§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)I beg to ask the Under Secretary 880 of State for the Colonies whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that, in the case "Supreme Chief v. Umtshiwa," heard before the Native High Court of Appeal in Natal on 3rd January, when a sentence passed by the Judge of the Native High Court, and confirmed by the Secretary for Native Affairs, being appealed against, those two functionaries sat in the Court of Appeal with the Judge of the Supreme Court, and dismissed the appeal, notwithstanding the protest of the superior Judge as to the illegality of the sentence; and whether the Government will take steps to alter the arrangement by which the majority in an Appeal Court is composed of officials who have already given judgment against the appellant?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,) Liverpool, East ToxtethThe Secretary of State has seen reports of this case in the local newspapers. The facts appear to be as follows:—The sentence was originally passed by an "administrator of native law," affirmed on appeal to the native High Court and again affirmed by the Court of Appeal. It had not been confirmed by the Secretary for Native Affairs, who merely refused to quash it summarily on the ground of "manifest hardship" by executive action under Section 3 of Law 44 of 1887; and there is nothing to show that the latter officer had formed any opinion on the merits of the case before he heard it argued in the Court of Appeal. Under all the circumstances, the Secretary of State does not see that this case affords primâ facie any grounds for altering the constitution of the Court of Appeal.