from F. Sturge-Brain, lockup-keeper, Warrenton, praying for recognition of previous services in the Cape Mounted Riflemen and Cape Police, and for condonation of a break in his service for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from George Hall, a pensioner from the late Table Bay Harbour Board, Cape, praying the House to consider his age of 74 years, and to grant him further relief.

from F. G. W. Taylor, clerk in the Postmaster-General’s Department, who served as a teacher in the Education Department for five years prior to his entering the postal service, praying that the said service may be recognised for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from A. R. E. Nichol, late accountant, Colonial Secretary’s Department, Cape, who served for 19 years until December, 1908, when he was retired on pension on abolition of office, praying for favourable consideration of his case with a view to reinstatement in the service, or for other relief.

from L. Merkel and ten others, late members of the Cape Civil Service, who were retired under Act No. 37 of 1908, on abolition of office, praying for the grant to them of the maximum number of years in accordance with the length of their respective services for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from Daniel Bailey, stationmaster, Retreat, who served in various capacities for 27 years, praying that certain breaks in his service may be condoned for pension purposes, or other relief.

from W. Jones, of Rosebank, who served as teacher in the Education Department for six years until 1904, when he resigned, but re-entered in September, 1806, praying for condonation of the break in his service for good service allowance purposes, or for other relief.

from F. Ward, brass-finisher, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in August, 1891, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the pension fund from November 2, 1895, to November 1, 1903, or for other relief.

from Chas A. Thomlin, fitter, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in March, 1892, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from September 21, 1895, to September 20, 1903.

from C. Read, chargeman fitter, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in October, 1889, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from July 6, 1895, to July 5, 1903.

from U. J. Abrahams, tinsmith, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Gape Government Railways in April, 1888, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from December 1, 1892, to November 30, 1903.

from A. D. Lewis, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in June, 1894, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension. Fund from August 10, 1895, to August 9, 1903.

from C. W. Reeks, fitter, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in June, 1892, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from November 2, 1893, to November 1, 1903.

(1) Report of the Council of the University of the Cape of Good Hope for the year ended December 31, 1909 (G. 27-’10). (2) Reports for the year ended December 31, 1909: (a) The South African College Council; (b) the Rhodes College Council; (c) the Huguenot College (G. 14-’10). (3) Report of the Superintendent-General of Education (Cape of Good Hope) for the year ending September 30, 1909 (G. 12-’10).

Report of the Port Captain, Durban, for the year ended December 31, 1909.

Return in accordance with the provisions of section 3, Act No. 26 of 1907 (Transvaal), of particulars of the nomination of a gentleman to fill a vacancy on the Board of Management of the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank.

Estimates of Expenditure of the South African. Railways and Harbours for the 10 months ending March 31, 1911 (U. 2-’10).

Index to the principal resolutions, Bills, and printed Select Committee and Commission reports of the House of Assembly, 1854-1910, prepared by the staff of the late House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope, and forwarded to Mr. Speaker by Sir Ernest Kilpin, K.C.M.G.

That a Select Committee on Public Accounts be appointed; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Messrs. Creswell, Currey, Duncan, Sir George Farrar, Messrs. Fremantle, Jagger, Langerman, Orr, Robinson, Walton, and the mover. Mr. Hull, in moving the motion, said he would like to take the opportunity of explaining to the House the proposals they had in view with regard to this committee. As hon. members knew, the usual work of the committee was to examine the annual reports of the Auditor-General upon the appropriation account of the year. Well, the Government intended to enlarge the scope of the committee very extensively. Hon. members who were familiar with the work usually done by the committee would recognise that this committee was one of the most important—if not the most important—of the committees appointed by Parliament, and for that reason hon. members would agree with him that the personnel of such a committee should be carefully selected, and that the gentlemen called upon to work on the committee should be familiar with the working of the financial machinery. He could not do better than quote from the report of a Select Committee appointed by the British House of Commons to inquire into the national accounts. Six or seven years ago the British House of Commons appointed a Select Committee, which went into the question of national accounts. He thought he was right in saying that the best financial experts that the House could produce gave evidence or served on the Select Committee. In the report that was presented, every witness bore testimony to the increasing value of the committee as a check on wasteful expenditure, and the Auditar-General said he valued its services very highly, for the reason that it helped to maintain economy in the public departments. Having referred to the report of the British Committee at some length, the speaker said there was one thing he wished to touch upon before he went on to explain the proposed functions of the committee for which he was moving. It reported, as they knew, upon the annual accounts of the year. He believed that it had not been the practice in South African legislatures to set a day apart for the consideration of the report of the committee. It was only when something of a sensational character was contained in the report that a day was set aside for consideration. Again, he thought that the report of the committee should be sent to the Treasury for its observations, and that a day should then be set aside for the consideration of the report. There was another suggestion he would like to make, and that was that at all these meetings the Controller and Auditor-General, or the Secretary to the Treasury, should be present. That was done in, the British House of Commons, and he thought that it should be adopted here. There was another suggestion, but he did not think that the time was quite ripe for this suggestion to be carried into effect. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in England was usually selected from among members sitting on the Opposition benches. Here it had been the practice to appoint a Minister as Chairman, and he should like to see the time come when no Minister would act on the committee. He thought the committee should be selected from among the best possible men sitting on both sides of the House. With regard to the size of the committee, he thought a smaller body would be far more effective. The additional functions would greatly increase the work of the committee, and would materially increase its importance. He thought Parliament should endeavour, as far as possible, to use this committee to assist in dealing with the expenditure estimates of the year. The proposals were, briefly, these. Assuming that the Public Accounts Committee was set up and he did not think there would be any objection, his proposal was this: At the end of each session— before the conclusion of the session.—the Public Accounts Committee should indicate what part of the Estimates for the ensuing year it would examine during the next year. That was to say, that he proposed to divide the Estimates into three sections, nearly as equal as possible. The Public Accounts Committee, he proposed, at the beginning of each year should deliberately examine one-third of the assets. The suggestion was that, while the committee had this third under consideration, there should be no discussion in the House until the report was presented. Of course, in the meantime the House would be able to discuss the remaining two-thirds, but in respect to the one-third being considered by the committee, no action should be taken until the recommendations of the committee were placed before the House. The greatest care, however, would have to be observed in safeguarding three points. One was that Parliament should not divest itself of the power to discuss these Estimates, or having the last say in the matter. In the next place care should be taken that Ministerial responsibility for military expenditure should not be interfered with; and in the third place care should be taken to see that the examination by the Public Accounts Committee should not involve criticisms of policy. The proposals of the House of Commons Committee five or six years ago were very much of the same nature as those he was now submitting. They had not yet been carried into effect in the House of Commons; but he had no doubt they would be in due course. Some of his friends were rather enamoured of the system which the Cape had. Well, from inquiries he had made, he would not say that system had failed, or broken down; but he did think that considerable exception could be taken to the system. He was informed by the Controller and Auditor-General that, in his opinion, the system was breaking down, and that what was taking place was this—that the head of a department would, be called before the committee, and he would be asked—

said he must point out that if he allowed a debate to go on this wide subject, he must allow members on the other side to continue it. He hoped the Minister of Finance would confine his remarks to the subject matter of his motion.

said he felt satisfied that if his proposals were adopted a much more satisfactory system would be created than had hitherto been in vogue in South Africa.

said that if the Minister of Finance would, amend his motion slightly, the House could discuss the further proposals he had made in the course of his remarks. The sort of committee he had indicated to the House had much wider functions than a Public Accounts Committee. A Public Accounts Committee simply inquired into the reports presented to Parliament by the Auditor-General a year or more after the money had been expended; but if it were to deal with the national expenditure in the way the Minister had suggested, it could only be done by the Minister putting his proposals formally before the House. He thought it would be more convenient for Parliament to deal with the whole matter now.

said that either the debate could be adjourned until the subject matter on the motion on to-morow’s paper had been disposed of, or this committee could now be appointed, and notice of a further instruction could be given later on.

said that the course proposed to be adopted was to move to refer the annual statement of accounts of the Auditor-General and the railway accounts and the Estimates to the committee, as each was laid on the table.

said that if the House appointed a committee to deal with public accounts, it could not deal with anything else. Questions of public health, say, or the Estimates, could not be referred to it.

asked whether it would not be competent, if the committee were appointed, to refer to it the Estimates and the railway accounts by resolution of the House?

Such a resolution would be quite in order.

said it was quite true that the Public Accounts Committee was of considerable value, but its value was limited to dealing with accounts which were twelve or eighteen months old. It could detect errors and misdemeanours, but it could not prevent them. The committee had nothing like the same value in controlling and checking expenditure as the other committee would have. The Minister of Finance was not quite right, in one respect. It had always been the practice of the Cape Parliament to consider the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and long discussions bad taken place in Parliament on the details of that report. Then the Minister of Finance suggested that the Controller and Auditor-General, as the permanent head of the Treasury, should attend the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee. He (Mr. Walton) could only say that the plan had never been adopted in the Cape Colony, and personally he thought it very questionable. He thought me debates in committee would be far freer if the permanent officials were not present. The officials might give the committee help and information, but he did not think they should take part in the discussions of a body appointed by that Parliament to bring up a report to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the presence of a Minister on the committee, they had always had a Minister in the chair at the Cape. Such a Minister was able to give information to the committee which an ordinary member of Parliament was unable to give; and the Minister, in a few words, could give information which would dispose of a morning’s discussion, perhaps, and save several hours. In conclusion, the hon. member said that he did not intend to oppose the motion, and hoped that the Hon. the Treasurer would be able to accept his (the hon. member’s) proposal on the following day.

said that at the present time they had no indication of what public accounts meant. It was true that in the Constitution Act an Auditor-General was appointed by the Governor-General. What he wanted to be clear about was whether the Auditor-General of the Union had any power to report on the accounts of the four colonies existing previous to the Union coming into force. Some of them were aware that after the Act of Union had come into force, three of the Auditors-General of the four colonies had rapidly been got rid of, while the Auditor-General of one of the colonies had been appointed as Auditor-General of the Union. It had not been made clear to him whether the Auditor-General had the power of reporting to that House on the accounts of the different colonies for the previous years or not. The hon. member did not agree with the Minister being a member of the committee, a practice which, he said, was not followed at Home, nor in Natal, previous to Union. The practice in the latter had been to have an independent member in the chair. To his mind, it was highly improper that a Minister should be chairman of that committee, or be chairman and report upon his own acts. The course adopted in the British Parliament was that the Auditor-General presented his report to the Public Accounts Committee, which considered that report, and then presented its report to Parliament; and the latter adopted such of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee as it thought fit; and after Parliament had came to its decision the Treasurer drew up a memorandum. He thought it would be improper, and getting, as it were, behind the Public Accounts Committee, to refer the report to the Treasurer before it went to Parliament. The Controller and Auditor-General and the Treasurer ought to be present in the talking of evidence by the committee, but he did not think they should be present when the committee was considering its report.

I hope that the Hon. the Minister will, according to section 137 of the South Africa Act, repeat his remarks in Dutch.

The Speaker cannot compel an hon. member to make a speech in one language or another.

who agreed with the remarks of the hon. member for Maritzburg, said that if the Committee on Public Accounts were to be “confused ”—he must use that word— with the committee which was to examine expenditure, a difficulty must arise in dealing with the two subjects, which he thought would be very much to the disadvantage of public business. There were two methods: examination of accounts past and examination of accounts to come.

The motion was agreed to.

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the question of arranging for the production Of an official Hansard for the House: the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. Walton, Brain, Watt, H. W. Sampson, and the mover. In doing so, the mover said: Last week this House referred this matter of Hansard reporting to a Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. That committee, when it came to consider the subject, found it was so difficult and surrounded by so many other matters to be considered, that it thought it was better to have an independent committee to deal with that matter. The result is that the report was framed, and this motion of mine ideals with that now.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the debate on his amendment to add at the end of paragraph 2 of clause 10 (Status of married women and children), “and shall on application be entitled to receive a certificate to that effect from the Governor-.General.” Mr. Alexander said that he hoped the Minister of the Interior would relent somewhat, in his very harsh handling of amendments moved by hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House. The amendments were honestly intended to improve the Bill; they were not proposed with any hostility to the Government. He must confess that he was rather surprised that the Minister had adopted so hostile an attitude to what could only be considered a very reasonable amendment, and one that would improve the Bill before the House. The House was much fuller that it was on Friday last when he moved his amendment, and for that reason he would reiterate his arguments. Members would be aware that, under the Bill, as under all naturalisation Acts, if a father became naturalised, all his children who joined him in the country where he became naturalised, while under the age of 21 years, were deemed to be naturalised under his naturalisation. But there was no provision in this Bill for either including the names of the children under the naturalisation certificate at the time it was granted or giving them a supplementary certificate afterwards to show that they had been naturalised. He agreed it would be a difficult matter if his amendment proposed that the children’s names should be included in the father’s naturalisation and nothing more, because the wife and children might be abroad, and might not join him for many years. The Minister might say, “How do I know that they will join their father at all?” His amendment, however, said that when a child joined his parent, that child should be deemed to be naturalised. Now, what was the good of giving a person a right if they were not going to allow him to prove it? There was no good giving a right in the abstract if they were going to deny him the right to prove his right. He understood that the Government was bringing in this measure to facilitate naturalisation, and to give children the rights of naturalised subjects, but the Minister had said, “Where are we going to stop? He (the speaker) might as well ask that grandchildren should be included.” Now, it was obvious that grandchildren did not require a naturalisation certificate, hut this was a specific and special case, and his amendment was carrying out the principle laid down by the Minister, and was in no way in opposition to the Bill. He could not see the slightest reason for the Minister not accepting it. It was not a party measure, and in proposing amendments he was simply (actuated by a desire to make the measure more workable and to safeguard the rights of the people.

said he wished again to urge the objections which he urged on Friday last to the adoption of this amendment. In the first place let him say that although this clause was copied from other naturalisation laws existing in South Africa, and in other parts of the British Empire, there was no precedent anywhere for the amendment which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) was attempting to force upon the House. There was absolutely no precedent for such a provision, and they could understand the reason. If such a certificate were given it would not be a naturalisation certificate; it would be something quite different, and a number of questions would arise before such certificate could he issued. There, was the question of the residence of the children, and also the question of the legitimacy of the children, and these, among others, would have to be inquired into before the certificate could be issued. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) had said that he (General Smuts) gave a right, but did not give a remedy. That was not so. The remedy was there the same as in the case of any other person who was in this country, and wanted to prove that he was a British subject. He thought it would be a most difficult matter in view; of the fact that the machinery was not provided to deal with the issue of certificates. That being so, he did not think that such a departure or such a precedent should be made. He did not object to the amendment in any hostile spirit, but simply because the amendment would lead to great confusion.

said that the amendement was perfectly reasonable, and considered that the difficulties had been very much exaggerated by the Minister of the Interior.

asked what was to prevent the issue of the certificates to children as naturalised subjects. The naturalisation of a father naturalised his child, who was entitled to a certificate of naturalisation, It was only a question of issuing more certificates. He thought that the refusal of the Minister to accept the amendment was little hit discouraging to immigrants, who wanted to adopt our nationality.

supported the amendment, and appealed to the Minister to accept it.

said that if the amendment were passed, the Minister of the Interior’s office would become a pass office, and the documents which he would issue would really be only so many passes, and not letters of naturalisation. This matter, added the Minister, appeared a simple one to laymen, but lawyers could grasp its difficulties.

said he could not understand the Minister of Justice describing the certificates as passes, unless it was an ingenious attempt to make the whole thing appear unattractive, or else it was the hon. gentleman’s natural failing to refuse to give way when once he had put his foot down. (Laughter.)

pointed out that with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters, an elector must be a British subject, either born or naturalised, and it was quite open to the Registration Officer to call for proof. Natural born British subjects could produce their birth certificates, but the children of naturalised aliens would have no such proof. If they wanted these people to become citizens of this country, it was Parliament’s duty to make it easy for them.

said it was a matter for the exercise of a little common sense. The points that had been raised as to why certificates should not be given appeared to him to be satisfactory. Foreigners coming to settle here might, leave behind them families, which later on might follow them here. But the parents might be working in one part of South Africa, and their sons hundreds of miles away in another, and it might be exceedingly difficult for the latter to prove their parentage, or their rights to be recognised as citizens of this country. To the lay mind there seemed no difficulty in carrying out the amendment. If they wished to see a large population settled here, they must make the country attractive; but they would not do so if they put all sorts of difficulties in the way of people becoming naturalised. It was not a matter of party at all, but of common sense. (Hear, hear.)

expressed the opinion that the certificates would he of considerable value.

said there was a clear distinction between a child born in South Africa and one born outside the Union. He hoped the Minister of the Interior would place facilities in the way of the children of those intending making this country their home to become naturalised subjects of the Union. (Hear, hear.)

said that the House would force him to grant certificates without giving him the power to make adequate inquiry. He had no machinery to inquire into the facts. The trouble would become even greater if they did not give him enough power. He had no discretion, and yet he would be forced to issue certificates to people not entitled to them.

said that in the case of a natural born British subject a birth certificate was recognised as sufficient. In the case of an alien the Minister could surely ask for the birth certificate of the sons a man professed to have.

pointed out that the Minister was creating difficulties that did not exist. They said that if a father was naturalised, the children of that man should also be entitled to the same certificates. He considered that the Minister had the fullest power of inquiry, and he pointed out that as statements were made on oath, the responsible Minister had full control. This question of legitimacy was an entirely new phase of the subject.

said that the Minister of the Interior had been rather inconsistent in his arguments. At first the Minister, replying to the hon. member for Cape Town, had said there would be no difficulty in doing what was wanted, and now, when the point was put, he declared that a tremendous amount of extra work would devolve upon his staff. He thought that a reasonable and fair amendment had been put before the House by the hon. member for Cape Town, and that the House should not allow it to drop without a division.

thought that a birth certificate was the best proof, and the only proof that could be, or would be, demanded.

asked the Minister of the Interior to reconsider the position.

said it was necessary that the Minister should have power of inquiry.

said that the Minister bad power under the Bill as it stood. The case which it was sought to provide by this amendment was not an imaginary one; cases of the sort had actually arisen. He hoped the matter would be reconsidered, and that it would not be forced to a division that day.

said he had to bring a case of this sort before the House in the Cape before it was remedied. He assured the Government that the hardship was a real one.

said that the Bill required that applicants should be personally known to a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace. If the difficulties of the Minister were great, how much more difficult it must be for applicants to produce absolute proof?

said that if the amendment were withdrawn, he would consider the matter again and see whether something could not be done to meet the views expressed so strongly by the House

suggested that the clause should stand over.

said he was anxious to get on with the business. He could not possibly accept the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Alexander), which was absolutely unworkable.

hoped the Minister for the Interior would agree to the very reasonable request that the clause should stand over.

said he desired to get on with the Bill without delay. The other House was waiting for work. If the clause were passed now, he could draft, an appropriate amendment and move it later.

said the clause could be allowed to stand over, and they could deal with it on the third reading. There would be no unnecessary delay.

said he would move that the clause stand over. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.

moved a new clause 15 as follows: “Any alien may purchase, acquire, own and dispose of immovable property in the Union in the same manner as natural-born British subjects; provided that this section shall not qualify any alien for any office or any franchise which such alien does not now by law possess, nor entitle an alien to any right or privilege except such rights and privileges in respect of immovable property as are hereby expressly given to him.” The mover said he wished to remove any doubt which might exist in the law of this country as to the ability of aliens to own property. He referred to Act 8 of 1856. The hon. member pointed out that both Sir Thos. Upington and Mr. Leonard, who was Attorney-General of the Cape at the time, thought it was necessary to re-enact the clause in the Act of 1883, which had now been left out by the Hon. the Minister of the Interior. As the old Cape Act considered it necessary that the clause should be put in, it was not a matter of too extreme caution that it should now again be put in. The previous legislation of the Cape Colony seemed to assume that aliens do not possess these rights to own property, and so it had been thought necessary to put in a clause dealing with that matter.

said that he could not accept the amendment for several reasons. Firstly, it was not a Bill dealing with aliens, but a Bill dealing with the naturalisation of aliens. (Hear, hear.) In the second place, there was no doubt about the law whatever; there was no provision in the law such as the hon. member had referred to, and no bar under the Roman-Dutch law against an alien holding property. Thirdly, if the amendment were passed, it would abrogate a most important provision in the law in the neighbouring Provinces, where Asiatics were not allowed to hold property.

The Asiatics the hon. member refers to are British subjects; they are not aliens at all, and they were born in a portion of the British Empire. (Hear, hear.) If there is such a law as the hon. member has referred to, I am very sorry indeed to hear it, but he has evidently not allowed the Roman-Dutch Law to stand in the way. Continuing, the hon. and learned member said that if the new clause was going to result in certain consequences in the other Provinces, it could be limited so as to apply only to the Cape Province. The Hon. the Minister of the Interior repeated the whole of the Cape Act of 1883, which certainly did deal with aliens, and the repealing clause did deal with aliens. That was in answer to what the Hon. the Minister had said about the Bill not dealing with aliens.

The proposed new clause was negatived.

moved the following new clause: “15. Should any foreign State have entered into a Convention with His Majesty to the effect that subjects of that State being once naturalised as British subjects may divest themselves of their status as subjects of such foreign State, and should there be required by the laws of the State or by such Convention for such divestiture upon or after naturalisation in South Africa, residence for a period longer than the two years in section 3 of this Act referred to, or service or residence for a definite period where no period is so mentioned in that section: A certificate of special form may be applied for, such certificate to set forth upon such evidence thereof as the Minister may require, such further facts as may be required for the purposes of such divestiture of foreign status, as well as the facts required for the ordinary purposes of naturalisation.” The hon. member having explained the effect of the new clause, said that if the Hon. Minister would give an assurance that the matter would be brought before the Imperial Conference next year, he would be prepared to withdraw it.

giving the necessary assurance,

withdrew the proposed new clause.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Wednesday.

had given notice that in clause 2 he would move that the following be a further proviso: “Provided further that nothing in the preceding proviso contained shall be construed as limiting the liability of the Crown or the Government or any department thereof in respect of any fraudulent act or omission on the part of its servants, if the claim be made within the period specified, and the action be instituted subject to the conditions imposed by law.” The hon. member, however, withdrew it, saying that he understood privately from the Minister of Justice (General Hertzog, Smithfield) that he was going to introduce a General Postal Act for the whole of the Union, and that the question which he (the hon. member) had raised would be dealt with therein.

said that some anxiety existed in his constituency in regard to the assimilation of the liabilities of the various Provinces, and he would be glad to hear from the Minister of Justice a declaration of a reassuring character.

said that the liabilities would be assimilated, as the laws in the various Provinces were assimilated. They were starting with the more urgent ones, and he thought that probably 100 laws would have to be assimilated within the next year or two. With regard to the Postal Bill, he wished to say that it had been drafted, and would be laid before Parliament within the next week or two.

On clause 3.

moved, in line 16, to omit “justice” and substitute “the department concerned.”

said that a difficulty would arise in finding out who the Minister concerned was.

supported Mr. Nathan.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 4.

moved, in line 20, to omit “may” and substitute “shall.”

said he had no objection to the amendment, but he thought the word “shall” would be unusual.

said he was prepared to withdraw.

said that if the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Quinn) withdrew his amendment, he would reintroduce it. Without the amendment, the Minister concerned, after judgment had been obtained against the Government, could say, “I am not going to pay out.”

said that it was perfectly obvious that if judgment were obtained against a Minister, he would pay out. In fact he must pay out, for the sake of his position as a Minister. They were dealing with the Crown, and the insertion of the word “may” was only a matter of politeness.

said that he was opposed to the amendement. It was quite obvious that the Crown was not going to repudiate its liabilities.

With the leave of the House,

withdrew his amendment.

moved in line 20 to omit “Minister of Justice” and substitute “nominal defendant or respondent ”; and in the same line to omit “appropriate revenues” and substitute “Consolidated Revenue Fund or, if the action or proceedings be instituted against the Minister of Railways and Harbours, out of the Railway and Harbour Fund.”

thought the Governor-General’s consent would have to be obtained to the amendment, as it was one affecting expenditure.

The Bill does not order moneys to be paid.

It legalises it.

But not authorises it.

was understood to say that the matter had better remain over for the present in order that inquiry might be made into the point.

accordingly moved that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again on the following day.

The motion was agreed to.

moved in sub-section (b) to omit the following words, “or as to costs only which by law are left to the discretion of the Court and no interlocutory order.” The mover said the sub-section was going to take away a right which was conceded in clause 103 of the South Africa Act. Very often mistakes were made by judges, and with regard to interlocutory orders clause 103 of the South Africa Act gave the right to appeal from a one judge Court. The object of the sub-section in the Bill under discussion was to take away that right altogether. When they saw the number of decisions which had been upset by the Appeal Court since May 31 they ought to think twice before taking away the right of appeal, because even in regard to interlocutory orders a very important point might be concerned.

said he hoped that the amendment would not be accepted. The hon. member would admit that nowhere, had there been allowed an appeal from an interlocutory order except with the consent of the judge. He pointed out that in the South Africa Act these minor things had been overlooked at the time the measure was framed. The question of costs lay in the discretion of the judge.

said while he did not wish to embarrass the Government, the Minister had unintentionally misled the House. Section 103 laid it down with regard to appeals on the question of costs there could be an appeal without the judge making an order as to costs. He did think this was another illustration of how hasty they were in bringing these matters before Parliament at this early stage. There were many other matters which had come to his knowledge but which could not be discussed in that committee. He hoped the Minister of Justice would consent to a motion to report progress on the Bill, and to take it when there was further information.

said it was difficult for ordinary members of the House to vote in the absence of expert information He hoped the matter would be allowed to stand over, and that steps would be taken to introduce a comprehensive measure dealing with Provincial Courts, as well as the Appellate Court.

said that section 103 of the Act of Union was very clear on the point. There was nothing to take away the discretion which previously existed; the discretion was reaffirmed. In this Bill the discretion to grant leave to appeal in certain cases was again reaffirmed, and the law was not changed.

said that the measure proposed to take away the right of appeal on a question of costs.

said the point was that there was an alteration proposed in this clause of the law, which was laid down in section 103 of the Act of Union. What was proposed by this measure was that the appeals should now be made from a judgment of a Provincial Division as to costs, not upon leave given by the Court of Appeal; but upon leave given by a Judge of the Provincial Division.

hoped that the Bill would be referred to a committee.

said that what the Court of Appeal felt was that if any party felt aggrieved with regard to costs, he should first get leave from the Judge who heard the case. He thought that the provision was necessary in order to prevent vexatious appeals.

said that he could not hear what the Minister of Justice had said. Did he say that he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bechuanaiand?

was understood to reply in the negative.

said that he must protest against the way in which the Bill had been taken up. Hon. Ministers had come to them in the early days of the session in what he might call “an acute state of indigestion ”—(laughter)— as to these Bills, and tried to crush hon. members of the House, and refused to accept any amendments from them. That was really bringing the whole procedure of justice in the country into contempt. The hon. member advocated the Bill being withdrawn, and more maturely considered by a committee before being re-introduced.

Really, I do not see how the hon. member can accuse me of trying to suppress any hon. member of the House. (Laughter.) With regard to the Bill itself, I think hon. members will admit that it was drafted by those who felt the necessity of it; and, really, as I have already said, by men to whom we owe every possible debt, as far as law is concerned in South Africa, for what they have done. I can only say that this Bill has been very well weighed, and based on what was found to be necessary by Judges of Appeal. He added that, as far as he was concerned, at any rate, he would think it presumptuous on his part to say that it could be better drafted; but some of the younger hon. members of the House might be more competent, perhaps, to say that than he. (Laughter.)

said he thought the last explanation of the Minister was that he had not framed the Bill himself; but that it had been framed by some eminent legal authorities. He thought that the better plan would be to report progress, so that the Minister of Justice, in the meantime, could obtain a report from those eminent legal authorities which would explain matters. (Laughter.)

Now I begin to see why I did not get a direct reply to my question. The Minister does not quite know himself why this Bill was introduced; but certain eminent legal gentlemen desired to see it introduced (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that he did not know who those eminent legal gentlemen were to whom reference had been made; he presumed that they were the Judges of the Court of Appeal. He had the highest respect for them and their knowledge of law; but what the House was discussing was the effect of the Bill on the public, and the duty of that Parliament was to make the laws, which the Judges had to carry out. He did not think it would be the duty of the House merely to accept the whole Bill because it had been drafted by Judges. He was strongly of opinion that the amendment of the member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels), so far as it applied to costs, should be accepted by the House.

said that where the question of appeal was left to the discretion of the Judge, almost invariably leave would be refused, and he appealed to the House to accept the amendment in so faras it concerned costs.

said that the Minister was deliberately trying to alter the South Africa Act, and he appealed to him to allow the matter to stand over for more consideration.

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

said the clause was a radical innovation. It laid down a dangerous principle, viz., that the Court of Appeal would be able to hear fresh evidence. At present Courts of Appeal based their decisions on the evidence led in the Courts below. He moved, as an amendment, to delete the words entitling the Court of Appeal to hear fresh evidence.

supported the clause as printed. It was easy to contemplate the necessity of fresh evidence in order to arrive at a proper decision.

supported the amendment brought before the committee. He said he would like to know from the Minister of Justice, who was at the back of this clause, because they had never had heard of such a procedure in South Africa. It would make litigation most expensive. It was such a novel clause that he hoped the amendment would be pressed to a division.

asked who was to review the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The functions of the Court of Appeal by this clause would be set aside. It was an impossible position.

said he could assure the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) that if he erred in laying down something that was unjust he was erring in good company. This provision, so far from being a novel one, was a very old one, in the Transvaal, at any rate, and the Bench there had found from experience that it was a very wise and just provision indeed. It was also an old provision of the English law in regard to criminal procedure. But the question was whether it was a provision which would act to the detriment or to the advantage of the community. The position was that a man on appeal might find that the Court of first instance had decided on a point on which the case really ought not to have turned. The judge on appeal might find that unfortunately the judge of first instance had not quite seen what the point was on which the case should have been decided, a point perhaps of vital importance. It might be quite formal evidence which was needed to put the matter right before the Court of Appeal, and this Bill gave the Court power to take such evidence and to settle the matter without waste of expense. The alternative was to refer the case back again, and to incur all the extra cost which that would involve. The provision was made in order to save expense, and surely that should appeal to hon. members who knew the tremendous increase there had been in the cost of litigation. The Court of Appeal was not necessarily going to take long evidence. All that was done here was to give the Court power to take evidence only to the extent to which the Court found it was fair and just, and would save expense. The Court would surely act intelligently, and would not have all the evidence repeated. Litigation must be cheapened as much as possible. It would entail enormous expense to refer back an entire lawsuit from Bloemfontein to say a Circuit Court at Prieska. It was, he maintained, a wise provision, and it was one which had acted well in the Transvaal since 1804.

In how many cases?

Of course, that is difficult to say; but if there were only one case it shows that a Judge of Appeal knows it is a remedy, only to be made use of in exceptional cases. Undoubtedly, continued the speaker, unless they went with suspicion against the Court of Appeal they had no right to keep back from the Court this power, which could only be used for the benefit of the public at large.

said it was not a question at all of suspicion of the Appeal Court. It was simply a question of principle as to whether the Appeal Court should be essentially different in its operations and jurisdiction to a Court of first instance. The Appeal Court decided whether a legal decision drawn from facts was a correct decision. It had been a universal principle in the Cape Courts that there was a presumption, when an appeal was brought on a question of fact, that the judge of first instance was the best judge of that question of fact; and if it had happened, as the Minister of Justice said, that the judge of first instance had taken evidence upon a wrong legal point, it was always perfectly competent to refer the matter back to the Court of first instance to take evidence again. If it was only going to be an exceptional provision, what became of the Minister’s plea that the old procedure of referring the matter back to the Court of first instance was an expensive one, and that it piled up costs? The two things were absolutely inconsistent. The new procedure had only been brought in in the Transval in 1906, and had been brought in only once, he believed, in the four years, so that it did not seem to be of much value. Surely the Hon. Minister was not going to upset the procedure of the Cape Courts, which had been there for so long?

said that he sincerely hoped that the House would not accept the amendment, but take the clause as printed, because it now gave to litigants and the public generally a benefit which they had much required in the past, and which they had not had in the Cape. His hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Long) appealed to old custom and precedent, but what was meant to be covered by that clause was to give the Appeal Court a power, which it did not possess at present, to deal with particular cases in which they had facts presented under which there might be every possibility that if they knew one more fact or had additional evidence, it might make all the difference in the world. (Hear, hear.) That clause was intended to supply a want, and when the Court of Appeal said that it would like to know what the fact was with regard to some matter, it could call evidence. Did the hon. and learned member know that in the rules of the Supreme Court of England there was an exactly similar procedure such as that?

In the criminal law?

Both civil and criminal.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

This was agreed to.

Leave was granted to sit again to-morrow.