from F. T. Brown, gaoler, Elliotdale.

from residents of Benoni, Transvaal, asking for the completion of the Benoni—Welgedacht railway.

as chairman, brought up the seventh report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and moved that the report and evidence be printed, and considered on Friday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that when this debate was adjourned yesterday, the question before the House was a motion by Mr. C. L. Botha: That in the opinion of this House the publication in the “Sunday Times” of the 2nd instant of an account purporting to be a report of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Miners’ Phthisis Bill and of the attitude of the members of the committee when dealing with the subject matter of their inquiry, constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House, and the House therefore resolves that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the matter, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of six members, such members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker.

By direction of Mr. SPEAKER,

read a letter of apology from F. W. Spencer, dated the 7th instant, addressed to Mr. Speaker as follows: —

June 7, 1912.

The Hon. Sir J. T. Molteno, Speaker, House of Assembly.

Sir,—In view of the discussion which took place to-day, relative to an article appearing in the “Sunday Times” of 2nd inst., I wish at once to take upon myself the whole responsibility for authorship of that article. No member of the Select Committee, no official of the House, directly or indirectly, supplied me with any information.

The facts are, that in the hurry of despatching a long telegram to the “Sunday Times” on the Saturday evening, re miners’ phthisis, I allowed my knowledge of what had occurred in the committee to creep in. It was a slip to which I ought not to have been liable, but it occurred, and I have nothing more to add in extenuation.

There was not the least intention of infringing the privileges of Parliament, and nobody regrets the fault more than does

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) F. W. SPENCER.

I may add that it becomes necessary every session to obtain outside assistance in connection with the business of the House and at the beginning of the present session the South African Reporting Bureau’s tender was accepted for assisting with the reporting of evidence given before Select Committees. The two gentlemen, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Prior, who performed this work during the present session on behalf of the Bureau, and both of whom have performed similar work previously for the late Cape House of Assembly, are fully acquainted with the rules governing Select Committee work. Up to the present they have performed their work in an efficient manner and have given no cause for complaint.

said that in view of the letter which had been written by Mr. Spencer, he hoped the mover of the resolution would recognise that as far as the House was concerned, and the officers of the House, its object had been attained, and that he would therefore consent to the withdrawal of his motion. As regarded the principle which was involved, he could not take the view that it was a light matter for an officer who was in a special fiduciary position in connection with work of a Select Committee to divulge anything that happened in that committee, or to reflect on the conduct of members. (Hear, hear.) If the discussions of Select Committees were open to the public, and it was known that they were open to the public and the Press, members would conduct themselves accordingly, but so long as the rule was that the proceedings of Select Committees were of a private and confidential nature, he thought it was not in the interests of members that things of this kind should be allowed. On the merits of the case he had gone carefully through the article, and he did not find that the reflections on members of the committee were of a serious nature. He thought the House would be prepared to accept the statement of Mr. Spencer that it was done in a hurry and by inadvertence, and not intentionally. He suggested that the motion should be withdrawn and the matter left in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

said that he concurred with what had been said by the Minister. He had been informed that this matter was not written by a member of that House or a member of the Select Committee. In the circumstances he would withdraw, and leave the matter in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

The motion was thereupon withdrawn.

moved to add the following new sub-clauses (2) and (3): “(2) The judge of the provincial division of the Cape of Good Hope assigned and appointed under section 5 of Act No. 29 of 1906 of the Cape of Good Hope to the Griqualand local division, and any officer of that local division may be required by the Governor-General to act as judge (or officer as the case may be) of any other provincial division or any other local division: (a) during so much of the vacation prescribed for the Griqualand local division by law or rule of court as is not occupied with the despatch of criminal business; and (b) during so much of the terms so prescribed as is not occupied with the despatch of civil or criminal business. (3) Nothing in the laws relating to the administration of justice in the Cape of Good Hope or in any rule of court shall be construed as requiring the continual presence at Kimberley of the judge assigned and appointed as aforesaid to the Griqualand local division.”

moved to insert the word “West” after “Griqualand.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

New clause 17,

moved that the following be anew clause to follow clause 16: “17. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law contained, the Eastern Districts Local Division shall have exclusive jurisdiction to bear and determine appeals in criminal cases from the decision of any court sitting within the territories known as the Transkei. Tembuland Proper, Emigrant Tembuland, Gcalekaland, Bomvanaland, Griqualand East, Pondoland, and Port St. John’s, subject always to such further appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court with the special leave thereof, as is authorised under section one hundred and five of the South Africa Act, 1909.” The mover explained that his amendment dealt purely with the Native Territories. His reason for moving this was that the Judges of the Eastern Districts Court were judges that went into these Native Territories, and had gathered large experience, and he considered that they were best able to understand the native mind. There were a large number of cases also for review, and all those which practically affected the native could be dealt with by these judges.

accepted the amendment.

thought the Minister had better inform the House why he accepted this amendment, because it was exactly on the same footing as other questions that had been allowed to stand aside. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Minister would be well advised to let the matter stand over, because as the Provinces now existed, he did not think the Minister ought to deal with such a matter, involving unknown issues, in a light and airy way.

said that probably the public in Cape Town might not hold the Eastern Districts Court in such great respect as they did, but they were very proud of the Court, and judges of their Court got to know things that they would be unable to know under the shadow of Table Mountain. A certain knowledge and experience was required in dealing with matters connected with the Native Territories, and the amendment did not ask a great deal. He hoped it would be accepted.

said he did not think for a moment that no proper respect was intended to the Eastern Districts Court, but just when the Union was started it was known definitely how things would shape. There was nothing to prevent, in the present state of the law, the clients from taking their cases to the Eastern Districts Court and not to Cape Town They did not propose to take away any dignity from the Eastern Districts Court. He did not see any reason why the matter should be tinkered with, when by common consent it had been allowed to stand over in another place.

said any suitor in the Territories had entire freedom to appeal to the Eastern Districts Court. Why should they make it obligatory on suitors to go to the Eastern Districts Court?

It will save expense.

said he was not sure about that. He protested against the action of the Minister in accepting the amendment.

said he was very much surprised at the argument of the hon. member for Caledon. Personally he was sorry civil cases were not included. The judges of the Supreme Court were not fully occupied, and it would be a good thing to transfer some of the work to Graham’s Town.

said they must not consider what the legal profession wanted, but what the public wanted, and the public of the Eastern Province said they did not want the proposal. Meetings had been held in the Eastern Province towns, and the majority of these were against the change, and had protested against it. The Chief Justice had very clearly indicated that the change would be an inroad on the Act of Union: Why should a man, if he had more confidence in the judges in Cape Town, not have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, and vice versa? The proposal was a very serious inroad on the Act of Union. He hoped members before voting would read the evidence given before a Select Committee of the Senate. One witness stated that the people at Britstown, although they had the right to go to Graham’s Town, preferred to come to Cape Town. And exactly the same arguments applied to the Territories. When the Act of Union was passed, the Supreme Court was shorn of some of its powers in that all appeals from the other Courts now went direct to the Appeal Court. And now it was proposed to take away more powers. The proposal was a serious interference with the rights of litigants. The House should not listen to the advice of the lawyers, who might be interested. (Laughter.) To suggest that the mind of the natives of the Eastern Districts was so constituted that their cases would be much better treated by Graham’s Town than Cape Town gave the whole case of the hon. member away, because he did not want to give the natives of the Territories even a chance of coming to Cape Town. He hoped the Minister would not accept this amendment, because it would be a most serious interference with the rights of people in a large portion of this Province, and unless they had overwhelming proof that the public wanted the change, they had no right to pass the amendment. The only people who were asking for it were the lawyers of Graham’s Town. (Cheers.)

said that he must correct something which he had said about the attitude of the Chief Justice in regard to this matter. He had been rather misled, and he found that the Chief Justice was dealing with certain other points, one of which had to do with the competency of the Eastern Districts Court to rehabilitate an insolvent. He was, therefore, wrong in saying what he did with regard to that matter. Although he had accepted the amendment, he a little sorry now that he had done so—(hear, hear) —not because he did not fully sympathise with his hon. friend, for he thought that this was a wise amendment. He thought that when they were dealing with the Kafir districts, no better Court could be found than a Court where the Judges were constantly in contact with native cases. He would ask his hon. friend not to insist upon his amendment. (Hear, hear.) He would tell him why. For the simple reason that he had gone through the Upper House, and he knew the state of feeling. As the hon. member knew, he (the Minister) did his best to do for the Eastern Districts Court what he still thought was due to it. He knew there were a great many there in that House who did not mix up, but he still thought more was due to the Eastern Districts Court and the inhabitants of the Eastern districts than they had received—(hear, hear)—but this was a sub-division of the whole question of the concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court. He knew what a tremendous feeling had been aroused in the Cape Colony on account of his ill-advised attempt at the time. He had not the least doubt that by far the majority of the members of this House would give this, but, unfortunately, when they came again to another place, it would be found that a tremendous opposition would be raised against it, an opposition which, on a minor point, would bring about a state of feeling in the Cape Colony which, he must honestly say, he would not like to see brought about.

said he must admit that he did not know what the position of the Minister of Justice was. (Hear, hear.) This amendment had been on the paper a long time, and the position the Minister took up to-day seemed rather a doubtful one. It seemed that he would like to support the amendment and at the same time leave it alone. They had had a most excited and eloquent speech from the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, but he would point out that, apart from the evidence of Mr. Cilliers, of Britstown, there appeared to be very little evidence before the committee in favour of maintaining the present position of affairs. As to Britstown, that place was so far removed geographically from the Eastern Districts proper that he thought it might very well form part of the Western Province. He had the greatest respect for the Chief Justice, but in regard to his knowledge of Eastern Districts requirements, he might mention that, to his knowledge, during the past thirty years the Chief Justice had only sat in the Eastern District twice. They had to remember that the Judges of the Eastern Districts Court had exceptional opportunities of becoming thoroughly conversant with native laws and customs, and were thus especially qualified to deal with cases from the Native Territories. As to the point that they were going behind the report of the committee of the other House, he had yet to learn that either House was guided by the report of any committee of the other House. Continuing, he said that he lived hundreds of miles away from the Native Territories, and he had no personal interest in it whatever, but he was more concerned with keeping up the dignity of the Court. What was the position in Cape Town? The Court had too much work to do. Could there be a member for the Eastern Districts who would say that he did not want it? He made bold to say that every member of the Eastern Province would be found to support that amendment. The hon. Minister had admitted that it was just, but wanted to sacrifice justice for expediency.

said that the whole of his constituency fell under that proposal, and what the hon. member for Three Rivers had to do with it he did not know. He could understand it if Port Elizabeth were included, but not otherwise. He thought that the law in South Africa was that a man could go where he liked with his case. He had urged before the Select Committee of another place to work as strongly as possible against that movement, and he could not agree that a certain portion of his constituency should be cut off from their rights by persons who had nothing to do with it. The amendment ought not to be accepted.

said that he was going to vote for the proposal, not because his district was included in it, but on the merits of the case. Education and the administration of justice must be made as cheap as possible to the people. If the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) had ever said a true word, it was what he had said about the practitioners in the Court. As long as matters were as they were now; a man who possessed nothing at all could drag him into Cape Town, and if the former were unsuccessful in his case he (the hon. member) would have to pay all the costs. Personally, he would have liked to go further, but as it was he would vote for the proposal.

said that he thought the hon. member did not understand the amendment. What had that matter to do with going to Cape Town? A man had not to go to Cape Town in an appeal case, but the papers were sent to Cape Town. The hon. members for Three Rivers and Somerset had introduced a personal element into the debate, which should have a high tone indeed, as it dealt with the jurisdiction of the Court. The hon. member proceeded to read from the evidence given before the Select Committee by two Port Elizabeth solicitors, who strongly objected to the removal of the jurisdiction of the Court. The hon. member went on to say that there was no hardship at all. Was it, he asked, any hardship to say to a man that if he were convicted in the Territories he might go to Cape Town or Graham’s Town with his appeal, or was it a hardship to say that he could only go to Graham’s Town? He and those who thought with him were not doing any hardship, but it was the hon. member (Mr. Brown) who was doing it. The fact was that the Supreme Court was so popular with litigants that they preferred to come to Cape Town, but the practitioners of the Eastern Districts Court wanted to force the public to go to Graham’s Town. What he (the hon. member) said was, let them go to whichever Court they liked. (Hear, hear.)

said that whilst he had, personally, very great sympathy with that amendment and the further proposal made in another place which had been dropped, he thought that the hon. member should consider whether that was the best time to bring such a proposal forward. (Hear, hear.) That movement had been pressed in another place, where it had been thrown out or abandoned, but another movement, which had come from the Minister himself, had also been dropped by him, and a sort of compromise had been arrived at that neither of these contentious measures should be included in the Bill. He thought it would be a pity at that late stage to raise the whole question again in that House, and what was really part of a large question. (Hear, hear.)

said he was sorry that they could not discuss this question without bringing in local patriotism. He agreed with what the Minister had said on the point. These people were asked to go hundreds of miles away from the Court which should suit them best. All the amendment proposed to say was that appeals should go to their own Courts, and not go hundreds of miles away. That seemed to be common sense. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, usually took a broad-minded view of these matters, but on this occasion he had certainly taken a Cape Town view. The method proposed was the common-sense way of dealing with the matter.

said that even at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, he wanted to point out some inaccuracies in the statement which that hon. member had made. The first point made by the hon. member was that they would have the Court in the centre of the district that was covered, and the hon. member said “Why not send them to that Court, which is the centre of their place, instead of sending them to a Court which is hundreds of miles away?” In the first place, he would point out that the Court was not in the centre. The distance between Port St. John’s and the Court of Graham’s Town was some hundreds of miles, and, in fact, as far as sending papers down was concerned, it was just as easy, perhaps easier, to send them to Cape Town than to send them to Graham’s Town. Therefore the geographical argument which had been advanced had no important bearing on the question. It was also said that the only people who objected were the people of the Western Province. There were a large number of people concerned who objected strongly to the principle, as was the case when the larger question was raised in another place, for the reason that they were hot giving these people anything they had not had before, but actually taking away their rights from them. They had received no evidence or petitions that the people of these parts wished to be deprived of these rights. The fact was that they were taking away certain rights. Those rights were: If they wanted a case argued they could go to Cape Town or Graham’s Town. There would be no necessity for this clause unless it were the fact that they came to Cape Town. They were not bound to come to Cape Town. Why did they come to Cape Town? What was the attraction? It showed how little the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had considered the question. In criminal appeals what came down was a record. How one place could be more attractive than another to a record he did not know. (Laughter.) The fact was that many people preferred to have their appeals heard in Cape Town. There must be some reason why these people preferred to come to Cape Town. They were asked to deprive these people of their rights for the reason that certain people would benefit. This clause was not in accord with the feeling of the people who were concerned: it was in the interests of a few practitioners who would get the work of the people who had been deprived of their rights. Either Court was equally competent to decide a criminal point, and let them suppose that the practitioners in each case were equal. Then who was going to benefit by the papers being sent to Cape Town instead of being sent to Graham’s Town? Only a few practitioners. The people concerned had not complained that they were being placed at a disadvantage in one way or the other.

referred to the historical aspect of this matter. He said that the hon. member forgot that some years ago, when it was proposed to establish an Eastern Districts Court, people in the Western Province said that they were allowed to be established on condition of concurrent jurisdiction being permitted. What they asked for was not for the purpose of pleasing barristers or anybody else, but they wanted to give their Eastern Districts Court an honour and a prestige which it did not have. Why had not the Transvaal or the Orange Free State or the Western Province the same rights of concurrent jurisdiction? The Eastern Districts Court was put in a position of inferiority, and it was that question of inferiority which stuck with the people, because they had made a law that the Eastern Court should be subordinate to the Western Province Court. All they asked for was that certain appeals from the Native Territories should be dealt with by the Eastern Courts.

said the hon. members had asked why the Western Province, the Transvaal, and Orange Free State had not the same rights as the people in the Eastern Province, but the points were dissimilar. The Eastern Districts Court was established because the Cape Province was so large that it was considered that a second Court should be established. This alternative was given under the old Cape Colony law. It was a matter of convenience to establish this Court so that people might be given a chance of going to Graham’s Town instead of to Cape Town. That was the historical aspect of the matter, and it was deliberately confirmed by the National Convention, which stated that the people of the Eastern Province instead of going to the Eastern Province should be given the right if they preferred to come to the Court in Cape Town. Now, the hon. member for Three Rivers, upon a minor point, deliberately wanted to set this aside. That, to his idea, was the only reason for moving this amendment. In this matter there was no question of public convenience involved at all. This had been established by Act of Union and it had been re-affirmed in another place, and this was not the time to revise a matter which had already been settled.

said this was an extremely contentious matter, and the whole thing had been thrashed out in another place. He had been surprised when he came to the House to find that, by a sort of side issue, the whole thing was to be re-opened again.

It was on the paper for a week.

Yes; I saw it on the paper, but was surprised to see it being pressed. He could quite understand the proposal to give the Eastern Districts Court exclusive jurisdiction in every respect, especially with regard to civil cases where one party might drag the other party against his will to another Court where he did not want to go, but this privilege was entirely confined to criminal cases, and in the present situation no party was injured. If a man were convicted in the Native Territories, nobody could prevent him or his advisers from taking his case to Cape Town or Graham’s Town. As far as the public were concerned if they came to take the feeling of the people, he did not think they would wish this change. Look at the Europeans in the Transkeian Territories. There were some people in favour of such a proposal, but by no means the whole of the population.

There was one aspect of the matter which had not been touched upon so far as he had heard. It was proposed by the hon. member in his amendment to deprive the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of the Province of the Cape of a portion of its jurisdiction over its Province. (Hear, hear.) If that were done, the Cape would be the only division which would be so deprived, because every other Provincial Division had jurisdiction over the whole of its Province. (Hear, hear.) These Provincial Courts were established by the South Africa Act as Provincial Divisions in their own Provinces, and the Court of the Eastern Districts, like the High Courts of Griqualand and the Witwatersrand and the Circuit Courts, were constituted as local divisions within the respective areas of their jurisdiction. The hon. member now proposed that although in the Transvaal the Supreme Court at Pretoria had jurisdiction over the whole of the Rand, and whereas in Natal the Provincial Division had jurisdiction over the whole of its area, only the Supreme Court of the Cape should not have jurisdiction over the whole of its Province. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Burton) did not see why at this stage and under these circumstances that attempt should be made to deprive the Cape Provincial Division of a portion of its jurisdiction. (Cheers.)

said as a member for Tembuland it was necessary for him to say something on the subject. As far as his constituents went, he had heard nothing from them about the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers. (Hear, hear.) What he did hear about the larger question as first appearing in the Bill of exclusive jurisdiction in the Eastern Province was divided opinion. Some places desired the freedom to come to Cape Town if they wanted to. (Hear, hear.) He had heard nothing from the natives on the question, but there was in the native mind in the Territories an idea about Cape Town with which one could still conjure. From the days of Saul Solomon and Attorney-General Porter they regarded Cape Town as the fountain of justice. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He thought the natives would like the freedom of choice they had in this matter to continue.

said it must not be forgotten that in Natal there was a Provincial Court at Durban which was a one judge Court, that in the Transvaal there was a local Court at Johannesburg; that was also a one judge Court, but that in the Eastern Districts there was a three judge Court of equal standing with the Cape Town Court. But he was not for a moment suggesting that the judges here were not as competent as the others. The proposal was for the benefit of litigants, and it was not a question of local interests. The Government brought in a Bill. (“No.”) Well, the Minister, it was said, brought in a Bill. If any Minister brought in a Bill it was a Government Bill. (Laughter, and cries of “No.”) Hon. members might ridicule when they could not argue, but they had not produced a single authority from the Native Territories in support of the contention, and all the evidence was the other way.

The new clause was negatived.

called for a division, but shortly afterwards withdrew.

New clause 17,

moved that the following be a new clause 17: “For the proper carrying out of section 109 of the South Africa Act, 1909, the Chief Justice of South Africa and the ordinary Judges of Appeal of the Appellate Division must have their fixed residence in Bloemfontein, but this provision shall not apply to the Chief Justice and ordinary Judges of Appeal at present in office during the term of office of such Chief Justice.” He said he hoped the House would accept the amendment without discussion. His amendment took cognisance of the fact that the present Chief Justice had for many years lived in Cape Town, and for that reason it might be a hardship to compel him to live at Bloemfontein. Therefore he had not made his amendment apply to the present personnel of the Appellate Court.

said he hoped the amendment would not pass. The South Africa Act did not say that the judges should reside at Bloemfontein. It said that the Court should sit at Bloemfontein or should sit elsewhere for the convenience of suitors. Now they were going further and saying not only that the Court should sit at Bloemfontein, but that the judges should also live at Bloemfontein, and he supposed live in the municipal area of Bloemfontein.

said it might be said that it was beneath the dignity of that House to say where the judges should live, but when they found that the South Africa Act had, to all intents and purposes, been flouted by the Court of Appeal, surely it was time that this House should step in and say that the solemn bargain which was embodied in the Act should be carried out. The proposal of the hon. member for Winburg would not inconvenience the present occupants of the Bench It only made provision for the future. He hoped that the committee would accept the amendment.

said he would point out to the hon. member for Bloemfontein that the object that he desired would not be attained by this amendment. The point was, he took it, that they wanted the appeals to be heard in Bloemfontein. They did not want the judges to live there. Why, then, should they not say s0?

said that, supposing the judges took a house outside Bloemfontein, what punishment was the hon. member going to mete out to them? Suppose they took a house at Kroonstad or some other part of the Free State, what penalty was he going to inflict on them? It was no use putting in a brutum fulmen. The Act of Union did not say that the Appeal Court should sit at Bloemfontein only.

said that they could not have a penalty, for the simple reason that Parliament dealt with the misconduct of judges, and no other Court could do so. He did suggest that in the statement made by the Chief Justice at Bloemfontein, as to the method in which he was going to carry out that particular clause of the Act of Union, he had laid down practically that the exception should become the rule. He (the hon. member) was not moved in the least by a Provincial spirit, and it gave the Orange Free State no financial benefit whatever; and he warned them that if Cape Town went on as it did members from the country might take up the attitude that they would punish Cape Town. Bloemfontein wanted the judicial capital because it had been given to them by Act of Union. What he wanted the House to do was for Parliament to express an opinion that the Act of Union should be a reality, and not a sham.

said that he would not like, as a member of the Convention, that there should be any mistake as to what he thought on the subject. He wished it to be recorded as his opinion that neither the letter nor the spirit of that section was being given effect to—(hear, hear)—and there could not be any doubt whatever that what was meant was that in dealing with the Court of Appeal they should have some central place, which would suit not only the Cape, the Transvaal, and Natal, but also the Orange Free State, and be a central place; and Bloemfontein had been selected as fairly meeting them. The principle was that the Court of Appeal should sit there, except now and then, if he might put it so, when a reason came up for its sitting somewhere else. He fully admitted that there was some understanding that, with the veneration and respect they all had for the President of the Convention, the present President of the Court of Appeal, he should not have to move away to Bloemfonetin; but the idea was that the sittings of the Court at Bloemfontein should be the rule, and not the exception, and the idea that it should be the exception for the Court to sit at Bloemfontein, and the rule to sit elsewhere was not thought of. (Hear, hear.)

said that he differed entirely that that had been the understanding in regard to that matter, as the Right Hon. the Minister of Lands had said. The Chief Justice had said that it did not matter very much, and that the Court took leave to sit where it would best meet the convenience of suitors. He had remembered the words very distinctly: that the Court should sit where it would meet the convenience of suitors. His recollection was not at all in accordance with that of the right hon. Minister.

who was received with cheers, said that he could not be accused of looking at that question from any provincial motives. He had not been a member of the Convention, but he had read the Constitution, and if plain English meant anything, it meant that the Appellate Court should make its headquarters at Bloemfontein. (Cheers.) He did not think it right or fair for hon. members living in that (the Cape) Province to get behind the Constitution, and he hoped that the committee would agree to the amendment.

said the rule was that the Court should sit at Bloemfontein, but in exceptional circumstances they might sit elsewhere. It seemed to him, however, that the Appellate Court was making an exception of the rule, and a rule of the exception.

said that as far as he was concerned, he was in a very delicate position. On the one hand he had to consider his duty, apart from any decisions that might have been come to by the Court, and, on the other hand, he had to consider the representations that had been made to him by the judges. He did not wish to criticise the position taken up by the Chief Justice of Bloemfontein, but he must say this, that if words signified anything, then he would say, apart from anything that happened at the Convention, that the headquarters of the Appellate Court should be at Bloemfontein—that that should be the chief place of the Court of Appeal, and that only when the convenience of suitors was required to be suited in a greater degree, then the Appellate Court would be entitled to sit at some other particular place. Certainly the Court should not sit at any other place but Bloemfontein, when the expenses of taking a case to that centre were not too great. He thought that this was more than a local matter There was no doubt about it that the Free Staters at the Convention agreed that the Transvaal and Cape should decide the question of the principal capital, and that in consideration of this Bloemfontein should be the judicial capital. Continuing, he said there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. It was mainly due to the fact that the judges did not reside in Bloemfontein They would be more satisfied if the judges did reside there. He considered that if the Act of Union contemplated such a state of affairs as existed at present the wording would be entirely different.

There must be headquarters somewhere.

That is exactly why we maintain that the headquarters should be at Bloemfontein. Continuing, he said that at the present moment the headquarters at Bloemfontein consisted of nothing more than the Registrar and Appellate Library. At Cape Town there was an Assistant Registrar. Now, he would point out that High Court buildings were in course of construction at Cape Town. He had already been asked to provide chambers and other accommodation for the Judges of Appeal. There was a Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein, and there was sufficient accommodation. The result of this would be that Natal and the Transvaal would come along and each would demand that similar accommodation should be provided. With a view to economy and in the interests of the people concerned, he said it was necessary that they should do away with the present arrangement, which had given rise to so much dissatisfaction at Bloemfontein.

said there was no doubt that Bloemfontein was given the judicial capital in consideration of what it lost in another direction. It was understood, he thought, that the Court should sit at Bloemfontein unless there were a large number of cases to be dealt with at Pretoria or Cape Town or anywhere else. It was understood that Bloemfontein was to be the judicial capital. It had a central position, and was eminently suited for the purpose.

said that he did feel that if a strong case had been made out that the Judges of Appeal were unduly stretching this particular section of the Act of Union then he thought it was the place of the Minister to bring before that House a resolution of censure on the judges. Here he asked the House to pass what amounted to a vote of censure merely on the statement he had made and no other evidence. (An Hon. Member: “Nonsense.”) It was perfectly feasible for the Minister when he came to the appointment of another judge to ask His Excellency how this Act of Union should be interpreted, because, if the Minister thought he was going to settle this by passing such a proposal, he would find himself in the wrong. He thought the provision was a most favourable one and a most useful one, and if they were dissatisfied with the conduct of the judge, let them deal with it in another way, and say that the judge shall have a fixed residence.

strongly supported the amendment, though he could not say it had been properly drafted. The people of the Free State on entering Union had been promised that they should be given the judicial capital and he thought it was not right to rob them by means of a side issue.

moved that the amendment be altered so as to read “Bloemfontein or in the neighbourhood thereof.”

said that the amendments only showed the utter impossibility and impracticability of attempting to deal with this matter by the means suggested. (Hear, hear.) He had a great deal of sympathy with the feeling in the Free State that the institution of Bloemfontein as the judicial capital should be made more of an actual reality than it had been in the past. It was surely not unscientific, but, he was almost going to say, ridiculous, for Parliament to lay down that a man charged with certain duties must live in a certain place. He had never heard of such a thing existing in any part of the world. Take the judges in Cape Town or Graham’s Town. What would be thought of Parliament if it proposed seriously to lay down that they must live in Cape Town or in its neighbourhood? Provided that a man was here to do the work that was required of him, that was the utmost length to which they could go. (Hear, hear.) If a judge liked to live at the Paarl, Stellenbosch, or Somerset West, so that he could come to Cape Town for his work, that was all that could be demanded. No such legislation as that proposed could be found anywhere else in the world. Although he sympathised with a great deal of the feeling that had been expressed on this matter, he could not vote for the amendment.

said he was very much surprised to hear the Minister of Native Affairs talk as he had done. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wilcocks) did not for a moment wish this committee to think that he was actuated by a spirit of provincialism, but if they took the position of the Cape and the Transvaal they found that everything was being done at Pretoria to make it a suitable place for the seat of the Administration of the Union, and that in Cape Town everything possible was being done to make it suitable as the legislative centre. Certain rights were given to Bloemfontein in the Act of Union—the same Act which gave certain rights to the Transvaal and the Cape. All that they insisted on was that these rights should be given to them in reality and not in name only. (Hear, hear ) There was nothing ridiculous in the position taken up by members who supported the amendment.

supported the amendment because he felt it was a serious matter for Bloemfontein. When he was at Bloemfontein shortly after the Act of Union came into force the people there said: “The only thing we have is the Appeal Court. Our capital is going to be shifted and we have given up everything.” Clause 109 of the Act of Union said: “The Appellate Division shall sit at Bloemfontein, but it may from time to time, for the convenience of suitors, hold its sittings in other parts of the Union.” If that meant anything it meant that the Appellate Court should meet at Bloemfontein and that the people concerned would have to go there from any other part of the Union except where special cases occurred.

said that if the amendments were carried the Act of Union would have to be amended in many other respects. (Cries of “No.”) For instance, the Governor-General was appointed by the King, and he would have to reside in a special place. The thing would be made an absurdity of and the amendment was an absurdity.

said the Free State was entitled to what it asked. (Hear, hear.) It was understood throughout the whole of Natal that Bloemfontein would be the judicial capital, and it was only just to Bloemfontein that the spirit as well as the letter of the Act of Union should be observed.

said there were some members who wished to support the amendment who did not like its form, and he suggested that it should be withdrawn, re-drafted, and re-introduced at a later stage. He was thoroughly in sympathy with the amendment. He was surprised that their friends in the Free State had been so patient over the matter. (Cheers.) He wondered what would have been said in Cape Town if the Act of Union had been departed from in regard to the divided capital?

said that he was in sympathy with the desire of the Free State members to see the Act of Union carried out, and he thought they had made out a very good case under clause 109, but it seemed to him that the clause did not provide that the fixed residence of the judges should be in Bloemfontein. If the amendment were put in that form he for one could not support it.

The amendment was agreed to.

The new clause as amended was then put, and the “Ayes” were declared to have it.

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

said that he desired to move a new section to follow the new clause the committee had agreed to, to elucidate the meaning. It was to the effect that for the purposes of the preceding section “residence” should be taken to mean any house with more than two rooms. (Laughter.)

The hon. member withdrew his motion, however.

New clause 18.

moved that the following be a new clause: 18. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in sections 14, 15 or 16 of the Charter of Justice of the Cape of Good Hope, or in section 8 of the Administration of Justice Proclamation, 1902, of the Transvaal, or in any rule of Court, the number of officers of the Provincial Division of the Cape of Good Hope or of the Transvaal shall be such as the Governor-General may from time to time determine to be necessary for the administration of justice and the due execution of the powers and authorities possessed by those divisions respectively, and anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law in force in any Province, or in any Rule of Court, any officer of any provincial or local division of the Supreme Court may be appointed to, and may hold simultaneously, more than one office in that division.

This was agreed to.

On clause 23,

moved, in line 65, after “force,” to insert “immediately.”

Agreed to.

On clause 24,

moved, after “paid,” in line 17, to insert the following paragraphs (a) and (b): “(a) to any person summoned to attend before any Court in the Union as a juror for the trial of any case; (b) to any person subpoenaed as a witness in any criminal proceedings in the Union.”

This was agreed to.

On the first schedule,

moved, in line 1, to omit “first”; and in line 2, to omit “as from commencement of Act.”

This was agreed to.

moved that the second schedule be omitted.

This was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Wednesday.

stated that the announcement yesterday, with regard to the recommendation by His Excellency the Governor-General on the Financial Relations Bill, was made under a misapprehension, and he accordingly withdrew the same.