I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

May I, with the permission of the House, say a word? It is, of course, that the petitioner must not think it means there is any probability of the petition being granted. I think hon. members ought to point out to petitioners like this that there is practically no possibility of their claims being considered at this stage. There are thousands of outstanding matters of damages suffered by people from the second war of independence. It is impossible to assist the people at this stage. Recently a petition was handed in from a person who advanced money to the old Transvaal Government under special circumstances, but the last Government did not see their way, nor has this Government been able to pay out petitioners of this kind. Of course we can accept the motion.

Before you put that motion, Mr. Speaker, the other day the Government was good enough to accept a slight amendment of mine to a motion of a similar nature to make it, instead of “for consideration” “for enquiry and report.” I would like to move as an amendment—

As the Minister rightly said, there is practically no hope of this claim being entertained, but we would like to know the facts before anything is done. In the circumstances I think the Government should make an enquiry and report the circumstances of the case to the House, and then the necessary consideration can be given to the matter.

seconded.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Hon. members will see that this clause, according to the side note, has the following intention—

This committee has not yet decided what it is going to do in regard to the vexed problem of off sales in the Cape and Natal, and until we have settled that question any discussion on what we are going to do with the bottle licences is premature. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept a proposition to allow this clause to stand over. I move—

I am going to accept that, but first I want to explain, very shortly, what the troubles are in connection with this clause, and what I think will be the solution in time. There are five courses. The first is to leave the matter exactly as it is to-day. That, I think, is absolutely impossible. We have in various provinces the position to-day that hotels under their hotel liquor licences sell drink by the bottle. That causes, in many parts of the country, a bad state of affairs. They have not the ordinary closing hours, and the result is that at a certain stage in the evening the bottle is bought and taken home, which would not be bought at a bottle store. So I think it is a wrong principle to keep that in force. The next thing would be to cut it off at once, but that, I think, would cause a certain amount of unfairness. Apart from the unfairness there are certain parts of the country in which your hotel is the bottle store. The third position is the position in this section. Where you are going to make it a separate business the licensee is going to force it to pay for the extra expense to which he is put. The fourth possibility is to keep the sale in the same place. Take your bar; keep it there and partition off a part of that room, one part for the sale of the bottle and the other for the sale of the tot. That opens up very great difficulties, and it would cause a great deal of trouble. The fifth position, which appeals most to me, but which requires to be gone into very carefully, is that we should allow the existing state of affairs to continue for a certain term of years, and after that term an end is put to it at once, and then where there is a possibility of getting a bottle store everyone is in exactly the same position. My trouble is to move an amendment in this direction at this stage, as the whole framing of the Bill is to make a strong distinction between on-consumption and off-consumption sales, and one would have to go very carefully indeed into that section to get something just and which would not cause trouble in the future. I would not be in favour of the extension of the present system; at the utmost, five years, and it might be a lesser period than that. If it could be worked out properly, the hours for selling by bottle in hotels should be restricted very narrowly indeed, and if that could be done it would be a good solution under the section. But I am afraid we are going to force people to take a bottle licence, and force them to sell liquor to cover the additional expense. I am very much afraid of the section as it stands. I wish to support the motion to allow the section to stand until the end of the Bill, and I hope by that time to introduce something. A perfect solution is, I think, impossible.

I wish the Minister would explain to me as a layman what is the great moral difference between on-consumption and off-consumption?

It is something like dividing the functions of attorneys and advocates. The trouble is the mixture of the two classes of business in one and the same business. You have the on-consumption man whetting his appetite for drink up to the closing hour, and then he buys a couple of bottles and takes them away. I admit that is not a thing of very general application, but there are a considerable number of places in this country where the evil undoubtedly exists.

They could buy bottles early in the day.

People do not always have that forethought. I am talking of the weaker brothers, none of whom is to be found in this House. Of course, that happens, although not within the purview of those sitting in this august assembly.

It seems to me it is much ado about nothing. I thought at first there were very vital differences, but after the Minister’s explanation I see little difference between the two. If that is the only difference, I do not see why we should worry about this clause.

While the Minister is considering the clause I submit it is quite possible to give that extension of time. There is no difficulty about the hours at the Cape. Every one of these retail licences that sell retail for off-consumption has had the condition laid down by the licensing court that they are not allowed to sell by bottle after the hour when bottle stores are closed. You have only to adopt the Cape procedure about the hours and your difficulty is solved. We have always heard that why you want to do away with the off-sales at bars is that you could not get sufficient control; and the way to get over that was proposed in the suggestion that you should have a separate department in the bar itself where bottles are sold, and if a certain quantity is sold you have to have a record kept, but not providing that a man should have another building, which would mean ruin for many small business, which will be closed up. Before such a sweeping change is made the Minister should see that ample time is given to make arrangements for such a radical change as is proposed in this clause. Up to December, 1933, at least should be given.

I am very glad that the Minister has stated that he will allow this clause to stand over. I hope he will carefully reconsider it, because it cannot possibly pass as it stands. It will mean a large increase of bottle stores in the north.

What about the Transvaal?

I mean the Free State. I know that regarding the sale by bottle the rights of hotels in the Free State are not quite so large as in the Cape Province. In the Free State they can sell six bottles, and in the Cape Province twelve. There is one phase of the matter which has not yet been referred to. From the police evidence it appears that they are opposed to, and that it is difficult to control, the illicit liquor traffic, through the hotels having bottle licences. If this clause is passed, Bloemfontein, where there are so many bottle stores, will get twelve new ones. Kimberley will get 94 new ones and Cape Town 170.

Where is the licensing board?

If the right is taken away from the separate bottle stores, the hotels will be entitled to sell by bottle.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it in order to discuss the merits of the clause in view of the motion that it should stand over?

I was about to point out to the hon. member that this discussion is out of order. The question before the committee is whether Clause 63 should stand over or not?

I only wish to say that I strongly support the motion for the clause to stand over.

I would like the Minister to take into consideration when he is drafting his new clause the position of the country hotels in Natal. At present they pay an annual licence of £8 and sell by the tot and bottle, but under the Bill they will have to pay £100 for a bottle licence and an additional £75 for an hotel licence, in other words the annual licence will jump from £8 to £175 a year.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 64,

I move—

I move—

1. (g) occupies premises whereon a business licensed under this Act is conducted, of which any member of the police is the owner or lessee or has any interest;

In line 33, after (f) to insert “unless the parties are bona fide living apart under notarial deed or judicial order of separation and to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (g):

1. (i) save in the case of a foreign liquor or club licence, is not himself interested in the business which is the subject of the application to the extent of receiving at least one-fourth of the profits and bearing one-fourth of the losses.

In effect these amendments will restore the clause to the position it was in as it was left by the select committee. Among the disqualifications of a licensee which was taken over from existing Acts was one forbidding the licensee to have a licence in respect of premises in which a member of the police was interested, either as owner or lessee. The Minister took that out, but I maintain that the police should have no connection at all with the liquor trade. Sub-section (g) disqualifies a person who has a spouse who is disqualified from holding a licence, and I propose to add the words—

The commission thought it would be fair to insert these words. For instance, the wife of a postmaster or policeman who might be living apart from him, would under the Bill as it stands be disqualified from holding a licence, and that does not appear to be fair. These amendments are not very important, but sub-clause (i) is important. Under the Bill it is competent for a man to hold a licence although he may not be financially interested in the business, for instance, he might be a clerk or a manager. My amendment lays it down that he must receive at least one-fourth of the profits and bear one-fourth of the losses. This would make for a better class of tenant.

I move—

The reference is only to imprisonment, whether it is one day or a week or fourteen days. I do not think it is fair that people who are punished for a very small offence should be excluded unconditionally. If anyone is sentenced to at least twelve months without a fine the fairness is obvious.

Twelve months is too much.

I do not think so. The licensing board anyhow will judge each case on its merits. Then I want to move—

Here the proposition is laid down that if anyone has once been convicted, even if it was 25 or 30 years ago of illicit sale of liquor, he shall be entirely excluded from having a liquor licence.

Twice.

Even if it were twice. It may have been years ago. There are people to-day who are respectable members of society, although 20 or 25 years ago they were bad criminals. I think it will be fair if we say that he shall get no licence if he has been convicted during the previous ten years. I move—

Accordingly a woman will be prevented in the circumstances from obtaining a licence. Take for instance (f) “office of profit under the Crown.” If a woman holds such an appointment it merely means a few pounds a month. We may have difficulties where, e.g., a wife of a licensee is very musical and is asked in a small village to teach music in the school at a small salary. She will not be able to do so because her husband has a licence. I think it is fair to exclude wives. The licensing board can always use its discretion. Further, I move—

I think that the provision about an unrehabilitated insolvent is not necessary. It will cause unnecessary trouble.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name. The object is to make contraventions more difficult. I differ from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) that we should make the conditions for people who sell liquor less severe. From the evidence before the Baxter Commission it appears that the great trouble in connection with the sale of liquor is that men cannot be found of sufficiently strong character to carry out the law fairly. I therefore move—

1. (b) has, either before or after the commencement of this Act, been twice or more often convicted of a contravention of any law relating to the sale or supply of liquor or of the Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Act, 1913 (Act No. 15 of 1913).

I hope the Minister will have no objection to the amendment. My second amendment reads—

I think it is no more than right that the man who sells liquor should be a citizen of the Union. That trade is very profitable, and I do not wish to emphasize that, but rather the great responsibility of the licensee. It is therefore important that such a person should be a citizen of the Union of South Africa. I further want to point that the report of the Baxter Commission emphasizes that the drunkenness in the Western Province is caused to a great extent by licences being held by people who not only were not born in the Union, but are not even naturalized. According to the Baxter report out of the 219 licensees in Cape Town 43 were foreigners not naturalized. I think it is in the interests of the country, of the sale of liquor, and of the fighting of drunkenness that such a licensee should be a South African citizen.

I do not quite realize the justice of sub-section 2 of this clause in which any person is prevented from holding more than one-fifth of the licences in an area. All licences in excess of one-fifth under the clause will be confiscated.

No.

“It shall not be competent for a licensing board to grant to any person a new licence or a renewal or transfer.”

I think the Minister is removing those words “or renewal.”

It makes all the difference if he takes it out.

I should like to see sub-section (2) out altogether. The limit this committee should go to is to deal only with new licences. I would move—

It seems to me that this matter should only apply in the case of anyone asking for a new licence. If, to-day any person has more than his quota it seems to me that they acquired it in a perfectly honest way, and they are entitled to retain it, but I quite agree that this House is justified in saying: “Now, if you want a new licence you must not hold more than one-fifth of the licences in that area.” I believe that by simply deleting the words I have mentioned the justice of the case will be met.

I wonder if the Minister would tell us before we proceed, how he looks upon this and upon the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). It might clear the air and save a lot of discussion if the Minister does that.

To deal with the last point first, the more I have thought of that sub-section (2) the more I have come to the conclusion that we ought to delete it entirely. In any case I would not be prepared, I think, to go further than simply to make it applicable to new licences. Where it is a question of new licences and a company, for instance, wants to make application for two, three or four new licences, if we pass this it will make no difference to the company. They will simply form subsidiary companies. In any case we are not going to get much further by a clause of this nature and I have come to the conclusion that we should delete the whole of sub-section (2). In regard to the points made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I have no very strong feelings about new sub-section (g) that he wishes to put in the clause, although I do not see why a member of the police force should be in a different position from a member of the public. After all, every member of the police force is not vitally concerned with the liquor question. You have your liquor traffic inspectors and a comparatively large police force, and I do not think there is much point in pressing this. It is only from the point of view of looking as if it is throwing a bit of a smirch on the police force. I think it would be, perhaps, the better thing that that should disappear. I do not care much for the provision in regard to parties bona fide living apart under notarial deed, or judicial order of separation. We have often had the law courts laying down that spouses should take not only the pleasures of marriage, but also the burdens of marriage.

Still, it is an undue burden.

No, I do not think so. I have never cared much for that provision. I do think, however, that there is a great deal in the point made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). We should change the word “spouse” to “wife.”

You have a clause which forbids women holding a licence at all.

That is coming out.

I have got a motion on the paper against that clause. So far as the clause now under consideration is concerned, I think we should restrict this to “wife.” That was the intention, that a woman should not in circumstances where her husband is disqualified, be allowed to hold a licence and circumvent the disqualification of the husband. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, it may be that the House should say what the length of imprisonment should be, but a year is altogether too much, and I prefer the clause as it stands.

You let them out of gaol too soon.

I would not object to that. This is a sentence here, not a remission of sentence. I personally prefer the section as it stands and I believe this follows the language of previous sections. I told my hon. friend just now that he need not be afraid that there will be a lack of applicants.

What about the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about the one-quarter,

I do not like that at all. There is nothing to prevent a company holding a licence through its manager or servant, and I do not see how you can say that that manager or servant must from his point of view, bear one-quarter of the loss. In many cases your man who is going to get a salary is not going to bear one-quarter of the loss, although he would like to get one-quarter of the profits. It really cuts down the idea of this Bill enormously. The idea of this Bill is not to make it impossible for a company to hold a licence through its manager. That being so, we should not, by this side way, interfere with that position of affairs. This is a new departure which is really working against the principle which we are laying down in the Bill. I certainly would vote against that amendment.

In view of what the Minister has just said I would formally move—

I agree with every word that the Minister has said about it. It is easily demonstrable that this sub-section is a reduction ad absurdum.

I entirely agree with the Minister in regard to his remarks about the share of profits and losses, but I am very much surprised that he did not take more seriously the suggestion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) about the police interest. I think it is highly improper that any policeman should have an interest in any public house or hotel. The trade is carried on under very severe restrictions. The people who see to these restrictions being carried out are the police, and if you allow a man to have an interest in licensed premises when he has to look after the restrictions, his judgment is bound to be biassed. It will leak out eventually, and the charge will probably be made against that policeman that he is not doing his duty in a proper manner. We should safeguard these men. We are not making any reflections at all. If they bar it in the Transvaal, why not do so here in the same way?

If the Minister will accept my amendment, I move—

If he reads his clause he will see that in par. (a) he places contraveners of the liquor laws in a much more favourable position than ordinary offenders, but par. (b) says that even if a man has illegally sold liquor three years before the operation of the Act he cannot get a licence.

According to par. (a) he cannot get a licence either.

No, (a) says that he can get no licence if he has been sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. My motion is that everyone who sells liquor illegally shall be excluded for ten years. My amendment, therefore, equalises the provisions under pars. (b) and (a) and strengthens them in the way the Minister wishes.

In the first place, with leave of the committee, I would like to withdraw the proposed new Clause “I.”

With leave of Committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell to insert a new par (i). withdrawn.

I am glad the Minister has agreed to this course. It would be very difficult to carry it out. It is the practice for some of the breweries to run licensed places themselves. They not only supply beer, but they run licensed premises. In Durban, I am told, the breweries have nine licensed places there. The question is whether the wholesale trade should not be sufficiently demarcated from the retail trade. It is going to lead to a monopoly in the hands of a few people in the trade. That is why I object to it. This trade is practically the monopoly of a few big people in this country. In Durban where you used to have small hotel people running these places, the South African breweries have nine places, all of which they are running in their own name. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) had the right idea, but he has not brought it forward in a practical way. The licensee up to now has been looked upon as the person who is running the licence.

Do you know that whisky is cheaper in Durban than in Cape Town?

My hon. friend is a better judge of whisky than I am, but whatever the price, I think it is too expensive if the country has to give a monopoly to a few people. I would like the Minister to see at the report stage if he cannot make provision so that these big brewers cannot run licensed premises. You license an individual, but behind the individual stands a big concern which pockets all the profits. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has read from a report many years old. Conditions are entirely changed. Many of the houses to which he is referring are run by the big brewers themselves now, and they have put in managers. I would point this out in any case: What right have you to deprive a man of a licence, if he has paid heavily for the goodwill, because he happens not to be a British subject? Is the hon. member going to propose that no one can farm in this country unless he is a British subject, and no one can hold a trader’s licence, unless he is a British subject?

It is a privilege.

Well, look at the schedule and see the cost of this privilege. If my hon. friend had to pay for farming what these people have to pay for these licences, he would regard it not as a privilege, but as a burden. My hon. friend wants to take away their right to trade, because that is what it comes to. It seems to me that that right is a quite different thing from political rights. There is no reason why a man who is not a British subject, and who behaves himself, should not carry on this trade or any other trade. It is not a political right and I do not see why the question of his nationality should be brought in at all. You have sufficient safeguard in other respects. There is one amendment by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout which I heartily support, and I cannot understand why it has not been accepted. You should always guard against a man doing anything where his duty and his interest are in absolute conflict. If a police officer owns or has an interest in licensed premises, his duty and his interest are in conflict. I mention this particularly because in those cases in recent years where the breweries have conducted premises of their own they have been in the habit of taking ex-members of the police force and putting them in as managers. If you leave the clause like this it might lead to very undesirable things. It might lead a man to believe that when he gets pensioned off he might become the licensee of such premises, and be tempted to act accordingly.

My hon. friend objects to the brewers holding so many hotels for fear that hotel keeping might one day become a monopoly in their hands. I visit Durban occasionally, and the hon. member has given us some unfortunate examples. Durban is better supplied with hotels than any other town in the whole of South Africa, and if the brewers are responsible for this coming about, I say the more hotels the brewers build the better for this country. It would be a good thing if they built a few more hotels in Cape Town, because the poor man cannot build, and if someone is not sufficiently enterprizing to provide hotel accommodation, I am very much afraid tourists will turn their back on this country and go to some other.

I think the Minister has entirely failed to appreciate the point of the second amendment I proposed, and to realize what will happen if these words are not inserted. A woman holds a licence and is living apart from her husband; she has not seen him for years; but if he is sent to gaol immediately she fails to hold her licence. With regard to this clause, if I remember aright, it is taken over from the Transvaal Act. The Minister asked whether I knew of any case; no, because of this very clause. It is there laid down that a member of the police force shall have no interests in any licence whatever.

I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that he take out the words “notarial deed or.”

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Section 31 of Ordinance 32 of 1902 dealing with the same subject in the Transvaal. It says that it shall not be competent for a licensing court to grant a certificate for a new licence or the renewal of an existing one to any person or the wife of any person occupying premises in which any constable or member of the police force is either the proprietor, the landlord, or has any interest.

Section 8 of our old Act of 1883 has the same. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) was hardly fair to what I said. Where did I say that they were not running the hotels well? I did not say they have been doing what they do not have a right to do under the law. What I did say was that it is a pernicious thing to allow a monopoly to collar the trade. A monopoly is a curse to any country, whether it is a benevolent monopoly or not. If you allow the liquor trade to have a monopoly, legislation of this kind is wasted—if the only result is putting a few more pounds into the pockets of those who are already millionaires.

I move as an amendment—

I am not much concerned who gets a licence or who does not, but in this paragraph those convicted of an offence of a political character are excluded from the penalties of the clause; but there are others who have been convicted of offences arising out of an industrial dispute who are debarred from getting a licence. Either the Minister should accept my amendment or let him delete the words “unless in the opinion of the board such offence was of a political character.”

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) almost exploded a minute ago with indignation because I suggested that in future licence-holders —men licensed by the State—should be citizens of the Union. I wish to repeat, I attach very much importance to the amendment. I agree with the hon. member that it would be unfair to exclude men who have had a licence for a number of years. I would agree to their inclusion. The committee of 1918 laid particular stress on this matter, that men from overseas, who have no interests in the country and are here for one specific purpose, to make as much money as they can, should have a limit placed upon them, and it is only fair that we should do so. It would be a neglect of duty on the part of the House if it failed to take cognisance of this. Both sides of the House have been making an honest endeavour to limit drunkenness, and we must see that as far as possible licensees must be men of character.

I have just been informed that the nine hotels I referred to at Durban which are run by the breweries are not the leading hotels of Durban, so that the whole argument of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) falls away.

Go and fight outside.

The hon. member wants to be facetious; he is a good judge himself of a dog fight. The hon. member for Beaconsfield unwittingly misled the House.

I move—

I do not know why it is generally assumed that when money is furnished to erect good hotels it is always provided by the breweries. I know where private individuals have supplied large sums by which Cape Town has been enabled to have first-class hotels. Why prohibit them doing this? With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), I would ask if the effect will not be to exclude Americans, Spaniards or Greeks from having hotels. That would be very unfair. We welcome people from all parts of the world, and if a man comes here bringing his brains and capital, why should he not leave here if he does make money? There are many respectable people who come here for 10 or 20 years, but who wish to retain their original nationality. If the amendment is carried we shall not be able to continue to reap the benefit of the brains, intelligence and experience of men from other parts of the world. The amendment is a narrow-minded one. We want these people to come here as teachers, but if we prevent them doing so, we shall remain as ignorant as we are to-day.

Amendment proposed by the Rev. Mr. Hattingh, in line 18, put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, in line 20, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. Brown, in line 21, put.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—55.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—42.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Watt, T.

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

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

I want to make the point clear as to what the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) means. I suppose, having regard to the wording of the Bill as it stands, it is a fact that at the present time there are people in possession of licences who of course reside in the Union but who are not Union nationals. If that is so, then if this is passed it would prevent people who are now in possession of a licence from getting it renewed.

That is so.

I think that is not very reasonable. Under the Nationality Bill we have laid down two years as essential to become a Union national. Therefore, a British subject coming out to this country could not get a licence under two years. I see no reason why he should not get one. It seems to me that this is going too far.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Stuttaford and by the Minister of Justice, in lines, 41 and 45, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Rev. Mr. Hattingh, in line 32, by Mr. Blackwell, in line 33, and by Col. D. Reitz, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 65,

I have an amendment on the paper—

I think this is a casus omissus. I may say that it is particularly emphasized in the cricket and football grounds at Newlands. The present position is that one ground has an ordinary retail liquor licence and the football ground has not. No provision is made here for a temporary liquor licence to be held by a person who holds a theatre or sports ground liquor licence. In the case of a theatre licence people now holding retail licences may wish in certain cases to exchange their licences for theatre licences, and I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment.

I do not see the necessity for this amendment. I do not see why a man who holds a theatre licence should want a temporary liquor licence.

I would like to move that Clause 65 stand over. It is related, at any rate, with restraint of trade in 110. I hope the Minister will agree to delete or substantially modify Clause 110. The last paragraph of Clause 65 rules out any man whom the magistrate believes on reasonable grounds has not carried out 110. If we pass this clause now, and we do not pass 110, the clause will be standing there in operatively. I hope the Minister will agree to its standing over until we have dealt with 110. I move—

I would rather prefer that this clause be passed now. In all probability there will be an amendment at all events on 110. Supposing 110 disappears, then this matter would be remedied at the report stage. We must not leave too many strings hanging loose. I will undertake to deal with that point myself in the case of any amendment of such a nature that makes it necessary to deal with it at the report stage.

In that case I will withdraw my amendment, but I wish the Minister would tell us what a foreign liquor licence holder is.

With leave of committee, motion withdrawn.

I also have an amendment which I should like to move. It is in regard to occasional licences for restaurants. It was pointed out the other day how necessary it was for people to have liquor served to them at meal times; this is being still further strained by proposing they should have further facilities to keep open later. I strongly oppose that. Our restaurants have done a lot to draw young men away from hotels, clubs and canteens, away from liquor. I think that condition should be preserved. This proposal simply means having the cafés converted into drinking saloons. I move—

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) knows I am as strongly in favour of temperance as he is, but this proposal goes too far. The whole idea of this is that such a licence shall be granted for occasions of special functions, and subject to certain limitations which appear later on in the Bill. I am not speaking of the ordinary tearoom, which has not a licence, and never will have one, but of a restaurant which already has a licence. Why should it not, in the case of a dance or dinner, get an extension of hours till midnight as in the case of a club or hotel? If we accept the principle, as I think we shall have to do, that there must be late hour occasional licences, it is right it should be granted in the case of all three of these classes. In regard to the amendment by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), I do not think that amendment is one which we should accept. I entirely agree with what the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) said. The whole scope and intention of a temporary licence is not that it shall be used on the premises which are themselves licensed, but for some other purpose on some other premises. Why you should extend the privilege to the holder of a theatre licence who does not come under the quota for instance, I cannot understand. The same with regard to a sports ground licence. There are many of us who feel very nervous indeed about the provisions for sports ground liquor licences in this Bill, and if the hon. member overdoes it, it may crystallize the objection.

I am moving this amendment at the direct request of those who are interested in the cricket ground at Newlands. It is not a question of overdoing it. This licence has been in existence for a long number of years, but loose bars are taken away now. They will exchange their licence now for a sports ground liquor licence. I have tried to explain that this particular club is only an example. Where the premises for which the temporary licence is required are on the other side of the railway line, away from the sports ground licensed, unless you give them the right to a temporary licence they will not be able to cater there. There are some theatres like the theatre in Cape Town, where they have big catering premises and a retail liquor licence. At present, they can sell to the ordinary public. Under these proposals the theatre people are going to get something far less than they have had before. The two amendments cannot lead to any abuse.

The proposal of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) contains considerable danger. There is surely no one amongst us who wishes to see the increase of the sale of strong drink on sports grounds, and if we are going to give a sports club the additional facility of obtaining a temporary licence it is possible that in places like Cape Town, at Newlands, e.g., the club will make an agreement with the other clubs in the neighbourhood to obtain the sole rights of such a temporary licence. That would mean an increase in consumption of liquor. There is special provision for temporary licences in ordinary licensed premises. I would rather see them spread over a large number of places than have them concentrated in one club.

I think that liquor should be kept away from a sports ground, and the less sold the better. I do recognize the case of the Newlands ground and sporting grounds which are in a similar category; and where they have had a licence for years an exception should be made. Cannot the Minister restrict this to licences already in existence? To license for 12 months out of the 12 a sports ground which has not got a licence, is a step I should not take, but I appreciate the difficulty of which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) speaks. Could not a licensee of a sports ground in the guise of a temporary licence cater for Woodstock, Observatory, and all other places? It is an absolute negation of the purpose for which a theatre licence is granted, for the holder of that licence to do outside catering. A theatre licence is granted specifically for the purpose of selling drinks during the performance in the theatre. To go outside and cater for weddings is a step which is going too far.

I think the proposal to sell wine in a restaurant is going to cause many young men and women to take to drink who do not at present do so.

With the leave of the committee, I desire to withdraw the first part of my amendment, that is to leave out of it the words “a theatre or,” in view of what has been said. I think an injustice might be done to a sports ground licence because it is linked up with a theatre licence.

With leave of the committee, first part of the amendment, viz., the words “theatre or”, withdrawn.

Perhaps the Minister can now tell us what is meant by foreign licence

I do not think these licences have been abused in the past where they have occurred on a sports ground, and I have little doubt that they will not be abused in future; but, whatever conclusion the committee comes to, it should be of general application. I think no harm will be done to except sports grounds here, I, personally, believe in a restaurant licence. It is the most innocent licence to be found in the Bill, but has caused more antagonism than all the other licences put together. If we are going to cut down restaurant licences to a great extent, we are going to make much smaller the privilege given to loose bars of turning their licences into restaurant licences, as they would have only a few hours in which to sell liquor. It would be very wrong to cut down the hours of restaurants still further. The foreign is a new licence, and enables the agent of a foreign firm to sell foreign liquor to licence holders only.

Will a foreign wholesale firm have to take out a £200 licence?

In practically every case they would be required to take it out, unless the people here receive consignments direct from overseas If the overseas people appointed an agent he would sell to licensees only. The matter of foreign licences is referred to in Sections 65 (1), 75 (3), 76 (2), 77 (1) and 110. The idea is to cover the case of an agent of a foreign firm selling foreign liquor only.

Will anyone be foolish enough to take out such a licence?

It is the only way in which they can canvass for orders. It may be that we shall diminish the amount of the licence fees. I expect to have great changes in regard to the fees.

Will a wholesale liquor dealer have to take out a foreign licence as well?

Only the agents soliciting orders. In all probability these licences will not be taken out unless we alter the fees.

If you have a wholesale house, say, in London, supplying a licensee here, would it have to take out a licence?

No.

I take it that a Scottish distillery wanting to sell whisky here will have to take out a licence.

That is not the intention. However, the position can be clarified, and I will look into it before we reach the report stage.

Remaining part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Sephton put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 66,

This clause has given considerable difficulty. At one stage we went very far in the direction of placing disabilities on women, but in view of the attitude of the House in regard to women’s suffrage, the position has been changed. Those who earnestly advocate absolute equality of the sexes are sternly against women having equality in the liquor trade. The more I think over the matter, the more I come to the conclusion that it would be exceedingly dangerous to retain Section 66, which states—

We should make provision for women who today are running hotels extremely well.

Do you propose to retain the anti-barmaid clause?

To a certain extent, although there, again, opinion is very much divided. I think the section should disappear. We may deal with it in connection with bars at a later stage, although I am afraid that the opponents of barmaids will be met with the question of sex equality. If a woman can look after herself at the ballot station she can look after herself in a bar, where, after all, there is a counter between the barmaid and the customer.

That is for the protection of men, not women.

The commission’s report dealt with the protection of the women and the men. Some of them stress the question of men being incited to drink unduly by the presence of ladies in a bar, and others stress the point that women have to listen to many things in a bar which it is not desirable they should listen to. I think on the merits of the matter, and the more I consider the matter, the less merits I can see in Clause-66, and that is why I am going to vote against it.

I hope the barmaid clause will go out on principle. There is certainly a moral distinction between women serving behind the bar and women holding licences.

I am disappointed at the decision to delete this clause. If we delete Clause 66 we are committed half-way to deleting the barmaid section as well.

What about the franchise for women?

That is quite an illegitimate argument for the hon. the Minister to use, because he voted against the franchise the other day. Now he suddenly comes out as a champion of the rights of women, and I fail to see the logic or the consistency of his attitude.

I have bowed to the good sense of the House.

All I can say is I am amazed at the lack of consistency shown by the Minister. In this matter we are coming down to a fundamental fact, and I want to ask the House to realize the seriousness of the proposal. It is idle to stop a woman being a barmaid if you are going to allow her to sell liquor as a licence-holder. In the Transvaal we had quite a number of cases where the difficulty was got over by giving the woman an interest.

It was only in Johannesburg, and only then in a few cases.

There are other clauses which forbid a woman being on restricted portions of licensed premises, and I think a bar is a place where women should not be in any capacity, either drinking or serving liquor.

But you don’t believe in a man being there either.

No, I don’t, but the objection I have in the case of a woman is ten times greater. If you delete Clause 66 you weaken the fabric built up in the Bill restricting women from going into licensed premises. Do you want women in bars?

No.

Then to suggest a woman should go into a bar to drink is unreasonable. She cannot go into bars and drink to-day, but you allow her to stand behind a counter and serve liquor to men. I want to be very frank on this matter. Why are they there? They are there for the sex allure. They are put there because it is thought they will promote a greater consumption of liquor in the bar just because of that attraction. I say it is a damnable thing that women should be allowed to be there. If you delete the clause you weaken the whole position with regard to the non-employment of barmaids. I am one who always asked for women suffrage in this House, but surely I should not be twitted with inconsistency. To give women the vote and yet stop them from entering premises entirely for men and from serving liquor in them is surely not inconsistent. No European women will enter bars in this country. They might go into a restaurant, or to a club, but no self-respecting woman enters a bar. It is not a proper atmosphere for women.

I think the hon. member is dealing with the clause in an entirely exaggerated strain. I, too, hold it is undesirable for women to be employed as barmaids, and the law in the Transvaal prohibits that, but in a few cases the law is got round by women being given an interest, but in how many cases?

Quite a number of oases.

It is quite a trifling number, and I think it is an exaggerated position to take up to say that if this clause is deleted it weakens the position so far as the employment of women as barmaids is concerned.

But you do weaken it.

To a very small extent. There are many women who hold licences and who conduct their businesses well, and yet by one stroke of the pen you want them to lose their property and their interest in those hotels. They could not even come up for a renewal of the licence, and I say there is no connection between a woman owning a hotel and the woman serving liquor in the bar. If this clause goes through it will cause a grave injustice to a large number of women who are making a living by running hotels, and we shall achieve nothing of practical value. Let me say that I am as strong as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in my opinion about the undesirability of employing women as barmaids.

If the committee objects to the withdrawal of this clause, I shall have to move my amendment on page 234 of the Votes and Proceedings. In fact, I will do that formally now in case the committee does not delete the whole clause. I move—

In line 23, to add at the end of the clause “: Provided that this section shall not apply to the widow of a holder of a licence nor to the owneress or joint-owneress of a licence which existed before the commencement of this Act.”.

Whatever may be said about women having licences, we know that under the Bill loose bars will disappear in eight or nine years’ time. Then what remain for “on” consumption are only hotels, and I maintain that in very many cases which I could mention to the House, if necessary, the wives of the licence holders are really running the hotels, and running them very well, too. I see no earthly reason why those women should be debarred from having a licence in their own name, especially in cases where they are wives of persons who were licence holders before. If a man should die and the widow should be forced in winding up the estate to sell that licence, she would be compelled to sell it very much below the value of the licence. Even if she got a fair goodwill, say £3,000, at 8 per cent. that would be £20 a month. The man that buys the licence will not be satisfied to pay interest on £3,000. He will want another £40 a month beyond the £20 which he has to pay by way of interest. Take a case in which a woman is interested as a partner in a licensed business in which she may have put £1,000 or more. She will be compelled to sell immediately this clause becomes law. She will not even be given six months’ time in which to dispose of her interest. Why should we put these women on the street in this way? If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) went into the proportion of convictions of women licence holders as compared with men licence holders, I think he would find that there are very few convictions of women licence holders; in fact, I do not remember a single case.

I am very glad that the Minister of Justice has undertaken to withdraw this clause. I think that as it stands it is a very harsh and a very unfair clause, and one that is calculated to cause very great distress to a class of persons against whom there is not a word of evidence to show that they deserve to be treated in that way. You are taking away from people rights which the law has recognized, and I think it is most unjust to deprive them of whatever advantages they have got from the energy of themselves and their husbands in regard to the value of the premises which they would have to forfeit in this way. To say that there is protection in Clauses 41 and 47 is beside the point entirely. Clause 41 only refers to applicants, whilst Clause 47 deals only with cases where the business is carried on by a curator, executor, or some other person for the time, which means in the end that the assets will have to be realized, and probably to the great loss of the people who are concerned. I do consider, much as I would like to see this Bill most effective for the purposes for which it is designed, that we have no right to cause hardship or injustice in the way that section 66 proposes to do. To say that those who think as I feel in regard to section 66 are also bound to take a similar view about the presence of women in bars and the presence of barmaids, is a wholly illogical position. I draw the greatest distinction between this clause and the clause which deprives women of the right to be barmaids and the clause which deprives women of the right to be in bars.

I am very pleased that the Minister has become apprehensive of this clause. A great light has illuminated his darkness. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) claims that the Minister has suddenly become a convert to women’s suffrage. He should rather welcome than repudiate him. In regard to the clause itself, I was going to ask the Minister what would be the position of a female who at present holds an “on” consumption licence under this clause or who, in the future, may obtain such a licence? It would have to be sacrificed. It seems to me that it would be a huge injustice. We know that many of our best hotels are run by women and owned by women, and even in hotels of which nominally the licences are held by the husband or by a male, the whole success or comfort of the hotel is dependent upon the internal management which falls upon the female. I regard it as a great injustice, that while in respect of ladies who in these places give their whole life and attention to the comfort of visitors in the running of hotels, they should not be allowed the privilege of running an hotel in their own name. I am very glad the clause has been withdrawn.

The hon. member on my left said that the Minister of Justice had become a convert to women’s suffrage. I think he would be more correct if he stated that the hon. gentleman is now more cognizant of women’s sufferings. I am very pleased that the Minister has given notice to withdraw this clause. I go further, and I say that I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any differentiation of the sexes at all in this Bill. Nature has much more effectively drawn a distinction between the sexes than this legislature can do. If a man is the owner of a business or canteen and his wife dies, the breadwinner, the man, remains. If a man is a tradesman, an engineer, for instance, in employment, and his wife dies, the breadwinner is still in existence and can look after his children; but if the man dies, the widow may be left with two or three children, and the breadwinner has departed. Surely we should have done something to prevent that, and I am pleased to see the Minister has done something in that direction. I think he is following the dictates of his good heart in eliminating this clause. There are very few avenues of employment open to women. Why close one or more of those avenues? Women cannot all be shop assistants or typists or musical artists. I am very delighted the Minister has withdrawn this. It is a most humane action on his part. At the present time women are political outcasts, and why should men be more cruel than nature in handicapping women by closing the few avenues of employment that are open to them? I shall certainly vote against the fantastic proposal of my hon. friend on the left.

What strikes one a good deal about all this is that we run a good chance of being almost legislated out of existence. I am much amused at the attitude of some hon. members who told us a few days ago that a woman’s place is in the home, but when she tries to make a home from home for some of us, we try to debar her. Surely if there is one thing for which a woman is properly qualified, it is running a house. Whether you call it a home, or a hotel, or anything else, does not matter. We who come down to Gape Town all know that the most comfortable places in this town are run by ladies, and we ought rather to encourage them to take up the positions of managing residential establishments, whether hotels or not. I am sure there have been very few instances of women being prosecuted for running their hotels in a disorderly fashion. There is no reason whatever why women should not be engaged in hotels except the reasons given by those people who want to run temperance fanaticism to death. Much as we desire to improve the conditions in this country and do away with evils, I do not think Clause 66 is a step in the right direction. It is a backward step, and I hope the House will agree unanimously to the elimination of this clause.

I was genuinely alarmed at what seemed to be the stampede on the part of the Minister, aided and abetted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), (Col. D. Reitz), not only against this particular clause, but against other clauses in the Bill of far greater importance, the clause prohibiting the employment of barmaids and the one prohibiting the access of women to bars. I also agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) that whatever we do with regard to Clause 66, we must preserve the position of existing licences. For myself, I think it is undesirable that a woman should hold an on consumption licence. That does not seem to be the opinion of the committee, and I won’t hold up the matter any longer, except to say that this clause was put in by a committee of three, two of whom were not “temperance mad,” and adopted by the Minister, who would take it as a deadly insult if told he was a temperance fanatic.

I am glad that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said that this clause was drafted by only three members of the committee. I can well understand it. When it was debated in the committee of seven or nine members, I think there was a great difference of opinion about the position of women, whether they should have the right to have hotels or not. Unfortunately, that committee of three have taken away the right of women. I am astonished that the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) has not spoken on the matter, he is such a protagonist of women’s rights. He is one of the champions of equal rights for women. I am one of the unfortunates who have been attacked by the fair sex because I voted against the women’s franchise, but the hon. member for North-East Rand has won the hearts of the women. To-day he wants to deprive the woman, who has possibly put her all into an hotel, of the right of continuing to hold it. I think it is very unjust to deprive them of that right. As an hon. member rightly remarked, no one is better qualified to run an hotel than a woman. In the family the woman provides for all the individuals, so that she is also best able to look after and maintain the guests in an hotel. I shall therefore vote against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, although he thinks he has a monopoly in the Liquor Bill.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is rather trying to make it appear as if I were a champion of the principle of allowing barmaids. Personally, I must say I dislike the idea. It is distasteful to me to see a woman serving behind a bar, but there is a much wider principle involved, and that is the principle of equal rights for women. By passing a clause like this, we would be diminishing this wider principle, and that is why I am against any discrimination against women, barmaids or otherwise. The few women who may get into bars are of far less importance than the very great principle that women are entitled to equality. I do not want it to go out that I am championing the principle of allowing women in bars. I do not like it at all, but I do strongly favour the principle of equal rights for women.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) seems quite annoyed because I did not oppose this clause. I do not understand what members are arguing about. The Minister has agreed to withdraw the clause, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has given in. I may also say I have been convinced.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and negatived.

On Clause 67,

I move—

What is the necessity for this clause? When you make so many exceptions, why not include bottle licences? I move, as an amendment—

I think my amendment will remove the hon. member’s difficulty. I move—

I think this meets the difficulty. It is merely an explanation of the clause. There are various companies in my mind that would otherwise be deprived of a licence in this way.

I would like to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) if he puts in “bottle liquor licences” [inaudible].

I hope the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) will not be accepted, because it will be against the whole principle of the Bill. The whole principle of the Act is that some person must be responsible, and liable to be summoned if the law is disobeyed.

I think that we should not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), because the great point about a clause of this kind, hallowed by practice, is to have personal responsibility, and therefore that personal responsibility is as necessary in the case of a bottle store seller. There are bottle store sellers in the Transvaal who are regarded as assisting the illicit liquor traffic, and require as much control as the ordinary licensee. I think it would be a mistake to take bottle stores out of the purview. I think it has worked well, and the position is clarified by the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden).

There are existing partnerships to-day. Under this clause they will be prevented from getting a renewal of their licence.

“Partnership” is the present law.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice and Mr. I. P. van Heerden put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 68,

I move—

As amended, the clause would read that the premises are not situated in the vicinity of a place of worship, a school, of a native compound. This makes clearer the intention of the clause.

The whole conception of this Bill is to regulate places to which licences may be issued, but there is no law which states that a church cannot be erected wheresoever it pleases. If a congregation desires to build a place of worship they can do so wherever they like, so if the amendment is carried there will be nothing to prevent a church being erected in a locality where already there are many licences. The result would be that these licences could not be renewed.

I do not know what the intention is, but the effect of the amendment would be to get very near total prohibition, There is a very fine hotel in Cape Town at the top of Plein Street; it is in the vicinity of St. Mary’s Cathedral, and the hotel would have to be closed if the amendment were carried.

No.

I am speaking from a legal point of view. Under it you would be able to obtain prohibition through building schools and churches in the vicinity of licensed premises.

The amendment reminds me of an incident which occurred in Texas. One day a visitor went to a village and found the whole of the population hard at work demolishing a church. He asked the mayor what they were doing, and the latter replied that as a law had been passed that there could he no liquor licence within 300 yards of a place of worship, they were shifting the church.

The amendment would alter the whole idea of the section, and it would do an enormous amount of harm. The committee would be distinctly unwise to accept the amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 69,

I move—

The clause prohibits the carrying on of any other than a liquor business in the same premises. In my constituency, and also in other towns, there are general merchants who provide everything from a needle to an anchor, and among other goods they supply liquor, chiefly to country hotels. To compel them to carry on the supply of liquor in entirely separate premises would be absolutely unreasonable. There has been no increase of drunkenness because of this old-established practice. I think it has been an oversight in the drafting of the Bill and it is unnecessary.

I have got some formal amendments on the paper which I will now move. They are in the direction of clarity. In connection with the last amendment moved there is no objection to that. I accept it, and move—

1. (c) a brewer’s licence may be granted in respect of premises in which the licensee lawfully carries on the business of brewing any malt liquor.

and in line 63, to omit “section” and to substitute “sections seventy-two and”.

I do not know why the Minister has deleted the clause enabling an hotel to sell tea, coffee, tobacco, matches, etc. Now it has been deleted an hotel cannot sell these things and a commercial traveller living at the hotel will not be able to carry on his business. Unless the Minister has a special reason I shall move to insert the clause again.

They may take out a general dealer’s licence.

It says clearly no licence shall be granted to licensed premises where any other trade or business is carried on. If it is necessary that a man with a bottle store licence may sell cigarettes and matches, then it is just as necessary the hotel licence-holder should sell them as well. It is either necessary for both or not at all. I should also like to know how an hotel is going to sell meals. We look forward in South Africa to having hotels as they have them in America where you find barber’s shops, newspaper shops and shops that sell sweets and chocolates, etc. Why should they not do all kinds of business which is legitimate? I still contend that if a commercial traveller goes to an hotel and displays his goods then the licence will not be granted again if he carries on business.

I want to touch on the same point. As the Bill stands, neither an hotel nor a club will be able to sell a box of cigarettes or a box of matches, and I think there is some mistake about the drafting of this clause. I think, perhaps, the best thing would be for the Minister to allow the clause to stand over and think about it. In the meantime, I move—

1. (c) The holder of any licence other than those mentioned in sub-sections (a) and (b) shall be at liberty to sell mineral waters and other drinks (not being liquor), tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, matches and any other commodity or carry on any other business approved by the licensing board provided the necessary trading licence has been obtained.

I think if my hon. friend will move the select committee section it is better than the section as worded at present. I was afraid the section would be misconstrued, and that it would read as if I was giving cafes the right to sell liquor. I find that the section as drafted does not cover the case. I admit that on the arguments put up, so I ask my hon. friend to move the select committee section which does cover the case.

I move—

1. (a) any on-consumption licence may be granted in respect of premises upon which any person lawfully carries on the business of selling tea, coffee, cocoa, cakes, confectionery and other light refreshments (including drinks other than liquor), tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and matches, petrol, or any other lawful business specially authorized by the licensing board;

Would this clause affect a case which occurs in my own constituency where there are old-established wholesale firms who have liquor licences and who sell ham and tobacco, etc. Is that dealt with by the amendment in question, because the amendment says “other than wholesale liquor licences.” This amendment does not seem to carry out the intention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh).

I think it does.

If you are satisfied, then so am I.

We can go into that again.

I think this amendment goes a bit too far, because, after all, there are general dealers, and this is really touching the interests of the general dealers. At present there is a general dealers’ licence which covers the selling of petrol and other commodities. The amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) speaks of “other commodities.” If it were confined to the sale of tea, coffee and cakes, I think it would be fair, but I think as it is now worded it is most unfair and unjust to the general dealers.

It does not say other commodities. It says “in which the licensee carries on any other lawful business which the licensing board allows him to carry on,” but if he carries on the business of a general dealer he must, of course, take out a general dealer’s licence.

Every hotel-keeper who carries on the sale of other commodities has to take out a general dealer’s licence.

I am against this petrol business. I do not know what petrol has got to do with it. The other things are things which yon would naturally regard as things sold inside an hotel, but you do not regard petrol as part of the things sold in hotels. You do not want to put in a lot of things which you cannot possibly see, and which may be shoved in the backyard.

With leave of the committee, amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Watt withdrawn.

I have a very small amendment to which I hope the Minister will not object. I have in mind small societies who sell vinegar.

A bottle store that sells vinegar?

Yes. The vinegar is made locally, and sold in the bottle store. The amendment is as follows—

I have only put in the word “petrol” because it seemed to be the general wish. I am quite willing to withdraw the word “petrol,” because the last line says “any other lawful business which the licensing board may allow.” I would ask leave of the committee to withdraw the word “petrol” from my amendment.

I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that at the report stage he will give us another opportunity of looking into this clause. I do not think we have got it right yet.

I will go into it, too, before that stage.

I hope the Minister will carefully consider whether it is right in this clause to allow the licensing courts to judge whether any business can be carried on in an hotel. It may go so far as to become a shop. It is an unsound condition, an evil of the past which has been resuscitated in some parts of the Cape. I am not opposed to the hotels selling cigarettes and such things, but to give the licensing board the right to allow them to sell anything is going too far. We must not mix up groceries, etc., too much with liquor.

I hope the Minister will keep an open mind on this question of petrol.

The licensing board can allow it.

I would like it specifically mentioned. Suppose you are travelling and you run out of petrol and arrive at a place on Saturday after the general dealer’s store is closed. What are you going to do? Many country towns are not able to support a garage. If you cannot get your petrol at the hotel you are going to be hung up until Monday when the store opens. I think it is essential the Minister should allow the word “petrol” to be used in order that it may be practically an instruction to the licensing court to allow the sale of petrol by hotels.

I hope the Minister will go carefully into this clause. I am told in the case of one hotel proprietor in the Transvaal the licences take out are—general retail licence, hotel licence, midnight privilege licence, mineral water sale, mineral water manufacture, another for petrol, another to have a barber, a restaurant licence, an ice cream licence, one for cigarettes, etc., another for music and dancing, a general dealer’s licence and a billiard-room licence. These are all licences which this hotel proprietor in the Transvaal takes out at the present moment. The Minister will see it has been the practice to take out a licence for petrol because there is a very large demand by motorists all over the country. The principle we ought to lay down is this—let a man carry on any lawful business if he gets the consent of the licensing board. If it is not going to lead to abuse of the liquor laws there is no reason why another business should not be carried on the same premises. They must have lawful authority to carry on. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir W. Macintosh), I have a letter from a large wholesale firm in Cape Town who have only a very small liquor business compared to their general business, and if this clause is altered they will have to give up this business or build other premises. I was also going to suggest that the Minister should put in “other than a wholesale licence.”

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). The bottle stores in the country villages are the places where the small farmers who make vinegar sell their produce, and the public are accustomed to buy vinegar there. If the Bill is not altered the bottle stores will no longer be able to sell vinegar, to the great inconvenience of the public and a loss of market to the farmers.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Dr. H. Reitz—

May I ask if “other commodities” might be included. It seems to be going outside the whole scope of the other licensing boards where such licences are granted.

It is “other business”.

“No other lawful business” is vague.

To sell petrol for instance. They would have to pay licence moneys, but this would give them the right to sell. The liquor licensing board will decide whether this business will be carried on, but the ordinary licence due under the law would have to be paid.

There are licensing boards which deal with retail licences. Would the liquor licensing boards supersede them?

If the law of the land said you must pay for the ordinary licence, you must get that and pay for both—it and the liquor licence.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson put and the committee divided:

Ayes—25.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D

Richards, G. R.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—48.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Fordham, A. C.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Reitz, H.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

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