announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Sampson from service on the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and appointed Mr. Reyburn in his stead; and had also discharged Mr. Sampson from service on the Select Committee on Miners’ Phthisis Acts Consolidation Bill and appointed Mr. Allen in his stead.

announced that he had appointed the Rev. Mr. Mullineux to serve as a member of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders in the stead of Mr. Sampson.

as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands, reporting the Sundays River Settlements Administration Bill with amendments.

Report and evidence to be printed, and House to go into committee on the Bill on Wednesday.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Amendment of South Africa Act.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 6th May.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I have also an amendment to delete the proviso which appears on page 302 of the Votes and Proceedings (referring to new clause 19) which I wish to withdraw.

This clause has not yet been moved, and therefore the hon. member cannot withdraw his amendment now.

I would just like to ask the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) why he is withdrawing this particular amendment, because it affects railway and harbour servants to some extent. Is he withdrawing it with the consent of the staff?

I should like to know whether the hon. member in charge of this Bill is really in earnest so far as the withdrawal of this amendment is concerned. A town clerk may have had years of experience in far more important work, as far as accountancy is concerned, than individuals who may serve two or three years as messenger or office boy in an accountant’s office, and yet, perhaps at 45 years of age, he has to go and serve eighteen months in an accountant’s office before he is eligible. Surely the member in charge of the Bill must realize the absolute injustice of this particular clause so far as a large number of qualified men in this country are concerned. It has been rightly pointed out that the society for which the hon. member is fighting may—I do not say it will—but may endeavour to create a close preserve for anyone who wishes to enter this particular occupation. We have heard a great deal about the bricklayers’ society, the engineers’ society, and so on.

Not from me.

Oh, yes. May we not have the same danger in connection with this Bill which the hon. gentleman foresaw in connection with trade unions?

Do you call that a danger?

I am taking the hon. member’s own words. I do not agree with the hon. member, but the society of accountants may create a close preserve under this Bill unless the opportunity is given for the youth of the country, in the first instance, and also those experienced and qualified town clerks and public servants, to take up this work without this particular eighteen months’ service. I think that is one of the greatest dangers we have to face under this Bill. Trade unions do not close the door to those wishing to become apprentices, but limit the number of apprentices for each journeyman, to prevent unscrupulous or unfair employers taking on as many apprentices as possible and as many improvers as possible, and, as soon as they have finished their time, turning them out on the street and employing other apprentices and improvers in their place. Trade unions have no legal protection and they have to make their own rule. Again, supposing the Society of Accountants, after they secure this power, are prepared to open their doors and give those who desire it an opportunity of putting in the eighteen months, at what wages or salaries are these mature gentlemen to work for the members of this society? Take the case of a man 35 or 40 years of age, with a wife and four or five children. How much is he going to get for his 18 months’ service? How can he afford to put in 18 months’ apprenticeship at 2s. 6d. or 10s. a week in order to become qualified as an accountant? I want to ask the hon. member in charge of this Bill in all seriousness whether this provision is not going to prove an effective barrier against these persons being able to enter the profession of an accountant. I think it will. Even supposing a town clerk receives as much as £1,000 a year, it is my experience that a man of his standing cannot save money out of that salary; he has to live in decency and pay for the maintenance and education of his children. I do not believe that, as far as earning money is concerned, he would earn enough during his period of qualification to pay for his food, and I doubt whether the hon. member could tell us where such a man would be paid a living wage. I do not wish to move an amendment, but I would suggest to the hon. member in charge of this Bill that if he wants to accelerate its passage through this House he should delete the words—

And then, as far as I am concerned, I do not think there is much fault to find with it.

You are not giving much away.

As far as I know we, on these benches, have very little to give away to anyone. If the hon. member is prepared to delete these words, speaking for myself, I am quite prepared to assist the hon. member to get this clause through the House at the earliest possible moment.

I should like to make my position clear. I have undertaken to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), which also forms part of the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). It is to delete the proviso at the end of the section, which requires that the examination should be taken during the period of service. That I am prepared to accept.

That won’t help us.

I have taken the views of those who are promoting the Bill, and they are the people best qualified to judge of the value of the society which they are constituting. We want to constitute a society which will be a matter of pride to every South African, and we want it to be so constituted that the young people of our country will have a real, genuine profession to turn to, with a status of which they can be proud wherever they go. That is the essential object of this Bill. Those who are promoting this Bill are the four societies of the various provinces, two of which are registered statutory societies, which have nothing to gain by this Bill, and will lose in professional status much that they have achieved already after 15 years’ existence in Natal and the Transvaal. In the interest of the general body of the profession and of the general public, they are prepared to sacrifice the position guaranteed by their status, which will be altered by this Bill. This clause allows people who have been in the public, municipal and railway services to enter the profession—a right which is denied them in the Transvaal at the present moment. The clause gives power of entrance to persons employed by town councils and divisional councils, and also in the railway and public service.

On what conditions?

On the conditions mentioned here. Surely the hon. member does not want me to read the Bill. Really, it is most distressing to find the time of the House taken up by people who do not know the clause they are opposing. The clause has been discussed for four days. The people who are qualified to express an opinion and who constitute the four societies of the Union, have said that there is one essential qualification, and that is to have a sound basis, which will be recognized by business people throughout the world, and that there should be an actual period of service in the office of a practising accountant. Both the statutory and voluntary societies in South Africa are unanimously agreed that the only way in which you can secure the recognition of South African accountants, as being of a high status in accountancy work, is by insisting on this condition. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) wants that period taken away. The promoters of the Bill, however, are so concerned about this that they do not wish to have anything to do with a Bill which will admit accountants, except on the basis of actual qualification. When the hon. member asks me to withdraw this condition he knows that in the opinion of these practical and experienced men it is impossible to secure a standard which is a reliable one unless you have this period of actual service. Does not the hon. member realize that the Bill deals with a far larger body than town clerks, but with every man in the accounting department of a town or divisional council or in the public and railway services as well. There are a large number of men in these offices who are not on such an elevated position as a town clerk, and who are not so old as town clerks would be when they retire. The hon. member asks whether I think what he suggests would prove an effective barrier. I would point out that the most effective barrier in the Transvaal is this, that at the present time these people have no right whatever to come in. If the hon. member and his friends persist in this amendment they will wreck the Bill—that is not a threat but it is an absolute statement of fact, as it will be worthless to go on with the Bill without this clause. If the hon. member insists on wrecking the measure then no town clerk will have an opportunity of joining the society unless he serves three years of more.

What if they come down to the Cape?

Will they come down to the Cape and give up their business in the Transvaal? People like town clerks, who have established their positions in the Transvaal, can come to the (Jape, but here they will have to start possibly as unknown persons. The hon. member must also bear this in mind—if this Bill is passed, so far from creating a barrier in the Transvaal and the Free State, it will remove a barrier. I want the hon. member to realize the position he is creating for the people for whom he is purporting to act. If he carries his point he will create an impasse; whereas if I carry my point they will have the barrier removed. I am authorized to state that the public services accept the proposal in the Bill as it stands, provided that the proviso at the end of the clause is taken out, and I have agreed to the deletion of the proviso. That being so, I have to realize that I have the public service behind me in wanting this Bill to go through. Is the hon. member prepared to insist on his point to wreck the Bill? I think, if the hon. member knows what it really means to these people he will realize that to adopt that course would be doing a bad service to the whole of the municipal staffs and to the whole of the staffs of the railways and public services. That is the position. Here is the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), who is best qualified to speak, accepting the position. I have met him on behalf of everybody concerned in withdrawing that proviso. I have tried to meet every point. The time of the House is limited, and if this Bill is not to go through by this afternoon the young people of the country would have cause for grudge if they succeeded in talking the Bill out this afternoon. That would be the inevitable result if hon. members continue the discussion much longer. May I appeal to the House? I have endeavoured to meet every point which has been raised, and if hon. members feel so strongly about it let ns come to a straight vote now. Let the House decide, and if the House decides that clause must go out then the position will be as I have indicated. If the House decides it must remain in, and decides on principles of public policy for the benefit of the young people we shall be the first to accent it loyally. I make that final appeal. We have from now to six o’clock Are hon. members going to take the responsibility for talking it out or will they come to a straight vote?

I wish to reply to one or two points of the hon. member opposite. The town clerks of whom we are speaking, are members of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries, which is an institute just as high as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and he will find that there are a number of eminent men in the Transvaal members of that society. To be a town clerk is a special qualification in itself. Eighteen months is a necessary period to qualify for an attorney. A barrister is by training a much more qualified lawyer than an attorney, and if my hon. friend who introduced this Bill wanted to be admitted as an attorney to-morrow he will be required to serve 18 months. I can assure my friend that only a town clerk of limited experience is likely to become a chartered accountant, because he has a much greater chance of making more money as a town clerk. We must not forget that experience is necessary. I make bold to say that an experienced man like this would command £30 to £40 a month in any accountant’s office. There will be at least 700 to 1,000 members in this society from the beginning, and you cannot possibly imagine any body of men forming a ring to keep these men out.

What about the legal societies? Is there not a ring?

No. If the hon. member has a son who has passed the matriculation, I will undertake to get him a place at a reasonable salary to-morrow. This Bill is going further than it ought to go. No man should be allowed to go even into my friend’s trade until he has served his apprenticeship, and a chartered accountant’s son will have to serve his apprenticeship. I hope this is not a fractious opposition. There is nothing in the country at stake about it. It is only a few individuals at stake at the most, and I ask him, does he not think that this Bill is opening chartered accountancy to a large number of persons who cannot be admitted at present? I would ask my hon. friend whether he knows the high standard gained to-day by the chartered accountants in Britain, Canada and certain American states, and likely to be gained also in Australia? We are seeking in this country to-day to get the highest standard of craftsmanship for our boys, and we have already a system of apprenticeships. Here is a profession that is bound to spread more than it has ever done in the past. Are you going to put your sons in a different position from that of the medical man of this country? The young doctor in this country, after he is admitted, may go over to Britain with his diploma and be admitted to practise in Britain. We want our sons to have such a qualification that they will be able to go to Britain and present themselves to the council of the Society of Chartered Accountants, and the society to be able to say: “This is a South African certificate; we know that it is a worthy certificate and that it ought to be admitted.” I appeal to the hon. member to let this matter now go to the vote. Having said his say, having uttered his sentence, having expressed all he wished to say, why wreck the Bill?

I think it is a pity that the hon. member in charge of this Bill did not show the same reason in previous clauses as be has shown in this clause. I must admit that he is now at this very late stage of the Bill beginning to show some signs of reason, of trying to meet what we have been objecting to in this Bill right from the beginning. I admit that he has made a big concession in so far as the civil and municipal servants are concerned, in that they would now be able to serve their 18 months after they have passed the examination of the society. But the trouble we have this afternoon is that under a previous clause the hon. member did such an injustice to the very people that he says he has behind him in connection with this Bill. I refer to the municipal and civil servants. I do not think the hon. member is quite correct in saying that he has got the civil and municipal servants behind him in support of this Bill. I will admit that he has under clause 19, but he has not under clause 9. The difficulty we have in regard to clause 19 is that the concession which the hon. member has given would be too late unless at the report stage he is prepared to approach the previous clauses in the same spirit as he has shown on this clause. If I had an assurance that he would do the same justice to them in the previous clauses as he is doing in clause 19, I, for one, would be prepared to give him an easy passage for this Bill. As far as the proviso is concerned, it undoubtedly does make a very big difference. I do not agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) in regard to certain of the other statements he makes, because I do feel that we want this Bill to go through, since it is going to be a good thing for the people of this country, a good thing for the accountants, a good thing for every person who is in any way responsible for keeping a set of books, and a good thing for the farmers if they can get sufficient accountants to do their work reasonably, and the same with every other class. If we have a highly-trained and highly-qualified body of accountants, the people will be very much better off, but we cannot allow the injustice to be put through in this Bill, and for that reason we have to oppose it clause by clause until we get some assurance from the hon. member (Mr. Close) that the same reasonableness which he now applies to clause 19 will be applied to past injustices when we get to the report stage.

The plea put forward by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is a perfectly reasonable one. While we are passing certain things in clause 19, we realize that the very principle for which we are fighting is unfortunately, passed over and almost approved of, and that we are not getting that reasonable concession we expected. I do not accuse the hon. member in charge of this Bill of deliberate misrepresentation.

Much better not.

But I do say there is a decided misconception in regard to the attitude of the public servants, both in the civil service and in the railways, in that they will be quite content—that is how it is put—with 18 months’ personal service if the proviso is taken out. I have seen their representatives, and the way they put it to me is that it is much better to take half a loaf than no bread, but they do not want to have a servitude of 18 months when they have proved they are qualified. Having passed an examination, and having served as accountants, why, they ask, should they put themselves in the position that they cannot get their qualifications and earn their living in the way they are qualified to do, until they have served 18 months with somebody for nothing or a pound or two a month. They are men who perhaps have families dependent upon them and would like to get into work right away. It is of them that we are thinking at the present time. I do not believe the House clearly understands the position in regard to the statements that every provision could be made to meet their case. Seeing the admission of the hon. member who has introduced this Bill that it is of such public importance, and also recognizing there are rights outside those who wish to practise as chartered accountants, it is quite simple to form any association and call themselves chartered accountants or anything else they like, and then there would be no trouble. The difficulty arises over trying to exclude men from getting a living, and over the insuperable obstacle of personal servitude for 18 months. Seeing there is this misconception we ought to, get it clearly stated from the public servants whether they are satisfied to serve an apprenticeship of 18 months after passing their examination as being duly qualified. We do not want to put them off with half a loaf. We are out for justice and fairplay, and will fight for it to the last. If this Bill is wrecked-and we do not accept any responsibility for such an event—the gentleman who will wreck it is the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). He started to do so at the time when he took up his irreconcilable attitude, when he would not accept our approaches in a reasonable spirit. We are not out to wreck this Bill, but we are out to get justice for the people who have followed an honourable occupation but who are now threatened with exclusion. I am reasonable in asking that the hon. member should consent to report progress so that we can ask these men if they are satisfied, if they are really content to come out of their service after being duly qualified, and go as an apprentice for 18 months: with some man who calls himself an accountant. I want the house to understand that no injury would be done by this. If the House will allow the committee to report progress and sit again no harm will be done. I want the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to understand this: we are not charging him with deliberate misrepresentation. We know he has had assurances from public service men, but we do say the House does not understand whether these men were put in a corner and were forced to say: “We want to make a living after we have retired; we cannot be put on the shelf.” I move—

I hope that will not be agreed to. I think the hon. member for Rondebosch can easily give the assurance we ask and if he does so, there will be no need for this delay. Many of us want to see the Bill go through, but without the injustices which have been repeatedly spoken of. Unless we can get those injustices removed, we are in an impossible position. I, for one, do not want to wreck this Bill.

There is only one word I want to say. I cannot possibly take up the vague attitude suggested by the last speaker, but I am quite prepared to consider any points in regard to which he considers injustice has been done. If the Bill is wrecked everyone will know on whose shoulders responsibility lies. If it is considered to rest on me, then I will accept it, but I do not think anyone will consider that the responsibility is mine. I accept the motion as a test of the strength of the House.

I think the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), in stating that he cannot give any assurance in the matter, has given the strongest reason for reporting progress. The position we are faced with is that if the committee stage goes through now, the injustice to which attention has been drawn cannot be rectified. I realize that the hon. member for Rondebosch cannot give this assurance without consulting the promoters of the Bill, and getting their authority to agree to what we are asking. But if the committee does not report progress, our position will be that we will have to allow the committee stage to go through and vote against the Bill when the report stage comes.

Question put, and Mr. Hay called for a division, upon which the committee divided—Ayes—22.

Ayes—22.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Steytler, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Snow, W. I.; Mullineux, J.

Noes—50.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L,

Brown, D. M.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit. F. J.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Werth. A. J.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I am sorry the hon. member for Rondebosch would not accept this particular amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Giovanetti). I would like to know definitely before I proceed whether that amendment is still on the Order Paper.

That amendment has not i been withdrawn.

Well, I want to support that amendment. I think the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) made a mistake in trying to make this House believe that if this Bill was not passed, and if a South African society of chartered accountants was not set up, there would be no career as accountants for young boys in this country. He is quite wrong. In the Transvaal to-day boys become members of the Transvaal Society of Accountants, and this Bill will not help them except to the extent of making them members of a South African society. The same applies in regard to Natal, the Cape, and the Free State, although in the latter two provinces there are no provincial societies. What I am fighting for is the status of the municipal employee. We are told that the municipal employee under this Bill is getting something he never had before in the Transvaal, but I should like to disabuse the mind of the hon. member. In Natal a municipal employee may become a member of the Incorporated Society of England without serving any articles upon passing an examination.

Have you looked at Clause 8 (1) (c)?

My argument that a member of the municipal service in a place like Ladysmith can, by passing an examination and without serving any articles, become a member of the incorporated society.

Had not you better be sure of your facts?

I am. I appreciate the position of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The position is that the Chartered Accountants’ Society is the rich men’s society, and the Incorporated Society the poor men’s society.

No, no.

Having passed that examination a municipal employee can practise in this country as a member of the Incorporated Society.

No, no.

A boy who has joined that society is not a scrap the worse off if this Bill never passes. The present Mayor of Durban is a member of that society, it has been suggested that those best qualified to judge, as to the admission of people to the profession are the accountants themselves, but I do not quite agree with that. For instance, the railway department have laid down that the number of people in a carriage may be four, though most people prefer to travel with a smaller number. Under this Bill, similarly, the accountants are only looking to the preservation of their own comfort and want to keep other people out. I do not trust their judgment. The hon. member accuses us of not having understood the Bill, but that is not the case, and we contend that, as the clause stands, it is impossible for a member of the municipal service to become a chartered accountant, as he cannot afford to leave his job for 18 months in order to qualify; so that what this Bill is doing is definitely to bar all municipal servants from becoming members of the chartered society. I believe the promoters of this Bill are anxious to maintain the status of this society, and they fear lest a second-grade clerk in the municipal service may be allowed to enter. If the hon. member will accept an amendment whereby a municipal official of a rank not lower than that of assistant town treasurer would be allowed to qualify without 18 months articles, I am sure a good deal of the opposition will disappear.

In its present form it is certainly impossible for me to vote for the section. The section provides that qualified book-keepers cannot join without having served the test of 18 months after having passed the proper examination. I ask is it fair to take away their bread from, e.g., book-keepers who have had 20 or 30 years’ service? And if they can find a vacancy, then the question still remains what their payment will be and whether it will be sufficient to maintain their families. I can certainly not vote for it.

I want your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in regard to section 99 of the Standing Orders in regard to private Bills. It reads as follows—

Clause 98 is also in regard to hearing parties against such. Bills, and I rely on sub-sections (b) and (c), which read as follows—

As this is a private Bill, it was the duty of the Select Committee to which it was referred to comply with rule 99 and to send it to the respective provinces which were concerned. It is specially necessary that that should be done now, because the measure contains a definite exclusion of a number of people in more than one province. If the measure were a public Bill, no such question could be raised, but this is introduced as a private Bill.

Rule 99 refers to a case in which a private Bill has been referred to a provincial council, and the rule is not in the remotest way connected with this measure.

These are questions affecting the introduction of the Bill upon which I cannot rule. The points might be raised when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.

I also cannot agree to this section of the Bill. Although we farmers do not know so much about book-keeping we still take an interest in this matter.

I desire the Speaker’s ruling on the point.

Might I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw that request. I do not think it is any use to appeal for the Speaker’s ruling.

I beg to withdraw that request.

I have been requested from east and west and nearly every town council to oppose this section as far as I possibly can. There are complaints from all sides that it would be terribly unjust to our accountants and book-keepers if they are included under the Bill. I can well understand that it will be unfair to these people if they are forced to go and work for 18 months at an accountant’s office as a pupil to comply with the provisions of this Bill. They are thus prevented from earning their bread. If there is nothing wrong why then is the protest only made by the people who are not registered? I think that a great injustice is being done and therefore I will vote against the Bill. The people object, and I cannot do otherwise. Their bread is taken out of their mouths. It possibly happens also that the person may find no place to serve his apprenticeship. I think that the Labour party are right when they say that we cannot do this injustice at the behest of the Accountants’ Society, which is probably just a “ring.” I cannot vote in favour of people who have served as book-keepers for 10 or 12 years being sent like children to learn again with another person. I shall vote against the section if the provision of 18 months’ apprenticeship is not deleted.

May I point out to the hon. member who has just sat down that we are not going to take away any existing right. I would ask him just to look at section 4 of the Bill, and then I wish to remind him that in the Transvaal there is already an Act, that of 1904, of the Transvaal Society of Accountants, which provides that after the passing of the Ordinance in 1904 that no one can give himself out in the Transvaal as an accountant or public accountant or public auditor, nor use any name which indicates that he is a public accountant or auditor, unless he is registered under the Ordinance. And that can only happen after four years. The Bill before the House to-day takes no rights away in the Transvaal. The man can continue to keep any books. He can do any work except that he may not style himself an accountant or auditor. All that this Bill says is that persons in the Transvaal who must to-day serve four years to become an accountant will now only have to serve 18 months. Thus, instead of making it more difficult, it is made easier for people in the Transvaal. The provision of four years in the Transvaal—

—is never applied.

That is another matter. It often happens that people disobey provisions without being punished. Perhaps it is the case in the constituency of the hon. member with reference to the provision of four years. But my point is this, the Bill which we want to pass to-day will not make the provisions in the Transvaal harder.

I also have received telegrams about this Bill. The bookkeepers at Witbank have sent me a telegram to vote against the Bill. It says—

That is how they read the Bill, and they are acquainted with the Act of 1904 of the Transvaal and also with the Act of 1900 of Natal. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has said that those laws are stricter. But why then do the book-keepers object? I want to appeal to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to delete the stipulation of 18 months.

I cannot do it.

Well then I will vote against the section. We must understand that people who have kept books for 20 years and who have a wife and children cannot leave their work to become an apprentice for 18 months. And then he may still have the position that the man cannot find an opening. We must give the book-keepers in the Transvaal the opportunity that the others enjoy in the Cape Province. It is said that no such Act on accountants exists here. As I am informed, that Act is never applied. If this Bill, however, is passed, they must undergo an apprenticeship of 18 months. They therefore lose their appointment and are on the street. I will therefore use every endeavour to prevent this Bill being passed.

I must, with all respect, say that the hon. members from the Transvaal who have just spoken do not understand the matter at all. If they can prove what they say then I also will vote against the Bill. But I challenge them to prove it. Hon. members come here with certain statements, and do not know what they are talking about. I say this with every respect. This section 19 has nothing to do with Transvaal bookkeepers. It deals with officials in town councils and civil servants, but has nothing to do with Transvaal bookkeepers. How can they say then that the bread of the Transvaal bookkeepers will be taken away? It is not true, it does not happen under this Bill. The Bill is not even so stiff as the Transvaal Act.

Why are they protesting then?

I have also talked to such people and after it has been explained to them they were quite satisfied.

What do they want then?

They want to open a closed door. But to come here and say that the bread of people is being taken away is not a thing that members should come and allege on such an important Bill, because it is not correct. The people who to-day do certain work under the Transvaal law will be able to do it just as well under the new Act. We of the Free State and the Cape Province, now come and ask the friends from Transvaal and Natal to help us to also get the privileges that they have. In their provinces every man is not entitled to practice while, in the Cape Province and in the Free State, every man, Tom, Dick and Harry, can practice as an accountant without any qualification. Anybody can bang up a board on his door and say that he is a public accountant. We only ask the Natal and Transval members to help us. It is of great importance to the Free State and the Cape Colony. If this Bill is not passed we shall remain in that unsatisfactory position. Hon. members who oppose the Bill must well understand that provision is here made for our young men to obtain the highest qualifications as an accountant, to become a registered accountant. To-day they have to go oversea to become fully qualified. We want to put our sons into the position of qualifying here. Persons from outside can now come here and practice without passing an examination in Afrikaans. We want to provide that everybody, even from oversea who wants to practice here must pass an Afrikaans examination. Hon. members who oppose this Bill must also be ready to allow their sons to go overseas to qualify if they want them to become qualified accountants.

If I understood the hon. member rightly, he says it is going to provide some advantage for the overseas man. The hon. member previously supported Clause 18. He has been converted since, and I believe under a misapprehension in the same way that the public servants have been converted under a misapprehension. If he reads the clause he will find that a member of any foreign society, whether England or anywhere else, can come into this country and, without serving an apprenticeship, can start as a chartered accountant.

No.

The position is that the youth of South Africa can go overseas to America or elsewhere and get a diploma, and hon. members say you can get anything for 2d. in America, and he can come back to South Africa and start practising without serving an apprenticeship. There are a lot of things wrong in this Bill. This Bill has been hastily drafted, rushed through a select committee and is now going to pass through this House without half the members thoroughly understanding what it means. Take this question of the public servants. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has told the House that he has made a great concession to the public servants of this country, and he goes so far as to say that he has full authority to state in this House that they agreed to the Bill, provided this proviso is withdrawn. What does the hon. member give them as public servants? He has given them absolutely nothing, because he has gone so far as to say that he will allow the public servants to sit for the examination, they may pass that examination, but they cannot practise until they serve that 18 months’ apprenticeship. What advantage has a man got who may first sit for the examination and then go through the 18 months’ apprenticeship over the man who is told that he must have 18 months’ apprenticeship first and sit for his examination afterwards? What the hon. member has given to the public servants is not worth a snap of the finger. Why should we be put in this position, that because we are fighting for a certain principle and we are told that it has been given to us and we realize that it has not been given to us, and we then continue to fight for this principle—why should we be put in the position of being obstructors by the hon. member and acting in an unreasonable manner?

I only ask you to let the House come to a vote on it.

The hon. member would not be so eager to come to a vote at the present moment if he thought this particular Bill was in any danger, but because he has a steamroller majority behind him at the moment, he wishes to rush this Bill through, and he is not going to concede anything at all. He would not be so eager to come to a vote on this particular clause and on the Bill at all if the boot were on the other leg.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). I am also in favour of giving our young men the opportunity to become efficient accountants and to be trained to it. I am not against them, but let us see what is stated here. The proviso in section 19 reads—

To a point of order, I wish to point out that this matter does not fall under that section, inasmuch as it has been withdrawn

I was just going to point out to the hon. member in charge of this Bill that we have the community behind us. I was going to read this telegram, which is from the Municipal Employees’ Association in Johannesburg—

This is signed by the general secretary.

Is that the telegram which used these exact words—

Oh no, they don’t use those words; they use words that the lawyer uses when he says certain things, and one understands what he means. I have another telegram here from Benoni—

There is nothing unreasonable in that. As a matter of fact, legislation of this description should be brought in by the Government, not by a private member at all. Then I have had a letter from Pietermaritzburg, from a gentleman who to-day is practising as an accountant. He says—

I make the definite allegation that in the Transvaal work is being taken by accountants, but it is actually performed by the clerical staff, and these gentlemen are getting big fees for work which they have not done themselves.

And they put their names to it?

Yes. If I gave work to an accountant I should expect his name to be signed to it, but he does not have to prove to me that he has done the work himself. This kind of thing creates a monopoly, and the work goes to a few individuals, who have not time to do it themselves, and who have to employ a staff of clerks who actually do the work while they get the money. I am not suggesting these men are negligent; I am only trying to show that the man who does the work is not the man who gets the fees.

We have had a very long and a very stiff fight, and I would now like to make a final appeal that we should come to a vote on the matter, and take the opportunity of getting the Bill through. Everyone who is true to the interests of the young people of this country will have to bear the responsibility of wrecking the Bill if they refuse to let it go through. We have had a long debate, and I ask the House as a matter of fair play, that we should be allowed, after this full discussion, to test the feeling of the House and see whether this clause will be accepted or not. Hon. members down there have had these telegrams and they know what the position is. If they do not allow a vote to be taken now, they will be doing what one of those telegrams asked them to do, that is wrecking the Bill. I do appeal to the hon. leader of the Parliamentary Labour party to come to the assistance of the people, who are in a large majority, who believe this Bill will be a very sound piece of work in the interests of South Africa, of business men, and of forthcoming young people; and if the hon. leader of the Parliamentary Labour party will exercise his privilege and do the fair thing, we shall have a chance of getting the thing finished.

It is very strange to me that the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) says that we are talking on something we know nothing about.

I challenged hon. members to prove that I was wrong.

I will prove it as well as I can. I only wish to point to all the agitation against the Bill. Does that mean nothing?

Do you believe in agitations?

Well, we must pay attention to the agitation against the Bill. My hon. friend, the member for Ladybrand, is educated, but he has no right to say that we talk about something that we know nothing about. The hon. member who introduced the Bill is also educated just like the hon. member for Ladybrand. The hon. member for Ladybrand jumps about like a kind of jack in the box. He says that we know nothing about it. When there is a subject under discussion which we do know something about, then they also talk more than we. It amounts to saying: “Yon sit still, we will talk.”

That is very unreasonable.

Well, I will vote against the Bill, even if it last another three years. All that I know about the Bill is that I have received many letters and telegrams from the Transvaal from my supporters, and they want me to vote against the Bill. That is enough for me.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) made an appeal for fair play, but I think it comes ill from him after having divided this House, according to provinces, to secure the passage of his Bill. I understood him to say, during the earlier discussion, that he had behind him the civil servants and municipal employees, but the wire which has just been read by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) from the Transvaal Municipal Association—which represents I think almost the whole of the municipal employees in the Transvaal—really indicates that the municipal employees are not behind him in the provisions of this clause of the Bill.

I never stated that I had the municipal employees behind me. I said I had an assurance in regard to the railway and public servants.

I withdraw what I said. The municipal employees form a very important section of the community, and many of them have a better capacity for and training in accountancy work than many of the present members of the society which is promoting this Bill, as when the Transvaal Accountants’ Society was originally formed, it took in men regardless of whether they had passed an examination or not. It is all very well to say that these municipal employees can pass their examination, and then have an indenture of 18 months; but I am not sure that the passing of the examination is not the real obstacle. The passing of the examination is only a guarantee as to certain qualifications for certain work, and where you have men who have been carrying out that work for a number of years in municipal and public offices, it is unfair to subject them to another examination at their age. In regard to the suggestion that on indenture accountants will get £18 to £25 a month, I know of instances in Johannesburg where bookkeepers, who have been carrying out all the work of accountants in Johannesburg, and who have been secretaries of companies, were offered £4 or £5 a month. How can a man be expected to give up his present Government or municipal employment and work for £4 or £5 a month? It means that the practice of accountancy is practically closed to them. But there is another objection to the Bill. You are going to allow on to the register men in the Cane and the Free State who have not the qualifications that many of these municipal and Government employees have. I do think that before the hon. member proceeds, he should consult the various sections concerned, and bring up an amended measure.

I cannot see any reason for the hurry of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to drive this Bill through the House. Yes, the hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Swart) laughs. But I am just as much in favour of the Bill as he, and I have the interests of the country at heart just as he has. I know that advocates sometimes have the habit of talking contemptuously about farmers. But we also represent the interests of the country and we have the interests of the youth just as much at heart.

Still more.

I have not received any telegrams. But why in such a hurry? Let us go on as hitherto and first discuss the matter thoroughly. I cannot see why the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) cannot be accepted. I am afraid that we will call a body to life which will be a small Parliament or Government about whom we shall have nothing to say. Will it be in the interests of the farmers if we give the power to such an association to decide what accountant he must employ? It will give occasion to what happens when he goes to law. Before he goes to the court he must pay handsomely. It will be the same thing, that one accountant cannot charge less than another. The real object is to get uniformity of fees. I do not see my way to vote for it.

The hon. member who has just spoken has asked me why there is so much haste. At the present time, after great difficulty, the four societies in the four provinces have come together and are promoting this Bill. They tried the same thing 10 years ago, and they failed to carry the Bill through the House. The result was that, after all these years, we have been waiting to get to the position we might have had 10 years ago. If this Bill is not put through this year the chances are very great that the thing will be dropped by the people concerned. They will be so discouraged that they will not make the attempt again. Moreover, this Bill has been before this House for a year. It went to Select Committee last year, and this report of the Select Committee is dated April, 1924. The hon. member will realize that if the accountants fail to pass this Bill, which has now been before Parliament for 15 months, they will be so fed-up that they will consider the thing dead. I ask the hon. member to give this Bill a chance and let us come to a vote.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has not at all convinced me that this Bill is so necessary. Why is he then in such a hurry? If the Bill is of such great necessity then he need not be so frightened of waiting, because then it will come forward next year, and then during the recess we shall have received instructions from our electors to vote for it. If the Bill is of such great importance as the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and other members state, then it will surely be a good thing to consult the voters and when we meet again we shall certainly all be in favour of the Bill. I hope that the House will do everything to prevent the Bill going through.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) opposes the Bill on the principle that the farmer will have to employ an expensive accountant.

Not only the farmer.

The hon. member mentioned the farmers. He wishes to give the appearance as if the Bill is not in the interest of the farmer. I say that it is very much in their interest. If he wants a man to go into his complicated books then he must have the best man and not a quack. For this reason we should not kill the Bill. It is in the interest not only of the farmers but of the general community. We want the best men for our complicated books. When he has examined the books we want the assurance that they have been well kept. We sometimes to-day have people who know nothing about book-keeping, If we have a man who has passed his examinations and served 18 months’ articles in the office of an accountant then we can be certain that he is competent.

Usually when there is an important Bill before the House one gets letters and telegrams for and against the Bill. I have only received letters and telegrams against this Bill. Not only from Natal and the Transvaal but there are such letters from all portions of the country.

Quacks!

It may be so, but I stand here to represent the interests of my voters, and I have got many letters and telegrams from them. They are all opposed to the apprenticeship of 18 months. The hon. member opposite has referred to the Select Committee. Quite right. But if the Bill is of such importance, why have I not received a single telegram which asks me to support the Bill? The hon. member for Ladybrand says that I know nothing about the Bill, but I possibly know more about it than he thinks, and I also know about the Ordinance which was passed in the Transvaal in 1904, but that Ordinance was never strictly applied in the Transvaal. That is just the difficulty. I am just as much against having quacks as the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw). I also want capable men as accountants and those who will not be afraid to pass an examination. The only thing objected to is the period of 18 months’ apprenticeship. I believe this is an important Bill, but I hope the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will in the meantime see that cur objections are sound. After all the letters and telegrams I have received I cannot sit still and just allow the matter to go through. I am going to do my best to induce the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to accept the amendment.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that I not only represent farmers, but also the other sections in my constituency. But let us take the farmer only. We see that more and more laws are being made to compel the farmer to keep books. If we had had the privilege that the other professions who are represented in the House have had, I would make no objection. The position is that many of us have not had much schooling. We are, however, compelled to keep books. Take, e g., the filling in of the income tax form. Most of the farmers have to go to an attorney and pay him £2 2s. because they cannot do it themselves. Only the other day a farmer was convicted because he had not kept proper books. Many of them cannot do it, and the position will be that the farmers will have to employ registered accountants at the fees provided. I ask whether this is in the interests of the farmer. If we pass the Bill we shall play into the hands of the profession. Everything is done to make the matter as difficult as possible for the farmer, and as a member who represents farmers I cannot vote for it.

I only wish to say a few words with reference to what the previous speaker has said. I believe that he actually does not understand the position well. Any person will be able to keep books under this Bill. All that the Bill requires is that no one shall style himself a qualified accountant unless he actually is so qualified. But book-keepers and auditors can do the same work as hitherto and keep books and everything in connection therewith. The Bill only wishes to prevent a man styling himself as qualified in something that he is not qualified in.

Why is the examination then not sufficient?

I should just like, first of all, to read the Bill a little to hon. friends. It is said that we must not be in a hurry, but the Bill has already been sent to a Select Committee, and we had it before the House last year. Could hon. members then not have consulted their voters in the meantime? I must say that the hon. member was very unfair in the way in which he said that I had accused them of talking about something they know nothing about. I said it with all respect. I want to make my point clear again, and that is that this section has nothing to do with Transvaal book-keepers, but that it only refers to persons who are in the employment of municipalities or the civil service. What then have all these speeches to do with the matter? All the speeches which have been made here about. Transvaal book-keepers are in point at the second reading debate, and I wish, Mr. Chairman, with all respect, to bring to your notice that such speeches are out of order.

In connection with the remark of the hon. member who has just sat down about the apprenticeship of 18 months, I should like to ask a question. I understand that if it is passed a person who has passed examinations must still serve 18 months with a registered accountant to acquire the necessary qualifications for the profession. This may be very unfair, unless I have been wrongly informed, to someone who has obtained a diploma, who has got the practical and theoretic qualification behind his back and who must then go and work for 18 months with a man who has not even attained those standards. It seems to me that the Bill has a tendency of creating a monopoly for certain privileged persons. It thus appears to me that the protection of the farmers and of the public of which we have heard is actually a protection of those people. Unless the hon. member who introduced the Bill can convince me that the young men who obtain the diplomas and have proved their practical and theoretical knowledge can practice, there is danger in the section. Those young men thus come into a more unfavourable position than the people from oversea who do not have to serve in that way. We in South Africa have a rising generation who happily are striving more to enter the vocations which are almost exclusively exercised by people from abroad, and I do not think therefore that it is just to exclude them. We should rather encourage them to choose this profession. The protection of the farmer and of the public has been referred to. We heard three days ago that a farmer was convicted because he had not kept proper books. I think it was one van der Merwe, and a question was put to the Minister of Justice about it. The answer was that every farmer who is convicted of not keeping proper books will be recommended for release, because we cannot expect that he will be a good bookkeeper. Where, then, does the protection come in? If I am not wrong, the protection will only be for a small number of people and not for the general community, but to the detriment of the public, especially of the young people who have obtained diplomas.

It is no use hon. members shouting “Vote.” The reason I started to read this letter was because it is from a gentleman who holds four very high certificates for accountancy and is also an associate of a corporation of accountants referred to. The hon. member says he has heard no real reason for our amendment, but if he would place more weight on the opinions expressed from this corner of the House, I would not bother to read the letter. We are not pretending thoroughly to understand questions connected with accountancy, but we do contend that we understand what the Bill means, and that we are putting forward the views of dozens of the sons of South Africa. The writer of the letter goes on to say—

I hope the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will listen to these amendments, which he feels ought to be passed before it becomes law.

Is he practising in Natal at the present time?

I have not written to ask him.

I want to know.

I don’t know.

He is not a man with a South African diploma?

I don’t know. You will have to ask him. I have never met the gentleman, I only know he has written to me. Will the hon. member listen to these suggestions!

I have been listening a long time.

If the hon. gentleman will listen patiently we will not waste time—

This gentleman goes on to say if the hon. member will meet these objections he will get his Bill through.

It requires an entirely new Bill.

(reads)

The name of this gentleman is A. Mitcham, and members of these societies will be able to tell you who he is. I have received the letter amongst innumerable other letters and telegrams. If I read them all—

The hon. member’s time has expired.

As regards this Bill, I only want to say that in my opinion we are engaged in South Africa in reserving our professions for a few groups of people who can afford it—

To a point of order, I wish to ask if the hon. member is speaking on section 19 or making a second reading speech.

Section 19 contains the principle of the whole Bill.

What I am afraid of is that we are making our examinations too difficult and that we gradually will make them so difficult that the position will arise that only the rich man’s son will be in a position of being educated for a profession. In our country the examinations are already more difficult than in any other country in the world. The consequence is that our sons are obliged to go oversea to qualify in Europe because it is easier.

They cannot qualify here.

Yes, that is so in this case, but just take the profession of an advocate. A South African student who wants to become an advocate passes an examination ten times as difficult as that in England, that is why our young men are all anxious to go to Europe to pass their examination because it is easier. The poor man’s child cannot do that. Here we have the same thing with the apprenticeship. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that cases arise where an unqualified accountant makes a great mistake which costs his client a large sum of money, but I can also mention cases where qualified accountants have made big mistakes which have cost their clients much money. What is the case in the Transvaal? The large accountants’ offices have a head office in Pretoria and branch offices throughout the province. The qualified accountant only puts his board up at the office and the work is left to unqualified clerks. He himself often knows nothing of what is going on in the business. I am in favour of the requirement that certain qualifications should be demanded, but I am opposed to those qualifications being made too severe. For that reason I am against this section 19 of the Bill.

Vote!

We are just as anxious to get to the vote as hon. members on the other side of the House. Hon. members opposite have held up other debates owing to the manner in which they themselves wanted to put their views before the Government. Other Bills have been held up by the speeches of hon. members opposite to a greater extent than has appeared necessary to the Government. There is no reason why the delay that has occurred in regard to this Bill should appear to be unduly long to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). This is a Bill which he knows from A to Z, and I think he ought to have more consideration for members who do not belong to the legal profession and who are much more slow to grasp the provisions of this Bill than the hon. member.

You have had 18 months.

We have not all had 18 months. I have not been a member of Parliament 18 months, and there are a large number of members of this House who are entirely new to the House. I think the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) went a little amiss this afternoon in telling the non-legal members of the House that they did not know anything about this particular Bill.

On a point of personal explanation, I wish hon. members would not make those statements, because I never said anything of the kind.

I exonerate the hon. member for Ladybrand entirely. It is a remarkable thing that under this particular Bill a close preserve is to be made of a particular profession for one section of the people who can afford to go through an expensive series of examinations. Practically the only people who are advocating this Bill are those who are enclosed in a ring fence, members of the legal profession.

The hon. member must not now discuss the general principle. He should confine himself to this clause, 19.

In reference to clause 18 (1), this clause says that municipal employees, if they want to pass this examination, must conform to sub-section (b). Further on in the Bill it is laid down that regulations with regard to the examination must be approved by the Governor-General-in-Council. As has been pointed out already, the matriculation examination will be one of the subjects which they will have to pass before they can go in for the other examination. Very many municipal employees have never passed the matriculation examination. It is a fetish which has been forced upon this country, particularly in late years, and there are many men, excellent men, doing accountancy work in the municipal services of this country who have never passed the matriculation examination and who, if this clause goes through unaltered, will be barred from entering that particular profession. I also have had piles of letters and telegrams protesting against this Bill. There is no popular demand for this Bill. It is perfectly true, as the hon. member (Mr. Close) says, that this Bill has been before the House for 18 months, but it is only one small section of the people that is asking for it. There are no leaders in the newspapers asking for this Bill. There is no outcry in the country for it. The fact that it has been 18 months before this House shows that there is no urgent call for this Bill.

I must again ask the hon. member to confine himself to the clause.

I am trying to do that. There is nobody backing up this clause of the Bill except the men who want to form themselves into a close society, and I submit that there would be no harm done to anybody if this clause is not passed. The Government of the country does not seem to think that there is any public need for a clause of this character, and, that being the case, I do not see why we should regard it as a matter of urgent necessity so far as the public are concerned.

In regard to public servants, we were assured that they were quite agreeable to the inclusion of this servitude of 18 months: but so far from being agreeable, their attitude is shown by a letter which I should like to read to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) from one of the most important public departments.

What date?

The date is the 21st August, 1924.

I have referred to assurances which I have received within the last two or three weeks.

My information is that they stand in the position of men who would rather accept half a loaf than no bread. I am sorry to have to emphasize that, but it seems very necessary that it should be emphasized. Are these people who represent such a large and important professional body really ready to serve an apprenticeship of 18 months? I do not say there is any misrepresentation, but we have had no letters quoted, and there is nothing in black and white. It is unfortunate that in dealing with this particular clause, number 19, we have to refer to other matters in the Bill which all bear upon this obstacle. If this is rushed through we shall have hundreds of people left without any chance of redress. My correspondents draw attention to the Bill, and then go on to say—

[Time limit.]

I would like to point out to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), that under this clause the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) undoubtedly does go a long way. My objection is that it is too late in the day now to give this concession, that a civil servant or a municipal servant can go up for examination and, after passing that examination, if he wishes to set up as an accountant, he goes to an accountant’s office for 18 months. Before this concession was made they had to serve the 18 months with a registered accountant before they could sit for the examination, which makes a big difference. My point is that I must vote against this clause in view of the injustice in previous clauses. I feel, dealing with this clause entirely on its merits without considering the other injustice, that the concession is a fair one: that when a man has passed the examination he can then claim, if he is seeking promotion in his department, that he has the certificate of the society; but that before he can actually start up an accountant’s practice he must get this 18 months’ service in an accountant’s office, which I think is a fair thing. He does not require to leave his work to pass the examination.

He must leave before he starts to practise as an accountant.

But he knows he is now qualified by examination and only the question of the 18 months remains. Before, he might have left his work, gone for 18 months’ practice, come out for examination and failed. He would then be between the devil and the deep sea. He would not have his work and he would not be an accountant. But I want to point out that this concession, coming now, still does not remove the grievance that some persons will be placed on the register through the accidental circumstances of working in a particular province. A public servant working in Pretoria may be kept off the register, while a junior officer in Cape Town is put on. But the injustice goes further; because a man so registered in the Cape can go to the Transvaal and practise as an accountant there. This is absurd, and it seems useless to support any other clause in the Bill unless the hon. member for Rondebosch is willing to put this matter right. I cannot see his difficulty in that respect. I could believe that if this position were properly put before the Transvaal society, they would realize that the Transvaal could be flooded by unqualified men from the Cape, and would say: “Let us go the whole hog and remove this defect, and in the future it will be all right.” I hope, even at this late hour, that the hon. member will take his courage in his hands and give that assurance. If he does that, I can promise him that we will give him every assistance in passing the rest of the Bill as this is the stumbling block we have had all along.

There is another letter dealing with this particular clause to which I shall be glad if the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will listen. It is from the Municipal Association of the Transvaal, which is a very important body which represents the town councillors and not the employees of the municipalities. They say—

ERRATA.

Cols. 2437-8 should precede and not follow Cols. 2439-40.

They cannot now.

(reads)—

These men are not asking for the impossible, or that unqualified men shall be placed on the same status as the fully qualified men. They are willing to submit to any examination, but they point out that under clause 19 it will be impossible for them to qualify. The letter proceeds—

I sincerely hope that this particular letter, and the other letters which have so clearly laid down any number of facts, will be taken into serious consideration by the hon. member, and that he will be a little kinder towards these people who had the right, if they had the mental power to pass the examination and possess the other qualifications, to practise as accountants without having to act as office boy for 18 months in the office of a practising attorney. I appeal to the hon. member even at this late stage in order that the Bill shall have the chance to go through, to meet the legitimate objections of those opposed to the Bill in its present form.

I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to the fact that the afternoon has been wasted because of his obstinacy in not being willing to meet the wishes of the less fortunate brethren of those who are supporting the Bill. Had the accountants who have been so anxious to get this Bill through only shown a little thought for others who have to live as well as them-selves, this and other afternoons would not have been practically wasted in the way they have been. There has been no attempt on our part to do anything but to obtain that justice which we feel is due to those who will suffer under this Bill which, after all, is not a necessary measure. I have had a letter from some of the most important accountants in South Africa in which they say—

The names attached to the letter are very well known. The outside accountants’ association also appeal to us. They have had to form a defence committee on purpose to see that their rights are not adversely affected. They telegraph—

Are you the wrecker?

We have no desire to be wreckers, but we want to be the builders up of a righteous measure.

A “friendly gesture” from the Labour benches.

I want hon. members to take particular notice of this sentence—

We are fighting for the livelihood of these people. We have threshed this Bill right down until we have got to this particular clause, and on this we have no wish to give way. We have to object to this clause because injustice would be done. The hour is late, and we still have amendments to move in consideration of those people who will suffer injustice. The House must realize that we are fighting for justice for those who are threatened with loss of their livelihood. I ask the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to recognize that we have been consistent in fighting not for a special class but for all those who would be deprived of their legitimate rights built up after years of hard work. In view of these many amendments, I move to report progress.

I wish to point out to the hon. member he is not permitted to move it. I cannot accept it. He has already moved a similar motion.

Am I in order in moving the adjournment of the debate?

The hon. member cannot move the adjournment of the debate. He can either move to report progress or that the chairman leave the chair. The same motion cannot now be moved.

May I be allowed to speak?

Yes, nothing has been moved.

Take the last letter which was read by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Hay). He reads a letter which asks for the Bill to be wrecked because they cannot get what they want. There are no accountants in the Transvaal who will not be able to do what they are doing to-day if this Bill is passed. My hon. friend’s argument about taking the bread out of people’s mouths is based on a misapprehension. The bread is at present in mouths where it will continue to be. My hon. friend’s argument is that by this Bill you are taking something away from people. What is it taking away? Not a single thing. People can do what they are doing at present. You have had this law in the Transvaal for 21 years. It is said that we are now closing the door. If you open the door to-day, why not open it 25 years hence again, and why not open it again 25 years after that?

I beg to move—

May I point out to supporters of the Bill that if they accept this motion the whole thing goes altogether?

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported: House to resume in committee on Monday.