presented a petition from M. Rosario, ex-blacksmith striker, Table Bay Harbour Board, who served with broken periods from 1887 to 1907 and was retired with a gratuity, praying for further consideration of his case, or for other relief.

Proclamations, Department of Agriculture, Cape Colony, September 22, 1909, to May 39, 1910; principal Government Notices, Department of Agriculture, Cape Colony, for the same period; report of the Department of Agriculture, Cape Colony, for the year 1909 (G. 10 and 10a.—’10); Proclamation No. 49 of 1910, Department of Agriculture, Natal; Government Notices, Department of Agriculture, Natal, February 3, 191-0, to May 30, 1910; seventh report, Government Entomologist, Natal; Proclamations, Department of Agriculture since May 31, 1910; Government Notices, Department of Agriculture since May 31, 1910.

moved, as an unopposed motion, seconded by Mr. KRIGE: “That the Committee of the Whole House on the Naturalisation of Aliens’ Bill have leave to revert to clause four.”

Agreed to.

referring to the clause which had yesterday been allowed to stand over, said that that had been done in order to give him an opportunity of seeing whether it was possible to meet the amendment of the hon. and learned member for the Castle Division of Cape Town (Mr. Alexander) ti some way, by giving a certificate to minor children who became resident here with their parents—giving them some evidence that they were entitled to be considered British subjects in the Union. On consideration of that clause, it had not seemed possible to give such a certificate for the reason which he had already given the House; but it did seem possible to meet, the matter in another way, and that was the reason why he asked the House to revert to clause 4, and, to meet the wishes of the hon. member opposite. It was possible to insert in the naturalisation certificate of the father the names of his minor children who were and who were not resident in the Union, and once that was done, copies of the naturalisation papers of the father could always be obtained, from which it would appear who were the children who fell under the naturalisation and who did, not. All that would be required in the Bill would be an insertion of a new sub-section in clause 4, which would enable the Minister to get, evidence as to which of the minor children were resident in the Union at the time of the father’s application, for letters of naturalisation and who were not. An opening would be left to the Minister to prescribe by regulations what form it should be.

said that he was glad that the Minister of the Interior had seen fit to give that assurance, to meet the objection which had been made against the Bill on behalf of the minor children. That substantially met the objection which they (on the Opposition) had raised, because every child would now be able to prove in a very simple manner that he was entitled to be considered a British subject, if the Minister’s proposal was agreed to. The only evidence a child would now have to bring would he evidence of identification.

The hon. and learned member withdrew his amendment.

The committee reverted to clause 4.

moved the following new sub-section (d) in clause 4: “Furnish such evidence as the Minister may require as to the name, sex, age and place of birth of each of his minor children (if any), who, at the time of his application are (1) resident with him in the Union, and (2) not resident, in the Union.”

This was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered

and other hon. members objected.

said that he understood that the Opposition would not object.

said that there was no such obligation on me part of the Opposition.

said that the rule was that where amendments were made to a Bill in committee, these amendments had to be printed, so that they could be considered by the House. Of course, where there were trivial or merely verbal amendments, the practice was that no opposition was taken to the amendments being at once considered; but he saw that there were a considerable number of amendments to that Bill; and he would suggest that time should be taken for their consideration.

said that the most substantial amendment to the Bill had been printed on the paper for that day, and the other amendments had been merely verbal ones. Speaking for himself, he would be glad to get the Bill to its final stage that day, and he had no wish to oppose the Minister of the Interior as to the amendments being now considered.

moved that the amendments be considered on Friday.

seconded, This was agreed to.

said that although they had been twitted by the lawyers on the other side of the House, they (the lawyers on the Opposition) had not had anything to say in that debate, because they had felt some diffidence, having been accused on the day before of taking up too much time; and he really thought that it was incumbent upon them to combat some of the statements which had been made by some of the lawyers on the other side of the House. The hon. and learned member thought that the Minister of the Interior was almost as good a hand at drawing a red herring across the trail as their old friend the Minister for Harbours and Railways. (Laughter.) The previous day the Minister of Justice had dragged, in by the heels the question of the Control of primary education by the Provincial Councils, and he thought that none of them on that (the Opposition) side of the House would be in favour of taking primary education out of the hands of those Councils, as the Minister of Justice had accused them of the day before. All they on his side of the House said, was that if illegalities were being perpetrated by any officer of the Union of South Africa, there should be somebody who could call that officer to account, and he thought that Parliament had a perfect right to express the opinion that a certain officer had been breaking the law. They were referred by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) to the law courts, but it was a nice question as to who would have a Locus standi in the courts in Much a matter. There might be a decision by the Court that the action of the Administrator in this matter was unconstitutional and illegal, just as the Supreme Court of the Transvaal had decided that, the payment of £300 to the members of the late Transvaal Assembly was, but had hold that those who petitioned the Court had no locus standi. He thought they ought to say who had authority to deal with this matter. Under the Act of Union, the Administrator was an officer appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council, and was therefore under the control to some extent of the Ministry in power. Further than that he was only removable by the Governor-General-in-Council, and it was clear that so far from him being a provincial officer, as the Minister of Railways had said, he was an officer of Parliament, and they were entitled to bring to the notice of Parliament his actions. He did not know whether the Administrator had been instructed to postpone calling his Provincial Council together—

called Mr. Struben to order.

said that he wished to know whether they had any right to bring to the notice of the House any act, legal or otherwise, performed by the Administrator, and whether the Administrator was an official under the control of Parliament. Remembering what had happened in regard to the payment of the £300 to members of Parliament in the Transvaal, he would ask: Who would bring this matter before the Court? Would he be the Director of Education? Obviously not, because he gave it as his opinion that there was no illegality. Could one of the School Boards? He submitted a Board could not, because it would be held on a technicality that it was not prejudiced. Looking at the matter from a constitutional point of view, the only person that could raise the question was Parliament, and he submitted that they were quite in order in bringing the matter before the House in the way they had, and that they wore quite justified if an illegality had been committed, in pointing out that illegality am calling upon Government to do its duty by seeing that the law was carried out.

said that no good purpose could be served by continuing the debate, and accordingly moved that the question be now put.

seconded.

said he rose to express surprise at the statement which had been made by the Minister of Education on the previous day. As he had understood him, he said that a similar practice had been in vogue in the Cape Province for two or three years past. If he had understood him rightly, he meant to say that the question of school sites and buildings during the last two or three years had not in the first instance been referred to the Superintendent-General of Education, but had been referred to some other department, presumably the Public Works Department. He wished to give the Minister an opportunity of correcting what he had been reported to have said, but he was sure he would agree with him that if any School Board in the Cape Province were to send its application first to the Public Works Department that department would give it a rub over the knuckles, and refer it to the proper quarters.

said that there was a great difference between the Cape and Transvaal systems. In the Cape school buildings and sites were acquired by three trustees, whereas in the Transvaal there was a national Government system, and buildings were acquired by a Government department.

said there seemed to be a good deal of misunderstanding about the circular that had been issued.

On a point of order—is the hon. member in order to continue the debate?

Oh, yes. (Laughter.)

said there were two points that prompted him to rise on this question. The first was that when lawyers on that side of the House took part in a debate, they were twitted on the other side; and, in fact, one paper said they talked too much. For that reason they kept silent. (Laughter.) But it seemed that some of the hon. members were not satisfied that they should continue mute, and consequently he rose to make some remarks. He would like to point out that it was perfectly clear that that circular was in contravention of section 59 of the Education Ordinance of 1907. It said the Board shall advise the department on all matters connected with school accommodation in a district. The course that had been adopted had been a contravention of that section. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Neser) that there had only been a technical breach, but he thought the House and the country were indebted to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) for bringing it before the House. The point was, whether the House had, or had not, the jurisdiction to deal with matters such as contraventions of the law. It was said that they were endeavouring to tamper with the South Africa Act Section 85, sub-section 3, said that the Provincial Council “may,” not “shall,” deal with Education other than higher education for a period of five years. He submitted that it was in the province of this House, in ease an Administrator committed a breach of the law, to bring to the notice of the country the fact, because it was perfectly clearly provided that if he did so, it was the duty of the Governor-General-in-Council to take cognisance of it, and deal with him and if he had committed anything serious to dismiss him, and bring it to the notice of the House. He thought that in having the attention of the House drawn to the matter, the motion had achieved its purpose, and felt sure that no further breaches of the law would take place.

said that the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) asked them to affirm two propositions. One was that a certain Act of the Administrator of the Transvaal was contrary to the provisions of the law, and the other was that the Act should be withdrawn. He could not see any force whatever in the contentions of the hon. member, who said that no one would have any locus standi. It seemed to him that he absolutely condemned his own argument by the case cited by him. He cited a case from the Transvaal, where it was ruled that no advocate had any locus standi, but in that very case the Court laid down that the Act was illegal. That was all they required. All they required was some authority that would enable them to say that the circular shall be withdrawn. If it was illegal, he thought the House would see at once that no illegal act was committed by the Administrator. But they should not ask them to say that this, or that, or the other Act was in contravention of the law or not. The next point raised was that this circular should be withdrawn. It appeared to them that the whole effect of it was to say that a certain application should go to a different department than laid down. He wished to enter a most emphatic protest on the position taken up by the Minister of Education when he said that the Administrator for the Transvaal resented his act being questioned by the House. The powers of the Administrator had been laid down by the House, and they certainly had full right to criticise the acts of the various Administrators of the various Provinces, just as much as they had the right to question any arbitrary action of any servant of the Union. But it appeared to him that there was something behind the motion. He thought the right course the hon. member should have adopted would have been to put a motion on the paper calling attention to the delay in the bringing together of the Provincial Councils. There was a feeling that it had been unduly delayed. The South Africa Act said that the Executive Committees, on behalf of the Provincial Councils, should carry on the work, and further said that until they met its administration Khalil be carried on by Administrators. But it contemplated that the Provincial Councils would be called together at an early date, and that the government of the colony would not be carried on single-handed, and that was the point the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) might have nailed his motion to. But at present it seemed puerile to ask them to take up the motion.

said there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to whether this matter was one of injustice or not. He was quite prepared to follow the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who had had a great deal of experience on School Boards in this country, and who said it was important. Whether it was or was not it seemed there was no question that the motion had been made of great importance by the action taken by some of the members. They had been told it was not their business, and that they were interfering. He thought it would be disastrous for this country if at this early stage of the new Constitution, anything whatever was decided with regard to Provincial Councils to justify the belief that they had the exclusive right to deal with education or any other subject in the South Africa Act. They were told that the difference between the Canadian Constitution and this was that the Provinces in South Africa had no exclusive rights, and that was perfectly right. The Minister for Railways and Harbours said the other day that education had been specially reserved to Provincial Councils for a period of five years. Anyone looking at the South Africa Act would see it did not stay that. The Provincial Councils were entrusted with primary education, in the same way as they were entrusted with anything else. The only difference was that education was limited to five years. Now, why should that give them any exclusive right with regard to education, which they had not in regard to anything else? It was on the same footing as any other matter. If they had any special reservation or exclusive jurisdiction, then they had the same with any other matters which they had to deal with. He strongly protested against that idea that because the Provincial Councils were limited to a period of five years they were entirely out of sight of the jurisdiction of this House. He further thought it was incumbent on this House to be most careful as to how it took up this matter regarding the exclusive jurisdiction with regard to this matter of education or any other. Then they had been told that they could go to the Court, but he considered that the very instance that was quoted should hinder and deter them from going to the Court. As in that instance no remedy was obtained, so the result would be in this case. He also protested against the suggestion that because all hon. members were not lawyers, the House Should not express any opinion. He said that the House had every right to express such an opinion. He thought that this question came within the province of the House, and that the hon. member who had moved was quite right in asking the House to express an opinion.

said that never in all his Parliamentary experience had he seen such an insignificant matter occupy the attention of a House for so long a period; that was, if the question had been adhered to, but they now saw the cloven hoof appear. Some of the hon. members were right when they said they saw something behind the question. He thought it would have been better had the House carried a vote of thanks to the Administrator for the way he had hurried on things. He wanted to put it clearly that if that was the correct interpretation, that the Act of Union, by clearly stating that certain matters were distinctly referred to the Provincial Councils was a blind only that this Union Parliament could go behind and overrule the Provincial Councils, it would be a distinct and a gross breach of faith towards the smaller colonies which had entered the Union. He would not go into the whole question, but he simply raised a protest against such a construction being placed on the Act of Union, because of the breach of faith that was involved. He went on to refer to the Transvaal Act, which stated that a Director of Education should be appointed by the Governor, and be subject to the direction and control of the Minister. The question was: Who was the Minister for the purpose? So they had to look into the Act of Union. It stated that certain matters were delegated to the Provincial Councils, and from his reading he took it that the Administrator was the Minister for the purpose referred to in the Act. The Act complained of was simply a matter of administration pure and simple a question of acting on business principles. Don’t let them see danger behind when there was no danger. It was merely a short, cut to do business in a business like way and out of it had arisen all this hullabaloo, which had wasted the time of the House.

said it was proverbial that short cuts were dangerous, and this was one of the dangerous short cuts. He pointed out, that had the question been so insignificant as had been suggested, it would not have appeared on the paper. It was because they saw behind what, the Minister had called the cloven hoof that they had deliberately placed this question on the paper, with a view to having the matter thrashed out in the House, and showing, if possible, the cloven hoof behind. Nobody on the other side of the House had denied that the action was illegal; but the cloven hoof lay in the fact that if the law was allowed to be broken in insignificant matters, it would be broken in more important matters. He (the hon. member) had been a member of the Witwatersrand School Board, and though he could with pleasure say that they dealt with a fair-minded Minister, they had to jealously guard their rights and privileges, else these might have disappeared. They wanted the law carried out as far as possible literally; once the law was broken, they had a right to bring the matter to the notice of the House. Their safeguard was the law.

said that the Minister of Lands had mentioned that that was a very trivial matter and a waste of time. Just to show who had wasted the time, it was worth while to call attention to this: that notice had been given on Friday last to the Government, and the Government could have provided itself at least with the circular, and the Minister of Justice could easily have got up and said that that had or had not been in accord with the law, and stopped the discussion. If he had said it was not in accord with the law, he could have given notice to the Administrator that he should stop that practice. There had been a shirking of the question by the Government, and the Hon. the Minister for Railways had made One of those five-minutes-to-six speeches the previous afternoon, and had not dealt with the merits of the matter.

There were none to deal with. (Laughter.)

went on to say that when it had been stated that they on the Opposition had deliberately been trying to cause ill-feeling between the Provincial Councils and that Parliament, he might point out to the hon. member that they were protecting the rights of the Provincial Councils, which had not yet had the right of exercising them. If the Government had called the Provincial Councils together, and they had had a chance of electing an Executive Council, it would have been a different matter. They had been told that, that Parliament had no right, to intervene. They had heard the Minister of the Interior talking of his fondness for Oriental methods of the Minister of Justice being in favour of autocratic methods at times, and the Minister of Lands saying that a short cut to evade the law was a good thing to save time. (Laughter.) Clause 86 of the Constitution said that any Ordinance made by the Provincial Councils should have effect in that Province as long, and as far only, as it was not repugnant to any Act of Parliament. Well, he took the Act of Union to be an Act of Parliament, and the Act of Union said that the existing laws should stand. It, did not state that the Administrator had the power to alter any Act; and if it could be done in a little thing, it could also be done in a big thing. He had heard, with the utmost amazement, the statement that the Central Parliament had no power—a statement made by a gentleman who, a few days ago, had talked of maintaining the military system and sovereign Parliament.

said something about pin-pricks.

Protecting the rights of the Provincial Councils and maintaining the law are not pin-pricks. If it was laid down that we, as a Parliament, have no right to deal with these matters, we should not do so. The cloven hoof which the hon. gentlemen referred to is again peeping out. (Laughter.)

explained to the House what the result is of “voting on the previous question.”

The “previous question” was put and negatived.

in moving the second reading, said that that was another of those small consolidating Bills which were now being brought before the House to render legislation uniform throughout the Union. At present there were 17 different Statutes in the Union dealing with marriage, and although there was a general similarity in the different Provinces, there were also marked differences, which he thought it would be very essential to do away with in the Union. The hon. member proceeded to point out some of the principal differences which he said it would be useful to do away with without delay. In the first place, with regard to persons who were under the law, allowed to marry each other, there were provisions making it permissible for a surviving spouse to marry his deceased wife’s sister in two of the Provinces, but not in the other two. It was clear that a state of affairs like that in South Africa could not be perpetuated, and it was the object of the Bill to assimilate that provision for the whole of South Africa. He thought it would be the most important provision in the Bill which would allow a man in the Union to marry his deceased wife’s sister, and a woman to marry her deceased husband’s brother. Again, in the Cape Province a Christian Minister was, ipso facto, a marriage officer; but a Jewish or a Mohammedan minister had to be specially appointed, and Magistrates were ex-officio marriage officers. In Natal, however, the latter had specially to be appointed. In the Free State, ministers, priests, and missionaries, who were authorised by the Government as marriage officers, could celebrate marriages; but a Magistrate could not be appointed except by special order, when there was no minister in the place. In the Transvaal all Magistrates were, ex-officio, marriage officers, and all other persons had to be specially appointed. He thought that the Transvaal law in that respect should be the law of the Union. There were at present anomalies in regard to special licences, and if a marriage were to be consummated by special licence in the Orange Free State an Executive Council resolution had first to be obtained. In some of the Provinces there were separate laws dealing with the marriage of coloured people, and in that Bill it was intended to have a uniform law.

said that the Bill made no provision for the case where one of the parties was on the high seas. Under the present law both parties had to remain three weeks in the country or go to the expense of obtaining a special licence before they could be married. He suggested that the Minister should amend sub-section 4 of clause 9 so as to require persons who wished to get a special licence to make a declaration not only in the form “ A” in the second schedule of the Act, but in such other forms as the regulations might prescribe. In clause 22 the Governor-General in Council had power to make regulations, and he hoped the Minister would adopt this suggestion and make regulations which were suitable to the special circumstances of Natal, because if the Bill were passed as it stood it would simply be impossible for any widow or widower in Natal to get a special licence.

welcomed the Bill because it removed the existing differences in provincial laws. The latter often led to marriages between parties from the Transvaal, for instance, being solemnised in the Free State where certain restrictions did not operate. He wanted to know whether clergymen who were appointed marriage officers became Civil Servants. Formerly, the contracting parties first went to the Magistrate; it was only after the civil marriage that members of religious congregations had the marriage solemnised in church, but it appeared that now-a-days clergymen were the only officers required. He warned against that state of affairs, because in by-gone ages the Roman Catholic Church had a monopoly as far as the solemnisation of marriages were concerned, and the State had all its work cut out when it decided to change that. Another objection to the Bill was that it allowed mixed marriages to go on. The Transvaal Act of 1878 prohibited marriages between whites and coloured people, and in Committee he would move an amendment with the same end in view.

asked whether the Minister wished to deprive coloured persons in the Transvaal entering into legal marriages from having recourse to the ordinary courts of law in case they desired to institute an action for divorce, because that would be the effect of the Bill if it were passed into law in its present form.

said that the Bill opened the door for some sensible and up-to-date legislation. He suggested that marriages should not be solemnised between persons until they had produced certificates that they were physically fit. He protested against the publication of banns, and said that, nominally, in the Australian law there was a provision for licences, but it meant nothing. He could not understand why, here, the fee should be so high as £6. Regarding the marriage of cousins, he considered that the clause relating to it should not be allowed to remain in the Act. Dr. W. B. Carpenter had given figures in support of his contention against such marriages, but they had been confuted. It was the House’s duty to see that the marriage of the unfit was prohibited, and a clause dealing with that should be introduced into the Bill. He was not interested in sentiment—in what was called love— (laughter)—but was in the future of the nation and the perpetration of the race. They should do away with that £5 fee for special licences, for it was a tax on marriage. He hoped the Minister would take his suggestions into consideration, but did not hope for success, for there was too much human nature involved.

asked why the Minister had omitted, in this “consolidating” Bill, to insert the Transvaal provision, prohibiting mixed marriages. In his (the speaker’s) constituency there were but few white people, but half a million of natives—not “coloured” people, such as one found in other parts of the Union. These raw natives ostracised any of their own people who mixed with whites. The feeling against intermarriage was very strong even among them, and for that reason the old Transvaal prohibition had never led to any difficulty. He trusted the hon. member for Rustenburg would move his amendment when the time came, but he would warn the hon. member against the use of the term “of European descent,” because it was a delusion and a snare. Another objection to the Bill was the power given to a Court to authorise a girl’s marriage, despite the father’s wishes.

also wanted to know why the prohibition of mixed marriages had not been included in the Bill.

said that, so far from agreeing with the hon. member for Zoutpansberg on the subject of the father’s consent, he considered the provision for the authority of the Court to prevail where consent was unreasonably withheld a very useful one. A recent case in the Transvaal had demonstrated this. A father refused to consent to his daughter’s marriage on frivolous grounds. The Court was of opinion that he should not have refused, but it had no power to alter the father’s decision. He was opposed to cousins marrying, and would move an amendment in Committee accordingly.

said that in regard to clause 2, there was a modification which should not be. It was legal for a widower to marry his deceased wife’s sister, and with that he agreed. But there was a limit. Although a man could do that the Bill made it illegal for him to marry his deceased wife’s sister if she happened to be the widow of his deceased brother. There was no blood relation there, so why should there be a restriction? They allowed cousins to marry, and so thought the Bill might be altered in this respect.

said he did not think that the question of native marriages should concern them at the present time. He supported the measure.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

The committee stage was set down for Friday.

moved the following amendment, of which he had given notice: In line 20 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.”

On a point of order, is there a quorum present?

thought that there was not.

What is a quorum?

Thirty.

A few hon. members having come in, the necessary quorum was present, and the business was proceeded with.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered on Friday.

seconded.

This was agreed to.

said he would like to point out to the hon. member who had moved the amendment that the Bill was not an innovation at all. The power objected to had existed in the Transvaal for some years. It had been taken over simply in order to save litigants considerable expense. Cases might occur in which the Court of Appeal would see that, by examining a single witness, they could decide without referring the matter back to the Court of first instance. In England the same principle prevailed, and he trusted the amendment would not be pressed.

said that to be guided by affidavits ex parte without the right of cross-examination or replying affidavits would be giving too great power. As to what the Minister of Justice had said about the Supreme Court of England, the final Court of Appeal there was the House of Lords or the Privy Council.

I should have thought that this was the most important thing of all, because the evidence which will be required on affidavit will be the kind of formal evidence which is very necessary to come to a decision at any point, but sending back to the Court of first instance is totally superfluous and very costly.

said he was not yet convinced that the clause in question would not lead to more expense for both parties, instead of to less. In most cases it would be cheaper for a lawsuit to be heard for the second time in the local court than to be sent to Cape Town or Bloemfontein for final decision. Though his conviction remained unshaken, he would withdraw the amendment.

asked the Minister of Justice for particulars regarding the working of the clause.

replied (inaudible).

disagreed with the last speaker. He thought that litigation would be cheapened, because evidence would only be called on the direction of the Judges.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved a proviso to clause 4, provided that the Appellate Division shall not have power to receive further evidence, as aforesaid, except by consent of both parties to the case. He felt certain that the Minister would accept this proviso, because it did not affect the question of cost, and did not affect the power of the Appellate Division.

expressed sorrow that he did not think he could consent to the amendment. If a man thought he had any chance of appeal, he would do everything except consent to this. The Court of Appeal was the highest court in the land, and he could not see that it should be restricted as to the taking of evidence where no such restriction was placed on any court below. He could quite imagine that some persons would like that very much, but really did not think that they should institute anything of that sort. It would frustrate the whole idea. He hoped the hon. member would see that it was going to be a restriction, not worthy of the Court of Appeal. The Court was either competent to take evidence in the first instance, or it was not. If it was not, they should not give it the right at all; and if it was, they should not place restrictions on the Court of Appeal.

said the Minister of Justice talked about restricting the powers of the Court of Appeal, but those powers would not be given until this clause was passed, and at that moment the Appellate Division had no power to call evidence. Therefore, it was absurd to talk about restricting the powers of the Appellate Division, when they were extending them, and this restriction was simply a restriction on that very extension. What the Minister of Justice wanted was simply to extend the powers of the Appellate Division to make them equal to the Court in the first instance, as regarded the calling of fresh evidence. Now he (Mr. Long) was proposing to give them that power, but only to call fresh evidence when both parties were agreeable. If they put in this proviso, they would take the whole sting out of the clause. If there was some important point in a case on which fresh evidence might be taken, then both sides would be equally willing to have fresh evidence called. It was absurd to say that they would never have consent given by both sides. He hoped the Minister of Justice, on having had time to consider this proviso, would see that, as a matter of fact, it was going to aid the appellant, and was going to rob the clause of its very serious objection.

said that his experience of advocates was that they wanted to win their cases as soon as possible, and, in the first instance. But granted that Mr. Long was right, let him put this to him. He (Mr. Long) had no objection to the Court of Appeal referring a case back when further evidence was required to the Court in the first instance without the consent of the parties. Well, the same card the barrister had up his sleeve for the Court of Appeal could be up his sleeve for the Court in the first instance. He thought the last argument of his hon. friend went to show that this proviso was superfluous.

said there was a very great distinction between referring cases back to the Court in the first instance and the almost trivial matter of sending a case down for taking a certain deposition before a Commissioner. There was a very serious difference, with regard to the consent of both parties, his argument was that it was very often done, and it would give the one side the right to refuse to call fresh evidence.

The proviso of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:—

moved that the word “sue” be deleted in line 33, and that the word “proceed” be inserted. The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

moved: In line 12 omit “any such,” and substitute “the law”; in line 13 omit “inconsistent with the context,” and substituite “the contrary intention therein appear.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3,

In reply to an hon. member,

said that he thought the definition given in the clause of “Gazette” was quite sufficient. He moved as an amendment, in lino 28 omit “and,” and in fine 29 omit the whole of paragraph (c).

said it seemed to him that there was ground for the objection raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan). There was no trouble with regard to laws established after Union, but in the case of laws which had been in force before Union the question arose as to where notices and regulations in these laws were to be published.

asked that the clause be allowed to stand over.

This was agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 were verbally amended.

moved the deletion of clause 11. He stated that this was a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Treasury, and would be dealt with by the Treasury.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 13,

said he thought that this was a thing that applied to the civil rights of man, and should not be placed in an Interpretation Bill.

asked the Minister of Justice to take that particular portion of the Act, because he was shortly going to introduce an Act to consolidate the criminal laws.

said the only difficulty was that it was in the Interpretation Clause in the Free State. It was not found anywhere else. When they consolidated those laws they must either take it up here, or say in this Act “repeal the Free State,” or leave that section standing.

urged the Minister to reconsider the question, seeing that he was consolidating the law relating to criminal procedure. It was a novel thing for the Government to extend a Free State Ordinance throughout the Union. It was not needed, and it seemed a case of patchwork legislation.

said he thought the provision was as fair as the one taken from the old Cape Colony laws.

thought that it might be put in another part of the measure.

said that if he were to stand up and defend the clause on its merits, he would be pleased to do so, because he thought that it was an exceedingly fair provision.

said he was afraid he was misunderstood. He quite agreed with General Hertzog. He came to his aid, and received a rebuke. (Laughter.)

said that under the Act a man could be prosecuted twice. It only said he could not be punished twice. He moved, to meet the case, that “prosecution or” be inserted before the word “punishment.”

Does the hon. member mean that either means both? (Laughter.)

The Hon. the Minister may not see the point. It is a perfectly simple one. None is so blind as those who won’t see. Let me point out that if the Bill had shopped at the words “common law,” it would have been quite clear.

Of course, English is not my language. I would leave it to my hon. friend to say what should be. (Laughter.)

said that if everything after the word “but” had been deleted, it would have been all right.

supported the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). The words after “but” were unnecessary, and created a doubt as to what had gone before. What was the sense of putting in the words?

remarked that the word “but” should have been “and.” Would that suit the hon. member?

No. The hon. member pointed out that the meaning was not clear, and doubts would be created by the words after “but.”

On the motion of Dr. L. S. JAMESON (Albany), progress was reported, and leave asked to sit on the following day.