As hon. members are aware, the Government has for some time had before it proposals from different shipping interests in connection with the transport overseas of South African produce. Although there is adequate regular transport for our non-perishable exports, I think it is generally realised that this is not the case where our fruit and other perishable products are concerned. The volume of our perishable exports is steadily growing and for some time it has been increasingly evident that it is already beyond the capacity of the regular shipping services. For the proper marketing overseas of fruit, eggs and other perishable products, it is necessary that the transport should be regular as well as of such a nature as will enable them to be placed on overseas markets in proper condition. All possible avenues have been explored with the view to making arrangements for the provision of refrigerated shipping space, suitable, adequate and regular, to meet the demands of both the present and the future. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Government has been successful in achieving this and that an agreement has been entered into with the Union-Castle Company which will result in sufficient refrigerated space being regularly available to meet the demands for some years to come. The Perishable Products Export Control Board, which has, of course, been consulted in the matter, entirely concurs in the arrangements which have been made. The company has undertaken considerably to increase the refrigerated accommodation in its mail and intermediate ships, to arrange with some of the other regular lines to act similarly and to make itself responsible for the provision of other tonnage to lift regularly the bulk of the remaining cargo which cannot be coped with by the regular steamers. In this connection the refrigerated space in all the mail ships, with the exception of R.M.S. “Saxon” and “Walmer Castle,” is to be increased to approximately 2,500 tons of 55 cubic feet, whilst refrigerated accommodation up to 3,000 tons is being provided in the new mail ship at present under construction, and a similar amount will be provided in any mail ships constructed in the future. Shortly, the Union-Castle Company has undertaken to provide, if required, weekly refrigerated space for perishables during the deciduous fruit season 1928-’29 up to 3,500 tons of 55 cubic feet, this weekly space being increased year by year until in 1932-’33 up to 5,000 tons per week will be provided, if required. During the citrus seasons of Í929 and 1930 up to 6,500 tons of space weekly is to be provided, whilst in 1931 and subsequent years, up to 7,000 tons per week will be provided, if required. The rates of freight for the conveyance of perishables will be the same whether the cargo is carried in the company’s own ships or in other ships provided for the purpose, the fruit rates being 52s. 6d. per ton for citrus and 70s. per ton for deciduous, whilst the rate for eggs has been reduced to 70s. The freight rate for frozen beef has been established at 9-16d. per lb., which is equivalent approximately to ⅛d. below the existing rate from the Argentine to Europe. Arrangements are also being made for the provision of suitable accommodation for the transport of chilled meat upon six months’ notice being given. The foregoing rates include, in the case of Southampton, where the great bulk will be landed, conveyance free of all additional charges to Nine Elms Station in London. Included in the agreement are maximum rates for the conveyance of non-perishable products in connection with which considerable concessions have been secured in some cases. For instance, the maximum rate on wool, mohair, hides and skins has been reduced by 7½ per cent., whilst among other reductions secured are reductions on brandy from 80s. to 70s., wine 60s. to 50s., dried fruit 50s. to 45s., third grade raisins 45s. to 40s., fruit pulp 60s. to 35s. and cotton 35s. to 32s. 6d. The company has undertaken if wool is pressed to the Australian standard to reduce the rate by 15 per cent. instead of by 7½ per cent. One of the most important reductions is that secured in connection with maize, the maximum rate for bagged and bulk maize being fixed at 22s. 6d. and 21s. 6d. per 2,000 lbs. respectively. Provision for the conveyance of Government cargo from Europe to South Africa is also incorporated in the agreement, the rates for rails, metal sleepers, and for railway specialities, and other similar goods embraced in what is known as the basis rate classification, being the same as at present. But I am sure my commercial friends will be pleased to hear that all other cargo on Government account is to be conveyed at the same rates as those paid by the ordinary importer. The freight arrangements to which I have referred are applicable not only to goods shipped by Union-Castle steamers, but also to goods shipped by steamers of the conference lines generally, and it has been deemed desirable, therefore, to incorporate them in a separate agreement instead of linking them up with an agreement relating to the ocean conveyance of mails with which one company only is concerned. I may say that the Union-Castle Company concurs in this procedure. A separate agreement for the ocean conveyance of mails has not yet been entered into, but the House will be advised as soon as any arrangements in this connection have been completed. Suggestions have been made to the Government from time to time that a Shipping Board should be established to advise the Government on freight questions and shipping matters generally, and that on such board should be representatives of commerce, industries, agriculture, etc. Consideration is at present being given to the matter.

I move—

Agreed to.

On sub-section (1),

I move—

Agreed to.

Paragraph (a) put and agreed to.

On paragraph (b),

With regard to the hours the Minister has set apart, I am told that it would suit the convenience of the public more if instead of their being from twelve to 2.30 they were from 12.30 to 3, and instead of between 6 and 8.30 they should be from 6.30 to 9. If this change is made it would suit the convenience of those who know the times when the public use these rooms for meals. I am not moving an extension, but a re-arrangement. I move—

I may say that I prefer the hours in the section because those are more natural meal hours than those mentioned by the hon. member, and we are providing for meals and not for drink apart from meals. I move as an amendment—

I am told that there are a large number of people who desire the hours altered as moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I would be glad if the Minister could tell me what he means by “more natural meal hours.”

Many people who work in shops have their meals between 12 and 2.30. It is unnatural to eat whilst you are working.

Perhaps the Minister means more usual meal hours.

Before a person gets a meal he often has an appetiser and afterwards has a liqueur with his coffee in the lounge. As the clause is worded he cannot do that. The interpretation, apparently, is that the appetiser and the liqueur will not be consumed with a meal. I will therefore move—

Otherwise this will lead to the abolition of two excellent customs.

The deletion of those words would destroy the whole intention of the clause.

Does it mean that liquor must be consumed between the hours of purchase? If so, when half-past-two arrives and a man has not finished his drink will he be breaking the law if he drinks it afterwards?

This means that the liquor is given to the person concerned, but he may wait six hours before he drinks it.

I move—

Otherwise there is a possibility of the meals being purchased by the licensee or some other person. It is obviously the intention of the clause that the meals should be purchased and paid for by the person who gets them.

Does this mean that you cannot stand another man a dinner, or stand him a drink?

Certainly it does.

Well, surely we have had enough of this kill joy legislation.

With the leave of the committee I will withdraw that amendment.

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

Amendments proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Paragraph (b), as amended, put and agreed to.

On paragraph (c),

In paragraph (c) the Minister puts bottle stores under the same hours as those laid down by the municipalities for the closing of shops. That means in a place like Bloemfontein the bottle stores will have to close at 5 o’clock in the winter and 5.30 in the summer. That is a hardship to the railway men and shop assistants who finish business at the same time. These men will then have to drift into the bars. Will it not be better to let them purchase liquor at a bottle store rather than drift into the bars? In the Free State they have bottle stores closing up to 8 o’clock, but they voluntarily close at 6 p.m. I should like to move an amendment—

It means then that most of the bottle stores will close at 6 o’clock.

These men can send their wives to the bottle store.

I don’t want them to send their wives to purchase a bottle of brandy. Does the hon. member want to send the wives of all the railway men and clerks in the Free State to purchase liquor? Of course he does not.

The whole idea of this paragraph was to prevent the state of affairs existing in Johannesburg and Cape Town, where under the Shop Hours Act all the shops are closed down on Saturday afternoon and the bottle stores are allowed to remain open.

It is changed now.

I know, but only on the action of the licensing court, and then not everywhere. In the Transvaal all the licensing courts close the bottle stores on Saturday afternoons, except, I believe, in Boksburg. That is a reasonable proposition. It is a very unreasonable proposition to say that a man, having received his wages, cannot go and spend it on groceries, but he can go and buy from the bottle store.

I admit the hon. member’s argument, but we can easily alter that. I do not want the opening on Saturday afternoon. I want it for the ordinary closing. They make you close your business at 5.30, and in some Free State towns at 5 o’clock and some at 4.45 p.m., and that is the time I do not want the bottle stores to close. On Saturdays I am prepared to allow it to close in the afternoons.

I hope the Minister will not entertain this amendment. In fact, I want to strengthen this clause up a little, and I move—

I think there is a good case to be made out for it. On one occasion I went to see the licensing board at Wynberg, and I found there that shops must close at a certain time and on certain half days, whereas, during that same time, you leave bars and bottle stores and the like, open. It is nothing else but putting a premium on the sale of liquor. Every other shop in the place is closed except the liquor shops. I understood this Bill to be a Bill to promote temperance.

Is it?

Certainly, we hope so, at any rate.

It is to regulate the sale of drink.

You do not want to promote the sale of drink, or to put a premium on the sale of drink. In the small town I belong to every shop is closed at a certain time on Saturday afternoon, except the liquor shops. Is that fair? Is that the way you regulate the sale of liquor? To my mind, it is a monstrous state of affairs that a man cannot go out to buy groceries, boots, etc., on Saturday afternoon, and yet, at the same time, he can go to a bar or bottle store and drink as much as he likes.

Or go to a theatre.

The theatre is another story altogether. He does keep sober, I hope. If it is not lawful on a Saturday afternoon to sell groceries, sugar, coffee and the like, why should it be lawful to sell drink?

I may say that the reason why this section has been inserted is that it has been laid down by the Cape courts, amongst other courts, that your bottle store and the wholesaler are shops in the same sense as other places, which sell groceries, etc., are shops. Therefore, they are subject to the Shop Hours Ordinances of this country. That being so, we are simply clearing up that position that whatever hours are contained in this Bill they are subject to what the Shop Hours Ordinances say in regard to shops. Therefore, there is not much point in increasing the length of time beyond the hour of closing of the ordinary shop. This section as it is put in this Bill was never intended to apply to bars. A bar is not a shop. It is something very sui generis. We are dealing with your bar licence later on specifically. The proper place, I think, for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to voice his feelings would be when we come to the hours for bars. I do not think on the frame of this Bill his objection would fit into this particular clause.

I will withdraw my amendment.

I would like to withdraw my amendment.

I beg to apply for permission to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

The hon. member is withdrawing an amendment which he has not yet moved.

I would like to ask the Minister what effect sub-section (c) would have on the ordinary Cape hotel which has the right of sale for off-consumption. What would be the position of a guest upstairs who orders a drink from the hotel downstairs? Would you call that on-consumption?

As far as I understand the law, at present the Cape hotels and the Natal hotels have the right of sale for off-consumption. I do not think that could affect the case, because they have this right of off sales under the hotel licence. I will go into that matter.

I hope the Minister will go into that point. There is one other matter and that is we are passing a Union Bill subject to Parliament and Union laws, and here, under sub-section (c), we are placing the liquor trade, so to speak, at the mercy of provincial legislation. We have had some curious examples of provincial legislation in the past, and yet we say here that these places shall be subject to any sort of regulation or legislation passed by the provincial authorities. In other words, we are relinquishing control as a Union under this section, and handing it over to the provincial authorities. That seems to me a wrong principle.

The trouble is, as I have pointed out, that the courts have held that your bottle stores, as being shops, are subject to the same conditions as any other shop. As a matter of fact, we could leave out sub-section (c) and it would not really affect the position. Assuming that we were to extend the hours, the provincial council could come back and repeal, as far as I understand, our provision under the Shop Hours Ordinance.

We might as well delete sub-section (c) altogether.

It is only for the purpose of making the position quite clear.

Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that it has been held in the Cape that bottle stores have to be closed at the same hour as shops?

I said it had been held that they are shops.

Yes, in regard to certain provisions they may be shops, but not so far as hours are concerned. At present in the Cape the hours of bottle stores are fixed by the licensing board. In many respects their hours are shorter than the hours of ordinary shops. The Minister may be thinking of the Half Holiday Act, in respect of which the bottle store has been held to be in the same position as a shop. The point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was to my mind a reasonable one. It was a perfectly reasonable amendment, and the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) were perfectly apropos to this point, too. On the one hand shop hours are regulated by the provincial councils which, in some cases, hand over their authority to the local authority and, on the other hand, the licensing boards are constituted to decide when it is for the convenience of the public to close the licensed premises. If the board considers the shop hours are the proper hours at which to close, they have full authority to do it under this Bill. But you constitute a licensing board, and you say they should decide what is for the convenience of the public, and then you tie their hands and say if they decide the bottle stores should keep open an hour longer than the shop hours, they will not be allowed to do that. If you are going to leave it to the licensing board, then the sub-section should come out. If the boards think the arguments of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are sound they can themselves reduce the hours. The hon. member says that in the Transvaal they have reduced the hours on many places to the same hours as shops. The temperance member for Bezuidenhout wants to tie these people hand and foot. If we had prohibition legislation I could understand that, but I cannot understand why you should prejudge the matter and tie the hands of impartial bodies. Let them decide in any given area what the hours shall be. It should be left entirely in the hands of the licensing board. I think this particular sub-section should not have appeared in the Bill, because it is mixing up two totally different things, the hours fixed by the local authorities for shops and the hours fixed by the licensing boards for licensed premises.

I also think that we are taking away the right of fixing the hours from the licensing boards and giving it to the provincial councils. The licensing boards will then be completely powerless. It was always the Cape practice that the licensing boards decided the hours for bottle stores, hotels, etc. Now, according to this clause, the Minister indirectly wants to give the power of fixing hours to the provincial councils. In that way they will get greater power than Parliament, and if the provincial council fixes the hours, we must submit to it. The Minister should understand that there is a big principle at stake. We cannot compare a liquor licence with ordinary licences. The liquor traffic is controlled in a different way. The licences are always controlled by two different bodies; now the Minister wants to allow the provincial council to fix the hours. I think radical alterations are necessary in the amendment.

Another reason why this sub-section should stand is that we are out for uniformity. If this matter is left to the licensing courts, you will have one bottle store closed at 6 o’clock and another at 4 o’clock in neighbouring districts, and that would be too absurd.

I thoroughly endorse the reason given by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). I do hope the committee will understand that if this clause is not passed, you will see, as you have seen in the past, the spectacle of every shop in Cape Town closed on Saturday afternoon; but the bottle stores all open. Is that a desirable state of affairs? Is it desirable that the ordinary working man coming home on Saturday with his wages in his pocket should have staring at him the temptation to spend that money in liquor, and no opportunity to spend it on other things. The points the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has raised are mere technicalities. We have simply said in this section that we recognize that a bottle store is to all intents and purposes a shop, where a commodity is sold. I will be glad to be told why you would not call a bottle of liquor a commodity which you sell like a pound of butter or a pound of tea. We say that, having entrusted shop hours to the provincial councils, the bottle stores, which are shops, shall be subject to the same closing hours as any other shops. Where is the conflict between the two? We go on in sub-section 6 to fix certain maximum hours beyond which, even with the consent of the provincial council, they cannot go. The broad principle is this—that a bottle store should not be open on Saturday afternoon or Wednesday afternoon, or any other afternoon when the shops are closed. On the Rand, owing to the divergence caused by different licensing courts, you may buy a bottle of brandy on Saturday afternoon in one town, but you cannot buy it in another town. But if you cannot buy a pound of tea in a grocer’s shop in Springs you cannot buy it in Johannesburg.

We have two wise men running this Bill outside the Minister, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and my hon. friend on my left. They are both getting it into a mess. My hon. friend on my left says we want uniformity. How can we get uniformity under this clause? He only knows Pretoria and the Transvaal; he does not know South Africa. This Bill, it appears to me, is made for the Cape and the Transvaal, and you forget all about the smaller provinces. I withdrew my amendment because I had been told by the Minister that the law has been laid down that a bottle store is a shop, but I take it it was in the Cape Act that was done. It has not been so laid down in the Free State. How can the provincial council come in? Has it any jurisdiction over the hours?

Yes.

If that is so, why do bottle stores close at much later hours than shops?

Because they have not, in certain places, exercised their jurisdiction.

I am going to meet the arguments of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, by removing this amendment. I move, as an amendment—

The Minister has told us that this sub-section (c) is really surplusage, and whether that is so or not makes no difference; but the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) Mr. Alexander) tells us quite rightly that there is a considerable difference. The Minister admits it might have an adverse effect on the licences and privileges of off-consumption hotels. For that reason I hope the Minister will accept the amendment which I move—

If the Minister finds it is of very great importance to have (c) back, he could move it back at the report stage, and we would not object.

I am prepared to accept that course, because there is no doubt whatever that whether it is deleted or not, the provincial councils can deal with the matter of fixing those hours. There is no doubt whatever that they have the power to deal with that. The whole of my argument on which I have based my support of this is on that. If it is wrong it falls away; if I am right there is no need for the clause, because the provincial councils can deal with the matter. Whether the provincial councils have exercised that power all over South Africa, is a different matter, of course. They may have excluded bottle stores from the scope of their legislation, and have the licensing court hours effective. I will go into the matter, and see whether there is any purpose to be served by restoring it at the report stage.

If the Minister thinks that a provincial council has the right to fix the hours of bottle stores, he is entirely wrong.

Then I support.

The South Africa Act says that no ordinance of a provincial council which is repugnant to any Act passed by Parliament, is of effect. I think the Minister has been a bit hasty in that.

I am very strong for deletion.

The Minister did not apparently enquire why this particular section was put in. I am amazed at the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) not seeing the undesirability of bottle stores being kept open when the shops are closed. I do think that the Minister would be unfair to the select committee’s unanimous decision in dealing too hastily with this and abandoning this clause without hearing the pros and cons discussed. The decision was come to as a result of the position which exists in the whole of the Cape and the Transvaal. Last year the provincial council passed a Shop Hours Ordinance in the Transvaal in which they made every shop in Johannesburg close at 1 o’clock on Saturdays, which did enormous harm to the traders, and they let the bottle stores remain open until 6 o’clock. The result was to divert trade which had normally gone to the shops to bottle stores.

You cannot be sure of that.

It is the natural inference to draw. If people get paid on Saturday and cannot spend the money burning in their pockets in the shops, they will go to the bottle store. I want to stop that, and I want to see that the dice are not loaded in favour of the bottle stores.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) seems to be concerned about the railway men. But what about the tramway men, who leave work at about 8 o’clock? If the hon. member wishes to be logical he must leave the bottle stores open until after that hour. Then there must be other people who do not quit work until later than 8 o’clock. So where is he going to stop? I sincerely hope the Minister will stand by the clause.

I support the Minister in his agreement to delete the clause. My hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell) does not seem to have any confidence in the licensing courts as constituted upon his advice, and now wants to revert to the ordinary licensing system. He ought to support the Minister whenever the Minister is sensible in accepting an amendment.

That is the time I don’t want support.

The Minister recognizes difficulties which are insuperable, and a big principle is involved.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I am decidedly opposed to extending the facilities of licensed premises. I should prefer them to be curtailed. The Bill is an attempt to reduce the sale of liquor as much as possible, now the hon. member wants to extend it, and bring people into the temptation of spending on liquor money which would otherwise be used for food.

I also think that the amendment should not be passed. I hope the Minister will not agree to it. There is an ordinance in Johannesburg, e.g., made by the provincial council under which bottle stores keep open longer. I regard this as one of the best clauses of the Bill. I cannot understand hon. members saying that shops should be closed and bottle stores opened. I should like to see a vote on the clause. It is not right to give persons the opportunity of spending their money in that way, while the wives and children have to suffer in consequence.

Amendments put and negatived.

Paragraph (c), as printed, put and the committee divided:

Ayes—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

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, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—43.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Buirski, E.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hugo, D.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

McMenamin, J. J.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Paragraph (c) accordingly agreed to.

Sub-section (1), as amended, put and agreed to.

Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) put and agreed to.

On sub-section (5),

I want to call attention to the provision of the law in the Transvaal which allows an extension of off sales deliveries on the evenings preceding Christmas Day and public holidays. I am not suggesting that any additional hours should be given for sale, but simply for off sales deliveries. It leaves it in the hands of the licensing board, and my amendment will not force them to do it. There is, however, a tremendous amount of work on those days, and I think the time for delivery should be extended. I move—

The hours we give here are ample, and I do not propose to extend the hours under sub-section (5).

I am sorry to have to disagree with the Minister, and I suppose I can change my mind too, and therefore I support the amendment.

I should like to know whether a man can buy bottles under this clause, and whether they can be delivered hours later by the seller.

Yes, of course.

Amendment put; upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—29.

Bergh, P. A.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Gilson, L. D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, J. P.

McMenamin, J. J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

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

Noes—53.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Henderson, J.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Sub-section (5), as printed, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (6),

I move—

Does that mean that you can have these drinks sold on an election day?

Yes, with meals. We have passed a similar amendment on the same clause, 75 (1) (b). It reads in conformity with that clause.

I move—

I know this may probably be looked askance at, but the effect of it will be that a person who at present has a bar licence will not lose the right to sell liquor other than at meal times, provided he can satisfy the licensing board that he has provided a dining room to serve the people. We have circumscribed these bar licences in so many ways that it seems that if a person has satisfied the licensing board that he has provided the necessary accommodation, he ought to be able to supply liquor other than at meal times. When he has made all the arrangements and the licensing board is satisfied of the suitability of the person and the premises, he ought to be able to do that.

Section 65 provides for a late hours restaurant licence. Does that mean that it can be granted after 2 o’clock p.m.? That may prove to be a reason at the report stage for striking out any reference to late hours restaurant licences.

The point of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) will certainly have to be considered because it seems to have been overlooked. With regard to the amendment by the hon. member for Paarl, does he see that if he puts in these qualifying words, then the restaurants he speaks about, that is the existing ones, will be subject to no hours at all and will be able to sell for 24 hours out of the 24.

I realize that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) would defeat the object of a large number of preceding clauses, but I certainly think some exception should be made in the case we will say of places like the Café Royal and Opera House restaurant, Cape Town. According to the Act, those places would be compelled to be closed except when serving legitimate meals at stated hours. I think additional words should be added, and I move—

The result, if we accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Paarl is that we should allow restaurants to be created in districts of Cape Town, which would be to the great disadvantage not only of the people living in Cape Town, but the community in general, whereas the amendment I have moved would apply to restaurants like the Café Royal or the Opera House. I attended a certain dinner at the Opera House recently and if this Act is brought into operation, they will be deprived from having anything in the way of presentations and so on. I think the licensing board should have the power to grant extensions to such places on the restaurant licence which has been embodied in the Bill. There would be no danger to smaller communities. My amendment applies only to those places where there are 10,000 parliamentary voters, so that it would only apply to the big towns in South Africa. For that reason I have great pleasure in moving the amendment.

In reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), he seems to think the consequence of my amendment would be that restaurants would be open all day. That does not follow at all. It merely gives the board the right to say that in certain cases they may allow restaurants to be open at any hour for people who could not get to the restaurant for the ordinary meal time. That is quite common.

I do not know what is the Minister’s view upon the amendment by the hon. member for Paarl, but I would like to point out that if the amendment is accepted, you will have one restaurant on one side of the street carrying on under certain conditions and one on the other side under different conditions. I think in the circumstances it would be advisable to have the same rules apply to all restaurants and to reject the proposed amendment.

Perhaps the Minister would really explain what his amendment means, because I think many members do not thoroughly understand it, and I myself am not perfectly clear as to what it means. I understand the Minister has moved an amendment that at election times liquor can be served in hotels and restaurants under certain conditions and at certain times.

At meal times.

Does my hon. friend not think that when excitement is running high at election time, as it sometimes does,—and I have been informed that even outside election times excitement in parties runs very high—that it is rather a mistake that we should depart from the provision, which has acted very well, that liquor cannot be served anywhere during election times?

The instance the right hon. member talks of about feeling running high is an absolute exception. Take municipal elections—where is there less feeling? The town is absolutely dead. The whole town is dead. As far as parliamentary elections are concerned, there is no excitement—people are working too hard to be excited—or the excitement starts after 8 o’clock at night, or after the declaration of the poll. I have often been in these crowds, and have never had any trouble from them. I do not believe very much in this closing of the bars and hotels on election days, and I certainly believe less in it up to 8 o’clock at night.

What does your colleague say?

I am giving you my views now.

He passed an Act—

I do not care what he does about elections. I ask the good sense of this committee, is there any danger whatever in allowing, on election days—I do not care what election it is—liquor to be served with meals? You will have as many or as few quarrels whether liquor is supplied. After all, we take our quarrels very much less seriously than we did in the past—but that is another point. We have it in Clause 75 (5) (1), and it would be rather an absurd thing to insert it here. It is exactly the same amendment. On election days the excitement is largely factitious—and fictitious.

Opgewonde.

Opgemaak.

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

Amendments proposed by Dr. de Jager and Mr. Pearce put and negatived.

Sub-section (6), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (7),

I do not quite understand this new system of discrimination which seems to be creeping into our laws. Why should Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban be singled out for preferential treatment? I think Port Elizabeth is as important.

Is it?

You have only to look at the calibre of the members it returns to the House to realize that. I move, as an amendment—

Why not make it general, and leave out the names of these places?

Yes. I will withdraw that, and move—

I move, as an amendment—

The amendment of the hon. member will provide for Kimberley. I move—

I think it would perhaps be well if we should fix the ordinary closing hour all over the country—10 o’clock or 10.30, whichever the sense of the committee regards as a proper time, but then we should make provision for those special interests in the bigger centres of our population. There is nothing so deadly as a town when all its licensed houses close after 10 o’clock, and I notice that in Cape Town. Some shops have their lights on, but the only bright thing in Cape Town is the light in the bars. I do not want to go too far on that point—it may, of course, be only an individual expression of opinion—but there is certainly something depressing in the atmosphere of Cape Town which makes the consumption of alcohol somewhat more necessary here than in other places. No one wants to go into personal experiences. I find it possible to live in Pretoria six months in the year without a drink—I will not go further than that. I appreciate the fact, of course, that there are certain dangers which to a certain extent are met by having this 5,000 parliamentary voter requisite put into the clause, and the licensing board looking into the matter properly and not regarding a position of this kind as one for universal use. But take an area like the central one of Johannesburg, which serves theatre-goers and amusement-seekers, who still exist—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will correct me on the point if I am wrong. Reasonable requirements should be catered for in towns like Johannesburg and other large towns in the Union, so that people going to places of amusement may obtain liquid refreshment. Hon. members may say that this will lead to a greater consumption of drink, and it may be wise to eliminate the hours from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., and thus reduce the number of hours. This would affect only large towns, and certainly in these cases we would have a later hour, namely, 11 p.m. The general closing hour could be 10 or 10.30, I am indifferent which it is. Nine o’clock closing is quite well enough for people who do not drink at all, but it is not fair for hon. members who do not drink after nine p.m. to limit the rights of those who wish to drink after that time. Only those who wish to partake of liquid refreshments in a small degree should vote on this question. People who go to theatres or bioscopes, and a person who leaves the Houses of Parliament late at night and tries to get something to stimulate himself after the labours of the day, would be affected by a provision of this nature. It would be unwise if we had to make the closing hour of Parliament earlier on account of the earlier closing of bars. There are so many arguments which can be used—

We haven’t heard any yet.

I thought I had exhausted them from both aspects. As to the theatre licences, theatre bars should close at the same time as the theatre closes, for then 99 out of every 100 people who have been visiting the place go home. The closing hour of theatre bars, therefore, might be coterminous with the closing of the theatre, or even half-an-hour earlier. Take the big establishments in the centre of Johannesburg or Cape Town—the Mount Nelson Hotel, the Queen’s Hotel and other hotels—why on earth should they not be allowed to continue to sell liquor up to 11.30 p.m. for that particular class of person which patronizes them? If Cape Town is going to make itself attractive to tourists from overseas, you cannot do that by having all sorts of restrictions unknown outside America.

Americans come here to get a drink.

We are getting more and more people from other parts of the world, and we should give them reasonable facilities.

I cannot refrain from expressing a feeling of sadness at the Minister’s speech. When the Bill was first introduced the general closing hour was fixed at 9 o’clock, with privileges in certain places up to 11 o’clock. In the select committee, however, it was pointed out that under such an arrangement the great majority of licensees obtained privileges. Under that system four out of every five bars in Johannesburg enjoyed midnight privileges, the result being that from 100 to 150 establishments are open for the sale of liquor in Johannesburg up to midnight. The unanimous opinion of the police was that it was a wholly wrong and undesirable system. I am with the Minister for having a reasonable hour, for making it universal and for having no privileges. Going on those lines we fixed the 12-hour drinking day from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. The Minister has suggested that nowhere outside America are such restrictions in force, but that is not the case. In London, the night life of which is just as hectic as that of Cape Town, possibly a little more so, these are the closing hours. The overwhelming proportion close at 10 p.m., in the City of London 10.30 p.m., and in certain portions of the West End 11 o’clock. Even in the heart of the busiest part of the amusements centre, 11 o’clock closing is good enough for London.

You can go into a restaurant and have a drink up to 2 a.m.

The hon. member is talking about night clubs.

Those are the only places where you can get a drink at a late hour.

Taking the population figures of London, we find that in districts inhabited by 4,990,000 people licensed places close at 10 o’clock or earlier, and districts inhabited by 294,000 persons 10.30 to 11 o’clock, while the closing hour in the provinces is 10.30 p.m., in Scotland 10 p.m., and in New Zealand and the whole of Australia, except Queensland, where there is a Labour Government, 6 p.m. In Canada they have no saloons at all. When he suggests the extension he proposes here as a normal and legitimate thing, I would point out he is proposing to do something done nowhere else in the Empire. We have had 12 o’clock closing in Johannesburg for years, and I want to read the testimony of the police department on that 12 o’clock closing. We had Colonel Grey, C.I.D., Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Young, the chief magistrate of Johannesburg, Mr. Hime, the magistrate at Pietermaritzburg, Colonel Trew, Mr. Alexander, chief constable at Durban, and Mr. Trigger, chief of the C.I.D., and almost unanimously they supported the 10 o’clock closing. They said the harm done by bars and saloons is largely done by the last two hours of drinking. This Bill attempts to mitigate some of the evils of drinking, and when the police come along with this unanimous body of testimony and tell us that the crime and drunkenness which exists in the Union and is increasing is largely due to this drinking late at night, then the Minister takes grave responsibility in proposing to extend these hours to 11.30. The Minister is going further than in his original proposal in the Bill. He has wiped out entirely the fair compromise adopted by the select committee, and it is a step which is unwarrantable. Public opinion is demanding more restrictions on the sale of liquor. I do not care if I am called a temperance fanatic or a kill-joy, but I do not believe it is good to have these canteens and bars open in this way and spread up and down the length and breadth of the country. Does the Minister realize the canteens of the Cape will be allowed, if the licensing board permits it, to keep open till 11.30 at night? The committee must take a graver view of this than the Minister does, and he must bear with me if I go into this matter and fight this case.

I want firstly to ask the Minister whether he is not prepared to apply the same clause not only to hotel licences, but also to club licences? In that way par. (8) might lapse. If the Minister has read the evidence before the select committee, he knows that it was unanimously in favour of clubs and hotels being put on the same footing. Hon. members know that all the witnesses thought that clubs and hotels should come under the same provision. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) about the hours of closing. Evidence was also given before the select committee on this point. The evidence is of great value, because it came from men of experience in the liquor trade, and we ought to consider it. It was almost unanimously against late closing. The object is not to introduce some fanatical clause or other, but to fight drunkenness. The evidence, particularly of the detectives, shows that drunkenness was to a great extent caused during the last two hours licensed premises were open, think that we ought not to except certain towns. It will be a reasonable compromise if the Minister fixes 10 o’clock for closing right through the country. Here we have a practical measure for fighting drunkenness. I therefore move—

The effect of this will be that all bars and drinking places will close at 10 o’clock.

I think that has already been moved.

Yes, but not in the same form. If the Minister’s amendment is passed, hotels will get special licences from the licensing board to keep open longer, and they will then pay one-tenth larger licence fees for every half hour extra. It is therefore not in direct conflict with my proposal.

I might agree to a proposal to make the general closing hour 10 o’clock, but I am strongly in favour of our having provision for exceptions. My amendment allows for an exception, and I think it should also apply to clubs. I shall not vote for the amendment to give clubs longer hours than the latest time allowed to hotels. If a hotel may not be kept open after 11 or 11.30, clubs must also not keep open later. I think the two things hang together. Then I also want to make it clear that this is a matter for people in large towns. The provision will only apply there. Hon. members must not think that my amendment proposes to apply it to Wakkerstroom or other places. There is a limitation in the amendment that there must be more than a certain number of voters in a town before the provision can be applied. I think we ought not to go too far in the direction in which we are now being pushed of protecting our population against itself too much. If it is necessary to protect the population so much against itself, then things are at a sad pass in our country, nor do I believe that we shall attain our object if we take away all the people’s temptation. We shall bring them into new temptations. Therefore I do not at all agree with the view that we can make a nation sober by legislation. There is only one thing which can do that, and it is religion. Take the Mohammedan religion, where a great amount of temperance has been effected by religion; nothing else than religion will protect people against themselves. Therefore I am always a little surprised at the churches wanting to use the fleshly weapon too much, and the spiritual too little. I feel strongly that only by forming the views of the people shall we be able to do much in reducing the drink evil. Education in the spiritual sense will increase temperance, but the churches, instead of doing that, are possibly going a little too far in their striving for local option, etc. Will the power of the Bible be less than that of local option? I think that we should devote our attention more to educating public opinion on the proper use and the impropriety of abuse of drink. The object should not be to remove all temptations, because then we should be creating another source of temptation. All the people do not want to be abstainers, and the latter should not therefore attack other people so much. I do not care for smoking, but on that account I may surely not prohibit others from smoking. We must take the line of not fighting against the use, but the abuse of drink, and I think the crux of the matter lies in this provision. We must be careful not to protect the people against itself by compulsion.

I agree with the Minister that it is advisable to establish a sound public opinion, but I am perfectly certain that the sound public opinion which has already been established in this country goes much more strongly in favour of the Minister’s views of three years ago than the views he has expounded this afternoon. I have risen to appeal to the Minister to allow us to abide by the Bill, and withdraw his amendment. If there is one thing more certain than another to anybody who knows this country and is obliged to move about in various places, and at various hours, it is that the evil of drinking so far as bars are concerned, is very largely confined during the hours of 10 o’clock in the evening and later periods. Here in this one street alone,—and I speak of what I have seen—between here and the railway station there are four bars and I have on more than one occasion seen young fellows come out of a bar in the upper part of the street and as they went along, if they had not had so much temptation they would have gone down to the railway station and gone home. They went into one bar after the other after 10 o’clock or half past 10 at night, and it is only too easy to conceive what will be the end of these young people eventually. I agree with the Minister that you cannot make people temperate by Acts of Parliament, but I say that Parliament should adopt certain reasonable precautions so as not to put too much temptation in the way of people who are inclined to take too much drink. I can tell the Minister that so far as Australia is concerned, in Victoria, I believe, the bars are closed at 6 o’clock at night and I think the same in Western Australia. In New South Wales they close at 8 and in Queensland at 9. To show the Minister how this works, I was at a place in New South Wales where the border of that State joins the border of Queensland. In New South Wales the hotels close at 8 and in Queensland at 9 and there was a regular pathway across from the one side to the other owing to the fact that one bar closed an hour later than the other. I only use that as an argument to show to the Minister that if he will not press for these later hours which his amendment does press for, I really think he will be doing a good national service. That is my conviction from a good deal of experience, and while I do not in any way want to pose as desiring that the people of this country should grow up in puritanical habits, I do say that as far as late night privileges for the sale of liquor are concerned, they are not in the interests of the general section of the population and especially not in the interests of the younger section of the population, and on that ground I would appeal to the Minister to let the clause stand in the Bill as it is. I believe, as I said before, that he would have the strongest public opinion in this country with him in adopting a policy of that character.

I hope the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and other members who adopt the total abstinence view will not go too far. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) painted a picture here of people drunk in the streets. We shall always have them, whether we close the bars at 9, 10 or 11 o’clock. But why should respectable people be so restricted? Why should the sale of drink stop at 10 o’clock? In the large towns and villages it only commences to get lively at 10 o’clock. Must grown-up people be told like little children, “You can get nothing more to drink after 10 o’clock?” I think it is ridiculous. Formerly the closing hour was 11 o’clock. *

Nine o’clock was proposed in the Bill.

Here we have a fair compromise to make it 10.30. I think that is early enough, and everybody ought to see the fairness of it.

I sincerely hope the Minister will abide by his amendment. I live in Johannesburg. The theatres there come out at 11 o’clock and you see a stream of people going to the Carlton Hotel, for instance. I have never seen any drunkenness at that time of night in Johanesburg. All this talk about late hours being a source of danger is wrong. I see as much of the country as most people and I very seldom see any drunkenness late at night. For a young nation like ours we are going in for far too much grandmotherly legislation. We are not a drunken nation. I admit there are certain fever spots which can be dealt with separately. But to have all this mollicoddling legislation forced upon us seems a wrong principle altogether. It will end up in a spirit of lawlessness such as they have in America. Instead of going to reputable places young people will go to dances and theatres with flasks in their pockets. I believe if the country wants to go “dry” we will all cheerfully submit, but until it decides to go “dry” we have no right to look upon the liquor trade as a sort of leper and outcast, and all these little petty restrictions seem to me against the spirit of a nation like ours, a nation of individualists, and I hope the Minister will stick to his amendment.

I think the Minister has done the churches a very great injustice by suggesting that they ought not to press for the assistance of the State in restricting the liquor traffic and preventing drunkenness. The Minister made out that the churches merely wanted to make a fleshly weapon of the State. The churches want in the first place to exercise moral influence, and to form a healthy public opinion. The Minister will surely agree that the State is called upon to cooperate with the Church in this respect, and that the Church has the fullest right to insist on legislation so that the temptation before the population can be reduced. If the churches have not a right to come to the State in connection with such matters, then the position will indeed be pitiable. The Church appreciates the great influence of the material circumstances of the people, upon which they have to work to acquire spiritual influence. What folly it would be for the Church to do spiritual work in District 6, if at the same time it neglected to call forcefully upon the State for proper housing. They hang together, and where we see that the State has the power to remove temptations to drunkenness from weak people it is the duty of the Church to insist on the State doing so. As the Church knows that there are so many licensed places to-day that are a tremendous temptation to the man who cannot resist them, especially so in the late hours of the night, the Church is entitled to call upon the State to restrict the hours. It is not a question of abstinence or prohibition. Between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. enough liquor can be bought and sold, and I think 10 o’clock is fair. I think that the restriction of the hours is one of the chief means of fighting drunkenness. Thousands of families, mothers and children, will be glad if the bars and other drinking places are not kept open so late at night, and the Church will be grateful to the Minister if he makes the closing hour earlier. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) said that Col. Grey was in favour of the hotels keeping open to 11 o’clock. The hon. member clearly did not read the evidence. He suggested to the select committee: 10 a.m. till 2.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to. 9 p.m. That is 8½ hours, and he regards that as adequate. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this important point, and that the House will admit that the limitations of hours will contribute very much to reducing the drink evil. If the Minister’s amendment is passed, then the conditions in certain parts of our country, especially in the Cape Province and Natal, will be worse than before.

If everybody drank as little as I do we should have to introduce a new method of taxation. The customs dues would drop tremendously. I am a member of many clubs in Johannesburg. I do not go to the bar, but I do go to a club sometimes as late as 10.30 or 11 p.m., and I have seen comparatively little drunkenness, very little indeed, and I do not think the police need complain as far as the clubs are concerned. We are trying to make people sober by legislation,—at least some of our friends are. I sometimes wish they would succeed, but this is a wine-drinking country, a wine manufacturing country. We are exporting every year increasingly larger quantities of wine overseas. We are out to compete with wines which are imported, and you are trying to strangle the industry by this Bill. We might just as well introduce the law which they have in Greece in regard to the length of ladies’ dresses. You would have officials walking about with measures in Adderley Street and other streets seeing whether they complied with the law or not. We do not want that. I want the Minister to consider this: I am in agreement with his amendment, but there may be certain licensees in certain areas who do not want these facilities. Would he so make it that this would only apply with regard only to the increased payment of dues to those who desire the proposed increased facilities? You may have a certain area in which certain people do not wish to have their places open after certain hours. If you make this general there may be other places not desirous of doing that. I would suggest to the Minister that he should insert—

I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is again wrongly interpreting the Minister’s words about the Church. The Minister made no charge against the churches. He only expressed his opinion as to the most effective method for obtaining temperance, and this time he is right. It is certainly a fact that the more you prohibit liquor the more you induce people to disregard the prohibition. The wine farmer can drink day and night if he wishes to, and yet he drinks much less than the man who has less opportunity of getting liquor. In Europe some years ago I saw much more drunkenness in England, where liquor hours and bars were very much restricted, than in Holland, where there are just as many drinking places as cigar shops, and that is saying a good deal. Does the hon. member for Winburg think that anyone who is inclined to go to excess will drink less if he has to drink at times other than the hon. member wishes? In France, where anyone can drink as much wine as he wishes, there is much less drunkenness than in England. The laws regarding drunkenness are the same in both countries, and cases of drunkenness in England are five times as many as in France. The best way to make people temperate is to teach them temperance as the wine farmers do their children. If you go to work as the hon. member for Winburg wishes, you will encourage intemperance, however good your intentions may be. There are, e.g., more cases of drunkenness among the coloured people and natives of Pretoria and Johannesburg, where there is prohibition, than in the whole of the Cape Province.

If everybody was as sober as the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and his family, or the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), we would not need these restrictions as to hours or any other restrictions to be imposed on the trade.

Grandmotherly legislation.

Great-grandmotherly.

The necessity foï liquor legislation arises from the abuse of alcohol, and not if it is temperately used. Unfortunately, in this country, an increasingly large number of people, I am afraid, abuse alcohol, and it is for them that we have to legislate. It is idle for the hon. member to talk of the temperate man. We are forced to legislate because of those who abuse alcohol. As to those who are not temperate, it is proved that the greater opportunities you give them for drinking the greater the abuse. The evidence of the police given before the select committee was that, grandmotherly legislation or not, it is for the good of the country that you close down hotels and facilities for drinking at 10 o’clock. I ask hon. members not selfishly to think of their own privileges, but to remember that they are legislating for the common good. You cannot pass any measure of restrictive legislation without treading on somebody’s toes. Are we going to legislate on the principles of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), or are we going to cure the ills from which the country is suffering—ills which are filling the gaols as the result of the unrestricted sale of drink? To which class do we belong? It is idle to talk of grandmotherly legislation. It was generous of those who support temperance ideals to say that hotels shall be open till 10 p.m., whereas the original Bill said 9. That was a fair compromise, and was supported by police and other testimony before the select committee. We were wrong in specifying by name any four towns. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice—

This would mean a general 10 o’clock closing, but in towns with more than a 5,000 quota there may be an extension to 10.30. That is some reform, but not very much, on the present system. We are not legislating for good fellows like the Minister of Justice, but to remove temptation from the way of those who cannot help falling victims to the evils of liquor. I will quote from some of the evidence submitted to the select committee. Col. Grey, chief of the C.I.D at Pretoria, advocated shortening the hours immensely by cutting them down to eight and a half, but privileged hotels should he allowed to remain open later. Mr. Mitchell, chief of the Bloemfontein C.I.D., supported closing not later than 10 o’clock, as most men abuse liquor between 10 o’clock and midnight. Mr. Hime, chief magistrate of Maritzburg, thinks that 10 o’clock is late enough. Mr. Alexander, chief constable of Durban, said that the closing hour should not be later than 10 o’clock under any circumstances, and that there should be no preferential treatment. Col. Trew, Deputy Commissioner of Police, is of the opinion that 11 o’clock is late enough, and that drunkenness will be decreased by limiting the hours of sale. Maj. Trigger states that the restriction of hours has been beneficial, and he would support an absolute 10 o’clock closing hour and no privileges. Thus the police testimony is practically unanimous in supporting 10 o’clock closing. I beg the committee not to go a minute beyond 10.30: 11.30 would be simply disastrous. I cannot understand the Minister, who has to administer the criminal law, and knows what evils flow from excessive consumption of liquor, dreaming of pushing proposals into the Bill beyond the (original proposals and amendments suggested by the select committee.

I move—

Many members assume that by a stroke of the pen the Minister will be able to order every place to close at 11.30 p.m. This could not be done except with the authority of the licensing board, which would have to be satisfied that the reasonable requirements of the population demand the extension. If the licensing board comes to the conclusion that the hours should be extended it is unreasonable to say that bars must close earlier. So far as I know, the Minister was not a party to any compromise, but that was the action of the triumvirate. The argument which has been used is because some people abuse liquor we must all do without it. If a man cannot resist liquor he should be put under restraint; he should be put on the black list. To be told that because some people cannot resist liquor we must all be deprived, is going too far. If a man becomes drunk I would put him in an inebriates’ home and keep him there until he gets sober. This amendment is perfectly reasonable, and I hope the Minister will stick to it, and that he will get the necessary support to carry it through. There is a provision in the Cape and the Transvaal that, so far as a guest living on hotel premises is concerned, he has never been restricted. So far as I know at present, there is no restriction at all so long as it is for his own consumption. That I think should be provided for. If people come from abroad, and have been to the theatre at night, you should provide for them if they live in hotels. We are always glad to welcome the tourists, and one of the things we should provide for is that bona fide guests living on hotel premises should have facilities for obtaining liquor I am moving the amendment to the end of sub-section 7 that the hours shall not apply to guests living on the premises of an hotel provided the liquor is for the consumption of himself.

I am sorry that the Minister moved the amendment, and I want to appeal strongly to him to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). If he will not accept it, I hope the hon. member will ask for a division. We cannot adopt the standpoint that a man must not be protected against himself. All our legislation has that objective. Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot protect themselves and, therefore, we are here to pass laws. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) states that the late hours for the sale of drink do not increase drunkenness. If there is anything that is dangerous, it is the late hours at night when drink is sold. We see it every day about us, that when a man has once taken a little drink he wants more, and he will continue late into the night if he can. We cannot argue in that way and close our eyes. One of the best ways of fighting the drink evil is shortening the hours. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) said that the hon. member for Winburg would cause the consumption of liquor to increase. I hope that his opposition to the supporters of local option will become less on that account, seeing we are still assisting the wine farmers if the sale of liquor increases through our action.

I admit that this clause has been much debated, but I should be neglecting my duty unless I rose. I am sorry to see the changed attitude of the Minister. We are surely trying to make a good law. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) went so far as to say that we were trying to make a grandmotherly law. I have respect for everybody, but I can assure the Minister that the churches honestly desire to assist him to make a good law. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has given us to understand that we cannot prevent drunkenness by legislation. But what is the reason for this Bill? We are surely here trying to improve the legislation in connection with the abuse of liquor, and so to stop drunkenness. I am sorry that the speech of the Minister has given a wrong tone to the debate. I am not a total abstainer, but I am getting tired of the continuous sneering at the total abstainers, and I agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that we must not allow people to stand drinking the whole night. If they want to drink let them buy the liquor before the closing hour and go home and become drunk. What I cannot understand is that the Minister of Justice made an attack on the churches this afternoon.

It was not an attack.

I can assure the Minister that he would do well in attending carefully to what the churches say, because in our country the majority of the people still stand behind the Church. The Church merely aims at assisting the Minister to make a good law. I have assisted the Minister to that end as much as possible, and I will help him again, but he must not attack the churches.

It was not an attack at all.

The Minister knows that in his own district no less than 700 signatures were obtained from people who want the provisions of the liquor law made as strict as possible. I want to make it clear to the hon. members for Piquetberg and Port Elizabeth (Central) that I am not an abstainer, but that I am in favour of the fighting of one of the greatest evils. I am glad also that the Minister has not made it a party matter, so that we can all speak from conviction. The Minister said that if the opponents of restriction did not stop then a Bill on local option would be introduced next year. I hope that hon. members who do not agree with me will not be unreasonable.

I would like to ask the Minister what is going to be the position, if this amendment passes, in regard to the suburbs, say from Woodstock. When one goes home at night after leaving this House, one sees, for instance, a crowd of people coming out from the bioscope at Woodstock. There is also a bioscope at Rondebosch and one at Wynberg. Are you going to have the bars open so that these people can be supplied with drink?

It would be very unwise for the licensing court to allow it.

Are you going to allow them to allow it?

The licensing board would have power where the number of parliamentary voters is more than 5,000.

There are more than 5,000 parliamentary voters in that area.

It is a matter for the licensing court.

These are extensive powers to give them.

I think you may trust the licensing board.

It has been said, and my hon. friend the Minister has also argued, that you cannot make people sober by legislation. That may be the case, but you can make people more facilities you get for obtaining a drink, they have for obtaining drink. That is the universal experience. That is the practice now in most countries, English-speaking countries at any rate. The rule to go upon is to reduce, as far as practicable, the facilities for getting drink. Here, in this particular case, you are going to increase the facilities for getting drink by keeping bars open late at night. It is nonsense to say that the people who go to the theatres do not get drunk. That is not the point. There are heaps of people about at night who will keep going into a bar and having a drink. In my experience most of the people go straight home from the theatre. The point is that you give facilities for men who are wandering about the streets, to go into these bars, and thereby you increase drinking. It is the experience the world over that the more facilities you get for obtaining a drink the more drunkenness extends. I am very sorry that my hon. friend should have given way on this point.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think 10.30 is quite late enough. I am not a temperance man. On the contrary, I take liquor and I like it. But I know that the less drink I take the better it is for my health, and I also know that the sooner the licensed places close the less liquor I and my friends will take. I have had experience. I went to the theatre. I did not know that the bars closed at 10 o’clock. When I came out I was very anxious to have a drink, and I could not get a drink, and I had to go home without having a drink, and I think I was ever so much better for it. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), I think it is quite unnecessary to allow a man, simply because he happens to be sleeping at an hotel, to get liquor at 3 or 4 in the morning. The hon. member gave the case of a man who suddenly becomes ill. That does not often happen, and there are other medicines besides alcohol. It is open to abuse. A man may order liquor, and give it to his friends. Who is going to watch what he does with it once he gets it into his bedroom? I do not think a licensee would supply drink at 3 or 4 in the morning. I submit the amendment is quite unnecessary.

I was very impressed with the evidence brought forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), the evidence given by Col. Grey, and also their fine testimonial to the value of this gentleman’s evidence. But I am afraid if these two members will refer to page 565 of the official evidence they will find they have been rather misled by the expurgated evidence of the total abstinence party. I think it would be well for the House to consider this gentleman’s evidence as a whole. I think the clause quoted finished with “this alteration would diminish drunkenness greatly and facilitate police control,” and Col. Grey then goes on—

I should like the hon. members to listen to this personal expression of opinion by Col. Grey, who, according to these two hon. members, you can absolutely depend on, and whose advice you can take. He says—

You have to remember that this clause relates to bars, hotels and wine and malt liquor licences, and that the bars finish altogether in nine years’ time. It is quite clear that Col. Grey advises that in the larger towns the licensing boards should be permitted to fix the hour up till midnight. I do not suggest they should be permitted to do so, I am quite willing to take the Minister’s amendment, but I do say if we are going to quote evidence—

I did quote it, I gave the effect of it.

I did not understand the hon. member to say that Col. Grey was in entire disaccord with his views.

I read that out. If you don’t choose to listen I can’t help it.

It is quite clear that Col. Gray did not believe in doing what the hon. member advocates.

May I correct what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said? I just want to say that I expressly read that out.

I should like to read out what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has already quoted in part, namely, the evidence given by Col. Grey before the select committee. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has already mentioned part of what Col. Grey said, and I must admit he also mentioned that Col. Grey was in favour of hotels in the large towns keeping open to 11 or 12 o’clock. We must, however, not forget that a wrong impression is created by Col. Grey’s evidence. He spoke of bottle stores when he declared himself in favour of closing from 2.30 to 3 o’clock, but in connection with hotels his evidence is as follows. [Evidence read.] I want us to be very careful with this evidence. Col. Grey said very clearly that it was his conviction that people coming out of theatres or meetings wanted to take something, and that we had no right to prevent them. I admit that there is police evidence against him on the point. It is quite true, and I admit it. I personally think that we ought to pass the clause as it reads in the Bill, namely, that the places should close at 10.30. I am convinced that that is best, and I hope the Minister and the committee will agree to it. The prevention of drunkenness has been mentioned. Most drunkenness occurs on the Witwatersrand. Of the approximately 50,000 convictions for drunkenness, there were 28,000 on the Witwatersrand. I know, of course, that a considerable part represents natives, but the proposition that the opportunity makes the thief also applies to whites, and therefore we should allow as little opportunity for consumption of liquor as possible. That is the reason why I proposed that the police bars should be abolished, but I could get no support for that motion, not even from the abstainers. I want to say here that I agree that we should make different provisions for the large cities than for the countryside. Life in the towns is different from that in the country, and we must allow for it. We all want a sober nation. Both the supporters of temperance and the abolitionists want that. We all aim at stopping drunkenness. The question, however, is how to manage it, and about that we do not all agree.

Most of us, except a few extremists on either side, are satisfied that there must be reasonable facilities and also reasonable restrictions, the only point at issue being what are reasonable restrictions? I am entirely in agreement with the Minister’s amendment. Some of us run the danger of saying there is no need for these facilities because we do not require them our selves, but we must live and let live. Personally, I see no harm in a man who has been to a theatre going to an hotel for supper and having some wine or whisky with it. It does not follow that all these places will necessarily remain open until 11.30 p.m. We should be going much too far to adopt the very sweeping restrictions which have been proposed. Human nature is very imperfect, but we should do far more harm than good by trying to insist on what the rank and file generally consider to be unreasonable.

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

I move—

The arguments which have been adduced have convinced me more than ever that this amendment is necessary. A restaurant and café licence can be issued only in places where there are 5,000 registered voters. Most of the speakers will agree that no harm would result from people who have been to a theatre or bioscope and who may desire liquor going to a restaurant where they will be able to obtain drink with their food. This restaurant licence, if introduced into this clause, will give the opportunity for people who want it. I advocate this not merely for the convenience of it. Take the people who come into Cape Town from the country. Surely they must have an opportunity of a drink before returning on a cold winter’s night by motor car. If they want food they should have the opportunity of obtaining it, and this opportunity of putting “restaurants” in this clause is a reasonable thing to ask. From a temperance point of view, it has been argued that you will decrease drunkenness if you give people an opportunity of having a meal with a drink, and I hope the people who have been so eloquent on that point will support me. I therefore move the amendment in my name.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.