presented a petition from Samuel Madella, of Barkly West, late messenger in the Magistrate’s Court, who retired on November 1, 1910, on a pension of £49 5s. 4d. after nearly 38 years’ service, praying for consideration of his case or other relief.

On the motion of Dr. WATKINS, seconded by Sir B. BERRY (Queen’s Town), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Samuel Calcraft, of Wynberg, who served in the Salt River Works from February, 1890, until 1910, when he was retired on a pension of £49, owing to ill-health, resulting from an accident whilst on duty, praying for an increase of his said pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER (King William’s Town), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from J. W. Duminy, who was retired on a pension prior to 1907, praying the House to consider the amount of pension awarded to him, or otherwise, re-employ him, of grant him other relief.

On the motion of Dr. SMARTT, seconded by Dr. HE WAT (Woodstock), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from P. Kelly, who served in the Postal Department of the Cape from February, 1902, to April, 1909, when, owing to defective eyesight, he was retired with a gratuity, praying for a pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. OLIVER (Kimberley), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities

presented a petition from P. T. Harding, of Vryburg, who served in the Queen’s Town Yeomanry in 1877, in Basutoland in 1880, in the Langeberg campaign, and also in the Colonial Defence Forces during the late war. In 1903 he was appointed sheep inspector, but, owing to bodily infirmity, was discharged in 1909, praying the House to grant him relief.

On the motion of Mr. WESSELS, seconded by Mr. RADEMEYER (Humansdorp), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from S. L. Fox, widow of the late James Fox, who served in the Cape Government Railways for nearly 30 years, and died in June last, as the result of an injury received whilst in the service of the department, praying that in consideration of her late husband’s service, she may be granted an annuity or other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. OLIVER (Kimberley), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from, J. H. Brosius of Edenburg, Germany, who served in the Forest Departments of the Cape, Pondoland, and the Transkei for about ten and a half years, during the period 1895-1908, after which, through ill-health, he resigned his position, praying the House to take his case into consideration and grant him relief.

On the motion of Mr. LONG, seconded by Mr. BAXTER (Cape Town, Gardens), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from J. Williams, who served in Table Bay Harbour Works from 1879 to 1882, and from 1887 to 1909, when he was retired on a gratuity, praying for a pension or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER (King William’s Town), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from H. M. Parker, late clerk in the secretary’s office, Table Ray Harbour Board, whose services were dispensed with in 1908 after over 33 years’ service, praying for an increase of the pension awarded him in 1909, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. ALEXANDER (Cape Town, Castle), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

1909: (1) Chief Immigration Officer; (G. 4—’10). (2) The Colonial Medical Council and the Colonial Pharmacy Board; (G. 5—’10). (3) (a) The Art Gallery and the South African Fine Arts Association, (b) The Grahamstown Fine Arts Association and School of Art; (G. 7—’10). (4) (a) South African Museum. (b) Port Elizabeth Museum, (c) Kimberley Museum, (d) Albany Museum. (e) King William’s Town Museum; (G, 8—’10). (5) Cape Colonial Forces; (G. 15—’10). (5) Explosives, Government Inspector of; (G. 21—’10). (7) Hospitals and Asylums; (G. 25—’10). (8) Public Libraries; (G. 31—’10). (9) Statistical Register.

(1) Extracts from Cape Colony Government Notices containing amendments to Regulations for the Volunteer Force, 1906. (2) Extracts from Government Notices containing amendments to Rules and Regulations together with Dress Regulations for the Medical Department, Cape Colonial Forces.

(1) Copies of Proclamations and principal Government Notices issued by the Cape Native Affairs Department, from the 2nd June, 1909, to the 30th May, 1910; (2) copies of Proclamation and principal Government Notices issued by the Union Department of Native Affairs from the 31st May, 1910, to the 10th November, 1910.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to form the Select Committee on the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, viz.: General Beyers, Messrs. Maasdorp, Wilcocks and Long; General Beyers to be chairman.

moved: That a Select Committee on Native Affairs be appointed; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, to consist of 15 members, and that the following be members of the committee:—Dr. Jameson, Dr. Watkins, Colonel Crewe, Colonel Leuchars, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. Merriman, Mentz, P. G. W. Grobler, H. S. Theron, Phillips, Bosman, Van Heerden, Schreiner, Watt, and the mover.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Particulars as to the amount of railway traffic in connection with the Butterworth railway station:(a) The tonnage of goods inwards received during the months of August, September and October of the current year; (b) the amount received for the carriage of the same; (c) the amount received for passenger traffic during the said three months; (d) the tonnage of wool and other agricultural and pastoral produce received to be forwarded by rail during the month of October of the current year; (e) the amount received or chargeable for carriage of the same. (2) The same particulars as the foregoing with regard to the railway traffic at Ndabakazi station, and Toleni bridge, and Eagle sidings.

moved the second reading of the Public Holidays Bill, and said the object of the Bill was to provide for a uniform system of holidays throughout the Union. The list of holidays at present was far too long in each of the Provinces. There had been constant complaints as to the long list of holidays, and the number had been reduced to what he thought was a reasonable limit, and in this total were included the great religious and national days of the country. New Year’s Day was, of course, a universal holiday. But it was proposed that the second of January should be dropped. Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Ascension Day had been included. These days fell in March and April, Good Friday was universal, and so was Easter Monday, but there had been some difference of opinion about Ascension Day. It had been included because it had been strongly pressed for by Christian communities. It had been added for a second reason, and that because he found that it was at present a statutory holiday in three of the Provinces. He found that the day following Good Friday was a holiday in Port Elizabeth and in Natal. With regard to Ascension Day, he had circularised the commercial bodies of South Africa, and the replies had been unfavourable so far as this day was concerned. Then they had the 24th of May—Victoria Day—and it was followed by May 31 and June 3 May 31 had been included, as it was the day on which Union was consummated, and it was proposed that King’s Birthday should be celebrated. It was undesirable that their holidays should be in such close proximity, and June 3 had been eliminated, leaving it possible to celebrate His Majesty’s birthday at a convenient date Whit Monday had been struck out of the list, also Arbor Day, which had been celebrated in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The first Monday in October—hitherto observed in some of the Provinces—had been retained; while Dingaan’s Day had been included, not because it had been a holiday in some of the Provinces for many years, but because it was of national significance. (Hear, hear.) He pointed out that it had been suggested as a universal holiday by a Customs Conference, but this proposal had not been carried into effect. Ten holidays in the year were proposed. There might be some criticism against some of the holidays coming too close together. They had for instance, Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Ascension Day coming together at very short intervals, and in December they had three holidays at close intervals, but these were difficulties which could not be overcome. There might also be criticism against six holidays falling in the first six months of the year and four holidays in the second half of the year, but hon. members would find it difficult to fix upon another list.

said that he thought the House would appreciate the difficulties which the Minister of the Interior had to face in trying to put a schedule of holidays before the House which would meet with the approval of everyone. While recognising the Minister’s difficulty, he thought it would be possible considerably to improve upon the schedule. The crowding of holidays into one short period was the main objection which many had to the schedule. The case was even worse than the Minister had pointed out, because of the ten holidays proposed, five of them would occur within six weeks. Good Friday next year would fall on April 14, Easter Monday on April 17, Victoria Day and King’s Birthday on May 24, Ascension Day on May 25, and Union Day on May 31. That meant that five holidays were crowded into six weeks. There was a very strong objection to Ascension Day being observed as a holiday. He did not think that anyone would object to anybody observing Ascension Day as a holiday, but he thought a reasonable objection might be urged against it being forced upon everybody. He pointed out that there was no holiday between May 31 and the first Monday in October. That meant that while five days were crowded into six weeks, there were four months in which no holiday occurred. That was one objection. Another objection was that in his humble opinion the schedule did not make proper provision for the observance of the King’s birthday. He did not think that the great majority of the people of the country would be content with having the King’s birthday on the same day as the Queen’s birthday. He suggested that June 3 should be observed as a holiday. It was quite an exceptional case, standing completely and entirely by itself. He hoped that whatever change might be made, there would be a full recognition of the King’s birthday on June 3. Ascension Day was not, so far as he knew, observed in the other colonies, and he would suggest that they take out Ascension Day and substitute for it the first Monday in August, which holiday was known in England as a bank holiday. That would have the advantage of taking one of the days out of the five and carrying it forward two months. There would then be one holiday between May 31 and October 1.

said that whilst these customary holidays were general, there was one very large section of the community who would obtain no holiday whatever from the enactment of this Bill, or the establishment of any public holiday. He alluded to those who were employed in the great mining industry. If the schedule provided for holidays from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, it would make no difference to those who were engaged day in and day out in the mining industry. Continuing, the hon. member said that it was really necessary that the matter should receive proper attention at the hands of the Government, and those holidays were absolutely necessary. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had evidently given great attention to the subject and was evidently much more concerned with it. No doubt those gentlemen who represented the mercantile interests were of opinion that these holidays were beneficial, and if that were so, they were, no doubt, considered beneficial to those engaged in industrial pursuits. Could the Minister of the Interior not give them any assurance that these holidays would be observed by those engaged in industrial pursuits, otherwise they would have to propose an amendment in the Bill, so as to secure the object which they had in view?

said that that matter of holidays had been brought before the Chamber of Commerce in Durban, and they had very serious objections to the dates on which some of the proposed holidays fell; and, after discussing the matter very fully, they had come to the conclusion that December 16 was a very unfortunate time for having a holiday, on account of being so near the Christmas holidays. He suggested that the King’s birthday might be observed on the first Monday in October. If that could not be done, they in Natal would favour the elimination of Ascension Day from the list, and a day provided in August. He thought that these holidays should be made compulsory, because if they were not, the object of the Bill would be defeated; some people would observe them, some of the stores would not be closed, and the holiday would be spoilt. He hoped that would be considered in committee, and remedied.

said that he would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) to the fact that when he had recently visited Uitenhage he had said to the men that they should enjoy their public holidays. Proceeding, the hon. member said that some time ago administrative action had been taken, as a result of which thousands of the public servants of the country had been deprived of their holiday. It had suddenly been decided by the Auditor-General, on the eve of the holiday, that men who were on leave, should not enjoy the holiday—because the hon. member (Mr. Walton) had been asleep. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Sauer) had done his utmost to make that matter right—but not at election times. (Laughter.) His hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) did his electioneering at the right time, but his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Walton) left it to the last moment. He (the hon. member) hoped that the matter would be so arranged that the Auditor-General would not have the power to disturb the arrangements of thousands of railway men, and enforce his peculiar rules as to what constituted a holiday, or what did not.

said that it seemed to him that considerable amendments for the better could be made in the holidays which had been selected by the Government. He desired to bring to the notice of the House the holidays which had been recommended by the Associated Chambers of Commerce at their last Conference at Bloemfontein, which had kept in front of it the principle that the holidays should be well spread throughout the year, and that they should not come too close together. Another thing which they had kept in front of them was the desirability of holidays falling, as far as possible, on Mondays. The reason was obvious. Those for whom the holidays were intended could leave their work on Saturdays and come back on the following Tuesday morning. The days which the Conference recommended were New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, Union Day, the first Monday in August to celebrate the King’s Birthday—which they had not forgotten—the first Monday in October, Dingaan’s Day, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day. He thought that these days were better spread over the year than the days proposed by the Government, and he thought that the Chamber of Commerce spoke generally for the towns, where the holidays were generally more kept than in the country. When the committee stage came he hoped the Government would consider certain amendments.

said that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had referred to the echoes of the election campaign but he thought the hon. member would be more correct, if he cast his eyes about, and instead of reflecting on the election campaign had cast his eyes on the cross benches, because the arguments of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) were arguments which had been heard on the election platforms in the Witwatersrand. They were quite used to them in the Transvaal, but he felt sure that there were several hon. members to whom they came as something of a novelty. The hon. member had expressed the hope that Government would insist on these holidays being enforced on the mines on the Rand. The only holidays which compulsorily were observed on the mines were Good Friday and Christmas Day, exclusive, of course, of Sundays. The men who worked on Christmas Day were paid double; men who did not work on that day got their ordinary pay. There was a great deal to be said in favour of having more holidays and of arranging them more on the lines prevailing in England, but it would obviously be unfair to expect the mines to pay for these extra days. (An HON. MEMBER: “Why?”) was Government prepared to pay its railway employees for these additional days? (Cheers.) Those of them who were connected with the management of the mines were, so far as the Transvaal was concerned, perfectly ready to go into the question, but he must protest against ‘the manner in which an attempt had been made to get a little cheap political capital out of the question. (Opposition cheers.)

said that so far as the mining industry was concerned no objection would be raised to any reasonable holidays. But he would point out that this country depended to a great extent on the gold mining industry, which every day turned out £100,000 worth of gold. If it were decided to have ten holidays’ therefore, there would be a million pounds worth less of gold put out than was the case at present, and the effect of that on the financial condition of the country would be very serious. This was an aspect of the case which might be overlooked. If they proposed to make compulsory holidays they would apply not only to the gold mines, but they would find their friends the sheep-farmers—(Opposition cheers) —also obliged to do without their herds for their flocks on these occasions, and they would pay their people nevertheless. The whole question was one which required to be very carefully investigated in all its bearings. It was quite easy for the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) to suggest that the gold mines should pay all their employees for all the holidays which that House was prepared to introduce. That, however, was not customary in any part of the world, and if any further compulsory holidays were brought in, the friends of the hon. member for Jeppes would not be in the least thankful to him. The mining industry had endeavoured to arrange that every man should have a holiday at least once a week, but the proposal had met with the strongest opposition from the men who did not wish to renounce their seven days’ Day. The most serious aspect of the question was that gold mining, in the same way as farming, was a productive industry, and every day they out off from the produce of that industry decreased the wealth of the country. (Hear, hear.)

said that so far as he knew merchants were not compelled to pay their assistants on holidays, and they were not asking for security of payment to miners for holidays. He challenged the statement that certain mining employees were paid for holidays. Proceeding, the hon. member said May Day was a very old holiday which was fast becoming universal. Why should there not be an international as well as a national holiday?

said that with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson), it was only the opinion of a proportion of the men on the mines.

said that if the wishes of hon. members on the other side of the House were to be carried out the list of holidays would be increased to a considerable extent. As to the suggestion that King’s Birthday should be celebrated in August, he thought that date, was too far off. However strong they might feel on the question, he thought that public convenience would be best met by celebrating the King’s Birthday on May 31. He thought that the list was reasonable, and good and proper so far as the mercantile community was concerned. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell), he pointed out that there would be ample opportunity for that gentleman to deal with the matter when legislation affecting mining and mining machinery was placed before the House. With regard to May Day, he would say that if that were included the list would be still further lengthened, and he thought the-had better wait for the time when the whole world was ripe for its adoption as a universal holiday.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday next.

moved the second reading of the Naturalisation of Aliens Bill, and said that this was another of the measures that had been brought forward in an endeavour to secure uniformity in South African laws. He went on to deal with the reference to naturalisation contained in the South Africa Act, wherein it was stated that the foreigners naturalised in the different provinces should be considered naturalised throughout the Union. Since then the different systems had been in use, and the measure was for the purpose of securing uniformity in this direction. The most important provision of the will was section 3, in which the period of residence in South Africa for naturalisation purposes was fixed. General Smuts went on to deal with the Periods which had obtained in the Provinces, and said that the term had been fixed in the measure at two years, within the last five years. This might be argued to be a very short term, but against that he pointed out that this was a young country. Then they had decided to eliminate the European descent clause—a bone of contention—that had existed in the Acts of some of the Provinces. This had been considered unnecessary, and it had not been included in the measure.

said that in supporting the Bill there were one or two points which he would like the Minister for the Interior to take into consideration before the committee stage was reached. In Canada he believed there was reciprocity. That was that where anybody was naturalised as a British subject in another part of the British Empire there was reciprocity.

No.

said he trusted he would be able to produce authority for what he said. In any case, that was a matter which should be considered, because if anybody was good enough to be admitted in any other part of the British Empire, he thought there was no reasonable ground why such a person should not be allowed to become a British subject and have full privileges after, say a short period of residence in this country. Another matter to which he should like to draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior was that the Bill only made provision for certificates to be granted by magistrates or justices of the peace, but he should like to see the list enlarged so as to admit of notaries public and commissioners of oaths giving certificates.

said that the Bill raised a number of points which had caused a good deal of discussion at a meeting of the Colonial Conference in London some three years ago. He instanced the position of the man who came to this country from, say, Germany or Russia. That man, he said, took out letters of naturalisation, but these letters only applied so far as South Africa was concerned, and when he returned to his own country he was a nondescript. That had been provided for to some ex ent in Canada, the Government there giving a second certificate to the man, stating the number of years he had been resident there. There was also the case of the man who had been naturalised in one colony and came to settle in another colony, and took out fresh letters of administration. Canada had passed a law which provided that a man who had been naturalised as a British subject in another colony could enter and take out letters of naturalisation without having to wait two years. He did not see why they in South Africa could not do the same. Where a man was naturalised in Australia or Canada, and he decided afterwards to come to this country, and announced his intention to settle in this country, he thought he should be able to take out letters of naturalisation forthwith, instead of having to wait two years. There was another important matter, and that was that the Minister of the Interior proposed in the schedule to repeal Act No. 2 (Cape) of 1883, which allowed aliens to own property in the Cape. He intended to introduce amendments with the object of easing the position of certain people who lived in their midst, and of placing them upon a better status.

said that the whole House would welcome the attempt of the Government to consolidate the existing laws upon such an important subject as the naturalisation of aliens throughout the Union, but if that Bill showed anything at all it showed the necessity of grappling with the consolidation of the laws not in such a haphazard way as the Government was attempting to do, but by the appointment of a comprehensive commission to deal with all non-controversial matters. Where matters were non-controversial the Government in his opinion, should not deal with them in a haphazard way. Although the purpose of the Bill was to consolidate the laws relating to the naturalisation of aliens, the Minister of the Interior must be aware that matters were dealt with in the schedule besides the naturalisation of aliens. If the Bill was passed as it stood, it would leave the question as to whether an alien Had the right to own property in a state of absolute confusion The Minister of the Interior apparently did not agree with him, but unless he brought in some provision in the Bill to safeguard the rights of aliens who held immovable property, he would place the law in utter confusion. The Minister was aware that the question of aliens holding immovable property had always been dealt with under naturalisation Acts. As regarded the Cape Act of 1883, the Government proposed to repeal the whole of it, notwithstanding the fact that it dealt with matters other than the naturalisation of aliens. One welcomed the fact that it was not too expensive to become naturalised, for it was a good sign if a man was willing to become a British subject and to settle down But at the same time that part of the Bill was capable of a good deal of improvement in the direction of reciprocity. Here again, the Minister of the Interior could have looked with advantage to the admirable Cape section dealing with reciprocity. A man who had been naturalised in one part of the British Empire and came here was not treated as if he had already been naturalised, Under the old Cape Act of 1883 the Governor could give reciprocity, and a distinction was drawn between letters of naturalisation granted to an alien and to a person who had already been naturalised in a British colony. He wished that the words “Governor-General” had been put in the section of the Bill before the House rather than “Minister of the Interior.” Then, again, there was a difficulty with regard to the repealing section (the first), and he would point out that there was no adequate reason why there should not be a proviso to the section safeguarding existing rights. That was usually done, and he did not know why it had been left out. It they took the question of the children, they would find that under the laws of pretty well the whole world, when the lather became naturalised, his children under the age of majority obtained certain rights. He thought that there should be some provision in the Bill that where a father became naturalised his children, who were included in that naturalisation, should be given a certificate, which would prove that the father had been naturalised, so that there would be no difficulty at all when the children came of age. Then a very important matter arose under that Bill. There was a section which spoke of the Minister of the Interior giving a person who became naturalised all the rights and privileges of a British-born subject. But at the present moment a Colonial naturalised subject was treated differently than a person naturalised in Great Britain: if a passport was issued to the former it was not so extensive as that issued to the latter, and gave him less privileges, as if he were of lower status than the man naturalised in Great Britain, with regard to the question of European descent he was glad that the Minister of the Interior had not made such distinction. As the Act of Union had originally been drafted it had only made provision for persons of European descent, but he was glad that in the final draft of the Bill that had been left out. As to the period of residence, the Minister of the Interior had hit upon a happy compromise, and he thought that the stipulated period was a very fair provision. He was sorry that field-cornets had been left out, as that was work which they could very well do. Having regard to the fact that a rigorous examination was required in order to obtain naturalised, once that was obtained, the man concerned should have all the rights and privileges of a citizen. (Hear, hear.)

pointed out that under the French naturalisation law a person who rendered signal service to the State had his qualifying period of naturalisation reduced. He recommended that provision to the Minister of the Interior.

said that grievances arose sometimes; in one instance a man had been refused naturalisation because, eight years previous his brother had been convicted of stock theft. He did not see why applicants should be compelled to go to J.P.’s or Magistrates personally known to them, if it might happen that the applicants did not personally know either a J.P. or a Magistrate.

took exception to clause 5, “Minister may grant or refuse application.” There should be some appeal from a Minister’s decision.

said that with regard to the question of reciprocity, that had seriously engaged the attention of the last Imperial Conference, which came to the conclusion that the best way to deal with it would be for the Imperial Government to pass a Naturalisation Bill, which, by an Order in Council, could, at the request of the Colonies, be made to apply to them. The reciprocity clause in the Cape Act had remained inoperative. Correspondence was going on between the Imperial and Colonial Governments in order to fix the general form of a Bill applicable to the colonies; but the question was a most difficult one. Then there was the question of colour. There were many other difficulties connected with this question of Imperial naturalisation. With regard to aliens holding immovable property, he pointed out that the alien had this right under Roman-Dutch Law. Some smaller points had been raised, and one was the question why the Minister had been substituted for the Governor General. It had been usual in South Africa to make the Governor the authority for issuing these letters. This change had been proposed to save the Governor-General a lot of useless trouble. It had been thought better that the Minister, who knew all the points of the question should be the person to issue these letters. It had also been argued that there was no proviso safeguarding these letters of naturalisation. In reply to that he would refer the hon. member to*the South Africa Act, in which there was ample provision. So far as the children of naturalised aliens were concerned, it was argued that these should be included in the letters Issued. But he pointed out that the children of a naturalised alien were no different to the children of a British subject. It was only necessary for the children to prove that they were in the country before the letters of naturalisation were issued, and that should be easy enough. With regard to what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Dr. Haggar) had said, he could tell the hon. member that he was wrong.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday next.

in moving the second reading, said that, when the Act of Union was drafted, some minor points in connection with the administration of justice had been overlooked. The Bill provided for those points. The first clause dealt with appeals from judgments given by the Natal Native High Court. The Act of Union said nothing with regard to those appeals, so that these would have to continue to come before the Privy Council. The Bill, however, remedied that state of affairs. Further, the Bill provided that, when an appeal was noted, the documents sent to the Registrar of the Court of appeal would include the grounds on which the original judgment was given. The Court of Appeal was given the right of referring back cases to a lower court, for further hearing or fresh evidence.

said he thought that this was a Bill that should go before a Select Committee. Continuing, he said that with regard to the first clause, that was a matter upon which evidence might very well be taken. He went on to refer to the clauses in detail, and said that he would net have troubled hon. members but for the fact that he thought it was a pity that the Government should introduce an amending Bill at this very early stage. He might mention that there were quite a number of matters which presented difficulties to the legal profession, and which were not dealt with in the measure. He He might mention that there were quite a number of matters which really indicated that the provisions of the South Africa Act were not such as to enable the proper administration of justice. He thought it would be very advisable that the Bill should be submitted to a Select Committee of experts. That committee could take evidence, and, perhaps, receive suggestions from the Judges of Appeal. Then, he thought, they might get a measure to enable them to carry on the proper administration of justice upon more expeditious lines.

supported the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Robinson), and said that it would be very advisable to refer the whole matter, not only the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, but also the relations between the Appeal Courts and the Provincial Divisions generally throughout South Africa, to a small Select Committee; with power to call evidence, and to decide what amendments were necessary for the working of the new judicial system in this country. It had been mentioned to him by one of the judges of the Provincial Division in Cape Town that there were many matters upon which there was a certain amount of difficulty as to the exact working of the Union Act, and he (the judge) had expressed the opinion that it was a pity that so early in the session the Government should introduce an amending Bill with regard to the Appellate Court. He had no desire to embarrass the Minister of Justice, but simply wished to report to the House what had been said to him by a gentleman whose authority, if he mentioned his name, would be regarded as sufficient for making the suggestion. He said that this was rather a good illustration of the inadvisability of putting down the second reading of measures at such an early date. It did not give hon. members an opportunity to communicate with their distant constituents. He hoped the Minister of Justice would not press the second reading through that afternoon, but would take the course suggested by the hon. member for Umbilo.

desired some information upon what he described as the introduction of a novel principle which allowed the Appeal Court to have the right to call fresh evidence after the lower court had hoard the evidence.

stated that the provisions as laid down in the Bill were the recommendations of the judges of the Court of Appeal. The judges of appeal felt that it was necessary that the Bill should be introduced as soon as possible, in order to meet any cases that might arise under section 1 with regard to the Natal Court. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Caledon, he might say that no matter how novel the provision might be, still there could be very little doubt that it was very advisable that the Court of Appeal should have such power; and he thought that by a provision of this kind the Legislature would meet something that had been very urgently required for some years. With regard to the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he said he did not think that that course should be followed. The committee would do nothing more than what the Judges of Appeal had done.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage set down for Monday next.

moved the second reading of a Bill to impose liabilities upon the Crown in respect of acts of its servants. The Bill, said the hon. gentleman, in the first place, provided for the liability of the Crown with regard to contracts, and acts committed by its servants; in the second place, for the institution of any action against the Government, by which the Minister of Justice would be the nominal defendant or respondent, and in the third place, where judgment had been given against the Minister of Justice, that the Minister should see that the amount of the judgment was paid.

said-that there was one point, which, in view of recent legislation, he would like to direct the attention of the House and the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill. In all of the Acts or ordinances enumerated in the schedule which it was proposed to repeal, there was a proviso exempting the State from any liability or any act of the Post and Telegraph Department or its servants. The point he wished to put before the hon. member was: Was it just and equitable to the subject that the State should be so exempt? The hon. member went on to give details of the well-known action between the company owning the “Diamond Fields’ Advertiser” and the Government of the Cape some time ago, in which judgment had been given against the company, and on appeal, the judgment had been upheld. The appeal had gone in favour of file Government because by the Act of 1888 the Government was exempted because the act had been committed by a servant in the Telegraph Department, but would not have been exempted if the fraud had been committed by a servant in any other department. The hon. member alluded to one of the hon. members for Kimberley who was in the Cape Parliament at that time (Mr. Green), and who now adorned one of the galleries of the House, saying that no private firm of repute would have behaved as the Government had done in the matter. The hon. member said that he put it to the Government whether, in a case where there had been deliberate fraud on the part of a clerk or an officer in the service of the Telegraph Department, the Crown should be placed in a different position than that of the subject. (Hear, hear.) He would not press that point at that stage, but he suggested a suitable proviso being inserted at the proper time, which he read, and which he hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would give his earnest consideration.

said that here was another instance of consolidating legislation, which was brought forward piecemeal, instead of being referred to an impartial Commission, which could deal with such non-controversial matters. Here the Government was continuing existing legislation, and if the hon. member (Mr. Currey) would read section 4 he would see that the Government safeguarded themselves, and that the Minister of Justice would have to decide whether the Government would have to pay or not, if judgment were given against it. That was an extreme provision, and the present was the time to see to it. He would suggest that the word “shall” should be substituted for “may,” in line 3 of section 4.

said the omission of posts and telegraphs made no difference. The points mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) were of a minor character, which could be dealt with in committee.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday.