announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Port Beaufort Grant Amendment (Private) Bill, viz.: Dr. H. Reitz, Messrs. Buirski, Christie, Geldenhuys, and le Roux; Dr. H. Reitz to be Chairman.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Before this clause is put, I wish to move an amendment to delete in the first line, the words “in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope,” so that this clause may apply to all the provinces. I do not wish to repeat the arguments in favour of this new clause which were mentioned last night, but everything which has been said in favour of this clause applying to the Cape of Good Hope also applies to the other provinces. I move—

I am afraid I am out of sympathy with the hon. member who proposed this new clause. In the first place this is a consolidating measure and it seems to me that all vital principles should be carried throughout the whole of the provinces. That of course has been met to a certain extent by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson); therefore we have to decide whether this is a wise principle or not, and that is where I join issue with the mover of the amendment. I agree with what the Minister said last night, that it is distinctly a modified form of local option, and to my mind—and I have always held that opinion—local option seems to me to give the majority the right of coercing the minority on purely moral grounds. A man may believe that he is entirely justified in having a drink and in going to an hotel and having a drink, but his neighbour turns round and says. “I will use the machinery of Government to prevent you from doing so.” I believe that provided the man who wants a drink is not going to do any harm to his neighbours in any free democracy, he has the right to go and have that drink. That, is my view and any resolution antagonistic to my view in that matter I shall vote against. This resolution goes still further. It may even come to the position that it gives the right to the minority to coerce the majority, because practically all of us in this House would not perhaps be here if there were a clause in the Electoral Act that you could not become a member of Parliament unless you had a majority of the votes on the electoral roll in your constituency. We all know that a huge number, or a very considerable number, of voters in urban constituencies at any rate are not to be found in a constituency on polling day. There are the removals, there are the ones who have left the country, and there are the ones who have died. Under this resolution of the hon. member he takes up this position, that if a man has left the constituency or if a man has died, whatever that man’s opinions were, when it comes to giving a licence that man shall be considered as a vote against the licence, which seems to me a very unfair and unjust position. In fact I would go further and I suggest to the hon. member who moved the resolution—ana I am very sorry he is not in his place—whether the resolution would not be fairer if he put it in this way, that in the case of a majority on the electoral roll signing a petition against a licence then it should not be granted. I think he would then see the correctness of my statement that as the resolution stands to-day it is most unfair, and that you require a great deal more than the majority of voters in any constituency in order to carry out the undertaking necessary in this resolution. That is one reason why it is so difficult. In regard to a decent respectable hotel in one of the big towns in this province; for instance, in Cape Town, it prevents a man with money from putting up a decent hotel because before he can be sure of getting a licence he has to get this majority of voters on the electoral roll of the district. This is one of the reasons why Cape Town itself is so poorly provided with good hotels. It applies also to all the towns in the Cape Province Now we are told that this is the only method of keeping certain areas dry. There are many other methods of keeping areas dry. For instance, take the case of Observatory Road. I really do not know from personal experience that Observatory Road is very much more sober or any more sober than Mowbray or Rondebosch. I have never heard anyone suggest that Observatory Road is any more sober than Rondebosch or Newlands. It is always up to anybody who sells land to put any conditions on it they like. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) pointed out what a glorious thing this clause in the old Cape Act had been to Pinelands. There are no licences in Pinelands but it has nothing whatever to do with the liquor law in this country. Any rabid total abstainer could have done exactly the same thing with any land which he was fortunate enough to control. I made the provision in regard to the Pinelands garden city to see to it that unless the trustees of the gardens city want to have a licensed place there, there never will be a licensed place there, unless this Parliament brings in a special Act to enable them to have it.

That is what the resolution wants.

If the total abstainers would adopt some practical methods they could do a tremendous lot for temperance by taking precautions and inducing people when they cut up land to make previsions for temperance. I do not suggest for a moment that I would help them, but it is easy when an estate is cut up to make such provision.

What about land already occupied?

If I go to a suburb I know the conditions that obtain there, and if the Act is passed and if the board decides there may be licensed premises, I have to take my chance, in the same way as when I buy property. A football field may be put next to it, and a riot and row every Saturday afternoon. Personally I have no objection to it, but it is a chance I have to look to. The Salvation Army may put up a hall and make a noise on Sunday afternoon when I want to go to sleep. I believe this clause does a great deal of harm to temperance. It is one of the great anomalies of the whole position this unholy alliance between the total abstainers and the liquor interests. A man gets a liquor licence and he does not need to fear competition any more because the temperance party sees that there shall be no competition. I particularly emphasize that, as long as you have this provision, you will have great difficulty in getting decent hotels put up.

I cannot make out the arguments of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) at all. Surely a local community has some right to the democratic principle of saying whether there shall be a licence or not. The amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) does not have any effect on existing licences, but applies only to new ones. With regard to what the hon. member for Newlands said about hotels, good hotels will come if the demand is there. If there is a local Community where drink is not allowed to-day, these people should be protected in the rights they have. With regard to what the hon. member for Newlands said about the purchase of land, what about the man who has bought land in an area which is known to be “dry” and which is not expected to have a licence? I think we ought to allow at least this small degree of local option and to accept this principle perfectly freely. The hon. member for Newlands has drawn attention to these memorials, which now have to be in favour of a licence. I suggest to the Minister that we would get the same effect if we said it shall not be lawful for a board to grant such a licence if there is a memorial lodged with the magistrate disapproving of it. I move as a further amendment—

so that it will read—

It is only an absolute majority that is asked for, and not two-thirds.

I should like to support this new clause. We have in Natal a method of local option, and I think the majority of the people there are desirous of retaining it. This new clause, if it is amended as proposed by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), will, I think, meet the case. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) proposes to omit “province of the Cape of Good Hope,” so that it will apply to the whole Union. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany is a better form than the original printed amendment. In these days of democratic control there can be no objection to the public having a direct say in the issue of liquor licences.

As to the democratic principle, it is a principle of democracy that every man should do what he likes provided he does not injure anybody else. The essence of democracy is that the majority should rule. If the minority do not submit to the rule of the majority, then you are going to have chaos. It is a sound principle of democracy that the majority should decide whether they will have a public house in their locality or not. A public house is certainly not a desirable thing to have next door to one. Let the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) walk through Observatory to Salt River on a Saturday night, and I have not the slightest doubt as to which district he would prefer to live in. It is a sound principle that where the sale of liquor may tend to injure people, they should have the right to decide whether they will have an hotel in their midst or not. I am sorry that the country is not going in for a full-fledged scheme of local option, although I don’t believe in prohibition. Not a member of the House can deny the fact that a sober community is a far better one than a drinking community, whether they are moderate or excessive drinkers. The temperance people should devote more attention to attacking the evils of drink rather than going to extreme lengths.

I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). If the hon. member for Newlands believes the proposal as being absolutely dangerous to temperance, then he would believe anything. A public house is supposed to be for the convenience of the public, but if they regard it rather as a nuisance why should they not have the right to say so? The people who desire a licence should have to prove their case, not the people who are opposed to it.

I hope the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) will support an amendment which I intend to propose, making it clear that no new licence be granted if a memorial is presented against it. There is an inconsistency in the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Newlands. He spoke of the glories of liberty but it is interesting to compare his conception of liberty with what he did when he took a very prominent part in laying out the model township of Pinelands. He did not then think so highly of liberty as to leave it to the inhabitants to decide whether they would or would not have a liquor licence in their midst. He was careful to provide under no circumstances should there be a liquor licence unless the trustees agreed to it and amongst the trustees was the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I imagine that under no circumstances would they approve of the issue of a licence unles they had an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants in favour of it. I therefore think the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) should be strongly in favour of giving the right to those concerned to decide whether they should have a licence or not. Pinelands has developed on excellent lines and I therefore ask the hon. member for Newlands, is he prepared to deny the same right to other towns in a similar position. I am going to propose an amendment to the clause suggested by the hon. member for Rondebosch to the principle of which he may agree, and which may go a long way to get the support of the Minister, who I thought last night was inclined to concede the right of the Cape Province in this regard. He appeared to feel from what he said that there was a considerable force of opinion behind the proposal of the hon. member for Rondebosch. The hon. member for Newlands spoke of a handicap which would follow the passing of this Bill in establishing large hotels. I think the Bill in section 62 meets this point, for there is found a provision, which I take it the hon. member for Rondebosch intends to be read as one with his amendment, which makes it clear that the provisions relating to a quota are not to apply to new premises for liquor licences exceeding the value of £20,000. I move—

and that will meet the hon. member for Newlands and it will also meet the point that there is no need in the case of the establishment of hotels of this size to have interference by means of memorial. Without violating any principle, I contend at no time have these local memorial provisions been applied to prevent the grant of a licence for a first class residential hotel. You can always rely upon a con-census of opinion in favour of such a development, and it is obvious when such a first class hotel is established no member of the community could reasonably object to it. There is a further point of the hon. member for Newlands, who spoke of the effect of voters, who might be on the registered list, who were dead or absent from the district, and who would count against the memorial. A clause which can be inserted in a schedule to the Bill can provide that from the number of voters on the roll there should be deleted those who are proved to be dead. The absent voters should be treated on the same footing as they are under the existing legislation and the memorial can be sent to them for signature. Therefore as far as the objections of the hon. member for Newlands are concerned this amendment should meet his case. The Minister must have realised as far as the Province of the Cape of Good Hope is concerned, there is a strong body of opinion which cannot be ignored in favour of the existing right. We have had that right since 1891 and the only reason urged for its abolition is that there has been abuse. The Minister did not say in what there had been abuse but it is said that signatures to memorials have been forged from time to time. There is a criminal law in South Africa which can reach those guilty of forgery. In my experience I can only remember one case where the signatures to a memorial have been forged. Another suggestion is that there has been abuse in that memorials have been signed from year to year and have been retained for a period of time and have then been used when the signatures do not represent the opinions of the voters at the subsequent date. That can be met if this amendment is carried. It makes it clear signatures shall be followed by a date and the date shall not be earlier than one year from the date of the sitting of the court. The existing practice is one which it is desired to retain in large areas of the Western Province, in cases like Sea Point, the Gardens, Fish Hoek and as far east as Caledon, where these provisions have been in operation. The Minister is introducing a new provision which is an exceedingly strong argument for the retention of the memorial system, and that is the right of licensees to remove licences from one district to another on a certificate obtained from the magistrate and two members of the licensing board without having regard to the opinions of the people in the district. It is obvious when this Bill becomes law there will be a number of bar licences which will be faced with extinction. In the old days licences could be purchased very cheaply in the poorer portions of the city and could afterwards be transferred to the better part of the city. It was pointed out that that was illegal. In areas like Observatory and Pinelands you will find that these people are anxious to take advantage. [Time limit.]

The great difficulty we found in connection with signatures was not so much the forging of them, as the easy way in which they could be obtained for memorials. I know from experience that when a murder, however brutal, is committed, thousands of signatures can always be obtained, pleading for grace for the murderer. If it can be done in such a serious matter, what guarantee can we attach to signatures on this kind of memorial. I met a friend to-day who said that he was strongly in favour of the memorial system in the Cape Province, and that it had worked very well. He said that he himself had seen a ease where it did so. I asked him to mention the case, and he replied that, in a certain district, application was made for a new bottle store licence. The application was accompanied by a petition which the majority of people in that district had signed. The applicant then applied in court for a licence. My friend at the same time handed in a petition also signed by a majority in the district, the same persons as in the first case. His petition, however, was against the granting of the licence. On that he based his remark that it worked very well in the Cape Province. There will be people who think it very good, but I think no one from another province will say that it works well. I think it works very badly. We all know that it is the easiest thing in the world to get anyone to sign a document of that kind, provided it is not a subscription list. If it says that everyone who signs must pay 10s., no majority will be obtained. It was once said by someone that he could induce any man to sign his own death warrant. The greatest objection to the memorial system is that it is a hopeless one, and I do not believe in the signatures of people who are not properly informed about what they are signing. We know that in many cases statements are made by people about something they have seen; when cross-examined in court they give an entirely different rendering, although they were quite honest in their first statement. What value can we attach to an accumulation of signatures of people who signed casually, possibly without knowing what the contents where. The people can also send in memorials to the licensing court, but if I were a member of a licensing court, I should not attach so much importance to the signatures.

What is the value of the signature?

That is just what I want to know. In the case of a petition to the court for a licence, when the majority of the voters in a district have put, their signatures on the petition it will mean much; but in the case of the licensing board it will possibly exercise no influence. Is there any hon. member who will say that he attaches as much value to the petition as the hon. members wish to represent? The healthiest way is a proper licensing board, and we are trying, as a matter of fact, in this Bill to create a system of licensing boards which is healthy. The licensing boards will certainly bear in mind the opinion of the whole of the public, and the district. Parallel with them there is the quota system, and also the provisions about liquor licences, which must not be encouraged too much in large towns, and they will decidedly do good work. In areas such as Cape Town and Johannesburg, where a certain sum has to be paid for such an application for a liquor licence it will do much good. The memorial system, however, might do definite harm, with regard to hotels. The better the hotel is when built, the more the existing licensees will be opposed to it. A good hotel will injure them more than a bad hotel. Undoubtedly the opposition to an increase of licences is always the combined opposition of existing licensees and teetotalers. I will not talk of an unholy pact; perhaps the pact is a very good one, in any case, it has the right of existence, because both are intemperate. They are not temperate, the prohibitionists also are not, and we expect the intemperate people to stand together. The poor man, who in a proper manner now and then wants to have a drink, is always squeezed between the upper and the nether millstones. It is always the teetotalers and the people who drink too much who make the most noise. The poor temperate man has not a chance. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) called a sober man one who never took a drink. A sober man is one who occasionally takes something. The total abstainer is not sober, he is not a “temperance” man. But the point I want to make is that little value can be attached to memorials. People will easily sign such a petition, and we have peculiar and sad experiences with regard to petitions.

I quite agree with the Minister that the memorial clauses are subject to abuse, but I think what he said was more in favour of a perfect system of local option, and that instead of the memorial clauses we should have a direct ballot. I do not see how this argument can be reconciled with the argument of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), who stated that the great difficulty in getting new hotels was that it was so difficult to get signatures for hotel licences, and that that was the reason why there were not enough hotels in Cape Town. I do not think it is necessary for us to go into details of the arguments against local option. I rise to support the motion of the hon. member, although I think it is far from ideal, and I also rise to protest against the attitude of the Minister to the expressed desire of a large section of the community in regard to greater authority in the matter of local option. Everyone will admit that the clauses in the old Cape Act were palpably in favour of the liquor trade. As has been said this afternoon, it was very difficult to remove a licence, even if it was very objectionable to the people in the district. A two-thirds majority, whether absentees or not, all counted in favour of the liquor trade. That was the reason why many people said that we must tighten up the local option clauses which we have in the present Acts, and a considerable amount of pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister. Instead of tightening up these clauses and making them fairer to both sections, he has now wilfully, and, I may almost say, spitefully removed from the present Act every vestige of local option. He has even removed every vestige of local option from other Bills that have a slight bearing on the liquor trade. We have the Native Areas Bill. Yesterday we discussed the matter of the licensing boards, and there we find he has taken away what little measure of local option there was by taking away divisional council representation. He has even refused to allow the municipalities to nominate their own representatives. Everyone who knows anything about what has been going on during the last few years will admit that, after having clamoured for more local authority, that, after having begged the Minister to make the question of local option, even so far as it does exist, a little more democratic, instead of giving us the bread we have been asking for, the Minister has given us a stone, with the result that there can only be one reply from those who have been working for local option in order to give the public more power, and a fairer chance to deal with abuses of the liquor trade. The only reply is that these forces will have to muster again and fight more strongly than ever for the introduction of a real local option measure. If this amendment is rejected it will only be an additional incentive for the people who have been fighting on these lines to muster their forces until they at last carry the day. I have said these few words hoping this House, if they want peace in this country, and if they want to stop abuses of the liquor trade, as far as lies in our power, will give this amendment their full support.

The principle of local option is recognized in the Bill to this extent, that in Clause 60 it is provided that where a vote has been taken against the granting of a licence, those places will be secured. I cannot say the Minister’s arguments are very convincing. Here in this case objections are subject to the scrutiny of the licensing board, and the board can satisfy itself that these objections are genuine. I submit that people should have the right to say whether a licence for the sale of liquor should be permitted in any particular area. The arguments of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) struck me as a bit odd, if not grotesque. They were rather involved. He says you can prevent liquor being sold at a place if you can make provision beforehand, and he points to one locality in which he is interested, and says: “That is what we should have done.” But some of these places have been in existence almost for centuries. I think the arguments of the hon. member merely go to show how necessary a provision of this sort is. I wish to identify myself with this proposition as one which is reasonable and fair. There is just one other point. What right has the Minister to take up the attitude that the individual who takes alcohol is a normal individual, and the other man is the extremist? I would like to refer him to the great change in public opinion which has come about in regard to that. There was a time when the medical faculty in England, as a body, looked upon individuals who did not take liquor as something abnormal. That attitude has been completely falsified. I hope the Minister will come round to the view that the man who does not take alcohol is the normal type.

They don’t look normal.

I sincerely hope that the new clause moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will not be passed, especially as the amendment of the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson) makes it still worse. I want to point out to members from country districts how much injustice will be done to the country people in those districts. Local option surely means the wish of the people who make use of the licensed places. What, however, is proposed here? That the decision shall be left to the inhabitants of the villages and municipalities. The amendment provides that the memorial must be signed by the majority of municipal voters, but not a word is said about the rural population. Take an ordinary district, mine, for instance, with 2,500 voters, who might want liquor. There are two municipalities, one with about 250 voters but the area that belongs to this municipality contains 1,250 to 1,500 outside people who have to send to that village for their liquor. If then a decision is to be taken, whether the country people can get their liquor or not, then it must be by half of the 250 municipal voters. In other words 126, or the absolute majority in a municipality legislate for 1,250 outside people. That is no local option. It is not democracy. It is absolutely unjust to make such a provision. If it could be so put that all the voters in the district can take part in signing such a petition, and if the opinion of the outside people were consulted, there might be something to say for it, but to put everything into the hands of the townspeople is very unjust. Clause 56 provides that the Governor-General can restrict the sale of liquor in districts. What prevents the population of a district sending a petition asking the Governor-General to make the restriction? Clause 60 says that where local option is already in force, it shall so continue. That is another example. Clause 61 further provides that it is open for the inhabitants of a district at any time to file a petition with the licensing court which is then obliged to deal with it. I hope that the amendment will not be passed, because it will also apply outside the Cape Province.

After hearing the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), I am convinced that the contention of the Minister is quite correct with regard to there being a full-dress debate on local option. What I want to ask the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is what other alternative is there to that put forward by the Minister, who has told us he believes in the principle that a proper liquor board is the best body to carry out the measures under this Act. What other alternative is there for the Minister to put forward than this, and leave out a local option clause? As to the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch, the whole crux is the value put on the signatures to these petitions. The large liquor interests are certainly keeping out large hotels, or respectable competitors of their trade. What I want to point out to the committee is the curious construction the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has put upon the question of a consolidating measure. He said he objected to the measure because it was consolidating, and because the Cape has this preference of memorials which this measure should have preserved. That is a very curious conception of a consolidating measure. I thought such a measure consolidated the different measures of different provinces, and where there were two conflicting opinions the Minister would take the best one and put that into his measure. With regard to the tot system, the Minister has taken the medium course and taken that of the Orange Free State to govern the whole lot. I cannot understand from a legal man that he should tell us that it is in direct conflict with this as a consolidating measure, and, therefore, he supports the hon. member for Rondebosch. We have probably wasted a good deal of time considering local option last evening and this afternoon. The committee should get on, and not be led astray to any of the side paths.

In spite of the eloquent appeal of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), who, no doubt, is the most perfect judge of wasting time, I think we shall get on with the debate. As far as I can make out, the arguments are, first of all, by the Minister of Justice that this is an influx of local option by a side wind, and he objects to that principle altogether; then the argument of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I understand, is that it is a danger to temperance. The people who support this, including the moderate people, are quite prepared to take the risk of this being a danger to temperance. Then we have had the dear old gag of the unholy alliance trotted out again and again. I do not see many signs of that unholy alliance supporting this. When the hon. member talks about the unholy alliance it is all very well when you talk about the removal of licences. The clause we are dealing with is confined to the question of keeping out licences from districts where no licences exist. The main point made by the Minister is as to the value to be attached to signatures to a memorial. I am quite prepared to believe that in a very large number of cases the value of signatures to certain classes of petitions is to a large extent to be discounted. In the case of signatures to a petition for the reprieve of a murderer you appeal to a large number of people with sympathetic ideas, and in many cases to people who do not know anything about the circumstances of the case. That, however, is no argument in the present case, for here you are dealing with one particular interest in one particular locality. You may be sure that the people who wish to introduce the licence there will make everybody acquainted with the merits of their case while their opponents will also put their point of view. I believe in the memorial system, because I know that the Observatory people have for 30 years managed to take the full benefit of the Cape Act of 1891. They have done this by an immense amount of hard work, and not by getting casual signatures from people ignorant of the circumstances. I deny that the Minister’s illustration has any bearing on the point at issue. The memorial system has, I believe, been of the very greatest value because people, when they are asked to sign memorials, know what they are doing. That system should be retained. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) rather reproached me for not going further, but I purposely worded the clause as it stands in order that the least exception might be taken to it. This provision was called local option in 1891, but it is not local option as now understood. Although I have supported a local option Bill, I am not a prohibitionist. I left out the question of the renewal of licences because it is a controversial matter which should properly be dealt with in a local option Bill. We Dutch and English believe in the principle of local self-government [as much as possible. One form of that enables local authorities to nominate members of licensing boards. I think that might be departed from now, but we should retain this other form of local control under which people will have the right of saying whether they are against anything in the nature of a disturbance of their local amenities which might follow the opening of a licensed place in their midst. That is the minima, and I hope the Minister of Justice will withdraw his objection. I suggest to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that he should withdraw his amendment rather than run the risk of dividing the forces in favour of the retention of some form of local control.

If people desired a new licence, they had first to obtain the signatures of the majority of the voters in the ward concerned. That does not mean that a licence would necessarily be granted, but that under the existing law before an application for a new licence can be considered, such a petition must be presented. Under the Act of 1883 it was provided that if the voters in any ward filed a petition signed by not less than two-thirds of the parliamentary voters, they could successfully object to an increase in the number of licensed premises in their locality. If it should appear that a majority objected to the granting of new licences, then it would not be competent for the court to grant the application. The Act of 1891 brought in the provisions in a new form with regard to divisional council voters. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), I do not think some of his arguments help the cause he is supporting, because he said the clauses of the old liquor laws were weighted in favour of the trade. My opinion is to the contrary. Licences could be taken away without any petitions at all, just if the licensing court was satisfied that the licence was not required. If the trade wanted a new licence it had to get a majority of the voters, and it had to be a majority of those who were alive. The fact that there were some dead did not help them. The provisions were very much against the trade, and were not put in to help the trade, and I think if the hon. member will read the clauses he will find there is no question of that. I cannot find any trace of weighting in favour of the trade in the Gape Liquor Laws. All that can be said against this memorial system is that owing to the way the voters’ lists were kept, people who were dead or who had gone away counted against anyone trying to get a majority. In a country like this, where people move about, it is always difficult to get a majority, and that was dead against the trade. The Minister has said that it was difficult to prevent forgery. That happens in regard to everything. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) cited a case which I had in mind. Although in that case a certain number of signatures were struck off on the grounds of forgery, there were enough signatures left, which were genuine, to make it possible to get the licence. One awkward thing about it was that persons were persuaded to-day to sign for a licence, and to-morrow signed against the licence. That is not the fault of the memorial system, it is the fault of human nature. Human nature is fickle politically, as well as in other things. It seems to me this very modest proposal of the hon. member for Rondebosch to provide, in the case of a new licence, that it is necessary to get a majority of the voters, is quite a good one, and I do not see why we should not accept the proposal. With regard to the controversy between the Minister and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) as to who is and who is not a normal person, I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Justice. Might I remind my hon. friend, who thinks a man who takes liquor is abnormal, of a Bible quotation from Ecclesiastes 9, 7—

What about where it says “wine is a mocker”?

Of course, the Bible condemns wine taken in excess, in which case it is a mocker, but the point of the Minister of Justice was that a normal man was one who took liquor in moderation, and the Bible is all in favour of that. [Numerous interjections.] Hon. members seem to be making merry without wine. All I can say is the Minister of Justice is perfectly correct in saying the normal man is the man who takes food and drink in moderation, and the abnormal man is the extremist, who thinks any kind of liquor is poison, or the man who does not know how to take his liquor in moderation. I shall follow the Minister of Justice in his support of a moderate normal man.

I think we can accuse the teetotalers in the House of breach of faith. It surely was a tacit understanding that they would give the Minister an opportunity of introducing a consolidating Bill for the four provinces to try and put drunkenness on a better footing, and that they would be satisfied provided the measure actually improved the position. I am glad that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has kept this understanding, and not introduced local option into the Bill. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is now trying to smuggle it in. Is this right? If it is a good, principle, it ought to be so for the four provinces, and not for the Cape alone. Why is he proposing it only for the Cape Province? We people on the countryside do not attach much weight to the memorial system, and it is best to keep it out of the Bill.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked me to withdraw my amendment, because he thought it might jeopardize his. I do not think it will have that effect, but, on the contrary, should make it possible to have the principle embodied in this Bill. I would be the last to do anything to jeopardize any amendment of this sort, but we must look at the practical effect. The difference between his motion and my amendment is that in his motion one memorial asks for a licence, and in my amendment you would have memorials against the granting of one. It has been suggested that we are guilty of a breach of faith in bringing up this matter in this new clause, but I do not think there can be any question of a breach of faith, and we are entitled to express our views on this subject, views which are also those of a large number of people in the country, and very strongly held. If you look at the Natal Act No. 38 of 1896, you will find that Clause 46 provides for local option on the same basis as the effect of my amendment would be. [Clause quoted.] This Bill is a consolidating measure, and I want to say that, as it stands to-day, it is a vast improvement on what was brought in before, and, although there are provisions; made for memorializing the board and making representations by bodies or individuals to the board, I think this provision that we are asking for is only just and right. Natal has it, the Cape has it in rather a different form, and therefore I think those two provinces have every right to say that their old laws shall be embodied in some form. The Minister said that memorials are open to abuse, and have been abused, and he drew an amusing picture of certain contradictory memorials which were signed by the same people. That is not going to shake our faith in the principle of a memorial. His example is a reduction ad absurdum, but in the ordinary way these memorials are perfectly sound and need not be open to that abuse. I believe that if we adopt the amendment that I propose, that is, that memorials shall be signed against the issue of a licence, rather than for the issue of a licence, there will be ever so much less abuse of the system. I have it from one of the members of the commission who, I take it, was speaking on the evidence that was called, that, in his view, there will be very little chance of abuse if the amendment that I propose is accepted, whereas, on the other side—asking for a licence—there will be much more likelihood of harmful influences being brought to bear than would be the case with a memorial against the issue of a licence. I am not going to refer again to the statement about the “unholy alliance” between the licensed victuallers and the total abstainers, because I do not think that exists. I am not an abolitionist, and I believe that total abolition in this country would have many harmful effects, but I do think that we must give the local people a say as to whether or not there shall be a new licence granted in the area in which they reside.

I would ask the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to compromise on this matter and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben). After all is said and done, many of us are out to protect people in such places as Observatory, so that a licence is not thrust upon them against their will. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch, it is laid down that to get a licence you must get a majority of the ratepayers in the district or ward, as the case may be. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Albany, they can protect themselves by signing a memorial against the granting of liquor licences, which would be very much easier to do than the other method. They are a compact community, and if they are alarmed about a licence being thrust upon them, what is to prevent them from getting together and signing a memorial to the board, and if they get a majority that absolutely stops it? As far as I can see, they would be thoroughly protected. There is another point which has not been so much stressed. There is no doubt that in the past the fact of having to obtain memorials for hotel licences has been a great hindrance to the development of hotel business in this city. Anybody who knows Cape Town well knows that hotels have not been developed as they should have been in this city. We have nothing like so many first-class hotels as you will find in Durban at present. There is not a single first-class hotel in Cape Town to-day that is not crowded and refusing people who apply for accommodation. Here we are doing our best to promote the tourist traffic to South Africa, and it is a literal fact that when people get here, they cannot obtain accommodation. I do not say it applies to all, but from my own knowledge Ï can state that it applies to some. I know a half-dozen cases in the last 10 days which have been refused at one of the best hotels in Cape Town because they have not accommodation for these people. That is a state of affairs which we should not allow to continue. People will not put up capital to build big hotels if they have to go through the extreme difficulty of having to collect signatures for a memorial in support of a licence. I am told that the Mount Nelson Hotel, perhaps the best hotel in the Cape Peninsula, had to wait two years before a licence could be obtained. That is not satisfactory. Who is going to put up money to build a first-class hotel if there is a doubt whether they will get a licence, and they have to go through the trouble, worry and expense of getting signatures to a memorial in support of the application? I would point out that under the amendment of the hon. member for Albany, that will not be necessary. It could only occur if there is a majority of people in a district against the granting of a licence, otherwise the licence is granted in the ordinary way. If there is a certain section, we will say at Observatory Road, who are very much opposed to a licence in their locality, they can get together, get up a memorial and send it in. Nobody would ever dream of getting up such a memorial if a first-class hotel, we will say, were to be put in the Gardens or some suitable locality and a licence were applied for. We would all be very glad to support it. We could do with at least three first-class hotels in Cape Town, in my opinion, at the present time. I hope the Minister will accept this as a compromise.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Coulter and Mr. Henderson put and negatived.

Question put: That the word “unless” proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed new clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—36.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

Fick, M. L.

Hattingh, B. R.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nel, O. R.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, D

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Van Broekhuizen,H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Visser, T. C.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—57.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W.le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the word omitted.

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Struben put and agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, put, and the committee divided:

Ayes—42.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Brown. G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—48.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Louw, J. P.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, H.

Rockey, W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Stals, A. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Proposed new clause, as amended, accordingly negatived.

On Clause 42,

I move—

It is only to fix a date for the opposition—at least a day before the application is heard in court.

I move—

The object of the amendment is to see that in respect of the sale of liquor there shall be less opportunity of evading the law than there is to-day. I think it is in the interests of everybody, producers, distributors, and consumers, that the drink trade should be in trustworthy and proper hands. It is unfortunately a fact that there are so many people in the drink traffic to-day who are undesirable for that business. The result is that the drink trade gets a reputation for impropriety, and that even in this House many members strongly urge local option, or prohibition. I want people who are convicted of a contravention of the Excise Act to be prevented from again obtaining a licence. It is to a certain extent a reduction of sale, but we cannot permit the sale to be in undesirable hands.

I have no objection.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 43,

I move—

I move—

The words are redundant.

There is one important matter which requires consideration, and that is the case where a licence is not owned by the person in whose name it stands. Under the clause it would be possible for a lessee to apply for the removal of a licence, and if the owner fails to note that, the application is to be made, he may be seriously prejudiced. The owner might make an application to the court, and, before the person who might have lent money on mortgage on the premises, could assert his Tights, the licence might be transferred to other property, and thus very serious damage might be done to the premises on which a bond existed. There must be a number of cases where you find the removal of licence is contrary to a written agreement between the licence holder and some other person. I propose to move an amendment to make it clear where the owner may not be the holder of the licence or there is an agreement not to move the licence that it shall not be competent for the board to grant a transfer. This power of removing licences from district to district is one I have referred to earlier in committee, and hon. members will realize that it may work out to the disadvantage of people in other localities. For example, you may have a private house in a locality which is purely residential. An application is made to the licensing board. It has an interim sitting, and it is announced in the “Gazette,” but that may not be noticed by the owner, and the court might sanction a licensed house next door to the residential property. The owner would then find his property, and the neighbourhood, had been seriously depreciated by the act of the board. I move—

With regard to the first point of the hon. member, namely, that if objection is taken the matter must be referred to a full sitting of the court, that is, I think, covered by Section 45 (b), the second portion of which reads—

That certainly covers the first point. The second is covered very largely by Section 31, sub-section (3), which requires every applicant for a licence to lodge with the licensing board full particulars of any lease or mortgage or anything else that affects the property. Having these particulars before them, and knowing that the lessee was bound by a lease or contract, the licensing board would never consider giving any transfer without notice to him.

I withdraw my amendment in favour of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz).

Amendment proposed by Dr. H. Reitz put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 46,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 47,

I move—

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 50,

I would like to move a small amendment in this clause which I hope will appeal to the Minister. It is provided here that when a licensing board refuses to renew a licence, the board may authorize the continuation of the validity of the licence for one month. I hope the Minister will agree to delete the words “one month” and substitute “not exceeding three months”.

No.

I did not know my hon. friend was running this Bill. There may be cases of hardship, and surely the best judge as to what period of time should be granted is the board. The position is very simple. A man may have been carrying on business for years, and suddenly the board finds a reason why that licence should not exist any longer. Surely the man should be given a reasonable time. It may be a very large business. It should be left to the discretion of the board as to whether the period shall be three months. I move—

I do not think there is Very great danger in this proposal, because it is left in the hands of the licensing board to decide what the period shall be, not exceeding three months. I certainly have known of cases in the Transvaal Provincial Division where that period of three months has been granted. I should imagine that if we left that power in the hands of the board to decide what the length of time must be, as long as it does not exceed three months, it will do no harm, and it may meet hard cases.

You will have to amend sub-section (3).

Amendment put and agreed to.

The Minister will see that in sub-section (3) it is provided that one-twelfth of the amount which would have been paid for the renewal of the licence shall be paid in respect of the one month’s extension which may be granted. Of course, if an extension of three months is granted, three-twelfths will have to be paid over.

The clause as amended says: “Not exceeding three months.’” I would suggest one-twelfth for every month.

I do not know that we can move that, since it is an increase of taxation.

It is really a question of winding up the business. I do not see much point in insisting upon the uttermost penny. In most of the cases you would have a month or six weeks.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 53,

In regard to this clause there is one point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister in reference to sub-section (b). I would point out to him that, so far as the Natal south coast is concerned, a great portion of the coast area there is within three miles of native areas. You have a growing population and villages and townships are springing up along the south coast as far as Port Shepstone. If this clause goes through it will mean total prohibition against any new township which comes into being in the future. That will have a very serious effect upon the expansion of these places along the south coast. If the clause goes through as it is here, these townships or municipalities which are growing up will not be entitled to have a new liquor licence. I see that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) seems to be very pleased to hear this, but it seems to me that that is not the intention of the Minister.

I move, as an amendment, that—

It comes under the next clause.

I should be very glad if the Minister would agree that this clause and the subsequent clause should stand over. I think the peculiar conditions which exist in Natal and, perhaps, other parts of the country, may be fully met by giving the Minister full discretionary powers under Clause 56, and, therefore, these two clauses might even be deleted. I move—

Yes, I think Clauses 53 and 54 are points of importance, and, as a request has been made that they should stand over, I have no objection.

How can Clause 54 possibly stand over? Because practically the whole Bill hangs on to Clause 54. If 54 is not passed, then how can we go on with the other clauses with which it is very much entangled?

I have an amendment to Clause 54, and protest against its standing over.

In answer to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), I just want to say that I do not know what the position on the Natal south coast is, but I will have enquiry made. We can then go into the matter again at a later stage.

I do not oppose the clause standing over, but I would like the Minister in the interim to go into the claims of the alluvial diggings. There is no reason that I can see why they should be considered to be in a rural area. I want the Minister to see that proper provision is made for the alluvial diggings, and that no difficulties will be placed in the way of proper licences under proper control in those areas.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 54.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 55,

This raises one of the most important principles of the Bill. I suggest this clause should stand over, too. I move—

Why should it stand over? Are we not going to face this thing some time or another? Is there any further enquiry to be made, or any reason why we should not go on with it now? No, I think we should go on with it.

Motion put and negatived.

I move

That is to restore the dates proposed by the commission and to substitute 1930 for 1937. If the committee accepts the principle of this clause, namely, that no new bar licences are to be granted, and that existing bar licences are to come to an end in ten years, then I think a limited period should be given to the existing bars within which, if they wish, to transfer themselves into some other form of licence. The commission recommended a period of three years from the commencement of the Act, but the Minister has extended the period to the whole of that ten years. The result will be that instead of encouraging, as this clause is intended to encourage, a speedy termination of the loose bar system throughout this country, these institutions will be encouraged to continue for the full ten years. I think the Minister would be well advised to say: “You can, if you wish, remain loose bars as such for ten years, but if you wish to change into some other form of licence, you are required to do so in the first three years after the Act has been passed.” That was the recommendation of the select committee, unanimously agreed to, and I venture to think that was the right course.

I support the principle of abolishing the uncontrolled bars, but I object to the proposal of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to reduce the time to three years. There are people who are financially interested, and I do not think we should go so far as to say that they must disappear within three or four years. The system has long been in force, and I do not think the evil is so great that we must push the people out at such short notice.

I move—

Why should we retain the thing another ten years? We want to see the fruits of our work, and possibly after ten years many of us will be dead.

I hope the Minister will stick to 1937. We ought to make it 1938, because we have gone on another year. It is a very drastic change, and affects a great many people. Many of these loose bars have served a useful purpose where you cannot get hotels, and where hotels are not necessary. Give them sufficient time to change over.

I want to cause as little hardship as possible. We are entirely changing the position, and from the start I said I had no great sympathy with the loose bar, but it has been a licensed part of our existence for a considerable period, and as we accepted the principle that bars should not come to an end until 1937, I think it will be fair to have the application made up to 1937. By 1930, or 1932, the election should be made whether to change over or not. In five years he has to decide whether to come in entirely at the end of ten years, or to convert at the end of ten years in the way we say he can convert. It does not do the community any harm to allow him to elect up to 1937, and to say whether he is going to close down or make a change.

What is the idea of saying 1932?

I do not see the point in it.

It hastens the process of curtailment.

It could not hasten it. It accelerates their choice, but does not accelerate their change.

If you do not do so you are playing into the hands of the rich persons who own bars. The small man will not be able to find capital, whereas the big man can do so to-morrow. I hope the Minister will see that 1937 should be 1938. The idea was to give ten years. I move, as an amendment—

With leave of committee amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell withdrawn.

It seems to me that it may become necessary in some areas to have some bars. In large industrial communities it may be necessary to have a place where, during the lunch hour, or after work, people may have some refreshment. I move, as an amendment—

You would get bars only where they are required.

I have in my mind a place recently erected in Johannesburg at the corner of Loveday and Commissioner Streets, where a bar licence has existed and where they spent in the neighbourhood of £40,000 to £50,000 for putting up the place.

I know nothing about this bar.

If this clause goes through they have ten years in which they must make the selection provided for. They have expended a very large amount of money and there are other tenants, but they cannot possibly enlarge the premises so as to put a hotel there. What are they to do?

That is Stanley House, but the licence holders did not build it.

If the bar there is closed the landlord will have to let the place probably as an office, for which he would not get one-third of the rent he now receives from the bar.

So much the better.

But we have to consider the justice of the case. The Minister sits there as the Minister of Justice.

I admit that.

The change would hurt the landlord to the extent of £1,000 a year, and the revenue would suffer to the extent of another £1,000 a year in reduced income tax payment. In Johannesburg to-day thousands of pounds are being spent on flats, and, in many cases, there are bars on the ground floor. I hope the Minister will make provision for these cases.

I do not think it necessary to do that, because if a building costs £30,000 or £40,000, there should be a little space adjoining the bar which could be utilized as a restaurant. I do not know of any bar which would be so cramped as to render it impossible for provision to be made for the supply of meals, but if the premises are so cramped the bars must be miserable little places, and it is better that they should come to an end. Unless they provide meals, it is difficult to justify the continuance of some of these places. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), for if we once start making exceptions we do not know what will happen to the Bill.

As £10,000 is regarded as the minimum under the Bill, for holiday hotels, £30,000 or £40,000 is not an excessive figure for a licensed place in a large town.

The figure of £40,000 emanates from the imagination of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). The building to which he refers is a huge block, and the bar is one room which, in the ordinary way, would be used as a shop. The proprietor of the bar has put no more money into that building than the hon. member has.

I only want to say a few words. I think the whole country will be grateful to the Minister for doing away with the separate bars. The Minister must look after the interests, not of an individual, but of thousands. A man who owns such a building does not only let the bar, but also the remaining part for offices, etc., and it will be a blessing if the bars are altered into hotels. I hope the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) will withdraw his amendment.

I did not say that £40,000 were expended on the bar. I said the bar had existed in that particular block of ground for the last 30 or 40 years, and the owners of the premises had expended fully £40,000 in putting up a handsome block of buildings. There is no room in it for a restaurant or a hotel. I can understand it if the Bill said we were going to do away with drink in restaurants. The amendment of the hon. member for Paarl will meet the case.

If it is impossible to provide for hotel accommodation on licensed premises, there is nothing to prevent a licence being transferred to some other premises where you can have hotel accommodation.

I am sorry the Minister cannot accept my amendment. I move—

I also would like to see bars disappearing, but the Minister is now driving a certain undesirable class of drinker to the hotel bar. This would not be advantageous to the hotel, nor to the respectable public. I think the Minister ought to make better provision. The chief reason why bars were originally instituted was to keep that class of man away from the more respectable class that frequent hotels.

I have seen coloured canteens in connection with hotels in the Cape. They usually call them “taps.” I have seen them in certain parts of the Cape, and it looked very much as if the hotels were put up on account of the taps. I, of course, only saw them from the outside. I must say that I consider this clause one of the best in the Bill. I hope it will pass unchanged, because I object to the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). In any case, it makes little difference whether they may continue to exist another nine or ten-years. I did, indeed, expect trouble in connection with this clause, but from another quarter. I expected, in fact, a motion to reduce the period. We have, however, fixed it at ten years, because we wanted to be fair. I believe the only danger of a further restriction is that possibly some member or other may yet come and move a reduction of the time.

The Minister must not forget that there are coloured people. There are various classes of people, and provision was also made for coloured people. It is provided subsequently in the Bill that coloured people and Asiatics cannot purchase by the bottle, and at the same time various places where they were able to get their liquor are being closed. It is often difficult to provide for everyone at the hotel. Many places that have bars to-day do not need an hotel. It will only make unnecessary expense to build hotels, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager).

With regard to what the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has just said, nearly all the hotels in the Western Province have a canteen where coloured people can get their drink. In Natal you have the Indian bars, so that provision is made for these people to get drink.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 55,

I move—

1. 56. A restaurant liquor licence shall only be granted or renewed in respect of premises situated in an urban area which contains more than twenty thousand European inhabitants.

Firstly I want to say that, personally, I am against all restaurant and café licences, but we have already decided in Clause 8 of the Bill to grant licences to restaurants, and so I am proposing this new clause. The Minister has been telling us for a few years in the House, and at meetings outside, that licences would only be given to restaurants in towns and large villages. That is very vague, and we should like to know what towns and large villages are. My amendment makes it plain. It does not talk about voters, or adults, but of European inhabitants. It will be very dangerous if all the restaurants get licences. In the schedule it is indeed provided that only restaurants which supply meals (midday and evening meals), costing not less than 1s. 6d. a meal, can get licences, but in many of the small villages that is already done, and they will immediately be able to apply for licences if this Bill is passed. On the ground of the supply of those meals no licences may be issued in small villages. We want to control and restrict the consumption of liquor as much as we can, and this provision certainly does not tend that way. The Minister says that those licences are necessary in big towns; if it is so I do not wish to stand in their way, but I do not wish that we should ruin one section of the people to assist another. I am prepared to assist the big towns and villages, but not in order in that way to hit unnecessarily the small villages. I hope that my amendment will be passed.

I see the hon. member’s point, but the trouble is that in the Cape Province, and also in the Transvaal and, I believe, Natal, we have various small villages that have bars. It is not so in the Free State, but we must be fair towards those existing bars, and give the people an opportunity of changing their business after ten years, and taking out a restaurant licence. It will therefore not assist us in the small villages to provide that only places of more than 20,000 inhabitants shall have licensed restaurants. We shall not abolish the loose canteens in the small villages by that means. The Free State does not know restaurants, and although I think that they have done no harm in other parts, we might, if the Free State wish it, insert a provision that this clause shall not apply there. I know that it is not very desirable to make exceptions in a consolidation Bill, but it seems to me the only way of meeting the wishes of the Free State. It would in any case be a breach of faith towards existing bars if they were not given an opportunity of changing over to restaurants.

The speech of the Minister inclines me to propose now the new clause I intended. It is that no liquor licences shall be granted in the Free State to restaurants, under this law. The Minister has rightly said that we are aware of the position in the Free State. I am proud of the conditions there. The Free State will be very grateful to the Minister if he will accept my new clause.

As far as Natal is concerned, we have no restaurant licences, so the Orange Free State has no greater virtue than we have. I am opposed to them. In Natal we are tea-drinking people, and in the large towns every morning at 11 o’clock you see young fellows going to the tea-rooms; they do not go to the bars.

Have you loose bars in the small places?

We have loose bars.

That would be very unfair then.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the Minister with regard to the substitution of restaurant for bar licences in the Transvaal. The Minister said that the Transvaal was quite willing to grant such liquor licences. I can assure hon. members that that is not so. I think we ought to treat the Transvaal on the same basis as the Free State. In my opinion, it is not fair in the existing circumstances to exclude the Free State, and not the Transvaal. There is a danger that our young people will go to the restaurants and get into temptation, while at present liquor is not supplied in the restaurants.

I am very glad that the Minister is refusing restaurant licences in the Free State. I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) that there is danger in bringing people into touch with liquor in restaurants. I should like to know whether it also applies to the increase in the number of licences in this respect. My objection will then be less to the inclusion of the Transvaal. I think, however, that it is fitting that only the Free State is excluded. We aim at uniform legislation, and if one province is excluded I think it is fair that the Transvaal should also be excluded.

I am very glad that the Minister is prepared to exclude the Free State, although I am sorry that it has been applied to the other three provinces. If it is necessary there, I do not want to thwart them. The Free State in the past has been a model with regard to the liquor traffic, and I am glad the Minister is allowing existing conditions to remain there. The Free State system ought really to have been extended to the whole Union, I hope the amendment of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) will be adopted.

I think it is a mistake to exclude the Free State. We ought to have only one law, and that ought also to apply in the Free State. I hope the Minister will not agree to the amendment. If licences are a bad thing for the Free State, they are also bad for other parts.

I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument. An exception has already been made in Natal in respect of the tot system, and we can therefore make this exception for the Free State.

I appeal to the Minister not to give licences to the restaurants in the Cape Province. I see the difficulty in the case where there are bars, and if the Minister does not want to do them an injustice I would suggest application should be made for a restaurant licence within ten years, only in places where there are such bars. If, however, all the restaurants can get licences, then I feel sorry for the countryside. My experience is that where there are restaurants the young people coming in from the country go there to have a cup of coffee and a chat. Where there are no restaurants in the small places they saddle off and go to the bar. They play billiards and drink, and usually both young and old people drink. Where the restaurants exist young people have given up going to the bars. Let us educate the young to drink more coffee and tea, and less alcohol.

I move—

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan). Experience has taught us that we must keep the man away from the drink, and not the drink away from the man. I am glad the Minister wants to make a great improvement, but while trying to keep people out of the bars he is by this clause taking the liquor to the young people in the restaurants. What will this mean? A large part of the young people now still stay away from the bars, but if the restaurants get licences they will then get the drink habit there, and it will possibly be even better to keep on the bars. I want to support the amendment, and I am thankful that the Minister is meeting the Free State. There are many evils we do not possess in the Free State, and the restaurants are fortunately one.

We can quite understand the Free State attitude. I think they honestly want to try to keep the province sober, but if they go thoroughly into the matter they will probably find that they are showing the State no service by opposing the grant of restaurant licences. They will find that the man who takes a meal, and a glass of light wine or beer with it, requires nothing else to drink during the rest of the day. I will prove it. Where do you find a more sober people than the wine farmers, who are always handling liquor? The reason is that that they are accustomed at meal times to have a glass of wine, even the children get it. Then they are satisfied all day. Then take the trains. Do you ever find any drunkenness there? The reason is that most people take a glass of light wine or beer with their meals. But it drives people to the bar if they cannot get a glass of light hop, or something else in the restaurants when they want it. If they wish, we can increase the licence fee to £100. It is now £50, but I think that the Free Staters will encourage temperance if they agree to the restaurant licences. Why is there less drunkenness in France and Germany than in South Africa? Because any man or woman can drink a glass of beer in a restaurant. No one is offended, no one drinks too much. Here we are driving people to the bars, and it is wrong. I hope the amendments will not be passed.

With permission of the committee, I withdraw my amendment.

I object.

I only want to make the announcement that I am moving to report progress about 9 o’clock, and then the Medical Bill and other Orders will come on.

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

I move—

This amendment only affects the English text. The Afrikaans text is consistent throughout in the use of the word “aptekers.” There is no improvement possible in the Afrikaans text as far as this particular expression or wording is concerned. The term is actually a misnomer. “Chemist and druggist” combines two ideas, and the word “chemist” has an entirely different significance, consequently “chemist and druggist” together is a misnomer which has come into existence in the English language and has been applied in England for a number of years. A chemist is one dealing with chemistry pure and simple, either organic or inorganic chemistry. “Chemist and druggist” as used in the English language has a different significance entirely to the meaning “chemist” should have. Chemists and druggists are people who do not deal in chemistry, but who compound the medicines which consist of the fruits of the labour of chemists. In every other language, as far as I know, the two ideas are distinct. The distinction is highly necessary, and I wish to emphasize it because we are dealing with a new consolidating Act, and there is no reason why we should not he precise and scientific in our terminology. I wish to cite the opinion of one who speaks with authority, a professor in chemistry—

Such difficulties do not appear to exist here. We are dealing with a consolidating Bill, and there is no need to propagate this confusion.

What is his name?

It is Professor Thomas. Affecting the subject of the amendment, the Bill itself is full of inconsistencies and full of confusing terms in the English text. You have substantives and adjectives qualifying the same idea in different terms. We have the short title of the Bill, the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill, not the Medical, Dental and Chemists and Druggists Bill. In section 14 we have the school of pharmacy.

It is like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

These terms are confusing, and there is no reason why they should be perpetuated in our laws. I hold in my hand a petition from a number of chemists in South Africa who practise chemistry, no fewer than 95 men in various industries, universities and university colleges throughout the length and breadth of the Union. I just wish to read what they say—

I am going to read some of the names to the petition to the previous Minister. Some are professors and lecturers at the Cape Town University—Professors Thompson, Tietz, Newbury, Barker, Golding, Leibrandt and others, and some are industrial chemists. We have the respected names of Dr. Marloth, Dr. Bosman and others. Then we have the names of Dr. Versfeld, Sinclair, Juritz, Copeman and others. We have the manager of the Cape Explosive Works and a good many from the same works; Dr. Watson Smith, Immelman and others, Professors Crawford, Cuthbert and others; from Stellenbosch we have Professors Van der Riet, Malherbe, Van der Merwe, Dr. du Toit, Dr. Joubert and others; then we have names from Bloemfontein and also from the Rhodes College, such as Professors Cory, Page, Smith and others; names from the South African Explosive Works and from industrial works such as Lee, Lincey, Sutherland and others; a few from Natal, such as Williams, Taylor, Crewe, Moodie and others; from Grey College we have Messrs. Cillie, du Plessis, and others; from Potchefstroom we have Messrs. Cuthbert, Theron and others, and from Pretoria, Marchand, van der Merwe, Smuts, Malherbe and others. I maintain that these men are entitled to be heard. I think we all listen to their views with respect, and their petition deserves our earnest consideration, if we cannot go beyond that. The term chemist and druggist is misleading and confusing. It is unscientific, because it conveys two different ideas, and it is not clear. The term is discarded in other countries except England and English-speaking countries. I think, apart from any sentiment, they should have the right to be heard and to have their grievance remedied by this House.

I second. I think the hon. member is perfectly right in his contention, that people, no matter how qualified they are to make up drugs and prescriptions, have little right nowadays to be termed chemists. Chemistry is on a much higher plane than that of dispensing drugs. Why use the word pharmacy in the title of the Bill, and not the word pharmacist in the body of the Bill? I think the hon. member made out a good case for his amendment.

One cannot help regretting that the Hon. member kept that petition in his possession from February, 1927, without saying anything about it. It is a pity he kept this till the report stage. We might have debated it more conveniently than at the report stage. The ordinary chemists do not want this at all. The ordinary chemists, as we know them and as they come into contact with the public, do not want this. What is in a name? Here is a name honoured for generations, and it is admitted as far as English-speaking people are concerned, it is the one name that is used. I got a telegram from Johannesburg yesterday from the Associated Pharmaceutical Societies of South Africa, which says—

The original Bill introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when he was the Minister of the Interior in 1923, contained the word pharmacists, but the select committee took that out on the evidence they took.

They did wrong.

We did not do that blindly or from caprice, but because from the evidence before us, we were convinced it was the wrong word. We substituted chemists and druggists. In the select committee certain questions were put by the chairman, the then Minister of the Interior, to the representatives of the Pharmacy Board of Natal, representing the Natal Pharmaceutical Society, and to the representatives of the Transvaal Pharmaceutical Society. He replied that they wanted to have the term “chemist and druggist” retained, but they would have been satisfied to be called pharmaceutical chemists, but not pharmacists. They strongly objected to the omission of the word “chemist” the word “pharmacist,” it was pointed out, is entirely foreign to the Dutch section of the population. The chemists are quite right in retaining the title chemists and druggists. Men are entitled to retain the name they prefer; chemists and druggists is the title they desire, and is the name by which they are known throughout the English-speaking world.

The hon. member who proposed the amendment has quoted from a petition, and has given us the names of professors, but they are not known to the public generally. So whatever you call them does not matter to the man who desires a prescription to be made up. Supposing a man with a prescription asked a policeman where he could find the nearest “pharmacist.” That term will cause confusion to the poor policeman, and we must pity him. Chemists have been known as such for a century or more. I am surprised that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) should second the amendment.

People who advocate this change of name should not forget that the medical profession and the industrial, agricultural and research chemists all sprang from one old stock—that of the chemist and druggist. Some of the greatest professors of chemistry, and some of the greatest physicians, sprang from the chemists. Sir Spencer Lister, the director of the South African Research Laboratory at Johannesburg, is a chemist and druggist. The druggist is not merely a mechanical mixer. So far from making the position easier for the public, the amendment would only render the position worse, and would be an injustice not only to the 1,200 chemists and druggists in this country, but to the very honourable profession to which the hon. member (Dr. Stals) belongs. I am astonished that a member of the medical profession should be responsible for such an amendment. Professor Atfield did not go to a university, but was trained as a chemist and druggist, and he has been of great use to the medical profession. I hope this is the last we shall hear of this suggestion.

We have listened to an excellent homily from the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). I have here a portly volume I am going to hold up against him. It is a dictionary, Webster’s New International Dictionary. Under “chemist”—one versed in chemistry, pharmacy, an alchemist, a druggist. I will turn to “druggist”—one who deals in drugs, a pharmaceutic, a pharmacist, an apothecary, commonly called in England and the British Colonies a chemist, or, legally, a chemist and druggist, or pharmaceutical chemist. I hope the Minister at this stage will not accept this change. I Hope he will be conservative enough to preserve a title known in this trade from time immemorial.

This is merely part of the war between the idealist and the realist. From the idealistic point of view, I would say the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) was perfectly right, From that point of view there is everything to be said in favour of the argument he has put forward. It simplifies matters very considerably. On the other hand, we must reckon with the realistic point of view, and after we have been busy with this Medical Bill for 11 years now in this House, I think we are all very much inclined to be realistic, and, as far as possible, to let well alone. That is one consideration with me. I would like, as much as possible, at this stage of the Bill to stick as near as possible to the recommendations of the select committee. They have gone very fully into this matter, and the select committee, in its wisdom, has found it advisable to let well alone, and stick to the old designation.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, the heading to Chapter II, 14, 15, 18 (Dutch), 22 (Dutch), 23, 24 (Dutch), 29 and 31, put and agreed to.

In Clause 32,

I move—

They are consequential amendments. After the proceedings in committee last year, the association which I referred to last time suggested that the status of sanitary inspectors should be put right. We have put in certain words in Clause 91 to cover their case, but this clause had already been passed last year, and therefore we had no opportunity of putting in these amendments until the report stage. I now move my amendment to give the necessary status to these officials coming under the general designation of health workers.

seconded.

Amendments put and agreed to.

In Clause 33,

I move—

The amendment arises through the feeling that the Medical Council which will have absolute discretion as regards regulations, etc., has too great power, and that there ought to be an appeal from the Medical Council. I do not think there is any other profession that does not permit of an appeal. The legal profession has the Supreme Court, so have the architects. It has been found that the Medical Council ought not always to have the highest and sole power. There was a case, e.g., of a South African doctor who obtained his degree here. He went to America, and took a higher degree. Subsequently he came back, and put his higher qualification on his name plate and on his letter paper. It was the title M.D. of some American university. But we find that the Medical Council decided he had been guilty of unprofessional conduct. He had to remove the additional title from his paper, and from his name plate. He could not use the additional title at all. Clause 3 provides that no title which is not registered in whatsoever manner can be used or advertised. He may not in any way make use of it in his professional work. I think in such cases we ought to make it possible to have an appeal to the Minister. The Minister can then go into the matter. Let me add that a dentist also returned from the same university to South Africa. He was recognized and admitted, but in that case the Medical Council refused to register the additional title. If there is an appeal to the Minister, the Minister can, after consultation with the Medical Council, and the obtaining of information, decide upon the registration or not of such additional title.

I second this amendment which, I think, is a very good one indeed. The facts of the case which the hon. member referred to are also known to me. The doctor concerned has stated them very fully to me in a letter. Under the old laws when the Medical Council came to any decision, there was no appeal at all to anybody. We have altered that in this Bill and provided that if a person is aggrieved because he is not registered, or is removed from the register, he can appeal to the Supreme Court. The particular case referred to was that of a man who proceeded over to America and got the M.D. degree, an additional degree, after six years of study. This clause only applies to people who go in for post-graduate studies. They are not allowed to use that additional diploma without the consent of the Medical Council. This man got the M.D. title and, because he used it without such consent, he was charged with disgraceful conduct and found guilty. He got it from a university which is recognized in the United States by 52 State medical boards there. It is a tip-top degree, but the Medical Council of the Transvaal selected only ten of the American medical colleges, and this one was not amongst them. Unfortunately, there was no appeal from such a decision. If the Transvaal Medical Council said: “You cannot use the degree,” then you cannot use it. The best thing in a dispute of this kind is to leave it to the Minister, who will be assisted by the advice of the medical officer of health, to go into these various degrees. This man does not say in the letter what particular punishment was meted out to him. He had, of course, to remove the additional title. It does seem to me that it is regretted that if the Medical Council should in any case make a mistake in a matter of this kind, the man who believes he is right in using the title he has earned after hard studies should be brought up for disgraceful conduct. I heartily support the amendment of the hon. member, and hope the Minister will accept it.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) is already contained in the Bill. It does not actually make much difference. I only want to point out that a certain amount of provision is made for ministerial control. [Clauses 30 and 91 read.] Paragraph 4 of Clause 91 says—

Any regulation of the Medical Council, therefore, in connection with those degrees is subject to the approval of the Minister. The only difference is that the amendment gives better protection to an individual, but the administrative difficulties are greater. In case of an objection the Minister will have to enquire what the character and value of the training at any university are worth to the world.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 36, 37 (Dutch), 38 and 39, put and agreed to.

In Clause 40,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 41 (Dutch), 42 (Dutch), 43, 44, 51, 55, 62, 65 (Dutch), 66 and 69 (Dutch), put and agreed to.

New Clause 74,

I have given notice that I would move the deletion of this clause. My reason is that the law adviser thinks that we should have it in another form and in another place. Later on in this Bill I introduce an amendment in regard to the fees and charges by registered persons, and the amendment is much more in its place there, and is in a much more suitable form there.

New clause put and negatived.

Amendments in Clause 76 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 77 and 78 put and agreed to.

New Clause 81,

I move—

1. (3) Any person registered under this Act who claims payment from any other person in respect of any service rendered or article supplied by virtue of being so registered shall furnish a detailed account to the person from whom payment is claimed when so requested by such person.

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in old Clause 81 and Clause 82 (Dutch) and the new Clause 87, put and agreed to.

New Clause 89,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to

Amendments in old Clause 89, Clauses 90, 91, 92, 93 and 95, put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (3) Nothing in this Act contained shall render unlawful any calling lawfully carried on by any person within the Union at the commencement of this Act.

It has been a very long and arduous fight on this Bill, and I am glad it is ending on a peaceful note after the long, stormy career of the Bill. I do not propose to hold it up for any length of time, nor am I going into matters previously debated. But there is one little thing that was not put right. In February, last year, when the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the same question as I am raising, the Minister said he was sorry he was not prepared to accept the amendment. It is clear that no unregistered person will have any right under my amendment if he has been doing anything unlawful. But there are a few people who have been doing things which are perfectly lawful to-day. It has been decided by the courts in the Cape and confirmed by the Appellate Division, although different views seem to have been taken in the Transvaal, that a dental mechanic is not entitled in any way to interfere with the mouth of a patient. I do not want to interfere with that decision at all—this amendment will not allow him to take an impression. But they are allowed in the Cape to supply the public direct with false teeth if the patient takes his own impression, and that is taken away by this Bill. I do not say intentionally; it is a perfectly lawful thing to-day. I am sorry to see the unholy alliance between the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the Minister of Public Health, and this shaking of heads. Let the Minister, however, rather judge by the merits of the case, and not be misled by these gestures. The fight on the general position of the dental mechanic was fought in this House and lost. But I think it is a gross injustice to deprive people, who have the right by law to-day of supplying people with teeth, of that right; you are taking away that right from existing persons. I do not see why, under a consolidating Act of this kind, we should take away from a man the fruit of his labour or of his skill, and put him at the mercy of dentists who may not employ him. All I say is that what they have been lawfully doing should be allowed to continue.

I second. I would like hon. members to read this amendment very carefully indeed. It is well worth reading, not once, but several times, so as to make no mistake as to what the hon. member who moves this intends. All this amendment desires to do is to enable these people who are making their living honestly and not prevented by any law from so doing, to continue to earn their livelihood. I read in this morning’s “Cape Times” that, owing to the drought in the Free State and the Cape, a large number of farmers have made their way to Johannesburg to seek a living, thus adding to the ranks of the already large number of unemployed on the Reef. If this amendment is not passed, you are going to add to the number of unemployed. These people have been earning in an honest way a livelihood for their wives and families. I do not care what they were doing, for when they commenced the law did not prohibit them nor say that they should not do it. It would be quite right for Parliament to prohibit people from starting now as dental mechanics, or in other occupations enjoyed by professional people, for we desire to raise the standard of all professions and protect the public, but existing rights lawfully acquired should be recognized. There have been no complaints against these people. Why not permit them to continue to earn their livelihood? If they are prevented from carrying on their occupations, how are they to maintain their families? What can they do for a living? In the select committee I moved an amendment similar to the one now before us, and I have been reproached by some members of the profession for that amendment. On the other hand, my action has been strongly supported by other members of the profession who desire to be just to these people. Attorneys would very much like Parliament to say that people who have been drawing powers of attorney, leases and so on should not be allowed to continue to do that work. I would not, however, support a proposal of that nature, although it would assist the profession to which I have had the honour to belong for many years. I am with the people who made their living honestly in the past, and I am not going to be a party to depriving them of that opportunity, even if I should never sit in Parliament again.

I hope what has been described as this last shot in the long struggle will mean victory for the select committee which went very thoroughly into the question. When the select committee enquired into the matter, it had before it all the available evidence, and it decided practically unanimously to frame the clause which now appears in the Bill.

In the interests of public health.

The matter was debated again in this House on two different occasions, and in the Committee stage an amendment, practically the same as this, was moved by the hon. member for Yon Brandis (Mr. Nathan). The House rejected the amendment by a big majority. Again, when Clause 32 was under discussion, the whole question was most exhaustively gone into. Again the House decided by a very large majority in favour of the Bill as it stands. I hope this last shot will mean victory for the select committee, and that the House will abide by the decision it has already taken. The intention of this clause is quite different from the intention of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). Under the old Cape law the right was definitely given to the medical practitioners to practise as dentists as well. Very few of the medical practitioners availed themselves of that right, but it was only just that that right should be protected. I think the chemists and druggists in Natal have the power definitely laid down by law to extract teeth. It is only fair that a right explicitly given by law should be maintained, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) desires to protect people who have evaded the existing law; they found loopholes in the law, and now he wants these people protected. I hope the House will abide by its previous decision.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—11.

Allen, J.

Brown, G.

Gilson, L. D.

Henderson, J.

Nathan, E.

Richards, G. R.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Hattingh, B. R.

Noes—34.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hugo, D.

Lennox, F. J.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Reitz, D.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Van Heerden, G. C.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment in Clause 96 (Dutch), put and agreed to.

In Clause 96,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 97 and in the First Schedule put and agreed to.

Amendment in first, second and third lines of Second Schedule,

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Second Schedule and Title put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.