as Chairman brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Chartered Accountants Designation (Private) Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments, and specially an addition to the preamble in accordance with the leave granted by the House on the 7th instant.

Bill to be read a second time on 18th March.

I think that the committee realizes that section (c) of clause 3 is the crux of the whole Bill. I think there is no one in this committee who does not realize the necessity for giving this profession some meed of protection. We all agree on that point. When a man has studied and acquired certain qualifications a certain meed of protection must be afforded him. The question which the committee has to go into very fully and to which it must give very careful attention is the extent to which we are prepared to extend that protection, and personally I feel very strongly that we should not go further than to protect the title of the profession. Let it be made plain that no man shall give himself out as an architect or quantity surveyor if he has not the qualifications. Two sections of the clause are very fair—that no man shall hold himself out to be an architect or quantity surveyor, or by advertisement, description or document use such a name, title or description as to indicate he is either an architect or quantity surveyor if he is not duly qualified. I think it is the duty of this committee to analyze very carefully the reasons why the Association of Architects comes forward and asks us to grant this protection. We must study carefully the necessity of anything of that sort, the effect of that provision once it becomes law, and the rights of the public where the public are concerned. I hope my hon. friend who has introduced this Bill will not think that there is any attempt at obstruction. We are all animated by a keen desire to afford protection, not only to the society which represents the profession, but the profession as a whole. We also desire to protect the public. The measure will have a tremendous effect on the architects and the public. I would now like to deal with the question of protection of title, and in order to do so, I am compelled to quote from the evidence which was led before the select committee, for we must take it that those who are interested in the passing of the measure took the trouble to give evidence before the select committee. We should model a bill of this sort very largely on the experience of older countries. On page 1 we have the evidence of Mr. W. J. Harris. One of the first questions he was asked was—

He replied—

We must, therefore, take this to be the evidence of a gentleman who is thoroughly acquainted with his subject. Asked to inform the committee where registration was enforced to-day, he replied that the registration of persons entitled to practise the profession of architecture has been introduced into Germany, Italy, France, Spain, twenty of the United States, certain provinces of Canada and Australia. Outside those countries apparently there is no legislation dealing with the qualification of architects. [Time limit.]

An architect’s work consists of preparing plans and supervising the erection of houses. What is to become of the poor people who buy a piece of ground and want to build a little house if we are to compel them to go to an architect for a plan which has to be approved? Why should we compel them to employ an architect for a little house of three or four rooms of which a school child could draw a plan? The little houses are not next to large buildings, and there is no danger. If they are dangerous, then it is merely to the owners themselves. Subsequently, these persons will presumably also be compelled to have an architect to supervise the building of the house, and to pay him 5 or 10 per cent. Every day I look at the college building in Cape Town it is the same as before. How many months or years has building been going on, and how many architects have already made money out of it? It is a disgrace to Cape Town and the architects, and now we want to protect them, but the people asking for protection do not pay the expenses that are caused. There are hon. members who want to put everybody into an enclosure, and the poor man has to pay.

Do you want to pay no one?

A child of 8 years can prepare the plans. The hon. member also belongs to a profession which is enclosed. It is unfortunate that there are so many members who belong to professions around which a ring fence has been drawn. That is why we farmers here have such a hard time. Why should more poor people be done out of their jobs and turned into poor whites for the benefit of a few professional men? If this Bill is passed, plans will go up 50 to 60 per cent. in cost. And what do we see in the buildings in Cape Town? The new buildings which have been built by these architects all have cracks, but the old houses built without architects have no cracks yet. One profession after the other has to be protected, and I wonder what the next one will be. Let us give the people a little liberty and the right to make their living in their own way and not saddle them with the maintenance of the professional men.

There is no doubt the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) will render nugatory the protection sought to be given to the architects’ profession, a very honourable profession. I look upon this matter from the point of view of our sons, and on the subject I have received a letter from Mr. Harry Hofmeyr, well known throughout South Africa as a gentleman deeply interested in education for many years, a gentleman who has taken a leading part in fostering education in this country, and a gentleman with wide experience, whose opinion in regard to educational matters carries great weight. I should like to read this letter, because I think it may present a new aspect to some of the hon. members who share the reactionary views of the hon. member who has just sat down, and who does not want to afford protection to anyone, however high his professional qualifications may be. He wants to let every charlatan come along and do the work. The letter I refer to is dated the 2nd of this month, and reads—

I appeal to those members who are supporting this amendment to consider the future for any student taking up the architect’s profession.

You want to make it a close preserve.

Naturally, if the men are qualified. It is in the interest of your own sons and the community at large. The result is already seen. Young fellows are going abroad, and you cannot expect them to remain in the country where a profession does not receive adequate protection. I appeal to members to view it from this aspect.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) has just read a letter from Mr. Hofmeyr. I can understand him taking up that attitude, because he belongs to the legal profession, and is protected as an attorney.

What is your profession?

I want to point out that our country is still a young one, and that, during the last 30 or 40 years, towns like Johannesburg have arisen. We have never yet had such a law, and there are people who have learned by intuition to do this work. We used not to have colleges in our country where examinations could be passed, and by this Bill, the draughtsmen who have learned to do the work will be deprived of their living. Provision ought to be made in the Bill that those who can do the work to-day may be registered whether they are certificated or not, if they can prove that they have done the work for a number of years. The Bill can then provide that, after a certain date, only people, who in the future acquire the certificates, shall do the work. Those who are already doing the work ought not to be prevented from making their living at it. I grant that where large buildings of five or six storeys are built the services of an architect are necessary, but draughtsmen can always be used for small buildings. According to the municipal regulations, no one may build an additional room before the plan has been submitted for approval, and the result of the Bill will be that anyone wanting to add one or two rooms to his house will have to go to an architect. The poor man who wants to improve his house or build a small house will have to pay a good deal to the architects. It is not laid down in the Bill what the payment is to be, and the tariffs will first be fixed by the board established under the Bill. The provisions of the Bill may be useful in the future, but in our young country we must not deprive people, who have learnt to do the work, of their means of existence. The Bill is unfair towards them. As I said before, a Bill of this kind ought to be introduced by a Minister, and not by a private member who only looks after the interests of a section of the people, because the Minister will take care that the general interests are looked after. The House must see to it that people are not deprived of their livelihood.

When this Bill was up on the last occasion, I said that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) had not read the Bill, but I notice to-day that he has not yet done so. That is a little too bad. The hon. member gets up and says that the people who have for years been making plans should be protected, and he nearly shed tears about it, but the clause provides for that in large print in both official languages. Moreover, I assured the hon. member on a former occasion that that was the case. I agree with the hon. member when he says that the Bill will be a good thing in the future, and that is all I aim at. If the Bill is passed then no one, who is a draughtsman to-day, will lose his job. That is clearly set out in sub-clause (c). Cannot the hon. member read it? I asked him to do so on the last occasion, and he has not yet done it.

Read it out.

I will read sub-clause (c) very slowly. [Sub-clause read.] It is clear from this that no one will be prevented. I want to point out to the hon. member, because he has clearly not read it, that it does not apply to the countryside, but only to the towns, and even in villages where there is only one architect another man can do the work for reward. It is only where there are two architects that he cannot do so. I shall be glad if the hon. member will now take the trouble of reading the Bill.

We were just discussing the necessity for protection in a Bill of this sort, and we had gone very briefly indeed over the enactments of the various countries and states.

What page are you on now?

On page 1 of the evidence. The point I want to emphasize is that registration only has been effected in these countries. We have not one instance in any other country which has attempted to make a closed profession of this sort. We have registration in these countries; that is granted. Registration we are prepared to grant at once in this country. When I say “we,” I speak, of course, for myself, but I hope I also speak for the majority of the members of this House. When one examines the countries which have granted registration, one is particularly struck with America. You have some very curious legislation enacted in America, which I would not like to see copied in this country. I am told, for instance, that if an unfortunate individual has cold feet, his wife may get a judicial separation in America. If you happen, in addition to having cold feet, to use your wife as a foot warmer, she can get a divorce. I do not think the legislation of this country should be based upon legislation passed in America.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to give us the second reading speech which he did not give on the second reading stage? He must now deal with the clause, and the clause only.

I am afraid the hon. member (Dr. H. Reitz) is speaking without his book.

You are speaking with yours all right.

I am endeavouring to analyze this very clause which is now under discussion, and I am surprised that a member of this House and a member of the legal profession does not see the drift of the evidence which I am trying to read and see the point I am trying to make. It is only by a very close analysis of this clause and comparing it with what we find in legislative enactments in other countries, that we can possibly come to a conclusion ourselves. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will not uphold the hon. member’s contention, that I am transgressing the rules or going too far. I now come to page 2, where we have the evidence of the past president of the Society of Architects (South African branch). This is very illuminative. The witness was asked—

The reply was—

What is accepted in the legislatures of various countries, what other countries have accepted— the principle of protected title—is described in the evidence of this gentleman as an unfortunate omission. I think that is a claim that we ought not to allow to pass without criticism. We are supporting the very thing which this gentleman stigmatized as an unfortunate omission. I think, when we are dealing with this clause, we should realize that other countries are adopting this very principle which we are endeavouring to persuade this House to adopt. On page 42 will be found the evidence of Mr. McWilliams. He was asked—

He admits this. That seems to me to be very important. We have had a quotation by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), who read a very convincing and interesting letter from a gentleman whose opinions we must have respect for, and who paints a most pathetic picture of the young men growing up in this country being overwhelmed by competition. I am trying to draw an analogy between the two societies, the Society of Architects and the Society of Accountants. Both societies are at present before this House asking for protection. We find that the Society of Chartered Accountants in England have 80 per cent. of the business, although they have no protective title.

We are on the Architects Bill, not on the Chartered Accountants Bill.

I really must criticize the hon. gentleman’s very limited intelligence. Surely, when we have never had legislation of this sort before in this House, when this is the first time that we have been asked to deal with legislation of this kind, we can only dive down to the roots of what is required by attempting to compare this legislation with the legislation of other countries, and to compare the aims of this society with the aims of similar societies in other countries, and by trying to analyze what benefit these societies have received, and I submit that a comparison of that kind is not only in order, but it is very pertinent to arrive at a proper judgment of the matter now under discussion. We have also to remember that once the architects have finished their job, the accountants come in. When we get a society in England, a sister society, whose aims are the same—[Time limit].

I hope that the House will decide to-day, once and for all, to make an end of building ring fences round certain professions. There is not the least proof of the necessity for this Bill, not one case has been mentioned where a house has collapsed because it was not built by an architect, but I can tell of many such houses which were built by architects. We must now express ourselves clearly against Bills which want to protect a small section of the population at the cost of the general public. Some members want to make out that we are very narrow in opposing such ring fences. There is, however, not the least necessity for this one, and I shall support the amendment. Many poor people will be prevented from building a little house if they have to employ an architect. I can mention many cases where an ordinary man has prepared a plan, and which was carried out and was much better than that of an architect.

The hon. member for Hospital has said that if the fence is not erected, nobody will go to college any more to train for the profession. I think that will be a blessing. We require farmers in South Africa to produce, and in that way to reduce the cost of living, but the tendency is strong in South Africa to-day to be trained for one or other of the professions, with the result that the farmer is looked down upon. In Cape Town we find that the housing conditions are such that three or four families live in one house, because people are afraid of building on account of the high cost. We want to encourage the building of houses, but this Bill will discourage it. A public school was built in Vryburg in 1911, that cost £12.000, but which is now threatening to collapse, so that it can no longer be used. It was built by an architect, but at Vryburg there is also a church which has been standing for 50 years. It was not built by an architect, and there is no danger of it collapsing. Why should we only permit architects to prepare plans? Are they afraid that there will be too many people following their profession? Then fewer people in South Africa must become architects. We must abolish luxury a little, and revert to our old customs and get more people on the countryside.

I have spoken on this matter on a former occasion, and I now want to assure the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) that I will vote for the Rill if he accepts the amendment to delete sub-clause (c). The hon. member said that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) had not read the Bill, but I can assure him that the hon. member for Fordsburg is right, because sub-clause (c), which has just been read out, is so worded that a person can make a plan, but that he must not do it cheaper than the fee fixed by regulation for an architect. Are the so-called well-qualified architects afraid of the quacks outside the profession? Here we are only protecting the profession, and not the public. Therefore, I am not inclined to vote for the sub-clause. The architects are well qualified and can draw good plans, but in other parts of the Bill they are well enough protected, because anyone else is not allowed to put out a sign or to advertise that he is an architect. In the circumstances, everyone should be given an opportunity to do the work. We do not see a chance of giving such a close protection. We have heard enough of ring fences, and one of these days we farmers will have to introduce a Bill to protect ourselves, so that professional men shall be prohibited from taking part in farming, trade and industry. Professional men are nearly all farmers as well, and they do us endless injury because they are cheque-book farmers. They buy a piece of ground, and put natives on it at a wage of 3s. to 5s. per day, but the practical farmer cannot pay that price. The professional man who is protected in his profession and has a chance of fleecing the farmer from morning to night can, therefore, pay those wages. We shall also have to propose a Bill to protect the farmers and to keep professional men out of it. If hon. members are in favour of that, then I am prepared to vote for this Bill, and for the ring fence.

We want to assist those who have hitherto done the work, but in the future we also wish to protect the public and the farmers themselves. We have found in the past that a man represents himself as an architect and quantity surveyor, and that he can build a house for £750. When the house is built, it often occurs that it has cost £1,200 or £1,400. In such cases the owner has often said that if he had known that, he would never have put up the building. Consequently, I think that the public should be protected by the Bill. Hon. members talk a lot about ring fences, but we, as farmers, have our co-operative societies, and if we go in for them we are also drawing a fence. The clause aims at protecting the public, so that in the future we can have people thoroughly capable of doing the work. It is an encouragement and a protection to our young South Africans who want to go in for the profession in the future, and I do not think that they should be surrounded by quacks.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) has made the remark each time that I have not read the Bill, but I want to say emphatically that I have read and re-read the Bill.

Then you did not understand it.

The first point in the Bill I object to is that a board shall be established which will have the right of drawing up regulations under the Bill. Much, therefore, depends on the regulations and of the administration of the Act. I speak from experience, and I have seen how people are thrown out of their work as a result of regulations under laws of this kind. Much is said about quacks, but there are thousands of buildings on the countryside which have been put up by the farmer and a mason. There was never an architect connected with them.

That can still be done under the Bill.

Now the farmers and masons are called quacks. The houses on the farms are just as suitable, and just as neat as the houses in the towns and villages, notwithstanding their erection by self-taught people. In the Bill, Clause 3 (c) provides that persons who prepare plans must charge the same as architects. My difficulty just is that the fees of the architects are too high. I must admit that I am not a lawyer or a doctor of laws, but I am speaking from experience. The regulations require the approval of the Minister, but he is not an architect, and the regulations are only explained to him. The danger lies in the preparing of the regulations by the board. Even if the persons who drafted the Bill and the select committee think that the persons who have hitherto done the work are protected, I can say that I have learnt otherwise by experience.

I withdraw my statement that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) had not read the Bill. He has clearly done so, but he certainly did not understand it.

I made my objections plain.

The board will only be able to draft regulations which are consistent with the Bill. If the Bill is in order, then there is no reason to be afraid of the regulations. Moreover, it is not only that the Minister has to approve of the regulations, but they must also be laid before the House, and then the hon. member for Fordsburg will have another opportunity of trying to understand them. I want to say again to hon. members who are objecting that it is plain that the provisions do not concern them, because only eight or ten towns will be affected by them. There are probably two or more architects in only ten towns, and consequently the villages are not affected by the Bill. The opponents are talking a great dealof ring fences, but I think that in this House a fence should be drawn around hon. members, so that they shall not be permitted to talk on a subject which they do not understand. It might even be proposed that before anyone came into Parliament he should pass a kind of examination and give evidence that he has sufficient general knowledge to come here and talk. With regard to the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson)—I am not able to go on in English, but I hope he will follow me—I understand he lives 400 miles from the nearest architect. He therefore knows nothing about the subject, and there ought to be a ring fence for him. I notice that all hon. members who are opposing are the same people who are in favour of any person, however stupid he may be, being permitted to practise as a doctor. One cannot argue with persons who talk like that, because he is behind the times, 100 years behind the times, and still lives in the times when persons advertised for second-rate Englishmen as teachers, and entrusted their children to such teachers. They still live in the times when people used lice with ham sandwiches as a cure.

The hon. member wants to make out that professional men know everything and we nothing, and the hon. member also represents that we know nothing about this matter. I can assure him that I have had experience of it, and know more in my little finger than he does. I have always had to do with this kind of thing, and can assure him that I have seen many houses collapse, although they were built by architects, but the hon. member has not yet been able to mention a single house built by an ordinary man which has collapsed. The hon. member wants us not to be allowed to talk about the matter. We have the right to protect the public interests, and without the strongest protest we are not going to allow a small section of the public to be protected at the expense of the whole. The hon. member has not given the least proof of the necessity of this Bill. What people will he protect? If the hon. member will only go to the houses of the farmers and look at the houses they have built without employing an architect, he will be astonished. Not one has been a failure. Why, then, should people who are qualified to build houses be pushed out? Possibly there are things which the hon. member knows well, but he clearly does not know much about this matter.

I think that after hearing the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), when he suggested that it might be a good thing that there should be some test of knowledge before a member comes into the House, it indicates the mentality of the hon. member. I submit that when the hon. member made use of these words, the insinuation was an insult on certain hon. members who had participated in this debate, and when an hon. member stoops to that method in debate, he is not entitled to the fair consideration and the justice we would like to give his Bill.

Do you not think it was said in the way of jest?

We may be unjust to the hon. member in passing this Bill, which we would regret very much. It is just as bad as when the Bill was before the committee on the last occasion, when the hon. member launched an undeserved attack on the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) and also myself—a semi-humorous, semi-serious attack. He sneered at the profession of the hon. member for Fordsburg, and also at my own profession. He sneered at the medical profession, and entirely forgot the position he occupied as father of the Bill he hopes to put through the House. If his idea is to get the Bill through by sneering at these professions, I cannot respect his logic, in that he thinks the House is going to seriously treat any argument he puts before us. I think the hon. member has been guilty of something that clearly demonstrates that if anyone wants to get anything through the House, they are not going to entrust it to the hon. member for North-East Rand.

On a point of order, are we on Clause 5 or on the defects of myself?

I submit that is another example of the pseudo-humour of my hon. friend. He knows perfectly well that that is no point of order, but he pretends that is another idea of humour. When we have the hon. member coming forward and insulting hon. members because they belong to certain professions—

I think it is time now that the hon. member comes to the clause.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I submit the hon. member has gone out of his way to antagonize this committee, or many hon. members of it, by these methods of his—

Order! The hon. member is continuing with this question of offensive language.

Then I withdraw that also. I now wish to come back with regard to what the hon. member for North-East Rand said with reference to what I said previously. He said that the town engineer of Johannesburg, Mr. Waugh, had evidently got my ear, and evidently made good use of his influence over me. He also said that Mr. Waugh had come here at his own expense, and given certain evidence, and he tried to suggest that the evidence of Mr. Waugh must be treated with very scant courtesy and little consideration. I would say in reply to my hon. friend that that also was unworthy of him, particularly when we read the evidence which Mr. Waugh gave. I find that there is nothing in his evidence that does not justify me in moving my amendment that Clause 3 (c) should be eliminated from the Bill. Mr. Waugh says in his evidence that he is in favour of the protection of architects, but the whole trend of his evidence is against the quantity surveyors. I will read part of the evidence (question 1798, page 194)—

That is the gentleman who examines and passes the plans for the Johannesburg municipality. The whole course of the committee’s negotiations, and all the evidence laid before the committee, justifies me in submitting that the only thing to do is to eliminate Clause 30, and this will do justice to everybody concerned. I do not want to be accused of repeating my second reading speech. The hon. member suggested that the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) had repeated his second reading speech in the committee stage. It is, however, a very old saying that if you have a truth to enunciate, you cannot repeat it too often. I think that is sound logic. The hon. member for Griqualand had a real solid story which could not be broken down. No amount of humour, no amount of argument or uncouth statements against the profession to which the speaker belonged can break down the truth of a statement. The greatest protection the architects have the world over is contained in the British Act, which states—

[Time limit.]

I also want to protest against the clause. I do not know why the hon. member has introduced this Bill. What love has he for architects? Are they possibly his brothers in distress? The hon. member himself wants to draw a ring fence and to prevent us from talking. He wants everyone in the House to be those clever people, and not to have a single farmer. We, who are called in the newspapers “snipers of the backveld,” will always oppose this kind of legislation, whatever names we may be called. Who is going to benefit by this Bill? The architects, of course, but the poor people outside may not discuss the matter here. It is said that the people who are now preparing plans will be allowed to do so in the future. Why does the hon. member permit it? Because he knows that they do good work, and that it is in the public interest for them to be permitted. The hon. member says that additional people will only be prevented in the future, but if the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) some day has a son who has sufficient talent to do the work of an architect, why should he be excluded. I am now talking about enlightened people who alone want the right to speak and not of the farmers.

The hon. member states that I said that the hon. members there should not speak. I did not say that, but I said that they ought not to speak on something they knew nothing about.

That makes it still worse. The hon. member has not considered what he said. If we follow his idea there would be very few doctors, and many farmers sitting here. Then the farmers would look after their interests. We are the greatest section of the population, not that group of professional men with a few letters after their name. I will give the hon. member some advice. Leave that sort of legislation alone. You are doing your own party more harm with it than you think. Leave that kind of legislation to the Opposition. They never did it when they were in power.

The hon. member is afraid of the view of the House. Let us vote.

No, we are not going to vote.

You know what the will of the House is.

Has this House received a mandate from the electors to introduce this Bill?

Has the hon. member a mandate to oppose it?

I have received instructions to oppose anything which is not in the public interests. In the encroachment upon the building of houses, the public interest is being interfered with. Thousands of people refrain from building a house because it costs too much.

What about the Wages Act?

That has nothing to do with the building of houses. The Industrial Conciliation Act refers to the building trade. Now the hon. member wants to make it still more expensive. I will, as long as I can, guard the interests of the general public. The public is guaranteed against dangerous places because every plan has to be approved by the municipality. The hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) has said that if a farmer prepares a plan costing £700 the house will cost £1,200. I just want to remind him of the irrigation schemes which cost millions more than the qualified engineers estimated. None of the hon. members who are to-day objecting to the Bill will be satisfied to entrust their children to the care of such a person.

They are two different things.

It is not two things. There the State interferes to protect the public to only admit anyone as a teacher who is properly qualified. This measure aims at the public being instructed as to who may hold themselves out as architects and who may not. No hon. member will to-day entrust his child to the old class of schoolmaster. If they send their children to school they send them to schools in Cape Town and Stellenbosch where they can get the best tuition. I prophesy that if the Bill is passed the hon. members who are now opposing and who may still be alive will thank God for the Bill. It is argued that the farmer can put up better buildings than the architect. We do not require the same class of buildings on the farms as in the towns. The farmer does not require the class of man who is protected in the Bill. They are at liberty to use the same persons as in the past, and can still build their own houses.

Why is the Bill required then?

So that the public who require the services of an architect can be protected. I challenge the hon. member to say that if a church is built for a congregation, the people will be satisfied to allow Piet Visagie to come to build the church. They will absolutely refuse, and will say that a good deal of money is being put into the building, and that they want a plan and supervision by a properly qualified man, so that they can know that they will have a good and substantial building. I wonder what the people on the countryside will say if a church or a large boarding school were erected, without the services of an architect, who is pointed out as a capable man to do the work. There are many quasi architects in the country, and I have experience of them, because I, myself, suffered through one. In the old days a man could represent himself as an architect although he was not one, and I had the building put up and was subsequently disappointed. The Bill is introduced to protect the public, because a man may not call himself an architect and advertise himself as such, and take fees within the limits of a municipality if he is not properly qualified. He must be certificated and competent, so that the public may know what his qualifications are. We must progress. We have protected the public against the old class of teacher, and we are going to protect it against all the quacks in the medical and dental professions, and now, by this Bill, we want to protect the public in relation to properly-qualified architects. Let our hon. friends who are dissatisfied with this class of people go on as before with their buildings on the countryside, but we must also protect the people who want competent architects and the architects themselves against the quasi-architects. Let us take a step in advance and vote for the Bill.

I regret members of this House are attempting to put on the statute book an Act which embodies principles so drastic and far-reaching.

The hon. member must not discuss the whole Bill.

I want to reply to the serious accusations made. It is pertinent to the clause. The hon. member accuses us that we have not read this Bill. I and my friends opposite have studied this Bill thoroughly and have gone through the evidence and have studied the legislation of a similar character introduced into other countries, and one point which emerges from this discussion is the undesirability of a private member introducing legislation of this sort.

It is a private Bill altogether and it is introduced by the society on a petition. The hon. member made a remark—

which is a serious imputation, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it. He may have made it as a joke, but I think he must withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

This is a matter which affects the whole country, and one which the Government should have taken up. The society drafts the Bill to suit itself, and embodies clauses which it considers will secure protection for itself. The public will get little protection.

The hon. member must keep to the clause.

Well, with reference to this clause, I am not satisfied there are sufficient opportunities for the youth of the country to qualify. The hon. member has been silent about it, but I hope he will reply and give that information, information as to how the South African youth is to qualify under this Bill. The only evidence I have discovered is given in the evidence, and it appears that in the Transvaal University there are certain courses for the young men to go through, but it is very vague, and I ask the hon. member to give us some information. The hon. member, in placing the Bill before the House, did not deal with that point. It is a very material point. Does he propose what university course shall be instituted to enable the necessary qualifications to be acquired which are necessary before a youth can become qualified under this clause to perform the acts of an architect in this country. Barring the evidence given by Mr. Harris, I have not been able to discover anything, and the difficulty is that, in order to discover anything, one has to wade through the whole report. It should be made clear to the House by the promoters, because we do not wish to accept legislation which may contain restrictions which will prevent South African lads from qualifying. We may be a hundred years behind the times, but I contend the hon. member is one hundred years before the times, because we are endeavouring to introduce legislation which Great Britain and all the countries in the world have accepted, and not to introduce legislation which is a hundred years in advance of the times. There is no similar legislation in any part of the world, and to say that we are a hundred years behind the times is not conducive to the passing of this Bill.

Make it two hundred years.

In support of the remarks which I have made, I would like to read the evidence. On page 57, Clause 460. [Evidence of Mr. Babbs read.] [Time limit.]

The hon. member for North-East Rand said that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) must withdraw what he had said. He did not say it, but I.

Do you withdraw?

No.

I insist on the hon. member withdrawing.

I just want to make plain what I did say. I said that money was being wasted by those who had introduced this Bill. The hon. member for North-East Rand is introducing the Bill on behalf of those who want to put it through, and the natural question asked by me was whether the member was being paid?

I demand that the hon. member shall withdraw the words. The hon. member refuses.

The hon. member must withdraw. It is unfair.

Let me just explain what I mean. I asked a perfectly natural question, and I do not see why I should withdraw it. The promoters of this Bill are spending a lot of money, and my question was quite natural.

It is illegal for any member to accept money for such assistance, and the accusation of the hon. member is not justifiable. He must withdraw it.

I know all about it as far as the law is concerned.

I must ask the hon. member to withdraw.

May I not even first explain the matter?

The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw. Then I ask the hon. member who pays for the matter. What are they paying for the Bill?

That is a matter which does not concern me.

I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me a chance to speak. He must not be so sensitive. I want to tell the hon. member that he cannot bluff us farmers in this House. This is not a court. He had better drop it. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) said that the object was to protect the public. If that is so, the Government ought to introduce the Bill, because it represents the public, but this matter only concerns architects.

I am very sorry indeed that the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) made the remarks he did in replying to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). I understood that the hon. member was appointed the chairman of the committee; therefore, he is in a responsible capacity representing other members of this House as chairman on a private Bill. I hope the House will support this clause. I look forward to the time when reinforced concrete will be used on a more extended scale than at present, and we must have gentlemen who are capable both from a practical and scientific—

Order! We are now discussing Clause 3.

It appears to me that the whole principle of the Bill is contained in Clause 3. It seems to be coming to be considered rather an exploit to wreck a private Bill in this House. That, I think, is a thing to be deprecated.

On a point of order, has the hon. member any right to accuse other hon. members of wrecking a Bill? Has he any right to insinuate that our criticism is not fair and right, and that we are not actuated by the spirit which should actuate every hon. member of this House?

Do I understand that an hon. member of this House has accused anybody of obstruction?

No, I said it was becoming a custom to be considered an exploit so to obstruct a Bill that it is wrecked.

What does that mean?

Will the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) please proceed?

The professional people who are interested in putting this Bill through, and who have, to that end, incurred heavy expense, are awaiting very anxiously the result of the deliberations of this House and particularly on this clause. If such a clause as this is eliminated from the Bill, you may as well tear up the Bill. Those who are opposing this clause on what I consider very light grounds are thereby taking away the essence of the whole measure, I fail to see what section of the community, or what individual in the community will be hardly dealt with by the terms of this clause. I want to make a special appeal to hon. members opposite, my farmer friends. There is no section of the community which receives from the State greater protection and greater assistance than the farming section. The architects’ profession are asking the State only to provide such legislation as will grant them protection. They are organizing themselves. They are not going to the Government and asking the State to provide this facility or that facility for them. They are helping themselves. The whole crux of the question is—

Don’t talk about the public; it is the architects who want this protection.

A model community, I take it, is an organism which is composed of units of efficiency, and this Bill is one of those measures which is going to bring about social efficiency. It does not bear on the rural population in any way; the only thing that it does is to guarantee a field of employment for the man who is able to deliver the goods that he asks payment for. The effect of the “handyman” standard which has been set up in architecture and the building trade generally is most deplorable. It can be seen right throughout the country. Why should you try to inflict a handyman’s standard in what is one of the finest professions in our social organization? The whole system of communal life in towns is in a state of development. This country is very interested in town planning. Surely you are not going to hand over these plans, these progressive ideas, into the hands of unqualified people. It is essential that where you have people interested in improving housing conditions, those people should have the assistance of this House where the House can render assistance. This is my trade; I know about it. An artizan does not care to carry on his work under the direction of unqualified people. We would have had a country of tin shanties if it had not been for your Public Works Department. There they have a properly-qualified staff. Who are you pleading for? You are pleading for people who are trying to encroach where they are not qualified to enter. If I want to build a house, I am entitled to some guarantee that I am going to be rendered the service which I am to pay for. It is very poor consolation to me, if I put my life’s savings into a house, and find a fault here and there, which depreciates its value, to be told that I saved a little money on the work by patronizing a draughtsman, who is cheap because unqualified. I would appeal to my hon. friends to look at the thing from the other fellow’s point of view. It is a vital matter for those interested. We do want to set up a standard in this country; we want to give our young South Africans a hall-mark which will take them to any part of the world. In my opinion this is a measure which should have the support of everyone in this House.

I want to make a few remarks about what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) said with reference to the teachers. At that time teachers who had 12 years’ service were retained in employment. The hon. member conveyed the impression to the House that they were discharged. They remained on because they had done good work all those years. Now I return to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). If he has a good memory he will recollect that he told us in introducing the Bill that he knew nothing about the work of an architect, and thus I take it that he does not know in what respect architects ought to be protected. Yet he wants to push the Bill on to us.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. He cannot now talk about the Bill as a whole.

This clause is going to give architects in the town the exclusive right of doing the work. It is only in Cape Town and Johannesburg where there is an agitation, and where there is competition between architects. The small villages escape. The Bill is thus only for two towns, but it is the thin end of the wedge, and will be further extended. We are not opposed to architects being protected, but they are sufficiently protected in paragraphs (a) and (b). They can hang out a sign board and say that they are architects and quantity surveyors, but the other man cannot do so. If I go to a town to find a man to prepare a plan for me, I will not look for him on the street, but will go to an architect. Why, however, should we go further, and why does the hon. member want paragraph (c) to be retained? The persons who are doing the work today can continue doing so when there are not two architects in the town or village, but in the towns there are town engineers, so that there is not much danger with the plan, as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) wants to make out. The hon. member for North-East Band must not be headstrong, and must take out paragraph (c). Then the Bill will be passed before 5 o’clock, and the architects will have sufficient protection without that.

The hon. member for Rouxville (Mr. Hugo) spoke about the public being protected, and that the cost of houses was often more than what the ordinary draughtsman says at the time. I can tell the hon. member that a qualified architect at Oudtshoorn said to an attorney that his house would cost £8,000. and he also advised the attorney not to sign a contract, but to hire a builder for the work, and that he, the architect, would then draw his commission on the cost. When the house was finished it cost £24,000. The architects are sufficiently protected under paragraphs (a) and (b). In Cape Town and Johannesburg boys can be trained to-day as architects, but the Free State boys who work for architects and who cannot afford to go away to study, will never have the opportunity to do this work. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) spoke about a ring fence in this House, but if there is anyone who should be ruled out on this subject, then it is he, because he knows nothing about building a house. The time of the House is taken up, and it costs the taxpayers a great deal. What the Bill cost in his office I do not know, but the expenses of printing are already very high. It is remarkable that the professional man thinks that he can talk about everything, while the hon. member thinks that farmers who have built their own houses may not speak on this Bill. We must be very careful about drawing ring fences.

I want to refute the assumption of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) that we in any shape or form, in supporting this amendment, wish to introduce the handyman element into this Bill. Would the hon. member wish the committee to understand that the architects in Germany, Italy and France are a lot of handymen? If the hon. member, as he did the other night, insinuated that farmers ill-treated their servants, he will not get their sympathies. The great object apparently in asking us to accept this clause is the protection of the public. I want to give the committee a very interesting illustration of the qualified man as against the unqualified man. It applies to an engineer who also incidentally is an architect. We have in Durban a very expensive building, the grain elevator, going up. It was decided that as bedrock was 90 feet underground, in the opinion of the qualified man in charge, it would not be necessary to go down the whole 90 feet with the piles, but that the friction of the ground would he sufficient to support these piles and to enable the superstructure to be built on them if driven 70 feet. Instead of turning out as anticipated, the ground churned up into mud, and the piles began to sink. That did not daunt the qualified man, and a concrete slab was superimposed, but the piles sank still further and the slab cracked. Eventually they started undoing all the work that had been done. For months there was blasting going on, destroying the work that had been done. They started drawing the piles, which was most extraordinarily difficult, and they then started to sink steel cylinders to bedrock, and took out the clay and mud inside these cylinders as they sank them, but they came on some of these piles which had disappeared underground, and they had a terrible job to get them away. The cylinders were sunk to bedrock and filled with concrete. The man who was responsible for the mess originally, for putting down the foundations and the driving of the piles, was a fully qualified man. That is the point. The work was then given to another gentleman to complete, and that man, Mr. Mansell, the assistant bridge engineer, one of the cleverest engineers that we have in this country, would never have been able to qualify under this Bill. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Civil Engineers for the good work that was done while he was employed on the railways.

Do you suggest that Mr. Mansell was unqualified?

Does the hon. gentleman understand English?

I don’t understand your English.

What I said was that under the qualifications required by this Bill, a gentleman of Mr. Mansell’s attainments would never be able to be qualified. When Mr. Babbs, who has practised here for 30 years as a quantity surveyor, was asked in the select committee if he knew of any country where quantity surveyors were protected by law, he replied in the negative. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that certain hon. members continually speak against this particular clause. Of course, we know it is not obstruction! The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) would never obstruct anything! He has a poor reputation as a politician.

I would rather have my reputation than yours.

What he is doing is very clumsy indeed. His argument could be used against any Bill which entrenches any profession. Surely because one doctor makes a wrong diagnosis, or one barrister gives a wrong opinion, or a judge a bad judgment we cannot refuse to protect their professions. This is reducing Parliament to a farce when men who are supposed to be responsible talk on a Bill like this affecting the interests of a very worthy profession, and we have this puerile sort of stuff being thrown from one side of the House to the other. The hon. member is lowering the dignity of Parliament.

Satan rebuking sin.

One could understand certain hon. members on the other side taking up the line the hon. member has, but we cannot understand the hon. member doing so, because he goes through the country and preaches cooperation for the trade he belongs to, the making of cheese.

On a point of order, has this sort of personal attack on me anything to do with Clause 3?

It helps you to talk it out.

I will watch that.

I am not likely to forget the rules. I am sorry the hon. member has become the leader of what we might call the takhaar, or reactionary section of this House. I put it to the gentlemen calling themselves farmers, on the other side of the House, that it would have been better for the farmers if they had employed architects, for their houses would be better built than they are to-day.

We know different.

One hon. member said that a Free State architect had built a large number of houses in the Boshof district, and 21 of them had subsided. That is not true. I admit his house was not built by an architect—God knows who it was built by. The hon. member for Griqualand said the old houses in the Cape were not built by architects. Does he know his history—has he read Miss Fairbridge’s book?

Yes.

Then you have not understood it. The handiwork of some of the most eminent architects who ever came to South Africa are to be seen in this Peninsula. It is a pity that our people, when they trekked to the north, did not take these architects with them. In the Peninsula we find some of the most delightful houses in the world; look at the difference between the houses in the north and the south. It is recognized that we must go in for proper town planning, but that cannot be done without the help of experienced architects. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) passed through the Johannesburg Town Council the very clause he is fighting to-day. I think nobody should be allowed to build a house or have plans passed which are not drawn up by the proper people, I know my friends are putting up a fight for what they think is right. But why have a skilled architect? Why have a skilled doctor? Why not have a Hottentot or a half-baked Cape boy to do it? Don’t get a doctor, get a witch doctor. I am sure if hon. members were ill, they would be careful to get a skilled man. If they want to get married, they go to the professional parson, they don’t go to the ordinary man in the street; at least, I hope they don’t. Professions cannot be carried on unless properly protected, and it is the duty of the House to protect them. It is not fair to the profession that as soon as the boys are trained any handyman can come along and do the work. It is very difficult in this House to get a private Bill through. Members will not obstruct, but they suddenly become spokesmen of the people. [Time limit.]

Although I am neither an architect nor a quantity surveyor, I think I am entitled to speak about this matter. I am not against professional men, but I think that if they are worth their salt they should be able to convince the public that their services are indispensable, and not come to the House for ring fences and for protection. I do not attach much importance to the argument that the protection will offer an opening to our South African boys. If the architects had not so often in the past shocked the confidence of the public, then they could have made a good living to-day without being afraid of the quacks and without asking the House for protection. I remember I was a member of the Provincial Council at the time when the Administration decided to erect an annexe to the school in Namaqualand. £50 was placed on the estimates for the purpose, but, as is usual with public works, an architect was sent to make the necessary survey. His expenses were £48, so that there was £2 for the building. If that is the general experience of the public, it is very unpleasant, and it is rather much to demand protection for the architect and quantity surveyor. I am a farmer and I built my own house. It is a good house, far better than the large school there is at Vryburg. The school was built scarcely 13 years ago, and cost £12,000. but it is a danger to the children to-day, although it was built by architects from beginning to end. Anyone who is capable in his profession does not need to come to Parliament to ask for a ring fence.

I would like to make an appeal to the House to come to the vote on this clause. After all, private members’ time for Bills is so limited, it is not fair and not to the dignity of the House to carry on this discussion any longer. For two and a half hours we have been discussing a very important point, and practically everything that can be said has been said a good many times over. No one wants to limit members in their discussion, but how many new forms of the same argument have we heard during the, last two hours in this House? Let the House decide by its majority which way it feels about the Bill. We have had the whole thing threshed out by the committee, and we have had their report and we have had that report quoted from page 1 to page 52. We cannot talk about obstruction, but it seems as if certain members approach the House with tears in their voices, and seem not only desirous to kill the Bill, but to perform the last rites. That is not to the dignity of the House. The promoters who have gone very carefully into this Bill ought to have the opportunity now of applying the test by taking a vote of the House.

I only want to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). He spoke about the voortrekkers. He said that they did not build houses. But how could the architects go with them? They remained in the towns at that time and this Bill is merely a necessity for the big towns. We feel, however, that it is the thin end of the wedge. The architects have sufficient protection under paragraphs (a) and (b), and there is no necessity for (c). They may advertise as architects and have signboards before their doors that they are architects. The other people may not do that.

Are you willing to allow 3 (c) to apply to villages with at least 10,000 inhabitants?

I have not thought about it. The people are sufficiently protected under (a) and (b). The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that we were still living in the old days, 500 years behind the times, and were stationary. We are only agitating against people being thrown out of work. We want to protect the profession; we are not opposing that, but we do not want to throw anybody out of their living. The hon. member said we should not discuss these matters. He knows still less about it than we do. He, therefore, should not speak. I prefer a person with general knowledge to the expert. We do not wish to rob all those people of their bread.

I have heard a great deal this session of ring fences.

It is the ring fence session.

I want to say at once that I do not want to obstruct. I understand that anybody, including every country which does not progress disappears in the long run. The difficulty is that with reference to professions there are often many differences of opinion. The hon. member, himself a learned man, will admit that lawyers also differ very often on important points. Take the Electoral Act. How much difference of opinion is there not about that, and I am afraid that it is possible that this complicated clause and the Bill are keys that we shall not see at once. The Bill has undergone so much amendment that its introducer no longer knows where he is. I have already got caught in connection with the building of a house, not because I failed to employ an architect, but because my masons were quacks. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) spoke about the Huguenots and others in comparison with the Free State and Transvaal. That is no argument, because in the Western Province these people had a fixed residence, but in the north they wandered about, and were here to-day and there to-morrow. If the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) was not so conservative, and would accept an amendment here and there, he would not have so much trouble.

I was rather surprised at the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) because his was that any member who supported the amendment standing in my name was really denying the right of co-operation to professional men. I do think that the hon. member either had not read the Bill, or he was getting a wrong interpretation from his reading of the Bill because the Bill does nothing of the kind. With my amendment it will very clearly set up the distinguishing point between the man who has become qualified as an architect, who has gone through the proper course of training, and thereby gets the right to describe himself as an architect, and the man who would not have that right. Right through I want the committee thoroughly to understand this, that I do not for one moment deny the right of the trained architect to the sole use of the title, but I do say that it is wrong that he should have the sole right to practise as an architect. That is the point that I want to emphasize. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) would give one to believe that the result of my amendment would be to deny the right of co-operation. That is not so. When he compares the position of architects under this Bill with that of trades unions he is entirely off the rails. Trades unions have established themselves despite the law and despite opposition. It is a very big difference, and one which the committee should weigh up It also seems to me that the hon. member went very far afield when he asked members on the Government benches to think of the fine houses built in early days. If a Bill like this had been the law, those people would not have been allowed to design those houses. If this Bill had been law Sir Christopher Wren would not have designed St. Paul’s Cathedral as it is today. It does seem to me in dealing with a matter such as this, it cannot be sufficiently emphasized that there is no attempt to depreciate the training of the young people who are at present architects. There is no attempt to interfere with the necessity for the training of young people as architects. I saw in the paper the report of the death of a well-known clergy man the late Bishop Rooney, and it was reported that he had designed many churches, and had devoted much of his lifetime to beautifying the churches in the Roman Catholic Church. The heading was: “A Skilled Architect,” and he evidently did a great deal in this regard. If a Bill like this had been law in the days when he was doing this architectural work, he would also have found himself in difficulties. He would be severely handicapped in following the pursuit to which he was evidently adapted. All this goes to show that the case of the promoters is one that could be brought down to a fair and reasonable limit, I am not opposed to architects getting fair and reasonable recognition and also to getting that protection to which professional men are entitled, and also that the public should have the protection which will enable them to distinguish between the trained and qualified architect and the other man who has not been trained or qualified. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) also went a little wrong in his argument because he expressed the opinion that anyone might hold himself out as an architect and the public could not distinguish. My amendment would make it illegal for any person to hold himself out as an architect if he was not on the register of the society. I submit the whole effect of my amendment would be to secure the architect the sole right to title, the right to control the education of the younger people in the profession, the sole right to register, and other things essential to the proper conduct of the profession. On the other hand it would secure to the public the position that they could distinguish between the trained and qualified architect and the draughtsman who may have picked up enough knowledge to do the work. There is no question of the public being deceived in, that regard if my amendment is carried. There are some points in this Bill which should be properly studied before we come to a vote, and I suggest to the hon. member in charge that he should report progress in order that these matters may be considered. [Time limit.]

I suggest that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I notice with surprise and disappointment that the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) also does not know his Bill. There is less excuse in his case, because he was on the select committee. The hon. member said that Sir Christopher Wren would not have been able to be a member of the Society of Architects.

He is too old.

If he had read Section 11 (2) (1) he would see that anyone, prior to May 1st, 1926, who was bona fide carrying on the work of an architect could be a member.

But if he was born 50 years after the Bill?

Sir Christopher Wren would have had the sense to go to college and to get himself qualified properly.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided.

Ayes—23.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Gilson, L. D.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer I. v. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Steytler, L. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Tellers: Christie, J.; Roux, J. W. J. W.

Noes—43.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, P C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Miller. A. M.

Moffat, L.

Munnik, J. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn. A. O. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Hees, A. S.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Pienaar, B. J.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Even if we have the majority of the House against us, we have the majority of the public at our back. We stand for equal opportunity for every man, whether he is an architect or not. If a man has brains enough to do the work, he ought to be given a chance. If the farmers are going to draw a ring round farming, what will happen if we demand legislation preventing professional men from farming then? The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) considers himself an authority on what is right and wrong, and what is true and untrue. The hon. member knows that he is finished with the electors outside the town of Bloemfontein. That is the class of people I represent, whom he makes out believe in throwing dice, but who have finished accounts with him, for all the great opinion he has of himself. Those are the people whom we represent. We must put down our foot here and protect the general public. When we travel through the country, we find buildings everywhere where the architects have made great failures and miscalculations. We want to protect the public and to prevent money being taken out of its pockets, while at the same time we want to prevent unfairness in preventing those from doing the work who are able to.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) has shocked the farmers in the House very much this afternoon in making out that they were 50 or 100 years behind the times. We feel very sore at the hon. member saying that the countryside farmers, who possibly had not the same opportunity as the attorneys and advocates, knowing nothing about what they were talking about.

I did not say that they knew nothing. They know everything about farming, but they know nothing about architects.

The hon. member is not entitled to say that, because he, as an attorney, knows just as little about architects as we do. We have surely acted as architects ourselves in building our own houses. To say that we are 50 years behind the times, and ought not to sit in the House because we are too stupid, is insulting the farmer. In principle we are against these ring fences which are being drawn. Now it is said that we are busy in connection with the co-operative movement to draw a fence around ourselves, but the movement: includes all farmers. We do not say that the boys who have studied at the agricultural schools should have the sole right of farming. The kind of Bill which we have had in the House recently, and also this one, excludes a lot of people. I want to appeal to the hon. member to abandon paragraph (c). He must not accuse the farmers of knowing nothing and of being 50 years behind the times, because that is an insult to us farmers here. I wish that we had half as many more farmers of that kind on this side of the House, because then we shall not be looked down upon. In a private Bill we usually find that we are on dangerous ground, because if the matter were urgent the Government would immediately have introduced a Bill in connection with it.

I did not intend to take part in the debate, but the contemptuous remarks of the mover of the Bill compels me to do so.

What were the contemptuous remarks?

I am coming to them. He said that we, who were opposing the Bill and this clause, knew nothing about architects. The hon. member’s knowledge of building is as great as that of a cat of a saffron. Two-thirds of the practical farmers on the countryside were their own architects and built their own house. In a certain village in my constituency where architects prepared the plans for a public building, it split asunder within 18 months or two years. Ultimately a farmer in the district elaborated a scheme of putting in a solid foundation to the building, and it was taken over by the architects, so that to-day the building stands there without any cracks. It is not fair for an hon. member of the House who has probably never had a stone in his hands, and who knows absolutely nothing about building, should say that our farmers know nothing about architects. When we investigate matters we shall find that a large number of professional men who borrow money from the town council to build houses, and then get architects to prepare the plans, have not long after to sell the house, while the farmer who builds his own house remains the owner of the ground. I say that it will be a sad state of affairs if we permit a ring fence to be drawn about every profession. What, then, will become of the poor man? We have the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill—we have been engaged on that some time, but it is not yet on the statute book—and there are also the accountants who want a ring fence round themselves. Now come the architects as well, and the object is that everything is aimed at protecting a small section at the cost of the majority of the people. The time has come that we should be consistent, and say that things must go no further. If we co-operate as farmers, then it is not at the expense of the rest of the public, but with the object of marketing our produce as cheaply as possible, so that the consumer can obtain the articles as cheaply as possible. If an architect is competent, his profession ought to provide him with sufficient work.

As the mover of the Bill wishes to draw a ring fence round the architects, I want to say I can understand a man saying that he wants to draw a ring fence round stupid people. He, however, wants to protect clever people. Are they, then, too weak and too bad to make their own living so that they come and ask for protection? I think it is time that we should stop drawing ring fences around the profession and leaving the farmers outside. If a man is competent and has shown that he can do his work, then his capacity ought to be sufficient protection. His acts must show that he is competent, and then it will be unnecessary to protect him. If doctors and parsons have proved that they are capable, then they are protected. Why is it necessary now for all the professions to have ring fences drawn about them?

I move—

There must be some intervening motion. The hon. member may move that I report progress. When that has been disposed of, then the hon. member can move to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I move—

Motion put and negatived.

I move—