Before passing to the first order of the day, I would like to make a statement. This morning there was a report current that a case of bubonic plague had occurred oh the Union-Castle mailboat the Armadale Castle in Cape Town harbour at present, and I want to lay the information before the House. I cannot do better than to read a memorandum I have received from the Public Health Department about this case and a telegram which has been sent as a result of that by the department to the health authorities in other ports. The memorandum reads—

This is the telegram despatched to the health authorities of the ports—

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that one of the engineers on the steamer is also down.

No, this is the only case that has been reported.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

This Bill was before the House last year. On that occasion an objection was taken that it affected the Transvaal advocates. That clause has now been removed and I have now a telegram saying that they are in favour of the Bill. In the first place this Bill seeks to extend the articles of clerkship for attorneys from three to five years, except where a university degree has been obtained, in which case the articled clerk will serve for three years only. It may not be generally known that there has been no alteration practically since 1857, with the exception of a slight one in 1880 in the Cape in reference to the admission of attorneys, and when you come to consider that the present law is 70 years old I think it will be agreed that it is time that it received some consideration. In the Cape, Transvaal and Orange Free State the period of service for articled clerks is three years, while in Natal for over 20 years the period has been five years. I want to disabuse the minds of hon. members of any idea that this measure has anything to do with fees, etc. It deals only with the period of apprenticeship of articled clerks. I think the fact that this Bill was unanimously recommended by the select committee which considered it last year is proof that it is in the interests of the youth of this country. On that committee were five sons of South Africa, all of whom were in favour of this Bill, and had it not been in the interests of the youth of this country, we may rest assured that the Bill would not have received their support. We have, on the statute book to-day, important measures regarding insolvency, criminal law and various other matters, while the law books that were required 50 years ago were, comparatively speaking, very few. To-day the library that is required by a law student is a formidable matter. I have a telegram from the four law societies of the Cape, Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal, stating that they are entirely in favour of this Bill. I think the House must realize that a measure of this kind is necessary. We have lately been discussing two Bills in this House dealing with the professions of architect and accountant. In both those cases provision was made for people serving for five years. To be a printer one has to serve seven years. I am not aware of any trade in which one can be trained to-day where the term of service is less than five years. There may be some. I know there is one exception, and that is the chemist. There the period of apprenticeship is four years. Why it is only four years I do not understand. In the select committee one of the witnesses, a university professor, urged strongly that no person should serve his articles as an attorney until he had actually completed two years at college. We have met that in the Bill by providing that any person who holds a university degree shall only serve three years, the university degree accounting for two years. When this Bill was before the House last year it was argued that it might prevent the farmer’s son from having a chance of becoming an attorney. Now, I am not prepared to accept that. It is much less costly for a youth to qualify as an attorney than it is to qualify as a medical practitioner. We have also got to have regard to another aspect of the question, and it is this, will an articled clerk be a more efficient attorney after five years’ service than he will after three, and must we sacrifice efficiency simply because a few students may not be able to serve for five years? We must, I consider, look at the matter from the efficiency point of view. The development of the country is largely dependent upon the proper administration of justice. That will be admitted on all hands. Efficiency is necessary among those who work in the courts. Judges in many cases look to the bar to guide them. This Bill makes for efficiency. I have not heard a single voice raised against this Bill. You have your law societies throughout the Union; you have a consensus of opinion from all sources in favour of the Bill. I would submit that when you have this strong evidence from all over South Africa it means it is the duty of this House to pass this Bill. The Minister of Justice has in a pigeonhole a consolidating measure for consolidating all the law societies of South Africa. One of the clauses in it is that the apprenticeship shall be made five years. In 1917 I raised a question as to whether three years was not too short. Everyone admitted that it was, but they said we were going to have a consolidating Bill and it would be dealt with then. That Bill has not come forth. The youth of this country are serving their articles; it is admitted on all hands that they cannot get efficiency in three years and that something must be done. I do not believe in piecemeal legislation, but this is legislation which is so urgent and necessary that I felt it necessary to bring it forward in this form. I hope the House will accept this Bill and thereby make our sons of South Africa more efficient to discharge the responsibilities resting upon them in this country towards those who employ them.

I think this measure is necessary in view of the development that has taken place in our country, and that the House ought to pass it. In the old days the position was that anybody could become an attorney, advocate, etc., without the least training. Subsequently the law examination was introduced and a period of service of articles was fixed for anyone who wished to become an attorney, I think that we are all agreed about it that we now ought to take a step forward with regard to this profession, and the present Bill aims at seeing that the attorney is able to do his work better as a result of the better training by which the boys will have an opportunity of becoming efficient attorneys. There is a great variety of work which an attorney has to do to-day. Not only does he need technical knowledge with regard to the law, but he must also do practical work. The result is that it is impossible for most of the boys to thoroughly qualify themselves in three years in all the work, and the Bill therefore proposes to increase the period of articles with an attorney to five years. In case anyone has obtained special degrees or possesses educational qualifications which enable him to do the work more easily, the period of three years will continue. What is the position to-day? A boy who has passed the matriculation can three years later practise as an attorney. When, in my youth, I matriculated, I thought that I knew everything, but in time I found out that the matriculation did not mean very much as far as general knowledge was concerned. If a boy matriculates at 16 years of age and has to work for five years as an articled clerk, he will be 21 or 22 before he can be admitted as an attorney. Therefore, no further burden is laid on the shoulders of the boys or girls. They are still able to commence practice at 21 or 22 years of age. We know in practice that at that age one is generally fairly callow and inexperienced. Even if it were proposed that no one could practise the profession before he was 22 or 25 years of age, there would be much to be said for it, but the hon. mover will not go as far as that. He says that it is not necessary, but that he only wants to provide that a boy can practise only after he has served five years as an articled clerk. We put no burden on the shoulders of the man who wishes to become an attorney. It is in the interests of the country that persons exercising that profession should have a proper training, and that the profession in our country should be properly built up. In most of the outside districts the attorney is cut off from the large libraries. He misses the assistance that his colleagues in the large towns have, and the result is that the people on the countryside can very easily be wrongly advised with regard to legal matters. The countryside should also be certain that it is getting value for its money when the people take legal advice there. It is therefore also in the interests of the countryside that the Bill should be passed. If we go a little further and look at the moral side of the matter, we see that the etiquette and character of the profession will be favourably influenced by a longer term of articled clerkship. In many cases the failure of the boys commencing to practise their profession is due to the fact that they did too well at the start. They had a much larger income than they ever dreamt of beforehand. That did them much harm. During their youth the temptation was too great to spend much money and to be extravagant. In many cases this led to the ruin of the legal practitioner. It is, therefore, also an argument in favour of the proposition that a practitioner should not start practising law too early, and this Bill is therefore a step in that good direction. It is indeed only a moral argument, and not one from the point of view of legal knowledge, but I think we should regard the matter from all sides. I think that the House ought to vote for the second reading and pass this Bill as soon as possible.

I think that I may congratulate the hon. member on the assistance he has got from the Minister of Justice. What has made the Minister change his views since last year is a puzzle to me.

The Bill has been altered.

Very little, and in any case I will fight the Bill in every possible way. Last year there was not a single proof given to the House which showed that in the past damage had been suffered as a result of the shorter period the boy has to serve as an articled clerk. There is no general demand for this measure. The attorneys do not all want it. There is just a small group that ask for it, and now the House is asked to support them. Moreover, no proof has been brought to our notice since last year of the necessity for this Bill. The Minister has argued that it is not a good thing for young men to earn too much money in their youth, because it may result that ne’er-do-weels in the profession take the wrong path. Must the good men suffer on that account? Are we for that reason going to deprive them of the opportunity of soon earning a good income? I do not say that all attorneys are particularly clever. I think that there are many who are incompetent, but that is not the fault of the training. There are people who can study for ten years, and are then still incompetent. Such a person has missed his vocation, and will never make a good attorney. But there are many clever boys who in two years can learn a great deal of the work and can qualify themselves. These boys are, however, to be penalized, and instead of three years, will have to serve five years as articled clerks. I quite agree that a boy, after he has worked for three years, still requires practical knowledge, but why should he acquire it as an articled clerk? Why should he for two years longer do the minor duties in the office and be a burden on his parents? Why is this required if he can properly qualify in three years? Practical experience he will need just as much after five years as after three years. The motion is a reflection upon, and an insult to, the attorneys. It represents the attorneys on the countryside as being so incompetent to-day, as if they have not sufficient legal knowledge. They have rendered great services to the public, and we are quite satisfied with them. Why should the number of attorneys be so restricted. We on the countryside do not go to the first available attorney to give him our work. We go to the man who is competent and to whom we can entrust our business. We see that the person we employ is one that has shown that we can entrust the matter to him. If the Bill is necessary for the large towns to get rid of a number of attorneys, let them introduce such a Bill and leave the countryside unaffected. Not a single proof has been given that the public has suffered under the existing system in the past. This Bill introduced by a private member is one of the clearest attempts to draw a ring fence round a profession. It is very easy for an attorney to keep his own son five years in his office. That costs nothing, but to a person on the countryside it means great expense after the boys have already been at school for four years studying for their matriculation in one of the villages, and we all admit that the examination for matriculation is much higher to-day, and if we add three years for an attorney, it makes seven years’ study. Already to-day it means that a boy has to study away from home seven years, and all this time board and lodging has to be paid for. Why should the countryside not be given an opportunity, as far as this profession is concerned? The extra two years will put a great burden on the shoulders of the parents, and a boy will, in consequence, be prevented for two more years from earning his own living. Why should the period of articles be altered for the sake of the dull attorneys? If our farmers were to do the same thing and ask for legislation to prohibit attorneys, doctors and shopkeepers from farming, then the latter would not be so ready to support it. They represent the class of man that we call a cheque book farmer, and who are of little benefit to the country. We, however, are not objecting to that, and they should not now introduce protective legislation for certain professions. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), who was a member of the select committee on the Bill last year and who heard all the evidence, said in the House during the debate—

We cannot disregard that statement, because the hon. member went thoroughly into the matter. I want to say that we have very clever and honest attorneys on the countryside to whom I would article my son for three years, but unfortunately there are bad sheep amongst them, just as in other professions, who will be able to exploit the boys more if the period of articles is raised to five years. It is clear that there is a certain class of undesirable who cannot make a living as an attorney, but now they want—unfortunately with the assistance of the Minister of Justice —to protect themselves by drawing a ring fence round undesirable persons. I think the House ought strongly to oppose such legislation. What I object to is that in connection with such legislation it is always stated that the protection of the public is aimed at. Why is not the Bill called by its right name? The supporters of this Bill have not mentioned one case where a member of the public has been done an injustice, and this kind of legislation ought to be called by its right name, and it should be said that it is for the protection of the attorneys. If attorneys require protection I am prepared to give it, but I positively refuse to protect a small portion so that the whole of the public on their account have to suffer in consequence. Our sons will, moreover, be deprived of the opportunity of receiving training as an attorney, and by passing this Bill we shall practically render it impossible for the sons of the countryside to become attorneys. By passing the Bill we shall merely enable the attorneys to train only their children in their offices. On account of the objections which I have made against the Bill, I move—

I second the amendment.

I support the amendment. I do not think there is the least necessity for this Bill, because our past experience has now shown that the public have suffered through ignorance of the attorneys. I feel that that is not the reason for the Bill, but that it merely aims at more protection for attorneys. The townsmen cannot understand what sacrifices parents on the countryside have to make to have their children educated. After Standard V., the children have to be sent to boarding school, and this entails tremendous expense. After they have passed their matriculation they will, as a result of the passing of the Bill, have to serve a further period of two years in an attorney’s office, and during the five years their parents will always have to continue maintaining them. If the attorneys want to assist their articled clerks to-day to properly acquire legal knowledge, then three years is quite adequate. The Minister mentioned that young lads of 21 under the present system complete their studies as an attorney, but there are many young men who, after matriculating, first of all go teaching to earn enough money to complete their further studies. If they then go to train as an attorney, it often happens that they are 30 or 32 years of age before they are qualified. If an attorney is bad the public will quickly find it out, and he will not be supported. I hope that the motion of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) will be passed, and I think that we should now stop protecting certain sections and professions by ring fences. No, we should rather protect the public, and not the professions at the expense of the public. This Bill conflicts with the interests of the public, and therefore I cannot support it.

A Bill on somewhat similar lines was introduced by the same hon. member last year and referred to a select committee. It was brought back into the House, and the hon. member who has moved the present amendment then moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. That was carried by 52 to 45 votes. Amongst those 52, you find the name of the Minister of Justice. I am glad to find to-day he is converted.

It is a changed Bill.

It gives me hope that the Minister will be converted in many other directions. The hon. member who has moved the amendment says he is not satisfied that the public have not been served in the past, and that this Bill has been introduced for the protection of the lawyers. Those of us who have had experience with regard to the law, articles and so forth—I am one of those, and, perhaps, I have had longer experience than most hon. members, and, therefore, am able to speak with some authority—and whether a clerk who has served three years’ articles is qualified, know that young fellows who have not had the practical experience are not able to give advice in very difficult cases to their clients. Surely, if a man serves five, instead of three, years, we have a right to assume he is more qualified to advise the public. The object of the Bill is to protect the public. Last year at least seven members on the Government side supported the Bill, and I hope they will do the same to-day.

I rise to oppose the Bill. I have been practising for almost a quarter of a century, and I have been—five years—longer in the country than the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown), so that I am entitled to express an opinion. I am of opinion that three years is quite long enough for a clerk to serve in order to become a qualified attorney. An articled clerk does not learn any law by serving his articles, as his employer never teaches him any law—that he has to learn in his spare time by study and attending lectures. I could understand making the examination more difficult, but that the Bill does not propose to do. There are three departments in an attorney’s office—the lower court, the supreme court, and conveyancing and estates department. In the lower court department all that an articled clerk learns is to type out a summons, take it to the magistrate’s office, put the stamps on and to issue it. He also learns how to take judgment or enter appearance. He is not even given an opportunity of drawing up the pleadings, as the attorney himself does that. Whether the articled clerk served one year, or three years, or five years, in that department he would not learn more than the mechanical part of the business. In the supreme court department he learns how to draw up a summons, how many stamps to put on it, and how to put the documents together for counsel. This, again, is mechanical work. With regard to conveyancing and estate work, however, conditions are, I admit, different, because it takes a good many years to become a good conveyancer or estates attorney. Should he, however, be a bad conveyancer, there is no danger to the public, for, should the conveyancer make mistakes, the officials of the Deeds and Master’s offices will check him. He can go on lodging his deeds or estates until they are in order. He may lose clients if he takes too long, but that is all.

You voted for the Bill last year.

I am a year older now, and we all learn. I am more and more beginning to agree with the “ring fence” section of the House. Another argument against the Bill is that a young man, after passing his matriculation examination, can go to London, and if he is a particularly clever man he can become a full Hedged barrister in two years and eight months. In fact, he need not even have passed his matriculation. Is it not absurd that a man can become a barrister in this short time and practise in the appeal court, whereas, the Bill would force him to wait for five years before appearing in a magistrate’s court. Or handing documents to the very barrister who may have studied only two years and eight months? In the Transvaal a barrister can become an attorney without serving any articles. It seems to me that this is so under this Bill, but it is not too clear. The hon. member who introduced the Bill made a great point of the fact that attorneys and law societies are in favour of the Bill. Naturally, they would support it. They prefer to keep a clerk for five years instead of for three at an articled clerk’s salary. Six months ago I might have agreed with that view, but I am hot an attorney any more. No young men gave evidence, no fathers of future articled clerks gave evidence. I am the father of a future articled clerk, and I say three years is long enough. I know four cabinet ministers who served only three years, and I am sure that was quite sufficient.

I served only one year.

Most young men serve more than three years, but why should we force them to do so? However long you force a dull young man to serve articles, he will never become bright. Why should we keep the bright young man back? The hon. Ministers I mentioned will, I am sure, admit that in those three years they learned all that there was to learn of the mechanical part of an attorney’s work. They have made good, and not only as attorneys. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), when he came to South Africa, served only for two years in his business. He has also made good, although probably not as a Minister. I submit that three years is long enough.

I think that we cannot take the speech of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) seriously, because exactly a year ago there was a similar Bill before the House and, according to “Hansard,” and, according to his own statement, he at that time voted in favour of the Bill.

The Minister of Justice then voted against it, but he has now recanted.

I will deal with the attitude of the Minister in a moment. When the hon. member voted for the Bill last year it must either have been a good Bill, or otherwise he must have voted against his conscience. He then had a much better opportunity of seeing the objections, because he was at that time still an attorney, and had articled clerks in his office. To-day he is on the way to becoming an advocate, and has the attorneys’ profession behind him, find we find that he now has 101 objections against the Bill, In normal circumstances, when one who has legal knowledge about a Bill Of this kind expresses his opinion we treat it with respect, but as the hon. member has, in his humorous way, stated that he has altered his Opinions without making the reason clear to the House, we cannot take him seriously. The hon. member further mentioned that a person can qualify in England as an advocate in less than three years, but that surely does not prove that it is a desirable state of affairs. In this respect an alteration has already taken place, because to-day a supplementary examination has to be passed in South Africa to be admitted as an advocate. Most young men who go to England find qualify in less than three years find that after their return to South Africa they still have to study for six months or more to be able to pass the examination. The admission of persons with English degrees to the South African bar is a legacy from the old times, but it has been very substantially amended. As for the interruption of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) about the attitude of the Minister of Justice, it is clear that the hon. member has not read last year’s Bill. The greatest objection then was that the Bill provided that advocates also should undergo a certain amount of training as an attorney. That was what the Minister and others objected to, and I must admit that such a provision was out of place. I was the innocent father of it, because I expressed my opinion on the matter and the introducer Of the Bill thereupon included the clause. In South Africa the two professions of attorney and advocate have always been strictly separated, and it is not proper that the two should be so mixed that an advocate can subsequently benefit through his connection with a firm of attorneys. When the hon. member for Boshof talks about farming and other things he has a special knowledge of, we gladly accept what he says, but in this case I should like to ask the hon. member whether he knows what an attorney has to learn and to know.

I have already had much experience of the law.

That just proves that the hon. member did not know what an attorney ought to know, and that the attorney who had charge of the hon. member’s cases possibly did not know what he (the attorney) ought to know. The great difficulty on the countryside is just that the people often have to pay dearly for the fact that the farmers in the small villages are cut off from the large firms in the towns, and that they often have to struggle along with young fellows.

Are the countryside attorneys inefficient then?

There are competent, but also incompetent, men.

The incompetent ones get no work.

I will give the hon. member the information he wants later. We must bear the interests of the countryside in mind, and I, as a representative of the countryside, know what my constituency wants. In the small villages you get very young attorneys who have the fault of youth that they will not admit that they cannot give an answer when a well-to-do and important farmer on the district asks their advice. An older attorney will say that it is a difficult matter and that he wants to go into it more fully, but the young attorney will not say that he wants to look into it first. He is ready with his opinion immediately. The farming population have not the least idea what wrong advice costs them every year. After the case is over the attorney puts the blame on the advocate, or he says that the court has given a wrong judgment, or that the evidence went badly. When a case has once been commenced and has once been put on the roll, then there is so much money at stake in costs that the attorney does not dare to withdraw it and tell his client to compromise. Except in big cases the question at that stage is only who is to pay the costs. Those of us who are no longer attorneys, but who have gone through that school can say what the position is. I have no personal interest in the matter, but as a representative of a country constituency I have an interest in seeing that the countryside population are not further dragged into trouble by court cases. Articles for three years are quite inadequate, and if the hon. member for Boshof wants to appeal to the old days, then it means that he wants to go back to the old practice of agents unqualified, but who subsequently learnt the work. The hon. member must not forget that if an attorney, after three years’ articles has not had sufficient experience, he gets his experience at the expense of the public. If I go farming and lose money by making mistakes I pay for them, but if an attorney with inadequate training starts work in the country and makes mistakes then the hon. members for the countryside and their electors have to pay for them. That is the great point. It is just as dangerous, and possibly more so in many cases, to let incompetent attorneys loose on the public as allowing doctors or other people, who have the lives of people in their hands and are not competent, to practise. I ask hon. members from the country to carefully consider before they vote. It is a very attractive slogan—

Hon. members see, however, the importance of a good training. Moreover, it is not a fact that the sons on the countryside will be excluded. In the villages there are often boys who want to start as soon as possible, and commence to do their work before they are quite competent. Those boys will be prevented from doing so if the articles are extended to five years, and the boys from the countryside will have a better chance. The constituents of hon. members will take note how their representatives have voted if they have had experience of attorneys.

The House cannot fail to be amused at the somewhat sudden conversion of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). He said he was unaware of the fact that he had voted in favour of this Bill last year. As the member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) has hinted, this process of conversion must in some way be connected with the process of conversion he is undergoing from attorney to advocate. Last year, when he supported this Bill, he was an attorney. This year he is in the chrysallis stage, emerging from the attorney stage to the advocate stage. He opposed this Bill and yet he is the sponsor of a Bill which settled the terms and conditions under which a South African can become an architect. Does he think the profession of attorney is so immeasurably below that of an architect that he should lay down five years as necessary to qualify for an architect, and it only takes three years to qualify to become an attorney? If he is so wrung with compassion for the fate of his son or other sons who have to serve five years, why did he not think of it when laying down the qualifications for the sons of South Africa who were qualifying to become architects? There cannot be much doubt this is a change for the better. To make five years service under articles obligatory will raise the standard of the profession. Undoubtedly, the legal profession has been overcrowded and that is a bad and unwholesome state of affairs when you get more attorneys competing for public business than the amount of business warrants. You get to a state of affairs where attorneys will tend to create litigation, and I think in Johannesburg that position has already arisen. You get attorneys forced by stress of competition, to resort to methods of practice not in the highest interests of the profession. I want to deal with one or two of the arguments of the hon. member for North-East Rand. I am with him in his criticism of Paragraph A of the Bill, where he says it is absurd to allow a man to go to England and qualify for the Bar in a period under three years, and their come back here, and on the strength of that qualification for the Bar, become an attorney. I served my articles with an attorney before I became an advocate, and I say the average advocate is quite unfitted to become an attorney without at least 18 months’ training in an advocate’s office. His usual training is simply a university training and he has no business experience and no experience of magistrate’s court and conveyancing work, and it is wrong to allow a person to escape this service for three or five years. One of the difficulties raised recently in the committee stage was that very point. By this loophole you will make a number of persons go to England and qualify for the Bar there, and come back and become attorneys in two-and-a-half years to three years. That happened where the matriculation examination became the bar. They could not pass in South Africa, so they go to London and qualify for the Bar, and become attorneys without ever having passed the matric. I fear that may happen now. A second point is that exemption is given to any person who passes the law certificate examination prior to commencing to serve his articles. If he has already commenced to serve his articles he must serve five years, but if he passes the examination before, he serves three years. At the committee stage I intend to move an amendment to that, and I hope the mover of this Bill will be ready, at the committee stage, to accept an amendment that the period shall be three years in the case of a person who has taken an arts degree. What the Bill provides is three years’ period of service in the case of persons who have passed the law certificate, or an equivalent examination to the law certificate. I want the hon. member when we come to the committee stage to accept an amendment to reduce the period to three years in the case of such a person.

I have not yet heard one argument for increasing the period from three to five years. It has generally been said that it is better. The only reason I can see for the Bill is the fear of over production of attorneys. We have heard a lot recently about the production of diamonds and that it should be controlled. Unfortunately, the attorneys are not all diamonds and certainly not all good diamonds, and it seems to me that a little over production is a good thing because the public can then choose the best from the existing number. Otherwise they will have to take those that are there. Sufficient reasons have not been given for the alteration. It has also been argued that in Johannesburg the number of attorneys is already too great, and that many of them can get no work. That is true, but I can assure the House that a clever young attorney can always get through the world. I myself know a number of young attorneys in Johannesburg and, notwithstanding the large number of attorneys there, they already have much work although they have only just started. It depends on whether the boy is capable or not, and not on the length of his articles. The Bill provides that an advocate can at once make application to practise as an attorney without his having served three years.

He must give six months’ notice.

Yes, but he need not pass the six months in an office. He can take a holiday and can practise after six months. The object of the articles for three years is surely not only to teach the boy law. That knowledge he gets in another way, and he passes a law examination without the office having anything to do with it. As a matter of fact the three years prevents him from making a thorough study of the law. If the Bill provided for the examination being made more difficult there would be something to be said for it, but the boy does mere routine work in the attorney’s office. There would also be something to say for it if the boy had one, two or three years’ practical experience as an attorney, but in an office he does not get that experience, and it is only the competent boy who is subsequently a success when he obtains experience in practice after he is admitted. The Bill wants to prevent the legal knowledge and capacity of the attorneys being very inadequate. I consider that the large majority are often just as well acquainted with the law as many advocates, even our advocates in this House. I hope the Bill will not have a majority. No satisfactory reasons have been given.

Although I am possibly not an advertisement nor an adornment to the attorneys’ profession I, nevertheless, also belong to it because although I never practised I can speak from experience of articles in an attorney’s office. I regard what is said to-day as to the necessity of five years’ articles as pure non-sense. I served three years and after the first fourteen months I passed the examination. Not for one-third of the three years did I study law or did the attorney teach me law. It may have been his duty, but he did not do it. At least half the time I was making up accounts, looked after auctioneering matters and kept divisional council books and between whiles I acted as election agent as well. I did all that during the three years and yet I succeeded in passing high up in the examination. It seems to me that there is an over production of attorneys and that the profession now wants to close the door a little more to prevent so much competition. I say myself that it is desirable that the status of our attorneys should be raised in respect of general knowledge because when one sees some of the documents drafted by attorneys you realize that the work is sometimes done in a slovenly and inefficient way. If the general education qualification were raised I should have no objection and I am not opposed to allowing a young man who has taken his university degree to only serve two years under articles. If he has passed the B.A. he can learn enough and more than enough law in two years to be able to practise. It is, however, not desirable to allow a young fellow to be only occupied for half the five years and to be a mere tool of the attorney. He has in any case to learn all his law privately.

I think the real object of the Bill is to prevent fair competition. It is in the interest of those of us who are not attorneys to have more of them because that would have a good influence on the fees charged by them to-day. To-day the public are absolutely left to the mercy of the attorneys. The whole measure aims at preventing over-production of attorneys. If, however, all the attorneys cannot find openings then there is nothing to prevent them seeking other occupations. They can go farming, because we farmers do not want to ring fence our occupation. I should like to see the son of the poor man having his chance of becoming an attorney, but this Bill will prevent that. During his term of articles he does not receive sufficient pay to live on and as a result of the Bill only the rich man’s son will have the privilege of qualifying as an attorney. The supporters of the Bill need not allege that the object is to protect the public, because it is evident that fair competition will regulate the fees. We have a number of good attorneys my district but at one of the meetings I addressed I was surprised to hear the complaint that a deceased person was very much dissatisfied with the way his estate was being administered. If it is the case that deceased persons are already dissatisfied then we can realize that the position is not satisfactory. We do not wish to propose legislation fixing the tees of attorneys, because the thing can be put right by competition. The hon. mover has succeeded in convincing the Minister of Justice, out it the Bill is so necessary it would be quite advisable for the Minister to introduce it himself. As it is introduced by a private member I have not so much confidence in it.

There is one aspect of the matter which has not yet been touched upon because there are many attorneys to-day who have taken no degree, but were originally law agents. They practise to-day, and would the supporters of the Bill not prefer to introduce a Bill to exclude them as they do not possess so much legal knowledge? The Chief Justice once said that so many attorneys were being admitted that they would create litigation. I have no objection to the period of articles being made one or two years, because then there will eventually be so many attorneys that they will eat each other up. We have already made a ring fence for them, and when anyone dies who has ground but no money, then you often find that his children become poor whites. If you investigate the cause you find it in the liquidation account of the estate. The attorney demands costs for this and for that, and, in the long run, his bill runs up to £400 or £500. If there is no money in the estate the attorney takes a bond, and later he takes the farm. We find cases where an attorney, after ten or twelve years is worth £10,000 to £15,000, and it is his clients who have to find the money. The amendment desired by the Bill, viz., increasing the period of articles to five years, will entirely exclude the countryside boy from the profession. The hon. mover might as well have said that only those living near the towns and universities could become attorneys. The boy will, in any case, learn little in the five years, because he will merely have to work for the attorney. I should like to see this Bill entirely killed, so as not to come before the House again.

I think the question of conversion comes very ill from the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), because he did not vote either for or against the Bill last session. I do not profess to be a lawyer. I believe there are 43 lawyers in this House, and I have no doubt they can argue this thing technically in such a way that no layman can understand anything about it, and I think they have been doing so. Being of a conservative turn of mind, I want to know a few good reasons why we should alter a procedure which has existed for 70 years. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) seems to me to say that if a law has been in existence for 70 years, it should be changed. All things 70 years old should not be changed. The hon. member himself is 70 years of age, but I am sure none of us would like any change in the hon. member for Three Rivers. He may be 70 in years, but in spirits he is still young. His reason for introducing this Bill is that he wants a higher standard in the profession in order that there may be less competition. It is not a matter of protecting the public at all; it is to have fewer lawyers so that those who remain may have better fees. He says if we have five years’ articles we will have a higher standard. I submit that if you have ten years’ articles you will have a still higher standard, and with twenty years a standard higher still, because you will get fewer and fewer lawyers. I want to ask the members of the legal profession, is it not a fact that in Natal they have a five years’ standard, and in the other provinces a three years’ standard. Are the legal members from Natal so much higher in prestige, learning and ability than those members from the other provinces? Is the standard of the Natal bar so much higher than that of the three other bars? I know the fees are high enough. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether the Natal standard is so much higher, and, perhaps, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will tell us what his opinion is of the Natal bar. I am certain from what I have heard from the Transvaal that they will not agree that the standard of Natal is so much higher. Is it a fact that members of the legal profession in the Cape, Free State and Transvaal are incapable of carrying on their profession after a three years’ apprenticeship? If that is the case, I have no option but to vote for the Bill, but if that is not the case. I should like to know why I should vote for the Bill.

I am sure we are all very grateful to the hon. member who has spoken last, who has given some pith to the debate. My hon. friend has missed the point when he referred to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who is a member of the bar. This Bill deals with attorneys. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) asks whether those at the Cape are better than those in Natal. That might be due to a better intellect. If my hon. friend’s intellect is characteristic of Natal, we have not the intellect to equal it at the Cape. He asked, if you make it five years, why not ten or twenty years? Hon. members discuss these things from the point of view of reason, and ten or twenty years is not a reasonable time. It is not necessary to demand ten or twenty years. Then the hon. member suggested that it was a question of fees. That never entered my mind. There is not a country in the world that demands such a university course for the professions as the country which has given the hon. member birth and the brains he has got—not Natal brains. Does my hon. friend know that at the Scotch bar it takes twice as long to become an advocate as it does to become a barrister in England? It is possible that you may get persons efficient in three years, but that efficiency has come simply through practice. Will my hon. friend name a single trade union, in which he is interested, that has an apprenticeship which lasts less than five years?

Those are useful trades.

That is a side issue. There was the famous jurist Justinian. Moses was a law maker.

Did Moses serve for five years?

He was different from my hon. friend. He was inspired, but my hon. friend is not. That is the difference.

You want to go into the wilderness as well.

That is all very well for the hon. member. He can always get water in the wilderness, because snow will always become water. The intelligence of the legal profession is above the thought of making more money as a result of this Bill, as suggested by my hon. friend. The argument is this—if you overload the profession and you admit a number of people who do not adequately know the rules, you are likely to have a lower profession. I hope we may now come to a vote. An hon. member referred to an articled clerk—

That may be the way some serve articles, but it is not the way in which articles are served in general.

I move—

This Bill was introduced last session, and, at the second reading stage, I accepted an amendment by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) to refer the measure to a select committee. That committee recommended that the Bill be proceeded with, but that it should be taken over by the Government. The Government, however, has not seen fit to do that, and I therefore, re-introduce the Bill now. It will be necessary shortly to recapitulate why a Bill of this nature is necessary. The position is under the existing state of the law it has been possible for composers of music to form a huge international combine and then tax the people who are their friends. Composers and publishers are not satisfied to earn the ordinary emoluments and profits from the sale of their work, but they want to tax performances also. That has became possible through the international treaties. This Bill does not really deal with copyright as such, but with the performing rights. It is admitted that if anyone pirates music and sells it for profit then the owner of the copyright has his protection here. When it comes to the performance of music that right of performance belongs to the composer, and the sale to the publisher. In 1886 a convention was held, and it was agreed that for the purpose of exercising copyright in any of the Union countries it would be necessary to be satisfied that the owner of the copyright was in order in his own country. In other words, reference must be had to the country of origin, and if he is right there the copyright is in order throughout the whole world irrespective of the laws, rights and remedies of those countries. Great Britain took an opposite view. They thought, in addition to seeing the copyright in order in your own country, it shall also comply with the laws of Great Britain. France took an opposite view to that, and maintained they could exercise the right outside the country with only reference to the country of origin. A new convention was called in Paris and that was agreed upon. This point was dealt with and also the interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention of 1886, that where a person proposes to exercise the right in a foreign country regard shall be had only to the country of origin, and without reference to the laws of the country in which the rights are exercised. Great Britain took the opposite view again, and refused to sign that article. In 1908 a further convention was called at Berlin, and there the policy was deliberately reversed. It was laid down that where persons seek to exercise copyright in music outside the country of origin, it shall be guided by the laws of the country in which it is proposed to exercise that right. That is the position to-day. The position is this— that according to the convention as it stands to-day, although we are signatories to the convention, we cannot interfere with the copyright if the copyright is cut-side the country, but we can interfere with the performance. This Bill is undoubtedly a remedy. Section 25 of the English Act, which applies to us, lays it down definitely in regard to remedy and procedure that any country adopting the Act shall have full control, so there is no question of exceeding our right. The matter was before the Registrar of Patents last year, and he went carefully into the matter, and he came to the conclusion that legislation is not only necessary, but is not an infringement of the convention. I say definitely it is not an infringement. Australia introduced legislation years ago creating special remedies for performing rights, and they put this proviso that the remedies are not available unless and until he has registered his copyright. New Zealand followed suit, and I will be able to show that it is necessary to legislate here. The select committee inquired carefully into it and came unanimously to the conclusion that legislation is necessary. Our present Act, Act 9 of 1916, makes provision for the registration of copyright, but it is purely permissible, and no individual has yet exercised it. The position is that any person interested in the producing of music, cafes, hotel-keepers, etc., are not in a position to know from time to time whether or not they are infringing a copyright. There is one exception where the difficulty was got over. Austria did not sign the convention, but made a separate treaty and went out of the way to say that the copyright in music cannot be claimed in Austria unless the face of the music shall bear on it the place of the copyright and the person to whom the copyright belongs at the time. Now in the Berlin Convention, that is deliberately put out. I am prepared to go so far as to say that the Performing Rights Society represent most of the composers and authors throughout the world. Then we are in this position, that the composers and publishers of music throughout the world have combined, and to-day they say to a municipality owning a hall, for instance—

The smaller municipalities do not know what their position is, and they are undoubtedly in the hands of the society, and they are taxed in a comprehensive way, and, through them, the public are taxed.

Could the Performing Rights Society successfully maintain an action?

No, what they do is this; to-day they cannot claim or sue, but they hold out a threat—

You say they have not done so yet?

No, because apparently the parties have paid up. The City Hall of Cape Town had to pay, and ’all the bioscopes and cafes in Cape Town had to pay. The cafés in Johannesburg had to pay. Rather than run the risk of an action which was threatened, they paid.

What did this work out at for each performance?

I have got a letter here which I received from the representative of the society in regard to the fees. It states that the society does not charge for individual performances, but that its tariffs are based on the number of annual performances. The letter mentions a bioscope with the seating capacity of 250, showing six nights per week, where the society’s tariff charge would be £9 8s. per annum, equal to about 6d. per show. For that 6d. the proprietor is free from claims for the payment of royalties. The case of a bioscope at Bloemfontein is mentioned which would pay £5 5s. per annum. That bioscope does not have a show every night. Some pay as much as £40 or £50. We have comparatively few composers in this country. The only one whom I have happened to come across is mr. de Villiers, who gave evidence before the committee, and supported this Bill. What happens? A society domiciled in Great Britain draws an enormous revenue from this country, and sends it across the sea. We do not get it; our composers do not get it.

How much revenue?

I do not know. They are not going to tell us how much they receive. This Bill does hot in any way destroy their protection, because if there is deliberate infringement of a copyright, they can go to law by way of ordinary action. If they propose to register, they come along and register their copyright, and they are entirely protected. They can go and register, and this Bill does not apply to that at all. All we say is that if they do not want to register in terms of the Copyright Act of 1916, then no action shall be sustained in our law courts, unless and until seven clear days’ notice of infringement has been given, and the performance has not ceased in the meantime.

Will you kindly explain the words in line 8—

compared with the words in line 15?

It is not every piece of music that has a copyright. Take Wagner’s music; there is no copyright there. Copyright only lasts a certain number of years, and then it lapses. In this Bill—

is spoken of. It will only apply to cases where an infringement takes place at a public performance.

The object of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) is one with which I sympathize, but I do not go as far as he does in the method to be adopted to deal with the particular grievances of which we both complain, and I think it might be convenient if one explained what the methods of this particular society are, in order that the House may realize how far it is necessary by means of this Bill to protect those persons in South Africa who do complain of their methods. The Bill should not in any way attack the principle that those who, as authors or otherwise, possess copyright have a perfect right to the benefit that comes to them by virtue of their genius, or their productions. The Bill does not interfere with, nor does it raise any objection to, the principle of cooperation which the British Copyright Act of 1911 brought into being, and which has come to our notice because of the operations of what is called the Performing Rights Society, Limited. That is a society which by co-operation and holding out to authors and composers the advantage of co-operation has evolved the scheme I will shortly describe. The company has obtained an assignment from authors and composers and a re-assignment from publishers of a number of musical compositions which are stated to exceed a million and a half. A million and a half musical compositions at least appear to be owned by this society. They are affiliated to French and German societies, which means that they have a very large range of musical compositions in their repertoire. Their modus operandi is this. An agent is appointed for a particular area, and he proceeds to deal not with the performer, but with the proprietor of the hall, bioscope or café where music is supplied to patrons. He says—

The person receiving this circular is faced with this position. He may be quite anxious to pay the proprietor of the copyright a fee for using his work. If he approaches this society and asks for particulars of the works of which the copyright is held, they decline to supply that. They make the excuse that it is impossible to print a list of one and a half million works, a list which is constantly changing. He does not know when he is infringing the copyright, and if he chooses to go on without paying the annual fee, he may find himself mulcted in the costs of an application for an interdict. Without suggesting that is illegal, it is certainly unfair, because it means that this co-operation of authors and composers banded together enables them to exercise a pressure upon the proprietors of halls and cinemas which could hardly have been the intention of the legislature. That is the grievance which has come to the notice of some members of this House. The society, when it first commenced operations in South Africa, went to the Government, and the Government, after inquiry, decided it would be better to pay the fee. With the advantage of that particular victory, it was not long before the example of the Government was generally followed, and a large revenue, I imagine, accrued to this society. There were some persons, however, who took up the position that they were not prepared to pay this money, and while they were quite prepared to respect the rights of authors, they wished to know definitely from the society who were the authors they represented, so as to have this option, either to pay a fee for performing a particular piece of music, or to decline to perform it. But the society said—

If to-day they can charge so much, once the principle is established there may later be a greatly increased charge upon the proprietors of hails in the Union. The risk is, of course, when application for interdict is made, it may be followed by an order for costs, which might be a very expensive experience. While this is a matter to be legitimately dealt with by the House, it should not be dealt with in the way proposed by the hon. member. I feel he goes too far, and I think the amendment I am going to suggest may achieve our common purpose. Section 8 of the British Copyright Act refers to the remedies that are conferred upon the proprietor of a copyright, and they deal with the case of the innocent infringer. It is perhaps worth while my reading that section—

That section of the British Copyright Act was amended when this House passed Act No. 9 of 1916 to this effect, that where registration of copyright took place all persons should be deemed to have knowledge of the existence of that copyright. So we see that an innocent infringer is still liable to an interdict. It is because of this machinery being available to a society such as this that it is able to hold over people this threat to which I have referred. This legal machinery is peculiarly a matter which concerns the Union. It seems to me we are able to deal with that machinery without in any way infringing the Berlin convention referred to, which naturally should be avoided. There are ways in which we might suffer. Authors and composers, if it was found that South Africa was not acting fairly, might find that their works in foreign markets were not treated legitimately. We might even find we were compelled to denounce the convention. As I understand the hon. member’s remarks, he does not intend to go so far, but to deal with the specific grievance he has described to the House. If this Bill is passed, the position will be that the proprietor of the copyright can obtain no interdict unless he has given seven days’ notice of the infringement. It means that before you give notice you have to watch throughout the country whether an infringement has taken place, and in every large town in the country the society would have to maintain a representative. That would throw an unjustifiable expense on the proprietors of rights, which we do not intend to take away. There is an alternative, and that is to deal with the machinery of the courts and make it clear that where the defendant has done all he reasonably can to obtain permission from the copyright proprietor, and the court is satisfied of that, he shall not be cast in the costs of the interdict. The anomaly is that a man is called upon to pay an annual charge, but gets no guarantee of immunity with regard to an author who is not a member of the society, If, as it seems to me, we are taking away the right of an association standing in the position Of this concern to apply for an interdict, and as a matter of course getting costs, you compel it to maintain an agent in the Union to whom an order for application can be made to perform music, and to whom a programme can be submitted, and either to secure permission to perform a particular piece and pay a fee or decline to pay if they think the fee appears to be excessive. I propose to move an amendment whereby, in place of the remedy suggested by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees), I want to make it clear that the costs of this interdict shall not be awarded against an innocent infringer if he can show that he did not know and had no reasonable grounds to suspect, and he had taken reasonable steps to see that those rights which are said to be infringed within the Union were copyright. Subject to that difference between us, I think the hon. member has made out a case for interference, and therefore I shall vote for the second reading, subject to the reservation I have made. I hope the hon. member will be able to say he agrees with the object we have in view.

I feel that I am not in accord with the hon. mover of this Bill or the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). The principle of the Performing Rights Society is to cover composers of music in particular. We know perfectly well that it is practically impossible without a society of this description for a composer to receive the due benefits of his labour, and this Performing Rights Society came into operation in Europe for this purpose; it has been extremely successful, and has the entire support of the principal music composers of the world. In 1924 a private Bill was introduced in the House of Commons which is similar to the one introduced this afternoon, but was defeated without a division, and the Performing Rights Society operates, in spite of the opposition that has been raised by music halls and people of that description. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) referred to it being practically impossible for music halls and municipalities to ascertain if the music they are going to perform is copyright. The list which was placed before the select Committee contained the names of publishing firms. All music presented for public use has the name of the publisher on it, and it is quite easy for any person to see if a composer’s work, which is utilized, is on the list. They circularize lists of the publishers, and from that list it is quite conceivable for municipalities and music halls to know whether they are playing copyright music or not. The hon. member also referred to composers in this country, but unfortunately South Africa has not come forward with striking composers, except Sidney Rosenbloom, who has done well here and in Europe. He recognizes the advantages of this and the principle of performing rights. Although the returns he is getting for his labour are comparatively small, he has got some recognition for his copyright work. Before the war I published music myself in London, and I did not receive any benefit from the music as published. I do not suggest, for one moment, I deserved any benefit, but if there were a performing rights society, I might have got three-pence or sixpence in return. Surely, no one will object to sixpence per night or performance, for the purpose of distributing that amongst the composers of copyright music. I believe information as to the amount of fees collected was given to the select committee. After all the Performing Rights Society has no shareholders and is worked as a form of cooperative society.

I regret that I cannot support the Bill despite the eloquence of the hon. member (Mr. van Hees) who introduced the Bill. The measure will hamper the protection of legal rights to a very serious extent. Our copyright is regulated by an Act introduced by Government and based on very important international considerations. The hon. member tells us that the Bill does not conflict with convention rights, but the people affected have their opinion which is entirely to the contrary effect. A Bill of this importance should not be introduced by a private member, whatever his rights may be, but by the Government which has international obligations to carry out. The Government should take the responsibility for the observance of international obligation. I shall have no hesitation in casting my vote against the Bill, which is a grave injustice and an infringement of the rights of the people concerned. The hon. member (Mr. van Hees) referred to these people as forming a ring or monopoly, but I would ask what protection can they obtain unless they combine. How can an individual composer tell to what extent his rights are being interfered with in various countries? The hon. member drew a distinction between performing and publication rights. What benefit to a composer are mere publication rights? Take an opera, for instance. How many people, apart from the producers, will buy a score of the opera? The only benefit a composer has is the protection of his performing rights. The whole case for the Bill is that a performer does not know whether a piece is copyright or not, but how much wiser would he be if the piece were registered?

Why don’t they register?

Because they need not register and they are sufficiently protected without registration. This seems to be another form of socialistic nibbling at the rights of other people. In my opinion this Bill, if passed, will be a legalized form of robbery.

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with Mrs. G. R. Sims, the widow of one of the best-known English dramatists, and she told me that she and her husband collected royalties throughout the whole of the civilized world for the performance of his plays. She belonged to the Dramatic Authors’ Society. Mrs. Sims told me that she could not afford to keep an agent in every country to see if her late husband’s plays were produced, but the society was represented in every part of the civilized world, and so the members of the society received their performing fees. Without some organization it would be quite impossible to draw royalties in connection with the performance of the plays of George R. Sims, and other authors. That is the raison d’etre of the existence of this society. It is impossible for a musical composer as an individual to watch his interests in the various parts of the civilized world. They can only be watched in combination with other composers, that is by the formation of societies such as the Performing Rights Society. It represents a combination of composers and publishers, and they have united to see persons who play their compositions shall pay a fair royalty. That is the object of the formation of this society. It must be plain that without some such society normally no royalty would be paid or could be collected by composers of musical or dramatic works. If you make the operations of such a society impossible, you are, in effect, saying to the overseas composer that South Africa will treat your work as America did British literature in the days of Charles Dickens. In those days the works of Dickens and other authors were pirated throughout the United States, and if South Africa agreed to a Bill of this sort it would lead to the pirating of music as America did literature in the days of long ago.

You are speaking of publications.

The principle is the same. If it is necessary to protect the copyright in the case of a book, it is also necessary to protect the copyright in the case of a musical composition. The book itself bears an imprint and you cannot sell it in this country without violating the copyright provision, but if some performance takes place in some out of the way town in the Union, who is there to watch, short of keeping an enormous staff? The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) says these people are unfair in their methods, that they claim they have a copyright list of a million and a half, but they cannot give the list, and that what they do say is that you have to pay a fee for performing a work, the list of which they cannot give you. It is quite true these people do not give a list of 1,500,000 pieces, but they do say we represent the following firms of musical publishers and such-and-such composers, and you may take it, it you perform any piece of music published by such-and-such a firm, or composed by such-and-such an author, then you must pay us a royalty. Surely that is enough. Doesn’t the argument of unfairness disappear at once? If I am the manager of a bioscope, and I am told that if my orchestra plays any music of a certain composer I must pay, then surely his argument disappears. They have a list of publishers and composers, and they say if you play any work, the music of which bears the name of that publisher, you come within the ambit of this society’s operations. The same applies to composers. Is that not all that can reasonably be asked for? We are not asking for the Bill. If the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) can demonstrate they have refused to give any information, and have only taken the money, then his case will be stronger. I think in passing this Act we shall be taking a retrograde step. If there was any palpable unfair or unjust action by these people it would be different. The demand it makes on the musical public of South Africa is not excessive. The total revenue for the whole of South Africa for performing the choice of a million and a half works in all the halls of South Africa, is, I believe, something under £5,000. If the society was using its rights to make unconscionable demands on the public of South Africa, most of us in the House would unite to resist the demands. But can it be said they are unconscionable when the sum total amounts in the aggregate to £5,000?

What prevents their making it £50,000?

If they use their power to hold the public to ransom, this House would interfere. The Bill is not necessary, and may do a great deal of harm. It will certainly stigmatize South Africa as a country not prepared to honour the Berlin convention.

I move—

That the debate be adjourned.

seconded.

There is just one point I want to deal with. I made a statement that no information was given at all as to the amount received by the society. I want to correct that. Mr. Silberbauer did state that there was a sum in the neighbourhood of £5,000.