was acknowledged in India. They had a Parliamentary franchise and there was an enormous municipal franchise which affected local government, and if this was the case, what was the use of their passing this Bill? The facts he had stated to the Assembly were taken from the best authorities he could find and they proved most conclusively that these institutions did exist. There was no doubt on one point, that if a Bill of this kind passed into law it would lead them into endless litigation, difficulties, and trouble. The Bill was not sufficiently clear or definite. They wanted something more clear and definite. He wanted to see this question settled and he would do all he could to assist at a settlement. But he thought this Bill was framed on wrong lines, contained a fact that was not correct, and it would lead them into endless litigation, difficulty, and trouble. It would be impossible for him to vote for the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Bale, a leading member of the Assembly and a leading lawyer in Natal, agreeing with Mr. Binns’ views, opposed as he is to the Indians retaining the franchise rights under the general law of the Colony, thus feelingly appealed to the House, as well on behalf of the Indians as for the Colony generally, not to pass the Bill:
- It would give rise to litigation and produce a feeling of hostility and create a ferment amongst the Indians themselves. It would also have the further effect of inducing appeals to the Privy Council and would prejudice the election of members to this House. Having regard to the great issues involved in this measure he hoped the second reading of this Bill would not be carried.
The Natal Witness of the 8th May thus sums up the situation:
- Our warning that, if the Bill passes into law as it stands, the Colony will be involved in serious litigation, had the support of Mr. Binns and Mr. Bale, and Mr. Smythe’s half loaf, which is better than, nothing, would be dearly purchased at that price. What leads us to think the Bill has not been considered by the legal advisers of the Crown are the exceedingly delicate questions which it raises and which will undoubtedly be fought out unless the wording be altered so as not to leave the possibility of a resort to law. Amongst these questions are the following: Can a Colony make laws which contravene the Naturalization Law of England? Are British Indians British subjects or not? In other words the Bill raises the whole question of the position of the British Indians in the Empire. Can special laws be passed in Natal, since the issue of the Proclamation of 1858, [to] take away any part of the privileges conferred by that document?
After deploring the ambiguity and vagueness of the Bill, The Natal Advertiser, in its leader of the 8th May, says:
- The truth of the position is [that] each line of the present Bill is an ambuscade of disputes, which will all come out in the open some day,
