This amendment was introduced by the other House to make the clause read as it did in the original Bill. The object is to give an opportunity for the chancellor and vice-chancellor being elected before the 10th October, after the coming into force of the Bill. I therefore trust that the House will approve of it without debate.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

In bringing this matter before the House I realize that the question involved is comparatively unfamiliar to most of us, it being a matter to which very few have given much thought. Nevertheless I daresay there is no one in this House who would be desirous of inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on dumb animals, even if the killing of those dumb animals is necessary for the support of human life. I do not think it is necessary for me to plead for less cruelty in the treatment of animals. The Animal Welfare Society of South Africa has requested me to bring this Bill before the House, and to ask the House to consider it. Hon. members will remember that on previous occasions Bills in connection with cruelty to animals have been brought before the House. As recently as 1928 a Bill was promoted by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). During the passage of that Bill there was a very heated debate on this matter, and suggestions were made, or were thought to have been made, with regard to alleged cruelty to animals in the rural areas. The late member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. Petrus van Heerden) then said that members from urban constituencies should be the last to cast any aspersions on the members for the countryside with regard to cruelty to animals, and he referred to the cruelty to animals taking place in the public abattoirs of the country. He said “You people in the city first clean your own house; then come to us and tell ns to clean our own.” Mr. van Heerden very rightly pointed out that there was a large amount of cruelty in the public slaughter-houses of our cities. In the past there have been many criticisms of the revolting and disgusting scenes to be witnessed in our slaughter-houses. It is not necessary for me to dwell on that. I think any person who has visited some of these slaughter-houses will have been disgusted by some of the methods by which cattle have been slaughtered. One sees bellowing cattle wallowing in the gore of those killed before them. I must say that the first occasion that I visited one of these slaughter-houses has indelibly left on my mind a feeling of disgust for the methods practised there. Probably that has been the experience of most of us, if not all of those who have visited some of these public slaughter-houses. Fortunately many of our communities in South Africa have been employing more humane methods during the last few years, and some during the hast few months. This measure is intended to enforce in the public slaughter-houses of the country more humane methods of slaughtering cattle. Let me deal briefly with some of the methods employed. One method is the cutting of the throat while the animal is conscious. Experiments have recently been carried out, among others by Dr. Klein, director of the abattoir at Lennep, Germany, attended and supervised by a large number of veterinary surgeons and scientists. These people satisfied themselves that the experiments were carried out in a regular way, and special attention was paid to the accuracy of the throat cut. These experiments in the case of cattle show that the lapse of time from the moment the knife was applied to the time complete unconsciousness set in was 40 seconds. Experiments in case of sheep have been carried out by the chief veterinary officer of Edinburgh, and he found that the lapse of time from the application of the knife to the setting in of unconsciousness, when slaughtering was done by the throat cutter, was 33 1/5th seconds. Then there is the method of slaughtering by shooting, by the bullet. The reasons advanced against this method, especially in a public slaughter-house, is that in the first place it is dangerous to human life. We had an instance where a butcher was killed in Cape Town during the process of killing by means of the bullet, and since then a different and more humane method has been adopted. Another objection is that it is not always possible to shoot correctly. Sometimes the shots only wound the animals. Then there is a further objection in the loud report made by the shooting frightening and exciting animals awaiting slaughter. Another method is that of pole-axing. This method largely depends on the skill of the operator; if he is not fully skilled, he has often to deliver several blows before the animal is rendered unconscious. Mr. Ernest D. Evans, chairman of the United Tanners’ Federation of Great Britain and Ireland has stated that he took at random the first 100 hides passing through his tannery and found that in a 100 cases, it was found that death had been caused by the pole-axing method, 55 by one blow, 30 by two blows, 10 by three blows, one by four blows, three by five blows, and one animal by 10 blows. It stands to reason that if an animal is pole-axed in this way, by 10 blows, it must suffer considerable pain during the process. Another method is that of pithing, which has, for some time, been considered a most humane method. But it depends on the skill of the operator, who, naturally, has to experiment before he acquires that skill. In the process of experimenting a large amount of pain is inflicted on animals. These experts occasionally make mistakes. It is also stated by scientists that pithing does not render the animal insensitive to pain. Dr. Dryerre, professor of physiology at the Royal Veterinary College, Edinburgh, Scotland, says—

The other method is the humane killer. It is necessary to see this instrument in operation to be impressed by its effectiveness. This method is the most modern one, and has been arrived at by a good deal of experimenting by scientists in Europe. It is a kind of pistol at the end of a pole. When discharged into the brain, just above the eye, it causes immediate insensibility. The same chief officer of Edinburgh experimented with this and found that from the time of the first incision only four-fifths of a second elapsed before unconsciousness supervened. I want to read something in connection with this method. It is a report by Dr. Unger, director of the abattoir of Basel—

This method is noiseless, quick, easily handled and very reliable. The pistol is brought against the animal’s forehead, and immediately the animal is completely stunned. There is an absence of danger to human beings, and the method is also very inexpensive. This method is in extensive use in South Africa at the present time. It has already been applied at the following places—Bloemfontein, Cape Town. East London, Pietermaritzburg, Durban, Paarl, Malmesbury, Stellenbosch, Robertson, Germiston and Greytown. Other methods are in use in Pretoria, Johannesburg and other centres. Some time ago strictures were passed on methods used in some of these places, but I will not dwell upon that, as it is not necessary for the purposes of my Bill. The humane killer has also been made compulsory by Act of Parliament in certain countries in Europe, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland and parts of Germany. In all these cases where the use of this instrument is compulsory, there have been exemptions in the case of cattle required for Jewish and Mohammedan consumption, except in the case of Switzerland. The present Bill follows the lines of the Bill in Scotland, with necessary alterations. Even in Chicago, the notorious city of crime and gunmen, the doomed ox is peacefully grazing in a stall when the merciful projection strikes him down. The Bill provides, in the first place, for the compulsory slaughter by means of a mechanically-operated instrument which stuns the animal and renders it insensible to pain, until death supervenes. The type of instrument must be approved by the local authority. An exemption is made in the case of meat intended for the use of Jews and Mohammedans, thereby respecting their religious feelings. The operator of the instrument must be licensed by the local authority. In the next place, it is confined to public slaughter-houses; that is, to those established by local authorities. Then there are further powers of prosecution, powers to make regulations, and inspection by the local authorities. The Bill now lays down that it shall be applied to the following animals, namely, cattle, sheep, pigs and goats. I am aware that during the last few days many hon. members of this House have received telegrams from various local authorities asking them to oppose the second reading of the Bill, unless they are given an opportunity of being heard on the matter. The objections seem to fall under the following heads: the first objection is one raised by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson); why confine it to local authorities? The second objection is against the inclusion of sheep, goats, and, in some cases, others object to the inclusion of pigs. In view of these objections, I think, personally, that this matter should be referred to a select committee. I feel that this is something new, and something about which most of us know very little. We may not have full knowledge of many of the interests that may be affected. It is a matter in connection with which local authorities or other bodies may like to give evidence on, or may like to give further information, or, as in this particular case, where we have excluded private slaughter-houses, the municipalities may bring forward good reasons why those private slaughter-houses should not be excluded. Most hon. members have not gone into the matter very thoroughly, and it would be in the interests of all concerned to have some information. Personally, I, as the mover of the Bill, will welcome a very exhaustive enquiry into this matter by a select committee. If, of course, certain matters like this one I have mentioned, namely, the exclusion or the inclusion of private slaughter-houses, is to be considered, it is necessary that the Bill should be referred to a select committee before the second reading. Any evidence on these points will be in the best interests of the Bill. If hon. members feel that they ought to move for a select committee before the second reading, I shall be prepared to accept it, and will welcome it.

I think that the hon. member who introduced the Bill has made it very easy for the House to support his motion. The support he asks for this afternoon is merely that the House shall give permission for the Bill to go through a select committee for consideration, and then to lay the well-considered views of the select committee before the House. To that extent I agree with him. I believe that the general intention of the hon. member in his Bill has got and will receive much and possibly general sympathy in the House. It is unfortunate that the unreasoning animals serve humanity not only with their strength, but with their lives, but they cannot fight for their own rights. Their rights and feelings are in the hands of human beings, and the only guarantee they have is the human feeling of justice, even towards unreasoning animals, and a feeling of humanity. For that reason it is necessary to employ every means to make their suffering in the service of humanity as little as possible. Therefore, I believe that the hon. member will find as much sympathy in the House as out of it with the intentions of the Bill he has introduced. I want further to point out that the position as at present existing is very unsatisfactory. I am not going into details about the methods, but the position is very unsatisfactory, because there is a danger that for convenience sake and for the sake of profit, the most humane methods will not be employed in killing the animals, but a less humane method. There are certain sections of the population who, for religious reasons, only want the meat of animals that have been killed in a less humane manner. In order to get the greatest profit it is possible that butchers will employ the less humane method on all their cattle, because then they are certain that everyone will buy it. My view is that the most humane methods must be selected, and there should only be an exception in the case of animals that are slaughtered for people who have religious scruples. The ordinary method employed ought, however, to be the most humane. For that reason I am prepared to support the hon. member in every way that he, for the present, requires.

The motion of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has had a sympathetic reception from the hon. the Minister, and that goes well for its speedy passage on to the statute book. Nothing pleases me more than the consent of the hon. member for Ladybrand to refer this Bill to a select committee. I, therefore, move, as an amendment—

In doing that, I shall give some reasons for it. We know it is useless to bring in any measure affecting a large number of people, and surely this Bill affects almost everyone, unless it is largely based on their consent. To have a Bill of this sort, perhaps in improved form, passed into law, only requires that more information should be made available to the general public, or to the people of this country generally. Perhaps we ought to know more about the methods of killing than we do. I confess to my sins of omission in that connection. I recently took an opportunity of seeing the way in which animals were slaughtered for human consumption. I can only say this: that I have seen bull-fights and instances of that sort, but I have never seen animals suffering more than I witnessed in some of our public slaughter-houses. I do not think this is intentional, but is, perhaps, the result of carelessness. The mover dwelt on the manner of killing, but there is another aspect of the matter, which is even more important, and that is the preparation of the animal before it is actually slain. It is then that the greatest cruelty occurs, and people who have seen animals just prior to slaughter can perceive that they suffer intensely. If we referred the whole Bill to a select committee, it is very likely that this side of the problem will receive due attention. Kipling in “The True Romance" speaks of “a shadow kind, to dumb and blind, the shambles where we die.” If animals, unfortunately, have to die for our comfort, let us kill them as humanely as possible, and let us see that there is no unnecessary suffering before they are finally despatched. It is quite possible that methods may be devised by which objections to the slaughtering of animals by our Jewish and Moslem friends may be rendered less objectionable than they seem to be now. It is the preliminaries before slaughter to which exception is taken. There can be no doubt that this suffering can be obviated to a large extent by the adoption of mere scientific methods. The necessity for more humane means of slaughter applies to all animals, but the necessity is greater in the case of large ones. It is apparently a fairly simple matter to devise quite humane methods for killing small animals. During the last 12 months all the pigs in the Cape Town abattoirs have been killed by a humane killer with very satisfactory results, the animal not being aware of its impending fate, and unconsciousness supervenes before the end. That, unfortunately, is not the case with larger animals. That is not creditable to us. There would be no question whatever about the Bill being passed unanimously if all hon. members paid a visit to an abattoir. Personally, after seeing what happens at one of these establishments, I have not been able to touch beef since. I think that would probably be the effect on most hon. members, for a time, at all events. We should get the municipalities on our side. I believe they are desirous of improving their methods of slaughtering. We want to hear their views and to ascertain if the proposals outlined in the Bill are practicable and can be adopted by municipalities. That is another reason for sending the Bill to a select committee, from which I feel sure it will emerge in a form satisfactory to the vast bulk of the people. I do not think this is the time for hon. members—if there are any such—who have weighty objections to the Bill, to urge them. There will be an opportunity later on of discussing the whole subject, when the Bill comes back, no doubt amended, from the select committee. May I ask the Prime Minister to consider giving facilities for the final stages of this Bill. I believe the last private member’s day is only a fortnight hence, and it is possible that the Bill may not return from the select committee before the private member’s days are exhausted.

I second the amendment, but do not wish to go into details because I feel the principle embodied in the Bill is one to which everybody should agree. The matter, therefore, does not call for discussion at this stage. The present methods of slaughtering animals for human consumption are not creditable to mankind, since they are slaughtered as a provision for our existence. I am seconding the amendment in answer to various telegrams I have received during the week, also from the municipality of Johannesburg, asking for the matter to he sent to a select committee in order that their views may be placed before it—not, I take it, in opposition to the principle, but to voice any objections they may have against what they consider unfair provisions in the Bill. I trust that this measure may have a successful passage.

I want to thank the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) for the very lucid and non-controversial manner in which he introduced this Bill. I realize that there are many people who think that the mere fact that people consume animal food is evidence of cruelty. I take it that the idea underlying the Bill is to see that the killing of animals is clone in the least cruel manner. The hon. member told us that a definite exception is being made as far as Jewish and Mohammedan slaughtering is concerned, and it is wise, I think, not to introduce ritual or religious controversy. It is not necessary to deal with these methods being humane in so far as any methods are humane, but I just want to point out to the hon. member that the last words of sub-section (2) of clause I rather nullify or contradict the exception he states is provided, because if you leave it to almost every local authority to come to a conclusion they may be able to say that proviso is not going to apply to particular cases. I hope that in order to make the section absolutely effective he will see these last words are excluded.

I am glad that I can say a word in connection with the principle of this Bill. I am not one to act merely on the telegrams that we receive, or the representation of the humane societies, but I base my arguments on practical experience. I have slaughtered not a few cattle, but many. As a result of bitter experience in connection with what I have seen in slaughtering of cattle, I am quite convinced that a Bill of this kind is absolutely necessary. I only think that it does not go half far enough. Nor am I an advocate of the last invention for slaughtering cattle. For the simple reason that the great point is not how the animal is to be killed, by the humane killer, or another instrument. So long as the animal is killed immediately, whether by a knife or an instrument, it remains the same. The great cruelty, however, the complaint of the animal against man, is the long martyrdom before the death blow is given. That is the great point which the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) completely overlooked. The old farmers have a practical method. Drive your cattle in a group to the kraal, and get one of the old experts who knows how to use the Martini Henry cartridges, and when the cattle are standing there patiently resting, that old expert will shoot the animal, and I guarantee that no harm is done to the animal, and that the meat-eating humanity will be entirely satisfied. If, however, the cattle are first taken from one kraal to the other, and smell the blood, then his flesh is benumbed before the death blow is inflicted, and no one can any longer eat it with enjoyment. Just notice the difference in the meat of cattle which is slaughtered in that way, and the meat of the farmer who uses the Martini Henry. There is still another complaint the animal has, and that is the exotic method which is here being introduced. I have, myself, had instances where I have seen the old trek ox wheeler, the old guide who has for years rendered good service on the farm, in the slaughter-house. The animal’s hind legs are bound and he is pulled up, and while he is hanging in that way the rabbi, or call him minister, comes with a sharp knife and gives one cut over the throat of the animal. The animal then has to hang there from ten minutes to half an hour until he has bled to death. It is a terrible martyrdom, and the Mohammedan method is just as murderous. If the animals could speak they would make a great noise about those methods. The preparation before the animals are slaughtered, before the death blow is given, is the worst martyrdom the animal suffers.

I think all hon. members will sympathise with and support the principle which has moved the hon. member in putting this Bill before the House, but in spite of the fact that it is to go to a select committee I should like to make a few points clear, because I think a very great deal of investigation will be necessary before a matter of this sort is placed on the statute book. I very much doubt whether it will be possible to get the necessary information and to investigate the matter in the way it should be investigated in time to get the Bill through this session. The hon. member stressed very much the tremendous advantages of this humane killer, but I would like to go more fully into a detail already mentioned by two hon. members, and that is that the final blow that extinguishes life, whether given by the killer or the pole-axe, is, after all, an infinitesimal portion of the suffering inflicted upon animals when they are taken to the slaughter-house. I was very much touched, shall I say, by the picture drawn by the hon. the mover of an ox peacefully grazing and quietly passing into insensibility, on the use of the humane killer and not regaining consciousness until it found itself hung up in the butcher’s shop in the form of steaks and sirloins. Those of us who have handled cattle know that if a beast has been skinned on the veld, if blood has been spilt on the veld, every beast in the herd will collect around that blood, and the whole troop will go wild. The troop will begin to fight, and very often you will have severe injuries to your cattle if you place them in a paddock where blood has been shed. It is this fear of blood which constitutes the cruelty in the slaughter-houses. Generally a chain is flung round the horns and the animal is dragged into the slaughter-hall. It quivers with fright, its eyes starting from its head, indicating the most frightful mental suffering. That is the cruelty of the slaughtering, and the humane killer will not overcome that. We want to go a great deal further than that in the direction of avoiding any contact with blood before slaughtering. You have got the same performance with ritual slaughtering intensified. There is a wild struggle to tie the animal up to a ring. When that is done, the animal is hoisted up, and its throat is cut. Its spinal cord is not severed, but the jugular vein is severed, and the animal slowly bleeds to death. Even the victims at the stake in the long gone by days received in many cases what was called the “mercy stroke,” but there is no “mercy stroke” for the animal killed under religious rites. He has to suffer to the end. Here we are going to legalize a system of cruelty to dumb animals under this Bill. I am told that one should not interfere with the religious feelings of races, but that has been done in many cases. Let me instance the case of suttee, where the Indian widow used to fling herself on the fire to accompany the soul of her husband to Paradise. Did we hesitate for one moment to put a stop to that condition of affairs? No, there and in many other cases we have interfered with religious ritual where it brought suffering to human beings. If we are going to legislate to minimize the suffering of animals, I think we should take our courage in both hands, and make it clear that, while not doing it in a spirit of hostility to the religions of other races or other sections of the community, we are doing it in a spirit of humanity towards animals. I want to draw attention to the clause which says that slaughtering shall be done by a mechanically operated instrument. We have to go carefully into this question of what is the most suitable mechanically operated instrument. An instrument was specially recommended to the Cape Town corporation by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals itself. The instrument of the pistol type, was used, and for a time it behaved itself, and it was thought to be suitable. One day, however, an ox was killed, and so also was the butcher who was standing alongside the ox. That only shows the necessity for a thorough investigation. Before we legislate we should be certain there is no danger to human life. Of course, it may be only once in a thousand, or one in ten thousand occasions, that such a thing will happen, but we should make the fullest enquiries. I believe that the widow is suing the corporation for £5,000 damages. Again, the Bill provides that the animal must be stunned, but, before we legislate, we should look around and see what other countries are doing. The Argentine kills more cattle than almost any country in the world and there the long-handled hammer is used. There is no bloodshed, and the animal is not terrified. He is struck on the back of the head and stunned immediately. It is quite possible that that may be a better method than the humane killer. That is another reason for very full investigation. The great point, instead of only legislating that the humane killer should be used, is to stop the bringing of cattle into the slaughter-hall where blood is flowing like water. At Congella, the method is to drive the animals from the pens down a race, until they come to a small pen called the “knocking pen,” a man stands there with a pole-axe, and as a rule, one stroke sends the beast down—sometimes there is more than one stroke, but very rarely. The beast falls against the side of the pen which opens and the carcase is deposited onto a trolley, it is hauled up by pulleys and his throat is cut. The select committee should especially investigate with a view to seeing whether we cannot do away with the slaughter-hall, and slaughter these animals in a small pen. Then we shall do away with a tremendous amount of suffering which these cattle at present undergo. There is another aspect; that of cost. I do not think that cost should be allowed to enter too greatly into the discussion, but the cost of each cartridge is 1¼d., and there will be considerable extra labour involved in the case of sheep. Each sheep has to be held firmly, by being gripped by the operator between the legs, and then the animal is shot. By experiment it has been found possible to kill five sheep by the ordinary method to one by the humane killer, and I have it on authority that it costs 3d. a head. If you are going to kill in Johannesburg alone the consumers will have to pay £20,000 extra for the cost of slaughtering by this method. It is an item which must be considered. There is another matter from the commercial standpoint. It has not been determined what the effect of the shot in the brain has on the quality of the meat, but it certainly has a different effect to cutting of the throat or pithing. This has been adopted in several countries, but they are the cooler countries, and the effect on the meat might be intensified in a hot country. A shot in the brain causes the blood to be darker in colour, and it is said by eminent authorities that decomposition in the meat sets in more rapidly. If the brain shot is to have a detrimental effect on meat for export, I hope a select committee will take evidence on that point. The Argentina uses the stunning stroke of a hammer, and this has proved the best for carcases which have to be killed. One thing has been proved, and that is in connection with the slaughter of pigs, an extravasation of blood takes place which does not occur in every case, and the bacon is often discoloured. In the event of a select committee being appointed, they should consider this question; if the method is made compulsory, we shall spoil the name of our bacon for export. Those are the principal points which I hope will be considered by the select committee. Finally I am not yet assured that legislation is necessary. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has mentioned many places where the method is in use, but the municipalities who are not using this method are trying to get some instrument which is humane in killing. The desire to use a humane method is there, therefore I am not convinced that legislation is necessary. While I have suggested certain means of investigation be followed, I am sure no one would see more suffering caused than is unavoidable and therefore we can all support the principle of the Bill.

I rise to support the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). I admit the difficulties pointed out by previous speakers. Any of us who have visited abattoirs in this country appreciate the words of the hon. member for East. London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The real difficulty in connection with this Bill is to make provision more for the preparation for slaughter than for the slaughter itself. I have seen in Chicago what is perhaps an improved method. In the great packing houses there, Armours and Libbys, there is something in the shape of a loose-box in which the animal is brought in. It is entirely alone, and is not dragged by chains over a blood-stained floor, and as far as my memory goes, it is a better method than that of dragging the animals into the place of slaughter. If one has any objection to the Bill, it is because it is so limited. It applies only to public slaughter-houses, and should be extended to the slaughter of all animals in the country. I have seen small animals shot and killed instantly, but those are not the methods usually employed in regard to small stock. I have seen more cruelty in regard to small stock than probably takes place in all the public abattoirs. With regard to the instant killer, there are differences of opinion. In Johannes burg, where, I believe, the number slaughtered is greater than in any other part of South Africa, the pithing method is certainly satisfactory, and, after seeing it, one would consider it would be difficult to improve on it. I understand that in not more than one out of one hundred cases is it necessary to give more than one hit in order to render the animal insensible. I agree that the Bill should go to a select committee, because I think that the whole matter will require a good deal of investigation. For instance, I am sure that evidence will come forward that will help to decide in the question of pithing or the use of one of these new instruments. If there is any difference of opinion on that matter the select committee should be able to get evidence in that regard, and I am sure it will be very helpful. I think that improvements can be made in the Bill. They can be made in regard to the question of the right of inspection. I think that should be provided for. There is, in addition to this society which I presume is sponsoring the Bill, in a measure, namely the Welfare Society, such societies as the S.P.C.A. which is particularly qualified and has done most excellent work in this regard in this country. That society works under enactment, and it has a very large number of inspectors. I think when an Act of this kind comes to be carried out, it would be undesirable that such societies as the S.P.C.A. should be debarred the right of entry, and of rendering service perhaps that no other society could render so well. I desire to support the Bill very heartily, and I hope when it emerges from select committee it will have quick passage and become law during the present session.

I rise to give a cordial welcome to this Bill. It is common cause that methods of slaughter have been methods that require considerable alteration from the point of view of humane killing. I am glad the Bill has been introduced, and I welcome it on general grounds. I think it is right that the Bill should go to a select committee. Numerous grounds have been raised in this House as to why it should go to select committee. The only fear I have is that by the time all these grounds have been considered, the Bill itself may be killed, because we are told, with very great force, that the question of the method of approach to the slaughter chamber should be dealt with in the Bill. There is very great force in that, I know. We are also told that the Bill should be intended to apply not only to public slaughter-houses, but also to private slaughter-houses, and especially should be applied logically to every case of the slaughter of animals. There is a great deal to be said for that also. But by the time we have gone into these questions and have widened the basis of the Bill, we shall have to realize that there will be other questions involved. There is the question of the alteration in the construction of buildings for the slaughter of animals. There is also the question of inspection, which is a very material one indeed if the Bill is to be carried out properly. This will involve the question of cost, and if vested interests are up against the Bill, in our desire to make a perfect Bill which will meet all the requirements of humanity, we shall be losing a chance of getting even this partial measure, which is very important, passed this session. The promoters of the Bill have apparently limited the Bill to something which would, in the time at our disposal, have a greater chance of acceptance from the greater number of people in this House. They have limited the Bill to a measure which will be a practical one, and be a large instalment of a reform which is very much needed. If we are to widen the scope of the Bill, I am afraid that we shall not get this Bill this session, or for one or two sessions to come. As long as it is a private measure, and the more difficulties we create, the more unlikely we are to get the Bill through. I only rise to say that I very cordially support the Bill as it stands. I believe there is a very great value in making the measure applicable, in the first place, to public slaugter-houses, for it is in the public slaughter-houses that the effect of the Bill will be seen. You want a public body to carry out the terms of the Bill. While I think the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has been wise in offering to accept the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to select committee, I do hope, when the select committee deals with it, they will realize that a measure of reform is very badly needed. I hope that the committee will confine itself to bringing forward a practical measure, which will have a chance of getting through this session.

I want briefly to thank hon. members for the way they have received this Bill, and for the agreement to send the matter to a select committee. The objections which have been raised are the very ones that induced me to agree to send the Bill to a select committee before the second reading. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) made certain objections to the painless killer, and he referred to the Argentine. I have been informed, however, by the manager of a large butchery here, who went to the Argentine, and who there was favourably influenced by the hammer, that that method is not so effective in South Africa. He brought a hammer with him, but when a blow is given to an animal it only draws away its head, and it has no effect on it. The head of the Afrikaner cattle is too hard and the hammer makes no impression on it. In the Argentine they kill a more delicate kind of animal for the British market. But old Stuurman, of whom the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster) spoke, has too hard a head. He merely pulls it away and looks at the thing. The hon. member also spoke of the quality of the lard of pigs that are slaughtered by the painless killer. I want to point out to him that there are about a hundred firms in England who prepare smoked bacon from animals slaughtered by the painless killer. However this may be, the select committee can go into it. The preparation of the animals for slaughter has also been mentioned. I agree with it, and if anything can be done to improve matters in that respect, I will help a bit, if it is reasonable. I hope the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) will be unanimously passed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, namely—

We leave the question of blood and slaughter and turn to the relatively more pleasant subject of wine and beer. The motion starts off by saying: “That this House views with concern the increasing number of convictions for selling liquor illicitly in the Transvaal.” I suppose no one will dispute those sentiments, but the motion goes on: “which are mainly due to the impracticability of carrying out the law imposing absolute prohibition on natives and coloured persons in that province.” Here I wish to differ most emphatically. It seems to me that the suggestion embodied in the motion is one which logically would justify anyone claiming that the cure was worse than the disease. If the carrying out of the law in these cases is impracticable, the remedy is not to alter the law, but to alter the means of enforcing the law. The method of approach in this motion is entirely wrong. The mover is not so much concerned with the enforcement of the law as he is with increasing the sale of liquor; that seems to me to be the real spirit of the motion, which proposes not only to increase the sale of liquor to Europeans, but wants to increase it by making liquor cheap, and to facilitate natives obtaining it. The mover wants to make it possible for natives to obtain beer and wine in the easiest possible manner, and at the lowest possible price. It is not in any way concern for the welfare of the native—that is not the object of the motion, but the increasing of the sale of liquor to the benefit of the liquor producer, and to attain this end the mover proposes to make use of the natives. If the motion is carried to its logical conclusion, the natives of the other provinces will be concerned very seriously. The mover wants to extend the sale of liquor to raw, uncivilized natives, who have only recently emerged from a state of barbarism. Has he considered the effects of his policy? The subjection of natives to the evil influences of liquor is a consideration which requires all the attention we can possibly give it, and before this motion goes to the vote, I hope every hon. member will air his views on this particular aspect. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister, in introducing his Bill to enfranchise women, said—if I understood him correctly, and, unfortunately, I am not yet at home in Afrikaans—that the natives of this country were in a stage corresponding to our state in 400 A.D. That is, the natives are 1,600 years behind us in the scale of civilization, and they have many more years to go before they have reached that state of civilization which we claim to be ours to-day. If that is so, and there is the least doubt that cheap liquor and easy access to liquor is a good thing for our civilization, there can be no doubt it is not a good thing for the native in his present state of civilization. As to the significance of this motion, as far as Natal is concerned, although some hon. members think Natal is excluded, I think it is perfectly plain that it is applicable, not only to the Transvaal, but to the whole of the Union; but even if they differ, it is known that thousands of natives from Natal work on the mines in Johannesburg and, therefore, if this motion comes into effect, they will come into contact with all the consequences of this system—acquiring a taste for cheap liquor and so on. In Natal we have mainly Zulus (with a few Basutos and a sprinkling of Swazis), who, judged by European standards, and particularly judged by native standards, are the best, finest and most dignified of the native races of the country. They are still living under tribal control and are a virile, live, active and highly emotional people—a race very easily led by native influences kindred to themselves, and it is proposed that such a race should have cheap, dangerous liquor made easily available, and that every attempt should be made to encourage them to consume it for the benefit of the producers. That is a very serious matter. In Natal, in 1926, we had 1,139,804 Bantu people and 158,916 Europeans, the ratio being one European to 7.5 Bantu. I do not include all non-Europeans, but these are natives only. A little consideration of these figures will convince hon. members that this is a matter of very much more importance to Natal than to any other province, and so, on the ground of the safety of the Europeans, as well as the welfare of the natives, this motion embodies a very dangerous principle in its application to Natal at least. What is the state amongst the natives in Natal with regard to drink? The drink known as kaffir beer is a very wholesome beverage, and food as well as a drink. It is made from mealies, kaffir corn and kaffir corn malt. It is slightly intoxicating and really nourishing, with a relatively good food value. It is the national beverage of the Zulu people. I wonder whether the hon. member who moved the motion is actuated in providing the Zulu people with another national drink, or providing the means for fortifying their drink and rendering it more potent. There is one other liquor drunk by the natives in Natal which is known as isitiyimana, which is manufactured from treacle and pineapple, and is almost pure alcohol. I think the Minister of Justice, if he speaks on this question, will say that the police in Natal would have their difficulties increased manifold because of the existence of this drink. I submit, if this motion is carried, the difficulties of the police there will be made more difficult still. To-day this drink presents very great difficulty to the police, who have to find out where it is brewed and sold. The one factor which helps them considerably in this matter is that the native can get drunk either on kaffir beer or isitiyimana, and no policeman has any difficulty in determining whether a native is made drunk by itshimiyana. If it is kaffir beer, it is very evident from the smell; it is isitiyimana if there is no smell of kaffir beer. It is very dangerous, and nearly all the crimes of violence committed by natives are done under its influence. We must take no step to enable any other drink of a similar purpose to be made available to the native. Under the circumstances, it is not questioned that an increase in drinking and lawlessness will come about amongst the natives. It will result in the undoing of the natives and the unsettlement of the Europeans, whose safety and security would be undermined. Under these circumstances, very many more police would be required in Natal than are required to-day. In our towns and local bodies of Natal, the habit has grown up of providing kaffir beer manufactured under the most excellent circumstances for the benefit of the natives—a good, clean, wholesome drink with a small alcoholic content. The profits derived are used entirely for the benefit of the natives. What would be the effect on that excellent practice which has grown up in Natal, and existed there for about 20 years for the benefit of the natives, if this motion were carried? It would result in the complete breaking down of that practice, and in its place you would have all sorts of home brews and cheap liquor of unknown potency. It would not be for the benefit of the natives or of the Europeans in that province. The natives of Natal do not want it, and the Europeans of Natal are wholly opposed to it. I sought in this motion for altruism, but I could not find it. I have sought for signs of vested interests, and I have found them. I hope the House will not fail in its sense of duty towards the natives of this country by passing the motion of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure).

I rise to support the motion as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. P. P. du Toit). I am a strong supporter of local option, and a total abstainer, but I have always said that we must enforce the protection which prohibition offers without distinction of race or colour. I think it is very unfair to the white man to allow him to drink as much as he wants, but to protect coloured races. The families of the poor whites can go on suffering, but the coloured people are protected. I say that I will support any measure to oppose drinking. But then I want it to be done without distinction of colour. I do not say that we must extend the Cape system to the north, so that the brown man can go into any hotel and drink as much as he wants. That, in fact, is not asked for. The motion asks that light wine may be sold in the Transvaal under strict control. That is quite a different system to what prevails at the Cape to-day. If light wine is sold in the Transvaal under proper control, I cannot see that it will be a great danger to the public. We wine farmers are accused to-day of asking for this merely because they want to extend the market for their wine. That may be true, and they will possibly not deny it. It is, however, quite reasonable and fair for one to try in a proper way to find a proper market for one’s produce. The motion asks for nothing in connection with spirituous liquors, but merely light wines, which will be sold under proper control. I cannot see why, e.g., the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) has made so much objection to it. My hon. friend forgets that the system of kaffir beer has created a much more serious position than what will arise under this Bill. To-day with kaffir beer there is practically a free hotel on every farm, especially the fauns near the locations, and on Sundays there is a lot of drink consumed there. It is said that the natives do not get drunk on kaffir beer. Very well, but they are mad for a few days when they have drunk kaffir beer, and the misfortune is that that is just the time they kill the young sheep, because his desire for meat is irresistible then. Kaffir beer they may drink as much of as they please without control.

Will this motion improve the conditions ?

Yes, it will be less dangerous than the present kaffir beer system on the farms if we pass this proposal of light wine under proper control. I will even go so far as to say that this motion will have a favourable effect in the villages. What is the position to-day in the towns? Do any hon. members say that the natives cannot get drink, e.g., in Johannesburg? They get as much as they want, and of the strongest and worst kind. And how many Europeans are there in gaol? I am speaking, of course, of large towns like Johannesburg, not of every small village where the coloured man can buy his glass of wine under police supervision. The poor man who has to try and make a living by some method is misled into buying the worst spirituous liquor; he gets into gaol, and the native, nevertheless, gets the liquor. We shall have better conditions in the Transvaal with the system of light wines under strict control.

What about the tot system ?

I support my hon. friend with regard to the tot system. We have had it in the Free State for years, and I have never yet in my life seen anyone drunk as a result of the tot system.

It is not so in the Transvaal.

Perhaps a different kind of people live there, but I have never yet seen people getting drunk on the tot system. What harm is there in it, or rather what danger, if I give my workpeople a tot at the end of the day? It may be restricted to a definite quantity. But it will not intoxicate the people, and it will greatly prevent the pernicious liquor smuggling in the Transvaal which leads so many people into temptation. As a supporter of local option, I took particular notice of the farms. Even in the Cape Province I have found no abuse under the tot system. The workers drink in the towns and in the villages if they get nothing on the farms. They drink in the towns and villages until they are drunk. I think the position in the Free State in this respect, is very satisfactory.

What will the conditions in Johannesburg be ?

The Act can be very strictly enforced with regard to the giving of tots. At present the position is that people smuggle liquor of the worst kind. The poor people are bribed to smuggle liquor, and the position in the Transvaal would be improved by this proposal. It will put a stop to the fraudulent purchase of liquor, and, therefore, I support the motion. I am not in favour of total prohibition being imposed on only a section of the population, that Europeans shall have the right of buying as much liquor as they please, but that the, coloured persons shall be protected. Competition economically is very acute. The position in the Transvaal to-day is that the poor man has the right to drink freely. His hard-earned pence can be spent on liquor, and his family suffers bitterly as a result. The law protects the coloured man and makes a sober man of him, able to squeeze out the European. Further, I think that if light wine under proper control is given to the coloured people, the position in the Transvaal will be better than under the kaffir beer system on the farms.

What about brandy ?

I do not agree with the amendment about brandy. The time may possibly come for that, but now I am opposed to it.

I have been interested in the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. He has referred to the principle of equal rights irrespective of colour. Why should the unfortunate coloured man have the same rights in regard to brandy as the white man has? I seem to remember the hon. member voting on questions of right before the law, of franchise for men, franchise for women, and the right to work on equality with white men. Let us get away from this kind of travesty. The hon. gentleman knows he dare not go as far as equal rights in regard to brandy and wine. The principle in the Cape and Transvaal is that it is to the disadvantage of the white man, and the black man, that the native should have the right to get liquor as he likes. I have stood up for the rights of men without any regard to colour, their rights before the law. But I vote against the right of the black man to get liquor. The hon. member knows that is a sound and just position in regard to white and black. Let us do away with this travesty that the black man must have the same rights as the white in a matter of this kind. It is a curious thing that the discovery of a necessity of the application of the right of freedom in regard to drink in the Transvaal was made not by Transvaalers, but by members from wine-growing districts. For the first time we get the further logical extension—I admit it is logical— if you are going to allow it to one, you must allow it to the other. Why does the hon. member not dare to go as far as admitting that the granting of brandy to natives is dangerous? It is much more easy to maintain the principle of prohibition than it is to maintain a partial one, and then to be faced with a difficult distinction, which is not distinction at all. Referring to the tot, the drunkenness which has been such a feature of this part of the world is to be deplored. What is the cause of the disgraceful drunkenness around Cape Town? Those who defend the tot system say it is not due to the tot, that no white farmer has drunken men on his farm. They blame it on the canteen, but the canteen keepers blame it on the wine farmers. I think most of us have made up our minds on abundant evidence, that the cause is twofold; that it is due to canteen system and the tot system. The drunkenness which we see in the Western Province is a disgrace to the province. There is not a wine farmer who will not agree with me, despite their wish to shift the blame on to someone else. Is it not the fact that these men are so accustomed to their heavy tots that at the end of the week they go to the canteen ?

The coloured people at Wynberg do not live on the farms.

If you go to Bains Kloof and Wellington you will find the drunken people there are not people who live in the towns; they are people coming back from the towns who live on the farms. That is a disgrace and a blot to our fame down here. We, who live in the towns, should form our own conclusions, that these are the two sources of the trouble. I am convinced the clergy of the Dutch Church know what the true causes are. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I should like to say that we have had quoted in this House over and over again a wealth of opinion and evidence given by people who are themselves wine farmers, people who have been connected with wine farming, and, through their ministers of the Dutch Church, have been intimately associated with the wine farmers, who know what is going on. There is a large body of evidence of people which has made it perfectly clear that in their opinion one of the great sources of trouble is the tot system. To be asked to extend it to the Rand, the place where it has been considered for a generation to be essential to keep drink from the natives, is quite wrong. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Williamson) has rightly stressed to the House this afternoon in an eloquent speech, the tremendous danger that is facing the people in Natal if any concession made in the Transvaal is extended to Natal. These are people who themselves are acquainted with all the dangers if the concession is made, and have realized how great that danger will be if the system is adopted in the Transvaal. I hope the House will see what the effect of these things will be, and will bear in mind the great body of evidence that has, through these years, definitely supported the principle of the non-extension of these facilities to natives, and who have particularly fought the question of giving drink by the tot to employees. I ask the House to realize the grave difficulties and dangers to be faced if any one of these motions providing for an extension of drink facilities to natives is carried. I should like to hear what the hon. Minister of Justice will have to say upon this matter. I hope his views agree with mine. I hope that his views are views such as all the practical administrators of the Department of Justice and police officials have held hitherto. If they are in accordance with those views, there is no question about it from an official standpoint those who administered the Department of Justice and the police, will unhesitatingly take objection to the proposed extension. I shall be surprised if the present Minister of Justice departs from the position taken up by all Ministers and police officials for many years past. In these circumstances, I hope all these motions which provide for an extension of facilities to the Transvaal, will be turned down by a large majority in this House.

The motion of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) and the further proposal of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. P. P. du Toit) will be supported by me, and before I point out why I support them, I should like to say a few words about what the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) said. He says that we will not, in other respects, put the native on an equal footing to the white man, but that we want to do it in connection with this matter. The hon. member must, however, remember that we do not want to give liquor to the natives, as they put natives on the voters’ roll. We want to give good liquor in a decent way to the natives, so that it will do him good, and be a help and a blessing to him, while it is a scandal the way they put natives on the voters’ roll. He says the wine farmer ought to be ashamed of the introduction of this motion. The position is just the reverse. Many things have been said here in connection with the Liquor Act, but I do not now want to speak of the Act of 1928. There are many weak points in that Act, but we are not going into them, because I hope the Minister of Justice will introduce an amending Act next year. The hon. member says that the coloured people are drunk on Saturdays, and he attributes this to the tot system in vogue on the wine farms. That is not the case, but it is due to the fact that coloured women are still able to buy bottles of wine in the bottle store. That is the mistake in the Liquor Act, and it never ought to have been allowed. Another reason is that the English-speaking farmers pay their workers on Friday nights, they then go to the village on Saturday to shop. Consequently, they do not get their usual drink on the farm. In the village they meet those who can get the drink for them, and some of them become drunk. But we also find that where there are a hundred people standing and one reels, it is said that the whole lot are drunk. If those people had come to the farm and got their tot there, there would have been no drunkenness. The wine farmer has nothing to do with that drunkenness. I have not only had experience at Stellenbosch, but also in Bechuanaland, the Free State, Transvaal and other parts of the country, and there I have seen more drunkenness through kaffir beer than we have on our farms. We heard the shouting throughout the whole night preventing the people from sleeping. That kind of thing does not happen here. If we, therefore, lay down that the coloured people and natives of the Transvaal shall be entitled to have a ration of light wine in a respectable way, it will do them good. Children who have grown up amongst the wine farmers here are sober. I want to ask whether there are any more sober children than those of the wine farmers? My children have been given light wine at table since they were two years old. My son is now 29, and he as sober and respectable as any child of a wine farmer. Abuse of drink and drunkenness are not prevalent among the wine farmers of the Western Province. A great deal has also been said about ministers of religion. I also was a member of the select committee which the hon. member referred to, and when I asked one of our chief ministers whether it was desirable to give three or four tots of light wine a day to the coloured people in an orderly manner, he replied that he was not opposed to it, but that it depended on the quality of the drink. Of course, it depends upon the quality of the drink, and if the wine farmer is so foolish as to mix spirits with the wine to make his people drunk, then he is of no use to the wine farmers of our country. I now want to come to what the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) has said. He says that the proposal in the amendment is not meant to reduce drunkenness, and to see that the liquor laws are administered better, but that the wine farmers are only out to find a bigger market for their produce. I am convinced that if light wines are given as proposed, it will have a very good effect towards reducing drunkenness. He says that the native is a child, but that is why we do not propose that he should be allowed to drink as much as he wishes. We propose that a certain ration should be given him. He further says that the natives in the Transvaal would learn to drink and would then come to Natal. I do not know so much about Natal, but what I do know is that Natal, with all its sugar cane, gives anyone who wants it the chance of making a very much stronger kind of drink. The hon. member shakes his head. There is more drunkenness in Natal with kaffir beer than on our farms here.

That is not true.

I have seen much drunkenness in Durban. I now, however, want to finish with the observations hon. members made here. We have to do here with an industry which has been of enormous assistance in civilizing and advancing South Africa. Viticulture has greatly assisted our church with funds. The wine farmers have assisted in every direction in advancing our national life and in making our church strong. Many ministers of religion went to qualify on money coming out of viticulture, and why should not such an industry have a right to exist? At the inauguration of the Union, Mr. Moore, the Prime Minister of Natal, went up Paarl Mountain, and, when looking across the magnificent valley, he asked if something else could not be planted. One could see that he was one of those who did not care for drink. I then said to him that if we tried to do so, we might write bankrupt on the doors of the inhabitants of those parts. When the late Mr. Merriman bought Schoongezicht, he said to my father that he wanted nothing to do with wine, and that he was only going to farm with fruit. The first year he said that he had done well, and that he had got 1s. 6d. for a few apricots. Thereafter, he got 1s. 6d. a basket, with the result that he immediately planted vines and commenced supplying the railways with wine. One of the things of little use which the leader of the Opposition did was to assist the wine farmers with the Control Act of 1924. I should like to hear him in connection with this proposal. When a person is forging ahead, then it is no use only helping him half way. That Act only gave partial assistance, and if we do not assist the wine farmers more in getting a market for their produce, what will become of the Western Province? Are we to have still more poor whites in the country? The Western Province and the whole country is much indebted to the vine, and if any harm comes to the industry now we shall have many poor people, Dutch-speaking as well as English-speaking. It has been said that there is a danger that too much liquor will be given to the natives and the coloured people. The farmer will soon become accustomed to it, and give a proper ration in the Transvaal. In the Free State the farmers already are entitled to do so, and it is wrong for one province to have the right and not the other. In the circumstances, it is no more than right to give the same privileges to the Transvaal as well. I would rather give the coloured man or the native a bottle of wine than a single tot of brandy. I do not want strong drink to be given to the natives any more, and, therefore, I shall not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts). I hope the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) will assist us in rejecting that amendment. Comparisons are always being made here with other countries. Why do hon. members not quote France, Germany and Italy? I was a long time in France and Germany, but saw no drunkenness there. One afternoon I saw a few people reeling and was told that they were Americans. In France we can get light wine in cafés, and it can be bought by the bottle in grocers’ shops. It is not regarded as a disgrace to take light wine in a café. We do not say here that the mine employers should give light wine to the natives, but we give them the right of doing so, and if thereby a better market is obtained for our produce, then there surely is no shame in looking for the market for it in a decent way. I should like to hear from the leaders of the Opposition how their party regard the motion. It is not a party question, but they always say that their party stands so much for the interests of the farmer. I will frankly acknowledge that the leader of the Opposition in 1924 stood up for the farmers, and I want to ask him again on this occasion to defend their interests, and especially the most important farmers in the country, because I have already pointed out that if things go wrong with the wine farmers, it will not take long before the other farmers suffer, because one is dependent on the other, just as the whole body suffers if one part is hurt. Even if it possibly goes a little bit badly at first, yet the farmers must stand together and co-operate, because the gold and diamond mines are a disappearing asset, but farming will continue in South Africa. If on that side they really are sympathetic towards the farmers, let them show it by assisting the farmers here. If hon. members can convince me that it is detrimental and that drunkenness will be increased if light wine is supplied by the master to his servant under proper supervision, then I shall be the first to vote against it. I, and everyone in the Western Province, oppose drunkenness, and if the teetotallers can convert me to their views, then I shall help them to fight it, but not in the way that they want to fight, because that is nonsense. Recently, e.g., a motion was introduced for a man to be able to get one bottle of liquor, but if he may not get more, then he will, anyway, try to get liquor, and bad liquor just like boys who, when they cannot get cigarettes, take a piece of cane. It has especially been said by hon. members opposite that once we teach the native to drink he will want strong drink, that is the nature of the native. That is not the ease, and we have the proof of it in the Cape Province, where we have some natives who work with wine farmers on the same contract as the coloured people. They get their liquor just the same as the coloured man, but I have never yet heard of a case of a native going to the village and trying to get stronger drink, because they are just as well satisfied with light wine as the coloured people. That objection is, therefore, unsound. It was also said that we should try to export our wine. That is a mistake which is made in our country in connection with the fruit as well. I do not now want to speak about fresh fruit, but dried fruit. If, e.g., the sheep farmer were to decide to use a handful of dried prunes a day, then we should not be able to produce enough. I know from experience, however, that there are many places where you get your meals, meat, etc., but you do not get anything of this kind with them. We have a market here in our midst, and now we have this talk of shipping our produce.

There is a big market overseas.

Don’t you believe it. My hon. friend has been overseas, but he must have gone to the wrong people, but I visited people in the trade. In 1922, I went to a large merchant in London and he honestly told me the truth. He said: “If you think that you can sell any quantity of your wine in England, you are making the mistake of your life. If you give us an opportunity to gradually learn to drink your wine, then we might possibly build up a trade. But if you want to send 20,000 leaguers, then you must wait 20 years.” That is what he told me as a result of his experience with other countries.

The German treaty will assist.

Hon. members must not forget that in Germany they have the Rhine wines, and while we were still engaged in trying to manufacture a good light wine, they had almost forgotten how to make it, so that we cannot expect a large market there. Perhaps we shall have a chance of selling good heavy wine there, but as they have their wine from the Rhine valley, it is wrong to think that we shall get a market for our light wines there. Our market is in South Africa. Let us follow the example of France and Germany and drink our light wines. It causes no drunkenness, and it will assist us very much. In the summer I drink half-a-bottle of wine with my meals when I am at home, and there are many who do the same. It does not do the body the least harm, and in that way we assist one of the chief industries of the country.

You get it cheap.

We need not talk about that. The co-operative wine growers’ associations will also sell it to you cheaper. The question is whether the use of light wines will cause drunkenness, and that is not the case. We are not coming to the House for this motion to get financial aid from the Government. We do not, like other industries, keep running to the Government for financial assistance. The tax on whisky has, indeed, been increased, but that is not a necessary article, and we shall have to improve our liquor to keep out that kind of European liquor, because otherwise we shall never succeed in doing so. It is said that we let our drink run to waste. That was a mistake, but in any case, it was our own drink which ran to waste, and we did not ask the Government for financial assistance. We have stood on our own legs up to the present, and hope to continue to do so. We have the right, like everyone else, of looking for markets. The wine industry is the most important industry in the Western Province, and if it is to fail, we shall have the same position in the Western Province as prevails in many other parts of the Union, and we shall have more poor whites than in any other part of the Union. It is said that if we remove the vines we can make a living from dried fruit, fresh fruit and a little tobacco. Those, however, are only side lines. It has been so ordained by Providence that from the very start the vine was planted here, and it is a thing which suits very well. Someone behind me says that I am speaking too long, but this matter is so important and serious, I think, that everyone who means well with wine farming and the country must defend this motion. There are many people who know nothing about drink. People who to-day pose as an attorney here and to-morrow there and the next day at some other place, besides writing books, want to come and tell us all kinds of things about liquor. I hope the House will not pay much attention to that.

It is deplorable that hon. members who support the motion now before the House have the idea that any hon. member who opposes it is necessarily an opponent of the wine industry in the Western Province. I do not believe that is the case. It is not a fact that if we do not support the wine industry of the Western Province in every respect that we are not supporters of agriculture in South Africa. I think if we enquire whether there is any reasonable chance of this motion, or what it regulates, being successfully introduced, we must first look into the motive of the motion. If I understand it aright then it seems to me that in the first place it is an attempt to protect the natives of the Transvaal against the illicit liquor traffic, and in the second place an attempt to get further markets for the light wine of the Western Province. As for the first, it is undoubtedly noble and praiseworthy, and as for the second, it is a right which no one can deny to the wine farmers. If anyone, however, listens to speeches like that of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) then it is at once clear that he has not the slightest knowledge of conditions in those parts of the Union, where, according to the motion, it is to operate. I consider that if the proposals contained in this motion are to be put into force the members who are strongly in favour of it will very soon find out that neither of the two motives which they aim at will be realized; in the meantime very great harm will be done to the white population of the north, which will not be able to rectify it again. The views about this motion are very contradictory, that is clearly shown by the number of amendments moved by various members. I should like to call the attention of the supporters of the motion to one definite amendment, that by the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts). He is well acquainted with circumstances in the Transvaal and more particularly regarding the natives, and can speak on the question from experience and with authority. Hon. members have noticed that with his usual courtesy he does not propose in the amendment to delete “beer and light wines”, and to replace them by “brandy”, but his amendment wants brandy to be added. It is clear to me that he is aware that the natives will not buy beer or light wine, but will buy brandy, and therefore he is quite prepared to allow wine and beer to remain provided brandy is added. I cannot support the motion, but I want to give a few reasons for my attitude. In the first place, if this motion is passed, it will be admitted that the natives must get liquor as a necessity. That is a principle which we have never respected in the north.

What about the natives from Portuguese territory ?

They are not permanent Transvaal natives. In the second place, I want to make it clear that if this motion is passed by the House it will not be the end of the illicit traffic in the Transvaal. The natives will not buy beer or light wine, but they want intoxicating drink. We have heard the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) describing the condition of the natives when they have had their beer. If the natives are so certain to drink light wine and beer, why do they not make any attempt now to get hold of it? But I still have to hear of natives who have been convicted for carrying on illicit dealing in beer or light wine. If the motion is passed, and the Government—I very much doubt whether the Government would ever do so—were to introduce legislation on the lines of the motion then we shall find that the native will carefully abstain from the purchase of beer or light wine, and, just as occurs to-day, he will hanker after strong drink and brandy and the illicit drink traffic will continue as at present. What will the position be then? The highest legal authority of the Union will then have admitted that the supply of liquor to the natives is the satisfying of a need of his, and at the same time it will be laid down that the very drink that he wants he may not have. I tell my hon. friends that the result will be that light wine and beer will remain unsold, because the native will not buy them, and in the meantime the illicit drink traffic will continue as at present. Then hon. members come and describe the condition of the native after he has drunk kaffir beer, as if kaffir beer got him into that condition. I am not quite so certain of it. I know, like any other member from the Transvaal, that when a native gets hold of strong drink he is much worse than when he has kaffir beer. The spirits make him raving mad. What, however, will be the position if the native on the countryside is told that he may buy beer or light wine if he does not wish to do so? Then the position now prevailing in the Transvaal towns will be extended to the countryside, and the illicit liquor traffic will also increase there, and become the great evil which it is in the towns. The native on the countryside is not punished to-day because he gets drunk on kaffir beer, but if it is laid down on the countryside that the natives are to be taken to the urban gaols if they drink anything else than light wine or beer, then we shall have a very much worse position than the present one. If we take it the reverse way and suppose that the natives have to go to the towns and villages to buy liquor, then the position will arise which the hon. member for Boshoff has described in relation to the villages. Then the police will be able to arrest the native all the easier, and put them into the gaols and the farmer will be minus workers. I am not in the least opposed to the rights of the wine industry of the Western Province to look for markets, but because as an inhabitant of the Transvaal I consider it unjust to create a position which will be worse than the present one, I cannot support the motion, and I am convinced that I am acting in the best interests of the Transvaal by voting against the motion.

I just want to say at once that I entirely and whole-heartedly agree with the hon. members who are opposing the motion. In the position of commissioner of police, which I held for years, I came into closest touch with the matter, and especially with the drink question in the Transvaal. If the matter contained in the motion was not such a serious one, I would say we could laugh about the motion. It says in the first place that in consequence of the serious state of affairs in the Transvaal, and the fact that illicit liquor dealing goes on there, this motion has been introduced. Immediately after the introduction of the motion, however, the mover in an interview with the Cape Times and the Argus did not refer to his anxiety about the conditions in the Transvaal, but to the object of getting rid of the over-production of wine in the Western Province. If that were to take place then I very much deplore it, because the position, which is already serious, will then become very much worse. I have never in my life heard that two wrongs make a right. We practically want to force this liquor on the native, who has not asked for it, and who, in my opinion, does not want it either. As head of the police in the Transvaal I came into close touch with the native chiefs. I could mention many instances, but I only want to state one case when 14 chiefs came to me in 1921. They heard that there was a movement in the Cape Province to supply light wines to the Transvaal natives. They all wore head-rings, that is were old chiefs, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would mean the destruction of people. It has repeatedly been said here that light wine will make the natives more sober. No native wants light wine, and I will presently explain to the House what is found in the wine of the native after it has gone through his processes. In the Free State the tot system is allowed, and there we had comparatively little trouble with theft. There was better control in the Free State over the natives and over the liquor position. In the Transvaal, however, it is quite a different story. When I was in the Free State we did not have to do with skokian and marula. Perhaps the marula tree does not grow there, and peaches are apparently used for jam.

That is another matter.

Precisely. I have seen the effect of peach brandy, and if the natives are given light wine then they will go further to get something stronger. We carried out a raid recently and captured 800 bottles of wine. The woman who had the liquor originally paid from 5s. to 10s. for it, and to each bottle about ten bottles of water were added. We analysed four of the bottles, but let me first say that we added water to the liquor and gave it to a native on a Saturday night as an experiment. On Monday he still had no pulse. The native does not want the light wine, and he adds something to it to give it a bite. In the first bottle there was one-third wine left, and we found spirits of wine, and barman drops in it. In the second we found spirits of wine and calcium carbide. The smell of it would be enough to kill any hon. member. The effect on the native is devastating. I want, with all respect, to tell the Minister of Justice before he gives favourable consideration to a motion like this, he should first consult two sections of the population. The first is the native chiefs in the Transvaal.

They will want brandy.

Now that is the kind of thing we get here. Hon. members laughing at a matter like this. However serious the matter before the House may be they can do nothing but laugh about it. The second section that the Minister has to consult is that which comes into close touch with the native population and with crime, viz., the officers of the police. The senior officers of the police, and even the commissioner with white hair who has retired must be consulted, and I am convinced that S5 per cent. of them will be against this motion. I have great respect for the hon. member for Magaliesberg. I know him and I know that he will retain control over his workers, and will issue the liquor to them in a wise manner, but there are also unwise men who will make their workers drunk in an attempt to get more work out of them. Intoxicating drink has the same effect as spurs on a tired horse, as long as the firewater is in the native he will work, but in the long run it is his downfall. I want to refer to a blue book of the old Cape Government which contains the report of the enquiry into conditions in the Western Province. The report says that the main cause of consumption is the tot system, that is the opinion of a commission of impartial doctors, and it is not so much the tot system as the fact that the coloured people go to the canteen when they cannot get the tot on the farm. It is said that there is more drunkenness in the Transvaal than near the coast. It is not many years since a police officer told me that conditions were so bad in a village not far from here that the police had to bring the drunken people at night to the gaol by a cart. That does not occur in the Transvaal. If we are to introduce light wines into our province then we will make a serious condition of things still more serious, because the native will not be prepared to stop at light wines. I take my mind back a long way to the Weiner Commission. Wine farmers also sat on that commission. I am thinking, e.g., of a certain senator. That commission visited Natal, the Transvaal, the Free State, and I think the Cape Province as well. I was chief of the police in the Free State at the time, but why did we hear nothing more of the Weiner Commission? I will tell the House. It was because the evidence was so overwhelmingly against light wines. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) said that light wines would decrease drunkenness. It will make it much worse because if the native gets light wine and has the right to buy it I cannot think where the matter will end. I thank God I shall not be in the police when that takes place. The task of the police is difficult enough already. I was commissioner of police for 18 years, and I want to say here that I think we can be proud of our police, and if they did not have so many other duties they would be able to exercise better control over liquor. But as things are now it is unthinkable what the position will be if this proposal is given effect to. Let me mention another side of the question, which I also consider a deadly danger. Quite a number of years ago I received instructions to report on the conditions of a certain diggings. What I saw there shocked me, and conditions have since improved. When I was there I was obliged to go to a certain place where something had

ERRATA.

Col. 1298, 14 lines from bottom:—

Mr. Haywood.—For “12,000 natives” read “1,200 natives” and in Col. 1299, 31 lines down—for “ In the last two years” read “In the last few years.”

occurred. On the way I had the misfortune of breaking the springs of my motorcar and I had to stay on a farm. I had an experience there which made a deep impression on me. We know what the law in the Transvaal is; it is such that farmers themselves are obliged to contravene it. Let me give an instance. A farmer gave no liquor, but his neighbours did, the result was that he had great difficulty in getting workmen, and in the end he was forced to also give a ration of drink. It is very easy for our up-country friends and especially the hon. member for Stellenbosch to say that the sons of farmers here are quite sober. Why is that so? They have grown up with liquor, but in the Transvaal they do not get it. The result, e.g., on the farm I have spoken of was the two sons who had to serve the liquor to the natives both became enslaved to it. I was so shocked by this that I had an enquiry made. It appeared that in many districts there were sons who had never yet tasted liquor, and when liquor came there was a tremendous craving when they gave it to the workmen to take a tot themselves, and so they became enslaved to it. I could go on mentioning points but I will not do so. I just want to record my name however simple as a strong protest against the encouragement of the use of wine as now proposed, especially with regard to natives. Wine has always been the mocker. I will do everything in my power, at any rate to try to keep it out of the Transvaal. We have enough troubles in the Transvaal without requiring to add any more to them.

I wish to bear out the description of the state of affairs that prevails in the Transvaal which has been given the House by the hon. member who has just sat down. The concern expressed in the first portion of the motion would be taken at its full value, but for the sting in the tail. It is the Rand that is really concerned in this matter, and it will have nothing to do with the proposal contained in the motion. Already the Rand has too much Cape wine and brandy. Only the other day the officer in charge of the special branch of the police dealing with illicit liquor said it was more difficult to cope with the sale of Cape wine and brandy than the sale of skokiaan. It may interest hon. members, and it was a strange discovery to myself, that Cape wine and brandy are carried at a lower rate on rail to the Rand than the necessaries of life. There is an entire misconception that we are anxious to have this wine and brandy there. The most necessary article of wear is paying 25 per cent. more on rail. The report of Col. Quirk to the Licensing Board a few months ago showed that for nine months up to 30th September last, 26 city firms had imported 457,982 gallons of Cape wine, 151,534 gallons of brandy—so that there is a big market already— and 9,065 gallons of Cape gin—that is the first time I ever knew they had Cape gin. The House will realize that this large amount of liquor is not for the white population. Col. Quirk supplies the reason, which is—

If there is one trouble more than another, not only on the mines, but in domestic, commercial and several other services on the Witwatrsrand, it is to keep the natives from liquor. We will be told prohibition is a failure. We are thoroughly convinced that only prohibition will save the native. On more than one occasion the some responsible official in the department has stated that they are unable to carry out the law from many and various reasons. Instead of this motion coming before the House, if there was a demand made to the Department of Justice that the law, as it exists, should be carried out, the people of the Witwatersrand would be thankful. They are quite convinced, and the House would be, that this great liquor evil could largely be done away with. What is required is not more wine or brandy on the Rand. It is less brandy, and less brandy will come there provided some reasonable attempt is made to enforce the law.

On the motion of Mr. Henderson the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 28th March