presented a petition bearing 3,303 signatures of inhabitants of the Cape Peninsula in favour of the Direct Popular Vote in regard to the issue of licences.

from Annie M. du Biel, teacher, for condonation of a break in her service.

from registered voters in Smithfield, for construction of a railway from Bethanie Station to Rouxville via Reddersburg and Smithfield, instead of from Edenburg to Rouxville via Smithfield, as previously prayed for (three petitions).

from the Mayor, and inhabitants of Bloemfontein, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.

from F. Moncrieff, railway officer, for leave to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund.

Papers relating to Land Grants Nos. 63 to 67.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

laid on the Table an amended notice of motion in reference to the motion that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider certain financial proposals. He explained that it had been necessary to introduce a number of small drafting amendments into the tariff to make it clearer, and rather than move this at a later stage as an amendment it was better to have the whole of it printed now. He had, therefore, handed in this amended notice.

said that he would like to mention a matter in regard to which he spoke privately to the Minister of Finance the other day, when he asked him whether, when he placed the Customs Tariff on the Table of the House, he would have it set out so that the old tariff and the new tariff were shown side by side.

That is being done. I hope that hon. members to-morrow will have a little schedule in their hands showing the alterations made in the tariff, the old tariff, and the proceeds which we expect to receive.

said that he now laid on the Table, as promised last night, a return of the capital cost of rolling stock in the service of the railways and harbours at March 31, 1913, and estimated depreciation unprovided for at that date.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries: (1) Whether the farm Kareepan, No. 164, district Bloemhof, is now and has for some months been worked as a public digging, although not formally proclaimed (2) whether this farm is leased by one individual who levies a toll of 10 per cent. on the value of diamonds found from some 80 diggers at present at work thereon; (3) whether this lessee further makes it a condition for leave to dig that the digger shall purchase his requirements at a particular store; and (4) if so, will the Minister take steps to have the farm duly proclaimed so that this state of things may be brought to a close?

replied: (1) Prospecting for diamonds has been carried on on this farm since October, 1913. (2) The answer is in the affirmative. (3) The answer is in the negative. (4) I am advised that the payable area is too small to warrant the proclamation of this farm. Discoverers’ claims will cover the proved payable area.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What is the number of salaried staff who have been in the Railways and Harbours Service for a period of one year and over, and have not yet been placed on the permanent staff, in terms of clause 127 of the Staff Regulations; and (2) what is the number of daily-paid employees who have been in the Railways and Harbours Service for a period of two years and over, and have not yet been placed on the permanent staff, in terms of clause 127 of the Staff Regulations?

replied: (1) 519; but the salaried staff are governed by Regulation 10, not 127. (2) 2,824.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the ticket examiners at Pretoria and elsewhere, who were reduced to the position of guards upon re-employment after the recent strike, have been restored to their former positions, in accordance with the spirit of the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Act. 1914?

replied: When the ticket examiners in question applied for reinstatement after the strike, there were no vacancies for them in the ticket-examiner grade, but rather than refuse them reemployment, the Administration reinstated them in other capacities at their pre-strike pay. As soon as the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Act became law, the General Manager issued general instructions to the effect that all men who applied for re-employment before January 27, and were taken back on or before February 28, were to receive their old rates of pay from the date of reinstatement, and were, wherever possible, to revert to their former occupations, in cases where this had not already been done. Should it not be found possible immediately to reinstate certain men in their former grades, heads of departments are required to furnish lists of such men to headquarters, in order that their claims may be considered as vacancies arise in the grades in which they were formerly employed. In all, thirteen of the ticket examiners who went on strike are at present acting as guards.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) What payment per diem is made to the Government for the 1,300 native convicts leased to De Beers Company; (2) what payment per diem is made for the 80 native convicts leased to the East Rand Proprietary Mines; (3) whether the Government invite public tenders for such convict labour or follow a system of private selections; and (4) whether the Government will consider the advisability of discontinuing the leasing out of convicts to private employers?

replied: (1) During 1913 the De Beers Company paid £61,642 18s 9d., being the costs of maintaining the institution for that year, plus 2d. per head per day in respect of the services of convicts located in the De Beers Convict Prison. (2) Only 145 convicts are at present employed by the East Rand Proprietary Mines, in respect of whose services 1s. 6d. per head per day is paid. (3) No public tenders are invited. The De Beers agreement is a long standing one, dating back to 1889. The principles followed in letting out convict labour are set forth in section 93 of the Prisons Act. (4) The Government is not prepared to depart from the principles laid down in the said section of the Prisons Act while it stands on the Statute-book.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) What is the amount of annual leave due to assistants with a Union salary, of £170 per annum, who at the time of the passing of the Act of Union were styled junior assistants in the late Transvaal Service; and (2) has the Government considered, in accordance with the promise made in October, 1913, the question of inadequate travelling and relief allowances, and, if so, what is the decision allowed at?

(1) At the date of Union the officers referred to were eligible for four weeks’ leave a year, two of which were accumulative up to a maximum of three months. Such leave privileges are being continued to them pending the promulgation of new leave regulations for the Union. (2) The matter is still under the consideration of the Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will meet the wishes of the wood-cutters by selling to them in the Midlands and other conservancies “Komassi” wood in larger quantities, so as to meet the demand for exportation to European markets?

Komassi only grows in the Midland Conservancy, and it is not considered desirable to increase the amount of Komassi to be disposed of this season, as the supply, being limited, that would involve making a corresponding reduction in the quantity to be sold during the next and subsequent years, and this would not be in the best interests of the wood-cutters.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) How many Inspectors of Lands are there for the Zoutpansberg district; (2) what are their names and qualifications; and (3) when were they appointed?

replied: (1) One. (2) P. W. Moller, who previously held the position of Field-cornet, and has special knowledge of farming, land valuation, etc., in the Zoutpansberg district. (3) 1st ultimo.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether there is any truth in the report that the recently advertised vacancy in the Railway Medical Service at Salt River, has been filled not from the ranks of the officers in the Railway Medical Service, many of whom are men of long and tried experience, but by the appointment of a young medical man who has recently arrived from Europe, and who has had no local and not much other experience; (3) whether, in the opinion of the Minister, it is desirable that the best appointments in this branch of the service should be filled without recognition of old servants; and (3) whether, if the report be correct, he will take steps to have the matter reconsidered.

replied: (1) No appointment has yet been made, so that the report to which the hon. member refers is obviously incorrect. I am advised, however, that the applications for the vacant Railway Medical officership will be considered at a meeting of the Sick Fund Executive Committee to be held this week, when a decision will, it is expected, be arrived at. (2) Railway Medical Officers are appointed and controlled not by the Administration, but by the sick fund—vide section 66 of the Sick Fund Regulations—and I have no reason to doubt that the appointment which the Sick Fund Board decides to make will be the one it considers to be in the best interests of the fund and its contributors. (3) This question falls to the ground.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What was the total amount of undercharges made by the Railway Department during the last financial year, how much of that sum was again collected, and who is charged with the balance; and (2) what was the total amount overcharged, how much of that sum has been reclaimed, and under what heading is the unclaimed balance entered?

replied: (1) Full particulars of undercharges and overcharges can only be ascertained by reference to stations, and the work and expense which the compilation of this information would entail would be considerable. Undercharges which are irrecoverable are written off and charged to “Bad Debts” Account. The sum thus written off last year was approximately £500. (2) Any overcharges collected are refunded as soon as the mistake is discovered, even in cases where applications for a refund have not been made. Overcharges which cannot be rebated, due to failure to find the person entitled to the refund, are credited to “Miscellaneous Revenue. ”

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Have a number of the daily-paid employees of the Railways and Harbours Service had refunded to them the pay deducted from 1907; (2) were men who should have been placed on the Cape Fixed Establishment, in consequence of the retrenchment, kept back until 1908 or thereafter, and suffered in consequence; and (3) has one, Henry Mann, of Port Elizabeth, who has now resigned the service, and who was one of those reduced in salary, made application for a refund, and what reason is there why he should not get the same, though not now in the service?

(1) Yes. (2) Yes; but these cases have been adjusted by the Union Administration on the lines of the recommendations of the Grievances Commission. (3) Yes; but as Mann voluntarily resigned the service, it is not considered he has any claim to a refund. This matter has been carefully considered by the Railway Board, which has decided that adjustments should be made in the case of men retired at the instance of the Administration, i.e., on the grounds of retrenchment, ill-health, or old age, but that refunds should not be made to men who left voluntarily by resignation, or to those who were dismissed.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) How many persons were discharged from the railway service at Pretoria during November and December, 1913; (2) how many years had those persons served; (3) from which countries did they originally come; and (4) what were their wages at the time they were discharged?

then laid upon the Table: Return showing: (1) The number of employees discharged from the railway service at Pretoria during November and December, 1913; (2) their length of service; (3) the countries in which they were born; and (4) their wages at the date of discharge.

The return was as follows:

Bolton. C.: Length of service, 13 years; country of birth, England; rate of pay at date of discharge, including local allowance, £240 p.a.; age limit.

Champion, T.: 13 years; England; 16s. p.d.; age limit.

Pieters, J.: 10 years 6 months; Holland; 19s. p.d.; ill-health.

Dow, D. W. A.: 1 year 3 months; Scotland; 19s. p.d.

Wilkes, C. T.: 1 year 3 months; England; 17s. p.d.

Upcott, H.: 1 year 3 months; England; 19s. p.d.

Bailey, C.: 11 months; South Africa; 12s. p.d.

Gerhardt, R.: 5 months; Transvaal; 17s. p.d.

Van der Merwe, M.: 3 months; Transvaal; 4s. p.d.; white labourer.

Shaw, A.: 2 months; Cape Colony; 17s. p.d.

Kraamwinkle, F.: 2 months; Holland; 17s. p.d.

Soeder, P.: 2 months; Holland; 17s. p.d.

White, A.: 2 months; Scotland; 17s. p.d.

Spafford, H.: 2 months; England; 17s. p.d.

Davie, C.: 1½ months; Scotland; 17s p.d.

Curtis, T.: 1 month; Ireland; 17s. p.d.

Arsendorp, H.: 1 month; Holland; 17s. p.d.

Moorman, Y. C.: 1 month; Holland; 17s. p.d.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what was the amount paid out for 1912 and 1913 by (1) the Railway and (2) the Harbour Administration to the daily paid staff in wages, showing (a) ordinary wages; (b) overtime payments; (c) amount paid for piecework in excess of rated daily wage; (d) special bonuses or any other extras; and (e) the total wages bill?

asked the hon. member not to press for this answer, as it would involve very considerable labour and cost £400.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) What is the area of Crown land in the following wards respectively, viz., Rustenburg district, Ward Crocodile River; Waterberg district, Wards Zoutpan and Koedoesrand; Zoutpansberg district, Wards Mara, Klein Lataba, Klein Spelonken, and Low Country Barberton district, Ward Sabie; and Lydenburg district, Ward Ohrigstad; (2) what is the amount of money spent by the Union Government since 1910 on permanent improvements for white occupation on land in each of the above wards; and (3) what is the number of white settlers thereon since 1910 in each ward, and how many of these settlers are on the land to-day?

I must ask the hon. member to postpone his question for at least a fortnight, as the information desired by him will have to be specially prepared.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for the consideration of the motion for the second reading of the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, considering the large number of persons who are interested in the subject?

In view of the important questions which at this late stage of the session still require the consideration of this House, it will not, I am sorry to say, be possible to grant special facilities for the consideration of this motion.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether about 3,000 picked railway sleepers were delivered by the South African Railways on General Botha’s farm during last month at 1s. 6d. each, including carriage; (2) how does the price mentioned compare with prices realised for similar articles when sold by public auction; (3) were the 3,000 sleepers above mentioned put up for public tender; and, if not (4), what is the reason that the Prime Minister is given preference over the general public?

The answer to question No. 1 is “No.” The other questions therefore fall to the ground.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries whether Mr. Percy Ross Frames, who is to represent the Premier Company at the Diamond Trade Conference in London, is the gentleman who sat on the Voorspoed Mine Commission as the paid representative of De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.?

Mr. Ross Frames, who is representing the Premier Company at the Diamond Trade Conference in London, is the well-known expert on diamond matters and is managing director of the Premier Company. He was recently appointed under section 52 of the Precious Stones Ordinance, No. 4 of 1904, of the Orange Free State by the De Beers Company as an expert representative on the Board appointed under that section for the investigation of the question of the working of the Voorspoed Mine.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether H. Chapman, engine-driver in the service of the Administration, is being transferred from Johannesburg to Touws River pending his retirement from the service on August 1 next; (2) whether Mr. Chapman has just returned from six months’ leave of absence, and was away from South Africa during the railway strike in January last; (3) whether the cause of Mr. Chapman’s being retired is that he is a member of the Executive of the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants, a society which the Government undertook in July last to recognise officially upon certain conditions; and (4) whether the Minister will lay on the Table all papers connected with the proposed retirement of Mr. Chapman?

(1) Yes, driver H. Chapman is being retired as from August 1 next, but as his services are not required at Johannesburg he has been given the option of transferring to Touws River pending retirement or retiring at once. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) No. It is not usual nor is it considered necessary, and it is certainly not in the public interest to lay upon the Table the papers connected with the retirement of employees of the Administration.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Is it a fact, that the Government recently called for tenders for the binding of about 400 books, and that the successful tenderer was the Breakwater Convict Station; (2) whether he considers the encouragement of such competition between free and convict labour is fair and in the best interests of the country; and (3) will he take steps, if the facts are as stated, to discontinue such practice?

No tenders were called for. Certain Government bookbinding work is performed at the Reformatory at the Breakwater, where bookbinding and other trades are taught. Any training or encouragement which can be given to the boys at that institution which will fit them to become useful members of the community when their period of detention expires is deserving of the highest commendation on the part of all those persons who have the real interests of the country at heart; and I am not prepared, by diverting work of this nature from the reformatory, to interfere with the usefulness of that institution.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) Whether he is aware that the Natal Provincial Council has passed an Ordinance for the purpose of giving power to the Dundee Town Council to borrow money to purchase land in order to sell and lease it to natives; (2) whether the sanction of the Governor-General-in-Council was promised in advance; and, if so; (3) is this legislation not in conflict with the spirit of the Natives Land Act, seeing that the Area Allocation Commission has not yet reported?

replied: (1) The Natal Provincial Council has passed a Private Ordinance: “To authorise the purchase of a portion of the farm ‘Coalfields’ by the Town Council of the Borough of Dundee, in the Province of Natal, and to empower the Town Council to sell or lease portions of the said land, and to confer further borrowing powers upon the Town Council.” This Ordinance has been submitted for the assent of the Governor-General-in-Council. (2) It is the intention of the Dundee Town Council to establish a municipal location on the land, but before this is done the land intended to be used for the purpose must be approved by the Governor-General-in-Council in terms of Natal Act No. 2 of 1904. Such approval has not yet been applied for or given, but the Government intimated that they offered no objection to the Draft Ordinance. (3) The Ordinance is not in conflict with the spirit or provisions of the Natives Land Act.

asked the Minister of Justice whether, seeing the Government possesses ground in the village of Willemsdal, which is suitable for the erection of a police station, he intends, specially in the interests of the inhabitants there, and generally in the interests of the taxpayers, to transfer the police station from the Railway Station to the village, and if so, when; and if not, why not?

replied: It is not proposed to transfer the police station from the vicinity of the Railway Station at Greylingstad to Willemsdal. The village of Willemsdal is only a mile and a quarter distant from Greylingstad, and in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police receives ample police protection from the police station at Greylingstad.

asked the Minister of Lands: Whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Senator Colonel Byron, in speaking at a public meeting in Pietermaritzburg on land settlement, that there seemed to be a difficulty in operating the Act owing to the lack of land, but that at the same time several Ministers had succeeded in acquiring very large tracts of land, so that the difficulty evidently did not apply in their case, and, if so, will the Minister give the names of any Ministers who have acquired land under the Land Settlement Act, with the extent of land so acquired, and the dates of its acquisition?

replied: My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to. No land has been acquired by any Minister under the Land Settlement Act, nor am I aware of any Ministers having in any case acquired large tracts of land as alleged by the Senator.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is a fact that twelve railwaymen have recently arrived in South Africa under a three years’ contract to the Union Government, and, if so, what is the reason for this, in view of the fact that retrenchment is said to be necessary?

replied that he knew nothing about it.

asked the Prime Minister: What steps, if any, have been taken by the Government to improve the conditions of the poverty-stricken white diggers on the alluvial diamond fields of the Union?

replied: It is not quite clear to me from the question of the hon. member what information he requires. If he will put the question in a more definite form I shall be glad to answer it at a later date.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether regulations have been drafted for the General Division of the Public Service, and, if so, when does he intend to have them printed and put into circulation amongst the officers in the various departments?

As soon as certain questions connected with the Public Service, with which a Select Committee of this House is at present dealing, are settled, it is my intention to proceed with the regulations.

asked the Minister of the Interior what provision has the Government made for the support of the wife and family of Private Bishop, who was shot in the arm last July in the streets of Johannesburg, while doing ambulance work?

Mr. Bishop’s wife and family are with him in London, where he is undergoing special treatment. He was granted full salary by the Railway Administration up to the end of January. The passages for himself, his wife and family to England were provided by the Government, which has undertaken liability for the reasonable costs of his treatment, and is also making an allowance of £3 per week for the maintenance of Mr. Bishop, his wife and family. The latest reports indicate that there is a good prospect of Bishop regaining the use of his injured arm and being able to resume his work in the Railway service

asked the Minister of Lands whether the Minister has seen the statement reported to have been made by Captain Madge, who presided at a meeting of the Transvaal Land-owners’ Association, at Johannesburg, on the 12th inst., to protest against the imposition of a land tax, to the effect that “during the year 1913 land to the extent of 459,646 acres was sold to settlers by 23 members of the association. This figure is very far in excess of the area of land disposed of by Government during the same period in the whole of the Union of South Africa,” and, if so, whether the statement is correct?

Yes, my attention has been invited to the statement referred to, and, while I can offer no opinion as to the correctness of the figures given as to the area of land sold by members of the Transvaal Landowners’ Association, I may at once say that the statement made that the figure is very far in excess of the area of land disposed of by Government in the same period in the whole of the Union is incorrect. The area disposed of by Government during 1913 under the various Acts dealing with Crown lands was 330,665 morgen, or 694,397 acres, the majority of which was disposed of in the Transvaal Province.

asked the Minister of Education: (1) Whether it is a fact that the position of Dutch master at the Normal School at Doornfontein, Transvaal, has been vacant since November, 1913, and, if so, why has a substitute not yet been appointed; and (2) whether he does not consider that this is unfair to future teachers studying at the said institution who are taking Dutch as one of their subjects for the teachers’ examination in June of this year?

As the question deals with a matter which entirely falls under the control of a Provincial Administration, the Minister is not disposed to institute an inquiry.

asked the Minister of Justice on May 12 whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House a return showing (a) how many male Europeans were during the year 1913 trapped and convicted at Johannesburg and Pretoria for illicit liquor selling, and (b) how many European females (distinguishing between married and unmarried) were convicted during the same period for the same offence?

replied: (a) The numbers of male Europeans trapped and convicted for illicit liquor selling within the municipal areas of Johannesburg and Pretoria during 1913 were 230 at Johannesburg and seven at Pretoria. Besides these there were convicted without resorting to trapping 179 European males at Johannesburg and 28 at Pretoria. (b) The numbers of European females convicted during the same period of the same offence were 38 married women and two unmarried women at Johannesburg and 11 married and two unmarried women at Pretoria.

moved: That on and after Tuesday, the 26th inst., the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m. and resume at 8 o’clock p.m. on Tuesdays, Government business to have precedence from 8 o’clock p.m. on such days, subject to the following: If at 5 minutes to 6 o’clock p.m on such days Government business be not under consideration, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate on the business then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment, will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for the resumption of such interrupted business, Mr. Speaker shall order it to be put down for the next day on which the House shall sit.

said he thought the time had now arrived when they should try and expedite the work of the House, and he proposed as an amendment to add to the end of the motion, “and that on and after Friday, the 29th inst., the House suspend business at 6 p.m. and resume at 8 o’clock p.m. on Fridays.”

said he hoped the hon. member would withdraw his amendment When he gave notice of his motion yesterday, he had consulted the officers of the House, and he must say that if they sat every night it would be extremely difficult for these officers to keep on getting the papers in order by the following morning. The House would possibly have to sit another six weeks or two months, and he thought the time had not yet come to sit every night.

said it would be very difficult for some members, especially for those of the Free State, to sit here another six weeks or two months. They had to get home to attend to their farms, he said. It was time they did more work.

said he hoped the Government was not going to accept this amendment without some further amendments. He understood that the hon. member for Vryheid had taken this course because of what happened last Friday and the previous day. They would be pleased to support the amendment if he added that Friday nights should be devoted to speeches from members of the Ministerial party in support of the Government and in criticising one another.

appealed to the Government to accept the amendment. He did not think any hardships would be imposed on members if they sat on Friday nights. He thought they might sit on Saturdays.

said he hoped the Prime Minister would not accept the amendment, for the reason that they had a large number of clerks working night and day. It was nothing short of cruelty to keep members of the Press Gallery at work night after night, and in the interests of those in the Press Gallery, he appealed to the Government not to accept the amendment.

supported the amendment and said he could quite understand the opposition of the cross benches, who, of course, would not mind sitting all the year round. Various measures such as the Riotous Assemblies Bill had to be passed yet, and he held the time had come for the House to sit every night.

said as it was impossible for the Ministerialists to make up their minds on the question, it was necessary for the Opposition to assist them in coming to a decision. He was entirely at one with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. It would be a great mistake to sit every night in the week. It was utterly impossible not alone for the officials, but also for the members to follow legislation properly if the House sat every night of the week. (Hear, hear.) It would be utterly impossible for the House to carry on its business in the manner in which the country expected if the House sat five nights a week. As to the necessity of hon. members returning to their homes, many of them had been carrying on discussions at inordinate length, very often repeating over and over again arguments already advanced and frequently introducing matters of a private nature, and thus unnecessarily taking up the time of the House and of the country. If speeches of that kind were curtailed there would be more time to devote to the business of the country. It was only fair to the House that the Government should make some statement as to the legislation it intended to proceed with this session. (Cheers.) Naturally hon. members were anxious to return to their homes, but any person who took up the position of a member of Parliament should realise that his first duty was to go on with the work of the country and to see that its business was thoroughly discussed. He took it that the Prime Minister was the leader of the House and not the hon. member for Vryheid. (Laughter.) He (Sir Thomas) was trying to save the Prime Minister from his friends.

opposed the amendment and said that nearly an hour had been wasted on this discussion. He thought much more good would be done if members curtailed their speeches somewhat.

spoke in favour of the amendment and said he for one had to get back to his business to earn his livelihood. He regretted that instead of accepting the closure, the House had not accepted a resolution curtailing the speeches.

said he must take a certain amount of exception to the remarks made by the leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort stated that the back-benchers did nothing but repeat the arguments brought forward by the frontbenchers.

I did not say anything of the sort.

As all the arguments are monopolised by the front bench illumini —(laughter)—there is nothing for the poor back benchers to do but to repeat them. Continuing, Mr. Fawcus said he protested against the remarks of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar). He thought the hon. member’s remarks with reference to the Press Gallery were utterly uncalled for and not at all in good taste. (Cheers.) All the members of the House were not professional legislators, and it would not be for the good of the country that they should be, and they could not be expected to sit here month after month. Hon. members might give up a little more of their time to the business of the House. The time of Parliament was taken up by a crop of industrial legislation which might possibly do more harm than good.

The hon. member must not examine the legislation on the Order Paper. (Laughter.)

said there was a better way of getting on with the work of the House than by having continuous night sittings. If hon. members would limit their interminable discussions of subjects which did not require so much threshing out they would make better progress. Not only were the officers of the House to be considered, but as all the work had to be translated and printed overnight it would be a physical impossibility to have this done if the House sat every evening. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had asked what legislation the Government proposed to proceed with besides the Bills which now stood on the Order Paper—(laughter)—he was not a humorist—there were some further Bills which would be necessitated by the financial proposals of the Government. Then, in addition, there were certain. Bills now being inquired into by Select Committees, and there were also certain other matters which would have to be dealt with by the House. He might mention, for instance, the grievances of the Indian community, which would necessitate a short Bill, which he thought the House should deal with before it rose. Again, the Civil Service Commission might make recommendations which might need a short Bill to effect some alterations in the Civil Service Act. But these were not matters of a contentious character, and he saw no reason—if hon. members would curtail the endless tendency to talk which had disclosed itself this session—why we should not close this session within a reasonable time. (Laughter.)

in supporting the amendment, said hon. members should treat the matter somewhat more seriously. Whenever a ridiculous speech was made it was cheered, but serious points were hardly noticed. As to the Press Gallery, he thought it would be best to do away with it altogether, while so far as the officials were concerned, it would be best to give them a holiday on Saturdays. In opposing Friday evening sittings the Minister was making a great mistake.

said he had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he would suggest to his hon. friend (General Smuts) that it was desirable that some definite statement should be made to the House as to what business was to be done before the session ended. He would urge upon the Government that they should consider this matter and take Parliament into their confidence, so that members would know what work to apply themselves to for the rest of the session.

said that he felt some difficulty in this matter, because he had always been an advocate for sitting every night, but now, availing himself of the privileges of age and infirmity, he did not often attend in the evening and, therefore, he felt a little shy about voting for sitting every night, though he thought, if it were the desire of hon. members who lived some distance from Cape Town to sit every night, the House should try to meet them, as far as possible. There was a great deal in what the Minister had said about getting through the business of the House. They had not had much business to go through this session. They had been confined to two Bills, one the Indemnity Bill and the other the discussion on the Budget, which was supremely interesting, though he was obliged, owing to circumstances beyond his control, to deprive himself of the pleasure of listening to many of the speeches, which were, he gathered, a rich treat. (Laughter.) He thought a good deal of time would be saved if they adopted the system of Grand Committees, to which Bills of a certain nature, non-contentious or nearly non-contentious, could be sent. Those Bills would then go back to the House with the Committee stage finished. It would foe an enormous convenience and, he thought, would tend very much to the advantage of the House. He would like to refer again to the shortening of speeches, which, he was glad to see, was now being taken up and discussed in the House of Commons, where they were trying to do something in that direction. He was astounded at the reception which his humble suggestion met with when he brought it forward before. They had some fairly lengthy speeches this session, of which he thought the Minister of Finance was not altogether blameless. He set the fashion and hon. members limped in after him. (Laughter.) He thought the speeches this session had been of inordinate length.

Owing to the example of the Minister. (Laughter.)

I won’t say that. He does set an example of sitting in the House constantly and listening very patiently. I believe if he were not quite so good tempered the Business would be shorter. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman added that he wished to vote in favour of those who lived at a distance, though, personally, he felt a disinclination to vote for sitting every night, because he was obliged to deny himself the privilege of being here to listen to the proceedings very often.

spoke in support of the amendment, and pointed out that the longer the House sat the more money it cost. So far as the officers of the House were concerned, they could rest on Saturdays, and if they found it impossible to get through their work, additional officers could be appointed.

Mr. Myburgh’s amendment was put and the “Noes” were declared to have it.

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

Ayes—31.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Hull, Henry Charles

King, John Gavin

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardua

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Sterfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Tobias

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

A. Fawcus and J. van der Walt, tellers.

Noes—67.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson. Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

The amendment was, therefore, negatived.

The original motion was agreed to.

(on behalf of the Prime Minister) formally moved: That the House at its rising tomorrow adjourn until Friday, the 22nd inst., at 2 o’clock p.m.

said he wished to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would not accept an amendment to the motion—whether the Minister would not reconsider the question as to the holidays of that week? They must remember that public holidays were the property of other people. They had the servants of the House, the Press, and others to consider. They would be taking away those holidays from those people, and he suggested that their position ought to be considered. He moved the following amendment: That the House on its rising on Friday, 22nd inst., adjourn till Tuesday, 26th inst. They on the Labour benches put the business of the country before their own private interests, and he did not think they could legislate properly if they did not deal with the matters with fresh minds.

said he must object to the amendment. The hon. member who had just spoken made fun of those on the Ministerial benches and said that they did not consider the servants of the House and the members of the gallery. He would like him to remember one occasion when there was an all-night sitting, and when they wished on that occasion to give a holiday to the servants on the following day, who had objected then?—it was the hon. member and his colleagues. The officials of the House had not been considered on that occasion.

said that the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid showed how much interest he as an individual took in what went on in connection with the business of that House. He had accused them of having objected on a certain occasion to an adjournment. That was the occasion when the hon. member for Jeppe had moved that the Chairman leave the chair and ask leave to sit again. The result of the division on that occasion was “Ayes, 19,” and the name of the hon. member for Vryheid was not amongst them. (Laughter.) The hon. member had moved the addition of Friday night to the sittings of the House, but (Mr. Myburgh) was seldom in his place. It was therefore very inappropriate for him to have moved anything on that occasion. Continuing, Mr. Madeley said that the holidays in question were of very great significance to this country. Where was that intense patriotism which was supposed to animate the other side of the House—they smelt the rain and the plough called them. He would like to point out that it was not in the interest of the country that they should be sitting night after night without any break in between.

On the amendment being put,

declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—10.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Juta, Henry Hubert

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Sampson, Henry William

Emile Nathan and C. H. Haggar, tellers.

Noes—78.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell.

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

J. Hewat and H. Mentz, tellers.

The amendment was therefore negatived.

The motion was carried.

moved: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the power of Licensing Courts and Government to grant, renew, or refuse licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor should be controlled by the will of the people, and, with that end in view, legislation should be introduced providing for the establishment throughout the Union of a system of the direct vote of the people, whereby the people of each town and district shall be enabled, at stated intervals, to decide, for such town or district, through the ballot box: (a) whether the system of granting and issuing licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall continue as it exists at the time of voting; (b) whether the number of such licences existing at the time of voting shall be reduced; (c) whether no such licences shall be granted or issued. The mover said that in this matter he was the spokesman of many thousands of people in the Union. The “Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette,” in its last issue, stated that the “crowd who were in favour of the direct veto on the liquor question were composed of reformed dipsomaniacs, immature boys and girls, and old women of both sexes.” He thought the support the resolution had received throughout the Union would dispose of that ribald opinion. The Churches were in favour of his proposal, which was supported by the Cape Town, Pretoria and George Anglican Synods, as well as by the Presbyterian Assembly, the Congregational Union. Rhenish Synod, the Baptist Union, and the Wesleyan Methodist Conference of South Africa. These bodies represented over 650,000 people. In addition the Church Councils of Cape Town and Witwatersrand had declared in favour of it, and there are many ministers and members of the Dutch Reformed and other Churches who are heartily in favour of it, though no formal vote had yet been taken by them. Within the year thirty public meetings had been held in large and important centres in the four Provinces of the Union and had passed supporting resolutions on the subject, while eighty-three petitions, signed by 10,063 persons, and coming from fifty different towns and villages, had been presented to the House in favour of the people’s direct vote on the liquor question. One of these petitions was signed by 3,300 of the inhabitants of Cape Town, and another by 919 of the inhabitants of Bloemfontein. Many of the leading people of the country, not only in religion but in commerce, had signed the petitions. The motion did not mean that he was seeking the opinion of the House on the question of total abstinence, nor did it mean that he was asking the House to express an opinion on national prohibition, or even prohibition of the sale of liquor to natives or coloured people, which should be dealt with by the Government in a consolidated Act. The motion did not aim at dealing with such matters as high licences, or the municipalisation, or nationalisation of the liquor traffic, nor did it propose the doing away with the Licensing Courts. It aimed only at illiciting an opinion which would enable the Government to bring in legislation to allow the people of the country to decide to what extent the liquor traffic should be carried on, and in that way to protect the people from the evils connected with the trade. He hoped no red herrings would be drawn across the track.

What were the reasons for the introduction of that resolution, and the system that had been proposed? There were the social and economic evils owing to the liquor traffic and the drinking customs of society, which had been characterised by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons as greater than those caused by war, pestilence and famine put together, and this statement was less than the truth. That resolution was rendered necessary by the fact that the licensing system which was set up to counteract these evils—they would find this fact stated in the preambles of laws that were made hundreds of years ago—had failed. Though these laws were introduced to protect the people and intended to counteract the evils he had mentioned they had simply failed to do so satisfactorily. As a consequence alternatives had been tried, such as high licences, municipalisation and nationalisation, but all these had proved failures, and if they wanted the biggest failure they would, according to the Czar himself, find it in the Russian attempt during the last eighteen years, to carry out nationalisation. Of late years, among many peoples of the world, aware of the evils of the liquor traffic, the idea had become prominent that the best and only solution was that the people should be given the right to decide—to put the matter in the people’s hands to protect themselves by giving them local option laws. In the United States, for instance, there were 47,000,000 of people, more than half the population, living in local option or prohibited areas. In Canada, Australia and New Zealand the same thing, more or less, was to be found, and just lately Scotland had had the boon given it of a local option law. He thought they would not do wrong if they followed these examples. In their own country he believed he was right in saying that the licensing laws, or, rather, the purpose of the licensing laws, to protect people from the evils of the drink traffic, had been very largely lost sight of.

The Licensing Courts seemed to exist to bolster up so-called vested interests, though licences were only valid for a year, and to forget that it was their duty to protect the public from the evils caused by drink. It was a general complaint against the Courts in this country and they had examples in that fair city of Cape Town, where the Licensing Courts, composed of most respectable gentlemen, who one would, never suppose would do anything against the welfare of the people, contrary to police reports and the expressed will of the people, as far as could be ascertained, had granted licences to the detriment of the public weal. And the Cape was not singular. He believed that wherever one went the people felt that the Licensing Courts were not doing their duty in protecting the people from the evils of drink. They were bolstering up the so-called vested interests of the liquor traffic. The time had come for an advance to be made, as they had suffered sufficiently long from the maladministration of the licensing system, and the time had come when the opinion of the people themselves must be allowed to influence things in the right direction. They did not at that time advocate changing the constitution of the Licensing Court. They left that to the Government for the purpose of inclusion in a consolidating law. The hon. member went on to deal with the constitution of the Courts in the various Provinces, and said that one fault of the Cape system was that the Divisional Council representatives often did not know the state of affairs that existed in the towns, and one found them overriding the opinion of the people in the towns.

Another point was that, although those engaged in the liquor traffic and officers and paid agents of anti-liquor associations were not allowed to sit, an exemption was made in the case of an agricultural distiller or manufacturer, and those whom they called wine and brandy farmers were allowed to sit, and they seized every opportunity of doing so, and the result generally speaking was that in the wine districts it was impossible for the other members of Courts to get proper restrictions placed on the trade. Touching on the constitution of the Courts in the Transvaal and Free State, where all the members were Justices of the Peace appointed by Government, he said that his (the speaker’s) idea was that the Government would appoint proper people to sit on the Licensing Courts, but discussions that had taken place in that House had indicated that that was not always the case, and it had been stated that Justices of the Peace had been appointed, for political and other reasons, who took a point of view other than the point of view of the public who were to be protected.

In Natal the members were appointed by the Town Councils in towns, and by the Government in country districts

The principle of local option was not a new principle, even in South Africa.

In the Cape law of 1883, one found that a majority of the Parliamentary electors might present a petition against any new licences, and if that majority was real the Licensing Court was not able to grant a new licence. But the drawback about this was that it was only to last for a year, so that very little real advantage had been taken of that local option provision. There were provisions in the Act of 1891 which stated that an applicant for a new licence must obtain a memorial signed by a majority of the Divisional Council voters. If he got that it did not mean that he got the licence, but he could not apply unless this memorial had been obtained. This provision had been of considerable value, and had prevented many new licences from being granted. There was also a provision with regard to the renewal of licences, that a petition against, signed by two-thirds of the Divisional Council voters, would prevent its being granted. This was almost impossible to obtain. If they did obtain it, it meant that the opinion of 34 per cent. of the Divisional Council voters would be valid as against the opinion of 66 per cent. That was not fair. He did not know that the provision had ever been put into force. Then again it applied only to one year.

In Natal the voters in the borough or municipality and the Parliamentary voters in the outside districts might present a memorial against a new licence, and, if it were signed by a majority, that licence could not be granted. They did better in this respect than the Cape Province, that if a memorial had been presented within two years of the sitting of the Licensing Court against any new licences, such licences could not be granted. But this was vitiated again by the fact that there was no option given in regard to the renewals of old licences. It only referred to fresh applications. In the Transvaal they had local option provisions. If a memorial were signed against a new licence or against a renewal of an old licence by a majority of the voters or of the male white inhabitants above 21 years of age, then that licence could not be granted, or could not be renewed. This was vitiated owing to the fact that the Government had, first of all, ten weeks before the meeting of the Court, to issue a Proclamation to say that such an attempt would be made in that particular district to enforce these provisions, and that these provisions did not apply to hotel or railway licences. There were further real local option provisions in the Transvaal law by which the same kind of voters, either municipal voters or, where there were no voters, male white inhabitants of over 21 years of age, might take a vote against any licence, and it was laid down that the traffic might be altogether prohibited for three years by such a vote being taken and carried by a majority. This vote could not be taken unless one-tenth of the voters first asked for it to be put in force. If they asked, and it was put in force under regulations made by the Governor, and they had a majority, they had total prohibition, but this was also vitiated by the fact that it did not apply to hotel licences or railway licences. He believed that one or two places in the Transvaal had availed themselves of these provisions. There was one township, Alberton, near Germiston, where it had been done, and the results afforded indubitable proof that this local option or local prohibition had been a success. He believed that the townships of Gezina and Rietfontein, near Pretoria, were similarly situated. They did not propose to alter these things. They wanted the laws to remain as they were until a general law was introduced, but they wanted, above and beyond all this, the people to have the right of determining these questions, not to wipe out anything that existed at present, but to enable the people by vote to say to what extent the liquor traffic should be carried on.

He believed that some reform on the lines laid down in the motion was necessary in this country. As to railway licences, in times past they had done much harm, but they recognised that things had changed, and that the Administration was exercising better supervision than obtained formerly. What they said was that it would never do or be fair to stop other licences and then turn the traffic into the railway refreshment rooms or into the bars connected with the railways. Therefore, they said that the will of the people should control all licences, including light wine licences. By that they did not mean that the power should be taken away from the licensing bodies or the Government which they bad at present, but that they should! only be able to act in accordance with the will of the people, taken in the proper way. It might be said: “Who are the people?” “The people” in such matters could only act through their representatives. They acknowledged that it would be impossible to make a law allowing all the people, men and women, in the country to vote, and allow the vote to be regulated in that way. They must accept the lists that were accepted —the Parliamentary register or the municipal register, and that was their meaning when they said “the people.” Legislation would have to be introduced. With that end in view legislation should be introduced providing for the establishment throughout the Union of a system of the direct vote of the people, whereby the people of each town and district would be able at Stated intervals to decide the question for such town and district through the ballot box. The question of prohibition was not mentioned in the resolution. They said that, if the majority of the people of any place decided that there should be no licensed houses in their midst they should have the right to obtain this, although the adjoining district might do the very opposite. This was not national option, nor prohibition, but local option for each town or district. It might be asked what they meant by “stated intervals.” They had never thought of taking the vote every year. It might be taken every three years, as in New Zealand and Scotland, or it might be taken every five years. When they said five years rather than three years, they remembered that in the Union of South Africa the general elections for Parliament took place every five years.

Their idea was that, without dogmatising, if they were to follow in this country the example of New Zealand they would not be far out. New Zealand and South Africa were very similar in many respects. In New Zealand the vote was taken every three years at the same time as the general election. Here every five years the people, through their Parliamentary representatives or the Municipal voters, might be allowed to decide through the ballot box. They strongly insisted on the necessity of secret voting, because the licensed liquor traffic was enormously powerful and tyrannical. In New Zealand for the last twenty-one years at every general election every three years these issues had been put before the Parliamentary electors: “(1) Shall the number of licences continue in your district as they are at the present time? (2) Shall the number of these licences be reduced? (3) Shall no such licences be issued?” In New Zealand the electoral districts had been created licensing districts.

What about an increase?

said that in New Zealand, if a majority of the people voted for the number of licences being continued, they were continued and the Licensing Court went on with its work. If a majority of the voters voted for reduction, then the Licensing Court had to reduce the licences at the next sitting of the Court by five to 25 per cent. If there were ten licences in a district they must be reduced by one, if 20 by two, if thirty by three, and so on. He did not say that in this country they should pin themselves to these figures. In New Zealand if a majority in any district voted “no licence,” then when the existing licences lapsed no further licences were granted, but the Licensing Courts continued in existence, and in three years’ time another vote was taken and, if the former vote were reversed, the Licensing Court went on with its work again. Thus the opportunity was given to find out whether there had been benefit or loss in consequence of the policy adopted. In New Zealand there were twelve “no licence” districts. In this country our local option laws were scarcely ever put into force. They wanted the people of the country every three or five years to face the question and give their opinion. It would prove a grand educative influence.

If the majority in any town or district were in favour of continuing the licensing system just as it is now, they would have to grin and bear it, but they would try to educate the people of the country to reduce the number of licensed places and also to see the advantages involved in having no licences at all. Perhaps then, in 20 or 25 years, there would be a different state of feeling. They found in New Zealand that in 1893, 49,000 voters had voted no licence, in 1911, 234,000 voted for it, and there had been a majority for national prohibition of over 55 per cent. of the voters. It was hoped that national prohibition would be carried through in New Zealand this year, but it was not national prohibition, but just a simple extension of the local option system that they proposed here. There was nothing unfair about it and there was nothing rabid or unjust. It would give equal opportunity to all. It was not his place to say under what regulations the voting should be conducted and as to how long people should have the opportunity to sell off, if no licence was carried. A system of that sort would be of incalculable benefit in securing the well-advised opinion of the people of the land —Parliamentary electors or Municipal voters. He would appeal to the House to consider the matter seriously. There was scarcely a family in the Union that had not suffered through drink in some way or other, and it seemed to him that they should not leave all the power in the hands of the Licensing Courts, but assist the Courts to do their duty by the expression of the people’s will.

explained some additional points in Dutch, and shortly afterwards reverted to English. He explained that in New Zealand, at each general election, each voter was given a ballot paper on which the three issues already mentioned were enumerated, and he was allowed to vote for any two of them. This was quite apart from his vote for any candidate, and had nothing to do with it. If the system were introduced into South Africa, and (a), i.e., the continuance of the licensing system was carried, the Licensing Courts would continue to have all the powers they now had, including increase of licences, subject to the existing laws; if reduction of licences was carried, the number would be reduced in accordance with regulations framed by Parliament; if “no licence” was carried, then after the lapse of the existing licences no others could be issued by the Court until and unless a further vote so determined. He hoped the explanation he had given would make those who had been opposed to the proposal before, consider whether it was not a move in the right direction. His proposal was absolutely fair and absolutely just. The majority ought to rule. Why, then, should this great important question which lay at the very foundation of national prosperity not depend on the vote of the people? If there were one question in the world which ought to be decided by the people it was that question as to how to regulate the liquor traffic. (Cheers.)

seconded the motion.

said he hoped the motion before the House would be honestly discussed by the House, and he trusted that those who had signed the petitions on this matter had been truly informed of what was aimed at. He (the speaker) wished to point out that the first part of the motion was not the same as the second and last part. The first part merely dealt with the control of licences, by the public. It was merely academic, as it merely expressed a wish, but the second part of the motion asked for the particular kind of legislation which was desired. The hon. member who had introduced the motion had not said a word about giving people the right to express themselves in favour of the granting of further licences. The motion of the hon. member simply meant the insertion of the thin end of the wedge with a view eventually to secure total prohibition, and the hon. member should have told the House what his intention was. Did not the motion in reality interfere with the personal liberty of the individual? The motion really aimed at eventually prohibiting people to consume any intoxicating drink. Why, because some people abused intoxicating drink, should everyone be prohibited from drinking anything? What would be said if the vegetarians introduced a parallel motion? As to the petitions which had been signed, he did not think it right that everyone, including the school children of Wellington, should have been asked to sign these petitions. (Laughter.) Not a single member of Parliament had been elected or rejected because he was or was not a teetotaller. Mr. Schreiner had said that he hoped no red herring would be dragged across the trail. But was not the resolution itself a red herring? (Laughter.) The hon. member had spoken about local option, with which he had mixed up popular veto. They were quite different things, the one being democratic and open voting, whilst the direct popular vote was given in secret. What would be the outcome of this motion? Candidates for Parliament in future would be bothered by all sorts of old ladies of the male sex who would put questions to them in regard to the sale of liquor. And even the electors, if the motion was agreed to, would in future have their attention diverted from far more important matters. The constitution of the Licensing Courts of the Cape, the hon. member went on, was a democratic one, and all kinds of information in regard to the increase or decrease of drunkenness in every district was placed before these Courts. It was not correct to say that in the Cape the representatives of the Divisional Councils elected themselves. The members of those Councils were elected by the public, who knew perfectly well that they would have to serve on the Licensing Courts. Now the hon. member who had introduced the motion had argued that licensed victuallers should not be allowed to sit on Licensing Courts. If that argument was followed out to its logical conclusion Good Templars and prohibitionists should not be allowed to sit on the Courts. Mr. Schreiner had mentioned certain districts where there was very little drunkenness. He (the speaker) wished to point out that the wine farmers were among the soberest citizens of the country. (Hear, hear.) The real object of the motion, the speaker went on, had been given away by the introducer—it was total prohibition. The argument that a reduction of licences meant a reduction of drunkenness had been proved to be a fallacy of the worst kind. The limitation of licences created fresh crimes, as had been proved when Sir Gordon Sprigg was in power and when the position in King William’s Town became so serious that Licensing Courts were again created. What was the position at Johannesburg as the result of this liquor law? Women and children were being degraded as the result of the strict limitations of the liquor traffic. These strict limitations had the effect of large profits being possible through an illicit traffic. Hon. members knew the result. Perhaps the prohibition was not so much responsible for the sad state of affairs created as the manner in which people became possessed of liquor. (Hear, hear.) That was where the evil lay. Drink ought to be allowed the natives in the Transvaal, but only under proper supervision. Laws which were too drastic only created new crimes, such as illicit distillation, smuggling, etc. In the so-called prohibition States in America, there was still drunkenness, but in place of canteens they had “drug stores.” This motion was put before the House as being quite innocent and harmless—as a motion which could only lead to an improvement of the existing state of affairs. However, he held that a resolution of this kind would have far-reaching effects. Although, of course, this House only stood for moral interests, and did not concern itself with material interests—(laughter)—he yet held that the House should consider the interests of what was a great industry in this country—(hear, hear)—and if this total prohibition was agreed to, he held that not only would the moral interests of the country not be served, but the material interests would also suffer. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Schreiner had proposed something here which in other countries had proved quite impossible. Here in the Cape a certain class was not allowed to obtain drink; yet did hon. members know that in the last three years there had been more drunkenness among those who had been forbidden to obtain drink than among those who were allowed to do so, and the same condition of affairs prevailed on the Rand? He (the speaker) would be in favour of any motion which would have the effect of promoting temperance, but this motion would not have that effect. A motion which aimed at fostering temperance and sobriety among the people should be sober itself. This motion was nothing of the kind. In the first place, it did not take any cognisance of vested interests, nor did it recognise the right of the public to increase the number of licences, and he hoped the motion would, therefore, be rejected by the House. Seemingly democratic and in the interests of the public, it really contained a spirit of compulsion.

congratulated the hon. member for Tembuland for the respect he had shown for Dutch members by saying a few words to them in Dutch, in which procedure the hon. member had set an example to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Proceeding, Mr. Serfontein said he knew what evils followed a lack of control of liquor licences. In the Free State, he knew that limitation of the liquor licences had had a most beneficial effect. He could not understand the argument of the hon. member for Paarl, who had said that limitation of licences led to drunkenness. If that was so, why, then, should they limit anything at all? Why not abolish their legislative attempts to limit scab? He (the speaker) thought that if the people themselves were allowed to have a vote in the limitation of the liquor traffic, only good could result. Therefore he would vote for the motion. It was both right and proper that there was no reference in the motion to an increase in the number of licences, as it was quite clear there were too many already. The Free State knew by experience what it meant to have too many facilities for drinking, and he could by no means see such danger in the motion as had been suggested by the hon. member for Paarl.

said that the mover took great pains to tell them that what he wanted was to get the proper expression of the will of the people. But his supporter, the hon. member for, Kroonstad, instead of confining himself to that, said he did not want a proper expression of the will of the people, but only an expression of the will of the people to restrict licences and not as to whether licences should be granted or not. The hon. member for Kroonstad had not carried out what the mover intended. It could clearly be seen that what they were really driving at was total prohibition. Without that, this movement could not be successful. All of us were in favour of temperance and so were the constituents whom he represented; they did not wish to see drunkenness, but temperance was not total abstinence. The mover had said that he wished to see the sale of liquor controlled by the will of the people. Now, where were they going to get the unrestricted will of the people expressed through the ballot-box? They would have the faddists on the one hand working against the granting of licences, and on the other hand, when any attempt was made to obtain a new licence, they would be joined by the vested liquor interest. He maintained that, in regard to the position at Observatory, it was largely because a portion of the vested liquor interest in Cape Town had exercised its influence that no licence had been granted at Observatory.

And because of the people of Observatory also.

said he did not deny that the people of Observatory were also opposed to any licences being granted, but he maintained that the vested liquor interest had had a hand in getting any new application refused.

He went on to say that he was in favour of fair local option, but, he asked, were they going to get that by means of the ballot-box in the way outlined by the mover? Were they going to get a true expression of local option in that way? He did not think so. The present system of Licensing Courts in the Cape Province was certainly open to amendment, but he claimed that it gave a fair measure of local option. He agreed, however, that it would be very much better if the Licensing Courts, instead of being composed of members of Divisional and Municipal Councils, were elected directly by the public vote. That, he thought, would be better than the proposal now before the House. The hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) had urged that the public should decide whether there should be any licence or no licence in a town or district. He (Mr. Heatlie) would like to know whether a minority had no rights at all. Why should the minority be tyrannised over by the majority? Why, for instance, should a minority of 40,000 people in the Cape Peninsula be told by a majority that no liquor licences should be issued and be ruled by them. He wished to move as an amendment to omit all the words after “That,” and substitute the following words: “the Government should introduce legislation to consolidate and bring about uniformity in the laws of the various Provinces of the Union relating to the granting and renewal of liquor licences, the constitution of the Licensing Courts, and the control of the sale of spirituous liquors throughout the Union.” He proceeded to say that the reason why he moved this amendment was because he thought there were many more matters in connection with local option than those dealt with in this bare proposal. Various Select Committees had sat under the old Cape regime and had brought forward useful recommendations in regard to licensing matters. The hon. member quoted at some length from a report by a former Select Committee in reference to the constitution of Licensing Courts, and commended the suggestions there made to the consideration of the Minister of Justice when he proposed to bring in a consolidating Bill in reference to Licensing Courts. He hoped a fair measure of local option would be provided when the Acts consolidating the laws relating to the Licensing Courts were passed. They already had a certain amount of local option, because the people elected the members of the Divisional Councils and Municipalities. He hoped his amendment would receive the support of the House, and contended that the arguments of the hon. member for Tembuland had been contradictory.

said he wished to second the amendment, because he was convinced that the time had come when a change should be brought about in the existing liquor laws. The Prime Minister a year ago had said that in particular the liquor laws of the Transvaal required revision, because, as a result of the trapping system, many innocent people were lodged in gaol. Of course, everyone would agree that in the Cape, especially in the smaller places, the state of affairs was not as it should be. In the smaller places of the Free State, and he said it with pride, there was hardly any drunkenness at all. In his ignorance he would suggest the abolition of all liquor laws, and instead, it should be provided that everyone who took too much liquor should receive five strokes with the cat. (Laughter.) Of course, the sense of humanity objected to that, but did not the sense of humanity object to people indulging to excess in intoxicating liquor? The trouble was that anyone who drank to excess interfered with the liberty of the community, and especially with the liberty of his own family. He knew that the wine farmer, par excellence, was an extremely sober and temperate individual, but, at the same time, it could not be denied that there was a class here in this part of the country which did exceed. And the time had come, he held, when this matter should be carefully looked into.

said he wished heartily to support the motion of the hon. member for Tembuland. He thought that they, as a House, could not ignore the strong desire of the people of the country, as expressed in petitions presented to the House, in regard to that most important question. He did hope that the matter would come to a vote that night. He could quite understand that there were some hon. members on the Government benches who were largely interested in the liquor industry. It had been said that the idea of the motion was to restrict the sale of liquor, and no doubt that was the case. He thought that throughout the country there was a desire on the part of the people to have more power; the liquor question was a matter which did largely concern the whole country, and the people should have power to deal with it. At Observatory it had been the result of the people’s representations that there was no licence there. He admitted that local option did not lead to a decrease in the consumption of liquor—the figures with regard to New Zealand proved it. In passing the motion, they would only be extending a democratic principle.

said he heartily sympathised with the motion of the hon. member for Tembuland in wishing to leave it to the people to decide as to whether they should have licences or not. To a certain extent they already had local option, because before a Licensing Court would agree to granting new licences, it first required that it should have petitions with a certain number of signatories. He did not appreciate the attacks made upon the Licensing Courts that afternoon, because if there were any public bodies in this country who endeavoured to do what was right and just, at the same time knowing their powers were limited by law, he thought they would find those bodies were the Licensing Courts. They knew how those Courts were constituted. The Mayors were ex-official members; they were naturally the civic head of the locality. Then there were members of the Divisional Council, elected by that body on the Licensing Court, and the Government also had three nominees on the Court. The hon. member alleged that they made it their duty to bolster up vested rights. Very strong representations were sometimes made by the temperance societies, by members of the Church and other associations of that nature to Licensing Courts, and they were rather apt to conclude that the Licensing Courts had studied the vested rights of the licensed victuallers when the Court refused to accept their views. As an old magistrate of the Cape Province, he had sat on many a Licensing Court, and he had had to listen to many frivolous and irresponsible suggestions for the refusing of new and the closing up of existing houses. After all, hon. members must realise that those men had probably sunk their all in the business. He thought the hon. member should have been satisfied with the first part of the resolution; he would have got more sympathy from the members of that House than he had done, and he (Mr. Becker) would move an amendment to delete all the words after “will of the people.” If the hon. member would agree to that he would find there would be no opposition in the House, and the Government could deal with the matter raised in the second part of the motion in one consolidating law later on.

seconded the amendment.

agreed with Mr. Van Niekerk that the time had come that the liquor laws should be altered. He thought the provision in the Transvaal, where one licence for a certain number of voters was allowed, worked very well. But it certainly was necessary that something should be done with a view to reducing drunkenness. The question, however, was whether that would be achieved by reducing the number of licences.

He did not think it would. Often by closing the front door the back door was opened all the wider, as was proved by the position of affairs in the Transvaal. At this stage Mr. Wessels moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned to the 27th inst.