacations. It is a work of love and the grant is merely to pay his travelling and other expenses. Vocational education, including technical education, has been taken over from the provinces by the Union Government, and we have to choose between two systems. One system is free education in technical institutes throughout the Union, and the other system is to make these institutions fee-paying throughout the Union. Under these circumstances we have done what we could, and we have made the change-over in the institutions in the Transvaal as easy as possible. The introduction of the fee-paying system in the Transvaal has not affected the attendance at these institutes in the slightest; in fact, the number of students has grown abnormally. The work done by the Workers’ Educational Association is very important and desirable, and if we had the money to give grants-in-aid to branches of the association throughout South Africa we would certainly do it. But after all our means are limited, and this association’s work is not for children but for adults, and I think our first responsibility is not to educate adults but children. Until we can make proper provision —and we cannot do that vet—for the education of the child, we cannot think of giving on any scale that is at all liberal grants towards the education of adults. Certainly that association is to be encouraged, and I hope it will carry on its work, even although it receives no grant from the Government. No grant has been taken away from the Durban branch of this association, but it figures under C 9. As to the medical training of natives, preparatory training is being carried on at Fort Hare, but it is just a beginning. Seeing that Fort Hare has not a hospital of any significance in the neighbourhood, it is impossible to give a complete medical training at Fort Hare. A commission was appointed to go into the whole question, but I cannot give any information as the commission was appointed by the Minister of Native Affairs. As far as I know, it has not yet reported, but the whole question is being enquired into. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) has complained in connection with the technical institution on the Witwatersrand, and his chief complaint is against the principal of the institution, Professor Orr. He seems to labour under the misunderstanding that Professor Orr has been appointed by me. These institutions are autonomous as far as the appointment of their professors and teachers is concerned. The professor was not appointed by me, but I might say that I do not think on the whole of the Witwatersrand, with all the efficient and capable persons who are congregated there, anymore capable or efficient individual can be found than Professor Orr. He is a singularly capable man in spite of the grievance of the hon. member. The general complaint of the hon. member was that the education given in the technical institutes of the Rand is too cultural and theoretical and has too little touch with the workshop. The reply to that is that the number of full-time students at the technical institute is very small as it is with all the technical institutes in the country. The people who are being trained there come from the workshops where they get their practical training every day. What they want is theory. A technical institute is not an industrial school. A student attends the classes at the institute where he learns theory from which he can judge about his mistakes in practice and thus correct them. The department directly has nothing to do with the curriculum in these institutions except in so far as we get these experts together every year representing the technical institutions in the country; they are a sort of technical council, and they go into the whole question of the teaching at these institutions. As far as the governing body is concerned on the Witwatersrand the scheme of Government was passed according to the Act and appeared for a considerable time in the papers and the “Gazette,” and any suggestion in connection with it could have been made before the scheme came into operation. I am prepared to consider any suggestions for the improvement of the various institutes and when the time comes to revise a scheme of governing I will try to meet all requirements. The question was asked for information by the hon. member fox’ Kingwilliamstown (Maj. Ballan tine) in connection with industrial and house crafts schools. Let me say the increase which figures on the estimates is accounted for in this way. These schools all belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church. We must not forget that the church started these industrial schools before there were any in the country, when the Government did not realize or carry out its responsibilities with regard to this matter. In the beginning they got a deal of support from the various congregations, but in the Cape Province, where all these schools are, the system was introduced of indigent boarding schools under the provincial administration by Sir Frederic de Waal, and most of these congregations have their indigent boarding schools locally and instead of giving their contributions as they did before to the central industrial school they gave their money locally and so the industrial schools began to suffer. The position had become such that at Oudtshoorn, mentioned by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), if the Government had not stepped in and taken over the school it would have been closed down and the position in a few years’ time would have been that the Government would have had to come forward and start an industrial school in that place de novo. It was better to keep the school going and take that over. The schools had liabilities of £7,200 which they could not work off. It was a millstone round their necks, and we came to agreement with the church that we would take over the liabilities and they would hand over the assets to us. The £7,200 is not recurrent and will not figure on the estimates next year. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) accused me of giving instructions to the governing body of the technical institute at Durban.

I said tantamount to giving instructions.

That is watering it down considerably. He said in the first place I gave instructions that they must make provision for technical education for Indians, and it must be under the same roof as the Europeans. I did nothing of the kind. The request was made from the Indian community in Natal that facilities should be given for them, and I replied that I could not start a technical institute for them specially. I have not done it for the coloured people in the Cape, but I will tell you what I did and what I may do for the people of Natal. I told them I thought it was wrong to get their technical education under the same roof as the white people, but I thought it a good thing if a separate branch of the institute was started for them under the same governing body, and those who teach the Europeans should be employed to teach the coloured in their own branch, and they agreed to that, and it is working admirably in the Cape. When the request came to me from Natal, I represented the matter to the governing body of the technical institute in Natal, and I said “It is for you to decide. I cannot interfere and give you instructions, but I give it to you to consider.” Now the hon. gentleman comes along and says I gave instructions, and that I interfered with the functions of the administration in Natal.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.