I find it somewhat difficult to follow some of the arguments and assertions of the hon. member who introduced this Bill. He says the Bill is a small and innocent measure, and therefore not contentious. I think he will agree that he has since come to the conclusion that this is a very contentious matter. We have had a full afternoon of argument by hon. members who oppose this Bill. Some years ago a similar measure was introduced in this House, and although it did not go as far as the present Bill intends going, it went so far that practitioners thought it should be rejected. On the submission of the Law Society that Bill was withdrawn, which goes to prove that at that time there was strong opposition to that measure. The previous Minister of Justice refused to continue with such legislation, hut the present Minister has agreed to this Bill, which is in very much wider terms than the previous one. We have had no arguments brought forward to show that the law agents themselves require this special relief that is asked for. Looking at the minutes of the Select Committee on the Law Society Bill of 1916 I find that the chief law agent, Sir Frederic de Waal, gave evidence and raised certain objections. I think it is very advisable to show what Sir Frederic de Waal said about that Bill. In referring to an interview with the promoters of that Bill he said—

The point here was that it was considered unprofessional conduct for them to give an allowance to a law agent, and Sir Frederic de Waal objected to that. The same point was raised in connection with regulations that might be issued by the Law Society and Sir Frederic said—

He suggested certain amendments, which the promoters of that Bill accepted; he then said he was in favour of the Bill, and that the time was fast approaching when there would be nothing but attorneys in the country and that it was right that there would be no more law agents. Sir Frederic said he regarded the Bill as an excellent one. A private Bill introduced by the four provinces was rejected, and the Cape society brought in that Bill. There was no objection to it from the man who might be claimed to be representing the law agents of this country. We have the Magistrates’ Court Bill, which was passed by this House after a very exhaustive inquiry. Those who were on the select committee will remember we took very full evidence and went into every clause very fully. The law agents were represented there, too, and in spite of all the representations made by them this Parliament agreed that this particular Clause of the Bill (21) should be passed. I am satisfied that when the hon. member claims that rights are restricted he is wrong. We secured the rights to law agents, and we said that those who had rights at that time should not be deprived of them, but that there should be no further admissions. The hon. member says he wishes to restore rights which have been taken away from the law agents, but they have not been deprived of a single right, so there is nothing which can be restored to them. The law agents are in exactly the same position to-day as they previously were, only there can be no further admission of law agents. The Bill, therefore, is entirely unnecessary, and even if it should become law, it will not do the law agents nearly as much good as it will do harm to the rest of the community. Under the Bill a law agent will have privileges which even attorneys do not possess. An attorney can practise only in the province in which he is admitted. He has to pay fees prescribed by the court and the Law Society. Before being articled, he has to pass the matriculation or an equivalent examination and parts 1 and 2 of the law certificate examination, and after that, he has to pass a practical examination regulated by rule of court. Then he has to be admitted. The fees are heavy—£5 for the law certificate examination, £10 for the attorney’s examination, £10 for the practical examination as a notary and £10 for the conveyancing examination. Besides that there are court fees, and admission as an attorney costs £20, admission as conveyancer £12 10s. and admission as a notary another £12 10s. That is a very large total sum for a young man to pay. But even after paying for his education and his admission fees, he is in a worse position than the law agent, who is admitted merely on the strength of a certificate of character and the payment of £10. Up to 1918 any one could be admitted as a law agent and law agents had the same rights as attorneys in the particular court in which he was admitted. We admit that in the early days law agents were very necessary, as then there were very few legal practitioners, but circumstances have changed. We have a large number of young men who have qualified at very great expense, and they claim the right to practise and to require that every man practising in opposition to them should be equally well qualified. All the provinces have done away with law agents, the opinions of the several Parliaments being that they were no longer necessary. One of the leading law agents in Cape Town assured me there are not more than 38 law agents in the Cape Province, but he admitted that this was a very bad Bill. The most the law agent could expect would be permission to practise in his own province, and the law agent who called on me said he would never be a party to asking to be allowed to practice in any province he wished. When he told me there were 38 law agents in the Cape, he omitted to remind me that in addition there are at least six natives practising as law agents in the Native Territories. Is it the hon. member’s intention to allow these natives to practise in the other provinces as well? If that is so, naturally there will be objection for we shall once more be faced with the old system of class legislation. On general principles, the Bill is a very bad one and is injurious to attorneys. It is not only the legal profession that will suffer, but when we have practitioners who are not fully qualified the public will suffer more than the profession itself. I hope hon. members will protect the legal profession, and see that none but qualified men are admitted to practise.

Listening to the last speaker one would think that more law agents are to be admitted. That, however, is not so under the Bill. I am not so sure that every attorney is better than the law agent, some of whom can very well hold their own against attorneys. It was unreasonable when the original Bill was passed to limit the activities of law agents to the place they were then practising in. The youngest law agent has been practising for 11 years, and he should be able to hold his own against these very able attorneys and he should be allowed to continue his practice. If a law agent living at a port found it necessary to move up-country for the benefit of his health, or if a law agent living up-country was advised to go to the coast for the benefit of his health, they would be deprived of the privilege of being able to do so. I think the hon. member has put up a very strong case, and we should relieve the law agents from the injustice which they have suffered up to the present.

I just want to say a few words about the general principle. The House has decided by other legislation that the professions must be respected. It has laid down that when a young man has had a proper training and completed a course he must be protected. That is the principle in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill, but what is the hon. member asking here? He wants to repeal the existing Act. The existing Act says that law agents shall only be allowed to practise in the courts in which they were entitled to practise before the passing of the Act, in other words in the lower courts. Now the hon. member introduces a clause to permit law agents to practise in any court.

No, that is not true.

If the hon. member says that, then he has his own interpretation of the clause, because it says clearly—

The hon. member therefore says, e.g., that a law agent who had the right to practise in a lower court may now practise in any higher court.

That is not so.

Then I should like to have an explanation, but I want to point out that at present an attorney can only practise in a court of the province where he has been admitted.

Mr. Speaker, may I explain to the hon. member?

Only if it is a matter of personal explanation otherwise the, hon. member can deal with it in reply.

More rights are being given to the law agent here than the attorneys possess. That is a wrong principle and I hope therefore that the majority of the House will vote against it.

I only want to say something with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). Section 110 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act says that the law agents only have the right to practise in the lower courts. The Bill proposes merely to put a new Clause 21 in the place of the old clause so that the above-mentioned Section 110 also applies to the new Section 21.

Are you certain of that?

Yes, it cannot be otherwise, but my objection to the Bill is that rights are here being given to law agents which the attorneys’ profession does not possess. I am not inclined to vote for the clause. If the same rights are also given to the attorneys it will be fair, but it is quite wrong to give rights to an untrained profession which the trained profession does not possess.

A layman hardly likes to barge in when there is so much legal talent in the House to deal with this Bill. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). Everybody is desirous of seeing as many professional men as possible where they are required, and I agree that there are sufficient budding attorneys at the present moment, almost a plethora of them, and everything within reason should be done to see they get a fair show in the profession on which they have spent so much. Although I am not prepared to support the Bill as drafted, I have in my mind a couple of cases of law agents who have, I suppose, been practising in this country for the last thirty or forty years, long before there was a restriction.

They are not restricted now.

Although clients might be extremely anxious to continue to use the service of this agent when the venue is removed from one court to another, they are unable to go to the other magistrate’s court to represent their client. I am looking for light in this case.

I am sorry you did not speak before.

Never mind, you can give me light in committee if the House takes the second reading, but I am under the impression that a law agent who has been practising for years in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope and who has established a certain clientele who have great faith in his legal advice, could not, if he is practising in District A magistrate’s court, and his clients have the case taken to District B magistrate’s court, I say he could not, under the existing law, represent them in that particular court. It is not alone in the interests of the agent himself, but of clients of years’ standing. They should receive consideration. I am not going to support my hon. friend that law agents registered in one province should have the right to go over the whole of the Union. We know how easily law cases go from one district to another, and that he will not be able to take a case up in another district, although he has worked on it for a considerable time. I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who is of a reasonable and sympathetic turn of mind, will give me some enlightenment.

I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that it would be wrong to give the law agents more privileges than the attorneys. We must assume that the attorney has made a study of his profession, while the law agent has made none. It would be unfair to allow them to practise throughout the Union and to confine the attorneys to the province where they are registered. If the proposal were to allow everybody to practise throughout the Union it would in any case have been fairer. I, however, want to touch on another point, viz., the position of law agents in districts. My experience is not of the best. In my district various law agents are established in the small villages. A law agent comes to the village and in a short while the whole farming population is disturbed and the greatest trouble in the world exists among the farmers. They get hold of information with regard to the farmers’ possessions as well (documents and things) and because they are a little cleverer than the farmers they ultimately possess everything that belonged to the farmers. I do not want law agents to be given more powers than people who have studied possess. My experience of law agents is this, that I always tell people in my constituency to go to a proper attorney in a town or village, to a man with an established business, whose career we know, and not to a person who can’t make a living in the town, and therefore comes to the countryside. In view of my experience I shall vote against the second reading.

The Scots have a proverb that one eagle won’t peck out another eagle’s eye, but it does not seem to apply in regard to our lawyer friends.

I am very glad they are your friends, anyway.

Yes, but why should they want to chase these poor unfortunate 28 individuals, many of them quite elderly? After all, what is a boundary? A river, a fence, some intangible thing, and we are asked to tie down these poor individuals, who have struggled for existence for many years, within that fence. One of the arguments used by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. van Zyl) was that this restriction was for the protection of the public —one of the most delightful things indeed for a layman to hear from a lawyer—the protection of the public! We had the argument advanced that the public were protected because the ancient practitioner may not give the good and more valuable advice that can be got from a younger one. Which is the best, the experienced or the non-experienced? After all, law is a gamble. The lawyers themselves admit that it is the greatest gamble there is, more so even than matrimony. Lawyers themselves keep out of it, and when they want to gamble, play poker or go to a race course. They are much wiser than their clients.

I thought diamond mines were a much bigger gamble.

Well, you can go into diamonds and find yourself also in what I may call a semi-dishonest occupation. Diamonds are a luxury not worth their excessive cost, and law is a luxury too. I always look upon lawyers and law as a pack of Chinese cards, which number about 150. The players mostly do not know what they mean and each hires a professional, who plays the game while they sit by and watch. The two professionals decide before they finish the game which of their clients is likely to be able to bear the brunt in the event of the win or loss.

What is the number of the Labour party pack?

Well, it is sufficiently large to give the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) very great anxiety lest it may come back stronger than it now is. So far as these unfortunate law agents are concerned, who exist on the fringe of their profession, I do urge that they are entitled to just as much consideration as the most recent licensed practitioner, and I would remind the hon. gentleman (Maj. van Zyl) when he speaks of the licence that the younger man has to bear, and the older one may have escaped paying in earlier days, that we had a case of preferential treatment in this House on that very question of licences, and it was carried then that when the lawyer came in to practise his craft he should only have to pay half license fee for the first three years, while the medical man, who has equally heavy expenses, to qualify has to pay the full licence from the start. As to our lawyer friends, of whom I am told there are 78 in this House of 135, one can only hope for an answer to the prayer of the Speaker that he puts up for the country every day. The butcher and baker and candlestick maker have to pay their full licences from the start. Our lawyer friends have cleverly worked in this personal advantage, but instead of showing a little brotherly feeling towards the elderly practitioner, they are trying to prevent him from getting a living. Why should one of these law agents who has carried on his work in another part of the country be debarred from coming down here and taking the chance of making a living on the crumbs of the profession? I am rather surprised at the hon. member (Maj. van Zyl), and as far as “valuable advice” is concerned, I know of instances where attorneys of very long experience, and who were thoroughly qualified, have given advice which has cost their unfortunate clients thousands and thousands of pounds. I recall one case where a leading firm in the country gave advice which cost at least £4,000, and it was totally wrong from the start. Probably a law agent, with wide experience, would have saved that amount. I think these men also should be allowed to come into practice anywhere within the Union, and therefore I support the Bill.

I have listened with great attention to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and I think that he is right that our professional men feel strongly about their profession, and are glad at the developments which are taking place in that direction. In these days a person must be an expert if he wants a chance of establishing himself anywhere, and I am certain that no one in this House wants any profession to be degraded, neither that of attorney nor of the law agents. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has very plainly expressed his feelings on law agents, but we have to do here with people who were law agents before 1917. It is not a matter of new people wanting to come in, but only those who practised before 1917. I find there are two in the Transvaal and they are very competent and honourable. I feel that we ought to give the people a chance to continue earning their living, they have done good work in the past, and have a good name. I do not know, therefore, why the attorneys are so thin-skinned in this matter. It will not affect them so much and will not prevent young people from getting in. The medical profession has been referred to. We know that the attorneys’ examination is not particularly difficult. I know it very often happens in Holland that when aristocrats fail at another profession, they become masters of law. Perhaps it is a little more difficult today, but it was always known in England as well that the examination for a lawyer was not particularly difficult. In connection with the Dentists’ Bill, strong pleas were made here to give the people who practised in the past, although they had not taken the full qualification, a chance to continue working for the future. I feel that we should also give the law agents a chance. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the Bill was extending the privileges and would allow law agents to appear in all courts. That is not the idea. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) mentioned his experience of law agents confusing the farmers. Some of us have had experience of other professions where they have had to suffer severely and had to pay heavily. The attorneys in many cases also ask just as much as they can, and it is often difficult for us to pay them. The hon. member for Witwatersberg speaks only of law agents. He has apparently not had much to do with attorneys because otherwise he would have learnt that to them also very heavy cheques have to be paid. Experience is the best teacher. One has experience with law agents, another with attorneys, and here the only request is that persons who were practising just before the coming into force of the Act may continue to do so in future. I cannot understand that the professional men, the competent men with all their understanding and brains are afraid of these few law agents. Why don’t they go to the law agents to earn a few shillings? No new people will come into the profession, but we just want to give a chance to the few existing law agents.

How many are there?

Thirty-eight in all throughout South Africa, as far as I know.

Thirty-eight too many.

It may be too many in the eyes of the hon. member, but I know he has a sympathetic heart and will not make poor whites of these people. I know that the hon. member would rather pay a little out of his own pocket to support the people and that he is not anxious to press them in the mud. I appeal to his kind heart and ask him to vote for the Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) said that there were 75 lawyers in Parliament. I do not know if that number is right, but they have done good work in the House and given so many statutes to the country that we often no longer know what the law is. In a few years the law agents will have died out and I ask hon. members to give the few remaining ones a chance.

It very often happens that on a Friday afternoon the House does not take itself so seriously as usual, and this afternoon. I think the House is in a particularly jovial mood, and we are inclined to look upon this Bill more or less as a freak. I thought the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill was really not serious when he actually asked the House to legislate in a way which would give law agents rights and privileges throughout the Union which are denied to fully qualified legal practitioners, and I listened in vain for any argument which the hon. gentleman put forward which would convince a serious-minded man that this legislation was necessary. It has not been shown that there is any dearth of fully-qualified men throughout the whole of the Union, in fact quite the reverse is the case. We have really more young lawyers qualified every year than the country can absorb. Who are these gentlemen that we are asked to legislate in favour of; the law agents? They are a body of men who were authorised to practise in the inferior courts years ago at a time when it was difficult to get a legal education in the country, and also very expensive, and when it was thought necessary that some intelligent men should be available for the people in the country districts to guide them with regard to simple legal business. As the country advanced, every Parliament in the then colonies, before Union, passed a law making it impossible to admit further law agents, and in the interests of the public laid down what qualifications a legal practitioner was to possess. Here we are asked to go back on all this, and these gentlemen are to have greater privileges than they had before. Members of the legal profession were not given the right to practise outside their own province, but here we are asked, with a stroke of the pen, to give these men who do not possess these qualifications rights not possessed by the qualified men. I should have thought that the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) would have acknowledged that a knowledge of the law was very necessary for a legal practitioner, but it does not seem to have struck him or other members that the statute law of one province differs from that of another. Is it reasonable, I ask, to allow men who are qualified to practise in the magistrate’s court and know the statute law of the Cape, to practise in the Orange Free State, Transvaal or Natal, of the statute law of which they are entirely ignorant? That is something the hon. member in charge of the Bill did not attempt to deal with. Quite a number of these law agents are men who failed to pass as attorneys. Now, if we pass this Bill, we are going to give them greater privileges than attorneys have. If a law agent wants to become a fully qualified attorney, why does he not become so?

When he is about 60 years old?

We might as well say that a man who has failed to pass as a medical practitioner, but has a slight knowledge of anatomy, is perfectly entitled to practise, notwithstanding all the laws and regulations we make to protect the public from an unqualified practitioner. We have spent weeks and months in this House trying to help to pass a law to deal with the medical profession. We have laid down stringent rules that certain qualifications are necessary before a man is allowed to practise. Are we going back on that, and are we going to allow a man who is half qualified or who has studied for two or three years at a medical school, to practise? It is the same thing with land surveyors. Are we, in our generosity to those who have failed to pass the examination, to say “the poor man must practise for a living and we will allow you to practise as a land surveyor?” This is a ridiculous Bill, and I hope the House will throw it out.

I am going to support the Bill. In doing so, I do not think the House is desirous of giving greater privileges to law agents than to attorneys. In committee provision must be made to give law agents no more rights than attorneys have. With regard to what the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has just said, I would like to point out that at the time most of these law agents started to practise, there were no attorneys, or very few, available. These law agents have proved their competence by holding their own, as they have done during the last 10 or 12 years. With regard to what the hon. member said about attorneys having to pass examinations, a man may fail to pass an examination and yet in many respects be superior to one who has succeeded in passing.

I must say that I am astonished to hear that the intention is not to give greater benefits to the law agents than to the attorneys. The hon. member has probably not read the Bill well. It expressly says that the law agents shall have the right to practise in any court in the Union. At present I cannot do that as an attorney.

Then you must propose that the attorneys shall have the same rights as the law agents.

I will accept it.

We are dealing with the Bill as it stands, and here greater privileges are being given to people who have had no training than to properly trained people. On the same basis it may be said that the unqualified teacher shall be put above a qualified one or shall have more privileges.

Not at all.

The principle is the same. The motion is to give law agents the right to practise in any court in the Union. I, as an attorney, can only practise in the Cape Province. It will be a dangerous principle and I sincerely hope the Bill will not be passed.

I want, in the first place, to heartily thank the Minister of Justice for accepting the Bill.

He did not do so.

That shows how much notice hon. members take of a Bill before the House. Here you have the whip of a party and he does not even know what the Minister of Justice said on the Bill, and that he accepted it. It clearly appears from the arguments on this little Bill that not one of the hon. members who opposed it has properly read the Bill. The last speaker said the law agents would hereby be placed above the attorneys. I absolutely deny it. I also want to point out that the hon. member opposite (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who is himself an attorney, made similar statements, although he knew better, but he did so to mislead the House. I think it is very unjust, because other members who have had no opportunity of studying the Bill, will possibly believe him. I believe there are hon. members who will vote against the Bill through the confusion that has been caused, but if they will carefully study it and consider the position of the law agents, then they will have nothing against the Bill. I do not ask the House to accept the Bill as it stands. I am prepared in committee to accept any reasonable amendment from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) or the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). I am prepared to give the same rights to attorneys, or to put back the period of years to which this stipulation shall have reference, in order to guarantee the attorneys against the danger of the law agents. What danger are the law agents to the attorneys? Is it possibly because they are sometimes better than attorneys? I just want to reinstate the rights of the law agents. The argument has been used here by almost every speaker that we are going to give rights to law agents that they have never possessed and are superior to those of attorneys. I want to point out that the law agents had the right, before 1885, to practise in any court in this province. Then the curtailment took place that they might in future only practise their profession in the courts where they had been accustomed to practise The rights were therefore curtailed. It was an injustice towards the law agents. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) uses the argument that it is an injustice towards the attorneys’ profession as camouflage to prevent these people being justly treated. I am in favour of protection of any profession, but I think that if hon. members opposite will adopt a reasonable attitude towards these people they will also be prepared to restore this right. The law agents that still exist are old men and they can no longer earn their living elsewhere. If they are not enabled to extend their professional work, they will have to starve. I respect anyone who is jealous of his profession. I am jealous of mine, but if, at the same time, one cannot be magnanimous, then the whole value of the jealousy falls away. When that law was altered in 1885, the law agents were satisfied because they said, “We shall anyhow remain at the same place and that will be enough if we have the right to practise here.” Conditions in our country have, however, altered through time and development. As an example, I want to mention the case of a law agent at Laingsburg who built up a practice there amounting to a few thousand pounds a year. Then the attorneys came and when they bad established a practice they sent in a petition that Laingsburg should be made a new magisterial area and it was granted. Then the magistrate said that the law agent could no longer practise because he only had the right to practise in the old area. I say that this is unfair and that a law agent is obliged to give up his practice and can get no protection from the Law Society. I am a member of many societies and when one joins a society then one ought to enjoy its protection as well. This is the first time I have heard of a case of a man being deprived of those rights of protection. I appreciate the fairness of the request of the law agents, of the few persons that are still practising and told them that I would take up their case. The accusation has been made that the law agents are really the brake of the profession. I have here the report of the Law Society of the Cape Province, and note that some members, who are attorneys, have been struck off the roll for offences, inter alia, for misappropriation of money. I note, further, that it says that there were almost no complaints against registered law agents. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said that the law agents earn much money as auctioneers at sales. I think that most attorneys also act as auctioneers at sales, and I think the law should interfere here and say that no member of that profession should be an auctioneer, because it must be left to other people who make their living out of it. I just want to suggest something with reference to this Bill. I am not well acquainted with the law at present, and I shall be prepared to accept any reasonable amendment in committee if hon. members will agree to take the second reading now. I am prepared to put the number of years back. The last law agents were admitted in 1918. We can, therefore, e.g. put back the year to 1910 so that the old people can continue practising. Take, e.g. a law agent in Wynberg. He ought also to be able to take a case in Cape Town. I am prepared to limit the Act to the province in which a law agent lives. The chief objection by hon. members appears to be that the law agents can practise in any court of the Union. We know, however, that a Bill is coming which will give that right to attorneys. The law agents are, however, quite satisfied with the restriction to the province where they live. What I cannot understand is that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the law agents are getting rights superior to attorneys. The law agents only have the right to practise in the lower courts, and I ask any attorney if he makes much out of the cases in the lower courts. Every attorney will admit that his financial welfare depends on Supreme Court cases. Where does it come in that the law agent will get more rights than the attorney? He only gets the crumbs from the table and does not get more rights. The only change is an extension of his field of work. It was said further that law agents might still be admitted. That is not so. Law agents have not been admitted in the Transvaal since 1904 nor in the Cape Province since 1918. Restrictions hare, however, been placed on them owing to which they can no longer make a living. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) wants to create the impression that the present Minister of Justice was acting wrongly in supporting the Bill, and that he ought to act like his predecessor. The position is, however, different to-day. In 1916 the right still existed of being admitted in certain circumstances, but in 1918 it was altered so that it is no longer possible. I am now advocating that the few who still remain should get back their rights as they are dying out in any case. We must respect the rights of the old people who acted as voortrekkers in the time when there were no legal practitioners in our country, and allow them to exercise the profession to which they have a right. Remarks have also been made by the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt. Col. N. J. Pretorius) that are not correct. He did not talk of law agents, but of general agents, who are not concerned in this Bill, but hon. members listening to him possibly thought that he had made a study of the question, and when I explained things he, and possibly various hon. members who listened to him, were not here. The comparison was made that it would be the same thing as giving a nurse the right, some day, of acting as a dentist. That won’t hold water, because the law agents want to remain what they are, merely that their existing rights shall be extended to other courts. I hope that I have now made these few points clear and that hon. members will see that there is nothing in the argument that more rights are being granted. Let the attorneys in the House show their magnanimity by saying that they will agree to it and I give them the assurance that I will accept any amendments in committee by which the objections of hon. members will be met.

Motion put and House divided:

Ayes—39.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Visser, T. C.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—36.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion that the House go into committee now,

objected.

House to go into committee on 16th March.

I move—

and suggest that it stand over till the 16th inst.

The order of the day has already been read, and it will be better for the hon. member to move the adjournment of the debate.

The nature of the Bill is very similar to that just passed by the House.

On the motion of Mr. J. J. Pienaar, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 16th March.

I move—

I move, as an amendment—

This Bill is of great importance, particularly to the countryside. We heard from the mover how sorry he is for the animals and how the animals are ill-treated in the large towns. The hon. member has, however, not given a single proof of the old law not being severe enough. It provides a fine of £25, and I do not know of a single case within the last ten years of a man being fined £25. In cases of slight cruelty fines of £3, £4, or £5 were imposed, but I have not heard of a £25 fine. And now hon. members come and want to make the punishment still more severe. They want the man to be caned. This Bill is superfluous. The motion proceeds from one of the Cape Town societies which feels that they must act against cruelty to animals. If there is so much cruelty in Cape Town and that society, as we know, has the object of following up cases from January to December, why is the hon. member not able to mention cases where cruelty took place and where a heavy fine was imposed. He ought surely then to know of such cases. The Bill is such that we must propose amendments, and therefore I move that the Bill be referred back.

Will the hon. member indicate what amendment he intends to move?

That the Bill, e.g., shall only apply to big towns where, according to hon. members, so much cruelty to animals takes place. I agree with that, but we do not need it on the countryside.

Are you afraid you will fall under the provisions of the Act?

No, but I am afraid the right hon. member may.

I heartily second the motion. The countryside does not feel the necessity for this Bill, and I think the mover knows nothing about the countryside. Why is he so anxious to get the Bill passed? I understand the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is behind it. If the Bill is passed it will cause much inconvenience to the farmers. I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks about branding cattle? It is work which is done on Government instructions. We have, of course, legislation that animals must be branded. The animals have to be thrown to the ground and the branding-iron pressed nearly an inch deep into the flesh. That surely can be called cruelty to animals, and it is the law of the land. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) were to see it I wonder how many Bills he would introduce. It is quite impossible to carry out such a Bill on the countryside. We are prepared to assist the hon. member so far as the towns are concerned. He can have it if there is a continuing need in the towns, and he will take the blame of making Europeans, coloured people and natives in the towns be sentenced to the cat.

Not the cat, the cane.

What is the difference? It will be demoralising to cane grown-up people. On the countryside we are careful with the animals and we do not need the Bill. [No quorum.] The circumstances in the country are such that something often happens which is not wilful cruelty, but which may be treated as such by a magistrate who does not know the circumstances. In the country we often have to drive long distances. It may happen that an animal gets a nail into its foot, but that one has to go on to reach home. The police will see blood on the leg and the poor farmer must prove that his horse met with the accident on the road and that he did not inspan a lame horse. What chance has the poor farmer of proving it? Such a man will be in danger of getting the cane or the cat. [No quorum.] We know that in a thickly-populated centre there is the cruelty of overloading animals and flogging them, but on the countryside farmers may get into trouble through a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said the other day that if a farmer has animals which he does not properly feed during a drought, he should be punished. If a man of his intelligence says that, what may not a magistrate do? We do not want farmers to be caned through a misunderstanding. The highest fine we ever heard of for cruelty to animals is £5. Under the old law it is possible to impose £25, but the hon. member neglects to mention such cases.

It is Friday afternoon, and we have had a particularly heavy week and I notice that members are tired because we have great difficulty in keeping a quorum. I therefore hope hon. members will agree to adjourning the debate until Monday. I therefore move—

seconded.

Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will explain whether his object is to kill this Bill, or whether it is to prevent the House discussing the next measure, which, we understand, the Minister of the Interior was sincerely anxious should come before the House. Does the hon. member consider that he will fall under the penalties of the Bill now before us, or is his motion proposed really with the idea of again bamboozling the public and preventing the next order—the committee stage of the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill—being reached this afternoon? I hope the good sense of the House will see through the speeches made by hon. members opposite, and I can assure the hon. members who have been opposing the Bill that there is no likelihood of their cruelty being of such a character as to involve them in penalties under the measure. They say they have been objecting in the interests of the public, but I thought they were objecting in their own interests. I can assure them, however, that the Bill is not so stringent as they imagine. Should, however, they come under the clauses of the Bill, the penalty for non-compliance will not be a whipping with a cat of nine tails, but the application of the cane to a certain portion of their anatomy. I hope the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) will withdraw his motion, for it is really making a farce of our proceedings.

I cannot understand why hon. members opposite are against the motion. We are tired after a heavy week. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is one who has repeatedly already asked a Minister to adjourn the House because members were tired and had not had an opportunity to read through Bills properly. We have here a futile Bill and one which will merely result in farmers being caned, and we are asking the House to adjourn so that it can have an opportunity of going into the matter and seeing that it is necessary. It is half past four and the hon. member must not be unreasonable.

We are sorry for the hon. member opposite. I think he should go home and go to bed in view of the hard work he has done during the past six weeks. I am, however, surprised at the motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg, seeing that he himself has tabled an amendment to the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill. We have been sent here to do the work, and we from up country want to get through the work as soon as possible and return to our homes.

I want to appeal earnestly to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to accept the motion. I think the Bill which comes after this on the Order Paper, and on account of which he is against the adjournment, has come before us already every year during the seven I have been in Parliament. An enormous amount of time has already been spent on it and, this year, days and months have been occupied and we have divided on it. Does the hon. member want us to sit all night at the end of the week? The Bill on which we recently voted and which the hon. member would so much like to bring before us again appears again on the Order Paper in another way, and we are now engaged on a Bill which will take days before it can be passed. We are going to fight to the bitter end about it. The hon. member asks if we have no ulterior object. Just as little as he has. He has the object of pushing this Bill down our throats at the last minute on Friday. We have worked hard and are tired.

It is one of the strangest things that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will not allow us to adjourn now, because he says that after this there is another order on the paper which he would like to see disposed of. It is late in the afternoon and we have often adjourned early for the convenience of members opposite when they had something special on. Now we come for once and ask for the adjournment and hon. members will not agree to it.

Motion put; upon which the House divided:

Ayes—45.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Visser, T. C.

Tellers: van Hees, A. S.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—50.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Brown. G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Nicholls, G. H.

Motion for the adjournment of the House accordingly negatived.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) on various grounds. This Bill looks very one-sided to me, and I therefore support the motion to refer it back to the committee of the whole House, so that we can make the necessary improvements. One of the chief objections I have to the Bill is its one-sidedness. Last year we had an Immorality Bill before us which was of the very greatest importance to the future of the white race in South Africa. That Bill contained provision for corporal punishment for people who so conducted themselves as not to have a claim to the name of an European. The corporal punishment was proposed for an act of the worst character which, according to the feeling of every European of character, ought to be severaly punished. And the hon. members who now so strongly advocate corporal punishment for a comparatively slight offence then opposed it. The other side of the House, and especially those members who are so glibly defending corporal punishment to-day, at that time when the Immorality Bill was on, urged the Minister to take the corporal punishment clause out of the Bill. It was said that corporal punishment was too terrible. It is true. It is a terrible thing; I think a person who has sufficient self-respect would rather be shot than receive a flogging. The same members who now want to impose corporal punishment for a comparatively minor offence did not want to impose it for one of the most heinous offences. When we wanted to apply it to people who showed that they did not deserve being regarded as white men and who were a danger to society those hon. members requested that it should be withdrawn. At that time, with the exception of a few hon. members who protested, practically the whole House decided not to impose corporal punishment. I ask where is the consistency of those hon. members? In one case they stopped corporal punishment for a serious crime, and now want to impose it for a lesser offence. That is one of the reasons why I shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand. Amendments have already been made to the Bill, but they will not alter anything in it. The wilfulness of the cruelty has been clearly laid down in the old law, and whether it is of a serious nature will always be decided by the magistrate or the person judging the case. I have pointed this out before, and shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand that the Bill be referred back for making improvements.

It has just been brought to my notice that the hon. member seconded the motion of the hon. member for Piquet-berg (Mr. de Waal). In the circumstances the hon. member cannot speak on this motion.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I did not second the amendment, but if you order it, I shall, of course, sit down.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert). My reason is that that Bill concerns the countryside more than the other parts of the country. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said that the countryside need not be uneasy because it would not be the sufferer. If that is so I do not see why it should be necessary to apply the Bill to the countryside. Let it apply only to the towns. I think that many hon. members do not realise what it will mean to the countryside if this Bill is passed. It is a Bill of a very drastic nature. The farmer on the countryside protects his animals as much as possible.

I did not intend speaking again, but I cannot neglect to support the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert). The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) introduces a Bill to give the farmers the cat. The hon. member has apparently not the least experience of the countryside and more knowledge of the dock natives, at least if I am to judge by his action in this House. Let the hon. member accept the amendment to only apply it to the towns. There are people in the towns who, just because they are mean in everything, show no sympathy for the animals and let them suffer want and draw too heavy loads, but the farmers sympathise with their animals. They find it impossible to ill-treat animals. Let the hon. member rather look at the little birds that are shut up in cages and the baboons tied to poles and then teased. There was an ox at the Rosebank show shut up in a small pen and people paid a shilling to go and see it. That is cruelty to animals, and the hon. member should look after that a bit and leave the countryside alone. In the country it is unfortunately necessary occasionally to use the small whip or the voorslag and it might happen that the ox in that way gets a small wound which causes bleeding and for that a man is now to be flogged. The thing is too stupid, too foolish. If a horse just has a blood blister and a policeman comes, the farmer will certainly be in danger of having the cat. I know that cases will occur where magistrates who are not acquainted with circumstances will impose severe punishment. In the case of a blood blister, a man is punished. It is just the work of that society for protection of animals. They have had a meeting and have now made the discovery that the animals are being so cruelly treated that they must give offenders the cat. I hope the law will only be applied to the big towns. The farmers are fond of their animals, just as fond as the hon. member is of his office where he makes money, because the animals help the farmer to make money and to live.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) never used a single expression which could be interpreted as wanting the cat to be given to the farmer. I think it is not right for hon. members to give that meaning to the Bill. It is unfair towards the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). We may differ on political matters, but that is no reason for putting an opponent in a bad light in such a way. When the farmers read the speech of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) they will think that the Bill only applies to farmers. I do not think that is fair. I can assure hon. members with regard to my district that we will not be influenced by insinuations. We appreciate the Bill. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) proposed to refer the Bill back to the committee, because he wanted to move a certain alteration, but he took part in the debate from the beginning and had every opportunity of moving amendments. His object clearly is to kill the Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has spoken about the one-sidedness of the Bill, but I cannot see where that comes in. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) said he would support the amendment to apply the Bill to the towns only. Assume that it will only apply in the towns, then the animals will only be protected there, and elsewhere animals can be cruelly treated. The hon. members for Heidelberg and Riversdale said that the farmer loved his animals. I agree that the farmer loves his animals more than any other part of the population. Hon. members now state that the farmer who beats his animals is in danger of the cat, but I challenge any member when the Bill is in force to bring any instance to my notice where a farmer is punished for using a voorslag. I have never yet heard of it.

We shall hear of it now.

Hon. members have apparently not read the Bill. It says only in extreme cases.

Where is that?

It is in the amendment which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) will accept. If a man beats an animal with an object it is not cruelty. Just as little as when a child is punished because it has done something wrong. It is only cruelty when an animal is ill-treated with absolutely no object. There was, e.g., the case of the man who tied a dog behind his motor car and then travelled at a speed of 40 miles until the animal was dead. Does not that man deserve a very heavy punishment? The magistrate gave him a fairly light one and stated that the law did not permit him to impose a severer one. In my opinion it is insulting the farmer to say that he alone will be punishable under this Bill. I most heartily support the motion. After the passing of the Bill, hon. members will not be able to mention a case of a farmer being flogged, but it will be applied to the case of the native servant. The hon. member for Heidelberg mentioned a case of the farmer taking the law into his own hands when one of his servants ill-treated an animal. It is just in those cases that it will be possible for the farmer to go to the magistrate and to see that the persons who are cruel to animals are flogged. Hon. members mentioned the cases of poor donkeys on the diggings. I do not believe they have ever been on a diggings and seen the conditions there. If an animal is actually unable to pull, no one can force it. The hon. member for Heidelberg wants a definition of the particular cases of cruelty justifying the cat. If he had read the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) I cannot understand his wanting a definition. It is clear that it will only be imposed in extreme cases. Our magistrates possibly have their faults, but I may say that I do not know a single magistrate in the Union who would be so reckless as to give a farmer the cat without very good reasons. I support the Bill because I want to defend the farmers’ honour, and I disapprove of the insinuation that the Bill will only apply to farmers. I just want to say something about a remark of the hon. member for Riversdale with reference to the farmer who came to him and complained that he was fined for having ill-treated an animal according to the evidence. The hon. member for Riversdale then said: “Yes, and now the people of your party want to make out that you will get the cat next time.” The impression which that statement creates is that the hon. member for Riversdale misled that man. It is not a consistent fact. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) never suggested that the farmer would be given the cat in this way. That kind of statement is not an argument which will make me change my opinion. I hope the House will support the amendment so that it is passed.

I did my best while my hon. friend was speaking to find out whether it was really the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) or not. I was in Isaac’s position; I recognised the voice of the hon. member for Christiana, but not what he said, that reminded me of the speeches that we get from the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I wonder what will happen to the hon. member when he gets back to his constituency. They will read his speeches and it was the farmers who sent my hon. friend here. I wonder what they will say of his supporting this Bill. Did the hon. member not hear what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said the other day? I believe he was not here then, but the hon. members for Bloemfontein (North) and for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) maintain that farmers should be punished if stock died in a drought. That was what was going on in the minds of hon. members. This Bill is the thin end of the wedge and eventually the boer will be closed in in such a circle of legislation that he will get into trouble at every turn. We know how necessary it is for farmers to hurt the animals in certain cases. I want to ask my hon. friend if it is cruelty to animals if a farmer, e.g., wants to carry a load to town and the wagon sticks so that it is necessary for the driver to use the double-whip?

No.

The hon. member says that, but I can prove that magistrates think differently. The hon. member knows just as much of a farmer’s difficulties as a cat about religion. The magistrate punished the man because he had to urge on his team of oxen to get out of the place and they possibly lost a little blood. He had to pay a fine. I was in court and the magistrate said that he was sorry he could not send the man to jail. It happened not so long ago. I hope the hon. member for Christiana will get up honestly and say that he did not understand the matter properly. Then he will reinstate himself. The farmer does love his animals.

Why then this fear?

The mover of the Bill is a lawyer and if it becomes law he will, on the one hand, feel obliged to prosecute the farmers who have accidently contravened the law and, on the other, be prepared to defend them. I hope the House will be sensible enough not to accept this Bill, but to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand.

I move—

seconded.

I think the matter has now been quite sufficiently debated and that I can accept the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—42.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin. F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris. D.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Te Water. C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Nathan, E.

Noes—44.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Visser, T. C.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I think that there are still many members who have not had a proper opportunity of speaking to the amendment. I, at any rate, have not yet had a chance.

On the motion of Mr. M. L. Malan, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 16th March.