I move—

seconded.

That is too early. Here is a consolidating Bill which I have no doubt affects the interests of all the surveyors throughout the Union, and yet you only propose to allow seven days to consider it before the second reading stage is taken. The second reading stage ought to be put off for at least a fortnight.

I do not think the objections of the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) hold good. There was a conference of all the surveyors’ institutes at which the surveyors of the four provinces were represented. They went through this Bill very carefully, and last year they also came to my office. They discussed the whole Bill, and they know every provision of it.

Exactly, but you should let the public know about it also.

I move—

As the principle of this Bill was agreed to in this House last year, I do not think I need weary hon. members for any length of time. The present Bill is in somewhat broader terms. One of the objections raised last year was this, that apart from the Transvaal, Free State and Cape Province, provision was only made in the case of native men having intercourse with white women, and it was only punishable in cases where that intercourse took place, and therefore it was felt advisable that provision should be made to that effect also as far as other parts of South Africa are concerned. For that reason the alterations made in the Bill of last year are two fold. In the first place, provision is made for native men having relations with white women, and the rest of the Bill is as before, and provision is also made to meet certain objections as to the punishments which were raised in another place. I have reduced the punishment under this Bill to imprisonment not exceeding five years, without any lashes attached to it.

Four years.

Five years, as far as the act is concerned, and four years in regard to other offences. The Bill does not differ except in these two respects from the Bill accepted by this House last year. I believe the House is of the same opinion as it was last year, that a Bill of this kind is an essential Bill, and that the sense of the House is that promiscuous intercourse of that kind should not be permitted in South Africa, and that it is a sin against our civilization.

I rise to speak on this Bill with considerable diffidence. It is not an easy Bill to speak upon at all, and further, I believe that when the Bill was before the House last year there was practically no discussion upon it. I have reason to believe that that was due to the feeling that one has in finding it difficult to speak upon a subject of this kind. I am also somewhat reluctant to seem to oppose the Bill, because I am in entire sympathy with the Minister in his wish to provide for the purity of the race and against miscegenation, but at the same time I cannot help feeling that this legislation is on an unsound basis, and for the reason that it is making a crime of something that, after all, is quite a natural thing. Now we know that the Minister does not wish to make criminals unnecessarily; in fact, his reputation is rather that of unmaking criminals.

I do it both ways.

But here, as I say, a crime is being made of something that is quite natural, and that that is so is shown by Clause 8, which defines carnal intercourse as carnal intercourse other than between husband and wife. So it leaves it that if a European is married to a native woman it is perfectly right and natural that there should be intercourse. It is only when they are not married that there is an offence. That seems to be an unsound basis to proceed upon in a matter of this sort, for it is making an unnatural offence of intercourse between Europeans and natives; that means you put the native woman in a position as if she were a beast— but only if they are unmarried. I cannot look upon that as a sound basis of legislation. This is made a heinous offence. The Minister says he has reduced the penalty. That is true, but still there is no optional fine. It is not only a matter of intercourse; there is the mere solicitation. I would like the Minister to consider, and members who come from the native territories to consider, what the position would be in the territories. One must speak plainly. If the audience is mixed, that is not my fault. Supposing you have in the territories a young man who meets a young Kafir woman, and he makes a suggestion to her—nothing more. He is guilty of an offence under this Act which must be punished by imprisonment. There is no way out of it. I cannot look upon that as sound. I am reluctant to oppose the Bill, because we all desire a high standard of conduct in this matter, not only in precept but in practice, but I think the Bill goes too far. It is dangerous in the respects I have spoken of; and I would make the suggestion to the Minister that he should let this Bill go to a committee, because there are dangers in it which outweigh the good which would be gained.

There is clearly a difference in mentality among the different parts of the white population of South Africa, because I can imagine that the thing about which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) spoke as natural is regarded by others as something quite unnatural. Another point is that the Bill in certain respects is not an improvement on the previous one, but is worse. I notice, as the Minister has mentioned, that the period of imprisonment in two or three cases has been reduced by a year, and in another case the fifteen lashes prescribed in Clause 4 have been cancelled, whilst in Clause 1, on the contrary, where both white and native men are made punishable, the period of imprisonment has been reduced from six to five years, and the provision as to fifteen lashes has also been deleted. I think that the Bill would have been increased in usefulness and efficiency if the Minister had seen his way to increase instead of reduce the punishment. I can give the assurance as regards the Transvaal that a reduction in punishment will not be at all popular. I would suggest to the Minister not to accede to the recommendation of the other place to reduce the penalty, but to bear in mind the natural feeling of the white population of the Transvaal.

One naturally feels diffident in speaking upon a delicate subject such as this, but there are one or two observations which I wish to bring to the notice of the House, and particularly of the Minister. In my opinion, the Bill does not go far enough. I think the consequences of the Bill are going to be illogical, in this respect, that provision should have been made in the Bill to prohibit marriage between black and white. I believe every right-thinking South African, whether black or white, is in favour of preserving the purity of his race. I believe if you took a consensus of the opinion of the natives, they would be totally opposed to miscegenation, and the same applies to Europeans. What is going to be the direct effect of this Bill? In my opinion, there are very grave dangers—dangers in this respect, that where a man has committed an offence under the Bill, the very first thing his legal adviser will advise him to do will be to marry the girl. There is nothing to stop that marriage. Once it has taken place, is any court of law going to punish a man for an offence which previously was an offence, but which after marriage takes place is no offence? That is one of my difficulties. It is a danger which lies in the Bill itself, that people who have committed an offence will marry in order to evade the heavy penalties provided under that Bill. I hope that the Minister will see fit to enlarge the Bill, and also the title of the Bill, so as to make provision for the prohibition of marriage between black and white. I hope I will have the support of all right-thinking men who realize that unless we are going to preserve the purity of our race, the position in the future will be a hopeless one for our descendants.

I would like to ask the Minister whether we have any precedent for legislation of this kind throughout the civilized world.

Yes, in the Transvaal. That is part of the civilized world, I suppose.

I mean outside of South Africa. We are all desirous of improving the morality of South Africa; now the great gain this Bill professes to make is to maintain the purity of the race. That is what is claimed for it, but so long as the coloured people within the Union are excluded from the provisions of a Bill of this kind the whole thing is doomed to failure. It is through the coloured people that most of the intercourse from both white and black does take place. It is straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel, to make it criminal for any intercourse between Europeans and natives direct, and at the same time to leave the greater evil as regards pollution through the coloured races where it is. The whole scheme will be nullified. I do not think that it is going to meet the ends which the Minister has in view, and with which I sympathize. We know that only in few cases is there any such intercourse between European and native—in Natal there are no cases for a measure of this kind. Where you have a mixed population, conditions are quite different. I do not think it can be claimed that it is going to tend towards greater morality, because you are leaving open a channel along which greater immorality does take place. I can foresee tremendous hardships which may fall on quite respectable young men, or on young men who are members of a respectable family. They may fall into temptation, and if so, they have no option of a fine given them, and there is no other escape unless they marry the person or go to gaol—to be branded ever afterwards as gaolbirds. I do not believe this Bill will safeguard race purity, nor diminish immorality.

Although I am glad that the Minister of Justice has introduced this Bill again, I regret, with the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), that the penalties have been reduced. This Bill is at least twenty years too late, because in the last twenty years, especially in certain parts of the country, the evil has increased to an alarming extent. The Bill is urgently required. No law will prevent a crime to the extent of 100 per cent., but if it only succeeds in preventing 75 per cent. of the evil, then we may congratulate ourselves. I strongly protest against the penalties being further reduced. If we allow the option of a fine, the rich man who offends can pay, but the poor man would have to undergo imprisonment. There is, however, one thing against which I think we should protect our white youths, the respectable amongst them. We must not forget that the white woman, even in the case of assault by force, tries, for the sake of her good name, to conceal it, but a native girl will in many cases not hesitate to blackmail, and so get an innocent man into trouble. Ana even if such white man succeeds in proving his innocence, there will still be a blot on his name. There ought to be something protecting the man, so that unscrupulous, characterless native girls cannot charge an innocent man. Just let us think of our young farmer who treks to the bushveld to get grazing for his stock. One or two native girls can simply lay a charge against him, and even if he succeeds in proving his innocence, there still remains an unpleasant after-taste which he cannot get rid of. I ask the Minister not to accept any amendment which would permit of a fine instead of imprisonment. The evil has not decreased in country areas during the past two years. Last year we considered a similar Bill, and as a result—I can mention names if necessary—certain persons abandoned their native girls, and have taken the step— I regard this as almost a greater offence, after having lived with a native woman for twenty or twenty-five years—of marrying a respectable white girl. The mere introduction of the Bill last year was sufficient to frighten them. If we succeed by this Bill in preventing 75 per cent. of the evil, we shall have done well.

In coming from the native territories as I do, it seems to me that the object of this Bill in the first instance is to protect the integrity of the white man in native areas, because I presume that the Minister has been induced by a section in some part of the country to introduce a Bill of this nature which thinks that there is more of this crime going on in native territories than in other parts. The experience we have in the Transkei is that there is considerably less of this miscegenation than existed ten or twenty-five years ago. It is extremely rare. The people themselves condemn a man for having intercourse with natives. Such a man is ostracized by his fellow-men, and that is the greatest punishment that can be meted out to a man. If the fact that he loses caste among his own neighbours and associates is not sufficient to deter him, there is no law on paper that will prevent such crimes, and that, I believe, is the feeling of every man. I use the term “ man.” I speak as a young man, but there are old men too, and we know how some men are tempted. Here we are going to condemn a man who succumbs to that temptation, and his family perhaps, for the rest of his life, for one fall. It is morally wrong—we admit it—and our race purity has to be protected in this country, but are you going to protect it by a measure of this sort? Does the Minister feel in his heart that it is going to have any effect? This Act being put on paper is not going to reflect on the credit of our white race in this country. That is as far as the white man is concerned, but what is going to happen to the native? If a native girl is misled by a white man, she has now an action at law against him, but if this law is passed, she has, I take it, no claim against him, being a participant in a crime. She now has a civil claim against the man, I take it, and loses, if this Bill be passed, all such rights. The native in his home and in his location will say that the white man is only protecting himself against an action of damages. I look at the matter from another point. Suppose a native girl has a white child. How are you going to have any evidence against the father of such a child? In order to protect herself, she may point to any man. It is going to lend itself to blackmail, and all sorts of practices that are not going to create better relations between black and white. It is a fact, and we cannot get away from it. It is said that the law is in force in the Transvaal.

So far as white women and native men are concerned.

How many prosecutions have resulted from the existing law?

A large number in the Transvaal.

Has the law had much effect?

It has had a lot of effect.

I understand that the object of that law was to protect the poor backvelder in the Transvaal, but there has certainly not been any justification for its application in the Transkei. Occasionally we do have cases of this sort in the Transkei, but my reason for rising was not so much to drag the Transkei into the limelight, but because I feel that we shall never make effective laws to prevent offences of this nature. The youth of the country are in a much happier position than they were twenty or twenty-five years ago. Now they have motorcars or motor-cycles, and all sorts of amusements which they did not have a quarter of a century ago, and owing to the general use of motor vehicles, people living in the country can very easily go to the nearest town to obtain their amusements. Twenty-five years ago, however, men living on the veld “ fifty miles from nowhere,” were forced to come into contact with this evil. It would not reflect to the credit of this House if we were to pass a law of this sort. Let the influence of the church and of social life, and the influence of our wives and daughters be brought to bear upon the man who sins in this way, but should that not be sufficient, there is no law which will prevent a continuance of the evil.

The great reason for the Bill is that it will assist public opinion in the direction the House would like. That is the chief thing in legislation of this kind. I never thought of the native reserves in connection with this Bill. They were not in my mind when the Bill was drafted. In the first place, it aims at protecting native women, and in the second place at preventing people from thinking that intercourse between Europeans and natives is a minor matter. That is the great reason, and I think it will play a large part in influencing our public opinion. Difficulties have been mentioned. The first is that such a Bill is being passed in a country where marriages between members of the two races are permitted. I think that where Europeans want to associate with natives, or vice versa, then we should compel them to realize that they will have to marry. Personally, I am in favour of prohibiting such marriages, but as this Bill does not apply to marriages, and does not consolidate the marriage laws, I did not think that marriages ought to be dealt with. That is why marriages have been excluded. Then the matter of soliciting by a native girl has been mentioned, viz., that false charges can be made so that a man might lose his character. That is, however, the case to-day. That charge can now be made, but today it is a civil and not a criminal matter. In any household a native girl can allege that she has been assaulted by her master. Although after the passing of this Bill a man might lose his good name, the same thing can occur before the Bill is passed. The mere fact that the Bill makes such a matter criminal makes no difference. A man’s good name is immediately taken away when it is proved that he is guilty, but not unless it is proved. Charges can be laid whether the Bill is passed or not. Then there is the complaint that the maximum penalty of six years and fifteen lashes has been reduced in this Bill to five years. That is a matter of practical politics. It has, however, been suggested from the other side that the penalty should be a fine of £50 or imprisonment for six months. Where the intercourse takes place voluntarily, no judge or magistrate will inflict the uttermost penalty of six years and fifteen lashes. Such severe punishment will not be imposed. To facilitate the passing of the Bill, I thought it best to make this amendment as a matter of practical politics. Then the argument has been raised that a man will be convicted under this Bill upon his first offence. Of course, in every instance where a man commits an offence for the first time, he is convicted for the first time. The conviction is due to his being found guilty, even if in the first case he may be exempted from punishment. I cannot, therefore, see why so much emphasis is laid upon his first offence. I think the Bill will strengthen people in the country not to commit the first offence. I have heard of a case in the Transvaal where a man who has practically kept a kraal of native girls has left for Portuguese territory as a result of this Bill. I hope it will also occur that other persons who render themselves liable under the Bill will go, because we are better rid of them than by giving them food and clothing in the gaols, which cost money. Another point has been mentioned, namely, that the existing civil remedies are taken away by the Bill, e.g., for the abduction of a virgin. These remedies will, however, continue, notwithstanding the passing of the Bill, and although the parties agree to commit the act. Then it must not be thought that public opinion does not strongly support the Bill. That is not only the case as regards the white population, but also the natives. You know that the native congress in the Transvaal held the view that they were entirely satisfied with the Bill, which they welcomed. This is also the case as regards the Europeans. It may later be necessary to consider the point mentioned by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), to take steps to obviate cases of incest between coloured people and natives, and between coloured people and Europeans. That can come later. We shall now see what is the effect of this Bill. I agree with the hon. member that that is a step which may possibly be taken later. This Bill is being much opposed, although last year when the penalties were higher there was not so much opposition. It is difficult to understand that. I think that the House should support its decision of last year, and adopt the second reading.

I move—

As far as the major part of this Bill is concerned, it deals with points which have been proved to be necessary as far as Appeal Court practice is effected by it. Taking the whole of the provisions, apart-from the trial by civil jury, they are provisions called for by the Appeal Court of the country. The other points were submitted to the right hon. the Chief Justice to see if they met the wishes of the Appeal Court Last year we had a considerable amount of difficulty in quorums not being obtained at the Appellate Division through sickness and other causes. We had a difficulty in Clause 2, where you have to have a bench of five judges, in cases where, after applications have been heard, three judges could deal with the cases. It is to deal with these difficulties that the first clause of this Bill has been inserted. Unless there is objection, I do not think I need detail fully all the points in this clause. A point which may cause controversy is the abolition of trial by jury in civil cases in the courts of Natal and the Cape Province. The assistance of the House will be useful on that. As far as South Africa is concerned, if you wish to have uniform legislation, it is necessary for the trials by jury to disappear in Natal and the Cape Province, because there is no chance of having it by civil jury in the Transvaal and Free State. In the olden days, I attended courts in Cape Town on two occasions when civil cases were tried by juries, and in both cases the decisions were wrong. I could see that, although I was only then starting as an articled clerk, and the Bench had that opinion too. I ask the lawyers of the Cape and Natal, in what cases do they advise their clients to have their cases tried by a civil jury? In cases where a client has a claim brought against a rich man, and where they hope to get damages mainly because of the position of the defendant. In such cases a jury will give more swinging damages than would be got from a judge. That is the general opinion. Some lawyers may deny it, because they have probably given that advice themselves. I have tried to get records of the cases in the Supreme Court at Cape Town during the last two years. You will find that the jury generally give their verdicts against public bodies. There were six cases in two years. One was the case of Mundell v. the Divisional Council of Wode-house. It was a case of a cart falling into a hole in the road; the case of Gregory v. Cape Town Municipality, the case of a fireman falling down the steps of a fire station. Why could not a judge decide that? Then there were the cases of Croxford v. Hopkins, collision with motor-car on road at Sea Point; Lee v. S.A. Railways, train smashing into motor-car at level crossing; Young v. Downing, motor-car accident at Somerset West; Page v. Irwin, motor-cycle accident at Three Anchor Bay. I do not think in the case of a large majority of the members of this House it would matter whether cases were tried by civil jury or not. We have a few wealthy men in this House who would suffer if actions were brought against them and were tried by jury, because it would be a case of extracting a larger amount of money than would be possible before a judge. That statement is a statement of simple fact. Take any one of those cases. Is there any one of them remitted to a civil jury because that jury was considered more competent to deal with a case than a judge? It was because a civil jury is more likely to give damages without consideration whether there was a legal liability, and to give damages to a greater amount.

The judge decides legal points.

Yes, and mistakes may also be rectified on appeal. In many cases it is a question of believing one side or the other side, and in these cases the jury are prone to believe the evidence of the injured side, rather than the other.

What is the difference, say, in a case where a jury tries a criminal case?

Very much indeed, because in criminal cases they are largely affected by what they think is the substantial justice of the case, and they give their judgment on substantial justice. I know that from my own experience. In cases where there is a technical offence, and the jury feels there has been no real offence, they will acquit where a judge would convict, being tied by some point of law. I think, therefore, a good deal can be said for trial by jury in criminal cases, but we are not concerned with that matter to-day. We are concerned with the position which does no longer obtain in two provinces of the Union, and which does obtain in two of the other provinces, and it is for this House to decide which is the right practice. I should imagine that the very large body of public opinion in those two provinces where it does obtain is against trial by civil jury, and I can assure the House that you would find very little opinion in the Transvaal or in the Free State in favour of trial by civil jury.

The Minister will remember that last session we had a discussion about the work of the Court of Appeal, and he then gave a promise to introduce a Bill regulating the procedure of that court, laying down the length of the sessions and giving parties the right to place their cases on the roll in exactly the same way as they do to-day in courts of first instance. I take it that this Bill is not the measure that the Minister referred to on that occasion. I would also like to ask the Minister whether the new building for the Court of Appeal has been started yet. As regards the present Bill, the Minister seemed to assume that Clause 1 would not call for any criticism. I view Clause 1, especially subsection (1), with considerable misgiving. It lays down that in future the most important appeals in South Africa may be decided, not by five judges as at present, but four. That is to say, four judges on appeal will form a quorum when sitting in judgment from a full bench of any of the provincial divisions. The Minister should know that a bench consisting of an even number of judges is a very inconvenient thing. Up to now we have always been accustomed to having an odd number of judges sitting in appeal matters, three judges in cases from a court of one judge, and five judges in cases from a court of three judges. I do not see any real reason for departing from that, and I venture to think that the balance of convenience lies in the present system. To show what this four judge court leads to, look at the proviso to sub-section (1)—

The whole sitting of the appellate court would thus become entirely useless. The judgment of the court of first instance is to stand if the four judges are equally divided, but I would suggest to the Minister that no suitor will be satisfied with that sort of procedure. Has the Minister considered this, what of the question of costs? A suitor appeals from a judgment, let us say, of the Transvaal Provincial Division, the appeal goes before four judges, and those judges are equally divided, two in favour of allowing the appeal and two in favour of dismissing it. There is no provision here by which the unsuccessful appellant can be made to pay the costs of the appeal. The court has no jurisdiction. The original judgment stands, and, of course, the unsuccessful appellant should be made to pay the wasted costs of appeal. When we come to the committee stage, I am going to ask the Minister to drop this provision. The inconvenience which may happen from time to time does not, in my opinion, warrant such a change as this. As to the question of trial by jury, I want to express to the Minister my disappointment that he is doing this sort of thing in such a patchwork fashion. The time is now ripe for a consolidated code of civil justice in South Africa. Immense benefits have accrued from the consolidation of the practice in the lower courts. We have consolidated our superior court practice in regard to criminal matters. I had hoped that the time was due when the Minister would seriously tackle this question of the consolidation and reform of our superior court practice. To-day it is all at sixes and sevens in the different provinces. The courts have diverse procedure, diverse rules of court, and diverse ways of working the administration of justice in regard to civil matters. In the Transvaal two judges sit to hear trials, and sometimes three. Sometimes we see a whole bench in Pretoria solemnly sitting to hear a divorce case. It is time that legislation was brought forward consolidating the whole of our superior court practice. Any practitioner under the Magistrates’ Courts Act can practise in any magistrate’s court in the Union.

No.

I believe that I could go into any magistrate’s court in Natal and practise there, but, although I am an admitted advocate of the Supreme Court of the Cape and Transvaal, I cannot go into the Supreme Court of Natal and practise without passing a certain examination and paying a fee of £50. The Minister agrees with me that the time is ripe when this should be done. We have done three-quarters of the work; we have done the criminal courts and magistrates’ courts procedure, and the time is now ripe when we should take into serious consideration the consolidation and reform of superior court work, and not do it in tiny bites like this. On the question of trial by jury, I have often had a judge in the Transvaal say to me in regard to civil matters that he would often glady have shared the responsibility with a jury. Á judge is apt to go into hair-splitting refinements. I venture to say that a jury of nine citizens is just as competent to try the rights and wrongs of a collision case as a judge, especially sitting under his direction. I am not sure that this is a wise step, and I do not know that there is any real demand for it. There is just one other matter I should like to refer to. As soon as the deeply-regretted resignation of Sir James Rose Innes was announced, immediately the name of his successor was gazetted—Sir William Solomon. But we have not yet been told who is to fill the vacancy on the fifth seat of that Court of Appeal, and it is curious that we were not told that simultaneously when Sir William Solomon’s name was gazetted. I have heard that it is to be filled from an exalted place on the ministerial benches, but I do not know about that. I think, however, we should have the information.

With regard to the first portion of the Bill, the Minister has not told us much except that he has been asked to bring in this measure, but he might have brought forward some arguments. I cannot see any public advantage in reducing the quorum, and unless there is some practical reason it seems to me that she provision made in the South Africa Act is best in the interests of the public and of the administration of justice. It has been the invariable practice in other countries to let a judgment from a lower court stand where opinion is divided in the higher court. I quite agree with that. When you have reduced the court to a quorum of four, you must let the judgment stand in such circumstances. Whether it is a wise thing to reduce the quorum is a, matter I should like to hear some argument upon. I cannot conceive any reason except perhaps because of economy, or because of practical difficulties; certainly it is not in the interests of the public or the administration of justice. The second part of the Bill dealing with the doing away of trial by jury in civil cases in the Cape and Natal is a very much more serious matter. It is interfering seriously with the rights of the public. In the first place, the Minister is not right in calling this a primitive system, as if it were something which came from the dim and distant past and was no longer of public use. It is primitive in the sense that it is an ancient system, but it has worked extremely well. In the Cape we have had this system since 1854, and during those years it has been working well. We want a stronger reason for doing away with it than that a few rich men are likely to be mulcted in damages. In Natal I do not know the exact year when it began, but at any rate it is old there too. Let us take the argument the Minister gave that a rich man may be mulcted in heavy damages. Surely the Minister has forgotten that the Appellate Division can reduce excessive damages, as it does whenever the occasion arises. There are constantly cases from the Cape and other parts of the Union where a jury has given damages in a negligence case against the Government, and the Appellate Division has set the judgment aside altogether. Then again there are other cases where damages have been given, but these damages have been considered to be excessive, and the Appellate Division has reduced these damages. So that you have your protection. The rich man is entitled to justice at the hands of the court and jury as much as the poor man, and if the jury allowed their sympathy with plain tiffs who were poor to run away with their discretion, there is always the Appellate Division to put the matter right. One has always to remember that a judge’s primary position is to decide the law and the niceties of the law, and one must always remember, too, that a judge is only a human being, and just as likely to go wrong on a question of fact as a member of the jury. Questions of fact are matters on which an ordinary member of the public, using his experience and common sense, is just as likely to arrive at a sound conclusion as the most eminent judge. From time immemorial, while it has been the province of the judge to decide questions of law, judges have always welcomed the assistance of the jury in sifting the facts. We know we have had cases where the judge sitting alone has believed one set of witnesses and given judgment accordingly, and later other evidence has been given and it appeared that the set of witnesses who were believed had committed perjury, and judgment should have been given for the other party. That can happen. The judgment later on was set aside. The judge had made a mistake in believing witnesses who had committed perjury. Then again, I quite agree with what the hon. member said in regard to the consolidation of our laws. Let us rather wait until we have one general civil procedure Act for the Higher Courts. Let it be referred to a Select Committee and be thoroughly gone into, and then decide whether it is desirable to extend generally the system of these jury trials to the other provinces, or whether you ought to do away with it in the two provinces where it does exist. It requires a very strong case to do away, with something in which the public are very much interested, and a system which has proved very useful indeed to the administration of justice. To sweep that away requires a very strong case indeed, and we have not heard a strong case for the abolition of a system which has worked so well, and is working so well. For these reasons I think that that part of the Bill which abolishes trial by jury in civil cases in two provinces is not a progressive but a retrograde measure, and if well understood by the public will be regarded as an unwarrantable interference with the administration of justice as it has been administered for a long period of years. The public have not demanded the change, and when the change is made the public will be profoundly disappointed, not only because the Minister has abolished this in two provinces, but also because he has not extended the system right throughout the Union. They will be very disappointed when they find that he has done away with it in two provinces where it has been in existence for generations.

As the Minister is now dealing with a matter of Appeal Courts, I want to suggest that Section 106 of the South Africa Act, which deals with appeals to the Privy Council, shall also be amended, seeing that Section 110 is also being amended in this Bill. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said, it occurs very rarely—and it is long since an appeal was taken to the Privy Council—that permission is given for such appeal. But the uncertainty still exists in the Constitution, inasmuch as opportunity is given to make application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. More especially in view of what recently occurred at the Imperial Conference, it is of still greater importance to know clearly and now, how we stand as regards such appeals. I think the general feeling in South Africa is that an appeal to the Privy Council is superfluous. We have an entirely different legal system from other countries in the British Commonwealth, but in our Constitution the opportunity mentioned is still allowed. Section 106 reads peculiarly. It begins—

But then the proviso states that the King in Council can give leave to appeal, and Parliament has the right to legislate as to the conditions under which an appeal can be taken to the Privy Council. I believe there is no one in this House who is in favour of that system, but the position is that there is no finality, but rather uncertainty. We know in the recent past that people hoped to obtain leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and incurred costs, and spared no pains in asking for leave, and that this was refused. But why? Is it not better to have finality, and it be definitely stated that the Union court is the final court of appeal? I hope the Minister will agree to introduce an amendment—by which in any event the Constitution is being altered—so that we may once and for all have finality, and that our Union Appeal Court will be the final court of appeal.

I do not wish to discuss the merits at this stage. As far as the abolition of trial by jury in civil cases is concerned, it is a very important departure from our settled practice in the Cape. I think the Minister gave us a promise yesterday when he introduced the Bill that after a certain amount of discussion he would agree to the adjournment of the debate. For this reason, and because this measure should have wider publicity in the Cape Province, I move—

seconded.

I move—

We have had no instructions from our constituents on the merits of this Bill. I suggest that the debate be adjourned for a fortnight.

I do not, regard this Bill as of very great importance— it is an important stage forward, and that is the only important thing in it. I do not want smaller measures to knock up against larger measures and possibly be shipwrecked, and that is why I suggested Monday. If hon. members cannot discuss it properly on Monday, we might have a further adjournment. I do not propose to stand in the way of hon. members as far as discussion is concerned, and I move—

I move—

In moving this, I think it is well if I cite fully the provisions of Section 1 of Natal Law No. 25 of 1878-

There are a number of gambling games, especially by Indians and natives, and there is no way of controlling that nuisance. Persons administering justice in Natal have insisted for a couple of years on this amendment being introduced. I hoped to have introducer] a law to deal with lotteries generally, but it is best to deal with this matter at once. The object of sub-section 2 is to deal with games which it might be urged in the courts are not games of chance—the three card trick and things of that kind which can always successfully be played against the punter. A man might be able to prove that there is no chance against the manipulators of these games which are ruled by exact skill, and therefore it is necessary to have this provision in cases in which chance and skill are mixed or skill can improperly be used, thus making it impossible for the other party to the game to have any chance of winning. I am informed that the gambling indulged in in Natal by natives and Indians often leads to assault, as the parties—thinking that they have been defrauded—frequently have recourse to the use of a knife. It can be said in the language of the original Natal Act that this gambling is an absolute nuisance.

Was the Tod incident a manipulation?

If hon. members opposite want too many things dealt with, I do not know what would happen to them. The Bill is a very necessary one.