I have an amendment—to substitute 1 for 2 in line 4

and I want to move as a consequential amendment—

The amendment I am moving is what the Bill originally proposed. In other words I am challenging the proposal of the select committee.

I would like to support the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister has explained why he has eliminated “divisional councils” altogether. Under the law as it stands three members of the divisional council sit on the board and also of a municipality. As the law is now amended he has eliminated “divisional councils” altogether. It seems to me, as far as the Cape Province is concerned, a very unwise proceeding. The divisional councils have for generations functioned on the licensing board, and unless the Minister has already explained, I hope he will give us an explanation. I would like to move—

1. (b) Four other members to be appointed by the Governor-General one of whom shall, if there be within the district one or more urban local authorities, be a member of such authority, and one of whom if the district comprises the area or portion of an area of one or more divisional councils, shall be a member of such council.

That will then allocate one member of the board to a divisional council where there is one and one to a municipality. I am moving this amendment for the sake of greater clarity.

I cannot understand why the divisional councils have been eliminated, and I hope the Minister will give us an explanation.

I would like to point out that in the area the hon. member represents there are two municipalities. Which one would have the privilege?

I see the difficulty but I should think in a case like that there is always one dominating municipality and the Governor-General would have to make a selection. In the case mentioned by my hon. colleague there is a small municipality and a very much larger one. Why should the small municipality have a member and the divisional council, which is a far more important body, be excluded altogether? It all goes to show that this clause has not been very thoughtfully conceived. The original Bill did make provision for divisional councils to be represented. The original read—

I hope the Minister will tell us what induced him to change his mind. I admit the instance quoted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) complicates the matter still more, but it shows there is room for overhauling the clause.

Your proposal is a minimum? It could easily be arranged by appointing someone from another municipality.

That is so.

I am willing to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I wish to make it clear that we only want the Cape system, which has always worked well, to be followed. We cannot allow every municipality to be represented. In my constituency, Piquetberg, there are three municipalities, and if each were to be represented it would mean that three members of municipalities would have to be appointed in my division.

I want to point out that under the present system divisional councils have no less than three members on the licensing court, while under the proposed Bill their representation is entirely deleted, and yet municipalities obtain full representation.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) see that local bodies must have representation on the licensing boards. I hope that that standpoint will be generally adopted. The number, however, must not be restricted to two, because in my constituency, Winburg, there are four municipalities, and to which one are we to give a representative? As for the divisional councils, there can be no objection to their being represented where they exist. If there are more municipalities in the constituency, the number of members of the licensing board can be increased so that each municipality is represented. I think, however, that municipalities should themselves appoint their representatives, and not the Minister. If we allow the munipalities to be represented, we should also have enough confidence in them to allow them to select their own representatives. If hon. members therefore want to add that divisional councils should be represented, I will support it. Divisional councils at present only exist in the Cape Province, but possibly we may have them later in the Free State. It is necessary for us to make the number of members of a licensing board elastic. Why should we not increase the number? If the Cape members wish it, then we can amend it without difficulty, but I hope my proposal will be adopted.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal withdrawn.

I am quite sure the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) deserves the attention of the committee. I am a strong supporter of members being appointed by local authorities. Magistrates are apt to be biassed in one direction or another. I move—

1. (b) four members to be appointed by the Governor-General, if there be within the district no local authority; or
2. (c) two members to be appointed by the Governor-General, if there be within the district only one local authority and two members to be appointed by such local authority; or
3. (d) two members to be appointed by the Governor-General, if there be within the district more than one local authority and as many additional members as there are local authorities, each of which shall appoint one member.

To make it read properly it will be necessary to move a further amendment at a later stage, and then to define “local authority.”

It is defined in the Bill.

It does not include divisional councils. I propose that “local authority” shall mean any urban local authority and include any divisional council. This meets the case entirely, and I hope the hon. member for Winburg will accept this.

The Bill here lays down the qualifications for members of the licensing board. Will local bodies not come under it?

The hon. member can speak about that later.

I want to draw attention to the great power placed in the hands nominally of the Governor-General, but really of the local magistrates. In the Cape Province there has been free election of members of the licensing courts by the divisional and municipal councils. Why take away this right, inherent to us as a people, of appointing through the local bodies members to serve on the licensing board. Further, in paragraph (b) there seems to be some vagueness in relation to the existence of divisional councils. They are not urban councils, but all the same they ought to have a measure of control over licensed premises within their area.

I only wish to speak in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). He was not in the House when I moved my amendment. It is practically the same and possibly he may be prepared to withdraw his amendment in favour of mine, which reads. [Amendment read.] The Minister said why he would not accept it, but I think that the divisional councils are such important bodies that they must not be excluded from the licensing courts. It is not right to exclude the countryside, and to give the towns representation.

There seem to be half-a-dozen amendments on this clause, and I have to propose a further one which I think will assist members very much in coming to a conclusion. It will be a great mistake to allow a municipal election to be affected by the question of liquor selling. Politics have been introduced into municipal affairs, and it is highly undesirable that they should be complicated still further by the intrusion of licensing problems. I move—

That has already been moved by the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers).

I am very glad to hear it.

The reason why the commission, in the elegant language of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth “messed about” with this clause—

The hon. member had better find another word.

I will withdraw the word. The reason why we altered this clause for the better was because we had to consider the representation of divisional councils. Under the Bill no new licences will be granted for the rural areas, and that being so, there does not appear to be any necessity for the representation of divisional councils on licensing boards. After hearing the arguments I have come to the conclusion that the commission did not change the clause sufficiently, and for that reason I will support the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly.

I move—

I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) that divisional councils have nothing to do with the licensing courts, because no new licensed premises will be granted on the countryside. The hon. member surely does not suggest that the people living on the countryside never come to the towns. I can assure him that the farmers are greatly interested in the town; they go to it, and are much interested in the way in which liquor is obtainable there. It is of great importance for the farm workers, who go to the town with the wagons, to return home sober, and not drunk. The hon. member for North-East Rand is a townsman, and knows nothing about the countryside. That is why the clause is so confused that we cannot pass it to-day. It seems to me that the Minister is not disinclined to accept what we regard as a fair request, namely that local bodies shall have something to say in connection with the constitution of licensing boards, but with all the amendments now proposed I fear the House will not know how to vote. Will the Minister, if he is in favour of it, not rather allow the clause to stand over for a proper amendment to be drafted to meet our needs? I think that will make the matter easier.

Does the hon. member move that the clause stand over?

I suggest that the Minister should move that.

I just want to say that, in my opinion, any proposal about the constitution of licensing boards, whether it comes from the extremists in the Transvaal, or the Cape Province, practically amounts to the same thing. I also think that the view of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is compromising, so that one part of the country shall be allowed to have the licensing court appointed by the Governor-General, and the other part shall be allowed to elect the members themselves. I think the element of election ought not to come in here, especially as liquor legislation comes under the Union and is not the business of the provinces. I think that it would be a little illogical for local bodies to elect members, while the central Government administers the law. If the election were left to the local bodies we should have little quarrels there about the selection of members, and in connection with the liquor question I think that would be wrong. I prefer the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), but I do not think we need attach much value to the difference between my proposal in the original Bill, and that of the select committee. The select committee, however, has possibly given more time to it than I have, and I am therefore prepared to give preference to their proposal. I do not, however, agree with the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) that the countryside will have no concern with licensing boards, because no new licensed premises will be granted there. The whole district has an interest in what takes place in the town. The countryside has a real interest in it. We shall therefore always try, apart from any provision with regard to divisional councils, to see that the countryside is represented on the licensing board. The outside public must be on the board, because they, just as much as the townsmen, have an interest in urban matters. I therefore think that we had better abide by the proposed clause. I see no reason for allowing it to stand over. There are two principles. One, whether there is to be an election or not, the second whether there should be members nominated from the bodies or not, and, further, how many of the bodies must nominate the members. I think we can dispose of the matter now.

Motion put and negatived.

I think the Minister’s argument is illogical. He says he will accept the amendment made in select committee but he disagrees in toto with the grounds for the amendment, and the only argument he used was that it is in the book so let it stand. The argument of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) was that the divisional council should be excluded because they have nothing to do with the urban areas. The Minister says it is wrong yet he accepts the amendment. Surely it would be a wrong principle for us to say that the countryside has nothing to do with these matters, they belong to the towns. The hon. member for North-East Rand is wrong in thinking it is restricted to the country. Take Port Elizabeth. They levy an urban rate for the town. The majority of the smaller towns are the focus for the countryside, and it would be a very wrong principle to exclude the countryside from an important matter affecting the lives and welfare of the people, and for that reason I insist upon putting this amendment. It seems to me from the Minister’s own statement he has no strong feeling on the subject. I hope he will agree with the amendment.

I would like to mention one or two points. The Minister is bound to be faced with a difficulty in making appointments from the local urban authorities where he has to deal with more than one local urban authority in a district. I know cases where there are four urban authorities in one magisterial district.

You would make the body too Unwieldy.

It seems to me that each urban local authority should have one nominee, otherwise it may lead to very grave injustice. I can foresee a great difficulty as far as the Minister is concerned, if the clause stands as it is, in making these appointments. I think the proposal of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is in the circumstances a sound one to overcome that difficulty. In Natal the urban local authorities have had absolute control. Seeing that they are giving up control, won’t the Minister agree to allow each urban local authority to have one nominee on the Board? I should be prepared to leave the appointment of that nominee in the hands of the Minister.

There is a general feeling on this side of the House, and also among some members opposite, that we should not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). That would mean that a part of the public would have all the influence, and the other part merely have to look on. We do not want the municipalities to have too much representation, we wish the countryside also to have a say. The Minister says that care will be taken to see the countryside represented. Who will see to it? The Minister will not sit there for ever. I am confident that under the present Minister of Justice that will be the case, but what if someone succeeds him, who will make use of the right of nominating three members of municipalities. I have therefore moved a restriction of the number of municipal members. The Minister himself originally proposed it, but has now abandoned it, since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) exercised his influence. I hope the Minister will abide by his original proposal, and see that the countryside is properly represented. The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is a very fair compromise. I hope the farmer members will support us in not putting all the power into the hands of the municipalities.

I cannot follow the argument of hon. members in favour of representation for the municipality. The municipalities already have the magistrate as their representative on the licensing board. The magistrate belongs to the town. He is the friend of the townsmen and the country people have nothing to do with him. They take off their hats to him, and give him a cup of coffee when he comes to a farm, but that is all. They are afraid of the law, and see that they do not come into conflict with it. The magistrate is a representative for the towns and the municipalities do not need another. We can see what will occur if the municipalities are represented. They say to each other “To-day I scratch your back, to-morrow you will do mine.” Let the divisional councils send their representative. There are no divisional councils in the Free State and Transvaal; let us therefore make separate provision for the Cape, and for the Transvaal and Free State. Our old system in the Cape has always worked well, and we are satisfied with it. Give them their way, but let us keep our own. We are quite satisfied with the scale of civilization we have attained in the Cape, and we need not take lessons in this respect from other parts of the country.

I trust the Minister will not think we are wasting time. There is strong feeling about this matter in the Free State. The Free State has never had the privilege of seeing local interests properly represented on the licensing boards. The proper local representation is, as appears from the Bill, a principle also respected by the Minister. Why should the law provide for two representatives? If we allow municipal representatives, we should have enough confidence in the municipalities to allow them to make the choice. The position is different in the Free State from that at the Cape, but I appreciate their objections. They are very anxious for the country people also to be represented on the licensing board. I therefore wish to withdraw my amendment, and to re-introduce it in a different form, to meet the objections of the Cape members.

Is there any objection to leave being granted to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) to withdraw his amendment?

I object.

We want the amendment to go-through.

The amendment stands on the paper.

I fear that the hon. member has not understood me well. I want to point out that the amendment is being made to meet the objections of the Cape members.

The with drawal has been objected to, and the amendment therefore remains.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) said that there is no objection to the existing position in the Cape. I admit it, but the hon. member for Piquetberg attacked me for saying that each municipality in a district should be represented on the licensing board, and that that was the practice in the past. I just want to refer him to Clause 28 of Act 28 of 1883, which says that the members of licensing courts shall consist of the magistrate and the chairmen of any and every municipality in the district. Now, regarding the municipalities, I want to point out that the municipal members are very often well acquainted with the interests of the countryside. The hon. member must not forget that many retired farmers live in the towns, and they are often nominated as members of the licensing board, because they have a good knowledge of conditions on the countryside, and in the town, and have not too much to do. I just want to mention the case of the deputy-mayor of Ceres, who stopped farming some years ago, and now, as deputy-mayor, sits as a member of the licensing board when the mayor is absent. There is no objection to nominating representatives of divisional councils, where these exist, and I provide for it in my amendment, but the appointment must be done by the Minister because he knows best who the most suitable person is.

I am afraid if this amendment is accepted it will make these boards altogether too unwieldy. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Bill to set town against country. The principle is that the country should have some representation on these boards and to my mind it does not matter materially whether there are two members from a municipality and one from the country, or vice versa, as long as there is representation. I quite agree with the Minister that an election would be wrong. We do not want to introduce a system of holding “wet” or “dry” elections in our municipalities or divisional councils. I am quite willing to leave the appointment of these members of the board to the Government, but I am not prepared to have the Government exclude the country altogether. I do not think it is practicable to give representation to each individual municipality. You might even have a ca.se where they might hive off into more municipalities to get fresh representation. I think my amendment is a sound one. As long as the country has representation, as long as they know what is going on and as long as they feel they are not excluded altogether. I think the thing will work and I hope the Minister will still see his way to accept this.

I do not object to municipalities being represented, but if the State controls liquor traffic then the State must also have a say on the licensing board, and therefore I should like to see that the Minister, in appointing members, will see that he has the majority in any case. If the municipalities have so much representation, then the result will necessarily be that the feeling of local circles will exercise the greatest influence on the licensing hoards, and possibly the intentions or policy of the Minister will not be carried out. I therefore hope that care will be taken that the State has a majority on the licensing court. Besides the reasons already mentioned in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) I want to add that, according to the Bill, there will practically be no more licences allowed on the countryside. We are not yet all abstainers there. There are some of us who use a little liquor in one way or another. The large majority of us will have to be served by licensed persons living in the towns and villages, and I hope the Minister will bear this in mind. The people on the countryside thus have great interest in conditions regarding the liquor traffic in the towns.

I understand there is some misapprehension with regard to my request to withdraw my amendment. I want to make it clear that all I really wanted to change was to make provision that as well as the municipality, each divisional council, if there be one in the district, would also be represented on the licensing board I want to extend the number of members of a licensing board in accordance with the number of municipalities or divisional councils in the district.

The hon. member cannot withdraw it. It was objected to by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and I do not see him in the House.

Three persons objected to the withdrawal of the amendment. There is such confusion owing to all the amendments that the committee does not want any new ones. A few days ago when I spoke on the Bill the Minister said that the divisional councils would be represented, now he says that they will not be represented. I hope the Minister will reconsider this. As the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has said every municipality will be allowed a representative on the licensing court, hut the divisional council will not he properly represented. Many municipal members of the countryside have a vote in the divisional councils, and have influence there as well. The influence of the municipalities on the licensing courts will be too great, and I hope the Minister will not allow the divisional councils to be represented.

I must rule that the amendment cannot be withdrawn.

I think the Minister is making a mistake in referring to local authorities. We know in large centres land companies or great interests throw all their weight into municipal council elections in order to get people elected. They do not call them nominees, but a ticket, and they throw in all their weight and influence to get them elected. By this paragraph the Minister is bringing in a new element, and the best thing would be to delete the whole paragraph after the word “Governor-General” and make no reference whatever to local authorities. Municipal elections are complicated enough in the big centres without introducing a new element.

As I was refused permission to withdraw my amendment, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) wanted to move the same proposal that I did. The only difference—

The hon. member cannot ask three times to withdraw his amendment.

I am not asking it. I am only saying that I can support the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). I cannot, however, agree with the principle that the municipalities or divisional councils shall not nominate their representatives. Perhaps, if those amendments are passed we can alter them at the report stage, so that the bodies will themselves obtain the right of nominating their representatives.

There are so many amendments that I am afraid of confusion. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) says that his amendment more or less coincides with that of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), except that local bodies will not, themselves, nominate their representatives. The amendment of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) embraces what both the hon. member for Ceres and the hon. member for Winburg want. I hope the House will appreciate that.

I do hope the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), because the whole principle for which he is standing is repudiated by that amendment, whereas the amendment I have proposed covers the whole of the ground which is sought to be covered by the hon. member for Winburg. I hope the hon. member will reconsider his decision.

The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) has let the cat out of the bag. The amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) is supported by the hon. members for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and Colesberg. This shows how dangerous that amendment is to the farmers. The amendment will have the effect that four to five members of municipalities, and only one member of the divisional council in a district will sit on a licensing court.

Question put: That the words “four other members to be appointed by the Governor-General”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

If these words are retained the amendments of the hon. members for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) and Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) will fall away. Is there any misunderstanding?

There is some misunderstanding, for how can it be said that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) falls away if the first four words of the clause are retained, for his amendment contains those words.

It would have been better if he had left those words out.

You are only putting the first few words of his amendment.

I am not. If the hon. member is not satisfied with my ruling he can always call in Mr. Speaker.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—55.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Deane, W. A.

Da Villiers, A. I. E.

Da Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt, T. W.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden. I. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—42.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, M. L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Terreblanche, P. T.

Van der Merwe. N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten. O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.: Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed.

The amendments proposed by Dr. van der Merwe, Mr. Roux, Mr. Sephton and Col. D. Reitz have consequently dropped.

The new paragraph (b) which I proposed contained the words which the committee had decided should stand part of the clause, and I submit that my amendment has therefore not dropped. May I move another amendment?

It depends upon what it is.

I beg to move—

I cannot accept that amendment. It has been decided.

On a point of order. We have voted to retain the words in line 15, first line of sub-section (b)—

That is as far as the committee has gone. Still before the committee is the whole of the rest of the sub section and the clause which has not been dealt with. Surely the liberty of members will be very far curtailed if by a motion to delete the first line of a sub-section being defeated, it is not open to members to move any amendment they desire in connection with other portions of the clause. Surely that is the ordinary parliamentary ruling. If not, it will defeat the rights and privileges of members of this House to amend any portion of a Bill not already amended on an amendment subsequent to that portion of the Bill.

Will the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) tell me what he thinks about this. I should like to hear the opinion of other members.

The House has not voted on the principle of the hon. member’s amendment. It drops on a technicality because of the wording of the amendment. Surely the hon. member is entitled to put it again? The part which has not been put to the committee yet is a part on which the committee has not decided. The committee, as far as it has gone, has actually adopted the wording of the hon. member’s resolution.

The custom is to test the feeling of the House on the various amendments by putting them seriatim as the Chairman has tried to do. But in the present case there undoubtedly was a misunderstanding, no one is opposed to retention of the first word of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). The amendment should actually have been interpolated after the word “Governor-General.” In the circumstances I would suggest that the amendments be put again.

It seems to me there are two points that we have got to decide. In the first place, is the hon. member in his proposition doing anything inconsistent with the vote of the committee? Clearly there is nothing inconsistent with the vote of the committee. The committee has decided that certain words be retained. The hon. member does not propose to substitute anything for those words. He proposes to add certain words after the words which the committee has decided to retain. Secondly, no closure has been moved. Therefore, it is not necessary that all the amendments should now be put. It is open, after any division, to any hon. member to move a further amendment which is not inconsistent with what has already been done. I would therefore urge that it is competent for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) to move his amendment.

I take it that what is before the committee now is sub-section (b). So far as the four other members to be appointed by the Governor-General are concerned, it is not possible for any member of this committee to move any amendment in connection with those words. It has been moved that these words be deleted, and the committee has decided that these words be retained. What is now before the committee is the following—

What I respectfully submit is this, that to give everybody an opportunity of expressing his opinions and having them vote upon it is competent, so far as the latter portion of subsection (b) is concerned, to move any amendment that any member may desire, and further to move that the whole sub-section be deleted, otherwise members will not have an opportunity of really having their views brought before the committee, because though a member may desire that four members should be appointed by the Governor-General, he may desire to give instructions in regard to the panel from which the Governor-General shall choose those four members.

There is no doubt that the majority in the House are in favour of leaving the selection of these members to the Governor-General, but there is also a strong feeling in the Cape Province that, at any rate, the countryside shall have a show-in with regard to the selection of these candidates. The sub-section, as it appears at present, speaks of “one or more urban local authorities.” Therefore, according to this the choice must be made from the urban local authorities, while, as I say, there is strong feeling in the Cape that the countryside should have a show. I would suggest that we should take out the word “urban” and then leave the selection entirely to the Governor-General and he may appoint a member from the urban authority or the rural authority, that is, the divisional council.

He need not select from them.

He may select both from the urban authority or both from the divisional council, but at any rate it leaves it open to him. He can select a member of the divisional council as representing the countryside, and a member of the municipality as representing the urban authorities.

The Chair is not responsible for the form in which a member drafts an amendment provided it is not irregular. The House always allows a member to propose the omission of a paragraph for the purpose of substituting another containing some of the same words or sentences, and since the hon. member has chosen that form of amendment his proposal dropped when the committee decided to retain certain words of the original paragraph. The hon. member should have asked leave to move his amendment in a different form, had he desired to do so, before the division took place, but if the committee has no objection I shall allow the hon. member to do so now.

In that case may I put my amendment now?

I will allow you to put it.

May we know what your ruling was?

I am going to give my decision in favour of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). As I am only the Deputy-Chairman of Committees, somebody may wish to test it.

No.

In view of your ruling, for which I am very grateful, I withdraw my amendment with leave of the committee, and move—

May I just point out that the hon. member is only thinking of the Cape Province. If the amendment is passed we shall have fewer representatives on the licensing board in the Free State than we have now. There will then only be one person representing the municipalities, and the position in the Free State will, therefore, be less favourable.

Suppose a case where there is no divisional council. What is going to be the position then?

There will only be one member.

Well, that is not fair. Delete the word “urban” and leave it to the Governor-General.

Hon. members know I have allowed this amendment on account of a misunderstanding. I said it could be tested, if the committee wished, by the Speaker. I went contrary to the practice of the House and allowed the hon. member to put it forward because certain members had disagreed and because the hon. member had made a drafting mistake, so the hon. member’s amendment now stands. The amendments by the hon. members for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), Ceres (Mr. Roux) and Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton), have now dropped.

I just want to say that we, in the Free State, want to have the law as it is at present. If we vote for the amendment we shall be less favourably situated there.

I take it what you are putting now really is that if the committee deletes these words then the amendment of the hon. member will be put before the committee. It is quite clear to my mind.

In as much as the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has been so changed that it practically coincides with mine, I will withdraw my amendment.

Objection taken to the withdrawal of the amendment by Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl.

Question put: That all the words after “Governor-General”, in lines 15 and 16, to the end of paragraph (b), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—51.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, H.

Richards. G. R.

Rockey, W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smuts, J. C.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—48.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heatlie, C. B.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux. J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk. P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Col. D. Reitz and Mr. W. B. de Villiers dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls put and agreed to.

Is it now competent to move an amendment? I should like to move—

This will ensure that the Minister in appointing these two members will consult the local authorities.

You cannot go back now. It is voted up to “appointment”.

It may be possible for a man to lose his seat on a local authority. I take it that the Minister will appoint a man only by virtue of his being on a local authority.

This point, like so many others we have discussed on this section, is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The argument against is, the appointments are made for a year, and for the next year they will be changed. Assuming a man is appointed because he is on a local authority, when he ceases to be a member it will mean that appointment falls to the ground, and it will be impossible to put anybody in his place. I do not think there is much in it; but if it is going to avoid another discussion I will accept it with both hands. I have no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) (“during membership of the board”)—

I wish to object. I think a false move has been made already by accepting what we have, but if we are going to place that still further in the hands of local authorities—

This has been suggested but not moved.

I will move—

I wish to oppose that amendment. The whole object of this Bill is, as far as possible, to place the control of the liquor trade in the hands of the central Government. There are very drastic clauses in the measure which aim at cleansing out of the trade abuses which undoubtedly have existed up to the present. If, however, you make membership of the local authority another field for the exploitation of patronage, then you will not only allow one field of possible public patronage to remain poisoned, but you will poison another. In many instances local authorities have been severely reprimanded by administrators, who in some cases have had to go so far as to suspend municipalities for exceeding their powers and put commissioners in their place. I fail to see what object is to be achieved by entrusting municipalities with still further powers. Local authorities have too many fields of patronage open to them as it is, and it is very difficult for any man to be a member of a local authority for a considerable number of years without being suspected of serving his own interests rather than the interests of the community. If local authorities have any influence on the issue of liquor licences the object of the majority of them will be to increase the number of licences. Such a power will have a very derogatory effect on the cleanliness of local administration. There are many members of local authorities in my own town who hold licences.

Amendment put.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Radenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zvl. J. J. M.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—33

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Brown. G.

Christie, J.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

McMenamin, J. J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche. P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Conradie, D. G.; Reitz, H.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Remaining amendments by Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl and the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

1. (2) A member of a local authority appointed to a licensing board under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of section 13 shall, on ceasing to be a member of such local authority, ipso facto, cease to be a member of the licensing board.

I hope the Minister will accept that.

I accept that.

I move—

which disqualifies anyone engaged in viticulture who may not be interested in licensing at all beyond a general interest. Later on, it depends on how the vote goes on this, I will move for the deletion of sub-section (e) and to put in a new sub-section—

It follows that if one who is engaged in viticulture has to be excluded, why not a person who may not have any interest in wine making? If you disqualify him, why allow a person who is opposed to the selling of liquor as a beverage to sit on the board?

I hope this discussion on disqualification will not go on. It will lead nowhere, just as three and a half hours’ discussion on Clause 13 has not led to anywhere, and I do hope that, as far as disqualification is concerned, we are not going to have another absurd and useless discussion.

We have not done much of the talking up to now.

No, that is so. I think that what my hon. friend refers to is that the word “viticulture’” would be applied to a man who is producing grapes for table consumption or for export as grapes. If there is any doubt about that, we might delete the word “viticulture” and insert “making wine”.

Or brandy.

Yes, “making wine or brandy”. I will propose, diffidently—

I am quite satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. I merely wanted to delete “viticulture” and insert “the making of wine or brandy”. There are a good many of my friends who wish me to get the whole paragraph deleted, and only in deference to their wish have I moved that. I know what the feeling of the committee is, and I do not wish to raise the whole question. I am pleased that the Minister has moved the omission of the word “viticulture” and the substitution of “the making of wine and spirits”.

The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) now seems to be afraid of the Minister. I think we have the same right to look after wine farmers as the total abstainers have to defend their point of view. The reason why we should speak more than they is that they have got their way in the Bill.

I support the Bill as it now reads.

I have no objection to the wine farmers not sitting on licensing boards, but then I ask why they are prevented, when total abstainers are allowed to sit. According to the Bill the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who is one of the greatest champions of prohibition, may sit on a licensing court, but the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) may not. I say this is unfair, and I shall heartily support a motion to delete the provision. The Minister talks of trivialities. Whenever we talk on behalf of the wine farmers it is trivialities. If we could get the provision that abstainers also could not sit on the licensing courts we would thank the Minister, but, if he does not meet us, I say that he is playing into the hands of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I should like the Minister to understand that I have taken no part in the question, and that I honestly wish to obtain a good liquor law. I have no instructions from any part of the population, or from any body, so that there I am free, but, as various amendments are proposed, which, in my opinion, are unnecessary and provocative, I think I must express my view. With reference to paragraph (c), which says that no one interested in wine farming may sit on a licensing board, I want, quite seriously, to ask the Minister to delete it. I think it is very unfair. It applies to all the people who make moskonfyt, produce table grapes, export grapes and make raisins, etc. The amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) is a concession, but it is not enough. The provision presses on a portion of society that does not deserve it, and which always exercises sound judgment. The wine farmers are respected, and the small section who have abused the circumstances does not justify blame or a slur being cast on all wine farmers. I have already said that there are many members of the House who are directly or indirectly concerned in wine farming. Wine farmers can become Prime Ministers, members of this House and judges, they can fill any position, but; they may not be members of the licensing courts! I have never yet heard of such an insinuation. I will move to let it lapse. In the first instance the intention existed as a matter of fact to put them on the same footing as the abstainers. Now the latter have been put in a more favourable position. I want further to point out that in many villages there are retired wine farmers who have let their farms, or in other ways still have an interest in wine farming. Is the Minister going to exclude them as well? I hope the Minister will not put such a slur on to the statute book. Perhaps he may find a way out, but, in any case, I hope he will do something to meet the objection.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie withdrawn.

I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). The hon. member is making a habit of attacking the supporters of local option and accusing them of being hostile to the interests of the wine farmers. I just want to tell him that we want the wine farmer to be protected, just as much as anyone else. We are not fighting against the wine farmer, but we do not put his interests above the evil which is devastating the souls and bodies of the people. If the majority in the constituency say that they want no bar in their district, then it is only reasonable that there shall be none. That is our object.

The hon. member cannot now discuss it.

I just wanted to dispose of the attack of the member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal).

I move—

That was in the original Bill, and it is most unreasonable to think that anyone opposed to the liquor trade should sit on a licensing board. That is the reason I move this amendment.

I would like the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) to wait a little with his amendment in case the Minister climbs down a bit and allows the amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). In that case this will not be necessary.

I move—

I do not know whether the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) still stands, or whether it has been withdrawn. I think he proposed the deletion of para. (3). If not, then I move it.

Do I understand that the hon. member for Barkly has moved the addition to sub-section (e) that was read out to the House? In that case I feel I cannot allow the committee to give a silent vote on this matter without understanding what is proposed. The whole scheme of Clause 15 is that no person who has a direct interest in the sale of liquor should serve on a licensing board. It is quite obvious that a person who manufactures wine or brandy has a direct interest. It seems to me an elementary principle that no such person, whatever his other virtues may be, should serve on a board which has the giving out of licences for the sale of liquor. In other words, he has a direct financial interest in promoting the sale of liquor. It may be right, it may be wrong, I am not making any attack on the wine farmers, susceptible as they seem to be. I merely say that whether he be a wine farmer or a licensed victualler, or have any other interest in the sale of liquor, he should not serve on a licensing board. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) advised the hon. member for Barkly to wait and sec what happened to sub-section (c) before moving his amendment to (e). In other words, a little threat was held out to the Minister and the committee. If the wine farmers are allowed to serve on licensing boards, they will allow the temperance people to serve, but if they are not allowed to serve they will not allow these wicked temperance people to serve! There is not the slightest parity between the two cases. If a person is actually an official of the society for promoting temperance or of a society for promoting the liquor trade, then under section (e) he cannot serve on any board. That is already in the Act, and it is intended it should remain in the Act, but to go further and say a person who holds temperance views or is generally opposed to the sale of liquor shall not serve on any licensing board, is absolutely preposterous. They have no financial interest in the sale of liquor at all. If we are going to exclude from licensing boards persons who hold temperance convictions, where are you going to end? I venture to say that this day one half the people of South Africa in some shape or form hold temperance convictions, and I venture to say the time will come when three-quarters of the people will do so. Take a small town. If half the people in it hold temperance convictions, the choice would be restricted to the other half, and they are to be allowed to serve on the licensing board. I assume that a person holding temperance views thinks the sale of liquor should be cut down as much as possible, but to say that such a person shall not sit on a licensing board is ridiculous, and I hope the clause will be accepted as it appears.

I hope the Minister will not accuse me of obstruction; I did not mean to speak, but I have never heard a more provocative speech than that by the last speaker where he said that half of the people of the country bold temperance views, and that this half is the better half. There are people like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who pose as St. George and the dragon in their crusade against liquor. Some say he was Don Quixote tilting at a windmill. If that is to be the intolerant attitude of the temperance party—I say that advisedly—then I think every one of us who do not hold such extreme views should make their position very plain in this House, and indicate by their vote that the spirit of some of those who sat on the committee and drafted this Bill is not acceptable by this House. I am a teetotaler myself—to all intents and purposes.; but at the same time I strongly object to every man who does not hold these teetotal views being branded as belonging to the worst section of the community. I do hope we shall come to a frank vote on this. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has stressed the word “financial.” Let me take the case of the Rev. Mr. Cook; directly that gentleman resigns as an office holder in any temperance society he becomes eligible to go on such a board. Does he not put his sacred principles higher than his financial principles? Any person who has taken such a personal interest and definite attitude in the matter as Mr. Cook puts his sacred convictions higher than others place their financial interests, and therefore the hon. member’s contention is wrong. Those holding intolerant and bigoted views on either side should be prevented from serving on any licensing board, and I shall vote accordingly.

Cannot we come to a vote on the subject? One of two courses lies before us; one to accept this disqualification, and the other course, which I think better, is to scrap the whole of this clause. Where men are going to be appointed, they are going to be the ordinary temperate people of the town—I use the word “temperate” in the proper sense, because I do not consider a total abstainer a temperate man. If anybody looks at this clause in a temperate way, he will see we can get on quite well without it. If we are going to extend it or cut it down, it will make very little difference, except in the time we are going to waste on discussion. We have been fighting on clauses that really do not matter. The real trouble of this Bill lies far ahead of where we are to-day. I like to come to the biting stage, and not to remain behind and talk about things which do not matter. There I do not seem to agree with the feeling of this committee.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

What about my amendment—the omission of all those words?

The hon. member never brought the amendment to the Table. He knows better than any other what he should do. Does he move to omit the whole of (c)?

Yes.

With a view to what has been said, and the conflicting opinions, I should like to propose deleting Clause 15. Let us leave it to the good sense of the Minister and the people to judge who shall sit on the licensing boards. If we exclude the wine farmers we shall incontrovertibly offend a large and honourable section of the population. If we exclude members of clubs we shall offend another section, and if we exclude supporters of prohibition we shall turn them against us. The Minister rightly says—

I move—

The hon. member need not move it. He can vote against the clause.

I move to amend para, (c) by providing that the wine farmers who have direct financial interest in the matter can be excluded.

Perhaps the hon. member has not noticed that section (a) says that already—the “holder of any licence.”

The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) will see that that is already included, and that being so, I cannot accept his amendment.

It is not a question of interest as I see it. We want an absolutely impartial body, but a man who is opposed to the principle of the selling of liquor, however honest and conscientious he may be, is constitutionally incapable of being impartial, on the question, for instance, of whether there should be an extension of hours. He will always naturally vote against it, as he believes liquor is a poison. Is it fair to place such enormous interests in the hands of such a man and to constitute him as part of what ought to be an impartial tribunal? He may be as honest as the day and not financially interested. By all means let him come before the Court as a pleader. I have nothing against the temperance people, but members of licensing boards must be people without any prejudice either in favour of or against the sale of liquor.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I want this clause of the Bill to stop as it is. An attempt is being made to meet everybody as much as possible. I was surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). He recently spoke strongly against the institution of a kind of inquisition. Now he wants members of a licensing board first to make a declaration about their faith, and to say whether they are supporters of the sale of liquor or not. Hon. members are inconsistent. The subjective influence in a licensing board can never be entirely removed. There are people in the country who want to have as many canteens and hotels as possible, others again are quite opposed to them. Everybody will agree that it is right that people who are financially interested in the matter should not sit on licensing courts.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) entirely misunderstood the tone of my remarks. There was no intolerance, but I wanted no intolerance to be shown towards that very large section of people who think the consumption of liquor an evil thing.

You said they were the best section.

I still say that the people who support temperance views are the better section of the people. But that is a matter of opinion. Does the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) realize that the temperance party agreed to the deletion from the Bill of all semblance of local option and of the memorial system of the Cape, and yet now it is proposed to shut off from representation on the licensing boards representation of that large section of the community who hold definite temperance views, and to leave the board to consist of members of one section of the community and they may grant as many licences as they please. That is grossly unfair. If the establishment of bars and bottle stores concerned only one-half of the community that would not be so bad, but it concerns the community as a whole and therefore the community as a whole has a right to be represented.

As chairman of the Kimberley Club, I am not entitled under the Bill to sit on a licensing board. I flatter myself that I am not prejudiced either one way or the other, but because I am chairman of the club, although I have no financial interest in it, I am debarred from sitting on a licensing board. But a good templar, who would rejoice to see every place where liquor is sold closed down, irrespective of the misery and ruination that would entail on a large section of the community, would be allowed to sit on a licensing board. That is not fair.

The fallacy underlying the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is that he has spoken as if these four persons were representatives of the people. They are nothing of the sort. The Minister will not select four representatives, hut four gentlemen who he thinks will be capable of impartially hearing both sides of the question. Persons who hold extreme views on the one side or the other should not sit on licensing boards

Amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. B. de Villiers put.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—31.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Louw, J. P.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, D.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Tellers de Jager, A. L.; Hugo, D.

Noes—62.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, H.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.: van Heerden, I. P.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I move—

What is the meaning of this word “club”? I don’t see any definition. It might mean a sports club, in which case no member of a cricket club would be allowed to sit on a licensing board.

It has just been moved to make it “licensed.”

Will the Minister accept a small drafting amendment to sub-clause (g), which provides for any person who is the owner, lessor or lessee of or the holder of any mortgage bond upon such premises. Under Clause 32 (1) it might affect a man who owns land on which there is no building, and I want to move—

I think that the language “licensed club” is not clear enough, because the club may not be a club in which drink is sold. It is quite possible that it may be licensed for the sale of other articles. I think better language would be “any club holding a liquor licence.”

Should it not be “any club in respect of which a liquor licence is held”?

That is even better.

I move—

Amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by Mr. J. P. Louw and Mr. Nel put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—60.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Nicholls, G. H.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—34.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hugo, D.

Louw, J. P.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, N. J.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Terreblanche. P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. I. M.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

There is a possibility of a difficulty arising if that sub-section is retained. At Port Elizabeth, for instance, five out of the six members of the court are members of the Port Elizabeth club, and as they would be debarred from sitting there could be no quorum.

There is a difficulty with regard to a quorum.

Special provision for that is made in Clause 23.

I do not see that there is very much value in subsection (d), and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Has the Minister forgotten that this afternoon he accepted an amendment by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) which is quite in conflict with this clause?

That only means providing every member keep that and make it subject to the provision of the previous clause. I want to deal with both these matters in the report stage, because there are difficulties in the amendments of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel).

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

1. (3) The cost incurred by members of any licensing board in connection with proceedings instituted by or against them in their official capacity shall, unless the court before which the proceedings are taken orders the costs to be borne by the opposite party or by the said members de bonis propriis, be paid out of the Treasury.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I want to suggest an amendment there in which I want to give the Minister discretion without fixing a definite date as it is at present in the Transvaal. We have it on a uniform fixed day here, and it has been found to be inconvenient. I move—

I move—

I want to point out to the Minister that in fixing the first Wednesday in December nothing is said about continuing on subsequent days. It distinctly lays down the first Wednesday of the month, and only on that day.

Say “shall he commenced”.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.