from Ida G. Hyett and others, inhabitants of Pretoria, praying for legislation whereby women, on attaining the prescribed qualifications, may be admitted to practise any branch of the legal profession.

Extracts from Gazette containing amendments to regulations made under provisions of South Africa Defence Act, 1912.

Report of Native Affairs Department, year ended 31st December, 1912.

asked the Minister of Justice when they might expect to receive the Police Report for 1912.

replied that he had given instructions in the matter, and was understood to say that the report would be brought up as soon as received.

asked the Minister of Justice whether his attention had been called to a report of certain remarks made by Mr. Justice Wessels as to alleged maltreatment of native prisoners by police or prison officials at Benoni, and whether he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made.

replying, said that that morning he had read the telegram referred to by the hon. member. Immediately on reaching his office he had sent a telegram from the Minister of Justice to his office in Pretoria stating that the newspaper press here contained a report concerning Mr. Justice Wessels’ remarks on the use of the sjambok on natives to make them confess. The officer in question was requested to hold an immediate and searching investigation into the matter, to give the magistrate every assistance, and to report to him (Mr. Sauer.) (Hear, hear.)

moved the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: “The grave danger to the health of thirty natives through their detention underground in the Apex Mine for over 48 hours without coming to the surface at intervals,” as disclosed in a statement by the Inspector of Mines, Boksburg. The statement continued that the manager had informed the writer that the men only worked eight hours per day and took their natural rest and relaxation underground.

“What is the motion?”

“The danger to the health of these natives by being kept underground.”

requested the hon. member to bring up his motion, which was done.

read out the terms of the motion and stated that as the subject-matter of this motion was not one which, in his opinion, was contemplated by the Standing Orders, he could not accept it.

moved that Orders numbers 4 to 13 stand over until Order No. 24 (adjourned debate on motion for amendment of Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, be resumed) was disposed of.

“The hon. member must wait until we come to the order.”

moved that the Pensions (Supplementary) Bill be read a third time.

said that before the Bill was read a third time he would like to express his regret that the Select Committee had done an injustice to certain unfortunate people in Natal.

It was true that the House bad recommended that the case of these unfortunate ladies should be referred to the Government for consideration. He only hoped that the Government would inquire into the merits of these teachers in their desire for registration under the Act. This case had been treated with the grossest injustice, and he hoped that the Government would remedy it.

said he did not know how the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, could accuse him of having treated these teachers unjustly. He was in a minority in the committee and he told the committee that he would move in the House. He hoped the hon. member would have the grace to withdraw his remarks.

again drew attention to the case of three burghers who had been wounded in the war and whose claims he had pleaded last night. Unless something was done for them, the House would be flooded with petitions every year. Something ought to be done in order to settle the matters. Help had been given to some of the burghers who were wounded; why not to the others?

said that as a member of the Pension Committee, he entirely dissociated himself from the remarks made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, that the chairman of the committee had perpetrated a gross injustice. Such a remark was unwarranted. In his humble opinion the chairman had been most impartial to all petitions, and had not used his position to vote either one way or the other. The chairman most distinctly stated that he reserved the right to bring forward his views. There was nothing secret upon the matter, and he hoped the hon. member would withdraw his assertion.

echoed the remark of the last speaker. The chairman had always been most impartial. He was sorry that the case of these teachers had given rise to the remarks that the chairman was unfair.

emphasised the remarks made by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk), and urged that something should be done for these people, who had faithfully served the country. In that respect they resembled Civil servants who had given their services to the State. He entirely agreed with the principle of paying pensions to officials who had been in the service of the country for a long period of time, though unfortunately the system had degenerated into giving pensions to officials who were still quite young. In cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Boshof they were quite safe in saying that the men had rendered great service to the country. Their case was a sad one, and one’s heart must be made of stone if it were not moved on hearing of it.

was understood to repudiate the statement that the chairman was unjust or unfair. A general system of pensions, he thought, should be established throughout the Union.

said he had been reproached by the chairman of the Pensions Committee of having accused him of being unfair and unjust. He never said anything of the sort. He had always respected the chairman, and realised the difficult position that he had to fill. What he did say was that the action of the chairman in proposing to reverse the decision of the committee, and the Government having accepted his proposal, a gross injustice had been done.

said during the past three years applications had continually been received from people who, having been seriously wounded during the war, were unable to earn a living. As the committee had no powers or funds to provide for these people, they had been unable to make any recommendations. There were funds in existence out of which those people could be paid. The matter was a very serious one, as some very hard cases had come before the committee, and it had hurt him greatly to have to vote against anything being done for those people who had been maimed in the service of the country, while he had to give his vote in favour of the paying or increasing of pensions to people who were able to take life easily in an armchair. He trusted the Government would see what could be done.

said he had been impressed with the impartiality shown by the Chairman of the Select Committee. He did not know the cases in question, but he had come across a great many cases of unfortunate circumstances arising out of this Natal law. There appeared to be a very grave laxity in the promulgation of this Natal law. He was quite sure, however, that they need not appeal in vain to the Government to give consideration to the case of these unfortunate ladies who had failed to register their names.

in replying, said he had not gone into all the cases mentioned, but if he had to give a definite reply, he must say that the Government could do no more than abide by the law. There was no alternative open to them. In regard to the question of teachers, there was a law in Natal dealing with teachers registered under that law. The only body which could alter that law was Parliament, and when matters of this kind were referred to the Government they could do nothing but act in accordance with the law. The same applied to the cases of people wounded during the war. In the Transvaal and the Free State before Union, provision had been made for compensation to be paid to those people, and although there might be people who had not been properly dealt with, there was no further provision at present under which they could be provided for. It was possible now that some cases had been referred to the Government that they would make recommendations to Parliament, but the Government itself could not take any further action. (Hear, bear.)

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved that Orders 4 to 23 stand over until Order No. 24—adjourned debate on the motion for the amendment of the Miners’ Phthisis Act 1912—had been dealt with. He said it was agreed the other day that this matter should stand over, but it was understood that the Government would allow the House an opportunity of continuing the debate. It was very necessary that the matter should be discussed.

The hon. member cannot make a speech on the subject.

I am merely representing to the House the importance of the matter.

was understood to object. He could not see why the hon. member should enjoy a preference.

objected.

appealed to the Minister to allow this order to stand over, and reminded him of the trouble that was experienced when the matter was last before the House.

also thought that the measure should stand over.

said that he was sorry that he could not please his hon. friends. This matter had been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposals before the House had been settled. It was not a trifling matter. It involved vast financial interests, involving a million pounds of revenue. The tariff was already in force, and it would be impossible to draw back at this late stage. The Government was determined to get the Bill through this Session.

Why has it been left to the last? Continuing, he said that he understood that the second reading of the measure was allowed to go through, because it was the intention of the Minister to amend the Bill and meet the wishes of the hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House. They now found that they were where they were. He objected to differentiation, and he would intimate that some of them on that side of the House intended to fight this Bill to the last. If the Minister was prepared to meet them with regard to differentiation they were prepared to meet him.

said there was more involved in this measure than the differentiation against Natal rum.

I never mentioned Natal rum.

said the objection he had to raise against proceeding in Committee with this Bill was that the Minister, by a stroke of the pen, was trying to defeat the provisions of the Wines and Spirits Bill passed earlier in the Session as to the definition of wine brandy.

It is quite a different matter.

contended that it was not a different matter to define in this Bill that wine brandy was an entirely different product to that defined in a measure which had already, after weeks of debate, received the sanction of the House. It appeared, said the hon. member, that the hon. Minister’s reasons for altering his description were that brandy, whether wine brandy or not, should be subject to half the excise duty. Sir Thomas further contended that it would not be desirable to accept proposals which placed an embargo upon the production of grape brandy, which was a legitimate industry of this country, and bade fair to make a name in the markets of the world. He asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether the definition of “wine brandy” in clause 7 of the Bill was not in conflict with the definition of “wine brandy,” as contained in the Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Act passed during the present session?

The Bill now before the House deals with an object totally different from the principle of the Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Act, and that Act is not, in my opinion, affected by the present Bill.

said the Bill should be called a Bill to amend the South Africa Act—(laughter)—because it took away the right of free trade, which was one of the strongest reasons for Union. He would not like to say it was a Bill which attacked the interests of Natal for the benefit of the Cape, but the cloven hoof was shown whenever the interests of Natal were believed in the slightest degree to go against those of the Cape. He would like to see any attempt made to attack the interests of the Free State. It was because Natal’s representatives were divided that her interests went by the board.

Come over here. (Laughter.)

said the Bill was a differentiation against a Natal spirit. The only fault of rum was that it was a Natal product. He believed if this rum were manufactured in the Cape we should hear nothing about differentiation.

What about dop?

said the only argument against rum was that it was a deleterious spirit, but the Bill provided that it should be nothing but a first-class and wholesome spirit. It was not a question of rum, but whether we were to have free trade in South Africa. To him, free trade was the outstanding advantage of Union. It was no advantage to him that a man should speak two languages, or that we should have two capitals. One of the sticks used to frighten Natal into Union—

The hon. member is arguing on the amendments on the paper. They can only be argued on when they are before the House.

We understood that that was the question before the House, and that the matter would be settled on these lines.

But the settlement has not been reached yet.

said he was one of the extreme teetotallers, but he thought an excise was pernicious in its effects, because whenever one gave Government a money interest in a trade like the liquor trade, Government would try to foster it instead of diminishing its evils. The history of the Cape had proved it. It was only 24 hours after the Cape Parliament had passed the Excise Bill that brandy advances were made. He opposed the obtaining of money by the Government from such a polluted source. It does not matter much whether the natives on the Rand are poisoned off by Cape brandy to swell the profits of the wine-farmer, or by Natal rum to benefit the sugar-planter of Natal, but there ought not to be a differentiation, which destroyed the principle of free trade in the Union. He hoped the Minister would not go on with the Bill.

said he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Tembuland advocating free trade in drink—(laughter). Surely hon. members would never put Cape wines in the same position as Natal rum? He hoped the difference between the two would be maintained. As to the advances on brandy, the Cape Excise Act would never have been passed if those advances had not been made. It was a case of a sprat to catch a mackerel. The hon. member added that whenever a Government had taken a hand in the management of the liquor trade it was all for the better.

asked if the dop brandy the Government now held had to pay the lost excise? Surely it could not be that spirits used in the fortification of wines were to be exempt from the excise? He did think that they should not at this late stage of the session hurry a Bill through, involving such financial responsibilities, and that the Minister should defer it until the House met next year.

moved that the House go into committee on the Bill this day six months. It appeared to him, he said, that to go into a Bill of this character on practically the last day of the session was rather casting a reflection on the character of the House. The only possible excuse for burking discussion on these subjects, the very extraordinary state of things disclosed by the telegram his hon. friend had read at the opening of this sitting—

Oh, no, the hon. member must confine himself to the matter before the House.

I am doing so, because my motion is that the House go into committee this day six months in order to save this House from the accusation which will be levelled at it, an accusation from which this House will not be able to defend itself, that we are willing to set aside matters concerning human life, concerning the first interests of thousands of people, while we discuss a measure to enable the Treasury to raise a little more money out of the Excise.

seconded the amendment.

put the question that the word “now” remain part of the motion, and declared that the Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

That the clauses of the Bill stand over until after the schedules have been disposed of.

Agreed to.

On the first schedule,

moved that the items be taken, seriatim.

said that he could not agree to that. Such a course would lead to an interminable waste of time. He suggested that the schedule be taken in parts.

said he hoped the House would accept the motion of the hon. member for Durban. They would certainly have no more interminable waste of time than the Government had been responsible for during this session.

supported the motion of the hon. member for Durban, Berea.

The motion was negatived.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

moved that parts 1 and 2 of the first schedule be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

On part 1,

said that in Part I. of the Schedule they had “wine brandy, Imperial proof gallon, Excise duty, 5s.,” and they had got a definition of wine brandy in the body of the Bill. He was prepared to vote for the lower duty on wine brandy as defined in the Wine, Spirits, and Vinegar Act, but he could not vote to have the 5s. duty on a “faked” definition of a liquor which was not wine brandy. If the lower duty was fixed on that liquor, it meant that in the Transvaal the duty would be 5s., instead of 9s., and he pointed out that the report of the Black Peril Commission showed them the danger of giving natives opportunities of obtaining “rectified spirits of wine.” Wine brandy was an unrectified distillant, and would mature into a valuable article for European commerce. There should be some provision made for those who were anxious to vote for the reduced Excise duty on the real wine brandy, which was the best product that could possibly be made, and would not be deleterious to the health of those who consumed it; but he was not prepared to vote for the reduced duty on unrectified spirits of wine. The Government should allow Part I. to stand over until they got to the clause dealing with the definition of wine brandy in the Bill. All brandy, after that Bill was passed, should be wine brandy, as it was in the Cape at the present time.

In the general interests of the public it was their duty not to reduce the tax upon spirituous liquors, the consumption of which did so much to fill their gaols. He moved that part 1 stand over.

said at the present moment the duty on wine brandy in Cape Colony was 3s. They were going to raise that duty to 5s., so he did not see how they were going to cheapen it. What they were trying to do was to make a good spirit which would cost more.

said that there were two duties at the Cape. They had 3s. upon wine brandy and 6s. upon grape brandy. In the Cape House of Assembly they voted for the schedule at 3s., and they found that they voted for a duty upon silent spirit. Wine brandy in the Transvaal was subject to a duty of 9s., and they now proposed to reduce it to 5s.

said it was not necessary for this schedule to stand over. Assuming that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was right, they could go into the matter when they came to the definition. If the definition of his hon. friend was correct, then wine brandy, so limited, would bear an excise of 5s., and other brandies would bear 10s. Let them pass the schedule, and when the definition was settled, then they would see how the excise should be imposed.

said there was an old proverb, “Once bitten, twice shy,” and another that he would remind the Minister of, and that was, “Will you walk into my parlour, said the spider to the fly.” (Laughter.) What he wanted to do was to vote for the duty on pure wine brandy. Let them know where they stood, because if it were not pure wine brandy, then he intended voting for the duty of 10s.

said that if this schedule was passed, spirits other than wine brandy would go into the Provinces under 10s. excise. Other spirits made from sugar would go into the Provinces, except the Province where they were made, at 21s. If this were so, then it would be a manifest injustice. He hoped that they would allow this to stand over.

asked whether the Minister was not going to accede to the reasonable request made by his hon. friend. The Minister had said that if they voted for this he was prepared to alter what was in their minds. If this was going forward in its present form, the Minister would be doing his best to cheapen the price of inferior brandy. It was much better to say openly that they desired to debauch and encourage the natives to commit rape and outrage. Don’t let them have cant and hypocrisy about this. If this were to go through it would imperil the position of the white people of the country. (Ministerial dissent.)

pointed out that wine brandy was made in two ways. One was made by the farmers in a pot still and one was made by the distillers in a patent still.

asked that a fair chance should be given for discussing this.

There are two wine brandies.

No, no. Hon. members must confine themselves to the motion before the House.

desired to explain. There were two wine brandies. One wine brandy was defined in this Bill and one was defined in the Adulteration Act. His hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) had not said which brandy he meant.

said he had.

said that if the hon. member for Paarl was in favour of producing a good article he would vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said it was wrong to speak of two sorts of wine brandy. There was only one sort, though there were two sorts of brandy.

said the Minister must keep to the question before the Committee.

urged that they should deal with the clauses before they discussed the schedule.

said that if the Minister allowed this to stand over, there would be only one discussion instead of two.

put the motion, and declared the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

moved that progress be reported, seeing that they were only wasting the time of the House at this late stage of the session.

I hope the hon. member is not going to obstruct, because the Government are determined to pass this Bill, even if we have to sit another fortnight. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would withdraw his motion.

Then I will tell my right hon. friend that his Government has treated this House in a very discourteous way. Continuing, he said the Government had allowed members to go away, and they had facilitated the passing of numerous financial measures through their various stages, and if his right hon. friend did not accept the responsibility of his actions, then they would have to teach his right hon. friend his responsibility. (Opposition cheers.) He remarked just now, “Once bitten, twice shy.” He said it again, and he meant it this time. The language of the House would not allow him to describe what had been done in the way he should like to do. His right hon. friend would find out that this sort of thing was not going to pay in the long run. What they wanted was free, straightforward and honest administration, and it was unworthy of the Prime Minister to attempt to get this measure through after what he had told the House. He had held out hopes of an adjournment on Saturday, and induced many members on both sides to go away. Now he told the House that even if they sat for a week or fourteen days the Government was determined to press this measure through. Those who came back to that House would know what attitude to adopt in the future when they got a promise of this kind. (Opposition cheers.)

reiterated that there was no cause for furious speeches such as had just been made by the Leader of the Opposition. He would just tell the House that the Government did not intend to deceive the country. Certain stages of the Bill had been passed, and the proposals had been in operation since May 21st If they did not go any further with the measure now it would mean deceiving the people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knew perfectly well that from the very start the Government had decided going on with this Bill.

Why did you not announce what Bills you intended going on with?

said he had intended doing so and had consulted his colleagues on the matter. When he intended making his announcement he had to obtain the permission of Mr. Speaker, and hon. members opposite had objected, so that they were responsible themselves. At any rate, this measure could not be left over. Let them discuss the clause in dispute on its merits, and if necessary an amendment could be made. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had no right to impute motives to the Government. (Ministerial cheers.)

said it was painful to members on those benches to witness such a discussion. (Derisive laughter.) They liked to see things discussed calmly. (Derisive Ministerial and Opposition laughter.) After all, they knew that when members of a certain occupation fell out other honest men came by their own. (Laughter.) They heard now about all sorts of arrangements, but they on those benches had never heard of them. (Laughter.) He suggested to the Minister that he should drop this discussion, which was trying the tempers of hon. members on both sides, skip the next twenty orders or so, and discuss a matter which it would be a disgrace for Parliament to leave undebated. He did not wish to allow himself to sink to the level of taking part in an acrimonious debate. (Loud laughter.)

said he was exceedingly pleased to see that his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) had had a lesson the other evening and that he had profited by it. (Laughter.) Continuing, Sir Thomas gave the dates when the following Bills were before the House, Bills which were not being proceeded with: January 25, Arms and Ammunition Bill; February 6, Higher Education Bill; February 13, Registration of Deeds Bill; February 13, Lands Survey Bill; February 25, Magistrates’ Court Bill; February 28, Railways and Harbours Control and Management Bill, and May 22, the Bewaarplaatsen Bill, and on the same date they had the present Bill. Then they had the Perpetual Annuities Bill and the Natal Public Health Amendment Bill. The delay in proceeding with these measures was not on the part of the Opposition. Why was the Arms and Ammunition Bill dropped? His right hon. friend might have told the House that there was a clause in it which would make it difficult for the Bill to go through, but he (Sir Thomas) did not believe that for a moment. (Opposition laughter.) When they saw all these measures being dropped, and when they had done all they possibly could to facilitate business on the understanding that no more contentious subjects were to be taken, was it a matter for wonder that the Opposition objected to a Bill of this sort being proceeded with on what was practically the last day of the session, when there was an understanding that only formal business would be proceeded with? In the Bill was a question of the most vital importance. The right hon. gentleman might carry the Bill into law, but he would have to take the whole of the responsibility. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and many on the Government side, had been led into facilitating business on an understanding which was entirely foreign to anything connected with contentious matters. He protested most strongly. He acknowledged the Opposition had made a mistake, and that it had been led into a net, and his hon. friend knew it. The Treasurer also knew it.

Most ridiculous.

We have a right to move to report progress, and practically we get no consideration; we will use every possible means to delay the passage of the measure as long as we possibly can. (Opposition cheers.)

said the Prime Minister had appealed to him to withdraw the motion, but he (Mr. Long) had given very good reasons why it should not be withdrawn. When the resolutions on which the Bill was founded passed through Committee, it was on the clear understanding that the definition of wine brandy was the one given in the Wine, Spirits, and Vinegar Act. If the Minister of Finance had stated that he intended to alter the definition, the resolutions would not have gone through with the facility they did. That was an additional reason why he would not withdraw.

said the Prime Minister had explained away the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that he definitely undertook that business would come to a close on Saturday night. But did the Prime Minister give the House a single hint that this matter was coming forward?

It was on the paper.

said the Opposition had asked how much of the business on the paper was to be proceeded with. If the Prime Minister had then had it in his mind to bring this Bill forward, the Opposition was tricked and humbugged, because he must have known that there would be a debate on it, and it was not fair to allow members to go away under the impression that the session would end to-day, when the session was prolonged by the Prime Minister’s own action. If there was one thing in which the Transvaal had been unanimous—Dutchmen and Englishmen, townsmen and countrymen—it was that they were not going to foster the liquor traffic among the natives. (Cheers.) There was not a constituency where a man would not have forfeited his seat if he had said that he was going to foster the drink evil. The Rand had been branded as a university of crime. There was not a Transvaal or Free State member who dared to go back to his constituents and say that they had facilitated means which would lead to the committal of crime. Whatever happened now, the country would ring with the matter as soon as hon. members returned to their constituencies.

said they were going to cheapen this miserable stuff which they were going to pour down the throats of the natives. It could be produced at 3s. a gallon. The carriage amounted to 6d. or 8d. a gallon, and the duty 9s. a gallon, making it roughly 13s. a gallon in all. In other words it could be introduced into the Transvaal at a rate equivalent to the present excise. Continuing, the hon. member said Government did, not know its own mind on the subject. There could be two kinds of wine brandy, one defined under the measure before the House, and the other defined under the Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Act, so a fraud was likely to be perpetrated on the public.

There was one paragraph in that report of the Black Peril Commission, which showed that it was to the detriment of the Witwatersrand in the highest sense to allow spirits to be sent to the Transvaal at a cheaper rate than before. That paragraph would be found on page 15, and was as follows: “(1) On the Witwatersrand. The opinion has been expressed by many witnesses that the excessive use of liquor has an important bearing upon the matter of sexual assaults, and several assert that it lies at the root of the evil. The Chief Commissioner of Police for the Union states that statistics and close observations disclose the fact that liquor is undoubtedly responsible for 80 per cent. of crimes of violence amongst the natives and coloured population. The assailants generally ascribe their misdeeds to the results of drinking.”

The motion before the Committee is to report progress, and the hon. member must confine himself to that.

I should like to submit this point.

Everybody has that report.

Everybody does not read these reports. Proceeding, he said that, not only the assaults upon women, but assaults generally and all the crimes in the world were largely accentuated by excessive indulgence in liquor. Now the Government proposed to make it easier for these people to procure at a lower rate and introduce into the Transvaal this abominable stuff, which increased crime at an enormous rate. The Government were simply playing up to the wine farmers.

said that one might almost fancy that they were listening to a discussion on a Bill to facilitate the sale of liquor amongst natives, and not a taxing measure. If a Bill were introduced into that House to restrict the sale of liquor amongst natives, and also amongst white men, it would have his support. He did not know why they should not proceed to the discussion of the schedules. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, had said that no single member for the Transvaal would dare to go and meet his constituents on a Bill of this character. He (Mr. Neser) was quite prepared to go and meet his constituents, and to tell them that he had done his best to improve the brand of liquor which came into the Transvaal.

You are only reducing the price now.

We are raising it in the Cape. The question of price has absolutely nothing to do with it. Proceeding, he said he did not see how it would be possible to allow this measure to stand over, because it was already in operation.

said that the whole of the opposition was based on the definition of wine brandy. The Minister had got a definition of wine brandy in an Act already. Would he tell this House that he was prepared to accept that definition? Why should the Minister not take his own definition in the Adulteration Act?

said he was certain that, if the hon. member for Potchefstroom were not bound by party, he would vote for the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. They were asked to vote for a tax of 5s. on wine brandy. They objected, because it was too wide, and included certain brandies which they thought ought to pay 10s. They wanted to narrow that definition. They wanted to make it so that the only brandy going to the Transvaal would be the very best brandy, and not a brandy consisting of spirits of wine. He thought the Minister ought to allow this Bill to stand over until next session. Many members of that House had already gone away, thinking that this Bill would not be brought forward this session. The opposition to the Bill was so strong that, according to the rules of the House, the Minister would be unable to get it through before Tuesday next. He did not see any difficulty on the financial score if this Bill were dropped.

said he quite appreciated what had been said. No one would regret more than he the importation of bad feeling at that stage of the session. But hon. members opposite must understand the difficulties they were in. They had to deal with a business which was widely ramified throughout the whole country.

Business men had made arrangements of a far-reaching nature, on the understanding that this Bill was going through. It was quite impossible at this late stage to drop the Bill. He never anticipated that the formal stages of the Bill would have given so much trouble with regard to the definition of wine brandy. Don’t let them discuss the matter after the manner of the hon. member for Pretoria, East. Let them concentrate their attention on wine brandy and the treatment of Natal. These were the two points that were raised in Committee. If they confined themselves to these two points, he was sure they need mot delay the prorogation of Parliament. No Government could do as suggested; the business arrangements that had been made precluded such a possibility.

said he was also one of those people who thought it unwise to postpone the Bill. Let them go as far as they could. (Laughter.) It was in the Minister’s own hands entirely to remove one of the great points of objection. Surely it was a most extraordinary thing to have two Bills passed this session giving two different definitions of wine brandy. Could they wonder that some suspicion was aroused? At the same time he thought his hon. friend said much more than was necessary regarding the sale of liquor to natives. If the Minister would say that the definition of wine brandy was the same as in the Adulteration Bill, he believed that definition would be accepted. (Opposition cheers.) He had tried to find out why there should be different definitions and he had been told that it was to deal with stocks on hand, but he thought that by prescribing a period for the disposal of these stocks they would get over the difficulty. Nothing, however, had surprised him more than to see the two wings of the Government Party, on both sides of the House, whom he had often seen sitting with their arms round each other’s necks, now scratching each other’s eyes out. (Laughter.)

said if the Minister would accept the suggestion of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, let him say so, and that would satisfy him (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick). But don’t let the Minister make it so that they would have to realise that they had been fooled again.

said many telegrams had been received from Natal objecting to the Bill. They had talked with the Minister over this last Saturday, and understood that the Minister would go into the question of differentiation as between Natal and the other Provinces.

explained that when the Adulteration Bill was before the House the Minister in charge allowed the clause to stand over and eventually accepted the definition of what was wine brandy. Would the Minister now state definitely to the committee that he would accept the definition laid down by his colleague this session, otherwise it would take him a considerable time before the Bill went through?

said that if they gave way the Minister would not concede an inch.

said that they were also prepared to fight the free trade question. Why did the Minister not give them an assurance instead of smiling and waving his hands? Why did not the Minister tell them why he had put in this new definition? He thought they should report progress and that the Minister should re-consider the situation.

pointed out that in the Adulteration Bill there were two definitions of wine brandy.

Read on.

I have the Bill as passed at the second reading.

It was altered afterwards.

said that the definition was in conformity with the definition in the existing Cape Excise Act.

asked why the Minister did not frankly alter the definition. Was the Bill framed before the House made the new definition? There would be no loss of dignity if he made a change.

said there had been a great deal of misunderstanding on the point. They had in no way changed the definition. They had only taken away the word “wine” in one of the definitions. The present Bill would do away with bad dop brandy. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said they should protect grape brandy, but for one leaguer of good grape brandy 50 bad were made. He said that in the interests of the wine industry it was better to have differentiation, and class all grape brandy as dop for Excise purposes.

Business was suspended at 1 p.m.

said he felt certain that many members did not understand what would be the effect of the proposal of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, although he felt sure that the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) meant well by the wine industry. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort wished to have the same definition of wine brandy as that which appeared in the Adulteration Act, but the only alteration of the definition was the omission of the word “wine.” If the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort were adopted, the wine industry would be hit very hard, for wine brandy would be only about 2 per cent. of the entire production, and all the rest would go under the 10s. duty. All the pure wine brandies at present on the market would pay 10s., and the market would be flooded with bad stuff.

said he was extremely sorry that the hon. member for Worcester, with his knowledge of the subject, should have indulged in this piece of special pleading.

Thank you.

said the hon. member knew that the whole object of the alteration of the definition in the Wine and Spirits and Beer Bill was made for the purpose of having a first class article. The hon. member said that if the House did not agree with his proposal the country would be flooded with vile stuff, and dop would be made again. But the Bill did not allow dop, as it was originally known, to be manufactured, because dop as it was originally understood, was made from the refuse of the grapes. When the Minister of Justice introduced his Bill the definition was practically the same as the one in the measure now before the House. The Minister agreed that wine should be dropped out, because they could not call a product wine brandy when it was not wine brandy at all. While he (Sir Thomas) was prepared for a lower duty on wine brandy, there would be a good deal of misunderstanding if they made two definitions. The result was that the word “wine” was knocked out. In the Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Bill, the following definitions were given: Brandy means the distillate resulting from the distillation solely of wine; “wine brandy (cognac type)” means the distillate resulting solely from the distillation of wine the volatile constituents of which distillate (except water) are derived entirely from the wine, provided the distillate is not distilled at higher than twenty-two degrees over proof and such volatile constituents include not less than one hundred and twenty-five parts of higher alcohols calculated as amyl alcohol and three hundred parts of total secondary constituents per hundred thousand parts of alcohol; “grape brandy” means the distillate resulting from the distillation solely of grape juice, together with husks; “wine spirit” means the rectified distillate resulting from the distillation solely of wine. In the Excise Bill now before the House, wine brandy was defined as meaning an “Alcoholic liquor produced from the distillation of wine made solely from the juice of fresh grapes grown in the Union, and shall include liquor so produced which has been re-distilled.” In conclusion, Sir Thomas said they were not justified in reducing the Transvaal Excise except on the very purest article. When, in 1909, an Excise Bill was introduced into that House, he tried to point out what he was trying to point out now. Hon. members then considered that he was entirely wrong in connection with the conclusions he arrived at, and it was under that misapprehension that clause 4 of the Act defined wine brandy as distillate resulting from the distillation of wine or must. He said then that it would pay a 3s. duty, whereas the good article would have to pay 6s. duty. Would his hon. friends opposite tell him that since 1909 what he said would happen in the Cape of Good Hope had not actually come to pass? He maintained that if his hon. friend would not agree to accept the definition laid down in the Adulteration Act this very session, he should agree to report progress.

said that when the Wine, Vinegar, and Spirits Bill was introduced, there were three chapters in regard to spirits. There were brandy, wine brandy, and wine brandy (cognac type).

Grape brandy.

said that in section 14 of the Bill there were brandy, wine brandy, and spirits of wine. It was quite clear that, for the purpose of sale to the public, it was confusing to have so many types of spirits from wine, and it was necessary, if the public were not to be misled, to narrow these categories to a smaller number, and it was quite intelligible how the House, at the instance of his hon. friend, should come finally to narrow this down to this definition of wine brandy (cognac type). Now, if they wanted to sell a wine brandy to the public, it must conform to the definition in the Adulteration Act, but they might have spirits from wine, which were just as pure, if not purer. The whole idea in this Bill was to draw a distinction on the one hand between dop or grape brandy, which was distilled either from the grape or from the husks of the grape, and on the other, spirits made from wine. In the Bill before the House they had this distillation from grape or from husks, which was subject to this higher duty.

It is illegal to distil from husks now, and this Bill does not make it legal.

Well, from grapes. If you distil in a certain way you call it wine brandy (cognac type), and if you distil further, it does not make it purer on that account. Therefore, it seems impossible, so far as I can understand this matter, for us to adopt this very strict definition of wine brandy (cognac type), which was adopted in the Adulteration Act. There is no doubt that there is on enormous amount of spirit distilled from wine in this country to-day and sold in the market, and quite a good spirit, and it has displaced the cognacs or spirits which were imported from France and other countries. Proceeding, he said he was told that there was more than a million gallons per annum now distilled in this way. If they were to place this spirit on the same footing as grape brandy or dop brandy and increase the duty on that also from 3s. to 10s., the effect would be that, instead of encouraging the manufacture of this pure spirit, they would probably put it on a par again with dop and grape brandy. He thought that would be a backward step.

What duty does that pay now?

It pays 3s. now. Under the definition of my hon. friend, it would pay 10s. You would kill it at once.

What are they paying now in the Transvaal?

They all pay 9s. now, and we want to penalise this bad spirit, grape or dop, by placing an additional 1s. on it. The pure spirit you encourage by lowering the duty from 9s. to 5s. I think the arrangement come to here is quite feasible. The Government applies this simply to penalise the inferior article and help this spirit, which is just as pure as wine brandy (cognac type). I do not see how we can, for Excise purposes, draw a distinction. If we do, we are going to inflict a great hardship upon a large section of the community.

said if there was anything that ought to make the Minister allow the clause to stand over, it was the argument that he had just used. If there was anything that justified the statement made by the Minister when he said that he had not studied this question, it was the speech that he had made now. (Hear, hear.) If the Minister would try and study the subject, he was quite sure that he could be as clear as anyone in the House—if he chose.

On every platform throughout the country people who have dealt with this Excise question had asked what was the policy of the Government—whether it was to level up or to level down? The Minister had so worded his Bill that it seemed to him the policy was to level down, instead of levelling up. They had a 3s. duty at the Cape on wine brandy, a 9s. duty in the Transvaal, and a 6s. duty for the Orange Free State. Would anyone tell him that a rectified distillation was a purer spirit than pure grape brandy? (An Hon. Member: Yes, of course it is.) Well, the hon. member ought to know better. A pure grape brandy included the husks as well as the juice of the grape, but dop brandy was made from the skins of the grapes after the juice had been pressed out. Brandy could be made from most inferior articles, and passed through a patent still. Pure wine brandy included alcohol and ethers, which, by the breaking up of their peculiar constituents, became what was known as old wine brandy. His hon. friend knew quite well that rectified spirit, as such, would never improve, no matter how long it was kept. In this Bill they now proposed to stop anybody embarking upon a policy of maturing wine brandy. He made this statement again that, since the passage of the Bill in 1909, no brandy had been made saving and excepting that which came under the definition of wine brandy.

No, no!

Would the hon. member inform him if the duty which had been paid since then had not been the duty on wine brandy? It was 3s. a gallon, and not 6s. Why did his hon. friend want to reduce this duty upon this patent still spirit? It would not improve, but he expected the reduction would enhance its sale. Again the Minister had no right to introduce a Bill of this sort until he told them what his loss would be upon it. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he did not believe in differentiating the one Province against another Province. What they wanted to do was to improve their products all round. They had an example in the Transvaal, when Lord Milner bought up the Hatherley Distillery. He did not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but he believed that the country wanted to know exactly what they were doing. Let them not do as they did in the Act of 1909; but let them vote for this on the understanding that they knew exactly what they were voting for.

said the House had been put into a most extraordinary position in having to explain away a definition that they had already adopted.

said he did not think brandy was the only article that deserved consideration. There was rum, for instance. (Laughter.) That was equally desirable. (Laughter.) Of course, there were two classes of rum. There was the rum which maintained the heroes at Trafalgar—(laughter)—and there was the other kind of rum. which was not so good. He wanted to point out that this matter had been sprung upon the members for Natal. He had a definite assurance from the member for Cane Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), that this Bill was not going to be brought forward. (Loud laughter.) Well, he had looked upon the hon. member as being in the confidence of the Government, and therefore had accepted his statement. Here they were introducing a differentiating excise in the Provinces of South Africa. The only reason given was to encourage the making of good spirits, but they wanted to improve Natal rum just as much as they wanted to improve Cape brandy. (Hear, hear.)

wondered if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort could tell the difference between wine brandy and grape brandy. There were few experts who could do it. The debate which had been going on gave him the impression that hon. members did not know the difference. His district had always distilled grape brandy, and large quantities had been distilled. If the proposal of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was accepted large quantities of dop brandy would be thrown on the market as grape brandy. The hon. member for Worcester had really spoken against his own industry. They had always paid 6s. per gallon on grape brandy, which was a pure drink made from the vine, and was not a by-product. The case with Natal rum was altogether different, and he hoped, therefore, that, the Prime Minister would stand by the Bill.

said he could see that the object of the Bill before them was not to encourage, but to discourage the making of wine brandy of a cognac kind by allowing the inferior stun to have the benefit of the lower duty. The Bill also aimed at altering the definition as laid down in the Adulteration Act. The object of the change had been to make a market for inferior stuff, and that was the true inwardness of these new proposals. They were not going to allow it to pass, although the Minister might think that the House might relent because the Government would be placed in a difficulty. He was in favour of reporting progress to allow the Government time to reconsider the position.

replying to certain remarks by Sir T. W. Smartt, said Lord Milner had done great harm to Transvaal farmers by closing down the Hatherley distillery, as farmers used to bring large quantities of mealies to that distillery. He had thus allowed Cape dop and Natal rum to enter the country, whilst peach brandy was forbidden.

pointed out that the Adulteration Act was framed for the purpose of preventing adulteration, and had nothing to do with the excise on wine or other brandies.

Continuing, Dr. De Jager said that as two kinds of brandy were made it was necessary to lay down conditions which would defeat adulteration. Wine brandy made by a wine manufacturer was called “brandy,” but because it could be peculiarly adulterated they had to lay down what it was, and they defined it as brandy. At the same time they laid down a definition of brandy as made by the wine farmer. It had been said that they were going to send the inferior brandies to the Transvaal, but if there was one thing to the credit of the wine farmer it was that they had unanimously decided that dop should disappear. Yet they were accused of trying to flood the Transvaal with the inferior article. “We have,” said Dr. De Jager, “absolutely killed the inferior article.”

Who are “we?”

The people I represent. Continuing, Dr. De Jager said wine brandy could not be produced for less than 6s. 6d. a gallon; it cost 10d. per gallon to send it to the Transvaal, and the duty was 5s. a gallon. So how it was going to cost only 9s. a gallon in the Transvaal he could not understand. The wine brandy sent to the Transvaal was in bottles, while the dop used to go up in bulk, and it was the latter which was used by the illicit liquor dealers on the Rand. The wine farmers recognised that dop was an inferior article and did not do them credit. They were trying to produce better wine and brandy, and in pursuit of that object they had asked the House to legislate dop out of existence. There was no such thing now as dop. Once a wine farmer made his wine he either turned it into brandy by means of a pot still or he sold it to the merchants, who made it into brandy by means of a patent still. He hoped the House would not legislate in a way which would indirectly ruin the wine industry.

said that they had heard from the hon. member that it was the Natal rum that was doing mischief in the Transvaal. He (Mr. Henwood) denied that, and quoted figures showing that, while the police seized large quantities of dop, F.C. brandy, Cape sherry, gin, and wine, they made no seizure of Natal rum. It was now proposed to reduce the excise on wine brandy in Natal, reduced from 9s. to 5s., and to raise rum from 9s. to 10s. He maintained that that was in conflict with clause 136 of the Act of Union. He thought the Government would be well advised if they agreed to report progress.

said that one of the best reasons for reporting progress was that the people most concerned in the matter, the people in the Transvaal, had not been asked whether they would like this reduction to be made. The Cape spirit sent into the Transvaal was not drunk by the white people, or their small coloured population, but it went to the natives. “If,” said Mr. Rockey, “it is the wish of the Cape wine farmer and the people down here to degrade their own people, surely it is not too much to ask that they shall not degrade in any way the people in our country. Leave that job to us. (Laughter.) I mean, leave us to look after it. I am sure that, deep down in the subtle mind of the Minister, he does not believe, he cannot believe, that the reduction of the excise duty in the Transvaal is a good thing for the Transvaal. He knows that, if he had come to this House with a proposal to raise the excise on this cheap liquor, he would have had the whole of the people supporting him.” The hon. member referred to the evil effects of the cheap liquor trade amongst white women and girls employed in the illicit sale of liquor. He urged that the Minister should go back to the Transvaal and ask the people there whether they would have this excise reduced or have it increased? He was sure the answer would be that they would rather have it doubled.

said he understood that it would be extremely difficult for the excise officers to distinguish between this so-called wine and the cheap brandy made in the Cape. If it were not the intention of the Government to encourage the additional sale of Cape brandy in the Transvaal, why was the rate to be reduced? The question involved issues of far greater importance than taxation merely. The effect of this change would be that whereas the duty on Cape wine brandy was to be reduced to 5s. all over the Union, the Minister was raising the excise on other articles which went into the Transvaal. Now rum did not go into the Transvaal, and all they asked was that the taxation should be on the strength of the alcohol, and not on any particular make or product of one Province as distinguishable from another Province. He saw no reason whatever why the Government should not allow this Bill to stand over till next Session.

said that, after the remarks which had been made in regard to losses that would be sustained by the industry, he would suggest that they should be allowed a period of two years. Nobody wanted to inflict a hardship on the industry, but they did object to laying down an unjust principle. If this Bill came into operation there would be much more of this inferior article made. He was quite prepared to agree that the existing stocks should be protected, say, for 18 months or two years. But do not let the public think that they were going to reduce the prices of strong drink. It was not fair even from the financial condition of the country to make these reductions, and certainly not fair if they had any regard for the morals of the country.

said that he had heard members say on both sides of the House that they were not well acquainted with this question of the definition of wine brandy and grape brandy. He thought time should be given for members to have an opportunity to make themselves acquainted with the matter. Proceeding, the hon. member said he wanted to point out that this illicit drink traffic was the curse of the Transvaal. He contended also that the Government, by legislation of this kind, would bring the curse of the country upon its head.

said although the population of Durban and its surroundings were larger than Cape Town, they would see more drunkenness in Cape Town on a Saturday night than they would see in Durban in a year. This was because of the cheap liquor that was being sold. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the Commission’s report, showing how great a number of girls and women were engaged in this illicit liquor traffic. Of all the bad things that had been suggested the worst of all was this suggestion to cheapen liquor in the Transvaal.

said that when the hon. Minister suggested that they should go into committee, hon. members had no other idea in their heads than that the definition of wine brandy, as laid down by the Wine and Spirits Adulteration Act, was going to be adopted. He appealed to the Minister again to agree to the suggestion to allow this to stand over.

said that he was going to support the proposal to report progress. He would not have risen to speak had it not been for the fact that a good deal was being made of the illicit liquor traffic on the Rand in connection with this matter. If hon. members thought that the illicit liquor trade was going to be safe under the present Excise they were mistaken. He agreed that the Minister should reconsider the whole matter, but he did not think that the extra amount of duty would make such a great deal of difference as some people seemed to imagine. The standard rate for liquor paid by the natives was ten shillings a bottle, and he did not think that this question of Excise should be confounded too much with the illicit liquor trade. The whole liquor system was a wicked system in itself, and in all sorts of ways the evils of the system were re-acting upon the community.

said they knew very well that the amount of the duty charged was not going to stop the illicit liquor trade, but if the Excise was going to be reduced from 9s. to 5s.—

It only means a little more profit.

But it will increase the trade considerably.

They will be a little richer as the result.

said he did not think that the Minister could have closely studied the financial effects of the measure which they were discussing. Last year on South African spirits the amount raised was £146,000. That was when the duty was 9s. Now, practically, the duty was going to be reduced from 9s. to 5s. on the vast bulk of the spirits that were sent to the other Provinces. Instead of brandy paying 9s., it would pay 5s. If they adopted the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort the matured article would not be restricted. The proper and best article took six years to mature.

This stuff that they were going to send in under the definition of the Bill could be made in a fortnight or a month. That was the essential difference between the two, and he did not think that the Transvaal and Free State members quite knew what they were doing. What was going to be the position? They were simply placing a big bonus on the production of the wine farmers of the Western Province. The wine farmers would be the people who would reap the benefit. The price of wine brandy per leaguer was £32, and the price for the same quantity of ordinary brandy was £16. Could they be surprised that members of that House, who were speaking on behalf of a certain industry in Natal, were grumbling at the proposal before the House? He thought that it was a most ridiculous proposal.

said that he had listened to the discussion with the greatest care, because he was not one who would hold up the House at that late stage of the session without some justification. By the proposals that were embodied in the Bill, they were going to discourage the best of the brandy that was being made in this country. That was, he thought, the strongest argument why hon. members of that House should support the motion that progress should be reported. Dealing with the manufacture of the best brandies in the world, he said that if it were possible to get the article that was required by some rapid means of distillation, it would be common practice to manufacture in that way. Nobody would dream of putting the stuff into vats and keeping it for years if there was some royal and rapid road to the object that was aimed at. He thought that the superior spirit should be allowed to come in on the more favourable terms. Who was going to manufacture spirits of the best class when they could, under the same conditions, sell the spirits without going to all the Trouble of maturing? He thought that the procedure that was being adopted by the Minister in the Bill would deal a big blow at the brandy industry of this country. He thought that the Minister should be reasonable and report progress. If he did not he would find that the Bill would take a considerable time to pass. Nobody wished to detain the House needlessly, but the Minister was doing the wrong thing that day, and they felt bound to protest. He hoped the Minister would take a sensible view of the situation and not stick to his determination to rush the thing through, when the results would be so unfortunate.

said that early that morning they pleaded for information so that this question might be properly discussed. They asked the Minister to let the schedule stand over until they could come to an understanding as to what they were going to legislate about. The whole discussion had centred around that point, and if that had not convinced the Minister that he should follow the course proposed, then it ought to have done so.

The Minister said this morning: “Take the schedule first and discuss the rest later on.” The last remark the Minister made was that he was not going to accept the definition contained in the Wine, Spirits, and Vinegar Act. Then what was the purpose of asking them to wait and discuss it later on? That was plainly a trap, and it was not the way to get legislation through. The people of the Transvaal had not been consulted. They did not even know of the proposal of the Government, and the first intimation they would receive would be when they read of to-day’s debate. The biggest grievance the Transvaal people had several years ago was the illicit liquor traffic. No member for the Transvaal or the Free State could justify the proposed reduction, and not a fraction of their constituents would tolerate it, and yet, without a single word of warning, it wits to be forced through the House on the last days of the session. The reduction of Excise from 9s. to 5s. a gallon must mean a loss of revenue. The Minister of Finance had already budgeted for a deficit, and if the reduction of duty did not mean a loss of revenue, it was to be made up by increased sales. But if not, and if the deficit were to be increased, what justification was there for it? This liquor was to be pumped down the throats of the unfortunate natives. He hoped that the wine industry would be put on the soundest basis and that it would be given every encouragement to produce the best brandy in the best way. But to pass this, in the face of the strongest opposition, and the Transvaal was the market for this—

The Cape.

If we had as much attention and as many microscopes applied to Cape Town and its suburbs as are applied to Johannesburg, you would find the same amount of drunkenness here as there.

Not drunkenness.

Let us adjourn now and drive to Muizenberg, and I guarantee you will find 200 people drunk on the road. To that extent there is a considerable market here, but that is not the object of the Bill.

Continuing, Sir Percy said that the reduced Excise would be another stimulus to crime, and meanwhile the Transvaal had to bear the odium and to pay the price. That was not the right way to encourage the industry. The motion to report progress was a protest against the way in which the Government had acted, and was a demand that the people should know the facts before an important change of this kind was put upon them. The extent of the scandal would be demonstrated when he said that the outrage which was to be committed was not yet in print. The Opposition would keep this matter going, and the Government would not get the measure through before Wednesday. By that time, if expressions of public opinion denouncing the proposal were not received, he would withdraw his opposition. Many hon. members were now on their way home, and they would read with amazement that a fresh proposal had been sprung on the House after they were practically guaranteed that nothing fresh would be introduced. (Opposition cheers.)

called attention to the fact that there was no quorum at present

A quorum having been formed,

said he did not think the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was justified in saying that the Opposition was trapped. There was full and fair discussion in Committee of Ways and Means when the rate of duty was considered.

said the hon. member misunderstood him. He (Sir Percy) was referring to a declaration made by the Prime Minister, when the latter was asked what business there was for the House to do. The Prime Minister replied that it was a special occasion, and he held out the belief that the business would be finished on Saturday.

said it seemed to him they had been arguing in a circle the whole of the afternoon. (Hear, hear.) Let them get hold of the definition, and fight it out, and then they would get ahead.

said that was exactly what the Opposition suggested early in the morning. (Opposition cheers.) They then suggested that, as the definition was a material point, it was only fair that it should be thrashed out first. The hon. member for Potchefstroom had shown in two speeches he had made to-day on this question that he had totally failed to appreciate the point threshed home by hon. members on that side of the House. They had been trying all along to make the point that the definition in this Bill was very much wider, and included a larger class of spirits than the definition contained in the Act already passed this session. He could only say, after listening to the arguments of the hon. gentlemen who now occupied the Ministerial benches on this subject, that they did not seem to have realised how difficult was the field into which they were putting the sickle of argument that afternoon. They did not seem to have realised the elements of the subject. The members of the Union Cabinet were at present being influenced and dominated by the hon. member for Worcester. He thought that progress should be reported, because, in the opinion of hon. members on that side, there was not the slightest chance of this Bill going through this session. Resistance to this measure, which was first based on the differentiation with regard to Excise between Natal rum and the produce of other Provinces, had been reinforced by the objection to the alteration of the definition of wine brandy in this Bill, as compared with the definition contained in the Wine, Spirits, and Vinegar Act. It must be obvious that at this time of the session, when many members were on their way home, that if there was a determined opposition to this measure, there would be no chance of its going through. The mere giving way, however, upon the point he had mentioned would not be sufficient. This objection to the definition of wine brandy was only one of two objections. The other objection was the differentiation as between the Province of Natal and the Transvaal.

said there was no truth in the statement that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government by the wine farmers. This product was largely a product manufactured by the wine merchants, and if they could get over the difficulty, then they might be able to arrange matters satisfactorily. If they (adopted the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, giving a time limit by which stocks in hand could be sold, then they might adopt the definition already embodied in the Adulteration Act. If this was agreed to, then he thought the principal bone of contention would dis appear. Then, with regard to the question of free trade, that was a matter of form, perhaps, more than anything else. The prohibition with regard to Natal could be overcome, so as that it would not infringe upon the principle of free trade embodied in the Constitution. The new tariff was in operation, and it would dislocate business if they were to upset arrangements. The best thing, therefore, would be to go on with the schedule as already stated. He was sorry, in a way, that they had started with the schedule, but that bad been the usual form. Then, when they came to the clauses, he would take the suggestions into consideration, and draft amendments accordingly.

said that after the statement made by the Minister, they would realise that they had not unduly delayed the business of the House. He had been dealing with the question as far as brandy was concerned, but he did not want to do any injustice to anybody. He only wanted to lay down the general principle that, wherever possible, they should improve their products. If the Minister would give that assurance, that he would take that definition as laid down in his hon. friend’s Bill, and that he would frame some amendments, so that they would know that they had one duty on a wine product and another duty on spirits, and assure them that there would be no countervailing duties as between one Province and another, he was quite prepared to give every protection up to two years on existing stocks, as it was never his intention to penalise anybody.

said that he never heard a stronger argument for reporting progress than the statement made by the Minister himself. The best thing that he could do was to accept the motion before the House and report progress. Let the hon. member put his two little amendments on the paper for Monday.

endorsed the view taken by the hon. member for Victoria County. The only action to stop the debate would be for the Minister to accept the motion.

said that he would propose that the following should be inserted in the schedule: Spirits distilled from any product or by product of sugar cane or from sugar or molasses (subject to a rebate of 5s. per gallon on such spirit when consumed in the Province of Natal), 15s. That would leave the duty on rum in Natal what it was now, but if it were brought into any other Province it would pay 15s. There would simply be a differential excise on spirits manufactured from sugar or the by-products of sugar.

said they had got to recognise there was differentiation to some extent. Seeing that there was such a large quantity of this rum exported could not they give something by way of compensation—say a bonus on exports and thus encourage the export trade?

said that the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria West was not entirely satisfactory. If the Government were prepared to put spirits on the same basis as Natal that would be satisfactory.

What other spirits?

All save wine brandy.

said that the Government did not seem to understand the position of Natal. Unless they saw the amendment on the paper he thought they could not stop their opposition to the measure.

said he thought that the Natal members should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, because grape brandy, owing to the excise, would not survive.

said that he did not object to 21s. on Natal rum if there was 21s. put on all brandy save wine brandy. If grape brandy was dead why be afraid of putting 21s. on it? He did not think that the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West did any good at all.

appealed to the Minister to put the amendments on the paper.

said that the acceptance of the suggestions that had been made would mean recasting the Bill—not the scheme or the taxation, but the framework of the Bill—and they would have to get back to Committee of Ways and Means. This would take time, and they would lose time by adjourning now.

If hon. members would agree to sit at ten on Monday morning, he would have time to work the proposals out.

said he would amend his motion as follows: “To report progress and ask leave to sit again.”

said Natal had no objection to wine brandy if it were to be defined as desired by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and that all other spirits should be put on the same basis, and that there should be no differentiation.

hoped the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) would bear in mind that dop—although called an inferior spirit—was a better spirit than rum. It had been killed. If we had perfect equality we would do the same with Natal rum, but Natal had always been favoured. (Laughter.)

suggested that special steps should be taken so that the amendments could be in the hands of hon. members at the earliest possible moment in view of the fact that they were to be considered on Monday morning. Then they would like to know in what respect was the product of mealies, potatoes, or sugar-cane essentially inferior to certain products of the vine.

referred to methylated spirits and its connection with the illicit liquor traffic in the Transvaal, and hoped the Minister would consider the question, and put an amendment on the paper which would, as far as possible, protect the natives on the Rand from it.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.

read a message from the Senate transmitting the Children’s Protection Bill, in which the Senate had made two amendments.

moved that the amendments be concurred in.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the House, at its rising to-day, adjourn, and Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, do suspend business on Monday at one o’clock p.m. until a quarter past two o’clock p.m.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Cape Liquor Licensing Courts Amendment Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

moved to omit “part of,” from line 18.

moved to omit all the words after “municipality” to “therein,” for the purpose of inserting “provided that the Councillor so chosen shall be one of the Councillors elected for the area in question, or for one of the wards comprising such area.”

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 2,

moved, after “Courts,” to add, “and Liquor Laws.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were agreed to.