reported, that upon application, he had authorized the Clerk of the House, during the adjournment of this House, to place at the disposal of the Clerk of the Senate the report on the Mining, Iron and Steel Works, proposed by the South African Iron and Steel Corporation, Limited, in the Union of South Africa, by the Commission of Experts of the Gutehoffnungshütte.

announced that during the adjournment a vacancy occurred in the representation in this House of the Electoral Division of Three Rivers owing to the death on 27th November, 1927, of Mr. D. M. Brown, O.B.E.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I think that we are here concerned with the passing of one who was the friend of every member of the House. When we remember that he served the State as a member of Parliament, for about 19 years, we see that he was one whom we all knew, as one who was a friend even when most strenuously opposed to us. One of his characteristics was, I think, the fidelity and zeal which he always exhibited as a member of Parliament in the performance of his duties. He was one of the members who attached the greatest importance to social problems. If I mistake not, his name is still associated on the agenda with women’s franchise. We know how he continually strove to get proportional representation; and he always did his utmost to get social improvements realised. I think, therefore, that in voting for this motion the House will only be expressing what is in all our hearts, and render him the homage which is his due. Individually, also, I think we cannot do otherwise than remember him with the greatest respect, I might almost say love. I am convinced that his friendly and genial personality will long be missed in this House. By his wit and good humour he often saved the House from some unpleasantness or other. I move this resolution from the bottom of my heart.

I second the motion, and wish to endorse very strongly the Prime Minister’s sentiments. The late Mr. Brown was undoubtedly one of the most popular members of the House—popular not only on this side, but on all sides, of the House—and popular far beyond our walls, right through the country. Some years ago I happened to be at Port Elizabeth, and had occasion with Mr. Brown to go to the poorer parts of Port Elizabeth, and it struck me very much to see the affection felt for him everywhere and the strong feeling of comradeship he evoked everywhere in his constituency. That accounts for the hold he had on this House. Everybody here felt that he was not only a politician and a party man, but a man; full of enthusiasm for great causes. We often used to smile at his enthusiasm for causes which it was difficult to carry; in spite of his old age—and he was one of the oldest members of the House—he always had a young heart for good causes—women’s franchise, proportional representation—every good cause from which the ordinary member shies off he took to his heart and he tried to push through. Men of this sort are the salt of this earth, and redeem politics from its ordinary sordidness. We shall feel his loss very much. He was one of the youngest in temper and attitude. Hon. members will remember how last year he rushed forward in a debate and with the most brilliant shafts of humour he delighted the House. We feel very much that he has left us, and he leaves a great gap in this House. I sincerely join with the Prime Minister, both as regards what he said about the services the late Mr. Brown rendered, and also in his expression of deep sympathy with the late hon. member’s family.

I do not want unduly to entrench on the time of the House. I am one of the oldest friends of the late hon. member, and I was with him within a few hours of his death. It was amazing to hear him speak so rationally on great public questions within a few hours of his death. He has bequeathed to two hon. members the two questions on which his heart was always set. Having known him for the last thirty years. I claim the right to speak a word of appreciation and pay a tribute of heartfelt sorrow to his memory. Reference has been made to his wit and humour; ray experience is that not often in one personality do you get both wit and humour. Wit is one thing, and humour another. In our late colleague there was a fine blend of the two qualities. There were his sudden flashes of repartee that amused and left their mark, but never left a rankling wound. He was one of the most generous men I ever knew—generous in spirit, broad and tolerant, and able to see the point of the other man; able to sympathize with a man with whom he could not wholly agree. He was generous with his gifts to those who were in need. Within a few weeks of his death he told me that he did not need his parliamentary allowance, but said he was glad to have it, because he could help more people in need. I mention that as a tribute to his abounding generosity. There was in the man, too, an outstanding sagacity and sanity of judgment. I have heard experienced lawyers say: “We trust D. M. Brown’s opinion on most legal questions.” He was never in a hurry; he studied a thing and then he spoke as one having authority. What is said to-day will give comfort to his numerous family of children. Some of his sons are making a mark in the affairs of this country. They will be encouraged by what the leader of the House and the leader of the Opposition have said in recognition of the merits of our old friend.

Motion put and agreed to, members rising.

I move—

That order was adopted under peculiar circumstances, but those circumstances having vanished we ought to dispense with the order.

seconded.

I have no desire to oppose the motion, but its effect as it now stands is merely to restore the privileges of members as from to-day, but we are now in about the twentieth day of the session, so that members’ privileges will be curtailed by twenty days as generally those privileges are enjoyed during the first fifty days of the session. I ask the Prime Minister to consider that point.

Will motions standing in the name of private members automatically be restored to their position on the Order paper and in what precedence?

The Orders will have to take their chance of being reached on Friday, but hon. members are at bilerty to move them off for a special day.

Do I understand that hon. members are at liberty to move them off now?

If no motion is made to-day in regard to Orders five, six and seven they will stand in that order on Friday as one, two and three, but if hon. members wish to move that they be taken on other days they are at liberty to do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

The position is this, that hon. members who wish to get their Bills on Friday should move now to make sure. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), Major G. B. van Zyl, has moved that No. 7 be set down for Friday, and this has been seconded. Any objection?

I object.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Is the hon. member referring to Order No. 5?

No, sir. Notion of Motion No. 5.

In that case I think the hon. member had better move that when I call for notices of motion to-morrow.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That is, the motion, adopted by us, relating to evening sittings, will not be enforced this week or the following week.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Before the notices of motion are reached I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House about the work we are likely to face this session. We are practically beginning a new session, not actually but practically, and we have no statement of the Government programme before us, and hon. members, and the country too, are anxious to know what work we are likely to face. I hope the Prime Minister will enlighten us.

May I ask my hon. friend—I thought I would be in a position to give that information this afternoon—will he be kind enough to allow me to do so to-morrow? I shall be delighted to do so then.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to; House to resume in Committee on 1st February.

I move—

Although I appreciate the fact that certain points in this Bill will be dealt with in the second reading, I trust the second reading debate will be made as short as possible because the real work will have to be done during the committee stage. Hon. members will remember that I gave the assurance on previous occasions, and I give it again, because I believe we shall do our best work in committee stage, to take the whole of this Bill as a non-party measure. We are trying to do the best we can, and some of us are seriously attacked on trying to do the best that is in us. I hope a non-party discussion will facilitate the discussion of the various items and enable us to do the best we can. What has been done is to consolidate the existing laws and make certain amendments without the intention of making a sweeping change, a sweeping reform, in what our liquor legislation has been in South Africa. I have no doubt many people are disappointed because these sweeping reforms have not been adopted in this Bill. I believe on this basis we shall be able to build up something for the future. There are two reasons why I am specially anxious that this Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment. One of these affects the skokiaan evil. What has happened during the year is this. We have had great difficulty in regard to the importation of yeast. Regulations were framed and passed by which the importation was greatly hampered, and to-day no yeast is imported without a licence obtained from the commissioner of police, and they are being sparingly given at the present moment. But it has had an unfortunate effect. Whilst this yeast to be used for illicit purposes was in the hands of other countries before the regulation was passed, it has now become a South African industry. In Johannesburg, especially, a large number of yeast factories have sprung up, and I was discussing with, amongst others, the judges of the Supreme Court, the question of these factories. One of the judges of the Supreme Court in the Transvaal gave me figures as to the profits made by one of the parties in a case which came before him in Court. The profits did not run into thousands of pounds but into hundreds of thousands. I believe the House will feel with me that a business of that kind should be curtailed as soon as possible. I believe that the provisions of this Bill will curtail these factories, and I shall be prepared to consider any amendment brought forward with that object in view. The skokiaan position is a very bad one. I am informed by the police that in Johannesburg there are certain parts where you have native eating houses, which are licensed, and you find a skokiaan den established in a backyard near those eating houses, and I must say that if the eating houses shown to me by the police, which have been licensed by the Town Council of Johannesburg, are typical instances, I am not surprised, because when I went into one of those eating houses I found that all the meat that was going to be used by the natives was covered with millions of flies. It passed my comprehension how any public body could license such places. I felt that if I had to eat that meat I should want skokiaan or something else to destroy the germs. Then there is the other point which is of very great importance, and that is the question of shebeening on the diamond diggings. The shebeening on the diamond diggings is a curse. We have used every possible power that we have to control those shebeens, but we are hampered very largely by the law not being in a proper position. Hon. members may remember the case of Rex v. Nel, which went to the Appellate Division some years ago, and that case laid down that orders could be taken by bottle stores in some part of the country, and those orders could be supplied 10, 20 or 100 miles from that place. The result is that people turn up at the diggings with a large number of bottles of drink, they have a large number of bogus orders that they keep in connection with the matter, and it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that there is wrong selling of drink. It may well be that we shall also have to consider the question of canvassing for botttle stores. It seems to me that so far as the diamond diggings and relief works are concerned, we may have to deal with this question on the basis that we do not allow liquor to enter those premises. I am very anxious especially in those two respects to get all the powers we can to stop these evils, which are crying evils. The people who are suffering on the diamond diggings on account of this shebeening business are the women, and when I was on the diamond diggings I was approached more especially by the women to do something in regard to this matter. There is one point I wish to refer to. I have the Dutch version of the Hansard reports of debates No. 13 before me, and I see that on page 3513 an attack was made upon the members of the select committee of this House who went into the provisions of the Liquor Bill. I wish to say here at once that I cannot associate myself in any way with that attack. I do not think that was a justified attack, because I believe that the members of this House who were members of that committee did extremely useful work and extremely hard work, and I do not think any member of this House will grudge them the small amount that was drawn by them in connection with that work. If we had had that work done by lawyers employed by this House to do the work as lawyers, the amount would have been at least ten times more than it is. I believe that as far as the select committee is concerned, this House has received full value for the money expended, and the work which has been done is useful work.

You mean the commission?

The select committee which followed the commission. It was a select committee at a later stage. There were three stages—committee, commission and again committee. I am sure the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) agrees with my views on that point entirely. There is one point upon which there has been a great deal of discussion, and that is the question of Indian waiters. It may well be that the position we ought to take in regard to that would be to take your Indian waiters who are functioning and who have been functioning for a certain time and not take away their work from them, but not allow for the future further waiters to be engaged, while not depriving the present waiters of the work that is in their hands. At all events, I think something along those lines can be done in committee, and I think that will also show that I am not hide-bound in regard to the provisions of this Bill. Hon. members will see when I come to the committee stage that I will do my share in the work of introducing amendments into this Bill. After all, it is a very great work indeed to consolidate the laws in a matter of this kind, and one is afraid that one may be making a mistake and may be doing something that may do harm instead of good. I think we all of us desire to do the greatest good with this Bill that we can do. We hope it will be a step in the direction of what, I think, is taking place in South Africa. I am told that statistics are against me; in fact, somewhat coarse language is used against me in regard to that, but I believe that as far as the largest part of the population of South Africa is concerned, that population is becoming more sober, and especially the white population. But I have said that in the past, very coarse language has been used about me. It is very difficult to prove very much from statistics, because you find that so many people have been convicted in one year, and so many more, perhaps, have been convicted next year. After all, most drinking, I suppose, is done in private houses or in clubs, which would never be followed by any trials in our courts. That is rather a cheerless form of drinking, I admit, but there is a certain amount of that drinking which takes place and that rather prevents your statistics from having their full value. There are certainly. I admit at once, factors that are working to-day in connection especially with drinking by coloured people in parts of the Cape Province which we might ameliorate to a large extent. These factors we should go into. When I am speaking about South Africa becoming a more sober nation I am referring more especially to the white population and more especially to the parts of the country with which I am in constant touch, but I believe that position obtains practically all over the country and one certainly hopes that position will continue.

After the two or three false starts I made earlier, I am fortunate in being allowed to speak so soon in this debate. I have been rather fortunate in several respects with regard to this Bill. I served on the select committee so I had the opportunity of hearing the evidence. Having heard the evidence I know which parts to avoid, and I can assure hon. members that there is quite a large amount of that evidence which they should avoid. It consists of about 1,200 pages, and I consider that a quarter of that is worth reading. As to the rest, I doubt whether it is worth reading.

Which quarter is that?

Chiefly the temperance section. I was also fortunate in serving on the commission with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). The commission appointed to redraft the Bill in the light of the evidence. We were, of course, very pleased that the Minister had so much confidence in us, as to give us that work to do. But after the Minister had appointed us he seems to have slightly lost confidence in us because he did two things. One was wise, the other was not so very wise—in fact it was otherwise. The wise thing the Minister did was to give us the assistance of Mr. Advocate Landsdown, K.C., who helped us in drafting the various amendments. In our report we mentioned how valuable his assistance was, but as that report itself has not been published, I want to take this opportunity, and I am sure my fellow commissioners agree with me, of thanking Mr. Landsdown for the very valuable assistance he was to us. The other thing the Minister did was this. After the commission had done its work and made all the amendments it considered necessary to make, he went and altered the Bill in several respects. I do not object to his having altered it, because there are some alterations which the Minister made with which I agree; there are others with which I do not agree, and I do not think the other members of the commission agree. That is a matter hon. members will be able to decide for themselves in committee stage. What I do object to, and wish to lodge a respectful protest against, is the fact that the Minister did not consult or even inform any of the members of his commission of these alterations. Of course, with regard to myself and the hon. member for Troyeville, he has a fairly good reason. We are members of his own party, and my experience down here in Parliament has been that Ministers are not expected to consult members of their own party, but I cannot understand why the Minister did not at least consult the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The Minister has said he is not making this Bill a party matter, and with one exception, which I will deal with later, I am very glad that is so, because it is a fact with which every member of this House will agree that when party politics enter in at the door commonsense and sincerity fly out through the lobby. In this matter of liquor, which vitally affects the whole country, we need as much common sense and sincerity as we can possibly give to it. Except for that one exception the commission disregarded party politics, and we tried to evolve a Bill as sensible and workable as possible. I am well aware that we have not satisfied everybody and probably we have not wholly satisfied anyone, but how could we satisfy them all? We had to deal with so many different classes of people, especially with three classes. The first class, the temperance people, from very good motives, no doubt, wish no one to take any liquor at all; secondly, there are the licensed victuallers and wine farmers who, I say deliberately, regardless of the good of the country, wish everyone to drink as much as possible, and thirdly, we had the average sensible individual who considers that drink is a good gift to man.

How much?

Provided that it is taken in reasonable quantities and at reasonable times. I hope. I may class myself among this third class of average sensible people. At all events I try to live up to the principle of taking drink at reasonable times and in reasonable quantities. I did my best to steer the commission in that direction, and I still think that it is the right direction. Before I come to that exception I have one other matter to deal with. I understand there are some members, more especially members who represent wine-growing constituencies, who think I have allowed myself, to be over-persuaded by the temperance element on the commission. If that is so, then, my excuse is that the motives of the temperance element are higher and more unselfish than the motives of the licensed victuallers and wine farmers—unpractical the temperance people may be, but they mean well. I also felt that the influence in this House of the licensed victuallers and wine farmers would be strong enough to correct any little errors of judgment the commission might have made. We honestly tried not to interfere with the liquor trade more than was absolutely necessary, and I must say the manner, in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who, I believe, is the chief apostle of temperance in this House, met us, deserves special mention. I know that on many occasions he had to strain his temperance conscience a good deal. Hon. members will be glad to know that on all except four points, the commission was unanimous, and when hon. members remember that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not the meekest or mildest member of his party and that the hon. member for Troyeville is also not the meekest member of his party, the House will admit that it needed some steering. Practically all the recommendations of the commission are backed by the police evidence and the evidence of the magistrates and other senior officials. Coming to the one exception, the exception in regard to which I regret the Minister has not yet said he will make it a party matter—and I hope he will—that is Clause 104, known as the white labour clause. I do hope the Minister will make it a party matter. Frankly, speaking for myself, and I think also for the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) with regard to this clause, party politics did enter in, and in that case the common sense and sincerity of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on that occasion flew out of the window. I would like to withdraw the word “sincerity” and confine it to “common sense.” This white labour clause is a vital one for South Africa. We will find work for thousands of our people, we will find thousands of jobs for cur pals. I believe in jobs for pals, provided they are the right jobs and the right pals. Are the natives our pals? No, they are not my pals; they may be the pals of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The Asiatics are not our pals, and are not the pals of the Pact, if I may speak in this matter in all humility for the Pact. They may be pals of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and his friends from Natal, but not ours. If we put through this clause the Pact will have justified itself. If this clause is deleted, or diluted in any way, the Bill may be still a good one from the temperance, the wine farmers’ or the licensed victuallers’ point of view and even from the point of view of the average sensible individual, but I am convinced that if this clause does not go through, from the Fact’s point of view, this Bill will be as dud.

I am sure that the House feels a certain sense of disappointment with the speech of the Minister in introducing the Bill. Perhaps we can put that down to a fact which we all very much regret—that the state of his health is such that he has not been able to give that attention to public business he would have liked. It is largely a different Bill from that introduced two years ago, and the Minister might have been expected to give an exposition of the changes in the Bill and the reasons which actuated him in making these changes. One has a right to expect that from a Minister in introducing a Bill of such fundamental importance as this. Very largely it is an improved Bill. I think that is common cause. Many changes for the better have been made, and possibly some for the worse. I have nothing but appreciation for the work of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) as Chairman both of Select Committee and of the commission. It is perfectly true, as he said, he had to steer a middle course between the extreme temperance views of myself, and I will not say the liquor views of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), because that is not correct. It is a remarkable fact that, controversial as every clause is, if you choose to make it so, we three representing different parties and all different schools of thought, were able to arrive at our report with only six divisions. That speaks something at any rate for the spirit in which we conducted our labours. For myself, I am a prohibitionist. As the hon. member said, I suppose I am one of the recognized leaders of temperance thought in this country, but in facing the Bill in the select committee or in the House, I remembered that it is a Bill, not to introduce prohibition, but to reform the liquor laws. Until the time is ripe for total prohibition temperance people must be content with seeking a measure of reform. Again and again, where my colleagues saw it was a measure of temperance reform and for the betterment of the people, they were able to go with me. The Minister has taken over nine-tenths of the recommendations of the commission, and I personally have no grievance for his departing where he thought fit from these recommendations which are not sacred and sacrosanct. The hon. member for North East Rand quite correctly said that on many an occasion I refused to be any party to acting in a spirit of hostility to the trade itself. My position is that I have no vendetta against the liquor trade. I am out for a clean and temperate South Africa, and so far as the trade stands against that it must be fought. If it puts the trade to stand South Africa second I must fight it, but I would not be unfair to it any more than to any other class of the community. Where that trade wants to increase its privileges and its profits, and that at the expense of the ordinary people of South Africa, I will stand up against them. We want many of the admitted evils of that trade wiped away. May I mention some of the principal changes which have been introduced by the commission, which the Minister has not done? Many hon. members have not had the time or the opportunity to study the Bill in detail. One of the most controversial things introduced into the Bill is the provision which allows the Government to set up Government and railway hotels. I see the temperance party are up in arms against that, but as long as the Government and railway hotels conform to the same conditions as to hours of trade and everything else to which the private hotel has to conform, I cannot see any objection in principle to such hotels. I believe the Government will do so only sparingly in cases of extreme necessity. I was on the new line being constructed between George and Knysna, and the railways would have no profit from that line unless they can promote tourist traffic. In order to stimulate that it may be necessary to put up an hotel at Knysna, and I see no objection to that so long, as I say, it conforms to the same conditions as any other hotel in the country. The Minister has done a very unwise thing in going back on our recommendation with regard to the hours for railway refreshment rooms and dining cars. Can the Minister tell me any reason why the hours observed by others have not to be observed by the railway cars and refreshment rooms? Why make an exception in their case? One of the principal changes the commission introduced, and the Minister has accepted, is the adoption of the Free State principle that in the countryside there shall be no liquor licences.

Why not?

You only want liquor licences in the area of a local authority where there are police and where there can be control.

Hear, hear.

In the early days of the Free State these country licences grew to be such a curse that the Free State “Volksraad” unanimously put an end to them.

One of the best things they ever did.

We have altered the Bill so as to apply that principle to the whole of South Africa. The only exception is that where outside the area of a local authority there is a health or pleasure resort recognized as such by the Minister, an hotel may be established at a cost of not less than £10,000 for buildings, or a club at a cost of not less than £5,000 for buildings. This will allow the establishment of proper health resorts. Existing countryside licences are to come to an end inside ten years, unless in the meantime they are able to convert themselves into pleasure resorts. Two years ago the Minister proposed to abolish the loose bars—that is, bars not attached to hotels—when the licensee died. We were told in the select committee that such a proposal is entirely unsound, as one licensee might die to-morrow, but another might live for 30 years. We provide, instead, that every loose bar should come to an end in ten years. We believe that a liquor licence is a privilege, and in return for it the State has the right to expect service, but no service is given by the mere carrying on of a bar, but if coupled with it there is residential accommodation, then there may be said to be some service. Public opinion generally has condemned the existing loose bar. In Johannesburg for the last 15 years the licensing board has refused to grant new licences to such places. The Minister’s Rill contained a clause empowering him to declare as many districts as he likes “dry.” In other words, instead of local option, which was the vote of the people, the Minister could say that a district should be “dry.” The Commission thought that that went too far in giving the Minister autocratic powers which neither He nor anyone else should exercise. In its place there is a clause giving the Minister power to impose restrictions, short of prohibition, in the interests of the coloured people and the native. We hope the Minister will exercise that discretion. The Minister seems happy in the belief that we are growing a more sober country. I am inclined to agree with him in regard to Europeans, but the statistics, which are a far better guide than a ministerial impression, show that drunkenness amongst coloured and native people is increasing at an appalling rate. Local option has disappeared from the Bill. For years I have been one of the chief supporters of local option, and I am as convinced in its favour as ever I was. But when I sat on the commission, I felt that it would be unwise to complicate this already complicated Bill by seeking to force into it the provisions of the Local Option Bill. If the Minister, however, thinks that local option is dead, he is making the greatest mistake of his life. We temperance people feel it our duty to co-operate with the Minister in endeavouring to make the measure as good as it can be made. If, through the instrumentality of the Bill the evils which we are seeking to combat are put an end to, I shall be thankful. I do not see, however, in the Bill anything which leads me to believe that the struggle for local option will be abandoned. Not only is local option not dead, but it will be revived as soon as the decks are cleared by the passing of this Bill. With the deletion of local option, we have taken out of this Bill the Cape system of memorials. I have always thought that that system was open to abuse. A man who wanted an hotel licence could get in quietly and obtain the signatures of people, possibly by payment or by forgery, and there are many instances of the system being abused. That system, although it is excellent in theory, should be abolished. In its place we give the quota system, which is in force in the Transvaal, but in the Cape there has been no limit to the number of licences that could be granted. The quota system provides that the number of licences which may be granted in any district shall not exceed one per two hundred registered voters for the first five thousand voters, and after that one per two hundred and fifty voters. Club licences are included in the quota. If these proposals are accepted, the effect will be that neither in the lifetime of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), or my lifetime, will a new licence be granted in the Cape Peninsula, unless a large number of the existing licences come to an end. For quota purposes we take the parliamentary voters’ roll, excluding women and voters who are prohibited from obtaining liquor. I think the Minister will agree if these quota provisions are accepted, the necessity for memorials will disappear, because there will be no room for new licences in the Cape, which is already heavily over-licensed. An additional quota has been introduced reducing the number of bottle stores to one per thousand. This system does not affect any existing licences, hut no new licences will he granted until the number of voters is sufficient to warrant them being granted under the quota. I hope the Minister will recognize that we must include clubs in these quotas. In proportion as a place is over-licensed, so is drinking indulged in to excess, and we think it right to include clubs under the quota. Another point of great controversy to the Minister, and soreness to the trade in the Cape and Natal, is that, whereas the Minister under the Bill of 1926 has permitted off sales in the bars of the Cape and Natal, we have now abolished them. In the Transvaal liquor may not be off sold except from a bottle store, but in the Cape a bar may not only sell drink on the premises, but also in the bottle. They are supposed to sell only during bottle store hours, but you can imagine what happens. A man drinks in the bar until he has had as much as he could carry, and then he takes a bottle away to complete the process. It is the experience of the police that it is a wrong system, and it has got to go. Despite any cry the trade may raise, it is well to realize that it is useless to attempt a measure of reform in the liquor laws that does not introduce the abolition of off sales. We do not want unnecessarily to inflict hardship upon the liquor trade. We recognize that if a district has hitherto been supplied entirely by bars, then there is the need to introduce a bottle store in the district, and we have provided in such a case that the licensing board at its first sitting may establish bottle stores to meet the need created, and, in granting that, preference shall be given to licensees of bars who are losing a great portion of trade by the abolition of off sales. I think that is a fair compromise, and I am glad the Minister has accepted it. A most vexed question will be the treatment of clubs under this Bill. Many members of this House are members of clubs. I myself am a member of three or four clubs, but we have to recognize that in a large part of South Africa a great deal of over-indulgence in liquor may be traced directly to clubs. If you think you are going to tackle the question of liquor by legislating for bars only, and by leaving clubs out, then I say you are making a great mistake, and you might as well drop it. I read the other day they had introduced the 11 o’clock closing in Johannesburg, but they had no power to apply that to clubs, and members who could not get liquor in the bars trooped to the clubs, and I want to tell you that you can get membership of clubs in Johannesburg for 10s. 6d. for the half year, and a good many thirsty men in Johannesburg do not consider that too big a fee to pay to get a drink after hours. It is useless to try and reform the liquor trade, unless you are prepared to bring clubs under the umbrella. You must treat them in the same way with regard to Sunday trading and hours, and unless you are prepared to do that, you might as well drop the whole thing. In Johannesburg there are possibly 40,000 members of clubs, and it is idle to shut down the bars at 11 o’clock and leave the clubs open. In any case, it is unfair to the trade on whom we impose heavy obligations and burdens. I beg the Minister to be firm on this. Keep clubs in the quota. Keep them to the hours, and all temperance South Africa will thank him for doing it. I think the Minister has done an absurd thing in reducing the minimum number of members necessary to get a club licence to 35. I am not sure we did not do a wrong thing in reducing it from 100 to 50. I think I made a mistake, but the Minister has now outbid us. It is ridiculous to say that only 35 members should join a club to get a licence. The number should be at least 50. Natives of the Cape have been allowed to continue to obtain liquor under the conditions set down in the Hofmeyr Act, and natives still retain that privilege. But now we have taken the drastic step of saying, “No, every native, whether a voter or not, shall be under a total prohibition in regard to obtaining drink, except kaffir beer.” I am glad the Minister has accepted that, and I have not seen a single protest from any native in South Africa against that change, and if it is the declared policy that there shall be prohibition of liquor for natives, let us make it uniform in this consolidating Bill in South Africa. It will make for the better administration of the liquor laws, and will remove the administrative difficulties created by the Hofmeyr Act. As long as that Act stood, and some natives could secure liquor and others not, you had an impossible position. Senator Roberts, speaking as the spokesman of the Native Affairs Commission, before us in select committee, warmly supported the change that we made. He said—

Let me say what has been done in regard to coloured people. Here a certain amount of protest has been raised. We, on the commission, having sat on that committee and taken evidence, were so obsessed by the evils that drink is causing to-day throughout the length and breadth of South Africa to the coloured people, that we determined to take drastic steps so far as lay with ns to remedy that position, and I would say this, that every member of this House who keeps his eyes open, who travels about the Cape at all, must be convinced of this fact—that of all the sections in South Africa who are suffering from drink—and we all suffer—the Cape coloured section is the one which gives the greatest evidence of such suffering. It is impossible to go within one hundred miles of any town in the Cape and not see burnt into their very bodies evidence of the degradation which liquor is causing amongst the coloured people of the Western Province. We felt that Parliament owes it to its conscience and that this country owes to itself the duty of taking drastic steps to deal with the evil which has been brought about among the coloured people of the Cape. Therefore, we have done something which is drastic. We said that coloured people in the Cape and Natal who have hitherto been absolutely unrestricted in the liquor which they could buy, should, in future, be able only to buy liquor for consumption on the premises and that they should not buy liquor by the bottle or for off consumption. If the House will agree to that it will agree to a great measure of reform in regard to the coloured people of this country. It will go far, so far as legislation can go, towards reducing that evil. I am afraid that side by side with this important work the liquor commission have attempted to introduce an exceedingly dangerous innovation. The Minister is by adoption a Transvaaler. So am I. There are other members in this House who are Transvaalers by birth, and they will agree with me that ever since the Transvaal has been the Transvaal the traditional policy of that country has been total prohibition to coloured people, and yet you find in the Bill recommended by the majority of the commission, but opposed by myself, accepted apparently by the Minister, a proposal allowing the Government to set up canteens for the sale of wine and beer to coloured people in the Transvaal. Sale by ordinary bars in not allowed. It is allowed in the Cape and Natal, but it will not be allowed in the Transvaal and Free State, but sale in Government canteens if and when they are set up will be allowed. I beg the Minister seriously to consider before he makes that innovation. I have heard of no requests from the coloured people of the Transvaal for those facilities. If the Minister can tell me of any solid body of coloured opinion up there which asked for those facilities I will be glad to be told of it. They don’t want it. Why force upon them canteens for the sale of wines, if they don’t ask for them? In whose interests are such canteens to be opened?

The brandy farmers.

I say that the Minister will be acting wrongly if he thrusts on the Transvaal and Free State these canteens which have never been asked for, which are not wanted and which will be a curse to that community. The position is that—that under the Bill “off” sales to the coloured people will be prohibited throughout South Africa. “On” sales in bars and canteens in the Cape and Natal will be allowed as hitherto and the Bill proposes to extend it to the Transvaal and Free State, and I as a Transvaaler protest against it. May I ask a few words about the vexed tot system? Hon. members will see that one of the points on which the commission did not divide, upon which it agreed, was a compromise clause in regard to the tot system. I want to say that I, as one of the leaders of temperance feeling in South Africa, feel myself in a very difficult position over the compromise which I agreed to on that, a compromise which I propose to stick to and support in this House, and yet a matter on which I have had grave searchings of heart and upon which I still feel grave doubts. Evidence was laid before us in the select committee of such volume and such weight as to the evils of the tot system in the Cape, that we felt that anything almost should be done either to reduce to a small minimum or abolish it altogether. I could almost make the hair of hon. members stand on end if I read to them the evidence of the evils of that system given to us by missionaries, ex-magistrates and others who have worked amongst the coloured people at the Cape. The evidence as to the iniquities of the tot system in the Western Province absolutely cries to heaven for redress. What is that system? It is a system under which the coloured labourer is given six or eight tots of heavy, strong, crude wine per day, and we were told that the alcoholic content of these tots was equivalent to half a bottle of brandy. We were told that by the Government analyst. There was no doubt in the mind of anybody who sat on that committee that it is one of the most dreadful evils that South Africa suffers from, and that it is causing misery and degradation amongst the coloured population of the Cape. Children are born under this system from parents who are sodden with drink. I say that no fouler blot on the name and good fame of South Africa exists than that tot system. Were I the Minister of Justice and had I the power, I would wipe it out root and branch throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is wrong that in this 20th century an employer of labour should pay his labourers in anything but the current coin of the realm for the work they are doing. It is wrong that a farmer of anyone else should give his servants liquor as part of their wages. Now it is proposed to introduce that in the Transvaal. What is the argument? The argument is that in point of fact, although it is illegal, large numbers of farmers in the Transvaal do give rations of liquor to their natives and we might as well legalize the process. So obsessed am I with the evils that the tot system causes in the Cape that if you are prepared to reduce it in the manner in which it is proposed in this Bill, namely, one tot after 4 o’clock in the presence of the employer, then I am prepared to consent to its being introduced in the rural districts of the Transvaal.

What is the supervision?

The supervision is this, that if any employer is reported or known to be abusing the process he can be blacklisted by the police. There are two kinds of checks, there is the police check and the ministerial check, and the Minister has power if, in any district as a whole, the tot-system is being abused, to abolish it in that district, or if in regard to a particular liquor be finds that a particular liquor is harmful, be may, by proclamation, interdict the supply. My own earnest wish is to abolish the tot system, root and branch, throughout South Africa, but if we are not strong enough in this House to do that, then the fairest compromise that can be adopted is the one in this clause. If the House could abolish the system altogether it would be doing one of the best things it has ever done in the history of the Parliament of this country. I want to say one word in regard to this white labour clause about which the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. Reitz) became so passionate. Just let me say in two words what the hon. member asks this House to do. We have in this country seven million natives and a quarter of a million Asiatics, many of whom are working in hotels to-day. The hon. member says, “the native is not a pal of mine, and the Asiatic is not a pal of mine, so let us take the opportunity this Bill offers of saying he shall do no work in any capacity whatever either in connection with the manufacture or the selling of liquor or work on licensed premises.” I never agreed with him or with his followers. It utterly revolts my sense of fair play. I think it is an utterly wicked proposition to say to the Indians, for instance in Natal, who are by training and race waiters and hotel servants: “It is true your fore fathers may have been waiters and hotel servants, but we, by Act of Parliament, say you shall not be allowed to be.”

Natal is exempted.

Let me tell the hon. member in what form the exemption is granted. Natal is exempted to this extent, that anyone who employed waiters in 1927 may continue to employ those identical persons as waiters in the same hotel for the privilege of paying a double licence fee. What difference does that make to my argument? Not the slightest. In every other hotel in South Africa they are to be told: “You must get rid of them in twelve months.” I know something about the waiters in the Warmbaths hotel. There are waiters there who have been waiting for the last twenty-five years who have married and have their homes in the district, and they are to be turned out into the street in pursuance of this fad of the hon. member. This will never pass through the House. He recognizes that by his S.O.S. to the Minister to crack the party whip, hut I have no doubt whatever that this House will throw out unceremoniously this Clause 104. In a spirit of compromise I went this far with the hon. member, and I said that there was something to be said for the principle that where a person was disqualified from drinking liquor you should disqualify him from handling liquor. On these lines I moved an amendment, and one would have thought my two colleagues would have said it was reasonable and fair and they would agree with it. That would have gone a long way to promote European employment. This House without any doubt whatever will throw out his clause and then he will be glad to restore mine, to get half the loaf. One thing the Minister has done which the House may agree with, but which I do not agree with, is the abolition of the non-treating clause. He might at least have left it in and given the House the opportunity of voting on it. But I do ask the hon. member for North East Rand to stick to his guns and reintroduce that clause. It is the conviction of many members that many of the evils of drinking in South Africa arise from this treating system.

How could you have prosecutions on that? It is impossible.

How did they do it under the D.O.R.A. regulations in England?

It is absolutely unworkable. Take five men outside a bar. One has five shillings and they divide it amongst them and walk into the bar.

Yes, but that would never happen. What does happen is that five men walk into a bar and one stands a round of drinks and the others feel they are mean and not doing their duty if they do not offer to stand a round in turn. The result is that each has five drinks where he possibly only wanted one.

It was worked in war time, and in a war atmosphere.

May be, let us try it in peace time and in a peace atmosphere. It is a jolly good clause. The Minister should not use that argument or he will be met with the same argument in regard to the restrictions in the tot clause. If the clause is a good one do not let us be deterred by that argument. You will find means to enforce it and the trade as a whole will assist. Another thing the Minister has done, I think extremely unwisely, is to restore the prohibition against tied houses. I think the Minister is very unwise to think he can put an end to that system altogether. There are two kinds of tied houses; the first is where the brewery actually owns the hotel and puts its own manager there. You cannot stop that. It may be his own business, but nominally the licensee is an independent person with an independent licence. The effect of the Minister’s clause is that he can snap his fingers at the brewery which put him there. The other class of tie is where a brewery lends money to a licensee and says it wants a tie. We as a commission went very closely into the evidence and arrived at what we thought was a perfectly fair compromise on the question. We limited ties in the manner set out. We said that a tie of a brewery should he in regard to beer only, and by a wholesaler the commodity which he supplied. We put in a time limit. I think the hon. member for North-East Rand agrees with me on the point, that we arrived at a fair compromise; and the Minister should not have put in the original clause without consulting us on the subject. The Minister has done a very unwise tiling with regard to Clause 122. He has restored the rent and occupation clauses of the original Bill. The effect is that the licensing hoard acts as a sort of rent hoard as between the licensee and the owner, to determine as to what shall be a fair rent for the premises. But once a tenant gets occupation he can get it indeterminately, whatever he period may he. If I own a public house, a bottle store or anything of that sort, and let it to a lessee for six months, or on a monthly notice, he can, according to this Bill, stop there for life, unless I am able to show misconduct or anything similar on his part. Anything more ridiculous, utopian and Bolshevistic, I have never heard in my life. The hon. member for North-East Rand and I had no difficulty in ruling out these clauses as entirely unworkable and impracticable. We felt that a licensee who got a twelve-month licence should have security of tenure for that period, and should he subject to twelve months’ notice, which seems a fair and reasonable compromise, but the Minister returned to the original clause based largely on the Hattingh report. In regard to no other business premises do these conditions obtain. There may have been cases in which breweries and other landlords treated their tenants harshly, but hard cases make had law. For one case of breweries treating their tenants harshly, I can bring you twenty and a hundred cases where an ordinary landlord has treated his tenants harshly. Let the Government, if they wish it, pass a general Act dealing with the matter, hut not single out the liquor trade and introduce entirely fantastic provisions with regard to it. There is too much legislative-encroachment on business matters. Let a man, as a free citizen, make a bargain and stick to it. The Minister would be well advised to scrap the whole of this. I come now to the question of kaffir beer. The majority of the commission has kept in the Bill what the Minister originally put in—the establishment by the Government of kaffir beer houses. But the Minister has gone even further than the commission did. The whole theory of Clause 142 is that the State should establish its own kaffir beer shops for sale by the State to natives of kaffir beer. (Clause read.) We thought that these kaffir beer shops were to be run by the State, having no interest in profits, hut for some obscure reason the Minister has gone one worse instead of one better, and not only established State kaffir beer shops, hut put the running of these shops out to tender—to people who will tender as highly as possible and sell as much as possible. I say it is absolutely wrong. Under the Native Urban Areas Act every municipality may establish its own kaffir beer shops. It is true that in the Transvaal none of the municipalities has done it, and none is likely to do it, I admit, because public opinion does not favour it. I hope the State will not establish these kaffir beer shops, and that the House will not give it the power to do so. I listened to the evidence given before the select committee, and that evidence satisfies me that the establishment of shops for the sale of kaffir beer will do nothing to lessen the evils of drink in the large urban centres, hut will merely add another to the already existing problems. It is true that the representatives of Durban praised the system and said that it had been a very great success, but that system was tried at Maritzburg, 50 miles from Durban, for 17 years, and the authorities of Maritzburg are unanimous that the system there has been a complete failure and that drunkenness is more rife than it has ever been, and that the state of affairs is almost impossible. They said that the Maritzburg people were all right, hut it was the wretched people who came from outside. Maritzburg is a great labour recruiting centre, and the large number of natives who came from outside the district were the source of the trouble. In Maritzburg the evil, instead of being diminished by the establishment of kaffir beer shops, has gone on increasing. As a man from Johannesburg, I say that if this is the case at Maritzburg, what are we to expect at Johannesburg, where we have natives from every corner of South Africa, and where already the liquor evil is rampant? If people think that the establishment of kaffir beer shops will solve the liquor problem, they are making a great mistake. I am not a blind temperance faddist, and no one would prevent me supporting the proposal if I thought it would solve the evil, but the kaffir beer shop would do nothing of the sort. It will aggravate the evil, and will do nothing whatever to ameliorate the present position. The Minister has done wisely in accepting the commission’s recommendation in regard to penalties, which have been tightened up considerably. There is no use in playing with this question, as the drink problem is almost our greatest social menace. You cannot have any measure of liquor reform without treading on some vested interests. Do not, however, let us be afraid of them, and don’t listen either to them or to the wine farmers. Don’t listen to me, if you think I am an extremist, but follow the voice of conscience, and remember that we are legislating not only for the white inhabitants of the Union, but for 7,000,000 natives and half a million coloured people, on whom to-day falls the greatest burden of the liquor problem.

The strange recommendations of the select committee appointed to consider the Bill can be understood after the speeches made by the hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). The one stated that wine farmers, irrespective of the consequences to the country, would like everybody to drink as much wine as possible, and the other admitted that he was a total abstainer. I myself am a wine farmer’s son, and represent quite a number of wine farmers, and I can assure the House that they just as strongly favour reform of the drink traffic, and are just as keen on preventing drunkenness as anyone else. If it were true that they only want everyone to drink as much as possible, then drunkenness in the Western Province should be worse than elsewhere, and that is not the case. There is less drunkenness among the coloured people in the Western Province than among the natives in the Transvaal, where there is total prohibition, and you will not find a more sober class anywhere than the wine farmers. But they do not believe that you can make people more sober by means of prohibition. It is noteworthy that the wine farmers and the Jews, who have most to do with drink, are the people who drink the most moderately. The best way to teach the nation moderation is to accustom the children to small quantities of drink during youth. They will then not go to excess when they are older. In spite of the accusation of the hon. member for North-East Rand against the wine farmers, they welcome the Minister’s attempt to improve the liquor laws. They think, however, that the proposed legislation in some respects goes too far, and in others is wrong. I have had interviews with three or four groups of wine farmers about the Bill, and they objected to a large number of the clauses. They do not see, e.g., why they should be expected to keep a record of every sale. The right a farmer has of disposing of his own products without hindrance has been enjoyed by him since the first white settlement in South Africa. Why should that right be interfered with now? The wine farmer is to be called upon to take out á licence if he wants to dispose of his drink.

Only if he wants to sell to persons who are not licensed.

But why even in that case?

Because he is then a dealer.

In that sense the stock farmer who sells an ox is also a dealer. Similarly every farmer is a dealer. You require the wine farmer to keep a record of every transaction. He must mention what kind of wine he has sold, at what time, etc. What is the object of all this? And why can he not sell wine before 8 a.m.?

To secure better police supervision.

Do you want to send the police to every farm? The farmer does not start his day at 8 o’clock, but before 5 o’clock. It is unfair to put all kinds of unnecessary obstacles in his way. He has to pay a licence of £20 for the first year, and £10 thereafter. If any licence money is to be demanded, then it should be nominal, say 10s. The ordinary drink dealer pays £50 for the first year, and possibly sells as much in one day as many a farmer in a whole year. I hope the hon. member for North-East Rand will support us if we introduce a motion to reduce the fee to 10s.

Yes, if you will support my motion to prevent people from treating.

Who knows! The wine farmers also object to the provision that a wine farmer may not serve on the licensing court, although declared total abstainers may serve on it. If you keep the farmer off, then you must keep off the total abstainer for the same reason, namely, prejudice. The farmer is less prejudiced than the abstainer. The farmer will not voluntarily bring about drunkenness, whilst the abstainer wants the sale of drink prohibited. That provision must therefore be altered. I think also that it is a wrong principle to give too much power to the municipalities. So far only one councillor has served on a licensing board. Now the Bill proposes two. The farmers also object, and rightly, to the Minister of Justice having the power to declare certain areas “dry.” The majority in this House has so far always rejected the principle of local option. This Bill, however, goes further, and gives the Minister power which the people themselves could not obtain. In the interests of the coloured population, the Minister can practically prohibit the sale of drink in any district or area. On such a pretext the Minister could proclaim restrictions which would prohibit the drink traffic in the whole of the Cape Province, because there is not a single area without a number of coloured people. Such drastic powers ought not to be given to him. They are too dangerous. I would trust the present Minister of Justice with such powers, but take care if a Blackwell gets hold of the reins! It is also unnecessarily harsh that a person should have to get a permit from the police sergeant before he can buy a drink. It is also a wrong principle that you cannot give a drink to a youth under 18 years.

You may give it to your child, but the child may not buy it himself.

As the Bill reads, no drink may be given to a coloured person under 18 years. The farmers are also strongly opposed to the provision that you can only supply drink to your workpeople once a day, and that only at 4 o’clock.

Not before 4 o’clock.

Then say a quarter past four. It comes to the same thing; and then you can give your coloured male servant a whole pint at once. And it must be consumed in the master’s presence. This shows how much the persons who drafted the Bill know about farming. At 4 o’clock in the afternoon the master is to walk miles into the veld to take a pint of wine to his shepherd! Is that not stupid? If the workmen can obtain no wine before 4 o’clock and then get it all at once, it means that you make them unfit for the rest of the day. Just as office folk require a mental stimulant morning and afternoon in the form of tea or coffee, so workmen require strong drink for their physical powers. They can then work better. If you may not give drink to a man before 4 o’clock, you will have difficulty in keeping one on your farm, and it would be better to give up the farming. The farmers want to assist the Government in the matter of liquor legislation, but it must be reasonable. I have, for instance, been instructed by a farmers’ association to advocate that no canteen should be allowed to supply drink to a farmer’s workman without a letter from his master. I hope the Minister will make a note of this. The farmers do not want drunken workmen in their service. They also wish the legislation to be made severe with regard to the supply of drink by ordinary shopkeepers to their customers. They think that if more than a reasonable amount of drink is found in the possession of a shopkeeper, that in itself should be regarded as a contravention. There are further amendments I want to suggest, but I will do so later.

On the motion of Mr. Alexander, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.