from Florence M. Brookes, President of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and others, inhabitants of East London, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

from J. van Wijk and 234 others, adult coloured men and women, residents in the town and district of Beaufort West, praying for the total prohibition of the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor, except medicinally or sacramentally, to any coloured person within the Union; and similar petitions from H. A. Harkir and 27 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the town and district of Knysna, from S. C. Daniels and 108 others, adult coloured men and women inhabitants of Concordia, Namaqualand; from N. Jonas and 158 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the district of George; from J. Loitering and 20 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the district of Qumbu; from B. Afrika and 107 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the town and district of Richmond; from W. Carelse and 65 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the town and district of Kimberley; and from A. Hendriks and 88 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the town and district of Molteno.

from S. Hampton and 41 others, inhabitants of Uitenhage, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief; and similar petitions from I. A. Judd and 79 others, inhabitants of Uitenhage; from H. Sutherland and others, inhabitants of Uitenhage; and from M. E. Gamble and 78 others, inhabitants of Uitenhage.

from H. T. Smith, of Ring House, Clonakilty, County of Cork, Ireland, who, after having served for thirteen years in the Customs Department of the Cape Civil Service was retrenched in 1909, praying that he may be reinstated in the Union Public Service, or for other relief.

presented a petition from the Rev. A. I. Steytler and other ministers of religion of the Province of the Cape, drawing attention to the necessity for further State aid for the education of the coloured people, as well as for vocational education, schools for defectives, and the training and proper payment of teachers.

moved as an unopposed motion that the petition be read.

The motion was agreed to.

accordingly read the petition, which embodied the findings of a conference of ministers of Christian churches recently held in Cape Town, as to the need of increased attention being paid to vocational, technical, and industrial education, the pay and training of teachers, and the education of coloured children. The petitioners prayed that the House would take the case as set out into their consideration.

announced that the Governor-General, on behalf of the King, had given his assent to the following Bills, viz.:

Appropriation (Part) Act.

Additional Appropriation (1912-13) Act.

Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Act.

Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation (1912-13) Act.

Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works Additional Appropriation (1912-13) Act.

Trustee Investment in Union Government Securities Act, 1913.

Reports on working of the Miners’ Phthisis Board to 30th November, 1912, and for first six months ended 31st January, 1913; Regulations Nooitgedacht No. 667 and Goedgenoeg No. 593, Mining District, Klerksdorp, Transvaal Province, fouling of the Schoonspruit; Regulations by Diggers’ Committee, Eastleigh Alluvial Diggings; Amendments to regulations framed under Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912.

said it was a very painful thing to be sitting in that part of the House and not to know what was going on. A few minutes ago the Prime Minister read out something, but they could not hear what he said. They were as much entitled to hear in that part of the House as in other parts. Hon. members in other parts of the House should show some consideration for those in his part of the House.

Before proceeding I wish to refer to what took place on Friday afternoon when the House voted on the motion for Committee of Supply on the Estimates. I then pointed out that according to the practice of the late Cape House and of this House, no further debate could be allowed at the present stage if the decision of the House then about to be taken was that the words of the original motion which were proposed to be omitted shall stand. I also stated that in that case the further question on the original motion would be put formally without amendment or debate, but that if the House decided to omit the words from the original motion, then a fresh question would arise, which would be open to amendment. Confusion as to the correct scope of debate arises no doubt from the fact that in the House of Commons in England further debate is allowed on the original question, although the House affirms the words of the original motion which were sought to be omitted. The passage in May, eleventh edition, page 610, is as follows: “When an amendment to the question for the Speaker’s leaving the chair has been negatived, as it has been decided that the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the question, no further amendment can be moved thereto, though general debate on the main question can be maintained by those members who have not moved or seconded an amendment thereto, or spoken on the main question, before an amendment was moved.” There is, however, an essential difference between the practice in this respect in the House of Commons and the practice in the late Cape House, which is followed by this House. In the House of Commons notice must be given of an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply, and such amendment is moved at an early opportunity after the debate has been opened. As soon as an amendment is moved the debate is strictly confined to such amendment until it has been disposed of, and thereafter the original motion is put to the House for discussion. In this House the rule stated in May, eleventh edition, page 289, where the objects and principle of a superseding amendment are explained, is acted upon, viz.: “This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, ‘That,’ and to substitute in their place other words of a different import. In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motive of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the House, as alternative propositions.” I have caused the Journals of the late Cape House of Assembly to be searched for the last twenty years of its existence, and it was found that on every occasion upon which a similar amendment was moved, the whole question was under discussion, and no debate took place after the amendment had been voted upon. The continuance of this practice is contemplated by our Standing Orders, particularly numbers 60, 75, and 77. On Friday last in the circumstances which then obtained I allowed the motion for the adjournment of the debate in order to take advantage of the week-end to give this question further and fuller consideration. After going very carefully into it, I have come to the conclusion that I must adhere to the practice which has so long obtained, leaving any departure from it, which may be deemed advisable to the determination of the House itself. I have come to this conclusion with reluctance, the more because under the new Standing Orders there will be no opportunity for a further discussion on the Budget before it reaches Committee of Supply, but to take a different course would be against the best interests of the House, and I therefore rule now that the debate cannot proceed further, and that the remaining formal question on the original motion must be decided without further debate or amendment.

You said, sir, in the course of your ruling, that it was a matter that you would leave to the House.

Oh, no, what I said was that I would leave the framing of the new rule to the House.

said that a large number of members had taken pains to look up information prior to this discussion, and he hoped that Mr. Speaker would allow as an unopposed motion that the discussion be proceeded with.

I don’t think I could do this in view of what I have just ruled.

asked what attitude members should adopt. He understood that it was only competent for any further discussion upon this question by special permission of the House or by a resolution of the House. As members had not been aware of what the course of events would be when the motion was put to the House the other day, and as the Minister of Finance had no desire, he believed, to burke discussion, he hoped his hon. friend would tell the House whether he would give precedence upon a Government day for discussion of this question.

What I said was that the House could make a new rule. I made no reference to the present rule at all.

Could we not move that the House suspend the rule?

I see from the Votes and Proceedings that the debate was adjourned till Monday. Would it not be competent to adjourn the debate further for another week, and in the meantime the committee of Standing Rules and Orders can meet and consider, either to suspend the present rule, or to make a new rule? (Cheers and cries of “No.”)

I wish to point out that I have already given my ruling.

I am not for one moment challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member then repeated his suggestion.

I must point out that there is no further debate. There is no debate before the House, and I only ruled what I should have done on Friday last.

Might it not be possible—

I would suggest to hon. members that there should be a date fixed after this motion, when the House should go into committee, and that between then and this date hon. members will think out what they would suggest.

suggested that Order No. 1 should stand over.

said that that was a very important matter, and referred to Rule 279, which, he said, made provision for any standing or sessional order being suspended after notice had been given, provided, in urgent cases, of which Mr. Speaker might be the judge, the rule might be suspended without such notice.

Of course, the House can suspend any standing rule. I stated the rule, and I ruled that there can be no further debate at this stage. I must point out that I waited for a considerable time after the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had spoken. (Hear, hear.)

referred to Rule 74, which he said made provision that there could be another debate on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair, but when that rule was suspended the whole debate on the Budget could take place. The point he wanted to put was that if the Government would propose a suspension of that rule it would be competent when the motion was put for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair to discuss the whole question.

I have just informed the House what course is to be adopted. Consideration can be given to that between now and the day to go into committee.

The motion to go into Committee of Supply was then agreed to.

moved that the committee stage be taken on Thursday.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that when the committee reported progress on March 14, clause 16 of the Bill was under consideration, upon which the following amendment had been moved, by the Minister of Justice: In line 7, after “added,” to omit all the words down to “clarification,” in line 10, and to substitute: “ Provided that any sugar, up to the limit allowed in this paragraph, which may not be required for the purpose of priming, may be used in the manufacture of beer ”; and to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (a): “ (b) fining substances, such as isinglass, gelatine, egg or albumen, for the purpose of clarification.”

had moved, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice: In line 3, after “beer,” to insert “in addition to the sugar allowed in section 17.”

said that he was glad to see the Minister of Justice back in his place again after his recent indisposition. (Cheers.) Continuing, he said that he did not know how the brewers would be able to know what sugar was required for priming, because from time to time the amount would vary, which was necessary to be used, and in effect they would have to retain the maximum they thought would be used for priming before they could make any beer. Therefore, that concession of the Minister amounted to very little indeed, because the actual amount of sugar amounted to ten per cent. and the amount used by priming was nearly six per cent.

said that he would like to appeal to the Minister once more. They had no evidence at all that sugar in beer was an adulteration and that Bill was one to deal with adulteration. Why drag that thing into the present Bill? The only reason why it had been introduced into that Bill, he thought, was the reason given by the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. De Jager), in the course of his speech, that no sugar should be allowed in beer in order to protect the Cape vineyards against the beer industry in that country. He (the hon. member) could not believe that hon. members sitting on either side of the Union Parliament would allow that thing to pass for such a reason. He hoped that the Minister would give them the full 25 per cent. addition.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had slightly perverted what he had stated. What he had said was that if they went to breweries abroad for an analogy they had got to go to Germany and not to England. (Cries of “Why.”) He pointed out that the Minister, instead of taking up the whole question of adulteration, had merely touched upon one branch of the subject. Was the addition of sugar deleterious? Some hon. members on the other side had said that if it could be proved that sugar was deleterious they would vote for no sugar. He asked them if water was deleterious, and pointed to the amount that they found in butter. By using sugar in beer they were increasing the amount of alcohol. (Cries of “No.”) If they prevented sugar from being used, more barley would be used The fact was that for every pound of sugar used, two pounds of barley were excluded. Where the adulteration came in was the fact that while they were pretending to make alcohol from barley, they were making it from sugar. That was adulteration. It was quite as easy to put in grape sugar as to put in cane sugar; so the wine farmer would in this Bill close the door against his own product as against the Natal sugar grower.

Price.

Ah, that is it. You want to flood the market with cheap stuff, for it will be cheaper to put in cane sugar than to put in grape sugar.

said he remembered the time when very little beer was made in this country, and recently there had been a considerable agitation that industries should be started in this country for the purpose of supplying the people of the country with things they could consume. He pointed out that large breweries had been started giving employment to a good many men, and these breweries produced a certain kind of beer. He had never heard consumers complain of the kind of beer that was made in this country. He did not think they should interfere with these people. He thought they should let well alone. It would be very difficult to induce capitalists to put money into this country if they were for ever interfering with small details of the business of these people. The next thing they would have would be a Bill prohibiting the use of sugar in tea and coffee.

said he had not heard an argument that sugar was an adulterant, and, therefore, he could not vote for the exclusion of sugar. He had found beer in which sugar was used more palatable than beer where no sugar was used. He did not think they should prop up one industry at the expense of another.

said that he could not understand why the member for Paarl had not said something when section 10 was before the committee.

It does not increase alcohol there.

said he hoped that the Minister would allow sugar in beer. He pointed out that in 1908 the Cape House did not think that sugar was an adulterant.

said he thought that the brewers were amply protected. By allowing the use of sugar, less barley would be used. (Cries of “No.”) He did not think those hon. members knew much about the matter. He pointed out that the brewers were not making worse beer than before.

said the real object of the clause was not to encourage barley brewing, but the sale of Cape wines. (Cheers.) So far, no evidence had been produced to show that sugar in beer was an adulterant. There seemed to be a conspiracy on foot in connection with this matter. If a small bottle of beer, which cost the railway authorities 4d., was sold in the dining cars for 1s., he would like to know what a bottle of wine sold at 1s. 3d. cost the Railway Catering Department?

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am endeavouring to do so. Concluding, Mr. Fawcus said that the principle at stake was the unwarrantable interference with private people’s concerns. (Cheers.) He had been told that only inferior barleys were suitable for malting, and that machinery adapted for brewing beer with sugar in it would not be so suitable for brewing beer without sugar. This unwarrantable interference and attempt to teach brewers their business should be put a stop to. (Hear, hear.)

said the question at issue was what was beer. Beer, through the fermentation of malt, was a food as well as a drink. (Laughter.) He had been told that the addition of sugar destroyed the nutritive qualities of the beer.

Who said that?

said that the Minister in charge of the Bill had based his appeal to the House to pass the clause on the ground that beer was a product of malt and hops. He (Mr. Creswell) thought the real reason for the introduction of the clause was more closely connected with the wine and barley industries than the interests of the beer drinkers. Hon. members were still waiting for information that beer made with sugar was going to do any damage at all to the health of the consumer. As to the argument that beer made with sugar had less nutritive qualities than that made with barley, he would remark that some people did not live on beer. (Laughter.)

said that when the matter was last before the House, the Minister in charge of the Bill had told them that he had received two bottles of beer made without sugar. Since then the Minister had been in bad health. He (Sir Bisset) trusted that the Minister’s illness was in no way due to the beer. (Laughter.)

I have not drunk any of it yet.

said a clause should be inserted in the Bill regulating the alcoholic strength of beer, and they who argued for the use of sugar did not wish to have a drink of a great alcoholic strength. It was owing to the heavy nutritious qualities of strong beer that it was so deleterious to drink. The vast majority of the consumers desired a light, refreshing beverage, which could be made only by the use of sugar and cereals. By refusing a moderate percentage of sugar—15 to 20 per cent.—they were simply making a law to restrain people in an honest industrial pursuit. The hon. member for Worcester had spoken of sugar as an adulterant. The use of sugar in the manufacture of beer was no more an adulterant than the use of sugar in wine. He had asked the Minister the other day to give them a clear indication as to what he was prepared to do in this matter, and he now repeated that request.

said he wished the Minister would stop this discussion by accepting the amendment. It must be apparent to him that the majority of members in that House were in favour of the amendment. (Cries of “No” and “Yes.”) The arguments in favour of the use of sugar in beer far outweighed the arguments used against it. “I hope,” added the hon. member, “the Minister will accept the amendment, for if he doesn’t, it will break my heart to have to go across the floor of the House.” (Laughter.)

said he would advise the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for Worcester not to spend so much of their time and energy and investigation in trying to find means for the prevention of the manufacture of wholesome drink in this country, but rather to turn their energies to the making of the wine of the country which they produced—the drink of the people. He believed that at present the wine of the country gave the farmer about 2d. a bottle, and cost the consumer about 2s. 6d. He had to accuse the right hon. the member for Victoria West of inconsistency in this matter. In the old Cape House, in 1908, the right hon. gentleman voted for a similar amendment to this, while now he took up the position that sugar was an adulterant. In considering this question, they must, in the first instance, satisfy themselves that sugar used in the manufacture of beer was or was not, an adulterant? Had the Minister brought forward any proof which would convince any reasonable man that sugar used in the manufacture of beer was an adulterant? (Cries of “No” and “Yes.”) The second point was: whether the use of a moderate quantity of sugar, if it were found that sugar was not an adulterant in the proper sense of the term, enabled sounder and lighter beer, with keeping qualities, to be produced? In the circumstances, he should support the amendment.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether, in regard to the limit of 10 per cent. of sugar, he would allow the brewers, if they saved a proportion on one kind of beer, to use it on another—in other words, suppose a brewer used 5 per cent. on one beer, would he be allowed to use 15 per cent. on another?

said he wanted to point out to the Minister that there was no definition of adulteration in any part of the Bill, so that they did not know really where they were. A man might be pulled up for adulteration of liquor, but there was no definition upon which he could be tried. Adulteration meant debasing any commercial commodity by the substitution of inferior ingredients or ingredients detrimental to the purchaser. There was no definition of adulteration anywhere in the Bill. Instead of a farmer throwing away his barley in the making of beer, why did he not bring it to market on four legs? There were £900,000 wasted every year upon the importation of eggs. Why not throw his barley into these.

said this was the third day that they had discussed this very important matter, and he hoped that before long they would come to a vote. He was very sorry to see an attempt made to raise a prejudice against the wine farmers. Surely the wine farmer was as worthy a man as the shareholders in beer companies. (Hear, hear.) He was sure that they were as sober a section of the community as any community of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He could not help thinking that people who used this argument to try and raise a prejudice against the wine farmer must have a very poor case. One member after another had told him that he had a brewery in his constituency, and they knew perfectly well that what most hon. members had said with regard to the use of sugar they had got from the brewers. (HON. MEMBERS: No, no.) He did not say that the brewers should not be beard, but it was out of place to go for their arguments to the persons affected. The fact remained that although they had this prohibition of sugar to a large extent in the making of beer, the beer made in this way was very good indeed. He was not prepared to say that they had not better beer in the Transvaal, but he was told that that was because of the water. He had got his advice—

From the brewers.

I am not such a fool; when I want advice I go to people disinterested. Perhaps it was quite possible that the beer in the Transvaal was better, but that was because they had lime in the water, and that was the reason the beer was good. The general manager of one of the largest breweries at the Cape told him that the beer made at the Cape was so excellent that when people tasted it in England they wanted to know why such beer could not be brewed there.

The brewer again.

Yes, he was a brewer, but he was not speaking because he desired to have sugar used in making beer. Proceeding, the Minister said he had certainly shown that they could make as good beer now as when they were allowed to use sugar. The beer they made was sent all over the Cape Province. The fact was, it was cheaper to make beer by using sugar, and they got more alcohol. For the same reason that the wine merchant wanted to use sugar in the making of wine, the brewer wanted to use sugar for the making of beer. He would point out to his hon. and medical friend the member for Denver that at the meeting of the International Society of Medical Men in Brussels it was stated that beer made from sugar was not beer, and that it should not be labelled as such. He had never looked at this matter except from the consumer’s point of view, and he felt that if they put sugar into beer they employed a foreign substance. The strongest argument he had heard in favour of the abandoning of this part was that used by his hon. friend who had lately been his colleague (Col. Leuchars). He said that if this was passed it would break his heart. (Laughter.) If he thought it would break his heart he would certainly abandon the proposal, but he knew his hon. friend too well to believe that his heart could be so easily broken. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Vryheid had asked the question if a brewer did not use the whole of the percentage of sugar in the making of one kind of beer, whether he would be allowed to use the balance in the making of another kind. He was not prepared to say what the effect of this would be, but he would make enquiries, and if he found there was no objection to this proposal he would accept it, but if it were the means of allowing a large amount of foreign substances to be introduced into beer he would not accept it. As to the question of the hon. member for Queen’s Town, he would reply as he had replied previously, that he was so convinced that they would be taking a retrograde step, if that clause were not passed, that probably he would not proceed with that part of the Bill, and that would leave the Provinces as they were, and allow some of them to put sugar in beer—(Mr. ORR: Hear, hear)—and produce an inferior article.

The first portion of the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

then put Mr. Fichardt’s amendment, which he declared negatived.

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

moved, as an amendment: In line 27, after “cereals” to insert “or sugar”; after “hops” to insert “of which mash not less than 75 per cent. shall be malt or malt and cereals, and not more than 25 per cent. shall be sugar.”

We have negatived that already. It is really going over the same distance.

No; we say that sugar should be allowed in the mash tub.

What is the difference?

It is a great difference to the brewers. I am moving what the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Education previously favoured in the other Bill.

put the insertion of the words “or sugar” after “cereals,” and declared the “ Noes ” had it.

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

moved the insertion of a new clause to the effect that that section of the Act dealing with beer be not brought into effect for two years. He pointed out that it was only fair that the brewers should he given time to change their plant.

said that he intended to deal with the matter at a later stage, though he would not say that the period would be 12 or 18 months, or two years.

withdrew.

On chapter IV., clause 18, Prohibition as to manufacture or sale of vinegar to which certain substances have been added,

moved verbal amendments.

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 19, as follows: No person shall manufacture or sell any description of vinegar which does not contain three and a half per cent. of acetic acid,

moved the substitution of four for three and a half per cent.

asked if people who made vinegar for their own use would come under that clause.

replied in the negative.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 21, Prohibitions and conditions as to sale of vinegar,

asked why only wine vinegar could be “ vinegar.”

moved an amendment enabling the sale of vinegar made from acetic acid.

maintained that acetic acid could not be made into vinegar, but that what was known as acetic acid vinegar was simply acetic acid diluted with water.

said that acetic acid was made from wood shavings, sawdust, etc. In wine-producing countries, vinegar was usually made from wine, and it seemed rather a pity that vinegar made from other substances should be allowed to be sold. Next to wine vinegar came malt vinegar.

said that in the Northern Provinces, when people bought vinegar, they expected to get malt vinegar, but under the Bill they might be served with wine vinegar. He moved a series of amendments to admit of the sale of malt vinegar. The first amendment was to omit the following: “No person shall under the name of vinegar or wine vinegar sell any other article than wine vinegar.” In sub-section 2, he moved the omission of the words “other than wine vinegar,” and he also proposed the omission of the proviso.

said that with that Christian spirit which often distinguished him—(laughter)—he would accept the amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. Orr) who had vexed him so much over the Bill. He moved in line 31 after “four” to insert “and a half.”

said he would like to ask the hon. Minister a question with regard to spirit vinegar. Suppose a local man used local spirit, it cost 7s. 6d. per gallon, and Natal spirit cost 2s. 3d. a gallon ex duty, what would be the position of a Cape man who wanted to use Natal spirit? The hon. Minister had said that glucose was bad stuff, but that was not true. But it made no difference. But so that the people would not get any injurious vinegar, he would move the deletion of the two words, “ glucose vinegar.”

said he hoped the hon. Minister would not accept the amendment. Glucose was most wholesome, it was manufactured out of mealies, and was a most pure product.

pointed out that he said it was manufactured from starch. It was not manufactured from mealies, but from the starch contained in mealies. It could be made from potatoes and several other things. Mr. Haggar said that the hon. Minister had not answered his question.

said it would be difficult to give the hon. member any information on the subject. It would be wasting the time of the House. (Laughter.)

It is a very important question, and it is not courteous to treat it in this manner.

in regard to the suggestion to omit all the words after “labelled,” said that there was acetic acid in all vinegar. Before long there would be an Excise duty on acetic acid. There was a heavy Customs duty on it now, and he hoped when the Excise was put on there would be an end to acetic acid, for they ought not to encourage the making of vinegar from acetic acid.

said that men of capital were now in Natal with the idea of starting factories for the purpose of making acetic acid. Such a statement as had been made by the hon. Minister was enough to drive capital out of the colony. “Hello,” they would say, “the Government intend to put an excise on acetic acid, which we have not made but are going to make.” He failed to see why an industry should be curtailed. It would do no harm provided it was properly labelled “Acetic acid vinegar.”

said he was glad the hon. member was showing his independence on this occasion. They had not all got wine on the brain. This matter brought forward by the hon. member for Umvoti was worthy of serious consideration. The remarks of the hon. Minister tended to prejudice the House. Acetic acid was not manufactured from shavings, although it could be manufactured from wood, and it could be manufactured from the sugar cane after the sugar was crushed out. It might be that they were interfering with industries about which they knew very little. They were informed that there were people in this country now who were prepared to start factories for the manufacture of acetic acid. Was it a right thing that that House should be a stumbling block by means of adulteration Bills to the development of such an industry?

expressed himself strongly in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Umvoti. There was no objection to acetic acid so long as it was properly labelled so that even the most ignorant would know what they were buying. It should be clearly stated on the bottle which was wine vinegar, acetic acid vinegar, etc. If they did that they had done all that they were expected to do, and they should not raise these bogies, which would have the effect of driving people out of the country. They wanted more white people in the country. With encouragement small industries grew up by degrees, and they ought to be encouraged.

said that the arguments used opened up a splendid vista for the casual traveller in this country. Just let them think of his being provided with “ rot-gut ” stuff at the hotels.

said he dared say the right hon. gentleman had taken his “ rot-gut ” stuff many a time. He had raised an objection to the use of acetic acid in vinegar, yet he agreed at the same time to put 25 foreign substances into wine.

said that the whole question to be considered in reference to this amendment was whether acetic acid vinegar was a thing of which the sale should be prohibited? Was it injurious to the public? They had already, in clause 19, said that no vinegar should be sold unless it contained 4 per cent. of acetic acid.

said it was not a question of whether these things were deleterious or not. It was a question of whether they were imitations or not. He maintained that this was not vinegar.

said he had received a letter from the Transvaal Manufacturers’ Association, who said that vinegar made from acetic acid should be labelled “imitation vinegar.” The hon. member argued that if acetic acid vinegar were injurious it would surely be better for people who wished to avoid using that vinegar to label it “acetic acid vinegar.”

said he was sure that any boy or girl who had read a sixpenny book on chemistry must laugh at this discussion. Acetic acid, whatever they might make it from, had the same composition in every particular.

said that the acetic acid to which the hon. member for Victoria West had referred was sold largely in the chemists’ shops. They could not buy a bottle of lime juice or fruit syrup which was not largely made of acetic acid. He considered that when there was a possibility of helping on an industry which was about to be started in this country they should not put stumbling blocks in the way.

said the whole question was whether it should be called “imitation vinegar” or “acetic acid vinegar.” To call it “imitation vinegar” was rather condemnatory of the article— (hear, hear)—and if his hon. friend would leave this clause to go through as it stood he (Mr. Sauer) was prepared to consider the question of the designation at a later stage. He could not accept the amendment, but he promised the hon. member that he would consider whether this article should be called “ imitation vinegar ” or “acetic acid vinegar.”

said he did not know whether any representation had been made on behalf of certain food specialists who produced malt vinegar, and who urged that the position would be met by defining the chemical composition of malt vinegar without defining how it should be produced.

said they defined what malt vinegar should be, but they did not propose to say how it should be made.

said that he would hand over to the Minister the letter which he had received.

The amendment moved by Mr. Orr was agreed to.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Haggar was negatived.

The amendment moved by Col. Leuchars was withdrawn.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 22, Meaning of different varieties of vinegar,

referred to the definition of malt vinegar, more especially in regard to the words “ the starch whereof has been converted into fermentable sugar, by the direct agency of malt.” He said it was by changing starch into sugar that malt was made. Malt was not the cause but the effect. He moved to delete the words “by the direct agency of malt.”

The amendment was negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 23, Labelling bottles with the name of retail seller, etc.,

said he had received a letter from 400 licensed victuallers who were affected by this provision, and which stated that they would find it difficult to carry out its objects, particularly if they had to label bottles whose contents were to be consumed off the premises. He would like to know what object could be served by leaving this clause as it stood, and would move to add after the word “retail” the following words, “ for consumption off the licensed premises.” By leaving tins clause as it stood, it would entail an expenditure of from £9,000 to £10,000 upon these people. The retailers purchased their bottles from wholesalers, and surely it was never intended that retailers would have to open their bottles to see what was in them before they attached their labels? He had heard an elegant expression by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, who used the expression “ rotgut vinegar.” What protection had a visitor at an hotel? When he sat down at table, he found a little cruet, which contained, among other bottles, a bottle of vinegar. The visitor to the hotel did not know whether it was wine vinegar or rotgut vinegar. This Bill went too far in some instances, and not far enough in others.

said that the provision was in force in the Cape to-day. If he understood the hon. member correctly, people who imported wines and spirits would be put to the inconvenience of labelling them in South Africa. What happened was actually this. People who imported these goods from Europe have made themselves acquainted with the requirements of the Cape law, and they got the bottles labelled accordingly and when they come out here, they found they were labelled correctly. If they were to omit this section, they might as well tear up the Bill, because he did not know how otherwise they were going to protect the public. If the contents of the bottle did not correspond with the statement upon the label, then the man could be prosecuted; and if they did not do that he did not see how they were to carry out the law. He hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment.

said the great bulk of the small retailers dealt with some merchant out here; he had several letters from respectable people stating that this was an unnecessary hardship. If it could be shown that they might as well tear up their Adulteration Law, then he would support the section. If they had the name of the people on the bottle who made the wine, it should not be necessary to have the name of the retailer as well.

said that, unfortunately, there were some people who took bottles labelled with a certain label and put into them ingredients that were never put into them by the original maker.

If a man wants to do a fraud, you can catch him whether he has his name on the bottle or not.

said the Minister had stated that the label would tell the actual contents of the bottle. He wanted to know what the exact position of a retailer was, where they had an article imported, and where the name of the manufacturer appeared on the bottle, as well as the name of the wholesale dealer and the man who sold the bottle retail?

said that he would like to move that that clause stand down, in order that it might be rewritten. According to the clause, a man was prescribed from selling a description of any article, instead of the article itself.

The hon. member’s motion was negatived.

In line 15, to omit “ beer ”; in line 18, to omit “if the” and to substitute “any”; in the same line to omit “has been”; and in line 19, after “Union” to insert “shall be labelled in like letters

said that he did not think the hon. Minister understood the clause himself. He did not try to gain the point he wanted to reach, which was the prevention of adulteration by the retailer. If the Minister wanted to stop that, the best plan would be to rely upon the officers to take sample bottles who would not get the result required by having labels put on the bottles.

said that he had been informed on very good authority by those connected with the Detective Department that the putting on of labels would not help them at all. The only way in which a conviction could be got was to take a sample bottle on the licensed victualler’s premises.

hoped that the Minister would withdraw the clause.

said that the amendment proposed did not meet the case of a man selling liquor off the premises. It was not necessary to put a label on a bottle which was on a licensed victualler’s shelves. If an officer found bottles on the premises he could make tests there.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was negatived.

The amendments moved by the Minister of Justice were agreed to.

Before the clause was put,

asked whether the clause could not stand over, because a description had nothing to do with the contents of the bottle.

replied, but was inaudible.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 24, Prohibitions against sale of recipes,

pointed out that “adulteration” or “adulterating ” had not been defined.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 39, Special provisions as to stocks in hand at the commencement of this Act,

moved that the period be six months; and to add at the end “ or, in respect of dop brandy as defined in Act No. 42 of 1906 of the Cape of Good Hope, until the 31st day of January, 1914.”

moved that it be twelve months.

moved that it be nine.

The first part of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Henderson, were withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Henwood, and the second part of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, were agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 43, Short title and date of commencement of Act,

moved the insertion of the words “30th day of June, 1914.”

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and the amendments set down for consideration on Friday next.

said he wished to explain that the object of the measure was to consolidate and amend the law relating to estates of deceased persons, minors, and lunatics, and also the estates of people absent from and not represented by anyone in South Africa. He pointed out that the Cape practice practically obtained in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, whereas in Natal there was a considerable difference. The interests of minors not being protected in the same way as in the other Provinces on the re-marriage of their surviving parent, and there was no statutory control over executors testamentary. The Minister outlined the procedure in administering. The measure also dealt with the case of a deceased person who left property in different Provinces of the Union. The principal alteration in this regard was to give jurisdiction to the Master of the Province in which the deceased person formerly resided. Under this Bill the Master of that Province would have jurisdiction over the whole of South Africa, and this would make for economy and, he hoped, efficiency. Executors testamentary need not at present find security, but a clause had been inserted in the Bill in another place to make it necessary for them to do so. The procedure with regard to the small estate would be simplified. In the case of estates of under £100 in value, the Master might hand over the administration to the next-of-kin. In the case of estates between £100 and £300, no meeting could be called for the appointment of an executor, but the Master might appoint the surviving spouse or one of the next-of-kin to that post. The Bill also made provision for the proper administration of the estates of minors and lunatics. The estates of persons whose whereabouts were unknown would be placed under curators.

Continuing, the Minister said that at present there were four Masters of the Supreme Court—one for each Province— and each had a guardians’ fund or its equivalent under his control. One of the objects of the Bill was to bring all these funds into one. The Masters would no longer have the control of the investment of moneys in this fund, for their investment would be controlled by the Public Debt Commissioners. In the past, considerable losses had resulted from the investment of these moneys, but it was hoped that the new arrangement would obviate that in the future. Another clause required all such institutions as banks, trust companies, and others to make an annual return to Government showing each sum above £5 which had lain in their hands unclaimed far five years or more. It was proposed that these sums, if not claimed within fifty years, should be forfeited to the Government. Having remarked that the Bill was a very long one, of 119 clauses, and was of a highly technical character, the Minister said that the Bill contained clauses suggested by the Commission, of which Lord De Villiers was chairman. With regard to the four Masters, it was proposed that they should still remain in office. The Bill was the outcome of a conference held by the various Masters shortly after the South Africa Act came into force. It had been very carefully considered in another place, where a Select Committee had also dealt with it. He did not claim that the Bill was perfect, and there was undoubtedly room for differences of opinion regarding it, but he had no doubt that with the united legal talent in the House they would be able to lick it into shape, and possibly effect improvements. The Minister closed by suggesting that all amendments to the Bill should be placed on the notice paper.

said he was sorry the House had not been given more enlightenment as to what the Bill contained. The Minister should have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the measure contained a number of entirely new principles. (Hear, hear.) There were some principles which would have a very far-reaching effect, and it would have been better if the Minister had told them why these novel principles were being introduced. For instance, there was the clause with regard to the security to be given by an executor. It was proposed that the cost of obtaining that security should be paid for out of the estate that the executor was administering. That was a most far-reaching doctrine. Executors obtained very good commission, and it they found security, surely they should pay for the obtaining of it.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when the House rose the point to which he was addressing himself was that in the Bill there were certain new principles which he did not think the hon. Minister had sufficiently brought forward. The position would be that, where they had an executor appointed by will, the idea was that he should not be required to give security, because it was thought that the testator appointed him, and there was no need for him to find security. But where the executor was not appointed by will, it was necessary for him to find security. The Bill proposed that in certain cases the executor testamentary should find security, and that, he thought, was a very wise provision. A man might appoint an executor, a great change might take place, and the man appointed might be in a very different position from what he was in when the will was executed. Then that executor testamentary may be called upon to give security. It would provide against his doing something he ought not to do, and in case an action was brought against him, there would be security. On what principle were these costs of finding security to be paid out of the estate? Why should the estate be called upon for that; the executors get very good commission? Why the costs should be allowed out of the estate, he failed to see; and he was sorry the hon. the Minister had not told the House on what principle it was that the estate should not be safeguarded against the improper conduct of the man who administers it. It was a good principle that executors testamentary should be called upon to give security. His experience had been that those were the very people who required to have security given, for in many cases the executor testamentary was the very person who generally did something that was not right. Why should a surviving spouse or a child be exempt? There was a remedy in those cases, but no security. Supposing a man died and left ten children, and one of them was appointed executor: why should that executor, because he happened to be a child, be exempt from giving security? The fact that he happened to be a child was no criterion that he was going to administer the estate properly. If a parent was an executor, then there was to be no security demanded. A parent was just as much liable to all the difficulties of this world and the temptations of it as other people. In spite of modern development of the emancipation of women, his experience of this country was that women were subject to influences that a man would perhaps be able to withstand. Why should the surviving spouse not be called upon to give security? Supposing she married again? They all knew that in practice the second husband would control the estate, and yet there was to be no security in her case. If the testator had by his will said that there was no security to be given, then no security need be given.

My experience (continued Sir Henry) of the drawing up of wills in this country is, unfortunately, that there are tens of thousands every year wasted by the bad way in which wills are drawn up. The amount of money which is spent in this country upon litigation over the simplest wills is enough to make anyone startled if he looks at it. It forms a very large portion of the practice of the law. (HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.) The way it arose was that they had got these unfortunate printed wills all over the country—printed wills which dealt with a simple elementary mode of dealing with a property. Then the unfortunate testators say they were left something else, and their wishes are put in the printed will, and they are quite opposed to the rest of the print. Thousands and tens of thousands of pounds had been spent in litigation oh wills when it was wholly unnecessary that it should be so. It arose very often because when a man made his will there was a state of affairs which was very different from the state of affairs which existed when he died. It might be said, why did he not make a fresh will every time a fresh state of affairs arose? Well, making a will in this country was a matter of great ceremony. It was a lot of trouble to get in from the country districts, and the country people were not the kind of people who went in for making fresh wills when any new situation arose. A man might be appointed as executor, and in a year or two he might be very differently situated. The people who appointed him did not make another will, and when they died there was an executor who was no longer a man of substance and position, but still he was not to be called upon for security because it said in the will that he need not give security. To his (Sir Henry’s) mind it would be safer, when they were dealing with a country population, who were the people who would be most affected, to make it necessary that an executor should give security because he was not in a sound financial position. That should be insisted upon for the benefit of the people in whose behalf he was administering the estate. If it is necessary that they should give security they should not exempt the parent or the child. Take a case like this. Here under class 32 an executor testamentary may become insolvent at the time he is appointed. Who is going to pay for this security? Why should a poor estate have to pay for that security? There did not seem to him to be any reason, and therefore it seemed that this was a wrong principle. Executors got paid, therefore if they had to find security they must find it at their own cost. Again he thought that the person upon whom the duties were imposed should have a knowledge of the facts. Perhaps he would make himself clear if he referred to section 13, sub-section (3). There ought to be something here to fix their knowledge of the facts, because that was essential in section 48. They could not expect a man to administer a property unless a man knows that this property forms part of the estate. People ought to be safeguarded by stating that they should have some knowledge of the facts. That was only a minor point, however, and he simply mentioned it by the way.

Now he came to another matter which was of considerable importance, and was quite new as regarded Cape Province, though it was not new as regarded the other Provinces. That was the confirmation of the accounts of the executors. It had long been felt in the Cape Province that there should be some period put to the responsibilities of executors with regard to their accounts. They had nothing of that kind in the Cape Province. An executor filed his accounts, and unless the period of prescription had elapsed, that executor was always compelled to render his accounts, therefore, it was a good thing that the accounts of executors should become at some period or other final. Executors on any trust estate were subject to the same confirmation as accounts in insolvent estates. Now there was a great difference in the mode of procedure between the insolvent estate and the machinery of the testamentary estate. In the insolvent estate creditors can come to the Master’s Office and file their claims. Two or three meetings are held, when people have an opportunity of putting forward their claims, or taking exception to others, but there was not that machinery that they had in the insolvent estate where people take exception to accounts. He would suggest, therefore, to the Minister whether he could not lay down in this Bill some sort of machinery that they had in the insolvent estate for objecting to claims put forward. Then, again, the House might not be aware of the difference between an executor and an administrator. There was a great difference between the two. An executor’s duties consisted in realising an estate and distributing it. He had got to realise the property, and then, having realised, had to nay it out to the heirs and the legatees. For instance, supposing there were minors who had a life interest, the executor simply realised the estate, and his duties were finished, but there was not the same provision for an administrator as an executor to render his accounts. An administrator did not render any accounts to the Master at all. He Tendered them to the persons who were interested in the estate. In his opinion it would be a very good thing if they made the administrators render their accounts to the Master. The administrator gets all his funds from the executor, but he might run off with the money. He thought it would, therefore, be a very good policy to adopt what he had suggested. They had got a very fine system already in part, a good deal ahead of older countries, in fact, in that they compelled executors to render accounts to the Master. There would be a great amount of money saved in litigation if every administrator were compelled to render accounts to the Master in the same way.

He commended these remarks to the notice of the Minister, and said he thought it only fair that administrators should file accounts in the same way as executors. The next point he would deal with was clause 50—the power of executors to require proof of claims. It had been found in the past that executors were in an un fortunate position. Perhaps the man whose estate they represented kept his accounts in a slovenly state. Executors did not know whether they had to admit or not admit claims. If an executor paid the money, the heirs came down upon him. If he did not pay the money, and he went to Court and he lost, the heirs wanted to know why he did not pay the money. So the executor was in an awkward position, and so provision was made in the Cape law allowing the executor to call upon the creditor to make an affidavit giving the details of his claim. But this Act went a great deal further, and he did not know whether it was right that it should go further. It seemed to him that the section went a great deal too far. Under the Bill before the House, it was proposed that an executor might not only ask for an affidavit setting forth the details of the claim, but he might also by an examination on oath before the Master or a Magistrate nominated by the Master obtain the details. What did that mean in practice? They were going to have a judicial inquiry before a Magistrate before the matter went into the proper Court. It was very nice for the executor but who was going to pay the costs? According to that Bill the creditor was going to pay the costs. But an examination of that sort cost money, and he did not think it was fair. If the executor was going to pay it would be all right, but according to the Bill he was not going to pay, and the result was two sets of costs. It had always been his aim, because as a member of Parliament he always took a broad view of matters of this kind, to keep down litigation as much as possible. In this matter it seemed to him that they were piling up two bills of cost. He asked the Minister not to go in for this novel proposal, but to go no further than the affidavit. Then they came to another matter—he referred to Clause 57. He wished the Minister had said something on this point, because it was referred to in the report of the Commission that consisted of the Chief Justice, Judge Rose Innes and Mr. Schreiner.

That report pointed out: The second divergence of the Estates Bill from the terms of the Transvaal Proclamation relates to the vesting provisions. These will be found in sections 26, 31, and 57; and they introduce a system entirely novel. Upon the death of any person all his property is to vest in the Master, and, upon, the appointment of an executor, in that functionary; and where the deceased was married in community of property the whole joint estate is so to vest. The surviving spouse may retain and occupy and (subject to the rights of creditors) may use any portion of the estate for the maintenance of himself and family; but beyond that he has no control over it, until the administration has been finally completed. The proposal is an attempt to apply the principles of insolvency administration to solvent estates, testate and intestate. Your Commissioners do not feel justified in recommending so great an innovation, and they feel that it will be unacceptable to the people—more particularly to the country population. That a surviving husband should on the death of his wife lose all right to dispose of his own half share of the farm registered in his name and of his own stock, is a position entirely foreign to South African custom and procedure, and one which will probably be resented. And the success of a law of this nature is largely dependent on the approval and co-operation of the people. The clauses of the Estates Bill already quoted have therefore been omitted from the accompanying annexure. As a consequence of that omission it becomes impossible to dispense with section 59 of the Transvaal Proclamation, which prohibits the transfer and (subject to certain exceptions) the mortgage by the survivor of two spouses married in community of land belonging to the joint estate and registered in his name until an administration account has been duly lodged and accepted. Your Commissioners have accordingly adapted that clause.

The Bill stated that until the accounts were lodged and filed and accepted and a certificate granted by the Master no surviving spouse could deal with the land. He did not think the Master was the proper authority to say as to how a man married in community of property, who survived his wife, under what conditions he could deal with the property. He did not see why the Master should be the authority. He could understand that when the accounts were passed and accepted the survivor should be allowed to deal with the property. Of course there might be reasons why this section had been included in the Bill, and so he thought that it would be as well if the Minister had said something on the subject, especially in view of the recommendations made by the Commission.

The next point to which he would refer was one of considerable importance It was covered in section 58 under which if a testator left a property to Jan for life, and after Jan’s death to Pete, Jan would have to take transfer and pay transfer dues, but Pete would not. In other words, the person who had only a limited interest in the property had to bear the expense of obtaining transfer, although he might die a week afterwards. That seemed to be very unfair. Why should not the estate be made to pay the cost of transfer, for then there would be no injury to anyone? (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Sir Henry said he did not know whether the Minister was going to bring forward a measure by which they could restrain the entailing of estates which was so common in this country. But supposing, as so constantly happened, that the estate had to go to four persons in succession, was each one of them going to pay transfer duty? That was very good business for the State, but very bad business for the estate. (Laughter.) Under those circumstances only one transfer should be paid. There were many small matters to which he would refer when the Bill was in committee.

But he would point out another thing which depended on this unfortunate community of property we had here. The time was rapidly coming when the House would have to consider whether it could not save the country the enormous amount of money which was spent owing to this community of property. Out of 100 law suits regarding wills, 80 to 90 were occasioned by disputes arising from community of property, and in these cases no disputes would have arisen if people had been married out of community of property. In the event of the death of people married in community of property, trouble was caused to the unfortunate surviving spouse, to the heirs and trustees, and also to the creditors. Under the clause to which he had referred a new principle was laid down, and he was bound to call the attention of the House to the fact that it was introduced on the recommendation of the Commission on the Consolidation of Laws. Marriages in community of property were especially prevalent in the country districts. We had a law stating that in the event of a death of a husband or wife, the surviving spouse must state whether he or she would abide by the will or not. It was a very absurd law, for it enabled the survivor to perpetrate a fraud on the deceased. What the House had to decide also was whether they were going to allow’ the heirs of a living person to have the sole right to movables or whether they were going to have the creditors getting just as much right. Referring to the report of the Commission upon the Consolidation of South African Laws, he said they would find that with regard to land as the law now stood the survivor might mortgage his own half, provided the person with whom he had mortgaged it had no knowledge that it had been left by the will to somebody else. That was so far as land was concerned, but he did not think that the report dealt with movables, and the question of movables, in his opinion, had caused a great deal of trouble. He could not see why the heirs of living persons should have all the estate and the creditors get nothing. They should, on the one hand, recognise the rights of the heirs, and on the other hand the rights of the creditors should also be considered.

Then with regard to the question of trust accounts, the provision was very good so far as it went. All these accounts held by people in a fiduciary capacity should be paid to a trust account, but the banks would not have them They could not make those unfortunate people responsible because of the fact that the banks Would not accept the money. The object of the Bill was to prevent these people as far as possible from taking the money, so they must pay it into a trust account. Unless, however, the Minister was prepared to go further, and say that banks or other institutions into which the money was to be paid shall receive the money it was very unfortunate for those people in the fiduciary capacity. What were they to do? If they were compelled by this Act to put the money into a trust account in the bank, so that the Master may at all times require the executor or the curator to furnish him with a statement, that was a very wise provision, and the Master could always check these trust accounts, but unless they were going further and decided that nobody should be able to refuse these trust accounts he did not think they were going to gain. He would have liked the Minister to have given the House the benefit of the inquiries that had been made into the subject as to how he expected this provision to be of any use or protection to the public. The Bill undoubtedly did contain a number of very important proposals likely to be of benefit to the country, but many of them were quite novel. He knew that great consideration had been given to the proposals, but there had not been unanimity of opinion, and whether it would benefit by their going into committee on it he did not know. That was for the House to decide. There were many points upon which it would have been interesting indeed if they could have heard evidence of those who were concerned in the matter. He had been reading the proceedings in another place, but he had been unable to find sufficient grounds for the conclusions that had been arrived at, and he thought it would be doing service to the country if, after the second reading, they referred the matter to a Select Committee, because the Bill contained matters of very vital importance.

said the House was very much indebted to the last speaker. He thought the Bill was a welcome one if only for the reason that it was another step in the direction of consolidating the laws which were still awaiting to be consolidated. Undoubtedly the Bill contained many excellent provisions, but at the same time, many of them were novel. Many were innovations and to them in the Cape Province were foreign. Where under the old Cape Province estates were administered the Master was given too little power, the whole tendency of the Bill under discussion was to give the Master too much power, taking away the legal power which was now invested in the Court. The old Cape idea was to give the testator practically a free hand with a limited control by the Master, but they found in that Bill that the control by the Master was the dominating feature of the whole Bill. He was pleased to see, however, that the Bill did away with the old system of kinderbewijs. He did not, however, entirely agree with the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. It seemed to him that this Bill was an unnecessary interference with the relations between the testator and the executor. When a man appointed an executor it showed that he had a belief in him, and it seemed to him, therefore, that even should he become insolvent he should not lose his executorship on that account. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had referred to the litigation that arose through badly drawn wills, and it seemed to him that the hon. member left the impression that these badly drawn up wills were due to the lawyers of the country. Now, in his opinion it was not the attorney of the district that was a sinner but the schoolmaster. (Laughter and cheers.) Schoolmasters had a lot of printed forms, and farmers could get them drawn up for the matter of half-a-crown. If the Government wanted to do a service to the farming community of the country then they should pass a law that only properly qualified legal men should be allowed to draw up wills. There were several other important matters that he would like to draw attention to, but he would only refer to one in particular—to what was contained in sections 57 and 58—where the law could compel an individual who had only a limited interest in a property to take transfer of that property. No matter how limited these interests were, in the ordinary course he must take transfer. This was somewhat entirely foreign to this country. However much it might be for the benefit of the Treasury, it was a very unfair thing. He welcomed this Bill because it was a consolidating measure, but he was sorry the Minister of Justice was not in his place, because he would have liked to ask him when they were to see a consolidating insolvency law. The Chambers of Commerce had asked for a consolidating measure of this kind, and he believed that two years back an insolvency law was drawn up, but here they were in their third session, and yet nothing was heard about it. (Sir T. W. SMARTT: The Government are very busy.) They saw cases of fraudulent and culpable insolvency, and they had not got effective machinery to bring these people to book. He hoped that there would be time to bring in this session a measure of this description, because it had been drafted three years ago. Considering the importance of the matter he thought that the Bill ought to have a very easy passage through the House. There was another matter, and that was the consolidation of the law regarding the lower Courts of this country.

I must point out to the hon. member that this is a law regarding deceased persons. (Hear, hear.)

Yes, Mr. Speaker; but it seems to me the time has arrived when the Government should approach members on the other side of the House, and appoint a strong committee, because unless this is done we will have to wait years and years before these important measures are put through the House. Unless this course is adopted our five years will be up and we will have done nothing in the way of consolidating necessary measures. (Opposition laughter and cheers.) He welcomed the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

in supporting the Bill, deemed that executors usually made something out of estates. If the suggestions of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. Juta), were agreed to, it would be impossible in future to get any executors at all. An executor in a small estate would refuse to give security. Sir Henry Juta had made certain remarks about people being married under antenuptial contract. Such contracts had their good and bad points, and he thought it would have been good if all the people who had received repatriation loans had been married under ante-nuptial contract. Then the wives would at any rate have been safe. He had himself experienced many difficulties in connection with printed forms of wills. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, as it contained many good points, but when in committee would suggest certain amendments.

also welcomed the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, because there were numerous matters that required attention. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out that estates of natives were usually hopelessly involved, and if anyone looked at section 3, sub-section (d), he would see that the administration of these estates was specially excluded from the operation of the Bill. He did not see why a native who complied with the law should have his estate administered by some other law. He thought that the framers of the Bill meant that the estates which were being administered by native custom should continue to be so administered, but that was not what the Bill said, and he thought that some change would have to be effected when the measure reached the committee stage. He thought that class legislation of such a character was not worthy of the House. Proceeding to deal with jurisdiction, he referred to clause 6, sub-section 4, in which it was stated that any Master who exercised jurisdiction in the first instance should continue to exercise that jurisdiction. He thought the result would be that practitioners would rush forward in order to get an estate administered in their Province, because the Master of that Province would rule that estate for all times. Dealing with wills, he said that under the old law a man who held a will handed it to the nearest magistrate in his district. But now the will had to be forwarded to the magistrate of the district where the deceased had been resident. He thought this would cause a risk to the will, and that the old law was safer. It seemed to him that the framers of the Bill had split up the sections of the old Ordinances and put them in here and there. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had already drawn attention to sub-section 3 of section 13. The Bill stated that whenever a per son died outside the Union, every person in the Union having any property, even a cart or horse, e.g., of the deceased in his possession must report the death of the deceased to the Master under a penalty. It was not even provided that such person should know of the death. He thought that was an extraordinary state of affairs. But an even more extraordinary state of affairs was revealed in section 21. Under the old law, if a person who bad no relatives died in a house, the person in charge of the house, in the presence of two witnesses, had to make an inventory of the goods in that house belonging to that person. But what did they find in the new Bill? Supposing a millionaire went down to Muizenberg for a bathe, was seized with a fit, was carried into the bathing shed and died, the caretaker of that place had, within fourteen days, to make an inventory of all the property belonging to that person. He thought that was a ridiculous state of affairs. That section went far •beyond the provisions of the old law, which only dealt with the property of the deceased in the particular house in which he died. He pointed out that large and additional powers had been conferred on the Masters, and he thought that these should be carefully studied by members. These new provisions might save great expense, but still the House would do well to scrutinise them very carefully. So far as security was concerned, he thought it should be given in every case, or not at all. The rights of surviving spouses to be excused from making an inventory were taken away under section 44. Included in the Bill was a number of provisions incorporated on the recommendation of the Commission upon Consolidation of South African laws. These provisions were very far-reaching, and required very careful consideration, unless the House—seeing the high authority from which they came—was prepared to take them on trust. There were many sections in which the language of the Bill was not such as he would like it to be, and there were also many errors, which it would tire the House if attention were called to them. A Bill of this importance, which should stand for all time, should be very carefully considered by the House, which desired to avoid passing a measure one year and having to amend it the next. (Cheers.) It would be a great saving of time if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee.

said he had not found sufficient reason for the sending of the Bill to a Select Committee. (Hear, hear.) The measure had been very carefully dealt with in another place. Surely by this time hon. members must be in a position to make up their minds as to the requirements of that consolidating measure. Referring the matter to a Select Committee would only mean the putting off of a Bill which was absolutely necessary, and was urgently required. The hon. member for Albany had referred to a number of minor alterations, but surely they could be made in Committee of the whole House. The whole of the Bill (observed Mr. Becker, in conclusion) was founded on the Cape law, with a few minor alterations.

said he wished to welcome the Bill, for it was one of the most necessary measures that could be put before the House, and it was absolutely indispensable for the proper working of estates. The best way to get the measure through would be to refer it to a Select Committee. (Hear, hear.) It would take an enormous amount of time to deal properly with it in the House, where many people who knew little about the matter would express their opinions. The criticism levelled at sub-section 3 by the hon. member for Albany was worthy of very serious consideration. That subsection dealt with the exclusion of native estates from the operation of the Bill. Naturally all natives would not like European laws to apply to the administration of their estates, but some natives were sufficiently civilised to desire that, and provision should certainly be made to have native estates administered under this law whenever it was requested, or whenever the natives concerned had reached a certain stage of civilisation. It was necessary in dealing with small estates that the Master should have extensive powers, and when it was necessary that real estate should be sold, very often better prices could be obtained by a private sale than by a public auction. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had objected to a provision that the Master may consent to the cost of finding the security coming out of the estate, and more particularly with reference to poor estates said that the executors made a good commission. In a case of poor estates executors often made nothing at all. If it were necessary to find security, in some cases estates would go unadministered. He would point out that the Master was not bound to arrange for the payment of the cost of finding the security out of the estate, but it was provided that he may do so. He (Mr. Neser) agreed that every executor should give security, but they must take care that it should not be made impossible for people to find executors for their estates. He was quite prepared to endorse every word spoken by the hon. member as to the necessity for finding security, but he thought it was wrong to argue that the cost of finding the security should not come out of the estate. When the time came for confirmation of accounts it was open for any creditor to object to any claim by another creditor, and then the claim would be fought out before the Court. To allow proof by an affidavit would be unwise, for some people had not a sacred regard for an oath, but it was a different matter when they came before the magistrate; therefore, he thought the provision in the Bill as it stood was preferable. In connection with the provision in section 58 with regard to the transfer of limited interests, he thought that would often lead to very grave hardships. In that direction he thought the Bill should be amended, and he was prepared to put an amendment on the order paper for consideration. In his opinion it was absolutely necessary that so long as there was an executor to administer an estate it should be his duty to see that all property was properly transferred. According to the provision of the Bill at some time or other the executor would be discharged from his duties, and if he had not transferred all the property there would be nobody to convey it to the ultimate heir. It was desirable that land should be registered in the name of some living person. It would be advisable in some cases to register in the name of the person who is ultimately entitled to it—reserving only life interest or some other interest, to the person immediately entitled thereto. But sometimes it was not possible for it to be registered in the name of the ultimate heir. Referring to transfer duty, he hoped the hon. Minister would see his way to wipe out what was an unnecessary tax upon the acquisition of property, and he hoped it would disappear from the law before long. The matter of community of property, he thought, should be placed in a Bill by itself. It should be dealt with in one Act and not in a measure of the description of the one before the House. He had some amendments to suggest, but that was not an opportune time, and in the meantime he had great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill, hoping at the same time that the hon. Minister in charge would see his way clear to refer it to a Select Committee. That course, he was sure, would save a great deal of valuable time.

said that it had been suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and he welcomed that suggestion because he found that several of the clauses were really contentious. The hon. member had drawn attention to the fact that the law did not apply to the estates of natives, but he understood that it was the Government’s intention to leave in force certain clauses in the Transvaal law which dealt specifically with certain natives. Again, he would like to point out that notaries were obliged to register their notarial documents and to number them. The office of notary was one of very ancient standing; it was not held in the same way in this country as it was held in America, where one saw a sign like this, “John Smith, Grocer and Notary Public.” It was an honourable profession handed down from time immemorial, therefore he would draw the hon. Minister’s attention to clause 16, where it should not be made compulsory for a notary to mutilate his protocol. Continuing, he pointed out that, as an executor knew that he had sufficient money he should pay creditors, but if later there was found a shortage, he could be called upon to pay that shortage. He thought that was an extraordinary provision to include in the Bill. Continuing, he said that in Natal an executor could invest funds with the consent of the Master, but here he must go to the Court and pay additional expenses. He thought the older provision was the wiser. Then the Bill stated that those people who have funds in their hands should, after five years, pay these funds into the Master’s funds. It was a very good principle, but he thought it was outside the scope of the Bill, and, later on, he proposed to ask whether such a provision should be included in the measure. There were clauses in the Bill in which a man might be punished twice, and he thought that these should be investigated when the House was in Committee. With regard to the section dealing with examination of creditors, to which the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had taken exception, he thought it was very wise. He did not think that executors would stretch that point. He favoured the Bill going to a Select Committee.

said he agreed with the principle underlying sub-section (d) of section 3, namely, that there should be no sudden change of practice as to the law of administering estates among the natives; but there was a great difference among the natives themselves, and the matter needed more consideration. Were the Cape Acts to be repealed as far as Europeans were concerned, and left unrepealed with regard to natives? He thought the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, so that this question could foe thrashed out there.

said he thought that, on the whole, the feeling of the House was that the Bill ought to become law this session. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) had raised a good many mares’ nests, and had taken exception to several clauses. At the same time, he had told the House that regard should be paid to the recommendations of the Judicial Commission, but he had omitted to say that sections 58 and 113 were inserted in the Bill on the recommendation of that Commission. However, who did not think it necessary, at that late hour, to traverse the arguments of the hon. member. The measure was a mass of technical details, and he was inclined to agree with hon. members who suggested the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee (hear, hear)—and in the hope that it would have a short passage through the House on its return, he would move that it he sent to a Select Committee for consideration and report. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.