from M. Millner, of Millner and Co., Cape Town, successor to the business of Millner and Traub, who in 1912 entered into a contract for the supply of potatoes to certain Government hospitals and asylums, and, owing to the scarcity of potatoes, thereby sustained a loss of over £800, praying for consideration and relief.

from Magdalena Marais, principal of the Central Training Classes, Paarl, praying for the condonation of certain breaks in her service, or for other relief.

as Chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Carnarvon Outer Commonage Bill. The committee recommended that the scope of the Bill should be extended by introducing provisions dealing with the rights of opstal owners, etc., and asked leave to amend the title and preamble of the Bill accordingly.

The required leave was granted.

brought up the report of the Public Debt Commissioners upon the sale of land in Table Valley. He moved that the report be referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

pointed out, in reply to a query, that these lands having been sold, the purchasers wanted title.

These properties that were sold by the Public Debt Commissioners are not Crown Lands.

Lawyers say they are. (Laughter.)

Lawyers might say they are, but they are really properties that have been taken over.

The motion was agreed to.

South African Police Regulations.

rose to move the adjournment of the House, on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: Removal of cattle from the East Coast Fever District of Elliot to the public commonage of Whittlesea, in the Division of Queen’s Town, there to be quarantined.

seconded.

called upon the members who were willing to allow the motion to be put, to rise in their places.

Upwards of fifteen members having so arisen,

The motion for the adjournment was then put.

continuing, said it was a matter of urgent public importance. It was definite because it had reference to the removal of cattle from an East Coast fever district, known as the district of Elliot, into the clean district of Queen’s Town. It would appear that a transport rider by the name of Vos, he believed, got special permission from the Magistrate of Elliot to remove 20 head of cattle by rail. This was after communication with the authorities in Cape Town. These cattle were brought by rail, and then driven 25 miles over the main road to the village of Whittlesea, there to be quarantined. The man having no farm of his own, exercised his right of grazing on the public commonage of the village, but the public said: “No”; and they would not allow him to graze in any way whatever. The matter was reported to the authorities of Queen’s Town, who communicated with Cape Town. His right hon. friend (the Prime Minister) replied that as the conditions had been carried out, the Whittlesea people must take the consequences. There appeared to have been some mistake made somewhere. Somebody had blundered, with the result that the permit had been made out for twenty head of cattle to be quarantined without any guarantee as to the measures that were to be taken for the carrying out of this. This man insisted that they should be put up on the commonage, and people in Whittlesea would not allow this. Two courses seemed to be open. Evidently a mistake had been made, for which the officials appeared to be responsible, for the reason that the Magistrate did not seem to take any cognisance of the manner in which quarantine was to be carried out. The permit stated that the cattle were to be quarantined for thirty days, but the man did not do that. If his right hon. friend saw that a mistake had been made, it was incumbent upon him to take the cattle back to the place from which they came under an escort of police. The other way, and the more extreme way, was that these people in Whittlesea said if these cattle were not taken away from the commonage they would shoot them and pay compensation, and in that case, his right hon. friend should say: “Well, shoot them, and we shall pay half of the compensation.” It seemed to him that there were several screws loose in the working of the department. He did not doubt that his right hon. friend was taking every precaution to prevent the spread of East Coast fever, but it was surely perfectly right for people in a clean district objecting to cattle coming into their district from an infected district.

said he was pleased that the hon. member had raised this matter here, although he did not think the matter was of so much importance as to warrant the adjournment of the House. Hon. members would recollect that this question had been fully discussed by the House a long time ago, and he thought on that occasion he had explained that if a farmer properly dipped his cattle and complied with the East Coast fever regulations he would be granted more facilities than another farmer who did not do so. Well, the position in regard to this Mr. Vos, of Klipsburg, was that originally he lived somewhere in the Queen’s Town district. Subsequently he left there and went to the Elliot district, where he went to live at Klipsburg. His wife died there, and he decided to leave again and settle in Queen’s Town. At Klipsburg, Vos had a proper dipping tank, and he dipped his cattle from time to time to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, while he also complied with all the regulations in regard to East Coast fever. Consequently his cattle were quite clean and free from all infection. Vos then made application to the Magistrate of Elliot to be allowed to trek with his cattle to the Queen’s Town district. The Magistrate sent the application to the Chief Veterinary Surgeon in accordance with the East Coast fever regulations. These regulations laid it down that such a permit could only be granted after personal consultation between the Chief Veterinary Surgeon, who was the only person who could issue permits, and the Magistrate. The Chief Veterinary Surgeon wired to the Magistrate stating that he had no objections to the permit being granted, provided he (the Magistrate) was satisfied that the cattle were properly clean, had been dipped from time to time, and had been at least three months on Vos’ farm. The Veterinary Surgeon added that if the Magistrate was satisfied in this respect and if he granted the permit, the cattle, on arrival at their destination, must be placed in quarantine for thirty days. Well, the permit was granted and on about the fourth of this month, the 20 cattle were sent by rail to Queen’s Town. On their arrival at Whittlesea the Government heard of these difficulties. Well, he only wished to say that he had the greatest confidence in the Chief Veterinary Surgeon. (Hear, hear.) If ever a complaint had been made against this official, it was that he was too strict—that was the only complaint he had ever heard, and this would be the first time that he had been too lenient—if he had been too lenient. Hon. members should, however, consider what the position was. The Elliot and Maclear districts were perfectly clean and were not in any way infected. Not a single case of East Coast fever had ever occurred in the Elliot or Maclear districts. (Mr. VENTER: That is so.) Last year, or the year before, they (the Agricultural Department) had stated in these districts that if the inhabitants at their own cost had a barb wire fence erected there where the district bordered on the native territory, then so long as there was no East Coast fever in these districts, they would be treated as districts of the Cape Province and would be granted certain facilities. (Hear, hear.)

The fence had now been completed for some time and, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knew, the department now allowed farmers to trek with their cattle from one point to another. They allowed this provided the dipping regulations were strictly complied with. Naturally, a person who did not dip could not in any circumstances get a permit. Well, he had only wished to point to this so as to remove any misunderstandings. On the one side the districts of Maclear and Elliot were fenced off, and inside these districts the East Coast fever regulations were enforced. Therefore, if they had progressive farmers, who kept their cattle clean, he argued that these people should be given every opportunity of getting their cattle to the markets. So long as a farm was clean and a man dipped properly for a period of three months, these facilities were granted him. (Hear, hear.) Furthermore, before a permit could be granted the Magistrate had to inspect the cattle to satisfy himself that they were properly clean and that there was no danger of infection. But a further safeguard was provided, by the department laying it down that on their arrival at their destination the cattle must be placed in quarantine (Hear, hear.) If a mistake had been made in this matter, he thought it was that the Magistrate of Elliot had not wired to the Magistrate of Queen’s Town informing the latter of Mr. Vos’ trek. He could assure the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir W. B. Berry) that he had it on the authority of the Chief Veterinary Surgeon, that the latter would not have allowed the permit to be granted if there had been the least danger of infection. In the circumstances there was no necessity for the people of Whittlesea to have any fear whatsoever. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Queen’s Town had said that they must now do one thing or another. He had said that they must either send the cattle back to Elliot or have them shot, after which they would have to compensate the owner. He would just like to point to the difficulties connected with this whole question. Let them take the case of a progressive farmer who in every detail complied with the East Coast fever regulations. How could they possibly refuse to grant such a man facilities to get his cattle to the market? If they had any reason to believe that this man did not comply with the regulations and did not dip his cattle, then naturally different steps would have had to be taken; but in this case they had proof of the contrary, and it would be very dangerous for this House to lay it down as a principle that even the hands of a progressive farmer had to be tied. There had been no out-break of any cattle diseases in this district, and therefore it was advisable, and even essential, to give these people a chance. Many similar permits had been granted under similar conditions, and none of them had led to the spread of disease. In the present circumstances they often found that on many farms the cattle increased in numbers to such an extent, that eventually the farms became too small for them. Some farms had been subject to these regulations for two or three years. Well, farmers often had to go 20 or 30 miles ere they got to the railway. Some provision had to be made for these people, and unless they granted some facilities an extremely difficult position would be created. (Hear, hear.) Personally, he had every confidence in the Chief Veterinary Surgeon, with whom he had worked for many years, and he knew that he (the Veterinary Surgeon) would sooner refuse the granting of a permit month after month than allow any danger to be created. This was a matter on which the Veterinary Surgeon had to take his own initiative; good work was being done, and he hoped that the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir W. B. Berry) would realise this, and would communicate with his constituents that they need have no fear. If necessary, it would be better for them to obtain a piece of ground where these cattle could be quarantined for 30 days, than to let people take the law into their own hands. He had wired to the Whittlesea people asking them not to take the law into their own hands, especially seeing that Vos had a permit from the Chief Veterinary Surgeon. In conclusion, he appealed to the hon. member for Queen’s Town to assist him in this matter, and to assure the people that there was no danger. No permits were ever issued that might cause danger, and so long as a district was uninfected, the regulations were not applied. (Hear, hear.)

said that in view of the importance of the matter, he did not think that the explanation was at all satisfactory. Unfortunately in the district of Elliot there had been East Coast fever—

No.

On the borders, then.

No.

Close enough, at any rate. Why he felt anxious about this matter was that two and a half years ago some of them took the trouble and risk of warning the House what would take place, and it had taken place. The disease had travelled from Natal—

said he would not allow the hon. member to go on. The matter was a definite motion.

Well, I will deal with that, Sir.

said that the motion he allowed stated that Elliot was an East Coast fever district, and that the cattle had been removed to Whittlesea for the purpose of quarantine. Both of these statements had been denied.

said he understood that Elliot had been proclaimed an East Coast fever district.

No.

said he also stated that the permit of the Magistrate of Elliot stated that these cattle were to be quarantined at Whittlesea, and the only place that could be used for that purpose was the public commonage.

replied that the district had been proclaimed, so that it could be made to fall under the East Coast fever regulations. This had been done with all the districts which neighboured such other districts where East Coast fever had broken out. It was not done because of any outbreak of disease.

said that on the notice paper for Tuesday, 18th March, there was a question with regard to the same subject at Mount Frere. There might be a misunderstanding in regard to this matter.

said he had not intended to take any part in this question, and had not known it was going to be raised. This man had no land. Surely, the common-sense of it was that they should find out if a man had ground to which he could take his cattle, and not let loose cattle that had this disease. This man had to put his cattle among those of a community, which he could not compensate, and which the Government would not compensate if the disease broke out. In the individual case a man might get what they might call sympathetic justice, but it was at the expense of the community, and the risk was too great. This district was a proclaimed East Coast fever district. Why had not compulsory dipping been ordered there? Compulsory dipping was agreed to by the House to prevent the spread of the disease and to cleanse infected districts. It was said that this man was a progressive farmer because he dipped. If he did not dip he would not be a progressive farmer. As a matter of fact, one man should not be in the position that he was the single individual who had a dipping tank and who dipped. Every person in the district should have done it.

said that if there was no danger in moving the cattle, then one wondered why instructions should be given for the cattle to be quarantined. If there was an object in quarantining them, surely somebody should see it was properly carried out.

said he wished to corroborate the statement of the Prime Minister that there was no East Coast fever in the Elliot district. If there was any complaint in regard to this matter in that district, then it was that the regulations were being too strictly enforced. The hon. member went on to point out that Elliot was situated very high, and that a barb-wire fence had been erected there where it bordered on the Native Territories where East Coast fever prevailed. This morning he had seen something in the newspapers in regard to this matter now before the House, and it had struck him that there must be something behind it all. If anything had to be done, then it was that the Government should grant some more relief. For four years they had been under the East Coast fever regulations, with the result that they could not trek freely from one place to another. There was not the slightest danger of the disease coming from the Elliot district. Elliot was 4,000 feet above the level of the territory where the disease had broken out, as many hon. members were aware of. If farmers were not allowed to trek at all considerable harm would be done, and a great injustice would be inflicted upon the farming community. It would be an irresponsible thing to destroy the man’s cattle under these circumstances. He thought the matter was being pressed too far, and contended that there was no need to fear that infection would be spread through this one man having been allowed to trek to the Queen’s Town district. There had never yet been East Coast fever in Elliot.

said he thought he ought to state to the House that when the hon. member saw him he understood that these cattle were being removed from an East Coast fever district. He came to the conclusion that this was such a definite matter of urgent public importance that it ought to be brought forward. But now he would ask the hon. member if, having heard the right hon. the Prime Minister, he was not satisfied that the facts were not as he (the hon. member) stated.

said the facts were as he had stated. Elliot was proclaimed as an East Coast fever district. The point he raised was this, that cattle were permitted to move from that district on the understanding that they should be quarantined on arrival at their destination, and the only place at which they could be quarantined was on the public commonage, where other men had common rights.

I understood that all the hon. member wants was a statement from the responsible Minister.

asked what was one to do under the circumstances? The House might want to make a strong expression of opinion in regard to the removal of the cattle.

said he felt that the Agricultural Department were making fish of one and fowl of other districts which were similarly situated to Elliot.

said there were districts which had been infected with East Coast fever, and their neighbouring districts were proclaimed as suspected districts. (The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear.) He did not know what the regulations were in regard to the removal of cattle from suspected areas. He would like to have this matter cleared up.

said he thought the motion of the hon. member for Queen’s Town was one of very great importance, and he would like to say at once to the right hon. the Prime Minister that he did not think it was fair in a discussion of matters of this sort in the House that the names of prominent Government officials should be brought forward. The right hon. the Prime Minister was the Minister of Agriculture, and should take full blame without introducing the names of officials in his department. It made it appear that the Minister was making an attack upon a gentleman who was not in a position to defend himself in the House. He (the hon. member) had been referred to as one who had some knowledge of the districts where the disease had broken out. He would say that he recognised that the spread of scab had gone on so long because the regulations were not carried out. The Prime Minister recognised that when the cattle arrived at Queen’s Town, the railway centre, difficulties arose. The people of Queen’s Town began to be very much exercised in their minds regarding these animals. It was only since the hon. member moved the adjournment of the House that the Prime Minister came forward and said that a solution might be found by the Government getting some place in Whittlesea proclaimed as an area on which the cattle could graze. The right hon. gentleman acknowledged there had been some laxity, because the cattle had come to Whittlesea, and had been allowed to be moved 20 or 30 miles along the road to Whittlesea Commonage, on which, as the right hon. gentleman knew, there was no possibility of a place of quarantine. He stated that this man was a farmer in the Whittlesea district, and most energetic in carrying out all regulations. He understood he was not a farmer in Whittlesea. He thought there was grave reason for the grave anxiety of the people when a man brought his cattle to the public commonage of Whittlesea.

An attempt was made some time ago on the Cape-Natal border to shoot some animals, but the owner objected and threatened to take the Government into court. While there was East Coast fever, the Government should issue most explicit instructions; and no matter how individuals might suffer, the regulations should not be departed from in the case of any particular person.

That has been done.

said Government should take immediate steps to secure some place where the animals could be quarantined, and thus prevent farmers taking the law into their own hands. But if the farmers did do that, cattle owners would recognise that there was a great deal of cause for anxiety; but he hoped the farmers would not take the law into their own hands. It was the duty of the Government to allay the unrest and to give an assurance to the House that, under no circumstances would animals be removed until Government had satisfied itself that full provision had been made for quarantining them at their intended destination.

said that as one who had lived in a district where East Coast fever had broken out, he was well aware of the trouble caused by the application of the East Coast fever regulations and quarantine. The only complaint which he had ever heard of, however, was that the quarantine regulations had been too strictly enforced. He wished hon. members to understand that if the Government took any steps, not because they were necessary, but simply to harass the people, that they would at once get the public up in arms against them. The public must be satisfied that what was being done was being done in their interest. (Hear, hear.) In regard to these East Coast fever regulations, the Government could always enforce them without any objection being taken, so long as it was necessary to enforce them. It was quite clear, however, that there was no East Coast fever in the district they had this afternoon referred to. Well, what was the danger of allowing the people to trek? He did not think the Prime Minister or anyone else should be blamed for what they had done, and thought that the department had acted in the right way.

said the argument of the Prime Minister was that the cattle were allowed to be removed because they were clean. Then for what reason were they to be put into quarantine? He (Colonel Crewe) had a suspicion that the quarantining was an after-thought. The Prime Minister should give an undertaking that the cattle would be placed in quarantine. He (Colonel Crewe) was not at all satisfied with the administration of the East Coast fever regulations in his own district, and would bring that matter up on another occasion. There was not that careful discrimination which ought to be shown by the Agricultural Department.

said they must be careful not to go too far, and not to adopt too many restrictions, otherwise people would be tempted to evade the regulations. (Hear, hear.)

said that, with leave of the House, he would withdraw his motion.

said he wished to elucidate the point why the animals were quarantined if they were free from disease. It was to prevent speculation.

With the leave of the House, the motion was then withdrawn.

asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the following with reference to Order No. 15 on the paper for to-day, namely: Second Reading, University of South Africa Bill: (1) Whether clause 18 of the University of South Africa Bill, providing that “the University shall as far as practicable make provision to meet the choice of candidates to be instructed or examined in any subject through the medium of either official language of the Union” is an amendment of section 137 of the South Africa Act; (2) whether it was competent for this House sitting alone to read a Bill containing this clause a first time; and (3) whether the order for the second reading should not be discharged in order to enable Parliament to take the course prescribed by section 152 of the South Africa Act, or alternatively to bring up a Bill to which section 152 does not apply.

stated that he would take time to consider the question raised, and that he would give his decision at a later date.

said he took it that Mr. Speaker’s ruling would not in any way interfere with the measure coming before the House in the usual course of things?

said that if clause 152 were applied that was a matter under the Act of Union which rested not with this branch of the Legislature alone. According to the contention of the hon. member for Uitenhage, the matter would rest with the Senate and the House of Assembly.

said that, as the case had not yet come before the House, would that in any way stop the coming forward of the measure in the usual course of procedure of their business? Mr. Speaker would not, he urged, rule that the measure could not come forward?

said that he thought the hon. member for Fort Beaufort did not quite appreciate the point. The point was that this Bill had been read a first time, and the question now arose whether the Bill should have been read a first time, and whether the matter should be before the House at all. He had not formed any definite opinion, but it was the contention of the hon. member that such measure, or at all events, if not the whole measure, clause 18, apart from the rest of the Bill— it all depended upon the view taken as to clause 152 of the Act of Union—would have to be considered de novo.

said he took it that under any circumstances that would not interfere with the measure coming before the House?

said he refrained from going to the length of deciding that. He should not like, after such short notice and without full consideration, to take upon his shoulders the responsibility of deciding upon such an important point.

said that last session a point of a similar character was raised by the hon. member for Umlazi, and submitted to Mr. Speaker’s decision. If he remembered aright, his decision was that they should wait until the case arose, and it was to be brought forward when the actual case might arise.

said that this case had been brought to his attention. He was forced to consider the question raised by the hon. member for Uitenhage, and he would give a decision later on.

said that this matter had not been formally brought to his notice before, so that he had had no time to give it full consideration, and he preferred to reserve anything he had to say on the point until he had time to consider it.

I think it would be advisable in a matter of this sort to have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown.

said he thought it would be more convenient to the Minister if he brought the matter up again at a later date.

I would prefer that.

That Mr. Creswell be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Financial Relations Bill, and that Mr. Andrews be appointed in his stead.

seconded.

said he rose to protest against the constitution of the Select Committee, and the process by which the members were selected. He did not think it was in the interests of legislation that so small a body as were represented on the Socialist benches should have so many duties devolving upon them. They were quite a small section in the House. He did not make this objection as in any way reflecting upon the name of the hon. gentleman submitted, whom he recognised as a highly admirable member of the House. He should like to see the Free State more largely represented on this Select Committee. The hon. members on his left hand, he felt, too much hay on their fork in these Select Committees, the position being that out of 15 Select Committees they were represented on no less than 12. (Hear, hear.)

Quite right.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Fawcus) must see that this was merely a question of substituting one name for another.

The motion was agreed to.

said that, before proceeding with the amendments, he would like to give certain information asked for by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who asked for the number of prosecutions under the Act in the Cape for 1912. There was an idea abroad that in the Union there were no prosecutions under the Act. From January 1 to December 31, 1912, there were 46 prosecutions out of 323 samples taken. The prosecutions spread over various parts of the country. In Cape Town there were nine samples taken and two prosecutions. In the Free State, as regarded whisky, there were 30 samples tested, 30 pure; brandy, 35 tested, 31 pure; vinegar, 19 tested, 14 pure. He found that in Natal the Adulteration Act, so far as wine, beer etc., were concerned, was not being administered.

said that he would like information on certain points. He would like to ask if sugar was not allowed in the best quality of wine and not considered there as an adulterant? The Minister spoke the other day of the great improvement that had taken place in the consumption and sale of wine since the Act had been brought into operation. Was it not a fact that the wines made since the Act was brought into operation had not yet reached the market? Was it not a fact, again, that a preparation now used in connection with wine—most konfyt, he was informed—made it necessary to filter the wine several times in order to bring it to a state of purity, which would not occur if that process were not brought into operation?

asked whether his hon. friend meant by the best wine champagne. It was quite true that sugar was used in making certain wines, like champagne, but ordinary sugar was not used. The only sugar that was now used in the making of wine was the product of the grape itself. As regarded that particular form of sugar that they got from the grape, it was held to be the proper thing and in no sense was it deleterious to wine at all. The quantity of good wine was increasing every day, and he hoped it would go on increasing until they were able not only to supply the country, but to export as well. A gentleman who had a large experience in the wine trade in England told him that the prospects of getting the South African wines on the English market were very good indeed. This gentleman told him that the South African wines were better than those of Australia and that the adulteration laws in England, bath as regarded wines and food, were very much behind the times. (Hear, hear.) The proof of this was that since they had prohibited the use of sugar in the making of wine, their wines had improved very much. (Cheers.)

said that he agreed with the amendment of his hon. friend that the wines ought to contain some proportion of sugar and, as far as he understood the matter, it was a very much cleaner process than using most konfyt. The opinion was that it was not deleterious to health or to the wine. He could understand why certain people were anxious that the sugar made from wine should be used simply because more wine was required, but there was a bigger demand for good wines in South Africa than ever, in fact wine merchants did not know where to turn to supply the demand. He certainly thought that they ought to take cane sugar as an addition.

said his hon. friend talked in a way that surprised him. Yesterday he was supporting a combination of coal owners, to-day he was supporting adulteration. (Laughter.) If there was one man in the House that should say no matter how expensive it was let them have pure wine, it was his hon. friend, but no, he said let them have cheap and nasty stuff and asked them to buy what was really sugar and water. (Laughter.) In whose interests? In the interests of the wine merchants. They were never to mind the consumer or the producer. He was surprised at his hon. friend and hoped the House would not take what was obviously a backward step. When he was travelling in France through the principal wine districts and he mentioned the Act they had in the Cape Colony, they all wished that they could use the product of the grape, instead of the product of the beetroot factory.

explained that it was not the product of the beetroot, but invert cane sugar that he referred to.

said, as wine farmers, they knew what the addition of cane sugar meant to the wines; it simply meant the cheap class of stuff sold by the canteens. If the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) knew what he recommended, he would be the last to do so. Invert cane sugar could not be distinguished from glucose or anything else. What was done was that they added sugar and water and then spirits so as to increase the alcoholic strength.

said he understood that when most komfyt was used in the making of wine, very often evil results followed because of the way in which most komfyt was made. If most komfyt was not pure, then they got deleterious matter into their wines, and had to use alcohol to rectify it. The point was this, was bad most konfyt better than pure cane sugar? Wine farmers were afraid that if sugar were allowed they might not be able to sell their wine products in the form of this most konfyt. Personally, he felt, however, that the nearer they got to manufacturing wines only from the product of the grape, the better.

pointed out that in most konfyt there was no deleterious matter. The reason that they allowed most konfyt was that it was practically the same product as the wine, and a cheap wine could not be made from it. In this way they did not cheapen the wine as they would do if they added cane sugar.

Continuing, he said that cane sugar was used in the manufacture of a certain class of wine. If they were going to make good wine then they should make it from the correct material. If they wanted to sweeten the wine then they could do it with the other part of the vine. By doing so they did not increase the amount of alcohol. By adding cane sugar they would produce more alcohol than they ought to produce. The legislation that was carried into effect in the Cape Colony had resulted in better wine being made, and they could challenge any part of the world so far as light wine was concerned. It had all been due to the legislation enacted in the old Cape Colony. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had quoted the case of Algiers, but he hoped that they in this country would not follow the bad example that was set there. [See corrected speech in “Errata.”]

said he thought it time that he threw some light and common-sense on the subject, for there was an extraordinary number of people in that House who knew everything about everything that was talked about. He suggested that eight ounces should be allowed to the Imperial gallon, which, after all, was only a matter of 5 per cent. The only reason he could think of was that some people wanted a close corporation for most konfyt. There seemed to be two or three reasons why the Minister was afraid to accept the amendment. Either he was afraid to trust the wine farmers, or he was afraid to trust the inspectors, or he wanted to make a close corporation for most konfyt. In conclusion, he alluded to what was done in other countries.

pointed out that champagne was an artificial wine. Everybody knew that. It was not a pure natural wine. Their object in passing the Act—and he hoped that it would pass—was to make this a country where they could get pure natural wine. The minute they allowed the introduction of a foreign substance such as sugar they would drag themselves back to the days of free adulteration, when people used to pick their grapes early, add sugar to them, and then ferment them. That was what his hon. friend wanted.

said that when the legislation of 1906 and 1908 was passed in the Cape Colony, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was one of the firm supporters of the doctrine that made for the improvement of the products of this country. He (the speaker) could not understand why he had gone back from the attitude which he then adopted. If the intention had been to make a certain class of wine in this country, then he would have understood the argument in favour of the introduction of sugar, as was done in France under certain restrictions. He pointed out that since the introduction of the 1908 legislation in the Cape Colony, the wine industry had gone ahead by leaps and bounds. Wine was the produce of the juice of the grape. If any sweetening was needed, then it was to be found in the grape. He remembered when the legislation of 1906 was being considered people coming to him with tears in their eyes, saying that the wine industry was going to be ruined. When he inquired closely into the matter, he found that all the trouble was about what was known as canteen wine. All the rubbish that could be found was stirred up in a pot, and this delectable stuff was sold to unsuspecting people. They had done well so far, and there had been a considerable improvement in the wines of the country since those days. Having adopted the principle in 1908, he thought that to go back on that principle would be most detrimental to the interests of the wine industry of this country. In conclusion, he hoped that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would prove an “instantaneous convert” on this subject. (Laughter.)

said that that was one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and one of the main objects of that Bill would be gone if they did anything which made them revert to the period before the Cape Adulteration Act had been passed. He was very much surprised at his friend, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). Today the wine farmer was most eager to prevent adulteration, and who were its chief opponents? The wine merchants. (Cheers and dissent). Why did not the wine merchants want the addition of sugar prevented? Because if sugar was allowed they could make just for the same price twice as many leaguers of wine as if they had to add most konfyt. It was the wine merchants who for years past had made the wine which had led to such drunkenness amongst the coloured people—such as one saw on the Paarl-road. He referred to cheap canteen wine, containing sweetened water and other things and alcohol. It was very disappointing to hear these proposals now made. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), in the old Cape House of Assembly, had kept them up the whole night to discourage the consumption of light natural wines, and now he was trying to encourage the sale of the wines which caused most of the drunkenness in the Western Province. (Mr. JAGGER: That is a very one-sided way of putting it.) If they altered the present law of the country, and allowed the introduction of sugar, they were going to do the greatest wrong to the production of good wine. (Hear, hear.)

who was received with cheers, said he had listened with astonishment to arguments of people who knew nothing about wine. He pointed out that most konfyt and grape syrup were two different things, and that when they added most konfyt (the manufacture of which he touched on) to wine, they got vinegar. Grape syrup was made solely from grapes, and was boiled, and when boiled long enough it was as strong as cane sugar. He must say he was very pleased that the Government had introduced the Bill, because the quality of wine had greatly improved since the passing of the Cape Adulteration Act some years ago, and it was a good thing that they should produce a pure and wholesome article for their market. He was a purchaser of wine himself on a large scale, and he could handle large quantities of wine without the necessity of putting a single grain of sugar into it—(cheers)—and if that Bill became law, the wine purchasers, as a whole, would say that it was an advantage not to allow sugar to be added to wine. (Hear, hear.)

said that the opposition to light wine which the Minister of Justice had referred to just now had not been an opposition to light wine as such, but to the new proposals with regard to the sale of it. (Hear, hear.) A great deal of responsibility for the cheap canteen wine lay with the liquor merchants, but there was also a great deal of responsibility on the farmers, because a great deal of the wine which caused drunkenness among the coloured people was bought from the farmers. They remembered the Cloete Act, and how coloured farm labourers could purchase liquor in paraffin tins. He must say he was entirely opposed to the addition of sugar to wine, and he said: let wine be made from the produce of the grape. The addition of sugar would lead to the manufacture of a great deal more wine than was the produce of the grape, and for that reason, holding the opinions which he did, he was opposed to the addition of sugar. (Hear, hear.)

said that he was in the position of a good many other hon. members, and he felt strongly that that matter should have been referred to a Select Committee. Hon. members from the Cape had the advantage of knowing what had previously transpired in the Cape House of Assembly when that matter had come up some years ago, but hon. members from the northern Provinces did not have the advantage of having been present during the 1906 discussion, and came there knowing practically nothing of the merits of the case. (Hear, hear.) They heard one side saying that the addition of sugar to wine should not be allowed, while the other side said that it was advantageous. (Dissent.) They had, neither from the one side or the other, had expert evidence on which they could form an opinion. They had not sufficient information, and that being so, he could not vote for the introduction of sugar into wine; the Cape House had adopted as a matter of deliberate policy that sugar should not be added to wine, and the country, as a whole, appeared to approve of the Adulteration Act passed by the Cape House.

The amendment of the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Struben accordingly dropped.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Langlaagte was negatived.

moved, in line 36, to omit “and citric acid”; in line 38, after “wine brandy” to insert “grape brandy”: and in line 47, after “alcohol” to insert “by volume.” He said that here they had taken a step which three or four years ago would have led almost to a revolution, and that was, by legislation, they were killing one of the products of the vine—that was, dop brandy. This was a very strong attitude to take up, but the wine farmers, he was glad to say, recognised that their future rested in their making good wines.

said that in 1906 they discouraged dop brandy. Now they were going back on that.

said that the hon. member must read a clause further down. They made a provision that only wine brandy and grape brandy shall be sold. Dop brandy was going to disappear altogether.

asked what was the difference between grape brandy and the old dop brandy?

said that grape brandy would be distilled from the juice and the husks, whereas dop brandy was a distillation of the husks and water.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, in paragraph (h), line 41, to omit the words “28 per cent.,” and insert “21 per cent.”; and in line 42, to omit the words “16 per cent.,” and insert “12 per cent.” He said he thought it was universally allowed that it was, as far as possible, best to reduce the alcoholic strength of the liquor used by mankind. His amendments aimed at reducing the amount of alcohol that might be added to any kind of wine He knew the clause was almost word for word with what was passed in 1906, but he would advise the House that at that time there was a desire, in order to carry the Adulteration Act, to please both parties— those who favoured light wines and those who favoured what he called canteen wines Therefore, the Government had to allow a larger addition of spirits to wine than ought to have been allowed. The definition of pure natural wines in the Act of 1906 had been omitted from the present Bill, which repeals the Act, and that would lead to difficulty in view of the fact that the Cloete Act referred to pure and, as defined in that Act, natural wines. The definitions in the Bill should cover every sort of wine, which they did not do. The Bill proposed that any dry wine might be fortified up to 16 per cent. of alcohol, although the maximum amount allowed in the Cape Light Wine Act was 14 per cent. A well-known professor had told him that it was absurd to call a wine containing 20 per cent. of alcohol “wine.” If they allowed so much alcohol to be used the idea of fostering the manufacture of light wine would be defeated, as a large amount of fortification led to the manufacture of poor wines which would be sold to the coloured people, and the tendency would be in the direction of increase of drunkenness.

said the hon. member for Tembuland had not spoken with his usual amount of knowledge on this subject. He (Mr. Sauer) had always been an advocate of light wines, the production of which had largely increased all over the world. The falling-off in the consumption was less in the case of light than in the case of heavy wines, which was a very good thing, as they could drink more of the former. The result of calling wines pure natural wines had led to a great deal of deception. A good many of what were called light wines were not 16 per cent., but considerably below that, somewhere below 14 per cent., but the present law was 16 per cent. The hon. member was evidently labouring under a mistake when he said it was 14 per cent., so that when he said they were going to encourage the introduction of wine of higher alcoholic strength it was not so. For that reason, if many light wines were made up to 16 per cent. they would be excluded. There was another feature, the alcoholic strength permitted for Cape wines was very much less than the imported wines, Cape wines must not exceed 20 per cent., but the imported could go up to 25 per cent., that should satisfy his hon. friend. To do as he wished would be to exclude some sherries and ports, and some other wines. The tendency of the Bill was to encourage a good article of a low alcoholic strength. He trusted that the hon. member would not press his amendment.

said they were only dealing with the first-class of dry wines, they had not got to the second-class in which the percentage of alcohol went up to 20 per cent. He hoped the Minister would adopt 14 per cent.

said that if they were discussing a Bill for the sale of light wines, they might possibly go back to 14 per cent., but the present question was one of manufacturing. Dry light wine went up to 16 per cent., but they would still continue to make light wine very much below 16 per cent. If the amendment was put in, a large quantity of perfectly good wine could not be made. In the sale of a particular kind of wine he was entirely with the hon. member, but naturally it would interfere seriously with the production of a class of wine and it was illogical to say that they should not be permitted to make that above 14 per cent., while in other cases they were allowed to go much above that percentage.

said he did not understand the difficulty.

said he referred to dry wines.

said that it did not say that even dry wine should not be made with more than a certain percentage of alcohol in it.

said his amendment would not interfere with any properly made light wine, but if it were put into effect it would interfere with low-class wine and rightly so. To add to wine of that class alcohol up to 16 and 20 per cent. as is done at present makes it a very strong drink.

said that the hon. member for Tembuland was completely confusing the whole business. It was not a case of selling light wines, it was a Bill to say how much spirit could be legitimately added to wine to preserve it. Good wine did not require it. When his hon. friend went away and had his half-bottle of port he would be drinking about 42 per cent. of added spirit, and then he would come down to the House and charm hon. members by declaiming against adding to the extent of 16 per cent. (Laughter.)

The amendment was negatived.

said that the hon. Minister had referred to the fact that their heaviest Cape wines did not contain 43 per cent. of proof spirit, he (Mr. Schreiner) understood that the strongest contained about 40 per cent., so that imported wines, generally, were stronger than our wines. He was in favour of the wines of this country, and he wanted to stop other wines coming into the country. (Cheers.) He moved to insert 28 per cent. (instead of 35 per cent.) of proof spirit, or 16 per cent. (instead of 20 per cent.) of alcohol by volume in the case of sherries, ports, and sweet wines, and 33 per cent. (instead of 43 per cent.) of proof spirit, or 19 per cent. (instead of 25 per cent.) of alcohol in the case of imported wines.

The amendment was negatived.

said that he would like to ask the Minister what was the position of the Government brandy now in stock? He understood that a good deal of that was dop brandy.

was understood to reply that, as regarded the Government brandy, the great bulk of it was grape brandy. As the Bill now stood brandy made from wine or grapes would be in the same position. He had been informed that 65 per cent. was grape brandy, 30 per cent. wine brandy, and 5 per cent. dop. He had since been told that that was incorrect, the bulk, however, was grape brandy.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 7, Prohibition as to manufacture or sale as certain spirits of other articles,

moved to add the following paragraph, to follow paragraph (c): (d) Peach-brandy, any article except peach-brandy. He said he did not wish to encourage the making of peach-brandy but it was not fair that a farmer should be allowed to make it and not to sell it. Before the war farmers were allowed to sell peach-brandy; people asked why they should not be allowed to sell healthy peach-brandy, while others were allowed to import bad whisky, Holland gin, and other drink. He held that to prohibit the sale of peach-brandy would have the effect of encouraging the consumption by the manufacturer, and trusted the Government would accept the amendment.

supported the amendment, and held that people considered it unfair that they should not be allowed to sell their produce. It was unfair, too, for one part of the country to be allowed to distil liquor and for another part of the country to be forbidden to do so.

supported the amendment, and said that Turkish figs should be added.

said he had seen in the past what a curse the making of peach-brandy was, and he had always opposed the manufacture of it. He would, however, support the amendment, hoping that it might lead to the limitation of the manufacture of peach-brandy. He hoped that the Government was in earnest in regard to this Bill. He referred to the scandal of the sale of bad liquor in the Transvaal, which had had the most detrimental effects. This Bill, he trusted, would have the effect of putting an end to that state of affairs and creating a better position. (Hear, hear.) At present large quantities of peach brandy were being manufactured. It would be better to allow farmers to sell peach brandy, so that they might be made to pay Excise fees, which might result in the reduction of the manufacture. The law must be strictly enforced, he urged. It was deplorable that so many people should be ruined by the present state of affairs. Peaches were not there for the manufacture of brandy, and if once farmers had to pay Excise this unhealthy production would be terminated, and a large section of the community would be grateful to them.

was pleased to see that the Government was putting a stop to the adulteration of drink. He was opposed to the right being granted to the people to distil from peaches and other fruits. The manufacture of peach-brandy had in the past been the cause of the ruin of many families. This House could not undertake the responsibility of allowing the extension of the traffic in liquor in a way which would be detrimental to the public. (Hear, hear.) If once the opening was given in this respect, they would see deputations waiting on the Government asking for a reduction of the Excise. In the circumstances he could not support the amendment.

said he was not quite certain whether his hon. friend wanted the Transvaal law altered or whether he wanted to kill the business. But his hon. friend—if the latter was his object—went about the matter in a roundabout fashion. If he wanted the business killed, then they could put a little amendment in the Bill taking away the right to make peach brandy. But his hon. friend had gone about the business in an odd way. Though he wanted the right to make and sell peach brandy, he said that his real object was to kill the business. The position in the Transvaal was that a man could make peach brandy, but could not sell it. His own opinion was that it was not a good thing that this brandy should be made. He would say to his hon. friends from the Transvaal, that if they wanted to kill the business, then let them go about it in a direct and honest way. He was prepared to leave the matter alone, but if his hon. friends would take advice, he would say: “Don’t continue the business, because it is bad for the people.” If they allowed the brandy to be made from peaches they must allow it to be made from other things. If they allowed it to be sold it must be subject to an Excise, and that would cost a great deal of money. It was not right to encourage the making of spirit everywhere. He would advise his hon. friends to leave the matter alone.

emphasised that the Transvaal farmer was no less respectable than the Cape farmer, and the danger of abuse was no greater in the one place than in the other. His object was not to have peaches distilled for drink, but at any rate for sale as burning fluids.

asked whether it was possible to distil such a liquor from peaches, which could be placed on the market? He thought they could not do so, and would therefore oppose the amendment.

said in his district some people had made hundreds of pounds out of peach-brandy, and he could not therefore agree with the Minister that the people of the Transvaal would be ruined by it. Had the people in Paarl and Stellenbosch gone bankrupt. He did not agree with the arguments of hon. members, especially not with those of the hon. member for Standerton who was a sheep farmer, and could do well out of his sheep. (Laughter.) He thought they should stop all liquor from coming into South Africa, and manufacture all their drink locally. They all knew that at Hatherley the best whisky in the world had been distilled. (Loud laughter.) The hon. member for Vrededorp said that peach-brandy was bad. Well, the speaker would send him a bottle. There should be an excise of 3s. or 4s. per gallon, but its sale should not be prohibited.

said that the Minister of Justice had stated that it would not pay to send round excise officials in connection with peach-brandy. The speaker had supported the amendment with the best intentions, namely to prevent the manufacture of such brandy. It ought to be under control, and an end made to smuggling. He would even support a proposal to prohibit the manufacture of peach-brandy, but if it must be permitted, then it must be put under control, let the costs be what they may.

described brandy as a great poison, the manufacture of which should not be encouraged, and if possible, its sale should be prohibited. However, what happened to all the mealies which yearly left these shores? A good deal came back as drink. A bag of mealies left the country at 10s., and returned in the shape of five bottles of whisky. If that was so they might as well distil their own drink. If it was not right to allow a man to sell peach brandy, he should not be allowed to make it either. (Hear, hear.) But he thought that the manufacture of whisky, peach brandy, and other liquors ought to be allowed here.

asked what would be the position with regard to the Free State law concerning grape brandy.

said the law remained unchanged.

referred to the case of wine farmers in the Free State, who were allowed to distil wine, but were forbidden by the Crown Colony Government to sell it. Why was it allowed in the Cape and forbidden in the Free State?

said it would be unfair to allow people to make brandy and then forbid them to sell it. It seemed to be a sin to get drunk on Transvaal brandy, but it was no sin to get drunk on Cape brandy. (Laughter.) The sale of brandy in the Transvaal before the war had been a great boon to many. He held that farmers should be placed under proper control and properly taxed, and that they should be allowed to sell their brandy. If the brandy was properly labelled, why should it not be sold? These were rights which farmers had possessed before the war, and which should be given back to them. He hated brandy, but they ought to be fair, and the proposed arrangement was distinctly unfair.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the Minister had given them to understand that the law of the Transvaal and the Free State remained as it was, viz., that all brandy made by farmers was to be drunk by them. Drunkenness would thus be caused by law. (Laughter.) In the Cape, wine farmers could distil and sell wine-brandy, but the Free Staters could not. The hon. member appealed for equality of opportunity for all Provinces.

said the present law in the Transvaal and Free State was iniquitous. He was in favour of equal rights all over the Union. There were people in the Transvaal who had cellars full of liquor and were not allowed to sell it. That was not fair.

At this point, when the sitting had been in progress about six minutes, all the lights went out.

attempted to address the House, but owing to the confusion and laughter his remarks were not clearly heard. He supported the amendment.

suggested that the House should adjourn for a few minutes, as to continue the proceedings under those circumstances was making a farce of Parliament. (Cheers.) The words of eloquence in favour of peach brandy were being lost to the country— (laughter)—as it was impossible for the reporters to take them down in the dark He moved that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again.

said he saw no necessity for that, as the lights would be on in a few minutes.

said that the proceedings would be suspended until the bell rang.

The proceedings were thereupon resumed, after the House had been in darkness for about ten minutes.

supported the amendment, and hold that if the peach brandy was so bad, the man who distilled it would find it impossible to compete with the farmer who distilled the ordinary brandy. He hoped, therefore, the Government would be able to accept the amendment.

pointed out that in the Free State peach brandy could not only be made but also sold. He thought the Free State law should be amended if they were to bring it into line with the other laws. After all the arguments he had listened to, he had come to the conclusion that the making of peach brandy should be discouraged.

said the position which would be created if the amendment were accepted would be the same as the one which existed to-day, only to-day the position was an illegal one. The hon. member for Vrededorp had always been opposed to the manufacture of peach brandy, and he (Mr. Geldenhuys) would not support this amendment if it would increase the product of such brandy. He thought if the amendment were accepted it would tend to bring about a better state of affairs and improve the peach brandy. Mr. Grobler proceeded to support the amendment, but was practically inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said the Bill was an Adulteration Bill that provided that drink which was now made for sale should not be adulterated, and it applied to the whole of the Union. It was not intended to interfere with the law in the Free State, Natal, or the Transvaal, which provided for what should be sold and what should not be sold. It would leave the Transvaal law, which said that the farmer could make peach brandy, exactly where it was. His hon. friends had been having a little quarrel among themselves, and he wished they would fight it out. The Bill left their law exactly as it was, and did not interfere with their rights at all. The man in the Cape Colony could not make brandy from peaches, or any other fruit, and sell it. With regard to wine, in the Free State, the Transvaal, and in Cape Province, anyone was free to make wine, and anybody was free to sell it. They had the same rights over the whole Union. In respect to spirits, in the Transvaal they could not distil spirits for sale except from the produce of the vine. In the Free State the law was practically the same, and in the Cape Province; and in the Free State they could distil spirits from grapes or other fruits, exactly the same as in the Cape Province. Generally speaking, they had practically the same law all over the Union. He did not want to put the Cape in a better position than anybody else. He proposed to leave the law as it was. All he said was that if they made and sold drink they must give the people drink

As regarded peach brandy, he wished his Transvaal friends would hold a little Parliament and decide among themselves what they wanted. His opinion was that it would be a bad thing if they continued the distillation of brandy from peaches. The fruit farmers of the Cape were in the same position as the peach farmer of the Transvaal. The real question was, was it wise that farmers or private persons should be allowed to continue to make peach brandy? Looking to the welfare of the people, he thought it was better that they should not do it. If it were a little hardship to the few, it was a good sacrifice to make for the many.

said he knew for a fact that brandy was being made from peaches, and he reiterated that it would be for the benefit of the country if no such brandy were distilled at all. He knew peach brandy, and did not wonder that, after having drunk this “stuff,” a man was only too keen to pick a quarrel with his wife. (Laughter.) The results of the amendment, if accepted, would be terrible for the country from many points of view. They would spoil the markets for good brandy he held, and he trusted that peach brandy would be left alone. If the amendment were allowed, there would have to be an excise, and then there would be a storm of applications for its reduction. No respectable man would drink peach brandy.

hoped the discussion on this point would now stop. He was glad to see the way in which hon. members stood up for various interests, but he wished them to realise this was an Adulteration Bill; and not a Bill dealing with the liquor laws. When the Minister of Justice introduced this measure, he (the Prime Minister) had pointed out to him that if they started to deal with the liquor laws in this Bill, they would the heads in a bees’ nest. Meanwhile therefore, the liquor laws remained as they were. Eventually, and within a short while, these other liquor laws would have to be dealt with. In the Transvaal at present, liquor could be distilled from any fruit but they had to make it simply for their own palate. (Laughter.) They could make wine there from grapes naturally, and sell it too. They should be careful here, however, not to create an impression among the Transvaal people, as if they had now an opportunity of altering the present state of affairs and give the right to sell peach brandy, as that was not so. They should not branch off on to side issues here; once, however, they came to deal with the liquor laws of the country, he thought there would be much to be said in favour of the manufacture of good liquors. In the olden days they had had a factory in the Transvaal where whisky was manufactured. Now, however, whisky was imported to the value of thousands of pounds. People thought that they could distil just as good whisky in this country as elsewhere. The speaker agreed, but these were questions which would have to be gone into when the liquor laws were amended. When that time came, he would stand up for the South African industry. They could not deal with this question in this Bill, however, and he hoped hon. members would realise that, and would assist in making this Adulteration Bill as effective as possible. He certainly thought that in a sunny and thirsty country like this it was good to have a good, light, and popular drink. Whenever he visited Germany, it always struck him how popular the light German beer was; yet one hardly ever noticed a case of drunkenness there. Well, the light wines and brandies of this country deserved every protection, and that was what this measure aimed at. (Hear, hear.)

was understood to say that the amendment aimed at preventing the ruination of people. They only wanted good peach brandy to be produced, and that was what the amendment aimed at.

reiterated his arguments in support of the amendment, which he considered was pertinent to the Bill. If people had been ruined through peach brandy, then that was simply owing to the fact that there was no Government control on the sale of that product Given proper control by the Government, that objection would disappear.

said that, in listening to the various speeches, one would think that they drank nothing but brandy in the Transvaal. They had now been two hours upon this question, but surely they had now thrashed it out sufficiently. They had had the same arguments from the two opposing camps, and he believed that it would be much better if the making of this peach brandy should be stopped.

said they could make alcohol from anything, from old shoes even. They had liquor laws, however, which stated that wine should be made from the grape and beer from malt. If they wanted to make peach brandy a pure manufacture, then they would have to make a law to that effect. If they were to adopt the idea offered by several members on the other side of the House, then they might tear up the present Bill, because it was not possible to cover the whole question in it. Don’t let them open the door to sellers of liquor over whom they would have no control. They knew what the free sale of all kinds of intoxicating liquor had done in the past, and what it cost to shut down the Eerste Fabrieken.

did not agree with Mr. Schreiner. The Hatherley factory had had to be shut down, in order that whisky could be imported from Scotland and “pumped down the throats of the people of this country.” (Laughter.) The distillation of peach brandy in the Transvaal was not under Government supervision, and that was the reason for its abuse. If it were under Government control the alcoholic strength could be determined and an excise instituted. He did not wish to see more households ruined. He thought the amendment should be accepted, as it would have the effect of improving the brandy.

The amendment was eventually put, and negatived.

In lines 43, 51 and 55 to omit “dop” before “brandy” wherever it occurs and to substitute “grape”; in lines 51 and 54, to omit “brandy” where it first occurs in each line.

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 8, Prohibition as to sale of spirits to which certain substances have been added,

moved the deletion of the clause.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 9, Prohibition of sale of brandy without specifically labelling the same,

moved the deletion of “dop” before “brandy,” and substitute “grape.”

The amendment, was adopted.

On Clause 10, Restrictions in respect of sale of spirits,

In line 2, after “labelled” to insert “in such a manner as to set forth”; in line 3, to omit “in such a manner as set forth” and to substitute “of the same size.”

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On Clause 13, Savings as to reduction of strength and the flavouring and colouring of spirits,

In line 28, before “brandy,” to omit “dop,” and to substitute “grape”; 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 14, Naming of different varieties of brandy and whisky,

moved In the definition “brandy,” page 6, line 65, after the word “husks,” to omit the words “with or without water”; and in the definition “dop brandy,” page 8, line 13, after "husks,” to omit the words “to which water may or may not have been added.”

The amendment was adopted.

On page 8, line 10, after “alcohols” to insert “calculated as amyl alcohol”; in line 22, after “distillation,” to insert the following: “Provided that at least two of the following constituents of such whisky shall be present in at least the proportions stated, namely, compound ethers calculated as ethyl acetate, at least 45 parts by weight, furfural at least 3.5 parts, and higher alcohols calculated as amyl alcohol, at least 180 parts per 100,000 parts of alcohol: provided further that if in any case the furfural fall below the above limit it shall not be less in amount than one-eightieth of the quantity of higher alcohols present, and that in other cases the higher alcohols shall not be less than forty times the quantity of “furfural.”

moved as a further amendment, in line24, after “whisky,” to insert: “and not less than thirty parts by weight of compound ethers, calculated as ethyl acetate,.85 parts of furfural, and 120 parts of higher alcohols calculated as amyl alcohol, per 100,000 parts of alcohol”; and in line 46, after “ethers,” to insert, “calculated as ethyl acetate.”

moved as a further amendment, to omit the word “dop,” before “brandy,” wherever it occurs in this clause and in the remainder of the Bill, and to substitute “grape.”

In reply to Mr. T. L. Schreiner (Tembuland),

said that technically all the brandy held by the Government was dop brandy, and the Government desired to take powers to use it for fortifying purposes.

said the manufacture of the vile concoction known as dop brandy, which was made from the husks of the grapes, was to be prohibited. The hon. member for Tembuland should be glad of that, as it favoured the temperance cause.

said the discussion proved more conclusively than ever that the Bill ought to have gone before a Select Committee.

said he had consulted the best experts, and he found that there were similar provisions in other Acts of Parliament. Most of the provisions were taken from the Cape laws. He believed these provisions were necessary.

said the Bill was a distinct departure from the principles laid down in the Cape in 1906. He strongly objected to a provision of that sort, as it was taking them in a backward direction, and he hoped that the clause would be allowed to stand over. He was speaking from information given to him in 1906 and of the terrible consequences that followed the Act of 1909, which had struck a blow at the building up of the brandy industry in this country. Pure brandy would have found a market not only in this country, but would have been a great factor for European consumption. They had heard a great deal of the large stocks of brandy which had been kept in the Government stores, but if it had been pure wine brandy it would have improved in quality and in value also. Even if they did make a provision and make brandy such as was suggested, it would be a faked article.

said that the large stocks of brandy accumulated not under the Act of 1909 but under the Act of 1906. The only step forward had been since 1909. Brandy had improved very much since then.

said his hon. friend was not correct; he knew that perfectly well. The Act of 1906 had nothing to do with it whatever. If all the stocks which the Government had in its possession had been pure wine brandy they would have been at this moment a very valuable asset. It was a pity they could not find some other name than Cognac brandy.

said there were two kinds of brandies, one was distilled by the farmer for anybody; that was the Cognac type. The largest trade in brandy in this country was done in fancy brandies, and it had been definitely proved in this country that foreign brandy, to which flavouring matter had been added, was what they had to compete against. The consequence was that if they went into the market with brandy of the Cognac type only, they would not be able to compete with the importer.

said he agreed with the hon. member, and was anxious to make a good article to commend itself to the public. He did not want to prevent the sale of brandy itself; brandy which improved with age. The fancy article was not really a brandy at all, it was a rectified spirit only to which was added flavouring matter. If they called it “wine” brandy they were misleading the public. They should let a man know whether he was buying brandy itself or a fancy brandy. He appealed to the hon. Minister, in the interests of what he believed was an important industry to this country, that he should do everything possible to prevent any misunderstanding and see that people got the real wine brandy.

said that if he could see his way he would bring in an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 15, Prohibition of sale as beer of article not conforming to prescribed descriptions,

suggested that the clause should stand over until they had dealt with the definition of beer in clause 17. He thought they should first clear the way by deciding what should be beer.

said he really did not see the advantage of that. On clause 16 they came to the question of the quantity of sugar that could be used in the manufacture of beer, and he thought the question could be discussed just as well on that clause.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 16, Prohibition of addition of substances to beer except certain prescribed substances,

said he did not think it would really be as well to discuss the whole question on this clause. The clause did not say what they could put in beer, and they had not yet defined beer. He therefore thought it would be better if the clause stood over until they had disposed of clause 17.

said that he would like to meet his hon. friend, but he did not see the force of his contention. On sub-section (a) dealing with priming substance, the whole question of the use or non-use of sugar in beer could be determined.

said he would appeal to the Minister to allow the clause to stand over until they had disposed of clause 17.

said that on clause 16 he was going to move an addition or an amendment to the sub-section setting out the quantity of sugar that could be used in beer. The question that was really going to take up the serious consideration of the Committee was whether sugar was to be used in beer or not. It would be seen in sub-section (a) that they said that there could be used in the manufacture of beer, as priming substance, sugar solution not exceeding 1.150 specific gravity, etc. On the second reading he stated that in the Free State, the Transvaal, and Natal, in 1911 they used less sugar in making the beer manufactured in that year than they could have done if this Bill had been in operation. They made in the Transvaal 3,862,000 gallons of beer, in the Free State 50,000 gallons, and in Natal 1,088,000 gallons, altogether 5,201,000 gallons. If they had used the sugar that was permitted under this Bill they could have used 520,000 lbs., whereas they had only used 486,000 lbs. He spoke to some Natal members on this subject, and they said the beer people represented that they could not use the quantity allowed by this Bill for priming. To meet them he moved: In line 7, after “added,” to omit all the words down to “clarification,” in line 10, and to substitute “Provided that any sugar, up to the limit allowed in this paragraph, which may not be required for the purpose of priming, may be used in the manufacture of beer”; and to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (a), viz.: “(b) fining substitutes, such as isinglass, gelatine, egg or albumen, for the purpose of clarification,” the quantity prescribed in this section as only being allowed to be used for priming, could be used for priming and otherwise. He had a great deal of information to show that the tendency was against the use of sugar.

Where?

In most civilised countries. (A laugh).

Bavaria.

Not only in Bavaria, but in South Africa. In the Cape we don’t use sugar. In the Transvaal there is one brewery that does not use sugar. I have a letter in which they said they would send me six bottles of beer, but unhappily they only sent two. (Laughter.) The Minister read a letter from a Barberton brewery, in which it was stated that they had brewed beer for many years, and had used only malt and hops, and no sugar, chemicals or substitutes of any kind. The beer so brewed, they added, met the requirements of the trade, was sound, nourishing sparkling, light in alcoholic strength, and would stand as long as any beer brewed in South Africa. Mr. Orr’s action, the writer added, was accounted for by the fact that beer could be produced more cheaply by the use of sugar.

What is the name of the brewery?

It is called the Anglo-Bavarian Brewery—a very good combination. (Laughter.) He added that he had taken considerable trouble in going into the literature on this subject. He quoted the views of the German Brewers’ and International Medical Congress held at Brussels.

The fact remained that in Cape Colony, where they put a stop to the use of sugar in the brewing of beer, the brewers had prospered, and he did not think they were making worse beer. In fact, brewers were advertising that they are making their beer without sugar. The proper thing to make beer out of was malt, and if they wanted to get the proper properties in beer, then they should use the products of barley, just as they used the products of grape in wine making. They had been told, and some people had believed it, that if they allowed the use of sugar in the making of beer, it would help the farmer much, because he would be able to sell more barley. That statement, however, according to one of the most eminent chemists in the Union, was a baseless fabrication. The proper thing to make beer out of, therefore, was barley, and he wanted to show how the Act passed in Cape Colony had affected the South African farmer. In the year before they passed the Act, they imported into Cape Colony 1,965,000 lbs. of barley and 4,653,000 lbs. of malt. The next year, when they prevented the use of sugar in the brewing of beer, they imported 704,000 lbs., and in the following year 454,000 lbs. In 1910 they imported only 50,000 lbs. of barley. In 1911, 11,000 lbs. In 1912 it had gone up a little to 33,000 lbs. Now, it was miraculous that this sychronised with the passing of the Bill for preventing the use of sugar in the brewing of beer. It had fallen from 1,900,000 lbs. to 33,000 lbs. The brewer found, therefore, that he was compelled to buy South African barley, and found at the same time that it was one of the best brewing barleys in the world. With regard to the malt imported, they found in 1907 that they imported 4,633,000 lbs. In 1911 it was 4,212,000 lbs. In 1912 it was 4,200,000 lbs. (An HON. MEMBER: And they make more beer.) Yes, continued the Minister, they made more beer and better beer. The real article for making the beer from was, therefore, barley, and if they used sugar they displaced barley. He hoped his hon. friend the member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Orr) would be satisfied with the amendment he had moved, because he believed they would get a much better beer. The tendency was, in many cases, to eliminate sugar from beer, because the feeling was that sugar was a foreign substance.

quoted an authority—Prof. Cohen, of Leeds —to show that in the making of beer the starch was rapidly converted into sugar, so that if they prohibited sugar they would get no beer. Hence the objection to sugar was absurd.

said that the thing which prompted him most to take a strong line in this matter was the remark of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. De Jager), who said that they used sugar in beer in England because they had no vineyards to protect. If the House were to pass a Bill of that kind in order to protect the wine farmer it would not be dealing fairly with other industries. (Cheers.) The figures of the Minister of Justice should have been placed before a Select Committee, so that they could have been sifted. (Hear, hear.) The House was not now in a position to deal with the matter. A British Departmental Committee reported that beer was improved by the addition of a moderate proportion of good brewing sugar. The Minister had had the advantage of the assistance of the wine farmers, but the House should deal fairly with the brewers. He (Mr. Orr) was assured that sugar was absolutely necessary in the making of beer. He was informed that beer brewed from malt only was inferior in keeping qualities as compared with beer which contained sugar, and that without sugar it was necessary that the beer should have a high percentage of alcohol. The general manager of the S.A. Breweries at Maritzburg stated that it was wrong to suppose that the barley growers would benefit by the prohibition of the use of sugar. The brewers took all the barley available, but that quantity was not sufficient for one-third of their requirements. Continuing, Mr. Orr said that in 1908, when the Adulteration Bill was introduced in the Cape Parliament, Mr. Malan moved that 25 per cent. of sugar should be allowed, and that was carried. But within a week Dr. Beck introduced an amendment which prohibited the use of sugar in beer. Among those who voted for having 25 per cent. of sugar in beer were Messrs. Burton, Currey, Fremantle, Malan, Merriman, and Sauer. (Laughter.) Would those hon. members now give the reasons for the change which had come over their opinions? The brewers, went on Mr. Orr, had been placed at a great disadvantage. He would have liked the Minister to have assured the House that he had consulted the large brewing interests on this point. The Minister would not have been able to make a similar announcement with regard to the wine industry without consulting the wine farmers.

said it was because he represented a grain growing district that he was supporting the use of sugar in the manufacture of beer. (Hear, hear.) He had consulted various authorities, and they assured him emphatically that unless a certain percentage of sugar was allowed it meant that practically they would use less South African grain. (Hear, hear.) The same quantity of sugar cost a little more than the same quantity of grain.

He appealed to the hon. members who were wine farmers to support him in the matter. Sugar did no harm, and it certainly produced a wholesome beer. It produced beer of a much better quality, and it gave it that brilliance which was necessary to compete with imported beer. Well, then, if there was no harm in it, why should it be excluded? It enabled the use of South African barley and of South African sugar. That meant that they used 75 per cent. of South African products as against only 40 per cent. if they did not use sugar. Surely that was a good reason for continuing as they had done in the northern Province. They were of the opinion that the beer which was made north of the Orange River was better than the beer made in the Cape. It might be in consequence of the water, but the brewers said that that was not the case, but the way it was made there. With regard to the keeping qualities of the beer, it was admitted that sugar was a preservative. Supposing they took 200,000 gallons of beer, half of that would not require any sugar at all. Light lager beer required none, but the other 100,000 would require sugar in order to keep it. They did not want as much sugar as the Minister offered them for certain classes of beer, but others required a larger percentage than that now allowed by the Minister. It was only certain beers which required to be better preserved than others, for which it was proposed to use more than was allowed. The Minister had referred to the importation of barley, and had given a number of figures, it was rather unfair to take the figures 1907 to 1910, which was a period of considerable depression, and during which there was a comparatively smaller consumption of beer. In 1911, although imported barley went down, the malt at that time was almost as high as in 1907. Why then should there be this opposition to sugar in the beer? He personally had no interest in the breweries, but he was assured that the suggestion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg was a fair one The brewers should be allowed to have a chance of submitting their side. The prohibition of sugar in beer was not going to help wine farmers in the least, but if sugar were added it would preserve the beer and enable them to use a lower alcoholic percentage, and also to use a larger quantity of Cape barley than in other circumstances. He had interviewed experts, and as a consequence was satisfied that sugar was not deleterious. It was surprising that there was this opposition from the wine farmers in the Western Province. He had been making inquiry and must confess that he had found the opposition was from the wine farmers. It was to the advantage of the grain farmers in South Africa that the sugar should be used in the manufacture of our beer, and when they came to the quality there was no question that the beer made in the Free State and Natal with sugar was as good as any beer made elsewhere. In England they still continued to use sugar, and he appealed to hon. members to support the clause being held over, and he would move an amendment that the further consideration of the clause should stand over in order to enable them to get information which was necessary to prove or disprove the contentions he had put forward. He moved that the further consideration of the clause stand over.

said he hoped the Minister would allow the clause to stand over.

said he thought they ought to proceed with the clause until 11 o’clock.

said that, as far as he understood, the amendment meant that brewers would be allowed to use about 6 per cent. of sugar as the maximum. That percentage was altogether below what the brewers who used sugar were accustomed to use. The people who were accustomed to drink beer liked a beer that contained 15 to 25 per cent. of sugar. To allow 15 to 25 per cent. of sugar would not harm the consumer. That allowance would prevent the injurious qualities of beer from being so effective. He was assured by brewers that the one thing required to give an impetus to the use of Cape barley in the manufacture of beer was the use of sugar of a larger percentage than the Bill allowed. A practical and experienced brewer had informed him that fermentation beers were improved by the addition of from 15 to 25 per cent. of sugar. He thought the figures given by the Minister were most fallacious.

said he would like to ask the hon. member for Ladybrand what was to be gained by the clause standing over?

said he desired that the brewers should have an opportunity of placing their views on this question before the House. He was assured by one authority that it would not be deleterious to use sugar in beer. One authority said that it would be an improvement, and another declared that if they did not use sugar, they would have to find some other means of preserving beer.

The motion that the clause stand over was then put, and

declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, but shortly afterwards withdrew the demand.

said it appeared to him that the brewing with sugar had nothing to do with the Bill at all, as they were dealing with an Adulteration Act. What they really wanted to know was whether the use of sugar was deleterious to the making of beer. It had been stated that sugar was used in the manufacture of beer, and if English beer was allowed to be imported, why were not South African brewers allowed to use the same materials?

said he would like to refer to a statement made by Mr. Malan in voting for the use of sugar. He said that he had considered very carefully not only the interests of the brewer, but the interests of the consumer, and he was convinced that the use of 25 per cent. of sugar should be allowed. The hon. member then moved to report progress.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow