On the last occasion when this Bill was before the House I understood the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) to suggest to the Minister in charge of the Bill that he might extend the operation of the measure so as to exclude the jurisdiction in appeals to the Privy Council. Although that suggestion seems to be hardly germane to the Bill before the House I want to take this first opportunity of saying that I, and I think many thousands of people in South Africa, differ from the hon. gentleman in suggesting that the very limited jurisdiction by way of appeal which presently exists in the Privy Council should be abolished. Since Union it has been almost impossible to take an appeal to the Privy Council, and quite recently, in the case of Whitaker v. the Durban Corporation, the Privy Council said that the effect of Union was that South Africa should dispose of its own affairs and that the Privy Council would only deal with matters of large constitutional importance. It is in regard to questions of large constitutional importance that many of us desire to see this right of appeal to the Privy Council retained. I understood from the reports of the Imperial Conference which came out that this question of the Privy Council was to be considered by a commission to be set up to consider not only the question of appeal to the Privy Council, but also other matters such as the right of veto. I would like to ask the Minister in charge, with reference to this commission which it is contemplated to set up, whether South Africa will be represented on that commission and, if so, whether both sides of this House will have some say in the appointments of the nominees to the commission. This Bill is hardly the place to discuss these questions, and but for the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) I should not have ventured to refer to the matter. With regard to the merits of the Bill itself I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the proposal to set up a quorum of four judges is impracticable and for the reasons which he gave. I would like to point out to the Minister that as things stand in South Africa at present there are decisions in each of the provinces which may be different. It seems to me it would be very unfortunate that the decision of a single judge in one of the provinces should become the law of South Africa under the operations of this Bill. I would suggest to the Minister, whilst agreeing it is desirable that the quorum should be reduced, that the better plan would be to have a quorum of three. I notice on referring to “The Laws of the Empire,” that the final court of appeal for the court of sessions and for the Irish court of appeal for the north of Ireland is the House of Lords, which, when sitting for judicial business, must contain at least three lords of appeal. There is the same thing in Bentham’s Privy Council Practice, which says that four members of the judicial committee were previously required and three members of the judicial committee now constitute a quorum. I suggest that would be a more practicable method to adopt in this measure. I quite see it would not be advisable for three judges to sit always in judgment upon the decisions of three other judges, but the appeal court, I am sure, would most probably prefer to have a full bench. Undoubtedly if your quorum is to be four, the difficulties mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will arise, and other difficulties will also arise. With regard to the proposal for the abolition of civil juries in Natal, I am very glad the Minister was good enough to let this matter stand over, to enable us to ascertain the opinion of people in Natal. I think it would have been better if this measure had been advertised in the Gazette in the ordinary way. Speaking for myself, I find myself in entire agreement with what the Minister said as to the want of utility in these civil juries. They are very rarely appointed. I do not think they average three a year in Natal, and they are only asked for, in my experience, when the desire is to mulct some rich corporation in very large damages. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) thought this difficulty could be met by way of appeal, but it is throwing a tremendous obligation upon an unsuccessful litigant to take questions on appeal before the higher court. It is only where the damage assessed is grossly excessive that the Appeal Court will interfere at all. I am very glad to be able to tell the Minister that the opinion of the commercial community in Durban is entirely with him, and I have also had a telegram from the secretary of the Law Society in which he tells me that so far as the profession in Natal is concerned they are also in agreement with the Minister. I have much pleasure in supporting the Minister in that respect.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has just stated that he does not think this is the place to discuss the question of the Privy Council. I disagree with that statement. I think that discussion logically arises out of this Bill, for this reason. It seems to me that the establishment of a four judge quorum is weakening the appeal court at Bloemfontein, and if that is so the question arises whether in view of what happened at the Imperial Conference, the logical consequence will be that the appeal court at Bloemfontein in the near future must be the last court of appeal in this country. As this will undoubtedly come about I submit we ought to do nothing in this Bill which will weaken our court at Bloemfontein. It seems to me that if we have a quorum of four judges the litigating public of South Africa is not going to be satisfied. The position may arise of the case of a litigant coming before a single judge. He wins the case and, on appeal to a court of three judges, he loses on a two to one judgment, having now in his favour two judges, and two judges against him. On appeal to Bloemfontein, if the quorum is four judges and the court disagrees, the unfortunate litigant is then thrown back on the position that he has two judges against him in the courts below, and two in his favour. I submit that no litigant is going to be satisfied with that state of affairs, and I think one ought to be very careful in altering the present position. The only other position to which I would like to address myself is that which arises in Section 3. I feel that the Minister is absolutely right when he says that, in his opinion, a civil jury is an anachronism in South Africa. The position undoubtedly that counsel in the two provinces of the Cape and Natal advise their clients to take a civil jury only in actions where they hope to obtain large damages—where they hope, in other words to be able to prejudice the jury. The speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) deserved to be listened to very carefully—and I listened to it very carefully—because it is notorious that the hon. member has great experience of civil juries in this province. The hon. member’s defence was that a civil jury is as able to sift evidence as a judge is. There is no doubt that, on that point, he is on sound ground, but he begs the issue. The question is not whether a civil jury can do that, but whether it is open to prejudice where a judge is not. The hon. member did not address himself to that point, Doubtless whenever the hon. member has advised a client to have a civil jury, he was satisfied he could sway that civil jury with his eloquence, and I know that he has done so with great success on many occasions. It has been asked, why not then abolish the jury in criminal cases? The answer is, I think, that it is the general rule in criminal cases for a jury to decide upon the case, but the accused, nevertheless, has the right, under our Criminal Procedure Act, on all occasions to ask for trial by a judge. And he asks for that right only when he thinks that there is a possibility that a jury would be prejudiced against him, which, in practice, happens seldom. In civil cases the reverse happens, the rule being that a judge tries these cases, and it is only when a client thinks his case will be prejudiced in his favour by a jury that he asks for a jury. So far, I have heard no convincing argument in this House for a continuation of the jury in civil cases. I will have much pleasure in voting for this section of the Bill.

I do not want to take up much time on this Bill. With regard to the quorum of the Appellate Division, after all, this is a permissive Bill, and it is to deal with a very serious state of affairs that occurs very often when judges become ill, or are on the leave to which they are entitled. The greatest difficulties occur to hear cases set down on the roll. It does not only lead to difficulty in the Appellate Division, but also in the courts from which judges have to be drawn to fill the quorum, which leads to serious inconvenience in the administration of justice in this country. The case has been clearly proved already by the experience of the Appellate Division. I think that the Appellate Division can be trusted to be as jealous about its prestige, strength and influence as any member of this House. We are all jealous of that prestige, and every man has been proud of this court since its establishment. I think it will be on very rare occasions, indeed, when there will not be a quorum of five, and the sittings of a court of four will be comparatively rare. When, in addition to that, you take the comparative rarity with which the court divides two and two, I think this is a matter that, if difficulty arises, can be dealt with later on. I think the court is better constituted with a quorum of four than it would be with a quorum of three. It is better to have decisions overruled by a court of four than by a court of three. It is not a question of number, but a question of heads, and the value of the judgments given by men selected by the highest courts of the land, because they are the most eminent men in the land. So I support the provisions of the Bill as it stands. In a criminal case a person has a right to demand to be tried by a judge with two assessors. The line is towards the side of mercy, and even if juries do err occasionally on the side of mercy, at any rate they err in the right direction. But when you come to trial by jury in civil cases, you have an entirely different set of circumstances. The jury system was originally instituted in Europe to protect the public against judges who, in the early days in England and on the Continent, were creatures of the Crown, and the juries were literally and truly the palladium of the liberties of the people, standing between the accused and the creatures of the Crown. When, however, the system of appointing judges was altered, juries became out of date. Juries have been far too prone to give heavy damages in certain classes of cases against corporations, governments, railway departments and insurance companies, and frequently in such cases juries will award damages such as judges would never dream of giving, juries regarding the defendants in these cases as fair game. I do not wish to make an attack on juries at large, for in an abundance of cases they have given judgments which no one can attack, but, in my opinion, there have been far too many instances of the other kind to justify the retention of the jury system in civil actions. In a large number of cases special juries have been applied for, not only because of their tendency to give excessive damages, but very often because the plaintiffs feel that judges are too astute in limiting the amount of damages. In a very large number of cases the damages awarded by judges are on the lean side, and frequently a man, if he has won a case, is out of pocket after he has paid his costs, because the judge has been too narrow in his view of the amount of damages awarded. I do not join in the general attack on juries, but I join with the Minister in saying that in too many cases too high damages are given by juries. Then it must be borne in mind that the administration of justice is carried on to a great extent to the inconvenience of large numbers of the public, many people hesitating to prosecute because they know that their time will have to be taken up through their having to appear in court. In the same way with witnesses—very often there is a hesitation on the part of eye-witnesses to come forward and give evidence, because of the amount of time that would be involved in appearing in court at a subsequent stage. The witness expenses do not, in many cases, in any way recompense a witness for the loss of time he has sustained. These things are inevitable, but it is not inevitable that a large number of people should be exposed to great inconvenience by having to attend court day after day when a long case is heard. The public do not want to sit on juries. One of the mistakes made in the last registration is that the registration officer is also compiling the jury list. I am credibly informed of a large number of people who refuse to register as Parliamentary voters because they are afraid that by so doing they will be put on the jury list. The result will be that the voters’ roll will be incomplete. People raise all sorts of objections to avoid serving on juries, and juries are no longer required to protect the public, and the system leads to very great inconvenience.

I shall be very brief in my reply. I think the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has dealt with the arguments as to Clause 1. One point has not been dealt with, and that is regarding costs, but apart from that I agree with the arguments used by the hon. member. I wish to accentuate two points. Hon. members must not think that it is going to be an ordinary thing to have a quorum of four judges—in fact, that would be very exceptional. As far as the dignity of the court is concerned, it does not make a court a dignified body when you have to try hard to obtain a judge from another division. Apart from that, if you obtain a hard-working judge from another division, the result is he is taken away from his work, and he has not the time to form a considered opinion on a case before the appellate division, and he is going to rush back to his own work before the whole of the court can be satisfied, and thus the advantage you should get from the appellate division disappears. The advantage of the considered opinion of judges not rushed by work in the courts in the first instance is removed by getting hard-worked judges from their own divisions and afterwards allowing them to go back. We hope to see, with regard to the appellate division, that it should work off its cases in a slower way than is done to-day. I would like to see three appeal court sessions a year in order to prevent cases piling up. They should not sit and listen to more than three cases a, week. That would be a perfect system to work for, although the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is right in saying it should be after the appeal court is properly built at Bloemfontein. Then the appeal court would approximate nearly to the best court in the world. Arguments on the dignity of the court are strongly in favour of fixing the quorum for the court rather than have a court of five judges, and if one cannot sit, to draft one from somewhere else in the country into the appeal court. Two things are impossible. It is impossible to appoint someone on the appeal bench as an acting judge who is not a member of the court of first instance. From the point of view of the State, it is also quite impossible to make an acting appointment for a fortnight as you will not get anybody to do it. It will not be the normal condition of the court to be a four judge quorum. It will be exceptional, with regard to the trial by civil juries, hon. members will remember the number of cases in the Cape Division were six. Since then I have the figures of Grahamstown, where there have been no cases for the last two years. In Natal there were no cases in the Supreme Court, but in the Durban Circuit Court there were three cases in 1925 and none in 1926. Of the three cases one was a case for damages for alleged unskilful surgical treatment; the second was for damages for injuries on a tug under the Railway Administration, and the third was a case for damages against a doctor for wrongfully certifying a man as of unsound mind.

How many cases are awaiting trial?

If there are any, they must have started suddenly, because there were none in the whole of 1926. If there are any such cases, they will not be interfered with.

You will have to make provision for such cases.

I think it is provided for.

Is there any intention to codify the civil code?

I don’t think there is any early intention to do anything of the kind. Certain parts of the Union differ entirely from the others, and I have tried to remove a few difficulties. We must go further before having a civil procedure code for the Union, and I am afraid that must stand over to a certain extent. Here we have one of the matters which I thought it easier to deal with first. It is better to remove such difficulties and ease the road for the civil procedure code.

I move—That the Bill be now read a second time.

Members will see it is a simple measure intended to amend sub-section 2 of Clause 30, Act 39 of 1926. I will read the clause. [Clause read.] The amendment is to insert after words “Provincial Administration” —

In Natal and the Free State Government institutions do this work. The medical research institute is subsidized by the Government, and we have made arrangements for them to do the work in other parts of the Union. Doctors are compelled to travel over the Union to give formal evidence, and the result is that their services are lost to the institute, and for that reason the amending Bill is introduced. Hon. members know how high the institute stands. It ranks higher than institutes under Government control in the Cape and Natal. I do not think there will be any objection to this little necessary amendment to the Bill.

I move—

In moving this amendment and asking the House to support me in it and the Minister to accept it, I think all of us feel that as the Bill stands there is an instrument of easy blackmail. If this Bill is passed as it stands, there is a very dangerous weapon placed into the hands of unscrupulous native females or unscrupulous European females. One heard during the second reading debate a very eloquent appeal made against this whole Bill by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), who has a very considerable knowledge, probably a greater knowledge, of the native in his raw state, than anybody else in this House. I am in favour of the strongest measures possible and within reason being passed to encourage the purity of the races in this country. All my life I have been against miscegenation in any form, whether illicit or legal. We cannot at present by law prevent intermarriage between black and white, but I would like to see the objections to these unions so strong that even the legal tie would not be entered into. Anybody who knows the country areas and the mentality and moral outlook of a large section of the population must feel that if these words “or attempts to have” are left in, this Bill will become very dangerous. I think we should restrict ourselves to the words “Any European male who has illicit, etc.,” and leave out the words “or attempts to have.” It seems to me that Clause 230 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, No. 31 of 1907, amply covers the ground.

I accept the amendment.

I have an amendment to Clause 1 on the Order Paper which is intended especially to maintain corporal punishment for offences mentioned in the Bill. We know that corporal punishment can be imposed under Ordinance 46 of 1903, and I think it would have been a very good provision, especially as the fear of lashes restrains weak characters from such crimes. I think that corporal punishment for crimes such as those mentioned here will be effective, and therefore I was and am in favour of maintaining that kind of punishment, and I should like such a provision to be put into the Bill. The public is grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill, but we know that last session he had trouble in another place in getting it passed. We also know that it is a matter of practical politics at the moment to get the penalties as stated in the clause reduced, and it is for the reason of practical politics, and for no other, that I abide by the view of the Minister to provide imprisonment alone. For this reason, I ask the permission of the House to withdraw my amendment.

It is not necessary, because the amendment has not yet been proposed.

I move—

How can you involuntarily permit a thing?

We are following the same language as appears in the line just above. I agree that it is tautological.

Why not leave the word “voluntarily” out altogether?

I think we night do that. I therefore move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

The effect of this will be, in consonance with what I have said before, to limit the opportunities for blackmail, but it will punish for the actual offence.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. The penalty provided here is a very drastic one, not exceeding four years, and the offence is one which is very Difficult to prove. One can imagine great cases of abuse, and that an unscrupulous white man might have pursued some native woman and that his advances may have been unsuccessful, and that on failure he might easily frame up a charge of soliciting or importuning or enticing. I think the Minister, having gone as far as he has done, should leave it at the actual offence itself having been committed, and not provide for such drastic penalties for enticing or importuning. There is certainly a grave risk not only from the point of white people, but also from the point of view of the native people, of miscarriages of justice if these words are left in.

I think the position is that anybody who is guilty of following a woman in any way is punished sufficiently under other laws dealing with that matter. There is no doubt that it is a difficult matter to prove, and that it might be a potent weapon for blackmail. Apart from the discussion in this House, I have been warned from other parts of this danger of blackmail, and asked whether we cannot make any provision in the Bill in regard to blackmail. I think our law already deals with cases of that kind, and it would perhaps reduce the chances of blackmail to a minimum if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) were adopted. I accept the amendment.

I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider a reduction of this penalty. Four years for a crime like this is a terrible punishment. In the first place this is experimental legislation; in the second place, I do not think there is any law of this kind in any other part of the world, and in the third place it is a fact recognized throughout the world that the woman is the weaker vessel. That is a recognized principle in every civilized country. If a man seduces a girl he is liable for civil penalties, and that obtains in every country. Take a native girl in the country who may be seduced by a white man. He is the stronger vessel. Is it fair to punish these two people equally? A raw aboriginal native girl from the kraal, who has not been brought into contact with civilization and is, perhaps, altogether ignorant of this law! It is not fair; it does not reflect credit on us as men, and it does not reflect credit on this House. There should be a differentiation. Different magistrates look upon these cases from a different point of view. I think it is the duty of this House to give a lead, at any rate, to the magistrates who have to administer this law. When we give them such a broad scope, when we tell them in effect not to recognize the frailty of human nature, I do not think we are giving a right lead to the courts and the magistrates. I do appeal to the Minister to consider whether he will not make provision for a fine in these cases. Whether it is a rich man or a poor man, it is the disgrace that is the greater punishment. When we, as legislators, provide for such a severe penalty for what has never been an offence before in this country, and is not an offence in other countries, it is wrong and unfair so far as the unfortunate natives are concerned.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment to Clause 2. That would mean that he would be obliged practically to scrap Clause 3. There is little chance for the blackmail dealt with in Clause 2, because when is anyone likely to state that a native girl had made such an attempt? But the class of native girls in the towns and small villages creates the danger. That is the curse of permitting that kind of thing. Native girls are allowed to strut about the streets, and it ought to be made punishable, so that they cannot attract men. This is the only remedy against the evil.

In reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), it must be remembered that four years in this case is the maximum sentence, and it is necessary that the maximum sentence should be a high sentence for the reason that we are trying to show people what the opinion is in this House with regard to offences of this kind. It would entirely destroy the object underlying the section if a fine were substituted for punishment by imprisonment. It would take all the power out of the clause if we had that, so I cannot accept that suggestion. If you take the different parts of the Union your magistrates, as a matter of fact, can seldom inflict punishment of more than a year or eighteen months, and there is a remit to the Attorney-General. If it goes before the Supreme Court we can trust the judges to take into account all the circumstances of the case and to inflict a punishment commensurate with the circumstances. If we are going to make the maximum sentence very low, the result would be that no notice would be taken of this legislation, and it would also be taken that it is not seriously intended. So that I cannot accept any amendment to substitute a fine instead of imprisonment or to diminish the length of imprisonment.

Does the Minister intend to omit the words—

If so, does he intend to do away with Section 3, because that would be the logical thing to do. If that is his intention, I have nothing more to say.

Yes, it is a natural consequence.

I agree that this section should be omitted, and that members should vote against the section, because it follows from alterations made in the second clause.

In line 27, I would like to ask the Minister if the word “illicit” should not appear before the word “carnal”?

I have, on the Paper, the amendments to which my hon. friend refers, and I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

The hon. member is really now out of order, but I trust the Committee will have no objection. Two amendments have already been passed on this clause higher up, but if there is no objection, I will allow the hon. member to put his amendment.

I see this clause has a definition of “native.” From the experience we had in the old Cape Colony, I should say we require something more definite and descriptive than a definition of that kind. I think the Minister might consider what has been done in other cases, because it is going to cause a lot of trouble whether a person is or is not a native according to the definition.

I went into that matter, and I found, it extraordinarily difficult. On the whole I find it better to leave it as it is here, but I will go into it again.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 17th February.

When this Bill was introduced last year I objected, and I must do so again now. Neither the Minister nor the hon. members for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) and Hopetown (Dr. Stals) have convinced me of its desirability. We find that this Bill has, I think, been before the House for ten years, and every year a fresh attempt is made to pass it. I do not wish to combat the necessity for such a Bill, but then the public must also be protected. I do not agree with the hon. member for Paarl that the doctors only do their work and supply medicines, etc., gratis out of pure love. We farmers in the country have experience of doctors. We know them. When sickness comes, a farmer has to send 40 or 50 miles to town for a doctor, and if he comes the farmer often has to pay heavily. Hon. members would be surprised at the stiff charges which well-to-do farmers have to pay. We, in the country, do not regard doctors as pure benefactors. I think we may pass the Bill, but we must fix scales of payment for doctors, just as there are tariffs for messengers of the court per mile, for attorneys and others. The countryside must be protected. The hon. member for Paarl wished to make out that we were much opposed to doctors, but that is not so. I know where to find a doctor when there is sickness in my home, but I also know that I feel it in my pocket afterwards. There are undoubtedly doctors who are fair and charge reasonable fees, but there are others who charge unreasonably. In my district I am everywhere asked to vote against the Bill, and I am opposed to it as long as we do not protect the public. We must not lose sight of the practical side of the matter as far as the countryside is concerned. Possibly the Bill is as satisfactory for the towns and villages as the hon. member for Paarl wishes to represent, but in country areas there is no competition, and there are no doctors in our neighbourhood. The hon. member says that a doctor will come out immediately when he is called in. I have often sent for a doctor for people and been asked beforehand whether the man could pay, and if not, whether I would guarantee payment. The hon. member sneered at the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) because he draws teeth. I assure the hon. member that farmers are only too pleased to be saved a journey of 50 miles to see a dentist, and have their teeth drawn by the hon. member for Middelburg.

He does it much better.

Yes, perhaps he does it much better. He does not use tongs, as the hon. member for Paarl states. There are many farmers who still draw teeth, but the hon. member wants to prohibit it.

He wants them to do it gratis.

He does do it for nothing.

Perhaps he receives a sheep or something as a reward.

Yes, the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) of course kills it. If, however, a man is cured from toothache, and he can get it done gratis or by giving a lamb as a reward, it is still better for him to give a lamb than to pay £4 for petrol and 10s. to the dentist, who, in any case, would twice break the tooth. We cannot allow the doctors to do as they like. We have long been tired of it, and we have not yet forgotten how they treated us during the influenza epidemic. In the towns one goes to another doctor when dissatisfied, but on the countryside we have to take the nearest doctor, and the doctors abuse this, especially if they get hold of a rich patient

This measure has been before the House and the country for many years, and has been looked at from so many different points of view that it is difficult to say anything new about it, but it is generally taken that this measure is very much required and long overdue. As the Minister knows, the principal contention in connection with this Bill is over Clause 34, and I was hoping that after what had been said in previous years and the arguments put to the Minister in the House, he would have drafted something that would have met these objections and enabled the Bill to go through practically unanimously. I am sorry that the Minister has not done so. He has brought in Clause 32.

It was in last year’s Bill too.

In that case the Minister has done nothing whatever to meet these objections. Under these circumstances we cannot be surprised that there will be a certain amount of opposition to the Bill going through. Had the Minister met the objections the Bill would have gone through with very little trouble. Last year I brought before the House a great number of cases showing the good work done by these drugless healers, or as they are sometimes called, manipulative practitioners. The evidence given to me on this point is so strong that I cannot but think that some of these people have been doing very good work indeed. In many cases they have rendered efficient aid to patients entirely given up by their regular doctors who had been attending them for a long time. I cannot see why these people should be shut out from practising. Obviously it is impossible for them to carry on their work unless they are allowed to charge fees. It should not be overlooked that chiropractics are allowed to exercise their skill in other parts of the world, and are welcomed in Canada and the United States. They are also permitted to practise in the United Kingdom. Last year, when an attempt was made in the House of Commons to carry a motion to curtail their activities, the Minister of Health (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) said that these people were doing good work, and were practising a branch of medicine which was not taken up by regular medical practitioners, and consequently he would not accept the motion to restrict their activities. If that is the attitude of Great Britain and America I do not see why it should not be extended to South Africa. The Minister should introduce an amendment enabling these people to practise under proper conditions. Let there be an impartial board which will certify that these people have undergone sufficient training to enable them to practise without injury to the public.

The speech of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has made it necessary for me to say a few words. I do not wish to attack the medical profession, because it is a noble one, and in my district one is able to praise their good work. I think it a pity, however, that the Bill has again been introduced, because I have not heard that it is called for by the people in the country. Why is it not called by its proper name? Bills are repeatedly being introduced here to protect certain professions, and then they are passed on the score of protecting the public. The profession must be given necessary protection, but it should not be said that it is for the protection of the public. Take, e.g., the composition of the Medical Council. The doctors, dentists and other classes are represented on it. Who, however, represents the public? I want to mention a few instances to the hon. member for Paarl, as he has attacked the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns). The matter is not so splendid on the part of the doctors as they wish to make out. I admit that many of them do good work. Cases have been mentioned of people who have died through the treatment of so-called quacks, but there are also cases where death has occurred on account of wrong medical treatment. I can mention a case where it was stated that a patient in a hospital had plague, and her husband was not allowed to visit her. After death it was found that it was not plague. Where does the protection of the public come in? The hon. member for Paarl will not deny that there are hundreds of cases where doctors are called in, but where they first want to know whether the patient can pay. I can mention cases personally known to me. In a certain case a specialist came from Johannesburg to Brandfort, and charged the patient £50 for one day. First, however, he had to get the consent of the local doctor, and the local doctor had to visit the patient with him. When he was asked to see another patient as well, he refused to do so, and the local doctor had to go. When he set foot in Johannesburg, he immediately sent a letter demanding payment, and therein he said that he asked £50 because he thought the man was poor, and that otherwise his fee would have been £100. I admit that we have many good doctors, but the protection of the public is necessary. There is, e.g., the matter of doctors’ fees. I am proud of the doctors in my district, but that is not general. I think this Bill should be withdrawn, and that provision should first be made for the protection of the public. The public should first have the right to be able to say something, and then I will agree with the Bill. There are just as many money-grubbers in the medical profession as in any other, and we must be protected against them. The Bill as now drawn only protects the doctors, and not the public.

When we consider the Bill, we should do so from two sides, viz., from the side of the doctors, and that of the public. I feel that if the matter is regarded from the side of the doctors, it will undoubtedly be approved by the country. On the whole, our doctors are men of education and ability, and most of us have a high regard for them. I trust, however, that the Minister of Public Health will see that an alteration is made in the composition of the Medical Council, because, according to the Bill, it will consist only of doctors. I note in the Lancet” that the view is gaining ground that laymen should be included in the Medical Council in England. What is, however, the position of the doctors in the Medical Council in South Africa? They act very autocratically, and I know that doctors have expressed the opinion that things have occurred which are quite undesirable. Matters are regarded on the Medical Council merely from the point of view of the doctors, and they forget to consider the public. As there is a movement in England to have laymen on the Medical Council, I think that we, as a young country still busy framing its laws, should make provision in this Bill for the inclusion of laymen, so that they can see that justice is done to the public. It does not always happen that the doctor serves the best interests of his patient. I have often in my experience come into touch with doctors, also during my student days in Edinburgh, and I heard it said by a doctor who had a rich patient: “I have a rich milch cow.” I believe that the doctors we have in the country are good men, but there are doctors and dentists in practice outside whose chief object is to get money out of their patients. There are some of them who keep their patients going as long as possible for the sake of gain. Therefore, it is necessary that we should also have men on the Medical Council who can give advice from the public’s point of view. The English Act reads—

Notice the words “One person chosen.” This Bill says “must” appoint a doctor. The word “must” should be omitted. I feel that the universities of South Africa, two of which have complete medical faculties, should have the right not of appointing doctors, but other prominent persons whom they regard as sufficiently competent. I want to tell the Minister, therefore, that I will propose in committee that at least two laymen should be appointed. I hope hon. members will assist me in this. We must stop the autocratic methods of the Medical Council. The Medical Councils of South Africa are in that respect undoubtedly not what they ought to be. It is also a fact that the second language of South Africa does not get the rights it is entitled to. Voices have already been raised in Pretoria by doctors that Afrikaans is put in the background in the Medical Council. It is necessary that there should be laymen on the Council to make the doctors, who always occupy their time with science, understand that justice should be done to Afrikaans. The Bill should be amended so that it shall not be compulsory for the universities to appoint two doctors on the Council. It must be made clear that the universities will have the right to elect other representatives respected by the public to the Medical Council. We feel that it is desirable that laymen should be members of the Council. A demand has been made for the question of doctors’ fees to be considered. My conviction is that as far as the countryside is concerned, the fees charged are often scandalous. It is quite impossible for the poor farmer in the Pietersburg or Waterberg district living 200 miles from the doctor to call in his aid. Therefore, it is necessary to make provision that a farmer shall not be almost ruined if he calls in a doctor. I fully admit that the system of district surgeons is a blessing in our country, but I do not think it meets the existing need. I think that we should take action regarding the composition of the Medical Council and medical fees. I have a telegram here from the dentists of Pretoria which reads—

I feel that the matter of the dentists is very important, because many of our young South Africans have qualified in Europe, and find things difficult on their return. They must be assisted, and it is necessary that we should support them so that the young dentists and doctors who return to South Africa shall know that there is a future for them here. We know that dentists find practice difficult because persons compete with them illegally. I am glad that provision is made in the Bill for dentists, and that it is provided that they can do certain work after they have obtained a certain certificate. As regards dentists, it is necessary that legislation like this should be passed, and I think that hon. members will be glad of the inclusion of the provision. Then there is the matter of midwives. I quite agree with doctors that there are some old women who have done terrible things in the past. We cannot be sufficiently thankful for the establishment of the Mothers’ Union in the Transvaal, which looks after the training of girls as midwives, for practice not in the towns, but in the districts. Already more than 70 young Afrikander girls have been trained as midwives and sent into the districts. It is absolutely necessary that we should look after the interests of the children, because it is felt that the saving of the mothers and the children is of great importance to the country. In the past there were not enough midwives to take the place of the old women, but matters are gradually improving. In this respect, however, I want to advise the Minister to hasten slowly. It is desirable in the interests of public health and of mothers and children that trained midwives should take the place of the old women, and therefore I feel that the matter must be dealt with. I hope the day is not far off that the Cape Province will also establish a Mothers’ Union and send out midwives to the district to look after the thinly populated and distant parts. I do not want to speak at length, but I feel we have a Bill here containing defects which should be put right. I trust we shall regard the matter from the point of view of the whole people, and not only from that of the towns and medical men. The rights of the latter are guaranteed in the Bill. The rights of the public should also be secured, and provision made to assist the people in the country to get justice.

I want in the first place to ask the Minister not to be influenced too much by what the hon. members for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) and Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) have said, viz., that the farming population do not want this Bill. If the Bill were clearly explained to the farmers, as the Minister has done in this and last session of Parliament, then, the farming population would be grateful for it. The conditions in South Africa are no longer what they were 30 or 50 years ago. Scientific research and science itself are just as much appreciated now by the farming population as by anyone else. It would indeed be strange if the farmers in their work of fighting cattle disease, east coast fever, horse sickness, scab, etc., should use scientific discoveries and appreciate them, but that as soon as human life is concerned would not admit the value of science, and permit anyone to do whatever he wished in this department. The farming population have gradually come to the same view as the townsfolk as regards the fighting of disease by scientific methods. Farmers, at least in my district, are anxious to have the services of qualified doctors, and want them to be protected by law. That is no more than right for the public health and the young men of South Africa who are studying or have studied medicine and want to build up a practice. Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the people who hitherto have employed and been satisfied with less qualified people from continuing to use them. There is complete liberty, even in the case of midwives. Anyone is still at liberty to make use of people not officially qualified; all the Bill provides is that no accounts shall be sent in by an unqualified person, that he can demand no payment. Last year, and again this, several persons have advocated the fixing of a scale of fees for doctors, but I do not think that is possible.

Why not?

I will point out. I remember in the old Transvaal republican days the same thing was advocated on every possible occasion in the Volksraad. Tariffs were fixed for attorneys, advocates and land surveyors, and every time proposals in that connection were considered the fixing of a tariff for doctors was also insisted upon, and yet such a tariff is not to be found in the Transvaal statute book. It cannot be done.

Why not?

It is not advisable, because the very people the hon. member for Middelburg wants to benefit will possibly be hardest hit by it. It is obvious that a doctor cannot work gratuitously, and that he must be paid for his services. An invalid who calls him in must be assisted. An advocate or an attorney cannot be compelled, but a doctor must render assistance. What, then, will the result be if a tariff is fixed? In many cases the poor man will be unable to pay the tariff of three to five guineas. It often occurs that a poor man is treated and dies, and the poor widow has to pay the doctor’s account. If the amount is small or the doctor waives payment, well and good, but when a tariff is once fixed the doctor has the fullest right to enforce payment, and great difficulties will be caused to widows and children. But what does the doctor do now? He spreads his fees and charges over the whole population. He says the poor man cannot pay more than 10s. 6d., and he charges that amount, but when he has a rich patient, then he says this man can pay five or ten guineas, according to circumstances, and he charges accordingly. The doctor can exist in that manner, and the poor man profits by the system. And is it unfair to make the rich pay? This system is much better, and the poor man is protected, and can at any time have a doctor who must give his services. I do not think we shall live to see this House or a Minister taking the step of fixing a medical tariff. It cannot be done, and in the meantime I feel that I should protest against what the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has said. He said that doctors often charge too heavily, and I agree. He added, however, that there were doctors who kept on their patients as milch cows with the object of increasing the fees, and I do not think the hon. member was justified in saying that. I think that in general the standard of our doctors, and especially of our young South African doctors, is too high for that. I represent a district with the same difficulties as in that of the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns). In my district there are also far distant parts, hundreds and hundreds of miles from a village. My experience, however, is that young doctors and also old ones are always prepared to go out by day or night, in storm and rain, often without a prospect of payment, to assist a poor man, and to leave their warm homes immediately. Therefore, I do not think it just to make such an accusation against the doctors. The object of the Bill is the advancement of public health, and if clearly explained to out farming population and it is pointed out what liberty they will retain to employ other persons, they will heartily support the Bill.

I would like to draw the attention of the introducer of this Bill to what seems to me to be rather an injustice to one of the professions mentioned. Relative positions of professions set out in this Bill are distinctly unfair to the trained nurses of this country. The injustice of it will be seen when I point out that a trained nurse undergoes three or four years’ probation and comes very close to the medical profession in regard to her standing. I think that those who are honest and frank in the medical profession would admit that many of the cases for which they get credit for cleverness are pulled through by the cleverness of the trained nurse who is in constant attendance on the patient. If I had to choose between a good doctor and a good nurse, my preference would be for a good nurse. A midwife, on the other hand, can be trained in six months to do all that is necessary to qualify, if she has herself conlined two cases, and yet right through this Bill, particularly in Section 15, you find the word “nurses” placed after “midwives.” The professions are set out thus: (a) Medical practitioners, (b) dentists, (c) chemists and druggists, (d) midwives; and then we come to (e) nurses. I would put it to any professional man how he would like to see a profession in which only six months’ training is required placed before a profession in which three to four years’ training is necessary. I feel that nurses generally have not had a square deal. It has been notorious that medical men have not stood by the nursing profession as they should have done, and this Bill almost bears the mark of having been drafted by the medical profession, who so often look upon the trained nurse as in some sort of domestic capacity. I feel sure now that the matter has been brought to his notice, the Minister will see that the anomaly is rectified. It would merely require, in committee, the adoption of a resolution that throughout the Bill the order of precedence should be altered by placing trained nurses above trained midwives.

I should like to say a few words in the interests of the outside districts. The doctors could not have a better advocate than the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). All sick people who can do so call in a doctor, and I do not wish to say anything here against them. They are good people except when they charge too much, and that is the point we wish to insist on. It is impossible for doctors to be left quite free in this regard, and it is not right. The hon. member for Lydenburg said that the doctors made the rich man pay for the poor, but how does the doctor know what I possess to make me pay for another man? Recently a doctor from Cape Town came to my neighbour’s house. He was only there from 9 to 9.30 a.m., and demanded £80. He added that on his return journey to Cape Town he had to call at Robertson to see a patient, where he would also get a large fee. The Minister must see to it that the public are protected. The professions cannot draw ring fences about themselves. The Minister said something I thought strange. I understood that if anyone were capable, he could compete. In the case of doctors and dentists, the Minister says the opposite applies. He states that the dental mechanic does not spend much on education, and can therefore do his work cheaper than the dentist. The dentist, however, ought to be able to compete better because he has studied longer. A man ought to say that he would no longer go to the mechanic, but to the dentist, because the latter treats him better. Ring fences are being drawn round all sorts of professions, but there is none for our farmers. We shall have to try to prevent the people in the municipal areas farming with fowls and cows and producing butter, milk and eggs. Every man, who can, will call in a doctor when he is ill. What about the people in the country districts? They will ask their members of the Assembly how they could pass such a Bill. It has been before the House for many years, but the farmers have never asked for it. The doctors come and demand it as if they were concerned about my life. But it is not so. As long as I pay, they are satisfied A doctor just cuts out a small bowel, and to-morrow or the day after the man is just as ill as he was before.

I should like to have you on the table.

There are some people who have a bitter time after an operation. As the old doctors practised, things might pass. I spoke recently to a specialist, and he said his mother raised him on castor oil. The doctors’ fees should be fixed so that they cannot charge what they like.

After the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) I feel that if it is a sin to oppose certain provisions of this Bill I shall be sinning in good company. Whilst I support the second reading of the Bill, I wish it to be clearly understood that I shall oppose to the uttermost the provisions in Section 34 which will make it illegal for persons who are known, I think, generally, as osteopaths and drugless healers, to practise in the future. In my own constituency, which is a very far-spread one in the province of Natal, there is very ample testimony to the wonderful work that has been done in our province by certain of these practitioners in Durban and Maritzburg. The feeling there undoubtedly is that it would be a very great hardship to a large class of persons, who at present get relief from these practitioners, if they were obliged to cease their practice. It is that feeling, a very widespread one, that induces me to ask the Minister to reconsider Section 34 of the Bill, and, when we reach committee stage, to make it possible for these practitioners to continue to practise as they have done hitherto, and to give the protection of the law to those with proper qualifications, and to allow proper registration to be made. It is all very well for the threadbare gibe that these people are quacks to be brought against them, but we well know that very many pioneers of improved practice in the medical profession were also called quacks. For instance, you have Dr. Jenner, the prophet of vaccination, who was held up to contumely as a quack; there was also Dr. Simpson, the inventor of chloroform, who was held up to contempt as a quack. Coming down to more recent times, we have the case of Mr. Barker, the famous bone setter, who for many years was despised and held up to every form of hatred by the profession as a man who was practising when he should not have been allowed to do so, but subsequently he was knighted by the King in recognition of the generous opinion of his fellow men towards him. We remember the unreasonable attitude of the profession towards some of these men, and I think it is, perhaps, not out of place to mention the case of Dr. Axham, anaesthetist to Sir Herbert Barker, and who was struck off the roll by the Royal Medical Council, and for fifteen years, and up to the time of his death that ban was maintained against him. That old man was brought to his grave practically through the persecution set up against him because of his association with Sir Herbert Barker. I have no complaint to make against the medical profession, having always had the finest service from its members, and I think in South Africa we are extremely fortunate in having people who follow such a high standard in the medical profession—but the fact remains that there is a very insistent demand in South Africa for recognition of the practitioners I have mentioned, and I hope the Minister will see fit to recognize that demand and to make provision for the recognition of these practitioners.

I think I should be neglecting my duty if I did not say something against the Bill on behalf of my constituency, because I represent one of the largest country constituencies, where it is impossible for people, however much they may desire to do so, to call in medical help. I am not one of those who want to say anything against the doctors, because they are good fellows when you need them. When they are called in they come like angels, but when they send in their account they are the devil himself. I have nothing against the doctors on account of their stiff bills, but the matter simply is that the people in the far-off parts cannot get medical help. Last year the women in a certain neighbourhood in my constituency established a sisters’ union with the object of appointing a qualified nurse, because the nearest hospital was 150 miles off. They, however, did not feel able to do it alone and sent a petition to me. I asked the Minister for help to keep a nurse there, but he replied that it was a provincial matter. I took the greatest trouble and went to the Administrator to ask for help. The reply was that there was no statute authorizing the grant of money for that purpose. As long as the State and the Provincial Administration cannot make provision for such a case, you cannot compel the people to be treated by a professional person. Another thing which is lost sight of is that the country people have more faith in midwives than in doctors. Even if they can easily call in a doctor, they will never do so if they can get a midwife. Now people will be compelled after two years to employ a doctor, although they do not wish to. Firstly, because they do not believe in him, and secondly, because they cannot do so, seeing that they live 150 miles off. There are many quacks who make a living by going round and treating sick people, but as soon as it is provided that they may not demand payment, but must leave it to the public, then the hands of the public will close up, and they will no longer want to undertake the work. This should not be. I am afraid that the representatives of the towns are fighting directly against the countryside in this Bill. I do not know of a single country representative who heartily supports the Bill, because they all feel that it conflicts with the interests of the country areas. I do not know of one case where the countryside has asked for the Bill. In the far-off parts people must have resort to someone who has knowledge and personal experience and who is known for what he has done in the past in cases of sickness. I believe that if the Bill is passed, it will shock a portion of the people in the faith and confidence they have in themselves. That is not right. I know of a case where my neighbour called in three doctors to his wife, but they could do nothing. All three gave his wife up, and he then took refuge in a quack. This was three years ago, and his wife is still alive. If he had not done so his wife would long since have been dead. In such a case I feel that it is directly against the interests of the countryside and of my constituency to support the Bill, and I feel that I cannot do so.

I feel personally that we are obliged to protect the public against certain undesirable quacks. Our experience is that some quacks come from other countries and do evil work. Although the State is obliged to protect the public against people of bad character, I agree with the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) that many of the quacks do good work. When three persons give someone up, what can be done for the patient? Such a one cannot be prevented from calling in a quack. It may be said that the Bill does not prohibit that, but the quack is prohibited from charging for his services. Is it right when the doctors give one up and the quack cures, that he should be prevented from taking payment? I want to plead with the Minister to accept certain amendments in committee. I know of someone in my constituency who has been practising for years as a dentist. Frequent attempts have been made to take him to court, but they have not been successful, because no one will give evidence against him. When one has served the public for fifteen years, he has the right to protection. The Minister knows of the few such instances in the country, and when the Bill is in committee, I hope he will accept an amendment to meet them. Another matter is that steps should be taken to prohibit a doctor from asking whatever he pleases for his services. Against that class of doctor who takes as much as he can get, and is prepared to squeeze people dry, the public should be protected. Not all doctors are of that class, but there are some, and I think the public should be protected. I am sorry the Minister has not fixed a tariff of fees in the Bill for doctors, midwives and nurses. Therefore, I propose an amendment—

It will be better if the hon. member makes his proposal in committee.

By then we shall have accepted the principle of the Bill.

It will be in order to make the proposal regarding fees in committee.

I have listened with keen attention to the speeches of hon. members on this subject and am sorry that the Minister who introduced the Bill is receiving so much opposition from his own party. I am glad that he has tackled this Bill, which has already been so often before the House, and that he is now going to put it through. We on this side of the House will all support the Minister, but his own people are against the Bill.

Why did you not put it through?

Hon. members opposite have represented that tariffs for medical men should be fixed. That principle of fixing prices is surely a socialistic one. Soon the prices for farm produce will have to be fixed. What will hon. members say then? I admit that some doctors charge a little too much, but the doctors who do so to-day are stultifying themselves. We have not now merely a few doctors in the country. Many young people have gone to study medicine, and those who charge too much will automatically drop out. I can never agree to the principle of fixing prices for services of people. It may be the principle of hon. members on the cross benches, but it is not mine. We have heard that the doctors are so terribly bad. I can assure hon. members who say so that I have met doctors In Johannesburg who came to my farm and there took poor people in their motors into the hospitals in Johannesburg, and if there was no room in the hospitals took them to a nursing home where they were looked after, and the doctors paid for it. We also have that kind of doctor, and ought to appreciate it. It is true that doctors often charge rich men a high fee, but in this respect I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) said. They make the rich man pay for the poor man. How often have they not to attend sick people for nothing? They treat a poor man, he dies, and they do not get their money. We should bear this in mind. Amendments may possibly be proposed in committee with which I may be able to agree, but in principle I am in favour of the Bill. The Minister said in his second reading speech that so much harm had been done in the past by ignorant midwives. Very good work to improve things in this direction has been done in the Transvaal by the Mothers’ Union, and many of the trained young women now go on the countryside and help to improve the position. They ought to be protected.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) speaks of a socialistic principle in connection with the establishment of a tariff for medical men. He surely knows that tariffs exist for attorneys, land surveyors and others. If that is socialism, I only want to ask him when the tariffs were fixed. It is clear that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) does not know much about the countryside. When we speak it is because we know the difficulties on the countryside in almost every department. The countryside is still far behind in convenience and privileges to the town, and it is our duty to point out the difficulties there. I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill because the object is good, but we feel that amendments must be introduced. The object is advancement of the public health, and it is certain that there are people—poor people—who die because they cannot get proper nursing. Is it not the duty of the State to see that its subjects get proper medical treatment? I have great respect for the medical profession, and am glad that many sons of South Africa are now doctors, and that we can be proud of them. In general, we have doctors in the country of whom we can be proud, but there are, as other members have said, still unprincipled doctors, and the public ought to be protected against them. I hope that the Minister will take note in committee of what the country members tell him, and accept amendments. I am very glad of the debate, and that the representatives from the countryside have pointed out the difficulties there.

Generally speaking, I support the second reading, but there are one or two points which have not been mentioned to which I desire to call the attention of the Minister. Under Section 95 a saving is made in regard to native midwives and native medicine men who are practising at the time the Bill becomes law. But what is going to be the position in the future in the outlying districts of Union when the natives who will be permitted under the Bill to practise have become defunct? Who is then going to attend to the wants of the native women? Does the Minister expect that a white midwife will attend to all the native women living 30 or 40 miles away from her place of abode Clause 95 will simply make criminals out of native midwives who will carry on their operations without licences, notwithstanding the passing of the Bill. I wish to support the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in regard to chiropractics. Personally, I have never consulted them, but I have been told by friends that they have obtained wonderful results through consulting chiropractors. One of the leading men in Durban, whose father-in-law is a leading doctor in that town, received a knock on the knee while playing polo. His leg became withered, although he had the very best medical attention possible to obtain in Durban, and they gave up any hope of saving his leg. He was told to go to Europe, and he spent a considerable sum consulting specialists in England. Eventually he was advised to consult Sir Herbert Barker, the famous bone-setter, which he did, and after three months’ treatment the use of his leg was restored Is it right that under such circumstances we should close the door to people who are doing splendid work in many directions? Should I wish to go to a chiropractor, why should I be prevented from doing so? I wish to raise another point, and that is in regard to the constitution of the Medical Council. Provision must be made for the appointment of at least two laymen to represent the public on the Medical Council.

Why not two laymen on the Council of the Law Society?

I would have no objection. There are cases of injustice which would not have happened if there had been laymen on the Medical Council. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that it is absolutely necessary to make provision for the medical needs of the native population, otherwise we shall be passing legislation which it will be impossible to enforce against them.

I do not think I can compliment myself that during the discussion of this Bill I have had any apathy displayed by members, or very little opposition. On the contrary, I think most of the voices that have been raised in this House in connection with the Bill have to all appearances been against it. I think, however, I can compliment myself on the fact that very little has been said in the House against the main underlying principle of the Bill, and that is the principle of the consolidation of our existing medical laws. Therefore I think I was quite right, when introducing this Bill, in saying that as far as 95 per cent. of the provisions of this Bill are concerned, it is to be considered a non-contentious measure. Some of those who have taken part in this discussion have intimated that in the committee stage they will move certain amendments, especially in Clause 34. I think it will be a waste of time on my part, if these amendments are to be moved in the committee, to deal with them now at any length. Therefore I shall confine myself to general principles in replying to the debate. A distinction has been drawn by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) which was drawn during the debate last year. It is a distinction upon which I think much of the criticism against the measure has been based, that is, the distinction between the medical profession using drugs and the drugless healers. I said last year, and I repeat it, that I think that distinction is a fictitious one, a false one. There are many physicians in this country, and one of these physicians, a member of this House, stated publicly the other day that they did not use drugs on a large scale, but only on a limited scale. It is not the principle of the ordinary physician that he should be a user of drugs, They only use drugs when absolutely necessary. No one in his senses can say that he does not believe in drugs under any circumstances, not even the drugless healers. Everyone knows there is one emphatic way to combat malaria, and that is by the use of quinine, and even drugless healers in the Congo would have to use quinine. The same thing can be said in combating venereal disease. Medical science has for many years being trying to find a cure of a disease thought to be incurable. Not many years ago a cure was found, and not a drugless healer to-day would claim to be able to cure venereal disease without drugs. There are a series of diseases due to the presence of bacteria, and the usual way of destroying the action of these bacteria is by the use of what is ordinarily called drugs. No one in his senses in the whole world will deny that is the case. The position I take up is this, that the distinction between the drugless healers, or between medical men who use drugs and those who don’t, is a fictitious and false one. The whole Bill is based on a distinction between the scientifically trained medical practitioners and those untrained. The hon. member for Hanover Street said—

To say the least, that is a sweeping statement. On the contrary, I can make a sweeping statement with more justice in it than in the statement of the hon. member, and that is—

The public wish to be protected by the Government, and the only way they can be so protected is that the Government, by its machinery, should draw a clear distinction between those people medically trained and those who have not been trained. Now as to being deceived twice. I think the public with regard to some untrained men have been deceived twice, and more than twice. I only remind hon. members of the abuses and scandals of untrained men. I remind you of Bax, the man who was convicted at Potchefstroom, and of Ahmed Allie, some years ago at Pretoria. Well, in Clause 32 we do make provision for the registration of people practising these cults. It is nowhere stated in the Bill that they may practise, but the Bill empowers the Medical Council to make a list of people practising these cults and whom they are willing to register. The Bill does not give them power to practise, but the Bill certainly prevents people practising as medical practitioners unless they have been trained and are qualified and registered as such. I think, if the hon. gentleman will not only read one clause, Section 32, but other clauses in connection with it, I think his objection will fall away. Clause 32 is well known. It makes provision for the registration of those people practising these cults by the Medical Council. Now Section 40 says—

Also Section 91 (j). There we find—

And (k)—

if the objection that these persons under Section 32 must be registered is a real objection, then the same objection holds in regard to midwives, nurses, and masseurs. Now the Bill draws, as I say, a clear distinction between what I would call closed professions and open professions. The profession of dentist or medical practitioner or chemist and druggist is a closed profession, that is to say, no person who is not registered may perform the functions which belong to these classes. But nurses and midwives, subject to a provision which we introduce here, and also masseurs, belong to a profession which is not a closed profession but an open profession, and the law only draws a distinction between registered persons and persons not registered, and prevents those who are not registered from holding themselves out as being registered.

They can still practise?

Yes, but not as registered persons. Now the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alexander) has made a great point in his speech of a certain discovery that has been made in the world of chiropractics, a certain machine that can discover a disease and the particular spot where that disease is located. I can only say in regard to that, that I have been informed that the machine is well known, that it is not a mystery, but in the United States, which is the place of origin of that machine, it has been exposed quite a considerable time ago as a humbug. It has come cut in this country as a very great and remarkable and mysterious discovery in the field of medical science.

What machine was that?

I cannot describe it, because it is a mystery. It only reminds me of something similar that was pretended to have been discovered one hundred years ago by a man who was Well known in the medical world, a certain Elisha Perkins, from the United States of America. This Elisha Perkins discovered the art of doing away with all medicines and the ordinary methods of the medical practitioner, and of extracting all pain and all diseases merely by the contact of certain metals with the skin. He made a great name. He went across the Atlantic to Europe, and he came back to America with big batches of testimonials from all sorts of persons, including judges, and chiefly members of Parliament. He made a big fortune, but it did not take long for the medical profession to expose the whole thing as one of the biggest humbugs in the world. The machine of which the hon. member has been speaking is a mystery. Of course, I am not supposed to know anything about it.

I did not say it was a mystery.

At any rate, it reminds one of the pain extractors of Elisha Perkins. The hon. member has also brought forward a case for the right to practise of Christian scientists. He prides himself on the fact that he has converted the Select Committee on the Bill of a few years ago. I hope he will not succeed in converting the House in regard to this particular point. At this stage I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this question of the right of Christian scientists to practise and practise for gain. That is the real point—practise for gain. My objection against these people, in the first place, is not so much that they do positive harm, but that they prevent a great many people who would be assisted and can only be assisted by medical practitioners from being assisted at the right time, and very often, when they do eventually go to the doctors, it is too late, and it costs many lives. I have carefully read through the evidence which was laid before the Select Committee a few years ago also from this particular side, and I think I am right in stating that the leader who placed that evidence before the Select Committee contended that all that was done from their side was simply laying on of hands and praying, and that these Christian scientist practitioners had a right to be paid for the time that they devoted to their patients.

Not by results?

No, for the time. As far as that is concerned, if they simply lay on hands and pray, and do nothing more to the patient apart from preventing the patients from going to a medical man, they can do no harm, and they do a lot of good. I cannot see if they merely do that how they can contravene any section of this Bill, because they do not perform anything specially pertaining to the functions of a medical practitioner. It is not the special function of a medical practitioner to pray for the patient. It would be a very good thing if they did. Anyway, it does not pertain specially to the functions of the medical practitioner. Nobody is prevented from charging anyone for praying for him. It is a matter of opinion whether it is a right thing to do, but anyway no one is prevented by any law from charging anyone for laying on of hands and praying for him. In so far as that goes, my further objection against it is this, that they put into operation as far as they themselves are concerned one commandment of Christ, and that is—

but they forget also to practise another commandment of Christ—

They want to be paid for their services. I can only repeat that I hope the hon. gentleman will not succeed in converting the House to make special provision in this Bill so that Christian Scientists may be specially paid by their patients for their services. The hon. gentleman has made some remarks with regard to the dental clause in the Bill, and his contention is that making a plaster cast of the mouth and fitting a denture really belongs to the work if the dental mechanic, and is not something specially pertaining to the work of the qualified dentist. I cannot agree with him in regard to that, simply because you cannot separate the making of a denture from the extraction of teeth. The two are closely connected with each other, and the one is dependent upon the other. Apart from that, I think that the fitting of a denture depends very much, if it is done correctly and scientifically, upon what extent contraction of the mouth has taken place after the natural teeth have been extracted, and for that reason I do not think you can say that that work is something belonging to the dental mechanic, and the rest to the functions of the trained dentist. The hon. gentleman has made great point of the fact that dental mechanics, as he describes them, should have the right to practise as ordinary qualified dentists on the score that the charges to the general public, and especially to the poor, are very much brought down, and he tried to give the impression that nothing is being done by the dental profession in this direction. Let me just read a telegram from Johannesburg from a gentleman who is a member of the University Council—

That as far as interest in the poor is concerned on the part of dentists.

†*I shall now answer a few points which have been mentioned by members on this side of the House. Some members objected more particularly to the principle of the Bill. Their objection practically means that there ought be no registration, in other words, they wish to convert the medical profession into an open profession. If that is actually an objection to the Bill now under consideration, then it is also an objection against the existing law which has been in force for many years in South Africa. If hon. members wish to wipe out the difference between registered and unregistered persons, then they want to import an entirely new principle which has not existed. A large part of the speeches amounted to sharp criticism of the medical profession. One of the members, I think it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), went so far as to say that the public should be protected against the doctors in such a way that from time to time bad doctors should be struck off the roll. If the same thing were to be applied to other professions, such as that of lawyers for example, then I fear that it would be a bad thing for many hon. members in this House as far as their private practices are concerned. There is a fixed principle that when anyone has had proper training and satisfied the examiners he can be admitted to registration and to exercise his profession for the rest of his life. I do not know why doctors should be differentiated. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) and other members declared empratically that the countryside did not want the Bill. This is the first I have heard of it. The Bill has come up again and again in the past ten years, and I have never heard of any public meeting or of any meeting making representations against the passing of the Bill. But I want frankly to admit that if I had lived on the countryside and had not read the Bill—and I believe that no one in the constituency of the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) except doctors, and possibly the hon. member himself has read it—then I should also be opposed to it if I had heard it explained by the hon. member for Middelburg. The hon. member has stated here that the country midwives who are not qualified have done the work there for years and have given complete satisfaction and, therefore, he wants to vote against the Bill. I think that there are no bodies which represent the countryside so well in the Cape Province as the A.C.V.V., and none which represent the Transvaal so well as the Mothers’ Union. They are organizations embracing all political parties. They are clearly under the impression that the position regarding midwives is unsatisfactory, and representing, as they do, the women of the countryside, they appreciate that a change is necessary. They have, therefore, established a hospital in Pretoria for the training of qualified midwives who will be sent to the countryside to make the employment of unqualified ones unnecessary. How, in view of this, an hon. member can state that the countryside was satisfied in the past with their midwives I cannot understand. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) mentioned an important point, viz., what is to become of the qualified, or rather registered, witch doctors in Natal. And what is to become of medical facilities for natives if they are abolished, and may not practise any longer? Let me, in the first place, reply that the registration of witch doctors only takes place in Zululand in Natal. Why they only find it necessary there and nowhere else, I do not know.

They practise in other parts without being registered.

The second point is that, as hon. members can see from the Bill, there is a provision that areas can only be proclaimed in order to permit of qualified midwives alone working there, if adequate, proper provision is made in this connection for all classes and, therefore, also for natives. That is a system which will only extend gradually. In the Free State in urban areas of more than 2,000 inhabitants it has been in force for more than 20 years. In such areas no midwives can carry on her business without proper qualifications, and that system is extended to other parts as soon as, on the recommendation of the medical council with the approval of the Cabinet, it is considered desirable, and there are adequate qualified women available in such areas. If, therefore, there is not sufficient provision for any class of the population, including natives, an area will not be proclaimed. Then I think that guarantees against abuse are contained in the Bill. It has repeatedly appeared that chief objection to the Bill on this side of the House is the necessity of fixing doctors’ fees. I can assure the House that this is a matter which has had my serious attention for a long time, and that I have considered all possible ways to provide for the need. I once went so far as to have a clause drawn up with reference to the matter for inclusion in the Bill. The objections, however, in the long run won the day.

What objections?

In the first place, just as quickly as doctors’ fees are fixed, instead of the position of the poor people being improved, it will be made worse. The fixing of doctors’ fees is an indication to the doctors of what they can charge, and those who charge less will thereafter increase their fees to that standard.

Their fees are not lower now.

Hon. members say that the fees are not lower, but they will understand that if fees are fixed then account will have to be taken of the particularly capable medical men who have made a name and get patients from everywhere. It cannot be demanded that the man who is crowded out with patients should work at the same tariff as another doctor. If that is taken into consideration then in fairness his fee cannot be placed too low. If it is fixed fairly towards him, then the fee for other doctors is also fixed. I do not think that the poor portion of the population will be assisted by this. In conclusion this is a matter which, by greater competition, will rectify itself. The doctors may not form a trades union and, according to professional etiquette, they cannot form a combination to raise fees. Therefore, competition is always able to bring down fees. There was a time when doctors were few, but that time is passed, except in certain thinly-populated parts. There are now two universities with medical faculties and, according to estimates, South Africa, within a few years, will have more doctors than the country requires. The question can be left to competition in the future. I admit that the population on the countryside has great difficulty, because it is not only difficult to get doctors, but doctors have to come from the towns by motor. This costs money, and the doctor, in addition, spends much time in treating a patient. Therefore, the doctors’ charges, especially to the distant people, are often high. I think that something can be done in the direction of providing for the need of the countryside. This is, however, not a matter for this Bill, but for the Public Health Bill. That Bill was introduced at the end of last session, and it will, to some extent, meet the need by the provision respecting district surgeons. We cannot make Government officials of doctors. This may not be ideal, but in practice it is unworkable. The district surgeons will be appointed on certain conditions. The conditions are that where it is necessary the district surgeons at certain fixed times shall go to certain central points in his area and, if he treats anybody at such centre, he must charge the patient as if it were at his headquarters. If he goes from such centre to visit a patient, then he must charge him according to the distance from such centre, and not from his headquarters. If we have the means for this, and the system is introduced and Parliament votes the necessary money, then in this way we shall bring medical men more within the reach of the people in the far-off parts of the countryside than is the case to-day. I hope the second reading will now be taken.

I move—

In asking the House to go into committee on these additional estimates, there are a few points to which I desire to call special attention. Hon. members are asked to vote additional expenditure of £920,372, of which railway working represents £801,652 and expenditure on net revenue account £103,720, making a total for the railways of £905,372. With regard to the Harbours, the expenditure on net revenue account is £15,000, making a grand total of £920,372. There are, however, certain savings which cannot be appropriated. These savings amount to £44,238, making the sum the House is asked to vote £876,134. The additional amount to be voted falls under the following heads: Maintenance of rolling stock, £289 093 running expenses, £284,159; traffic expenses, £223,400. This additional expenditure is due to the fact that the traffic which we have carried was much in excess of the tonnage expected at the beginning of the financial year. The additional running expenses are due to an increase of nearly 14 per cent, in the engine mileage. That affects traffic and also maintenance and repairs. When we have more rolling stock in use, that necessarily means that more expense is incurred in the workshops. The train mileage has increased by nearly 10 per cent., but the increase in traffic expenses is less than 6 per cent. I think hon. members will agree that the country has cause to be satisfied that this additional expenditure is due to an increase in mileage. An amount of £103,720 is asked for under the net revenue account, and £15,000 is required for interest on capital under the heading of harbours. The difference in the net charge of £103,720 is due to the fact that the Electricity Supply Commission did not take over the power station at Colenso until the middle of January last. The increase of £5,180 for interest on superannuation and other funds balances is self-explanatory. The fact that we have larger amounts in the funds is responsible for the additional money required as interest. It is satisfactory to note that while the expenditure has increased, the revenue is expected to exceed the estimate by £895,708, so that the additional expenditure is more than covered by the additional revenue. The House will recall that when I presented the Railway Budget I estimated for a deficit of £86,781. The actual position of the railways and harbours at the end of November last was that for the eight months from April to November inclusive there was a deficit of £315,111. I am glad to say, however, that during December the administration of the different services showed a very large surplus, and we expect that we will also have a large surplus for January.

What was the surplus for January?

I cannot say definitely at this stage. If we are able, as I expect, to balance our account for February and March, I estimate the year will close without showing a balance either on the wrong or the right side.

You are too sanguine.

We will be carrying out the terms of the Act of Union without making either a profit or a loss. With regard to the Loan Estimates, when I presented them, we asked for £7,222,168. We are now asking for an additional £1,441,830. But against the additional amounts we are asking for there are savings which we cannot use to meet the excess on certain votes. The savings amount to £268,185, making a net additional expenditure on Loan Account for the current financial year of £1,173,645. I do not propose taking up time discussing the particulars of these items, but in Committee I shall be glad to give any further information that may be required. With regard to the additional amount to be voted for open lines, as well as for rolling stock, we are simply asking for a larger amount on items which have been already authorized by the House. Rolling stock was ordered at a time when it was considered that the strike would cause delay in deliveries. In other words, the receipt of rolling stock during the year was larger than we anticipated. I emphasize this point. We are not asking for money for any item not approved by the House. It simply means that the actual financial provision is greater than was anticipated.

What funds have you in hand?

We have balances in hand from which we are financing this. I do not think it necessary to say more.

seconded.