I move, as an unoppposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I respectfully ask for permission to make a personal statement on a matter affecting me as chairman of the select committee, and possibly affecting the privileges of this House.

Is there any objection?

There being no objection,

A paragraph appeared in the Cape Times this morning of which the following is an extract. It is headed “Councillors kept in corridors—‘ Discourtesy’ at House of Assembly. It goes on—

Well, if left uncontradicted, in my opinion, this will not only have the effect of detracting from the dignity and authority of the House, but will give the impression that members of select committees are unmindful of their responsibilities. The facts are these: the Town Clerk was informed the delegation should be in attendance at 10.30 a.m. on the 26th instant. The committee met at 10 a.m., and at 10.30 were still engaged in the examination of certain witnesses. At about 11 a.m. a message reached the chairman that the members of the deputation were in attendance, but that they had other appointments, and thereupon the chairman instructed the committee clerk to inform the deputation that he regretted he was unable to take their evidence at the moment as other witnesses were still under examination. The chairman instructed the clerk to thank the deputation for their attendance, and that, if further evidence was required from the deputation, they would be so informed. The chairman’s message to the deputation was most courteously worded, and, I feel quite certain, was delivered in a most courteous fashion by the committee clerk.

Who was the chairman?

The chairman was myself. Of course, all members of this House and all intelligent members of the public are aware that select committees of this House possess as great powers in regard to the evidence of witnesses as any court in this land, and they know too that it is unavoidable that witnesses attending the high court of Parliament, or any court, should have to wait their turn before giving evidence. Whether this paragraph infringes the privileges of Parliament or not, which, I take it, is a matter of legal discussion, I submit that the statement appearing in the Cape Times should never have been made.

My attention has been drawn to this paragraph, and I must say that the remarks made are wholly unwarranted, but I cannot hold that there has been any breach of privilege.

I should like to make a few remarks additional to those I submitted before the debate was adjourned. In the event of the passing of this motion, and of the Government giving effect to it, there will be great difficulty in enforcing it in the Transvaal. Taking the figures for the last nine months, we find that practically a million gallons a year of wine and brandy are consumed, and one cannot help feeling that any increase in that quantity would be regrettable. At any rate, control will be very difficult indeed. We learn from official sources that the purchasers and consumers are the illicit liquor dealers and the aboriginal natives. We say that the law in this connection is all right, but that the law has not been enforced. I am sure nothing more interesting could be heard in this House than the opinion of the Minister of Justice with regard to the enforcement of the law. The position on the Witwatersrand is not improving, and the supervision and control of the liquor traffic there leaves a tremendous lot to be desired. If the people of the Witwatersrand have one wish, it is that this law should be administered, and that the Department of Justice should make the necessary arrangements for administering it. It is said that if this motion is carried, it will bring more native labour to the Witwatersrand. That is a suggestion that we cannot possibly accept. We do not believe it will do anything of the kind. The second statement is that it will make the work there more attractive for the native. It may make the Witwatersrand more attractive to a very small percentage of the east coast boys who are accustomed to drinking wine. The great thing claimed is that the passing of the motion would do away in a measure with illicit liquor traffic on the Witwatersrand. May I assure the mover that if we thought for one moment that that would be the result, there would be the strongest support for this motion from every section of the people of the Transvaal. We believe, however, that it will increase drunkenness amongst the natives. We believe that any increase in the importation of Cape wine and brandy would be detrimental to the native on the Witwatersrand. We believe also that it will increase crime on the Rand. We are also of opinion that it will increase the number of illicit liquor sellers. If that is the case, there is nothing whatever to recommend this motion. We are anxious to get rid of the liquor that is doing the mischief, and the one thing the motion proposes to do is to increase the quantity of liquor. This would be productive of very great mischief. We cannot afford to trifle with principles that have been adopted in the Transvaal for the peace and good conduct of the native. On those grounds, we shall be justified in voting against this motion. It will be admitted on all sides that the present position on the Rand cannot be permitted to exist much longer, and I hope we shall get a statement from the Minister of Justice as to what efforts are to be made by his department to stamp out the illicit liquor traffic.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has, in my opinion, used an entirely wrong argument. He is afraid that if the giving of a certain quantity of wine and strong drink to the natives and coloured people in the Transvaal is legalized that the liquor evil on the Witwatersrand, and especially in Johannesburg, will increase. If it is to be increased still more, then I don’t know where we are going to land on the Witwatersrand. It has often been said that Johannesburg is the university of crime, and I think that, so far as the drink evil is concerned, this statement is true. I will quote certain figures of the committee that enquired into the contravention of the Liquor Act; I find it in their report of 1926, and the statistics are therefore official, which they collected about the drink evil in various parts of the country. The comparison I want to draw is between the Western Province, the Cape and the Witwatersrand. The population, as far as I can make out, is at least 700,000 Europeans and non-Europeans in the Western Province, while on the Witwatersrand there are about 500,000 people of all the colours one can find in a person’s skin. Therefore, as the population of the Western Province is 200,000 more than that of the Witwatersrand, one would have expected that the crimes under the Liquor Act in the Western Province pro rata to the population would have been greater, especially as the Western Province has a large coloured population. One would have expected that, when hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste), stated that drunkenness is so much worse here than in Johannesburg. But the figures show that the position is precisely the reverse, and therefore I cannot understand the argument of the hon. member for Hospital. The number of convictions in the Western Province was only 8,172, while on the Witwatersrand, on whose behalf the hon. member was so eloquent, with a population of 200,000 less had 22,112 convictions under the Liquor Act during the same year. I can understand why the hon. member pleads so strongly for the reduction of the drink curse on the Rand, but the argument he used does not hold water, because then he would have to show that the number of convictions in the Western Province was much greater, and yet it appears that the number of convictions on the Witwatersrand in accordance with the population is four times as great as in the Western Province. Any member who pleads for the maintenance of the existing conditions on the Witwatersrand is, therefore, wrong. As the position in the Western Province is four times more favourable than that on the Witwatersrand, hon. members will agree that we ought rather to take the law existing in the Western Province and abolish the existing conditions on the Rand. The hon. member argues exactly the opposite. Some hon. members opposite, and I am thinking more particularly of the hon. member for Bethal, voted against the motion on the grounds that it would bring the poor native into great temptation. Apparently very little concern is taken about the poor white people, the farmers, e.g., their only fear is about the native, but if the white person, possibly forced by necessity, commits an offence under the Liquor Act, then they must apparently just go to gaol, but the native must be protected. I do not think that the hon. member for Bethal represents the opinion of his constituents in the attitude he takes up. Just as little as he did so in a previous Bill where in favour of a small section of the population he despised the will of the large section. That is why they altered his name in his constituency from Petrus Jooste to Petrovitch Jootsky. I believe the electors in Bethal have a good idea of their representative.

Tell us about Rasputin.

No, it is not quite so bad as that. It is a fact that the hon. member, for the sake of a small section of the population, slapped a large section in the face, and he is doing so again here, and a number of other hon. members have also done so, but they did not have the courage to say that they did not regard their electors as such good people as, e.g., the Free Staters. We admit that there has been very good legislation in the Free State, but to say that the Free Staters are so far superior that they can give a tot to their workers, but not the Transvaaler, is wrong. In this respect I support the old saying, “bale out the Vaal River, give the same rights to the Transvaaler as what the Free State farmer has.” The rights of the Free State farmer are laid down in Section 96, paragraph 3, of the Liquor Act of 1928, which says—

That is a right the Free State farmer has had from the olden days, and I do not think a single Free State member will say that the system does not work well. Moreover, abuse is prevented by paragraph 4 of the section, which says—

It appears clear, therefore, that the 1928 Act fives the Free State employer a right of which he may make no abuse. If he does abuse it, then the authorities can immediately intervene and just give notice that the permit in favour of the person who has committed the abuse is withdrawn, and immediately after he has taken his case to the appeal court that right can possibly again be granted to that person. I think that this is a position which the hon. member for Hospital, and even the hon. member for Bethal, can be jealous of. We, in the Transvaal, are subject to all kinds of restrictions, and I do not think there is a single Transvaal member who will not admit that at some time or other they have contravened this Act.

I have never done so.

Yes, but the hon. member is in a special position, and I want to ask him whether, for the sake of us sinners, he will not make a concession and legalize that contravention. For this reason I want to move a further amendment, and I hope the hon. member for Hospital will support it, and I am certain the hon. member for Wonderboom, with his great heart, will support this amendment. It is as follows—

This means then that the Transvaal will get the good old Free State law, which is administered with so great success there, and I appeal to each hon. member who aims at the welfare of the Europeans, and also the natives, to support my amendment.

I second the amendment. Several people have already spoken on this matter, and most hon. members debated it from one point of view, viz., that of the interests of the natives. In my turn I want to say a few words about the other side of the Liquor Act, viz., how it affects the Europeans. I will commence by asking whether conditions, as we find them to-day in Johannesburg, and the Transvaal, are satisfactory. I say emphatically that they are anything but satisfactory. If we refer to the returns for 1922 then we find that 346 Europeans were put into gaol for illicit liquor dealing. In 1928 the number was 771. It has more than doubled. If now we assume that three persons constitute the average family of those people who are convicted then we see at once that the convictions of those 771 affects approximately 3,000 people. If then we also take the number who have been acquitted owing to lack of evidence and all the others who are free because they have not been trapped, then I say that there are thousands of people who are concerned in the illicit liquor traffic, and who are exposed to the consequences of a conviction. That is the sacrifice we make in protecting the natives, and I ask whether it is worth the trouble and the sacrifice? Some time ago the Minister of the Interior introduced the Act on the immigration quota, and the argument was that the old and permanent population of the country ought to be protected against influences and people that press in from without. I ask whether the danger in our midst is not possibly greater? Is there not in our midst a cancer which is more and more eating into our national life? We make those hundreds of victims to protect the natives, and I say the protection is not worth the sacrifice. We have a university in the country here which is a great success, and it is a university turning out criminal offenders. There are hundreds and thousands of students on the Rand in that university, which is turning out criminals. When those people come out of gaol they are not again taken up in society. They are practically ostracised because they are branded. Are we to sacrifice these people to protect the native in those circumstances? For all these years, as far as the Liquor Act is concerned, we have only considered how the natives are affected. Is it not time to stop and to think a little about the fate of the white man in the country as well and especially in that province? We protect the native, and those of us who know the natives and who have grown up amongst them know that the native and his wife and children are drunkards, yet it is said here that if we give light wine to the natives and coloured people in Johannesburg we shall develop a taste for drink. I say again that the native is a drunkard, and we cannot create a taste in him, because he already has it. If we take the convictions for drunkenness we find that they were 37,400 in 1922, and 71,700 in 1928. Then we must remember that the commissioner of police in his report says that only the natives who are lying on the roads and who cause a nuisance are arrested. The others are not arrested. When we remember that, then these figures are simply alarming. In their case the convictions were 17,600 in 1922, and 29,400 in 1928. The number is getting larger and larger every year. We read a quotation in the Cape Times from the report of the superintendent of the urban locations, where he says how much liquor the natives get hold of. They can get the liquor easily. I have another cutting here which says that a native was convicted in the north, and it appeared that he had been found in possession of liquor 224 times. That again is a proof that the native simply gets hold of liquor very easily, and if that is the state of affairs why are we to expose the Europeans to punishment while the native can, in any case, get the drink so easily? The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) said that kaffir beer was not drink but food. That was the first time I have heard of its being food. When the natives in my neighbourhood have a good harvest then the hon. member must come with me to see whether kaffir beer is food. The native men, women and young people simply lie about drunk in heaps. They drink in Johannesburg, and in the whole country, and why should we protect drunkards at the expense of hundreds of white people? The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) said that the native was still a child. Is it not a wonderful state of affairs that the native is full grown when he asks for the franchise, but when it comes to the Liquor Act he is a child? Let him either be a child, or an adult. But if it is as an adult that he is to get the franchise, or have a claim to it, then we must also treat him as an adult with regard to liquor. Drink is either a poison, or it is not a poison. If it is a poison, let us prohibit it to Europeans as well as to the natives, if the Opposition will propose it I am willing to support it. But if drink is good enough to give to the white man then we must also give it to the native. I will vote for any measure to protect the white man. It is unfortunate that it is chiefly our Dutch-speaking Afrikaners who go to gaol for illicit liquor dealing. These people are pushed out on the farm, they leave for the big towns, there they are at their wits’ end and die of starvation. They snatch at every straw and easily become the prey of the liquor dealer who uses them to go and sell liquor to the natives at a great profit. I do not mind voting for any measure which will protect our white population in the Transvaal more and more, and therefore I am prepared to support the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost).

I wish to commend the mover for the way in which he introduced the motion, but when I have said that that is all I can say in its favour. The stock-farmers might just as well go to the wine farmers and ask them to increase the meat ration they give to their natives by doubling or trebling it, so that we might have a larger market for our stock. In 1904 the farmers’ congress was held at Kimberley and two gentlemen from the Western Province put in a very strong plea for the Western Province winegrowers to be allowed to send their light wines to every part of the country. I am glad to say that that suggestion was turned down with a heavy hand, and we farmers have consistently opposed it ever since. The best natives desire that liquor be kept away from the natives in any shape or form. I remember visiting Stellenbosch one Saturday afternoon and I saw half-a-dozen men coming down the street arm in arm. Evidently they had been drinking not wisely, but too well, and judging from their uncertain movements, they certainly needed mutual support. They were singing “Glory, glory, Hallelujah,” but I do not think there was much “Glory, glory, Hallelujah” when, later on in the day, they found themselves in gaol. Unfortunately, the motion will only add further to our troubles. Natives go to Johannesburg from all parts of South Africa. Boys from the Eastern Province go there to work on the mines for six months or longer and if, during that time, they are to be saturated with light wines it will have a very bad effect. The natives will not be satisfied with soothing syrup or light wines, but they will add something to it to give it a “bite” or a “kick” for, when they have liquor, they want not only to taste it but to hear it sizzling down their throats. The Government has indicated that an amended liquor legislation will be introduced next session. Surely we can accept that in good faith, and leave it to a more proper and convenient time instead of harassing the House this session. As far as the liquor law is concerned, none of us are in love with it. It deals very hardly and unjustly with certain people, and strikes us as crude legislation. In our part of the country we have men dealing in liquor who pay a licence to the Government and have to keep records. If you charge men a licence to do anything leave them in peace. On top of that, they are charged a sum out of all proportion to the business done. I think that the mover has brought in this amendment at a very inopportune time. When the liquor law comes up for review next session, I suggest to the Minister that he bears that particular point in mind, so that the matter can be equalized and made proportionate as far as it is possible to make it. There are other features of the Act which are inadvisable, but it is not convenient to go into these this afternoon.

I support the motion, but not wholeheartedly because it does not go half far enough. Why can the Europeans in the northern Transvaal, and the rest of the Transvaal, just drink as much imported spirits as they like to their detriment, and the poor natives can get nothing? The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) can take my assurance that his remarks show that he is a stranger in the Transvaal, and not at all acquainted with the circumstances about the tot system and drunkenness on the Rand. Notwithstanding the objections which some members make I doubt if there is any hon. member who has not yet sinned against the numerous regulations in the Transvaal, and given a faithful native a tot. I make bold to say that there are very few members who have not yet done so. I have done so. We as inhabitants of the Transvaal are now used as the protectors of the natives, and when we act in that capacity then we render ourselves liable to imprisonment. How many thousands respectably-inclined people are already in gaol for contravening the regulations? It is impossible to escape all the regulations, because I think we have more regulations in the Transvaal under the Liquor Law than there is liquor consumed. I want, however, to call the Minister’s attention to a practical means of doing something. I should like to give a practical and sound hint. Let the Minister consider a little how overworked his police are and how many extra hours they have to put in day after day to try and carry out the regulations and to prosecute people concerned in the illicit liquor traffic. That traffic takes place anyhow, and the police are powerless, notwithstanding all the overtime they work. They cannot carry out the regulations. The result is that the police subsequently trap people who have a licence and a legal right to trade. When a man probably comes 60 or 80 miles and arrives at an hotel five minutes past 10 o’clock and tries to get a drink then the police try to arrest the hotelkeeper. Notwithstanding the fact that they try to work 18 to 20 hours they admit that they cannot carry out the regulations, and in despair because they cannot get any “cases,” and their reputation will suffer, they stand at the doors of canteens or hotels and try to catch the hotelkeeper who has put thousands of pounds into his business. I should like, on this occasion, to bring to the Minister’s notice what is the only way to get to know a man’s character. Instead of using the police to try and carry out the regulations, let the character be exhibited, and the best way of doing that is to give the native as much liquor as he wants, in this way the characteristics will be best ascertained. The criminal will immediately be revealed if he gets enough liquor. Then put the criminal into gaol instead of all the thousands of innocent persons and farmers who want to give a tot to the native who works well. We find that the only way to get proper work done is to give tots. How ridiculous it is to prevent a native being given a tot, while allowing them to drink as much kaffir beer as he wants. He can get drunk on that to the detriment of the farmer, but the European may not give the native a tot. If such regulations are actually to be carried out it will be necessary to put a policeman everywhere, and behind every person. I ask the Minister to use his police force to find out the character of the people by first allowing them to drink. If this is done the proper class will get into gaol, and not thousands of innocent people. I want to return to light wine, and would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts) to add a little strong drink to the light wine. The ultimate object of this motion will be attained all the sooner. It is small-minded to say that we are only out to find a market for the little superfluous wine of the Cape Province. I would like something stronger to be added to it so that the drink can bring out the low character of the native. Why should the drink be kept away from the native at the expense of the whites? The native must be treated as a child, but he is a dear fellow, and must be put on an equal footing with the white man as soon as there is talk of the franchise.

I think it would be more satisfactory if the wine farmers took steps to encourage the consumption of Cape wine by the European section of the population rather than in accordance with the terms of this motion, to force it on the natives, who do not want it. I should be quite prepared to support such action either in this House or out of it. I cannot understand, however, why a native should be able to get good wine at twopence or threepence a bottle, as wine farmers tell us can be done, when Europeans have to pay 3s. 6d. a bottle for it. We are told that the wine at the lower price is good, and if it were supplied to Europeans at a more reasonable figure, and we found that it was of good quality, we might not then object to passing it on to our natives. The tot system is applicable by law. The farmers, under the Bill introduced by Mr. Roos, were allowed to give their natives the tot, but 25 years ago, when natives were allowed to obtain liquor, we found the conditions arising among our native servants were dangerous, and the farmers continually petitioned the Cape Parliament until that privilege was stopped. It only remains now in one district. If that privilege is extended to the Transvaal, the farmers themselves will subsequently ask for its cancellation. I have been expecting the Minister of Native Affairs to say something about this matter. In 1928, when this Bill was introduced by Mr. Tielman Roos, he took away from the registered native voters the right to obtain liquor. Yet you are asking the Government by this motion to extend to the raw native in the Transvaal greater privileges than those enjoyed by the native voters of the Cape Province. I can assure you that right through one district in the Cape Province which I happen to know where the privilege previously existed, and where it was taken away by the Roos Bill, not a single native voter protested against the restriction, and I believe that that district is much better off now that the native registered voter has not got the right to obtain liquor. If the Minister wishes to control the position in the Transvaal, let him ascertain the system adopted in the Transkei. There is less crime in the Transkei than anywhere else in the Union and certainly infinitely less drunkenness. Let me describe the Transkei system. The magistrates have power to restrict the importation of liquor into their districts. They take the number of Europeans in the district and assess what they consider a reasonable quantity of liquor, so many; gallons of brandy and whiskey, and an unlimited quantity of beer and stout. If the hotelkeepers dispose of the quantity rationed to them before the end of the month or the quarter, as the case may be, the public must go without until the fresh supplies are authorized. If the Minister will adopt that system in the case of Johannesburg, and limit the quantity exported from the Cape Province, that ought to meet the desire of my hon. friend the member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) whose desire, according to his motion, is to encourage sobriety amongst the natives. I commend that suggestion to the Minister, because I think it will have a good effect. I do not think it is necessary for us to encourage natives to drink wine. They have their national beverage—kaffir beer, which is a very suitable drink for them. Native beer is essential to the native. It does not do him much harm. The putting into effect of this motion would do a great deal of harm, and it would be a handicap to the poorer farmer, who would not be able to supply tots regularly, while the rich farmer could. It is one of the cries of the native agitators that the farmers were trying to encourage drunkenness among their people by giving them wine, and I notice in all their speeches they are making great play with this argument. I repeat that until the wine farmers can induce the Europeans to take wine as a national drink, they should not try to force it upon the natives.

I understand it is the intention of the mover of this motion to withdraw it. If he is prepared to withdraw it, and to do so at this stage, I will not proceed [after a pause]. I take it that it is not his intention to withdraw the motion. The mover of the last amendment read statistics or returns showing the difference between the number of convictions for drunkenness which have taken place in the Transvaal, on the Rand, as compared with the Western Province, and based his whole argument upon that. It is surely very unfair to compare the Western Province with a great centre like Johannesburg, but allowing that his figures are otherwise correct it goes to show that in a centre such as Johannesburg, where there is a much larger population of natives, as compared with the coloured people in the Western Province, drunkenness is greater; that argument tells against himself. I think that any attempt to make it easier for natives to get drink should be strongly opposed. The Prime Minister and others have stated that the natives in many respects are children, and that we as their guardians should protect them from evils of which they do not realize the seriousness. In America and Australia, where liquor has been made available to the aborigines, we know what the consequences have been; it has demoralized and practically exterminated them. If the Prime Minister regards himself as the guardian of the natives in this country it is one of his first duties to see that they are not allowed opportunities to become demoralized through drink.

Will you support his native Bills?

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) said that he had been to Bechuanaland and elsewhere, and that there drunkenness was greater than in the Cape. I question this, and I do not think he can have been in a position to judge between the Western Province and areas outside of it. He said that in the Transvaal natives from East Africa, where they have no restrictions, were employed, and claimed that no mischief would be wrought in their case by permitting them to get liquor, but our own natives go up there and mingle with these people and acquire the taste. There is another point with reference to the Western Province. The coloured people in country areas of the Western Province are tremendously addicted to drink. Does this drunkenness spring from the use of that light wine which they propose to extend to the Transvaal and elsewhere, which they tell us is not intoxicating?

Go to your farmer; you won’t find this position there.

I speak of a farmer of many years’ experience.

As a wine farmer?

No, but it is unnecessary to emphasize this, because it is a notorious fact. People in the Western Province fail to appreciate the position of the east with its large native areas with hundreds of thousands of natives, as to what would be the effect if those natives acquired the taste for drink; what would be the position of European families contiguous to those areas? To-day they are safe, but if once these people become depraved, as they have become in other parts, they would be a menace and a danger to the lives of all. The hon. member challenges the correctness of my assertion. I have heard many farmers in this House declare that when their wagons go to town, or to market, they can never rely on their timely return. The responsible driver is often found in jail or incapacitated by drink. I have grown up on the borders of Basutoland. It has been customary for me to send wagons to town loaded with wool and in the sole charge of natives. I can honestly say that I do not remember a single instance where my driver has been incapacitated, or the wagon delayed in its return from this cause. It is a thing almost foreign to the people there. We know that once you give natives a taste for drink—they are as children in many respects and do not realize the danger of it. It would be wiser and more reasonable to relax the regulations restricting the making and use of kaffir beer, which is a wholesome and useful beverage to these natives—on occasion I take it myself—and take precautions to prevent the adulteration of their natural beverages, rather than make it possible for them to get “fortified” wine and liquor. I feel very strongly opposed to this, and the House will do well to signify its disapproval of it by voting this motion out.

I did not intend speaking, but the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) made a great claim having been a farmer all his life, as if there were no other hon. members in the House who were so, and whose fathers and forefathers before them were farmers. I make claim to that, and I am just as good a farmer as the hon. member who is about my own age, but while he is an experienced stock farmer, I have experience of stock, grain and wine farming. I do not use natives as the hon. member possibly does, but have nothing but coloured people in my service. There are times when drunkenness takes place, but the time we have no drunkenness is at pressing time when the workers can take as much drink as they want. We are only too inclined to think of the forbidden fruit being so nice. It is nothing else than human nature, and it applies in this case as well. When they taste the forbidden fruit, then they find it so very attractive. Drink is that forbidden fruit to the native, but if he knew it he would not desire it so much. I am convinced that there is more drunkenness in the Transvaal than in any portion of the Western Province. When we go into history we find the Huguenots introduced the vine into this country, those people who left the country of their birth for their religion, but who are the people who sit on the front benches here to-day? They are the descendants of those men who introduced the vine here. I am convinced that there is less drunkenness in the Western Province than in any other part of the country, especially among the farmers, because they are accustomed to drink. I think it was an entirely wrong point of view to say that light wine encourages drunkenness. Light wine is a medicine, it is refreshing, and I take it myself, but it does not intoxicate, and, what is more, I have never yet been drunk in my life. I do the same thing with my children, giving them a little light wine at table. From their childhood they get the benefit of a little light wine, and learn the danger of it, and to understand that it is a good thing used in moderation, but a danger if taken to excess, and I want to ask hon. members where the majority of our ministers of religion come from. Is it not from the Western Province? Hon. members now come and say that a little light wine will make the native drunk, and that murder and homicide will follow. It is not so, and I honestly feel that we can give the natives light wine, but not brandy, and we shall hear nothing of drunkenness. If they get their light wine they will later on be able to drink heavier wine and brandy without becoming drunkards. The farming population consists of three large sections, viz., the stock, the wine and the grain farming.

What about the ostrich farmers?

Unfortunately that link has been broken, but I hope that some day it will be replaced. The interests of all the farmers are practically the same, but when one link is broken the whole chain is useless. We saw the danger in the case of the wheat farmers. The wine farmers in particular then made haste to do everything in their power to assist the wheat farmers, but do we to-day get the same support from them?

Do you get it from the wheat farmers on your side?

Yes, but not from the other side. The hon. member who introduced the motion could not find a seconder on his own side. I appeal to any farmer in the House whether he is a grain, wheat or cattle farmer, let us stand together and push this motion through. It will not harm the native to get a little light wine to quench his thirst a little.

We must not use big words in speaking on this matter. They are not necessary in the prohibitionist, nor on the part of the wine farmer. I think that we may speak in a moderate way on a subject like this which is not without its importance. We have before us the original motion and four amendments. I want to say at once that I am not prepared to-day to vote in favour of the motion. I do not believe that conditions to-day are such that we can advocate the allowing of drink freely into the hands of the Transvaal natives. At the same time, I want to say that I am not in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe), because we can feel at once that its tendency is in the direction of prohibition. I feel, however, that this is not a time to advocate prohibition or the reverse. However, I want to say this because it is the basis of many of the arguments used here, that I am opposed to the principle of prohibition, because I am sure that prohibition will bring us into conflict with the scriptures. I want to say here, and I am prepared at any time to defend it, that with regard to the scriptures they are certainly opposed to the abuse of drink, and accordingly the duty is imposed on us to take steps to prevent drunkenness as far as it is possible. The scriptures do indeed justify the attitude of the total abstainer, but they are certainly and clearly against prohibition which is quite a different thing to total abstinence. Hence I feel that in connection with the liquor trade we should always have a system of control, of thorough control, but I will never advocate prohibition, because it is tactless, unpractical and unscriptural. I sympathize with the amendment of the hon. member for the Paarl (Mr. P. P. du Toit). I feel that the kind of measure he there proposes is a thing that any Christian and any politician can support. What does that amendment amount to? I will quote it. [Amendment read.] We see that the natives of Herschel are not spoken of here, and that light wines are referred to. I am quite ready to support this amendment for the following reasons. I believe the liquor given will be light liquor, and it will be given under proper control, because we must certainly assume that the employers who give it will not give quantity and quality of liquor to their workers—natives— which will make them incapable of doing their work. I assume that if the liquor is given to them under proper control, there will be no danger involved. What is more, I want to absolutely deny that we are going in that way to teach the natives of the Transvaal to drink. We shall not teach the native for they know it already. Moreover—as I said I do not wish to use too strong language here—I believe that there is a certain amount of want of moderation among the natives. That want of moderation must not be brought about. On the contrary, we must prevent it, and we shall obtain that end by the measure which the hon. member suggests in his amendment. Let me take an example from the Free State. An owner of a farm in the south-western Free State told me that on Christmas day last year he gave a tot to his natives as the Free State law permits, and that everything went off in an ordinary way. He had no trouble. At New Year he did not do so, and what happened? The natives went to their own beer parties, where there was no control. They went to excess, with the result that he could not get any work out of them for days. On Christmas day things were done under the Free State law, and on New Year’s day we had the position of the Transvaal law, and hon. members can judge of the difference on that farmer’s farm. I, therefore, repeat that I am prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Paarl. If it is said that we shall teach the natives to drink by that means, then I want to say again that it is not so. I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts). It amounts to brandy being added by us. Let me here say that I have often stated my views on that matter, and that I still always believe that spirits should not be supplied to the native.

What is the difference?

I can answer that question in the words of the Scot who said: “When I drink beer I am full before I am drunk, but when I drink whisky I am drunk before I am full.” When we are dealing with spirits we have to do with a distilled liquor and a concentrated form of alcoholic drink which is too strong for human beings. Light wine cannot have the same effect, and, therefore, I do not agree with the hon. member’s amendment. I want us to keep that strong drink away from the natives as much as possible. The Natal and the Transvaal natives do not only drink light drink. I do not here want to speak of skokiaan and such drinks, but we know how the natives tap the lalapam. When the sap is drunk it is not so bad, but the natives allow it to stand a little, and then it is a very strong drink which almost deprives the natives of their senses. The natives must not be given any strong drink. Let us try to replace it by light wine, and then we shall prevent many of the existing evils. I do not like the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost), although his proposal is very similar to that of the hon. member for Paarl. He proposes that the Free State law should be applied literally in the Transvaal. In one respect I also object to the Free State law. Section 96 (3) of Act No. 30 of 1928 (the Liquor Act) reads—

I want to say that I am against the provision in the law. In the first place, I hold the view that no spirits ought to be given to the natives except for medical purposes. Notice that this says that the employer can at one time give a quarter of a pint of spirits to the native. That means that he can give a good large glass full of brandy to the native, that is decidedly too much. Who could drink it and remain sober? I prefer the Cape law, which divides the ration into several tots. In the meantime I want to say in conclusion that I do not only see in this proposal the right thing in supplying light wine to the natives, but a satisfactory measure of assisting the wine farmer in a proper way. I think that the time has come to regard viticulture in the proper light. If wine making is a disgraceful occupation, and if wine is a poison, as has been said here, or a tool of the devil, then we must eradicate it root and branch, and not merely restrict it. It is, however, untrue that wine growing is that. It is just as honourable a profession as any other in the country, therefore we must assist it and not smother it. In conclusion, I want to say here that if we argue against drink that it is a curse, then we conflict with the Leader of Christianity, who, himself, made wine, gave it to others and took it. Therefore, if we do not conflict with the Leader of Christianity, then we must be careful and be on our guard against some of the irresponsible statements which we have heard in a responsible House. I hope that we shall hear no more of such strong language in future.

I have listened attentively to all that the various members on both sides of the House have said, and do not rise to deal with the interesting suggestions which have been given, e.g., by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), or those of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster), who is not satisfied with brandy, but wanted something stronger. The stronger drink he wanted to give to the natives. I only rise to briefly state the attitude of the Government, and my personal views with regard to the motion and amendments. I cannot, as Minister, either accept the motion or any of the amendments by the hon. members fur Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts), Paarl (Mr. P. P. du Toit) or Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost). I cannot accept them for the simple reason that the Liquor Act in the past as a Government measure, and the intention is not to consider it as such in the future. When my predecessor, Mr. Roos, introduced the Liquor Act he left hon. members free to vote as they wished without the party whips interfering. That is also my attitude with regard to this matter. Insofar as this motion makes a request, or gives instruction to the Government, I cannot accept it for that reason. As for the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) to apply Section 55, I should, as Minister, be able to accept it, but I do not intend to do so. Section 55 shortly provides that no one shall get liquor when a proclamation is issued except any one who has a licence or permit from the police. That is, in my opinion, such a meaningless provision and would be such a foolish step that, at any rate, on the Witwatersrand, it would lead to illegal distilling on a large scale, and the manufacture of drink of infinitely worse quality than the people already have to-day. I can, therefore, not accept it. I now come to my own personal view, and to a certain extent it is important because next year I shall have to introduce legislation which, in any case, in an administrative way will amend the existing Liquor Act. I sympathize a good deal with the motion of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure), and also with the member for Paarl. I am indebted to the hon. member for Paarl, who visited me last session, and gave me information about the condition of the wine industry, and explained the details of what I had previously not understood, such as the quality of wine, the strength of it, its effect, etc. I am thankful that on behalf of the wine trade, and his constituency, he brought it to my notice. As for my own view in connection with the tot system in the Transvaal, I have not yet come to a decision. It is a matter about which the House can decide when I introduce the proposed amending Bill to the Liquor Act. If the majority of the House are in favour of it, I will accept it. Personally, I have as yet come to no decision about it. It is one of the difficult matters which will receive my attention during the recess, so that when I have to introduce legislation next session I shall be better informed about the feelings of the countryside of the Transvaal, and the possible results. I only want to explain that my predecessor, Mr. Roos, definitely understood in the case of Natal that the position there would remain as at present, and that he would not force any drink, light wine, beer or brandy on Natal. Natal has definitely declared itself against it, and I want to leave the conditions as they are. As for the mines, I feel strongly in favour of giving the power to supply a ration of light wine or beer to the natives in restricted quantities, admitted strength, of certain qualities, and under strict control. I feel, personally, in favour of its being done by way of a daily ration to the native. It would be foolish if I were to deny that the present condition on the Witwatersrand is unsatisfactory. Hundreds of Europeans go to gaol every year as the result of the conditions prevailing there. Thousands and thousands of men, women and children are sent to gaol without the natives being prevented from getting liquor. The drink they get is, moreover, of the vilest kind of poison which could be supplied to them. In the circumstances, and as I can assure the House, that the police are doing their best and are making great sacrifices to stop the illicit liquor traffic, I am personally convinced that with good control everything will depend on the control how far it can be extended—light wine in restricted quantities can be supplied, and that it must lead in the direction of an improvement. I, personally, I only speak for myself, am prepared to move something of that sort in the amending Bill. As there is not the least chance this year of introducing such legislation, I hope the mover, and the hon. members who have moved amendments, will, under the circumstances, withdraw them.

The announcement the Minister has just made has filled me with dismay. I hope he will reconsider his conviction that a supply of light wines to natives on the mines will be a beneficial measure. It may be beneficial for the sellers of the wine, but I think it will have other undesirable effects which have to be carefully weighed before a decision is arrived at in this matter. I think there can be no doubt whatever that the efficiency of the native labour would suffer if there were a larger number of alcoholic drinks available to them.

It would be entirely in the hands of the mines.

The efficiency of the natives on the mines to-day is very high. There are mines on which there is hardly anything to be wished for in the way of improvement in respect of that efficiency. The experiment of supplying light wines to them, even as an experiment, is one to be deprecated. This is a matter, I think, in any case, for fresh investigation. I would point to the experience of the United States of America. It is true we hear a great deal of the illicit consumption of liquor in that country, but all the reports from industrial sources show that the classes who do not indulge in the drinking of liquor illicitly have increased enormously in efficiency, and it is very largely owing to this that the industrial efficiency of the United States of America has increased to such an extent as it has. From the point of view of humanity also, I do not think we should do anything which is not calculated to uplift the natives, even if it will not degrade them. For these two reasons, from the point of view of efficiency and from the point of view of degradation, I claim that a measure of this nature will be detrimental.

After the speech made by the member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit), how anybody in the Transvaal can advocate the passing of this motion is astonishing. The hon. member is a man who has had vast experience in the Free State and in the Transvaal, and he warns the House against extending liquor privileges to the Transvaal natives. The mover of this motion gave us figures respecting convictions for drunkenness on the Rand. I would like the House to consider whether one of the reasons why there have lately been more convictions for drunkenness is not to be found in the action of the Minister and his officers in trying to discover the real sources of the illicit liquor traffic, and in the carrying out of a strong campaign against the sale of liquor to natives. Another reason is to be found in the evidence of Col. Quirk and others, who stated that the steps taken for carrying out the provisions for the registration of bottle store sales are a pure farce. These provisions should be stiffened and ruthlessly carried out. We know perfectly well that once the sale of liquor to natives is permitted, even under so-called safeguards, the control of it is going to be very difficult. The hon. member for Stellenbosch and others asked for assistance for the wine farmer. Every one of us views with concern any industry in this country which is not prosperous, and we desire to do everything within our legitimate power to assist such an industry; but when you ask use to open up a market for the sale of our Cape wine among the people to whom we are not allowed to supply liquor, then I say that is going too far. I refuse to be party to finding a market for the surplus wine and brandy of the wine farmers at the cost of exploiting the native races of this country. Under the terms of our mandate, it is not allowed to supply natives with liquor in South-West Africa. In the Cape Province they cannot purchase liquor, and may not be supplied with it except by way of “tots” on farms, and even the registered voters who had that right have had that right withdrawn—I am glad that has been done—but they have had that privilege withdrawn, and it does seem anomalous that we should propose to give the natives in the Transvaal that right. There has been a lot said about the tot, and here we have an amendment to the motion proposing to extend the tot system to the Transvaal, but a motion of this kind is bound to have its satellites following it. The tot is, and has been, the birthplace of drunkenness in the Western Province. I have never said a word of disparagement about the wine farmers of the Western Province. I believe they stand, as a community of men, second to none in the country. But that is not the question at all. It will not stop at “light wines.” Half a bottle of this so-called “light wine” as supplied to natives would knock them out and incapacitate them for days. I would refer the House to the figures of rejects amongst the coloured people during the Great War, when the Cape corps was being recruited; the numbers were exceedingly high in the tot-giving Western Province, whereas in Kimberley, Graaff-Reinet and other places, where the system was not in vogue, the percentage was comparatively low. It goes to show that wine given to these coloured people as it has been given is not for the benefit of them or of the country. We are, however, dealing with quite a different section of our community when we speak of the aboriginal Bantu races. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) said—

Do not worry about that.

I am worrying about it. One of my points is that it will not be light wine which will be supplied or sold to the natives in the Transvaal if this measure is adopted. This will be the stalking-horse of other strong liquor that will be supplied, and under the guise of this, the illicit liquor trade will be far easier to carry on than it is while liquor is prohibited. Even if we have to find other means of coming to the rescue of an industry which has been going through hard times, any alternative is preferable; I would prefer a subsidy. Are we going, in order to bridge over temporary hard times—they are only temporary; we have gone through these depressions from time to time—to promote the illicit liquor trade, when, if we produce wines which can be sold on the markets of the world, we will not have to look to the native to consume our wines? One hon. member said: “Supply everybody with all kinds of liquor, and having then found out their characters, you will separate the sheep from the goats !” Be logical, then, and let all laws be suspended, and let burglars and sandbaggers and cutthroats be let loose, and thus find out which are burglars and sandbaggers, and which are law-abiding members of the community. A man whose name I do not care to mention, but who is one of the leading wine-growers of this country, told me some time ago that he was absolutely and entirely against this motion; that he thinks it would be better to leave things as they are. I would also put another point to supporters of this motion. They obviously are not in favour of total prohibition, but I ask them whether they can possibly proceed on any lines more calculated to strengthen the propaganda for total prohibition than this. I have stated that I am not a total prohibitionist, because I consider that the evils that come in its train are greater than the benefits, and we should clean up and rigidly regulate the liquor trade. I think my hon. friend has been most ill-advised in bringing forward this motion. I know that peach brandy, mealie brandy and other things are made—

We do not make mealie brandy.

Oh, but you can. I want to enter a most emphatic protest against a measure of this sort. Your predecessor in the chair, Mr. Speaker, asked us not to refer in detail to the Minister’s statement made just now, but I view with the greatest apprehension what he said with reference to his views about the first amendment of the Liquor Act in regard to allowing liquor to be supplied to natives on the mines. I want to ask him—

They have all got one control.

Yes, one control of the sources of supply, but are you going to control distribution to all the natives scattered along the Reef? Does it matter what happens on the Reef if these men acquire a taste for liquor which taste they will take back to their native kraals?

At present they have an infinitely worse case. We can control it.

I am sure that the Minister and his police can control the illicit liquor trade if he has time to do it. You should not be surprised to find that the illicit liquor trade will thrive more than it has done in the past if the terms of this motion are carried out. This question lies very largely in the Minister’s own hands, and I say that his statement is a very grave matter indeed. It has hurt me to be told that we on this side of the House are not friends of the wine farmers, and that we do not mind seeing them in distress. That is not true. It is a disgraceful appeal, and an unworthy one, which the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) has made in this House. It is unworthy of the hon. member to say that we, on this side of the House, are not friends of the wine farmer because we refuse to agree to the supply of his wine products to the natives. There are members on the benches of the other side of the House who are as much opposed as I am to the extension of the sale of liquor to natives. Nothing has impressed me more than the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) on this same question. Let the hon. the Minister find other means of coming to the rescue of the wine farmers. Let him think before he carries into execution his promise that he will seriously consider the sale and supply of wine to the natives on the mines. Let him realize that once you introduce wine, you do not know where it will stop. You talk about light wine! When, however, you start with wine, you go on to wine brandy, and then to peach brandy and other powerful alcoholic drinks—always will the native who has acquired the taste for strong drink demand something stronger and stronger. I know of natives distilling potent liquor from the juice of the agave. If they get strong liquor they will keep that stuff, and put it into their native beer and other concoctions. For God’s sake, think very much indeed before you extend the supply of spirits and wine one step towards the natives in the Union. You are giving him white man’s liquor, which he is not capable of carrying. Let him make use of his own kaffir beer, which is not only the drink to which he is accustomed through the ages, but which, as we know, is a partial food as well. Let us keep the white man’s most pernicious product from the Bantu in South Africa.

I support the hon. member who has last spoken, and I wish to congratulate him on his speech. [Interruption.] What does my friend over there know about natives? Does he speak their language and understand them?

Yes.

My forefathers in Natal, in the olden days, were against three things, and one was supplying liquor to natives. The next was giving a gun to a native, and the third was giving a vote to a native. Those are the three things which our forefathers were against, and I still abide by the faith of my forefathers. This question, however, will be settled when the women get the vote. When the women get the vote, the liquor question of this country will be settled once and for all. I want to warn my hon. friends on the other side of the House that once the women get the vote there will be every possibility of prohibition. I say that there is nothing which those who represent the liquor interests would not do, and which is more calculated to spur on the movement towards prohibition, than a motion of this sort. I am not a prohibitionist, or a teetotaller. When I see a motion of this sort in regard to a matter which was definitely settled in 1928, coming forward again two years afterwards, I say it is trying to force the matter before the House, and I ask why this matter was not before the country at the last election. Let them make an issue of it before the country, and let the country decide whether they are in favour of giving the natives liquor in this country. I am thankful to the Minister for the statement he made that this principle will not he extended to Natal. I am very thankful for that. But that does not go far enough. I think there are hundreds of thousands of Natal natives who go to work on the mines, and once you open the door there, once they have a taste for this liquor, how shall we be able to stop them even in Natal? I think the Minister has been kind in saying that he will not extend it to Natal. But that does not go nearly far enough. The door has been closed in the northern parts of this country. But when I travel round Cape Town and the Western Province generally, I see more drunkenness than in any other part of Africa. I have seen drunken men in Cape Town who have not been arrested. Why? Why do not the police do their duty here? You can travel by motorcar any Saturday afternoon in the Western Province, and you will find many coloured people walking along who are drunk and a danger and a menace to motor-car drivers. Why is it that the police do not do their duty in the Western Province? The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) says there is more drunkenness in Johannesburg than in the Western Province.

Four times as much.

The reason is that the police are more vigilant there than they are here in the Western Province. They are far more vigilant there, and the result is that in most cases where there is drunkenness those people are brought before the courts. I say that a motion of this sort is calculated to do more harm to the wine farmer than good. The wine farmers are not the only people who are up against bad times. All the farmers up north are suffering bad times. The farmer in the Western Province is receiving a certain amount of protection. What protection are the farmers getting in the north? We have had nothing, not even a crumb off the table. Surely the farmers in the Western Province ought to be satisfied.

What about sugar protection?

Does the hon. member know that Natal sugar produces 3,000,000 gallons of Natal rum? That is far better for the natives than some of the wine they have here. I have consulted a specialist in Johannesburg in regard to the wine. He said, “Do you like Cape wine and Cape brandy?” I replied, "Yes.” He then said, “Continue your diet.” I asked him if I should become a teetotaller, and he replied, “No, drink whisky or beer.” I say that rum is a wholesome drink. In the old days on the veld, you had Natal rum every night. It is a very good drink indeed. I want the wine farmers to realize that we are not up against them. I think that my hon. friend has not put his motion quite correctly. People in the Cape are very concerned as to what is happening in the Transvaal. Surely there are sufficient representatives here to speak for Johannesburg.

Then why does Natal speak for them?

Because I have a direct interest in the matter. If once they open the door in the Transvaal, eventually they will force the door in Natal also; then the Natal native who goes to work on the Rand will acquire a taste for liquor, and when he returns to Natal he will desire to continue the indulgence of a habit he may have acquired in the Transvaal. The League of Nations has definitely laid down that in all mandated territories no liquor of any description shall be supplied to any native. For instance, the Union could not supply liquor to the mandated territory of South-West Africa. We should take cognizance of the League of Nations. Are we now to agree to creating a black spot in Africa? It would be a fatal mistake to open a door in the north whereby liquor could be obtained by natives, but we in Natal understand the question, and we appreciate its dangers because we shall have to bear the brunt. We understand the natives’ customs, his ways and his conduct, we talk his language, and it is not for a man in the Western Province to tell us anything about the natives with whom we have been brought up. When a Zulu gets drink, he sees red; not like one of your Cape boys who, when he becomes intoxicated, lies down in the gutter. Notwithstanding what statistics may say, there is no place in South Africa where you see more drunkenness than in the Western Province. Even if I stand alone, I shall never vote for the natives in the north having liquor.

I had no intention of making a speech on this subject, but I do not think I can allow the motion to pass without expressing an opinion upon it. I have been astonished to learn that the Minister of Justice has foreshadowed that the Government will take into consideration—

The Government will have nothing to do with it.

I am very glad indeed to hear that, but it is the personal opinion of the Minister of Justice that the extension of the tot system to the Transvaal—

I am afraid the hon. member was not here when I spoke.

That is so. It was a report of the Minister’s speech that brought me into the House. The motion will be opposed by the representatives from the north. I can conceive of nothing more calculated to do injury to the Witwatersrand industries and to the natives employed by them, than to give the latter permission to drink liquor. The natives are the most helpless section of the community in this respect. They are very easily tempted, and to offer fresh facilities to them to part with any portion of their hard-earned wages would, apart from the dangers attendant upon drinking, be inflicting a gross cruelty on these defenceless people. I am not an opponent of the moderate use of liquor, but if the wine farmers in the Western Province think they are doing a good thing for the furtherance of their industry by fathering motions of this kind, they are very much mistaken. Such proposals as are contained in the motion would give an enormous impetus to the movement for prohibition. I am an opponent of prohibition, and I should regret to see it come about, but it is movements of this kind and efforts made by the wine industry to extend its activities to the native population, that will hasten the advent of prohibition. I hope the motion will be rejected.

We who were on the select committee know a little about the position, and I am glad that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is walking in his father’s footsteps; I am only sorry that he has apparently almost forgotten his father’s language, and that I never hear him speak it here. I am acquainted with the position in the Pretoria prison; most of the women there are Afrikaner women, and they get there owing to the illicit liquor traffic. The clergymen before the select committee were asked whether the churches saw any way of solving the question other than by adopting the proposal of kaffir beer shops, and their reply was: “We know of nothing.” They do not know how to change the position in Johannesburg; they see no chance of doing so. They acknowledge that the position is critical, and that the natives are supplied with all kinds of poison which is demoralizing in their work. The question now arises what is to be done. We cannot permit, as Mr. Young, the chief magistrate, said, that a criminal population should gradually be created by the illicit liquor traffic. The persons who have been convicted for illicit liquor dealing come into touch in the gaol with the lowest class of criminals in Johannesburg, and when they come out of gaol they are useless to society, in fact they come out as thieves and rogues. The question is what is to be done, the police are powerless. Drunkenness in the Western Province has been referred to. I think the hon. member who referred to that ought to know that Natal has the most drunkenness in the Union. The figures for 1924 show that the drunkenness per 1,000 Europeans was 3.72 in the Cape Province, 8.46 in Natal, 5.36 in the Transvaal and 1.49 in the Free State. Those are the statistics, and as for the natives and the coloured people, the position in Natal is also deplorable. We who are responsible owing to the prohibition Act for the people in the gaols in Pretoria must see what can be done. Therefore, I would like the Minister and his police officers to study the question during the recess and go into the means of securing an improvement. We know that in Natal the Indians get their liquor, and drink a terrible strong drink which is made from sugar. We must do something in connection with the position in Johannesburg. We can no longer allow the natives to be demoralized by the poison they are given, and the Europeans to become criminals. I would, therefore, like the Minister to go into the position with the police as to the best means of putting an end to a terrible state of affairs.

After hearing the Minister’s statement that he is going to introduce amending legislation next year, and knowing his views, which he has just given us, I feel we can safely leave this whole matter in his hands; and, with the permission of the House, I withdraw the motion.

I object to the withdrawal.

Amendments proposed by Mr. P. P. du Toit, Dr. van der Merwe and Mr. Oost put and negatived; amendment proposed by Mr. Alberts dropped.

Original motion put and negatived.

I move—

This amending Bill is intended to amend in one respect the Insolvency Act, that is, the Insolvency Act of 1916, as amended in 1926. I think it will be a good thing if I quote the two sections that are involved, then hon. members will see what the object is. The 1916 Act gives a lessor of immovable property in an insolvent estate the preference for current and arrear rent for a period of at most six months. In connection with that provision the court decided as follows in the case Ex parte van der Westhuizen—

Then we have the amending Act of 1926, by which the words “landlord’s hypothec” in the old section were deleted and replaced by—

Therefore, the intention of the Act, in my opinion, was to restrict the preference for arrear rent to three months. That gives rise to trouble. We often have, e.g., immovable property, and especially farms, let for a whole year, and the rent is payable for the whole year in arrear. If then the lessee goes insolvent shortly before the end of the year, then the lessor finds that he is only preferred for three months’ rent. My Bill now proposes where the rent for immovable property is payable once a year, or less frequently than once a year, to give the lessor a preference for at least a year. I think hon. members will agree that this is a fair proposal, and it will particularly benefit the poor man, because he will get better conditions. It helps the poor man to pay his rent once a year, but it is unfair for the lessor merely to have a preference for three months’ rent, if, e.g., a lessee goes insolvent shortly before the end of the year. The lessor has given the farmer the right to live on the farm for the whole year, and he has not received the rent, then, the farmer goes insolvent, and the lessor only has a three months’ preference. Hon. members will possibly say that it is unfair to give the lessor such a preference if the rent is paid more than once a year, and I have, therefore, proposed in this Bill that where the payment is made once a month, or more than once a month, in that case the lessor shall have a preference of three months. That will, e.g., be the case in the towns where the rent is payable monthly, and there the three months’ preference will remain, and in the other cases I propose that the period shall be six months.

We have many farms where the rent is payable every six months, and where the rent is payable annually or at longer intervals. I propose in those cases to give a preference for a year’s rent. I contend that this is in the interest of the lessee as well as of the lessor, and that it will hurt no one. It is in the interests of the poor man who hires a farm for him to pay his rent in arrear. Many lessors evade the difficulties by stipulating that their rent shall be paid in advance. That is a very good thing. They are fortunate if they can get it, but many lessors find it impossible to get it. They find that even if they succeed in letting with the condition of payment in advance, they still have to wait until a year has nearly expired before they get the rent. I say that it is a little unfair towards such people for the lessor to only get preference for three months for arrear rent. Therefore, I hope that the House will assist me in getting this Bill through. I have been told that Act 29 of 1926, of which the English text was signed, says in Section 29—

Many people are afraid that when a case comes before the court the court will say that the decision in van der Westhuizen’s case also applies to this section, and it may mean that all the privilege which the lessor will have will be the privilege for three months, i.e., in the extreme case for three months in all. I contend that this also is unfair, while the mortgagee, according to the common law, has preference for the current year and another year. If a man goes insolvent the mortgagee has a preference over a farm for the whole of the current year’s rent and an additional year. The existing law, however, only gives the lessor a preference for the current rent of three months. The law as it stands to-day is ambiguous. I have taken the trouble of seeing various hon. members who are lawyers and other lawyers, and it was clear that the existing law is ambiguous, and it is in the interests of the whole population that there should be no doubt about our Acts of Parliament, It is in the interests of the lessee and the lessor, and I think that hon. members who study Acts will agree that the amendment, as proposed by me, is quite clear and leaves no room for doubt. Where the rent is paid once a month, or more than once a month, there the preference is for three months’ rent; where the rent is payable once a year or less frequently, there the preference applies for 12 months’ rent, and in other cases the lessor will get a preference for six months’ rent. I appeal to hon. members who take an interest in the farmers to support the Bill, because it is, in the first place, intended to bring about certainty, especially in the case of farms where there is a doubt about the position.

What is the doubt?

Whether three months does not include current rent. The hon. member will find that the difficulty on page 63 of the report of the case of van der Westhuizen that I have quoted. I want to remove that doubt.

I want to appeal to the hon. member to send this Bill to a select committee before the second reading.

I am prepared to do so.

Then I need not give my reasons.

Yes, give them.

It is quite vague what the position will be if this amendment also applies to other rents besides farm rents, and it may be that creditors and other parties interested will want to submit their views to us. Further, there are other necessary amendments in the Insolvency Act which have been brought before us, and a select committee can also go thoroughly into those suggested amendments.

Of course the suggestion made by the Minister is one that might be considered when the Bill is read a second time. The Bill was introduced only last Friday, and we have had only a few days to consider the measure; far too short a time to enable us to confer with persons well versed in insolvency administration. Matters of this kind I consider should be dealt with by the hon. the Minister. I have had it from a good many interested persons in Johannesburg that the Act itself requires amendment. The title of the Bill is—

That is what I suggested before the Bill left the select committee.

We have already an amending Bill of the 1916 Act, which Act has been amended considerably by the 1926 Bill, and it would be better if an entirely new Bill were introduced for the consideration of the House. We only got this Bill yesterday, and we have not had the slightest opportunity of consulting people who are familiar with this class of work. Most hon. members are engaged in select committee work, and I doubt whether you can get sufficient members to deal with this matter adequately during this session. But my prime objection is that a measure of this kind affecting the whole of the Union should not be dealt with in this haphazard way without giving sufficient time for consideration. I understand the hon. member to say that he wants to get the Bill through this year; well it cannot be done. In mortgage bonds you have a registered legal instrument, which is notice to the world. It seems to me—I have gone through this Bill carefully, not as carefully as I might have done, had I had more time—that the Minister should give us plenty of time to consider this matter. This Bill as it stands is quite unsuitable and

ERRATUM.

Col. 2330.—Minister of Finance (Budget Speech). Before the tabular matter following closing remarks to be inserted:—

I mention all these payments because I think I may fairly claim to have used this period of abundant revenue to make resources for the lean years. I do not think hon. members can charge me with not having wisely used the revenues which have been obtained in those years. The estimates of capital expenditure will be submitted after the recess. All I can say at this stage is that this is not the time or the season to cut off expenditure on development, and I do not propose to do so. I shall secure better value from the money expended from the point of view of assisting the country in difficult times, and as far as possible, in finding employment. I believe that course is right for the Government, as well as for private individuals to adopt. That brings me to the end of my task this afternoon. I have endeavoured to give to the House a true reflex of the financial and economic condition of the country as I am able to see it. If the position does not appear to be so satisfactory as we have been accustomed to have seen it on similar occasions in the past, I think there is still a good deal to be thankful for, and we can be certain that the Union is, after all, much more favourably situated than many other countries to-day, We cannot, of course, shut our eyes to the fact that our farming communities especially are in a very bad position, and our sympathies must go out to our progressive farmers. This depression in agriculture is not a phenomenon of South Africa. It is an international problem, and most other countries, including the wealthy United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are as sorely perplexed as we ourselves to-day. While we may be going through a difficult time, the strength and stability of our financial structures are unquestioned. I think there is certainly no reason for a panic, or for us to view the future with alarm. If we manage our affairs prudently and with persistent and intelligent effort and co-operation in the various interests, I have no doubt that we shall succeed in coming back to normal times.

should be withdrawn. Many other amendments are needed hut the title of this Bill would, I fear, preclude the consideration of any amendment which does not fall within the title.

Assuming that this Bill goes to a select committee, is it possible to deal with anything else besides the question of rent?

Before the second reading, yes.

The hon. member can move that the order be discharged and the Bill be referred to a select committee.

Then I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I should like to ask when will the select committee meet? Unless you have it after the recess you cannot get the information from commercial people, and others interested throughout the country, who are interested in this insolvency law. For nine months past I know that our chamber has been discussing this matter very fully. If it is going to be delayed until then I think it will be a very good idea. At all events, I hope it will not be rushed. It has been stated that there are matters which want remedying, and there are people who have information which they would like to give, and which I am sure you would like to have.

It is not the subject matter of the Bill which I want referred to select committee, but the subject matter of the amendment of the Insolvency Act. Otherwise we shall be in the same difficulty.

The Bill is to amend the insolvency law.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—