laid upon the Table certain reports of the Board of Trade and Industries.

Where are the iron and steel papers? You might give us time to read them before the Bill comes on.

Don’t anticipate second readings.

I move—

This little Bill is of particular interest to the printing industry. From time to time newspaper people and printers have asked for the various measures existing in this country with regard to printed matter, to be consolidated. They are anxious to understand where they stand. In the past I have known employees dismissed in one Province because they did not put an imprint on their work and others in another Province have been dismissed because they did. In some provinces of the Union there is no legal compulsion to put an imprint at all. It is expected that to some extent this Bill will protect the printing industry, and I don’t see anything wrong in asking for protection in the way this Bill proposes. In spite of the heavy customs duty placed on printed matter it does not suffice to prevent hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of printed matter coming into the country from overseas. It took years for bankers and others of the United States to realize the fact that such work as engraving could be done outside of London. It is true that for years the best engraving work was done in London and the best colour work was done in Germany. It is also true that forty or fifty years ago the general answer one would have received on taking such a piece of work to a printer in South Africa was that they could not do it. But in the years that have passed since things have changed, but it is not yet even realized that it can be done here. We claim that persons in the Union who ask us to support their industry, also to some extent on sentimental grounds, have yet to learn that we expect our industry to be supported in like manner. Yet many of these get their printing done overseas. Sentiment is going to accomplish a lot in regard to altering this. People who have been used to importing from overseas will feel ashamed to circulate matter printed overseas and will see their matter is printed here. In America they imported hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of work required by the banks, under the impression that it could not be done in America, yet when the tariff was raised considerably and a similar law to this was passed, banks discovered that as good or even better work could be performed in the United States of America. We have people importing calendars into this country with pictures of the Alps and Switzerland, while they could get something of greater use and far more understandable to the people of this country if they portrayed the Drakensberg and some of the other beautiful mountains which we have got on their almanacs. The public should be allowed to distinguish between work which is printed here and work which is printed overseas by placing on the work the country of origin. The United States of America, Canada and most countries in the world almost without exception place a similar embargo, if you like to call it, on imported printed matter, which is compelled at least to show where it was printed. In regard to work produced inland, we have a law in the Cape of 1859 which requires an imprint to be placed on all printed matter without exception. It makes no exception, for instance, in regard to visiting cards and things of that sort where an imprint might deface the work. In Natal we compel all newspapers and pamphlets to bear an imprint. There is also a law in the Transvaal in regard to the imprints on newspapers. If in one part of the country you can print a work without any imprint and send it to another province which has an imprint law, how are you to carry out that law? I agree that there are flaws in this Bill. I have taken the trouble to find them out. I notice too that quite a lot of other people are claiming originality for some of the things I discovered myself and told them of. But the flaws are not beyond repair; and can all be met by amendments in committee. If you were to take five or six hundred books in the library of this House as a test you would find that the works there from practically every other country except Holland would comply with this law without any alteration. Even these bear the name of the publishers. This law will be no hardship in those cases. It would merely require a rubber stamp to be put on—

But one does not want even to put these institutions to the necessity of rubber stamping these works. In regard to educational institutions, libraries and places of that sort, I am sure the printing industry have no objection to leaving them outside the Imprint Bill altogether. Works of antiquity, works required for a library or institutions of that kind, ought all to be exempted. That can easily be met by applying the exemption which it is proposed to apply inside the Union to works that are imported by such institutions. Another objection that is usually urged against the imprint is that by inserting an imprint on any work you disfigure it to some extent or advertise the printer too much. If one studies some of the work that they produce in America, and sees how they comply with the law without any defacement of the work, I am sure that no objection would be raised here to this Bill on that score. Even on visiting cards the imprint of the name and address of the printer sometimes is printed in such a way that it is not easily detected. The Bill also provides for designs to be registered and used in place of the name and address of the printer. So long as the printer can be traced, that is sufficient. I do not think any printer will disagree with ordinary billheads and things of that kind with a few lines of type on them, or say, a trade card or a visiting card being exempted from the provisions of this Bill. I am sure the printing industry will be willing to assist by giving advice on the question of exemptions in any way it possibly can. It has also been said that there are large quantities of printed matter in stock which could not comply with the law. I was told the other day of a large stock of tea labels which, although printed in South Africa, could not comply with the requirements of this Bill. I should say that that is a clear case for exemption under the Bill, that undoubtedly the Minister should exercise his power of exemption in reference to stocks of printed matter printed before the commencement of this Bill in the hands of merchants. I would point out that we are not establishing a precedent by this law at all. We can go back at least a century for a precedent for the insertion of imprints in South Africa. One of the earliest laws, I think it was the Cape law of 1829, required an imprint to be put on most printed matter, pamphlets, journals, newspapers and things of that sort. In 1858 Natal passed a law to repeal Ordinance 26 of 1846 and to extend to the district of Natal certain provisions of the Cape Ordinance No. 60 of 1829 entitled—

It sounds like newspapers all the world over, doesn’t it? I see that in the following year in the Cape they repealed this particular law and the title is—

and the preamble has this amusing passage—

This Act then provided that the name and address of the printer should appear on all printed matter. That is the law in the Cape to-day. I have tried to meet the objections which may be raised to this Bill both outside and inside the House. I realize the necessity of opening the door in respect of certain classes of imported printed matter, provided, of course, that such exemptions do not clash with the underlying idea which we legitimately claim, namely that we are entitled to appeal to that sentiment which exists among people who desire to see industries established in this country. As there are some amendments necessary to the Bill and, as I think it will facilitate its passage through the House, I shall move after the second reading is taken that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee. In conclusion I might mention that there are a large number of publications in this country that are unfit for reading. Most have no imprint on them. Obviously the printer who does this work is not going to put his name and address on unless he is compelled to do so. It would lower his status in the trade.

I could scarcely hear what the hon. member was saying, but looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems to me that Clause 1 is the gist of the Bill; the principle of the Bill is contained there. I have just been over in the Parliamentary library looking through the books on the table there. I find that books printed in Great Britain all bear the imprint, but those from Holland, Germany, America and Norway have not the imprint.

Holland only.

I looked through these books and none of them have the imprint, so that if this Bill goes through it seems that we are going to allow only books printed in Great Britain into this country. You may pass this law but how are you going to carry it out? Are you going to order printers in Holland, America and Norway to carry out a law made in the Union? The result would be to prevent many an Italian citizen, a Russian citizen or a German citizen from getting any books at all.

You are wrong in saying they have not got the imprint.

I can only go by the books I have seen. The hon. member can go and study them himself. It seems to me an official will have to be appointed to go through every book arriving at Cape Town or Durban. If words mean anything, that is the meaning of this Bill. What is the object of it? If it is, as the hon. member stated, to prevent seditious literature from coming into this country, it would be a very laudable object, but he defeats himself by allowing newspapers in. The scientific books and all the other valuable books, such as are to be found in the library, will all be excluded under this Bill. We should not allow the Bill to go through as it stands. In England they have a law that all books printed in England must bear an imprint, but we are legislating to try and impose our will on foreign countries. I do not see how we can do so, and the net result will be to exclude a large mass of very valuable literature from this country. For what object I do not know; we in this corner could not hear what the hon. member said, and I think we should know more about it. I would like to know how it is going to be carried into effect. Is he going to have detectives at the quayside opening every case of books that comes along, and throwing into the sea those that have not imprints? It would take years for this law to permeate the various countries concerned. I hope the House will look into it more carefully, and I would suggest that this Bill be referred to a select committee before second reading.

I think that the object the hon. member who introduced this Bill is aiming at is very clear. The hon. member wants to give protection to printers, and the doing of printing in South Africa in order to develop the industry. He wants to attain that object by having a mark put on all printed matter from which the public can see where it was printed.

In what respect is that protection?

The protection consists in public opinion which can judge about the acts of one person or another in having something printed outside of the country. I do not say that his method is the best to attain this object. I am only speaking of the object, and I think that is a good one. Not many years ago the position in South Africa was such that practically all our printing was done overseas, but since then great developments have taken place, and more and more printing is being done in South Africa, and more and more people in South Africa have found work and a means of livelihood in that industry. I think that the industry has now developed so much that it can claim a certain measure of protection from the State. But whether the Bill as drawn can be passed without objection is another matter. I think there is much in the objection of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). Representations have been made to me by people interested in libraries to the effect that with reference to a large quantity of matter of an antique nature which has been imported it cannot possibly be discovered any longer where it has been printed, and that it is quite impossible to comply with the demands in the Bill. Then representations have been made to me by the consulates who say that they have received quite a large stock from the countries they represent which would be excluded. That, of course, we cannot do. Further, the Dutch book stall has made representations to me. A similar law does not exist in Holland. The name of the publisher is given in the Dutch books, usually without the name of the printer. The trade in books and printing done in Holland would be completely obstructed. I cannot, therefore, agree with the Bill as now drawn. The hon. member has, however, said that he is prepared to send the Bill to a select committee, and I can heartily support the principle in the Bill, and I hope that when it comes back from the select committee all objections will be removed. Let me just say here that I had intended to introduce a Bill at some time or other—if not during this session then next session—to consolidate the existing statutes in the four provinces with reference to the publication of newspapers. The existing statutes differ from the other only slightly, and it is in the interests of proper administration that those four statutes should be consolidated. The hon. member’s Bill also goes in this direction, but not so far as the Bill which I had in mind. The hon. member’s Bill does not fully consolidate the existing laws in the four provinces. As, however, the matter is gone into in two clauses of this Bill, I am willing that the consolidation of the laws of the four provinces with reference to newspapers should be dealt with in this Bill. Its title is wide enough to cover this consolidation. All the data which I have at my disposal to-day can be put before the select committee to deal with and to incorporate in the Bill. As the Bill is going to a select committee, I hope the House will have no objection to pass the second reading.

I don’t quite agree with that. My hon. friend the Minister wants to get this straight through. I should have thought if there was one industry in South Africa that is taken care of by the State it is the printing industry. But they are never satisfied: they always come along and want more. They are still coming to the State and wanting protection, still asking for assistance. All these Dutch books are not imported for libraries. Are the importers of these books to come cap in hand to the Minister to be allowed to stamp them? They may not know who the printer is. The names of the publishers are on all the books. It shows what inconvenience legislation of this kind is causing to the ordinary individual. Clause 2 I do not object to so much, but take Clause 3— which means that for private visiting cards you must name the printer.

It does not say so.

I know what my hon. friend says, that he is going to leave it to the Minister. We are getting more and more into the hands of the officials. With regard to printed matter it means, as far as I can see, that price cards must also be stamped. The Minister can exempt, but that is again being put into the hands of officials. I object very much to having to go to the Minister and his officials to ask for exemption. I want the whole thing to be put into the Bill, and not have to go to officials. The whole tendency of legislation in this House is more and more to get into the hands of officials, and I think some people are beginning to find it out. Suppose there is printed matter on cloth or on imitation silk—I suppose you have to have the printer’s name on that. It has not been properly thought out. I would support Clause 2, which is perfectly in order. You are going to hamper the trade in certain classes of books and old books under the Bill as it stands. I am very glad the Minister agreed with the Bill being referred to a select committee, for it wants re-casting, if not chucking out altogether.

If the object of this Bill were simply the protection of the printing trade in a legitimate way, I would have no objection, but the Bill seems to be so futile to get at the object aimed at. I cannot understand the objections raised on the other side, as if this precedent were being laid down for the first time. I may inform the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that in Great Britain and most of the other dominions the same kind of thing exists.

But it will exclude Dutch and German books.

In Great Britain a printer is liable to prosecution if a book he prints does not bear his name. I think if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) glancing at the books in the library had not been too hurried he would have found that German books at present do have an imprint of the printer, although the old ones may not have it. I do not believe that public opinion takes very much interest whether a book is printed in Germany, England or anywhere. If protection through the customs does not keep out these things, an imprint of the printer in the country from which a book hails will not do much. In South Africa we have special circumstances which you do not have in England, and you have practically half the population being placed at a disadvantage to others. No one will be hit so much by this Bill as the publishers in Holland. It was said that the only thing the publisher has to do is to stamp his books. If the hon. member (Mr. Sampson) was in the publishing trade he would know that very often big orders are sent to publishers in Holland who send books to South Africa, which are printed by different firms— some may be printed in Holland, some in Germany, and some in Belgium. If this Bill passes as it stands they will have to go all over the place to find out exactly where these books have been printed, and it means delay to the people in South Africa who read Dutch books. When I read the Bill I wondered what its real object was, and whether it was a new link of empire that was being forged in someway, although even so I do not think it will be very effective. It might be to prevent books coming in from Russia, but I do not think even there it will be very effective. The Bill may become a little more effective after the Minister has introduced a further clause, of which we have not heard anything. If the Minister had not favoured the Bill as he did, I would have moved that the Bill be referred to a select committee before the second reading. Reading the Bill, I think it is more mischievous than useful in many ways, and I hope it will be quite another Bill when it comes back from the select committee.

I welcome a Bill of this kind in the spirit of “South Africa first”—a slogan that some of my hon. friends are content with as a mere slogan, but not to be put into actual practice. This certainly is further protection, and I am rather surprised at an hon. member of a Port Elizabeth constituency now getting up and opposing anything practically on protectionist lines. It was once the very temple of free traders, and we had its apostles of free trade protesting that this country could never flourish under protection, but unless the hon. member quickly gets into line with his constituency, he may find himself in quite another place when we are meeting here again. A large shirt factory has just been opened there now, in addition to a great boot industry, all due to protection. I would point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that what is going on under cover of favouring South African industries is that there are numerous instances in which tariff-protected local products are being sold under labels not printed in this country, and dealers dare not publish where such labels are printed because it would give away the principle of protection enjoyed by their own products.

The only country that is excluded is South Africa. Read it again.

I shall be glad to sit down and let the hon. gentleman make his further explanation. The hon. member, in introducing the Bill, not only fully explained the Bill, but also frankly said—

That was very fair. As regards protection of the printing industry, we can hold up our heads on it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was present the other day at the opening of one of the finest possible printing establishments here.

Wrong again.

No? Well, it was the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), also an importing merchant prince, who waxed so eloquently then on the benefits to the community of such industrial works, and he was right. Printing works give employment to a highly intelligent class of people, and are an asset to the country, but if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had his way, we should simply have one large store for imports for all our wants, and I need not mention the name that would appear above it. If there is one industry that should be encouraged, it is that of printing, for the amount of capital invested in it shows a greater return per head of employment than does capital invested in any other industry, while the trade employs a greater number of white and skilled workers than any other industry with a similar proportionate amount of capital. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) pointed out the ease with which we can deal with any exceptions under the Bill by means of a rubber stamp. At present, for instance, if one brings into the country a copyright book which has been pirated, the customs department will stamp it and collect a duty for the author. There is no practical difficulty about the matter, except the same old difficulty that we must not make anything here that can be produced cheaper outside the Union. We ought to welcome the Bill, thank its introducer, and send the measure to a select committee.

If the hon. mover had said that the Bill would only apply to English printing I would have voted for the second reading, but our Afrikaans-speaking people here will find it impossible to approve of the Bill. We are still engaged in developing an Afrikaans culture, and it is necessary to obtain many books from the continent of Europe to assist this development. It is therefore not possible for us to vote for the Bill, however willing we may be to support the hon. member in saying “South Africa first” in this instance. His Bill, e.g., speaks of certain printing which is done in elegant style in Holland, Germany and France, and which otherwise we could hardly obtain. I cannot see the necessity for the Bill. If the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) had tackled the matter in a different way, and jointly with the Minister, so that we could have a consolidation of the laws in all the four provinces, then there was something to be said for it. As things are to-day, however, with our small South African reading public, we are a great deal dependent on Dutch literature, and it is necessary for us to keep in touch with it. The greater the circulation, the cheaper the printing can be done, but in South Africa, with its small white population of one and a half million, printing costs a great deal.

Then vote against the second reading.

I would rather see the Bill referred to a select committee before the second reading, and I hope the hon. member for Jeppe will be willing to have that done, otherwise it will not be possible for me to vote for it.

I feel that I cannot possibly vote for the Bill. We get many literary works from other countries, and this will be interfered with if we pass the Bill. I think that if it is necessary to introduce a consolidating Bill the Minister can do so, and that it is not a matter for a private member to take in hand. The Minister would then be able to properly consider the matter beforehand and enquire into it with his officials before introducing a Bill. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has already pointed out that many German books do not mention the country they were printed in. I have here before me a French periodical, “La Revue de deux Mondes,” a review which has already reached the ninetieth year of its existence. Therefore, because it is not the custom there to mention in English or Afrikaans where it is printed, the law will interfere with possible subscribers. I think I have said enough to show why I cannot vote for the second reading.

I am afraid that the subject is one which involves a good deal of technical knowledge which has not been before the House. I do not think we have really had sufficient information on the point to enable us to come to a conclusion either to take the second reading or to reject the Bill. I therefore move—

Mr. PAYN seconded.

I cannot see the necessity for this Bill, and think it is useless. The Minister has unfortunately said here that the second reading may pass, and that the Select Committee can then put it right, but I am quite prepared to vote for the proposed amendment to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. We Dutch-speaking people cannot conveniently vote in favour of the Bill. We get many books from Holland, books of hymns and psalms, and even bibles, in large quantities, and the Bill will interfere with that.

I have not heard any practical arguments against the Bill or the principle underlying it. I can quite understand a member opposing the principle in toto, but I cannot understand an hon. member resorting to the subterfuge of finding a defect in the drafting, and then moving an amendment which defeats the principle. The division will show who are the protectionists of local industry, and who are the free traders—those who put South Africa first and those who put overseas first. The division will divide the sheep from the goats.

Is the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) one of the goats?

With such a sentiment as is permeating the House, local industries have a poor look-out. All we ask is that sentiment should be turned in favour of the South African articles. We are not proposing that more duty should be imposed on imported printing. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) will see that the whole of his case is built up on wrong premises. He was talking about our requiring an imprint to be placed on imported goods, and said that 90 per cent. of the work that came from Holland would not conform to the provisions of the Bill, but if he will read Clause 1 he will see that no imprint is required The work has simply to bear a statement showing the country of origin. Our imprint laws are less stringent than those which exist in other countries.

Here is a book from Germany, but it has no imprint.

How do you know it is from Germany?

Simply because it is printed in German.

Does the hon. member know that for two and a half years not a single English work entered the United States without an imprint or being marked by a rubberstamp? It was through a little flaw in their Imprint Law, which is remedied in this Bill.

Why, then, does this Bill not provide for books printed in the Union?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has already spoken.

The American law required that the imprint should be on the front or the back of the title. Most English publishers put the imprint of the printer on the last page of the book and, for that reason, they could not conform to the U.S.A. law. Most publishers with world-wide circulations know the imprint laws of other countries and print their books so they can get into those countries without any hindrance whatever. In our library there are a number of works that came from Holland that did not comply with this. They have the name of the publisher and the name of the place where they were published, but they do not show the name of the printer. They must be unusual works without a world-wide circulation. I have already said clearly, that I expect the exemption now applying to matter printed within the Union would have to be extended to certain classes of work printed overseas. That should satisfy hon. members that we are not placing any difficulty in the way of works being imported from Holland. The Minister referred to other matters being included with which I agree. The printing industry in South Africa agree that there ought to be one law to incorporate all matters relating to the printing industry. For instance, at present the question of the registration of newspapers is dealt with separately and apart. I know the industry would welcome his suggestion. Some hon. members seem to think it would be a hardship to have to scrutinize every work coming into this country, but all these things go through the customs, who scrutinize them now. There is no additional difficulty caused by this Bill to that experienced under the existing laws of the country. An hon. member has spoken about other manufactures coming into the country without having the country of origin marked on them. I think he will find, unless they are not shoddy, that they have the mark of the manufacturer. No person abroad sends goods to customers oversea without having a mark on, either on the packing case or the goods.

Then why put the printer’s mark on?

Why not? Because of the adherence of the hon. member to the policy of assisting nobody but himself he turns his back on a Bill like this, I suppose from the standpoint that he must oppose everything that is unusual or unknown to him.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and Mr. Sampson called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—27.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Te Water, C. T.

Noes—48.

Arnott, W.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt. T.

Tellers: Basson, P. N.; Blackwell, Leslie.

Question accordingly negatived, and the words omitted.

The words proposed to be substituted put and agreed to.

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

I move—

This Bill was in a way forced upon me. The hon. member who was to have introduced it for some reason or other could not do so, and in a weak moment I allowed it to be forced upon me. I knew very little about architects, and I knew nothing at all about the qualities of quantity surveyors; in fact, I do not think I had ever met a real live quantity surveyor, but since then, and especially while serving on the select committee, I have met quite a number of architects, and quite a number of quantity surveyors, and I must confess I have never come across a more reasonable class of men. When I say reasonable I am not referring to their charges, but to their attitude on this Bill. As this is a private Bill one naturally expects the promoters to be looking for some direct personal gain. That is not so in this case. Not one single person among the promoters, and, as far as I can see, not one single practising architect or practising quantity surveyor will get one penny’s extra work or one shilling’s extra fees if this Bill goes through. Not one single individual who has been competing for work will be prevented from continuing to compete even if the Bill goes through. Right through the proceedings of the select committee the promoters of this Bill have shown themselves most reasonable, in my opinion; in some cases, even unreasonably so. They have met every objection to the Bill, not half way, but all the way. If their object is not personal gain, what is it? It is a very laudable object, and an object which I hope hon. members will assist them to achieve. Their object is to raise the standard of their profession, or rather, I should say, to raise their work to the dignity of a profession, because, in my opinion, up to now they have not been a profession. As I understand it, the work of a professional man is a kind of work which you are legally not entitled to perform, unless you become a member of some or other recognized body, and have been admitted in that body by passing some or other academical test, coupled sometimes with a practical test. These architects wish to become a profession, and I agree with them, and I hope hon. members will also agree with them. They say that, although there are black sheep in every profession, yet as a general rule persons belonging to a profession are more competent and conform to a higher standard of conduct than people not belonging to a profession.

What about the average working man?

We are coming to the average working man just now. He is a man for whom I have the greatest respect, because he usually votes for me. I say that the standard of professional men is higher because they are obliged to behave themselves better. I was going to say that there are splendid bricklayers and splendid fitters. I know a number of them. One of them is even a Minister of the Crown. There are even splendid merchants. But the merchant or the bricklayer who wants to be dishonourable can be dishonourable without necessarily losing his livelihood, whereas if this Bill goes through, and the architects become a profession, then an architect who had it in him who wanted to be dishonourable will hesitate before becoming dishonourable, knowing that he may lose his livelihood. Then the remuneration in a profession is usually greater or, at all events, the public think it is greater, than in other work, and for that reason it attracts the best men. These architects wish to attract to their profession the best men and the best brains, and men of the highest standard of conduct, because they think that the country as a whole will gain by it. After all, we have got past the stage when we are satisfied with any old building, so long as it keeps out the sun and the rain. We want strong buildings, healthy buildings and beautiful buildings. We have heard a great deal lately about higher status. These architects and quantity surveyors have their aspirations as well as other people. To come now to the Bill, the two main principles in it are (1) that no person may hold himself out as an architect or a quantity surveyor unless he has been registered in terms of the Bill, and (2) that no person may perform for remuneration the work of an architect or a quantity surveyor unless he has been registered in terms of the Bill. There is also a third principle which is really a corollary to the other two, and which is to the effect that there must be some central body to keep discipline amongst the members, and to keep them to that higher standard of conduct and weed out the black sheep. As to the first principle, that no man may pretend to be an architect unless he really is an architect, that is simply to protect the public against fraud. The second principle, that no man may perform the work of an architect unless he really is an architect, has the object of raising the standard of the work. It stands to reason that our country as a whole must gain by having stronger buildings, healthier buildings and more beautiful buildings. So it only remains to inquire whether any injustice or harm is done to anyone whatever or to any class of people by enforcing the provisions of this Bill. Objection was made on the score of expense. It was said that the working man would have to pay more for his dwelling. This is not so. He does not need to employ an architect. This Bill does not force anybody to employ an architect. A man can build as ugly a house as he likes. He can build it himself or get some equally incompetent person to build it for him. If he is a sensible man and employs an architect, he need not be afraid of the fees; there are no minimum fees, and an architect or quantity surveyor can charge as little as he likes. The only people we have to do with are those who contend that they have vested rights. They may have had the right to be dissatisfied under the old Bill, but under the Bill as amended in select committee, no single individual with the slightest claim to any vestige of a vested right is debarred from doing any work which he has been doing honestly up to now. When the Bill goes into committee, as I hope it will, I will prove that provision is made for every case of hardship. There were several objections, and it only remains for me to deal with them. The Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce is not a body for whose political principles I have very much respect, but when it comes down to pure business, it is a different matter, and for that reason, I am very pleased to be able to say that the committee received a resolution from the Chamber approving of the Bill. I would like to quote what they say—

Our point could not have been put more clearly or better; but, being business men, they go on to say—

Then they proceed to carefully scrutinize the Bill, and they raise four objections—and four only. We have met every one of those four objections. Their first objection is to persons who have hitherto drawn plans being prevented from continuing to do so. That has been met, because these persons may continue to do so, provided only that they register and sign their names to the plans. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of members to some rather interesting evidence brought before the select committee, which I think will surprise the Johannesburg ratepayers. It is not a point the promoters wish to make, but I am making it on my own. From that evidence it is clear that officials in Johannesburg to whom they pay a big professional salary are in the habit of drawing plans for private individuals for pay. It appears they are drawing plans for big corporations for buildings costing £8,000 and in one case £20,000. Presumably they do it in their spare time and with their own material, although it must have been a great temptation with so much material of the ratepayers lying about. The work of these gentlemen consists of going through the plans which are lodged with them to see whether any errors have been made and if so putting them right. So the ratepayers of Johannesburg are at present paying a big salary to these people to correct their own plans which they have made for other individuals and for which they have been paid. That state of affairs will be stopped if this Bill is passed. The second objection of the Chamber is that they are opposed to any increase in architects’ fees. The fees have not been raised because there are no minimum fees as there are in the profession of advocates. So that objection falls away. The third objection is they object to restriction on an architect who wishes to act as a quantity surveyor. In the Bill as amended this restriction has been done away with. The fourth and last objection is that they object to the quantity surveyors being controlled by the Institute of Architects except in regard to unprofessional conduct. They are mistaken there. In the Bill as amended they are not controlled in that way, but apart from that I think they are wrong, because this is a matter that concerns the quantity surveyors themselves and only themselves, and they were quite satisfied. This objection falls away. The Johannesburg Building Society wrote as follows—

So that they absolutely approve of the principle of the Bill. They also go on to say they are satisfied with the protection granted to present unqualified practitioners. The Secretary for Public Works lodged an objection, and was kind enough to draw up an amendment which was accepted by the promoters, who wish to thank him for the trouble he took. The South African Association of Municipal Employees and the Association of Draftsmen also made objections, but these have been met. Lastly, the South African Trades Union Congress—and I would be glad if the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) would take special note of what they say, said—

I hope the hon. member for Langlaagte considers that, before he speaks or votes. Every objection has been fully met. The Bill as amended differs from the original Bill in this—that the original Bill contained 71 clauses with three schedules, also containing over 100 clauses, making a formidable Bill of over 180 clauses. It contained a mass of detail which is better left to regulations. The amended Bill contains only 24 short clauses. Clause 9 is the most important, because under that the Minister appoints the Inaugural Board of seven, of whom two must be architects, and one must be a quantity surveyor, so that he can appoint a majority of four laymen. The Minister has control all the time, and if he is satisfied with any regulations made he publishes them in the “Gazette,” and ultimately it comes before Parliament, which has the last say in the matter. As an additional safeguard the admission and the striking off from the roll or the suspension of an architect and a quantity surveyor is left solely in the hands of the Supreme Court—so that there are ample safeguards. I have forgotten one objection, which was raised by a well-known and very capable sculptor of Cape Town, whose contention was that the architect is like the proverbial poet—born and not made, and he contended that architecture is an art—that the architect should be allowed to do his work in his own way in his own style without any further qualification and examination. I tried to point out to this artist that it might be very unpleasant to have a house built by an impressionist architect. He might say to the owner, “Your house does not really have a kitchen, but this space gives you the ‘impression’ that it is a kitchen, and what more do you want?” It is useless arguing with an artist, and great as an artist may be, he is often lacking in logic, but for the information of hon. members I wish to add that the Bill even makes provision for this heaven-born or arch-architect, because he can be employed by a municipality, a province or the Government. I even thought for a time that the Government was delaying the building of the Johannesburg station in order to find this arch-architect. My last argument is based on the Mendelian Theory. I must admit that I am not sure of the name. If I am wrong the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will doubtless be able to refer me to the particular article in the “Argus” or “Star” in which he will have dealt, doubtless comprehensively, with the matter. As I understand the theory, the more we go into the north the more civilized and the more intelligent people become. I am almost sure that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) whose ancestors, like mine, come from Norway, will agree with me in this theory, although I have a suspicion that his ancestors come from a far more northerly part of Norway than mine do. This theory refers to Europe, but I submit may also be applied to South Africa, for we in the Transvaal have had an Architects Registration Act since 1909, and none of the other provinces has yet reached that stage. That is why I wish to Suggest, with all due respect, to the people of the Cape Province that it is time they face away from Table Mountain in this and in many other things as well, and that the people of Natal will also gain more by facing a little more to the north-west. I would like to make an appeal to the House to go to the vote on this Bill this afternoon. The promoters have spent a large amount of money on it. If the House is against the Bill let it vote it down, but if it is in favour of the Bill let it vote for it now; but please do not let them hang in the air.

I very much disagree with one or two of the important points made by the hon. member who is in charge of this Bill, but I do not propose to vote against the second reading. I was very glad to hear the hon. member mention the Transvaal Architects Act having been in force so long in the Transvaal, but he did not tell the House that that Act does not give the architects of the Transvaal the rights that this Bill will give the architects of South Africa. The Transvaal Act gives the architects of the Transvaal the sole right to title, but not to practise. This Bill will give the architects of South Africa the sole right to practise—a very vital difference. Many people in the past have done the work of architects and drawn out plans—and may have done so cheaply; no doubt that is an objection to the architects—but so long as they did not describe themselves as architects, they complied with the law. That is the position in the Transvaal. If this Bill goes through, the position will be that no persons can draw out any plans unless they are registered on the roll of the South African Architects’ Register. That really means that from henceforth there can be no question of any other person drawing up plans, except that a man may draw plans for his own house. Some few years ago many hon. members opposed the Accountants’ Bill because that measure asked not only for the sole right to the use of the title accountant, but for the sole right to practise accountancy. We voted solidly against giving the accountants the sole right to practise. Logically, there is something wrong. If the accountants are wrong from the trade union point of view in having the sole right to practise accountancy, then obviously the architects must also be wrong if they are given the sole right to practise architecture.

What about the chemists?

That is an entirely different proposition. No protection is given in the interests of chemists, but all the privileges are given in the interests of the public. We say that it is fair and right that the Architects’ Association should be protected to the extent that when architects have gone through a course of study and have been qualified, that they should have the sole right to describe themselves as architects. I think that would be sufficient protection for the public, the members of which will then know who are qualified architects and who are not. Then if they choose an unqualified man to draw their plans, they do so with their eyes open. The English Act says that a person registered under the Architects Registration Act shall, by virtue of being so registered, be entitled to use the style of architects, but after the passage of one year a person shall not practise in Great Britain under any style containing the word “architect” or “architectural” unless he is registered, and any person not so registered who wilfully pretends to be an architect and uses any name, title or description implying that he is registered under the Act as a member of the profession of architects, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50. Thus the English Act gives proper protection to members of the architectural profession as far as title is concerned, and it also gives full protection to the public. Otherwise, a non-registered man can draw up plans and work in the same way as did Sir Christopher Wren, who designed St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. He commenced to study architecture at the age of 30, never joined any architects’ association, and was in no way connected with the rules and regulations that governed the architects of that day. If this Bill had been law in England at that time, Sir Christopher Wren would not have been allowed to design St. Paul’s Cathedral. It was most unfortunate that my hon. friend, in moving the second reading, should have made the suggestion that certain employees of the Johannesburg town council had been drawing up plans in their spare time, and that they were also in the position of judging these and other building plans. I do not say he said that deliberately.

I meant it.

That makes the case worse. These people were never called upon to examine the plans. If people comply with the Johannesburg bye-laws which lay down how you shall build a house, your plans cannot be rejected, so there can be no question of preference being given by these people in passing plans. It was most unfortunate that my hon. friend made use of that argument. Mr. Waugh told the committee of the Johannesburg town council that he was very much against members of his department doing this work, but it was not a matter for him, but for the town council of Johannesburg, which had decided in its wisdom that no harm was done by allowing the officials to do this work. In the passing of the plans there can be no question of favouritism, for it is not like granting a licence; if the plans comply with the bye-laws, they must be passed. One can sweep that argument aside and come back to the point of giving these people sole right to practise their profession to the exclusion of all others who can do the work, but who do not wish or desire to be called architects. That is the crux of the question. I do not propose to vote against the second reading, but I think the hon. member should have an opportunity of improving this Bill in committee. If sub-section 2 (c) in Clause 3 is rejected when it gets to the committee, and the hon. member tells us that in that case he would not propose to go on with the Bill, we might as well test the strength of the second reading, and settle the matter this afternoon. That way it might save expense to the country and the time of the House. I will read the sub-section again to make it clear, and I would propose, on coming to the committee stage, to move that (c) in Clause 3 be eliminated. This is the clause—

If the hon. member will say, in the event of that clause being rejected in the committee stage, he is not prepared to go on any further with the Bill, then we had better vote on the second reading, and decide the matter here. I am in favour of the principle of the Bill in so far as it gives the right of title to these people, and to encourage the education and training of the youth of the country in architecture. But to give them a further closed preserve which no other country enjoys is what this Bill proposes to give to South Africa. We should do the right thing if we confined ourselves to the right of title, to collect fees and for education and training, etc. I just want to draw attention to the question of quantity surveyors. I have not treated this question so seriously, and do not propose to do so. The evidence given to the Select Committee, in my opinion, did not prove the case of the quantity surveyor. They appear to be a body of men who are certainly ambitious to get some security and protection by law, but in all the years they have been practising they have made no attempt to educate the younger people. The question was asked how far they could train the young people of the country if they were given the power in this Bill, and it was stated that if given the power they would be able to institute the necessary classes. If they had so far justified their position that they had been able to train apprentices, and were at present giving that education, then we could understand the necessity of granting protection for a body of people like this, but they have not in any way justified that. I think it was Mr. A. T. Babbs who gave evidence before the Select Committee and said that there was a course in existence, I think it was in Pretoria, and that there were about 30 students. I rather fancy that under a cross-examination there was a correction to this. If I say 30 students, I am in excess of the total, and I will put it that way to be on the right side. In the whole of South Africa at the present time there are not facilities given for more than 30 students to go in for the profession of quantity surveyor. If that is so, I think it wrong that they should be given protection. Quantity surveyors are in a worst position than the architect in so far that throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations there is not a single case on record where quantity surveyors have even the right of title. Architects have the right to ask for protection as far as title is concerned, because that is recognized throughout the world. Quantity surveyors cannot say that. Therefore, examining the Bill and the evidence before the Select Committee, the House must deal with these two questions; one, that as far as architects are concerned, whether we consider that title only should be granted. If my hon. friend feels he is not satisfied with title, then vote the Bill out this afternoon. The second point is in regard to the surveyors’ position as I have stated it. Do not let us make the mistake of making it such a closed preserve that it will be difficult and even dangerous to some people. The hon. member stated that it was in the interests of the beauty of buildings of the country and the safety of the people occupying buildings that we should have this Bill through. In all my experience on the Johannesburg town council, and it was over many years, the only serious thing that happened in new buildings was about 1918, when a solidly-built verandah collapsed after the props had been taken away, and it was only God’s blessing that it did not kill a dozen people. One person was killed. It was the verandah of a prominent hotel. It was on the plans of a registered architect of the Transvaal. My hon. friend the member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) is thoroughly aware of the hotel I am speaking of.

Just as registered chemists are allowed to sell poison by mistake.

That may be a very clever interjection, but probably—

How many lawyers lose their cases?

I am giving the position as it actually happened, and replying to the claim made by the hon. member (Dr. H. Reitz). The hon. member put forward the fact that by giving the architects this Bill in the way that they ask, we are going to have greater safety and greater protection to the public. In reply to that, I have quoted the only case we have had in Johannesburg where a building collapsed and a loss of life occurred. It was in the case of Sacks’ Hotel, Fordsburg, which was designed and erected on the plans of an architect and under the supervision of that architect, who was registered in the Transvaal. If the hon. member is not prepared to accept the point I am making, I have no objection to the second reading taking place, and bringing forward these one or two important points in the committee stage.

It is not often that I find myself in accord with the cross-benches, with the trades unionists, in a matter like this. I am sorry that I cannot agree with this Bill. It is not that I have anything against the architects themselves; it is simply as a matter of principle. It seems to me that we are not in this Bill only, but in legislation which we are bringing before this House, gradually whittling away the rights and privileges of the general public. The hon. member (Dr. H. Reitz), in introducing the Bill, said that they wanted to build up the professions and attract all the best brains in the country to the professions. I think they are succeeding in doing that. I think those who are left behind have not got the nous to see how they are affected by the legislation which we are passing. I thoroughly agree that protection should be granted to the various professions, but we should not make close preserves of these professions in the way we are doing. You have Bill after Bill coming before this House. You have the Medical Bill under discussion, you have the accountants coming forward with their little Bill, and now you have the architects asking that they only shall be allowed to do the work which lies within the sphere of their training. I fully agree that while we should protect those men who have made it their profession, we should only protect them to the extent of protecting their qualifications and giving such knowledge to the public that they can discriminate, and leaving the public to themselves to so discriminate.

That is in the Bill.

You say in Clause 3 that no person shall practise this profession for gain unless he is a member of the architects’ society. Another thing which appeals to me is that these professional men when they are advocating this sort of close preserve tell us almost with a sob in their voice that it is not themselves that they want to protect, but the guileless public whom they want to protect. I cannot see it. You have no opportunity here in any shape or form of having any say in the matter of the charges. You have here a council with enormously wide powers. You give them power to frame rules of professional conduct and charges. There is no appeal from that, as far as I can see. If a man is not able to pay those charges, you deny him the right to go to anybody else, who is perfectly competent to do the job, and who has done the job in the past. If you are not prepared to pay those charges you cannot get your job done, that’s all. As in common with most of the professions, I have no doubt that there will be a very liberal scale of charges. The scale of living which the professions demand for themselves is a very high one and the scale of charges is in proportion. It seems to me that if we are going on in this direction it might be just as reasonable for the farmers to come into this House and say that no person shall keep a cow and sell milk, and no housewife shall keep fowls and sell a few eggs, unless they are professional farmers. Let us protect these people, let us protect all professions as far as giving the public the fullest information as to who they are who are qualified and what their qualifications are, and leave the public to judge. Another matter that struck me forcibly when the hon. member introduced this Bill was that there was only one public body whose opinion he quoted, and that was the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce. There are other people in this country besides the people of Johannesburg. Even the Minister of Justice has considered that it was only necessary to appoint three lawyers from Johannesburg to adjudicate on his liquor law. I think that we want more representative opinions, the opinions of other centres, centres that contain, perhaps, intellects which are on the plane of Johannesburg, and not simply the opinions of a body in Johannesburg. We, at least, do attempt to see every side of the question when we farmers are in conference. I have been trying to explain to the hon. member that I do not quarrel with the Bill itself; I would not attempt to do anything that might injure the profession of the architect, but I stand on the broad principle that it is not right to make close preserves in the way we are doing. Give the public information by all means, but if I wanted my hon. friend on the back bench to draw some plans for me—I don’t suppose he could draw plans—why should I not give him my money? It is coming to this, that the ordinary layman may not even die unless you pay a qualified medical man to kill him. I do not object to the second reading, but I hope, at any rate, that when we come to the committee stage we shall adopt this principle, and I hope it is a principle we are going to adopt in all the legislation that goes through this House in the future.

I am sorry that I must oppose the Bill. If consolidating Acts are necessary, the Minister should introduce them and not private members. This Bill amounts to nothing else than drawing a ring fence round another section of the people. The people who support us will suffer under it, and the people who will never vote for us will be protected. I shall just explain the effect a little. Our country is still young. Many of our people have through their brain and experience learnt a trade, but do not possess a certificate. If the Bill is passed a board will be created in favour of the certificated people and those who are uncertificated will be thrown out of work. Only the man who has been trained overseas will retain his work. I know the thing of old. What is occurring on the Rand? A man who wants to build a small house has a plan prepared, and the town engineer approves of it. He can get this plan made now for£2 10s., £3 10s. or £5, but when the Bill is passed only the plans of architects will be approved. The poor people cannot pay 5 percent., which, in the case of a House of £400,will amount to £20. The mover of the Bill said that he knew nothing about the matter. I believe that, but we know what will happen. This Government is trying to end unemployment; we are here again going to deprive a number of people of their work, people who have for years earned their living in the trade. I warn hon. members from the countryside. They are free on their farms, but the poor people in the urban areas will be hard hit. I was for five years in the town council on the Rand, and I want to quote as an instance what happened to the people who were making the stone water furrows on the sides of the streets. They did the work splendidly, but subsequently the tradesmen came and established that that work fell under skilled work. In six months the people who had done the work very well in the past had disappeared, and now the trained men earn £7 or £8 per week, and do a very small piece per week, while the other people had done 100 yards. I shall oppose this kind of legislation as long as I live.

It is very evident that the hon. members who have spoken against the Bill have not read the Bill. I am surprised at the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), who sat on the select committee, stating that a man is only allowed to draw a plan for his own house. Surely it is hardly fair to put that statement before the House when we have Clause 4, which says—

That meets the point of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius). Any person can go to the contractor that he may be in the habit of dealing with and he can prepare his own plans and build his house for him without the assistance of an architect. No one is forced to go to an architect to get his job done. He can put up the building himself. But you will know that if you employ a registered architect you will get under this Bill a man with qualifications. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) yesterday made a great speech against drugless healers; now he comes forward as the champion of ineffients, and the trades unions do not support him in that. Mr. Playfair, the chairman of the Cape Town Federation in Cape Town, said, in his address, that his federation supported the Bill. Provision is made that the regulations must be laid on the Table within fourteen days, so that the public are protected from any over-charge.

See Clause 3.

That clause is put in to protect small municipalities outside, where there is only one architect. With regard to the objections that were raised, the committee endeavoured to meet every point, in fact, it went out of its way to meet objections. I think the promoters of the Bill have gone out of their way to meet the public at a sacrifice to themselves. I hope the House will take into consideration that these men require as much protection as other professions, and agree to the second reading of the Bill.

This Bill is one of a series of Bills that has come before the House to establish what amounts really to a close preserve of members of one of the professions. I must say I do not object to the principle at all, but I am rather concerned with the effect that this Bill will have on a certain type of person who wishes to build a small property. The mover assures me that a person who is not an architect can draw the plans, provided he is registered.

Clause 4 (c).

But who decides whether they should be registered, the professional architects themselves?

They are registered with the Minister—nobody can object.

I want to be perfectly certain that that class of person will be protected. We are establishing technical colleges, and there are many brilliant men who have gone to these colleges who can draw the plans for a small house. Will the hon. member assure me that these men are protected?

Yes.

I accept that. Then this Bill lays down for the first time what charges may be made—

Only in the absence of a special agreement.

It is a most extraordinary factor that it was proposed that an architect should by law be allowed to charge 6 per cent. on any work he has undertaken.

No, only where there is no agreement. If a man is fool enough not to make an agreement, it is his own fault.

With all due respect, 6 per cent. will be the minimum charge.

The schedule is all cut out.

In the Bill as originally drafted, an architect was entitled by law to charge a certain fee. We have tried for many years to fix prices for commodities, but have failed. On £1,000, at 6 per cent., they would charge £60, and that, from the point of view of solving the housing problem, is going to be a serious matter. The proposed charges which the architects had in their minds in my opinion are excessive, and will do much to hold up building schemes such as we want to see inaugurated in the Cape Peninsula and elsewhere similar to the Pinelands garden city. I would like to see something in the Bill to limit architects’ fees, for it should be possible for workmen and others to build their own houses and not be handicapped by excessive fees. Then a man who has trained himself to draw plans should not be penalized. I am perfectly certain that once architecture is made a close preserve, and the outside men are squeezed out, the registered architects will charge the public much too heavy fees for the class of building that I am concerned with.

With regard to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius), I challenge him to say that he has read the Bill. It is clear he never read the Bill, and knows nothing about it, but if he did read it he read the wrong Bill. He does not want to read section 4 (c). If he reads that and still adheres to what he has said, then there is something wrong about him, and he does not come from the north. The hon. member should know better. He is a professional man himself, or, at least, used to belong to a profession; I used the word out of courtesy. His profession has the following distinction. We may all escape the attentions of the medical profession, and even the clerical profession, but none of us can bury ourselves. About six months ago I reported a member of the hon. member’s profession to the Minister of Public Health. This gentleman used to collect 2s. a month from a host of poor people.

On a point of order, that is nothing but an absolute untruth.

If the hon. member says he does not belong to that profession, then I withdraw it. But it makes no difference to my point, which is that the undertaking profession (by courtesy) needs to be controlled. Probably the Minister of Public Health has been so busy with the medical profession, that he has been unable to attend to the result of their activities, for he has not replied to the representations I made to him. Lastly, I give the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) the assurance that these draftsmen will not be interfered with under the Bill in any way.

Motion put, and Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—42.

Alexander, M.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Jager, A. L.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Richards, G. R.

Rood, W. H.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, O. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

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

Noes—24.

Basson, P. N.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hevns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Roux, J. W. J. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 25th February.