as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Report considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:

Internal Arrangements: Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Krige, M. L. Malan, Dr. de Jager. Messrs. Sampson, Munnik and Nathan.

Library of Parliament: Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Krige, Werth, Robinson, Dr. Bremer, Messrs. Close and Reyburn.

Native Affairs: Messrs. Keyter, Marwick, van Niekerk, Conroy, Sir Drummond Chaplin, Rev. Mr. Mullineux, Messrs. Moffat, Nieuwenhuize, Reyburn, Steytler and Payn.

Crown Lands: The Minister of Lands, Col. D. Reitz, Messrs. Mostert, Madeley, G. A. Louw, Nicholls, Swart, Deane, Christie, Conradie and Struben.

Before we go on with the first Order of the Day, I would like, with permission, to make a statement in reference to the negotiations that have been proceeding in connection with the ocean mail contract. I have here a statement on the negotiations in connection with the ocean mail contract and outward freight agreement between the Union Government representatives and the representatives of the Union-Castle Company and its associated steamship lines.

Statement of negotiations in connection with the ocean mail contract and outward freight agreement between the Union Government representatives and the representatives of the Union-Castle Company and its associated steamship lines.

1. 1. In 1912 a contract was entered into for a period of ten years, between the Union Government and the Union-Castle Company for the conveyance of ocean mails and Government outward cargo, and fixing certain maximum rates for the conveyance of South African produce.
2. 2. In 1922 an extension of this contract was made on revised terms for a period of two years, and provided for the continuance of the mail contract indefinitely thereafter, subject to twelve months’ notice on either side.
3. 3. The revised terms included the abolition of the maximum rates for maize, wool and several other important products and the substitution therefor of rates based on the freights obtained in respect of full cargoes by chartered steamers during the previous three months. Experience has shown that this method has proved most disadvantageous to South African interests.
4. 4. In August, 1924, negotiations were opened for the making of fresh contracts, and in consequence thereof several conferences have been held in South Africa between the Government representatives and the representatives of the Union-Castle Company.
5. 5. At the first, conference held during November last Dr. Robertson Gibb intimated that he had come out from London with plenary powers to act, not only on behalf of the Union-Castle Company but also the other steamship companies associated with them in the South African Shipping Conference.
6. 6. At these sittings, which lasted several days, agreement was reached on the following points after a most exhaustive discussion of principles and details:
   1. (a) Duration of new contract to be seven years.
   2. (b) The maximum freight rates to be charged for fruit, dairy produce, and other cold storage exports (eleven items).
   3. (c) The maximum freight rates to be charged for maize, wool, hides, skins and other South African exports (24 items).
   4. (d) All rates to be subject to deduction by arbitration if just cause could be shown.
   5. (e) The rates to be paid by Government for all Government cargo from Europe.
7. 7. It was in consideration of the Shipping Lines meeting us in the matter of the various rates which were to be maximum rates that the Government agreed to the contract being for seven years instead of a much shorter period as it originally contemplated, and also conceded an increase of 2s. 6d. per ton on Government outward cargo.
8. 8. An agreement having been arrived at on these matters the question of the amount of the ocean mail subsidy—the only important point remaining for consideration—came up for discussion. The amount of the subsity at present is £225,000 per annum which includes the sum of £27,000 in respect of the voyage to Durban and the other coast ports.
9. 9. In accordance with the statement which I made, as Chairman of the Conference, right at the opening, the Government representatives then suggested a reduced subsidy as a basis for discussion. It was pointed out to the Shipping Conference representatives that the £27,000 coast subsidy was no longer justified. The cargo and trade now offering at Durban and the coast ports was so much in excess of the trade available when the coast subsidy was first instituted that the Government did not think a special subsidy was any longer necessary. Furthermore, the mails were not taken round the coast by a steamer but went overland by train. For these reasons the coast subsidy should no longer be paid.
10. 10. Then it was stated there should be a further reduction owing to the general fall in prices and also to the fact that the British Post Office, as from October next, will no longer pay to the Union Government a pro rata share of the subsidy in proportion to the extent to which it uses our mail service, but will then pay on what is termed the sea transit rates. This means an increased financial burden on the Union. For these reasons the Government representatives suggested as a basis for discussion a subsidy of £150,000.
11. 11. At this juncture it was also pointed out that under the present arrangements, whereby gold is carried as freight, and not, as provided in the Post Office Act of 1911, as mail matter, the Union Postal Department lost something like £40,000 per annum in revenue and the company benefited to the extent of the freight on gold—which amounts to over £124,000 per annum.
12. 12. Mr. Gibb and his two colleagues, Messrs. Pargiter and Duff, then stated that to them it had been on the understanding that the subsidy asked for by them, namely £250,000 from Southampton to Durban or £225,000 from Southampton to Cape Town, had been agreed to by the Government representatives that they had agreed to the rates and conditions previously arrived at. No such undertaking, however, had been given at any stage of the proceedings by the Government representatives.
13. 13. The Government representatives then pressed for a discussion on the merits of an increased or decreased subsidy, but Mr. Gibb declined to continue and said that the question was so important he must have time to submit the matter in writing to his principals in London.
14. 14. Negotiations were then suspended and at the request of Mr. Gibb it was agreed that on resumption he would have the right to review any agreement arrived at on any particular commodity.
15. 15. On February 10th the Conference was resumed. Mr. Gibb, acting on instructions from London, then submitted entirely new proposals under which the agreements reached during the November Conference were practically wiped out and the maximum rates on maize, wool and other South African exports were withdrawn. These new proposals were admitted by Mr. Gibb to be even more onerous than the existing conditions under the present contract.
16. 16. To these new proposals the Government representatives could not agree. They felt that the country would expect, if a new contract was made, that it would give some additional benefit or relief from the present position and that it would succeed in stabilising for South Africa reasonable freight rates for a considerable period.
17. 17. The Government representatives at once returned to the question of the subsidy. They again asked that this should be discussed on its merits. In order to prove that they were willing to meet the Company in the most reasonable manner they eventually agreed to give the amount asked for by the Company in consideration of and on condition that the November agreements should stand.
18. 18. Mr. Gibb, however, declined to accept even his own terms. He said the position was now changed. At this point it was quite apparent that the amount of the subsidy had not been the chief concern of the Company but rather the desire to repudiate the principle of fixed, maximum rates on maize, wool and the other commodities agreed to by Mr. Gibb in November—principles and rates which had been evidently disapproved of by the Shipping Conference in London.
19. 19. As the new terms put up by the Shipping Companies were such a departure from the principles agreed to in November, and as it was felt that the differences could not be bridged, negotiations were terminated yesterday. The present contract therefore continues and is subject to twelve months’ notice on either side.
20. 20. As an instance of the way in which the new proposals would operate take the case of maize. The maximum rates for maize agreed upon at the November Conference were 20s. 3d. per short ton for bulk export, and 22s. 6d. for bagged export. Under the new proposals the rate payable must be based on the average freight rates by chartered steamers with full cargoes. The effect of this would be to enable the Companies to increase the rate at the present time to 29s. 6d. per short ton as compared with 10s. per short ton in 1912 and subsequent years.
21. 21. Another instance as to how the new proposals would operate is that of wool. In this case it has been proved that as this commodity is not carried in full cargoes by chartered steamers to Europe the basis proposed is impracticable and in effect leaves the Shipping Companies to fix their own rates.
22. 22. It might be added that the Government is somewhat perturbed at the increases in freight charges on various commodities to and from South Africa since July 23rd last, on which date, at Hamburg, agreements were signed between the German and Holland Lines of Steamers and the Union-Castle Company on behalf of the South African Shipping Conference, whereby the German and Holland Lines became members of the Shipping Combination. Under these agreements there is to be no competition in rates by any of the parties thereto.
23. 23. In conclusion it should be said, as stated at the Conference, that the Government is not unappreciative of the services which the Union-Castle Company and its Associated Lines have rendered to South Africa. The sailings have been regular and the service and the class of boat have been good. I think this is appreciated, not only by the Government, but also by the country. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that the benefits have not been altogether on the one side. It would be reasonably safe to assume that the Union-Castle Company and its Associated Lines have, generally speaking, prospered and done well out of their trade with South Africa.
24. 24. It was the earnest desire of the Government representatives to meet the Conference Lines in the most reasonable way and it regrets that it has not been successful in its efforts to secure for South Africa a new contract that will give the country a greater measure of security and stability in regard to its freight rates and so enable it to compete more favourably with its products in the markets of the world. Under the circumstances the Government has no alternative but to consider the whole position and take what steps it may find to be necessary to protect and secure the best interests of South Africa.
25. 25. A verbatim report of the Conference proceedings has been taken, and in order that Parliament shall be in full possession of all details, a copy of the report will be laid upon the Table of the House.

I move—

I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether this is the Report which was approved by Committee of this House last year. The hon. Prime Minister will remember that last year before the dissolution there was a similar message from the Senate and the matter was referred to a Committee of which Mr. Speaker was the Chairman and we considered the Report and we approved the message. Is this the same message?

I do not know.

I understand that this is the same message with a few alterations as suggested by this House.

I would second the adoption of this report.

The motion was agreed to.

This is a matter of somewhat serious import to the profession, and I regret therefore that the Minister in introducing the Bill on this occasion treated it in a manner which was somewhat flippant. In no way did he touch on the principles of the Bill, and in no way did he touch on the changes he has made. We are entitled to some explanation about these changes. I have considered the changes in the light of his promises of last year, and I do not think the promises he then made are now kept. The Minister speaks of this Bill as being a little matter and therefore to be lightly disposed of. The littleness of things have formed the basis of many futile excuses in the past. He tells us this is a copy of the Bill found in the portfolio of the Minister of Justice. He says he has copied this Bill, but surely he has gone further and embodied in it principles different from those originally embodied. He tells us also that he has followed the previous Government’s policy of appointing no Pact members or supporters. Here again he is wrong, for he forgets that Mr. Pienaar, who now represents the Government in an important capacity overseas, and who is a strong supporter of the Pact, was the Government attorney appointed by the previous Government. The Minister advises that we should read his speech published in Hansard. I have done so. He made certain promises then which he has not now fulfilled. He also made certain statements. He referred, for example, to public policy. He said the Bill was in the interests of the public and it was public policy to introduce such a Bill. An old English judge once said “Public policy is a very restive horse; when you get astride of it there is no knowing where it will carry you to,” and I would advise him to be careful. The hon. Minister last year said that he took exception to our claiming that the Crown was an unqualified person. I do not think any person on this side of the House made any such claim. We know the Crown is not an unqualified person, but we know that in practice we have all sorts of Government servants giving instructions to these professional men, and in that respect my complaint was that the professional man will be under the rule of the unprofessional man. Another statement he made was that the functions of all legal professions are derived from the Crown. Surely he is overlooking the true position. I do not now wish to go into the history of the position, but let me refer to the latest authority. In a case which was gone into fully in the Free State— the case of de Villiers v. McIntyre, afterwards taken on appeal, the whole question of the legal status of an attorney was fully gone into. The reference of the Chief Justice in the case of Pienaar (1902, T.S. 16) was “the Courts of South Africa possess the rights of the Roman-Dutch courts, to regulate the conduct of practitioners and to prescribe the general lines on which they shall be permitted to exercise the privileges conferred upon them.” That clearly shows that the Supreme Court alone has jurisdiction over the attorney. The Crown has no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has, and such jurisdiction is given by Acts of Parliament and by rules of Court. Sir Wm. Solomon in the same case said: “Certain regulations on the subject are to be found in the Placaats, but the Court is not limited to enforcing these regulations, but possesses and has in the past exercised its inherent powers in cases not covered by the Placaats … the Court in exercising its disciplinary authority did not purport merely to give effect to the Placaats but interfered by virtue of the inherent powers which it possesses over its practitioners. …” So that it is perfectly dear that the attorneys are under the Supreme Court and under the Supreme Court alone. The hon. member might tell me that that was a judgment in favour of the finding of the Court I read also a judgment of the Chief Justice, who was against the majority finding of the court but who strongly supported the principle advocated by Sir William Solomon. (Quotation.)

Then let me touch on the changes in this bill. Clause 3 sub-section 2 of the previous bill is left out and he amends clause 4 according to the promise made, but in section 5 he refers only to notaries and conveyancers. I would like to know why attorneys are left out there. Does he mean that any person who may be appointed by the Minister must be an admitted person only if he wishes to do notary’s and conveyancer’s work but need not be an admitted person to do attorney’s work? When we turn to section 7 we find something quite opposed to sections 4 and 5, which says he can only practise in the province in which he is admitted, That is a distinct change and we ought to have some explanation on that. So far we have had no explanation at all.

With the leave of the House I wish to state that I am prepared to accept the position that an attorney must be qualified to practise in that part of the Union in which he is appointed, for instance, that a person appointed in the Transvaal must be a man who is entitled to practise there as an attorney.

I wish to emphasize again that our profession is ruled by Acts of Parliament. In every separate Province there is a separate Act ruling the profession. Those Acts were passed after a lot of trouble and expense on the part of the profession. It is the only profession in the world which is under real control. I consider that this Bill constitutes a very serious infringement of the rights of attorneys. Not only is the Government attorney to be permitted to practise not under the supervision of the Supreme Court, but under the direct supervision of the Minister alone. He has thus a great pull over every other attorney, and if I read the Act correctly he is even freed from the jurisdiction of the Court. He has a pull which is certainly an infringement over the rights of the profession, I do not believe that any single law society in this country has agreed to the principles of this Bill. Every single law society has strongly opposed and has, I understand, made strong representations to the Minister opposing the principles of this Bill. The Minister may say: “I have nothing to do with the principles of this Bill; I am dealing with what has been done in other countries,” but I say that in other countries is there a similar Bill to this. I am sure there is no country in the world where they allow by legislation an attorney appointed by the Government acting under a non-professional man to do certain things which the admitted attorney may not do even to the give an allowance to a non-professional man. The principles of all those Acts of Parliament governing attorneys have been laid down not only for the benefit of the profession, but also for the protection of the public. The public, as the position now is, are very fully safe-guarded and, to show how fully they are safe-guarded in the opinion of the highest authority in the land on legal questions, I would like to inform the House what one of the Appellate judges said in regard to this matter, and also incidentally to show how important it is to keep this profession pure—

The position is the same whether he is a branch-manager or whether he is an ordinary layman acting under the Government for the time being. The only reason that I can find from the Minister’s speech for introducing this Bill is that the Government wants to make a little more money by getting legal fees. As far as I can find, that is the only principle underlying this Bill. The Minister has admitted that in the past the Government has been well served by the general practitioner, and he has admitted that everything that has been done in different parts of the country, on instructions, perhaps, of the attorney at Pretoria, has been satisfactorily done. There can be no reason for this change except the one that the Government wishes to make fees out of our profession. I do hold that the principle is bad. There are several reasons why I say this. The Minister and not the Public Service Commission is going to make the appointments. The Minister, also, can fix the conditions of the appointments and the remuneration. Everything is in his hands. He may appoint also “such other persons as may from time to time be necessary for such purposes aforesaid.” Are these to be qualified persons? I think that is a very important matter. If they are not to be qualified persons, are they going to have the rights of attorneys in signing documents. There is nothing in the Bill to show what rights they are to have The Bill does not restrict their rights in any way. Presumably they are going to have the rights of attorneys, that is, of doing all an attorney may do. I would like to know from the Minister also whether such employees of the Government are to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to discipline. No matter whom attorneys are employed by, the Supreme Court should not lose its rights over these men. The Government attorney, in addition to performing recognized functions, may carry out such other functions as the Minister may prescribe. Are those functions to be such functions as another attorney may not perform? I want to know what these functions are for which the Government attorney may charge inter-departmental fees. I understand now that this great department of one attorney and one typist which the Minister promises us will make an income of between £20,000 and £30,000 per year, is going to do the work free for different departments. There is another very important matter, and that is that the Government attorney has the right to collect fees for the Government. In the past an attorney acting for the Government naturally had the right to collect fees, but an attorney acting against the Government never had the right to issue a writ against the Government either to fees or for the amount of the judgment That right is not given to the ordinary individual. Now that the Government are taking further powers, I think they should give the right to collect fees and the amount of judgments from them by writ. I feel that the Bill fails because we are not going to get the best practitioners to go in for this position. The best practitioners are not going to give up their practice in order to go into Government service. If these men are going to carry on their work as the Minister suggested, and they are going to sit in places like Cape Town, with a typist, and give out their work to other attorneys, we shall find before long that they are going to stagnate, they are going to find nothing but routine work to do, and we shall see the same position as we saw in the case of the attorney who was here some years ago. The Minister has stated that this is to be a small department, and he will see that it remains a small department. That may be his intention, but I do not think he is always going to be there, and it seems to me that if the work of the attorney here is going to be carried on efficiently he will have to have a large staff, certainly much larger than the Minister suggests. Another point is that the expenses are going to mount up enormously. The Minister said that he anticipates that they are going to make an income of £20,000 or £30,000 per year. Let me tell him that if he is going to make that income he will have to have a staff of at least a dozen qualified men besides an army of typists. Not only are the expenses going to be enormous, but the department is going to be a burden after a while, and the Minister will find that the work is going to be less and less well done. This department is also going to make a substantial increase to the pension list. These men will enter the service at an age when they will not be able to carry on for more than, at the most, fifteen years, more especially if the Government carry out their present policy of retiring men at fifty-five. To my mind the worst point of the Bill is that it requires that the ordinary practitioner shall give the Government an allowance on work sent to him. That is doing away with the principle for which the law societies have fought for years and years. We debar attorneys from giving an allowance even to law agents. Here it is proposed to give an allowance to the State. The principle is bad. If for no other reason, I think we should oppose this Bill for the reason that it proposes to arrange that allowances should be given by qualified practitioners to men who are absolutely unqualified. I think that, before we can be asked to go much further, the Minister might fairly be requested to give an explanation on the points I have raised.

In supporting this measure I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) on the way in which he has put his case. I think there is no real substance in it, but the case has undoubtedly been well put. I understood the hon. member to emphasize, amongst the other points which he put forward, in the first place this one, that the Government attorney would be an unqualified person and that the Government employing such Government attorney would be accepting allowances from legal firms to whom work would be distributed. The hon. member has entirely lost sight of one fact. There are at present qualified members of the legal profession, viz., barristers, receiving fees through the present Government attorneys who have not even the status which the Government attorney about to be appointed on this Bill will have. I understood the hon. member to say that they can receive fees from anyone. They most decidedly cannot. They can only receive fees from attorneys duly qualified and recognized by the Law Society, and yet I know of no South African barrister who has refused to accept fees when appointed by the Government attorney. It is quite obvious there is nothing in this objection. The hon. member went on to say that attorneys appointed under the Bill would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is impossible for me to follow that argument, because at present practising barristers are in the employ of the Crown and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is quite obvious that the Government attorneys would have to be under that jurisdiction. Then the hon. member raised a point which seemed a strange one. He suggested that if the Government is allowed to issue a writ against litigants then those litigants can issue a writ against the Government. We know that no payment of capital or costs by the Government can possibly be refused. Then the hon. member stated that the Government attorney would get rusty. When the hon. member had said he had been in the unfortunate position of not receiving sufficient Government work he showed that perhaps if he had received the work which was undoubtedly due to him he would have been in a position to say what the Government attorneys have to do. As it is he is not. The present Government attorneys have such a variety of work that they have more experience than most practitioners outside the Government service. I am afraid the hon. member is speaking less as a member of the legal profession than as a staunch supporter of the South African party. I am afraid the hon. member is influenced to a large extent by the general feeling of peevishness we find among the South African party today This kind of opposition should cease simply for the reason that we have a large amount of work to get through.

I think it was with great pleasure we listened to the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down: I mean to those remarks of his which refer to the good taste and ability shown by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in his speech against the Bill. The only regret is that having recognized good taste when he saw it, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) was unable to follow the example set and make the speech which he has made. He talks of the criticism of the Bill as due to “peevishness” and of the critics as having no case. Well, already the Bill has been improved as a result of the criticism passed in the little time spent on it in this House; and we are promised other improvements by the Minister. The case against the Bill was fairly and moderately put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl). There is no doubt about it that the interests of the public are very largely concerned with the interests of the legal profession, with the maintenance of the dignity and the standard and lines of professional conduct which our courts have been at such pains to uphold. The present Acting Chief Justice has pointed out that attorneys play an important part in the administration of justice. I am referring to the case of Macintyre and de Villiers. That is the position stated by the highest authority in the land—the Appellate Division. What are the lines on which the courts have repeatedly had to come to the assistance of the law societies to see that the profession is kept on a proper footing? The courts have repeatedly had to see how tar professional standing is undermined by things which to the lay mind may seem unimportant. One of these is the question of an attorney being in the employ of a lay employer and another is the sharing of fees with laypeople. Our courts have repeatedly had to give the gravest pronouncements on these subjects because the courts know that the gravest consequences follow those practices if they are permitted. The question of the independence of the attorney was stressed by the learned authority in the case to which I have already referred. The learned Chief Justice pointed out that the inducement not to run counter to the views of the private employer in any circumstances where the attorney was so employed would be a very strong one, and that there would be a real danger that the independence of the attorney would be impaired. When we criticize the Bill we criticize it amongst other things on those grounds. The two dangers to which I have referred characterize this Bill. Then in Natal you are going to have all sorts of complications and difficulties where you have the two professions amalgamated. The sharing of fees and the putting of attorneys under the control of a lay person are very real dangers. The next point I wish to touch upon is that of cost. That was the ground which the hon. Minister mentioned in support of the Bill. I think the Minister is going to be an incurable optimist if he thinks he can run this proposed new department on the lines of an attorney and a lady typist at each branch. We do not want another Government department created unless there is a most vital need for it. We have a very large public service in this country. Compared with other countries it stands out very markedly in this respect. The Minister talks of three offices with an attorney and typist alone at each? Will the minister consent to an amendment to the Act which will embody this and provide only for a Government attorney at Pretoria with a branch at Bloemfontein and one at Cape Town and a typist at each place? The Minister node his refusal: of course he will not consent: and the minister will find in the course of time that this is going to be a big department. I doubt very much, when reasonable statistics are taken, whether there is any prospect of a saving of from £20,000 to £50,000 a year. The work is at present being done very well indeed. What reason is there for the change? An objectionable feature is that the department is inevitably going to be a largely-growing one. The method of appointments is going to be a serious matter. We have built up in our legislation the principal that the appointment of people to the public service shall be as far as possible free from any form of patronage. This Act, if it goes through, will mean that whoever in power as Minister of Justice will have great powers of patronage, and it is going to be an unpleasant thing for any Government to be suspected of patronage every time an appointment is made to this department. If the public service commission is excluded the department will, I fear, become a back door to the public service. Clause 1-2 says every person appointed under the section shall be a member of the public service. Does it mean that he shall be a member of the public service and that his position shall be governed by the existing provisions of the public service? I hope the Minister will make that point quite clear. Has the Minister taken pension liabilities into account when discussing the relative costs of the existing system? That pension liability in future is going to be a very serious one. Another point I wish to get at is this: Not only can the Minister appoint the Government attorney, but every assistant in the office can be appointed by the Minister of Justice. The Bill apparently excludes the Public Service Commission from the question of appointments in this department: but there is one clause which may be interpreted in the contrary sense. I ask the Minister if it is his intention to exclude the Public Service Commission. I see from his nod that he does. An important point again is whether the men who are appointed as professional assistants will have the right of private practice or not. Will the Minister allow provision to be put in the Bill excluding them from such right?

Yes.

The Minister promises acceptance of an amendment to that effect. That is another amendment that the discussion of the Bill has brought about, which will be somewhat distasteful to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to hear. But, if so, what kind of a man are you going to get to fill this appointment of Government attorney? There will be a comparatively small salary; and as he will have no private practice there will be a very limited choice. I would like the Minister to refer the matter to a Select Committee for the purpose of hearing professional views on the subject as well as expert evidence regarding the cost of the establishment; also as to the powers of appointment and the dangers of patronage. I give notice to the Minister that I will move that after the second reading the Bill be referred to the Select Committee. If it is not referred to a Select Committee I am prepared to vote against the Bill as it stands.

I have studied the Bill carefully; it is substantially as promised by the Minister though a few verbal emendations may be effected, but these are only minor points and in dealing with a second reading one wants to give most attention to the principles of the Bill. A few points have been mentioned to which I would like to draw attention. First of all that the Supreme Court will not have control over these attorneys; secondly, the question of private practice; thirdly, the question of the Government getting the benefit of the fees. I cannot understand how it can be suggested that these Government attorneys would be any less under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of whom they are officers under this Bill than they were before. That objection, it seems to me, falls to the ground. There is nothing to indicate in this Bill that these men are not under the discipline of the Court. The matter of private practice the Minister has undertaken to clear up. In regard to the question of fees, it does seem to me that the argument is very much strained there. Of course, we know that an attorney cannot share fees with a person who is not qualified, but to compare the State employing a person who does its business—a professional man—with a number of private individuals who employ an attorney for profit seems to me straining the argument to such an extent that it cannot possibly stand examination. The practice has existed from time immemorial in other parts of the world of the State employing professional men on full salary and of their fees being paid into the Revenue. This is not a new practice which is now being introduced; it is only proposed to legalise the practice. The Government have been seriously penalised in the employment of their attorneys and the man who has had the benefit has been the unsuccessful litigant. Under this Bill if the Government wins a case against a litigant with a Government attorney, the Government will be entitled to be treated, in the same way as if a private individual wins the case. When the money is paid into the Revenue it goes to the relief of taxation and all the community benefits. It does not go to the benefit of the private individual, as in the cases which have been quoted. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) said he did not know of any part of the world where the practice existed. I could give a number of cases where the money is collected and paid into the Revenue. It is a recognised practice for one attorney when he sends work to another attorney in another part, although the other attorney does the bulk of the work, to get a share of the fees. That is called an allowance. If a private attorney in Pretoria sends some work to an attorney in Klerksdorp he will get an allowance and the man in Klerksdorp will have to give up a portion of his fees to the attorney in Pretoria. But if the attorney at Pretoria is the Government attorney he would not get such an allowance and the result is that, if you do not make some provision in the Bill, the Government attorney at Pretoria who sends work to an attorney at Klerksdorp gets no allowance, and the Klerksdorp man gets the full fees. Why should this differentiation be made? The principle of this Bill seems to me to be a perfectly fair one. It follows a practice which has existed in other countries for a very long time. The Government of South-West Africa, some time ago, made provision by which its legal work was to be placed in the hands of the Government attorney, and the arrangement worked so well that, I believe, the Auditor-General of the Union recommended that this practice should be adopted here. The reason why you have to make this provision in the Bill in regard to fees and allowances is because under the existing bye-laws of the law societies, it could not otherwise be done. With regard to writs in execution, I would put the Government on exactly the same basis as a private individual if a judgment is obtained against them. Though there is this difference between judgments obtained against private individuals and judgments obtained against the Government, that the judgment obtained against private individuals may produce no return, while I do not know of any case against the Government where the judgment, although there may have been delays, has not eventually been satisfied. A point was made by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) in regard to the control over these appointments. It is said that the Public Service Commission is deprived of its right in regard to the appointment of these men. I am one of those who want to see appointments kept as far as possible in the control of the Public Service Commission, but the hon. member apparently overlooked the fact that under the Act of 1923, certain appointments are taken away from the Commission. I refer to appointments in the services, the Defence Force, for instance. I do think there is something to be said for the fact that so long as you have a legal professional man as Minister of Justice he is in the best position to know who should be appointed to these offices.

You might as well scrap the whole Public Service Commission.

No, no. My hon. friend must read the Public Service Act a little more before he makes a statement like that. To say that because these three appointments are not to be subject to the Public Services Commission you must scrap the whole Commission is an absurd argument. The Public Services Commission will still have control of the administrative, clerical, professional and general divisions of the service. It seems to me that this Bill is simply going to regularize and legalize an existing practice. The Government attorney is here and has been for years. This is going to put the appointment on a proper basis. It is not going to introduce anything new. For these reasons I am going to support the Bill.

I believe the hon. Minister of Justice will approach this question without descending to the level reached by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) in his criticism of members on this side of the House. The hon. Minister of Justice is, especially in this House, the guardian, and custodian, of the liberties of the profession to the higher branch of which he belongs. The principle which underlies the opposition to this Bill is one of great importance to all the members of that profession, and it has been so clearly demonstrated this afternoon that I need not refer to it in detail. I think the hon. Minister will recognize that it is in principle wrong that an attorney, a member of our profession, should be employed at a salary by a lay employer. To say, as I understood him to argue, that the appointment of a Government attorney rests upon the Crown prerogative, is entirely wrong. Whatever prerogative the Crown originally had in this matter has long since lapsed. It is quite clear that if we appoint this salaried official we set up a precedent which is repugnant to the principle I have mentioned. I would ask the Minister to note the implications which result from the breaking down of this principle. We shall find that each of the provincial administrations will assert their right to have a Government attorney; we shall find municipalities claiming that they should also employ their own salaried attorney, and other bodies down to large private corporations will be doing the same. Then, passing to the reasons of economy referred to by the hon. Minister, when I hear the Minister speak of the possibility of earning £20,000 in fees I feel certain that he has been very badly informed as to the costs of running a legal practice. And is a mere saving, if it occur, the sole test to apply in a matter of this kind? Does the Minister think that if he pays an attorney in Johannesburg £500 and so saves the difference between that sum and the £2,400 which is paid as a retaining fee that he will get efficiency? If so he will be disappointed. So far from securing any reduction in his expenditure he will find he will have to employ to supplement the efforts of his appointees specialists who will not be prepared to work for the remuneration to which he has referred. But if a Government attorney is to be appointed at all, I think his work should be confined to that of supervising. I think it will be necessary too to make it perfectly clear that the Government attorney in addition to being a fulltime officer should also be confined by statute to professional work. If we are to give any person the prestige which will attach to a Government attorney, he should be debarred (particularly as the appointments are to be confined to larger towns, principally provincial capitals) from discharging such functions as those of a broker or auctioneer, and so on. I counsel members of this House to delay proceeding with this Bill until the principle involved in the Public Trustee Bill has been discussed, a principle identical with that now at stake, and which there, as here, is being in-pinged upon by the hon. Minister. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

stated that as this amendment did not conform with the rules governing amendments to the second reading of Bills he was unable to put it to the House.

I move—

seconded.

I do not quite follow the procedure. What is the object of moving the adjournment?

I understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) wishes this debate to be deferred until after the matter of the Public Trustee has been considered.

The amendment was negatived.

I was sorry to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Zoutspansberg (Mr. Pirow). Everything has been discussed temperately and with every endeavour to assist. The proof of that is that the hon. Minister has agreed to three alterations already. When the Minister made his all too brief statement last night I gathered that a somewhat similar Bill had been drafted by his predecessor in office. I have not seen the Bill. We have a Government attorney and it seems anomalous that he should not be entitled to recover fees. To that extent I agree with his Bill, but this Act goes much further. It gives the Minister the right to dot the country with Government attorneys. The Minister says he is not going to do so and I accept his word for it. But we are legislating for all time. Some Minister may consider it his duty or a matter of party policy to appoint an incoming number of Government attorneys. I have been personally lobbed by young attorneys, They may have mis-read the Bill, but certainly there is an idea abroad that this Bill is going to result in a large number of appointments. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. The Minister says he is going to appoint three, but there is nothing to prevent him next year telling us that he has found it necessary to appoint additional attorneys for other towns. I feel sure the Minister will be lobbed and a great deal of pressure brought to bear on him in reference to these appointments. We have had a great deal of economy in the service of late, but this Bill creates a brand new department in the service which may end in our being saddled with many Government attorneys all over the country. It is left purely within the discretion of the Minister, the Bill does not say the Governor in Council, to make these appointments. We have no inkling as to the salary, and it is possible for the Minister to appoint a young attorney and say: “I cannot give you a salary, but take 25 per cent, of the takings.” I understand the Minister has agreed that these government attorneys will have no private work.

It makes them Civil Servants.

Yes, but it does not deal with private practice. Every person appointed may be required by the Minister to do anything. I think the Minister will agree that it may be possible to have an attorney subjected to the jurisdiction of the law society while the Government attorney may not. We have two types of attorneys in this country; one being subject to the stringent rules of the law society, while on the other hand you may have the bureaucratic attorney who is subject to nothing but the whim of the Minister. The appointment of Minister of Justice need not necessarily be filled by a lawyer; and on some future date the office may be filled by someone who has not been trained in the legal profession, and he may innocently order a man to do unprofessional work. Section 33 gives the Minister power at discretion to order the Government attorney to do any sort of work; he may order him to do auctioneering or even to act in a deceased estate. As long as the Government attorney is restricted to the work done by attorneys in the past I see no objection. The Minister may appoint such other persons as may from time to time be necessary for the purpose of functions under this Act. That seems to be vaguely worded. He may be directed to attend a magistrate’s court; to do conveyancing, and so on. I think that law should be tightened up. What is to prevent the Minister saying; “I cannot be bothered with the Government attorney, I am going to send along some clerk in the office?” I am not opposed to the principles of this Bill, but I must confess it goes against the grain to find the Government running a department as a money-making concern. The Minister of Justice is bound to agree that if this principle were applied to the Bar instead of to the side Bar there would be serious trouble. It seems to me that as the object of the Minister was merely to remedy this existing anomaly, which prevents the Government attorney from collecting his fees. I think this Bill might well confine itself to remedy that anomaly. If the Minister were to insert a clause conferring upon the Government attorney the right to tax his bills, the whole object he is aiming at would be achieved, so that I see no necessity for the enlarged scope of this Bill. The opening is there, and therefore I think the Minister should confine his Bill to remedying that anomaly. All the Minister wants—he said so in the second reading last year—is to enable the Government attorney to tax his bill, so I don’t know why he should attach to the measure all this superfluous matter.

The hon. member who just sat down has raised a lot of tiny objections, but there is only one that seems to worry him and that is an unscrupulous Minister of Justice is going to appoint a lot of Government attorneys in the country. But what is the position to-day? The Government attorney, if he likes, can retain an attorney in every little town and village of the Union. Is it that the hon. member does not trust his own party? The Minister has given us the assurance.

Do not descend to the level of Zoutspansberg.

It is easy to say that the present Minister will not do it, but it is thrown out that an unscrupulous Minister may do it. We have had a very good department established by the Act of Union on exactly the same basis as is proposed to be attempted by the Minister of Justice to-day. We pay a salary, and the men are appointed by the Minister of Justice. There is no objection to a Government attorney being appointed, and receiving his fees. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, it is a system which prevails throughout the British Empire, and it also works well in Great Britain. Actually the late Government did want a system similar to this and in principle agreed to it, but now that it is brought forward by the Minister of Justice, we must have the idea thrown out that it is to make room for a large number of friends of some future Minister of Justice.

No danger at all?

Not a scrap! Not from that side because you will never get in again, and certainly not from this side.

I only want to refer to it in passing, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) gave a very unfortunate illustration when he said that Mr. Pienaar’s appointment showed that my remarks yesterday afternoon were wrong. Mr. Pienaar was appointed before Union, and it is a very unfortunate illustration to give as showing that the present Government appointed a man who supported the Pact. As to the first point, that attorneys should be allowed to practise in those provinces to which they are admitted, I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) is right in saying that this is not specifically provided for in this Bill as notaries and conveyancers are provided for under section 5, but that I think can be remedied by inserting the word “attorney” in section 5. Practically the whole of this debate has proceeded on a misconception which underlies the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and other members—that there is no Government attorney functioning in South Africa. He raised the point that it is wrong that an attorney should be employed by a lay employer; I presume for legal work. The Government attorney has been functioning for more than ten years, and doing full legal work for the Government, but he has not been allowed to take fees. He has signed process and done the professional work. The whole argument falls away therefore that it is wrong to employ an attorney to do legal work for a salary. Surely it follows that the mere recovery of fees cannot make that employment wrong? It must be equally wrong to employ him and employ him for a salary. The objection should have been taken when the late Government appointed a Government attorney in South Africa, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz) was quite right in saying that he could have no objection to a Government attorney charging fees. The moment that is admitted the objections fall away entirely. In principle, there is no reason why three Government attorneys should not recover fees if one is allowed to do so; I say in principle, although there are practical differences. If he can charge fees in the ordinary way and pay these into the coffers of the Treasury, why cannot he get an allowance in the same way that an ordinary attorney does? The whole contention of hon. members on the other side falls, and the whole fort has been surrendered by the admission of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz), a right admission, because there was no substance in the objections made. The crucial point in the matter is the question of fees. We have our law advisers, who are advocates, also the attorneys-general, and the professional assistants to the attorneys-general. They are all officials who obtain salaries, and in respect of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, in accordance with old practice, he is allowed to have certain private practice in respect of civil work for the provincial administration for fees. My view is that it is better that where you have an official of that nature he should confine himself to the functions of his office. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government attorney is not entitled to carry on private practice, and that is provided for by making him a civil servant.

He said the terms of remuneration might include private practice.

It would strain the construction to be placed on these words, and the idea has never been to have him carry on private work. The point raised that he would not be under the jurisdiction of the Law Society and the courts is one I cannot follow, because the moment the position is taken up that the incumbent must be an attorney he remains subject to the court which has admitted him and of which he is an officer. As has been pointed out by an hon. member, if a member of the Bar becomes an official he remains subject to the jurisdiction of the court; this is so even if no special language is used in the Act, provided the incumbents are attorneys and advocates. I could quite understand the point if the incumbent of that position were not a professional man. As to the point raised if the Government attorney is struck off the roll, he could no longer perform his functions. In case of misconduct he would in addition be subject to the proceedings for misconduct under the Public Service Act.

Has the Minister power to dismiss any of these Government attorneys?

No. The moment they are appointed they become members of the public service and fall under the public service laws, and they can only be dismissed under the laws dealing with dismissal in the public service. That brings me to the point that Government attorneys are not appointed in the ordinary way; under paragraph two; and I gave reasons for this. There are various cases in which the Public Service Commission does not function—Railways, Defence, Police Prisons, the Land Bank, the Enemy Custodian Office, and so forth. In some of these cases the person appointed need not be a member of the public service.

Are any of them?

They are members of the public service. There is the Custodian of Enemy Property.

He is seconded from the public service.

Then the Land Bank is in the same position.

They are not permanent officials.

Many are. They receive pensions on retirement.

Yes, but they are not paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I would be prepared to pass through this provision through the House even if there were no precedent for it, for this reason, that I am always very much afraid of a department being swollen beyond proper dimensions, and my own opinion is that the Public Service Commission does not always serve as a useful factor in that direction, or at any rate it does not serve as a sufficiently useful factor in that direction. I do not believe that any member of the Commission is in the same position to judge as a member of the legal profession in regard to work of this kind. The only reason why I have inserted that provision in the Act is, for the purpose of controlling that office and carrying it on with the smallest possible dimensions. I do not wish that office to swell, and you will see by the estimates that for this year we are going to carry on with this skeleton staff. I am asked what will happen when you have work coming in of such a nature that you cannot cope with it with the staff that you have. As far as the head office is concerned you can always fall back upon some part of the department of justice which is not fully occupied. In times of stress and emergency when you have a considerable amount of work to do that work can be distributed in such a way that you can get the best results from the larger staffs, which are not always fully occupied. If you are going to make these ordinary Civil Service appointments you are going to have the result which has always flowed from that practice in the past. Now that we have taken on the railway work, we shall have to have a branch office here in Cape Town. It is also possible that you will in time be forced to have a branch in Natal and a branch in the Free State. No more, as I certainly would object to have the country studded with Government attorneys. I am sure that if things are run upon the basis that I have laid down or upon a slightly larger basis at the end of the financial year you will find that my expectations have been realised. At all events, whether they are realised or not, the position is that here we have a Government attorney functioning, who has been functioning for a long time. I would not anticipate that success if you are going to allow your Public Service Commission to recommend clerks to these posts in the same way as they are recommended in the service to-day. I am not referring to quality; I am referring to quantity.

Section 9 (b) gives the Minister the right to decide what is the number of persons who shall be appointed. You have just said that that should be left in the hands of the Public Service Commission.

No, I said that it should not be left in the hands of the Public Service Commission, because then they are going to appoint on the same basis as they appoint throughout the whole service, and we know that that is an extravagant basis as far as the Government service is concerned.

Hadn’t you better abolish them altogether?

If you ask me for my personal opinion, I would say “yes.” But of course, that is another question. I am convinced that no Minister of Justice is going to appoint anything like the staff that would be appointed by a body which is accustomed to the “Government Civil Service stroke.” This is a matter of detail and it could be hammered out in the House. On the question of principle, I do not think there is any difference between the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and myself. We differ on questions of detail. But the principle of having a Government attorney is conceded and the principle of recovering his costs by way of fees and paying them into the office is also conceded by him. The hon. members from whom I differ are the hon. members for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). The principle of appointment has already been accepted in the service. I am not introducing that principle. I am carrying it on and engrafting upon it the principle of allowing the State to recover money in connection with that office. That is the only thing that I am engrafting upon it. I may say that I do not propose to send this Bill to Select Committee, for this reason that I think there are sufficient members in this House who are qualified to judge not only as to the principle of the Bill but also as to the details of the Bill. I do not think a Select Committee would assist us in any way whatever. In addition, we are going to send so many Bills to Select Committee that I am certain the House is going to be very fully occupied in that respect. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

The motion was put and the House divided:

Ayes—68.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—45.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Shall I be in order now in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee?

The hon. member will be in order to move that.

One reason for my motion is connected with the hon. Minister’s principal argument that there would be a saving of expense. I believe nobody but a Select Committee can properly go into the question of the saving of expense after having heard the evidence on the matter. There may be very different opinions indeed on this subject, and a Select Committee will be best able to get the facts. Another reason for my motion is that there may be evidence as to the desirability of the principle introduced into this Bill of the appointment of members of a public department without the co-operation of the Public Services Commission. The Minister of Justice made a very grave, serious and dangerous statement to the effect that the Public Services Commission ought to be ignored in this case because they would not be able to organize a department of this kind as economically as would a businessman: and that the commission might as well be dispensed with altogether. That is striking at the roots of an important principle of the Act of Union. To make the statement the Minister did is to make a most serious charge against the Public Service Commission of this country. I ask the Minister to allow us to have an opportunity of going quietly into these questions in Select Committee. The Prime Minister was not in the House when that argument about the Public Services Commission was advanced, nor when the question by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz) was put. The hon. Minister for Justice gave us the impression that for all practical purposes the Public Services Commission might be abolished. I maintain that that is striking at the very root of the Act of Union. If we are to do this let us realize what we are doing.

I think the proper method will be for the Minister to move the Committee stage and then the hon. member can bring forward his amendment afterwards.

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I must say I am very surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I simply gave my personal opinion that where you have people who have been for years and years in the public service they would not form a department of this kind in the same way as would men who have been in business.

You were attacking the Public Services Commission.

I did not attack anybody. I said your Public Services Commission deals with matters of this kind in a different way from the ordinary business man, and I said the ordinary business man would deal with this matter best. The hon. member then asked if there was any reason for the Public Services Commission existing. I said as far as I was concerned I would like to see it abolished.

The Public Services Commission?

Yes. I simply gave my own personal view, and I repeat it. I will say more. I will say this, that in my personal opinion the large majority of the people of this country do believe that the Civil Service has been too highly staffed by the Public Services Commission, and would like to see that changed. Two members of that commission are public servants seconded to that body, and the third is a public servant who has retired on the ground of superannuation.

I would like to point out that it is not the Public Services Commission which forces officials into the public services. On the contrary it is exactly the opposite. The Commission is a check. I do not see how the Minister will be able to control the number of officials in that department better than if he allowed the Public Services Commission to act. The head of that department will have to give notice to the Public Services Commission that more staff is wanted. The Public Services Commission only comes into the matter when the Minister has requisitioned for more staff. It is only when appointments have been recommended that the Commission steps in and decides who shall be appointed. How can they force officials on to the department? This is absurd. It is not done. I thought that was the weakest part of the Minister’s argument. If the Minister cannot keep control through the Public Services Commission he cannot keep control at all. I think he is most unjust. If the public service is overstaffed it is not the fault of the Commission. It is the fault of Ministers and heads of departments. The plan of the Minister will not work. He can just be as economical in the staff of that department under the Commission as in the way he proposes.

I desire to support this amendment to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. My one reason is that the Minister of Justice has set forth a doctrine which practically nullifies the importance of our Public Services Commission. Our Public Service Commission was created by the Act of Union. It was created as a safeguard to the service and to the public of this country. It was created with the object of removing any political influence which might be exercised in appointments or promotions. If there was one healthy provision in our Act of Union it was that there should be a Public Service Commission. I say that that was the greatest safeguard, but especially that the public service of this country might look to as their safeguard in the management of this department of the service. The Minister wishes to lay down for the first time that he shall have the right to appoint public servants without consulting the public service. I ask this hon. House is that a fair proposition? It is a serious matter. I ask hon. members, irrespective of party: Are you prepared to give the Minister that power in any Government? If so, then I look in despair to the future of our country, and I ask hon. members to consider it seriously before agreeing to this new principle, and for that reason, I think the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is amply justified in asking that this matter be fully enquired into before we take this step without consulting the heads of departments and hearing expressions of opinions from them on this subject. I hope hon. members of this House will safeguard the public service and safeguard the interests of our country and accept the amendment drawn up by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

I hope the House will refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Here we have the Minister of Justice telling us that in this Bill he is taking all these very wide powers because he disapproves of the Public Service Commission. He says it is only his own private opinion. I know of instances where the Minister of Justice turned up at congresses at Bethlehem and other places and apparently appeared in the dual role of Doctor Hyde and Mr. Jekyll. At one time he appears as Mr. Roos; at another time as Minister of Justice and at another time as leader of the Transvaal party. These political acrobatics may be all right at the party congresses, but I think it is due to the dignity of this House that when he makes a statement such as this he should not try to escape from his responsibility as a Minister by saying that it is only his private opinion. As the Minister has to deal with the Act his private opinion may prevail. I hope this amendment will be passed. We have experienced the vagaries of Ministers to such an extent recently that I think we ought to know where we stand regarding this important matter of the Public Service Commission.

I want to ask the hon. Minister why is he taking the appointment of State attorneys from the purview of the Public Service Commission. This raises so serious a question that we are justified in taking up the matter at once. The Minister of Justice has told us, in a moment of caution, that we must not take his private opinion as the opinion of the Government, but I think we are entitled to ask the Government for their views on this most important question. The slogan of the Pact was laid down by a very important member of the Pact as “Jobs for pals.” If there is one thing in South Africa that stands between the doctrine of “Jobs for pals” and its fulfilment it is the Public Service Commission, whose functions are to act as a non-political body and to prevent the Government of the day from granting jobs to their friends. The whole of the civil service wants to know where they stand in regard to this doctrine of jobs for pals. The hon. Minister of Justice says that the three appointments he has already made are not of pals. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Barlow) is a whole hogger, and he wants the appointments to go to pals. We now know that when the Government has an important member of its party coming forward and laying down this doctrine that in future all the jobs must go to pals, and if we find all the jobs going to pals we are justified in asking where the civil servants stand.

Before the question is put I think the hon. Minister of Justice might be prepared to reconsider his decision, especially as he has the Minister of Labour sitting beside him. If the Minister of Labour were to look upon his attitude in the past he would be the last to support a position of this sort. The hon. Minister of Justice in his action in connection with this Bill, and in his many speeches throughout the country, has done his best indirectly to terrorize the Civil Service Commission into giving support to every appointment made by the Government. It was to prevent that sort of thing that the Public Service Commission was appointed, and if the Minister desired to depart from the voice of the Public Service Commission he would have to justify himself before this hon. House. If the hon. Minister of Justice will consult his department he will find that in all cases of appointments, except heads of departments, the Public Service Commission has to report on these appointments, and these reports are laid on the Table of this House and the public has an opportunity of judging them. The hon. Minister of Justice said that the men appointed would be members of the public service of the country. They are not temporary appointments. If they are to become members of the public service of the country surely there is nothing more important than that a Select Committee should inquire into as to whether it is just and proper that such a material alteration should take place in the service of this country. I doubt if the proposal made meets with the approval of the majority of the Cabinet. I see the hon. Prime Minister has thought fit to leave the House. I am sorry, because this is a question upon which I think we are entitled to have the opinion of the Prime Minister. I wish the hon. Minister of Justice would read Oliver Twist. He seems to me to fill the post of the artful dodger. He is trying to dodge the House and to dodge the Public Service Commission. If there is anything that this House should inquire into it is a proposal of this character. I am not a lawyer, but I think that common sense will show that his proposal to make appointments without submitting them to the Public Service Commission is entirely illegal and that if it were tried before the courts it would be found to be illegal. The Minister holds a responsible position, and I hope he will reconsider his decision. If a position comes into this country whereby Government after Government got rid of officials and put other people into responsible positions in the service without having any check upon them whatever, then I think it would be a most unfortunate step to take.

Who is the organising secretary of the South African party in the Free State to-day? Col. Jordaan, formerly of the sheep division. Our friends of the other side need not talk about the spoils system—my trouble with the present Government is that there is not enough of it.

Have you got anything out of the job?

All the men the Minister has put in are members of the South African party and it is only a feeble attack. You are behind the country; the country has gone far ahead and left you on the other side of the House behind. I hope the Minister will stick to his guns and go on with the work.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I feel that after some of the remarks made by the Minister, on information he must have received from his department, he must have been misled on other as on these points. I have had the assurance from the previous Minister of Justice that he accepts no responsibility of this Bill as introduced by the present Minister of Justice. He denies that it is his draft, and says that he does not recognize this Bill, and even if it were drafted by his department, as it possibly may have been, he did not accept it nor did he lay it before the Cabinet. There the present Minister of Justice acted on wrong information. I have also been assured that the member appointed at Johannesburg is not as the Minister said a member of the South African party, but a member of the Labour party. If the Minister has been misinformed on these two important points he may have been misinformed on other points as well.

You are wrong on the last point.

I have the assurance. Does the Minister deny it? I think, under the circumstances, we ought to press that this Bill goes to a Select Committee where it will be possible fully to enquire into it.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—72.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Key ter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—45.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuizie, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

I move—

I have only ten minutes in which to say something about the proposed amendment of the Housing Act; but bearing in mind that it is a very small Bill, and, as I hope, altogether non-controversial, I hope that in the ten minutes I shall not only be able to make a short introductory speech; but I hope also that the second reading of this Bill will to-day be adopted within those ten minutes. The Bill aims at an amendment of the Housing Act of 1920 by the amendment of the definition of dwelling so as to give it a wider application and a wider use in the Housing Act. This is necessitated because the question has arisen whether hostels, as described in the Bill, are not included as “houses” in the meaning of the Housing Act. This question has been referred to legal advisers and they say no, this cannot be done unless the Housing Act is amended. Now everyone knows that one of the saddest things to see in our country to-day is the streaming of people from the country to the great towns; and that many of our people who come from the country and try to make a living in the towns endeavour to secure an income not only in shops and offices, but also in factories; and many of the persons to whom I refer are young people, young men and young girls. The commencing wages which they receive are in most cases very small—so small that it is impossible for them to obtain proper housing accommodation. They are obliged, out of their wages, to provide other necessities of life; and therefore try to save on accommodation. The danger is therefore great in all centres of industry; and let me just cite the case of young girls who, earning 15s. per week, can barely provide for housing accommodation alone. They go, then, to little rooms in the slums of the great towns amongst surroundings altogether undesirable and demoralizing; and which are often the root occasion of their going wrong. It has become a necessity to care for such persons by means of hostels, which are houses held under good supervision. In some of our industrial centres a good beginning has already been made with the work. There is for example in Port Elizabeth a proper institution where young girls, besides being under good supervision, have a room to themselves and yet at a small expense. They pay for everything not more than 10s. per week; so that there still remains 5s. over for other expenses. But there is the danger that it may come to an end. They have been given notice to quit. The Port Elizabeth Town Council has been good enough to allot them a site on which they can put up a building, but the trouble is to get the money for capital expenditure. The body which under the circumstances is best able to help is the Government by virtue of the Housing Act, but the law as it to-day stands makes it impossible to help such hostels. If we adopt this small amendment the trouble is surmounted. This has become a great necessity and will be able in an important degree to contribute to the solution of our poor white problem; and it is therefore with great pleasure that I move the second reading of the Bill.

I would like the hon. Minister to tell me whether the definitions in this Bill would cover a girls’ club. For example, in Port Elizabeth there is a club run by girls for girls. The intention at present is purely to run it as a recreation club. There is a reading room, and so on, but they are trying to raise funds in order to build living rooms, too. This club serves a useful purpose for these girls; it is run on the lines of a Y.W.C.A., and I would like to know whether this club would be covered by a definition of that sort.

Yes, I think that would be covered: if the administration is satisfied that it is under proper supervision.

I was just afraid that the definition was not quite wide enough. It says “hostel or other institution.” Is the hon. Minister satisfied that that would cover it?

Yes.

I want to ask if it would cover the Louis Botha Hostel.

I think when we come to deal with this matter in Committee, it would make the working of this amendment very much more simple, if the two qualifications at the end of this clause were excluded. In the principal Act there is no necessity for proving that the dwelling house shall be conveniently situated as regards employment or that the people themselves have to prove that suitable accommodation is not procurable within their means. I think it would make the clause very much more workable and useful, and very much clearer, if the hon. Minister were to make the definition wider in that respect. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered when the Committee stage is reached.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. dagger) about the Louis Botha Hostel whether this clause is intended to exempt that kind of institution.

Yes, I should like to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member. I have very great sympathy with the Louis Botha Hostel, and I wish that under this amending Bill we could do something to assist that little institution, but I am very much afraid it cannot be done, simply because the Housing Act, taken as a whole, and this amendment, applies only to new buildings and not to existing institutions.

communicated the following message from the Senate:

The Senate begs to inform the Honourable the House of Assembly that it agrees to the request contained in the message from the Honourable the House of Assembly, dated the 17th February, 1925, and has appointed a committee of three members to join with a committee consisting of an equal number of members appointed by the Honourable the House of Assembly as a joint committee on the substitution of Afrikaans, for the present form of Dutch in Bills, Acts and all Official Documents before Parliament.