The motion in my name is as follows:

The Bill amending the electoral law of 1918 which is now being considered by the Select Committee is of such an important nature that I do not wish by my motion to introduce a stumbling block to the passing of the Bill because my proposal is of an important nature. It does not seem to me, moreover, the right time to introduce this motion. And I have the assurance of the Minister of the Interior that he intends next year or the year after to introduce an Electoral Amendment Bill in which provision will also be made for persons who come under my proposal. I therefore wish to withdraw my motion.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The motion has been introduced at the instance of the Natal Wool Buyers’ Association. The object of the motion is to prevent what is represented to me as a practice which is very, very injurious to the wool growers of South Africa. I understand that there are certain well recognized grades of wool which are exported from South Africa. The highest grade is known as first fleece, the second grade as second fleece, and then there are other qualities such as skirts and locks. I want to say at once that most of the progressive farmers of South Africa, in making up their bales of wool, are scrupulously careful to put in the designation of the wool, and when they have been separated they are known to the trade as skirted clips and fetch the highest prices overseas. It is stated that some farmers in the preparation of their bales are careless and mix the different grades and different qualities of wool. Further, I am informed that some of the farmers put skirts and locks in the centre of the bale and surround it with a finer quality and represent the whole bale contains the better quality. There is what is known as the stove-pipe method. I understand the wool on the outside is of a finer quality and a stove pipe is put in the centre of the bale and filled up with other refuse.

Where did you get that from?

It is supplied to me by the Natal wool buyers. I instanced the stovepipe method, but I must say that it has been represented to me that the practice which I have described is very rare indeed. Nevertheless, instances do occur of the nature I have indicated, and it is not difficult to understand that where there are these malpractices in the preparation of these bales for export overseas it creates a degree of suspicion and the consequence is that South African wool on the other side is regarded with suspicion and will not be purchased except after the most close examination, yet wools of a similar type from Australia, under a law similar to the one suggested by this motion, are accepted by the trade as being what they represent. I understand that in Australia they have the same law I am asking for in this motion. The farmers have to mark their name on the bale and indicate what the contents of the bale are. If there is any infringement of the rule it involves a penalty. The authorities have power to sell the wool and whatever it realizes goes to the account of the farmer less the expense incurred for sending it overseas. As a result Australian wool is regarded with greater confidence and does not require the same degree of handling and inspection as wool from South Africa. It may be asked why is there not a close examination of the wool on this side. I understand that every effort is made to ascertain the true value of the wool, but as many as 12,000 to 15,000 bales are handled every other day and the impossibility of making a close inspection will be apparent to everyone. Is it too much to ask what is asked for in this motion? The great majority of farmers are doing so in a proper way. They are careful in the selection of their clips and do not attempt any of the malpractices to which I refer. On the other hand a few unscrupulous persons are not so careful and the result is that the whole of the wool exported is affected by the circumstances when these malpractices continue. In consequence of the suspicion attaching to our wool, buyers in Europe prefer to take the Australian wool and frequently the sales of the South African wool are less in consequence. Further, owing to the additional handling required, and the necessity for greater care by inspection, South African wool suffers in comparison with the prices. It may interest hon. gentlemen to know how the values of wool from South Africa have increased during the last ten years. The export of wool in 1914 from South Africa was of the value of £4,493,000. According to the figures given by the Minister in introducing his budget the total in 1924 reached £16,764,000, largely due to the difference in price. If a farmer sends a pound of butter to the market he has to put his name on it. If the unfortunate grocer puts a little sand in his sugar he is liable to be fined. If the baker sells his loaf under weight he is liable to be fined. Is it asking too much that the person who sends a bale of wool out of the country representing it to be of a certain quality, if through error or wilfulness he substitutes a different wool, he too should be liable to some punishment. He should be compelled to put his name on the bale and the description of the wool so that people should know from whence it comes. The difference in value between the first quality wool and the lowest quality is something like 2s., so that the substitution of a low grade for a higher grade means considerable loss for the people dealing in the fleeces. That is the reason why this motion has been introduced. I, personally, have no knowledge of the facts. They have been given to me by this association, a responsible association carrying on affairs in Natal.

What do you mean by description?

Whether it is first or second quality skirt or lock. It is well known in the trade.

They are unknown to the farmers.

They probably know something about skirts. I can hardly believe that is a serious objection that the farmers do not know how to mark their bales. In the interests of the great bulk of the farmers of this country who, in making up their clips in a proper way but are prejudiced by the malpractices of others which I have described. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

seconded.

Whilst sympathizing with the object which the hon. member (Mr. Robinson) has in view in bringing forward this motion, but I do not think that it is the best way of dealing with the matter. There is not the slightest doubt that most of the farmers to-day classify and describe their wools accurately, but I think those few who are accused of putting stove-pipes and rocks in the middle of their wool bales are hardly likely to declare these contents even if the law compels them to describe the contents of their wool packs. It seems to me that it is going to cause more inconvenience to the wool growers to-day who have established a high reputation for their wool. These wools are also very carefully inspected by expert buyers at the ports where they are sold. The bales are opened and their contents can be examined in the most drastic manner by the buyers. They have a means of drawing from each bale a sample from as near the centre of the bale as it is possible to get, and by the time that bale of wool has been inspected by the buyer at the port of sale they have as good an idea of the quality of that wool as the farmer who packed it. There are also a number of traders in wool. The people who buy wool in small quantities from natives and other small producers. Who is to be responsible for describing the wool in these consignments? I think you are hardly likely to get the object achieved at which you are aiming by the passing of this resolution, and I think it is rather a pity that the hon. member did not take some of us into his confidence so that we could discuss the matter with him beforehand. I am not opposed to the spirit of the motion, but I do not think that it will achieve its object in view of the drastic system of classification at present in force, and therefore cannot support it.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Central) has been actuated by the very best motives in bringing forward this motion, but it seems to me to be rather a serious indictment against the sheep farmers. He has given us a terrible description of the malpractices which occur, but. I do not think these malpractices are very common occurrences. My opinion is that every day we are improving our methods, and we are adopting the most up-to-date and honest methods of sorting and packing our wool. If you introduce legislation of this sort, why should you single out wool, and why not include mealies and other produce? You have got mealies of various qualities, and you might just as reasonably require that the bags should bear the name of the grower and state the quality of the mealies contained in it. I think that if we are to adopt this system in regard to wool we should apply it to every sort of produce, and I am bound to say that I would rather oppose legislation of that kind. The hon. member has spoken very strongly about the necessity of describing correctly the wool contained in the bales. We can only do that approximately. Farmers are not experts, and it is well known to wool growers that that wool is again classified overseas. We may call certain wools first fleeces, but the buyer overseas may have quite a different view with regard to those fleeces. It is no guide to the oversea buyer to describe your wool as first fleeces. Then there is another very serious matter. If legislation is going to be brought to bear in this connection, and penalties be imposed as suggested by the Minister, where are these cases going to be fought out? If I export wool and I do not describe it correctly or the oversea buyer questions my description, shall I have to fight a case in England or on the Continent in regard to the faulty packing and description of my wool? The effect of this proposed legislation will be that wool will be very lightly looked at here, and it will be very drastically examined on the other side. As far as identification of any clip goes, many farmers, and I think I may say most farmers, do put their full names on their bales. Every bale of wool that goes to the coast ports or any other centre for sale bears an identification mark. If the buyers and brokers require any further identification, it is very easy to place in the sale catalogue the name of the grower. There is another matter which rather appeals to me. I am a sheep farmer and I take a pride in the get-up of my wool. The same buyer takes my wool practically every year, but when I have a little bit of extra winter feed I buy a lot of hamels for feeding purposes, which may not be of very good quality so far as their wool is concerned. I do not want to sell that wool under my own name. If this resolution is passed I am going to be compelled to sell inferior wool under my own name, which might do me great harm. I do not think the time has come when farmers should be forced by legislation to take a step of this sort. It wants very careful consideration, and I, for one, am not prepared to support the motion before the House.

I do not for a moment doubt but that the motive of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) is of the best in the interests of an important matter for South Africa, as he tells us he has been asked by the wool brokers in Durban to bring this matter before the House. I think the people have applied to the wrong person. We know that we have wool growers associations all over the Union. Farmers come together and start such an association, and it resolves that each owner shall put his name on his bales and also the name of the association. The brokers ought rather to have gone to the associations. Then possibly something practical would have been brought forward. In the first place it seems to me very difficult to compel the farmers to put their names on their wool. There we have at once a great difficulty, because some people pack their own wool and sell it to purchasers. Those purchasers buy a bale of wool here and there, and thus get a hodge-podge of wool. It is not difficult for them to put their name on all the bales and to regard them as one class of wool. Every farmer worth his salt, and who has any self-respect, and thinks much of his wool, does already put his name on his wool, and the railway department also asks us to do so. It goes so far as to demand it of us. I do not know whether it is the case throughout the country, but when I send my wool to the station I must have on it the initials of the person to whom I am sending it as well as the port of destination. What is more, I must have my own initials on it and the name of the station where I intend loading the wool. The difficulty mentioned by the hon. mover of finding out when wool arrives at the oversea market from whom it comes is actually non-existent, because the port from which the wool comes and the person who sent it can always be found out, and when fraud has taken place, it will in this manner also come to light. Further, the hon. member said that farmers sometimes pack their good wool on top and the bad underneath in the bale. We know that these things happen in all things. If you buy potatoes it will also happen that the best are on top and the little ones below, but as regards wool that is something of the past, just as those cases where sand and stones were packed amongst the wool. I know of a case where a man—I think it was accidentally—packed a stone in his wool. The stone came back to the man on his farm, and he had to pay all the expenses of the railway and sea freight going and coming on the stone and also the commission on it. He learnt a good lesson, and also his brother farmers. We all know about this stone. No, I do not believe it is done any longer to-day. With a few exceptions the farmers are proud of their wool, and like putting their names on the bales. And as regards scab, it is sometimes advisable for a farmer not to put his name on the bales if he has to dip his sheep against scab. I know that this is done. I know of a large farmer who actually thought that he always was an example to the whole country. One year he had scab, and he was compelled to dip a few times. He then did not put his name on the wool. It is in many cases not an advantage to put your name on your wool. I do not expect that this motion will be accepted. I once had an experience that my wool was sold in London under another name than what I had put on it. I got a report from the broker who sold the wool in London about the sale of the parcel in London. He knew that it was my wool, but the initials which I had put on the bale were taken off and others substituted. If this becomes general, then it will be necessary to legislate against it if initials are wilfully erased and others substituted. The description of the wool will also give great difficulty. It will be unfair to punish people in many instances in connection therewith. Every farmer and every wool growers’ association has a certain standard. What the one calls first class is called third class by another. There will therefore be great difficulties with regard to the description. I do not say these things because I think that the mover is not inspired with the best intentions.

I think that if I answer now it will advance the matter, and we shall perhaps dispose of the motion sooner. I am sorry that the mover made a reflection upon the farmers. I am certain that that will not rouse the sympathy of the farmers. Every sheep farmer who can in any way be called a farmer, and who is progressive tries to make his wool as good as possible. Certainly 90 per cent. of the wool farmers already stencil their names on the bales, and they are not ashamed of them. They classify their wool, and are not ashamed of it. To cast the reflection now that farmers pack wool badly and in a fraudulent way is not fair. We must remember that there are people who buy small bags of wool. The farmer sells his bales, and then he has a few little bags over. The bags of wool are then bought up and repacked into bales. In this way it may often happen that various kinds of wool are packed into one bale, and that wool gets in which should not be there. This is probably the reason why people are accused of bad packing. Our people will not go in for it any more to pack sand, etc., in the bales because they know it is to their detriment. The bales are cut open in Durban and at the ports, and if the farmer has handled his wool badly he can expect to get bad prices for it, and for this reason I do not consider it fair that this reflection should be made on the farmers. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) has rightly said that all the farmers are not wool experts and it is wrong to make a farmer punishable if he states that his wool is first class and this is not the case. But what I should like to point out is that I have already made provision to meet the hon. member in connection with this matter. If he looks at the Levy Bill, which has already been read a second time by the House, he will see that section 10 provides that wool and angora hair and ostrich feathers are excluded, so that the Minister will have the right to make certain regulations with reference to the packing, etc., thereof. If he then refers to section 6 of Act No. 35 of 1923 he will find the following—

1. (f) The place and manner of storage, the conveyance and the treatment of any produce;
2. (g) the fixing of grades, the place and manner of grading and branding of any produce and the manner in which different designations or grades of produce shall be branded or indicated whether on the receptacle or on a certificate of the inspector or otherwise.

Now, under that section of the Act I intend to issue regulations that our people shall properly mark their wool bales and give up their names so that it shall not happen that someone who has not properly packed his wool should be untraceable. I am not able to accept the motion and I think that the hon. member, after considering section 6 of the Act of 1917 in connection with the Levy Bill, will see that I am meeting his point. As far as this motion goes I and the Government cannot accept it because I think that everything can be obtained under the Act that I have mentioned. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort will agree with me that this is the case, and I, therefore, think that it is advisable for the hon. mover to withdraw his motion.

I presume that the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has been introduced with the best intentions and that he particularly has in view the protection of the South African producer and the good reputation of South African wool, but the speech he has made he should have made 25 years ago. The things that he mentions are past. From what he has said it is clear that he is not an expert, that he knows nothing about the matter, because he said several times “I am told” and “I am informed.” Perhaps I can put him right a bit. It is possibly an honour to the Department of Agriculture and to the former Minister of Agriculture that in the agricultural schools courses are now given to teach the farmers how to sort wool, and where wool-growers’ associations are established in the various districts the wool is then only sorted by experts. The farmers learn in from two to four weeks to properly sort their wool and in cases where they cannot do so the Agricultural Department sends experts to help them, and in the period from September to December when much shearing takes place the students also help to show the farmers how to sort their wool. The hon. member for Durban (Central) has talked about stones in the wool. There he did the farmers an injustice. The friends who told him that were pulling his leg, because such a thing does not happen any longer to-day. Farmers sort their wool properly, and I only wish to point out to the hon. member that when the wool arrives in Durban or other coast ports the bales are cut to pieces. Even your bad wool is treated in that way, and if an irregularity is discovered the wool is rejected and the broker and sellers are called to account. The farmer knows that he runs the risk of getting his wool returned. I do not only speak as an expert in farming, but I also have much experience in the business of one of the largest selling institutions in the country which deals with approximately 60,000 to 80,000 bales per annum. I only know of one case where it happened that the better wool was put on top and the worse below. But this immediately became noticeable when the bales were cut open, and the dealer had no more to do with that wool. The hon. member for Durban (Central) has been given wrong information, perhaps his information is some years old. Such things do not happen any more.

Perhaps still in Natal.

Yes, but the wool that goes to Durban also comes from the Free State and the Transvaal. Then as regards Australian wool, my hon. friend there has said that the Australian wool is preferred. Let me tell my hon. friend that there are various manufacturers who manufacture a certain kind of article for which the Australian wool is the best suited, but by the extraordinary progress that we have made in South Africa the South African wool need not stand back for the best wool of Australia. The Australian wool is not preferred because it is better handled, but only because a certain wool is better suited for certain manufactures. I think that my hon. friend would have done better to have left this matter to a farmer. Perhaps the seconder of the motion will give us better information, but I think that the motion to-day is entirely supererogatory, and as the Minister of Agriculture under his Levy Bill can provide for any mark or initial for wool bales, I hope my hon. friend will withdraw his motion.

I am afraid my friend the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has struck a mare’s nest. I have been associated with sheep farming for 30 years, and I have not heard of any stones being put in wool bales in Durban, Wool farmers of to-day regard this as a legend. If one takes the sale room prices in Durban, that will disprove the idea of any spurious stuff being put in the bales. There is no need for this motion whatsoever. The South African wool farmer of to-day is very jealous and very much alive in regard to the way in which he prepares his wool for the market, and the prices he obtains locally and in Europe prove this. I hope the House will reject this motion.

I would like to associate myself with the last speaker. I really do not see the necessity for a resolution of this kind, and I can very well conceive that it was not brought about by a farmer. One would rather think it emanated from the dark ages. I do not think the hon. member has kept abreast of the times.

I think the sooner the hon. member withdraws his motion the better. We appreciate the good he meant by it, but I am convinced that he did not think any further than the first two lines of it, otherwise he would have understood that the farmers could not possibly accept it. I hope that he will withdraw the motion and leave the matter in the hands of the Minister.

I cannot help thinking that the hon. members of this House are wool sellers and not wool buyers. This motion has been suggested by an association of wool buyers. If there is a total absence of any cause for complaint, it seems very remarkable that these gentlemen who are a responsible association, should have asked me to ventilate this matter in Parliament.

They are pulling your leg.

The information given to me is that the great bulk of the farmers of South Africa are men who endeavour to send overseas the best quality of wool and are not guilty of any of those practices to which I have referred. Although it is the small minority who do this, it affects the values and prices being realized by the farmers of this country. That is the point hon. members are overlooking and that the legislation asked for was as much in the interests of the farmers who are trying to play the game as of those engaged in the industry. I appreciate some of the difficulties indicated by the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) and I appreciate what has been said by the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and I am not going to persist in my motion, but I understood the Minister to say that he now has powers under the Act which has been introduced to have regulations issued affecting this question, and I ask him not to take it for granted that these practices do not exist. Before he frames his regulations, he would do well to get into communication with this association, and I am very satisfied that if he will do that, he will get some information that will be interesting in this connection. They do not suggest that these practices are widespread, but it is the possibility of a single bale being of the description I have mentioned that affects the value of the whole ship-load of wool, because people are suspicious. As the purpose I had in view has been served, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my motion.

With leave of the House, motion withdrawn.

I move—

It will come as a surprise to a large number of members to see such a motion as mine on the paper, or to learn that it is necessary. I know from conversations which I have had with members that it is a surprise to them to be told that it is necessary, at this stage of the development of the Witwatersrand, to put down a motion asking that we have a three-judge court of our own to serve so large an area, and yet that is the case. We have on the Rand, in the area served by the present Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court, the largest aggregation of population that exists in the Union. The white population is something over a quarter of a million and the coloured population closely approximates to a million. We have eight municipalities within that area, extending from Randfontein to Springs, and yet we are served by exactly the same court, limited in the same way, as existed in the republican days before the Boer War. At the moment, all we have on the Rand is a single-judge court, with no jurisdiction in appeal or review; that is the position set up under the legislation of 1902. In constant session on the Rand, there are two judges, one sitting in civil and one in criminal matters. After Union, a judge was appointed to the Transvaal Supreme Court—the late Mr. Justice C. G. Ward—and by an arrangement made with him he continued to reside in Johannesburg although a member of the Pretoria Court, and he devoted the great bulk of his time to the work of the courts on the Rand, and I may say that it is a belief entertained by most of us in the legal profession on the Rand that that judge, whose death at a comparatively early age we all deplore, was really killed by overwork; because the work of the court on the Rand is such that no single judge can do it for any length of time. Mr. Justice Ward died two years ago, and since that time the arrangement made with him has not been repeated in the case of other judges appointed from Johannesburg. They are all now resident in Pretoria, and it is expected of them, when they accept an appointment to the bench, that they shall take up residence in Pretoria, although their home hitherto has been in Johannesburg. At present we have seven judges making up the Supreme Court in Pretoria, all of whom live in Pretoria and of whom two at a time, sometimes three at a time, are delegated to attend to the work in Johannesburg. There are many occasions on which there is not a single judge actually in Johannesburg. The judges living in Pretoria go home for the week-end on Friday afternoons, and it has happened in many cases that on a Saturday or a Friday evening there has not been a single judge available in Johannesburg. Sometimes matters of extreme urgency arise. There may be a debtor whom it is desired to arrest, to prevent his flight to evade payment of his debts, and he cannot be arrested because no judge is available. Or it may be necessary to obtain an urgent interdict or sequestration order, and there is often not a judge in Johannesburg—the commercial hub of and the centre of the largest population that exists in the Union. The legal work on the Rand, as a unit, is far greater than the legal work anywhere else in South Africa, and the work done in the Johannesburg courts compares in volume with that of the whole of the Cape Supreme Court here, and certainly exceeds the work done by the courts in Pretoria. I have the figures showing the number of sittings and the actual volume of work done for the last legal year, that is 1924. First of all there are the figures for the sittings of the criminal courts. The Pretoria session lasted 36 days and the circuit court 106 days, making a total for the criminal court sessions for Pretoria and the outside districts of 142 days. On the Rand (I do not speak of this with any particular pride), in the criminal sessions there were in one division 167 sessions, and in the second division—that is with an additional criminal judge—the court had to sit 53 days, and a third criminal judge (three criminal courts sitting) five days, making a total of 225 court days on which the criminal courts were in session on the Rand. The corresponding figure for the previous year (1923), for the Witwatersrand court, was 244 days. It is recognized by the judges that the criminal sessions represent extremely arduous work, and when I say that the courts are sitting for so many days you will see that the criminal sessions in Johannesburg are practically continuous. Turning now to the civil work, the full court sat in Pretoria on 168 days, the divisional court (an extra court) on 61 days, and the chamber court sat for 177 days, but those members of this House who have any knowledge of the court in Pretoria know there is a motion day every court day of the week, and the proceedings very often normally last a few minutes, whereas when we have a motion day once a week in Johannesburg it often goes well into the second and even into the third day. However that may be, there were 406 court days, according to the computation I have given, in Pretoria. At Johannesburg the court sat in 1923 for 228 days in Banco and Chambers and for 228 days in 1924, while the additional sittings when a two-judge court sat made the total for 1924 269 days. At the Pretoria Sessions in 1924 there were 73 cases and on circuit 337 cases, making a total of 410. The Criminal High Court at Johannesburg heard 486 cases in 1924, and in 1923 it disposed of 589 cases. The Cape Province, excluding the Eastern Districts Court, disposed in 1924 of 180 criminal cases, and at the circuit courts dealt with 203, making a total of 383. I will now deal with applications. The applications dealt with in Pretoria in 1923 numbered 1,032, while on the Rand the total was 1,492. The illiquid cases were: Pretoria 201, Johannesburg 431; liquid cases, Pretoria 100, Johannesburg 77. The grand totals were: Pretoria 1,333 and Johannesburg 2.000, showing that the volume of civil work on the Rand is immensely greater than that of Pretoria, although a great deal of our work must by law go to Pretoria. The corresponding figures for the Cape are 3.074; in other words, only 50 per cent. more cases were dealt with in the whole of the Cape Supreme Court than by a single judge on the Rand. In the same period 103 civil and 217 criminal appeals, making a total of 320, were dealt with by the Transvaal Supreme Court in Pretoria. No less than 175 of these cases were from the Rand. The fact that these appeals must go to Pretoria constitutes a real grievance. The total number of appeals in the Cape was 89—61 civil and 28 criminal—this figure being for 1924. The Transvaal Provincial Division dealt with 2.924 review cases in 1924, while the Cape handled 1,190. From the figures I have given it will be seen that at least, half of the appeal work of the Transvaal Provincial Division arises on the Rand. The Johannesburg bar is twice as large as the bar in Pretoria and the side bar on the Rand enormously outnumbers the Pretoria side bar. Legally speaking, Johannesburg is probably the most important centre in the Union, and yet I have to plead here for the establishment on the Band of a three-judge court, the same as they have in Cape Town and Grahamstown. The Rand’s position is even worse than Kimberley’s, for at the latter there is a judge who can hear appeals. I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to the long and honourable record of the bar at Johannesburg. Some of the greatest figures in the legal life of South Africa have practised at that bar. At the present time it will compare in forensic strength with any other bar in South Africa. With regard to appeals, suppose a litigant wishes to appeal from the decision of a Johannesburg magistrate, he is obliged to take that appeal to Pretoria, and this results in very great hardship and expense. The litigant usually wishes to retain the services of Johannesburg counsel, but the latter may go half a dozen times to Pretoria before the case is finally disposed of. I know of cases in which an appeal has been put down some eight or nine times, entailing as many journeys from Johannesburg to Pretoria for the counsel. Let me give a typical case of hardship. A judgment was given by a Johannesburg magistrate against a medical practitioner, and as the case was a very important one the doctor briefed an extremely prominent member of the Johannesburg bar and a junior to carry on an appeal. They went to Pretoria and argued the appeal successfully. The fees for the two counsel were double what they would have been if the appeal had been heard in Johannesburg. The delay and inconvenience suffered in getting appeals heard are in themselves a means of denying redress to the litigating public. The main reason for the change which I advocate is that of the convenience of the public. A case tried in Johannesburg in the Local Division must, of necessity, be tried by one judge, no matter how important the case may be. If you choose to go to the extra expense of going to Pretoria you can get the case heard by three judges. Then there is the question of the convenience of the judges themselves. There are seven judges with their homes at Pretoria, but two of them must be in constant residence at Johannesburg. The Government provide a tumbledown, ancient sort of house in what has become almost a slum district of Doornfontein, and maintains it as a residence for one judge. The other judge must find quarters in a club or hotel, and the State gives him three guineas a day as an out-of-pocket subsistence allowance. The maintenance of this house and the subsistence allowance cost the State £4.000 a, year. There is no judges’ library at Johannesburg. One judge writes to me pointing out that in view of the enormous amount of work at Johannesburg some judges have to spend from four to six months a year on the Rand. Last year one judge was away from his home for six months on circuit and on the Rand. Another judge says—

Another consideration is the convenience of the legal profession. Why should a practising barrister or attorney in Johannesburg or on the Reef be compelled to take his appeal work to Pretoria? My motion proposes that the jurisdiction to be given to this three-judge court should be similar to the Eastern Districts Courts, concurrent to the Cape, so that the option would be left to the litigating public to take their work to Pretoria if they wish. The bar at Johannesburg is united on this point. They have been pressing for years that this should be done. I realize a three-judge court cannot be set up on the Rand without the creation of an extra judge. At present the arrangements cost the State £4,000 a year. If you created another judge it would cost £2.800 a year. The judges would live at home and there would be no cost for the upkeep of residence, so that the net saving to the State would be £1,200 a year on the extra appointment. In any case the time is fast approaching when we must have an extra judge in the Transvaal Province. Members of the bench on the Transvaal who have been recently appointed, and with whom I have been in close contact whilst they were still at the bar, have told me that hard as they had to work whilst at the bar, they have to work far harder as judges, and the volume of work at this moment is such that a bench of seven judges cannot cone with it if adequate leave is to be granted. A proper solution of the difficulty would be to leave five judges at Pretoria and set up a bench of three judges in Johannesburg with a judge-president, and give the court concurrent inrisdiction with the Pretoria court. I think I have said sufficient to make out an overwhelming case for the establishment of this court, and I move the motion.

In seconding the resolution. I do not propose to take up the time of the House in dealing with the data presented by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The information put before the House is sufficient to allow this resolution to be carried on its merits. The point I wish to stress in the first place is that the question of administration of justice must he looked at essentially from the point of view of the convenience of the public. Its object is to secure these facilities together with the most efficient justice, and the cheapest method of securing it to the members of the public. Looked at from these considerations, there is no doubt the public on the Witwatersrand are entitled to relief. There can only be two objections: One of ordinary conservatism, which says that we have a certain practice established, and we want to adhere to this practice which has existed for years; and the second objection is that it will interfere with the vested interests of those concerned in the administration of justice in Pretoria. You have not only got the support of the judges to consider, but you have to consider the support of the public along the Witwatersrand. As far as they are concerned it is imperative that something should be done to secure better facilities than they have at present to save them from unnecessary delay and unnecessary expense. There can be no doubt that with the best of goodwill in the world it is impossible for judges to face the present congestion, and at the same time be efficient in their administration, as they would be if they had the opportunity of leisure and of being able carefully to deal with matters coming before them. You often find that matters are set down for the court, but probably you would have to wait the whole day, and even then it would not be reached, and you wait for another day. So it may happen, from time to time, that matters set down for the decision of the court are not reached for a number of days. It means that judges are obliged to keep on reading up papers without being called upon afterwards to deal with the matter, and so a great deal of unnecessary time is taken up in this way. Another fact arising from the present congested position is that of a question coming up and being adjourned. The following week it comes before a second judge, and another adjournment is obtained, and the same matter may be dealt with by many judges, and often the decision is given by a judge who has not gone into the matter as well as the litigant would have desired. It means you do not get the best administration, but you do get the most expensive litigation you can imagine. A bad effect of this is that whilst the wealthy litigant is not prejudiced because he can afford to pay, the poorer man, being obliged to pay counsel and attorneys for every adjournment, finds it ultimately impossible to secure justice. Anyone practising at the bar in Johannesburg will bear out what I say, that very often the poorer litigant is forced to throw up the position and injustice is done. The appointment of an additional judge at Johannesburg will not be an extra expense to the State, but will mean a saving of something like £1,200 per annum. From the point of view of the financial saving to the State, from the point of view of the financial saving to the public, and from the point of efficiency, I think a sufficient case has been made put to justify the Minister in not merely taking this motion into consideration, but in giving effect to it. When the matter was brought to the notice of the late Minister of Justice, instead of coming along and offering us relief, he said—

That meant that the proportion of people who are now subjected to difficulties would have been further increased. I hope that the Minister of Justice, instead of looking at it from the Pretoria point of view, as the late Minister did, will look at it from the point of view of securing the best and most efficient results so far as the administration of law is concerned.

I hope the Minister will not accept this motion, because here is my hon. friend (Mr. Kentridge), who is always talking about the unemployed, and saying that we must spare more money in this country for the unemployed, wanting the Government to spend another £4,000 a year on judges.

You have got mixed up.

Don’t take the figures of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I can quite understand the hon. member wanting two more judges there. It is part of his job, he practises before that court, and the bigger the court the bigger he will be. We must think of the country. We want some of these divisions done away with, because they are no longer necessary. I would suggest to the Minister that, instead of having this new division, he should do away with the division at Kimberley and let the Bloemfontein people take in Kimberley. There is no need for a division in Kimberley.

What has that got to do with this motion?

There is a judge sitting at Kimberley without any work to do. It would be better to remove that division and let that work be done at Bloemfontein. If the Minister agrees to raise the status of the court in Johannesburg, we shall have Port Elizabeth coming in with the same argument in regard to Grahamstown, and we shall have Durban putting up a similar argument. I think the best thing we can do is to take the work from Johannesburg to Pretoria.

And shut down the court altogether in Johannesburg. Is that what you suggest?

Why take the court away from Johannesburg? I am surprised that a member for Johannesburg should advocate that we should take away the court that they have there. I thought the hon. member would always stand up for his constituency.

Can you ever stop clowning?

My friend is a good judge of clowning.

Yes, I have been in this House with you for five years.

It is not a question of clowning; it is a question of saving this country money. It was passed by this House, but thrown out by the Senate, that the division in Kimberley should be taken away and that the work should go to Bloemfontein.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what has the abolition of the division at Kimberley got to do with the motion before the House?

I think that the matter in regard to the court at Kimberley is cognate to the motion introduced by the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell).

Of course, one can quite understand that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) does not know much about these things. My friend wants to spend more money, and if we accept this motion it seems to me that equally strong cases can be set up both by Durban and Port Elizabeth. I hope this motion will not be accepted. It means £4,000 a year more expense, while my scheme means that the country will save £2,000 a year by taking away the court from Kimberley. We have got too many judges already. I admit that the judge in Johannesburg has too much work, but the judge at Kimberley is doing nothing. The right thing to do is to reduce the number of courts and give the courts greater jurisdiction as far as territory is concerned. That can be done quite easily by giving Pretoria more jurisdiction, Bloemfontein more, and so on. That means that we shall not have to employ more judges, it will be cheaper for the country and it will be better for the people.

It is a great pity that the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Barlow) did not assure himself somewhat of the facts of the case before he jumped in. I say this in no invidious sense: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Then why rush in?

I am objecting to the hon. member rushing in without sufficient information on the matter. The logical development of his argument is that you should concentrate all your legal work of a High Court nature on Bloemfontein. No; after all, the hon. member and others must look at this matter rather from a broad point of view than from a parochial one. I agree on the facts as presented by the hon. gentleman—if they are facts—that the Kimberley court might be abolished. I am not going to argue that it should be, but if there is not sufficient work for the Kimberley judges, let them go to where there is sufficient work. I am not discussing this question from the point of view of somebody who is making money out of it; I am not, concerned with the courts, and I hope I never shall be; therefore I cannot be accused of desiring to have it made easier for me to practice before the court. I ant examining the matter entirely from the point of view of the public, and from the point of view of economy. From the information I have been able to obtain—and I do not think it is tainted, as my hon. friend over there seems to suggest—on the score of economy we have the right to ask the Minister to agree to this resolution. I am not going so far as the last speaker, who accused the mover of being wrong in his facts. The statement, backed by the judges, whose opinion is surely of value, is that this is going to make for economy. When you have constantly to pay out-of-pocket expenses amounting to three guineas a day, it mounts up; and if we can obviate that and at the same time secure justice for the people as well, I cannot see any argument against that being done. From the public point of view the Witwatersrand area is a tremendous one, and I cannot see why you should drag people across 36 miles of country to Pretoria to have their cases adjudicated. This is not a matter of amusement; after all, if courts of justice are required, they are required in centres where the people most likely to be dealt with are to be found.

Bring justice to the doors of the people.

Exactly; my friend has put it magnificently. Quite apart from the expense of bringing people over all these miles, there is also the inconvenience caused to them. We have numerous complaints by witnesses as to the disabilities under which they labour. These people complain that they are insufficiently remunerated for the time they lose and the difficulties they experience. When you also consider the train service to and from Pretoria, I think you will find you have summed up a collection of disabilities which must weigh heavily in our examination of this motion. I urge the Minister to take no notice of the flippancies of my hon. friend over there. If he finds it necessary to close the Kimberley court, then let him close it down and concentrate on the centre where it is more urgently required. Do not keep your eye glued too much upon Pretoria, but remember there are other places on the map of the Union of South Africa. Witwatersrand by its size its extent, its population—

Whatever may be the cause, if it is necessary to have a court there it is necessary to have a court of an adequate scale; if it is not necessary I have nothing more to say; remove your court altogether, but if you have a court, let it be an adequate one that can cope with the interests of the people and the interests of justice. There are more people to be catered for there from a justice point of view, but not necessarily from a crime point of view, as my hon. friend over there tried to insinuate. I do urge upon the Minister to agree to the motion; no harm can be done.

I had better rise at once to prevent a split in the Labour party. I do not fear any split in the South African party, because they have been against this proposal for many years, so that I expect the fullest support from them when I say that I do not think they really expect me to accept this motion.

Why not?

On account of their systematic opposition. Two matters have been lost sight of. A comparison has been made between the position in the Transvaal and that existing between Cape Town and Grahamstown; but it has been overlooked that these two places in the Cape Province are at a very great distance from each other, whilst in the Transvaal we have the judicial seat in Pretoria only some 40 miles away from the local division in Johannesburg. Pretoria is not the seat of the principal law courts because of the amount of work or the crime there is there, but for the simple reason that it is the provincial capital of the Transvaal, a point often overlooked in this country. It is also often overlooked that it is the Union capital.

The administrative capital.

The seat of the Government is the capital. In regard to the convenience of the public, the ordinary average member of the public is not concerned with the Supreme Court more than once or twice in his life. Your average man in Lydenburg or any other part would as often be concerned with Supreme Court cases as your man in Johannesburg. The fact that there are a large number of different men concerned in Johannesburg does not mean more inconvenience in Johannesburg; but that more people suffer inconvenience whilst such men suffering inconvenience are spread over the rest of the country. The proposed change would not assist the ordinary litigant in Johannesburg one little bit. The proposal is a fixed three-judge court in Johannesburg with jurisdiction similar to the Eastern Districts Division. Practically all the time in Johannesburg they have two judges, and often three. Each judge in Johannesburg acts on his own, and the result is that if you have two or three there they do more work than a three-judge court would do on the same lines as the court of the Eastern Districts: because in the case of an appeal in Johannesburg you would have two judges and also in an ordinary trial there.

You have two judges sitting at an ordinary trial.

I am talking about the same basis as the Eastern Districts Court. Only one change would take place and that is that the magistrate’s court appeals originating in Johannesburg would be heard there and not in Pretoria. As far as the public is concerned, that is the only change. Your resident judge is often there on a Saturday and Sunday. He is certainly not worried much on a Sunday, and on Saturday the so-called urgent matters are generally not really urgent. I do not think there is much in the point that one judge overworked himself because he always chose to do the Johannesburg work.

There is too much work for three.

Well, you have the same trouble. It would be cruelty to place the judges in Johannesburg and overwork them.

Well, then, appoint four judges.

That is exactly my point. The moment you start appointing them the number will grow, and I do not know what the Minister of Finance will say on the matter. I do not see why we should take the judges away from the capital of the country. Practically it is only a question of magistrate’s court appeals. My hon. friend has stated that when a Johannesburg advocate goes to Pretoria he charges his fee for the first day; next week, although the appeal is not reached, he charges a second fee—I am not objecting to that—and he does that eight or nine times; but if that appeal goes to a Pretoria advocate he hangs round the courts seven or eight days without a fee.

He is in his chamber, he does not hang about the court.

I have often done it. Then there is a question of expense. I challenge any man who knows the conditions in Pretoria and Johannesburg to tell me that a case costs more to a Johannesburg litigant if he takes it in Pretoria than in Johannesburg. Taking everything into account: the travelling expenses of witnesses and of the litigants, a case does not cost more in actual money in Pretoria than in Johannesburg.

But you do not pay proper travelling expenses.

They get full travelling expenses. Perhaps the member means that witnesses do not _get as much for subsistence as they should obtain. That is a substantial item so far as the litigant is concerned. The argument seems to be that all these cases originate in a comparatively small area (Johannesburg).

I said the Rand.

That area really extends from Springs, ’30 miles from Johannesburg, to Randfontein, 28 miles from Johannesburg, by rail. Your man at Springs has to waste his whole day and requires subsistence for that day, whether he goes to Johannesburg or Pretoria. The only people who would really be assisted are the people in Johannesburg Central. This scheme would make no difference except to raise the status of that court in Johannesburg and allow it to try magistrate’s court appeals. To have practically two provincial divisions of the Supreme Court within 40 miles of each other is not a thing that would happen anywhere else, even in England, where they have larger communities than Johannesburg without a supreme court. And surely your Johannesburg man has a double benefit to-day. He has the benefit of those courts in Johannesburg which we find deal with a large number of cases, and he also has the benefit that in an inconvenient case they always transfer to Pretoria, as, for instance, the Robinson case, that covered a period of a month. But not only have Johannesburg litigants got the benefit of two judges who are there all the time, but they also have the benefit, when their work is overflowing, that they can take all the work they like into Pretoria.

They could still have that benefit under my proposal.

Yes, but I say that the present arrangement gives sufficient benefits for all the legal work of Johannesburg. I quite agree that if the present position does not meet the full requirements of Johannesburg the Government would be prepared to consider adding a member to the Transvaal bench. I do not say we will do it within the next few months, but I have been considering the question of adding a member to the bench, increasing the number to eight, and then when necessary an extra judge would be available to finish the work in Johannesburg. I have also been considering whether it is possible to take some of the burdens from the shoulders of our judges on circuit and instead of requiring the attendance of an ordinary judge of the court to make an acting appointment. These are the two ways in which relief can be obtained.

You admit they are overworked at present.

I do not think that is quite a fair question. I admit that they are hard-working men, and it is right that this should be so, because if one is not continuously hard-worked the tendency is to become rusty, and in some cases we have seen that tendency in South Africa. I think relief in the Transvaal can better be obtained by considering the appointment of an eighth judge, who will relieve the congestion from time to time in Johannesburg. I am not prepared to assent to the proposition that Johannesburg magistrate’s court appeals should go to a court in Johannesburg. As far as the requirements of litigants are concerned, that would be met by considering the appointment of an additional judge, which I am doing at the moment, and I am also considering whether we cannot relieve judges of some of the circuit work. We want to meet all the legitimate requirements of litigants, but not by changing the present system, for I do not think we should have a court in Johannesburg which would have the same status for that area as the Supreme Court has for the whole of the province. It is not desirable to multiply courts within the narrow compass of 40 miles. The circumstances, however, are different in the Cape Province, owing to the great distances. Probably it is necessary to have the court at Kimberley, also owing to the question of distance. The members of the Government who preceded us will entirely agree with this view, for that was the view they themselves took of the matter when they were in office.

It certainly is a remarkable coincidence that the late Government and the present Government should have been so harmonious on this question of policy. I won’t speculate as to how many reasons there may be for that, but one at least I would like to mention, and that is when the late Government was in power the finances of the country were in such a state that we could not contemplate adding to the judicial bench of the Transvaal, although we recognized that it was very hard worked. I cannot but congratulate the present Minister of Justice on the wonderful piece of special pleading and forensic arguments by which he met the motion. It was really a masterpiece of plausible reasoning, and evaded the real points put by my hon. friend. The fact that Pretoria is the capital of the Transvaal and the administrative seat of Union is not one which is likely to be forgotten by any of us in the Transvaal, and it is not in any way derogatory to the dignity of Pretoria that there should be another court sitting in Johannesburg, a court, I will not say of equal dignity and jurisdiction, but competent in respect of the number of its members to overtake the business on the Rand. As to the argument that a portion of the Witwatersrand is practically as near Pretoria as it is to Johannesburg, the business interests of the Rand are largely centred in Johannesburg and not in Pretoria. Seeing that we have a court at Johannesburg, I do think that a very strong case has been made out for enabling it to deal with cases which now have to go to Pretoria owing to the fact that a three-judge court does not sit at Johannesburg. I see no reason why magistrates’ court appeals should not be heard at Johannesburg. The Minister says the inconvenience of the present arrangement is not very great, because it happens to be spread over a large number of people, but that makes it a great inconvenience. Then there is the question of the unnecessary expense and inconvenience which are caused to the judges and, in consequence, to the litigants by the present system. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) argued that the carrying out of the motion will cost an additional amount equal to the salaries of two judges, on the assumption that there are enough judges to do the work. Unfortunately, the work is now being done under the most difficult and expensive circumstances. Judges have to deal with very important work and cases, often involving research and a great deal of study and consideration, and they have to carry out their duties under most difficult circumstances. One of the judges who goes to Johannesburg from Pretoria has to live in a club or hotel, they have no judges’ library, and you cannot expect a man to do the best work under those conditions. We are compelling judges to do their work in Johannesburg under the most inconvenient, extravagant and difficult conditions that could possibly be imposed. If it is necessary to have at least two judges in Johannesburg, and sometimes three, I would suggest that an arrangement be made to enable these judges to live permanently in Johannesburg. I welcome the statement by the Minister that he is going to consider the adding of another judge to the Transvaal bench. It is high time that was done. It is well worth considering whether the large amount of time now spent by judges on circuit work could not be performed by appointing advocates to act as judges. By sending round special acting judges to do the work a good deal of the judges’ time could be saved. It would help them in coping with the work they have to do. I hope the Minister will go into this question, and I ask him to see that something should be done to remedy the position of the judges who have to go and work one month at a time in Johannesburg, and I do say that the judges ought not to be allowed to do it. If he looks into it he will see something ought to be done to enable them to do their work under better conditions than are now possible. Although he will not accept the motion of my hon. friend. I hope he will see whether the conditions can be improved.

That over-fed State that has the privilege of sending my hon. friend the member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to Parliament has the cream of all the offices of the Union centred in that state, and now they want a Supreme Court built. They have taken nearly every office away from Kimberley, and they begrudge us the few offices left us to-day. I remind the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that we had a three-judge court, and it was a part of the agreement when we were taken into the Cape Colony that the three-judge court should be maintained, but the Cape Colony broke faith with Griqualand West. But still we are left with a one-judge court, and now the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) wants to take away the one-judge court left to us. We had a railway works in Kimberley, and they were taken away. Where do you think they went to? They went to Bloemfontein. We had a telephone staff. They were taken away, and they went to Bloemfontein. In Kimberley, a mining centre, we had a mining inspector. He was taken away—to Bloemfontein, and I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is extremely sorry it is impossible to take the mines away from Griqualand West and plant them in Bloemfontein. Then he said the one judge in Kimberley had nothing whatever to do. That was an extravagant statement, and the Minister of Justice knows that. The judge has a considerable amount of work to do, and I think if you ask him he would say he had enough to do. I have only risen to make these few remarks as representing Griqualand West. My constituents would think I was guilty of a dereliction of duty if I did not protest against the withdrawal of the one judge from Kimberley.

I feel I should say a few words on this subject, and I Want to say a word of protest against these disintegrating influences from Johannesburg. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) takes a delight in being a disturbing influence in the order of things. We remember his Local Option Bill disturbing the peace of the atmosphere of this House. Then there was his women’s suffrage motion, and now he brings forward this motion to try and destroy the legal order of things in the Transvaal. The hon. Minister has replied very effectively to the emotional pleadings of my hon. friend, and so effectively has he replied that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has practically accepted the Minister’s statement and has adopted the attitude that he would be satisfied if the Minister would in the near future look into the question. I suggest that that is the attitude the hon. member moving this motion should take up now, and that the Minister should go a step further, and consult the judges on the questions raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member has quoted the opinion of two judges, but he must not forget there are seven judges, and we should like to hear the opinion of all of them. I, for my part, believe the majority of the judges are against the opinion expressed by the hon. member, and I think that if the judiciary of the Transvaal had felt as the hon. member feels, they would have approached the Minister on the subject. The hon. member must confess that the tradition of the Transvaal judiciary should be kept up, and that can only be done by centralization, and not by disintegration. The bench at Pretoria has a great tradition behind it, and the moment that bench is broken up into two divisions of equal strength. I feel certain it will lose the traditions so laboriously built up during the last 30 years in the Transvaal. I suggest the mover of the motion should think twice before driving the House to a division on this point.

I wish to support what the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) said about the question of the relation between the Supreme Court at Bloemfontein and the Local Court at Kimberley. This court at Kimberley is a good example of the parish pump. I wish to relate to the House what happened years ago in the House on the same matter. It was in 1912. The present Prime Minister, as Minister of Justice, when introducing the Administration of Justice Bill, had a clause providing for the abolition of the court at Kimberley.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have ruled that the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) were cognate to the discussion, but I would like to know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Swart) is in order in treating the whole matter as if it were a question of the abolition of this court at Kimberley?

I have already ruled that it is a matter cognate to the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) is entitled to proceed.

It is very interesting to see what was the position at that time. This is a very serious question. I will read what the Minister of Justice said at the time. He was speaking about the provisions of Chapter IV. of the Administration of Justice Bill. He said—

Further, the Minister of Justice at the time said—

That was said 13 years ago.

Therefore, there is all the more reason why this matter should be investigated again. Even the judge of the court himself said at the time that for two months of the year there was work to be done, and that for the rest of the year it was a waste of labour to judge and officials. We feel strongly on this point in the Free State, because Bloemfontein is a city that has really been treated like a Cinderella of this Union. We remain the judicial capital of the Union and we know nothing about it. The appeal court comes there a few times a year and then leaves again. The people of Bloemfontein do not know that the appeal court is sitting. It means practically nothing to us. We have given part of our Raadzaal for the court to sit in. We have had Union for 15 years and the Government has not even given us a decent appeal court building.

Shame!

It is a shame, and we in Bloemfontein and the Free State feel that.

I am afraid the hon. member (Mr. Swart) is now wandering away from the subject before the House.

I bring in this because I advocate that the Griqualand West Local Division should be incorporated in the Free State, and that something should be done for Bloemfontein. This court at Kimberley is really a waste of money; it is also a wastage of labour and a wastage of energy. I ask the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), why not send over your judge from Kimberley to Bloemfontein?

Why not send your three judges to Kimberley?

My hon. friend wants the mountain to go to Mahomet. We say, let Mahomet go to the mountain. We say, send the one to the three, instead of the three to the one. It will be a saving of expense. Let us have the judge from Kimberley at Bloemfontein, and let the few practitioners there go over to Bloemfontein and the same could be done as was provided for in this Bill, that for certain periods the Kimberley judge should go over to Bloemfontein and sit in certain of the sessions there. By doing this we shall increase efficiency, there will be a saving of expense, and the judge will find that he need not waste his time in Kimberley, but will have something to do. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration. Seeing that the Minister has said that he does not accept the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I wish to move, as an amendment—

seconded.

There has been some departure from the general discussion, but why all this talk? In these discussions, whenever you deal with the question of courts, the inevitable loaves and fishes creep in. Why cannot the Minister of Justice face the greater question? At the present time there are courts with too much to do, and there are courts with too little to do. If the Minister of Justice really wants to do something of a practical nature he should extend the areas covered by the judges. A man at Grahamstown can actually bring his case down here to be heard. There is talk about double jurisdiction, but why should a person have the choice of a double court in one part of the Union and not in another? This I do know, that your present system is not one which makes for the efficient administration of justice. In Britain in nearly every court you are dealing with just one judge. The highest court in America has only nine judges. I submit to the Minister something of the kind I have suggested should be done. Could it not be expedited by the appointment of an independent commission to go into the whole question of whether the present judicial areas of the provinces are suitable? Disparities should be taken into consideration in dealing with these matters, and we should also consider the elimination of unnecessary expense as far as possible. Forget the loaves and fishes; forget the local demand, and work only on the general principle.

As I have been some time retired from the practice of the law I trust I may be acquitted from the suspicion of having any personal advantage in view in the few remarks I am about to make. I speak merely as a citizen of Johannesburg. The mover of the resolution has put forward an overwhelming case. He has demonstrated that on the grounds of expediency, economy and every other possible ground, a change is desirable in regard to the administration of justice by the superior courts in the area in question. We have it that it will make for the greater convenience of litigants, judges, and those who are practising in the courts. It is nothing new for Johannesburg and the Reef to have to plead for elementary justice and for a recognition of our just claims. We hope that at last there is a prospect of our rights in this direction being met. The Government, we are informed, intends to give us a new post office, we are going to be given an adequate railway station, and we have a university which has proved to be the largest in South Africa. We expect a great deal from the Pact in view of their promises, and I hope we are not going to be disappointed. In the matter of “justice,” it only remains for the department to do its share and fall in with the other members of the Government who say they are providing us with these increased facilities. The objections of the hon. Minister to this proposed and very necessary change are of a twofold nature. The first objection is on the ground of the proximity of Pretoria. There is certainly a considerable improvement from the old days when litigants, witnesses and lawyers were compelled to travel from Johannesburg to Pretoria by coach, but there is room for further improvement. There are very few fast trains, and these take an hour and twenty minutes to perform the journey. Although the distance between the two places is only about 30 miles, the railway journey is a matter of 42 miles, and on this ground alone I say that the argument of proximity does not hold, Then the Minister said he did not believe in the duplication of the courts. Pretoria is the executive capital of the Union and the capital of the province. That would be a very forcible argument if Pretoria were a town of any considerable dimensions. But we claim that we have certain rights too, and one of them is embodied in the resolution before the House. We are entitled to have speedy justice and inexpensive justice brought to the people of Johannesburg. There is no doubt that the idea of cutting off a portion of the Beef and attaching it to the Pretoria court would not find favour with the people on the Beef, who should have some say in the matter. There have really been no solid arguments against the motion, and it is the duty of the Ministers and this Parliament to see that in the centre where most litigation arises, and, if you like, where crime is most rampant, there should be reasonable and necessary facilities for bringing justice to the people concerned. I say the present position amounts to a positive scandal and should not be allowed to continue. The judges are overworked, and cannot do justice to their work, and the only way to improve the position is to have three resident judges living in Johannes burg, with the necessary facilities for carrying out their duties properly and adequately at hand. Although we may not succeed on this occasion, we shall keep on until our reasonable requests in this respect are met. I hope those members from the Band who have some influence in the Pact combine, and who have been successful, as they tell us, in getting those increased public services, viz., in the matter of postal arrangements and a new railway station, will be able to bring their influence to bear on their colleagues so that this wrong may be righted.

I do not think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) nor the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) can have been serious in their remarks, and therefore I need not deal with their speeches seriously. I am fully convinced that if the matter is raised seriously we will be able to convince the present Minister of Justice, just as we convinced the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice, that our claim to keep our court is fully justified.

I refuse to be drawn into the controversy introduced by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) as to the respective merits of Bloemfontein and Kimberley. That matter is absolutely foreign to the scope of this motion. I should like to say, however, that there is probably more legal work done in one day within the area of our jurisdiction on the Witwatersrand local division than in a month within the jurisdiction of the Free State branch of the Supreme Court. Although the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) did not accept my figures, the Minister did, and these figures prove that the volume of legal work on the Band is such as to make it imperative that some change should be made in the existing state of affairs, and that such a change can be made without extra expenditure to the tax-payer, but rather with a reduction in the present bill which the taxpayer pays. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), I did expect him to have something more cogent to say than to refer to tradition. Johannesburg is the largest city in the Union, and the centre of the largest aggregation of European population that South Africa knows, and is also the largest business and commercial centre. If you accept the principle that because a town is the capital of the province it must have the Supreme Court in its midst, to the exclusion of any large mass of the population away from it, there is nothing more to be said; but you have to consider the interests of the public. I am not seeking to take away one iota of the powers of the Supreme Court in Pretoria, or to whittle down its jurisdiction, but I ask that the public of Johannesburg should have a court at their door, instead of being forced to go, at great expense and abounding inconvenience, to Pretoria. Some good, apparently, has emerged from this discussion, but I am sorry that the Minister is not now present. Private members have the right to expect, when they introduce a motion touching a department of a particular Minister, that he will remain throughout at least the greater portion of the discussion. This was the practice followed by the late Ministry, but with the new Government it has happened that the Minister most particularly interested in the discussion has not been present during the debate. What is the use of replying to the Minister’s remarks on matters intimately touching the administration of justice, if the Minister is not here? I wanted to deal with some of the interesting suggestions the Minister raised in his speech, but what is the use of doing so if the Minister is not present? If the Minister was obliged to go away and had informed me of the fact, then I would not have commented on his absence All that I know is that the Minister has not been m the House for the last hour and a half Much as I should like to go further with this matter, I do not see the use of doing so in the absence of the Minister concerned.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has intimated that he desires his amendment to be added to the motion as a rider.

The amendment and the original motion were put and negatived.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.