I move—

seconded.

As requested by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) last night, and by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), I wish to make a statement this afternoon in respect of the Rehoboths, and what has taken place in South-West Africa. I think it as well to make a fairly full statement because, although at the present moment I have no reason to anticipate that anything very serious is going to occur, one never knows, and it is just as well that the country should know the whole question. The Rehoboth agreement was signed on 17th August, 1923. Although the mandate confers on the mandatory power full power of administration and legislation over the whole territory, the agreement gives extensive privileges to the Rehoboth community and they enjoy a substantial measure of self-government. A large section of the community was opposed to the agreement, alleging that it surrendered the independence which they previously possessed. It was hoped this would disappear. On the contrary, the rift widened. In January, 1924, the old Raad endeavoured to hold an election in accordance with the constitution of the community which requires the elections for the Raad to be held not later than 14th January in each year. The action of the anti-agreement section prevented the election. In April, 1924, the anti-agreement section held an election from which the members of the old Raad and their supporters were precluded from participating. The members of the old Raad, without being given any opportunity of defending themselves, were summarily disfranchized, and declared ineligible for re-election. An acting Kapitein, a Volksraad and a Parliamentsraad (the latter not provided for by the constitution) were elected. The old Raad protested against the election on the ground of irregularity. Both Raads were invited to interview the administrator at Windhoek. The old Raad accepted, but the new Raad refused point blank. As the old Raad made it clear that the election was unconstitutional and was therefore inconsistent with the Rehoboth agreement, Proclamation No. 13 of 1924 was passed, declaring the election void, ordering a new election to be held not later than 16th June, 1924, and meantime recognizing the old Raad as the lawful Raad of the community. An election was held on 16th June, 1924. Every possible effort was made to induce the new Raad to participate, and, in fact, a number of the leading members of their party were nominated for election by the old Raad, which, as the constitutional body, conducted the elections. The new Raad and, at their instigation, their supporters, resolutely declined to take part, their contention being that they were the lawfully elected Raad of the community. They, moreover, argued that participation in the election would be an acknowledgment of the Rehoboth agreement, which they repudiated. The result was that out of 500 burgers only about 80, all supporters of the old Raad, voted, and the members of the old Raad were reelected. The new Raad continued to function, so that two Raads existed simultaneously. The old Raad, while the de jure Government, represented the minority of the voters and was impotent. The new Raad was the de facto government. In July. 1924, the new Raad sent a petition to his Excellency the Governor-General asking for recognition, and a deputation was invited to interview the Prime Minister. The deputation proceeded to Cape Town and the interview took place early in August, 1924, when the Prime Minister undertook to recommend to the Union Government the recognition of the new Raad subject to certain conditions, which were set out in writing and were accepted by the deputation. They returned to Rehoboth, suppressed the contents of the Prime Minister’s letter, and informed the burgers that they had got all they wanted; that the Prime Minister had recognised them as the Raad, and that they no longer had anything to do with the administration. They also telegraphed to the Prime Minister that the majority of the people desired the recognition of the new Raad and asked that he now fulfil his promise. They were reminded that written proof was required, and it was suggested that this take the form of a memorial signed by the majority of the burgers. This the new Raad flatly refused to give, and said their assurance should be accepted. On several occasions they went to Windhoek and interviewed the deputy-administrator, who explained again and again what was required of them. They took up the position that they could give nothing in writing, and although the powers given to the administration under the mandate were made so clear to them that there could be no misunderstanding, they made it quite evident that nothing would satisfy them except the immediate expulsion of the old Raad, the cancellation of the Rehoboth agreement, which they repudiated, and the grant of virtual independence. It was simply futile to reason with them. The old Raad also registered an emphatic protest, and declined to resign, and the Prime Minister personally addressed a long letter to the community through the deputy-administrator, copies of which were distributed throughout the Gebiet, but this had no effect. Matters were, in the circumstances, allowed to stand in abeyance in view of Gen. Hertzog’s impending visit to South-West Africa, but in the meantime the attitude of the new Raad towards the administration and even towards the Prime Minister became more insolent and defiant than ever. On 3rd November last the Prime Minister met both Raads and the burghers at Rehoboth railway station, and he impressed upon the new Raad that they would have to act constitutionally before they could be recognized; that they would have to obey such of the laws of the administration as applied to the Gebiet and that the Union Government would see that this was done. Copies of this speech were circulated through the Gebiet. Believing that the Prime Minister’s visit had had a good effect, the Administrator invited the two Raads to visit Windhoek with a view to settling various details. Representatives of both Raads came, but those of the new Raad were obstinate, and resolutely declined to consider any compromise with the old Raad. The Administrator suggested a fresh election, the majority of the candidates to be nominated by the new Raad, and undertook to recognize the thus elected body as the constitutional Raad, but this suggestion, like all previous efforts, was treated with contempt. At the end of November the new Raad asked for an interview with the Administrator in connection with certain regulations issued by the old Raad, relative to the export of wood and grass from the Gebiet, and on 1st December they wrote the following letter to the magistrate, Rehoboth, in reply to a message sent them by the Administrator through the magistrate intimating that he was prepared to interview them— U geachte brief geadreseerd aan my is tegenwoordige Raad voorgelegt en legt U Edele de antwoord voor zoo als volgt: Tot dus ver hebben wy gedaan wat in ons vermogen was wyl alles niets help ontrekken wy ons vergeheeleenal en zal niet meer U Raad of Advist vragen en ook zelf door zyne Edele de Administrateur aan de hand gegevene brief niet staat is meer te bedienen, en blyven van nu aan total onafhangellyk en blyven wy openlyk zien dat die Magistraat en ook zelf die Administrateur eenmaal daarop blyfstaan om de Volk de dwingen tegen hun willen om te beugen onder die afgestottene Raad, en ook zelf de overeenkomst. Wy als gekosene van de Ryk is plichting van nu aan deze toestand in ons Gebiet te openbaaren in aller Korante tot in Europa. Wyl het voor ons onmogelyk is. Zoo als de handelwyse, die nu aangaan in Rehoboth tottal vrembt is Rehoboths bevolking zal die enigste volk wees die geen recht heef op hun eigendom. Verder legen wy U aan het hart dat wy geen wet van Nels Klarzen die hy uitspreek zal opvolgen. Wy zyn aleenlyk onderstel Raadsheeren te gehoorzamen wetten te gehoorzamen die door die Ryk gekist is wetten of order uit te spreken op Land en Bevolking. Zoo legen wy U aan het hart dat wy ons onttrekken van U. En blyven staan als gekiste Raad en dienen die Vaderlyke wette noch zelfstandig is.

Translation—

On 4th December, 1924, the old Raad addressed the following letter to the magistrate, Rehoboth—

Translation—

The following telegram was sent by the new Raad to the secretary for South-West Africa at Windhoek on the 30th ultimo—

Translation—

To this the following reply was sent—

Translation—

On the instructions of the Prime Minister, the following message was telegraphed on 30th March, 1925, to the magistrate, Rehoboth, for delivery to the new Raad in reply to the telegram to the Governor-General—

Translation—

On 31st March, the magistrate of Rehoboth telegraphed the reply of the new Raad, which was as follows—

Translation—

The present position is that there are about 400 Rehoboth burghers in the village of Rehoboth, with about 200 Hereros, who are openly defying the administration. The Rehoboth burghers possess modern rifles. Practically all of them received a military training under the German regime, when they were obliged to furnish a considerable number of men annually for training and service. About 150 police are at Rehoboth, and a portion of the burgher force has been called out. The mobilization is proceeding well, although it is being hampered by scarcity of horses owing to an abnormal epidemic of horse sickness, the long distances, and the state of the country as a result of heavy rains. It may added that these causes prevented a more rapid concentration of the police in the first instance. The Administrator has gone to Rehoboth, where he is due to-day. Three aeroplanes, under the command of Col. Sir Pierre van Rypevelt, are also on their way to South-West Africa. As far as these aeroplanes are concerned, and the horse sickness, the trouble is that we don’t know how far the agitation may enter into the minds of the natives on the outlying farms. I therefore asked my friend the hon. Minister of Defence to send over three aeroplanes to help the police. The most serious aspect of the attitude of the opposition party in Rehoboth during the past 18 months has been the effect on the natives, who have apparently come to regard the Gebiet as a sort of haven where no law exists, the laws of the administration being repudiated by the new Raad, and the laws of the community, although nominally operative in the Gebiet, not being enforced. When the police patrol visited the Gebiet in December last the attitude of the natives, incited by the opposition section, was openly hostile, and now 200 Hereros have joined the recalcitrants in Rehoboth. It follows that the natives do not wish to see our laws enforced in the Gebiet. The manner in which the opposition party has defied the administration has made the natives defiant too. The position in the Gebiet is being very closely watched by the natives throughout the territory and an initial disaster might have widespread results. It has therefore been deemed advisable to wait until we are strong enough to act sately—a step which also has the advantage that it may overawe resistance. In conclusion, may be emphasized that the present trouble is not due merely to the failure of the Rehoboth people to comply with the branding law. They have no objection to the branding law in principle—no more objection to it than any other law, but as they have made abundantly clear, they object to all the laws of the administration applied to the Gebiet under the Rehoboth agreement, which they have definitely repudiated. The branding law was merely selected by the administration as the most convenient for bringing the matter to an issue. The following telegram has just been received from the Administrator—

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Prime Minister for the full statement he has given to the House.

It is not usual to discuss Ministerial statements.

May I be allowed to say, sir, that in a case of this sort, of such great importance, I think the hon. the Prime Minister can rely upon the non-party support of every section of this House. We hope that a state of order will be established without any loss of life. We appreciate the statement made by the Prime Minister, and he has the sympathy of all sections of the House in dealing with an extremely difficult situation.

May I ask the Prime Minister a question on this matter?

Is there any objection to the hon. member for Benoni asking a question? There being no objection, the hon. member may ask his question.

I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to tell us in view of the far-reaching importance of the statement he has made, and the conditions that are obtaining up there, whether he is prepared to have appointed a commission of inquiry of independent men, not your Native Affairs Commission or anybody that is in being, but some independent person or persons, to inquire into the whole of the circumstances? This is not the first time, and I hope the Prime Minister will be prepared to accede to that request.

May I just supplement that question?

Is there any objection? There being no objection, the hon. member may proceed.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that these people have actually sent a protest to the League of Nations in regard to their grievances, and whether that does not make the request of the hon. member (Mr. Madeley) a necessary one, because at the same time that steps are taken to safeguard law and order, would it not be as well to take steps so that the grievances referred to in that communication should be investigated, not in Europe, but here, by some impartial person appointed by the Government?

May I just say this, that they sent a petition to the League of Nations, but it is not a petition for redress of grievances. It is really a petition in which they make certain claims—the claim of independence and the claim to a further extension of territory. They are legal claims. So the hon. member (Mr. Madeley) can understand that, as far as that is concerned, no commission can be instituted. You cannot appoint a commission to inquire into legal claims. I might say, however, that a little more than a year ago a commission was appointed to inquire into this claim of theirs for an extension of territory. The commission reported adversely to that. It is an old claim which they had made under the German Government.

Wasn’t it a protest against restriction? Were they not taking some of their territory away?

That is what they aver. They said that we, as the Germans had done before us, had taken territory which belonged to them. In regard to that an investigation was held, and the report came out that it was not so. In regard to that, I may say that Mr. Hofmeyr even went so far as to offer—and that offer still stands open to them—that if they would only come to peace amongst one another, he was prepared to buy up eight farms which they had sold to white people and make them a present of these. He had actually bought four or five farms of the eight. Two or three people would not sell, and that in regard to those cases he said he would give these people £5,000 in addition. My hon. friend can understand that the Government could not think of sending to-day a commission to go and inquire, because, before you can inquire, you must have obedience to the orders of the authorities. If a commission will satisfy them, when once that is done, if necessary I shall go on the commission myself, but at the moment I cannot think of it.

Will you consider it?

This is a motion for the second reading of a small private Bill promoted by the South African Association, a company established with unlimited liability to undertake the administration of estates and other business, such as these trust associations that we are familiar with generally undertake. It was constituted by an Act of the Cape Legislature in 1835, so that it goes back to nearly one hundred years. Since then various Acts have been passed amending the constitution. The capital has been raised from £7,875, with which it started to £29,000, at which it stands now. The constitution, as I have said, has been laid down from time to time in private Acts of the Cape Legislature, and, consequently, the company has to come to this Parliament when it requires an amendment of its constitution, as it does now. It will be seen from the balance-sheet of the association that it carries on business on a very considerable scale. It has a reserve fund, according to the last balance-sheet of £112,500, it has trust funds belonging to wards and other persons of £305,000, and it has funds in hand amounting to nearly £3,000,000, representing trusts which are separately administered entirely from its own business and kept separately from its own funds. The charges which it makes for carrying on its business are also regulated by its statutes. The purpose of this small Bill is to enable the association to divide its shares into shares of smaller denomination. Under the existing constitution its shares are of the nominal value of £175.

Are there any fresh shares to be created?

No. The reason for asking for this change is that the business is a prosperous one and a well-managed one, and the result is that the value of the shares, nominally £175, has risen until it is now £850, and it is felt by the shareholders of the association and by the directors that this is too large an amount to enable the public freely to acquire these shares and hold them, and that to reduce the value of the shares by splitting them would enable a larger number of the public to take up shares and buy them than is now possible. The result is that the shareholders in general meeting have agreed to the proposal embodied in this Bill, under which each share of the nominal value of £175 will be divided into five shares of £35 each.

The same value?

Exactly, simply putting five shares for one. It is merely dividing each of the existing shares into five, without any increase of the nominal value or in any other way. There are one or two consequential provisions which are required owing to this division. The existing constitution provides that no person shall be capable of holding more than one share. This Act will alter that to three shares, in view of the fact that the shares are being divided, but it preserves the rights of existing shareholders at the commencement of the Act. Then an alteration is made in regard to the qualifications of the directors. The present qualification is that a director shall hold one share. In consequence of the division of the value of the share, the Bill provides that he must hold three shares. These are all the provisions of this Bill. I do not think I need take up the time of the House in explaining it at any length, although I shall be glad to answer any questions that may be raised in so far as my information enables me to do so. The Bill has been before a select committee, and the report of that committee is on the Table. The Select Committee found that the preamble was proved, and reported the Bill to this House without amendment, and I, therefore, move the second reading. I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is a very simple business transaction. This is a well-established company. The hon. member has put the facts very clearly before the House, and it is a simple matter which is not going to add to the capital in any way. The capital is just under £30,000. The association has pursued a useful career.

I am not against the alteration in the deeds, but what I want to emphasize is that in some instances these things are not wholly to the benefit of the original shareholders. I would like to take a parallel in the case of a certain company where you have the original shares divided by five. The shares were then sold, and the persons who purchased them at a high figure wanted a larger profit. The result was that the profit had to be met by fictitious methods. I should like to have an assurance from the mover that this is not the method, I hope, whereby in years to come the profits will not be legitimately shown on balance sheets. I should also like to know that on subsequent balance sheets the shares will be shown at their right value, and that there will be no question of misleading the public as to the legitimate value of the shares. While the capital is less than £30,000 they have a reserve fund of £112,500. This House must safeguard not only the persons who have the money, but also those persons who have to provide the money. I want not only the shareholders to be safeguarded, but the people to be safeguarded as well. If, under the present system it is possible for an individual or a company to make tremendous profits, we should not do anything to prohibit them from doing it when they conform to the laws of the land, but there should be some safeguard when they come to us to alter shares. We should be also assured of the fact that in time to come not only they but all people would know the true value of the shares, and that it would not be used to cover up the tremendous profits which they have been making.

May I say to my hon. friend who has just sat down that the preamble states that one of the objects is to safeguard people who are connected with the concern. What he worries about is probably safeguarding those whose money is held in trust for them. They say, frankly, that they want to alter the shares so as to rope in morel of the public in order that they may have something to fall back upon in the event of a bad time. While I recognize that, and while I am not going to oppose the second reading, I do not see the overwhelming necessity of our granting this. By splitting the shares up there is no fresh capital brought in. The original capital is there, but they stand on the market at a tremendous premium of 5 to 1. Roughly speaking, each share, according to the preamble, is worth five times its par value. That in itself shows the company to be in a remarkably strong position, I am forced to this conclusion—that the whole object of this proposal is not so much to safeguard the position of the company by spreading this unlimited liability over a larger portion of the public, but to make it a more easily and negotiable concern. I do not think the idea is to cover up the profits. You always have on record that at some time or another these shares were so split. There is very little possibility of the real profits being hidden by this means. What I fear is that the whole object is to make them more easily negotiable. I am convinced that the main object is that they may buy and sell more easily. They could force up the price of the market. Surely we make take these people as honest people. The hon. mover (Mr. Duncan) is, I am sure, an honourable man, and I am sure he would not lend himself to anything dishonourable. We have a right to assume that some of the public are asking for these shares, and in turn, there are holders of these shares desirous of selling them, feeling that it is a quid pro quo for his money. Don’t you see that immediately that lends itself to trafficking in those shares? I am not going to oppose the Bill because I do not understand much about it, but we have had so much experience of the way shares are wangled that we have got to be remarkably careful. I would like the member to tell us. The hon. member for Liesbeek has rightly stated that here you have an original capital of £30,000. That is the money that has built up this enormous value of shares, with a reserve of £112,000. The company are administering huge sums of money. In regard to the point made by the hon. mover of the motion that they spread their unlimited liability among a larger number of the public, if that is the real object, I suggest why should you stop at 125? Why not split them up into 175 to one and make the price of the shares £5 in value? Then you reach a wider public and your unlimited liability becomes more limited because you are in-roping a larger number of the public in order to meet that liability.

If it is dangerous, why bring in more people?

I am not suggesting that that should be done, I am merely dealing with the argument. I see in this merely a desire to make it possible to make money by making the shares much more negotiable. I hope the hon. member, when he replies, will give information on that point.

May I point out that this company is incorporated by an Act of Parliament. An ordinary company can, in the Cape Province, effect this kind of change under section 50 of the Company’s Act of 1922, but this company cannot, and that is the reason for coming to the House. This company is an old company which originally started with 21 members, and they used their capital to help people to administer estates, and to-day they have under administration millions of pounds. The hon. member asks why not make the shares £1? But in terms of the Act, an hon. member could not become a shareholder if the other shareholders objected. A man buying a share in this company becomes a member of a partnership, and therefore he has to be approved of by the other shareholders, and that is why the company doesn’t want to make the nominal value of the shares too small. If you make it £1 you would have to get the consent of 29.000 people. In addition to that there is the additional safeguard that if my hon. friend were to place money on deposit with this company or make them executors in his will, if the number of shareholders is increased, every man or institution doing business with the company will have the additional security of the assets of the new shareholders. A man dies in Cape Town having one share in his estate. You cannot always find a man who will pay up £840 to become a shareholder in an unlimited concern. It was originally a partnership which was sanctioned by Parliament, and I think it is in the interests not only of the shareholders, but everybody doing business with the company to allow the shares to be split up. We have four of these unlimited companies in Cape Town that administer estates.

They are all in a pretty healthy position.

Yes, and if you go to any one of them and put your money with them, you can be certain you will never lose that money, because every shareholder is liable to an unlimited extent. This company has done good in the past when money was scarce in the Free State. It was the first Cape Trust Company that lent money on bond in the Free State. It has been instrumental in developing the country.

I would like to answer one or two points raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) said he regarded this with some suspicion because it might lead to the association having to make larger profits in order to satisfy a greater number of shareholders who would come in, and he based his argument on the analogy of the Cement Company. The charges that this association makes for the work it does are laid down by Act of Parliament. It cannot raise its charges. I do not think the two cases are at all analogous, and as regards profits they are shown quite clearly in the balance-sheet. I cannot give the hon. member the guarantee he asks for that these balance-sheets will always be drawn up as clearly as they are now, but his best guarantee is what has always been done in the past. Now with regard to the reserve fund, the Act under which the company works at present requires the directors to create a reserve fund out of profits, and distribution is restricted until this reserve fund is at least £100.000. That amount has been exceeded, and that of course lends additional security to the persons whose funds are entrusted to the association. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) raised a point which has been answered by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). The splitting of the shares makes it more easy to dispose of them. I see nothing in that. I know there have been cases where the splitting of shares has been done for speculative purposes to create a market, but that consideration cannot apply to these shares, which carry unlimited liability, and the shareholders have to see that a new shareholder is a man of sufficient financial standing. To that extent the broadening of the basis of the shareholding increases the security.

The motion was agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

The clauses, preamble and title of the Bill having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment, and real a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In moving the second reading of this Bill, I wish to state that in 1916 a committee of this House sat upon the private Bill of the Cape of Good Hope Law Society. I happened to be a member of that committee, and it was the general opinion that the period of training for attorneys was too short. It was urged that there was going to be a consolidating Bill dealing with the matter. I understand that such a Bill has been in the pigeon-holes of the Government, but after waiting nine years, I have ventured to bring this matter forward. It has received the approbation of every one to whom I have spoken about it. There was a time, forty years ago, when attorneys were very scarce, and the period of articles was reduced from five years to three. I do not think the same applies now, nor do I think you could name any profession where the period of articles is as low as three years. I he period of apprenticeship in Natal is five years. Not a single objection has been raised to the Bill, and the consensus of opinion is in its favour. No person, who has entered into articles of apprenticeship before the Bill becomes law will be affected, so there is no interference with vested interests.

I hope the hon. member will forgive me if I move the adjournment of the debate, for I would like to see a fuller attendance of legal members, so that we can have the benefit of their advice.

I second. I think it advisable that we should take the evidence of people who may be affected by the Bill. In some cases, three years may be sufficient in which to turn out a smart lawyer, but in other cases five years may not be enough.

I think the hon. member would be wise to accept the proposal, for the Bill is of a far-reaching character. The extension of the period of articles from three years to five might press very hardly on the poorer section of the community. We should have a statement in writing from the law societies with regard to the Bill, and the general public should have an opportunity of putting their case before a select committee. After the second reading has been taken, I hone the hon. member in charge of the Bill will agree to the measure going to a select committee. I sympathize with the wish of the mover to raise the standard of the profession, but it would be unwise to rush the matter.

I hope the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will not press his motion for the adjournment of the debate. It is quite obvious that the contents of the Bill have been known to the legal profession and the general public for a considerable time. The Bill was published as far back as two months ago, and copies were sent to the various law societies. I know that the Transvaal Law Society is fully acquainted with all the details of the Bill. If the debate is adjourned there is very small possibility of the Bill becoming law this session. Undoubtedly there is a certain urgency in the matter, as for years past there has been an agitation to extend the period of apprenticeship to five years.

Owing to the urgent representations of my hon. friend, I will withdraw the amendment, with the leave of the House.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) has introduced this Bill. Not that I feel very strongly for the amendment he wishes to make, but because I think that the time has come for Parliament to consider whether the qualifications which are laid down for persons wishing to become attorneys actually meet the requirements of our country to-day. According to my personal view the qualifications we demand of attorneys to-day are not sufficiently high. I would like the House to remember one things namely, that attorneys in our villages in South Africa are influential men. The attorney is a man of especially great influence and weight. Many of your attorneys are members of Parliament for the constituency where they are practising. Moreover, we know that the attorney is often also a member of the School Board, school committees, etc. The attorney is often mayor of the town and in every respect he plays a leading part in the South African villages.

What has the training of clerks to do with it?

I think that for the reasons I have mentioned your attorney in South Africa must be a man of higher education than the standard demanded to-day. To-day the requirements are only the matriculation certificate and three years’ service of articles in an attorney’s office. I do not approve of an extension to five years. That is not sufficient. We know what happens in large towns. The articled clerk learns only a department of the work.

He doesn’t even learn how to prepare bills of costs.

I do not think much of the extension of the articles, but the academic qualifications must be raised from matriculation to B.A. I want an attorney to be a man who has a degree and who will afterwards serve a certain probation in an attorney’s office. If we fix the standard of B.A., then he will be three years at the university and later acquire certain practical experience in an attorney’s office, then he will be in a position to play a leading role in our villages and our social life where his lot is cast. Therefore I am prepared to vote for the second reading, because that only means that we are sending the principle to the Select Committee to inquire whether an amendment should not be made with respect to the qualification for admission as an attorney. The Select Committee will have to see how the qualification must be varied, and if the hon. member is prepared to agree that the Bill shall be referred after the second reading to a Select Committee, I am prepared to vote for the second reading.

Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report.

I am willing to accept that, but I think it is going to serve no purpose. The thing has been well known and it has been notified in the public press, but if it relieves the mind of hon. members I will accept it.

I may say that the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) should not move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill is under the care of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown), and, if he does not move for a Select Committee, the hon. member for Hanover Street can do so by way of amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

That puts it in order.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a small amendment to section 28 of the Magistrates’ Court Act. In that section the magistrate has jurisdiction where a cause of action has wholly arisen. The amendment is to give the magistrate jurisdiction where a debt or claim has wholly or in part arisen. Under the old Natal Magistrates’ Court Act the amendment referred to was embodied in the Bill, namely, that the magistrate had jurisdiction where a debt or claim had wholly or in part arisen in his district. There is also a similar provision in the English County Court Act, and I would like to read that portion of the Act which gives this jurisdiction to a magistrate.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there appears to be no quorum.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

I want to refer to; the County Courts Act in England, where a similar provision is made. Section 74 of the County Courts Act of 1888 provides for jurisdiction “in a district in which the cause of action or claim wholly or in part arises.” The Natal Act of 1896 had almost an exactly similar provision in section 48, which provided that the magistrate may grant leave to sue where the debt or claim has wholly or in part been contracted or arisen within his district. That section of the Natal Act operated from 1896 until the Magistrates’ Court Act of the Union was passed in 1917. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the provision under the old Natal Magistrates Court Act which gave the right to sue where a debt had been wholly or in part contracted was of very great advantage and worked very satisfactorily in Natal. Difficulties have arisen as to the interpretation of what “a cause of action” means, but the courts have laid down finally that every fact which is material to be proved to entitle a plaintiff to succeed, and every fact that a defendant would have a right to traverse, forms an essential part of the cause of action, and the cause of action can only be said to arise within a district where all such material facts arose. In the amending Bill now under discussion the words “cause of action” have been struck out and the words “claim or debt” substituted in place thereof. The latter follows the words which were embodied in the Natal Act. Under the present Act the cause of action must wholly arise within the district in which the claim is made, but the Bill now submitted substitutes the words “cause of action” by the words debt or claim,” and says that if the debt or claim has partly or wholly arisen—

On a point of order, I regret to have to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is no quorum.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

I do not intend to unnecessarily weary the House, and I now move the second reading of this Bill.

I do not wish to go into the matter. I only want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared that we should refer this Bill to a Select Committee. It can go to the same Select Committee as the previous Bill. I think that it has been rather loosely drafted, and I think that it will be a good thing to refer it to a Select Committee, which need not sit long. There the matter can be put in order.

I am quite prepared to accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart).

Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Admission of Attorneys Bill for consideration and report.

seconded.