from F. G. P. Peters and 186 others, inhabitants of the village of Villiers, district of Frankfort, Orange Free State, praying for the construction of a connecting line of railway from Grootvlei Koolmyn to a point on the Bethlehem—Frankfort line, or for other relief.

from T. C. Mulligan, Cape Town, formerly a blacksmith in the employ of the Table Bay Harbour Board, praying that the House may consider his case and grant him a pension, or for other relief.

in moving the second reading of the Wines, Spirits, and Vinegar Bill, said the Bill appeared to be somewhat technical, but its objects were very brief. They were to make uniform all over the Union the laws relating to the sale and manufacture of wine, spirits, vinegar and beer.

And Cape wines.

Yes, and Natal rum also. (Cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Sauer said that prior to the passage of the Cape Adulteration Act the law in that Province was lax, and the amount of adulteration was very considerable. Those laws prohibited the addition of any foreign substance other than certain substances which were necessary. Acetic acid and other foreign substances were eliminated in the Bill of 1906, which was introduced by the hon. member* for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), and the rest were eliminated by the Bill which became law in 1908. Up to that time salicylic acid, sugar, and other substances wholly foreign to the product of the vine were allowed to be inserted, and the result was that we had a very inferior wine indeed. By preventing adulteration, and encouraging the use of light wine, a superior article had been produced in the Cape, and the consumption of Cape wines, especially light wines, had considerably increased, all over the Union. Indeed, he looked forward to the time when Cape light wines would compare very favourably with wines produced in any other part of the world, but in order to arrive at that stage it was necessary to have a stringent Adulteration Act. The Cape wine industry was in a prosperous condition, to-day owing to the fact that it now produced a better article, and consequently the consumption had increased. The same with brandy, which used to be adulterated, mainly by the addition of water. Some hon. members might think that very harmless, but subsequently people added tobacco, vitriol, cayenne pepper, and other substances. The result was that much more brandy was sold than was manufactured. That adulteration was still going on in Johannesburg and other places.

asked for a Dutch translation. (Hear, hear.)

said that the other day another Bill had been described as a Bill for the relief of the Cape Province. It did give relief, for which the Cape had been striving for some considerable time. He was in favour of the measure that had been placed before the House, in so far as it placed the country as a whole on a better footing. But he was surprised at the power which was given the Minister, through the Governor-General, to declare that any other substance should go to the making of wine.

That is the law now.

said that the question was whether, after having laid down certain principles in the Bill, it would not be wiser to allow these to remain unaltered, unless after a discussion in the House, and not give the Minister power to make these changes, although the latter might say that there was no reason to fear political pressure in this matter. He pointed out that similar power had not been taken with regard to beer, and the point upon which he thought the discussion of members of that House should centre was as to whether the substances were deleterious to public health. He meant to take up this question of the addition of sugar to beer. The Minister had quoted Bavaria and some of the States of America, and he (the speaker) believed that these were the only places where sugar was not used in the manufacture of beer.

Continuing, the hon. member said he would like to point out that in Bavaria lager beer was the beer generally made. It was made from malt and hops, but in Bavaria they had a plentiful supply of ice, and had therefore the means of keeping the beer, which otherwise would go bad in two or three days. In Bavaria also they had specially-constructed trucks, where lager beer could be kept on ice during transit. The reason also why sugar was not used in the manufacture of beer in America was because the grain farmers had used their influence to keep the manufacture free from sugar. Mr. Gladstone, in dealing with the repeal of the malt tax and the test, said, as far as he was concerned, he would put no restrictions upon material as long as it was not deleterious to health. On the question of the administration of the Adulteration Act, it was stated, in reply to the Right Hon. Viscount Curzon, that there were 2,044 samples of beer analysed, and in no case was any noxious ingredient found. It was fair, therefore, to argue that sugar was not deleterious to health, and if the Minister could satisfy him that sugar was deleterious to health, he would vote for this Bill. The present Minister of Education, when Minister of Agriculture in the old Cape Parliament, allowed the use of sugar in the making of beer, and he certainly would not have done this if it had been deleterious to health. (An. HON. MEMBER: For one year.) It was, however, the rival manufacturers of the wine industry who forced him to do otherwise. The objection to the use of sugar in the manufacture of wine was because sugar could not be fermented out, and it was deleterious therefore to health, but there was no evidence to show that the use of sugar had the same effect in the manufacture of beer. He submitted that in the making of beer by added sugar, the sugar was entirely fermented out in forty-eight hours. Possibly also there was a misapprehension as to the quantity of barley used in making beer with or without sugar. It was stated that the consumption of barley had increased, but if the consumption of beer had increased what was the good of the Minister’s argument? If they used rice they could make beer without the use of sugar. They all ought to assist the grain farmer to get a market for his grain, and they certainly ought to insist that the brewer should not import rice for his beer. The hon. member also pointed out that foreign substances were allowed to be added to the beer for priming. If they allowed sugar to be used this would help both the sugar farmers in Natal and the grain farmers in the other Provinces. Continuing, the hon. member pointed out that the use of sugar made the beer much less heady. Brewers could go on making lager beers without sugar, but in a climate like this, beer had to be pasteurised to preserve it. If 25 per cent. of added sugar were allowed nobody would suffer, and there would be no undue restrictions on people plying their trade without detriment to the public health.

said that a wine country such as the Union, required a law to prohibit the adulteration of liquor. About sixty years ago the Cape sent wines to Europe to a great value, but as soon as it had made a name for itself, Sweet Constantia was imitated. In France there had been a wine rebellion owing to the adulteration of liquors. It appeared that the agent converted imported wine, by the addition of sugar and other preservatives, into “French wine.” The Cape had also sent to New Zealand, but in the absence of protection they would lose the trade there too. It was very necessary to fight against adulteration. Owing to the heavy cost of transport in South Africa, it had led to the reinforcement of liquor with alcohol. The liquor was then sent to the northern portions of the Union, where it was again adulterated in order to diminish the strength in alcohol, and finally, in order to increase its strength and intoxicating effects vitriol, pepper, and other things were added to it. That was unfair to all parties concerned—so to adulterate and convert to poison. If a Kafir in Johannesburg drank that adulterated liquor, he not only became drunk but senseless, and that lasted perhaps for days. The speaker therefore welcomed the Bill. He heard that a good deal of the illicit liquor trade was based on liquor from the Cape, and it was said that was because of its cheapness. He believed, however, that most liquor used in the Transvaal came from abroad. The sellers were against the Cape, and carried on the illicit liquor trade in Cape drinks in order to give the Cape a bad name. In Johannesburg, nobody would drink Cape brandy because it had such a bad name, and it had that bad name because it was so much adulterated. It was the duty of the Government to make it clear that the Western Province could produce brandy and wine as good as they could get in Europe. He could not understand why the hon. member for Newlands felt called on to insult members of the old Cape Parliament by saying that sixteen members of that House had more influence than belonged to them. These members did have great influence, and they had it because they were right. The hon. member had brought the House under a wrong impression when he pleaded for the addition of sugar to beer. Sugar in beer led to a diminished use of barley and to an increased strength in alcohol. In wine too, the sugar made it stronger in alcohol. Makers of beer had not been given a year in which to change their methods of manufacture, but to enable them to dispose of their supplies of beer made with sugar which they then held. He felt obliged to the Government for introducing that Bill which would not fail to help forward a section of the population of the Cape. Its non-production would have been a scandal for the Union. It was their business to see that the consumer got unadulterated liquors. (Hear, hear.)

said that in common with every member of the House he should like to see the Cape wine industry and everything else go ahead. In reading through this Bill, it seemed to him that there was nothing calculated to do the wine trade so much harm as the Bill before them. It was stated that it was a Bill to prohibit the use of certain substances in wine, etc. Then it went on to mention something like twenty-five different substances which might be added to wine. (Hear, hear.) Cape wine had not too good a name as it was, and the only advantage that he could see in the Bill was that it would help forward the cause of temperance. He was amazed that the Bill did not allow of the use of sugar in beer. What was Natal going to say to that? The Bill would allow the use of 25 serious adulterants, yet the Minister called it a stringent Adulteration Act. Really the measure ought to be called “A Bill to make Adulteration uniform throughout the Union.” (Hear, hear.) He was surprised that such a Bill was brought before the House. It would not help the Cape wine industry, for people would conclude that the substances which it permitted were already used. Although sugar could not be used, sulphide of oxide could be used. It seemed to be a wicked proposal.

said the Bill would prohibit the use of adulterants which were injurious. As to sugar if nothing was said about it in the law, beer could be manufactured from it entirely. The Cape Adulteration Acts had proved very beneficial. Samples of Cape barley compared very favourably with Californian barley, from which the bulk of the English beer was made. The Cape brewers with the exception of Ohlsson’s were unable to use Colonial barley because they had no malting plant. As to the Cape Adulteration Acts their administration up to the present had not been too effective. Some adulterants could not be detected by analysis, and therefore the use of those substances should be controlled. One good thing in the Bill was that South African and imported wines, beers and spirits were all to be subjected to the same test. The only body to whom they could appeal to in a matter of this sort was the legislature of the country. What they wanted here was legislative status.

said he thought the Minister made out a good case for wine, spirits, and vinegar, but he failed to convince him and other members of the House when he came to the subject of beer. Could they put cane sugar into the same list as, say, vitriol. With regard to England he pointed out that only sugar was imported into that country. He thought that the hon. member for Paarl had let the cat out of the bag when he said that the question of using sugar in beer was in the best interests of a large set of consumers in this country. He would point out that that was a highly technical matter, and one that should be approached with great care. The brewers knew their business, and he did not think it was the place of members of that House to teach them what they should do. He had yet to learn that the beer brewed in the Cape was better than the beer produced in the Free State or Natal, and he would further point out that it had never been proved that sugar was a harmful substance. It was part of the material used in the brewing. He supposed that why sugar was not used in Bavaria was because they only produced beet sugar, which could not be used in the manufacture of beer. And if they put a stop to the use of sugar in this country they would put a stop to the trade of cane sugar produced in this country.

He did not think that members of that House were in a position to give a valuable opinion on the question. He thought they should refer the Bill to a Select Committee, not to deal with wine and vinegar, for which he thought the Minister had made out a strong case, but to consider more especially the question of beer.

said he welcomed the Bill, which, he thought, would do a great deal of good so far as wine was concerned, and expressed the opinion that the Cape Act of 1906 had done a tremendous amount of good. If this Bill did the good he expected it would do there was a splendid future for Cape wine. (Hear, hear.) He went on to say that under this very Act, peach brandy could be sold so long as it was labelled He proceeded to deal with the question of dop brandy, saying that merchants who held stocks at the present time should be given an opportunity of getting rid of the stuff.

There is a clause.

That is all right, then.

said that he must congratulate the wine farmers on the very great progress that had been made, and he thought they might extend a little more charity to the brewers. The Minister had levelled up matters, and put those of the Cape on the same footing as those in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Continuing, the hon. member said beer was not a compound that must be made from certain ingredients. It was not like wine, that must be made from the product of the grape. They made beer from malt, Kafir corn, maize, rice, and it was also made from oatmeal, because they saw that oatmeal stout was very largely advertised by brewers, and to say that the introduction of sugar into the mash tub was injurious was surely to use words without knowledge. Why they used malt was principally to make sugar and to put more starch into the beer, and, therefore, make it more nutritious, but that did not make it a better drink. It had been said that the use of the sugar in the making of beer would reduce the consumption of Colonial barley, but that was not what the brewers had told him. He hoped the Minister would take his cue from his friend the present Minister of Education, when he was Minister of Agriculture, in the old Cape Parliament, and allow 25 per cent. sugar to be used, because, he believed, that the brewers had made out an excellent case for the use of sugar in the making of beer.

considered that no case had been made out against the use of sugar, because it had not been proved to be deleterious, and there was nothing to show that it was not an honest ingredient to use. They were more than usually interested in this matter, especially hon. members for Natal, because they thought this was another Cape Relief Bill. (Laughter.) This impression had been conveyed to his mind that the reason they did not want to use sugar in the manufacture of beer was because they had vineyards in the country. They did not want it to go out to the country that this was the reason they did not desire to use sugar. He thought the hon. member for Newlands had made out a very good case for the use of 25 per cent. of sugar in the manufacture of beer.

said the speech delivered by his hon. friend was of a very interesting character. He hoped the House would not vote upon the question of adulteration simply for the protection of any one particular interest. The House should approach the question of adulteration for the purpose of protecting their markets and the health of the public. (Hear, hear.) He congratulated the Minister upon the introduction of this Bill. He congratulated the House also upon the broad-minded ideas with which they now approached the subject. It was different from what he had experienced some five or six years ago when he introduced a measure. Hon. members would remember the wail of protest that arose because they would not allow certain people to add forty bottles of water to one bottle of acetic acid and call it vinegar. He was very glad also that the Minister introduced the Bill for the whole of the Union. They were practically the first country that laid down a definition of what was whisky and what was brandy. Hon. members would also remember that there were extensive law actions in England, because it was found difficult to define what was whisky. With a view to protecting themselves from similar proceedings, they in the Cape laid down what was whisky and what was brandy. It was the duty of the House to see that if a man paid for a certain article he ought to be assured that he would get it. He had a fairly open mind in connection with this question of allowing the introduction of sugar into the manufacture of beer, and he was glad to see that certain of the clauses were similar to the Cape Bill. This was a question which they could discuss when the Bill was in committee. At the same time he would like to say that in his opinion the sugar was introduced for the purpose of making alcohol more cheaply. If it could be shown that beer made with added sugar was more wholesome, then the House would always listen to scientific proofs that were brought forward. The fact that they had laid down that sugar should not be used in the manufacture of wine had done a great deal to improve the wine, and if they extended the provisions of the Act throughout the length and breadth of the land it would add to the reputation and greater purity of the products of the country. It was the extra-ordinary manner in which adulteration had been carried out that had poisoned the minds of the people. He would say to his hon. friend, as he had advanced so far, would he not try, as he (Sir T. W. Smartt) did in 1906, and go two steps further? In 1906 he tried to get beer and vinegar in. In 1913 would his hon. friend try to do something to have butter and jams defined in this Bill? (Hear, hear.) There was an enormous amount of adulteration in the butter sold in this country which was injurious to the consumer and to the producer, and there was an enormous amount of adulteration in the jams sold in this country, which was injurious to the growers of fruit and sugar, because they had got a large proportion of glucose instead of sugar. (Hear, hear.) He believed it would be a legitimate thing for this House to do all it possibly could to ensure that products should be absolutely what they purported to be sold as, and that such a step would contribute largely towards stimulating production. (Cheers.)

said that he was prepared to take the assurance of the Cape members that this was a good Bill for the wine industry, but he would like to ask the Minister why should sugar not be used in the manufacture of beer? was impossible to send beer into the country districts at the present time unless sugar were used in its manufacture. The beer that they had in the Transvaal and the Free State made without sugar was, to his mind, better than the beer they got in the Cape made with sugar. He did not think it could be alleged that the use of sugar in beer was unwholesome. If the use of sugar in the manufacture of beer were not deleterious, he hoped the Minister would at a later stage accept an amendment to allow the use of sugar in the manufacture of beer. (Hear, hear.)

said that he cordially welcomed any legislation aimed at the practice of adulteration. In regard to clause 23 of the Bill, he would like to ask the Minister if he were not putting the people who dealt in those articles—

I am going to move an amendment in regard to that clause.

said that, under the circumstances, he had nothing more to add at the present stage, as long as the Minister was prepared to make an amendment in the direction he had indicated.

said that in the old Cape Act a considerable number of substances were set out which could not be used in the preparation of wine. He was not sure whether it would not have been better to have named those substances in the new law. He did not agree with the hon. member for Troyeville that the Bill was a bad Bill. It was a Bill that had been tried in the Cape Colony, and it had done a great deal of good. At the time when it was passed the wine farmers declared that they were on the verge of bankruptcy, and they must have facilities for selling to natives. That was in the days when wine was £3 a leaguer, and he was told that it was now something like £8 or £9 a leaguer. Anyhow there was no more flourishing industry at the present time than wine farming. The old Cape Act did something to bring that about. No one wished to take away from them their prosperity, but one did want to protect as ever those classes of the population who should be protected. It was a regrettable fact that so much of the drunkenness in the wine and brandy districts was due to wine drinking, and although some of these adulterants might not be put in, it was a fact that the wine which had recently been made was, by reason of mixing spirits with it or some other reason strongly intoxicating. He did wish that they could find some means whereby it could be provided that the makers of wine and brandy should not provide for their servants a liquor which was so strongly intoxicating as the liquor which they got. He hoped that nothing would be done to prevent the manufacture of unfermented wine. It appeared to him that there was a good deal of trade rivalry in the Bill. He did not see why the wine industry should try to crush the beer industry. As to sugar, that added to the alcoholic strength of beer up to a certain point; in fact, you could make beer entirely from sugar, as the natives had discovered. The House should set itself against the manufacture of dop brandy.

said that one found oneself in a difficulty, and that was in regard to sugar. He thought the Bill would do a lot of good. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. J. W. Quinn) need not be alarmed— Cape wines had improved immensely during the last six years. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. C. B. Heatlie) had talked about Colonial products, but the hon. member must not forget that sugar was just as much a Colonial product as wine was. Some people had said that sugar added to the alcoholic strength of beer, while other people denied it, and as there was no evidence on the point before the House it was difficult to determine which view was correct. Perhaps a way out of the difficulty would be to permit a certain alcoholic strength for beer. There could be no doubt that the Bill would do a certain amount of injury to the sugar industry. If the introduction of sugar increased the alcoholic strength of beer it was not a matter that one would be in favour of, but the difficulty could be met by fixing the alcoholic strength of beer and allowing sugar to be used up to that strength.

mentioned that he had received a wire with reference to section 23 of the Bill.

replying on the debate, said the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) suggested that provision should be made in the Bill to prevent the adulteration of butter and jam. He (Mr. Sauer) was quite aware of the great extent to which adulteration was carried on with those two very necessary articles. He (Mr. Sauer) had only that morning discussed the matter with an official of the Agricultural Department, who pointed out that to deal with food in that measure would be foreign to the object of the Bill. However, such a measure would have to be introduced before long. A good deal had been said about the use of sugar in beer, and he was sure they were all quite disinterested in that matter as all their contentions there were. Sugar was just as much a foreign substance in the making of beer as it was in the making of wine. It was prohibited in the case of the latter, and therefore it was quite logical to prevent its use in the making of beer. An hon. member had said that this Bill was another instance of relief being afforded to the Cape. Natal, however, could not complain of the treatment her sugar received from the Union. (Hear, hear.) He did not want to say Natal had had much relief, but she had not been badly treated, in the matter of sugar— (hear, hear)—and a good many parts of the Union were feeling that at times. They thought that as sugar was a South African product it should be treated liberally, but do not let them talk of that Bill being a measure of relief for the Cape wine farmers. —it was nothing of the kind. Some hon. members were quite under a misapprehension as to the effect the Bill would have. In 1911 the quantity of sugar used in Natal, the Free State, and the Transvaal, in the manufacture of beer was 486,000 pounds.

Continuing, he said that the quantity of beer that was produced amounted to 5.200,000 gallons. If the quantity of sugar permitted by the Bill had been used, 520,000 lbs. would have been used as against the 486,000 lbs. that had been used. In 1911 under that Bill they would have used more sugar than had actually been used. It seemed to him, therefore, that the whole case fell to the ground. In the Transvaal 1 lb. of sugar was used for 11 gallons of beer, in the Free State 1 lb to 30 gallons, and in Natal 1 lb. to 8 gallons. So he did not see where the relief for the Cape Province came in. He would also point out again that since the Bill came into force in the Cape Province the amount of imported barley had decreased. In pointing out that no harm would be done to the industry, the speaker went on to say that the hon. member for Troyeville had not succeeded as a humorist on this occasion, and for once had talked on a subject that he knew nothing about. He would find that the ingredients in the Bill were allowed in every other country where wine was made. He did not think that there was any necessity for a Select Committee. At any rate, they could consider the measure in committee and then they could see how they got on. The Bill was really in the interests of the consumer, especially the Transvaal consumer, where the laws were not properly carried out.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

Committee stage?

Next Thursday.

said he thought the Minister might give them time to communicate with their constituents.

I am always anxious to oblige—this day week.

said that the Bill was making a mistake in allowing the free sale of ammunition to other than coloured people. He reserved the right to bring this matter before the House again, because it was a wrong principle. There were classes of white people who would get the ammunition who ought to be the last to get hold of it. When the report stage was reached, he would submit an amendment which, he hoped, would be accepted by the House. If they would consent to a little inconvenience, a lot of trouble would be averted.

said he strongly supported what had been said by the hon. member for Tembuland. He thought that they had made a great mistake in allowing clause 14 to pass in its present form. They were simply allowing the free sale of ammunition. Take the case of the Basutoland border. Low-class white men could buy any amount of ammunition, and he thought, sooner or later, if no change were made, the country would recognise what a grave error of judgment had been committed in allowing the clause to pass through in the form in which it stood at the present time.

This restriction of the sale of ammunition in clause 15 was a very serious blot on the Bill. It should be dealt with exactly in the same way as the sale of rifles. He asked the Minister to consider the matter before they finally disposed of the matter. If he did not keep a close grip on the sale of ammunition, it would lead to very serious trouble.

moved that to section 15 be added subsection (3), to read: “The provisions of this section shall not apply to any coloured person who is a licence holder.” They had, he said, already in clause 7 made provision by which it was possible for some coloured persons to obtain a rifle or other firearm. If a man had obtained a licence for a rifle or firearm, was it right that that person should be subjected to the further provision that he must get a permit, whereas a European, as was already passed in clause 14, simply produced his licence to the dealer and got the ammunition he required for his personal use? To say that a man should have a licence with the consent of the Minister for a firearm, and then to debar him from purchasing ammunition unless he got a permit, seemed to be out of place, and quite unnecessary with regard to those respectable coloured people who held licences for arms.

said the unrestrained scale of ammunition to all white persons was entirely wrong. It was necessary to have a permit if they wanted to use dynamite on a farm. They might safely agree to the principle of requiring permits, so that the Government could know what was going on.

agreed that there was a great deal to be said for the contentions put forward. There were Europeans and Europeans, and it was necessary they should keep a very strong control on the sale of ammunition. He suggested that the Minister should give this matter further consideration, let the matter stand over, and go on with the rest of the Bill.

said that there was a good deal in what hon. members had said, and he personally had felt a good deal for the suggestions now made. He had feared, however, that if he introduced a provision requiring permits, it would have made the Bill unacceptable. As clause 14 had, however, passed, he thought the matter might well be dropped. As regarded Mr. Schreiner’s amendment, he wished to point out that the amendment was in conflict with the hon. member’s arguments, as he was in favour of a general system of permits and now wanted to abolish them. Clause 15 should be accepted.

said they could not now change clause 14, but he thought his objection could be attained by an amendment to the last portion of clause 15, The Chairman had ruled that sub-sections (1) and (2) could not now be altered. He would bring up the coloured question again later on, because on Friday they had rushed matters through.

appealed to the hon. member for Tembuland to withdraw his amendment. There was the report stage and the third reading stage, and he suggested that the matter might be allowed to go through, so that they might concentrate their attention on the bigger thing—the sale of ammunition to white men.

hoped the hon. member would withdraw. He was with him in his protest against these unnecessary insults being put upon the respectable coloured people of this country. He saw difficulties over that clause, and if his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Schreiner) pushed his amendment, there was not the slightest hope of it being carried; but he saw considerable hope of clause 14 being amended when it came to the report stage, because he thought that there should be some restriction to Europeans from possessing arms. Even if one found there was some inconvenience in that restriction, one felt that it was sound legislation and sound law, and one that should be supported. There was another aspect of it to which he desired to draw the attention of the House; there was not only the danger of arms and ammunition being used in war or strife of that sort, but there was grave danger of accidents from the improper use of arms and ammunition. In his experience of 40 years it would be a very long list of those whom he had seen who had been badly and fatally wounded as a result of the improper use of firearms. He did hope the Minister would do all he could to see that arms and ammunition were not recklessly possessed by people who had no need for them, and would be better if they were kept out of their way. He did hope and believe that when they got to the report stage there was a fair hope that they would gain the two objects—of getting greater restrictions and getting over the colour difficulty.

said that he wanted to ask the Minister if it were possible even now to put in the margin a reference to the different clauses in force in reference to this matter in the different Colonies. It was done in the Australian Acts, and it would be an immense convenience if it were also done here. He knew what the legislation in the Cape was on that subject, but he did not know what had been done in the other Colonies, and it would be so easy in the preparation of these Acts to show what the legislation of the other Colonies was.

withdrew his amendment.

Clause 15, as amended, was agreed to.

On Clause 16, Licence to Deal in Arms and Ammunition,

asked whether the amount payable annually in respect of every dealer’s licence could not be reduced from £10 to £5. He said that there were large numbers of people in the country districts who carried on that business, and had to be ready to supply ammunition. In the Cape Province in 1910 there were nearly 400 such dealers, which showed what a large number of very small men there were in the country districts. If the licence cost them £10 instead of £5, which it had been, the price of cartridges would be appreciably increased. He hoped that the Minister would reduce the amount of the licence from £10 to £5.

Sub-section (4), to which the hon. member referred, reads as follows: There shall be payable in respect of every dealer’s licence taken out before the thirtieth day of June in any year the sum of ten pounds, and in respect of any dealer’s licence taken out after that date in any year the sum of six pounds.

said that the £10 had been adopted in sub-section (4) as a sort of middle figure between the licence moneys in the various provinces. In the Cape Province it had been £5, in the Transvaal £10, and in the Orange Free State £20.

They would not object if it came down to £5. (Laughter.)

was understood to say that there was no doubt that in future a large amount would go into the hands of the Government, and to some extent he dared say it would affect the business of these people. He had no objection to the lower figure, reducing the £10 to £5—(hear, hear)—and reducing the £6 in respect of any dealer’s licence taken out after June 30, to £3. He moved accordingly.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, was agreed to.

On Clause 18, Trade in Rifle Ammunition by Licensed Dealers,

held that sub-section (2) went too far; they had seen in clause 14 that it made matters practically impossible for the members of rifle clubs. It often happened that one man gave another his licence and asked him to get a packet of cartridges. He urged the acceptance of an amendment under which one holder of a licence might sell a few rounds of ammunition to another licence-holder, as follows: In sub-section (2), line 32, to omit all the words after “dealer” to the end of the sub-section and to substitute “or to, or for the use of, a person duly licensed to possess a weapon, or to the secretary of a rifle association for the use of the members of such rifle association”; in sub-section (3), line 37, after “purchase” to insert “or sale”; after “from” in the same line to insert “or to”; and in line 38 after “from”, to insert “or to.” In scattered districts it was very unfair to demand that every licence holder should ride to the town in order to get cartridges. (Hear, hear.)

agreed with the amendment and held that the sub-section, as it stood, imposed serious hardships.

also supported the amendment. The object of the Bill, amongst other things, was to restrict the sale of ammunition to whites, but it was not necessary to restrict it amongst white persons. They must not put difficulties in the way of the rifle associations.

stated that after the Minister’s explanation he was now satisfied with clause 14. After the speech which had been made by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg he felt the same objections. Could not the Bill be altered, he asked, to prevent it being a criminal act for one man at a shooting competition to sell ammunition to another? He admitted the difficulty which might arise if they left openings in the Bill, but something would have to be done to prevent innocent persons from being punished.

did not see how they could determine what number of cartridges was sufficient for a man’s personal use. How would the dealer act? If he supplied too many, he was liable to a fine of £500. The Bill was dangerous for the trader. It was laid down before the war in scattered districts that ten cartridges were sufficient for personal use. He thought that the restriction as to personal use should be deleted, and moved therefore, in line 34, after “ammunition,” to omit all the words to the end of sub-section 2.

supported, the amendment moved by Mr. Mentz, holding that one licence holder should be allowed to hand his licence to another licencee to get ammunition.

said he would also support the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Mentz), and he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment..

who was received with cheers, said he considered that sections 14 and 18 should be read together. There would be the greatest difficulty experienced in the future in attempting to define what was the personal requirement of any man. That was a strong argument in favour of the regulation of the sale of ammunition by permit, and not at the will or behoof of the purchaser and sellers. On reading section 14 carefully and looking over section 18, it seemed to him that it would be utterly impossible to alter one without altering the other.

moved that the further consideration of clause 18 should stand over. He pointed out the difficulty of understanding long amendments which were not placed on the paper.

said that he would like to see the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg on paper before saying anything about it, as it was a complicated one. As the hon. member for Albany had clearly explained, Clauses 14 and 18 were practically identical, but for the fact that the one dealt with dealers and the other with licence-holders. Therefore, the wording in the one must be the same as in the other. In the circumstances he advised the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to hold his amendment over for the report stage. As regarded rifle clubs, he could not see that secretaries of such institutions would ever have to go to a licensed dealer, as the clubs would usually get the ammunition either free or cheap. If hon. members wished it, he had no objection to clause 18 standing over.

The motion that the clause stand over was agreed to.

On clause 24, Licensed dealers to keep registers and make returns of rifles and rifle ammunition,

moved the deletion of sub-section 2.

This was agreed to and the sub-section accordingly deleted.

thought there should be no punishment in the absence of malice.

objected to such a restriction as it would be dangerous.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 27,

moved: In line 44, after “magistrate,” to insert “nearest police officer.”

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 35,

moved: In line 46, before “Act” to omit “the” and substitute “this;” and, further, an amendment in the Dutch version, which does not occur in the English version.

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended was agreed to.

On clause 37,

on clause 37, wished to know whether a person would be allowed to keep old arms or parts of arms as curios.

replied in the affirmative.

called attention to the English used in a subsequent clause.

explained that the phrasing was taken from an ancient statute. (Laughter.)

That is how the lawyers earn a living. (Renewed laughter.)

raised the question of the desirability of including hand grenades in the provisions of the Bill.

said the Bill dealt simply with arms and ammunition, and hand grenades did not come under those heads.

Clause 37 was agreed to.

On the schedule,

said that they took no precautions with regard to assegais.

said that the position had much changed since 1878.

The schedule was agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again tomorrow.