Before the House resumes business, may I reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), with regard to the work that will come before the House this session. It is still early in the session, and it is not possible for me to say accurately as yet what will come before the House. But I think I can now state what will mainly come up, substantially at any rate. Certain work is already known, such as the Liquor Bill, and a number of Bills which are already on the Order Paper, such as the noxious foodstuffs amendment Bill, the Railways and Harbours Service and Superannuation Amendment Bill, the Railways and Harbours Gratuity Bill, the Public Health (Amendment) Bill, and the Medical and Pharmacy Bill. There is, further, a Bill which is not yet laid on the Table, namely the Irrigation Bill, a very important measure, which must also be dealt with if necessary, as hon. members will agree. Then there are the native Bills, and in this regard I have the full expectation that they will be disposed of during this session. They are still being considered by the select committee, who will probably finish the work towards the middle of March. Then they can be laid on the Table again, and it is the Government’s intention to give precedence, above other work which may then still be unfinished, to those Bills. Of course, there are also the financial measures, and, so far as we can now tell, no special Bills will be introduced in this connection, at any rate of any substantial nature. They will be only the usual financial measures. There are also a number of amending and consolidating Bills under consideration, such as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, the Factories Act, and the Apprenticeship Act, but if we get so far as to introduce them during this session, I do not think in any case that they will be of a particularly contentious nature. They do, indeed, deal with important points. Practice has taught us that certain things must be changed, and officials have pointed out mistakes, but I do not think that anything of a particularly contentious nature will be included. That is all I can say at present, and if there are any further measures to be introduced they will, as far as I can see at present, not be of a contentious nature.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In the first place one feels one must express one’s admiration of the courage of the Minister in tackling one of the most difficult consolidating laws as far as the Union is concerned. We had it before us in 1926, then it went to a select committee and a commission and then it came before us as finally drafted. It is a consolidating Bill and therefore rather difficult to discuss at the second reading, because there is no one underlying principle proceeding right through the Bill; in fact there will have to be second reading debates in committee on many of these clauses. I do not propose to go into it in detail. It would be very wearying to the House and in any case, it would be futile, because there are so many principles contained in so many clauses of the Bill. I think the House is very much indebted to the members who sat on the select committee especially when one looks at the volume of evidence. I listened with interest to those members of the committee who spoke on the measure and their familiarity with the complex clauses of the Bill showed the earnest attention they must have given to it. I would refer to one or two matters which I regard as vital, on some of which I agree with the Minister, and on others, in certain respects, I do not. I am sorry that the Minister took out something which is objected to by the temperance party but is a perfectly fair thing—you should keep away from the licensing court anybody who has preconceived notions with regard to the sale of liquor. A man who believes that liquor is a poison and an evil which should be stopped should not be in a position to be a judge on matters where the country does not take that view, but allows it as an ordinary industry of the country. I do not say that such a man will not try to be impartial, but I cannot see that it is a fair thing that such persons should sit on the licensing court. Then I also want to criticize the wide powers the Minister has taken to himself, I do not regard it as an improvement to put such enormous powers in the hands of the Minister. He should have taken over the memorial system of the Cape with some amendments. I view with alarm the wide powers of the Minister. I regret very much the differentiation with regard to coloured people, natives and Asiatics. I regret the abolition of the exemption given to native parliamentary voters at the Cape. We should follow one consistent policy with regard to our citizens. You should regard as citizens, who are entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, those who have reached a civilized standard of life, without regard to creed, colour or race. Take the ease of an educated man like Dr. Rubusana who sat in the Cape Provincial Council at one time, would you say he shall not have a glass of wine? Why should his race be branded? You must treat this on a basis of civilization. There should be a universal black list of those who do not know how to take liquor in moderation. Are there no white men who have shown want of self-control and who are not on the black list? I regard drink as something which if taken in excess may be a curse, but not if taken in moderation, and I would punish the man who takes it in excess. I say every civilized man should be allowed to take liquor without restrictions without going to excess, but the moment a man shows he cannot take liquor without getting drunk, he should be deprived of getting liquor. We are proceeding from the point of view of colour, instead of character, education and self-control, which is wrong. I would like to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the natives did not look at the repeal of the Hofmeyr Act only in regard to liquor, but they look upon that Act as their magna charta. They look upon it, rightly or wrongly, as giving them an opportunity of rising to a higher level. The Hofmeyr Act prevented natives being differentiated from the European population, if they were of a civilized standard. In regard to the poll-tax we passed recently, natives of the Eastern Province protested and went to court relying on the Hofmeyr Act but lost their case because it was held it was the intention of Parliament, and they feel it very deeply. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also went too far when he referred to the coloured people and the effects of liquor upon them. You cannot make such a sweeping statement as he made. There are thousands of coloured men who are total abstainers, and are working hand in hand with those who want prohibition. There are thousands who are moderate drinkers, and have built up homes on civilized lines. I ask the hon. member whether things are any better in Johannesburg where there is total prohibition for natives than in Cape Town where there is not. You are filling your gaols in tile Transvaal with people who have supplied natives with liquor. The hon. member also referred to the abolition of the no-treating clause, the restoration of the rent clauses and the tied house clauses as being blots on the Bill. I, however, think the Minister was perfectly right in deleting the no-treating clause, as it could never be properly enforced—as England found during the Great War, and it would be an absurd restriction if a man could not stand a friend anything in the nature of alcohol. In fact the no-treating clause is a preposterous one, and its passing would be treating us like children. It is said to be a great success in Scotland, but is that due to legislation? Such a clause would lower our dignity and our chance of developing self-control and thus of rising in the scale of civilization. The Bill will be worthless if it does not contain the rent and tied house clauses. There are thousands of small men who are in the grip of monopolies who will express the utmost disappointment if the Minister allows himself to be influenced to strike out these clauses. Instead of listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) the Minister should read the remarkable speech made by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) in 1926, in which he exposed the terrible evils of the tied house system. The report of the Department of Public Health for the year ended June 30th, 1927, deals in paragraph 14 with the question of hotels, in the course of which the Secretary for Public Health states that many visitors leave South Africa disappointed with our hotels and that the matter will never be placed on a satisfactory footing until radical changes are effected in the system of licensing and control of Hotels. The report recommended the abolition of the tied house system.

What are your objections to tied houses?

There are many objections, but my principal one is that I am opposed to monopolies which can control people’s bodies and souls. I will give a few illustrations of the evils of the tied house system, but will not deal with local cases, but will go to Johannesburg, as if I mention instances in the Cape Peninsula the people concerned might be inconvenienced. In one case a brewer acted as house and estate agent to the landlord, and imposed a tie for which the tenant gets no consideration. In the majority of cases the ties are imposed because the property concerned is owned by a brewery company or a wholesale wine merchant, or because the proprietor of the hotel has borrowed money from a brewery company or wine merchant, and in other cases a brewery guarantees the rent of the hotel. I am told that a man in Johannesburg wanted £3,000 for not more than six months, and he offered as security a farm valued at £13,000, but the brewer wanted a tie for ten years. Fortunately for the man a wholesale liquor merchant advanced the money without a tie, and the hotel proprietor was so pleased that ever after he bought all his liquor from the merchant out of gratitude. This shows that if you treat a man well he will do something for you in return without being forced to do so. Another man, who I have seen myself, borrowed £30,000 from wholesale merchants and he has no tie, but in consideration of the way he was treated, he gets all his liquor from the firms who lent the money. He is not bound to do that, however, but it shows you how unnecessary the tie is. In one case a man wanted to borrow £3,000 on the property, but as soon as it was found there was a tie on the house, the money was not lent. One of the chief and most useful features of the Bill will disappear if the Minister does not stick to the tied-house clauses and thus prevent injustice and get rid of grinding monopolies. I hope now to get the Minister’s ear on Clause 104. I must confess I am surprised to see it there. It was put there before the agreement was made with India, and why it comes to be there now the agreement is made, I fail to see. This is practically an invitation to the Indian Government to tear up the agreement. The Minister of the Interior made a point that they had removed racial inferiority and stigma, and yet, could there be any greater stigma than this? It is an insult to them that they should not be allowed to be employed in connection with the manufacture, bottling, sale or delivery of liquor, and, let me point out, there are three thousand Indians or more engaged as cooks and waiters, and they are to be suddenly deprived of their livelihood because they are Asiatics. I cannot see how we are going to uplift a people by treating them this way. The Prime Minister said in reply to an address—

If the Government are going to do what is right and fair, there is no reason why this clause should be carried any further. The whole thing is a stigma, and it is impossible to carry this thing out. There is a school of catering in Johannesburg for white youths, and I wish them luck, and I would also like to point out that there exists an agreement regarding wages which is worked by scale. Scale A is paid £23 a month; Scale B 15 per cent. less, and Scale C in which most Indians are getting £8 per month plus board and lodging. I have been told of one Indian who is getting £14 a month plus board and lodging, because he has shown superior skill and merit. The few white men who can be obtained are getting £23 a month, and there is no such tiling as under-cutting. Indian cooks are getting up to £30 a month, but it is a very difficult thing to get good cooks in this country. The licensed victuallers themselves are not against the training of white youths. The Licensed Victuallers’ Association in Johannesburg agreed to pay the fees for six of these people, yet there was only one white boy whose fees it was necessary to pay. Early this year the licensed victuallers were again approached and asked if they were still prepared to pay the fees, and they said yes, they would take another half-dozen, but again only one has come forward so far. There is really no necessity for this clause. If a white man has the capability for this work he can get a job to-day at tip-top wages. It is a cruel and unnecessary attack on the Indian people, made with the hope of opening up an Eldorado for the white people, but it is nothing of the sort. In the same way in 1926 we heard the welkin ringing over the colour bar Bill, and yet in 1928 the colour bar Bill is not yet in operation. It has not been promulgated, and the regulations are not ready yet. I appeal to the Minister not to proceed on another foolish policy such as in this Indian clause in the Liquor Bill which wounds unnecessarily a large part of the Indian population. And now with regard to the position of women. I think the Minister has improved the position of women, but, even so, it leaves much yet to be desired. Personally, I do not see why we should make any distinction, because, in granting licences the licensing court, if it thinks a woman is suitable to run an hotel, will grant the licence, yet, under this Bill, no woman is to be granted a licence. There are many cases where, although the licence is granted to the husband, it is the wife who runs the hotel. I do not see why we should make this differentiation between men and women, although I must say it is not so bad now as it was in the original Bill, yet even so, it is a matter to be very seriously considered. In the United States of America, where, I admit, they have prohibition, the tendency has been the other way about. They would rather have the running of hotels in the hands of women instead of men. Will my hon. friend tell me that a woman is less entitled to have her views expressed in regard to liquor than a man? There are a good many men who would go much further with regard to liquor than any woman would do. They know far better than the average man when they have had enough. To tell me that merely because there is no liquor allowed to be sold in the United States that that is the reason for giving women a fair chance is something I do not understand. We have come to that state of affairs when sex or race or colour matters not at all. The question is whether the individual is entitled to have liquor by virtue of self-control, and whether an individual should have management of an hotel by reason of his or her character or conduct. The only distinction that should be recognized is the distinction between a person who has character and one who has no character. In conclusion I would like to say this in regard to the committee stage. This is a most complicated Bill, bristling with amendments that have already been inserted. We have had the Bill before us in numbers of forms already, and I hope the Minister will allow us a sufficient interval between the second reading and the committee stage. I would appeal to the Minister to allow at least an interval of a fortnight between the second reading and the committee stage in order that all the amendments may be put on the paper and very carefully considered, because I believe one effect, at any rate, is going to be that we shall facilitate the passage of this most comprehensive, complex and difficult Bill through the House. I am sure we are all anxious to see the consolidation of the liquor laws take place as soon as possible. On the best solution of this particular problem will undoubtedly depend the future prosperity and progress of this country.

I am not going through the Bill clause by clause, because I think there are so many different principles in it and such enormous changes of the liquor laws proposed that it would be better to deal with these matters in committee. I wish, however, to draw attention to a few of the enormous and far-reaching changes which have been introduced in this Bill. The Minister said that there were no far-reaching changes nor were any very important reforms proposed in this Bill. I was, sorry to hear him say that there were no reforms. Then, apparently, he does not expect very much reformation. At any rate, there are sweeping changes and I do not think many people realize how far these changes go. We know that you must have restrictions in your liquor trade and that there must be supervision, otherwise you will have excesses and abuses. Whatever you do you will always have excesses and abuses, and we must try and do whatever we can to reduce these excesses and abuses to the minimum. I will take a few of the very big changes which are proposed. You are going to abolish bars. That is a very big change.

A very good thing.

I am not going to say whether it is a good thing or not.

Close the loose bars.

The hon. member says close the bars. I would remind him that there are many articles of luxury sold elsewhere which might be dispensed with. Bars in many places are a convenience, where you have got no necessity for an hotel. I will mention one bar—the Standard Bar—a very well-conducted bar. You have had no excesses there. Do you want an hotel there? No. The whole tendency today is that your hotels are going to the outskirts with easy communications and to better surroundings.

What about the bar of the House?

The hon. member for Yeoville is only concerned about the bar of the House. I am less concerned about the bar of the House, but I mention this as a very enormous change. You are going to abolish rural hotels. In the Cape you had them and you have got a good many of them. What effect this change is going to have I do not know. Take some of your hotels in the rural area. As an instance take the rural hotel at Porterville Road, it has been a very great convenience to travellers. I am sure the travellers of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) have often visited that hotel, and it has been a great convenience to them and to many other people also. You cannot carry on an hotel in many of these parts without a liquor licence, because your hotel does not pay without a licence. In many parts where your travelling public require these conveniences, you will deprive them of these necessary conveniences, if you do not have your rural hotels where they are necessary. If any of your rural hotels are mere drinking places then do away with those, but to do away with all rural hotels is a very sweeping and far-reaching change. The Minister does not consider that a far-reaching or sweeping change. I hope when he is convinced that it is a far-reaching and sweeping change he will accept some reasonable amendments. Take another question. The Minister has very large powers of discrimination between coloured and Europeans. That is a very far-reaching and sweeping change here in the Cape Province and might have most disastrous effects. Your coloured man objects to it. It affects his prestige. It gives him a mark of inferiority, and when you put a mark of inferiority upon people and say that they cannot enjoy this, and do that, as other people can, you are going to keep them down as inferiors. From that point of view alone I think we ought to hesitate before we go in for any sweeping changes of that kind. It is laid down in the Bill that your coloured man can only take liquor at “on” consumption places. He cannot buy liquor for “off” consumption. Why should the coloured man be deprived of this privilege? You might have, and do have, many who do abuse the privilege, who buy more than is good for them. But will that be stopped by this proposed change? You will have a man who buys and, perhaps, drinks more than he ought to do—and, unfortunately, there are many of them—but he won’t stop. If he cannot carry liquor away with him, instead of having one glass and carrying a bottle away with him, he will have two or three glasses and you will have more drunkenness. You will have more drunkenness about your bars and hotels than before, but your moderate coloured man, and there are many of the artizan class who are earning good wages and whose custom it is to buy at the store a bottle or a couple of bottles to take to the house.

And we have seen the result on the road.

The hon. member feels convinced that the coloured man cannot drink in moderation. He looks upon all drink as poison, but the country is not ripe for prohibition yet. What have you at Johannesburg? What is the evidence of the most competent men who have given evidence? Here we are introducing the Transvaal system of partial prohibition into the Cape. I will take the evidence of Mr. Cook, not the one we know, but the other Mr. Cook, the Director of Native Labour, who knows very much more about the native and his drinking than anyone else. He says—

What does Mr. Young say, the chief magistrate at Johannesburg. He considers it necessary that facilities should be given for the natives and coloured to obtain certain liquors as prohibition has been a failure. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout admits that in the case of people who want liquor, it is better to give them certain liquor than to try and keep it from them altogether. Major Trigger, your Chief of Police, says: “The policy of prohibition in the Transvaal is an absolute failure.” Here we are now proposing to introduce the Transvaal system down here. You have not got a particle of evidence to show you that partial prohibition has succeeded anywhere, and we are proposing to introduce it here in the Cape. It was left to the licensing boards to decide whether a native should have liquor or not. We are now imposing total prohibition for natives. Are you going to succeed better here than they have succeeded in the Transvaal? Are you not going to have the same abuses? Here it is more difficult to discriminate who is coloured and who is white. You had the same difficulty in Johannesburg where a court decided one way and afterwards the person who gave evidence said she was coloured. The magistrate had decided she was white. You are going to have the same difficulty here. You are going in for further partial prohibition. There is an old practice which has prevailed here for many years. You are not only going to stop that, but something else also, because you are bringing in legislation which will make it a crime for any employer of coloured, natives or Asiatics to give him a glass of wine unless that employer is a farmer. Then he can give one tot after 4 o’clock in the afternoon. We have a great many coloured motor drivers. If you drive out and lunch on the veld and you have a glass of beer you will be committing a crime if you give your driver a glass of beer. Is that going to prevent people from doing it? You are making criminals of the people. You have far too many prohibitions. A great deal has been said in this House about the extension of the tot system. The wine farmers never asked for this extension of the tot system. It will be of no financial benefit to the wine farmers whether you extend it to the whole of the Union or not. You need only look at what is happening in the Cape to see that. You have the tot system prevailing throughout your wine districts and no further. Under the Hex River mountains you will find the people there giving tots when they are gathering in their vintage. When you get beyond the wine districts there are no tots given. The wine farmer has found it necessary to give the tot under control rather than withhold it, and the labourers to help themselves. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) yesterday said that the tot system was the real abuse, and that the wine farmers gave their servants very crude, strong wines. The wine that is given is often young, but none the less wholesome, and is of low alcoholic strength. If the wine farmers do not give it there is nothing to prevent any labourer having as much wine as he wants within forty-eight hours, because he can help himself to the grapes of a vineyard and make wine of them. If the labourers made wine for themselves it would be in large quantities, and not only would they themselves have it, but they would carry it to their homes. No one who has spoken against this tot system has any knowledge of the position of the farmers; and if hearsay evidence is knowledge, and on this they have given their evidence, we can have many more hearsay witnesses. Because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said so, any member of the House can now say the tot system is an “abuse.” Not one tittle of evidence has been given before the select committee that it has caused drunkenness, although we have had voluminous evidence. Mr. Young, the chief magistrate of Johannesburg, in his reply said—

Here we want to introduce prohibition on the farms where liquor is being made and handled daily, but these people who are handling the wine may not have it. It shows how much information the commission had, or how much they enquired. It is said you can give it only to a labourer under a monthly contract. Throughout the wine districts you will hardly find one man who is under such a contract, so it really means the abolition of the tot system. The wine farmer is one of the largest employers of labour, and takes the greatest interest in the welfare of his labourers. Wine, fruit and grain farmers are intermingled here, and employ their labour all the year round. They have by far the largest number of resident labourers of any part of the country. The wine farmers want good and efficient service. No people take a greater interest in the welfare of their labourers and their dependents. Nowhere will you see better families and better-fed children than on these country farms. Contrast that with the towns, where the people engage daily-paid labourers, and if a labourer is ill he is not paid, and if anything happens someone else has to look after him. In the rural parts you see an entirely different type of labourer than in your congested towns. The wine farmer is not such a fool as to give his labourers too much liquor, and besides that, they are men who have conscience and are people of high standing. If you have an assemblage of these farmers at Paarl, Stellenbosch, Worcester or Robertson you will see that these people are by no means inferior to those who can be gathered together from any other part of the country—whether the towns or elsewhere. The Minister knows that. Have these farmers not their moral sense, and the sense of doing right? The remedy is that the Minister should introduce into the Bill a penalty where an employer gives too much liquor to his labourers. Such an employer should be liable to a very heavy penalty. The farmers know that the Minister has introduced many sweeping and far-reaching changes, but what the cumulative effect on the wine industry will be we cannot at present say. If, however, the Government’s policy is the adoption of prohibition, let the people know it, but do not let it be a policy of the gradual strangulation of the wine industry. This legislation will make matters, as far as drunkenness is concerned, worse instead of improving them. It should not be forgotten that the wine farmer has played an honourable part in the history of South Africa. He has taken the lead in developing a very considerable area of this country. He has taken the lead in educational matters. He has taken the lead in State affairs, and has evinced the greatest interest in the welfare of the country. Do not let us turn our backs on the wine farmers now because we have men in the House who make sweeping, but unfounded, charges against them. Not a single policeman has given evidence to show that the tot system has produced any abuse. This campaign against the continuance of the tot system is largely a campaign by the prohibitionists who are trying to bring the wine farmers into discredit, which they think will be going a long way towards the introduction of prohibition. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) referred to the tot system he was guilty of camouflage. I will not say that the system is not abused here and there, but wine farmers do not give tots to their employees as part of their wages. Given to labourers on wine farms in reasonable quantities, no abuse results from the tot system. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was guilty of camouflage when he tried to bring the wine farmers into discredit.

In this matter I find myself in the fortunate position of not having to represent any interests, section, or part of society which has a direct interest in this matter. For this reason I think I can pass an independent judgment on the provisions of the Bill, and can consider it on its merits alone. This is of importance, because we have here to do with an important subject. Drunkenness must be checked. I think that the State should not only be responsible for the material welfare of this or that section, but also for the higher moral welfare of the people. Before I deal with the Bill itself, I want to say a few words about the deplorable statements of the hon. members for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) and for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with reference to the character of our wine farmers, and their attitude towards the sale of wine. I think they were unworthy statements. I do not think they were expressly made to refer to the wine farmer, but they were of such a nature that they must necessarily affect his honour and offend him, and I agree with what the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has said, and the way in which he has defended the honour of the wine farmer. I am certain that no one in this House, with the possible exception of a few members, doubts the high standard of our wine farmers, and their untarnished character. Centuries ago this business was introduced into South Africa, and has since been maintained in a worthy manner The people were not only the torch-bearers of civilization in South Africa, but also spread it further and maintained it. They contributed much to the welfare and the development of our people, and rendered many services to the State. May I just point out that the hon. the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition are sons of the wine district of the Paarl. I think this is a sufficient answer to the statement of the hon. members. The high positions which the sons of wine farmers have occupied in our country—I am particularly thinking of the judicial bench—is well known. This is all evidence of the respect which they have won, and of their high moral level. In discussing the Bill I prefer first to voice my objections, and next mention the advantages. My first objection is to the exclusion of the wine farmers from the licensing boards. I think this casts a reflection on the character of the wine farmer. As a small producer of wine, I am particularly opposed to this provision in view of the other provision that total abstainers may be members, and I hope the Minister will remove that slur on the character of the wine farmer. I not only consider it a reflection and a slur on the wine farmer, but it is so comprehensive that it affects anyone who farms with vines. It includes the wine farmer who produces table grapes, who makes raisins, and turns the grapes into moskonfyt. It includes all the honourable men in the wine industry, even if they have no interest at all in the consumption of drink. That depreciation of the wine farmers is regrettable, and I hope the Minister will not endorse it. My second objection is the provision with regard to the tot system. Other hon. members have already mentioned it. It seems to me that the Lion of Lichtenburg has bent the knee to the Baal of Bezuidenhout. It shows ignorance of the conditions on the wine farms. The arguments that are used are so incorrect and unreliable, that I am surprised at the Minister including this provision. I can understand the three members making this proposal, because they have no knowledge of the conditions on the farms. They are clearly acting on information in documents which only come from one side and not from the other.

From the erring group.

That provision is entirely in conflict with the interests of the wine farmers, and shows a lack of appreciation of their common sense. It is moreover unpractical. To expect the wine farmer to give his servants a specified number of tots of wine once a day, and that after 4 p.m., shows that their interests are not understood. It will lead to evasions and offences, and the Minister will be compelled to have police on every farm. It is wrong to make offenders of the best class of people in our country. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will, of course, argue that the tot system creates the taste for drink. I thought that that argument would no longer be used. I just want to ask him how it is that in the Transvaal, where the system has never existed, the natives have developed such a tremendous taste for drink. It is an argument that does not hold water. The Transvaal system, more probably, created the taste, and it must not be charged to the Cape Province. I will also refer to the example of England. I do not say it out of contempt for the conditions in England, but I use the argument to show that the tot system is not responsible for the cultivation of the taste for liquor. The tot system never existed in England, nor in other countries where there is abuse of liquor, but in 1914 there were 184,000 convictions in England for abuse of liquor. The argument is repeatedly used by supporters of the temperance movement to condemn the system in the Western Province. I could quote figures from the report of the Baxter Committee in 1917 to show the absurdity of that, but I take the statistics from the Union Year Book on the convictions for drunkenness. They are the figures for the years 1915, 1917, and 1924 per 1,000 non-Europeans. In the Cape Province the figures were 8.03, 7.84, 7.66; thus a continual reduction. For the Transvaal the figures were 7.04, 6 29, and 8.11; thus an increase. For the Free State, where a kind of tot system also exists, 2.83, 1.72, and 1.69.

Are you satisfied with the Free State tot system?

I cannot express any opinion about that system, but the principle is applied there. The figures prove that drunkenness is not encouraged by the tot system, but, on the contrary, that drunkenness decreases in spite of the existence of the tot system. The police returns provide further proof. In 1924 the number of convictions for drunkenness was 8,874 on the Witwatersrand, 3,833 in the Cape Peninsula. Per thousand it was 14.21 against 15 in the Cape Peninsula. For whites alone it was 6.93 on the Witwatersrand, and 7.35 in the Cape Peninsula. It seems that the number of convictions in the Cape Peninsula is proportionately a little higher than the Transvaal, I do not know why. The figures show that the drunkenness figures on the Rand and in the Cape Peninsula are practically identical. Now I take the Western Province, where the wine farmer lives, and the tot system is in force. There 7,500 people were convicted of drunkenness in the same year. If we deduct the 3,833 in respect of the Cape Peninsula alone, then we get for the country districts where the tot system prevails 3,600 cases in round figures, as against 8,874 cases on the Rand alone. I think this ought to convince the strongest opponents of the tot system that it is not responsible for drunkenness. The figures for 1925 are just as striking. In that year the convictions in the Cape Peninsula were 3,901 (15.6 per 1,000). On the Witwatersrand 7,778, or 13.95 per 1,000. For the Western Province the figures were 7,689. If you deduct the 3,901 of the Cape Peninsula, then 3,728 are left for all other districts in the Western Province where the wine farmers live, as against 7,778 for the Witwatersrand. Practically the whole coloured population, with the exception of the small group in the Cape Peninsula, live in the Western Province, where the tot system prevails. Notwithstanding the anxiety of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about the morality and welfare of the people in the areas where the tot system prevails, it appears that the position on the Witwatersrand is much more serious. I also refer him to the report of the magistrate of Johannesburg, and his remarks on the position there. Then I have here the figures for the convictions in England. In 1920 they were 11,052, in 1921 11,400, and in 1922 21,700, in 1923 26,700, in 1924 30,900, in 1925 34,000. The tot system was not in force there, and this is further proof of my statement that the tot system has no influence on the increase of drunkenness. My third objection is in connection with the statement about the effect of drink on the body. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout waxed eloquent about the terrible condition of the poor coloured person. I do not deny that there is abuse. It is certain that control of the use of liquor is necessary, and if properly applied it will be a blessing. I want to refer the hon. member to the conclusions of Prof. Starling, of London. My fourth objection is the increasing hindrance to the sale. We are not in favour of the free sale of liquor, at any rate I am not, but after thorough enquiry into the conditions that arose as a result of the control of the consumption of liquor in England during the war, and the control which still exists in Sweden, I have come to the conclusion that we must be careful. In connection with the restriction of the production and distribution of liquor, the supporters of total abstinence use it to represent in a bad light the districts where wine is used, and the whole industry in general. I hope that the Minister will subsequently accept an amendment with regard to this restriction. The Minister takes power in Clause 56 (2) to create restricted areas, and in another clause to limit permits for importation. I am opposed to the provision which prohibits the wine farmers from selling direct to families. They are to be restricted according to the provision, and I think it is unfair. If the Minister understands the position, he will not refuse to alter it. With regard to the quota system, I have no objection to the experiment. I think it is an experiment which will lead to nothing, and it appears to a certain extent to satisfy the temperance people. It is a great deal if they are satisfied a little, and I have no objection to the experiment. My fifth objection is that the principle includes prohibition. I refer to the restrictions which have been tried in England, as well as in Russia and Sweden. The Minister is obtaining wide powers enabling him in certain respects virtually to proclaim prohibition. The proclamation of prohibition in the Transvaal, and in England during the war led to nothing, but made the position worse. I am not prepared to vote for the provision in Clause 101, where a colour distinction is made. Nor can I agree to a general prohibition of the sale of drink in bottles to coloured people. I admit that in some respects it is a good thing for coloured people in specified areas to be prohibited from buying drink in bottles. I know what the evil is, but because certain coloured people commit an abuse we cannot allow the more advanced coloured people to be included in the prohibition. I am certain, too, that the Minister does not wish gratuitously to insult the enlightened coloured people.

Where are you going to draw the line?

That is the question, but I think that we can find a solution. My last objection is the establishing of at least 54 offences in Clauses 175-181. I cannot say how many of those offences are new ones. I think that it is specially dangerous to create new crimes in our legislation from year to year. I think that it is the primary duty of everyone who has any regard for the honour of society and for his own self-respect to be careful about creating new offences. I want to come now to a few things which I specially welcome in the Bill, and in the first place to mention again the consolidation of at least 47 existing Acts. They not only refer to different principles, but to the different applications in different provinces, of different Acts, and penalties. I think that the State, which is responsible for the welfare of the country, should see that there are not so many laws about one and the same trouble. I do not now wish to discuss uniformity. I think the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) will agree that there is a need for consolidation. Then I want to thank the Minister for his attempt to restrict smuggling, as there can be no doubt it is one of the great causes of drunkenness. Skokiaan has already been mentioned, and I may add methylated spirits. It is not sold on the public market, but secretly. It is, of course, our duty to go into the psychological causes which give rise to smuggling, and to control smuggling, but it seems to me that the Minister goes too far in many respects in his attempts. The result may be that instead of reducing drunkenness, he will create other offences which are more objectionable. As for the control of yeast, I agree with the Minister. I further wish to mention the restricted traffic in certain areas. The intention clearly appears from the Bill that it refers particularly to three classes of society, and I want first to mention the diggings. I have had experience there, and I welcome this effort. We must, however, not go too far, and introduce prohibition. It will not be a success, and it will only lead the drink traffic into subterranean channels. I welcome strict control, but not prohibition, as it will not succeed. I next come to the introduction of permits by which undesirables can be prevented from obtaining drink. The Minister and the licensing courts are given large powers, and I repeat that, as appears from the experience in Johannesburg, England, Russia and Sweden, total prohibition ends in nothing. I want to call hon. members’ attention to what Dr. Arthur Shadwell says about conditions in England to-day—

This refers to methylated spirits. The use of that has tremendously increased here since 1922, as appears from the evidence before the select committee. In 1922 333,000 gallons were consumed in 1923 379,000, in 1924 404,000, and in 1925 533,000 gallons. In four years, therefore, there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent. If the Minister asks where the increase took place, I can only guess. I think that there were two great causes. In the first place, restriction of the sale of wine and harmless drinks, and in the second place booming the prices of liquor. That is not only the experience in the Cape, but also in Natal. As for Sweden, I have here a further important statement showing that as long as reasonable restriction existed the abuse of drink decreased, while subsequently it was the reverse. Mr. Bradt, director of the liquor traffic in Stockholm, reports in this connection—

I want to repeat that I welcome the attempts to control the traffic, but it must be done with common sense. I welcome the preference which is given in the Bill to South African products. I am not now going into details, but I welcome also the distinction in favour of wine and beer in the licence fees. The experience of the world to-day is that where the population use less spirits, life is prolonged, and the economic power of the people increased. I therefore welcome the provision with reference to beer and wine shops, as well as those for kaffir beer shops. It is a well-known fact that wine drinking countries do not have as much drunkenness as those where spirits are consumed. I will mention the figures of a large life assurance company in England which has gone into and tested hundreds of thousands of cases as to the mortality figures in the ages 30-39, 40-49, and 50-59. The percentages correspond with the estimate which the company made in connection with mortality figures. In the age period 30-39 years, the percentage of total abstainers in 60,000 cases was 49 per cent. of the estimate; with regard to wine and beer drinkers it was 48.39 per cent. (therefore, wine and beer were apparently medicines in this case), and for whisky drinkers it was 59.46. In the period 40-49 years the figures were 51.55, and 63 per cent., and for the years 50-60 68 per cent. for total abstainers, 57 per cent. for wine and beer drinkers (again wine and beer were clearly medicine), and for whisky drinkers 88 per cent. These figures show, I think, that a reasonable use of wine and beer is healthy. [Time limit extended.] Then I come to the subject of State control in the Bill. If I am accused of welcoming wine and beer shops, I want to say that I very heartily welcome State control. It is necessary for the sale of liquor, and the State is, of course, the proper body for the purpose. Some healthy citizens who work require the moderate use of liquor for their body. Sensible restriction is good. In England it appeared to be a success during the war, but the argument will possibly be used that it was under war conditions. Whilst the number of convictions for drunkenness in England before the war in 1914 was 184,000, it was only 75,000 to 80,000 in 1924, after the war. Drunkenness has therefore, as a result of the restrictions during the war, considerably decreased, and where elsewhere enquiry was made by doctors, etc., in connection with restriction, it always appeared that sensible restriction contributed to diminish drunkenness and to raise the moral and health conditions of a people. The requirements of the people must be borne in mind. In Sweden and other countries, although restriction did not do away with drunkenness, State control reduced it. Therefore I welcome State control with all my heart, but it must not be pushed too far nor be turned into total prohibition. The State is the responsible body to deal with the matter, and no one else can do it.

I think that the whole House is grateful to the Minister for his attempts to improve our liquor legislation. We all feel that it is necessary. I am also glad that an attempt is being made to keep the matter outside party politics, so that we can have a good opportunity of considering it on its merits. The Minister stated that he was prepared to make amendments, and I hope that he will effect the necessary improvements in the Bill. The protagonists of the wine farmer proceed from the view that those who favour local option intend his ruin. We have not the least idea of such a thing. We take as much account of the wine farmer as possible, but they regard the matter too exclusively from the viewpoint of the interests of the wine farmer. We consider the interests of the wine farmer, but remember the evil of drunkenness. The people cannot stop this last evil, and in view of that we cannot merely put the interests of the wine farmer in the foreground. I am glad the Minister is making an improvement, but I think there are a few things which, if they are not altered, will create new difficulties and new opportunities for the abuse of liquor. I mention firstly the granting of licences to restaurants. Why? May I have an explanation of its necessity? It will create new troubles which hitherto have not existed. We are going to create an opportunity for young people to get liquor, and experience has taught us that if we want to fight the evil we must not try to keep the man from drink, but drink from the man. But now this new opportunity of coming into touch with drink is created. It is true that it is only at mealtimes, but it will certainly create new trouble, and provide a great opportunity for obtaining liquor. For what reason? I hope that the Minister will consider the scrapping of that. Then there is Clause 15, which provides that no protagonist of local option, or anyone who has to do with it, can be a member of a licensing court. Why not? It is an injustice to a large portion of our people. It is another matter if one has a financial interest, but why should a large part of the people be prevented from sitting on the licensing court? I hope the Minister will consider the point. Another matter which I want to bring up is the licensing system in the country, because the door will now be opened in the Free State for liquor licences for pleasure or health resorts. There will be at least three or four places in the Free State that will apply for licences, and it will be bad enough if only one or two places get them. I do not think that the Free State members will be able to vote for such licences.

Must I exclude the Free State then? Personally I do not mind.

Then I will be satisfied. We are going to open the door in the Free State to licences that we have never had before. Then there is another point. I am glad that the Minister wants to reduce bar licences, but why should ten years be given (up to 1937) before they are cancelled? Will not five years be sufficient? Anyone who had a licence can alter his business in five years. Then I object to the provision allowing liquor to be introduced again into an area where it was formerly prohibited. Two-thirds of the voters were required for the prohibition. Why is the Minister given the power to allow liquor to be introduced?

It has been altered. I cannot do it.

I am glad that this great objection has been removed. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) objected to the prohibition of the selling of liquor to anyone under 18 years. I want to request-that the age limit be made 21 years.

Why not 40 years?

That would be still better. It is of importance for us to prevent the drink evil amongst our young people. Every parent is anxious about his son coming into touch with drink, and becoming a slave to it. I now come to the tot system, and want to repeat shortly what I said last year. Possibly many of my friends will find it strange when I say that the tot system as practised in the Free State is unobjectionable, Now I do not know whether it is well applied in the Free State, and not so well in other parts. Perhaps in other parts the people are not so sober as in the Free State, but I do not know that we have the least difficulty in the Free State with the tot system. I now come to the beer shops under State control. We are living in a time of keen competition by the coloured people in economic matters, and I do not see why we should protect the coloured people against abuse of drink, and not Europeans. If they wish, Europeans may ruin and kill themselves by drink. I have all my life been in favour of local option. I am not speaking of prohibition, but I am for the restriction of the use of liquor. Why we should protect the coloured people and not the Europeans, I cannot understand. The European can spend his hard-earned shillings on liquor, but the coloured person is protected against that. I feel that it is unfair, and I hope the Minister will bear it in mind.

I do not intend to deal with this Bill at any great length, or in any detail, because most of the points raised can be properly dealt with in committee. There is one point, however, we cannot let pass without touching upon it in this second reading debate, and that is the provisions of section 104, which debars from employment in the occupations mentioned natives and Asiatics. I think it is nothing short of deplorable that a clause of this kind should be introduced in a Bill brought in by the Government of this country. I think our honour as a nation is bound up with keeping our agreement with the Asiatics, and if that agreement is torn up by this clause—if it goes through the House—not only the spirit, but the actual letter of it, is violated by this clause. I would like to ask the Government what they meant by saying in the summary of conclusions reached by the round table conference on the Indian question in South Africa, in number three, under the ad of “Upliftment of Indian community,” that “the principle underlying the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act which enables all employees, including Indians, to take their place on the basis of equal pay for equal work, will be adhered to.” Does the Minister mean that it was put on paper with the mental reservation that he was not going to attach any importance to it? If so, the honour of the Government is gravely at stake. Numerically and socially, these people are the weaker party, and this clause tears up the agreement. I think it was really deplorable that a member of this House should have stood up and said what the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) said yesterday. This House is the chief authority of this country. It holds in its control the liberty, property and life of the people of this country, whether they be white, black or coloured. This Parliament is responsible for protecting their liberty, their property and their interests, and for seeing that they get justice. Every member here is a trustee for seeing that these people get a fair deal, and all the more so when a member comes from a province where these people have no vote and have no means to make their voices heard or their influence felt. All the more sacred should be his trust. The hon. member for North-East Rand says he is out for his pals, and that the Indian and native is no pal of his. That is the attitude of the hon. member, but he, too, is here as a trustee for natives and Indians also. We who are a comparatively few people in number are living in the midst of a native, largely uncivilized, and coloured population, and yet there is peace in the country amongst them. Why? Because they have confidence that on the whole they will get justice, and the white people will see that they get a fair deal. But the doctrine enunciated by my hon. friend was exactly the opposite to this. It was not a question of justice, but a question of “grab”—the white people have the power, let them take what they want. It will be a sorry day if the confidence these people have felt in their European governors and rulers is destroyed. On what grounds is it put forward? Because a few white men might be found openings who do not hold these positions at present. Well, if the white man relies for his supremacy on this kind of protection, then his days are numbered in South Africa. I suppose this is new socialism, living by the exploitation of a coloured proletariat and using its power of control in the legislature of the country to keep them down to the level of the proletariat and to see that they never rise above it. Step by step we are going further by law in the direction of prohibiting them from filling places which the white man could occupy, and that policy not only sins against the fundamental principles of justice, but it is fatal to our own interests. It seems very like the old slavery, and I deprecate with all my power a doctrine like this being enunciated in this House that we, as a white race, should adopt a policy of grab and taking for ourselves what we want, and not caring what becomes of the others. What is it going to give us in the way of benefits to the white man? At the most, it would be a mere trifle to the damage that would be done by alienating the confidence and sympathy of this population. If I thought that was the policy, I should be ashamed of the members in this House.

I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said, and to tell him it is not a new socialism, but a continuance of the policy and principles accepted by the people of South Africa that we must do something in this country to extend the avenues of employment and trade for the white people of South Africa. However much we may be guided—and we must be guided by ethical principles—we have to look at the particular interests of South Africa in dealing with any of these matters. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) first of all objected that this was a breach of the honourable agreement that has been entered into between the Government of South Africa and the Government of India, I do not read that breach into this clause. The position, as far as that agreement is concerned, was, I submit to this House, that there were two outstanding questions at the time between the Government of India and the Government of this country. The one was contained in the policy enunciated by the present Government and virtually accepted by the Government of which the hon. member was a party, the Areas Reservation Bill, by which it was proposed to place the Indian population of this country virtually in locations. That was a policy taken over to a considerable extent from the late Government, and the feeling amongst the Indian community was that it was a great infliction upon them to go and place them in locations, and therefore they strenuously objected. Another question of great importance was what could we do to restrict the present competition, the unfair competition that exists, and it was felt that we had to restrict the influx of Indians into this country. The two principal items of the agreement were, firstly, that the Government of the Union of South Africa agreed to withdraw the Areas Reservation Bill. That was a tremendous concession made to the Indian population. Secondly, the Indian Government undertook, in consideration of that great concession, to do everything it possibly could to encourage voluntary repatriation from South Africa. The other matters were simply incidental to these two great principles, and I submit there is nothing in this section which in any way violates either of those two principles which were contained in that agreement. In any case the position is clear, that the terms of this clause were before the country at the end of 1925, in 1926 and in 1927, and I submit that there is clear evidence that there was never at any time any intention on the part of the Government to treat this clause as part and parcel or treat the question embodied in this clause as part and parcel of the agreement that was entered into. It is not a violation of the agreement. The second objection—and that I submit is really the root objection—made by the hon. member for Yeoville to this clause is that there is an allocation of occupations, as a result of which certain classes of occupation will be reserved for the European population, instead of as in the past being reserved to the Indian and native populations of South Africa. That allocation of occupations is one that has been in existence in South Africa, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. We have that allocation at the present time in this country in favour of the native population. Europeans cannot get occupations in the native territories. As a result of that the European is restricted from certain activities in the native territories. Then again under the policy which is still dear to our friends on the Opposition side, the policy of low wages, you have a definite allocation of occupations against the Europeans. I know it has often been said that the administration of the Wages Act will remedy that. If by any chance the Wage Board attempted to so arrange the wages of unskilled labourers, shall we say, in occupations at present in the hands of the cheaper classes of wage earners on such a scale as to throw these avenues open to white labour in South Africa, we would be immediately told that the Wage Board is administering the law with the object of establishing a colour bar. I submit that there is to-day a colour bar against the European population in South Africa. We have to-day certain industries which are almost closed to the European population. Take the sugar industry, which is protected at the present time to such an extent that, while you have to pay £25 per ton to the grower for sugar, that sugar is exported overseas at £15 a ton, the object of that differentiation being to protect the sugar planters and sugar industry of South Africa. That industry is practically a closed industry to the white population of South Africa. The position to-day is, I am informed, that the sugar industry is anxious to use more Indian labour than it has at the present time. There are, at the present time openings for these Indians to be occupied in an industry which they have been occupied in for many years in the past. The point has been made that the Indian population has been for years engaged in the waiters industry. In the majority of cases I submit that the evidence is clear that these men go from one industry to another. I submit there is no such thing as a population absorbed in that occupation at all. There is no reason why this class of industry should not be thrown open to the white and the coloured population of South Africa. I am not concerned with whether it is going to benefit the Pact, or whether it is going to benefit the South African party. I am only concerned with the point of view that unless the policy adopted so successfully by the present Government is pursued, you will not be able to establish what we want to establish, a growing white population. Taking the Bill as a whole I want to say this, that the members of the commission did not approach the Bill either from the point of view of the prohibitionists or from the point of view of those who supply the liquor trade. I have always been opposed to prohibition, but I approached the question from the point of view of arriving at a compromise, because unless you arrive at a compromise you are not likely to pass the Bill at all. I say the compromise which has been placed before the House does justice to the advocates of temperance on the one hand, and to those who supply the liquor trade in South Africa on the other. I think the majority of people in South Africa to-day, except those directly interested, while opposed to the principle of prohibition are in favour of controlling and restricting the trade. I regret from that point of view that the Minister has said he is going to treat this matter as an open question, because it may result in our temperance friends starting to fight for more temperance legislation and the other section similarly, so that at the end of the session we may find ourselves without any Bill at all. If this Bill is not passed it will be a sorry day for the advocates of temperance on the one hand and those interested in the liquor trade on the other. Although it controls and restricts the trade, it benefits the trade by giving stability and greater security than they had in the past, and also by restricting competition. Let me show how anxious we all were to arrive at something which, while not satisfying every section, at the same time might be something workable. I will first deal with the clause relating to the tot system. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) made a considerable compromise when he agreed to the clause as it appears before the House. Despite what the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said, I say without hesitation that the overwhelming trend of evidence before the select committee went to show that the tot system as it has been administered in the Cape is something undesirable, and something which has to be done away with. As against that, we found that again the bulk of the evidence showed that the system in the Free State has worked very satisfactorily. The commission came to this conclusion by way of compromise, that we should restrict the tot system in the Cape so that the system that applies in the Free State shall apply in the Cape, and that the same system shall be extended to the Transvaal. I submit the farmers in the Cape should support this clause, because if they do not they run the danger of having the tot system completely abolished. The temperance people on the other hand should support this clause because, unless it is carried, the evils which exist at the present time may be increased. The general trend of evidence was against natives being given the same class of liquor as is supplied to Europeans. The trend of evidence was that the remedy should be to supply natives with something to which they were accustomed, and the evidence generally was that the supply of kaffir beer would be the right thing, and that is what the commission has adopted. The advantage is that kaffir beer will be supplied under Government control, in Government canteens. In that regard I regret the Minister has made an alteration, and I hope, at the committee stage, he will agree to the return of this provision. I want to deal with the provision which deals with the supply of beers and light wines to the Asiatic population. In that matter the commission did not come to an unanimous conclusion. From the temperance point of view the position is that the unrestricted supply of liquor to coloured people and Asiatics has been done away with. The majority of members of the commission felt it would be an unreasonable thing that that having been done, a similar provision should not be made in the Free State and the Transvaal, and that the supply should be under the control of the Government, because it supplies actual needs and not for the purposes of making profit. From the point of view of temperance, temperance advocates would be well advised to accept the clause which the Minister has submitted. It is an improvement on the existing system at the Cape. At the present moment a coloured man can get liquor on one side of the border, but not on the other. On the question of tied houses a compromise was arrived at in order to get the clause accepted by the House, as there were so many conflicting interests. Personally, I would have no objection to the clause of the Minister, because we all agree with him that we want to control monopolies. [Inaudible.] There are two other provisions in this Bill which are advantageous from the temperance point of view. One deals with the restriction of hours. I hope that recommendation of the commission will be accepted. After all, I do not think that the trade itself wants to work an unreasonable number of hours for the sale of liquor, and the hours recommended by the commission are reasonable and a step in the right direction. The quota system, as provided for by the recommendation of the commission, is going largely to assist the temperance cause in South Africa, because there will be a restriction in the number of licences issued; and I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) as to what he said yesterday that not only in the Cape, but in the Transvaal under the quota system it will be a considerable period before new licences are created by the licensing courts. For the trade competition will be restricted. There are a number of other items, but I do not want to detain the House. I have referred to a number of clauses with the object of showing that this is a compromise Bill, that it is doing a great deal for the cause of temperance, and improving the lot of licensees in this country in giving them greater security and in restricting competition. I hope the temperance advocates in this House and those who are in favour of the trade will realize that it is to the advantage of both sections to deal with the Bill as a whole and to see that it is adopted by the House almost in its entirety.

When the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was speaking I think the three most unhappy men on the Government benches were the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice, when they heard the materialistic way in which the hon. member endeavoured to refute the charge made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that Clause 104 was unjust and a violation of the spirit of the gentleman’s agreement between the Union and the Indian Governments last year. God help the country which believes that the policy defended by the hon. member for Troyeville can be justified on the lines laid down by him. We should take shame and scandal to ourselves if we justified it on any such lines. Following an unfortunate lead given by higher quarters the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said that when the Indian agreement was entered into the great matter before the country was the Areas Reservation Bill, and that the only other item was the voluntary encouragement of the repatriation of Indians by the Indian Government. The hon. gentleman’s argument that Clause 104, which takes away the rights of Asiatics to do what they have been doing in this country for years, is not mentioned in the agreement, does much more credit to his belief in his own ingenuity than to his belief in the intelligence of the House. According to his argument we could refuse to withdraw the Areas Reservation Bill because it is not specifically mentioned in the agreement. However, the spirit and the letter of that agreement are violated by Clause 104 of this Bill, which is a gross injustice to the people affected and will besmirch our honour if we pass it. We ask the Minister to give special attention to Clause 1, Part 3, of the Indian agreement, which states that it is the duty of the Government to uplift every section of the permanent population to the full extent of their capacity. Is depriving a particular race because of its colour of opportunities of employment, adhering to the principles of the agreement? Supposing it was known during the visit of the Indian delegation that the Union Government was going to make it impossible for the whole of the Indian population to earn a living in the ways in which a large number of them had been accustomed to earn it, would it have been conceivable that the Indian delegation would have allowed the Indians to be deprived of their material rights and put under a stigma, such as this Bill will impose? The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior negotiated the Indian agreement. Will they tell us how far this Clause 104 is a violation of the spirit of the agreement so solemnly entered into by them and so cordially adopted by both sides of the House?

The hon. member for Ermelo (Col-Cdt. Collins) and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) were not very cordial.

On both sides of the House the warmest support was given to the Government in what was considered to be a fair and generous agreement. The ingenious member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) says there is to be an allocation of occupation, but he does not answer the question how he reconciles Clause 104 of the Bill with Section 3 of the Indian agreement. Well, this is a non-party Bill, and whilst every member of the House, I believe, is anxious to do his part in helping to effect, by this Liquor Bill, a settlement of the immense problems which have afflicted this country for years past, yet we feel to pass this Bill with this particular clause will be a blot on our fair name, and a shame and disgrace to those of us who believe it is in itself unjust, unjust to those affected and unjust and unfair to ourselves and a smirch on our own honour. That is with regard to one clause of the Bill. I do not wish to refer to more than one or two other aspects, but I do wish to say a word on the question of Government canteens. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has again given us light and leading, and he again performed the wonderful egg dance when we were trying to discover whether he was justifying it or not. Perhaps with my limited intelligence I was unable to follow the gyrations of the intellect of the hon. member for Troyeville, but I still hold Clause 143 is another blot on the Bill. I regret at this time of day an attempt on the part of the Government to start a trade in wine and spirits and things like that with the natives, Asiatics and coloured. It is a stigma on the Government itself, and when we are told by the hon. member that there will be no idea on the part of the people running this business getting any profit, well, I ask will the person running it be so full of ethical ideals that he will despise the material results for the Government? Human nature being like it is, you must not put a man like that in such an unhappy position. Recent history has shown us the undesirability of the Government entering into business. There is one other thing to which I would like to refer, and on which I shall fall foul of one or two of my friends here. I believe the evidence against the tot system shows this system has been a blot on our civilization, and that evidence is overwhelming. That is my view, and I hold to it. When I listened to the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) this afternoon, there were one or two points to which I took objection as a matter of argument. One was that those who are hostile to the tot system are would-be prohibitionists. I have objected to the tot system for years, and I am not a prohibitionist, I am not a teetotaller, and I do not belong to any temperance societies. I believe in a man looking at the right and fair thing in the interests of the people he represents here, and my experience has shown that where the tot system is you have one of the greatest factors for the disgraceful state of affairs we have in the Western Province to-day. Those who have lived in the Western Province for years have had stones thrown at them by visitors for the appalling state of drunkenness in the Western Province. I admit that with shame. If you analyse the causes you will find they are three. One, the entirely unexpected and evil operation of the Cloete Act; two, the evil of the canteens, and three, the evil of the tot system. The Cloete Act has been dealt with and its evils moderated to some extent by Clause 6 of the Bill. Some of the evils of the canteen and bottle store systems have also been largely moderated, but I do not believe the evil of the tot system has been moderated sufficiently by the provisions of the Bill. In the first place we are going in an entirely wrong direction in introducing the tot system into provinces where it has not been known before. Secondly, while going as far as we have done to reduce the number of tots to one per day under regulation, I do not believe that is far enough, because I believe the clause can be easily evaded. Unless you have policemen going about the country the operation of the clause can be easily evaded and the results might be worse than before. The hon. member for Worcester made another point. He said those who were attacking the tot system were desirous of ruining and besmirching the wine farmer.

I did not say ruin or besmirch. I said discredit.

I do not think the hon. member will say that again on reflection, because it is not correct. The evil of the tot system is borne out by the evidence which has helped to convince those of us who had doubts, recorded in the blue book, and the evidence quoted there is not that of people who have any antagonism to the wine farmer, men like the Rev. Mr. Meiring, who represents a great section of people in this country, and the last man in the world to think of destroying the credit of any particular body of people, the Rev. Mr. Pienaar, the Rev. Mr. le Roux and the Rev. Mr. Boshoff, all people of experience and standing in their own community amongst which the wine farmers are loyal adherents of their church. Then I come to another name, and if the hon. member for Worcester had thought of that he would not have made the charge he did make. In question 10 (118) this gentleman said he had been living for more than 22 years in the Western Province wine-producing district, and it must be evident that the amount of drunkenness in those districts was very great, and there was no part of the Union where the serving of tots was so great as in the Western Province. The amount of liquor served to the labouring classes must create a desire for it, and he goes on to quote farmers, as for instance, Mr. de Wet of Prospect, who told him—

He did not give evidence.

I am taking the name of a venerable figure in the Dutch Reformed Church, the name of the Rev. Dr. van der Merwe, a gentleman who stands high in honour, respect and veneration amongst the people in the Dutch Reformed Church and people outside that community. It does not do to say that those of us who take the point of view that we do are acting on insufficient evidence, or that we are desirous of besmirching the farmers. If hon. members will look at question 1060, they will find some strong evidence given, hearsay evidence, of course, but the sort of evidence, I think, that counts with most people by the Rev. Mr. Meiring. Mr. Meiring stated that—

If that evidence is to be challenged as being the evidence of prejudiced persons, or prohibitionists or persons desirous of besmirching the wine farmer, all I can say is that in my humble way I am proud to be associated with them in accepting that evidence and following those conclusions. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation in saying that the tot system is proved to me to be an evil system, it is proved to me to be one of the three causes of that evil state of affairs which is recognized by very high authority and which is recognized strongly in the report of the Baxter Committee of 1918. Hon. members will find in the report of that committee at page xxxi that the clause dealing with the tot system was being discussed, and that the committee divided on one or two motions which were intended to be amendments to the clause. The majority of the committee succeeded in removing one passage condemning the tot system root and branch. That was done at the insistence of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). My hon. friend did not attack the passage before that, a part of the report which met with his approval, in which it is stated—

I ask the hon. member to bear these things in mind and to bear with us when we are putting forward these matters from the point of view of a really genuine desire to see an improvement made in the appalling condition of affairs that exists here, and do it in the best way possible. There is one further point I wish to touch upon, and it is a point not contained in this Bill. I would ask the attention of the Minister of Justice to it in the hope that even at this late hour something may be done. I would appeal to him on that one point about the memorial system, what was formerly known as local option in the old Cape Act of 1891, local option simply amounting to this, that in an application tor a new licence, a memorial was required signed by a majority of voters, as described, and a renewal required to be supported by a memorial of two-thirds. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday afternoon, supported by the hon. member for Troyeville to-day, indicated that in his view this was no great loss, for two reasons, first, that the quota system really dispensed with the necessity for it, and second, that the memorial system was the cause of a good deal of abuse. I really think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has somehow allowed his mind to take an exaggerated view of the evils in the methods of getting signatures to the memorial. That system did an immense amount of good for a large number of people. The quota system is liable to certain exceptions. For special reasons you may grant an application for an hotel. That hotel is going to have a licence for a canteen. The association of canteens with big hotels is a thing that requires very serious consideration indeed. The other answer is that the quota system only takes notice of licences all over the urban authority area. In Cape Town you would have to take the quota over the whole of Cape Town, whereas, under the local option system, you could do it by wards. And that is how in the ward of Observatory, in the middle of the urban authority, they have been able to keep out of that particular ward all licences which they would not be able to keep out under the quota system.

They still have the power under Clause 61 of making representations.

What is the good of making representations? What these people want and do ask for is to be allowed to keep the power they have of saying “In this ward we do not Want it. No matter what your hotel is, no matter what your quota is, we do not want it put up here.” The Minister appreciates that these are points which I consider are of very great moment, not from the point of view of the faddist or the theorist, but from the point of view of people who know what is going on in our neighbourhood here, who know the evils that exist among certain classes of people; who are not afraid of being charged with a colour bar in this respect, because if there is a colour bar it is amply justified where it is for the protection of the native or the coloured person against himself. I do appeal to the Minister even now to listen to the arguments we have endeavoured to put forward, so that the Bill, which otherwise is an excellent piece of work as a whole, and one which I believe will go very far to alleviate conditions of a distressing character, would with these alterations be, I believe, a Bill that would be accepted by the bulk of reasonable people as a tremendous contribution to the object they have in view.

On the motion of Mr. Krige, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.