as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Schemes, reporting the Irrigation Amendment Bill.

Report and evidence to be printed.

My attention has been drawn to the following errors in the Division Lists in yesterday’s Votes and Proceedings on the consideration of amendments to the Liquor Bill, viz.—

I move—

I have just heard that the select committee has concluded the hearing of evidence in connection with this matter. In the circumstances I should like, with the permission of the House, to withdraw my motion.

Then the hon. member should not move it.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The object is to refer this petition to the Select Committe on the Native Bills. I think that is the best proposal in the circumstances. I do not wish to detain the House by reading the contents of the petition.

What do they want?

Perhaps it would be better for me to read the petition, then hon. members will possibly be satisfied.

It emanates from the S.A.F. office.

Not to my knowledge. The petition was sent to me with the request to lay it before the House. It says—

My motion is to refer it to the select committee on the Bills. I do not wish to make a speech. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) said that the petitions came from the S.A.P. head office. My friend is better informed than I am. The petitions were sent to me, and I think were signed by members of all parties in the Transvaal.

By misrepresentation.

I do not know whether the Nationalists in the Eastern Transvaal allow themselves to be misled so easily. I do not think so. In any case, I hope hon. members will not make trouble about this matter now.

Lt.-Col. N. J. PRETORIUS seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Even if they come out of bond?

Yes, that is our legislation. Hon. members know that the Board of Trade reported extensively on the question some time ago. It was also discussed at the Imperial Conference. It is a very difficult question. Most of the dominions are faced with this difficulty. We are now trying to meet the difficulties in regard to certain articles by substituting specific duties, and hon. members will find that in the duties now laid down there are practically no increases. We are removing the difficulty under which the entrepot trade of Great Britain is suffering at present, when these goods are exported to our country. Then there is the case of liquid eggs. That is a case where we find it is necessary, practically, to have a prohibitive duty. There are, of course, certain periods of the year when it is still, unfortunately, necessary for us to import fresh eggs into this country. They are liable to a duty, a reasonable duty, but, according to the opinion of the Board of Trade, there is absolutely no necessity for allowing the introduction into this country of this special article, liquid eggs, which are mostly imported from China. In the interests of our own producers, we think it no more than right that the object that we had in view should be attained, that is the prohibition of this article. Then there is the proposed duty on meat pastes. Here again we have got a local factory at Estcourt. They are now turning out this product. They import the glass jars and they do the packing here, and we are adjusting the duty in the interests of that particular industry. Then hon. members will see that we have the question of the adjustment of the duties in lining leathers. That is as a result of a compromise which has been effected by the two branches of this trade, the boot and shoe makers and the tanners of this country. There was a long-standing dispute which at one time, hon. members will recollect, seemed insoluble, but we are glad to say that a compromise has now been effected which we think on the whole is fair and reasonable.

Where do the consumers come in?

I do not think the consumer is going to suffer at all in regard to the adjustment of these duties. Under the arrangement the tanners have obtained protection in regard to the importation of certain leathers, while, on the other hand, the boot and shoe makers are assisted in regard to the protection of certain classes of leather which they employ.

Which are the other classes?

The whole thing is discussed in the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. The hon. member knows it is a very intricate question.

Has it been laid on the Table?

Yes. I hope the hon. member has read it and studied it. Then we have the case of printed wrapping paper. Here we are merely putting right the position which existed formerly, under which this particular class of printing received 35 per cent, protection, but it was altered subsequently and the protection was decreased to 20 per cent., and we are now putting them on the same basis again. Hon. members will find that there was another recommendation of the Board of Trade, to give the same protection to fruit wrappers. That recommendation I have not accepted. I want to leave it to the House to consider the whole thing. It has been represented to me very strongly that we are not acting in the interests of the smaller fruit-growers by not accepting this protection. I promised these people I would make further inquiries, but I told them that as I was at present advised it would be against the policy of the Government which is to the effect that when there is a conflict of interest between a primary industry and a secondary industry, the interest of the primary industry must prevail. I cannot agree to increased costs as the result of increased protection being placed on a primary industry, and that would be the case, I am advised, if we gave this increased protection. It has been represented to me very strongly that as things stand at present it is only a very few very large fruitgrowers who are able to avail themselves of very large orders which are being placed overseas to get the benefit of overseas prices, and that a very large majority of fruitgrowers in this country do not know well in advance what their requirements will be, and they cannot order the very large quantities necessary to give them the advantage of overseas prices, and it is in their interests to have the local industry to supply them with their requirements at a reasonable price. That is what I am advised, and that is the view of the board.

Don’t you think if you put on an extra duty the small local man would have to pay more for his wrappers?

I am informed the small local man will have to buy locally, and it is in his interest that we give this protection to secure the continued existence of this factory in the country.

Will he get the benefit of it?

If this factory which was started on a 35 per cent, protection cannot carry on and closes down, naturally the smaller man would have to import his article, and seeing he cannot import in sufficiently large quantities to get the reduced price, he will suffer.

But there are dozens of printers printing wrappers.

I leave it to the fruit-growers. If they tell me it is not going to be in their interest to have this factory here, I am not going to put on the duty. It was exactly the same case with the phosphates. Unless the fruit farmers in this country agree with the representations made to me the thing will simply have to stand where it is.

Why don’t you apply the same principle to nails?

That is quite a different question. In regard to nails, of course, that is not something which is peculiarly required by the farming industry. Here is a case of dumping. Under the existing legislation we could put on a dumping duty because they are being dumped from Belgium and Germany, but instead of doing that we are putting on this increase 1 protection It is merely a substitute for a dumping duty, and it is in the interest of the factories we have in this country.

There is only one factory.

No, there are three, one in Cape Town, and, I believe, two in Johannesburg. From investigations that have been made this protection will not involve any increase to the consumer.

Oh no, of course, they never do.

There is the felt ruberoid which provides for a suspended duty. This article has been tested by the railway authorities and reported upon very favourably. Glass is merely a re-adjustment of the duty. Then there is cream of tartar. That is in the interest of the local wine industry. It is in connection with wynsteen argol in which cream of tartar is used. It is to protect that industry that this increase is provided for. These are the few increases of customs duty. As hon. members know, of course, there are a large number of adjustments entailing reductions in duty which will come up in the Bill when it is introduced, Col. D. REITZ: What is this revolver barrels all about?

That is just an adjustment. It is merely to bring that into line with the duty on the barrel that is in the complete revolver. Then I come to the income tax resolution. That is merely to give effect to the policy of the Government as disclosed in the budget statement. We make no alteration in the standard rates. They remain as they have been for a number of years, but provision will be made in the Bill for the rebate of the 20 per cent.

Is it on both?

It is not on super tax. Only on normal tax. The super tax rates remain unaltered. We also exclude incomes from gold and diamond mining companies. Provision will be made in the Financial Adjustments Act—we cannot do it in the income tax legislation—that this rebate which we are giving here, will not affect the provincial position. The provinces have a right to impose a provincial income tax based on the tax payable to the Union Government, and it would be obviously unfair if we allowed this rebate to interfere with the provincial taxation. Consequently, a section will be introduced to safeguard the provincial position.

What is the meaning of subsection (3) on page 681? Does not that apply to normal tax as well as super tax?

No, it means we lay down that the rates to be charged will be in accordance with those charged by the principal Act. We make specific provision for the normal tax rebate in the previous part of the resolution. Members can take it the intention of the resolution generally is to give effect to the policy in regard to income tax which I disclosed in my budget statement. We retain the “standard rates.” We do not know what the financial position of the country may be later on. By doing it in this form, we do not disturb the general basis. It will be in the general form that it will be sent out but less one-fifth off the amount payable under the principal Act.

And the taxation of de benture interest?

I have made provision for that. Tax on such interest will no longer be deducted by the company, but will be assessed in the hands of the recipient at the rate appropriate to the latter’s taxable income. I am giving effect to the point represented by the hon. member and another hon. member.

seconded.

With regard to boots it is indeed a very strange state of affairs that here is an article which is an absolute necessary of life and somewhat expensive to buy at all times, and we are putting on an increased duty to 30 per cent., whereas at the same time we reduce the duty on drapery, millinery, haberdashery and silk stockings. I hope the Minister has now learnt the lesson with regard to infant industries—they are always infants and never grow up.

What about English industries?

They are flourishing.

They are fed on protection.

Then I see there is 20 per cent, on lining leather. This means an increase in the cost of low-class boots of 2d. to 3d. a pair. The Minister has been told it is made in South Africa, but it cannot be made in South Africa at the price. We can buy it from 3½d. to 5¼d. in Holland. If the duty is put on, the cost of boots goes up accordingly. The Minister reduced the rate for leather for the making of saddles, but not for the making of boots. Exactly the same article may be imported for both. Is this another specimen of a scientific tariff? There are several cases of this nature in the list.

That is quite right, and it is in accordance with the principle of rebating duty for certain industries.

It can give rise to any amount of fraud, and it is done in many cases. With regard to wire nails, this is an increase of about 15 per cent. These nails must be used for boxes for fruit export. I think my hon. friend was not properly informed. I think he should make inquiries and see what can be done.

I would have to put on a dumping duty otherwise.

Why do so? Surely the poor beggar of a fruitgrower has all he can do to make his living out of it. If he can get his nails cheaper and save anything on the export of fruit, he is quite entitled to it. It is a primary industry. With regard to felt, rubberoid and similar substances, the duty is raised from 20 per cent, to 30 per cent. Everything tends to put up the price of building. My hon. friend is not justified in putting on a heavy duty like this. Surely 20 per cent, is high enough, and the cost of building is high enough. I certainly think my hon. friend should reduce some of the items I have mentioned.

I wish to raise the question of the system pursued in regard to the British entrepot trade. As far as I understand the position, in the past we have had some special duty put on in order to make up the domestic value in England, the idea being if goods are bought, particularly in England, the value to be added in assessing the ad valorem duty is equal to the duty which these goods would have paid if taken out of bond and sold in England. The Minister says this apparently created difficulties, and has simplified the method of levying, and is making the duty payable at the rate of so much per gallon or piece, but the effect, as I understand the Minister, is that the amount will be as nearly as possible the same as under the system we have had hitherto. I want to point out that this system works out unfairly, and certainly affects British trade. This alteration was made when the British preference was being rearranged, and I do not think it was generally understood at that time that this would be the effect this alteration would have. It seems to have affected directly British trade. First of all, a person who is going to import something into this country is deliberately invited under this system not to deal with the British merchant and therefore the British merchant loses the order in nine cases out of ten; secondly, the British shipping companies lose the opportunity of carrying goods to this country, because the direct inducement to the consumer here is to import things direct from a foreign country. I do not believe that was generally understood at the time these alterations in the preference system were made, but that is exactly how it works out. I think that is very undesirable. I do not want to go into the whole question of British preference, but it does seem to me that this is an unfair discrimination against British trade, and it ought to be reconsidered. Up to now the manner in which this question has been handled has not been entirely logical, because if it had been logical they would have added to the value of, for example, whisky for customs purposes the amount of the excise payable in England. They did not do that. I am not suggesting that they ought to have done it.

Why not?

Because if they had, the price of whisky would be so prohibitive that nobody would be able to afford to drink it, and consequently the customs revenue would have suffered.

It does not apply only to whisky. There is a principle.

There is a direct inducement for people to import from a foreign country, with the result that British trade and British shipping suffer. That is an aspect of the question which the Government ought to take into consideration.

I would like to continue the remarks of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). The difficulty is the way in which you arrive at the home consumption value. The Minister has got over that in the case of wine, cigars and cigarettes by removing the ad valorem duty and substituting a specific duty.

Yes, then they are all put on the same footing.

Wines, tobacco and cigarettes are. But the Minister finds it impossible to apply that method in dealing with other commodities. Take silk, for instance. If a merchant imports French silk through a bonded warehouse in England, he has to pay not the duty on the home consumption value of the silk in the country in which it is manufactured, but the duty on the price of that silk if it had been taken out of bond in England and put on the English market. In other words, the importer has to pay duty not only on the cost of the silk, but on the English duty as well. The Minister would have met the position much more logically if he had altered the method of arriving at the home consumption value. If goods brought here passed through a bonded warehouse, no matter in which country, the duty leviable here should be that obtaining at the place from which the goods originally came. The Minister cannot make the position logical in the way he suggests.

And you cannot give a practical suggestion which would meet the difficulty?

Oh, yes we can, easily.

My suggestion is practical. It is absurd for the department to say that because a consignment of silk happens to go into a bonded warehouse on the Thames therefore the South African importer has not only to pay customs duty on the value of the silk, but also on the amount of the customs duty on the English scale. It is an entirely illogical position. The result is that all goods of this description are bought direct from their countries of origin by the bigger people, but I suppose the smaller people suffer because the Minister will not take up a logical position and say that the duty is leviable on the home consumption value of the country in which the goods are produced. We believe the customs people have sufficient intelligence to frame a definition of home consumption value which will remove that very illogical position.

I think I am right in saying that the most heavily taxed portion of the community are the people who are living in the Transvaal, because in addition to the Union income tax, they have to pay a provincial poll tax. The least the Minister can do is to extend the rebate which is to be made on income tax to the poll tax, plus the tax in the Transvaal paid on the Union income tax.

I am not disposing of provincial revenues. How can I take away taxes imposed by the Transvaal Provincial Council?

When is the Minister going to take action to prevent the Transvaal Provincial Council imposing a tax which overlaps the Union income tax?

I am not prepared to do that.

The Minister should take the matter into his serious consideration. Perhaps when I get the Minister in a more reasonable frame of mind, I may persuade him that this is unfair. I am glad to see he is smiling now. It has been urged that the people in the Cape Province pay divisional council rates, but the Transvaal is quite prepared to do the same. This is one of the iniquities of the provincial councils. We appeal to Caesar, but Caesar closes the door against us. I hope the hon. the Minister will think it over very seriously. It is not a light matter. I am speaking on behalf of at least 37,000 people who have signed a petition to do away with provincial councils.

The Minister stated in his budget speech that it was the policy of the Government to extend preference to those who supported the Union. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister might extend preference to manufactured sugar. This point has been submitted by the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce. They point out that the present duty on sugar in England is 11s. 8d. per 100 lbs., on which a preference of 4s. 3d. or 4s. 4d. per 100 lbs. is given to Union sugar. That is equivalent to about 40 per cent., and it is suggested that in return for that the Union might put manufactured sugar on its preference list. They point out that something like 1,000 tons of this manufactured sugar is imported into the Union, of an approximate value of about £20,000, and that 75 per cent, of this comes from the United States. They think this will be a favourable opportunity for the Minister of Finance to give some reciprocity by extending preference to manufactured sugar. It is pointed out that the duty of this manufactured sugar is about 8s. per 100 lbs., and that would work out somewhere about £8,000 per annum, and if 20 per cent, was given it would not be very much. It would be a generous gesture to the British Government for their generous treatment of Natal sugar. It is also suggested that the tax on petrol might be reconsidered. The tax on petrol was 1d. a gallon, and has been raised to 3d., to give some sort of assistance to this product of Natal, natalite, which, I understand, has failed. There is no reason why the Government should continue to raise this extra 2d. a gallon, seeing there is such an enormous demand now for petrol for commercial purposes. Another point suggested comes from the Transvaal University College. There are quite a number of students over 18 years of age, but the present Act, No. 40 of 1925, simply provides that the sum of £60 for each child or step-child who was or would have been under the age of 18 years on the last day of the year in which the assessment is made, shall be allowed. It is suggested that the Minister might favourably consider the extension of this allowance in respect of those youths who are bona fide in educational establishments up to the age of 21.

I do not know whether I am in order in bringing the following points to the notice of the Minister. I want to ask him if it is not possible to provide in the Income Tax Act that the farmers shall be entitled to bring into account, when making a return of their income, the cost of developing the farm, which to-day is regarded as capital expenditure. Some time ago the case was mentioned that, where farmers put up a wind pump to take water out of the river, it must be regarded as ordinary farm expenditure. I want to apply to the Minister in view of the attitude which the House took up on the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), viz., to exempt farmers from income tax, and, inasmuch as the Minister will not go as far as that, that he should permit the farmers to deduct development costs and meet them in that way. I may instance the cost of wire fences and of dams, etc. Take, e.g., farmers in my constituency who have rooted out prickly pear, at great expense, but yet may not deduct anything in working out their income for purposes of the tax. They go to great expense, e.g., for poison to eradicate prickly pear. If the Minister will consider this favourably, the farmers will be very thankful for the concession, and I hope that when the appropriate Bill comes up, the Minister will accept amendments to allow farmers to make those deductions.

The hon. the Minister apparently bases his alterations of customs duties on the reports of the Board of Trade. It seems to me there ought to be another authority to revise the Board of Trade recommendations, because apparently the Minister accepts them very much as they are presented to him.

Create yet another board? Who will look after them?

The Minister, of course.

This House can look after that. I do not think we want another board to look after them, and another board to look after that board.

Somebody should look after them, whether it is the Minister or not. When this board was appointed in 1924 certain rules and policy were laid down for them to follow. The last of these rules and regulations was to the effect that it shall be the duty of the board to report as fully as possible on all aspects of any matter referred to it as they may affect the revenue—with special reference to the probable effect of any action recommended on the consumer, and those employed in industry. I have looked at the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries, and I must say I very seldom find any reference whatever to the consumer, or to the effect, their recommendations will have on the consumer. I think that is one of the principal duties they ought to perform Unless the Minister or somebody else looks after this board, naturally the board will go along in its owe sweet way, as it has done in the past. They have a tariff board in Australia, and that board holds its meetings in public, and all the evidence brought before that board has to be given on oath. Everybody who has an interest in the particular subject being discussed has an opportunity of being present and giving evidence, and hearing what is said. How different from the procedure of our board! Somebody who wants to start an industry in this country, or get larger protection for an industry already started, comes to the Board of Trade to give evidence, produces certain figures and states that on these figures and this evidence it is necessary to have greater protection. The Board of Trade does not inquire from anybody else to see whether the figures are correct or not. The report goes to the Minister, and the Minister, apparently without any further investigation, accepts the recommendations which are made to him. I must say that in one or two instances he has refused to accept the recommendations made to him, but as a rule, he does accept them.

As a rule they are accepted by this House.

We are obliged to accept them, they are forced through the House. I would like also to say that the members of this tariff board in Australia, while they are all pronounced protectionists, have begun to feel a bit uneasy as to the position there, and they have warned the public that there is a tendency to force the protectionist system, and that by forcing the pace under disadvantageous conditions they are actually endangering the efficacy of that system. The board even went further, and called the attention of the country very strongly to the position, and stated that the primary producer, for the assurance of his own domestic market against the world, did not hesitate to ask for a duty high enough to effect this purpose, and even a complete embargo. The board state that if this is continued it will bring a crisis in Australia, and that the credit of the country will be seriously imperilled. I would like to call the attention of the Minister to the necessity of these reports of the Board of Trade being looked into, and of any proposal which is brought before them being examined from all points of view. Why-should these reports be simply put on the Table in typed form and nobody else can see them? The country does not know what is going on, or the reason why some of these duties are put on. The more these duties are put on, the cost of living must inevitably go up.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the Board of Trade, and I do not propose, in the remarks I am about to make, to criticize them, but what I would like to know from the Minister is how it is that since 1925, when the Tariff Act was introduced and one of the important provisions of that Act was Clause 4, which provides that in giving protection to an industry the board would naturally keep its eye all the time on those industries to see that the consumer shall not be overlooked, and that there should be proper conditions of labour established in those industries which are protected—I am curious to know how it is that since then no control appears to have ’ been exercised in connection with that matter. Surely neither the Minister nor the Board of Trade would suggest that every industry that has been protected in terms of the Tariff Act has been carrying out to the fullest possible extent the provisions of Clause 4. The fact that no such report or any report has been made in respect to any industry inclines one to the belief that either the Board of Trade has been too busy to deal with that aspect or, alternatively, that the Minister is treating Clause 4 of the Tariff Act as a dead letter. As far as we are concerned, one of the most important factors in connection with the Tariff Act was the provisions of Clause 4. We are anxious to see industry established in South Africa so as to give employment to the fullest possible extent to people on civilized standards, and, although I am free and glad to admit that according to the returns there has been a substantial increase in the amount of employment, I do not know, and I doubt very much, whether taking into consideration the amount of protection which has been given and the number of factories which have been established, the amount of European employment is commensurate either with the protection which has been given or with the number of industries which have been established. I make this statement with the greater assurance because I know that applications are being made from time to time to the board in connection with this, that and the other industry, and we know perfectly well that, unfortunately, the Wage Board has been functioning very inadequately. A large number of its decisions have been turned down by the courts of law, and in other cases they have been considering and re-considering. Up to the present moment only about three determinations have actually been made. I invite the Minister to make a statement as to whether the fact that that clause has not been effectively applied is due to the fact that no complaints have been made and that the Board of Trade is completely satisfied that the consumers are paying as low a price as they are entitled to pay, and that those who are engaged in the industry are being as well protected as they should be, or whether it is due to the fact really that the Minister intends to treat that clause as a dead letter. I hope he will make some statement, because when the country is giving protection it is entitled to know whether the conditions under which that protection is given are being carried into effect. There is one other point I want to make. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has been referring to this question of Imperial preference, and the prejudicial effect that the present policy is having in respect of trade with Great Britain. I am not at one with the hon. member as regards that. I believe, and in fact I am satisfied, that it is not the intention of the Government to prejudice Great Britain in connection with that matter, but I do feel this, that the object of my tariff is to establish industry in South Africa, and that in doing away with certain preferences so far as British goods are concerned, the only justification for that would be if as a result of doing away with this preference industries were being established in respect of these goods in South Africa. Otherwise, I submit there is no advantage in doing away with those preferences, because it can only have the effect of making the consumer in South Africa pay more for those particular articles, and at the same time of depriving a large number of people in Great Britain of employment which they could have. I feel that the only justification for doing away with that preference would be that, in consequence of such action, we are having industries established in South Africa. Unless that is the fact, I believe that the Government should regard it as its duty to reconsider the whole position, and it seems to me that the matter should be fully considered in conjunction with Great Britain and the other dominions. Especially is that the case, because the argument as regards reciprocity, how much we are getting and how much we are giving, has fallen away during the last few days, in the light of the very important statement which was made in this House by the Minister of Defence, who admitted, I take it with the consent of the Cabinet and our Nationalist friends, that if South Africa at any time were in any trouble, the only defence we could rely upon was the British Navy. Once that admission has been made by the Minister of Defence, then the argument as regards financial reciprocity falls away. I would suggest to the Minister, who I know is not opposed to giving it to Great Britain wherever possible, that the matter should be reconsidered and negotiations should be entered into, not only with Great Britain, but some steps should be taken by which South Africa would be fully represented in connection with the empire marketing board, so that we could see to what extent there could be reciprocity between ourselves and the other parts of the dominions.

There is one matter I would like to refer to. The abatement under section 14 of Act 40 for children at school is limited to the age of 18. There are numbers of boys, and girls too, for that matter, who enter the universities and still remain a charge upon their parents after the age of 18, and I wonder if the Minister could not extend in such cases that concession. There are thousands of people who can ill afford to send their children to these schools, and if an abatement could be made in their favour, it would be a relief which would be appreciated.

The hon. member who has just spoken and other hon. members have raised questions which, of course, would entail reduction of revenue. Members will realize we are now dealing with the question of increases—ways and means. They will see that, interesting as these questions may be, we cannot consider them at this moment when such suggestions, if carried out, would affect the whole Budget scheme. With regard to the last point he raised, I would remind the House of the concessions which in recent years have been made to income tax payers. We have increased the abatement in regard to children to £60: we have raised the exemption from £300 to £400, and now I am giving a 20 per cent, rebate to all normal taxpayers. I do not think the income tax payer has much to complain of in this country, if you take all the assistance he has received since I occupied the position. In regard to this particular point, as to raising the age of children entitled to this concession from 18 to 21, I would remind the House that when, some years ago, the matter was debated, there was a very strong difference of opinion. I think it was pointed out that this would benefit mostly the more well-to-do people, and that the ordinary working man had not the opportunity of keeping his children at school after 18. That was a difficulty which was felt.

It is a difficulty for a man with a large family, anyway.

I have met the hon. member and others very handsomely by raising very generously the amount conceded in regard to children. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised the question of the application of section 4 of our Tariffs Act in regard to the maintenance of unsatisfactory labour conditions by industries which get protection. I believe he was not present when I made my Budget statement. I specially dealt with this point. The board is continuously in touch with industries that have received protection, and they are quite satisfied there is no cause for complaint on this score. Some complaints were made in the past, but that has been adjusted as the result of the action the board took, and it has not been necessary in a single case to decrease the protection enjoyed by the industries concerned. Then there is the general question of preference. I also dealt with that in my reply to the Budget, and I do not want to pursue that. Of course, that is a much bigger question. I may only say in regard to the specific point raised by one member in regard to the desirability of extending the preference to manufactured sugar, in view of the fact that our sugar enjoys a preference in the overseas market; you have this position, that there is at least one important firm in this country that is manufacturing sugar and is on the point of installing expensive machinery for that purpose, so the hon. member will see that when an industry is concerned here, naturally the question of preference does not arise.

What do you mean by manufactured sugar?

There is castor sugar and icing sugar and the various sugars which go through a refining process. Messrs. Huletts, in Durban, are going in for this class of business, and they are putting in valuable machinery. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the question of applying this rebate also to the provincial income tax. The hon. member knows that it is one of the most difficult questions for this Government continually to interfere with the constitutional rights of the provinces, and especially their taxing powers. This House has laid down the financial relations to govern the provinces and the Union Government, and immediately they saw we proposed to give this concession, they were alarmed and said “We hope the Minister of Finance is not going to tamper with our sources of revenue and the revenues we are receiving.” If we increase their revenues, they do not object, but if anything is passed which might have the effect of reducing them, there is at once an outcry. Under the circumstances, I think the hon. member will appreciate it would not be possible for the House to introduce legislation and interfere not only with their taxing powers, but also the actual revenues they are getting under the legislation actually on the statute book. In regard to this question of drawbacks of customs duty, it is hardly fair to complain now about our legislation—legislation which was passed according to the conditions obtaining in this country. The trouble has only arisen since Great Britain changed her fiscal policy, which was formerly free trade.

You are wrong there.

It was only after she imposed certain duties on certain imported articles that this question came up. We have laid down what in our opinion is the correct basis on which to assess. That is a clear-cut basis.

It is wrong.

What other basis can the hon. member point to? According to our conditions in this country, and after investigation, this is the basis which we found, and it is also the basis obtaining in the other dominions. They have exactly the same difficulties as we have, and they have also been unable to allow these drawbacks of customs duties. The question was debated at the imperial Conference. It was pointed out that the various governments would sympathetically consider ways and means in regard to duties on particular articles. That is what we are doing now. There are only a few of these articles. I think silks is one, and probably jewellery is another.

Amend your definition.

The amending of my definition would mean departing from the basis on which we assess our customs duties. One hon. member raised the question of reducing the duty on petrol. That is revenue taxation; we are not now considering reduction of taxation, but an increase. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) questioned the advisability of adopting these proposed leather duties. Of course, he knows that coupled with these increases are reductions, and the effect of the whole duties when they are taken into consideration will be that there will be practically no difference. Coupled with these customs duties we are making provision for the free introduction of certain articles for the boot making industry—of certain other leathers. That must have the effect of reducing the duties. The hon. member knows the difficulties his Government had to deal with—they could not find a solution. The tanners and the boot-makers—these two industries—were at each other’s throats, and after a number of years they have come to a solution which appears satisfactory, and which the Government has intended to adopt. In regard to nails, I am afraid I have to differ from my hon. friend as to the action we are taking, and it should not entail any increased price to the consumer. The board have gone into that, and are satisfied with regard to that. After all, those who agree with the policy of protection —the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not agree with that—agree that when dumping is proved the way of protecting our industries is by the imposition of a dumping duty. Nails are used by various industries, and not only by the farmer. The farmer incidentally uses few nails. This will not mean an increase of prices. I have a great respect for the hon. member, who has always been consistent in the matter, but his views in this regard are not shared by me.

Nor by the House.

Then the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) pressed for an amendment in the Income Tax Act, stipulating that all improvements made by a farmer on his farm shall be regarded as expenditure which may be deducted from the amount on which income tax has to be paid. The hon. member will understand that we are dealing here with a very important principle. I do not see how we can apply it only to farmers, and not to other taxpayers. If we are going to allow it in the farming industry we are getting a new system of taxation, and if it is conceded to the farmers other industries will also demand it. I think that, if the farmers are out to get concessions for this thing and the other I should prefer income tax for farmers to be completely abolished.

Why do you not do it then?

The hon. member knows that some of his farming friends say that I should insult them by repealing the tax in the case of farmers. When the time comes when they are in agreement it will be time enough for me as Minister of Finance to consider the repeal.

May I ask the Minister to reply with regard to the question I put as to Clause 3 of the Board of Trade and Industries Act?

That may be necessary if it was proved that when Parliament is asked to deal with this question it has not got that information before it to come to a decision on these points. Our difficulties have not been lack of information the board might have got; we have had the information, but so far as there have been difficulties they have arisen as a conflict of views with regard to protection—in regard to everyone of these proposed increases. Hon. members who object have debated the matter from the point of view of the consumer. When I get reports from the board I go through them and consider what questions of policy are concerned; and I may say that on grounds of policy I have rejected proposals of the Board of Trade. Where we have accepted them, we have done so because they have been in accordance with the policy of the Government and of this House. On the whole it can be claimed that these questions have been conducted on very sound lines, and if we take into consideration the amount of work done by the board, the number of cases they have investigated, and the number the House has adopted because it was in the interests of the country, I think it can be considered that the board have done their work very well. They have had a very heavy task, the work is now decreasing, and they are able to give more attention, if necessary, to some of these investigations.

If you turned them down, on what basis did you do so?

We had a case this afternoon. The Government, looking to the interests of the country, as a whole, considered they could not agree to the proposals. Another instance was last year—an extensive proposal for the protection of the engineering industry, which was turned down because we did not think it in the interests of the country.

On additional evidence, or evidence the board had?

It was not on a question of evidence, but on a question of policy.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee now.

I move—

I move—

Agreed to.

On Item (16) and (335),

I wish to emphasize what was said by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) about the way in which the Board of Trade arrive at their recommendations. It would be far better if the board held their inquiries in public.

I am very sorry, but we cannot go into the question of the Board of Trade now.

But this is a recommendation by the Board of Trade.

You will have to have a change in the law first.

That is a change of policy. I am afraid the hon. member will have to confine himself to the items.

These are not the estimates. Surely we have the right to have a say in the matter.

There is nothing here with regard to the Board of Trade.

This is a recommendation of the Board of Trade. The Minister will tell you that. The board has made recommendations without adequate inquiry. They should have public inquiries where anyone who has an objection to make about proposed increases in duty or suggestions to offer could do so, as is done in Australia. Here, however, increases in duties are sprung on the people without adequate consideration. The Minister cannot obtain all the information unless inquiries are held in public. It is not fair to the consumers that these increases should be sprung on them.

I move—

The effect of the amendment is a reduction in the specific duty from 4d. to 2d. The original proposal was an increase in the interests of the wine industry which manufactures “Argol,” but as the result of subsequent representations it was decided to amend the proposed specific duty—30 per cent, or 4d.—and to reduce it to 2d.

Agreed to.

On Item 17b,

I don’t quite understand the definition of “whole”. Does that refer to eggs in their shells?

It refers to tinned eggs from China.

Item put and agreed to.

On Item 52,

I suppose I can now raise the question of the terms on which goods are imported from Great Britain? The Minister has stated that he knows of no other value for customs purposes than the home consumption value. I see no difficulty if wine or silk are in bond

They are not all in bond. The question arises over material which has been imported from one country to another and has been altered in the latter country.

Well, then, take the open stock value. If I get stuff from France and leave it in bond in England until I want it, why can’t I pay the duty on the declared bond value?

That is only one phase of the matter, and if there were only one phase you could do something.

Why not deal with that phase then?

I agree with what my hon. friend has just said. The whole thing seems to be most unfair. Let us take the case of articles on which duty is levied when they come into England. The inducement is to buy them in the foreign countries which ship them by foreign ships and the merchant in England loses, as also does the British shipping. It seems to me there is no difficulty in determining the value at all. When the thing is in bond its value is perfectly well known Why should you specially add on something in order to make the trade difficult? We are told this is the home consumption price, but it is not the home consumption price. The home of the article is the country from which the article comes. It is straining the meaning of the words to say that the English value after it is got out of bond is the home consumption value. The home really of that particular thing is the foreign country in which it is made. It is straining the interpretation of the word to say that the English value after the goods have been taken out of bond is the home consumption value. It is for the purpose of this Act, but the point is whether the system is fair, whether the Act should not be altered. I cannot see the smallest difficulty in doing it.

The hon. member has seized on the question of goods in bond. We are dealing with the whole question. If all these goods were held in bond you could devise means to meet the trouble.

You cannot take anything else except the bond value and the open stock value.

The question is not so simple as you think. He has just grasped one point and that is the case of goods kept in bond. What about others? What will other people have to say if you deal only with goods held in bond? I am quite prepared to consider the question if that would be a solution of the difficulty, to see whether it can be done. But the trouble is other goods that go into the country. Some of them are imported, partly manufactured there and re-exported. Duty is paid on the part of the article imported. What is the hon. member’s solution for that sort of thing?

I am only dealing with the two items as a matter of fact.

Only a few articles are really affected, and we will deal with the more pressing ones in this way.

I take it the hon. the Minister says he is quite prepared to go into this question in a friendly manner, that he is prepared to see if he can deal with the question of goods in bond. I would ask the hon. the Minister if he will go eventually into the whole question in a friendly manner. I understand there are many merchants in this country, the course of whose trade makes it simpler for them to order goods not manufactured in England, but dealt in in England, and imported into England for re-export. All he is asked is to see whether nothing can be done in the direction of encouraging that trade. If bought in the country of origin naturally the goods would be bought much cheaper, and I should think when they come into England and are re-exported all you would have to do would be to add extra charges of carriage in getting them there. If the hon. the Minister would go into that in a friendly and sympathetic manner he would find a solution which would be to the mutual advantage of the merchants of this country and the exporters in Great Britain.

If the Minister will do what he has said and deal with these items in bond it will be going a very long way to simplify the matter, because it is the entrepot trade that we wish to deal with, and it is natural that the bulk of the articles meant for that trade will be kept by the people in England in bond. It is complained that duty has to be paid although duty has never been paid in England, and it is the principle of customs duties that they apply only to the country where the goods are consumed. Although duty has never been paid in England the importers here have to pay duty here on the value as if duty had been paid in England. That is opposed to the whole principle of duty which is that they could be paid by the people who consume the goods.

I can only repeat we have been dealing with the thing as a whole. It is not a question of going into it in a friendly manner. We have been trying to find a solution of the difficulty for some time. If it is merely this question which hon. members are raising here, as far as I can see, there would be no very great difficulty, but that will not solve the whole question. Jewellery, for instance, is partly manufactured, and they have to calculate what is the amount of customs duty paid on a certain article. It is absolutely impossible from an administrative point of view. If hon. members think we can solve this question and let the other remain, I will go into it. There is nothing unfair in asking that we should only collect duty on the value of the article, and not add to it things which were not actually added in the country of origin. I will go into the whole thing and, in the meantime, I think we can pass these specific articles where you have the most pressing cases and where, to my mind, we are adequately dealing with the position.

Item put and agreed to.

On Item 87,

I approved of what my hon. friend said that so far as we were concerned we would see that the primary interests of this country were not unduly handicapped. Nails were formerly free when they came from Great Britain, and when coming from foreign countries they paid 3 per cent, ad valorem, I take it. I understand from the schedule here they will pay 2s. per 100 lbs. I only speak as a fruit farmer, and I know we use a good many kegs of nails, and the cost seems to have been going up considerably latterly. I think under those circumstances that my hon. friend will be prepared to wipe that put of the schedule.

If I took this out here, and if I did my duty, I would have to impose a dumping duty which is less satisfactory.

Why should you have to impose a dumping duty?

I will explain to my hon. friend.

Is there a great manufacture of this article in this country?

Yes, there are three firms, two in the north, and one in the Cape.

We are finding, as fruit farmers, that wire nails are very expensive items, and many of us will find, when it comes to our funerals, that it will be very expensive to have nails put in our coffins as well.

There is competition in wire nail manufacturing, as there is in every industry.

Why do they dump it here?

If there is any competition at all, there is sure to be dumping. That is my experience of this so-called dumping. If any competition comes along against any local manufacturer, and he cannot stand up against that competition, then it is always dumping. Why cannot the interests of the consumer be taken into consideration as well? It is a very small margin that the fruit farmers have to work upon. In some cases they make nothing upon their shipments. I am astonished at my hon. friend, the Minister. Having laid down a principle, why doesn’t he stick to that principle? Why does he go away from it?

I hope the Minister will stand firm in this matter.

The hon. member is not a fruit farmer.

No, a member of Parliament. Not only do we find it in the case of nails, but we find a large number of manufacturers, especially on the continent and in America, producing at their factories more than can be consumed in the country of production. They keep their plants working night and day, the result is that the surplus product, which is not required for home consumption, is dumped in other countries at less than the cost of production, if they include all charges. Under the circumstances, it would not be possible to have an industry in this country, unless that industry was protected in its initial stages. Not only as regards nails; for instance, we discuss the production of a certain bicycle which is manufactured in Great Britain; that bicycle is exported to Holland, a Yorkshire firm re-imports it from Holland and sells it in Yorkshire at less than they could have bought it from the factory in England, proving quite clearly that these manufacturers sold what they could in their own country, but the surplus product they sent out of the country and sold at a less price than they were selling it at in the country of its manufacture. We know quite well that there are numerous instances of that kind, and that nails are one instance, and, therefore, the Minister should stand firm; what we want in this country is not nails for the people, but work for the people.

In order to help the Minister out of his difficulty, I would suggest that this duty on nails does not apply to nails of one and a half inches or less.

Say two inches or less.

Yes, I would suggest nails of two inches or less. Then the Minister would get his duty on all the larger nails used for other purposes, but he would eliminate the nails used for fruit boxes. I, therefore, move—

When the Minister replies, will he kindly state what that amendment would really mean in plain language? Would it not mean that you would be undermining really what it is proposed to tax; is it not a fact that 80 per cent, of the nails which are imported are 2 in, and less in length, and it would, therefore, defeat the object that the Minister has in view?

Ho do you know?

I would like to support the amendment from the point of view of the dairy farmer in this country. There are a large number of nails used in that industry. Every cheese made in this country is boxed, and it is the same with butter. It would be of considerable assistance to those industries, as it would be to the fruit farmer, if the Minister could see his way to accept this amendment.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I will consider whether it is possible, if hon. members think these people will have to pay more, to assist them on the other items of the tariff in regard to importations for these industries.

We will have to wait 12 months for that.

No, it can be done at once.

Amendment put; upon which the committee divided:

I would like to ask the Minister the reason for the increase on this particular item. It is all going to increase the cost of building.

As the hon. member will see, the effect of the proposals is a considerable decrease in the duties on glass when this is coupled with the other reduction.

Not on this item.

Yes, it is an adjustment of the whole thing. It is put in this way because the question of preference is involved. If the hon. member looks all the other proposals in regard to glass he will see it is a considerable reduction. I believe I am surrendering some thousands on glass.

Yes, I understand there is a reduction on the thinner quality, but on this heavy glass there is a considerable increase.

It is to maintain the ratio of duty and incidentally the preference on the British article for which this is a cheap substitute.

I do not see this at all.

If the hon. member does not want it I will withdraw all my proposals with regard to glass.

No, we are only asking for information. In the other schedule where the reduction is made, the present duty is 6s. and 7s. and it is proposed to reduce it to 3s. and 4s. It seems rather strange, I must say.

Very well, I will withdraw the clause.

No, don’t do that. It is not fair to threaten us in that fashion.

You cannot have it both ways.

We don’t want it both ways, but it is the Minister’s duty to give a fair explanation.

Item put and agreed to.

On item 251,

This provision regarding boots and shoes, I think, is one that we ought to seriously consider, because I can remember as far back as 1923, when the Customs Act was passed, the duty was fixed at 30 per cent, with a proviso that after the 31st March in this year it was to be reduced by 2½, per cent, per annum until the duty, less any rebate, amounted to 17 per cent, ad valorem. At that time we were assured by the boot and shoe manufacturers that the duty of 30 per cent, falling gradually to 17 per cent., was quite a sufficient protection for them, and they would be able to build up an industry. I know Mr. Burton, who was then Minister of Finance, had interviews with the representatives of the industry, and it was put up by them that if they got this protection they would be perfectly able to compete against the imported article. When the law was overhauled in 1925, a somewhat similar provision was made by the Minister, and it was accepted by Parliament, except that the duty was to gradually fall from 30 per cent, by instalments of 2½ per cent, per annum until the duty was 20 per cent. Again we were assured that that was all the protection that was required by the boot and shoe manufacturers. Now we are asked to perpetuate that 30 per cent., and I do think we are asked to go too far in this matter.

Well, move to reduce the duty.

I think that the Act of 1925 which we are seeking to repeal ought to stand. Section 13 provides [clause read]. I think that is sufficient protection, and the House ought not to continue this duty of 30 per cent. After all, the bulk of the material, the leather, is produced in the country and tanned here, and what with freight and insurance which the imported article has to pay, plus duty, the local article ought to be able to compete.

All right, test the feeling of the House.

I know what the feeling of the House will be.

I would like the Minister to give this House the information of the industry on this particular matter. I understand the industry has asked for this increase. In a large number of instances it is not only a question of giving the South African manufactured goods preference, but it is a fact a large number of these boots, if the duty were reduced, would be manufactured on the continent, especially ladies’ and children’s shoes. I believe this industry is firmly established in South Africa. If the protection suggested is allowed a few years longer, it will be better able to stand on its own financial footing than it has been able to do in the past.

I am sorry the Minister has adopted the attitude he is adopting, leaving to us to move a reduction of the duty, because I for one would be glad to know whether he is satisfied from the evidence of the Board of Trade that the continuation of this 2½ per cent, is necessary. There are two principles involved; one, that of protection, and the other, we are departing from an actual Act of Parliament, because it is contemplated taking off the 2½, per cent. I do not feel disposed to vote for this being taken off. We see the reports of the Board of Trade, but as far as a private member of the House is concerned, we are not conversant with the evidence on which these reports are based. The amount involved is not very large. I, for one, would have liked to see the industry in a position to allow this 2½ per cent, to come off. If the Minister is not satisfied that the time is ripe for a reduction, I am not going to vote for it. I am sorry the Minister has worked himself up into a passion. It is a small item, but of considerable importance.

I can add nothing further with regard to this matter than I have already done, certainly on half a dozen occasions, with regard to boots and shoes.

Item put and agreed to.

On Item ex 296 (j),

I would like if the Minister could explain, “not being advertising matter.” I cannot imagine printing or embossing on wrapping paper except to get an advertisement on it. They would not do it simply to add to the costs of it. You will get the difficulty of interpretation in the Customs Department as to what is advertising matter.

I believe the reason is that formerlyy all this stuff came in at 35 per cent., and this was altered and the duty reduced to 20 per cent. We wish to put it back to 35 per cent.; advertising matter falls under 40 per cent., or 6d. per 1b.

Item put and agreed to.

Remaining items having been agreed to, Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for gold or diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
2. (b) in the case of all other companies, for each pound of taxable amount, two shillings and sixpence;
3. (c) in the case of person other than companies, for each pound of taxable amount, one shilling and as many two-thousandths of a penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of two shillings in every such pound:

Provided that in the case of every payment made under the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) above there shall be allowed a rebate of twenty per centum of the amount chargeable in accordance with the rates fixed by those paragraphs.

Agreed to.

I move—

That, subject to the terms of the aforesaid Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1928, a super tax on all incomes defined as being subject to super tax by the provisions of Section 27 of Act No. 40 of 1925, which shall have accrued to any person other than a company during the year of assessment ended the thirtieth day of June, 1928, at the following rates:

For each pound of the amount subject to super tax, one shilling and as many five-hundredths of one penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of five shillings in every such pound.

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee on 4th May.

I am against the Bill entirely, but as the House has passed the second reading we should now incorporate in it some safeguards. Attorneys have to pass a matriculation examination, then two very stiff law examinations, and after completing their articles they have to go through a practical examination. Law agents under the Bill will receive more privileges than attorneys. I am not asking that they should have to pass all these examinations, but I do suggest that they should at least pass a practical examination and should be permitted to practice in one province only. Even then they would be in a better position than a duly qualified attorney. I move—

I hope the amendment will be passed. I just want to point out that that is the actual position that existed in the Transvaal. There were certain law agents and provision was made for them to pass a practical examination, after which they could practise in the courts as attorneys. Unfortunately, at that time a certain period was fixed within which that examination had to be passed, with the result that all did not pass it, and some law agents, therefore, did not acquire the right, I think the amendment of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) is quite right. Under it the people who had the right of practising in the past will also have it, in their province, in future. There is only a small number of persons concerned, and they must be given the right of practising before the court. I want to insist strongly on the point in the amendment that law agents can only practise in their own provinces. Let them have that right in the province where they live. In the Transvaal we have abolished law agents, and we must not reach the position, e.g., that a law agent from the Gape Province can come to the Transvaal and start practice there, by which the difficulties of the past will be recreated.

I am sorry that I cannot quite agree with the motion of the hon. member for Gape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). There are very few people who will be affected, and who have any interest in this matter. An opportunity was, indeed, given in the Transvaal for the law agents to qualify, and many of them used it, but the position is that a few of the people who were admitted is qualified law agents in the Transvaal are now living in the Gape Province. They are already old, and they surely cannot be expected to pass an examination. I move—

The great objection in the Transvaal was that the attorneys did not have rights over the Union, and I then promised so far as law agents are concerned to make an alteration in that direction. Therefore, I shall be glad if hon. members, for the sake of the individuals who will still want to practise, will adopt my motion. I do not believe that there will be many who bother themselves about it, because most of them have gone into other business. I hope the hon. member who has proposed the amendment will withdraw it, because it will make it impossible to do anything for the people. I hope the House will pass my amendment.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) with pleasure. What is the intention of the Bill? It is that law agents who were properly qualified—therefore, not as was remarked “general law agents,” but law agents who had passed an examination in one of the provinces—can practise in the province where they live. According to the present Magistrate’s Court Act, such a person can only practise in that court where he was admitted. The intention is to allow a law agent, who, e.g., has moved from one province to another and is too old to pass a new attorney’s examination, to practise in the province where he is resident by virtue of the law agent’s certificate which he obtained in another province. Take the case of a man personally known to me. He practised in the Free State as a law agent, and passed a law examination, but through circumstances went to the Transvaal. He established himself in a Transvaal village and as the Bill now reads, he cannot make use of the certificate which he lawfully obtained in the Free State. The intention is to enable such persons to practise in the province where they are now living, and in the whole of the province, Therefore, a person living in the Free State, who has his law agent’s certificate, may practise in the Free State and in Natal if he lives there. It is a concession to persons who owing to the present law, cannot make use of the certificates that they legally obtained, and it is, therefore, with pleasure that I support the amendment.

I move—

My reason for moving this amendment is that as the Bill at present stands it is far too wide in its terms. In other words, it would allow an agent registered in the Cape to come and practise in a court in Natal. I am certain the people of Natal will not welcome such an amendment. I do not know what the position in the Transvaal is, but apparently the Transvaalers are willing to allow an agent practising in the Gape to go and practise in the Transvaal.

No.

Well, that is the position as the Bill now stands. I say allow the agents practising in a province to practise in any magistrate’s court in that province, but should not be allowed to go into any court outside that province. That is the effect of the amendment I moved. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Marico means that if a law agent has been enrolled in the Cape and he happens to be residing in Natal and carrying on, say, a fishmonger's business, he would immediately be entitled to take out a law agent’s licence in Natal and practise. In 1896, we did away with law agents in Natal. To-day an amendment is proposed to set the clock back 32 years. I submit that when the Magistrates’ Courts Act was passed in 1917, the whole matter was fully considered and law agents practising then had their rights entrenched. Coming along at this late stage to ask for a wide amendment of the Magistrates’ Courts Act is going too far altogether. I would like to refer the House to the evidence given before the select committee which sat on this matter. Mr. Duncan, in his evidence, said—

The purport of my amendment is simply giving effect to the evidence which was tendered by Mr. Duncan before that select committee. I hope the House will accept my amendment, because it seems to me that if the House wishes to have any amendment to grant further rights to the law agents, those rights should be restricted to the particular province in which those law agents are actually practising. A number of people in the old Cape days took out licences on payment of a certain fee, people who were not qualified at all. It was not necessary to practise at all. These people became enrolled law agents. This Bill is going altogether too far. The proposals made in it, to my mind, are absolutely absurd. I think the evidence given before the select committee clearly proved that there was an over-production of qualified attorneys in the country. I do claim that these men who have qualified in the law should receive protection.

I support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I think it completely meets the intention of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar). He wants certain law agents, who have already practised in the Transvaal by reason of a law examination they passed in the Transvaal, to have the right of practising in other magistrates’ courts in their province. There are law agents in the Transvaal who passed a certain examination, and, therefore, are entitled to practise, but as the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has already said, there are other provinces where law agents have passed no examination at all. That was the case in the Free State, there were two kinds of law agents. Those who were admitted before the second war of independence, who usually had passed the so-called admitted law agents’ examination, and were admitted as general agents, and they were allowed to practise in any court in the Free State, because they could show that they had passed an examination in the province. Then there was another kind of law agent in the Free State, and I think in the Cape Province as well, who had passed no examination. As a rule, especially after the second war of independence, they were admitted in any village where there was only one attorney practising. Any person of good conduct could be admitted to practise there as a law agent. No practical examination of any kind was necessary, and there are still some of them practising. The question is whether it is fair that people who have passed no examinations should be put on the same basis as attorneys, who have acquired certain important qualifications. In my opinion the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), which admits those persons who have actually passed an examination, but not those who have not, is the proper step.

On page 500 I have tabled an amendment the effect of which will be that it will place the law agents in the same position as the law agents were in the Transvaal previous to the passing of Act 23 of 1908. I move—

†(2) At any time within four years after the commencement of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1917, Further Amendment Act, 1928, any person who immediately prior to such commencement was entitled to practise as an agent in a court in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope and who has passed any such examination in law and jurisprudence as is referred to in Section 21 of the Law Society (Cape of Good Hope) Private Act, 1916, shall be entitled to be admitted by the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa to practise as an attorney in the said Province ’.”

I regret I cannot put this amendment to the committee. In the first place it is tantamount to the omission of a clause for the purpose of substituting a new clause, and should, therefore, not be moved until Clause I has been negatived. In the second place it does not propose to modify or to extend the provisions of the Bill, but is rather in the nature of an alternative proposal (affecting the admission of attorneys) which is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a second time.

If that is your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I won’t pursue it any further.

I would be prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) if he would make it an examination passed in any province instead of the one in which the applicant resides.

I understand the hon. member is prepared to accept my amendment if I will amend it to mean that the applicant must pass the practical examination in the province in which he resides, that is, the law agent must pass a practical law examination in the province in which he resides, and can only practise in that province. My amendment was to the effect that he must pass it in the province in which he practises, not in which he resides, but I am prepared to accept that.

With leave of committee amendment proposed by Maj. G. B. van Zyl withdrawn.

I move—

What is the position of a man whose case I have in mind at present? He is a law agent of standing in the Eastern Province, and has been practising for many, many years. He is an elderly man. Would he have to pass a fresh examination, and what body would examine him?

Appointed by the supreme court, an oral examination.

The man to whom I refer is a man with a considerable amount of practice. Occasionally magistrate’s court cases wall be in the district in which he resides, and sometimes his clients have cases in adjoining districts. My hon. friend suggests that some constituted legal authority should examine the man, but you can hardly ask a man 65 years of age, who has been practising as a law agent for the last forty years, to pass an ordinary law examination like a young man. All he would have to do is to show some competent body that he has practical knowledge. There may be one or two more of these cases. If I mentioned the name to my hon. friend he would recognize it as that of a man of some considerable standing, who has a large practice, not only amongst natives, but Europeans as well, and in more than one case his clients have been extraordinarily anxious to go to Queenstown—his district.

All I ask is that he should pass a practical oral examination.

I do not share the benevolent feeling expressed by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). As is well known, we had law agents in the Transvaal up to twenty years ago—most of them elderly men, and we decided to put an end to the law agent system. We said to them that they must pass the University of the Cape of Good Hope law examination, and although they were elderly men they passed it. There are residing in the Transvaal a few persons who at some time in their career were admitted at the Cape to practise as law agents without any examination, because they found themselves in a magisterial district where there were not two attorneys. They did not practise in the Transvaal, and were not allowed to; now, because of the mere fact that they live there, it is proposed to enrol them—

Only as agents.

We have had no law agents for twenty years, and we have so many attorneys that there are many who cannot find a livelihood. Having swept the slate clean twenty years ago, it is now proposed to admit persons to practise as law agents in the Transvaal because at some obscure period they were allowed to practise at the Cape. If the hon. member allowed the Cape to consume its own smoke—to get rid of its law agents as we did in the Transvaal—I could appreciate it. If the legal profession were understaffed in the Transvaal, there might be something to be said in favour of the Bill. I know some of these gentlemen—one has practised as trustee of estates, and has done no legal work, another has been a magistrate. I would rather see them made attorneys straightway than that we should perpetuate the law agent system.

We ought not to be asked to vote for the clause as it stands, as the Bill goes much too far. For the protection of the public, the law lays it down that persons wishing to become attorneys must learn their profession and pass certain examinations, but because of one or two cases of hardship, we are now asked to make a sweeping change in a law which has worked well. In all professions, there are many hard cases throughout the country.

Hard cases make bad law.

I know chemists who prescribe for people, and we might as well say that because they are decent fellows and have some practical knowledge, they ought to be licensed as doctors. I am opposed to the Bill altogether unless the law agents are prepared to go through the mill in the same way as attorneys are.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept that.

I move—

I accept that.

I want to point out that the words “law agent” are used in the Dutch text.

Yes, they must be used in the Dutch text.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Close put and agreed to.

In this connection I want to point out that there was no such practical examination for law agents in the Transvaal. We had the usual law agent’s examination, and not the practical law agent’s examination of the Cape Colony. I do not know what the position will be if the Bill is passed in that way. I suggest that it be altered into an examination as required by the respective societies.

I do not know whether it will be enough if we say: “A practical examination required by the society in the Cape Colony.”

I understand that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) also has an amendment in the next line.

I wish to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl).

It has been said there is no such examination in the Transvaal, and there is no such examination in Natal. It seems to me this amendment will have to be further amended. There is no practical examination in Natal or in the Transvaal of the kind that is referred to in the amendment. If this amendment is carried, the introducer of the Bill will not benefit the people either in the Transvaal, if there are any, or in Natal.

I want to suggest that the Bill should pass as it is, then any amendment that may be necessary can be made at the report stage.

With leave of committee, Mr. J. J. Pienaar withdrew his amendment.

Amendment proposed by Maj. 6. B. van Zyl put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 4th May.