presented a petition from W. M. Bisset and G. Mann, styling themselves president and secretary of the South African Association, Cape Town, respectively, praying for leave to introduce a Private Bill to amend the South African Association Incorporation Act, 1906 (Cape).

Referred to examiners of petitions for Private Bills.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:

Public Accounts: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Jagger, Sir William Macintosh, Messrs. Fourie, Duncan, B. J. Pienaar, Werth, Waterston, Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, Messrs. Tom Naudé, Blackwell, Pearce, Roux, O’Brien and Kentridge.

Railways and Harbours: Minister of Railways and Harbours, Brig.-Gen. Byron, Mr. Brand Wessels, Maj. G. B. van Zyl, Mr. Snow, Dr. Visser, Messrs. Bates, Strachan, Giovanetti, Hugo, le Roux, van Heerden, te Water, Lennox and G. Brown.

Pensions, Grants and Gratuities: Messrs.

McMenamin, Stuttaford, Rev. Mr. Hattingh, Messrs. Buirski, Cilliers, Allen, Maj. Richards, Messrs. Swart, Gilson, W. B. de Villiers and Nel.

Joint Committee on Use of Afrikaans in Parliamentary Documents: The Minister of Education, Messrs. Krige and Barlow.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Those hon. members who sat with me in the House during the last Parliament will not be surprised to learn that when the elections took place in June last I had to fight the whole weight of the combined influence and money of the liquor trade in Johannesburg. They certainly did their best to further the cause of my opponent. While the campaign was at its hottest a deputation from these gentlemen waited upon me with this proposal. They said: ‘You may vote for local option, you may work for local option, but we ask you to give us your pledge that you will not personally introduce the Local Option Bill again if you are returned to Parliament, and if you give us this pledge, instead of being your active enemies, we will, at any rate, remain neutral and we hold out the hope of even supporting you.” I dismissed those gentlemen unceremoniously and told them —I don’t want to use unparliamentary language —to do their worst. Well, Sir, here I am again and again introducing the Local Option Bill. I don’t know that it is necessary for me to explain at great length and with a wealth of detail what is local option and what are the provisions of this Bill. Local option is a system whereby the deciding voice in determining the extent to which licences for the sale of liquor shall exist in a given neighbourhood is given, not as at present to the licensing courts, but to the people themselves. The fundamental principle of local option is to let the people decide to what extent they want licensed houses, bottle stores, etc., to exist in their neighbourhood. It is on that simple principle that I am going to ask the House to vote this afternoon. May I remind the House what local option is not? It has been said, and it will probably be said again this afternoon by a number of speakers, that local option, is prohibition. Local option is not prohibition, and those speakers who will say in this House this afternoon that if you pass the Local Option Bill you are introducing total prohibition into this country give their own case away. Possibly they do not see it themselves, but I am certain hon. members will see that once you say that the effect of the passing of my Local Option Bill is to introduce total prohibition into this country, you are admitting that the people if given the power to decide will at once decide in favour of total prohibition throughout the whole country. The chief virtue of this Bill in my opinion is that it is a step towards the ultimate goal of total prohibition; at the same time let me point out that this Bill is not in itself prohibition and that many a weary year will have to pass before under this Bill even a semblance of total prohibition can be brought about in South Africa.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member (Mr. Munnik) says “Hear, hear,” but some of his friends in the same camp on this question will get up in this House as they did last year and say that this Bill in itself means total prohibition. All it does is to let the locality decide whether it shall be “wet” or “dry.” To say that the Bill in itself means total prohibition is to admit, as I have said, that there is an overwhelming desire on the part of the people in South Africa to vote themselves “dry,” and that if you give them the power under this Bill they will forthwith do it. Again, I say I wish I could believe it, but I don’t think they will. Coming to the details of this Bill, it is provided that on a requisition signed by one-tenth of the voters in an area the Local Option Bill can be called into being. Strict provisions exist for checking that requisition. The requisition is addressed to the local authority and, if it is found to be in order, it is the duty of the local authority not less than ten days before the meeting of the licensing court to hold a local option poll. At that poll three questions are to be laid before the electorate—the first “continuance,” the second “reduction,” and the third “no licence.”. The effect of continuance being carried is that the licensing courts continue to function just as before. Reduction means that at the forthcoming meeting of the licensing court it will be the duty of the court to reduce the number of existing licences by one quarter, i.e., out of every four licences one shall be taken and the other three shall remain. The effect of “no licence” is that at the end of the current term of the licences or three months after the poll, whichever is the longer period, all existing licences for the sale of liquor in that area automatically come to an end, and, after a district has voted no licence, it shall not be lawful either to sell, to barter, to hawk or to solicit orders for liquor within that area. There will be no prohibition against a resident of that area going into another area and buying liquor for his own consumption and bringing it back into his own home and using it there, but the sale of liquor in that area will be forbidden. The hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) said last year that this Bill did not go far enough. He said you might have a “dry” area next to a “wet” area and have people assembling liquor on the borders of the “dry” area and bringing it across not for their own consumption but for the consumption of others. He suggests that there should be included in the Bill a prohibition against bringing liquor from a “wet” area into a “dry” area, without a permit. I am very much impressed with that suggestion and, if this Bill goes to Select Committee, that is a point which, I think, the committee might very well consider. The Bill does not touch distilleries, breweries and other concerns of that nature which exist, not for the purpose of supplying liquor in a particular area, but for the supply of liquor wholesale throughout the country. After a poll has been taken it is considered to be very undesirable that the electorate should be disturbed with further polls for a period of three years. The Bill, therefore, provides that once a vote has been taken the matter cannot be submitted to the electors again for a period of three years. There is a further provision that if a district does not vote itself “dry” then those who vote “no licence” are taken to be at least in favour of reduction and their votes are therefore added to the votes for reduction. Finally the area is taken to be the area of local authority. It may be a municipality, a village board, or anything of that nature, and where the local authority is of a large area and has more than 10,000 voters in it the area taken is the ward in that authority. The voters entitled to vote under this poll are those entitled to vote in the elections for the local authority. Therefore women would be entitled to vote in those areas where they have votes for the municipal elections. The options may be carried by a majority of votes recorded. It has been represented to me that this provision is not quite fair, and that there should be a certain preponderance to carry a resolution. That is a point upon which I am open to suggestions. Then it is said that these licence holders have a vested interest, an interest which it is wrong, both legally and morally, to attack. It is said that they have been allowed by the State to carry on this trade and it is not right, even if it is the people’s wish, to close down their houses without compensation. My own personal view on this question is that I do not wish to catch votes by camouflage, I want to state the facts quite frankly—my own view is that the question of compensation on the lines of giving people whose licences we take away monetary compensation, is not capable of solution. I say this because I believe from the practical point of view it is not a practicable thing to provide a money grant of compensation. But may I say this, that I am not against giving compensation to these people if a scheme can be devised whereby it can be done. I have no vendetta against the trade. Therefore I have decided to ask this House, should it agree to the second reading of this Bill, to send the Bill to a Select Committee with power to enquire into the question of compensation and other vexed questions which arise in connection with the Bill. I am well aware, of course, that the Select Committee will not have power to vote compensation into this Bill if it involves the expenditure of public money, but it will have power to make recommendations and formulate a solution of that very formidable difficulty. I want to give my own views as to compensation. It cannot be said that these licence-holders have any claim either legal or moral to compensation. There is not a lawyer in this House who would dare stand up and say these people have a vestige of a legal claim. Senator de Wet, when Minister of Justice, said that a man who puts money into a liquor-licence knows that he 13 liable to have that licence taken away without a single reason being given or any compensation being paid. Again and again we pass legislation in this House by which the interests of the licence-holders are affected detrimentally and yet we give no compensation. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice is himself introducing a Bill this session, which will restrict the output of licence-holders, but I am not aware that he is giving any compensation. Take another case, supposing we cut down the hours of sale in the Union, would we grant compensation to the licence-holders? Undoubtedly we should not. As to the moral claim, as a Transvaaler I can point out that there is upon the Statute Book of the Transvaal the Liquor Ordinance of 1902 which provides that upon a local option poll being carried all the licence-holders affected by that poll shall be closed down at once, and without compensation. It is true that that Ordinance is quite unworkable at it stands, because it requires not a majority of people who vote, but a majority of people on the register.

Why?

Because, if you form a register to-day, in three monazths’ time you will find a large percentage of the voters have moved and you cannot get them to vote. However, we have found that it is quite impracticable in the Transvaal to bring about such a poll.

But polls have been taken.

Yes, polls have been taken in one or two small villages and they have been successful; licence-holders have actually been closed down and there has been no compensation. Again there is a similar provision but equally unworkable in the laws of the Cape. If a local option poll were successful, by any miracle, in the Cape, licence-holders must be closed down and without compensation. Thus, even so far as existing legislation is concerned there is provision for closing down without granting compensation. Again, if compensation is to be paid, who is to pay it? It would cost the State not less than five million pounds. Is the State prepared to pay it? Can you ask the State, which got nothing for these licences, to pay to take them back? I do not think any Minister of Finance would agree to such a thing. Is there to be a scheme of contribution among the licence-holders themselves? I do not think that is practicable. But as I have said I will try to keep an open mind on this question, and it is one of the points I would ask a Select Committee to consider. For myself I do not think there is either legal or moral claim for compensation. Then again, as to the moral point of view, if you are satisfied that this trade is the source of incalculable evil in South Africa how long are you going to allow this state of things to continue simply because of an alleged moral, and not a legal, claim for compensation? I think I have said all I need say on the provisions of this Bill. It is not my intention to keep the House long to-day. I hope to set the example of brevity and I hope that hon. members will follow it, so that we can come to a vote to-day on this very vexed question on which we are so nearly divided. If we come to a vote I give hon. members my assurance that I will move for the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee. The question has been asked: Who wants this Bill, why the necessity of it? Let me read the resolutions passed by the various churches on it. There is no member of this House who will say that we can afford to ignore the voice of the churches. They are a great power in this country, and if their voice is practically unanimous it should weigh very seriously with us. First take the Dutch Reformed Church. In the Free State the Synod in May, 1922, accepted by 62 votes to 27 the principle of local option; in the Transvaal the Synod instructed its committee on the drink traffic to endeavour to secure local option with the ideal of ultimate prohibition; in Natal the Synod in 1921 requested all churches to make active efforts towards local option with a view to total prohibition. Even in the Province of the wine farmers they were in favour of it by an overwhelming majority. As to the Union itself, in April, 1921, the Federated Council of the four Synods met at Paarl and passed a resolution in favour of local option. As to the Church of England, the Provincial Synod representing the whole of the Union in November, 1924, passed a resolution re-affirming the principle of local option by a large majority. I have here the unanimous resolutions of the Wesleyan Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Congregational and the Baptist Churches, so I can say that the overwhelming voice of the church in South Africa is insistent in its demand for this Bill. The voice of the church and of the people of South Africa is behind the demand for this Bill. On the day I arrived in Cape Town, in the columns of one of the daily papers, which has always opposed local option and has been lukewarm in its support of drink reform, I found a good deal of news regarding acts of violence and scenes of sordidness and squalor due to drink at the Cape. Every member of this House knows that right under our noses here and in various parts of South Africa there exists most disgraceful scenes of debauchery due to drink every week and particularly at the week-ends. We must endeavour to put an end to this source of evil. We have been talking for many years of liquor reform and we have done nothing. Since I have been in the House there has not been a single measure of liquor reform on the statute. I have agreed that after the second reading confirming the principle, the Bill should go before a Select Committee. No member who votes against the Bill will after this be able to say that he favours local option. I ask hon. members if they are against this particular proposal in regard to liquor reform, and they oppose my Bill, not to tell their constituents that they favour local option—don’t let hon. members say to their constituents, or to anyone else, that they favour local option if they vote against the second reading of this Bill. I move the second reading of this Bill.

The hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) has told us what the cardinal principle was of local option, but he did not tell us what his Bill contained. He said it is simply giving the people of a certain area the right to determine for themselves whether they will have licensed houses in their areas or not. It gives the option for continuance, for decreases and for no licences, but it does not give any area the right to have a licence if they want one. In the Cape Province anyone wanting a licence has to get a petition signed by a majority of the voters; otherwise they cannot get a licence, and it is within the discretion of the Licensing Board to grant or refuse it. But to take away a licence it can be done tomorrow by getting a bare majority of those actually voting on a particular day. That is not fair local option. That is not playing cricket, and I am sure there are many supporters of the Bill who do not really understand what the principles are of this Bill. The hon. member has told us that some object—that you might create by a vote a dry area surrounded by two wet areas, but he did not tell us what was likely to follow if you had anything of that kind. You might on one side of the street have no licensed area and a licensed area on the other side. Is that going to improve matters? You will have more she beening and more drunkenness and more abuse of liquor than ever. You may inconvenience the moderate drinker, but you will not prevent those who abuse liquor, getting it. About that the mover and his party seem to be very little concerned. It is sometimes said “Well, they don’t mind if things grow worse instead of better, because then you will have prohibition all the sooner.”

Conditions could not be much worse than they are now.

Where you have separated by a street only, two areas, a wet and a dry, will the police be able to control the traffic? When no one will be allowed to sell any liquor from a non-license area into the licensed area. With regard to the matter of compensation, few seem to realize the amount of capital which is invested in the wine industry and liquor trade—capital which has been invested not only by the retailers, but by the large wholesale houses, by wine farmers in building their wine cellars as well as in plantations and equipment. In many cases as much as £7,000 or £8,000 has been invested on a single farm, and all this capital is going to be jeopardized by a majority vote of one on a given date. The hon. member himself appears to take up a very fair attitude himself towards the question of compensation, but what does his party say? What do they say, they are issuing circulars and leaflets condemning any idea of compensation. They are not in favour of compensation at all. They say “These wine people should not be compensated,” they are not to receive any consideration. The hon. member is going to move that the Bill go to a Select Committee, he says; the committee can, if it wishes, provide for compensation, he wants somebody else to make provision. The question of compensation should have been dealt with in the Bill, but now he is proposing to send that question to a Select Committee to be dealt with, but even they could not make provision for compensation.

They could recommend it.

We will take it that the hon. member would urge them to recommend compensation, why then should he not have made provision for compensation in the Bill?

It could not be done in a Private Members’ Bill.

I know what the position is; if that Bill were to come back to this House with a paragraph providing for compensation, I know what Mr. Speaker would say; he would rule it out of order. You have first to get the consent of the Governor-General and if the consent of the Governor-General is the only thing wanting why did not the hon. member get the necessary consent?

Ask the Prime Minister.

The hon. member knows that it was impossible for him to get the consent of the Governor-General and it is the merest camouflage to tell us here that a Bill can go to a Select Committee short of an important matter like this, and the Select Committee may be able to put it right. The hon. member himself could not put it right, and he knows that it cannot be put right by sending it to a Select Committee. The second reading will be voted upon and if carried the local option movement will have received a big push forward. Parliamentary candidates who are now members of this House, were asked by their constituents “Will you be in favour of the Liquor Option Bill without compensation? and they replied that they would be in favour of it only, if provision was made for compensation. Those who had that question put to them should not allow themselves to be mislead. I do not say that the mover wants to mislead them, but I will say that he does not know better himself; at any rate they might be misled by voting for the second reading and then find that compensation cannot afterwards be provided for. If they give their vote for the second reading they are giving their support to the principle of the Bill without compensation, but compensation is a cardinal matter in this, and if they vote for the second reading they will have given the first lift up to these people, and they will find that their constituents are left without compensation. It seems to me that the hon. the mover of the motion was in a bit of a dilemma about this matter of compensation, so he invited us to go to a Select Committee. I am going to accept his invitation. We should not send the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading to assist him in dealing with the question of compensation, if we do that we shall be left in the lurch, so I am going to move as an amendment—

I beg to second the amendment, and my reasons for doing so are substantial ones. It is common cause amongst supporters as well as amongst opponents of the Bill that as the measure now stands it will be entirely unworkable in practice.

No.

My hon. friend with his knowledge of the application of the law in practice will be the first to admit that this law as now drafted will be entirely impossible to carry out in practice.

It is working to-day in Scotland.

They have had five years in Scotland to think over it, and I am not certain that it is in force now.

Of course it is.

At any rate I think it is a very strong argument to put forward that the application of this law as now drafted would be impossible in practice. This House has been asked to approve a principle which would be impossible to carry out in practice. It is not then a common sense view to ask hon. members not to approve the principle but to discharge the second reading and refer the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee for enquiry and report? That committee might be able to draft a measure acceptable to the House and to the country, although I have very grave doubts. It is a very difficult thing to carry out. Let me say further that it is common cause also among the supporters of this measure that this is only a preliminary step, that the whole object of the Bill now before the House is not local option for prohibition. Those of us who are opposed to prohibition, if we wish to discharge our duty conscientiously would also have to oppose the second reading of this measure because we are against the principle. If prohibition is the ultimate object, why should this measure not be thoroughly considered before the principle is approved? There is another big principle at stake in this measure, and that is, you are virtually laying down, making in a law of the land that a most important question shall be decided by referendum. You are departing from, and to a certain extent limiting, our constitutional rights. A great deal can be said in favour of a referendum, but at the same time it is a curtailment of the rights of this Parliament. You may come to a decision which the country will afterwards regret. You will find that great constitutional authorities differ greatly upon the wisdom of enforcing referendum upon the country. Those are principles which underlie this measure. Another reason why I feel strongly upon this subject is this: it is a very important measure and a measure of this sort if called for by the country as a whole and not only by a section of the people, should be brought in as a Government measure; it should have the State’s, seal upon it. Is there a Government which would bring a measure of this sort? Just because it is so very important and troublesome, and to a certain extent touching the rights of the people of the country, you will find it a very difficult measure for a Government to introduce, That being the case, there is all the more reason why the order for the second reading should be discharged and we as a House of Assembly should not be asked to commit ourselves to the principle, and all the more reason why it should be referred to a Select Committee to obtain evidence from all quarters and all interests to see whether in practice it is legitimate that. Parliament should pass a measure of this nature. My hon. friend here has spoken on the question of compensation. He told us to vote for the second reading and then the question of compensation could be considered in the Select Committee. At once he proceeded to lay it down that he was entirely against compensation, and if this measure were to go to a Select Committee under the guidance of my hon. friend, what kind of compensation would be recommended by that committee? I go further and say that unless my hon. friend appeals to the Minister of Finance, and unless the Minister of Finance is prepared to rise in his seat and assure this House that the Governor-General’s assent will be given to that compensation clause when it comes from the committee upstairs, this reference to a Select Committee on the question of compensation is not worth talking about. If such a recommendation were to come from the Select Committee asking this House to consider the question of compensation, it would be your duty, Mr. Speaker, to rule such a recommendation out of order and ask the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister whether the Governor-General would be prepared to give his consent to that expenditure. Without that such a recommendation could not be considered by this honourable House. My hon. friend has put forward the plea that we should vote for the second reading, vote for the principle of the Bill and then let it go to a Select Committee. I hope no hon. member who is in doubt on the subject will be influenced by such an argument. Those who have any doubt on the subject should realize that this is a serious matter, and I hope they will vote against the principle. In my constituency there are many people who favour the principle of this Bill. I am here as a member of Parliament to discharge my duties to the best of my convictions and I think every member must look at the question from all points of view and decide for himself in the end. That is the manly way to act in Parliament, and I say that if we were to be influenced by the argument that we should vote for the second reading because the Bill is going to Select Committee, I am afraid many of us will be sorely disappointed. You will be voting for a principle and as the majority at that committee will, no doubt, be constituted, that principle, instead of being extenuated and made acceptable to the country, may emerge from that committee in a more accentuated form. Take another question. No doubt a great deal of weight is attached to the moral side of the question. I do not intend to discuss that phase of the subject, but I would say that there seems to be an idea abroad that the liquor trade of this country is not subject to any restrictions. I hope hon. members will make a study of all the restrictions and burdens to which that trade is at present subjected, financially and otherwise. Look at the financial issue to this country alone. It is a question of about £2,000,000 a year income from the liquor trade which goes into the coffers of the State. If you pass this Bill you are going to destroy that source of income to the country. Where is that source of income going to be made up? That is the way to look at it. We must face the practical issues. If you destroy that system, which is burdened with penalties and restrictions, but which brings in that big revenue by way of taxation and otherwise, you are bound to substitute for it another system of taxation, another source of income. Where is it going to come from? That is the question.

The country will be so prosperous that it will pay easily.

Look at our wine farmers. There is a kind of sneer that goes round when you bring forward a question in the interests of the wine farmers of the Western Province. I am proud to stand up in this House and acknowledge that I am the son of a wine farmer. The wine farming industry has been encouraged by Government after Government from the old Cape days—encouraged in every respect—with the result to-day that millions are invested in it here in the Western Province. Thousands are to-day existing on that industry, men and women and their dependents. Destroy that industry and you are going to destroy, I won’t say the best, but a very superior class of our population of the Union of South Africa. And not only the wine industry. We need not be afraid to mention an industry like the brewing industry. Millions of pounds are invested in the brewing industry in this country. By this law you are going to prevent a man from having a glass of beer. You are going to destroy the brewing industry also. I say is that an economic policy for a young country like South Africa where we are trying to build up our industries? I consider the wine industry a basic industry in this country. Are we going to pass a law to destroy a basic industry? There are so many difficulties in the way, practical, financial and, I may say, national, that I hope this House will pause before approving of the second reading of this Bill and I submit that it will do the wise thing by accepting the amendment.

Let me say at once that I am glad to see the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) before the House. I had wanted to propose the postponement of the second reading of the Bill for six months, but on account of the amendment this becomes unnecessary. I rise this afternoon to say a few words on the subject as quickly as possible. I will at once remark that I in no way want the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), or anyone else who follows him, to accuse me of wishing to delay the debate in order to avoid a resolution regarding the second reading. In the second place I am of opinion that, as representative of the country here in the House, I must once more in all earnestness point out what it is going to mean if such legislation is going to be adopted. Is the House going to approve of the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)? I should regret it, and I am convinced that thousands in South Africa will share my regret. But this is something about which, in the name of the Government, I must say something, or otherwise neglect my duty. I think that I have already, on three occasions—at any rate on two—spoken on the Bill, and I will therefore not repeat everything I said on former occasions. Yet I feel the necessity of directing the attention of the House to certain things. Let me first say that I do this with all respect for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), for the Ministers of religion, and for all who support him. I know they are moved by high inspiration, namely, the moral standard of the people, but I will say this, that the supporters of local option have not always done their duty properly. In other words, they should, long ago, without dissimulation of their real aim, have openly made the position clear. I say, once more, that I do this with the greatest respect for the hon. member on the other side and for his supporters. But I say, too, what I said before, that the step which they propose to take is intended only as a first step. And if this is so, then I think they are doing wrong. The people must understand what is behind the proposition, and not find it out later. I will now say a few words in reply to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has brought forward. He said that the contents of the Bill are these: That there will be districts that will be dry, and where no liquor must be sold, but there will also be districts which are not dry, and liquor will be introduced from there. Well, they do not use to-day the words they used a few years ago. Then they took up the position that it was a democratic measure, and that we ought to give the people democratic laws. To-day they use this argument no more. It is now a question of dry and wee districts. I ask the hon. member how long he and his supporters—his party as the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said—how long are they going to allow liquor to be supplied to the dry districts by the wet? They will attempt through Parliament to apply total prohibition, and they will bring the wet districts also under prohibition. Where is then the democratic measure? With their proposition they aim merely at a step forward on the road to total prohibition. Afterwards they will go still further. This is the conclusion to which everyone must come, and it would be highly undemocratic. How is it that they talk to-day no longer of democracy? Why do they not now use that veil to cover their real object? Because it does not go down nowadays I have listened very closely to the speech of the introducer, and I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will for a little listen attentively to what I have to say. The hon. member has talked about the Bill and about the question of compensation. Now I am surprised that the introducer of this motion comes here and says repeatedly that there is no legal or moral obligation to pay compensation. We sit here to forward the interests of the country. With what right then can we now go away and propose a Select Committee to investigate the question of compensation? My hon. friend says there is no legal or moral obligation to pay compensation. But I believe that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is a little afraid of saying that he is altogether against compensation, and therefore he proposes a Select Committee to investigate the question. There must be voters whom he has to consider. I merely wish to point out that the position which he takes up is not right. I wish that the wine farmers were represented here as they ought to be represented. Then the arguments against the introducer would be carried further, and it would not be only myself and a few other members who would point out the wrongness of the position. What does the hon. member now do? He says that when they can think out—think out! —a satisfactory scheme of compensation, he will be in favour of it. At the same time he says that those interested can make neither legal nor moral claim to compensation. Why does he do this?

To get the Bill through.

Exactly! And is not this then again a bit of dishonesty? We are buying votes contrary to the interests of the country. If the hon. member had said: I am against compensation—they have no right whatever to compensation, then I would have agreed with his reasoning.

A lot of people who support this Bill are in favour of compensation.

Allow me to say this. He accommodates the liquor dealers, and says: yes, if they can find a satisfactory scheme for granting compensation to the liquor trade he is in favour of it. But then the wine farmers? This is the important point. Must the interests of the wine farmers be neglected? The wine farmers are going to lose, if total prohibition is introduced, not less than £10,000,000. Must not this be compensated? Let us just follow the motor road from here to Stellenbosch, and cast our eye over its plains and undulations and see how wine farming has extended in the last four or five years. Let us note the millions of vines that are planted there by farmers, the houses, the cellars of the wine farmers. Does all this mean nothing? Are we going to destroy all this without compensation for the sake of the moral satisfaction of my hon. friend and his supporters, so that there will be no more drinking? I come to another point. I trust the hon. member will for a little, give me his attention. I have a few points to which I shall be glad to be answered in his reply. He says there must be no more drink. Now, I ask him, in the first place, is he quite sure that we are going to attain this object? For the moment I will accept all his arguments, but then I ask him: are we really going to obtain this aim? Do not cite the case of America. What I have always wanted to know is, whether the aim has been attained in America. It is not enough for me if he says that it has been partially attained. I want to know to what extent it has justified the trouble, and I want to know: is it going to be worth for us the inevitable trouble and sacrifices? I ask the attention of the House to this matter. There is something else that we must consider before we support the motion. I am convinced that it is going to be one of the most fateful days for South Africa if total prohibition is introduced. What I want to direct the attention of the House to is the condition in America. America has total prohibition. What about the smuggling? What are going to be the consequences to our people in respect of liquor smuggling? America has already been compelled to extend her territorial waters from three to twelve miles from her coast. With a shorter coast line America has not been able to bridle the smuggling. She was compelled to go to twelve miles. Suppose we have to do this. When we introduce total prohibition, all the smugglers will immediately sail for South Africa. Yes, if it pays to import to America, why not then to South Africa? America employs its great navy, its great mercantile fleet and hundreds of small vessels along the coast to prevent smuggling. I ask, what have we got with which to oppose the smuggling? When we prohibit the sale of drink here, then it will be imported. Total prohibition is going to be the death of the wine and spirit farmers in South Africa, except to the extent that they are able to smuggle. We shall have to deal with smuggling from within and from without, and now I ask the House: Let us see what the result is going to be. Here we are with five or six million Kaffirs. We find recently, according to our Johannesburg police, the prisons are full of smugglers.

And you let them go.

What is going to happen? But let me point out what they get to-day to drink: the brandy that is made in the Cape, and wine that in certain respects is controlled. Perhaps the smugglers adulterate this, but it is initially a pure drink. But what is it going to be from outside. The worst of poisons will be brought in, and that worst of poisons will be the destruction of the Kaffirs in the first place, but of the white man in the second. My hon. friend said we must prevent drunkenness. I say, yes, let us accept this as true. But then it is his duty to show that his object will be attained. The supporters of total prohibition cannot do this. Besides this, what happens in America? Shortly after this same question was discussed in this House I was for two or three days at Robertson. A person then met me who had just received a letter from a young student in America. He had asked him to write something on the subject, and the contents of the letter were this: “I am not able to say much, but I will just give you an example. There was a motor mechanic here who formerly had a smithy until local option arrived. When this was introduced he turned his business to one for the manufacture of small stills.” “And I can just say this,” continues the student, “that in this short time he has now a great building of three or four storeys and a number of shifts of men who work day and night merely to meet the demand for those small stills. Those stills now take their place along with your coffee and tea-pot.” Whether this be well-grounded or not, we know what goes on in the Transvaal and in the Cape. Here a man has great areas where prickly pears grow and in the Transvaal yellow peaches grow wild and we know that liquor is distilled from them. Then I ask: how is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) going to avoid drunkenness while there are little stills, prickly pears and yellow peaches? If a man enslaved by drink is no longer able to obtain or buy liquor in the usual way, then he is going to be satisfied with worse drink. We know how liquor is distilled from wood and other plants in America. What then is going to happen here? I will further point out that we may have to give up £3,000,000 of our State revenue and why? To attain ideas which clearly cannot be attained. With all respect for ministers of religion and other supporters of the introducer, I look on it as impossible. I differ from them and have always differed, and I feel they are mistaken ideals. Everyone is in favour of avoiding drunkenness; but the ideal must be, not do away with drink, but the ministers of religion must try to educate mankind. This is the ideal that they must try to reach. Our wine farmers—I repeat what the hon. member for Caledon—(Mr. Krige) said—are a class without no equals in any portion of South Africa. These people must be ruined practically. A lot is said of fruit culture. I will once more point out that the argument that the people can resort to fruit culture, does not hold water,. What do we find in the Cape? Your wine farmers are not always flourishing, in fact they never are. But have we anywhere in the country a more established husbandry than wine farming? Do we find anywhere a class of farmers developed, not in the sense of learning, but morally and spiritually, as are the wine farmers? Why? Because they have not had to contend with the vicissitudes of the farmer in the interior. The farmer of the interior says: I have never had an assured existence. Amongst the wine farmers one finds families, that for three hundred years or more have owned the same farms. Why? Exactly because it is an established farming. Frost and drought have never caused the destruction of the wine farmer. This class must truly be smitten— smitten with might. With the wine farmers some 40,000 or 50,000 labourers are concerned. These are affected, as well as the three or four thousand wine fanners and their families. I repeat: if we talk of the rights, of liquor dealers to compensation, can we then, as a legislative authority, adopt the resolution and neglect the wine farmers? I am convinced that if adopted the motion is going to be a fateful step to the people of South Africa. I have been called to advance the interests of the people of all classes, and not only to look to the moral needs of the people, but in the first place to the social and moral wellbeing, and to the happiness of all our people. For these reasons I shall not oppose the motion going to a vote, and I conclude by hoping that the greater number of votes will not be cast on the side of the hon. member.

There is one point on which I agree with members who have spoken before me, and that is, that we are called to oppose drunkenness. Although he has not now said it, I know from his speech which he made on a previous occasion, that the hon. Prime Minister, who has just now spoken, is of the opinion that more must be done to oppose drunkenness in our land. I am glad that seeing that as a young member I venture to differ from him—something which I unwillingly do—we have this in common. I am willing to admit that he is convinced that the State must help with the combating of drunkenness, although he has employed a certain argument which, if we act on it, will destroy the State. He has said that we must just let the matter rest, and that it is the duty of ministers of religion to try to wean the people from drunkenness. If we accept this position then we can just say that the State does not need to make any laws at all. We can say that there should be no law against theft, and that it is the duty of the Church so to bring up the people that they will not steal. It is true that most of the activities of the State are of negative tendency: namely, to control the powers which, if left unbridled, would devastate the people and betray their souls. The Prime Minister took exception to this Bill being pleaded in the name of democracy; and here must I again, unwillingly, differ from him. He says that the other speakers fortunately have not again taken up the standpoint of the democratic principle of the Bill, but that is exactly what I will do. We begin by applying democratic principles in the case of local authorities, and there we put these principles to the test. This is what is done in America. One State after the other has made a trial of local option, and after years of experience America has gone further. Let us understand that America has not gone over to total prohibition hastily. But one State after the other has experienced the advantages of total prohibition, other States have also adopted it, and after 33 States have established by experiment what it means, and that it is not destructive for the wine farmer, and that it is not so destructive for the wine dealer, then all, or nearly all, have adopted it. Then only was the further step taken, and only then came national legislation for the whole of the United States. But seeing that the word democracy has been questioned, I come now to a word which signifies more for me than democracy. It is a word which our people hold high, which is characteristic of our people and which they love, and when it is no more found amongst us it will be a disaster. It is the word “jus tice,” which is much greater than “democracy,” because I know that even democracy can be unjust. For this reason I shall now talk of justice. We have to-day as the result of the existing laws a condition where an existing monopoly exercises tyranny over the will of the majority of the people.

How?

I am going to show how the will of the people is tyrannized over. In Excelsior, a small village in the Free State, where a little group of people live, they came to the conclusion that the liquor licence —there was only one in the village—was unnecessary, as it occasioned so much evil. They appealed against the licence in the licensing court, but their case was not upheld there, so that they could not attain their desire. Then they went to the hotel-keeper and said that the great majority of the inhabitants were against the sale of drink in the village, and were willing to buy up his licence. He said, “Good,” and with the money that they had collected, including the savings of several poor people the licence was bought up and the hotel was transformed into a useful place, namely, a boarding house for children: just as is done in America, where liquor premises and liquor factories are transformed into useful buildings. It was, however, not long before there were people who ascertained that there was no liquor licence at Excelsior, and who consequently made application for one. This was the only site where there was a licence, and therefore it could have been expected that a licence would not again be granted. Last week, however, the persons who made application went to Winburg, where the licensing court sits, and where the magistrate is not acquainted with local conditions at Excelsior, and the licence was granted in spite of the fact that 85 per cent. of the persons in the village had voted against it. I consider thus that I have every right to say that we have here a state of affairs where the monopoly tyrannizes over the will of the people. We have seen local option for years in other countries and none of the terrible things which the hon. Prime Minister told us of have happened there. We already have it in our own country—at least in principle, It is true that our conditions here are different. Here we have the kafirs, but the conditions concerning liquor smuggling and the kafirs could not be worse than at present. Our legislators have long felt that local, option in one form or other is a necessity. They have felt that the drink monster must be bridled, but they have so weakened the buckle which ought to hold the bit in the mouth—the buckle of local option—that it has been almost done away with and the bridle has fallen off. In the Transvaal Ordinance of 1902 we find a section providing that the voters in an indicated district shall decide whether licences should be granted, and it looks almost as if with that this Bill is unnecessary, but that is not the case. It appears that the majority of the voters in the local area can decide whether a licence be granted, but that is made useless because certain hotels and railway bars are excluded. In principle local option exists already in the Cape: but this brings us no further. The principle was adopted in Act No. 25 of 1891, and my friends need not fear that they are here voting for a new principle if they vote for the present Bill. In the Free State it does not exist, and we want to extend the principle to the whole Union. The principle is, however, in its application and further results here in the Cape Province so diluted that it again puts a monopoly in the position to tyrannize over the will of the people. The law provides that the majority of the voters of a local area observe— not by means of a secret ballot, but when merely a petition has been signed by a majority of one in favour of a licence—that such a licence can be granted by the court. We know what this means, because there we have again the monopoly able to tyrannize. People can be forced to put their names to a petition. A majority of one gives the licence, but then if the licence has to be withdrawn, or rather, if the inhabitants want to have it withdrawn, then two-thirds of the voters of the area concerned are necessary to cancel it. Here we have a farcical representation of the meaning of local option, and it does not mean what we want it to mean, namely, the will of the people. I was not here last year, but took the trouble to read the speeches of hon. members in the former debate, and I want to answer a few objections which were then and are now again brought forward. The objection on religious grounds was at that time mentioned, and I am glad that it has not again been mentioned this afternoon. It is said that the use of drink is an institution of our Lord. This reminds me of an encounter I had with a man concerned in the illicit liquor traffic. He said: “The gifts that I received of the Lord I have been able to smuggle, without being caught by the police. I must not hide the gifts of the Lord under a bushel measure.” He said, further, that he does good with the money which he so earns, as he supports four orphans with it. This causes the reflection on what we often hear: that it is the wine farmer who has financially supported the Church. If there is an objection on religious grounds to local option the whole Dutch Church, together with the English Churches, would not have supported it.

Not the “Gereformeerde” Church.

That is so, but that is the only. Church which has declared against it, and that Church represents only 5 per cent. of the Dutch-speaking population of the land. The “Nederduitsche Gereformeerde” Church has declared itself in favour of local option, and also of total prohibition, thus it cannot be the case that the Church was under a misapprehension concerning the significance of local option and total prohibition. There is an economic objection, and we acknowledge that it carries a certain amount of weight. For this reason it is proposed that after the second reading the Bill be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to investigate the question of compensation. Yesterday I had an interview with a deputation under Dr. Perold. The deputation is entirely satisfied now they know that should the Bill be adopted such a Select Committee is to be nominated and that the Committee will see that their rights are respected. If the Select Committee comes to the decision that there is no moral or legal right to compensation, then we shall have to be satisfied with it, but if on the other hand they are of the opinion that compensation is called for, then we must likewise be satisfied. The argument is used that we are going to ruin the wine farmers and that we are unjust towards the liquor trade. I have said that I am going to plead the case on the grounds of justice, and if anyone can convince me that we are going to do injustice to these classes of persons, then I will not support the Bill. But it is not yet proved to my satisfaction that we are going to ruin our wine farmers. This in fact, after the introduction of total prohibition, did not happen in California. In this connection much is said concerning the making and distillation of raisins. I do not want to say that we are going in every respect to make our people a sober people. We know what the power of drink is. But I am of opinion that we are going to rescue enough people to make the sacrifice worth while. Human lives and the happiness of families are to me something serious, and when I see that about 20,000 persons are committed to prison for drunkenness, then I think of the families that suffer by it, and this even is not all the drunkenness which is represented by those convictions. Another objection is that local option will lead to total prohibition. This has not happened in Australia. It has not happened in Scotland. It is further said that the result will be that our prisons will become full of persons who have been engaged in smuggling. My opinion is that our prisons will not be so full of smugglers as at present. I am acquainted with the Free State, and I know what goes on there and along the border of Basutoland. We know how easily a person can obtain cheap, bad liquor and on this tremendous profits are made. If then we remove or lessen one of the factors we shall naturally also reduce smuggling. The adoption of this Bill will, in fact, remove the objection regarding smuggling, as it will lessen the first factor, and the great profits which are made to-day will also be reduced. The second factor will later on also decline, because the demand will be less. The greatest objection of the Prime Minister—and it carries weight—is how are we going to prevent smuggling without a navy? My answer is, that the “dryer” we get our country the more we lessen smuggling, because in America where all the bars and canteens are closed, we hear that drunkenness is lessening as the new generation do not learn to drink. We know that the taste for alcohol is an acquired taste. Smuggling will decline by reason of the lessening demand for liquor. With respect to the kaffir, the situation will be no worse. There is another argument that is often mentioned, namely: “What about the person who is able to take a little wine without getting drunk? He will say, ‘what right have you to prohibit my obtaining liquor?’” Let me remind you that we are not here concerned with total prohibition, and what prevents such a person from obtaining his liquor?

But the ultimate object is total prohibition.

Every person has a right to go where he wants to. This is the freedom of the subject which we so often hear people claim, and we say they can go where they want to, even to hell, as long as they do not drag other people along with them. It is admitted that in the interests of the community we must restrain people and prevent their doing certain things. We see this in the municipalities, where a person can be prevented from building a cowshed near the street or a pig-sty on his own erf. We ask: What right has such a person to interfere with our personal rights in the village with his cow-shed or pigsty? When a local authority decides that something with a bad moral odour—that disseminating a worse odour than a pig-sty—is not to be allowed, then the rights of the persons concerned must be restrained. There are persons here to-day who are firmly resolved to get local option through, and they will not allow themselves to be seduced from their resolve, for the people stand behind the movement, and it is also on this account that the opposers of the movement are so frightened. For example, the churches are at the bottom of it. It is said that the church gives to its followers cheques which will only be of value in eternity, and does not take into consideration the material welfare of the people. The church, however, does come in contact with the material welfare of the people, and the church was the first in South Africa to move in the poor white question. Do not let us say therefore that the church overlooks the material welfare of the people. I was at the meeting of the Council of Churches where the matter was discussed, and only two of those present were against local option. The feeling on the matter was so strong that we almost delegated someone to endeavour to appear before the House to plead the case. I hope that no one will be led away and fall into the pitfall which has been prepared for the motion, for the referring of the matter to a Select Committee before the second reading means the defeat of the Bill. Let us adopt the Bill so that the will of the people no longer becomes tyrannized over. I have the privilege of heartily supporting the motion.

I am very sorry that my hon. friend the Prime Minister is out of the House, because I desire to call his attention to the somewhat inconsistent attitude he takes up on this matter. He has told us that if this Bill goes through it will lead to smuggling; in certain areas, that the wine farmers are going to suffer, that the State is going to suffer in its income, and so forth. He further said that the Bill is undemocratic. Yet I find that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is introducing a Bill in which these very principles are involved. I hope there is, no division in the Cabinet about it. The Minister of Justice in his Bill proposes to impose restrictions on the conveyance or delivery of intoxicating liquor to and within proclaimed alluvial diggings and certain other defined areas.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is not entitled to anticipate Bills that are coming before the House.

I am only just referring to this Bill by way of illustration, not to discuss its merits. I am only trying to show that the principles against which the Prime Minister gave such vehement expression are embodied in this Bill of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice takes power to proclaim certain areas—railway construction areas, where a lot of poor whites are employed, Railway and Harbour works, irrigation and other public works under construction, and also alluvial diggings and agricultural settlements or afforestation areas. These provisions are for the most part going to apply to Europeans. Now what is that but simply the same principle as is laid down in this Bill? If there is any danger of smuggling in these areas, which would vote “dry” under the present Bill, then there is danger of smuggling in the areas to be proclaimed by the Minister of Justice under his Bill—I should say even more danger. I have not the remotest doubt that the Minister of Justice, when he gets his Bill through—as I hope he will—will not hesitate, for fear of any danger of smuggling, to proclaim those areas. Further, the Prime Minister lays stress on the effect of this Bill so far as the revenues of the State are concerned. I know perfectly well that a large income is derived, especially through the Excise, from liquor, but did, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice consider that point when he brought in his Bill, because his Bill is for the purpose of putting restrictions on the sale of liquor in one form or another? I have mentioned alluvial diggings. Now take Chapter II, under which it is proposed to tighten up the law. For instance, this Bill of the Minister of Justice would take away one right which has existed in the Cape for years, when it takes away the right to obtain drink from a registered voter. I will support him in that, but it is to the same effect—a restriction on the sale of liquor. Is my hon. friend going to give compensation to anybody who may suffer from this? I should think he is not. Furthermore, I want to deal with this call for the consideration of certain interests, etc., which has been put forward. There are in the Free State to-day very stringent laws with regard to liquor which, no doubt, the Prime Minister, was a party to at one time. Those restrictions are far more stringent than those of the Cape. Those laws were passed in the old Republican days. Were the interests of the Cape wine farmers, which members are now, so anxious to consider, considered in those days? No. You considered the interests of the people in the Free State, and rightly so, too. The Minister of Justice is now; hand and glove in with my hon. friend the member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). I wonder whether he will take up the same attitude when this Bill of the Minister of Justice comes forward. I have no doubt that the hon. member will oppose this Bill.

He is going to help it.

Then, as far as I understood, the Prime Minister spoke against the Liquor Option Bill as not being democratic. Well, I think my hon. friend is about the last one who should speak about that. Here is a Bill under which the Minister of Justice is going to impose restriction on areas by his own fiat, empowered thereto by Parliament. He will issue an order that no liquor shall be sold in certain areas. Is that democratic? I don’t suppose he will consult the people on the construction works or on the diggings. They will not be asked to vote. Yet these are all free men, not convicts. And yet when this Bill proposes to take a vote, a free vote, and no pressure is to be brought to bear in any direction, it is said to be undemocratic. I ask what can you have more democratic than that? My hon. friend the member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says it is undemocratic and subversive of the powers of Parliament, because you are going to take a referendum. I would remind the House that perhaps the most democratic country in Europe is Switzerland, and that if there is one country in Europe that exercises the referendum more than any other, it is Switzerland. The Prime Minister lays stress and other members in the course of this debate have laid stress on the point that this Bill is really the thin end of the wedge of total prohibition. I think total prohibition will have to come here eventually. You cannot just simply protect the coloured man and the native from liquor and not protect your own people. It will only be the thin end of the wedge if this Bill works well. Suppose this Bill is brought into, operation and is proclaimed in certain townships, etc., if it works satisfactorily undoubtedly it will give a great impetus to total prohibition, but Parliament will still have to consider the matter further. If it works well, as we believe it will, it will, as I have said, give a great impetus to total prohibition, but even then total prohibition has got to be considered by Parliament. I would ask this House to judge this proposal on its merits and not worry as to the future. This House and the country will have the opportunity of judging from the small attempt made in this way—and it is a small attempt, after all is said and done—whether these methods of total prohibition are effective or not. A great deal has been said by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) to the effect that it could not be worked, that it is impracticable. Well, we have the evidence of Scotland, where it works, and I have had a conversation only this afternoon with a member on that side of the House who is a Scotsman. He tells me it has worked very well. If it can work in a comparatively thickly-populated area like Scotland, surely it can work in an area like this. It will, for the most part, work in the villages. Take my own village, there are six canteens in that village, and I would like to close the lot. But it is at a distance, a very considerable distance, from any other area. If there is one country in the world where I think local option can work satisfactorily, it is this country. It could be worked in that particular area even better than in a thickly-populated place. I must confess I do not see any difficulty about that. A good bit of the opposition aims at delaying this matter. It is said by my hon. friend that it ought to be brought in by the Government. But you cannot get a Government to bring it in simply because it is one of those, things on which neither party is agreed. Even the front benches in this House are not agreed on this matter. So obviously it rests on private members to bring it in. As regard compensation, I thought the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was quite fair. He said he was against compensation, but if it could be shown that a practicable plan could be devised he was quite prepared to accept it. I believe the people of this country might quite possibly think that some little compensation would be worth while. I think the Select Committee should have power to inquire into that. Certainly there is nothing inconsistent in my hon. friend’s argument. I advocate this Bill because I have seen the evil which it is aimed to get rid of. The scenes one sees, for instance at Somerset West and elsewhere, on Saturday evening, are a disgrace. It is a reflection on the European people of this country that such things should be. There is another point, we should increase the efficiency of our labour in this country by at least 50 per cent. if we took away the drink. What is more, their standard of living and health would be much better. That is the experience in America, that the money they save in liquor is spent on better clothing and better living. That is exactly what we should find here. Again, every influence in this country which is concerned with the uplifting of the people is in favour of putting increased restrictions on the sale of drink. Not only clergymen are in favour of it, but all those who are concerned with uplifting the people. After all, I think that should carry weight. I sincerely hope we shall accept the second reading of this Bill and then send the Bill to a Select Committee.

I regret that I have to speak so shortly after my leader the Prime Minister, because I cannot agree with him. His speech has still further strengthened me in my opinion that we must obtain something such as is contained in this Bill. I am going then to give it my support, notwithstanding all the objections that have been brought in against it. I am unable to share in these objections because the greater portion of them are without basis. It is here alleged that the Bill is not democratic—that it promotes despotism. I do not believe it. I know however that the present system can easily give occasion to autocratic action. In Excelsior, for example, 85 per cent. of the inhabitants were against the granting of a licence for the sale of liquor; but the licensing court granted it contrary to their wishes. This is autocracy. Some hon. members have pleaded the interests of the wine farmer, and they have made it appear as if the movement in favour of local option was not of very great importance. I want however to warn the wine farmers. They think that it is only a little group of ministers of religion who support the Bill, but they are there totally wrong. The whole church supports it and also a considerable proportion of the public. The movement has year by year become stronger, and it will further increase in strength. The movement is now already so strong that in one district, where an hon. member said that his constituents support him, I challenge him to go through with me, when I will prove that two thirds of the inhabitants are in favour of the Bill. I have heard it alleged that if we act to-day against the interests of the wine farmers we leave the road open to prejudice the interests of the sheep farmer to-morrow; but, I have never yet heard that you can get drunk on mutton. The movement in favour of local option is making great progress, and the time will come when it will be adopted. It cannot be denied that a limit to the use of liquor has good results. I quote here from a report on the consequences of total prohibition in America. The report says—

I firmly maintain that if this is the result of prohibition, then we must adopt it. I feel sorry for the wine farmers, and I do not want them to suffer injustice. If that is going to be the result of total prohibition, then I am going to do everything I can to protect the wine farmers from loss. We must not, however, sacrifice the interests of the people to the interests of the wine farmers. Limitation of the use of liquor lessens crime. Hear what an American says—

The use of liquor has increased only too much amongst our people. Formerly in my young days it was a shameful thing to enter a bar or hotel. To-day it is no longer shameful. Some young people take a pride in entering a bar. We must remember that the use of liquor is one of the great causes of the poor white question. I have met numbers and numbers of young people who have frequented bars until they have become poor whites. We must make provision against it. I believe that liquor is one of the most dangerous evils that undermine the moral wellbeing of a people. One of those dangerous things which we must in every possible manner oppose.

Most of us have seen something of the effects of drink, but I have seen people who in normal conditions have been impossible—bores who have become quite reasonably pleasant persons after having a few drinks. That is something that one can put to the credit of drink. With regard to compensation let no one in this House or in the country think that there is the faintest chance of any compensation being paid if total prohibition comes into South Africa. It would not be just if compensation were paid. No Government would venture to pay any compensation whatever. We are told, that prohibition has worked so well in America that therefore it will work as well in South Africa. But we have not the population or the industries here that they have in America. What work are you going to give to the people who are thrown out of work by prohibition in South Africa? That sort of thing is going to manufacture more poor whites. The hotels in America cater for a vast number of people. The hotels in South Africa are not up to that level on account of our small population as there are quite a number of towns in South Africa—towns which are well worth visiting but are not visited because the hotels are not in a state to receive them. Are you going to improve those hotels by prohibition? As I have already said America can readily absorb industrial people who are thrown out of employment. To a very considerable extent you are going to injure this country if you have prohibition. It is wrong in principle for one section of the community to say: We are going to be dry and we are going to force the moderate drinkers in our midst to become dry. It is wrong that a section of a community may dictate its mode of life to a whole community. The Bill hampers the efforts of any person who wishes to deal with the evil of drunkenness in this country. I wish to announce that my intention has been to try and deal with the matter on a much larger basis in a consolidated measure because I object to the present state of affairs in South Africa. If you find that a licensing court is not doing its duty properly then change the licensing court and have another one; In the scope of legislation on this matter you have to consider what burdens you are going to place on the farmer and the trade. Is it fair to place these burdens and restrictions when you, at the same time, have passed an Act under which the trade never knows when a certain part of the country is going to be closed to the trade?

Why should they not be closed?

Because the other section does not want it. Why should the moderate drinker suffer? He suffers through seeing drunken people about and he also suffers through the intolerance of the teetotaller who says: You are not to have any drink at all. Supposing you have this sword of Damocles of total prohibition hanging over the hotels in the country are you going to improve your hotels? Certainly not. They will work from day to day not knowing the future and without the incentive to improve. It has been stated that big profits are made by the hotels in America, but that is not the case of hotels in South Africa. I can assure members that speaking generally the amount of drunkenness in this country at present is much less than it has been in the past. And it is becoming less yearly.

Are you speaking of the Western Province as well?

I don’t know sufficient about the Western Province. I am speaking more particularly of other parts of the Union. Before the War period, at the end of every month, you would see numbers of men in a drunken state in, the towns. We do not see that to-day. To-day it is a sight so rare that it is extremely noticeable to come across drunken people in Johannesburg or in any of the other large towns in the Transvaal. Then there is much less drink sold in the Transvaal to-day than was sold some years ago. A large amount of capital has been invested in the distillers’ business. Is it fair to jeopardize that capital? That was directly encouraged by the legislation of this House passed last year in connection with the wine and brandy trade. The reason why I have not spoken about the wine farmer is because I feel that all are agreed if there is one who should be protected it is the wine farmer. He has invested a great deal of capital and he employs large numbers of people. It is the wine farmer who has beautified the Western Province and who has made the countryside here the smiling place it is to-day. You have allowed them to sink a large amount of capital in this industry and to-day you are proposing to take from them their livelihood and their whole business will be ruined. He will not go on extending his holdings, he cannot do it, he must work for the day and the day only, and you will find that your Western Province development will be held up. It is our duty to see that drunkenness in the Western Province should be curbed as much as possible.

How?

You will have to deal with that problem, I am not dealing with it at the present moment. But the proper way is not by destroying drink in South Africa. With regard to America and prohibition I may say I have not yet seen a student who has not told me you can, get drink in America provided you pay the price. This sort of legislation will mean that instead of having legal drinking as it is to-day you are going to have illicit drinking in South Africa. Spirits can be distilled from many articles. If we are going to distil spirit from wood it is a step in the direction of turning this country into a country of blind people.

Is America blind?

To-day they are getting so much spirit imported into America that they can do without wood spirit. One of the concoctions they have there is called “squirrel whisky,” the reason of the name being that those who drank it wanted to climb trees like squirrels. Those days are over in America. The problem has been solved there, it has been solved by the smugglers for all time, and the problem they have to-day is whether they can consume all the drink which is finding its way into the country. There is one other point: we are always told very affecting stories of the crimes of violence that are caused by drink, but I may tell the hon. member that the crimes of violence in America are greater in proportion than in England where there is not prohibition. Crimes of violence have not diminished there, although they say they have total prohibition. Probably in reply I shall be met by the argument that they have not actually got total prohibition, and all those statistics of 12 and 14 per cent. are useless because they are built on the assumption that America is dry to-day. It has prohibition and it is not dry. The position here is of this nature: your wine trade has always been a legitimate trade and employs an important section of the people of this country. We must be careful indeed not to disturb the livelihood of that section of the population unless we know how to absorb them. In America they could be absorbed in industrial undertakings and so forth, but in South Africa we cannot find employment for a large number of our own people, although they are perfectly sober. Surely where that is the position of affairs it would be wrong to throw a large number of others into the ranks of the unemployed, people whom the country is not in a position to absorb. Supposing that in future, by immigration or otherwise, your population reaches greater dimensions than it is to-day, this argument may fall away, but we are anticipating that day, and we are going to disturb economic relations in this country and give rise to a position which will be impossible for anybody to face except with feelings of trepidation. I would point out that if we had total prohibition in this country and these proposals trend in that direction the country would have to face a loss of £3,000,000 per annum in revenue alone.

How long will it take local option to lead to total prohibition?

I do not know, but this local option menace, dangling as it is over the people of the country every year is hindering the development of the country, I mean development so far as better hotels is concerned, so far as your vineyards are concerned and the development of the drink trade in a proper and legitimate direction. If you want to stop it there is one way, one which has always seemed fair and logical, that is, to prevent the introduction of liquor from other countries because this country can produce its own Liquor, and therefore, it is wrong to allow the introduction of liquor from outside into South Africa.

Would you stop “squirrel” whisky?

There is no reason why the country should take in the drink products of other countries. I am satisfied that in theory a great deal can be said for local option as wel1 as for prohibition, but you will find that your practical difficulties are so great that they outweight your theoretical advantages and apart from question of Practical politics—I am talking of total Prohibition—as soon as total prohibition arrives you will find that you have driven your drink trade into underground channels. You will have all the troubles of to-day and you will have achieved nothing beyond the doubtful blessing of washing your hand in innocence and saying you have acted from the best motives.

I move—

That the debate be adjourned.

There are still many hon. members who wish to speak to the motion, and I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

I would like to support the motion for the adjournment of this debate. I have taken part in every division that has taken place in this House since Union, and I have always found myself voting against the motion. I notice, however, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has introduced something new into the motion on this occasion. The hon. member made a speech which made a very great impression on me and I am sure upon a large number of other member of this House. He has indicated that he will consider this question of compensation, and in doing that he has made a statement that he has never made on any previous occasion, that is, that he will personally vote for compensation provided a practical scheme can be conceived and worked up. There are a large number of members of this House who would like to consider that position, there are members here who have never spoken on this matter before to whom the matter is entirely new. It is not with the intention of in any way holding up this debate in such a fashion as will prevent it coming forward for discussion agate but I think it is desirable that opportunities should be given to us to consider the new position, and to speak on this very important question, The season is quite young, and there will be plenty of opportunity for this matter to come up for discussion again. I hope in the interests of his own measure the hon. member will agree to the proposal that the debate should be adjourned. If he cannot gain a day for the further discussion of the matter the hon. leader of the House will no doubt give him an opportunity of bringing it forward. I think in saying what I have said I have expressed the views of many others in addition to my own and in that spirit I support the motion for the adjournment.

I am deeply touched by the flattering remarks that have been made by the last speaker with regard to my powers of oratory, but I am not guileless enough to suppose that the effect of my speech will ever be sufficient to convert certain hon. members of this House to my point of view. I remember an experience which happened to me last year. At exactly the same stage of the debate, on the first day of the debate, I was influenced to accept the adjournment thinking that the usual courtesy of the House would be extended to me, and that the House was genuinely anxious that the matter should be further discussed. But what happened? The adjournment was agreed to, though a good many of my supporters thought I was unwise in so doing, and the next day I was fortunate enough to catch your predecessor’s eye, and I moved that the further consideration of the debate be set down for a day which was then open. The hon. gentleman, who has been most prominent in opposing this Bill, got up and used the prerogative he then had of objecting. His veto prevented that Bill from being set down that day, he prevented me from putting that Bill down as is usual with members of this House, and I was forced to the hitherto quite unknown expedient of moving a motion to reinstate that Bill. Believe it or not, but the very gentleman who asked me to agree to the adjournment so that the matter might be discussed further were the same persons who opposed the motion to reinstate that order on the Order Paper, and I am not taking any chances again. This is not a new matter, we have had a full discussion this afternoon and the House is ripe for a vote, without further discussion. I am not prepared to agree to the adjournment, and I hope those hon. members who stand behind me in this Bill will vote against any adjournment.

I think it is unreasonable and presumptuous of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to require that the discussion of such an important Bill should be finished within three hours. The consequences of the measure are going to be far-reaching. It affects 100,000 people in the Western Province, and puts in peril many millions of pounds that have been honestly earned. It cannot be urged that Parliament has in the former session listened to a discussion, because this is a new Parliament. At least, a great proportion of the members are new. According to the rules of the House every hon. member has a right to be heard; and there are at least twelve hon. members who want to exercise that right.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to discuss the merits of this Bill on a motion for the adjournment?

I am afraid I could not quite hear what the hon. gentleman was saying.

I take it the question is whether the House is going to accept the adjournment of the debate; it does not matter whether the hon. member accepts it or not. I think it is most unreasonable seeing that a number of his supporters took up such a tremendous amount of time in discussing this measure, and that there are still many people who want to speak upon it, that the debate should not be adjourned. The hon. member says he is not prepared to accept the adjournment, but I hope the House will make him accept it so as to allow of it being discussed at some other time. I have another amendment that I want to propose to bring the matter to an issue on the merits of the Bill. I am quite prepared to go on with the debate now, but probably some of the other hon. members are not. I think this is a very mischievous measure, and I shall always vote against it. The question is this, is it fair and right at the very beginning of a new Parliament to be practically dragooned by one hon. member in regard to coming to a vote? I hope the hon. member will learn the lesson that if he wishes to get through the House measures of this kind he should show the same courtesy to others that he expects to receive from them.

As one who has sat in this House since 1920 and voted on this question almost every year without having had an opportunity of giving my reasons, I would appeal to hon. members to adjourn the debate so that and other members, who are in the same position, may have an opportunity of putting their views before the House and before their constituents. The hon. member for Bezmdenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has had plenty of opportunities of airing his views on this question in this House. Quite a number of hon. members have never had that opportunity, because when the ordinary time has arrived for the adjournment of the House the question has cropped up that we must come to a vote, because there would never be an opportunity of discussing the Bill again that session. If that is the reason why we should vote on this particular question without having discussed it fully in the new Parliament, I should say that the time has arrived to change the rules and regulations of this House. We cannot stifle discussion, we cannot muzzle members, simply because the rules of the House will not allow a matter of this kind to be fully discussed. A great deal has been said about democracy and about this question being a question of the will of the people. Why then this endeavour to dragoon us into voting one way, without giving us an opportunity of stating the reasons for our vote?

While I am going to support the second reading of this Bill. I would urge upon the member in charge of it that he should not be stiff-necked, but agree to the adjournment of the debate. I think if he persists in the action he has taken now he will lay himself open to the charge of doing precisely what the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has stated, viz., endeavouring to muzzle other members of the House. If it were necessary that we should get this motion through this afternoon, I would say that the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) is quite right in the course of action that he is taking, but I contend that it is unnecessary. This is the first private member’s motion which has been brought forward this session. We have still the whole session before us, and this motion can be set down on the Order Paper for any private member’s day that the hon. member chooses. I would, therefore, urge upon him to accept the motion for the adjournment and allow good feeling to prevail.

In connection with what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has said, I wish to point out that it is just those hon. members who complain so much that they have had no opportunity to speak to the Bill who last year voted against the granting of opportunity for its further discussion. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) is one of those who now complains and who voted last year against giving opportunity for the measure going to the vote, and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) also voted against us. If they and other hon. members are so anxious to discuss the Bill, let us then go on with it. Let us proceed for another two hours. We are in favour of the continuing if hon. members consider it necessary.

Question put: That the debate be adjourned.

called for a division. Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—60.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Jager, A. L.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, E. H.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, C. W.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Oppenheimer, E.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—53.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R, W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Dearie, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: Blackwell, Leslie; Bremer, K.