as chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, reporting the Railways and Harbours Gratuity Bill with amendments.

Report and evidence to be printed; House to go into committee on the Bill on 13th February.

I move—

It is now 90 years since a solemn promise was made in the birth history of our people by one of our most renowned voortrekkers, Sarel Cilliers, and it is perhaps remarkable that 90 years after that time a Bill such as this needs introduction. It is not necessary for me to refer to the importance of the occurrence. Everyone in this House knows it, appreciates how things were in those days, and the value of the promise then made. Everyone of us here appreciates what it means to posterity, not only for the descendants of the voortrekkers, but for every South African who lives in the country to-day and calls himself an Afrikander. Were it not for that event the history of South Africa would almost certainly have followed a different course. We are told in history that Sarel Cilliers was not disposed to make the promise lightly. He was approached by Gen. Pretorius, and asked to make the promise, but Sarel Cilliers said he would rather not make it unless he was certain that it would be carried out. He said that if one made a promise the promise had to be kept, and that he would rather not make a promise to be subsequently disregarded. Subsequently, however, it was generally decided to make the promise, and I suppose that when it was made Sarel Cilliers did not solely look at the present or the near future, but also into the distant future. We who read our history know that he was far-seeing, and he probably looked very far into the future. He imagined how posterity would fulfil the promise. Quite probably he secretly hoped that his promise would be carried out, not only by a small part which he represents, but by the whole people of South Africa, as the day on which civilization obtained the victory. Each of us Afrikaans-speaking persons from the north will remember what impression the celebration of Dingaan’s Day has made on us, since the days of our childhood, and will remember its tremendous influence on the mentality of the Afrikander people when they met every year for the celebration, not a festival of rejoicing over a victory, but a festival of gratitude. I have the promise of Sarel Cilliers here. Let me read it out even if most hon. members already know it. He says—

He therefore had in view the future. It took many years before anything was actually done with regard to the celebration of Dingaan’s Day. I will not go into it, but it took time, and the history of the celebration was a little fluctuating until things were actually arranged in the Transvaal. In the Free State the day had long since been kept as a public holiday, and also in the Transvaal. In Natal and in the Cape Province, however, that was not the case. Nor was it a public holiday there. Shortly after Union an Act was passed to make the day a public holiday for the whole country. As such it is on an equality with any public holiday. No provision was made to turn it into a Sabbath day, a Sunday. It was only made a public holiday, and anyone was at liberty to devote it to pleasure and recreation if he wished. We must admit at once, especially the descendants of the voortrekkers, that the day was always celebrated in a religious way in the Transvaal and Free State, and subsequently also in the Cape Province, and that it lived in the heart of the people as the Sabbath day. The day was kept every year, and the people felt every year that it was not a day for public pleasure. The South African people to-day (I include all sections), do not acknowledge the day to-day as a Sunday by Government authority. One section of the people do regard it as such, but another section merely regard it as a day of pleasure and recreation. Only last year it made an unpleasant impression on me, when I attended a celebration in a district, that the bars were open in the village, and the general feeling was not at all a Dingaan’s Day feeling. I did not have the feeling of Dingaan’s Day at all, there was more drinking than on an ordinary day. It is unsatisfactory to the voortrekkers, the descendants of people who were murdered with Retief, or took part in the battle of Blood River, that a large section in the country use the day for special pleasure, sport and other things. We do not wish by this Bill to force any individual to keep the day as a Sunday. Not at all. All we wish is that the day that means so much to us will be raised by the State to something special, and not be celebrated merely as an ordinary holiday. The object is not to restrict anyone in his personal freedom. No one is directed to go to church, or to keep the day as a Sunday. Every individual can do on that day what he can do on a Sunday, only the Sunday Acts will apply on that day, the public places of amusement and licensed places will be closed. That is practically the only restriction, that theatres, public sporting grounds, licensed premises, and public amusements will be closed. The section of the population that still attaches great value to the traditions of our fathers will be thankful if it can be laid down by the State that, in so far as public life is concerned, the day will be kept as a Sabbath day. I do not say that we have any right to this, and that we can demand it. It is only an earnest request made to another section of the population to assist us to get the day honoured as a Sunday by Act of Parliament. We do not wish to force our feelings on another section. We do not wish to force our sentiment on anyone who does not wish it, but we only ask the right that our sons who work in various places of pleasure, and in other places, shall also be able to celebrate the day with us as a Sunday, and that a spirit shall be created in the country which will make us feel that day that it is a day which is regarded as a Sabbath day by the white people. Take the 1820 Settlers. If they had had the same experience, if the same occurrence had taken place in their history, which has been of so much value in South African history, then I am certain—if such a promise had been made—that none of us Afrikaans-speaking people would raise his voice against having the promise fulfilled through the State. There are friends who say that we must leave it to the people to say whether they want to celebrate it or not. That is good and well, but on the other hand, it is time that we taught the people of whatever race that the one is respecting the traditions of the other. We want to show them what our feeling is, and when they see that the feeling is so deeply ingrained in us, and when it is acknowledged by authority, then they will automatically respect it, and the feeling of gratitude for the occurrence will become general. I was asked whether it is actually wished that such an alteration should be made. My personal experience is that it is so desired. I have been to many Dingaan’s Day celebrations and people have told me, when I asked them, or of their own motion, that there was a great desire among a considerable portion for it. I also want to read a telegram which I have received from the general Dingaan’s Day Commission of South Africa. The commission represents all four provinces. The telegram reads—

I read the telegram to show that the Bill is not fanciful, but that a large section of the people want it. The great question is whether we are willing, whether we feel that the traditions of our fore-fathers should be respected in a proper way, or whether we can merely leave it to a whim, whether we want to hold the sentiment of the Afrikander people, of English-speaking, or Afrikaans-speaking people high, or whether we must regard the sentiment as having great value to the people. For my part I believe in the sentiment of the Afrikaans people. I believe that our English-speaking friends also feel that the sentiment and tradition are uplifting, and must be preserved. It will be a sad day if our people should degenerate into a mere materialistic people. We ask our English-speaking citizens to agree to our fulfilling the promise. Recently a very highly placed person, an English-speaking person, said in this country on the occasion of Dingaan’s Day, that he hoped the keeping of the day would be extended, and that the English-speaking section of the population would also take part in the celebration of Dingaan’s Day in the same way as the Afrikaans-speaking. He said it was a pity that hitherto it was only the Afrikaans-speaking section that had such a serious view about the day. We want to leave it in the hands of the English-speaking population. We want to force nothing upon them, but only ask that Dingaan’s Day shall be regarded by us as a Sunday, and that the Sunday Act shall apply to it. I hope that not only the Afrikagns-speaking, but also the English-speaking people will support. I have no ulterior motives in this Bill. I do not consider it a right, but merely a request from a large section of the population.

I should like to second the motion of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). The Afrikaans people undoubtedly look back with great pride on the deeds of their ancestors, who established civilization and development in our country. I feel that a misunderstanding may easily arise owing to the words and the motion of the hon. member. It may perhaps be interpreted as if the Afrikaans people were beginning to neglect the celebration of Dingaan’s Day. That is not the case, because celebrations take place at hundreds more places than previously. The people appreciate the value of them. The Bill has not been introduced to oblige or compel anybody to take part in them, but to enable those who wish to, to do so. There are thousands of people who would like to celebrate to-day, but they are not able to, because it is merely a public holiday. That is especially the case with persons who work in the great industries. On the mines particularly there are thousands of young Afrikanders who would also like to join with us. If Dingaan’s Day were regarded as a Sunday, as proposed in this Bill, then it would give an opportunity to everyone who wished to celebrate it. Another point of importance is the effect of the influence of one portion of the people on the other. The English-speaking section has just as much interest in Dingaan’s Day as the Afrikaans section. What would have been the result if we had not had Dingaan’s Day? The whole development of our country’s history would have been different. The advantages of what the voortrekkers did are therefore not only for the Afrikaans-speaking, but Dingaan’s Day is also of importance to the native, who was at that time on the verge of extermination by continuous wars. The native of to-day has to thank for his existence in a great measure the victory of civilization. If the English and Afrikaans citizens celebrate Dingaan’s Day together, there will moreover arise a better appreciation of the respective sentiments. The feeling of the Afrikander towards his English-speaking compatriots will undoubtedly improve. We shall learn to value and respect the big occurrences in English history. It will have a good influence on the entire social and political life of South Africa. I hope hon. members will pass the second reading without amendments.

I think that it is always an unfortunate position for anyone to defend the popular side of the matter. There can be no doubt that in many districts in our country the last two speakers have represented the popular side. I do not want anyone to think that I am so stupid that I do not know what the feelings of the country districts in the Free State and Transvaal are. I know the attitude I am adopting will possibly be a little unpopular with some persons there. I am strongly opposed to the Bill now under discussion. There are two reasons, I think, why the Bill ought not to have been introduced. In the first place, the Afrikaans-speaking members of the House are placed in a very difficult position. It possibly puts the member who feels that it is something which ought not to be insisted upon, and who accordingly is inclined to vote against it, in a wrong light with the country population, the people who are descended from the same voortrekkers as those who in the past carried on the struggle together. In places the English-speaking people in a certain respect are in a still more difficult position. They will, of course, want to do everything to meet the feelings of the Afrikaans-speaking people. They will also feel that if they vote against the Bill, it will possibly put them in a wrong light. They are actually in a still more difficult position. I say that it is very unfortunate that a Bill of this kind has been introduced into this House without any consultation. There is a danger of it causing trouble in the whole country. The mover spoke about sentiment. It is said that it is a matter of sentiment. Yes, it is a matter of sentiment, a matter of the heart, but the Bill before the House is intended to force the sentiment of the heart. Are we in 1928 to pass an Act in the Union Parliament to force the sentiment on behalf of the posterity of the voortrekkers? Must the moral duty which is thrown on the descendants be fulfilled by means of legislation? If a sentiment is of such a kind that legislation is necessary, if it has sunk so low, then there is nothing in the world to save it. I say further that a large part of the population does not possess that sentiment They do not feel it, they are not descendants of the voortrekkers. What right have we to make a law of this kind to force a sentiment on a section of the population? What right have we further to create a new Sabbath day? It seems to me the more we go into the matter, the more impossible the position appears. Not so very long ago Dingaan’s Day was practically never kept in the country. It was only known in certain parts of the Transvaal in the fullest sense of the word. Every Dingaan’s Day I was present at in my young days in the Cane Province was kept as a day of sport. The eastern part of the Cape Province looked upon it as such a day. In recent years the celebration of Dingaan’s Day has much developed, and I want to point out to my friends that there is a larger and larger section in the country every year that takes part in the keeping of the festival. The movement is increasing more and more, but if we are going to force the furtherance of the sentiment by legislation, then I say I am afraid that the sentiment will suffer much as a result. We must educate the people in that direction, and then the section will take part in it, will become larger and larger than is already the case. Sentiment must be free, it must not be made obligatory by legislation. As soon as we resort to instilling something into the human heart by legislation, we shall find that the free sentiment vanishes. I am sorry this Bill was introduced. It puts everyone in a difficult position, especially the English-speaking people, and that is the very reason why I got up to state my views before any English-speaking person did so, and I hope that I have possibly made the way a little easier for the people who felt and knew what the right way is, but who might possibly be prepared to follow the wrong way. I regarded it as my duty to express my opinion, whatever the consequences might be, and although it was possibly not the popular way. I certainly believe that if we voted by a secret ballot, it would make it easier for many members to vote against something which in their innermost hearts they feel is wrong, but which they nevertheless would vote for.

I wish very heartily to endorse what the Minister of Justice has said. I do realize that for a Dutch-speaking South African like himself and myself we may be putting ourselves in a somewhat delicate position, but I do believe that frank speaking on the subject is the lesser evil. I have just been in the archives and looked up an old placaat of the Cape dated 14th October, 1652, which laid down that absentees from service on Sundays would for a first offence be punished with the loss of eight days’ rations of wine, for a second offence with a loss of one month’s pay, and for a third offence with the loss of one year’s pay, chains and banishment. I can see no difference in spirit between that old law of 1652 and the law which is being introduced by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). The spirit of intolerance seems to me very much the same. I stand back for no man in my reverence and admiration for the courage shown by the old pioneers and voortrekkers of this country, but to force the whole country to observe Dingaan’s Day as a Sunday savours to-day to me of the middle ages. It is reactionary legislation of a very dangerous kind. What is to prevent the hon. member from observing Dingaan’s Day as a Sunday if he wishes to do so? In these days religious days like Good Friday and Ascension Day are not proclaimed Sundays by law. They are so observed by those who feel so inclined. This law seems to me intended to force the conscience of the man who thinks otherwise. To that extent it is an infringement of liberty of thought and freedom of conscience—very precious heritages which, in every civilized country of the world, are very carefully guarded. To force the people of this country, and especially the youth of this country, to observe Dingaan’s Day as a gloomy puritanical Sunday, instead of a real holiday, seems to me quite wrong. I see no reason why we should not commemorate the great victory on Dingaan’s Day as a day of sport and mirth. Why should we make a gloomy day of an anniversary like that? I sincerely hope that the words of the Minister of Justice will carry weight with that side of the House, and that this Bill will be withdrawn. It puts us in a very awkward predicament. It is a species of hot house patriotism that is totally wrong. In my opinion, a day like Armistice Day is a sensible way of commemorating a great historical event. Armistice Day probably commemorates what is the greatest historical event of modern times, but it is not converted into Sunday, a day of gloom. The ordinary life of the country goes on undisturbed, but at a certain time people stand still for a little while during that day. I believe there is nothing wrong in commemorating Dingaan’s Day as each man pleases. If one thinks that it is a day of joy and that he can play football, let him do so. Do not let us revert back to the middle ages by legislation of this sort.

I am very glad that the Minister of Justice has expressed his views. I quite agree with him. If we are to obtain any religious or sentimental matter by legislation, we shall fail to do so. When Sarel Cilliers made the promise he said to the people—

He did not force the people. The promise was voluntarily made. We must bear that point in mind. If a law is necessary to keep the promise, it is a very sad position. I say that legislation of this kind is unhealthy, wrong, and dangerous. I cannot vote for it because we cannot make the people love anything by legislation. Let us leave the matter free, let us leave it to the people. I am glad the Minister tried to lead the debate in a right direction, as it might possibly have taken a wrong turn.

I also think that it is quite undesirable and unnecessary to pass this Bill. It seems to me the Free Staters are very fond of legislation. In the Liquor Bill they want a separate provision for the Free State, and here they are trying to effect something of a religious nature by legislation. If our people have sunk so far in their religion that we have to make a law to get a promise kept, then it is much better to let Dingaan’s Day lapse altogether. If it is not a festival of love and respect, how can we expect that it will mean anything if we go and force it? Do my farmer friends know that if this Bill is passed, on that day no business may be done, neither buying nor selling, that it will be just like a Sunday? Dingaan’s Day falls in a very busy time in the Western Province. It is harvest time, shearing time, the fruit is ripe, and it will cause many difficulties. Let us rather leave the celebration of Dingaan’s Day to the love and respect for the memory of our ancestors.

Hon. members are now speaking as if this Bill is to compel a section of the population to celebrate Dingaan’s Day. Let them read the Bill. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) says that we cannot make people religious by Act of Parliament. But what about the Sunday Act? That provides that certain things may not be done on Sunday. That is all we ask, and it is a reasonable request. Nor is it only a matter of sentiment. Sarel Cilliers look the vow on behalf of the people of South Africa, and it is their duty to keep the vow. I hope that it will be done voluntarily; that is my experience. The Minister of Justice wanted to create the impression that Dingaan’s Day in the past was not kept in the Free State. I was born in the Free State, and lived there from my youthful days, and always joined in keeping Dingaan’s Day. The English-speaking people in many cases joined in keeping the festival.

They are still doing so.

Therefore I think that there cannot be much objection to the Bill. But what happens to-day? A group of South Africans meet, possibly with a party of English-speaking people—we still have to speak of English and Dutch-speaking people, but I hope that they will soon all be bilingual, then it will no longer be necessary—and want to celebrate Dingaan’s Day, and at the same time there is another group of South Africans who are racing or indulging in other amusements. Is that right? Is that tolerance? No one is being forced in the Bill. We only request that the vow of Sarel Cilliers should be fulfilled. It will create a better feeling, help to form one nation, if the people mutually respect each other’s traditions. It is not respecting tradition if one section goes in for races or dancing.

I am sorry about the line this debate has taken. I really thought when the Hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) introduced the Bill that it would be generally supported. As a young man, as one who still thought that there was more respect for a matter of this kind, I must honestly say that I am disappointed. I think there is good reason for making provision on the lines proposed in the Bill We must take things as they are. When that day was instituted in our history by the old population, there were few other elements who could not in all respects share the lives of the old population. Consequently, at the institution it was the view of the whole people, and therefore the whole people was entitled to expect that the day would be kept, and that the promise would be performed as it has been done. If, subsequently, elements came into society which could not identify themselves with the old element, then we can possibly only feel that it is not wrong for attempts to be made to have the day respected by the whole population as was originally intended by the old voortrekkers. For that very reason I think it so necessary to take steps for the whole people to respect the day, and that no one shall be interfered with in his respect for the institution of Sarel Cilliers. No compulsion is used, but we want to prevent any person giving offence to another, who wants to honour the day, or preventing the day being celebrated according to Sarel Cilliers’ intention. That is all we ask. The day is already acknowledged as a public holiday, we are not asking for a new holiday. I think our request is not unreasonable, and I hope the day will continue to live in the history of the South African people according to its institution. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that the day cannot live if we only make speeches about it. In reviewing the past, we find that the national life of old peoples also lives on in the history of peoples. That is why the Olympic Games of the old Greek peoples have lived on. Dingaan’s Day is a religious day instituted by the persons who were responsible for its institution, and we must see that it continues to be respected and regarded as a kind of Sabbath day by the whole people. I do not think we are going too far in this. I do not agree with the Minister of Justice if he states that by making this day a Sabbath day it will encroach upon the existing Sabbath. We are not instituting the new Sabbath day as a day of rest each week, but only ask that a day which is already a public holiday shall be observed as a Sabbath day. I regret the observation of the Minister that if a secret vote took place on this matter, the vote would turn out quite differently from what it would in this House this afternoon. I hope that he, in any case, cannot speak for the young members in this House, because I think the young members here at any rate will show that they will want to be worthy of the traditions of the people, and the past, and where they have to take a decision will act according to the spirit of the past.

I only want to say a few words about this, because I think it is one of the matters on which one in my position ought not to remain silent. I think the people should know definitely what I think about it. Now I want to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that I am sorry he thinks that those who differ from him and the introducer of the Bill lack respect for the feelings of the people. I do not know on what grounds he dares to say that he exactly interprets the sentiment of the people. That is one of the reasons why I feel that I must say something. If there is one thing against which we as a people must guard it is against the bigotry, which leads to intolerance. I fear the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) runs that danger if he takes up the attitude which he does. I can assure him that I have always appreciated, as much as he does, that we should encourage and respect the sentiment, the real sentiment, of the people and their traditions, and there is no reason to imagine that the opposite is the case when we differ from the hon. member. Let us look at what is contained in the Bill. Dingaan’s Day is already a public holiday. It is not, as the last speaker wished to represent, that Dingaan’s Day is to be made a public holiday. The Bill wants to make a second Sabbath day of what is already a holiday. The day is to be considered a Sabbath day. Let me say that I knew nothing about the Bill until I saw the leader in “Die Burger’” this morning, and I could hardly believe my eyes. I say frankly that I had a feeling as if we had here to do with sacrilege in wanting to make a second Sabbath day. What immediately struck me, and struck me strongly, is that if we made a Sabbath day of Dingaan’s Day, we should be breaking in on the Sabbath. What is to become of the sacredness of the Sabbath and our respect for it? Is this not going to interfere with that? Will the people who do not entirely agree with us not avenge themselves against this new Sabbath day? Will it not make them opposed to it? We may be sure of it. If the church authorities had been duly consulted, it is undoubted that they would say that we should at least select a different wording. Are we not going against Divine authority in a provision such as this? The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) rightly said that when the day was instituted Sarel Cilliers said—

It was a personal, voluntary undertaking for those who made the promise, and who took it upon themselves on behalf of their descendants. How can my hon. friend say that the Bill is not binding on other people? How is it possible to reason like that? It was not the intention of those who instituted the day that they would make a vow on behalf of anyone else. My hon. friends speak of a vow on behalf of the Afrikaans people. Where is that said? Who can bind the people? If it was so, then I ask how it is that Jan Cilliers, who established the republic, never had such a law passed? It is said that the Free State has always kept the day. The first time that I heard of Dingaan’s Day was when I practised in Pretoria as an advocate. As the Minister of Justice rightly said, there were certain parts, even in the Transvaal, where there were certain societies who celebrated the day, and where, as they kept the day up, the spirit of the voortrekkers lived. Let us be reasonable. I thank the Minister of Justice for the way be has handled the subject. I agree with him, but there is one thing that has not yet been touched upon. We European people keep Dingaan’s Day, and why? It was the victory over the natives, over the Zulus. I just want to confine myself to the Zulus. They are a portion of the population of the country, and are w’e going to ask them to look upon Dingaan’s Day as a Sabbath day, to go to church on that day, and to thank the Lord? Because that is the first thing they will have to do. How can we expect it? Let us be fair. I have said these few words because I felt that the people have the right to know where I stand on this matter. Allow me to say that so long as I occupy this position, I am never ashamed—whether I stand against half the people, or against all the people—in matters of this kind, once I am convinced that we are doing something wrong, and not in the interests of the country or people—to say so outright. I say that we should be doing a wrong thing.

I agree with the Prime Minister that it is our duty as leaders to express ourselves clearly on the motion, and to make it clear to the public. I appreciate the motives of the hon. member who introduced the Bill. I understand that there is special feeling behind it. The hon. member thinks that the time has come to turn the celebration of Dingaan’s Day into the celebration of a Christian festival, and there is a considerable section of the people who will support him. The question is whether it is sensible to give expression to the sentiment of that section of the people? And I think that the way proposed by the hon. member is impossible. Shortly after Union in 1910 when we were fixing the public holidays of the Union we decided unanimously in this Parliament for the first time in our history, on the first opportunity we had to do so, to carry out the promise of Sarel Cilliers in the only way possible, and we fixed Dingaan’s Day as a public holiday. The resolution was unanimously passed and was welcomed by the whole of South Africa. The hon. member now wants to go further. He says that is not enough. Make it a Sunday. I agree with the Prime Minister that we have not the right to put any day on an equality with Sunday. It conflicts with Christianity as we have inherited it and as we have to apply it as a Christian people. Who gives us the right to take a week day and make a Sunday of it? It has never yet been done in the history of Christianity. There are festivals which are more important than Dingaan’s Day. Good Friday e.g. is a day which means much more, but no one has ever been so bold as to make a Sunday of it, and neither here nor elsewhere has a Bill been introduced to turn Good Friday or Ascension Day into a Sunday. With the best intentions, my hon. friend has taken a wrong line, and in order to satisfy the sentiment of a section of our people he wants to run counter to the religious practices of the whole people. If we are going to make Dingaan’s Day into a Sunday, where are we to stop: We must make Good Friday and Ascension Day and possibly also other days Sundays, and we shall get into confusion with all these Sundays. Our people are religious, they want to maintain religious institutions as far as possible, and they do so, and the Christian religious practices are better maintained in South Africa than anywhere else. I do not think, however, that our people will permit that its sentiment be held responsible for turning ordinary week days into Sundays. The people will see that it is not possible. If the Bill is passed it will give a different character to Dingaan’s Day, i.e., if the Act appears practicable. The hon. member said that we must not force the law, but the law does force, because in par. (2) there are penalties for the non-observance of Dingaan’s Day as a Sunday. If we do that, quite a different character will be given to Dingaan’s Day. We keep the day now in a solemn manner, and I have taken part in the celebrations for years. It is a mixed day for our people. In the morning they sing and pray, and a religious service is held, and thereafter the day is celebrated as a mixed day. We first have the religious side, by which the promise of Sarel Cilliers is carried out, but usually the day does not end there. It begins with an exhibition of gratitude and then follow joy and happiness, which one does not usually see on Sunday. I am now speaking of the festival which I recently attended in Heidelberg, Transvaal. We had a religious service in the morning, but in the afternoon there was a fight between Dingaan and his hordes on the one hand, and men and women who had prepared a laager on the other. A great attack was made on the laager by the hordes under Dingaan. It was a great celebration of Dingaan’s Day. I looked upon the day as a splendid keeping of the festival. What happened in the past was recalled allegorically and made attractive to the youth. If we now proclaim such a day a Sunday, I do not think our people will be inclined to continue its celebration in such a way. Apart from the penalties, if we make the day a Sunday, we shall not be able to give effect to it. The people will not do it. Such a declaration will be in conflict with the sentiment of the people, and the Act will simply remain a dead letter. The Act will fail, but we shall succeed in breaking the spirit of Dingaan’s Day. I appreciate the arguments so strongly made by the Minister of Justice that our national sentiment, as the white population of South Africa, should also bear in mind the sentiment of the natives, if we are going to declare such a festival a Sunday. If we declare Dingaan’s Day a mere Christian institution, then the Act must be a failure. If we consult the churches about this they will certainly say that we must leave the Sundays untouched, and that if we want to carry out the vow of Sarel Cilliers we can do so without interfering with Christian institutions. I do not know who advised my hon. friend in this matter. I am convinced that they did not consider it on its merits. Something is proposed which goes much further than our Christian people will allow. The matter is difficult, and we should get into such deep water that it will be better to leave it alone. I appreciate the sentiment of the hon. member and what it is based on, but I think that we have gone far enough in making Dingaan’s Day a public holiday.

We are all grateful for the high level characterising this debate and for the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I remember that in 1889 I attended my first Dingaan’s Day celebration. It was in the Free State. Before then I had never heard of one in the Free State. There it was a religious celebration. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked who advised the introduction of the Bill. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), however, read a telegram from the three churches in South Africa, and from prominent men. It is called the Central Dingaan’s Festival Celebration Committee. The celebration of Dingaan’s Day has gradually become a national festival, but according to the promise of the voortrekkers it must be kept as a Sabbath day. I do not agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) when he says that sporting events should be held on that day. When I was a student there were numbers of students who liked to play football on Sunday. We did not do it, however, and refused to play on Sunday. They could not do without us, and so the habit spread, and you will find no one to-day who wants to play football on Sunday. Dingaan’s Day now is a day of sentiment kept as a Sunday, and I should like to see that sentiment shared by our English friends as well. What is the reason that there is a statue to-day to Washington in London. He was formerly abused as a rebel in English history. I should like this kind of spirit to increase amongst our people, of the English-speaking South African acquiring just as much respect for Dingaan’s Day as we have. The day will certainly come that men like Piet Retief, Sarel Cilliers, Andries Pretorius and Paul Kruger will also be regarded as heroes by English Afrikanders. We heard that the Governor-General said at Heilbron in connection with the keeping of Dingaan’s Day—and the Afrikaans-speaking population are grateful to him. It is my experience that we can cultivate the spirit by education and teaching our history in the schools and that they will come to celebrate the festival with us. Of recent years the spirit has increased and we are grateful. I am convinced that the day is not far distant when the battle will be won. On last Dingaan’s Day I happened to be with an English speaking friend. I got him to go with me and when we came back from the festival he said that in future he would always keep it. That spirit we must cultivate and we shall succeed. I feel the hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Swart) has good intentions, but I think there is no chance for such a Bill. I want the English-speaking people who do not yet celebrate Dingaan’s Day as a Sunday to be convinced by association with us that they should join us in keeping the day, and that end will be attained. We shall possibly be blamed by certain people about the attitude we are adopting, but I feel we have to do with a matter of great importance, and if the line I have indicated is followed it will not be long before a large number of our English-speaking fellow-citizens will celebrate the National festival with us. We find the same thing in sport. Gradually the good spirit obtained the upper hand. The hon. member for Standerton spoke of the theological standpoint. I shall not venture into that department. He said that we should not create a Sabbath day, that is a Sunday alongside of the existing Sundays. I quite agree. Theological matters are dangerous, and I must warn him to keep out of it because it is slippery ice and when you fall you fall heavily. We have heard about “sentiment.” I am one who feels a great deal for sentiment, so much that I am often in danger of its carrying me away. We Afrikanders are often sentimentalists. On the other hand, I am possibly a sober Hollander. We must also regard this matter practically and therefore I appeal to the hon. member for Ladybrand not to force his Bill, but rather to try and exercise influence. Then in ten or twenty years we may get very far.

I appreciate the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), especially as some friends on his side spoke a little sharply. I just want to point out that a great point with various members as well as with the Minister was that we wanted to make a new Sabbath day of a public holiday. That is not at all the case. We only wish certain Sunday laws also to apply to Dingaan’s Day. That is far from saying that Dingaan’s Day shall be a Sunday. If a thing is a sin on Sunday it is not the case on Dingaan’s Day, therefore it is no argument to say that we are making the 16th December a Sunday. The Prime Minister asked what right we had to do so. Even I do not regard it as a right to fix the same restrictions on Dingaan’s Day as on Sunday, but it is only a request of a large section of our people. It is also said that we cannot expect the Zulus, e.g., to go to church on Dingaan’s Day, but we do not wish to force them either. No one need do anything, but we only wish that certain things which wound a large section of the people should be forbidden, namely that public pleasure resorts, bars and business premises should be closed. That is the only alteration of the existing position. I have gone through all the laws of the various provinces with regard to Sunday, and even if the Transvaal laws are a little more strict than the others, they all merely say that public places of amusement, bars, and business houses must be closed. Therefore no one will be compelled by the church or any other person or body to attend the celebrations. I have no objection to some hon. members thinking differently from me, but I do object to their giving a wrong representation of my intention in the Bill. They would not do so if they had read the Bill a little more carefully. Then they would see that they can do everything except go to sports, bars or amusements. Then I want to reply to the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink). He said we should not act as if the Afrikander had sunk so low that we want to force him by legislation to remember the great actions of the past. That we do not wish either. I have just referred to the happy fact that such a large number of Afrikanders have been celebrating Dingaan’s Day all this time without an Act. The number of festivals are increasing more and more as hon. members have said. Even abroad in America we see that our students are celebrating it. But while we request that certain things should be prohibited by the State, namely public amusements, I do not believe that we are asking too much. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) spoke a true word when he compared the two kinds of festival. The one section held a religious service and the other went to the races. We have no right to compel the English to attend our festival, but we have the right to force people who do not feel as we do about this institution not to wound our feelings. I must say, I am much disappointed to see that there are various members against my Bill. I expected to get much support, not only from my side, but also from several English friends. I shall not ask for a division, especially as the Minister of Justice said that he expected that many members were opposed to, but wouldn’t like to vote against the Bill, and I do not want to get them into trouble. I am very sorry the Bill has not been more favourably received. I regret that certain members have unnecessarily twisted the Bill and attributed wrong motives to it.

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

I may explain that this Bill is intended to give a better chance to the still remaining law-agents in the various provinces to earn their living by means of their practice. The alteration asked for does not, I think, encroach upon other sections of the legal profession. The Bill is small and innocent, and therefore non-contentious. Hon. members will possibly wonder why I should take the matter upon myself. I have no direct or indirect interest in the calling of law agents. On the contrary, I can say that in my contact with legal people I have always come off second best. But I feel that this matter is right, and that it is the duty of this House by means of this Bill to reinstate people in certain rights which have been taken away, and so cause them loss, and that we should give relief in that connection. The law-agents in our country were really the voortrekkers in our legal history. In the days when there were few attorneys, and not sufficient qualified men to do the work, the law-agents existed, and were given proper authority to practise in the courts. After a time the demand was naturally so great that many studied for the profession, and subsequently there were sufficient attorneys to do the work, and then as early as 1885 an Act was passed in the Cape Province restricting the rights of law-agents admitted after that time. The few who were admitted before that time—I believe there are still five alive—had the fullest right of the law-agents before 1885, but in respect of the time after 1885 the rights were curtailed in a way which I do not think this House will approve, namely, that the law-agent can only practise in the court where he is admitted, and in no other court in the province or country where he lives. As the country progressed many of the districts where there was a court became smaller and smaller, and many more attorneys came into it, with the result that the practices became smaller, according as the area where they were established became smaller. Before the restriction of the right, the law-agents living in larger towns, and who afterwards had a bad time through competition, could go to the smaller centres to try to make a living, but by the legislation referred to they were prevented from doing so, and the result is that they can no longer earn their livings. In many cases they were capable people, and the law certified them as fit to exercise the calling, but, owing to the restrictions, things have become impossible for them. If the 1885 Act had stopped the admission of law-agents, then it might have been regarded as fair, because then no further admissions of agents would have taken place, and the position would not have been what it is to-day. Instead of that, Still more law-agents were admitted, but they are practically exposed to a murder by starvation. I can hardly call the legislation anything less. If a person is prohibited from doing something, then we feel that it may be fair, but when you tie a rope round a man’s neck and tighten it every day till he chokes, if steadily and steadily a man’s living is curtailed then we surely feel that it is unfair. Hence the amendment that I move. The law-agents are just as good citizens as any more highly trained lawyers, and we only want to enable them to earn their bread. Act 32 of 1917 abolished the further admission of law-agents for the first time in the Cape Province. Consequently there are more law-agents still practising here than in any other part of the Union. The admission of law-agents in Natal was stopped as long ago as 1896, so that today there are only one or two left. In the Transvaal the further admission was stopped by proclamation in 1902, and the law-agents were given an opportunity in 1908 of passing an attorney’s examination, of which they all availed themselves except two or three. In the Free State law-agents can practise where not less than three attorneys are practising. The old republican law-agents are excluded from this provision. They retain their full rights. There will, of course, be opposition by the Law Society to this Bill to re-grant the rights already taken away, but I hope that if the objection is raised it will not come from persons who are practising, because then it must be considered that they are only made from pure self-interest, and not in the interests of the public, on whose behalf we are in Parliament. The objection will also be raised that there are enough qualified persons to do the work. There is one case—I want to anticipate—which came under my notice of a law-agent becoming a magistrate. He was put in a higher position than the attorneys. Cases brought by attorneys had to be decided by him, and he did it successfully for 18 years. A person with such experience has, I think, the fullest rights, and is just as well qualified to practise in the court as any other person. There are other similar cases. Then it must be mentioned there are cases where persons act who have not got the qualifications of an attorney. There are, e.g., special justices of the peace, native commissioners, etc. They carry out the law, impose punishment, and still have not the same qualifications as an attorney. I think, therefore, that it is fair to provide that law-agents shall be admitted to practise in any court in any part of the Union. I understand that a Bill is under consideration and is ready for introduction to this House by which attorneys will obtain exactly the same rights, so that they can practise in any court in any part of the Union. In anticipation of that Bill we are to-day proposing this one. The field of the law-agents has become more and more circumscribed, or his rights to appear in court have been more limited, according as the number of attorneys increased. We can imagine what became of their living. They are capable to do the work, and this has been acknowledged by law. They are a dying body, and the number becomes less from year to year, but I feel that it is right that the existing law-agents should have an opportunity of making their living for the rest of their lives. I just want to mention a little matter which occurred in our midst, as an illustration. Formerly law-agents were admitted in Wynberg, but more and more magistrates’ courts were established between here and Wynberg, as well as beyond Wynberg. The areas became smaller and smaller, and finally the courts became so close together that one could almost throw a stone from one to the other. There are cases where a practitioner may consult with his clients on one side of the street, but on the other side they possibly fall under Woodstock. The contradictions in the course of time became considerable, and the areas in which a man might practise often became very small. If a new court were opened somewhere, and an attorney once appeared, then he was registered. In the country districts law-agents may still practise where less than two attorneys are registered, but the attorney is registered by appearing once, and can appoint a clerk as his representative there. In other cases a firm with two partners starts, and the law-agent is excluded. I hope the House will support me. I think it is fair to come to the aid of the existing law-agents.

The grounds upon which I am supporting this Bill are that the number of law-agents in the country to-day is a very small one indeed, and by the Magistrate’s Court Act no further law-agents can be admitted. There is certainly a great deal of force in the argument used that the magistrates’ courts in which the law-agents can practise have been constricted from time to time, and they have dwindled down in size. There are very few in Natal, a few in the Transvaal, and very few in the Cape Province. As far as allowing law-agents to practise in any part of the country is concerned, that is a greater privilege than an attorney has to-day, but the only reason why an attorney has not that privilege is the difficulty of passing the large attorneys’ measure, which they did not want to place before the House, but they have tried to get us to pass through the House. No doubt it will be passed in time. This seems to be a very useful “voorbereiding” (preparation). There have been no new admissions since 1917, and on the whole we can get rid of this law-agents’ business in this way. On the question of principle, I have no doubt very strong argument can be brought against me, and no doubt that will be done; but the number involved is so small that we might go the length the hon. member asks us to go in this Bill. It is only on account of the small number involved and their age, that we might accept this Bill.

I happen to be one of the members who sat on the select committee, and when evidence was given by law-agents in support of a Bill similar to this one I was not very much impressed by their evidence. In one instance a man said he had never passed no examination, and he had taken out a licence and practised for four months 20 years ago as a law-agent, and had never practised since, but he held he should now be entitled to practise in any magistrate’s court in South Africa. He could see no objection to this privilege being granted.

He is not a danger.

He is a danger. In 1896 under the Natal Magistrates’ Court Act, no new law-agents can be admitted, and, so far as I know, there is only one law-agent still practising in Natal. In the Transvaal in 1902, legislation was passed stopping the admission of any new law-agents, and in 1907 or 1908 the right was given to every law-agent then practising in the Transvaal to become an attorney by passing an examination. No other formality was necessary. A similar law was passed in the Free State in 1908. In the Cape, under the Magistrates’ Court Act of 1917, a stop was put to the admission of any more law-agents. The law-agents gave evidence before the select committee, which sat on the Magistrates’ Court Bill referred to, and it was decided that the rights of existing law-agents should not be interfered with. On that occasion it seemed to me that Parliament acted very fairly, as the rights of all law-agents in the respective provinces were preserved and not interfered with. In Natal, if you wish to become an attorney, you have to serve five years articles, and you are strictly confined to the legal business. But if this Bill were passed, a law-agent would also be able to carry on business as an auctioneer and general agent in Natal. Would that be fair to the attorneys? The Bill gives a privilege to law-agents which qualified attorneys do not enjoy. This would create a bad precedent. Our aim should be to raise the standard of the profession, hut the passing of this measure would be a retrograde step. The law-agents themselves admit that there is a surplus of attorneys in the country to-day. One of the witnesses before the select committee, Mr. Duncan, agreed that as far as Natal was concerned, a law-agent should go through the same procedure as an attorney and become qualified. If the Minister of Justice wished to practise as an attorney in Natal, he would first have to serve 18 months.

I have no desire to go there.

If you wished to practise as an advocate in Natal, you would have to pay a fee of 50 guineas

I might even be deported from Natal.

I don’t think so. You would be quite safe. I am sorry that the Minister should agree to what I think is a retrograde step. He should try to maintain the profession on as high a standard as possible, and it will be going very far indeed if we allow privileges to law-agents which are not possessed by attorneys. Has the mover consulted the law societies of South Africa? The House should not accept the Bill. The legal profession is overcrowded to-day by qualified men. I am not practising to-day, so I have no personal interest in the matter. Does the introducer of the Bill agree that law-agents should he qualified?

Yes.

Then I hope you will withdraw the Bill.

No, hut I have no objection to it being amended.

The case made out for the Bill by the hon. member is very weak. If law-agents in the Transvaal were so proficient, why didn’t they pass the examinations in 1908?

The majority did.

Then the minority must have been satisfied with their position. Now they want to come along, because they could not pass the examination or had no ambition to do so, and ask Parliament to allow them to practise in any part of the Union. Generally our legislation of late has been to improve the status of the professions. We passed the Medical Bill and the Architects Bill with the aim of raising the standard in our professions, yet here the hon. member is trying to bring down that standard by admitting people who had an opportunity of passing the examination and entering the profession themselves, but they did not do so. I hope the House will not accept this Bill. I will certainly vote against the Bill.

Some members have painted the law-agents very black. I doubt whether they deserve such a dark representation. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said that the law-agents in the Transvaal had an opportunity in 1908 of passing an attorney’s examination. A large number of them did so, but we must not forget that passing examinations is practically a matter for the younger generation. As soon as a person is 30 or 40 years old, the passing of an examination becomes an extremely difficult matter. It is well known that after the thirtieth year studies are not prosecuted so easily. It is therefore not to be wondered at that there are many law-agents who have not passed the attorney’s supplementary examination, because they had reached the age at which studying was no longer easy. The question now is whether the danger is actually so great as it has been painted, what is the position of the person affected by the Bill? Almost all of them are older people. The admission of law-agents in Natal was abolished in 1896, in the Transvaal in 1902, in the Cape in 1917, and in the Orange Free State in 1907. It is therefore ten or 20 years since, and we can therefore easily see that the present law-agents must be people who have already attained a certain age. It is therefore wrong to suppose that the people will now rush to Natal and the Transvaal to take the bread out of the mouths of the attorneys there. That is an entire misrepresentation of the matter. Every law-agent will be glad to be admitted in the province where he lives. We are dealing here with people who have great experience of the practice in the lower courts. The law-agents cannot, however, go outside their provinces; for that the provincialism in the 1917 Act is still far too strong. But why are not things the same as with teachers? If one looks at the list of teachers in the Transvaal, it will be found that quite 60 per cent. come from the Cape Province. A teacher from the Cape can enter the Transvaal service without objection, but the poor law-agent is oppressed. He must remain where he is. The hon. member for Newcastle reproached the introducer of the Bill for not having given a return of the law-agents now practising. I have taken the trouble to investigate it, and I have obtained the following figures: In the Cape there are 40, in the Orange Free State 18, in Natal 6, and in the Transvaal also 6, a grand total of 70, upon whom the formidable attack of the hon. member for Newcastle was made. I am very much surprised that the greatest opposition to the Bill has come from the Transvaal Law Society. According to Section 22, that society has a certain control over the law-agents, but now the greatest opposition actually comes from that society. I think that the opposition against the Bill is quite groundless, that it is actually pettiness on the part of the attorneys and advocates to look down so much upon their brothers. I am thankful to the Minister of Justice for accepting the alteration. I hope the House will also do so by a large majority.

I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here, and I am still more sorry that the Minister of Justice should have supported this Bill, because it does seem rather remarkable that a Bill of this kind should receive such patronage as that. The two reasons which he gave for supporting this Bill, were in the first place, that there were so few people affected and in the second place, as I understood, that the magistrate’s area of jurisdiction had been so restricted that a certain amount of unfairness had been done to these people. As far as the area of jurisdiction is concerned, that does not seem to me to be affected at all inasmuch as the amount of jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court has been increased very largely. I also challenge the propriety of supporting a Bill merely on the ground that a comparatively small number of people would be affected. After all, what we have to deal with is a question of principle and one as regards a learned profession who by law are forced to go through an expensive period of training, long service, payment of fees, and passing of examinations. It is very unfair to set up against them opposition by unqualified persons entitled to practise under the law, except in so far as the vested rights are legitimately to be considered. Those vested rights have been legitimately considered in every province of the Union when the policy was adopted by one province after the other of restricting the admission of these law agents. Every province of the Union owing to the conditions in the early days had to allow unqualified persons to practise the law, but every province of the Union has consistently since that time set to work to limit the admission of law agents, as has been done in the Cape in various Acts. Even on the point of fact as to the Minister’s statement that very few persons are affected, I looked at the evidence given in the select committee last year and I find that Mr. Nathan, who is the chairman of the Cape Law Agents Association, said that the number of persons who would be affected by such an amendment, is 139. The number of persons who will be affected by this very same amendment which the hon. member is now seeking to make is 139.

That is only a statistical statement.

The statistical statement was put before the committee as a statement of fact. The publication which was mentioned does not contain a large number of people who practise in the country. There are a large number of people practising which makes that list entirely unreliable as far as the hon. member is concerned. But the number of people affected is really a side issue. The question is really whether you should allow any tampering with a law which insists upon persons qualifying themselves for certain of these learned professions at great expense and allowing other people to come in and practice in the same way as they do without any such qualification. That seems entirely unfair to the sons of those of us who have taken up these professions and who have to pass examinations and incur heavy expense in order to qualify themselves for practising at all. The hon. member admitted just now that in the Transvaal vested rights were protected in 1908 when an attempt was made to stop these law agents. An opportunity was given then to all those persons who were at that time law-agents to qualify after passing examinations. A large number of them availed themselves of it. To-day all those persons who for one reason or another either did not or could not pass those examinations then, and who were not able to avail themselves of the privilege given by the law of the day, are to be entitled to come in and have a preference, not only above the ordinary attorney, but even above those persons who in 1908 qualified and took advantage of the law. The hon. member’s Bill gives privileges to those persons who did not or could not avail themselves of the law. It seems to me that that alone is a grossly unfair thing to those persons.

There are only two in the Transvaal.

I don’t care how many there are, the principle is the same. It is unjust even if there are only two, and I am not prepared to accept any statistics unless we have some evidence to support them, but even if there are only two, the principle is exactly the same. The main point is this: Here we have persons who have got no qualifications and in regard to whom the policy of the law has been to restrict as much as possible, save in so far as their just rights are concerned. We have these persons coming along and getting better privileges under this Bill than the attorneys who have so qualified. Under this Bill the agent coming in is entitled to practise as an agent in any magistrate’s court in the Union. An attorney cannot do that. A barrister cannot go and appear in any other division than the one in which he has been admitted. He has to pay fees to be admitted if he desires to practise in the courts of any other province. Yet the agent who has no claim for consideration of any kind, is to have this special privilege over and above the attorney who is qualified. I say it is unfair that he should be allowed to set up in opposition beyond the rights that he has got at present to practise, but it is still more unfair that in addition to the courts in which he is registered, he should be entitled to go outside the province and exercise privileges which the attorney himself cannot possibly exercise. So I say that in my opinion this Bill is an entirely unjust one. It comes before the House under a pretext of justice to a particular people to give them rights to which they have never had any claim, and gives them rights in preference to people who have had to go through the extremely onerous course of qualifying for their profession. For these reasons I hope the House will reject the Bill and that we shall not do an injustice to qualified persons in the country who have had to do what the law requires before they can carry on their profession.

I would like to support the second reading of the Bill. I do not see that the question of the qualifications of these men comes in at all. The law at the time they were admitted, allowed them to come in. It was considered to be in the interests of the country at that time that they should be admitted, although unqualified. These are all admitted law-agents and the only point is whether they should be allowed to practise beyond the courts in which they were admitted. There is no question of admitting any further unqualified persons and therefore I do not think it is fair to speak of unqualified persons being admitted under this Bill. They may be given a wider range of work, but they are already admitted. Again, it has been said, why not grant a similar privilege to attorneys? I wish the attorneys would bring forward a Bill. I would vote for it. Attorneys ought to be allowed to practise right through the Union, and barristers ought to be allowed to do so also. We want a consolidated law. I am prepared to give them all privileges of that kind. With the uniform series of courts I would be prepared to vote for both these Bills on the same lines as I am prepared to vote for this Bill. In other words, we ought to consider the thing entirely upon its merits. With regard to the number of people affected, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) read out the number of agents, but it is obvious if you read the evidence a little further, that that does not mean the number practising. It may be the number of persons technically entitled to practise. If you read the evidence of Mr. Nathan, he says there are 18 law-agents in the Transvaal, but there are only five agents practising. It is quite open to the committee, if we go into committee, not to extend this thing broadcast, but to limit it to the people who are practising at the time the Act comes into force. I think that would be a fair thing. I think a reason why something can be said for extending it over the Union is that your Magistrate’s Court Act is now a Union Act. If a man is qualified to practise in one court he is surely qualified to practise in other courts of the same kind. There are undoubtedly many anomalies in the existing law and it becomes almost farcical in some places. Hon. members who have read Mr. Russell’s evidence will see he says that at Station Road, Observatory, one side of the street belongs to one magisterial area and the other side to another magisterial area. It is not a question of qualification at all; it is a question of trying to meet the reasonable grievance of these men. They have no legal right, I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch. But at any rate I think they have put forward a prima facie case upon the evidence that should be enquired into and gone into in Committee of the House. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel)—I don’t think he meant to be unfair—said to the Minister of Justice that the select committee which sat upon it was opposed to it. They expressed no opinion upon it at all. I will read from the report of the Select Committee on the Admission of Attorneys Bill—

The hon. member for Newcastle is entirely wrong there. They do not express any opinion on the merits at all. They merely state “Here are two Bills dealing with the Magistrate’s Courts Act and we do not think the other matter should be dealt with in this Bill.” There may be a number of very reasonable amendments, but to-day we are only deciding on the general principle, which is that if a person has been recognized as qualified to practise in a magistrate’s court, seeing that all magistrates’ courts are now on the same footing, I submit that unless some strong reason can be shown against it he is entitled to say, “surely I am entitled to practise in any other magistrate’s court when you have a proper consolidating measure.” For these reasons I hope the second reading will be agreed to.

I am obliged to oppose the Bill. I cannot agree with it, because if we pass it we shall be adopting a principle which may have ill-fated consequences. One of my reasons is that the persons aimed at by the Bill have already had the opportunity of becoming qualified as attorneys. They made no use of it, at any rate some of them did not, doubtless because they did not have sufficient capacity. I, of course, am thinking of the Transvaal. Is it right that persons who are not able to pass an examination should be admitted to compete with qualified persons. It will be unjust if we do such a thing. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) sees no harm in the measure, but the principle is wrong. Will the hon. member support a measure to allow the attorneys to practise in the higher courts? He will certainly oppose it. Why then should we allow law agents to practise in the lower courts in competition with attorneys who have spent time and money in expensive study.

I think the House should be informed as to how people became law agents in the various colonies before the Act of Union. In the old Cape Colony, where there were not two attorneys practising, anyone could pay the licence and be admitted to practise as a law agent. In the Orange Free State no one could practise as a law agent without being qualified by examination, and it was so also in the Transvaal. I am not qualified to speak about the position in Natal. In 1908 several of the Transvaal law agents approached me and said they were anxious to become admitted as attorneys under certain conditions—these were to the effect that they must pass certain examinations as laid down under the 1908 Act—within four years. Several law agents availed themselves of the provision, and several of them passed. Certain law agents of the Cape Province who are now in the Transvaal are desirous of qualifying as attorneys in the Transvaal; but I cannot support the clause of the Bill as it stands. I am prepared to support the principle which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has enunciated; that is, provided they pass certain examinations they should be allowed to practise as attorneys. In view of the promise I made, I will have to vote for that principle, but not for the provisions of this Bill, and I would like to make this quite clear. If the Bill goes into Committee and the hon. member in charge of the Bill moves the deletion of the body of the Bill, and the insertion of the necessary part of the 1908 Act of the Transvaal, I would be prepared to support such a clause in the Bill. The House, under these conditions, should allow the Bill to go to the Committee stage.

The Bill is very unfair towards the young attorneys who certainly know the law much better than the law agents. The attorney’s examination of to-day is quite as difficult as the advocate’s. More than half the candidates fail to pass. The young fellow has to be articled to an attorney for three years before he can practise, and then he has to pass three difficult examinations. To pass the last of these it costs the candidate £20. His admission also costs £20, and then he is not yet entitled to do notarial work. For this he has to pass another examination, and again pay high fees. The law-agents have been exempt from all those fees and from the examinations. The precedent, moreover, is dangerous. This House has always set its face against the principle of putting quacks on the level of professional men. It occurred recently in relation to dentists.

I hope the Bill will be withdrawn. Law agents should be allowed to remain as they are until the whole position is dealt with under a consolidated measure. Section 19 of the Act of 1917 makes it clear that every advocate may appear and plead in any action in any court within the jurisdiction of the division to the bar of which he has been called. Under Section 20 attorneys may also practise in any court of the division of the Supreme Court in which they are registered. These people have to pay substantial fees and pass examinations. I do not think the introducer of the Bill would agree to Cape attorneys going indiscriminately to the Transvaal and practising there. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), as I heard him, asked the House to jettison the considered opinion of the select committee. The considered opinion of Parliament is that no evidence has been put forward to justify the granting of the special privilege which the Bill proposes should be given to certain law agents. If these agents are to be allowed to perambulate the Union, who is to have jurisdiction over them? Is it to be the Supreme Court of the province in which they were admitted, or of the particular province through which they may happen to pass in the course of their travels?

Section 22 provides for that.

Section 22 says that the Supreme Court shall possess the same powers over law-agents as over attorneys. The Law Society may bring to the notice of the court any practice on the part of an attorney in the same way as it can bring to the notice of the court any practice on the part of the law-agents which the society considers should be brought to the notice of the court. There are four provincial divisions of the Supreme Court, four incorporated law societies, and four different sets of bye-laws laying down certain standards of conduct. Take the case of a law-agent, admitted in the Transvaal, paying visits to the Free State and Natal, and finally coming to rest in the Cape Province. Supposing that in passing through the Free State he infringes the rules, which society will have to deal with him? Suppose the Cape society complain of certain conduct which occurred in the Free State. An application was made a few months ago to the Supreme Court of the Cape Provincial Division referring to the conduct of an attorney who was practising in South-West Africa, but who had formerly been an attorney in the Cape Province. They struck him off the roll. In a similar case, supposing a law-agent had come to rest at Cape Town, but before leaving the Orange Free State he had done something wrong. By what bye-laws would the conduct of that particular agent be dealt with? Quite unintentionally the mover has opened the door to someone escaping from a district in which he should be answerable for any misdemeanour. In fairness to the House he should have considered this matter, and he should have made it quite clear in his Bill that this state of affairs would not arise. There is another defect in this Bill. If the law societies in the various provinces are to be charged with the control of these law-agents, have the law-agents to become members of those societies and pay a contribution to them? Ordinarily a law-agent, on applying for admission to the court, is called upon to pay a fee. This law proposes that without payment of fee they shall be admitted to other provinces of the Union. I would ask the Minister of Finance if he thinks that is the proper thing. Without proper consideration the hon. member breaks into the structure of our judicial system so far as they exist for the purpose of the magistrates’ courts, and proposes to introduce special rights and special privileges for persons who are few in number, without regard to the rights of other people. Can the hon. member satisfy this House that these special privileges to be extended to these men this year will not, next year, be extended to attorneys throughout the Union, and then the year afterwards the privileges will be extended to members of the bar? So far as the bar is concerned, nothing would move them to sanction such privileges unless they were satisfied that the persons obtaining them were fully qualified. That is the test. Is this in the interest of the public? Why do we have law societies? It is so that there may be protection for the public. Let us approach it from that point of view, and I think the mover will experience some difficulty in dealing with this point of view. I want to make a point which I am sure he will be glad to meet. Did he refer at all to the interests of the public when he decided to press this Bill on the attention of the House? As I understand it, most of these law-agents were admitted some 20 or 25 years ago. I have endeavoured to test the point of what their qualification would be. They have been engaged in their profession and probably watched the law in their own province, but now they are to be brought into other provinces without the opportunity of studying its local law. They are loosed upon other provinces. Not a word fell from the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) as to the qualifications of these gentlemen.

You were not in the House when I spoke.

Will the mover tell us why we are asked to pass this Bill to extend their activities to each province of the Union, although they were unqualified 25 years ago. Surely it is not in the interests of the public to allow a large number of unqualified persons necessarily unacquainted with the law to have the right to act on behalf of the members of the public. I will not say in competition with others who are qualified. I will not put it that way. But let me take the case, for instance, of Namaqualand. You may have, and probably will have, a large number of persons seeking their fortunes in that eldorado where diamonds have been found. A large number of people will go there in a search for work, because I am sure that area has a great future before it. The people of Namaqualand will have to receive in their midst a number of unqualified persons. Are the people to find that the sources of advice available to them are not fully qualified? If anybody has to suffer through this lack of qualification, it will be those in the outer districts, districts where there seems to be more opportunities for practice than the larger towns. It is not a matter which only concerns the towns and larger cities. For the last three or four sessions Parliament has been engaged in dealing with the qualifications required for other professions, and members on that side of the House have taken part in those discussions. They have laid down a higher standard for the profession of architects, and they have taken care that they shall be more fully qualified. They did the same thing with accountants, and last night we dealt with a Bill dealing with the qualifications of doctors, chemists and druggists. I never heard any argument that accountants or architects should be given carte blanche to practise anywhere in the Union without proper qualifications. We must insist upon high educational and vocational standards, and yet here we have the principle broken into. I venture to say when the House reviews the matter, it should, apart from professional interests, consider it from the point of view of the interests of the public. This is something which is an infringement and a departure from what we have been attempting to do for the last three or four years.

If we are going to admit law-agents, what is to become of our boys who want to become attorneys, and who have first to take a long and expensive course of study, and then be articled for three years? Here we have to do with a lot of law-agents who have learnt nothing. Such a law-agent begins in a small way, he works up a business by persuading the people to go to court, and when he has a kind of business he sells it to an attorney. Then he comes to the Cape, and also wants to be admitted as an attorney. They are people who only promote unnecessary litigation. The attorney as it is such an unnecessary evil, and now the law-agent is to be added. The law-agents are the quacks who make the healthy pockets of the people look entirely sick. There are more than 20 of them in the Cape Province. The worst is that you have no hold over them. An attorney comes under the supervision of the Supreme Court, and one has a hold on him, hut a law-agent only comes under the magistrate. You can only appeal against him there, and if you do so he suddenly disappears, and you cannot find him. I think it is high time to be careful. We already have more attorneys than is necessary, with the result that cases go to court which never should go. I have never yet heard of an attorney who tried to settle cases. He always says that you have a good case, and if you do lose it, then he wants to take it to the Appeal Court. Just look at the case of the Divisional Council of Fraserburg. The attorneys who advised the case ought to have been hanged. That would still be too good for them. The poor people now have to pay £13,000 costs. The attorneys milk the cow, and their bucket now is full; the poor people have to walk, while the attorneys drive in big motor cars.

I am not sure whether the hon. member who introduced this Bill has had the advice of the different law societies and bar councils in regard to this matter. I understand the bar council of the Transvaal refuses to admit as members of their profession natives. I would like to know whether the hon. member has had their views, and also the views of the attorneys in the Transvaal. There are at least five law-agents in the Native Territories who, under this Bill, would be allowed to practise in the Transvaal. In order that the Hon. member may obtain this information, I think it would be well if we now adjourned this debate.

On the motion of Maj. G. B. van Zyl, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 17th February.