as Chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Port Beaufort Grant Amendment (Private) Bill, as follows:—

1. (1) By omitting all the words in lines 12 and 13;
2. (2) by inserting the following words after the word “access” in line 29: “and of unyoking cattle on such unoccupied land as shall be fixed upon for that purpose and the right of the Governor-General to resume any portion of the said land for public purposes, subject to the payment of compensation which, failing agreement, shall be fixed by arbitration” and
3. (3) by inserting the following words after the word “repealed” in line 32: “and that the said Mercantile Establishment shall be deemed to be dissolved.”

Such amendments being necessary to cover amendments proposed to be made in certain clauses of the Bill.

Report considered and agreed to; leave granted to amend the preamble in accordance with the report.

I wish to call attention to the new clause of the Railways and Harbours Service and Superannuation (Amendment) Bill which has been inserted by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. The subject of this clause (which is to amend a section of Act No. 24 of 1925 making provision for continuity of employment for pension purposes in the new fund) was not included in the Bill as read a second time but is, I think, sufficiently relevant to certain of the main provisions of the Bill to allow of its insertion by means of an instruction. The select committee should therefore have applied by special report for leave to insert this clause. Seeing, however, that the Bill has now been set down for committee stage, I would suggest that the Minister in charge of the Bill should move the instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.

You ought to give more time for it. It has to circulate all over South Africa. How can we have it carefully considered in that time? We have to carefully watch Bills of this kind.

I don’t mind. The hon. member need not get alarmed. There is plenty of time. Put it down for a fortnight to-day.

Bill to be read a second time on 5th March.

I move—

This is simply to give effect to the purpose for which the Cloete Act was originally introduced into the House to enable farmers to sell good wine in the manner indicated in that Act. It will lead to no abuse whatever, and the Minister ought to have no objection.

I move—

(3) The quantity of liquor to be sold or delivered by the holder of a brewer’s licence shall not be less than one gallon to be delivered at one time in receptacle or receptacles securely corked or stoppered.

and to omit sub-section (5).

The scope of the amendment is to make the amount to be sold under a brewer’s licence one gallon instead of two gallons. There is one brewery in South Africa, the Stag Brewery, which has disposed of its right of sale to the licensees of the “Amalgamated,” and there are a number of brewers who find it difficult to get their beer to the licensed houses owing to the ties we have in South Africa, and there will be small brewers who may come into existence at a later stage. The small men have made representations that it would be better to sell in one gallon instead of two gallons. We know, of course, that in the Transvaal, as far as beer is concerned, it is not one of the matters which is subject to the illicit trade. I do not think what I propose will cause any harm, but will give the small brewers a chance in the market of South Africa. As far as the big brewers are concerned, they have so many houses with which they deal that this is not necessary, and they have no substantial objection to the course which I propose being adopted, and which, I understand, they regard as fair.

I move—

Hitherto we have always had the right in the Cape Province to order a case of twelve bottles of wine from a farmer. It can surely not be said that the motion to allow an order of twelve bottles instead of twenty-four will increase drunkenness.

I move—

The clause will then read half a pint instead of a pint. I move it so as not to compel the poor man by law to buy more liquor than he requires, than he can afford, and in consequence of which women and children will suffer loss. I have a pamphlet in which Mr. Cook recommends the committee not to pass the amendment. That ought to be enough to make the Minister accept it.

It would be interesting if the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) would explain the reason for his amendment. I can hardly understand any ordinary wine farmer desiring to sell wine in a smaller wooden receptacle than one holding four gallons. Perhaps the hon. member desires that the wine should be sent out in paraffin tins. “So long as the farmer is carrying on a legitimate occupation, no one desires to hinder him.

I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) to the fact that there is no definition in the Bill of “unbroken case”. I have never yet heard of a reputed bottle, although I have heard of a reputed quart. Surely the amendment is not in order.

I support the Minister’s amendment. I know the circumstances of the particular brewery he mentioned, and I am satisfied that its trade is a perfectly legitimate one. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), we are proposing to make the proprietor of a bottle store pay an initial licence of £200, and afterwards an annual licence of £100, while the wine farmer will pay only £1 a year. The hon. member for Worcester proposes that the wine farmer should be allowed to sell his produce by the bottle. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and intention of the wine farmer’s licence. The whole idea is that the wine farmer should sell wine in bulk, and it would be unfair to the trade to permit him to sell by the bottle. The amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is foreign to the whole idea of the wine farmer’s licence. We were pressed in the select committee by trade representatives to lay it down that the wine farmer should be allowed to sell only to the wholesaler, and the latter only to the retailer. We rejected that suggestion. The amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) is dangerous, for if you allow liquor, especially brandy, to be sold in half-pint bottles, you will, play into the hands of the illicit dealer. Fancy a bottle store registering the sale of a half-pint bottle!

It has been argued that if any individual is licensed to distribute a particular article, he should be protected. That is a very dangerous argument. If the argument is good that the wine farmer should be prevented from undertaking a reasonable distribution of his produce, because certain other individuals are licensed to sell wine, you could argue that because a butcher is licensed to sell meat, a sheep or cattle farmer should not be permitted to sell meat direct to the public. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) could show that the system has been abused by the wine farmer, then he would have a case. People who pay licences certainly should have a fail-measure of protection, but the first person to be considered is the producer and not the distributor. There is a guarantee against abuse, because a wine farmer is compelled to keep books showing his sales. There is a tendency on the part of some members to confine dealing in liquor to the big merchants.

I understand that in the interests of temperance a farmer should not be allowed to sell his wine direct to the consumer, but must sell to the wine merchant. It is a question of selling direct to the wine merchant, and it is to the interests of the liquor trade to sell to the wine merchants. My view is identical with that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and I do not see why this House, in the interests of the wine merchant, should insist on the farmer being handed over to a body of merchants, and have to sell his product to them willy nilly. We should leave the farmer free to sell to those from whom he can get the best value. The amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) is a question of selling by the case, and I think this House should accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that, if it is necessary, in order to control this trade, a register should he kept by the farmer of the persons to whom he has delivered his wine. That would be perfectly fair and reasonable. I have been rather astonished at the objection to the half-pint bottle suggested by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). The half-pint bottle has been a way to temperance.

No, only a half-way.

There are hundreds of men to-day who have a nip of wine at their meals and it does them a great deal of good. If it were not for the nip they would have to take a pint bottle. I cannot, therefore, see why anybody should object to the innocent nip. My only suggestion to the hon. member who has moved this amendment is that he should delete the words “twelve reputed” in order that any size bottle may be used provided that the total amount of liquor in the case shall not be less than two gallons. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie—

I thought my amendment was so reasonable that it would be accepted by the House, and I must say I am surprised at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The Cloete Act was originally designed to make provision for sales of this kind. Mr. Cloete made a high-class wine which he wished to bottle and sell to the public. To that there would have been no objection, and if it had been confined to that we should not have had the opposition to the Cloete Act, but, afterwards, amendments were introduced giving them power to sell in casks and other receptacles. I am asking you simply to sell in cases properly bottled and cased. Anyone understanding the casing business will know it is an expensive operation, and would not be carried on by anyone only people of standing making a high-class wine. I am not interested in the further amendment, but I hope my amendment will be accepted because it makes provision for the farmer selling high-class wine. There were only two wine farmers I knew who sold bottled and cased wine, and they were the late Mr. Henry Cloete and the late Mr. Merriman.

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) which is better. That proposes to continue the rights we had in the past. They have never been abused.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Mr. de Waal, Mr. Stuttaford and Mr. Heatlie, withdrawn.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). It is the law to-day in the Free State. The bottle stores-may sell a half-pint, and it is largely a benefit to the working class that it should remain so. If you do not allow it, they are compelled to buy a whole pint bottle and often cannot afford it. I have a letter here from a wholesale firm to show that it is a popular custom here in the case of stout. This firm says they can sell nips wholesale, but not through the bottle store. Doctors may order nips of stout at different times, and it would be unfair to say the patients must take pint bottles. The amendment says the bottle stores may sell by the half-pint, but, of course, it is better for the bottle store to sell by the pint. The object of the opponents may be to see that a man does not get it at all, but that is unreasonable. It is a great public convenience. In the Cape we have been in the habit of selling these nips of stout in the way mentioned above, and this is a good opportunity of limiting the amount to half-pints in the case of bottle stores.

I think the whole objection that has been discussed in this House on various occasions to the Cloete Act was that the Cloete Act allowed four gallons of wine to be sold in an open receptacle, and the result was some people sold wine in a paraffin tin, and it was taken a short distance away and was drunk on the roadside, and you saw disgraceful cases of drunkenness. This Act makes provision that in the wood the farmer shall not sell less than four gallons. The ordinary wooden receptacle holds five gallons, and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) moved two gallons, and that is why I opposed it. Casks are very expensive things, but there is something in the contention of the hon. member for Worcester that the legitimate farmer should be allowed to sell two gallons bottled and properly cased. The idea, so long as you have not prohibition in this country, is, if possible, to make this a wine-drinking country and not a brandy-drinking country, and under those circumstances I consider that the sale to which the hon. member refers, the sale, for instance, by the estate belonging to the late Mr. Cloete and the estate belonging to the late Mr. Merriman, and now belonging to Mr. Nicholson, is a business that should be encouraged People who live up-country and desire to buy a pure wine, should have the opportunity of ordering it direct from the farmer where it is properly bottled and securely cased. The whole idea of this legislation is to prevent the abuse of drink and do everything we can to stop these orgies which were constantly carried on so long as you were able to buy 4 gallons of wine in an open receptacle. I can well understand a certain section of people objecting to this, but I say that in the interests of the wine farmer—and it certainly is not against the interests of temperance—while it is lawful to sell 4 gallons one ought to be allowed to sell 2 gallons in a properly closed case.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) is concerned, and what was said by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), there is nothing in that amendment to make it clear that it means 12 bottles of the same type of liquor. It speaks about 2 gallons contained in these bottles, but does not say whether they shall contain the same kind of liquor. I have no objection to the amendment provided it reads in this form: “or unbroken case containing 12 quarts or 24 pint bottles of liquor of the same kind.” I think that is the intention of the hon. member. In regard to the pint and the half pint, I have no knowledge of any misuse of the half-pint. The half-pint was a form which was very popular, especially a few years ago. It has perhaps been losing in popularity since. I have not seen so many of these “nips” for some years. As a matter of fact, I was privileged to see one of these bottles on the table here, although I did not partake of it, and I must say looking at the shape of the bottle, from an artistic point of view, it seemed to me there was a lot to be said for having a half pint of this class. I have not heard of any abuse as far as the half pint bottle is concerned, and personally I have no strong objection to that amendment being carried into force.

I will move my amendment In the terms suggested by the Minister. That amendment carries out my intention, and I therefore move—

If the wine farmer wants to sell by the bottle, he is competing with the wholesale dealer. There is no objection to his competing with the wholesale dealer if he does so on equal terms, viz., he must apply for a licence and pay for it. Why should the wine farmer pay £1 and the wholesaler £100?

We always treat the farmers rather differently.

I appreciate the enormous amount of attention which my hon. friend (Dr. H. Reitz) has given to this Bill, but he has evidently not given the same attention to this particular section as he has to the other sections. If he studies the wine trades all over the world, he will find that the great wines of the world are made by the producer in his own cellar. The fact that we have not made so much progress with our wine industry as we might have done, is owing to this,—that the farmer sells his product to other people, who manipulate it. If you are going to have a really good wine made in this country, you must encourage the man who makes the wine to treat it and manipulate it himself in his own cellar, and if he is going to get any financial consideration for doing that, he must have an opportunity of selling that wine in cases direct to the consumer. What is the difference between the wine farmer and the grain farmer and the sheep farmer? They all must have a right to sell without abuse their product to the consumer and it is on that account that my hon. friend (Mr. Heatlie) has moved that the wine farmer who matures his own wine, puts it in the bottles and cases. He should have an opportunity of sending it over the country to legitimate buyers, who will have an opportunity not alone of getting a good article, but also an opportunity of getting it at a cheaper price. The other sections of the trade to which my hon. friend (Dr. H. Reitz) refers, are sufficiently strong to look after themselves. It would be a very serious thing for this committee to prevent the producer from selling his product in the very best possible way, in which he can put it on the market.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the wine farmers’s licence deals only with the produce of that wine farmer. It does seem to me that there is something in what was said by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). Would there not be a danger of a wine farmer going and buying wine from other people and selling it?

He can only sell his own product.

Is that in the law?

It is provided for in Clause 88.

Amendments proposed by Mr. A. S. Naudé and Mr. Heatlie put and agreed to.

On the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice,

What is the idea of this amendment—because this Bill elsewhere makes stringent provision that an on-consumption licensee shall not sell for off-consumption. This sub section 5 appears to be to carry out that idea. If this is going to be taken out then it seems to me that the licensee will be able to sell larger quantities, and that seems contrary to the idea of Clause 80.

There are other provisions in this Bill dealing with that matter, but it won’t do any harm to leave this clause in.

Last part of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice withdrawn; first part put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 77,

I have a small amendment here, and I hope it will appeal to the Minister. Apparently this clause lays down, and is intended to lay down, that liquor shall only be consumed in the dining room or the bar. It seems to me that to make a restriction like that is not going to prevent any abuses. I have not heard of any abuses through drink being consumed on a verandah, for instance, or in the sitting room of hotels. This is just one of those irritating little clauses. I asked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) what was the intention of the committee in drafting this clause; was it that liquor should only be consumed in the bar or the dining room, and he answered in the affirmative. Is there any objection to a man having a drink on a verandah, or to a man who hires a private suite of rooms having a drink there? It is irritating to put in clauses of this description, and I hope the House will say that liquor may be consumed anywhere on licensed premises; I care not whether it is the sitting room, the dining room, the verandah or the bar. I have never heard of drunkenness occurring through men having a drink on the stop. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It would meet the reasonable wishes of the public. I move—

It is very essential to maintain these words for this reason, that there are certain cases in certain localities in which there may be a, suspicion that some part of the premises may be used for illicit trade. You may have a back yard, or back rooms, and where there is a particular type of house of that kind, although it cannot be proved up to the hilt, it may be useful for the licensing board to have the power to cut down part of the house in which liquor may not be supplied.

What is the present law?

The whole of the premises are licensed, but now they are to have the power to say that some portion is the only portion on which drink can be supplied. They may restrict it to the bar and dining room, or to three rooms. But I think it is a very necessary power to place in the hands of the licensing board, and I do not think that is one of the things that would he abused by the board.

I do not quite agree with the Minister. There are many men who do not go into a bar, and who would like to be served in other rooms. A board might apply this to the best hotels, which would be absolutely fatal to them.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 80,

The trouble about Clause 80 is this, that if you take sub-section (2) that hangs together with Clause 63, and therefore as Clause 63 is standing over I should imagine the best way would be to let this clause stand over. I move—

Clause 63 stood over simply because it provided one, particular remedy for this vexed question of off sales. If the Minister wants further time to consider the ultimate solution he intends adopting for this problem, none of us would object.

The trouble about discussing it is that I feel strongly that the way of dealing with this matter is to allow hotels to keep their off sales for a length of time. The amended form of Clause 63 will be to give that right for a length of time. What we might put in would be that sub-section (2) is subject to the provisions of Clause 62 We might leave it over, so that the two can be dealt with together.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 81,

I move—

I think that the attitude I have adopted in this House has shown that I have always been desirous of seeing the coloured and the native people of this country as temperate as you can possibly make them, and I do not think it is right in an Act dealing with the supply of liquor, by a side issue, to take away from a certain class of people rights which they have held for over 75 years. In Act No. 39 of 1887 the late Mr. Hofmeyr introduced a measure which has ever since been known as the Hofmeyr Act. Hon. members of the committee who took an interest in the Native Administration Act of last year will remember that I then brought that question prominently before the House, because I considered it most unfair and injudicious to take away from people rights which you had given them, which were embodied in the old Cape constitution, and further entrenched when the Cape franchise was altered in 1887 by the Act introduced by Mr. Hofmeyr, which made special provision that natives who had qualified themselves as voters should have every right that the European voter possessed. It was unnecessary for these voters to come under the Location Act, to carry passes and things of that sort, and I know from experience that even the tampering of this Act in the native Bills of last year has caused much unrest in the native mind in this country. If there is one thing the native appreciates more than another, it was the Act of 1887, which Tengo Jabavu and other leaders of native opinion have called the Magna Charta of the native; that is, so long as he raised himself in the scale you make no difference between him" and the European voter. I know there are certain classes of people who are advocates of temperance reform who consider that if an amendment of this nature is carried it will do damage to the cause of sobriety. I do not agree with that, because those people who sell liquor illicitly are not native registered voters, but very often European registered voters are the main source of the supply of illicit liquor. I would like my hon. friend, the Minister, to say that we should not draw a colour bar in this Bill, which we have drawn often enough. If the amendment is accepted, I will move the deletion of Clause 82 for the same purpose, and in Clauses 95 and 96 propose to substitute a new clause. I am not personally in favour of Government liquor shops, and I shall vote against them when they come before the committee. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. I can assure him and many other hon. members who know the native people know that they are viewing with suspicion a clause of this character. I do say a principle of that sort is unjust and unrighteous, and is bound to have a most deleterious effect on the native mind. If my hon. friend the Minister sees the character of these native voters in the Eastern Province, he will see it is an injustice to put them on a worse footing than Europeans, and those Europeans who have not raised themselves to the same scale of civilization that our native voters have done.

I said last year when we had the Native Administration Bill that a discrimination based on whether a man is a registered voter or not is an absurd one, and the Hofmeyr Act is a ridiculous Act. All that remains of that Act is that a man who is a registered voter has a right to drink; all the other points have disappeared and become obsolete. All that remains of the “Magna Charta” is the Magna Charta with regard to drink. This is the most extraordinary Magna Charta in the world. I have never heard of a more absurd one. I would not like any Act of mine to go down with such a stupid provision in it. I would not have anything to do with the Act if a clause like that is passed. The colour bar means a discrimination as far as the economic position of different sections of the population is concerned. The colour bar does not refer to matters where one is trying to save a section of the population which may have a temptation owing to its standard of development to consume too much liquor. If we use the issue of the colour bar for such a thing, we are simply causing feeling by loose terminology. We have just passed a discrimination. Read Clause 78, sub-section (2). If that was not meant for the natives and coloured population, I do not know to whom it refers. Now we are told there must be no discrimination, and that we must not take away rights which the natives and coloured people have had for 75 years. What about the tot system which the farmer has practised for 100 years? Or is it the position that we must not take away rights from the native and coloured population, but we can take them away from the European population? There is a special clause (No. 103) which provides that exemption be given in certain cases. We can deal on a larger scale with this exemption in the Cape Province than we can in the other provinces, for it can be given to everybody of decent character. That is the only possible way of dealing with the problem. There is not the faintest idea of discriminating against the native or the coloured population. This, however, is discrimination entirely in their favour. I have no doubt that this will be used to influence the native and coloured vote in the Cape Province, but I want to make my position perfectly clear. I believe that these sections are going to assist the coloured and native population much more than any discrimination based on a man’s being, or not being, a registered voter. I have seen very many drunken voters, and I challenge anyone opposite to say that they have not seen drunken voters in the Cape Province.

White or coloured?

Of all types. It is ridiculous to say that if a man has a certain educational or financial status, he is going to use his liquor better than a man who has not those qualifications. The whole thing is absurd. The only honest and straightforward way of dealing with the matter is this: are we prepared to say that there should be a discrimination in favour of the coloured people? If we do not wish to take up that position, the next thing to say is: allow the present position to continue and allow them to have drink as they are allowed to have it to-day. Don’t let us have by side winds which are really intended to influence the next election in the same way in which we had discussions—[“No.”]—Oh, yes; in the same way, but to a greater extent than in the discussion in the initial stages of this Bill. Will hon. members opposite deny that this whole matter was settled in their caucus? The intention in bringing out this amendment was merely to make political capital out of the whole matter. I don’t want party lines on this subject. I have said that from the start, and no one can accuse me of wanting to extract political advantage. Will hon. members opposite deny that they held a caucus meeting on this matter? There is not a single section of the Bill that I have asked my party to hold the caucus meeting about. The whole Bill in its general lines was placed before the Nationalist caucus 18 months ago, but I have not placed any section before the caucus. We should secure, as far as humanly possible, the best possible Bill without thinking about party advantage. If one reads the Hofmeyr Act, one sees that it contains internal evidence that the different parties at that time sparred with each other for party advantage. Were it not for political advantage, an Act of that ridiculous nature would never have been passed. If you read it, you would think it impossible for anybody to have put it on paper. It disgusts me to think that the Act should be pinned to the name which fathers it. We cannot have better provisions on this subject than the provisions already in the Bill. If we are going to have discrimination, we must have it, and if we have it plus exemption, nobody can suffer. I was much impressed by the arguments with regard to coloured wine shops in the Transvaal, and I have given notice to deal with that clause. I have discussed the matter with respectable coloured men in Johannesburg, and they told me that they had no desire to have unrestricted opportunities of obtaining liquor, but they wanted at certain times to be able to buy a bottle of liquor. Your decent coloured man will be dealt with under the exemptions. What is good enough for them in the Transvaal should be good enough for them here. Here they will have a right which they have not in the Transvaal. Your ordinary decent coloured man is going to be satisfied with this provision, and so far as the Cape Province is concerned we are not going to take away the right of a decent man to get his liquor from the bottle store. That provision is quite sufficient for all these purposes. I don’t say that we should not use that provision in as sparing a way as in the north, but give it to every decent man who will not misuse it. Otherwise we shall have somebody outbidding the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt); then you may have party advantage displayed somewhere else. I am not going to outbid the right hon. member. I am going to stand by the section which offers the best possible solution of the difficulty. Either we are going to assist a section of the population or we are not. If we are not it does not matter very much whether the amendment is persisted in or whether there is an outbidding amendment to keep the position exactly as it is to-day. Last year the House repealed the provisions of the Hofmeyr Act, but they were restored to a certain extent in another place. If that Act was repealed last year, I have no doubt the House will be of the same opinion this year. It may be that another place believed it was wrong, but I should imagine that this will not change this House from the opinion which it expressed so clearly last year.

I do not think my hon. friend has made a careful study of the Hofmeyr Act. The whole principle was to encourage the native who became civilized and became a registered voter by giving him certain privileges others of his race did not possess. The proposal in this Bill is to take away those privileges. The Minister may scoff at the late Mr. Hofmeyr as much as he likes, but when the Minister arrives at the same political scale as the late John Henry Hofmeyr arrived at, he will be in a more exalted position than merely the leader of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal. I am as anxious as the Minister to see that drink is kept away from a large section of the native and coloured people of the country. No one knows better than I do the fearful scenes on Saturday evenings in various towns and their vicinities throughout the Western Province and the Cape, but the Bill itself makes provision for exempting special classes. It makes provision for drink to be refused to particular classes of people, whether native or coloured, and you have no right in a Bill of this character to take away from the native people rights they have possessed for 75 years. The franchise gave them the same status before the law as the European, and it is unfair and unjust to take these rights away. I can afford to put on one side the cheap sneers of the Minister. If he has used his influence in the country for political consideration irrespective of his convictions, there is no reason why anyone else should do it. I have always maintained the right of the registered coloured voter, and I want the committee to thoroughly understand that so far as drunkenness and insobriety are concerned, the Bill, as it stands, can put that down. It is not the native voter that is causing a lot of this trouble in the Western Province, but it is because a certain class has a perfect right to get as much liquor as it desires. All my amendment says is that the rights you have given to the native people for 74 years, rights which they prize very much indeed, should not be taken away by any side issue. If you propose to take them away do it in a straight way which everybody knows the meaning of.

I am surprised the Minister has charged us with looking at this Bill from a party point of view.

No, I said this section.

Even this section. There has been no question of party. Cleavages have cut across all parties. The Minister has no right to ask us what happened in any caucus. If they had a caucus in this House—a Labour caucus—would not the Minister be breaking his vows of secrecy if he stood up and told us what was said? I will tell him every word of what happened in our caucus if he will tell us what happened in the Labour caucus of late, but let me say this, in no caucus which we have held have we discussed this Bill from a party point of view. It would be nonsense to say that we have not discussed this Bill. What are we here for? But we have not discussed it from a party point of view, and it is not right for the Minister to demand from us what was done in caucus. To do so would break every canon and law of secrecy imposed upon us, and I am only sorry the Minister even referred to it. The Minister need only watch the divisions to see that on this side of the House, and I am satisfied it is the same on that side of the House, there have been no party divisions. My difficulty with regard to Clause 81 is this: I realize there are black spots, especially in the Western Province, but I think this clause has too wide an application. It applies all through the Union where these difficulties do not exist. Assuming the Wynberg Licensing Board made Wynberg a restricted area. What would be the result? Are we not going to have the same piebald patchwork we should have under local option? Assuming Wynberg closed the place down to coloured persons, should we not encourage bootlegging and illicit liquor selling? Section 56 of this law seems to meet the case, and I do not see why you should have sections 81, 96 and 102 at all, because they all seem to deal with the same thing. Under this section the liquor court has ample power to deal with the black spots. The Government is now practically indicating to the liquor licensing courts in the Western Province that they have to impose what is tantamount to local option in the Western Province, and I am afraid you are going to have a piebald result, and that bootlegging and illicit dealing will take place between the open sections and the closed sections. I admit there are cancer spots for particular classes which require to be drastically dealt with, but I am not clear how you are going to do it. In view of the American example, we must think carefully as to the manner in which we are going to deal with these black spots. The question to me is whether we are not going to make the position worse than before. We have a lot of drunken ness amongst certain classes, and now we are, in addition, to make criminals of them in the bargain. I doubt if section 81 is going to deal with these black spots, and therefore I do not think what we are doing will meet the trouble.

I am sorry the Minister has made reference to what took place in the caucus, because I think that if he was going to place any reliance upon what happened there, he should have waited until some decision has been come to before criticizing, or before making up his mind to sneer at us. I was one of those who brought up this question, but, and before the caucus could discuss the matter, the Minister had already made up his mind not to consider the position at all. The Minister is very particular about his caucus, and if he is so particular about his caucus he should have said to those who brought him the information that he would not listen to tale-bearers, but would at least wait until a decision had been come to.

I did not speak to any South African party man.

It is very strange that a South African party man came to me before we came to any decision, and said that the Minister would not accept it. I have been consistent in this matter throughout. I have always opposed any colour bar, and I am proud that as in this instance I have always opposed it in every possible way. If the Minister had taken the trouble to see that large section of the coloured community here who desired to see him, he would have understood their viewpoint. I presented a petition signed by 10,334 coloured people, amongst whom there are a large number who are strong temperance advocates. I have spoken to these temperance advocates since then, and their main point is that, while they want everything done to prevent drunkenness amongst the coloured people, they do oppose, and oppose strongly, that we should legislate in regard to colour and colour alone. I think the House should know the terms of this petition. [Petition read.] I would like to draw attention especially to the last clause, which reads—

We are asking for nothing more than that. If the Minister can propose a method by which he object he has in view can be gained without introducing a colour bar, we shall be prepared to accept it. We do say that there is nothing easier than to eliminate all reference to colour. It is perfectly simple, and I do not understand why the colour bar should be introduced here at all. I want to appeal to the Minister to consider the position. I wish to help him in every way to diminish the evils which we know of, but these evils are not confined to the coloured people alone. We have a large number of poor whites flocking into the town. If anybody would take the trouble to go to, say, District 6, where these men are congregating now, he would find that there is as much evil amongst the poor whites as you would find anywhere in the province amongst the coloured people. If the Minister would agree to eliminate the colour bar and make his provision applicable to white, coloured and black alike, we will support him in every possible way, but while that colour bar exists, we in principle must oppose him as far as we possibly can.

I move—

My object is to try, if possible, to see that there shall be no trouble in regard to off sales by hotels and bars. The idea of this amendment is that a person shall be able to get liquor in quantity as may be supplied by bottle stores, and hotels and wholesalers, but on producing this particular permit, and this permit must be granted to persons whom they do not suspect of illicit liquor dealing and the like. What you are aiming at in connection with this Bill is to do away with drunkenness. I have told the farmers time after time that unless they step in and put an end to the drunkenness which we see about the streets of Paarl. Wellington, Worcester, Kuils River and a good many other places in the Western Province, they are going to have trouble with the teetotalers. What is the reason for this state of things? It is, firstly, on account of women having been supplied with drink. Under this permit system women will not be able to secure these permits so easily. In the second place, my view of a farm like that of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) is that I do not see why a boy on the farm who receives his tot should be supplied with a permit to obtain liquor in the town. That is why I am moving this amendment and why I am moving in Clause 81 to delete these words. These coloured people have been with us for many years, and Asiatics have been allowed to come into this country, and their children have grown up with us and have no other domicile. The same with the Cape coloured men, they have been born with us, they live with us, they are part and parcel of us, and I say we should not discriminate. When I say they are part and parcel of us, I mean they want to be treated politically and economically on the same lines, but they do not want to be one of us socially. These people are born and bred in our very midst, and they should have the same opportunities as we have.

A very important principle is undoubtedly at stake. The reason the natives look upon this Act as their Magna Charta is this. You laid it down that to become a voter you must be able to do certain things, and it was said to the native, “As we are admitting you to equality with Europeans as far as the vote is concerned, you will not in any future Act of Parliament be treated differently from the European voter.” That is the basis of that Act. Let me disabuse the Minister’s mind of one thing. The coloured people all over the Union, except for certain temperance sections who would like to do away with drink altogether, the coloured people of Natal, the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape all feel this is a stigma upon them. The Minister may think it is absurd, but when you are dealing with questions of stigma in regard to race and colour, the feelings of the men concerned are most important. I have a resolution here from the African National Bond in the Cape. These are coloured voters who have joined the Nationalist party. This is a resolution passed at a meeting held in Cape Town on the 13th of February, and this resolution was carried unanimously—

As far as the coloured people supporting the Nationalist party in the Cape are concerned, they unanimously ask the Government not to leave these restrictive clauses in. I had a deputation to-day from Port Elizabeth, East London, King Williamstown and Queenstown representing the natives in those areas. They are dead against these provisions. They say, “It is a degradation of our status as natives,” so the natives feel degraded and the coloured, people feel degraded. There is a deep-seated, feeling of resentment in the minds of both the natives and the coloured people against this clause. At least let the Minister understand that. They feel it very seriously indeed, they feel it is a discrimination. You have no right to deal with races in this way. You have no right to say that the native is to be prevented except by special pass from taking his glass of wine. You have no right to say that any coloured person cannot take his bottle of wine home. If you want to discriminate, you must discriminate against individuals if they do not behave themselves, not against a race. Last year in regard to the Native Administration Bill I took up the same attitude. There is an important principle at stake here, and that is as to whether you have any right to brand a whole body of people belonging to a particular race or colour under a liquor law and say that if a man is white—he may belong to the poor white class, and through no fault of his own has sunk in the scale—“We are not going to deprive you of liquor,” but when it comes to the natives they are not to have liquor without special permit, and to the coloured men they must not buy it for off consumption. We know exactly how it is going to apply. There is no particular class of whites which is going to be singled out by the licensing board not to have liquor, or we should have serious trouble. I know perfectly well that, as far as the whites are concerned, this particular law is not going to be applied at all. It is going to be applied solely to the natives and coloured people. I say the remedy here is worse than the disease. The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) has come forward with this heroic proposal that we must all get permission from the magistrate before we can have our glass of beer. It has one advantage that we cannot have colour restrictions, and it is improving the clause. But it is practically total prohibition at the whim of magistrates of South Africa, and I do not know whether we have arrived thus far. If you consider a man is fit to elect the men who pass all the laws for the country, surely he can be treated for the purpose of this law the same as any European. In fact, we have been told it is the policy of the Government to take in the coloured man with the European. Apart from the prohibitionists or temperance party of the coloured people, they protest against unfair discrimination.

I cannot understand why this discussion is raised in this form on this section; if my hon. friends from the Cape had reserved their fire until Clauses 82, 95 and 96 were reached, I could have understood it. On the face of it, this section applies to all the provinces of South Africa, and in three out of four the coloured people by law are prohibited from obtaining liquor. Then it goes on to refer to women and classes of women. There might be certain bars which confine themselves to poor whites who are better kept out of them. I know of a bar in which hundreds of poor whites, when they obtain their pittance of a wage, have spent it in that manner by purchasing liquor. I can understand the licensing board saying it will cancel the licence if the bar sells to those people. The bar can have its ordinary trade. The licensing board may say—

In regard to the poor whites, and I am not using the term as a reproach, you might have invidious position of saying that you are not to serve any of these gentlemen unless they are on the roll. Whether they are on the roil or not, the mischief will be equally great, if they are served with liquor. If women obtain the franchise, a woman may be a street walker and say she is on the roll and wants a drink. The state of affairs in the Western Province in the country districts may be such that the provision may be applied to a class. In dealing with the broad principle raised by the amendment by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I stand with the Minister entirely on this clause, and whatever may be said about the feelings voiced by Dr. Rubusana and others, one of the greatest exponents of native opinion, and universally recognized as such, is Senator Roberts, chairman of the Native Affairs Commission, who gave evidence before the committee (question 286, page 61). Senator Roberts was asked—

To this the reply was Yes. The chairman asked him whether a native has a vote or not, and the reply was Yes. The chairman said—

He replied—

It is suggested because a native is a voter by the mere accident of registration, that as such he becomes a man not imbued with temptation in regard to liquor—not only himself, but his compatriots. We have in the Transvaal natives quite as civilized as the coloured men in the Cape, but no one proposes to give the former liquor. I have evidence that many a native in the Cape Province has become registered as a voter simply in order to obtain the privilege of obtaining liquor. That point was put to Dr. Roberts (page 99). He was asked by Mr. Blackwell—

and his reply was—

He was asked by Mr. Barlow—

He replied—

He was asked—

His reply was—

The views of Dr. Roberts as a member of the Native Affairs Commission are entitled to respect. It is perfectly obvious that though we have to take drastic steps to put an end to the existing state of affairs in the Cape Province, we must see that a respectable coloured man has an opportunity to purchase liquor. Clause 103 was never drafted for that purpose, but for giving individual exemption by the Minister in rare cases, and it refers only to light wine and beer. The Minister should say that he is prepared to accept something on these lines—that magistrates in the Cape Province may grant a certificate of exemption to any reputable coloured householder, the certificate to last for a year and to be renewable unless there is good reason to the contrary. I agree with the Minister that it is ridiculous to talk about this as a colour bar. In any case the Bill is full of colour bars, against which no Cape member has voted up to the present.

We say, don’t prevent a man having a right to obtain liquor on account of his colour.

Will the hon. member vote against the existing prohibition in Natal and the Free State?

My hon.

friend said he did not know why the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) introduced his amendment, and then he proceeded to give excellent reasons why it should be introduced in this case, showing clearly that this was the first clause on which the matter could be dealt with. I am against the drunkenness of the coloured people or any drunkenness. I sat on the 1918 select committee which dealt with drunkenness in the Western Province, and I still retain vivid recollections of the evidence given before that committee. If you are going to recognize a man as a man, you must recognize his status as a man, but I can understand how difficult it is for a Transvaaler to comprehend how keenly the Cape coloured people feel on this matter. Much as I detest drunkenness, I am not prepared to get away from the fact that when you give a man the franchise you accept him as a man.

What about the Transkei?

The words quoted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) lose some of their value, for Dr. Roberts’ chief knowledge is of the tribal native. The native in the Cape who lives in urban areas is entirely different from the tribal native. This Bill cannot stand by itself, and how can you say in one measure that coloured men and natives are granted full rights of statesmanship and manhood when they reach the standard the Cape legislature set up—a standard that was subsequently accepted by the Union legislature—and when they reach that standard can you say to them on the one hand you are men entitled to all the rights and privileges of manhood, but when it comes to liquor we shall treat you as children. That is why I support to the full the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort, believing that is the only sound way to deal with the problem.

According to the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), as I read it, he has no objection to a colour line being drawn between those who are or are not to get liquor. He has no objection to that. He only wants the alteration that if the natives are registered voters this provision shall not apply to them.

Coloured people also.

Very good, that is worse. It is strange that after all the speeches by other hon. members, the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has also ended in a protest against a colour line. But the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort makes no protest against a colour line; his protest is one between colour and colour, between people of the same colour. Only the coloured person who is not registered will be affected, but registered voters may not be excluded. The whole debate, however, later developed into a discussion of a colour line between coloured and white people. I agree with the hon. members who say that we must not draw a colour line and give, in connection with the sale of liquor, something to some coloured people and not others. If the hon. member had moved the deletion of the whole clause, I might have supported him, but the hon. member only wants registered voters to have the right of obtaining liquor, and not other coloured persons. The deputation from Port Elizabeth, which the hon. member for Hanover Street mentioned, also came to me. They told me that they were total abstainers, and I said it was remarkable that they could advocate the sale of liquor and that only certain people would be excluded. That is another matter, but my point is that a registered voter has to have certain qualifications, viz. to be able to write his name, do work that brings him in £50 or occupy a room worth £75. Ought those qualifications now to serve to give a man leave to drink? Hundreds and thousands of people who have them are just the ones not to have liquor. There is many a blackguard on the voters’ roll who ought not to have drink. I said so to the deputation, and I told them that I had found natives in Basutoland and Kaffraria who were more respectable than some of those on the voters roll. The distinction of being able to obtain liquor should rather rest on moral grounds, and not on a signature or a wage of £50. Undoubtedly, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said, if we provide that liquor shall only be sold to registered voters, many coloured persons and natives will struggle to get on to the voters’ roll to be able to drink themselves or buy drink for other natives. Cases occur where nonregistered persons pay enrolled voters for obtaining liquor for them. They are really nothing but illicit liquor dealers. I am not throwing undeserved blame on them. A white person often will not do it for nothing. I can, therefore, not agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, which distinguishes between people of the same colour.

I am strongly in favour of any reasonable measure which will tend to the decrease of drunkenness, especially amongst the coloured people, but I am against any measure that gives unnecessary discrimination against one people as against another. I, therefore, ask the Minister, what is the necessity of Clause 81 at all? Clause 55 gives the licensing board greater powers than those contained in Clause 81. Remember we have amended Clause 56 and it gives the liquor licensing court power to place any restrictions subject to proclamation, and so the net result of Clauses 81, 95, 96 and 102 is to give the coloured population an idea that they are being specially discriminated against. They pile indignities upon them—like piling Pelium on Ossa—it is rubbing it in, so to sneak. What then, is the necessity for Clause 81? Perhaps the Minister will explain. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says it is not directed against any particular class, but the whole trend of the debate shows it is directed against the coloured population. There are sections of the coloured community where restrictions are required to stop the disgraceful scenes we see round here, but you have given the licensing court the powers necessary to deal with the matter without leaving the coloured man to labour under a grievance. If you will remember, in the Indian Agreement the Indians objected to being discriminated against by name, and the Minister of the Interior accepted that principle. The decent coloured man feels the same. He feels it humiliating to be discriminated against by name; so I ask the Minister why Clause 81 has crept into the Bill at all, in view of Clause 56, which does not discriminate by name? I think the licensing board should have the light to discriminate against these plague spots, but leave it with the power given under Clause 56 and then there is no need for this clause at all. You can leave it out altogether.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) states that poor whites can also be included under the word “class,” and that that is actually intended. If it is true, I should like to know why the Minister should have the right to prevent people from getting liquor just because they are poor. According to the Minister the word “class” only refers to coloured people. Now I do not know who is right, but assume that the provision is only intended for coloured people. Then I ask why, at the whim of the Minister, coloured people as a class should be deprived of the right of getting any liquor. Is it only to injure the wine farmers? There are many respectable coloured people who are accustomed to drink a glass of wine in their homes. Is that now to be stopped? The result will be that you will compel such coloured persons to obtain their drink illegally. As the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has already mentioned, the Afrikaanse Bond, which surely consists of the best class of coloured people, has objected to that provision. They regard it as a slap in the face of the coloured people. I agree with the Minister that the Hofmeyer Act must be repealed. But the natives have always had the right of making and drinking beer. It cannot be said that the native is robbed of the right of obtaining liquor. The coloured people are becoming more and more civilized, and do not deserve to be treated as barbarians. Moreover, you would merely be promoting illicit drink traffic in that way. I move the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Heatlie, and which he presumably does not wish to propose.

Do you want to make the amendment applicable throughout the Union?

I shall meet the Minister and so amend it as only to apply to the Cape Province. I move—

If the Cape members wish to have no discrimination whatever between these classes, of course I cannot stand out against their wishes. They will create a much worse position in the Cape Province than ever existed before. If they want it, why should they not have it? They are all doing their best to hamper the provisions we are inserting in this Bill to make the position better. If they want to go on that line, let them do so; so long as we keep the Transvaal, Free State and Natal clean, I am satisfied.

What about the tot system?

If I am going to be hampered in trying to put through this Bill, let it be bad as far as the Cape. Province is concerned, and good as far as the other provinces are concerned. Then we do some good. I am certainly not going to try and protect a community that does not want to be protected. The wider provisions under section 56 went through quite easily, but the narrower section the House is boggling at.

Why not drop it?

It refers to a somewhat different state of affairs. It gives rights to deal with that particular licence as far as these classes are concerned. If this test disappears, the way is opened to allow a reversal of the present position of the tot system in the Cape Province. A further result would be that the Bill would be dropped. Unless these sections are passed which are lying in front of us, the Bill will be dropped. I may say that the one thing that impresses me is that there will be sufficient provision for coloured people to get liquor for on-consumption, but especially as far as the coloured community is concerned I wish to make a further provision and introduce a further section to follow 103. The point has rightly been made that we should not deal with the coloured people of the Cape Province by means of exemptions, and I am prepared to introduce a section to follow 103, laying down that your magistrate may give annual licences to reputable coloured persons in the Cape Province, and under these annual licences they can obtain as much drink as they like at bottle stores. I do not think we can confine that to householders. It would have to be such men as the magistrate considered would not abuse the privilege. I am not prepared to go further than that. No compromise seems to be possible in this House. Everybody wishes to have one extreme view this way and one extreme view that way. I want to have a middle course and that middle course is having a very bad time. I certainly shall welcome an opportunity of dropping the Bill if the House gives a wrong judgment.

The Minister has shown such a great deal of patience during the long period of time in which this Bill has been under discussion, that I am rather surprised that, on a very important question of this sort, on which people hold very strong opinions, he should show signs of a certain amount of irritability. I do not think it is fair to the committee, or fair to the House, and even if we cannot go the whole way with this Bill, we realize that it is a good measure, perhaps one of the best measures which the Minister could have introduced into the House. There are members of this committee who hold very strong views. I am anxious to see every possible restriction placed upon the abuse of liquor, but I want it done in this Bill, as it can be done, without unnecessarily interfering with the class feeling of people by introducing particular specifications of natives and coloured people. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—and I am sorry that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. G. Conradie) did not understand him—made it clear that particular classes might include a class of people who are white, as well as native people or coloured people. With that I am entirely in agreement in trying to prevent the abuse of liquor by a large class of people. I also feel, as this country has felt in its negotiations with other states, that it is inadvisable to use terms which have a tendency to make a particular class of people feel that there is a stigma cast upon them. If you can do that without placing a stigma upon a class, then that is the proper way to do it. Will the Minister tell us, in a clause of this character—I am not going into the question of whether my amendment should have been moved here or somewhere else—will he tell me, in the Cape of Good Hope or any other province where you can really draw a colour line? When you begin to draw any colour bar line in this country then you must touch very nearly large numbers of people who hold most respectable positions in this country. It is not fair in a Bill of this character dealing with the liquor traffic, that you should draw a particular line against that class. If it is not your intention to touch the European voter, then it should not be your intention to touch the coloured voter. There are coloured voters many of whom are just as respectable as many European voters. My appeal to the committee is not to put a stigma on these people. You preserve all the powers that you preserve at the present time, that no aboriginal native shall get liquor in the province of the Cape of Good Hope, and that applies also in the northern territories, and there is no intention of doing away with that. But when a man has arrived at the standing at which he is entitled to be a voter you should not put a stigma upon him. You have encouraged these people to rise to this scale, and it is only fair that the rights which the Europeans have they should have as well. By all means, make any possible restrictions you like upon any class, but do not single out as you do in this clause and other clauses, people by name of coloured, native and Asiatic. If the Minister will agree to delete Clause 82, which refers particularly to certain sections of people, then I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment. I am fighting for a great principle, and notwithstanding the way in which the Minister said I am doing it for political purposes, I have fought for it so long that it is unnecessary for me to try and repudiate that. I feel very strongly it is not right or fair to single out a class of people because of the colour of their skin, it is not fair to make a difference between them and the European voters. I am offering a compromise to the Minister if he will agree to the deletion of Clause 82. My objection is to the manner in which it is worded. I am trying to meet the Minister in every possible way. Clause 102 definitely proposes to delete Act 37 of 1887, the Hofmeyr Act. That I am entirely opposed to. I want the Minister really to understand that I am not moving this for political purposes, but to preserve the feelings of a certain class of people who appreciate extremely the right they have to send members to this House, and if they have that right they have equal rights with every European in other directions.

If we are only dealing with Clauses 81 and 82, I have no objection to withdrawing Clause 82, but I want to make it quite clear that I will resist any amendment in regard to the definition clause. I do not want it afterwards said that I misled the committee in regard to the definition clause. I also want it clearly understood that I do not think the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and I will ever bridge our difficulties in regard to Clause 102. I wanted to make those two points clear so that the committee will know, when we come to them, what my intentions are.

If the Minister agrees to the deletion of Clause 82, it very largely meets the difficulties I have mentioned. As to the definition of “class” it seems to me that must be left to the licensing courts. I do not see how we can take that power out of their hands. I am very pleased the Minister has agreed to delete Clause 82, because that was the offending clause which discriminates by name.

I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment on Clause 81 if the Minister will agree to withdraw Clause 82. Then afterwards, we can discuss the other position. There are coloured people in this province who hold just as respectable positions as very respectable white people, and I do not want these people to be put to the indignity that if they desire to have wine in their house or to use it as European people do, that they must place a stigma upon themselves by getting permission.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt and Mr. W. B. de Villiers, withdrawn.

I do not want to be under any misunderstanding. I understood the Minister to say he will agree to withdraw Clause 82 on the condition that the committee at a later stage agrees to the definition of “class”

I made no conditions.

Amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 82 put and negatived.

On Clause 83,

I move—

1. 83. It shall be a special condition of every wine farmer’s licence that no liquor shall be sold thereunder save to an European who holds and delivers to the licensee a written permit in the form set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act, signed by a member of the police of or above the rank of sergeant.

This, in effect, is the clause as drafted by the select committee, which I hope the Minister will agree to accept. I do not regard his clause as a sufficient safeguard against the evils which it is intended to cure. As to what those evils are, we know them very well. Under the Cloete Act of unhappy memory, which is now repealed, under this, a great deal of trade between numbers of wine farmers—not all of them—and the consumer, coloured persons, had grown up, and we know of the evils of that trade. The intention of the Minister’s clause and of my amendment is to put an end to that trade. If a wine farmer gets an order from a person for the supply of wine, according to the clause, he has apparently to satisfy himself that that person lives 25 miles away from him, or is the owner or occupier of property worth £200. Of all cumbrous, impracticable, unworkable proposals, this is the worst. How is the man to know? Most of the trade of the wine farmer is done with the Transvaal. A great deal of illegitimate trade is done by those who purchase liquor from the Cape. The wine farmer is bona fide. A coloured person (or a European acting on behalf of a coloured man) has only to find out which wine farmer lives 25 miles from him and he can get a barrel and have an orgy. My amendment is intended to cure that. We have already accepted the principle that any person who conveys two gallons in bottles in a case or above that, must have a permit. In my amendment I would rather move at the moment “to a person” and not “European,” until we decide later on as to off-sales. The machinery of my clause means that a person who wants to buy from a wine farmer in four gallons and a larger quantity must get a permit. If that is not done you will have no effective check on the illicit liquor sellers in the North. The whole scheme of this section is to impose such a check. We have set out in this Bill to try to check the evil of unlimited drinking amongst coloured people in the Western Province, but the Minister’s clause leaves too many loopholes.

The hon. member will see from the Order Paper that he has moved this as a new clause, therefore, he can move this only if this clause has been negatived. The hon. member will understand that if this clause is not negatived, he cannot move.

Am I allowed to amend it so that it will read “to a person”?

No, because the amendment is not before the committee.

Has the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) got one title of evidence for his statement that wine sold by the wine farmers goes to the Transvaal for the illicit trade? It is one of those extravagant statements which are unsupported by any evidence. Why should the wine farmer be placed in a worse position than the wholesale dealer who can supply in any quantity from two gallons upwards? It would be a gross injustice to stop the wine farmer from selling while you allow the wholesaler to do so. The wine farmer must keep records of his sales, and his licence can be cancelled without a day’s notice if he sells liquor to undesirable people. No respectable wine farmer would cause offence in this way. There are many wine farmers who live in outlying districts far from police and magistrates, so how on earth can they obtain permits? I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on his amendment, not because I agree or sympathize with it, but because it is such a clear example of the unholy alliance between the total abstainers and the wholesale dealers. In the select committee the proposals for restricting and obstructing the wine farmers did not come from the side of the abstainers, but from the wholesale dealers. This is quite comprehensible because the wholesale trade is interested in getting all the trade into its hands. Now the people who are not in favour of the sale of liquor come and want to give the wholesale dealer the right to sell only. I hope the Minister will in no case accept the amendment. The amendments being proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are all intended to interfere with the producer. The other man who makes a profit out of the produce is protected. The producer is subject to the fluctuations of the market and of the industry, and his market has now to be so controlled and restricted that it practically amounts to prohibition. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has already pointed out that the permit system practically means that the farmers who have a licence must keep books. I have already quoted Clause 108 this afternoon to prove that the farmers must keep books. It provides—

1. (a) the date of sale.
2. (b) the name and address of the purchaser;
3. (c) the quantity, description and price of the liquor sold; and
4. (d) the fact, if such be the case, that the sale was made by virtue of a certificate or letter of exemption, permit or certificate, as the case may be.

Entry of such particulars shall be made in the sales register immediately upon the completion of any setting apart or appropriation of liquor in respect of any sale.

The other sub-section of Clause 108 establishes a principle, and the wine farmer is at all time subject to police inspection, a thing that did not exist in the past. This, as the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has said is an unnecessary pin prick for the producer.

I want to ask the Minister to take no notice of the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). We have divisional councils in the Cape Province within a radius of 25 miles, and it is very easy for wine farmers to go to one and obtain a list of persons with immovable property worth £250 or more, and they can go to the municipalities and do the same thing. In the Transvaal and the Free State no liquor licences can be granted unless the other party, the purchaser, has a licence. The hon. member seems merely to want to vilify the wine farmers’ licences. There were two wine farmers’ licences in the Western Province, one held by Mr. Cloete and one by the late Mr. John X. Merriman. No one ever complained against those licences. They always sent their produce to the best class of people.

The wholesalers should be dealt with in the same manner as the wine farmers are.

They have nothing to do with each other.

Wholesale licences will be issued only in urban areas. Therefore, the onus is on the wholesale merchant to get a permit, whereas, under the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), the onus will be on the purchaser. Why should a man object to getting a permit when he wants to buy a large quantity of liquor? My submission is that the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is much more practical and logical than the clause as it stands.

The clause, as it stands, has been in force for a very long time in the Cape Province, and I know of no trouble. It is only a question of the delivery of wine, and not brandy and, therefore, it is not at all likely that the people in the Transvaal will order wine for illicit drinking. When you try to evade the police, you sell the strongest stuff, not wine. I do not think this particular clause has ever caused any trouble in the Cape Province, and, as it has been used here without any great objection, I do not like to have doctrinaire interference with it. Whatever its theoretical defects, it has worked well in practice, and I think we should allow it to go on. I do not like to put the farmer on the same basis as the wholesaler. The farmer is a producer and generally he has to shoulder all the troubles whilst the commercial man takes most of the profits. That is certainly our position in South Africa to-day. A much bigger proportion of commercial men are rich in proportion to farmers who are rich. We have never in our legislation placed the producer and the commercial man on the same basis, and I do not propose to start it now.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 85,

I move—

(2) No licensee shall sell as a particular kind or brand or as the manufacture of a particular person liquor which is not of that kind or brand or is not the manufacture of that person.

We found in many cases whisky of an unknown brand was introduced into the country and is shoved by the conscienceless licensees into bottles of a superior brand, and the licensee sells the inferior article for the price of the superior article. It is the same in the case of Cape brandy. Bottles of well-known brands are used to house indifferent brands. I found a whisky was coming into this country named “OO”. I have never heard of it, and it is certainly sold under every other name except “OO”. I commend this amendment to the committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I should like some explanation from the Minister. Clause 91 provides for permits for liquor made from fruit or other produce. This clause refers, I think, only to wine and brandy, which come under the Wine and Spirit Act, but does not mention liquor made from other fruit besides grapes. I should like to know from the Minister how he will test the quality and purity of those other liquors.

I know of no way of doing it.

Then it is dangerous.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 87,

I move—

I move this to prevent other strong drink besides beer and light wine being sold in restaurants.

It is quite impossible for the committee to pass that amendment. Restaurant licences will only be granted in places with more than 5,000 parliamentary voters, and we must not forget that people who to-day have a loose bar licence can alter it within ten years into a restaurant licence. They will be getting into trouble because they may only sell liquor for two hours in the afternoon, and two hours at night. It is a very great restriction, and it would be unfair to go still further.

The Minister says that the provision applies to large towns. But we do not know what will happen in the future. There are some of the country villages which possibly within a short time will have that number of registered voters.

Then they are large centres.

I want to restrict the sale of liquor in restaurants to beer and light wine.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). It is bad enough allowing wine and beer to be obtained in restaurants. Are we to go further and allow strong drink? It is the large towns as a matter of fact that we want to protect.

Amendment put and the committee divided:

Ayes—25.

Bates, F. T.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Geldenhuys, L.

Henderson, J.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Papenfus, H. B.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: Swart, C. R.; van Heerden, G. C.

Noes—64.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Roux, J. W. J.

W. Sampson, H. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Steyn, C. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 88,

I move—

This provision already exists in paragraph 62 (a), where the farmer is entitled to manufacture wine from grapes procured or purchased from his neighbours. One at least of my friends who does extensive wine farming had not sufficient grapes for his own needs in consequence of the drought, and he had to purchase from his neighbours, and I think it is only fair that this should be inserted here as well. I do not see any harm that would accrue from it.

No, it is not the same thing; 62 (a) is dealing with sale without a licence to the licensee. As far as this section is concerned, it deals with a wine farmer’s licence, which gives him special privileges as far as the prices of the licence are concerned, and otherwise, with regard to sale to the public, and it is only right that licence should be restricted to the sale of the article he produces himself. I do not think it fair to extend that as far as this article is concerned.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 89,

I would point out to the Minister the curious state of affairs that will result from Clause 89. Let me give an example; take the case of Messrs. Sedgwick and Company; under this clause they may not sell their own produce except to the holder of a licence, but they may buy unlimited quantities from someone else and sell them.

Unless they have a wholesale licence.

They have.

Then they can do it.

On page 286 of the Votes and Proceedings, there is an amendment of mine which, it there states, occurs in Clause 87, to introduce a new sub-clause (c) into this clause. It is not my mistake. I move as an amendment—

1. (c) the holder of a wholesale liquor licence may sell to persons other than holders of licences under this Act, but no such sale shall at any one time to any one person be in quantity less than two gallons contained in a receptacle or receptacles securely corked or stoppered; and

The object of this is to enable a wholesaler to sell direct to the public. It is quite possible that even without this amendment he may do so, but I move my amendment to make it quite clear. That was the intention of the Bill as drawn originally, and also the intention of the commission. As Clause 89 specially goes out of its way to say that the holder of a wine farmer’s licence may sell to various people, and the holder of a brewer’s licence may do the same, it should he made quite clear that the wholesaler may also sell to others than a licensee.

I move—

The object is merely to bring it into line with existing practice. It was never the practice to obtain the previous consent of the licensing board.

If you part with the ownership of an article that will be disposing of it, so if you give a bottle of wine of your own make to a friend that will be disposing of it. Surely it is not meant to stop that. To overcome that difficulty, I move—

If you cannot give away a bottle of wine you cannot give away a glass, so if a wine merchant or farmer had anyone to dinner with them, they could not give them a glass of wine of their own manufacture. To make it perfectly clear you should insert the words after “shall,” “in the course of his business dispose of.” Then I move another small amendment. I move—

1. (d) for the purpose of this section a person who blends wines or brandies shall not be deemed to be a producer or a manufacturer of liquor.

What is the meaning of that? He surely should be subject to the same conditions as producers or manufacturers?

A blender of wine or brandy may be a wholesaler and he will not be able to sell to anyone else in the trade. I am sure “manufacturer” was not intended to mean a blender of wine or spirit.

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