brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Precious Stones Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report and evidence to be printed and report considered on 7th April; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 7th April.

laid upon the Table—

read a letter, dated 28th March, 1924, from the Secretary to the Prime Minister, reporting the election of the Hon. William Arthur Deane for the electoral division of Umvoti, in the room of Col. the Hon. Sir George Leuchars, deceased.

I move—

This Bill will, if it becomes law, amend Section 2 of the Removal or Modification of Restrictions on Immovable Property Act, 1916, and will substitute a new section therefor. The section which is to be repealed, stipulates, inter alia, that the court can only order the proceeds of the sale of an entailed estate to be distributed amongst the usufructuaries thereof, and to be used by them absolutely, should it be convinced that the interest that is derived therefrom will not be sufficient to be made beneficial use of by the said beneficiaries. Now one may consider this proviso sufficiently adequate to meet every difficulty that may arise in regard to restrictions on an entailed estate. Yet if one were to examine the orders of the court that were given for the removal of such restrictions, one will at once see that such is not the case, for in no fewer than 4 cases that were heard under this section, did the court refuse to remove absolutely the restrictions that were asked to be displaced; but decreed, on the contrary, (by virture of the limited powers vested in it) that in cases where the amount of interest accruing from the proceeds of the sale of an entailed estate had been £12, £5 12s. and £2 16s., such interest was a sum sufficiently large to be beneficially used. Now if one were to take this ruling as a premises to argue from, one may with equal justice infer that 1d. interest per beneficiary, per annum, is a sufficiently large amount to be used beneficially. But though this may be a correct interpretation of the phrase “beneficial use,” it can surely never be contended that such a sum, or even the other sums mentioned by me, are ample to sustain a beneficiary who is old and decrepid, and who has no other source of income to live on. Nor can it be contented that apart from the consideration of old age and decripitude, any material advantage worth mentioning can be derived by a usufructuary from any of the sums of interest mentioned. Such a contention would, on the face of it, be obviously ridiculous, and yet this is a state of affairs that obtains under the present Act. To obviate this, I thought of introducing this Bill, as I am honestly convinced that it provides the necessary machinery for a solution of the difficulties mentioned by me—difficulties which the court found it impossible to remedy under the existing Act treating of entailed estates. A case that is closely allied to this Bill and that will be especially affected by it, is the following : In 1898 my late parents entailed an estate of approximately 8,000 morgen to all their dependents until after the 4th generation. This was done because the testators at that time laboured under the impression that a payable diamond mine might be discovered on the property. But this expectation has since been completely falsified, for notwithstanding the fact that the property has since been repeatedly and thoroughly prospected, no payable mine has since been discovered, nor is it ever likely to be discovered, as no one is willing to prospect the property any further, and the beneficiaries themselves cannot do it, owing to the indigent state they are in. Since the entailment of the said estate, the descendants entitled to the usufruct thereof have increased so enormously that in 1918 they approximated 1,000, and today I think they considerably exceed that number—therefore, it is now wholly impossible for them to make any further profitable use of the same. I would like here to ask the indulgence of the House, as I feel I have a very difficult task to pilot this Bill through the House. What is the effect? The effect of this is that only a few beneficiaries are enjoying the benefits of the entailment, whereas the majority of the descendants do not concern themselves about the estate at all, with the result that the divisional council rates and other taxes are accumulating and will necessitate the eventual sale of the property, unless Parliament provides an Act empowering the court to order that the property be sold, and that the proceeds thereof be used by the usufructuaries absolutely. If Parliament fails or refuses to do that, and the property eventually is sold to pay the arrear rates and taxes, the object of the testators will be frustrated. Under the Removal or Modification of Restrictions on Immovable Property Act, the court may, in the circumstances specified in that Act, authorize the sale of the entailed property. A property is usually entailed by testators for sentimental reasons. The testator, for those reasons, desires to keep the property within the family, but once the property is sold and converted into cash the object of the testator is defeated. The same reasons do not apply as regards the proceeds of the sale of the entailed property. The court should therefore be granted greater latitude in regard to the disposal of such proceeds. Another difficulty we have to cope with under the Bill with regard to the estate, is the discrepancies in the generations, in so far as the descendants are concerned. I, for instance, am still living in the first generation, but there are descendants who are also usufructuaries, who are in the sixth generation, but notwithstanding the fact that they live in the sixth generation, the property cannot be disposed of. I should like to make a special appeal to the House to help to make this Bill as strong as it possibly can, and to come to the assistance of the usufructuaries and help us out of the difficulty we are in.

Do not make us cry.

That hon. member is always making mischief. As far as the estate is concerned, entailed by my late parents to their descendants, it may interest the House to know that the descendants, in 1918, twice petitioned the court to remove the restrictions on the estate, and to order that the same be sold, and that all the proceeds thereof be used by the usufructuaries absolutely. We did that in 1918, and it cost us over £500, but the court only granted the petition partially. It was only granted to the extent that the property could be sold, but as far as the proceeds of such sale was concerned, it was ordered to be vested in the hands of the Kimberley Board of Executors who shall invest it in securities, and only pay the interest accruing therefrom to the beneficiaries.

I am sorry that I have to oppose the hon. member’s motion for the second reading. I am going to oppose it on three grounds. The first is that I oppose tampering with legislation for the benefit of one or two individuals.

I have pointed out there are not one or two, but several cases.

I have on previous occasions held that when an individual asks us to come to his assistance and amend Acts of Parliament, he should come here with the support of the hon. the Minister of justice. We are simply tampering with existing legislation. Up to 1916 the legislature alone could deal with any question such as this. In 1916 we gave power to the courts to deal with such matters in certain specific cases, and we limited the court’s power to the extent of the proviso to section 2, which reads—

The court has that power to-day which formerly only the legislature had. If we accepted this Amending Bill it means that the court can practically make a will for a testator. I want to say this. This Bill seems to me to try to obscure the position; we have the whole of sub-section (a) which is a copy of section 2 of the Act of 1916. Sub-section (b) is an absolute copy of that section. That seems to be an attempt to obscure the position, and there must be some reason more than we can see.

There is not.

I am only suggesting that there is. I understand that this Bill has not been gazetted. If that is so, the public have not had the opportunity of making representations here. The law society informed me this morning that their attention had not previously been drawn to this Bill. It is depriving testators of their right to dispose of their property as they wish. The law society have had no notice of the Bill, and the public have had no opportunity of discussing the matter or of making representations here, and I do not think this House should pass the second reading now. I am, therefore, going to oppose the second reading.

Ek sal die twede lesing van die Wetsontwerp ondersteun. Daar is verskillende van die soort testamente, wat swaar druk op die nakomelinge By my is sterk aangedring in 1911 en 1912 om wetgewing te probeer invoer, om voorsiening te maak dat die soort eiendomme, wat nutteloos word, te laat verkoop of op ’n ander manier te onthef van die testament se bepalinge. Ek het baie gesukkel om dit deur te kry; ek het probeer om ’n amendement voor te stel en die Huis gewys op die moeilikhede, wat daaruit voortspruit. Maar ongelukkig wou die Huis dit nie so verander, dat die Hof dergelike eiendomme kon verkoop nie. In my kiesafdeling weet ek van gevalle waar die grond aan lie kinders vermaak is en nou bedraag hulle al die getal van ongeveer 400, wat beteken dat die grond so klein is, dat geeneen daar enige nut van kan geniet nie. Die uitslag is, dat dit vir die erfgename nutteloos is en die transporteer naderhand meer kos, as wat die grond werd is. Maar laat die Hof die reg verkry, om waar die toestand so is as deur my beskrewe, die erfgename tegemoet te kom, deur die testament op te hef en die geld te verdeel, as dit ’n betreklike kleine bedrag is, of dit anders te beleg en die inkomste aan die erfgename gee. Ek kan nie iets verkeerd in die Wetsontwerp sien nie. Die ou mense had waarskynlik ’n goeie plaas en wil dat die kinders die sal behou, maar dit was seker nooit die bedoeling, da as die erfgename naderhand 1,000 is, hulle dit nog altyd moet onder mekaar deel nie. Wat moet hulle daarmee maak? As die wetgewer hulle nie tegemoet kom nie, lê dit daar en is niemand van enige nut nie. Daaromondersteun ek die Wetsontwerp van harte, en hoop dat die Huis dieselwe ook sal ondersteun, dat ons die mag aan die Hof gee. Ons het ’n Hof, wat volkome vertrou kan word en dit is die enigste liggaam wat ons die mag aan kan gee.

Ek is bereid om die Wetsontwerp van harte te ondersteun, maar die vraag is of die Wet van 1916, ingedien, ek meen deur die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler), nie in so’n geval voorsiening maak nie. Dit is ’n goeie doel wat die edele lid wat die Wet voorgestel het, beoog, maar hy het ongelukkig hier sulke hoogdrawende taal gebruik—hy het nou eenmaal die klap weg om taal te gebruik, wat moeilik te volge is en ek weet nie of hy dit aldag self verstaan nie—dat dit vir ons leke moeilik is om dit te volg; hy het selfs hier en daar latyn gebruik. Ek moet verstaan, dat as so’n beswaar op ’n eiendom rus, word dit na jare onmoontlik vir die erfgenaam om daarop te bestaan en daar is sekere eiendomme, inter familiam, waar net die familie regte op het, maar al so groot in aantal is, dat dit onmoontlik is om die eiendom te behou, en as die erfgename geen ander leeftog het nie, kan hulle daar geen bestaan op maak nie. Daardie geval is my goed bekend, welke die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) hier aangehaal het en ek sal my nie verwonder as die erfgename reeds 600 is nie—’n edele lid daar sê, hulle is 1.000. As so’n eiendom nou moet opgesny word in 1,000 stukkies, hoe groot sal elke een syn wees en welke voordeel sal die eienaar daaruit kan haal? Hier moet die wetgewer instap en help, maar dit kom my voor of in die Wet van 1916 genoegsaam voor siening gemaak word. Is dit nie die geval nie laat dan by wetgewing bepaal word dat dit kan verkoop word en die geld onder die erfgename gedeel. Dit is hier soas die spreekwoord sê, ’n halwe eier is beter as ’n leë dop. Die kinders het nou die leë dop; gee hulle dan liewer die halwe eier en laat hulle dit gebruik. Wat betref die teorie van die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Haven) (Maj. van Zyl) dat die Ontwerp eers voor die Vereniging van Regspraktisyns moet gelê word, mag ek vra welke mag het hulle om te dikteer, dat as ’n edele lid ’n Wetsontwerp wil voorstel, hy dit eers aan hulle moet voorlê, alvorens dit in te bring. Ja, ek weet dat dit die doel is van advokate om te plunder, maar ek dink dis verkeerd dat as ons ’n private Wetsontwerp wil indien, ons dit eers aan die hoge majesteit van die Wetsvereniging moet voorlê vir goedkeuring. Die regsgeleerde het reeds teveel mag in die Huis en ek kan die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) gelukwens, dat hy nie die Wetsontwerp eers aan hulle voorgele het nie. Ek gee nie om of hulle dit opgestel of afgestel het nie, maar as ek ’n Wet het, sal ek dit nie aan hulle hoge majesteit voorlê nie.

Ek het jammer dat ek nie heeltemal kan saamgaan met die Wetsontwerp nie, want ek dink mens moet altyd die doel en wil van testamentmakers eerbiedig. Hulle het miskien ’n verdere doel en dan sou, onder hierdie Ontwerp die twede of derde geslag kan kom en die Hof vra om daardie doel te vernietig, terwyl die bemaakte goed later van grote waarde kon geword het. Ek weet van gevalle, dat as die Ontwerp van krag was, sekere gronde verlore sou gegaan het, want die erfgename was verkwisters; maar deur die beskerming van die testament lê die grond vandag daar nog, en dit was die bedoeling van die testamentmaker. Vir my is dit altoos ’n belangrike saak, dat die testamentmaker vry is om oor sy goed te beskik en dit desverkiesende, aan die derde of vierde geslag kan gee, en die wetgewer het nie die reg om tussenbeide te kom nie. Mense wat 12,000 en 13,000 morge had om oor te beskik, sou niks van oor wees nie, dat sou verspil wees as daardie Wetsontwerp reeds bestaan het. Ek kan nie saamgaan met die Wetsontwerp wat ’n testament kan laat verbreek nie.

I am sorry my colleague the Minister of Justice is not here, and what I am going to say now is simply an expression of my own views and do not in any way represent his. I find myself in agreement with this Bill. My hon. friend behind me has put up an argument which is an argument not against this Bill, but against the Act of 1916. This House has already passed a law in 1916, saying that where land has been tied up in this way by a testator, and where the court is of opinion that, owing to a change of circumstances, which probably the deceased man could never have possibly foreseen, it is to the advantage of everybody that the entail should be broken and the property disposed of, they have the right to do so. That lays down the principle against which my hon. friend is still arguing; but what the hon. member who moved this Bill has in view is to relieve the court from a restriction which is placed upon it by this Act, and which I think is not very well expressed. Section 2 in the proviso says that if the court is satisfied that the interest derivable from such proceeds would be too small to be distributed among and beneficially enjoyed by the beneficiaries in being, it may order the proceeds to be distributed among such beneficiaries. There is hardly any amount so small that it cannot be distributed among and enjoyed by those who get it. The point is: is it going to be of any use to them? I think under this law as it stands, the hands and discretion of the court are unduly tied and circumscribed, and as the House has accepted the principle that the court should intervene in such circumstances, it should leave the discretion in the hands of the court as this Bill proposes. If they think in certain circumstances it is better in the interests of certain beneficiaries that the property should be distributed amongst them, they have the right to order it. They are the authority best qualified to exercise this power, and it will only be exercised in the circumstances contemplated by the original Act, that is to say, where it is quite clear that the intentions of the testator in the changed circumstances, or for other reasons, are not really being given effect to. Now, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) opposed this on the ground that we were legislating for a single individual, but my hon. friend has just told us that the descendants of his parents already number over 1,000. I think it is a great advertisement to the country that we can expand at such a rate, and it shows that these matters, although they may have begun with one testator, rapidly extend their effect to a large number of persons. Not only that but in many parts of this country property is being tied up, land is left unused simply because under these restrictions from past generations no one has sufficient control over them to put them to the use the testator obviously intended they should be put. This Bill lays down no new principle in regard to testator’s wishes, it is only removing a restriction from the court which will enable the court to exercise full discretion and to act in circumstances they think best. It seems to me that the original words of the Act of 1916 are dubious in their meaning, and will probably be interpreted by the court, which always interprets these things strictly, as giving it no right to act as in the interests of equity it should be enabled to act. I think we should pass this Bill and remove those restrictions.

I would like to Support the hon. the Minister of the Interior. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) said that one objection to the Bill was that it interfered with the disposition of property under a will. As a matter of fact, as far as this country is concerned, if the Bill does do so, this objection will be to me no objection, because I think one of the most mischievous things we have in this country is the length of time for which, according to provisions in wills which are common according to the habits and customs of this country, property may be tied up under restrictions which have become in process of time entirely unsuitable. But, as a matter of fact, this Bill does nothing of the kind, because under the Bill the court can only make an order in certain circumstances, i.e., those laid down in Section 1 of the Act, and Section 1 is not touched at all by this Bill. The result is that the power of the court to act at all is still limited to the different cases laid down under Section 1. It seems to me that we can quite safely trust the court to act under the conditions laid down in the Bill. After all, there are many sections in the Act which provide most completely for the protection of all concerned, so that everybody who has an interest can come before the court, which has to make the order asked for. For these reasons, I do not think any injustice will be done. On the contrary, I think it is a very wise thing to give the court the power under this Bill which it does not have under the Act.

I think the hon. member who introduced this Bill to-day in very clear language, told us the reasons why he brought it forward, and I must congratulate him and his family for having 1,000 descendants in South Africa. I only hope they are all of the same specimen as my hon. friend. I cannot understand the position of my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl), who, because this Bill will help one person, is opposed to it. Surely that is a wrong principle, because it will help one person, he is opposed to it. Surely there is sufficient protection for all concerned, because after all, the applicants will have to go to the court again and satisfy it that they have a good case, and the way the case has been brought before us to-day must clearly show that this is a case in which Parliament should go to the assistance of the hon. member, and I heartily support him.

Ek wil net ’n paar woorde op daardie kwessie sê. Men loopt gevaar, dat vreemde mense ons sal beskuldig, dat ons as manne van die praktyk alleen van ons standpunt uit praat, maar juis die mense van die praktyk het baie kere meer ondervinding van die moeilikhede, wat daar bestaan, as die gewone leek. Die Wet wat ons vandag wil verander, maak baie voorsieninge vir die gevare waar die edele lid vanmiddag van gepraat het. Die edele lid moet hom herinner, dat hy as vader, of dat enige vader, die reg het sy eie wet te maak omtrent sy eie goed. En as ’n vader en ’n moeder ’n testament maak en dan ’n servituut lê op die goed, dan moet daar baie rede voor wees en as die vader en moeder die eiendom, wat hulle bymekaar gemaak het in die lewe, in die famielie wil hou en nie wil dat dit in vreemde hande sal kom nie, welke reg het dan die nageslag om dit te wil verander? Die Hof het diskresie genoeg waar moeilikhede en absolute nadele ontstaan om verligting te gee, maar jy kan nie die Hof die reg gaan gee om sonder absolute noodsaaklikheid die wil van die man te gaan verander nie. Ek lê dit so dikwels uit aan my vriende, dat as jy gaan neer sit en jy maak ’n testament, dan maak jy ’n wet vir jou famielie en jy het die reg om te disponeer oor jou eie goed soos jy wil. Jy maak nie ’n wet, wat solank bestaan tot tyd en wyle die kinders, goed of sleg, aanvraag doen by die Hof om die wet te verander nie. As die vader weet, dat die Hof die wet kan gaan verander, dan sal geen vader daartoe oorgaan om restriksies te maak in sy testament nie. Die Hof moet alleenlik die diskresie hê om in gevalle, waar dit absoluut onmoontlik is om die testament uit te voer, die testament te verander. Nou kom die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) hier met sy hoogdrawende redevoering, waarvoor ’n mens werkelik baie kwalifikasies moet hê en ondervinding, om die te kan volg. Maar laat ek sê, dat ’n mens baie versigtig moet wees om dit moontlik te maak, dat veranderinge gebring word in die verlange van vader of moeder wat betref die vruggebruik van die goed, wat hulle nalaat. Ek dink die bestaande Wet maak genoeg voorsieninge om hulp te verleen as verandering nodig is, maar dit lyk vir my baie asof die verandering voorgestel deur die edele lid vir Barkly (de hr. Scholtz) net bedoel is vir één geval, vir sy eie geval. Hy het gesê, dat daar al ses geslagte is in sy famielie. Hy is van die tweede geslag—

Ek is van die eerste geslag.

Ek wil die edele lid die versekering gee, dat as hy ’n regverdige saak het voor die Hof te bring, as hy kan aanwys, dat dit onmoontlik is om uitvoering te gee aan die testament, of as hy kan aantoon dat deur die uitvoering van die testament skade berokken word, of andere moeilikhede kan kom op die nageslag, dan sê ek is die Hof nog by magte, nietteenstaande die testament, om sodanige verandering te maak as nodig is.

Nee, dis nie so nie.

Ek het meer met die sake te doen gehad as die edele lid daar waarskynlik, nie alleen in my eie famielie nie, maar ek het ook in tal van gevalle voor die Hof gewees met testamentsake, en waar die Hof altyd regverdig en billik gewees het teenoor die nageslag. As dit absoluut nodig was is verligting gegee, aan die ander kant regmatig ook verhinder dat te gemaklik veranderinge gemaak is. Ons kan nie jaar na jaar kom om wette te verander nie. Jy sal naderhand vier, vyf wette hê oor boedelkwessies. Daar is nou duidelik neergelê in welke geval jy na die Hof kan gaan. Hierdie voorstel skyn ’n spesiale geval tegemoet te moet kom. As dit so is, dan dink ek sal die Huis geregtig wees om daarteen te stem, nietteenstaande die gevoele van edele lede hier. Laat ek sê, dat ’n mens kennis van sake moet hê om ’n oordeel oor die geval te kan vel. Al wat ek wil sê is dat die vader sy besittingsreg nie deur ’n mosie van die Hof moet kan verander word. As hy die goed bymekaar gebring het vir die nageslag, dan moet voorkom word dat die eerste geslag die reg het om te verkoop en dat anders gehandel word as die vader se verlange is. Ek hou baie van die audio resto op grond, want dit belet baie mense om armeblanke te word, om die grond te verkoop, en die geld uit te gee. Daardie mense word dit belet en hulle bly grondeienaars. Die geval waar die grond te klein word en mense nie kan bestaan nie, is vir my nog nie bewys nie. Ek is ook nog nie oortuig dat die Hof ooit geweier het om verligting te gee, as daar genoeg redes daarvoor gewees het.

Ek wou net ’n paar woorde sê oor die onderwerp, maar voordat ek daartoe kom wens ek na aanleiding van wat die edele lid vir Bethlehem (de hr. Brand Wessels) gesê het, hom daarop te wys dat hy nie moet vergeet nie dat in die geval die Hof reeds toegestem het om die erflating te verander. Al wat die Hof nie mag doen nie is die manier van uitkering, die verdeling van die opbrengs van verkoop, daaromtrent het hulle gevind, kan hulle nie beslis nie, hulle kan oor niks anders as net die rente beslis, terwyl die aantal mense aan wie die rente moes betaal word, het hulle gevind dat dit nie ’n sieviele saak is nie. Daarom sê hulle moet die rente van die kapitaal op ’n andere manier gereël word, en voordat dit nie gedoen word nie, is die mag, wat die Hof reeds uitgeoefen het van nul en gener waarde. Want die Hof het uit die aard van die saak op die bestaande Wet reeds die erflating verander en dis net ’n kwessie van distribusie. Maar die eientlike punt waar ek ’n paar woorde oor wou sê, is dat in sulke gevalle, asook in soveel andere gevalle, moet ’n mens ook kyk na die ontwikkeling van die land. Wat is die posiesie van die stuk grond waar ek mee bekend is in die Vrystaat? Dit lê langs besproeibare grond, grotendeels langs ’n pragtige rivier, en as die grond los is, dan beteken dit ’n grote ontwikkeling, maar onder die omstandighede is die Hof bereid om te verander, maar die distribusie staan in die pad en die gevolg is dat waar ’n grote ontwikkeling kan plaas vind, dat niemand daar nou enig gebruik van het nie. Daarom gaan ek saam met die edele lid van Rondebosch (de hr. Close) dat dit te betreur is, dat in sulke omstandighede die Hof nie meer bevoegdheid het, om die erflating te verander nie. Die mag van die Hof bly volgens die nuwe voorstel onveranderd, net die kwessie van die distribusie kom in die wetjie ter sprake en met die oog op die ontwikkeling van die land, hoop ek dat die twede lesing aangeneem sal word.

Ek voel dat ek die wetjie kan ondersteun, omdat ek juis opdrag gekry het van sekere persone, wat ook moeilikhede het met die ou testament en met hulle grond. Ek wil so’n bietjie die sakie duidelik maak aan die Huis, dan wil ek sien dat so’n wetjie sal help in so’n geval. Sê, ’n ou vader het acht kinders en hy vermaak sy grond aan die derde geslag. Toe die vader doodgaan, toe gaan die moeder elke kind vrye transport gee. Ek weet nie waar die fout gekom het dat hulle die kinders vrye transport gegee het nie, want onder die testament was dit nie moontlik nie, maar dis seker dat die eienaars van die grond nie geweet het dat die serwituut op hulle grond is nie. Party van die eienaars het na die Landbank gekom vir leninge en die Landbank het die leninge gegee. Toe ons kyk na die applikasie, vind ons, dat daar geen serwituut op die transport was nie en toe het ons die lening gegee. Van die persone was daar wat naderhand hulle verpligtings nie kon nakom nie, en wat bankrot gegaan het en die Landbank was verplig om die grond te verkoop. Heeltemaal vreemde mense het gekom om die grond te koop en die sit vandag daar as grondeienaars. Ek dink seker as die Wetsontwerp deurgaan, dan sal die groot moeilikheid weggeneem word, want nou het jy die posiesie, dat selfs 100 erfgename daar kan wees by die derde geslag, wat dan gesamentlik grondbesitters is. Wat beteken die grond dan vir hulle? Die acht eienaars, het applikasie gemaak om die serwituut weg te neem en die Hof kon niks doen nie, want een van die persone, ’n aangetroude famielielid, het geprotesteer teen enige verandering. Ek sê, wanneer die wetjie deurgaan, dan sal sulke groot sake opgelos word en ek sal daarom vir die twede lesing stem.

Ek dink, dat ons heeltemaal veilig is om die wetjie maar te laat deurgaan. In my kiesafdeling is ek ook bekend met dergelyke soorte sake, waar die grond vermaak is aan kinders en kindskinders en in verband waarmee die grooste moeilikhede in die wereld ontstaan. Die erfgename loop naderhand in die 200 of 300 en daar is altoos ’n paar dwarskoppe daarby en so lank een of twee protesteer, kan die grond nie van die hand geset word nie. In baie gevalle moet belasting betaal word, maar wie gaat die betaal? Die grond word later absoluut waardeloos vir die erfgename, wanneer die getal kinders eers in honderde of soos hier vanmiddag aangehaal is tot in die duisend loop. Ek dink daardie wetgewing maak dit ’n bietjie gemakkeliker om met so’n saak na die Hof te gaan. In my kiesafdeling is daar van die gevalle gewees, maar altoos was daar die een of ander struikelblok van die een of ander, en die grond beteken in baie gevalle feitelik nie meer ’n erfenis nie, maar ’n las, waarvan die erfgename bly is om van ontslaë te raak. Daar is altoos die een of ander wat protesteer en ek dink hierdie wetgewing sal tegemoet kom aan daardie soort van sake. Ek ondersteun daarom die wetjie van harte.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee.

On Clause 1,

It seems to me that there is a mistake in the drafting in sub-section (2) of Clause 1. It reads: “In the event of the court having prior to the commencement of this Act granted an order in terms of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of this section.” It is impossible for any court to have granted an order under paragraph a (1) of the Act.

It is the principal Act.

It does not say that. I am reading from sub-section (2).

What the hon. the Minister is reading is not in the copy which I have before me.

In sub-section (2) of Clause 1, it says: “In the event of the court having prior to the commencement of this Act, granted an order in terms of paragraph (a) (1) of this section”. Surely the court could not have granted an order under this Act before the Act was there. The intention was to say that in the event of the court having given an order under the principal Act—no, it could not do that either. What was meant was that if the court had given an order under Sections 1 and 2 of the principal Act. This clause should be amended to read: “in the event of the court, prior to the passing of this Act, having granted an order under Sections 1 and 2 of the principal Act”. I shall move that amendment.

This substitutes it.

Well, if it is in order, then I shall not move an amendment.

I think the draftsman’s intention is correctly expressed here, because this clause is supposed to be placed in the old Act. That reference to granting an order under this, means under the Act of 1916.

I should like to know whether you are putting this clause, subsection by sub-section, or are you putting the whole clause, Mr. Chairman.

I am putting the whole clause.

I wish to protest against sub-section (b).

It is the gist of the whole Bill.

It appears to me that we are opening this whole inheritance question by putting in these words in that subsection.

That is what the whole Bill is about.

Why change the whole position? We are here giving absolute liberty to the court to change any will and make it absolute. I quite admit that if you read sub-section (a) it is perfectly correct; it can be paid over to the Master or to any trustee subject to certain terms and conditions. If this property was subject to restriction it might be sold, and the proceeds thereof should be placed out at interest; but you go further in sub-section (b), the proceeds are to be distributed amongst the beneficiaries to be enjoyed by them absolutely. This will necessitate an alteration in the whole idea of the Bill.

It is dependent on Section 1 of the principal Act.

I should deny the court the right to distribute the capital of the proceeds.

Subject to the conditions in Section 1 of the Act.

I want to be perfectly clear. Lawyers may take that view, but I differ in the way I read the clause. I am only concerned with this one matter. It is not fair that a person should go to the court and that the court should have power to alter a will by selling the property and dishing out the capital to the beneficiaries, to be enjoyed by them absolutely without restriction. I think this is going to a great length, and I do not think that we should support legislation which would allow a court to alter a will and testament, subject to fidei commis, or any restriction, to be sold without any restriction and to be applied by the beneficiary in any way he pleases. I move—

I think if the hon. member looks at the principal Act he will see that his objection is not a sound one. If he will follow me, I will explain what I mean. The only section of the principal Act which is to be repealed is Section 2. Section 1 of the principal Act remains, and under that section the court may only order any property to be sold under certain conditions. Section I states that the court shall order any property to be sold under certain conditions if the court is satisfied—

The court may in such case order the property to be sold. Then the Bill goes on to say—

I think if the hon. member will consider that, he will withdraw his amendment.

I quite appreciate what the hon. member said, and in that case I withdraw my amendment, as the clause makes the same provision as in the old Act.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

moved—

I do not want to obstruct the Bill, but there are certain principles laid down in the proposed sub-section which we have had no time to study. I think the hon. the Minister and the mover will appreciate what I say. I do not wish to obstruct the Bill, but I want it to be perfectly clear that I have in mind certain beneficiaries under a will, who, I am afraid, will be affected by this if it passes. As I have said, I do not wish to obstruct, but I hope he will see his way to give us the opportunity of studying the proposal. We would like to go into the matter again. I therefore move—

Ek will niks op die ontwerp self sê nie, maar stem in met die edele lid vir Bethlehem (de hr. Brand Wessels), dat daar tyd gegee word om die saak te oorweeg. Dit is ’n belangrike saak en volgens ek die ontwerp deurgelees het in die paar minute, is dit iets wat geld die verdeling van oorlede mense se goed. Ek hoop, dat die edele lid wat dit voorgestel het, sal toestem om die saak uit te stel, want dit word hier sommer op ons afgedruk. Neem Seksie 2 (b): “Be distributed among the beneficiaries in being to be enjoyed by them absolutely.” Hulle maak of dit iets nuuts is, maar dit is ’n reeds bestaande Wet.

Maar kyk na die voorbehoud.

Ek hoop die edele lid sal toegee dat ons doen soas voorgestel deur die edele lid vir Bethlehem (de hr. Brand Wessels). Die edelagbare die Minister sal onthou, dat ons eenmaal ’n Wet gemaak het, voorgestel deur die vroeëre lid vir Willowmore, de hr. Oosthuizen. ’n Sekere punt is ook in die gouigheid deur die Huis aangeneem en dit was verkeerd, maar dit is op ’n andere plek uitgehaal. Hier wil ons dieselfde doen en ons het geen reg daartoe nie. Die testamentmakers het vir hulle goed gewerk, hulle ken hulle kinders en stel sekere voorwaardes, omdat hulle bang is die goed sal weggeneem word. As die saak goed duidelik gemaak word wil ek saam gaan, maar laat ons tyd kry, want dit blyk uit sekere vrae, aan die agbare voorsteller gedaan, dat hy nie presies weet wat hy wil hê nie.

Ek wil graag aan die edele lid vir Bethlehem (de hr. Brand Wessels) duidelik maak, dat die verandering nie ’n verandering van beginsel is nie, maar net om duidelik te maak wat die bedoeling van die opsteller was en die van die amendement is, dat dit nie in die mag van die Hof lê met betrekking tot die wegneem van sekere bepaling.

Ek wil die edelagbare die Minister net daarop wys, dat die saak onder bespreking is of ek sal voortgang rapporteer met verlof om weer te sit.

Ek wil net duidelik maak, dat dit nie ’n saak van beginsel is nie, maar bloot ’n formele tegniese verandering; nie om die mag van de Hof uit te brei nie, maar die Wet van 1916, waarop dit in hoofsaak gebaseer is, te verduidelik en nie van die Hof se mag uit te brei nie. Die Hof kan die geld nie distribueer nie en nou wil die Wet bepaal, dat ’n paar gevalle, wat sedert 1916 voorgekom het, onder hierdie Wet kan behandel word; dat die sake feitelik heropen kan worden en bevel tot distribusie volgens hierdie Wet gegee. Ek hoop dat die edele lid nie daarop sal aandring dat voortgang gerapporteer word nie; ons kan die Wet met die verandering in derde lesing in behandeling neem.

I hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion to report progress which, he says, he has moved, not because he has any hostility towards the Bill, but because he wants it to stand over. If it stands over now, it will not be heard of again this session, There are no other Fridays open for private members’ Bills, except the 4th April, and even that is full. If it is allowed to stand over now, it will not be heard of again. We have accepted the principle of the Bill by agreeing to the second reading, and now it is only a question of drafting an amendment which even if not wholly satisfactory can be set right in another place.

Ek is daarop teen, dat voortgang gerapporteer word en die Wet op die lange liaan geskuif. Ek het al lank gesoek na so ’n Wet en daar is by my op aangedring deur kiesers, maar ek het gereken dat dit te laat is. Daarom moet ons nou met die Wet aangaan; as daar nou voortgang gerapporteer word, dan is die Wetsontwerp so dood as ’n mossie. Ek is daarom daarvoor, dat ons met die Wet aangaan.

Motion put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

In order to meet the point mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Lands, I move—

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain the alteration.

It is not an alteration, it is a question of drafting. The obvious intention of sub-section 2 in this clause is to meet cases in which orders have already been made. A person may have applied to the court already and an order has been made. Supposing the court had ordered the property to be sold, but had considered that the interest on the proceeds was small, but was still big enough to be divided amongst the beneficiaries, the court might have refused to distribute the capital. If this Bill becomes law the beneficiaries can go to the court and ask it to revise the order in the way proposed in this Act, and it will be for the court to decide whether they are prepared in their discretion to distribute the capital or not. In the law as it stands this could not be distributed if the interest from the proceeds was insufficient to be divided. If it was sufficient to be divided the capital could not be divided. This Bill gives the court power to divide the capital in their discretion, and Clause 2 enables these people to go to the court and ask it to reopen and reconsider the application.

New Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

moved—

I object, because the hon. member would not give me an opportunity to go into this matter in the Committee stage, and I think he ought to give me an opportunity at the report stage.

Amendments to be considered on 4th April.

I move—

The measure which I have the privilege of submitting to the consideration of hon. members has been introduced at the instance of the Natal Law Society in order to bring Natal into line with the other provinces of the Union so far as the practice of conveyancing is concerned. Prior to 1904 in order to practice as a conveyancer in Natal, it was only necessary for a person to take out a licence, which was granted without the passing of any examination or the subjection of the applicant to any test whatever. In 1904 it was realized that this was a bad practice, and the Natal Parliament passed an Act under which they provided that after the passing of that Act it would be necessary for any one desiring to practice as a conveyancer to pass a conveyancer’s examination. Since 1904 that has been the law in Natal. It means any person passing a specified examination as a conveyancer is entitled to practice whether that person is an admitted attorney, advocate, or not. As a result of that practice it has been borne in upon the profession in Natal that it is desirable that there should be a change. Experience has shown that it is not desirable that people should be allowed to practice as conveyancers who have only passed one examination. In reference to the preparation of documents frequently a very important question of law arises, and it is inevitable that the conveyancer gives advice on this question, and often this leads to unfortunate litigation very much to the detriment of the people who entrust their work to these conveyancers. I may say only quite recently I myself was concerned in a case where a will, drawn up by such a conveyancer, was set aside by the court, and caused considerable expense and trouble. This is the aspect from the point of view of the public, but the matter is also urged from a more selfish point of view, and that is from the point of view of the practising attorneys themselves. We have found that the bulk of the conveyancing work is gradually drifting into the hands of estate agents, accountants and others, who are admitted as conveyancers. The reason of this is very largely due to the fact that the person practising as an estate agent advertises, but the attorney is not allowed to advertise, and the competition is an unfair one. May I point out that an attorney or an advocate is obliged to pass a very stringent matriculation examination, and to serve five years in Natal under articles, whereas none of these restrictions are in force in regard to a person who practises as a conveyancer. The test is an unfair one, and I know of no place in the Empire where this practice is permitted. In South Africa, Natal is the only place where unqualified practitioners are allowed to, practise without passing an examination. This is not the case in other parts of the Union. In the Cape, by Act No. 12, 1858, and Act No. 11 of 1903, and in the Orange Free State under Rules 100 and 101 of the Supreme Court, attorneys are only allowed to pass a conveyancer’s examination and be admitted as such. It is felt that these gentlemen I have referred to in Natal with a constantly expanding scope of conveyancing, are not really qualified to act as such. Secondly, it is felt that from the more prescribed point of view, this is a form of practice which should be limited to attorneys and advocates, as it is in other parts of the world and South Africa. It is realized, of course, that a number of people have established practices, in fact, as I have already said, in my own town, I think, they do the bulk of the work. I do not know if it is the same in Pietermaritzburg, but, at any rate, it is realized that these gentlemen have established practices and have vested rights, and this Bill does not in any way propose to interfere with them. It is proposed that those who are practising to-day shall continue to practise, but it is urged that it is only right and proper that this practice should come to an end, and that there should be the same uniform practise throughout South Africa. I may say that this Bill was originally introduced and advertised as a private member’s Bill, but it has been held by Mr. Speaker that it is really a public measure. I realize the fact that it is a Bill which affects the rights of individuals very largely, and for that reason, if the House will accept the second reading, I will move that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee, so that the whole matter of the rights of these persons shall be considered and properly protected, and, if the Committee sees proper, that they shall be extended in any way they think proper. I am anxious that the practice shall cease, so far as Natal is concerned, of people other than attorneys and advocates practising as conveyancers. I understand that there are one or two other matters to which my attention has been drawn; these will best be dealt with by a Select Committee and are not material to the principle involved in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will agree to the second reading of the Bill and pass it on to a Select Committee for further consideration.

My instincts are all for protecting the conveyancing public against an unqualified practitioner, and the hon. member who introduced this Bill has promised that he will send it to a Select Committee. He wishes us to affirm the principle of the Bill by accepting the second reading, but before doing that, I would like to be quite clear what principle he is asking us to accept, because Clause 6—

Clauses 5 and 6.

5 and 6? At any rate, Clause 6 seems to me to go much further than the principle we are asked to accept. I am not sure that this House will agree with that principle, as his definition of a conveyancer goes very much further than the definition of a conveyancer in any other province. If we look at Clause 6, the definition of a conveyancer is—

No contract that I have ever seen has been drawn without incurring or containing legal rights or obligations, and the result is, that if we affirm the second reading of the Bill as it stands, we will be laying down that no man in the Union may draft the smallest contract of any sort, not even an attorney or advocate may write out any contract, however simple. A contract involving half-a-crown thus drawn out would involve three months’ hard labour, and that principle we cannot accept. The definition of a conveyancer in the other provinces, except in the Cape, has never been very clearly laid down, but the essence of the function of a conveyancer is to deal with registrable documents. That, I think, is the crux of the profession: a conveyancer has to deal with registrable documents; but this goes much further, and says that no one but a conveyancer may deal with a contract. The Cape Province alone has laid down a clear definition of a conveyancer, which I will read to hon. members. It seems to me, at any rate, the only sound definition—

That is the very essense of conveyancing—the sole right to deal with registrable documents, registrable in the Deeds Office. I have looked up the Transvaal laws, and I find that there is no definition in the Transvaal after the year 1874. Hon. members may be interested to hear the old definition of a conveyancer in the Transvaal, which is the law there to-day—

This law has never been repealed. That is the existing conveyancing Act of the Transvaal Law of 1902, but this is not a definition of conveyancing. The Transvaal Acts say nothing of conveyancing, they lay down the functions of a notary, but not of a conveyancer. The Natal definition defines a conveyancer as—

There again we have the principle that their functions are dealing with registrable documents. I would be prepared to support a second reading if the hon. member would accept this amendment—

It appears to me the court prescribes the examination to be passed by a conveyancer, but arbitrarily to lay down here that no man shall draw a contract or will or document of any description movable or immovable—

What about Clause 5? If the amendment is carried, what will be the effect of Clause 5?

I am not prepared to support this Bill, and I trust this House will not accept the principle of the second reading until Clause 6 is altered. I think we all agree that the public should be protected against unqualified conveyancers, but we should understand first of all what we mean by conveyancer before we accept the second reading.

I am glad the hon. the Minister has raised this very important point. I think the mover of the Bill will agree that it is of such far-reaching importance that I think he will be justified in asking us not to pass the second reading but to refer the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee to thrash out what is the best definition of a conveyancer, and to go into the merits and demerits of the main issue as well. I hope the hon. member in charge of the Bill will agree to that. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) said first that this Bill has been drawn up by the law society, and he introduced it at the request of that society for the purpose of bringing Natal into line with the other provinces. I would be more pleased if the hon. member brought in a Bill to bring the other provinces into line in this respect with Natal. There is only one point at issue, only one important point we are to consider in this matter, and that is: is it possible for a person to qualify ás a conveyancer without necessarily becoming a lawyer, and if he has so qualified is he competent and a fit person to do all classes of conveyancing? That is the only question; and the hon. member in charge of the Bill has produced no evidence whatever that those 80 conveyancers in Natal to-day—who are not qualified as lawyers—are not competent, or are not doing their work efficiently or in a proper manner. That is the question at issue. What evidence, I ask the hon. member in charge of this Bill, has he, or has the Natal law society, that the conveyancers in Natal, all of whom are qualified, have passed the examination, been admitted by the Supreme Court, and are registered as conveyancers? What evidence has he got that these conveyancers are incompetent or are not doing their work efficiently, or that the public are not getting a fair deal?

I do not propose to touch them at all.

Not propose to touch them?

No.

But let us put it this way. Let us take these people who sat for the examination for conveyancers last December. Twenty-one students tried to qualify as conveyancers, only nine passed. It is possible the other twelve may pass next year, but this Bill will preclude them practising as conveyancers unless they also become qualified as lawyers. Then, further, take the established businesses in Durban and Natal. The hon. members know there are house and estate agents who are fully qualified conveyancers, and who hope to hand on their businesses as conveyancers to their sons. The son of a man who is doing one of the largest house agent businesses in Natal is in England qualifying as a conveyancer. Now this boy comes back again fully qualified, but because he is not a barrister or a lawyer he is to be precluded from carrying on his father’s business. It seems to me that it is a retrogressive Bill. If the hon. member held that the examination for conveyancers in Natal is not sufficient to qualify them as conveyancers, then I can understand his argument in favour of the Bill. But is it essential or necessary to conveyancing that a person must be also qualified as a lawyer, must have got his articles, been through the lawyer’s office, and qualified as a lawyer or barrister first? Conveyancing work is a special branch of work by itself. Let me also say this, so far as the Natal public is concerned, they are more anxious to get their conveyancing done through conveyancers than through lawyers. There is far more conveyancing work done by the Natal Building Society, through Mr. Chapman, the secretary, than through any lawyers. Mr. Chapman is one of the most capable conveyancers in the country, and for conveyancing work I would back him against any lawyer in South Africa. He has had vast experience in conveyancing work.

He is not interfered with.

I know that, but this is the thin edge of the wedge. If this Bill had been law, Mr. Chapman would never have been able to do any conveyancing work unless he had also been a lawyer. He does not want to be a lawyer, he wanted to be a conveyancer only, but he would never have been a conveyancer, he would never have done any conveyancing work had this measure been in force. It seems to me that the hon. member in charge of this Bill has not established a sound case in favour of all conveyancing being done by lawyers, except those who are now doing conveyancing. I would move as an amendment that the order for the second reading be discharged and the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I would also point out to the hon. member who introduced this Bill, and who said that the conveyancing was now largely being done by estate agents and others, that it seems to me that those are the very people who should do that class of work. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan) smiles. He is a lawyer, and no doubt he is supporting this Bill. I am prepared to lay an even fiver, although I am not a betting man, that the hon. member supports this Bill.

It does not affect me.

It affects the legal profession. It scoops into the lawyers’ hands all the work that is now being done by conveyancers. And I might remind hon. members that lawyers to-day do a tremendous lot of house agency work and also insurance work. It is no use the hon. member shaking his head. Why not bring in a Bill saying that no lawyer shall do house agency work or insurance work? After all, in doing that work, they are poaching on the preserves of other professions. No, the lawyers get as much insurance and house agency work as they can, and now they want to prevent the conveyancers. It is not a square deal at all. The hon. member in charge of this Bill is a lawyer, and naturally he wants to get as much work as possible in the hands of the lawyers. But he knows that most of the conveyancing in Natal is done by qualified conveyancers, who are not lawyers. And further, the public prefer to go to these conveyancers rather than to lawyers. Why? Because they get their work done more expeditiously. The lawyer keeps them hanging about for weeks and even months.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes, that is so. And besides, the lawyer makes them pay through the nose.

It is all one prescribed fee.

Is it? By the time the “extras” are put on the prescription, the public has to pay through the nose, and fares very badly. Were it only the prescribed fee, it would not be so bad.

Not even a living wage.

By the time the extra titbits are put on, the person who wants any conveyancing done comes off a bad second. He prefers to go to a conveyancer to do his business; he prefers to go to the estate agent rather than to the lawyer. The estate agent does a lot of this work. It is mostly routine work. Yes, there might be a case of the drawing up of a will, which causes a lot of trouble. If there is an isolated case, such a case is an exception rather than the rule. Have we never heard of a lawyer who has drawn up a bad agreement or a faulty will?

No, never.

I submit that the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has put up a bad case. He has put up a weak case from the point of view of the public although a strong case from the point of view of the lawyers. That may be enough for him, but we have to look after the interests of the public. The hon. member in charge of the Bill has produced no evidence whatever to show that those who are doing conveyancing in Natal are incompetent and unqualified. If they are qualified, then it is possible for others to step into their place and become qualified too. Might I also just touch on another point which the hon. member has referred to? Before 1904 in Natal there was no need to qualify at all. All you had to do was to get a licence to become a conveyancer. In 1904 the law society got a Bill passed that nobody could become a conveyancer excepting those who passed a conveyancing examination, and then were admitted as conveyancers by the Supreme Court. That examination still holds good to-day. And there is nothing said to set that examination aside. Is it not severe or strict enough? If so, why not stiffen it up? The law society in cases of irregularity can take action as the conveyancers are under their control. In the event of any conveyancer being charged with bad practice or with doing wrongful acts as a conveyancer, then the Act provides that a special board shall be set up, a special board of enquiry on which there are to be two conveyancers, so that they can adjudicate in how far this person has been guilty of any wrongdoing. But the Board has never yet been called into operation. If it had been called into operation, and if it had been argued that on account of bad practises and wrong-doings, the law society could not control the doings of these conveyancers, then one might be able to understand the need for a Bill of this kind. So what is the inference? The inference is that the conveyancers have done their work satisfactorily. The public are not asking for this Bill. Let me suggest to the hon. member that the lawyers might have consulted the conveyancers before they brought this Bill forward. The conveyancers are under the control of the law society under that special Act of Parliament of Natal, and yet here is a Bill introduced by the law society through the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), under which, without them being consulted, they are vitally affected. They are to be dealt with without being given an opportunity of defending themselves. Had they been told that the law society was going to bring forward this Bill, they would have said: “What is the reason for it?”

It does not affect the existing people.

The hon. member was not here when I dealt with that point. There are a number of young men growing up who expect to step into their father’s businesses. There are house and estate agents in a big way, and they have sons who want to come into the business. They will be prevented from that, and this Bill will seriously affect the goodwill of these businesses. I am not so much concerned about that, but what I am concerned about is that there has been no demand on the part of the public for the measure. If there had been a demand for it, then very well. We should not let the lawyers get the whole thing into their hands unless they show that the qualified conveyancers are incompetent. I move—

seconded.

I rise to second the amendment.

It has been seconded by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux).

Very well, then, I shall give it my support. Although I did not hear the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) in introducing this Bill, I understand from the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) that he did not put up a very good case, especially as regards the public point of view. Now, this Bill has been brought forward, as already said, by the legal fraternity of Natal, without in any way informing the conveyancers whom it proposes to deal with, that it was intended to do so.

I have already said that.

Well, the hon. member speaks so often and so long, that one is bound sometimes to say something which he has already said. But I want to emphasize the point that they did not have the courtesy to tell these gentlemen who are carrying on the business of conveyancing in Natal, who have been doing so for years without any complaint from those whose work they have been doing. I have been told that the conveyancers did not know anything about such a Bill being brought forward, and I do not think it is at all fair. These men, who are now acting as conveyancers have been doing so for many years, at all events since 1904. They have been doing so under the aegis of the law society, and they have been subject to their rules and regulations. The law society, at all events, have had the power to control them, and they have carried on their work so well that the public are perfectly satisfied with them, and in some respects they are better qualified for their work than the solicitors can be, because they are in touch with the very people who are buying and selling property. They know their wants, and they are in a better position to deal with them than a strange solicitor would be. It has been said by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) that this Bill does not touch the conveyancers. That is quite correct so far as the conveyancers at present practising are concerned, but it will affect their businesses, because it will prevent anyone from succeeding to their businesses, and therefore it affects the goodwill of their businesses. Altogether, I consider this Bill is not called for, and I will vote against the second reading. The lawyers now act as land agents and insurance agents, and also follow other occupations, and not satisfied with this, they want to rope in something more. That is unfair to those who have already got the business. I cannot see my way to support the motion, and hope that the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) will be carried.

I do not propose to say much, but I think the hon. member in charge of the Bill should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). I have presented a petition against the Bill from every conveyancer in Natal. There is a society in Natal which governs the profession, and it is to a great extent a law society. This Bill was printed and published without any consultation with that society or the people in the profession. The Bill as published in the Government Gazette commenced by saying that it was “expedient” to do so and so. Mr. Speaker ruled that the Bill should be brought in as a public and not as a private Bill, and the word “expedient” has disappeared. It seems to me it was expedient to have the Bill introduced, expedient in the interest of a certain class of people. I think the matter will be well discussed in a Select Committee, and I think the House will be well-advised to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell).

I am one of those who think that the House should pass the second reading of the Bill and not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). Everywhere else in South Africa it is the general custom that only persons duly admitted to practise as attorneys be allowed to practise as conveyancers. The work of conveyancing is an essential part of the practice of an attorney, just as much as the work of a notary. In other parts of South Africa no man is allowed to practise as a conveyancer until he has been admitted as an attorney, and no man is allowed to act as a notary until he is admitted to practise as an attorney. The object of this Bill is to bring Natal into line with the rest of South Africa. I am not a Natalian, and as an advocate I have no concern whatever with the law society or the law society’s views in this matter, but I do know it is the universal practice all over South Africa and it has been the practice as long as I can remember that no one shall be entitled to practise as a conveyancer until he is an attorney. Anyone who has knowledge of this custom will agree that a person cannot make a good conveyancer until he is a good attorney. I have no special knowledge of what a conveyancer in Natal has to do, but I learned a good deal of conveyancing before I came to the bar in the Transvaal. I can say that it is universally accepted that one cannot be a good conveyancer until one knows the law, and until one is qualified in law. The objection of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) to the Bill is this. He admits, and quite rightly, that the existing practitioners in conveyancing are omitted from the provisions of the Bill. But he says that these conveyancers may, and do, have sons who may want to practise as conveyancers and succeed their fathers in the practice. May I point out that that particular argument could have been applied to other forms of legislation for professions. Some twenty years ago in the Transvaal, for instance, an Act was brought in to regulate accountancy whereby no one could practise as an accountant unless he had certain professional qualifications. At that time there were many unqualified accountants practising, and they were exempted from the provisions of the Bill, but if anyone had come along then and said that these unqualified accountants had sons, and that they might want to practise 20 years after without the necessary qualifications as accountants, it would have been looked upon as a ridiculous argument. Also take the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill, at present before the House; there are a large number of dental mechanics in the Transvaal who are exempted from this law, and are carrying on the business of dental mechanic. Are we going to make a further exception in the case of possible sons of these mechanics? All that is intended to be done in this Bill is to except practitioners who are already practising, and to bring Natal into line with the rest of South Africa, requiring that anyone practising as a conveyancer in future shall be an attorney. I repeat again that the work of a conveyancer is work that should be done by a fully qualified attorney and no one else. In all other parts of South Africa this has been generally accepted, and I see no reason why Natal should be an exception to the rule.

It is very evident from the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, that it is very nearly time that laymen began to have a look in, in the manufacturing of the laws of this country. His explanation only brought to my mind how unjust legislation has been in the past, in making it impossible for anyone else than a lawyer to do anything. The hon. member has not advanced a single reason in confirmation of his argument, why attorneys only should have the right to be conveyancers. The hon. member said it was the universal position in other parts of the country, that lawyers only should be allowed to practise, and presumably that is the only argument brought forward in favour of this Bill.

The whole case.

It is unfortunate for the law society in Natal, that they have too honest a representative in explaining their case, in the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), because in his opening speech he stated that the case was a selfish one, he says this is the whole case, therefore I say, without depreciating him in any way, that he is a very bad advocate for the law society. A good deal has been made by the mover, of the fact that this does not touch the present conveyancers. I should have thought, if the Bill were carried to its natural end, it should also apply to the future people, but I do not see any possible reason at all why people who are not attorneys should not be conveyancers. I should like to ask anyone in the House, whether they can prove to me that no ordinary member of the public can possibly do this work. I will give a case in point. With the exception of one thing, namely, the actual execution of the deed of transfer, I have myself done all the work that the hon. member, the mover, proposes to eliminate from the Act. It only shows that a man with ordinary common sense can do all the work in the Bill, which it is now desired to make a close preserve. I am going to argue that this is going to be against the public interest. From the experience I had as an estate agent, I find that the public were subject to inordinate delay—I am speaking from my Transvaal experience—in passing transfer, a delay occasioning a loss of money and time and worry—as a result of this very work of conveyancing being in the hands of lawyers.

Change the lawyer.

We have done that; we have changed our lawyers, and we found precisely the same delays, if anything the delays being a little worse.

Why did the hon. member not pay them?

That is one thing we never undertook to do; we never undertook the financial side. The lawyers send in their bills direct to the principals and look to them to pay. We never, in any circumstances, did anything in connection with it.

I was only joking.

I know it is only a joke. Invariably we had to complain of these delays. The agent is anxious to expedite the business of the transfer of the property, but when it comes to the transfer the matter passes from his hands, and he has no further control. He may go to the lawyer again and again, requesting reasons for the delay, but he can never ascertain what is the cause, and has to accept the word of the lawyer. Now the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) quite rightly asked when you were talking about aggregating all the work in the Union which has the slightest connection with legal work, and putting it in the hands of the attorneys, why do you not protect other trades and callings from the inroads made into them by the lawyers themselves? My hon. friend also referred to the question of insurance. Can you mention any lawyer who is not prepared to dabble with insurance? They will dabble in insurance, even with fire insurance and life insurance, and they will take even the renewal premiums of life insurance—anything and everything your lawyer friends will take up in Natal, and that is all the more reason why we should protect that section of the public who desire to go in for conveyancing business in Natal, and they should be protected from the rapacious man of the lawyers. As everyone who has anything to do with estate agency work knows, lawyers are always trying to induce this man to sell and that man to buy. By the very fact that they are the confidential advisers of people who own property, they are placed in a particularly advantageous position to get information about properties, and then they use this information for their own particular interests. They get commission on sales, the transfer fees and all the incidentals. Somebody interjects that there were no incidentals. Why, I have seen some of these lawyers—

The hon. member is discussing lawyers in general. We are now dealing with the question of conveyancing, but the hon. member is getting away from the principle of the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, sir; I do not wish to transgress it for a moment. I had a note on the same lines as my hon. friend down here, and there has been no demand for this Bill, no public demand. I have heard of none, neither has my hon. friend. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) did not argue that there had been any public demand; if there had been he would have said so. From all the information I have been able to get, it appears that this conveyancing work is much more admirably done by the conveyancers in Natal, and the public are better satisfied by the treatment they have been getting from the conveyancers than they have been obtaining from the lawyers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. A man goes to one who does the work best for him. The average member of the public, with his unfortunate ignorance of law, supposes, in the first place, that he is likely to get his work done better by the lawyers; but the fact that the lawyers have been beaten out of the field by the conveyancers has made the public realize that they can get better service from the conveyancers than the lawyers. Are there any cases which the hon. member can advance of public inconvenience under the present state of affairs? He did touch lightly upon one case in which he himself was interested, that of a will, but there were no others. The ordinary business of a conveyancer was not dealt with in an antagonistic spirit by the hon. member. He did not cite one conveyancing case where conveyancing had gone wrong. If there is one thing that I, personally, would go to a lawyer for, and I have frequently advised my own clients, when drawing up wills, that is in regard to the drawing up of wills. This is particularly a matter for lawyers, and is too dangerous a matter for laymen to dabble with; even the lawyers are not infallible in that direction, although I, and others like me, would be more fallible than the lawyers, but that is the only thing. Rather than we should be limiting this work to lawyers, we should widen the scope to estate agents and others to perform this work. I understand there is a board of examiners in Natal, and is not that sufficient? My friend tells me that the examination which is set by the board is a very stiff one, but if it is said that it is not particularly stiff, and you have given us no reason that it is not so, then make it sufficiently stiff. If the public interest is to be conserved, and it can only be conserved by having these people registered, then register them by all means. Do not say that the lawyer, and the lawyer only, is the man who shall have the right to go in for this examination, because that is what it amounts to. I do suggest to the hon. member that it savours rather of back-door methods, not he personally, but those who are responsible for bringing this Bill into the House, and one of our strongest objections against this Bill is that it was not brought in after consultaion with the conveyancers who are members of that society. If there is anything they ought to have done, they ought to have consulted their own members, but they have gone entirely behind the backs of their own members, and, in short, they have blacklegged on their own members. I look upon this as a gratuitous attack upon a profession or calling. I do not know what it may be called, but it was entirely unwarranted. It is likely to deprive a large section of the public of opportunities which one section of them have hitherto enjoyed, and have the right to enjoy, not only in Natal but all over the country, and I consider it a most unblushing attempt to obtain for one section of a society all the work which has hitherto been done by another section of the same society. I consider it to be conceived in selfishness, and, if my hon. friend will pardon me, pressed with impertinence. I consider the hon. member’s amendment is the right way, and I am quite prepared to agree we should consider this question of wills. There may be other things that require consideration, but we should not pass the principle of the Bill, which the hon. the Minister of Lands considered to be contained in Clause 6, but which is really contained in Clause 2, and I think if this House does pass the second reading, it will be stereotyping, so to speak, the fact that they are prepared to concede to lawyers the sole right to practice as conveyancers. For that reason I support the amendment that the subject matter should be sent to a Select Committee.

I support the amendment. It is some time since I remember having a discussion with some people in Natal, and I was informed that such a Bill was coming before the House. There was a good deal of anxiety about it, and the association of conveyancers were, I understood, opposed to the Bill. If what has been said is correct, that they have not been consulted, then that is one reason why the Bill should be rejected or sent to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said this was only bringing Natal into line. Well, when we start bringing Natal into line, we will be doing that sort of thing for a long time to come. Natal is out of line in practically everything, out of focus, so to speak, not only in connection with its municipal but with every other work, and I think if there is no better argument to bring in support of the Bill than that they are going to bring Natal into line, not much will be lost by its rejection. This Bill sounds to me like a medicine tax, just a wee bit like the medicine tax, not very much, but a wee bit. It is like the doctor’s prescription without which the chemist can do nothing. It would bring about the conveyancers’ relations to the lawyer something like the chemist to the doctors—we will not allow him to practise or do any work unless he has passed the examination and has become a lawyer. I believe it is quite true, as has been said, that there is no general complaint with regard to the conveyancers of Natal. No complaint has been made about their work, and that they are a fairly important body is, I think, quite clear. We remember the Accountants’ Act of the Transvaal because this savours just a little bit of it also, getting more or less of a closer confinement on a profession to that which existed previously. I think the Bill would have that effect, and we will rule conveyancers off eventually, and make them into lawyers. I hope the hon. member who has introduced the Bill will accept the amendment and refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because one would not like to vote it out at this stage.

I am always prepared to agree with any improvement in the status of a profession, as this means greater protection for the public, but I think in regard to this Bill the only aspect which this House has to consider is whether the public is protected. That is the only aspect which should engage our attention. What are the facts? There is in Natal a body known as conveyancers; these men have attained that position after having been duly examined and found capable of performing the work which they adopted as a profession. We further understand that this body has been in existence for some 50 years, and I think we can take it as a further fact that the public seem satisfied with the work they are doing. In these circumstances I think this House would find some difficulty in interfering, indeed I am surprised that a measure of this sort is brought by a private member at all. If the Government of the day is satisfied that the interests of the public are not receiving that care and attention which is warranted by a body of this sort, then it is the proper function of the Government to bring forward a measure to alter that. Time after time we have introduced legislation fixing the status of dentists, doctors, accountants, lawyers and other professional men, and I must say that I see some difficulty in supporting my hon. friend. At the same time, as it would appear, that he had a right as a private member to introduce a measure of this sort, the only thing he can do is to agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), and leave this matter to be referred to a Select Committee, that Committee to consider and decide and report to this House whether any change is necessary or not.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) because I would like the status of the conveyancer in the Cape Province consolidated as a matter of economy. I know where attorneys, instead of doing the conveyancing work and finishing it, have piled it up till the man has died so that they can get the handling of the estate. I know that there are in one of the offices here diagrams which have been approved of in 1894, and which will take another 18 months before they can go through, costs in connection with them have piled up to £800, and this is a common practice. Attorneys in South Africa keep these things hanging up because if a man dies, the heirs must come to them and they must get the work. That is how most of our poor whites are created. I can give several instances of estates worth £8,000, the heirs of which have been made poor whites by attorneys, who took half of the estates, and then by the next attorneys who came along to the heirs, and took the other half in order to make matters right. If we allow attorneys to swallow everything, then it is a very lucrative business from their point of view.

I would not have spoken on this matter but for the extraordinary speech of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert). Of course, I do not know anything about the facts the hon. member mentioned, and I do not ask him to repeat outside this House the things he has just said, and so lose his privilege. But what I do suggest is, that the hon. member should go to the (body which deals with these things in this country, and that is the law society. That body is an honourable one, which has to look after the conduct of its members, the attorneys of this country. If he has any complaint of that kind to make, he can make it to the men in charge of that society, the council of the society, and it will be their duty to go into every fact that he can put before them. I will personally guarantee that the council will do so, and I shall be very much surprised if, after their enquiry, the hon. member is found to have been able to substantiate a single one of the charges which he has made.

I feel that we are going into this position as regards the various professions in South Africa in such a manner, that the general tendency seems to be to bring legislation into this House in order to make these professions a close preserve to a section of the community. That is why I do not like this Bill. By and by we shall have a measure brought in for the accountants, and then for someone else, while there is no necessity for such legislation from the point of view of the general community, nor is there any need to establish these close preserves. One can understand it when measures are brought in in regard to the medical fraternity, or the dental profession, so as to protect the general health of the community against unqualified people doing work which they should not do, but in connection with this Bill, and other Bills of the same kind, there seems to be no justification why these particular professions should be singled out for special legislation. Can any hon. member in this House stand up and tell me why these people are entitled to be protected by Act of Parliament any more than a bricklayer? Why should not a bricklayers’ society bring a Bill into the House?

How many examinations has a bricklayer to pass?

A bricklayer has to pass examinations which the hon. member, even if he stood on his head for six months, could not pass. The hon. member could try for years and he could not be a bricklayer. I say every man to his job.

Exactly. What I asked was, what examinations the bricklayer had to pass?

He has to serve his apprenticeship, and if the hon. member wants to know a little about the trade, let him ask his wife, and I dare say that the hon. member’s wife will tell him that she will sooner live in a well-built house put up by a decent bricklayer, than in a house which is put up anyhow. And I say that the job of the bricklayer is just as good a profession, just as honourable a profession as that of the hon. member. We want to get away from this snobbery. Why should there be this snobbery? Why should we have hon. members sitting here and having an idea that their work is of more importance, of greater good to the general community than that of the bricklayer? The work of the bricklayer is of far more importance to the country than that of many hon. members opposite. And there are more people suffering disease through living in jerry-built houses or ill-built houses than there are people suffering harm through what hon. members can do in their profession. I say that there is no justification for the continual introduction of Bills of this description to protect a certain section of the community, or to get more work into their hands. I am opposed to a Bill of this kind unless a case can be put up that it is in the interest of the community that this should be passed, because the community are suffering. We have also the other position which the hon. member has raised in regard to the profession in which he is such a shining light, that there is a great deal of injustice in the country owing to the fact that many people cannot, and are afraid to go to law because of the tremendous expenses connected with the securing of justice. It is a very expensive thing for the community to get justice here or elsewhere owing to the way in which the legal profession have put themselves into a position of putting up their charges. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said he was not concerned in this matter because he was an advocate. If that is so, why then is this put in—

The position in the Transvaal is not the same. An advocate there cannot practice as an attorney.

If the advocates are not interested in this Bill, if it does not affect them in the slightest way because they are advocates, why do they take up this attitude? If I am a member of a trades union, and the trades union is affected, then I am affected. The hon. member, as a member of his trade union, is also affected, even though he may not personally be affected. Yes, in the Transvaal he is not practising as an attorney, but how long will he remain in the Transvaal? He may go down to Natal. Now let us go to another section of this Bill. It is clearly shown that advocates are affected. Why, otherwise, should the Bill speak about advocates? Now, let us look at Clause 4, which lays down that the said provincial division may make rules as to—

1. (a) The conditions under which persons entitled to practise as conveyancers shall so practise.
2. (b) Their conduct and their charges in connection with such practice.

Yes, we are again going to have a ruinous scale of charges laid down—the same as the attorneys charge in connection with all legal work. If there is anything wrong in connection with the conduct of the present people who are carrying on the conveyancing work, surely the ordinary courts of the country are broad enough to rope these people in, without bringing in a Bill of this kind. Then the Clause goes on—

1. (c) What shall be deemed to be misconduct in connection with such practice, and
2. (d) The holding of enquiries in relation to the foregoing matters.

Under (c) they speak of what shall be deemed to be misconduct. Why should that be there? They are taking very wide powers under this Bill. They speak of suspending, of cancelling the admission and enrolment, licence or right to practise of any such person appearing to it to be efficient. Then in Clause 5 we find—

There are many things done in the country today which are done well and efficiently, and if in the future, after the passing of this Bill, these people happen to do any of these things mentioned in the Bill under the heading of conveyancing, then they will be liable to these penalties. I am not going to suggest that we are going to have anything in the nature of frivolous prosecutions or of persecution, but it is just as well that this Bill should not come on the statute book. Then we have Clause 6—

I take it that it does not take a great deal of intelligence to draw a contract; it all depends what sort of a contract it is. If it is a contract where one has to go into all sort of detail, or where it requires specific knowledge, then it is a different proposition, but there must be many contracts which anyone can draw. Take the building contractors. If a building contractor enters into a building contract with me, why should I go to a lawyer?

It says “for reward.”

Oh! The lawyers will see to it that they get the reward all right. Surely where it concerns a building contract or something of that kind, we should be capable between the two of us to draw up such a contract without having to pay lawyers’ fees. It is quite a question of altering the definition in Select Committee. [An Hon. Member: “Then why not leave the matter to the Select Committee?”] The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has not agreed to accept a Select Committee. If the hon. member in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept that I would sit down immediately.

After the second reading.

If the Bill passed the second reading it would show it had the sympathy of the House. Personally, I think that the hon. member ought to accept the motion in favour of a Select Committee when it comes to a matter of this description. I think the hon. member will agree with me the Bill is giving high and wide powers indeed. Why should we be told that in the case of the fixing of legal charges we should not interfere. Lawyers have got the strongest trade unions in South Africa. They have claimed the right of stating what is a fair salary for the school teachers, the bricklayers and the carpenters, and we claim a right to have a say in what is to be a fair pay for the legal profession. I will tell you a story which was told to me the other night of a member of the legal fraternity, who was brought up before the law society, because he had accepted a lower fee than that laid down, and when he appeared before the law society he said: “I admit that I accepted lower fees than the prescribed fee, but I acted up to the principles of this society, because I took everything the man had got.” I have no grievance against the legal fraternity, but unfortunately the opinion prevails that when we go to law, we have to sell our shirt in order to pay the legal cost. My chief objection to this Bill is that we are travelling on dangerous ground, when we seek by means of legal enactment to build up the different professional organizations, setting up monopolies, and making a close reserve of these particular occupations, thus shutting out a great mass of people who might be able to qualify—but not qualify under the rules laid down by this particular measure. It is time we called a half in connection with legislation of this description, and I think the members of this profession should stand on their own legs without having to come to Parliament to lay down all sorts of conditions, fees and charges. For these reasons I hope the House will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell).

All we can find from what we have heard from the members opposite is that the Labour Party are unfortunate in the solicitors they possess.

Ek wou nie eientlik die Wet opponeer nie, maar tog is dit ’n posiesie wat na twee kante sny. Ek erken, dat ons nie heen kan gaan om elke man as transportbesorger toe te laat nie. Ons sou dan in ’n gevaarlike posiesie kom. Dit is feitelik die toestand in Natal vandaag, dat enigeen met ’n middelmatige kennis van trainsportbesorge transporte optrek. Ek stem met edele lede saam, dat toegesien moet word, dat manne wat transporte optrek behoorlik gekwalifiseer moet wees en dat maar nie iemand wat so van die straat afkom as transportbesorger kan praktiseer nie, maar aan die andere kgnt gaan dit m.i. te ver, dat net maar prokureurs en advokate as transportbesorgers kan geld. Nou sal mens sê, dat die manne met ingewikkelde wetskwessies te doen het. Volgens my opienie moet manne wat transporte optrek ’n behoorlike ontwikkeling gehad het en ook ’n goeie wetskennis besit. Ek kan sê, dat ek ook ’n hele tyd op ’n prokureurskantoor werksaam gewees het en heel wat transporte opgetrek het en ek dink tog, dat mense met ’n behoorlike wetskennis soos daar so veel is van die transportbesorger moet toegelaat word as “conveyancers.” As iemand ’n behoorlike eksam daarin afgelê het, waarom moet hy dan net prokureur of advokaat wees? Solank maar die publiek deur die vereiste van die aflê van ’n behoorlike eksame, nie aan gevaar bloot gestel word nie, solank mense behoorlike kwalifikasies besit en eksame gemaak het in transportbesorge, moet hulle toegelaat word. Maar die voorsteller van die Wetsontwerp gaan te ver. Hy gaat seker doen wat baie prokureurs en advokate wil hê, hulle verlang dat die man net pleitbesorger of advokaat moet wees, maar ek stem nie met hom saam nie, as hy net sy Wetsontwerp bepaal tussen twee mure van prokureurs en advokate.

Na aanleiding van wat die edele lid vir Boshof (de hr. C. A. van Niekerk) gesê het, waar hy beweer het dat mense nie sodanig geleer hoef te wees nie, om transporte te kan optrek nie, wens ek ’n paar woorde te sê. Die edele lid erken, dat die man ’n sekere mate van wetkennis moet besit en ’n sekere standaard van geleerdheid. Dit alles word in vcorsien as jy alleen prokureurs of advokate aanstel as transportbesorgers. Die het matriek minstens gepasseer en het ’n behoorlike wetskennis. In die drie provinsies bestaan die toestand en wat vandag van ons gevra word, is net om Natal in ooreenstemming met die andere provinsies te bring. Ek weet van ’n geval waar iemand standaard 5 gepasseer het, hy het na Natal gegaan, die “conveyancing” werk geleer, en praktiseer nou as “conveyancer.” Dis nie reg nie. Die Staat moet die waarborg hê dat die transportbesorgers ’n sekere bekwaamheid besit. Dis ’n treurige toestand wat daar vandag heers. Dit kom b.v. voor by boedeltransporte, dat jy verbasend ingewikkelde wetskwessies kry, die moet almaal in die transport opgeneem word. Hoe kan nou so iemand in staat wees om die transport op te trek? Daar word gesê, dat die aktekantoor die toesig daaroor het en dit reg kan maak. Maar dan bedank ek om registrateur te wees, as daar voortdurend van die transporte kom wat verkeerd is en wat ontsettend veel werk vorder en weer terug gestuur moet word. Ek kan die twede lesing ondersteun, want ek is daarvoor dat die posiesie in al die provinsies dieselfde moet wees.

There are one or two matters which have been raised during the discussion to which I would like to refer. First of all one is that the conveyancers have not been consulted by the law society. I have no knowledge whether that is so or not, but the Bill was published for a considerable period and was advertised by the law society, and they then treated the measure as being a private Bill, and in that way the measure had greater publicity than it would have had if it had been published in the ordinary way. That no injustice has been done to the conveyancers is proved from the fact that I understand my hon. friend, the member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) has brought a petition down in opposition to the measure as advertised. I do not think that any injustice has been done on that ground. If a Select Committee is appointed and any such injustice has been done, it can then be remedied. With regard to the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), I wish to say that I am not decrying the work done by Mr. Chapman. I am not cavelling at the way the work is performed by the conveyancers at Durban, but the case I do make out is this, that in Natal this position has arisen from the circumstances of a few years back, that neither attorneys nor conveyancers were required to pass examinations. But now the law, in its wisdom, has prescribed that attorneys shall pass examinations, and not only that, but that they shall pass a very serious educational test in the form of a matriculation examination, that they shall serve five years under articles, and shall pass the necessary examinations to qualify them for their profession. The practice of a conveyancer in Great Britain and all over the world as far as I know is a peculiar prerogative of a solicitor or attorney. It is part of his profession, and if it is said that other people coming in and practising as conveyancers is justifiable then you might as well suggest that other people can come in and practise by giving advice, and that they shall pass examinations on advising. I differ from the hon. gentleman opposite when he says this is an attempt to place solicitors or attorneys in a close compound which nobody else can enter. The whole system of making doctors, lawyers, dentists, and then permitting others to come in and practise likewise when they are not qualified, is a wrong system. We had a debate recently in this House concerning the position of osteopaths, and there was a strong feeling that they should not practise because they were not qualified as doctors. I contend the same thing applies here. The Natal law society, who are the fathers of this Bill, say so long as you prescribe a test for the admission of attorneys, you should preserve for attorneys their strict and proper rights. It is not the ability of these gentlemen who carry out this conveyancing work that I question, although I admit that these gentlemen, who have especially large practices, and do their work, have one great advantage over the ordinary attorney, and that is they can advertise and the attorney cannot.

Do the attorneys never ask for work?

They are not supposed to, but there is a big line of demarcation between asking for work and putting big advertisements in the public press. I say advisedly that there are many reasons which account for many of these conveyancers carrying on large practices in Durban, but the making of different charges is impossible. They are all in the one rule in regard to this.

It is the extras.

There are no extras, the fees are prescribed by the law society for the work done by conveyancers.

Take a transfer.

Yes, the fees for a transfer are fixed for the conveyancer and for the solicitor, and there may be no deviation from them. I was rather surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), who says that he cannot see why members of his profession, in Natal, should not wish that strangers should practise part of that profession. The position in the Transvaal is that these two professions are kept distinct and separate, and the hon. member would have made a very different speech if anybody came along and attempted to take away from the Transvaal part of his profession, and he would not have waited for the clamour of the public before taking the matter in hand. With regard to the point that was raised by the hon. the Minister there is no question, I think, the definition is too broad, and I am prepared that the definition should be altered in Committee, and I hope that that will not stop us from coming to a second reading decision this afternoon. I should like to mention another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), and that is the question of these students, who I understand, have presented themselves for examination. So far as I am concerned I think an exception might reasonably be made between students who have prepared themselves for examination, who, by the passing of this Bill, are prevented from coming along. I do not see how the accountants or estate agents can make out any case for protection. They say that you should protect them and their children, but that is a matter which can also be dealt with by the Committee. I do not want to hold up the House at this late hour. I think the principle before the House is this that the work which is being carried on by the conveyancers is work which the attorneys are essentially entitled to carry on. That is the basis of the whole Bill, and we do not propose to interfere with vested interests or the practices of men as they exist. I trust the House will not accept the amendment of the hon. member, but will take the second reading.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

One of my reasons for bringing this Bill up is that there is actually a considerable amount of exportation of birds going on at the present time. According to some returns I have there were something like 10,000 or 11,000 birds exported from the country in each of the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, there was one consignment last year of 5,000 birds which was sent away from the country. Also on the day this Bill was gazetted some one rang me up and said that if I went down to the railway station in Cape Town I would find another consignment of probably 1,500 to 2,000 birds for export. Now anyone who takes a pride in the beauties and utilities of our country cannot fail to view this export with a considerable amount of alarm, and though at the present time the amount may not be very great, yet the potentialities are considerable. In this connection I am fortified by the fact that the National Society, which does such great work in looking after the natural beauties of our land, has made representations to put a stop to this exportation, and the Bill, I am glad to say, has the commendation of two very eminent authorities who are highly qualified to speak on it. One is Dr. Haagner, of the Zoological Gardens at Pretoria, with whom I have had communications, and he gives his opinion that the Bill is an admirable one. A similar communication was received from Mr. Fitzsimons, of Port Elizabeth, who gave a lecture the other night in Cape Town, showing the tremendous value of the bird life of this country, and he takes the same view of the desirability of such a Bill being passed. The Bill has been purposely drawn as elastic as possible. It is designed simply to prohibit the exportation of all birds save such as are approved by the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Many birds are beautiful, many are useful, but some birds are regarded by farmers as pests. The right hon. the Minister of Agriculture is the man best qualified to judge, from the information he has from time to time, as to whether birds shall be on the free list or whether exportation shall be prevented; and I think that, with the simple elasticity of the Bill, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, as it does by preventing export of all birds except such as he gives his permits for, we meet the wishes of those who desire to see our bird life of this country untampered with, and at the same time we meet the views of those who, as practical farmers, believe that certain classes of birds are pests. May I quote from Mr. Fitzsimons’ excellent book on birds? There are something like 960 sub-species of birds in South Africa, of which not more than 20 at the outside can be specified as pests, and he ultimately reduces them to about half a dozen. The experience of other countries shows that while farmers often regard birds as pests because they levy a toll on the fruit or the grain, yet it has often been found in the end that the benefit the birds do has been so greatly in excess of the damage that the farmers have come to realize that the birds, which at one time were considered to be pests, are really beneficial. The decision is left in the hands of the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, a man whom the farmers have the utmost confidence in, and he will be able to decide from time to time whether birds shall be put on the free list or not. There is much more I should like to say, but as this is the last hour of the last day this session on which private members may bring up Bills, I leave it to the House without further plea, in the belief that the value of bird life in this country, and the necessity of protecting the utilities and the beauties of South Africa, will be evident to all hon. members.

I wish to say a few words in support of this measure for the protection of our wild bird life. I would like to have seen the scope of this Bill extended to the fauna of this Country. The way in which wild life can be destroyed was brought home to me some time ago in a very striking manner. I was instrumental in being one of the first to start, some 20 years ago, the game protection association north of the Vaal, and I think that is the only game protection association in the Union at present. One is rather astonished that no such association exists in this old mother province of the Cape. During the time of my office as chairman of that body I got into touch with Dr. Horniday, of New York, who had written and sent me a copy of a very interesting book called “Our Vanishing Wild Life.” Facing the title page of that book, there was a photograph of the bird called the “Passenger Pigeon.” There was also an extract of a finding by a commission which had been appointed by the State of New York, to enquire whether this particular bird required any protection. The conclusion of the commission was that as the bird was so prolific, and lived in such inaccessible fastnesses, he required no special protection. The photograph appearing in the book was that of the last living specimen, a bird which was then in the Zoological Garden of Cincinnatti, and was 16 years old. When we have a legislative body appointing a commission specially to consider whether protection is necessary in the case of a particular bird, and it gives a finding that no protection is required, and the species becomes extinct, one cannot fail to be impressed as to how careful one should be. There is no doubt that wild birds are an asset to the country. They are indispensable adjuncts to agriculture, and anybody who has gone into the subject will know that where birds have become extinct by man’s action, agriculture there has languished and actually ceased. It was very interesting to learn that a little while ago, the Albany farmers during the recent invasion of locusts had requested that the guinea fowl should be placed upon the list of protected birds. It appears that they looked upon the guinea fowl as a pest, and took it off the list. But he demonstrated his utility during the invasion of locusts, and is now again protected. I want to take advantage of the presence of the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture to ask him whether he would take advantage of the opportunity offered by his demonstration train to teach the farmers and others the value of bird life.

Arrangements are being made to do so.

I am exceedingly pleased to hear that. It will be very gratifying to those who have been so long interested in preserving the bird life of this country.

Ek kan my verenig met die wetsvoorstel maar nie met al die onderdele daarvan nie. Ek is daarvoor, dat enige soorte wilde vogels in die land beskerm moet word, maar die graanetende vogels in die land is net so’n pes as die sprinkane, en daarom ben ek van mening dat dit moes lui: “niet graanetende vogels”.

Die indiener van die voorstel het daarop gewys, dat duisende van voëls weggevoer, of uitgevoer is, maar die meeste voëls wat uitgevoer is, is swart kop-voeltjies, ’n soort mossie en andere soorte van voëls wat ewe skadelik is. Dis moontlik, dat die ook ’n seker gedeelte insekte eet, maar hulle doen veel meer skade aan die graan, soos edele lede hier in die Huis ook weet. Ek kan nie voor hierdie voorstel stem nie, ek is daarvoor dat al die voëls weggestuur word, wat skade toebring aan die boer.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This is the last day a private member can bring up a Bill, and I therefore propose that we proceed to the Committee stage now.

Ek objekteer.

I then move—

seconded

Agreed to.