announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Col. D. Reitz from service on the Select Committee on the Wage Bill and appointed Mr. Stuttaford in his stead; and had also discharged Mr. Stuttaford from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities and appointed Mr. Anderson in his stead.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) whether he is prepared to agree to the House coming to a vote now without discussing the Bill further.

Yes, but I presume the hon. gentleman will give me an opportunity to reply on the debate.

I want the vote to be taken now without any further speeches being made. If the hon. member is going to reply it means that this debate will go on to six o’clock tonight; because we will have to move amendment after amendment. We are prepared to come to the vote now, and have the matter disposed of. Will the hon. member accept that?

I will accept.

I put the question in this way: That the words “the Bill be” proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion. That will mean that if these words are retained the second amendment drops and the further amendment can be put.

On a point of order, I wish to ask whether it is not possible to put the second amendment first, in regard to sending the Bill to a Select Commitee.

I understand the usual practice is to put it in the way I have suggested.

With the leave of the House, and in view of the second amendment, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Agreed to.

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

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—13.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Cilliers, A. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw. J. P.

Nicholls, G. H.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Watt. T.

Tellers: Blackwell, Leslie; Collins, W. R.

Noes—49.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, C. W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F.

(Tom) Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Raubenheimer, I.

van W. Reyburn, G.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Werth, A. J.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

The substitution of the words proposed in lieu thereof put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.:

I move—

The measure I have the privilege of submitting for the consideration of hon. members is the same Bill that I introduced last year, and which passed its second reading on March 23rd of last year. The Bill subsequent to the second reading being approved, was referred to a Select Committee, but owing to the general election and the consequent change of Government, the further stages of the Bill lapsed. The Bill has been introduced at the request of the Natal Law Society, as representing the members of the legal profession practising in Natal. The Bill proposes to remove an anomaly which exists in Natal as distinguished from the other provinces of the Union. In fact, I think I may say that the position as it exists to-day in Natal, whereby non-members of the legal profession are entitled to practice as conveyancers, is unknown in any part of the British Empire. In the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, the practice of a conveyancer is exclusively the prerogative of the legal profession. This is the position so far as the Cape is concerned, under Act No. 12 of 1858, and Act No. 11 of 1903, and in the Free State, under Rule 101 of the Supreme Court. So far as Natal is concerned, the practice as established in an Act of Parliament (No. 23 of 1904) is that permission was granted to persons other than solicitors or attorneys to practice as conveyancers, if they passed a particular conveyancers’ examination. This has been the practice since 1904. Experience has shown that not only has this practice not been satisfactory, but, as a matter of fact, the bulk of the conveyancing work, so far as the larger towns of Natal are Concerned, has gradually drifted into the hands of persons other than attorneys. The reason for this is very largely because conveyancers as such carry on business as estate agents, accountants, etc., and as such they are entitled to advertise—a privilege which is not granted to the ordinary attorney or advocate. I am not questioning the competency of the various gentlemen who are acting as conveyancers in Natal; they are gentlemen for whom I have the greatest regard and respect; but undoubtedly the competition which they are able to exercise against the ordinary practitioner is one against which the ordinary practitioner cannot compete. The right to advertise is a considerable advantage. At Durban the bulk of the conveyancing work is in the hands of two or three estate agents, and this is regarded as undue competition so far as the ordinary practitioner is concerned. Whatever may be said with regard to the desirability of attorneys having a close corporation, nevertheless this is the law to-day. No one is allowed to practice as an attorney or an advocate unless he has passed a severe test and undergone a course of training extended over a number of years, and passing very difficult and trying examinations. Conveyancing is peculiarly work to which solicitors are entitled, and it is felt that so long as attorneys have to pass examinations, they are entitled to this work to the exclusion of outside practitioners. It is under these circumstances that the Natal Law Society holds that it is entitled to come to this House to have the existing practice altered. There is another aspect of the case as affecting the public. The mere carrying out of ordinary transfer work is more or less mechanical, which can be done by a man of ordinary competence, but in the drawing up of a document, such as wills, etc., experience has shown that an examination passed by a conveyancer does not necessarily qualify a man to do that work, and as a result the public suffer. This is especially noticeable as far as the preparation of wills is concerned, a matter in which not only the mere mechanical skill in drawing a document is necessary but also a knowledge of law. The Bill proposes that in the future only attorneys and advocates shall be qualified to practice as conveyancers after passing the necessary examination. All those persons who are to-day qualified and practicing as conveyancers are excluded from the operation of the Bill. On the last occasion this matter was debated in this House, it was urged that the position of the sons of men presently practicing as conveyancers should be taken into consideration. As far as I am concerned, I would have preferred to consider that matter in committee. I understand it has been suggested that a conference between the conveyancers and the Natal Law Society might be met by insisting on the person desiring to practice as a conveyancer passing the same examination as an attorney does at the final attorneys’ examination, and after being admitted as an attorney then he should qualify for practise with a firm of conveyancers.

You want a trades union?

A complete trades union.

Hear, hear.

I do not admit that the law societies of the provinces are in the strict sense of the word trades unions. We have certain characteristics which are peculiarly absent from ordinary trades unions, for we put some restraint on our members. My attention has been drawn to the fact that this Bill should not apply to certain officials of the Land Bank who draw up documents. As far as I am concerned they should be excluded. There are certain other officials in the Natal office of lands who carry out similar work, and they might also be excluded from the operation of the measure. There are other cases, such as gentlemen who have presented themselves for the conveyancers’ examination and who, having failed, are about to present themselves again for examination. Their case can be met by extending the date from which the Bill is to come into operation. The definition of conveyancer in the Bill is too wide, and I think could usefully be amended, as it might restrict the actions of individuals in the preparation of contracts. I do not know that there is anything else which I can usefully refer to. It is hoped under the Bill to give back to solicitors and attorneys the work to which they are entitled. The profession is heavily overmanned. Members of the profession are experiencing difficulty in making a livelihood, and this branch of the profession, a branch they are peculiarly entitled to, I maintain should be reserved for them. On that basis I move the second reading of this Bill.

We have an open admission from the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) that in Natal there is no question of the competency of the men now doing the conveyancing, and we have it admitted that so far as the people of Natal are concerned they are quite satisfied. They prefer to go to the conveyancer rather than to an advocate, but now we have a Bill introduced saying that the people of Natal shall not be permitted to go to a conveyancer and the conveyancer shall not be permitted to carry on the work he has done so well in the past. It means that when they leave their business the business is no longer to be carried on, and their families will not be entitled to the goodwill of the business that has been established. We have seen a sudden conversion of the hon. member for Durban (Central) to trades unionism. It is suggested to hon. members that this is a Bill in accordance with the principles of trade unionism. I wonder if he will be willing to stand up and say that only members of a building union shall be permitted to lay bricks, that only members of the amalgamated engineering union should be employed in engineering work? I don’t think so. It is not a case of trades unionism at all. It is a case of a body of strongly organized professional men trying to take away the business of another body of professional men. The conveyancers in Natal are men who have qualified in their profession, who have passed their examinations, and who are to-day rendering perfect service to the public. It has been suggested that nobody would be affected by reason of the fact that the conveyancers should not be allowed to carry on their businesses. Have their families no right to carry on the goodwill of the business? I think they have the right, and there is no reason why the House should deprive them of that right. It is suggested that conveyancers might make mistakes in a will. Has a lawyer never made a mistake in a will? One of the highest judges in the British Empire once made a mistake in his own will. Is it contended that no mistakes are made in conveyancing by the legal men in Natal? Is it contended that conveyancing in Natal is done better by legal men than properly qualified conveyancers? I think we ought to have the opinion of the conveyancers themselves on this Bill before it is accepted. I therefore move, as an amendment—

I will second the amendment. There is a considerable amount of opposition to this Bill from Natal. I know for a fact a good many of the people of Durban engaged in conveyancing work for many years are opposed to this Bill, because it will take away from these firms the class of work they have done for many years and which they have done satisfactorily. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) in moving the second reading said that there were a great many lawyers in Durban who had difficulty in making a living and that was a reason why the work should be taken from conveyancers and be given to lawyers so that they might have a chance of making a living. I don’t think that is a very good reason. I have a telegram here from a gentleman engaged in conveyancing work in Natal and he says he wants this Bill opposed, but he has not given me any particulars on which to oppose this Bill. I think the course suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) is a very wise one. Even the hon. member who proposes the Bill says there are many alterations that can be made and tells us we can make them if we like which would mean scrapping his Bill and bringing in another one. I think it would only be right to send this Bill to a Select Committee, and take evidence from all parties who are interested therein.

I think we all know that Natal is rather a curious province in certain respects. It is certainly lagging behind the rest of the Union in this matter. In principle conveyancing should be done by lawyers but in legal matters Natal will not come into line. I have tried to get them to divide the professions of attorneys and advocates in order to come into line but they have refused to do so. Until they do come into line in this respect they cannot expect the House to pass this legislation. Further until Natal has proved that it does not wish to secede from the Union it cannot expect us to make special provision of this nature. Again there is no reason why an advocate should be a conveyancer or why conveyancing work and advocates’ work should be combined in one individual. As soon as they have divided up these two professions, and they can come to this House and say “Now we have come into line with the rest of the Union, we are also becoming a progressive province like the other provinces of the Union,” then I, personally, would at once say that it is a correct principle to adopt that your conveyancer must be a lawyer, and unless he is an attorney, a man should be allowed to be admitted as a Conveyancer. But I think I would go further than the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). I would not submit this matter to a select committee at this stage. I think this House should vote against the second reading of this Bill until such time as the two professions are divided.

It is a matter for regret that the Minister of Justice was not more in evidence during the last session in 1924. In those days he was not a Minister; he was a private member. If he had been in this House during the second reading debate on this identical Bill, I do not think he would have made the speech which he has made this afternoon. I do not suppose that he has taken the trouble even to read the debate which took place on this measure last year, or that he has scanned the division lists, which would have shown him that this measure met with the universal support of his party.

Not universal.

Well, almost universal. Not less than four of his colleagues in the present Cabinet voted for it. I agree with the Minister that it is a matter for regret that the legal profession in Natal has not seen fit to divide and form the two branches of the profession which exist in the rest of the Union. But to say to the legal profession of Natal that we are not going to do a single thing, rightly or wrongly, whatever the merits of the proposal, until they separate the professor is, I think, to take up an entirely unfair attitude, and I think the Minister, on further consideration, will agree that I am right. I expected, of course, to hear the speech that the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) has made, but I did not expect to hear him so entirely solicitous in the interests of vested rights. I had imagined that there were other parties in this House against whom the accusation could be brought that they were very tender and very zealous about vested rights, but the hon. member, and those members of the party who are with him on this point, go very much further in their support of vested rights than any of us would dare to go. We would say, in support of the vested rights of a man who is practising a particular profession, that you should not do anything to interfere with that man’s rights; but that does not satisfy my hon. friend, who says that we should protect not only that man’s rights, but the rights of his children and his grandchildren ad infinitum. It is a pity that the hon. member’s zeal for vested rights is not a permanent one; it seems to break out sporadically, in patches.

Like your trades unionism.

My hon. friend is very zealous in the protection of vested rights, but, as I say, it is very sporadic. I interrupted my hon. friend when he was speaking because, consciously or unconsciously, he was giving this House the impression that the purport and effect of this Bill is to shut down the offices of the conveyancers in Natal. Of Course, that is not the case. My hon. friend on my right (Mr. Henderson) said a plea was put forward on behalf of the legal profession of Natal that the work should be taken from the conveyancers and given to these members of the legal profession. That is entirely to misrepresent the case. The position is that under this Bill every man who to-day is a conveyancer in Natal will be allowed to continue to practise as a conveyancer until his death, but after this Bill becomes law it will not give a man the right to commence to practise as a conveyancer unless he is a member of the legal profession. The hon. member advances a claim for the protection of vested rights, which has never been advanced before with any success in this or any other House. In the Government’s own Medical and Pharmacy Bill, where a professional qualification is laid down for a man, and the man already practising is protected, you make no exceptions in the case of sons and grandsons. Similarly in the case of accountants and law agents in the Transvaal. Then the question is asked, why should you, on the merits, restrict the practice of a conveyancer to a man who belongs to the legal profession? On that point the Minister of Justice is with me. He says it is right and it is proper, and no lawyer would dream of questioning the truth of that statement. I am practising as an advocate, and the Minister of Justice knows that it does not matter one button to me as an individual what qualifications a conveyancer should have, or should not have. The fact that it is in consonance with the Roman Dutch law prevailing throughout South Africa, that no one should be allowed to draw documents, execute wills, and draw the ordinary deeds of title to property unless he is a lawyer, has been accepted, and one can say that it is right and proper. Conveyancing is an essential portion of the work of the legal profession. And all the Bill does is to say that in future, before a man shall do the important and responsible work of conveyancing, he shall have legal qualifications. Can there be anything to cavil at in that? One knows what consequences may follow from imperfectly drawn up legal documents. Can one say it is not right that a man who practices that sort of work should be properly qualified? Would the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) suggest that anyone should practice as an advocate or attorney without legal qualifications? This is just as much legal work as advocacy or the work of an attorney. What arguments remain against this Bill? I suggest the House should do what it did in 1924 that is, pass this second reading by a substantial majority. In 1924 the figures were 54 to 26, and I hope the House will repeat that, because it is a measure which the House should adopt.

We have just listened to an amusing speech from an ambitious young man who seems to have an overweening conceit of himself.

Order! Withdraw.

The hon. member must withdraw what he said concerning the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

I withdraw the words “ambitious young man.”

The hon. member must withdraw his remarks.

I withdraw those remarks. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Blackwell) gets up in the House and preaches to everybody. He attempts to lecture the House, and even his own side is getting tired of it. We are prepared to assist our hon. friend on the other side, but we have not sufficient information, because not only is his own sied split on the question, but his own bench is split also. The only two gentlemen who got up to speak for the Bill so far are both lawyers. There is one thing in which we agree with Lenin. Lenin shot all the lawyers, which was the best thing he ever did. This is the information we want to know. Why in Natal are conveyancers allowed to appeal to the High Court in Bloemfontein? They are, in Natal, estate agents, auctioneers, notaries, etc.—they are everything in Natal—

Nonsense.

Yes, nonsense too. They must put themselves right with the public first. They want to clear the whole of the pool. Our friends want to be everything in Natal. Why should we worry about passing Bills for people who may not be in the Union next year? We want to know if our hon. friend will be here as well? This is why we want more information, and the Bill should be sent to a select committee. Our friends cannot have it both ways; they cannot ask to be put on the same footing as the Free State, and then say, “we do not want to be in the Free State.” I agree with the principle that it should be put in the hands of attorneys, but I do not want to worry about Natal. We find a good deal of sedition being spoken in Natal at the present moment, a good deal of sedition against the Union Jack, and we do not want the Union Jack pulled down in this country, not even by lawyers in Natal. We do not want to burden our statute book with measures for people who might not be in the Union next month. We do not want to leg is late for foreign people. We do not want to see anyone secede from the Union. I trust the House will send the Bill to a select committee, notwithstanding what the “ambitious young man” has said.

You have withdrawn that once, you know.

When this matter came before the House last year I was one of those who voted against the second reading of the Bill. I would like to point out in regard to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said, that it was not a question of a party vote. He suggested that pretty well all the Nationalists voted for the Bill; that is not so. In the minority of 26, there were seven Nationalists, ten members of the South African party, eight Labour men, and myself, who voted against the Bill. The Labour party all voted against the Bill, and the Nationalists and South African party were divided. I think the Minister of Justice really hit the nail on the head when he said that this Bill is brought before the House on the assumption that there is uniformity in legal practice in Natal. That is not so. There is uniformity in the rest of the Union, but not in Natal. I think, with the Minister of Justice, that before Natal asks for this Bill, that province should be put on the same footing as the rest of the Union in regard to legal practice. If that were done, the arguments for this Bill would be irresistible. The hon. member who introduced the Bill indicated that there were a large number of far-reaching amendments which would have to be considered, and I was rather surprised that he did not indicate that he would ask for the Bill to be sent to a select committee. Last time the Bill was sent to a select committee.

The second, reading was taken first. I intended to say that mat was my intention.

I do not think that the position in Natal has been sufficiently appreciated from the speeches that have already been made, from which it would appear that anybody could become a conveyancer in Natal. That is not so. Section 2 of the Act provides that no person not being a notary public, an advocate, or an attorney, shall be allowed to practice as a conveyancer unless he is enrolled, from which I take it that an advocate can be a conveyancer? The hon. member agrees. Also an attorney and a notary public?

No, he must pass the conveyancers’ examination.

He has not to pass an examination under this Bill.

It is part of his examination.

The point is he does not pass a special examination.

Yes, he does.

The section says that no person not being a notary public, advocate, or attorney, shall be allowed to practice unless he is enrolled as a conveyancer. There is no provision there for an examination of a notary public, attorney or advocate. Of course the examination may be before they become notaries, etc., but the Act of 1904 does not provide for such, and the notary public, advocate and attorney are exempt from examination under the Bill. The Act provides that the Supreme Court shall have power to approve, admit to practice, and enrol, as a conveyancer, any person who has passed an examination in conveyancing, and the court may make rules for the examination and the conditions under which they must practice. You therefore see that, before a man can become a conveyancer in Natal, he must be able to do the work. I assume the Supreme Court is carrying out the provisions of this Act, and any man who is admitted as a conveyancer in Natal must have a knowledge complete and satisfactory with regard to those things which are referred to in this measure. If the law is not carried out, why does not the law society see that it is? The hon. member says that conveyancers compete at present with the rest of the legal profession because they can advertise and the legal profession cannot. Surely the proper course for the law society is to go to the Supreme Court under section 3 of the Act of 1904, and if the court considers that a conveyancer should not advertise, the Supreme Court has power to make it a condition that conveyancers shall observe the same rule as advocates, notary publics and attorneys. I do think that a good case has been made out for not passing the Bill, on the ground that there is not sufficient information before the House to show the necessity for the Bill, having regard to the fact that all these things the hon. member complained of can be dealt with under the existing law of Natal, which he seeks to repeal, and when he talks of uniformity he must first bring Natal into line with the rest of the Union in regard to the practice of advocates and attorneys. I wish the hon. member had not proposed his amendment, as then we could have had a straight vote. I think the suggestion that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading was of interest particularly to certain officials who have to be provided for, namely, in regard to the Land Bank and otherwise. These people should have an opportunity of going into the matter. If a Select Committee is appointed, I hope it will enquire into the question as to why the existing law which appears to be adequate to deal with the matter, has not been made use of.

I agree with the last speaker and feel quite prepared to vote against the second reading. It is to my mind a great pity that 15 years after Union we still have not obtained uniformity in the legal profession. We are dealing at present with another Bill in regard to which also there is not uniformity, and such a state of affairs is undesirable. As the hon. Minister of Justice has said, Natal seems to be the one member of the Union which does not want to come into line. They come and ask for certain privileges which the attorneys have in the other Provinces, but they are not prepared to give up what the attorneys in the other Provinces have given up. Can we as a House grant them what they ask? Of five Natal members present three have spoken—one of them, the mover, in favour of the Bill; the other two in favour of referring it to a Select Committee. I think we must expect them to settle their quarrels at home and come with a united front. The hon. member should remember that the conveyancers in Natal are qualified men. Advocates and attorneys pass the same examination in conveyancing as the conveyancers, and if the conveyancers in future continue to pass the examination they will be fairly qualified, too. I hope the day is not far off when the Natal legal profession will come forward with a united front, prepared to give up the things which attorneys in the other provinces have given up. In these circumstances I am prepared to vote against the second reading, as this may possibly induce the Natal attorneys to come into line with those in the other provinces.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this Bill, because, on referring to the records, I find that I introduced the Bill in the Natal House of Assembly, which afterwards became the Act under which conveyancers are licensed. That was in 1904 and it was only last year that I heard for the first time that there was some doubt as to whether the system of licensing persons to act as conveyancers, and giving them the same power to draw up deeds such as attorneys had, was justified. I think it is a pity that this matter is not being considered practically on its merits. It ought to be looked at first of all from the public point of view, and, secondly, from the point of view of those engaged in the profession of conveyancer and of those engaged as attorneys and advocates. I think it is a pity that the hon. Minister of Justice brought in this question of sub-dividing the Natal bar. That is a totally different matter and has been the subject of discussion for many years. There is a great difference of opinion amongst the members of the profession as to whether the bar should be subdivided or not. From the public point of view it would be far better if the Natal system were the system elsewhere in the Union and there is no doubt that as far as litigants are concerned it is cheaper to go to law in Natal than in the other provinces of the Union.

No, No.

I am speaking from experience. In my humble opinion it is advisable that the Natal system should remain as it is. Whether the other provinces will ever follow the good example of Natal is very doubtful, but it is rather strange that in Canada, Australia and New Zealand they have the same system with regard to the bar as we have in Natal and that the public in those countries are quite satisfied with the system. However, that is a matter which I suppose will be settled some time in the future— I think in the distant future—but for the present I think it would be a very good thing if, as suggested by the hon. member for (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) the matter was investigated by a Select Committee. I know hon. members smile because they anticipate that this will kill the Bill. I hope, on the other hand, that it will be investigated on its merits, and if the committee are of opinion that the Bill should pass in its present or some amended form I hope it will come before the House again. It is quite incorrect to say that vested interests are being attacked by this Bill, because they are specially protected. I think it would be quite reasonable if the sons of any licensed conveyancers, or other youngsters who are at present qualifying to become conveyancers, were allowed to complete their qualification. I do not think the matter ought to be approached from the point of view that was hinted at by the Minister of Justice—that is to say that until Natal comes into line about the bar we are not going to redress any grievance or anomaly although it may be proved to the satisfaction of the House that such grievance or anomaly exists. I hope my hon. friend who has introduced the Bill will agree to the amendment to send the Bill to a Select Committee, so that the matter can be gone into before second reading.

As one who came from Natal and qualified there I would appeal to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) to accept the amendment. I do not, however, agree with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) particularly about vested interests. I do not see how anyone can seriously suggest that because a man carries on the business of conveyancing that protection should be given to his successors to act in the same capacity. We want to break away from these vested interests, not only in the case of conveyancers, but generally speaking. At the same time I agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), but not for the reasons given by the mover or the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) for whether Natal is to be a republic within twelve months does not affect this question. Legal practitioners in Natal are entitled to act as attorneys and conveyancers, and also as advocates in the Supreme Court. The reasonable course for Natal to adopt is the one indicated by the Minister of Justice. What would they say if a Bill were introduced to place them in the position of practitioners in the Cape and the Transvaal, namely, that they cannot act both as attorneys and advocates? Natal is asking for much more than it is entitled to do under the Bill. I do not think that is fair, and from that point of view I hope that the Bill will go to a Select Commitee, and I regret that the Select Committee will not have power to enquire into the question of bringing the legal profession in Natal into line with the other provinces of the Union.

The Act of 1904, which this Bill seeks to repeal, was brought into existence because at that time in Natal anyone could practise as a conveyancer without even passing an examination at all. Now attorneys have to pass a conveyancer’s examination, on exactly the same lines as that passed by conveyancers. The Minister of Justice says he is opposed to the proposal unless Natal agrees to come into line with the other provinces as far as attorneys and advocates are concerned. I hope hon. members will not be over-persuaded because it is the Minister of Justice who raises the question. I remember when the matter was brought up in the House originally, that a very considerable opinion was expressed that the Natal system under which the dual professions are practised, is the better one. It does not follow that because Natal is in a minority on this point that its method is not a better one. The attitude which the Minister of Justice has taken up over this Bill is exactly the attitude which has made the Minister so unpopular in Natal. The Minister of Justice, apparently, never approaches Natal unless he wants to dragoon it into doing something. Bilingualism is a case in point. Natal was coming into line—

What about secession?

People have talked this afternoon in a sneering way at the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) on the question of secession. It is the attitude of the Minister of Justice, and the sort of speech we have listened to this afternoon by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) which is doing more harm in that direction than anything else. I warn hon. members opposite that they cannot play with this question, which I don’t believe to-day is politics at all, but they can keep on inciting Natal until it does become politics.

The incitement is over there.

The speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) while admirable in other respects, is a particularly dangerous speech, especially at this juncture. The attitude of the Minister of Justice in telling Natal that—

is a very wrong attitude to take up. I venture to say that if this question of a divided bar were brought before the House, there would be as many differences of opinion in the House on the desirability of that, as there is upon the question I am urging upon them. How can you expect unanimity in Natal? I am pleading for the rights of the solicitor or the attorney. So long as you lay down that attorneys should pass examinations and go through a long period of apprenticeship, I say that it is only fair and proper to give them the full rights, to which, as attorneys, they are entitled. I am sorry the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Marlow) should have raised the question of secession this afternoon. I admit the hon. gentleman raised it in a jocular fashion, but it would have been better to leave it out. I am drawn in two directions as to whether this Bill should go before a select committee before or after the second reading. I believe my hon. friend in front is honest in his desire to have it investigated, and I know the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) considers that it is exterminated if it once goes to a select committee. I don’t see the necessity of postponing the principle which I contend is a simple one. I claim the right for solicitors to do conveyancing work exclusively. The amendments to which I have referred do not affect the principle. They are only matters of exception to the rule. Therefore I am quite willing to agree to the amendment of the hon. member that the Bill be now sent to a select committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

Mr. ALLEN seconded.

Agreed to.

Since this motion was before the House I have put a series of questions to the Minister of Agriculture, which he has answered this afternoon and which I think throw a considerable amount of light on the subject matter the House was discussing. One of the objects I understand the mover of this motion had in view was the question of surplus cattle which admittedly exists in South Africa. It has been admitted on all hands that the outlook for the export trade for some years to come in a particularly bad one. Now the late Government, under Act 12 of 1923, passed a law in which bounties of one halfpenny per lb. were to be paid to exporters of meat from South Africa, and I understand that under that provision very little meat was, in the first instance, exported from South Africa. Last year a sum of something like £30,000 was put on the estimates to cover what was contemplated would be the probable export of meat which would exhaust a bounty of that amount. This year the sum of £10,000 has been placed on the estimates. I think I understand the Minister right that the £10,000 is really to meet what the Government expects it will have to pay on contracts into which they had entered up to the 31st March of the present year, and that after that date the Government is going to discontinue the payment of the bounty and are making no provision for the order going on. Now I think that is a very unfortunate step for the Government to take. Up to the present, practically one firm has been doing this exporting work, that is the Imperial Cold Storage Company. I understand from the answer that the Minister has given me, that the only people who have given notice of any contracts having been entered into up to March 31st last is the Imperial Cold Storage, but I understand that there are other companies who have been making preparations for the export of cattle from South Africa, in contemplation that this bounty will be continued. If now the Minister is going to change the policy inaugurated by the late Government, there is going to be a considerable amount of loss to these individuals, but, what is of greater importance, perhaps, in connection with the motion before the House, is that it is improbale that so large a quantity of meat will be exported from South Africa as would otherwise be the case. The answer given to me by the Minister is that certain firms have intimated that they desire to export meat, but the Government has no information as to whether they have entered into such contracts. Now, whatever necessity there was for this motion prior to the adjournment, if that is going to be the policy of the Government, there is, it seems to me, a greater necessity than ever for serious consideration of the proposals made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position he has taken in regard to export under Act 12 of 1923.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum?

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

Perhaps I may be permitted just to go over again to some extent the argument that I was putting forward. The House was rather depleted, and I regard the matter to which I am referring as one of some importance. I was alluding to the fact that the Government had decided to discontinue the export of cattle under the bounty system which was provided for by Act 12 of 1923, and that they have only put on the estimates for this year a sum of £10,000, which, I gather, is not to be used for the payment of contracts which are to be entered into this year, but rather to be paid for contracts entered into prior to the financial year ended March 31st, 1925. I am fully satisfied in my own mind that if the Government discontinue this bounty the export trade will suffer. I have it from a new firm which has been established recently at Durban that the halfpenny per lb. difference on account of the bounty will make all the difference to them as regards the profit on export of meat from South Africa overseas, and, at any: ate, that they have entered into such a contract in anticipation of the bounty being continued, and they will sustain very considerable loss. I think the House would like to know from the Minister why the Government have decided to change the policy in regard to the export of meat and why they are not going to pay this bounty in future. I would move—

I second.

I think that we have on previous occasions had about six Select Committees with reference to this matter. We are, I think, all agreed about it. We all know that there is a surplus of beef in the land and that we have a poor grade of cattle in the country and we want something done. But I think the Government is actually busy doing exactly what the mover wants. The difference is that he wants a Select Committee in which farmers also will be represented while the Government has referred the matter for enquiry to the Board of Trade and Industries. This differs a good deal from what the hon. member wishes, but we have here to do with the point of how to get rid of the surplus of our beef, and the Board of Trade and Industries are engaged, on the instructions of the Minister of Agriculture, in investigating the problem. I understand that they are already engaged with the enquiry and that they will also specially enquire into the scheme of Col. Watkins Pitchford. Moreover, I cannot see why a special Select Committee should be appointed. The farmer, indeed, has a good knowledge of meat, but I do not think that he knows in what way the matter referred to in the motion should be commenced. I think the Government has done entirely right in referring the matter to the Board of Trade and Industries, and I understand it is now waiting for a report.

I do not think there is a motion before the House to refer the matter for enquiry to a Select Committee.

No, but the mover dealt with it, and that is why I am speaking on the subject. The matter has been a long time before the House, and I should like to see that the motion of the hon. member be withdrawn and that he wait until the report of the Board of Trade and Industries is made. If that, then, is not satisfactory, then we can take up the matter again.

Speaking on behalf of the farmers, I would strongly urge the Government to appoint a special commission to go into the question of the best means of dealing with the problem of surplus horned cattle. The main point is that we want a thorough and careful enquiry into the reasons for the position and the best means of meeting them.

That is being done now.

By whom?

The Board of Industries.

Exactly, but I do not think they are the right people to deal with it. This goes so deep into the agricultural life of the country that you want practical men to sit on the commission. I do not think that the Board of Trade and Industries, notwithstanding their academic qualifications, are the right body to deal with this matter. I say we should be ashamed that in this country there is such a vast number of poor and underbred cattle running about our South African farms. Steps should be taken, as are taken in other countries, to improve the cattle. South African Governments of the past have done a great deal to improve the quality of the cattle, but I do think improvement of cattle in general has not had the thought and careful consideration it should have had. It has been left mainly to sporadic efforts on the part of individual breeders, who have not had the backing they deserved. I was coming down from Bloemfontein in the train a little time ago and I saw from the carriage window a group of calves. A friend was maintaining that it was a good thing to breed common cattle in this country. There were nine calves in that group, and I defy the greatest expert on cattle alive to say what breed any one of them was. The breeding of such stock is detrimental to the country; no encouragement to breeders of good bulls, and largely the cause of the present trouble of a surplus of cattle. The matter is one which requires expert knowledge and investigation to go right into the root of the thing and see what can be done to improve the average quality of the cattle and to encourage the more general breeding of good stock. We know that there is unfortunately a market for meat of poorest quality and bad cattle in this country on the Rand Mines. Such cattle can also be sold for “lobolo” purposes to natives who do not care what they get so long as it is a four-footed horned beast. I want the commission to go into the whole matter fully to see what steps can be taken to improve cattle and what steps may be necessary to enable us to get rid of the present surplus of bad stock. We have just heard that the meat export bounty has been withdrawn. It is a most unfortunate time to make any little saving in that regard. When the farmers have been so hard hit it is an unfortunate time to withdraw that little bit of encouragement for the reduction of our surplus cattle. An amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) and I am very glad it has come before this motion is disposed of. I hope it will be incorporated and the motion and amendment adopted because I think the Government Benches of this House, so largely representative of farmers, would be very sorry to go back to their constituents and say they have turned down a recommendation which I believe would go a long way towards solving this problem. The hon. mover of this motion went fully into the subject of the Watkins-Pitchford method, but that is only a subsidiary point. The Minister said the Board of Trade were already dealing with the subject, but I submit that I and others have every right to maintain that that is not the correct body to deal with this question. It is not purely a matter of economics or of finding markets. You cannot find markets for stock that no one will have. There is at present an outlet for poor quality stock through Italy and central Europe, which take stock that other countries, who perhaps can afford to pay higher prices, will not look at. But because we have this temporary relief, that is not going to meet the question in the future. If South Africa developes as I think it should do, not so much as regards manufactures, but in agricultural or pastoral pursuits and in dealing with the produce from the land, I say our cattle of the future ought to be such that other countries of the world will come to us for their stud stock. We have a climate here that enables us to breed animals with constitutions unsurpassed in the world, and I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, and other members on his side of the House, to use their influence among their fellow-countrymen in the country districts, and to preach to them that they must get rid of the idea that quantity counts. I believe we took that idea over from the native! Because a man has a thousand head of cattle it does not follow that he is a greater asset to the farming industry of the country, than a man with fewer. I would rather that a man had a smaller number of good stock. It was said during the discussion that all this scrub stock belonged to the natives, but we know quite well that the native is not the only breeder of such stock, nor is he even in the great majority. You come to farm after farm with such stock. What encouragement have stud breeders to breed good cattle? Breeders have little sale for their high quality bulls, because the ordinary farmer says “I can buy a bull from So-and-So much cheaper.” He certainly can get a thing with four legs which is alive, and that is about all you can say in its favour. This commission is urgently wanted, and I would like the Minister to take the opportunity to appoint a practical commission which would be strongly representative of the agricultural industry of the country—and not composed entirely of gentlemen who may be competent on purely economic questions—as this subject goes much deeper than that. I wish the Minister would not persist in saying that the matter is being adequately dealt with as it has already been referred to the Board of Trade and Industries. This is a case for a special commission, and I hope he will see that such is appointed.

In my opinion the motion before the House is unnecessary. After we have heard the Minister state that the matter is already under the consideration of the Government and that the Board of Trade and Industries is engaged on it, it is unnecessary to insist upon the motion. It seems to me as if the hon. member who has just spoken is concerned as to what will become of hon. members on this side of the House when they go back to their electors about this matter. I shall return to my electors with the greatest pleasure, and I think other hon. members on this side will do the same, because the electors know that it is the members on this side of the House who always stand up for the farmer and the cattle farmers, while hon. members opposite have done very little. My opinion is that we should in the first place see to protect the local market. The Government has already done this by protecting us against unfair competition from the neighbouring territories. I am certain that we can leave the matter with confidence in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture and that he will do what he can for the farmer. I think that the premium mentioned here is entirely different to what it is supposed to be. The farmer does not receive it, but it all goes into the pockets of the large companies. We should like to see it go to the farmer. We often hear that we have such a poor grade of animal in the country. I say that this is not so. Our cattle are good. We have Frieslands which can compete with the world, witness the sale in England. There are other kinds, such as South Devons, Herefords. Afrikanders, etc. I admit that there is a class of beast which does not answer to the requirements, but we are slowly getting rid of them. Our Afrikander cattle are good for all purposes if they are only well looked after. We dare not neglect them and then say that they are scrub stock.

I am very much astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet). He has declared that we on this side of the House would do nothing when the farmers were struggling with a surplus of cattle. He was at that time not in the House and does not know what went on. He does not know what was done. A premium was paid to export the meat. Now I understand that the premium will no longer be paid. What are we going to put in its place? At that time the hon. members who now sit on the Government benches fought us hard about the import of cattle from Rhodesia. They said: Give us a chance to get into power and we will stop the importation. This was done, but has the importation from Rhodesia been stopped? My hon. friend must remember that he represents an important division, Heidelberg. He says that he can go to his electors with a clear conscience. Let him go to the eastern portions of Heidelberg. I know, because I also represent a portion of the district, and we will see what will become of his equanimity. It was said at that time that we on this side of the House would do nothing for a certain class of cattle farmer. The Nationalists have got their opportunity, and what have they done in connection with the importation of cattle from Rhodesia?

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Yes, I am speaking about the importation of meat from Rhodesia.

But the importation of meat from Rhodesia has been disposed of.

It is a great pity, because I very much wish to speak about it. I will now go further. The proposer asked us to take steps to dispose of the surplus meat, and whether the Government would appoint a commission to go into the matter. I hear, however, from the opposite side that nothing will be done. The premium will no longer be paid. I think that is a wrong step. My hon. friend opposite has said that it goes into the hands of the large companies and not into those of the farmer. I have very little to do with who gets it so long as the payment thereof has the result that I get a better price for my cattle. The hon. member has also spoken about all kinds of cattle. He has said that the Afrikander is a very fine beast. I agree, but we have nothing to do with that, but with the surplus of the poor class of beef, and I say that the Government must do something in this connection. I speak here of the position in the Transvaal to wit that in my district and also in Heidelberg we have a grain country. The ox is there used for ploughing and at a certain age we let him run for the market. That meat is not so good. It is tough and hard, because the ox has been pulling, and consequently we get poor prices for that class of animal, especially as there is a surplus. I think that the Minister of Agriculture should now elaborate some scheme to give us a chance. I make an appeal to the Minister if he has no other scheme, to go on with the payment of the meat bounty, even if the cold storage does get it. There are people who get high prices for their cattle, but they are people who lay themselves out to fatten beasts for the market. In the largest portion of the Transvaal the majority of the people do not do so because the oxen must assist, and I would like to have a clear statement from the Minister that he is going to do something.

The position of the cattle farmer in the Union is most unsatisfactory, and the question of providing markets should merit the very close attention of the Government. About two years ago the late Government endeavoured by means of a bounty to meet this case. To a certain extent that bounty may have been of some service, but I have very little faith, indeed, in the bounty, and in that respect, I agree with hon. members opposite. I do not think the remedy lies in the direction of a bounty for export. Our trouble has been not to find a market for our prime stock, which always obtains a good market in the Union, but to find a market for our second grade stock. It is no use exporting unless you export prime stock. My feeling is that anyone who saw the exhibit of a dozen different commodities which were shown by Major Watkins-Pitchford to demonstrate what could be made from second grade stock must have been impressed. The only condition required for the establishment of an industry to manufacture these commodities is the guarantee of sufficient beef, and we have an abundant supply of second grade beef. And while I do not think that the remedy lies in an export bounty, neither do I think that it lies in limiting the number of animals that may be imported from neighbouring states. If we could get industries such as I have indicated, I think we shall be going a long way towards solving this very difficult problem. We have to realize that in the Union there are only small portions which lend themselves to the artificial fattening of stock. We have to depend upon grass, and in the greater part of the Union the conditions are such that the grass will not bring our stock to prime condition.

drew attention to the fact that there was no quorum present.

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

I disagree with the suggestion that the importation of a better type of cattle into this country would solve our problem. Imported cattle are not likely to do well under the peculiar conditions prevailing in South Africa. Our Afrikander cattle are very hardy, and when we import animals from overseas, such as Frieslands, we find that they will not thrive excepting under conditions more or less similar to those prevailing in Europe.

I rise to make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider the reply be gave to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), who last year approached me, when I was Minister of Agriculture, and pointed out that there were other companies exceedingly anxious to take a part in the export of cattle from South Africa, but that they were precluded from doing so, because under the Export of Beef Bounties Act of 1923, they had not within a month of the promulgation of the Act, submitted to the Government a schedule of charges under which they were prepared to treat beef for export. Certain cold storage organizations did not take advantage of this opportunity, and representations were made that an amendment should be inserted in the Co-operative Bill enabling such people to have an opportunity of coming under the operation of the Beef Bounties Act. I feel perfectly certain that these bounties have been largely responsible for the possibilities of trade which are likely to be developed with Europe. Had it not been for the bounty of ½d. per lb, the cattle would not have been exported, for that bounty made all the difference between the possibility of a small profit and an almost certain loss. Australia has carried out the same policy, and I think she has found it beneficial. At a time when there is an opportunity of opening up in Europe a market for cattle which is not in that fat condition which Smithfield requires, it is in the interests of the cattle farmers of this country, who have suffered so severely that Government should do everything possible to encourage them the law was altered so as to allow other companies, as well as the Imperial Cold Storage Company, to participate in the bounty, then we would have a certain amount of competition. I do not want to see this beef bounty applied to one company alone, but to go to all people who will come into the trade and carry out the provisions of the Act and make fair and reasonable charges for the treatment of animals for export. I think if this alteration is made, it will tend enormously to facilitate the possibility of the export to Europe, where meat is dear, of the type of cattle to which I have referred. In 1923, I stated that on an ox weighing 1,000 lbs. the ½d. per lb. bounty was equivalent to about 25s. a head, the farmer does not get all this bounty because he is not organized, but if he were organized he would reap the whole of the benefit. South Africa will be a considerable loser if it withdraws the bounty. So long as you can get rid by export of surplus cattle for which there is no other market, even if the companies get half the bounty the trade will still be of great benefit to our cattle farmers. I speak seriously on this matter. I know the conditions, because I am a cattle farmer myself, and I know their position, and what they have gone through. When we are doing all we can to encourage them to improve their breed so that they will secure good markets, even at Smithfield, it is in the interests of the State, as well as the cattle farmers, that the State should do everything to assist them to get an export market for their cattle. If you withdraw the bounty you will materially diminish the quantity of cattle exported from the country. Information brought to the Agricultural Department was to the effect that there were other people with cold storage facilities extremely anxious to comply with the terms of the Act and go into business. I sincerely hope the hon. Minister will re-consider it, and discuss it with the agricultural advisers in the Agricultural Department, and I am quite sure the opinions expressed to me, and ex pressed by many other farmers throughout the country, will be given to my hon. friend as well. This question was discussed by the Agricultural Advisory Board. Now the advisers of my hon. friend. It was fully discussed and there was a recommendation from the advisory board to the Government that it should be brought into operation. I hope the Minister will re-consider the decision. I presume it is a treasury decision not to continue the payment of the bounty after the 31st of March last. That decision will be a serious detriment to the industry of the country. It will certainly prevent those other people desirous of going into the cold storage business from having the opportunity of doing so.

In connection with the matter of Col. Watkins Pitchford I understand that he has invented another process of conserving wine. I should like to discuss the matter from this point of view but I understand that the hon. Minister is anxious to get the Bill for the cleansing of orchards through the committee stage. I therefore move—

seconded.

Agreed to; debate adjourned to 24th April

I do not wish to speak about the matter. I think we have already wasted enough time on this motion introduced by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). I think the House cannot accept the motion to refer the matter for enquiry to a Select Committee nor the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen). I hope the House will vote on these two matters and not waste any more time.

I rise in the hope that the House will not accept this motion. I did not anticipate it would come on this afternoon and I am not quite sure whether on the previous occasion any member of the Government spoke upon it. The Government felt a Select Committee could do no good. To re-open this matter will carry us no further and it is not one the Government can accept.

What do you suggest?

Vote against it.

The amendment and the motion were put and negatived.

I move—

My hon. friend, I presume, intends that this charge shall not be on any number of trees less than 100.

He must not have less than 100 trees.

Agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

During the second reading debate on this Bill the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), I think it was, asked the Minister whether he would consider the advisability of bringing the provisions of this act even into municipalities. I know there is a difficulty, but there is no doubt that in many cases, especially in country villages where the orchards in the town are of fairly large size, those orchards are in close proximity to orchards on farms adjoining that will come under the Act. Take a town like that represented by the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). I have not been there for a good many years, but I know that there was a large garden in Somerset East, and that in many cases there are more than 100 trees, I take it that the Bill does not apply to orchards within municipal or village management board areas. It was mentioned the other day, and I think the Minister said he would enquire into the matter. I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill, but I would suggest that before the report stage the Minister should enquire into this point and see whether there is any necessity for introducing an amendment on these lines. Of course, if the Bill does apply to towns, nothing more need be said.

I think that is not necessary to comply with the request of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The section can also be made to apply to villages as the hon. member will see from section 8.

Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to say that he will consult his advisers about this matter, between this and the report stage of the Bill. I do not want to press the matter now, but I think that we should do all we possible can to get at the root of the disease in every possible place, so as to prevent, as far as possible, the spreading of disease. Even where a man has a few trees in his garden, if it could possibly be done, I think he should be made to clean those trees as well, because, unwittingly, he is a danger to surrounding orchards. I would ask the Minister to go into the question with some of his financial advisers, and find out if there is that danger which the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) referred to, because I myself feel that there is a danger.

I am prepared to do that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I did not quite catch the Minister’s reply to the last speaker. It is provided in sub-section (b) of this clause that any one of these holdings shall be at least two morgen in extent. Now two morgen of ground, it seems to me, would be a small orchard. I would like the Minister either to reduce the two morgen to a smaller extent, or provide that a certain number of trees shall be the guiding principle.

I think the section is very clear. The erf must be at least two morgen to be included. I do not think therefore that the objection of the hon. member is of such a nature as to necessitate an alteration.

Clause put and agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment; to be considered on Monday.