laid upon the Table—

Return referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

laid upon the Table —

Statement referred to Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

In lines 26 and 29, respectively, after “public” to insert “or railways and harbours ”.

In lines 44 to 48, to omit the proviso, and to substitute: “Provided, however, that no such person shall be entitled to describe himself as an accountant or auditor save in respect of his position as aforementioned until after the completion of eighteen months’ continuous service in the office of a practising member of the Society”.

In lines 37 to 39, to omit “on completion of eighteen months’ continuous service in the office of a practising member of the Society, and".

On 17th February, 1925, proceedings were ordered to be resumed.]

May I state my position in regard to this clause to which a number of highly important amendments have been moved? This clause, as I have already pointed out, is really the crux of the whole Bill. The clause as it stands was, as the House knows, very carefully drafted by the Select Committee after full consideration of the representations that were made to it. As it stands, the clause lays down as essential a period of eighteen months’ actual service in the office of a practising member of the society; and it is required that the examination shall only be taken during that period. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), a member of that committee, moved an amendment which really embodies two points; one is for the deletion of the words in the lines 44 to 47, the effect of which is that there would be no restriction as to the time when the examination may be taken. I think that is the main point on the one part of his amendment, and so far as that goes I am prepared to accept the deletion of the proviso. I hope the hon. member will be content with this, and will withdraw his further amendment. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) is one that strikes at a fundamental principle in the Bill. If it is carried the Bill will be of no value to those who are trying to carry it through this House. I hope the hon. member will not imperil the Bill by pushing his amendments which I understand were introduced on behalf of the public servants, but so far as they are concerned I understand that they have withdrawn their opposition.

They have not withdrawn.

I ask the House earnestly to weigh the consequences of adopting these amendments, because the result of them would be that the Bill would be dead. Those members who consider this Bill a bad one will be able to give effect to their views either by voting against it on the second reading or by passing these amendments. If they do not want to kill the Bill I ask them to bear in mind that a period of service is essential.

I think hon. members will remember that the amendment which I moved late on the last night we discussed this Bill was introduced in sheer desperation as a via media when it seemed that the Bill was going to be wrecked. I have since considered this matter, and I shall be quite prepared to-day to accede to the request of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I am quite content, subject to the omission of the proviso, to withdraw the remainder of my amendment. As the hon. member for Rondebosch stated, my chief objection before the Select Committee and in the House was that the members of the civil or municipal service who wish to become chartered accountants would have to have at least ten years’ service and then undergo eighteen months under articles, and only after that could they take the examination. In the case of a man retiring from the civil or municipal service at 55 or 60 years of age, he would not be allowed to take the examination until his retirement. All that I ask is that such a man should be allowed to take his examination while in the civil or municipal service, and then, if he wishes, he may on his retirement enter the office of a chartered accountant, and at the end of eighteen months’ service he would be qualified. The term originally proposed in this section was three years, but the Select Committee brought it down to eighteen months, and this point was conceded by the Council. I hope that a further suggestion will be accepted to the effect that the examination will be placed in the hands of the University of South Africa.

It may be placed.

If that is done the difficulty, so far as I am concerned, is removed; because any member of the civil or municipal service may apply to the University to take his examination, and he may use his certificate for the purposes of promotion in his service or of applying for a new post, in the same way as a man may take the law certificate and, although holding this qualification, is not allowed to practise until he has been articled. I think it is quite fair, and I wish to withdraw the latter part of my amendment. In connection with the amendment by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), I have been informed very authoritatively by the representatives of the civil service that their difficulty will be removed by the mere deletion of this proviso. They will be quite satisfied, and also to allow the 18 months’ articles to remain. I have personally seen the document, so I do not know by what authority hon. members were able to say differently. I make an appeal to all members of this House to assist in passing the committee stage of this Bill to-day. This Bill, like Mahomet’s coffin, has been dangling in the air for the last three sessions. The promoters have spent a lot of money on it and a lot of time has been taken up with it in the House already. The Bill is to the advantage of our youth in South Africa.

I am sorry to see my amendment is not on the Order Paper. I understood it was to be printed. When this Bill was revised I understood that we revived it where the matter was left off last August. At that time my amendment was on clause 19, page 16. to delete in line 37 from the word “shall” to the word “society” in line 39. I should like to take exception to the remarks made by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that this clause meets with the approval of the civil service. During the recess I have had opportunities of meeting these representatives of the service and, as a matter of fact, two weeks ago in Cape Town, I met some members and they asked me to press that this clause be deleted. I have a letter here from the Railway Salaried Staff Association in regard to the Bill. They say the strong argument is that men trained in the financial offices of the Railway and Treasury very often acquire a better knowledge of finance and accounting than a clerk in a commercial office, and as we are not seeking to veto the examination tests, I think our request is a reasonable one, that is, the request in regard to 18 months in the office of a practising accountant. I understand this is intended to do away with competition from public servants and municipal servants, but the underlying idea in the service is that by qualifying for this accountants’ degree they will be able to fit themselves for higher positions in the service and therefore I do not think the Society of Accountants need fear any competition from these men. With the amendment to clause 9. whereby some of the public servants of the Cape are automatically made members of the society, they are put in a much more privileged position than the men from the Transvaal and Natal, and therefore they are pressing that this amendment that I have moved should be carried. It has been pointed out to me that it is the English practice also to allow the municipal servants to take their examination, and I have a copy of the results of the examination last year in which no less than 12 or 13 members of the municipal service passed their examination and were admitted members of the accountants’ society. I am very pleased that the hon. member in charge of the Bill has agreed to withdraw the proviso. That helps somewhat. As I pointed out previously, this question of 18 months’ service is almost impossible. It will not be possible to secure a position. After all, the society who are opposing the entrance of those civil servants are anxious to see that they are not members on account of competition, and they may take means whereby these men will not be allowed to enter the service of a practising accountant. Therefore I hope the hon. member in charge of the Bill will agree to my amendment in the interests of the service generally.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) asks leave to withdraw the substituted proviso.

I object. I feel that with regard to the Bill brought forward at this stage of the committee after many months have passed, I am quite certain many of the members of the House do not understand these amendments. I have gone round the members to see if they understand what the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) means—what he is now asking the authority of the House to withdraw—and also the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti). I think it is unfortunate that these amendments are not printed on the Order Paper before the House to-day. I want to tell this House, as a member of the Select Committee that went into this Accountants’ Bill, that clause 19 is the crux of the whole Bill, and that it is unfortunate that with a renewal of our labours on this Bill we should commence on this very clause. There is always a danger that when a clause like this comes before the House, it is passed before we realize what we have done. The vital clause, the heart and pulse of the whole Bill, would be passed before the House realizes what they have done. As a member of that Select Committee I do not wish to wreck this Bill. I am anxious to see a Bill such as this go through the House. I think it will be in the interests of the people, of the commercial people, and the accountants themselves that such a Bill should go through, but at the same time I want to see it go through in such a way that it will be equitable, justifiable, something that will apply, so far as the profession are concerned, to the raising of the status of their profession; towards the improvement and education and training of the people who will come into that profession. That is on the one hand, but on the other, I wish to see the public protected so that they will be sure when they go to an accountant with the title this House will give these men, that they will go to a man well trained, who can be depended on, and that they will know exactly with whom they are dealing. On the other hand, there are still a number of men who have vested interests, vested rights, in connection with their present appointments, and this Bill, while I do not say it will take their living away or take away the right to do that work, will reduce their status in so far as the particular work they are now doing is concerned. I feel that this clause should be very carefully considered, and I would urge upon the House that we ought to have these amendments printed on the Order Paper, so that due consideration may be given to them. I would, therefore, move that progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again, in order that we may have the amendments printed on the Order Paper before the Bill again comes before this committee.

I would point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) that amendments can only be put on the paper at the request of hon. members. If any hon. member requests that certain amendments should be again placed on the paper that will be done.

I move—

The hon. member cannot attach any condition to his motion to report progress; he may make, a request.

My reason for moving is that we may have these amendments on the Order Paper. Having explained that, I move—

We had this private Bill before the House last session. It was before a Select Committee for a long time, and the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) was a member of that Select Committee. If progress is reported, the Bill can only be dealt with again with the utmost difficulty and very probably it will not come before us again this session. That means that another session will be lost. In my opinion, it is very necessary that the society contemplated in this Bill should be founded, not in the interests of the accountants, but in the interests of the general public of South Africa, and I think it would be a very great pity indeed if the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Christie) is carried.

I don’t want to say much; I am not an accountant and thus I cannot from expert opinions, but I have received a telegram and I want to read it so that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) can see whether provision has been made in the Bill to accept the persons who object without a probation of 18 months.

I only wish to point out that there is another motion on the paper, namely, that progress be reported; this must first be disposed of.

I did not know if I would be out of order in proposing that the Chairman should leave the Chair, but I want to do it because protests are coming not only from the Transvaal but also from Natal; they are also against the Bill. I have here a letter from a certain association in Johannesburg and they protest against the Bill because many people who now practice will be shut out under the Bill.

There is nothing of that sort in the Bill.

I received a deputation last year and they were also against it. I therefore propose that the Chairman leave the Chair.

I would suggest, with a view to the importance of the matter, that the consideration of this section stand over.

In supporting the motion to report progress, I am strongly of opinion that further opportunity should be afforded to the House in order that the position may be thoroughly understood. If this Bill is wrecked and is “dead,” it hurts nobody. Everybody carries on business, just as he carries on today. Why there is all this fear of the Bill being wrecked is because it has cost £3,000 up to the present in promotion expenses. These people are trying to entrench themselves in a thoroughly good position. I don’t blame them. I am for Trades Unionism through and through. Advocates, attorneys, architects and others have their associations for self-protection, and therefore let us have the principle in all professions, and every man should belong to his union, whatever its nature, but I see no reason to argue for the exclusion of those who are carrying on their livelihood to-day as accountants and auditors.

The hon. member is not allowed to enter into the merits of the Bill.

I was giving my reason why we should report progress. When we last had this Bill before us it was postponed on the expectation that differences should be reconciled. Vital differences have not been reconciled, and the proper course now to take is the one moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie). Progress should be reported and leave be asked to sit again, so that we may see if these differences can be adjusted to the satisfaction of those whose interests are threatened by this Bill.

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie). A member of the Select Committee who signed and gave his approval to the Bill as it came before the House, who attended during the whole of last session and the session before when the matter was being discussed in the House, he now comes up with the fullest knowledge that this Bill, has been set down and tells the House that he does not know what the amendments are. I think the hon. member must be having a little joke. I wish to take the very gravest exception to the totally inaccurate statement made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that when leave was obtained last session for the postponement of the Bill to this session there was a promise that all differences should be reconciled. There was no such promise expressed or implied, suggested or given in the slightest or remotest degree. There was an attempt made to extract such a promise, but no such promise was given or implied. What was done was that after the recess the various bodies concerned met in conference at Bloemfontein and went into the whole matter, and, after considering the whole position, it was resolved that they should give their support to the continuance of the Bill, but that certain particular points should be adhered to, as far as it was humanly possible. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) says it would hurt nobody if the Bill stood over. I don’t know for whom he speaks, but I know that those who support this Bill are speaking not only for the Society of Accountants, but for a large number of people such as the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) represents, and the general public of this country, who realize that this Bill is going to provide a particular avenue of employment for young South Africans and is going to create a standing for them in the profession in this country which will be of the greatest value. I do ask the House in all seriousness not to adopt the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Christie).

On a point of order, we were hauled up for going beyond the motion before the committee. Is the hon. member in order in the points he is now making?

The hon. member for Rondebosch has not gone into the merits now, and he is in order.

I have endeavoured to confine myself to reasons why the House should not give way to the motion for a postponement. This Bill deals with a very serious problem for the young men and business men of this country, and, if we do not take the opportunity of getting it through now, we may not have another opportunity.

I support the motion to report progress and will give my reasons. It is quite true that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) did not make a promise, but on the occasion when special indulgence was given in regard to this Bill, hon. members told the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) what their attitude was with regard to the differences on the Bill. For instance, he will see at page 1193 of Vol. 2 of Hansard for 1924, that I stated—

The position is this: Hon. members are discussing a matter of which no one has any notice, unless he has a copy of last year’s Votes and Proceedings. Where special indulgence is given twice, as in this case, surely each member of the House should be furnished with a copy of the amendments. I do not wish to kill the Bill in an indirect way, but it is reducing the proceedings of Parliament to an absolute farce if members are asked to consider amendments of which they have not copies. I do not, however, blame the hon. member (Mr. Close) for the fact that the amendments did not appear on the Order Paper. So far from anything having been done to meet the criticisms passed on the measure last session, a circular has been issued by the Transvaal Society of Accountants stating that if certain amendments are persisted in, the society would retire forthwith as co-promoter, and in such an eventuality the Bill would be withdrawn.

I would point out to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that there is no right which a person now possesses which the Bill takes away.

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss the principle of the Bill to-day.

Am I not allowed to answer the hon. member who stated the Bill took away existing rights?

The hon. member for Three Rivers must remember that when the hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that, I asked him not to pursue that and he then resumed his seat.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street] (Mr. Alexander) is an old Parliamentarian, and he knows that the only way to choke off the Bill is to get it held over till some future date. I would remind the House that when the Bill was referred to the Select Committee last session, several hon. members went into the Bill, clause by clause, and line by line, and this Bill is their report. They went into the various questions, pro and con, they were independent, and this is their Bill.

I think that the first thing the House ought to understand is that the motion of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is only on a point of practice. We have people who support the proposal who have not the slightest intention of pushing the Bill out of the way, or to shipwreck it. We are just as anxious as the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to get the Bill through the House and on to the Statute Book. But at the same time we should understand that it is absolutely impossible for most members to fully understand the operation of the amendments that have been proposed without their appearing on the Order Paper, and their being able to go into them. In connection with this Bill, the hon. member for Rondebosch has been met so much that one, as a matter of ordinary politeness, can expect from him that he will accept the motion. I hope thus that the House will accept the motion.

I quite agree with the hon. member in charge of this Bill that no promise was made by him or those who support him that efforts would be made to bring the opposing forces together, but the suggestion was made and one of the reasons there was a postponement last session was to see whether the opposing forces could not come together. My object in speaking now is not to wreck the Bill. I want to beat the Bill, and I propose to fight it, but I want to fight it on its merits, and not wreck it. If it is anybody’s fault that we have not the amendments before us, it is the hon. member’s fault. It is not ours. Seeing the Bill is of such far-reaching importance, we should have the amendments before us. There was a large amount of opposition to this Bill last year, but we withdrew our opposition for the time being out of courtesy to the hon. member. Have not we the right to a little courtesy from him? I urge that we should be very foolish if we did not insist upon having these amendments before us before we voted on them.

Contrary to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, I am anxious that the Bill should become an Act. But I agree that with perhaps the exception of one or two members it has been impossible for us to follow these amendments. I have been trying to find them but have failed. In view of this I must support the motion to report progress.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) suggested I should know all about this Bill before I came into this House. In a way I do know all about the Bill. I was put on the Select Committee by my party, and as I did not wish to stop the Bill in Select Committee I made it quite clear that I reserved my right to oppose certain points in the Bill in the House. When people go on Select Committee they do their best in that direction, but in this House we do not ask that hon. members should blindly accept the position because the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) says that it is so and so. Before we finally decide on the crux of the Bill, that is this clause 19, we should have all the amendments before us so that we can realize what they mean. It is just as important to watch what has been withdrawn. I am not anxious to wreck this Bill because I think in regard to accountancy work this country should have the best standard it can achieve. We only ask that these amendments be put on the Order Paper, and if this means wrecking the Bill, well, the fault lies with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close).

I would have been very glad if we could have passed this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) if we could have been sure the Bill would not be wrecked. But I am afraid if we pass this amendment the Bill will be wrecked. After all, there are only two simple amendments which, although they embrace important points of principle, are very plain. I do not think hon. members want them on paper. One is merely to delete 18 words. If the Bill is wrecked it would be a calamity. Hon. members have said it would injure nobody, but it will injure our youth in South Africa. If we had an assurance that ample opportunity would be granted to get this Bill through later, I would support the amendment, but as that does not seem possible I am afraid I cannot.

I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). I am afraid this motion would have the effect of preventing this Bill getting through this House. We have been told there are certain amendments which are not on the Order Paper now. I take it hon. members who are interested in this Bill know what the words are and what they mean, and it is perfectly easy to refer to them in the “Votes and Proceedings.” As regards other hon. members it is a new doctrine to lay down that new amendments cannot be moved in committee. The hon. members who are bringing the amendments forward can explain them. It is convenient to have amendments on the Order Paper before they are moved, but if the effect of the motion would be to wreck the Bill, as I suggest it would, we should not pass it. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) implied that it involved some disrespect of Parliament for people who are promoting a Bill of this kind to say that if they could not have it passed in the form they want it they would not go on with it. But there is no disrespect of Parliament in that. The promoters of the Bill are at liberty to give their opinion. Surely they are perfectly at liberty, if they feel that something is introduced entirely contrary to their interests, to withdraw the Bill. That is only their due right. I hope the House will go on with the amendments.

It may be that what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says is correct, and that the circular does not mean any disrespect to the House; but it only shows us that the promoters are not so much concerned with the public interest as with their own interests. And the hon. gentleman practically admits that if Parliament puts something in this Bill contrary to the interests of the promoters they are entitled to withdraw it. That may be a correct attitude, but it throws upon us the further responsibility of regarding this Bill with meticulous care. This Bill is promoted in their own interests. I believe the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) informed us that its object was to secure a high standard of chartered accountancy, and the hon. member opposite has said much the same but I feel we must regard it with suspicion. I have to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his explanation, because it makes me furiously to think. I think it is essential to have those amendments on the Order Paper; otherwise heaven knows where we shall get to. My hon. friend has advanced incompatible arguments. While he told us that these amendments were so simple that we could understand them merely on his reading them out, he told us in the next breath that there are very few members who have read the Bill.

I did not say so. I said there are members who have not read this Bill.

I am sorry; but even if there are only one or two members who have not read it, my point remains the same. I am not one of those members, because I have read the Bill, and, that is why I am opposing this clause.

Order.

I am not going into the merits, Sir; only the demerits. It is true that the House has discussed important amendments which have not been on the Order Paper, but that has been when we have got into the atmosphere and have known immediately the effect of such amendments, and not as in this case, when there has been twelve months’ delay, and an amendment has been moved on the spur of the moment. I urge the hon. member in charge of the Bill, in view of the damning statement read by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), to remember that we are legislating for the whole country and not for a particular interest.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) made a very fair proposal to the effect that, if he could get the assurance that the Bill would be given a favourable opportunity for further discussion, he would agree to the adjournment. As Ministers alone can give such an assurance, and as there is not a single Minister present, although this Bill is one of great public importance, I would suggest that the hon. member who made this suggestion should try to find a Minister, so that the House may get on with the business.

I should like to make one or two remarks with regard to this flow of oratory on the question of adjournment. I regret the unwarranted remarks made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) about the interests concerned in this Bill. He can take it from me that they were not fair criticism. The promoters of this Bill are people skilled in this work, know the true position and are best able to inform the House as to whether the class of qualification contained in the Bill is vital or not vital for the formation of a sound profession in the public interest. The Select Committee accepted the views they put before it as bona-fide, and they established to the satisfaction of the committee, including the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) that this Bill is in the public interest. Something has been said about courtesy. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) appealed to me, as a matter of courtesy, to withdraw the Bill. May I, as member in charge of the Bill, inform the House that the first moment I heard of this difficulty in regard to the Order Paper was when the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) moved the adjournment. As a matter of courtesy, one would have hoped that the hon. member would have found the time to tell me of this difficulty, especially seeing that this Bill has been on the Order Paper for weeks; but neither the hon. member nor the hon. members for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), or Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) have given me a hint that this was the position. I ask the House to judge where the courtesy lies. I have today for the discussion of this Bill, and if hon. members persist in their attitude it may easily take six or seven weeks to get this Bill carried. I ask members to bear in mind that the arguments and the amendment are very easily under stood. Moreover, I have been informed by the Clerk of the House that these amendments could not have been set down, and if the Bill proceeds I shall be met with the same objection on future occasions.

I may point out that these amendments will appear in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow.

I appeal to members to be content with the skirmish we have had, and to let us get on with the Bill.

I think the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) shows more than anything the necessity for these amendments appearing on the Order Paper. He has raised a constitutional point of importance. If a private society introduces a Bill and cannot get their way on every point and the House passes an amendment, according to the hon. member they are entitled to withdraw their Bill. That is an extraordinary doctrine. I thought Parliament was free to deal as it likes with a Bill that comes before it, and that the promoters must accept it in the form in which it is passed by Parliament. I do not know of any procedure by which a private promoter can withdraw a Bill. Even a Minister cannot do so, once a Bill has passed.

What an analogy!

Let me read the whole circular in justice to the society—

I did not say that that implies a want of respect to this House, but a misconception of the constitutional position.

A very nice word.

Yes, and a very nice truth.

You have only been told that about clause 19.

This circular does not only apply to clause 19. It refers to any alteration in the Act in matters of fundamental importance, especially in regard to qualifications. It applies to any amendment which the Transvaal Society considers fundamental. I only want the position understood. I do not say it is disrespect, but we are not here only to pass what they want. We have been told by one member that the Railway Board was a rubber stamp. I hope this House is not going to be a rubber stamp. This circular shows a great misconception in regard to this matter, and I think that progress should be reported.

I think it would have been better when we consented, good humouredly, to take this Bill at the stage at which it was dropped, to have had the whole Bill thrown open, de novo. But advantage is being taken of our good-natured action. Members should now make themselves acquainted with the whole position. For any statement to be made that if the Bill is not gone through with now, it will not be taken at all is gratuitous. That means to say that there would be nothing more heard of it. But the whole attitude taken up in regard to this Bill is most arbitrary. Public interests are not going to be affected detrimentally by holding this Bill up for a week and letting members know what they are doing. We are not concerned particularly with the interests of the Transvaal Society. We are asking that this House should concede that before this measure becomes law everybody should have an opportunity of knowing what the various amendments mean.

The promoter of this Bill stated that if I, as well as others who are opposing the Bill, desire to have these amendments on the Order Paper, we have only to ask for this to be done.

What I said was that he asked me as a matter of courtesy to meet him on a particular point, that is to withdraw the Bill. I said that while there were the best reasons for not withdrawing the Bill, I drew attention to the fact that this difficulty about not having the amendments before them was not suggested to me in any shape or form when the hon. member for Langlaagte moved in that direction.

I do not think it is a question of courtesy at all. If it is it is a lack of courtesy on the part of the promoter of the Bill. I submit in all seriousness that it is his business to anticipate all points of contact. Surely we are entitled as an act of courtesy to have all the information at the hon. member’s disposal, and he naturally has all these points at his finger-ends. He should have acquainted the whole House with all the information he has. May I supplement what the hon. member read just now? The hon. member accused me of unfairness. This is in justification. This is signed by Mr. F. E. Roberts, chairman, and Mr. J. D. H. Lang, secretary, of the Bloemfontein affiliated conference of South African accountants’ societies. In the penultimate clause they say—

What were the ones they did not agree to? How can Mr. Close reconcile his job as a member of Parliament with his job as representing the promoters in this House?

I call upon the hon. member for an explanation.

There is no need to give an explanation. What I will say is in order that the hon. gentleman’s very touchy succeptibilities may not be wounded too far. What I mean to say is, how can he reconcile his position as a member of Parliament and his position as representing these people in promoting this Bill. It was a spontaneous act on my part. I had no idea of suggesting that he was being paid. Why should the hon. gentleman fly up in that fashion?

Because I have rather strong views on the subject.

The circular continues—

I want the House to note this—

What I want to know is, what position will Mr. Close adopt? They have notified him that they are not going to agree to this or that. They say so in the circular. I want to know from the hon. member in charge of the Bill what he proposes to do if this House should decide to alter a fundamental principle, seeing they say they are not going to have the Bill.

Take the constitutional course.

My hon. friend here has read the promoter of the Bill a lesson. We ought to consider the rights of the public in South Africa and not promoters of private Bills.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—40.

Allen,J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Roos, T. J de V.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Madeley, Walter B.

Noes—55.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Duncan, P.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt. T.

Werth, A. J.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

I wish to move the following amendment—

Provision is made in the Bill for people who have practised as public accountants in the Cape and the Free State, but similar provision is not made for those practising in Natal and the Transvaal.

There are none.

In that case no harm can be done by accepting my amendment. In spite of what the hon. member says, a large number of people are practising in the Transvaal, because I have written evidence on the subject, and they will be deprived of the means of making their living under this Bill, and we shall have more unemployed walking the streets than we have at present. Parliament does not exist to deprive people of their livings—at least it should not—but I am afraid some Parliaments do it. There are some persons practising as accountants in the Transvaal, and they are perfectly competent people, but there is no provision for them in the Bill.

That amendment does not make sense—it does not read properly.

In any case this raises one of the fundamentals of the Bill. Here we have an application made on behalf of people who are not qualified under the Bill to be allowed to come in. Whenever a Bill of this sort is introduced it is obviously necessary and fair to make provision for all persons who, at the time, are legally carrying on the business concerned. In 1904 an Ordinance was passed in the Transvaal for the registration of accountants, and after that no person was allowed to describe himself as an accountant or a public accountant. That law, however, does not prevent a man from practising as an accountant, but prevents him from holding himself out as an accountant unless he has attained a standard prescribed by the law. We have been bombarded in this House with letters and telegrams and things of that sort from the people whom my hon. friend (Mr. Nathan) is representing. If these people had been practising in the Transvaal without describing themselves as accountants, then under the present Bill they can go on doing exactly what they have been doing up to date. In the circumstances they require no special treatment and are entitled to have no special treatment given them. The reason why there is an apparent difference between the Cape and Free State, on the one hand, and the Transvaal and Natal, on the other hand, is that in the Cape and Free State there has been no law up to the present prohibiting any man from carrying on business as an accountant or from describing himself or holding himself out as an accountant. This Bill introduced the one simple prohibition that, whatever a man chooses to do in the way of practising as an accountant is a matter between himself and his client, until it comes to the moment when he holds himself out as an accountant. The Transvaal man loses no right whatever that he has at the present moment under this Bill. The Cape and Free State are put in the position which they occupy under this Bill simply because there is no law prohibiting men from holding themselves out as accountants at the present time. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) raised a point that I might perhaps now deal with.

I want to read a telegram which I have received, so that you may know what point to deal with. It is as follows—

I thank the hon. member. It is perfectly incomprehensible to me how these people can say their livelihood is being taken away, because they are in no different position under this Bill in the Transvaal than they are at the present time. They are not entitled to do anything less or more under this Bill if it becomes law in the Transvaal than they are entitled to do at the present time in the Transvaal. As regard the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), I know the hon. member could not have meant it, but he used an argument which came rather curiously from him. He said that the object of the Bill was to do away with anticipated competition. I think the hon. member is a little more man of the world than to think that this can be the object of a Bill of this kind. The object of this Bill is to raise the status of the accountants’ profession in this country and to create a professional status of which this country can be proud. Under the amendment moved by the hon. member a very large number of people will come in without an essential qualification, and that is service. The committee has accepted the position of the people who have brought forward this Bill and given them the strongest grounds for it that you are liable to put your profession in a very much worse position if you allow this possible large influx of people who have not had what every accountants’ society in the world of any standing has regarded as essential, and that is a period of service.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that his amendment does not appear to fit in after the word “fee.” I think he had better redraft the amendment.

I have not got the amendment before me now, but it comes after the word “fee,” and then introduces that class of person whom we intended to protect, and at the end of my amendment follow the words “be entitled to be registered.”

It does not read grammatically as it stands here.

I would like to draw the committee’s attention to this position, that when we passed clause 6 we excluded a certain number of civil servants and others in the Transvaal and in Natal, but allowed similarly situated individuals in the Cape and Free State to go on the register. That position having been achieved by the promoters, the same people in the same position who are in the Transvaal and Natal do not now ask to go on the register, but simply say this: “You have excluded us under section 6, so we now ask that you will allow us to come up for examination without having to leave our situations and work for a practising accountant.” You may have two men, one working in Pretoria and one working in Cape Town, and both in the public service. Under section 6 the Cape Town man will be put on the new register, but a similarly situated man in Pretoria will be excluded from the register. That same man only asks Parliament that he should be allowed to sit for examination without having to leave his situation. I think that is a fair request. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is going to say that in the Transvaal there is an Act which has been in existence for 21 years and that lays down the position for the Transvaal people. We admit that, but here is the absurdity. Several people have come down to the Free State and the Cape Province and taken out licences to do the work of an accountant. They were private people. According to this Bill these people will be put on the register as soon as the Bill becomes law, but public servants, who could not leave their situations to come down here, are going to be excluded. In this respect the Transvaal Society has been unduly selfish.

There does not appear to be a quorum.

[After an interval, a quorum having assembled]:

The hon. member may now proceed.

What I would have liked would have been if the promoters of this Bill had got into touch with these people and found a way out. I have suggested that a number of men should be given an opportunity to come in on passing a modified examination conducted, not by the society, but on the lines of the amendment moved by the hon. Minister of Education. I hope the Committee will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti).I submit that the mover of this Bill and the promoters should agree to this. In a new society of this kind you should open your doors as wide as possible.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti). With reference to what the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said, we realize that the outside accountants have not the legal right now which they ask for under this Bill, but what is said is that now you are bringing in a Bill for the whole Union. Surely it is an anomaly that men in the Transvaal, who do not happen to be members of the society are to be excluded, while men in the Cape and Free State actually practising are to be allowed to come in. I am very sorry that nothing has been done during the recess to meet the wishes of these outside accountants and of persons in municipal employ and the public service, because it seems to me that if we are to start an organization of this kind, under the aegis of the state, we ought to take in everybody who is in that class of work at the time and who is of good character. For that reason I support the amendments.

I also wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). I have a letter from the Transvaal Municipal Association which places the position quite differently from that put before the House by the hon. member for Rondebosch. This letter says—

So you see, this has practically barred men who were admitted as members of the Transvaal Society unless they served with practising accountants. The hon. member for Rondebosch said the idea of this Bill is to raise the status of the profession of accountants. I think he will agree that the Town Treasurer of Cape Town is an authority on the matter. He is a member of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and examiner to the University to the Cape of Good Hope in Accountancy. He was asked in select committee: “In your opinion, are articles necessary to a practising accountant, or is experience in a practising accountant’s office necessary to make a good practising accountant?” His answer was: “No; there is other experience equally as good.” Asked further what other avenues there were, he replied: “The Civil Service, the Municipal Service, in the accountants’ branches, and there are other businesses, such as certain positions in the banks, for example, would give a man the necessary experience.” He was asked, further: “Is not the experience you would get in some municipal department rather confined to some particular branch of accountancy?” His reply was: “It is wider as a rule than the practice gained by the articled clerk. I have had articled clerks engaged on the audit in the municipality under my personal knowledge and supervision, and I say that those youngsters had nothing like the same qualifications as those municipal officials who were teaching them their methods of work. You have to have knowledge of accounts, of the insolvency laws and estate work, and you have to have a wide legal knowledge, and you have to handle the amortization of accounts and depreciation in a wide degree. The practising accountant’s office does not supply that information. A great many accountants in Cape Town could not work out a repayment of a loan to-day. I hope the hon. member in charge of this Bill will meet this statement, coming from the City Treasurer of Cape Town, whose statement I am prepared to take. The Municipal Association of the Transvaal, who represent the whole of the municipal officials, discusses this question of eighteen months’ office experience in a letter in which they say—

I hope the hon. member will see his way to accept this amendment. It is a matter of pure justice on behalf of men who have served the state and hold the necessary qualifications. They are prepared to pass the necessary examination and conditions.

On the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), I wish to say that if he argues that civil servants should not be required to be articled for 18 months, then he must take up the position that articles should not be required at all.

This applies to high officials.

The position to-day is that a person who wishes to become a chartered accountant must serve five years’ articles. Surely the hon. member will not argue that we must lower the standard, and I do not think we are justified in lowering the standard of our own examination in South Africa. I hope the committee will stand by the Select Committee in laying down that articles are necessary, so that we may keep up a high level for the profession.

On a point of order; my amendment only applies to the class mentioned in the first few lines of the Bill. I am not dealing with municipal officials or public servants.

We do not wish to lower the status of the profession. We want the public to have confidence in the people who call themselves chartered accountants in South Africa; and for that reason we must look to it that the requirements laid down before a person can obtain his title are such that they will inspire confidence. Otherwise people from overseas will come here and people will know that they are qualified and experienced accountants, whereas they will not know whether a man who has qualified in this country has had the adequate experience or not. The civil service and the municipal employees, according to the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) do not wish to take the articles. But if they take up that attitude, then I say they are claiming something which is not due to them. These men have served in the civil service or the municipal service or commercial service for a period of ten years, probably in one department only. They have done one class of work, working with accounts, or auditing; they may have no experience of trust work or work in connection with insolvent estates, or deceased estates, and it is for that reason we must impose some obligation on them to enable them to become acquainted with the other branches of the profession of which they get no experience in the service, and for these reasons I hope the committee will stand by this recommendation of our Select Committee that we accept the principle of articles as one to be embodied in the Bill. I come to the point about the civil servants. I wish to inform the committee again that I have to-day been informed by the accredited representatives of the Civil Servants’ Association that they will be quite satisfied. They would naturally have liked to see the articles done away with, but if we remove this proviso to section 19, which will upon deletion enable them to take the examination any time during their service with the State, they are quite satisfied. May I also point out we have had a thorough discussion in our Select Committee and long indabas with the Society of Accountants. If this necessity for articles is done away with the Bill will be withdrawn. We must face that position, but what will be the position then of the civil servants? Whereas they get three-quarters of a loaf in this Bill, if it is withdrawn they will have nothing at all. The Acts of the Transvaal and Natal do not give the civil servants any right, or at any rate, do not give them the rights contemplated in this Bill. If the Bill is withdrawn they will have lost the whole loaf. We propose to give them three-quarters, and when the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) goes back to the civil servants in his constituency and they find he has denied them the three-quarters of a loaf, they will be dissatisfied. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), I think the Select Committee went very thoroughly into that and came to the conclusion—I think the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) agreed with us—that we could not let in these men of the Transvaal. Members on this side have complained of the livelihood of these men being taken away. There is no fear of that. These people practising are bookkeepers and secretaries, and they cannot practice as accountants in the Transvaal because that is contrary to the Transvaal Ordinance. These bookkeepers of the Transvaal are excluded, and they are included in the Cape and the Free State. In the Cape and the Free State there are numbers of men practising as public accountants. It would be unfair after 20 years to say to men in the Transvaal, who during that time have qualified by examination and articles, “We are admitting these outside men and placing them on the same level as you.” It would be unfair to these men, and therefore I am against the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). For the sake of these people in the Transvaal who for 20 years have taken the trouble to qualify, it will be unjust and unfair to them.

The attitude of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) is neither reasonable nor logical. Those practising in the Free State who have passed no examination, who are in no better position from the point of view of their capacity than the people in the Transvaal who do not belong to the Transvaal Society, are now being included in the Bill, and membership of the South African Society is being conferred upon them, also upon those practising in the Cape, without passing any examination, or having more experience than the man in the Transvaal and Natal. In the Transvaal in 1904, when there was practically no opportunity for people to take advantage of its provisions, a Bill was passed establishing a close corporation there. We are now told that men in the Transvaal who have carried on the same work as ordinary accountants and secretaries of companies should be excluded, and men with no higher qualifications than them in the Free State and Natal should be included. I have no objection to their inclusion, because this is a new departure. You are creating a new society for South Africa, and it is only right that everyone who has been practising or carrying on that class of work, whether called an accountant or not, should be members of that society at the initial stage. The reason they have been able to call themselves accountants in the Free State is because there has been no law to prevent that. The position is that any practising bookkeeper or secretary in Johannesburg could have gone prior to 31st August last year to Bloemfontein, and put up a signboard calling himself accountant and practising, and would have been entitled to be included in the provisions of this Bill. There is no provision in regard to period of residence. He could have opened an office and stayed a few weeks, left a clerk and have gone back to Johannesburg, and could have been included in the provisions of this Bill, and it is surely illogical that because a man has not done that but has continued his work and practice in the Transvaal, therefore he should not now have the right of inclusion under this Bill. It is suggested that under this Bill no rights are taken away. But if that is so, why all this fight? It is clear that the intention of the Bill is to create a close preserve. Another point is that under the Bill you want to create a high standard of efficiency, but if you are going to allow men to become members of the society who have not passed the necessary examination, where is this wonderfully high standard? As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), gross injustice will be done under the Bill to civil servants in the Transvaal and Natal. They are in the same position as men in the Cape and the Free State, and we have men in the Johannesburg municipal service who have been doing accountancy work in the treasurer’s department for years, and who probably know a good deal more than the people who call themselves accountants. Yet, they are not to be admitted as accountants. Some of them may desire, after years of municipal service, to set up in practice as accountants on their own account. But, unless they are articled to an accountant for 18 months, they will not be permitted to practice as accountants. These municipal officers say they are prepared to sit for any examination which the society may hold, but because they will not give up their positions and be articled to an accountant for £5 per month, which in fact they cannot afford to do, they are told that they will not be permitted to become members of the society. This is grossly unfair and unjust. The proper way is to throw the register open so that in the initial stages of the society those men shall be entitled to become members who have done accountancy work and who have the necessary knowledge.

I cannot understand the arguments of the hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) who has just sat down. I understand there will shortly be brought forward a consolidating law Bill, and what would my hon. friend say supposing some enthusiasts said: “This is a new Bill, we are bringing everybody in, and we, who have been at the law all our lives, in the offices of the Attorneys-General, or magistrates’ offices, have the right to be enrolled as legal practitioners.” Suppose I brought forward an amendment to that Bill to include on the register all the law agents in the country on the ground that they had been practising all their lives, where would my hon. friend be then? To-day in the Transvaal I understand that two-thirds of the accountants have passed the examinations and served articles. Admitting that the municipal officials to whom reference has been made are competent accountants, what about civil servants who have pensions, coming in and competing with qualified accountants? There are only three cases of men who have gone from the Transvaal and obtained qualification by opening offices in Bloemfontein, as the hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) has suggested could be done. Trade unions have a seven years’ apprenticeship; supposing it was proposed to admit into the trade union a clerk of works with 18 months’ service, would not the rafters of this House ring with the denunciations of the Labour members? In every other country in the world the status of the chartered accountants is of the very highest.

I think the position is a little different from what has been put before the House by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown). He quoted the parallel of a carpenter and a clerk of works. That is not an exact parallel. A more exact parallel is a carpenter who has served for ten years with a municipality, and a carpenter who for ten years has worked for a private employer. In this Bill the carpenter who has worked for the private employer for five years is to be protected and to be entitled to call himself a carpenter, but the carpenter who has worked for ten years in municipal service is not to be protected, is not to call himself a carpenter, and is not to receive trade union wages. I am surprised that a democratic member like the hon. member for Three Rivers should subscribe to such an undemocratic principle. There is more in this Bill than appears on the surface. There is more in the question of people calling themselves chartered accountants. We are told that there are no accountants in the Transvaal and Natal, except those who are members of the various societies. I think that is wrong, entirely wrong, and I am prepared to prove that there are men who hold themselves out as accountants and who practise in the Transvaal and who are not members of these societies who are not prosecuted by the law. I find in the estimates presented to this House men in the public service designated as accountants, holding themselves out as accountants and practising as accountants. If this Bill goes through, I suppose they are going to be debarred and sacked from their jobs. More “Jobs for Pals.” For eighteen months, during which time they will be graciously permitted—

Have you read the Bill?

I have read the Bill.

Have you read Clause 4?

I have read the whole Bill.

Read the original Bill, Clause 4.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) contends that the man who has not served articles should not be permitted to practise. If the man in the municipal service of this country—take big municipalities like Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town and Durban—serves ten year’s or more in the business of accountancy as it is carried on in a big municipality, passes all the examinations which this Society of Accountants or the University is prepared to put to him to prove his work, I put it to this House that he has been serving as good articles as any articles in private employment. There is far more intricate accountancy work in the municipalities of this country than there is in many private offices. Durban turns over 2¼ millions, and the accountants have to deal with the accounts of that amount. Is there any accountant’s office that deals with 2¼ millions? We are told it is essential not to lower the standard of the accountants’ profession in this country by permitting, I presume, the entry into it of such men as the city treasurer of Cane Town and the city treasurer of Durban. These are the men who are debarred under this Bill.

They are chartered accountants.

The city treasurer of Cape Town is an incorporated accountant.

The city treasurer of Johannesburg is excluded under this Bill. Is it to be said that the city treasurer of Johannesburg is going to lower the standard of the accountants’ profession? One of two things is going to happen to the municipal man or the public servant who wants to enter the accountants’ profession. Either he is going to be barred by the private accountant who does not want the competition of the accountant in the public service, or—

Have you read Clause 9 of the Bill?

I have read the whole Bill, as I have already told you.

Read Clause 9 now.

Either that, or he is going to find it possible to get in through serving eighteen months in a private accountant’s office. Is he going to unravel all those mysteries he was unable to understand in the 10 or 15 years that he spent in the public service by spending 18 months in a private accountant’s office? It is a stupid provision and I, as a member of the House, resent the truculent tone of the members of the Society of Accountants who are promoting this Bill in saving to this House: “Take it or leave it.” We are threatened with the withdrawal of this Bill if this Parliament wants to put anything into it which it thinks would be in the interests of the people of this country.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

As this question goes on we find the Bill is stiffening right through and just what we feared is coming to pass. Those who are already in fine positions are trying to entrench themselves still further. While they say no one is to suffer hardship, yet when we ask them to remove these restrictions from the small man they refuse. They say: If you are going to insist that these small men in the Transvaal and Free State must come in, we are going to drop this Bill. The only interests being considered are those of the existing men who want status given to their position. Take this indenturing or serving a term under articles. What is to prevent the registered accountants from saying they have no room for anybody else, but that a son or a nephew can come into their office? Do, for justice sake, leave out compulsory apprenticeship for 18 months. Then it would be difficult to do injustice to anybody. Again, it is not fair to say men who retire from the public service on pension shall not put into private practice the knowledge they have acquired in this professional experience. The society, as I have said, is making itself a close preserve, and there is nothing to stop it bringing in any restrictions in regard to examination it wishes. Those restrictions may be very difficult for men to comply with later on. Then it is within their power to increase the fees for membership as much as they choose. It says five guineas here, but there is nothing to prevent them going to 30 guineas. There is no limit. Suppose one of these small outside people makes an application for registration, how can you be perfectly sure it will he accepted? If application is refused they can be excluded from benefiting from their ability and experience. There is no appeal against the society’s decision, and the society can refuse any application. I ask those in charge of the Bill to at least meet us in regard to the small people in the Transvaal and the Free State. Cannot we pass this Bill so that there should be a reconciliation of the main conflicting interests? You are extending the Bill to the whole Union, but really making it a sectional Bill. Make it so that it will not involve hardship on the small people. I think that this demand for a period of 18 months’ personal service qualification is totally unnecessary, and makes it possible to restrict this profession to the few who are able to control admission.

I am going to support this Bill, and I do not agree with either the last speaker or the speaker before him. I cannot understand anyone who professes to back up the trade union principle taking the line that my friends on these branches have taken. If we go on the principle of “South Africa first” we shall pass this Bill, because it is going to give an opportunity to young South Africans which in the ordinary way they will not have. They will be able to become chartered accountants in South Africa without having to go oversea to qualify. Take the question of the 18 months’ qualification. It is all very well to say that municipal officials and civil servants are equal to the ordinary accountant. I deny that. If you get a man who has been working in the civil service for any time to audit your books you are lucky if you do not become insolvent. Such a man gets into a groove. What does he know about commercial auditing? Even in a bank it is the same. I have had experience of these men as one who ran a rather large business. I would never have my books audited except by a chartered or incorporated accountant, and we must make this test high, just as we make our legal tests high, and make the profession one to which everyone will be proud to belong. I want to protect the people in the Free State, and they are not protected to-day, and you will not protect them if you throw the Bill out. So far as the Transvaal accountants are concerned, I daresay they shrug their shoulders, because they will be in no better position if the Bill goes through. Their status as chartered or incorporated accountants of England will remain, and they will not have the chartered accountants of South Africa to compete with them. Although they want their sons to belong to the profession, their position will not be seriously affected. I would no more allow an unqualified man to practise as an accountant than I would allow myself to say that I can practise for the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close).

But you are allowing all the Cape men in under this Bill?

I am talking about the Transvaal. You must make a start somewhere. But my hon. friends instead of trying to raise the standard are seeking to lower the standard to what it is in the Free State, because it is for the good of the public. As a Labour man I support this Bill. I want to protect the public by having qualified men to audit the books of the people. It may be said that there are small men belonging to the Labour party, but that does not worry me. My point is that we as South Africans ought to make this as good a profession as the legal profession, which stands as high as the legal profession in any part of the Empire.

It seems to me that in this Bill, and especially in this clause, there are two interests being weighed, one against the other. On the one hand there are those who profess to be jealous of the repute of the Society of Chartered Accountants of South Africa, and on the other hand there are the interests of those who will be excluded from becoming members of that body, though they may be doing work just as involved as that of any of its members. It seems unjust for this society, in order to achieve its ends, to ignore the interests of these others whose livelihood will be interfered with. I think that if the promoters of the Bill had displayed a more tolerant spirit to these people in the Transvaal and Natal, who are threatened with the extinction of their business, they would have had a better chance of having the Bill accepted. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) mentioned jealousy on the part of trades unionism. It was a very unfortunate reference, because trades unionism has been attacked for not throwing open its ranks to those who served their country in the war, and people urged that such should be provided for at someone else’s expense. But the trade unionists have opened their ranks, for they are faced with the same difficulty as those concerned in the establishment of this society. But through the operation of the Apprenticeship Act and other legislation, their ranks will in time be filled by competent men. But they themselves, especially in this country and in countries similarly situated, have to put up with that period of getting away from the handy-man stage to the professional stage of work, and I am afraid it is the wish of the majority—I hope it is—that that stage will be faced by these people, and not only in the profession of accountancy, and that they will not try to abruptly step over the transition stage.

That is why we are taking in the handy-men.

Yes, of Cape and Orange Free State only! In regard to public servants, both in the, Government service, provincial services and major municipalities, it means that while the Society of Chartered Accountants is reserving to itself a close field, in that these people will not be allowed to practise outside of their service, at the same time there is every probability that as a qualification of chartered accountant becomes necessary in filling posts within the service the senior and higher positions within the public service will not be open to public servants. That is a position which would act unfairly in the public service. The very fact that these people serve a long period in the public service must mean that proportionately they are more efficient for the work in the public service than outside public accountants coming in and taking office. The wish to raise the standard is a laudable and admirable one. It indicates progress and brings a country level with competitors, and if the promoters of this Bill would simply come down to the demand that was being put forward on behalf of these people in the public service, they would accomplish their object, perhaps not so soon as they wish to, but certainly without creating a great deal of prejudice in the public mind and in the minds of those who have been practising up to the present. There was a reference to section 4, clause 4, of the Bill. If the promoter would agree to the one or two points nut to him it would probably remove the difficulties.

What has happened here this afternoon has convinced me more and more that an injustice is being done to some of our people, not only officials and members of the staff of town councils, but a portion of our people by this measure. Their means of livelihood is being taken from them.

Prove it.

I will prove it. A law was passed in the Transvaal. Certain people were included who did not possess the qualifications, but other people who have commenced practice since that time are not included. We can argue as we like, but it amounts to this, that the people in that position do their best to keep others out of it. I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, will you please explain to the House what the effect of the vote will be, for probably many members do not realize that if the motion is carried, it will mean the dropping of the Bill for the time being.

The effect will be that the Bill will drop from the Order Paper, but of course, it may be restored by order of the House after further notice. The question before the House is that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—11.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

Muller, C. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Tellers: Heyns, J. D.; Pretorius, J. S. F.

Noes—54.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Fordham, A. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. 0. B.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, 0. S.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Nathan, E.; Sampson, H. W.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Owing to the lateness of the hour, I move—

We have had a good battle this, afternoon, and I think very little more can be said about the clause. Might I make an appeal to the House to come to a vote on the amendment, and after that I shall be quite prepared to agree to an adjournment?

I hope the House will agree to the motion to report progress. We hope that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will reply to the points raised.

The motion to report progress is a very fair one, and I suggest that the hon. member for Rondebosch should accept it.

Motion agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee on 27th March.