announced that he was the bearer of a message from his Excellency the Governor-General, which he handed to Mr. Speaker.

read the message as follows—

Message from his Excellency the Governor-General to both Houses of Parliament.

When on Monday last week I moved the adjournment of the debate, I was pointing out that I and those sitting with me on this side of the House, are no less anxious to co-operate heartily with the other members of the commonwealth, than any of the hon. members sitting opposite. But I laid stress upon it that co-operation should not be expected from us on any other basis but that of full national independence. I wish here to-day once more to express the conviction, not only that on the basis of full national independence alone is commonwealth or empire co-operation to be secured, but also that on that basis co-operation will receive a no less full measure of support from Dutch-speaking than from English-speaking South Africa. If in the past Dutch-speaking South Africa failed to support empire co-operation, it was because “empire” either was, or conveyed to them, the meaning of a super-state with a super authority. In refusing therefore co-operation, Dutch-speaking South Africa—inclusive of myself and other Nationalists—felt itself to be fighting for national independence as against empire domination. The report of the Imperial Conference having on the one hand declared South Africa a full independent state, and, on the other band, the empire as being destitute of any meaning implying either statehood or authority, Dutch-speaking South Africa is to-day prepared, hand-in-hand with English-speaking South Africa, to co-operate for the well-being of the Union in conjunction with every other member of the commonwealth. Fully trusting in the assurance given to them by the report, that the people of the Union and not of the empire, is the master of the destiny of this country, they will approve of every measure of empire cooperation when that co-operation denotes the free exercise of the will of the people of the Union in the interest of our country. It is for that reason, sir, that I do deeply regret the unfortunate method by which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his supporters have thought fit to combat my contention as to the right of the Union to be neutral. In so far as they differ from the views entertained by me on the subject, nobody can find fault with them, but when they seek to combat these views by a denial of our national independence, they not only become traducers of their country, but also by their denial insult every man and woman amongst us to whom national independence is a matter affecting national honour and national self-esteem.

Rubbish!

Surely my right hon. friend and his followers ought to have felt that by speaking as they did they were running every risk of creating a most intense aversion to the very empire they were purporting to defend; and that nothing could be more fatal to empire co-operation than a resurrection of the conviction that empire in any form was inconsistent with dominion independence. But what was even worse was that in their attempt to combat dominion neutrality by denying dominion independence they availed themselves of arguments and statements which, if correct, must inevitably prove that the members of the Imperial Conference in framing the report were more bent upon bamboozling and deceiving the dominions than upon clarifying dominion status. I would ask hon. members to ponder over the effect such a conviction, if once entertained in South Africa, or in any other dominion, would have upon empire cooperation, if not upon empire existence! I cannot therefore conceive of any conduct more reprehensible than that which members opposite have made themselves guilty of, in this respect. Fortunately, those partisan arguments and statements repudiating our national independence carry with them their own correctives. They are so flagrantly illogical, inconsistent and contrary to fact that few, if any, will take them seriously. The speech by my right hon. friend, the member for Standerton, is in this, as in all other respects, typical of the attitude assumed by those amongst the members of the Opposition who have spoken. I shall therefore, in my reply, confine myself to the statements and arguments of my right hon. friend. After having spoken at considerable length expressing disapproval of my having raised the question as to the right to neutrality by a member of the commonwealth, he says—

and then the right hon. gentleman proceeds to give his reasons why it is not so clear to him. For this he advances two reasons, the one, the kingship, which he says is not a mere personal union; and the other because, as he says: “We are not a free individual state, but we are a free member of an associated empire.” As to the kingship argument, it will be noted that the right hon. gentleman simply assumes that it is not a mere personal union. I wish here to point out that over against this assumption there is the contrary view of great international lawyers, such as Prof. Lowell, who, in the article already referred to by me, says—

I must admit that I agree with Prof. Lowell. When then the right hon. gentleman proceeds to ask—

then my answer, again in the words of Prof. Lowell, must be the following—

Well, it certainly has to be admitted that the new specimen form of treaty to be found in the appendix to the report, in every respect supports the view here expressed by Prof. Lowell; and I feel confident that few, if any, of those from the dominions who served on the committee which was responsible for the new form, acted under the assumption of a kingship tie in its juridical aspect different from that set forth in the words by Prof. Lowell here quoted by me. I must say I have never been able to see why the personal tie theory should be rejected; and since the determining of our status by the Imperial Conference as in every respect equal to that of Great Britain, I cannot possibly see on what ground it must be rejected. So much for the right hon. gentleman’s kingship argument. Now let us look at his other argument, viz., that “We are not a free individual state.”

Of an association.

I was so taken aback when I heard the right hon. gentleman make that statement, that I could not restrain myself from interjecting: “Where do you get that from?” If, as I have said, the statement surprised me, the answer which I received from the right hon. gentleman to my question astounded me, as it must have astounded other hon. members who heard him. “That is,” was his answer, “the declaration of the conference to which the Prime Minister adheres!” Well, while listening to my right hon. friend, the thought occurred to me whether it could serve any good purpose to continue the discussion of this very important subject when such is the method of argument adopted by the chief spokesman on the opposite side. To tell us that the report by the Imperial Conference is his authority for saying that “we are not a free state,” is no argument. It is the despairing answer of a disputant in distress, not knowing how otherwise to escape from an untenable position. For finding that he had no ground for a statement of a very serious and mischievous character, he sought to defend it by getting us to read into the report of the conference the very opposite of what the conference had declared in the very clearest language. How very different from the view of my right hon. friend, that “we are not a free state,” is that of Mr. Amery, one of the most prominent statesmen at the conference responsible for the drafting of the report. Speaking at Johannesburg on 8th September, 1927, of the conclusions arrived at by the conference in that report, he asked—

and he then continued as follows—

Once more I say, how different these words from those of the right hon. member for Standerton: “We are not a free state.”

Not as an individual—we are members of an association. I see no difference.

Exactly; this is the kind of quibbling to which we have been listening for days. We are a free state, but not individually a free state.

Your own colleague (the Minister of Defence)—

I do not care what my own colleague or anyone else said. This is the argument to which we have been listening the whole week.

I did not say that.

We are a free state; I did not deny that, We belong to an association.

Exactly; and, therefore, the right hon. gentleman continued: “We are not free, therefore, we are not independent.” If it does not mean that, what does it mean? What a contrast to the right hon. gentleman’s interpretation of the report is what Mr. Amery said: “The Union owes no subordination to any authority outside the Union.” [Mr. Amery’s speech further requoted.] Well, it is rather curious after this to hear the right hon. gentleman with his “We are not an individual free state.” First, I shall ask him what he means by saying, “The Union is a free member of an associated empire, but not a free state.”

It is a free state.

We are not a free individual state, but we are a free state! The right hon. gentleman has never known any freedom above that! As, however, he seems to attach some magic meaning to an associated empire, I would, however, once more draw his attention to the words already quoted by me from Professor Lowell—

No, there is no such nation.

Still, we are not a free state. So to be fair to the right hon. member we are not a free individual state.

If you repeat that often enough you will believe it.

It is clear from his whole speech that the word empire has a peculiar fascination for my right hon. friend—

Has it no fascination for you?

Even if he does not, as he assured us in the earlier part of his speech, hold the view that the British empire is another central authority or super-state. Upon one thing, however, we are all agreed—from Lord Balfour the chairman of the committee that brought out the report, downwards—and that is, that the empire possesses no common organ of Government, notwithstanding the associated relationship in which the dominions and Great Britain stand towards one another within that empire. But if this is so; and if as Mr. Amery says—

then surely the Union, to quote Professor Lowell once more—

Who is Professor Lowell?

I see hon. members opposite are getting very restive. They will be a little more restive when the proper time comes.

They are certainly very much amused.

It is therefore not argument, it is mere trifling when the right hon. gentleman pretends to find support in the Imperial Conference for his irresponsible statement that we are not a free individual state. In the earlier part of his speech he questioned the independence of the Union on a somewhat different ground.

I never questioned it.

He said—

The right hon. member clearly forgets.

We are an independent country.

Oh, I see. I am sure we are all very glad to hear that. That is after the right hon. gentleman for one and a half hours tried by every possible means to shun the word independent.

You shunned it too.

So that in his whole speech you cannot get it except where he intends to controvert it.

Why did the conference shun it?

I shall explain. Just think of this—the dominions are not independent! I would like to know where we are.

Ask Professor Lowell.

You don’t know where you are!

They have been arguing for a week and now they all cry Hear! Hear! till we don’t know where we are. In fairness, to the right hon. member let me say he seemed to realise the extent of the absurdity to which his denial of independence to the dominions was leading him.

I never denied it.

I am so glad that the right hon. member is becoming a bit afraid and shy.

No.

He confesses he has been going so far as to try to sublimate Great Britain’s independence into this essay when he has to call a halt. Let us see how he does it. He does that by advocating the principle of equality. Just let us hear what he has to say—

The right hon. gentleman would evidently have held a different view as to our independence, if the report instead of saying—

had said—

But he clearly forgets that Great Britain is explicitly declared by the report to be one of those autonomous communities; and that if his argument is to hold for any one of the dominions, it must hold equally for Great Britain. In other words, according to the right hon. gentleman, Great Britain would not be an independent country! Just think of that—the dominions are not independent; Great Britain has ceased to be independent; and an empire State or authority we are all—including the right hon. gentleman—agreed does not exist! Now where are we? In fairness, however, to the right hon. gentleman, it must he pointed out that he seemed to realize the extent of the absurdity to which his denial of independence to the dominions was leading him. So to escape from the process of sublimating Great Britain’s independence into thin air, he attacks the principle of equality; that principle which the report itself styles—

According to the right hon. gentleman—

These are the words used by him. This is, indeed, a discovery! The root principle of inter-imperial relations is no principle at all! It is a mere make-believe! And if the Secretary of Dominion Affairs, himself a prominent member of the conference, attests that the declaration of the conference was and was meant to be a declaration of freedom—of freedom in equality—of absolutely equality in freedom, between Great Britain and the dominions, then all this, to the right hon. gentleman, means nothing; it is wrong.

I never used such an arrangement.

If it is not his argument then I am afraid he does not understand his own discussion before the House; as little as he does the report before the House. Let me read what he says—

Does the hon. member deny it?

Let me explain. I pointed out that this report, in its fundamental formula, did not use the word independence and that the Prime Minister, in an interview in London, explained why the word was purposely left out.

I am coming to that. Don’t let it worry you.

I simply pointed out the significance of this fact. I did not use it as a basis of argument.

Then what do your words signify? Here are his words: “The principle of equality is not fully and absolutely recognized” and he goes on later and says the reason he said it was—

The right hon. gentleman will excuse me, but I really cannot follow his logic here. He will forgive me if I cannot follow his argument and he cannot understand it either. Again, in the absence of the use of the word “independence” by the conference in its declaration, the right hon. gentleman thinks that he has discovered proof of an intention on the part of the conference not to recognize “dominion independence” because, as he says—

In confirmation of this he quotes from some paper the following words as coming from me—

Why did he quote that at all? I do not remember to whom this was said, but it is quite correct; and to prevent further wrong construction of my words, I take this opportunity of saying why the conference avoided the word “independence.” It certainly was not, as my right hon. friend suggests, because the conference did not want to make up its mind on the matter.

Nor did I say that.

But because the conference, being busy with the framing of what Mr. Amery calls a declaration of freedom for the dominions, felt that to make use of the word independence in such a declaration, might, more especially in the case of Canada, tempt an unscrupulous adversary of the policy of dominion freedom, to raise the hue and cry of another declaration of American independence; imposing thereby upon the electorate by pretending that the declaration was in reality a declaration of Canadian or other dominion secession. They have their party politics there.

We have them here, too.

Exactly. This was the possible misinterpretation referred to by me, and which the Imperial Conference tried to prevent by not making use of the word independence, while it declared the dominions the absolute equals in freedom to Great Britain; and therefore as fully independent as it is. With these few words, sir, I shall now take leave of the subject of dominion independence, once more affirming that if there is anything which the Imperial Conference has established beyond doubt, it is the full independence of every individual dominion, on a footing of equality with that of Great Britain herself. I now desire to make reply to my right hon. friend and gentlemen opposite on the subject of our right to be neutral. They all pretend to deprecate very strongly and to regret that I should have marred a happy unanimity in resolving upon the adoption of the report, by my introducing the question as to the right of dominion neutrality. I hope honourable gentlemen will excuse me if I say that to my mind the discussions have shown how absolutely necessary it was that I should have introduced that subject. Without my doing so, we might and probably would have unanimously resolved upon the adoption of the report. But would that have afforded any proof as to our agreement upon the meaning and content of the report? And, if not, then what would our unanimous adoption of it have signified? The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says—

Really, are the right hon. gentleman and his friends still of opinion that we are all agreed on that definition of our status as given in the report? I can only say if that is so, that I do not understand why they should not have maintained with me that the Union was an independent State.

There is nothing about an independent State.

As the right hon. gentleman in the same speech stoutly maintained the contrary and positively repudiated all independence for the Union—

No, I did not.

The right hon. gentleman certainly did, sovereign independence. When I speak of independence, do not let the right hon. member misunderstand me. I speak of sovereign independence. Is that what he means?

Yes.

Then I say we are agreed upon that. I am very sorry that I should have addressed him when I ought to have addressed myself rather to the other gentlemen. Let me ask the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), is he agreed that the Union has sovereign independence?

I do not know the meaning of the phrase.

Oh, yes, I am quite prepared to define it, if the hon. member wants it. By “sovereign” I mean the ultimate source of authority; by “independence” I mean not subordinate to the control of anybody outside. Does he agree that we have sovereign independence? No, he is very careful. I ask the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), is he agreed that we have sovereign independence?

Absolutely. I agree in everything.

Well, well—

I do not know what your argument is about.

Then my hon. friend must not ask what the argument is about. Then he must ask what was the argument for a week long about. Hon. members are trying to quibble. I am afraid they will have to try a good deal in future still to quibble to get out of what they have agreed to in this House.

You are a past master in the art of quibbling.

As the right hon. gentleman, as I say, stoutly maintained to the contrary, I must say I cannot but look upon his words, “We are at last all convinced that we can have and do have full freedom and national status within the British empire” as mere camouflage. I feel heartily glad that by raising the question of dominions neutrality I have at least forced these gentlemen to come out into the open and to stand confessed that when they, like their leader, speak of our being at last agreed on the definition of dominion status, as laid down in the report, and of our happy unanimity on this occasion, they mean just the opposite to what, to my mind, their words do indicate.

You have no right to say that.

I am so glad to hear what they have declared this afternoon. They are believers in the sovereign rights of the Union. Hon. gentlemen opposite may now console themselves with one thing, and that is that in future they will know what I meant when I asked this House to approve of the report on the status of Great Britain and the dominions.

No, we don’t.

I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen opposite do not know what I mean because they do not want to. Their very agreement this afternoon is to me the fullest proof how they are trying to deceive either this side of the House or themselves.

That is not right.

I will now proceed to deal with the objections which have been raised against the view contended for by me that the dominions are entitled to the right of neutrality. I wonder are hon. members still opposed to that view, or are they also now agreed with me?

We want to know what you mean.

Tell us if you are going to give the Admiral notice to quit.

Has the right hon. member—

Ask your Minister of Justice.

It is strange that while the right hon. member for Standerton denies independence to the dominions—no, I should not say this any more. No, he does not deny independence, he does not deny sovereign independence any more, but I say this that I am rather surprised that, admitting independence and admitting sovereign independence, he can still have any doubt as to whether we have the right of neutrality or not.

What does the Minister of Justice say?

The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), I must say, seems to be converted now to the position that we are a sovereign independent country.

Is the Minister of Justice converted?

The hon. member for Dundee is a little more consistent than the right hon. the member for Standerton, because he admits that in certain circumstances the dominions will have the right to neutrality. At any rate he was not prepared to deny that in certain circumstances—

What will you do with the Admiral?

These gentlemen have Simonstown on the brain, and they will not be relieved until I have taken Simonstown off their brains. I can assure the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort that I shall take all the cruisers and dreadnoughts that may come there off his brain this afternoon. It is clear that I need adduce no more arguments as to our right to neutrality. Unfortunately, the right hon. the member for Standerton, no less than his followers, have confused the question of dominion right to neutrality, which was the only question ever raised by me, with the question of dominion policy as to the exercise of that right, which is a question never raised by me. Therefore, when the right hon. gentleman says that the question of neutrality is one that should be dealt with and settled by the Imperial Conference, it is not quite clear which he means should be so dealt with and settled—the right or the policy. I wish to say this at once, that if he means that the Imperial Conference should be called upon to decide as to the right of the dominions to neutrality or not, I wish in the strongest terms to say that I disagree with him. Given the independence of the dominions, the sovereign independence of the dominions, neutrality follows from that as the night the day.

What does the Minister of Justice say?

From the fact that the conference did not deal with the matter of dominion neutrality, the right hon. gentleman comes to the conclusion that the conference entertained the deliberate intention to say nothing about it.

Have you seen Bruce’s opinion?

I have to deal with the right hon. member’s method of arguing. I say again from the fact that the Imperial Conference decided nothing with regard to neutrality, he comes to the conclusion that the conference entertained the deliberate intention to say nothing about it. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that the real and only reason why the conference did not deal with it was the same as that which restrained it from dealing with a thousand and one other questions, namely, because like all other inferences capable of being drawn from facts found by the conference, it was left to be deduced from the fact of the dominions being declared equal in status to Great Britain herself. The conference simply never anticipated reasoning like that of my right hon. friend, culminating in his denial of equality of status with Great Britain.

What about Bruce’s opinion?

Once more confusing policy with right, the right hon. gentleman says—

Hear, hear.

That is the only kind of argument one hears from hon. gentlemen opposite. It may be so. I have never denied it, but what answer is that to the question as to whether a dominion possesses the right to neutrality or not? There is nothing that so conclusively proves the weakness of the case sought to be established by hon. gentlemen opposite as the manner in which throughout this debate they have had to evade dealing with the principal point at issue and discuss policy when the question they should have discussed was right. I am, therefore, not going to follow them in their arguments and contentions as to what policy should be pursued under given circumstances. That we can safely leave to those circumstances when they do arise. The right hon. gentleman and other hon. members have, however, referred to certain effects which neutrality by a member of the commonwealth may have upon existing relations and upon co-operation between that member and a member or members at war. My right hon. friend has, for example, quoted the case of Simonstown in the event of Union neutrality, and remarked the following—

Well, again, let me say, what argument is that as to our right or no right? Let me say this. I fully agree with my right hon. friend, but I must tell him this, it has as little to do with the question of neutrality as the holding of Gibraltar by England affects Spain’s right to be neutral.

Is not Simonstown a portion of the Union?

We would not have the least right to make such a demand upon the admiral at Simonstown.

What does the enemy do?

The enemy—he will do what he can. Just listen to that, sir—“What will the enemy do?” That is a conclusive answer as to whether we have the right to be neutral or not! Because Holland is a small nation she cannot be neutral! Because the dominions are, oh, so small, they cannot have the right to be neutral! It is not a question of whether they should or should not be, but whether they have the right or not! This is the kind of argument that has been going on for a whole week from the other side. Let me again say we would not have the least right to make such a demand upon the admiral at Simonstown, but not because we do not possess the right to be neutral in case of Great Britain being at war, but because it would be a flagrant breach of faith which no nation would have the right to ask of us, and as far as we are concerned, it would be nothing else but an act of war, a hostile act over against Great Britain herself. I wish, however, at once to point out, that if honourable members had paid more careful attention to what I said in my opening speech, they would hardly have evinced the anxiety in respect to questions of this kind which they did show. Honourable members will remember that I stated that I was simply dealing with the right to be neutral; also that I was purposely refraining from dealing with neutrality itself. I further remarked that the subject of neutrality was one clamouring for revision; and that I hoped such revision would be effected in a manner giving consideration to the existence of our empire relations under the League of Nations. I further pointed out that under the League of Nations the members of the empire enjoy certain rights and privileges inter se, which are not enjoyed by ordinary members; and that one of these rights was that no member of the empire could be asked by the league to do anything whereby it would cease to be a member of the empire. What other and further rights and privileges the members of the empire may be entitled to inter se, I was not then prepared to say; nor am I prepared to do so now. That is matter for further investigation as suggested by me. Upon that further investigation will depend, not whether we have the right to be neutral, but in how far a state of dominion neutrality is accompanied by rights and privileges between members of the empire which are not enjoyed as between other members. In other words, the extent or nature of dominion neutrality is different from that ordinarily recognised by international law; but what it is, is a question which is beyond the scope of the subject with which we are here dealing. My contention, that we have the right to be neutral, therefore, does not in the least affect the question of Simonstown, or any other similar question of empire co-operation. These questions remain exactly as they were before— open to interpretation and discussion—which I do not feel myself called upon to undertake here to-day. After having given the two reasons mentioned by me for withholding his concurrence in the assertion of the abstract right of neutrality, the right hon. member for Standerton gives expression to another element of doubt in his mind. There is nothing in his speech that has interested me more—probably because it explains so much—than this other element. One would have thought that from these premises the conclusion of national independence for each freely associated member in the empire would naturally follow. As we know however, the reverse is the conclusion arrived at by the right hon. member; and the question arises, therefore, why?

My position is very clear.

I am very glad. I would like my right hon. friend to read the second part of his speech. Evidently the right hon. gentleman is anticipating or preparing the way for future events—

The right hon. gentleman does not like the sovereign international state of to-day. He holds it responsible for what he calls—

So he doubts, he tells us—

and while thus doubting, he comes to the conclusion that—

The right hon. gentleman will know he is coming a little nearer to the dominions. Ana then making an appeal to this House, he says—

To me these remarks by the right hon. member explain a great deal. He does not like the sovereign international state, and longs for its disappearance, so he is busy—

he tells us, what he calls—

which will do away with—

in other words, he is all in favour of an empire which will sweep out of existence the existing individual free states, which we call dominions, with their worn-out notions of sovereign rights! And in order to be allowed to hammer out this empire of his imagination, he calls out to us—

We can, therefore, no longer have any doubt what the right hon. member means by this appeal to give the new system every chance. The dominions must abandon their claim to independence; their sovereign rights should disappear; dominion neutrality should not be insisted upon; for all these things, being mere worn-out notions of the rights of sovereign international states, they do not square with the new system of empire which is being hammered out by the right hon. gentleman and his followers opposite! Well, what a light all this does throw upon the attitude of the right, hon. gentleman and his friends in this debate. It must now be patent to us all that throughout this debate the object which these gentlemen were striving to attain was not truth, or facts as to what the conference report means or does not mean, or as to whether the dominions possess the right to neutrality or not; but simply to make a last desperate attempt to save for themselves the opportunity of hammering out their new system of empire, which they could not but see fore doomed by the report.

Are you really serious?

If in his endeavour to achieve that end, my right hon. friend, as he admits, has had to discard what he calls—

I am not at all surprised. Doubting whether the old reasonings could be safely applied to the new situation in the empire, he tried to get along without any reasonings at all. No wonder he has come to grief! I wish to remind my right hon. friend that though he appealed to us, and said—

and though, as he says, new wine and old bottles may not go well together, in any case old bottles are better than no bottles, if we are to have wine, and not slops. In conclusion, I ask this House to vote for the report, not because of any particular view held by any particular individual as to what it may mean, but because of the unmistakable language in which it says what it does mean, and in which it declares to us our freedom—our freedom and equality; our absolute equality in freedom to exercise every function, every power, every privilege of national life, without owing any subordination to any authority outside ourselves. I am indeed glad that I have introduced this subject of the right to be neutral, because it is very clear to me that hon. members opposite have been so disciplined through this debate that they are prepared to take everything now we see in this report. I have pleasure in moving its adoption.

That’s that; and now we can get on with the day’s work.

Motion put and agreed to.

I welcome the Minister’s proposal with regard to off-licences. What the commission proposed was that these sales should be stopped absolutely, but that the licensing boards at their first meeting after the Act comes into force should be empowered to grant new bottle licences, not exceeding in number that of the licences for off-sales, and should give preference in granting these licences to persons holding hotel licences permitting them to make sales for the consumption of liquor off the premises. It was never expected that they would grant the full number of new bottle licences which they would be given power to do, but the clause is open to the objection that an inordinately large number of licences might be issued. Although the Minister’s amendment perpetuates for a period what I consider to be an evil system, it is a better proposal than the commission’s. The Minister’s proposal continues the right of off-sales for another five years, after which no hotel will be allowed to sell liquor by the bottle. I have been through all the evidence given before the select committee on the question of off-sales, and every magistrate and member of the police who has spoken on the question has denounced it in round and unsparing terms. These witnesses included Mr. Young, chief magistrate of Johannesburg, Major Trigger, chief of the C.I.D., Mr. Hime, Col. Gray of the Cape C.I.D., Mr. Mitchell of the Free State C.T.D., Col. Trew, Mr. Alexander, chief constable of Durban, and Captain Slater, chief constable of Maritzburg. The chief constable of Durban’s evidence is contained on page 53, question 5986, of the report of the Select Committee on the Liquor Bill. [Extract read.] Captain Slater, whose evidence is given on page 856, question 6073, gives additional reasons why these off-sales should be abolished. [Extract read.] Exactly similar evidence is given by Mr. Hime, chief magistrate of Maritzburg, and Major Hunt, chief of the C.I.D. of Natal. They are all unanimous that the chief cause of the illicit liquor traffic in Natal is the sale of bottles by the bars, and that the prohibition of these sales would be the best possible thing to do. In reply to question 2305, Mr. Hime said. [Extract read.] Then I could refer to Col. Trew’s evidence, on page 945, question 6747, which is to the same effect. Mr. Young and Major Trigger and others beg that we should drop these off-sales. The off-sale system was investigated, as far as the Cape was concerned, in 1918, and one recommendation was that this off-sale system must be dropped as one of the chief and most potent causes of drunkenness in the Western Province, and the recommendations of the Baxter Commission were adopted in this House the following year without a division. As far as the Free State is concerned, they have the right of off-sale there, but the chief of the C.I.D. says that illicit trade is largely traceable to the sale by the bottle, and he recommends strongly that it be dropped. I hope we shall start this discussion this afternoon on the assumption that the off-sales must go. We have drawn a distinction between them so far as the off-sale and on-sale consumption licence is concerned, and in so far as the Minister permits this to exist for five years he is breaking down that distinction. The Minister thinks that some concession should be made. I think five years is too long. If the system is an evil one, I think it should go at once. The system has long been condemned. It was condemned by this House nine years ago, and licensees in the Cape must have known that sooner or later, probably sooner than later, this House would take action to abolish it. I believe Mr. de Wet’s draft Bill, introduced before the Smuts’ Government went out of office, contained the same provision abolishing off-sales. I am dealing with the point of the time assuming off-sales must go. I think they have had plenty of warning. I think five years is too long. I would like to see it go after three years at the most. In fact, I would like to see it go now, but, like the Minister, I am prepared to take a middle road.

A good deal of evidence was laid before the select committee on this point, and after all, the licensing board in each division is the best judge of whether these off-sales should continue or not. The licensing board consists of the magistrate and two responsible men, who have before them the evidence of the police and other responsible authorities, and they are in a better position to judge what the necessities are in each case than we are, and I think it is a mistake to lay down that these off-sales, in all cases, shall cease at the end of five years. I would rather see the licensing board authorized to stop off-sales at once if they see fit, or continue them beyond four years.

Five years.

It may be desirable, in the opinion of the licensing board, to continue off-sales in certain circumstances, and I do not think we ought to lay down all these off-sales shall cease at the end of five years. To test the feeling of the committee I wish to move, as an amendment to the Minister’s new clause—

The Minister has not moved his new clause as yet.

I ask the House to allow the old clause to be moved out, otherwise the discussion will be hampered, not only in discussing my new clause, but the many amendments upon it.

I have always taken a middle course. If there is abuse in illicit liquor selling, we ought to do away with it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says that off-sales are a curse. What is the difference in principle, or practice, between off-sales in a bottle store or hotel? His remarks are based on the existing custom of allowing the licensee to sell “off” after the closing hours of the bottle stores, and Major Trew’s evidence was based on the assumption that hotels in the Cape and the Free State are allowed to sell long after the closing of the bottle store. If we amend the law so that the hotelkeeper does not have the privilege of off-sales after the closing hours of the bottle store it will meet the case, and there will then be no difference between an off-sale licence held by a hotelkeeper or anyone else. If we abolish the off-sales from hotels in the Cape: well, I suggest the hon. member is going to take the licence from one man and give it to another, and not abolish off-sales at all. I have had evidence brought to me that in a large number of hotels in the Cape it would amount to confiscation of valuable rights. People who have bought hotels have paid a much higher price knowing an off-sale licence was included, and you are going to confiscate those licences. If I thought you were going to sell less liquor or have less drunkenness, I would agree, but you will not do that by abolishing the off-licence of the hotel. It is confiscating one man’s right and making a free gift of it to someone else. We are fighting a battle of one section of the trade in favour of another. Take Port Elizabeth. In the whole city there are only three bottle stores. From time immemorial the hotels had this right, and they paid for the hotels on the basis of this right, and we are going to rob these people of a valuable right and make a free gift to other people who have done nothing to earn it. At present, I admit, speaking as a layman, that it seems very unfair a hotelkeeper should be allowed to sell “off” long after the bottle stores are forced to close. It is unfair to the bottle store keeper. If you make things equal, if you say to the hotel keeper: “All right, you have had the licence all these years, and we do not see why we should take it away and give it to the bottle store, but you shall be bound by the same regulations and keep the same records, and, if necessary, your off-sales department shall be in another part of the building.” If you do that you will attain the same result as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is striving for without the concomitant injustice of this other method. If there is no inherent difference in principle between selling off from an hotel and selling off from a bottle store, during the same hours and with the same limitations, then it seems to me that there is no reason for confiscating one man’s rights—

Do you prefer the clause as it stands?

I do not like either of them. I think the law should remain as it stands, except that the holder of an hotel off-licence should be put under the same restrictions as a bottle store keeper. He should be placed under exactly the same terms and conditions, and, what is more, he should pay a licence, but, having done that, the entire case for confiscation of the off-licence falls away. I make these remarks simply because, having tried all through this Bill to help the Minister, wherever it is necessary, to cure abuses, I desire not to let us commit any injustice or unfairness. I know one case where a personal acquaintance of mine, after many years’ service, was able to buy a country hotel along the coast. He paid a very high price for that hotel, because 60 per cent. of the trade is “off”. Now that is going to be confiscated. He cannot possibly keep up that hotel. If, by doing this, you are going to curb this evil of drunken coloured people on our roads, I would vote for it with both hands, but you are not going to do that. You are merely going to take away the man’s rights and give them to the holder of a bottle store licence.

I cannot see the point in the argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in saying that the evidence which he quoted proved that liquor is being illegally sold in the Transvaal and other places. If a man cannot buy the liquor by the bottle in the hotels he goes to a bottle store. Now it is said that there is a benefit to the hotel keepers in the Cape which they have not got in the Transvaal, but what are the facts? In the Transvaal the whole of the hotel-keepers have separate bottle stores. In every small village you go to you see the hotel owner has built a bottle store next door. If a man wants to buy a bottle of liquor in the Transvaal then he orders it at the bottle store. In the Cape Province, however, we have bottle stores and hotels also that sell by the bottle. They never took the trouble to have a separate licence for a bottle store. What happens now? We come and tell the hotel keeper that he must stop selling by the bottle, and we give all rights of selling by the bottle to the bottle store keeper. That is a very big present which we are giving to the bottle store keeper, and I think it is not fair. If the Minister deletes the words “four years” from his amendment, then I think that, according to it, a licensing board can grant the right to an hotel keeper to obtain a bottle store, but, to say that after four years he must stop selling by the bottle is unfair. In Cape Town, e.g., there are many more bottle stores and hotels which may sell by the bottle than the law allows, with the result that all the trade is in the hands of a few bottle store keepers. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that the Minister should meet the people and give them a chance of obtaining a bottle store licence as well. I hope the Minister will omit “four years” from the amendment.

The attitude I have taken throughout this debate and also on the committee is that I do not want to see any legislation carried out by prejudice, and we are in danger of legislating in this Bill entirely by prejudice, prejudice which has been created in many of the urban districts of the Union. I am in favour of leaving things as they are where they have not been found to be against the public interest, or where they have not been abused. If we are going to go in for a system of temperance throughout the Union, if, for instance, we all want to go in for total prohibition, that is an entirely different matter. I would vote for total prohibition, because I think it would be for the benefit of the country, but I do say that we should avoid anything in the nature of prejudice taking a hand in these matters.

Do you suggest that all the police are prejudiced?

I listened to their evidence equally with the hon. member, and their evidence relates entirely to urban areas. The hon. member read evidence from one particular witness who spoke about one or two wayside hotels. What he said does not apply to the whole of the country. It is distinctly unfair that arguments should be brought forward on one or two side issues in connection with the whole trade of the country. I wish to move a new sub-section to follow sub-section (2). We have a special licence in Natal called a country hotel licence, which is also for off sales as well as on-consumption. I know a number of these hotels which are simply places conveniently situated and serving the interests of the public, and where there is not the slightest suspicion of any illicit liquor traffic. These could not possibly carry on their business without the off-consumption licence. Therefore, to take away from these people this right is to take their living away from them and to destroy a very necessary convenience to the population of the countryside. Let me refer to a number of hotels on the Natal coast. There are very small places. Families come down and stay at these hotels, mothers with their children, and they are unable to pay very large fees, but they come down to have a month’s bathing. These hotels have both an on- and off-consumption licence. They would not be able to carry on their business at all if it were not for having both these licences. If they are required to build palatial premises, it will make it impossible for these hotels to carry on their business, and you destroy what are very convenient places for many people. But up-country we have a different position. We have a mountainous country where communication is very often difficult. We have small settlement areas where the hotel serves the needs of the whole of the district. What is going to happen if the off-consumption licence is taken away? You cannot create two establishments. You cannot have a bottle store and an hotel in the same place. The result will be you will lose both conveniences, and the countryside, as a whole, will suffer. The argument which has been used about illicit liquor traffic at these places does not move me a bit, because I do not believe it is done. I do not believe it is done at all in the country districts of Natal, although I have no doubt it exists in the large urban areas. Therefore, I have no objection whatever to the Minister’s proposal. It seems to me that if these off-consumption licences are limited in hours in the same way as bottle stores, then every convenience is met, and the ends of justice are completely served. Therefore, I move this amendment.

This discussion is not going the right way, because we are not moving the old clause out. The amendment of the hon. member is a new clause. I again appeal to the House, let us just vote down the old clause unless hon. members want it, and then we can have a discussion.

It is all very well moving out the old clause, but we ought to know what we are going to put in its place, because the amendment the Minister proposes seems to me to be worse than the old clause. Under the old clause at least the licensing court had the power to grant additional bottle licences to those men who had had off-consumption licences before, but the new proposal as I understand it is that all these rights will be taken away after four years.

Five years.

It means this, that under the clause as it now stands in the Bill—of course, it was in the hands of the licensing board—you had the opportunity to apply for a bottle licence; now under the new proposal that is all cut away. It is a very serious state of affairs. It is simply a transferring of one man’s business to another. It does not affect the question of temperance at all. They have carried on this business perfectly properly and to everyone’s satisfaction for a number of years, and now they are to completely disappear. The question of shebeens, to my mind, does not come in. When the licensing court has found that any particular premises were used for a shebeen, they have lost their licence. For years in the Cape the rule has been that the retail trade can sell for off-consumption at no hours except when the bottle stores are open. As far as I know, I have heard no complaint against either the bottle store or the retail place so far as shebeens are concerned. As far as I know, there has been no connection between the ordinary licensed premises and the shebeen. My suggestion to the Minister is this, why not take his original Bill and his original clause? I have an amendment on page 273 which will mean that if it is carried everybody will, in future, be put under conditions as regards off-sales. At present there is no control over the retail man as regards off-sales. I am providing that if a man sells for consumption off the premises, it must be in a securely closed bottle or other receptacle, in quantity not to exceed that which may be sold under a bottle liquor licence. The licensing board may impose conditions as to the place where he may sell. The difference between that and the clause as drafted is that it need not necessarily be a separate building. My amendment will be much stricter than the position at present. Sales for off-consumption will be under the very strict control of the licensing board. I move—

1. (a) the place where any such sale for consumption off the premises shall take place and its separation from the place where liquor for consumption on the premises is sold;
2. (b) the times when and the person to whom sale for consumption off the premises shall not be made;
3. (c) the records which shall be kept of sales for consumption off the premises; and
4. (d) any other matter affecting such sales, including any condition which it would be competent for the licensing board to impose in respect of a bottle liquor licence.”.

It seems to be forgotten the amount of drunkenness amongst coloured people along the road, especially near Cape Town and out towards Belville, and it has been our endeavour, and it is our endeavour now, to put a stop to it. This is shown by the report of the Baxter Commission, which gravely examined the matter. [Report quoted.] I have known men go to the canteens in the afternoon, get drunk, and bring a bottle to their dwelling house, and we have to stop that. Very often there is a row on Saturday night or on Sunday.

You want to legislate for the whole Union on account of the Cape.

Why should we have that abomination existing in the Western Province? There is only one way, as the Baxter Commission tells you, and that is to stop the sale in these canteens off the premises. I thought the Minister would be prepared to take that from the very first. It is my principal interest in the Bill, because I come up right against it.

Why do you not give your labourers a tot?

That has nothing to do with it.

It gives them a taste for liquor.

Exactly. This is one of the most important things in the whole Bill. To my mind, if you want to stop drunkenness amongst the coloured people in the Western Province, you should stop these off-sales.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) defended the rights of the Cape hotelkeepers, and I quite agree with him. I consider it unjust to take away the right of the little country hotels to sell by the bottle. If that right is taken away, many of them will have to shut down. The position on the countryside is not the same as in the big towns, e.g., Cape Town, because the small hotels there live, to a great extent, from the sale by bottle. The hotelkeepers have great expense in building and maintaining their hotels, and I think that we are not entitled to simply take away their existing rights. It is quite unfair. Nor will it lead to a reduction in the consumption of liquor, because the sale of liquor will remain the same, only that the right to sell, which is taken away from the hotelkeeper, will be given to the bottle store keeper. If the bottle store may no longer sell, then the hotel may also not sell by the bottle. I appeal to the Minister not to take away the existing rights of the small hotels in the country.

I was a member of the commission of which Mr. Baxter was the chairman, and I quite believe that for the conditions of the Western Province this is necessary, but we should legislate for the whole of the Union. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) referred to conditions in Port Elizabeth, where the licensing courts have found the most fruitful cause of drunkenness was the bottle store, more than hotels, with the right of off-sales, and the courts have set their face against the granting of more licences to bottle stores. I do not see why the Minister limits it to five years. One of the objects of the Bill is to get more impartial and capable licensing boards, not tied down in every way. If you set down the general principles on which they can go, what sort of people are you going to get? It will be the same as with the school boards of the Cape Province, which became a sort of registering machine, and the personnel went down. You must pay some attention to local conditions. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is a very sensible one. Let me give an instance of how the thing will work if the Minister’s amendment is carried. Suppose you are staying at an hotel, and wishing to give a picnic you want a hamper made up, and ask that a couple of bottles of wine or beer be included. The hotelkeeper would not be allowed to supply you with any liquor, and might tell you to go a mile away to the nearest bottle store.

How do we have picnics in the Transvaal?

Possibly illicitly. I believe in leaving the matter to the licensing board.

Under the Natal Licensing Act of 1896, introduced by the late Mr. Harry Escombe, the then Attorney-General, the licence fee was £8, there being no other charges except the cost of two advertisements in the local newspapers. The idea was to avoid the risk of the licensee carrying on an illicit trade, on the ground that if the licences are very high the danger of an illicit trade being indulged in is correspondingly increased I have known many country hotelkeepers, but never one who amassed a fortune, and only two who made a comfortable living and retired with a slight competence, and even that was not obtained out of the hotels, but only because through rising land values they were able to sell their ground at a profit. On the extension of the railways and the removal of the horse traffic, a large number of country hotels abandoned their licences. Since the advent of the motor car, a further large number of country hotelkeepers have gone out of business, and many of those left are struggling to carry on and will not take out licences under this Bill. With regard to off-sales, we have practical proof of the evil of prohibiting them in the ease of the Indians in Natal, who, up to a few years ago, were allowed to carry a bottle home with them. The Indian community, as a whole, does not drink, only the Bengalees consume liquor. The Madrassi are almost invariably teetotalers. Now a Bengalee takes his family to the canteen, buys a bottle of liquor, borrows a glass and throws the drink down his throat. Swallowed hastily in this way the results are often unfortunate, but if a man were allowed to take the liquor home and drink it at his leisure in small quantities, the effect would not be so serious. On the Rand, if a native is found with a bottle of wine in his possession, he is fined £3, but if he is arrested for being drunk and incapable, he escapes with a fine of only £1, so he quickly transfers the contents of the bottle to his inside, thus saving £2. There are many anomalies within the law which people are not aware of unless they have been behind the scenes. There is another point. You may be travelling in a car and, pulling up at a country hotel, ask for a few sandwiches and a bottle of beer and a bottle of lemonade, with the idea of making a shandy, but you cannot get the beer because the hotelkeeper has no off-licence. What are you to do?

Keep the lemonade.

Usually country hotels are located in sparsely populated communities, which, under the Bill, will be debarred from buying a bottle of liquor and will have to send to the nearest town to buy a ease, I suppose, but every farmer does not want a case of liquor in his house. I am very strongly in favour of leaving the country hotels as they are at present.

I agree that we should hot delete the clause until we know what we are going to substitute for it. The amendment confiscates rights. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) thinks that everybody’s opinion must coincide with his. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that if off-sales are prohibited they will simply be transferred to the bottle stores. Thus the amount of liquor consumed will not be reduced. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who was very much exercised over this matter, quoted from the Baxter report. But as politicians do, when they find that there is something in a report which does not suit their purpose, he did not quote the whole of the report on this point. He did not read this portion of the report—

We are dealing now with on-consumption places inside urban areas, and we are not touching rural areas In the rural areas we shall be doing more harm than in the urban areas, because in the rural areas it is the only place from which they can get their supplies. The Minister wants to remedy it in the urban areas, but not in the rural areas. I would like to see this section amended, and my first amendment is—

I do not see why we should make any distinction between urban areas and rural areas, and if we give any preference at all, it should be in the rural areas. I think we should amend Clause 63 of the Bill and not delete it, and wait and see what we shall get inserted in its place.

On this particular clause the Minister has arrayed against him all the forces of liquor, and he is like a strong man struggling with adversity, and I hope he will stand by his amendment. If he does, I think he will carry it. The wine farmers have always laid down the principle that they wanted to diminish drunkenness, and they have said they are out to stop drunkenness in the Western Province. Only a few days ago I got a circular which I think is on behalf of the wine farmers stating that they were against this particular clause. If this amendment is carried, it will do a lot to stop drunkenness in the Western Province. All the evidence of the select committee was in favour of an amendment such as the Minister proposes. Have we to take no notice of the police of this country and declare that they are biassed and want to ruin the liquor trade? All the police all over South Africa said, “Stop off sales.” I do not think the liquor people need trouble about this Bill. They have done remarkably well up to now, in fact, they have got more than I thought they would, and they are crying out for more. What fantastic arguments we have heard against this clause! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said they would not be able to hold picnics because they could not get a bottle of whisky to take with them. I knocked him out by asking him how they managed to hold picnics in the Transvaal, where there are more picnics than there are in the Cape. He couldn’t answer it. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) wants to know how they are going to get their liquor in the rural areas. I asked him how do they get it now in the Free State? And he couldn’t answer that.

They drink peach brandy.

Hon. members are talking nonsense.

I have had it myself.

The only peach brandy made in the Free State they drink in Cape Town. The hon. member for Worcester says there will not be less drink sold because the bottle stores will sell it. The hon. member is wrong. The bottle stores have to close at a certain time in the afternoon, and at that time the licensees have to stop it too, but they sell it at all times, and no one can stop them. Men go into bars, get too much to drink, and carry more liquor home. They would not do it if they were sober. On Saturday nights they say they must have a few bottles for Sunday, and they take two or three bottles home. The coloured people do the same. I hope the Minister will stick to his amendment. If the liquor people really want to keep local option away in South Africa, and stop attacks in the future, they will take a clause like this, which will do more than any other clause to stop drunkenness.

There have been different opinions expressed in this House as to the benefits to be derived from amendments and the clause in the Bill. I represent an area which, unfortunately, is not free from hotels and bottle stores. We also have certain wineries on the boundary of that area; on Saturday afternoons women purchase it in paraffin tins. I have met dozens myself at a place now called Athlone which used to be called West London. They don’t purchase from hotels or bottle stores; if we are going to stop illicit drinking, we have not only to tighten up the bottle stores and hotels, but the farmers also, who sell this drink to non-Europeans in this area. There is little chance of that type of people who live on the Flats purchasing at decent hotels or bottle stores; I think we should not always be attacking hotel proprietors, who, some of them, I acknowledge, should not have a licence, but there are others who as far as possible try to play the game. I should like members to realize if we are going to stop drinking among the non-Europeans and the less educated section, we have to deal with certain members of the farming community within 15 miles’ radius of Cape Town.

I only want to say this, that what worries me is that I think if we adopt this clause as it stands, we are going to increase the facilities for drink in an undesirable way. I am thinking now of various country districts and small towns where there are hotels which meet the requirements of the country and carry on a very decent trade and have rooms for travellers. There these hotels have their on and off consumption licences, and very few of them are really abused. I think the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) hit the nail on the head when he said it is the type of some of the licence holders very often that is getting the whole trade into bad odour. That, however, has nothing to do with this clause. My point is whether we cannot meet the case by a draft of this clause by which such country hotels as have had bottle licences shall be able to continue them, that those licences shall be renewed where the business has been carried on satisfactorily and been conducted properly. There are various little places that I have in mind where there are perhaps one or two hotels with off sales licences. What is going to happen is that you are going to do them injustice and perhaps shut them down and create a third avenue of liquor sales by opening a bottle store in addition to those places. Why should you injure a legitimate trade? Why, too, put people to the inconvenience of sending a vast distance for anything they may require? Why not allow people still to purchase their stuff, in case or bottle, from the licence holder? Why create a third licence in the place? If you have these hotel licences and a bottle store licence in a small place, all competing against each other, you may have these people unable to make a decent living in view of that extra competition, and probably going in for illicit liquor dealing in consequence. I think myself it would be much wiser, in such cases, if a man has an off consumption licence and there is no complaint against him, if he has carried on his business honestly and legitimately, and not gone into the illicit liquor trade, to renew his off consumption licence under the safeguards which appear in the amendment on page 272 of the Votes and Proceedings. Let the licence be subject to all the conditions which apply to bottle store licence holders, but enable him to carry on his hotel business which he would give up, possibly, if it were not for the profits he makes out of his liquor. It would be a distinct hardship to the public if these country hotels were closed down. I do not wish to give the impression that I am in any way trying to defend the badly-run hotel. We have some appalling hotels in the country. They are not hotels; they are not even decent bars; they are canteens.

Why shouldn’t he apply for a bottle store licence?

He may apply for a bottle store licence, but at what a prohibitive licence fee! Another point is that I think by this clause you are inclined to create an increased illicit liquor trade. Let us try to get things so simple that a man may carry on an honest trade, at any rate, let it be carried on openly and above board, and let us kill this insidious subterranean liquor trade, which is the real curse of South Africa. I think we shall do that if we allow a man to trade openly and honestly, and not get underground for one reason or another.

We are concerned here in a struggle between the bottle stores and the hotels. It is therefore not quite correct, as stated by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), that we here have the whole might of the liquor traffic on the one side. I would not have taken part in the debate unless I wanted to show that the evidence quoted is very important and that we must actually take notice of it and if I were not convinced that it was a sound principle that the consumption of liquor in a building? and the off-sales should be separated. When a man has drunk a considerable amount inside the building then the temptation is great for him to take a bottle home with him. It is a sound principle to say that the man shall not be allowed to take liquor with him from the place where he has been drinking. Up to that point the Minister properly appreciated the matter from the start. If I mistake not, the provisions of the Bill in its original form were much stronger. All right of sale for consumption outside the building was done away with in a building where drink was consumed. The Minister subsequently tried to meet the objections of hotel-keepers who to-day have the right of off-sales. I am, however, convinced that we should accept the principle that no drinking of liquor and sale by the bottle shall take place in the same building. If the opportunity is given to every hotel, that has the right of selling by bottle, to make application for a separate bottle-store licence it will make the number of bottle stores too large. Therefore the clause as it now stands cannot be passed by us. Many more hotel bottle stores will come into existence, in fact there will be so many that an unhealthy competition among the bottle stores will be the result. I think that ought to be prevented. I am not pleading for the bottle stores as such, but I want the principle to be established as far as possible that the place where liquor is drunk and the place where it is sold by the bottle must be separated. It may possibly cause difficulty in small places where there is only one hotel and where the whole population can possibly only buy liquor by the bottle. Possibly the Minister can leave it to the discretion of the licensing board to permit, in small places where necessary, liquor being sold by the hotel in bottles and when the village increases in size and a bottle store is opened then they can take away the hotel-keeper’s bottle licence. It is perhaps necessary to concede this in the circumstances, but otherwise the principle of the separation of off-sales at an hotel must be maintained. The amendment gives to hotels, in fact, the right for five years after the commencement of the Act to sell by the bottle, and during that time they can make provision for the altered position, to look for new customers and to apply for a bottle licence, nor do I think that the hotels will suffer so much damage. In the Transvaal hotels do not have the right of selling by the bottle, and if the hotels can exist there without off-sales I do not see why it should not be possible in the rest of South Africa. I hope the House will pass the amendment of the Minister, and that he will possibly make the small alteration I have suggested.

I do not want to detain the House long, but just to move an amendment. “To delete clause 63”—

The hon. member may only speak in one language.

I think enough has been said about this matter from both sides, and I think it is about time we came to a vote. I have another amendment to move, to omit this clause and to substitute the following new clause—

The hon. member is out of order. The clause will first have to be negatived and then he can move it.

When I spoke before, I was under the impression that this Clause 63, as printed in the Bill, had been deleted and that the Minister had moved his new Clause 63, but seeing that the old clause still stands, I would like to say just a word or two about it. In the first place, I do not think we ought to deal only with urban licences, hut with rural licences as well, and for that reason I would support the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) to delete the words “within an urban area.” With regard to the necessity for control which was emphasized, I think both by the Minister and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I think the position is entirely met by the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). It provides that a licensing authority may impose conditions regarding the place where sale for off-consumption shall take place and its separation from the place where liquor for consumption is sold. The licensing board may also impose the times when and the persons to whom sales for off-consumption may be made, also for records and other matters. It seems to me that if the clause in that amended form were adopted, the object which the Minister has in view and also the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be achieved and you will, without any confiscation, secure all the control that is necessary, because it is admitted that it is necessary to have bottle licences. If there are bottle licences which are to be subject to certain conditions regarding records to be kept, hours of business and so forth, those conditions can be imposed quite well in the case of hotels where up till now there has been sale for off-consumption. I think, without doing too much violence to the existing state of affairs, you could quite easily meet the position if you adopt these amendments.

As a supporter of local option only because I think it prevents drunkenness, I differ from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) when he says that he considers that it will indirectly lead to drunkenness if we allow retail liquor licence holders to also sell by bottle. Just the opposite is the case. I do not think that drunkenness exists where sales take place by bottle for consumption at home, but among the sort of people who go for a drink in the afternoon and in the evening take another nightcap. I think that this clause will not affect the outside bars, but I just want to tell the Minister that at a comparatively large distance of 150 miles between Warrenton and Mafeking along the main road, there are eight small hotels of which not one is able to maintain a bar licence as well as a bottle licence. Take the case of Taungs. There are two hotels without bottle stores. If the right of selling by bottle is taken away from those two hotels, neither of them will be able to take out a bottle store licence in addition to the business they are already doing. But what inconvenience will not be caused to the farmers in the neighbourhood? It will mean that if the people cannot get their bottle of liquor at Taungs they will have to go 50 miles further to the nearest bottle store to get a bottle of liquor. The hotels, when built, all reckoned on the off-sales. There is hardly one bottle store in my constituency today. Because there is no bottle store, the bars were established to catch all the trade. They are, however, not merely bottle stores, but are also of great convenience of the travelling public. I should like to ask the Minister to abandon it. It is absolutely necessary in the Cape Colony that the hotels should retain the right they have to-day and it must not be taken away by a stroke of the pen after four years. It would be a great inconvenience to the travelling public in the neighbourhood. The village Stella, in my district, has not got an hotel, but there is an hotel just adjoining it about 50 yards outside. It will be regarded as a country hotel and will have different rights to other hotels. It would be an injustice for the one hotel to have the right of off-sales and not the other one. The rural hotel will be able to do the business just because it is 50 yards outside the urban area. I hone the Minister will allow existing rights to continue. If they are taken away now or after five years or 10 years we shall immediately have all the inconvenience to which I have referred.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) is not here, because usually he takes a strong temperance line, but he does not seem to understand the real evil that will arise if this system is allowed to be perpetuated. Every police officer who has given his evidence has roundly condemned this system. The hon. member speaks of a number of good country hotels, but if you have bad country hotels and a bad licensee, and he sells on his premises, the evil is limited to his premises, but if you have off-sales it is distributed right through the district, and these country hotels are not necessarily under police supervision. The nearest resident police station may be ten miles away. It is no use hon. members addressing themselves to its being a matter of convenience. We are legislating against one of the greatest evils which has assailed South Africa, and these off-sales are one of the greatest sources of this evil. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Mackintosh) talks about a picnic and that he would not be allowed to take the liquor he wants. What a calamity! We would be doing a great deal to stop drunkenness amongst the coloured people of the Western Province. Some of us stay at private hotels that do not have a licence, and you might as well argue that because my hotel does not have a licence and I want liquor for a picnic on Sunday, that hotel should have a licence. This sort of argument exhausts my patience. Let me take the case of Port Elizabeth. It is true you have only three bottle stores there. I can see a great measure of inconvenience might result there, but we are not legislating for Port Elizabeth, we are legislating on broad lines for the Union. Undoubtedly the licensing board of Port Elizabeth would say, “We need more bottle stores,” and they can give one per thousand. The smaller hotels may be closed down and bottle store licences given in their place. One of the strong recommendations of the Baxter report was the abolition of the right of off-sale, and one of the finest temperance speeches made in this House was by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), who, in 1919, said he had been born in the Western Province and remembered the conditions there as a boy; when he returned there as a man and saw the condition of affairs there he said that if the Western Province people could not put their house in order “we shall jolly well make you.” Yet he is against us to-day, though he voted for the Baxter report in 1919. As to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said as to what the real difference was, in the first place as to off-sales, you cannot control them and in the second place, we have laid down that no woman may enter a bar, so no woman could go unless a bottle store existed.

I do not want to have liquor sold out of a bar.

I am glad to have that part.

From the start I wanted to have the hotel licence holder in exactly the same place as the bottle store.

Separate premises?

Yes.

In the third schedule the fee payable on the issue of a new licence for a bottle store is £200, and £100 for a renewal. In the case of an hotel it is £150 and £75 respectively. If this amendment is carried the part is greater than the whole. A hotel may do an off- and on-sale, and the bottle store, with off-sale only, must pay more. The general principle is that off-sales must stop, and liquor should be sold only from the bottle. From the police point of view you can control sales from the bottle store in a way you cannot do with a bar, even if you have a room next to it. This is one attempt to stop drunkenness and protect our native and coloured people. You have the evidence of the police that these off-sales are one of the chief causes of the illicit liquor traffic. Let us realize we are legislating for the people who are most intimately affected by the evils of drink.

made an interjection.

I see nothing in this Bill which says anything about a “respectable” hotel. You might as well argue that because most of us are honest there should be no laws against thieves.

You want the hotels to be decent ones.

Can the hon. member find some way in this Bill of defining a good hotel and a bad hotel?

The licensing boards.

The licensing courts have failed up to now, because South Africa is full of good as well as of bad hotels. The evils are well known. The principle underlying the Bill is that the liquor trade is a dangerous one, and must be controlled.

The hon. member talks about attacking a great social evil, but you can do that without creating a gross injustice. The hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) seems to be unable to seize the point that all bottle stores have off-sales, and in this respect I can see no difference between an hotel and a bottle store. If, by committing the flagrant injustice he suggests, we could remedy this social evil, we would be with him, but his proposal would not effect that end, but merely create a greater evil. As the result of his suggestion we shall have pot-houses.

How do hotels get along in the Transvaal where they have not the right of off-sales?

The conditions are different. You are going to take away off-sales from the man who paid for the right and give the right to another man who has not paid for it. In many cases the result will be that the off-sales business of an hotel will be transferred to a bottle store next door to the hotel. All the hon. member’s arguments are based on the assumption that a bar can have off-sales at a later hour than a bottle store, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has met that point completely. We have now reduced the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) to a mere detail. No one is more horrified than I am at the disgusting sights in the Cape Peninsula, but that evil will not be removed by confiscating one man’s rights and giving them to somebody else. I hope the Minister will retain the clause and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), which meets the case completely. Either the thing is right or it is wrong—if it is wrong, abolish it altogether.

I have no objection to dropping it altogether.

If we commit an injustice by dropping it now we commit no less an injustice by dropping it within five years, although the injustice may be mitigated. I am strongly opposed to rural bottle stores. To-day country hotels have this double right, but if the right of sale off the premises is taken away from them, the rural population will have to go to the towns for their liquor. A farmer in the North-West may have to go an extra hundred miles to obtain his requirements. Why should we force the rural population to submit to such an unnecessary inconvenience? Either liquor is such a curse as to demand its abolition, or it is not a curse. The whole clause is confiscatory, unfair and unreasonable, whereas the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is very sound.

I thought that the policy laid down in Clause 80 would be accepted by both sides of the House, because it was the policy laid down by the late Government, for when Senator de Wet introduced his Bill in 1923, he provided that on-licences should not carry the right of off-sales. In the first Bill I drafted I followed exactly the same course, it being obvious that if you allowed an hotel to sell liquor for consumption off the premises, you placed temptation in a man’s way to take a couple of bottles of liquor home with him. I inquired from Mr. Lansdown whether there was anything in the cover to show that Senator de Wet intended to depart from that policy, but I accept the statement of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie).

He agreed to the amendment.

That was the policy, and I think on the evidence placed before the select committee there is no doubt that evidence as a whole was in favour of that policy. There is very little evidence against that policy. That being so, being the policy laid down by both Governments, I think I am right in saying that it was the policy acceptable to all sides of this House. The reason I introduce Clause 63 in this way is because there are cases in which vested rights have been acquired at big cost, and we want to make it as little hard as possible for them. They have known for years since the Baxter report that this policy was proposed, and they are going to get five years in which they will be allowed to dispose of drink in this way without paying extra licence fees. Perhaps it will be better to introduce an amendment regarding licence fees.

In five years you are going to take away these licences, and in ten years you are going to take away the bar licences. There will be nothing left.

Yes, the loose bar, and that will make the position better.

Not in the country.

I do not agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), because he forces the licensing board to give the right of off-sales without allowing them any discretion. Supposing there is a large feeling of suspicion that an hotel is doing something wrong in regard to off-sales, then, under that amendment, the licensing board may not use its discretion, but must authorize on-sales. The position to-day is that you have your hotels selling for off-consumption, and the licensing board must allow them to sell off the premises under certain conditions. In any case, legislation of this kind must always be permissive. One suggestion is to leave the whole position to the licensing boards to say whether you should allow these sales to take place or not in particular areas. The result would be that in District A you will have the licensing court allowing this to take place indefinitely for years to come, and in District B the licensing court will say it is unwise, you must stop it at once, and you will have different rules all over the country. That is not a wise thing. It will produce a patchwork condition in the different provinces. We should press for a maximum period that this should continue. Some members think the maximum period should be less than five years, and other members think, perhaps, it would be better to make it longer. I should be very pleased if I managed to get this amended section with five years. The forces against me are very powerful indeed, and they come from different quarters, many of which I least expected.

Stick to your guns.

I thought every member of the Transvaal, who thinks his system is a right system, would have stood by me, members on both sides of the House. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) seemed to think there was something reflecting on the licensing board in saying that these licences shall stop in five years without giving them discretion. There are many provisions which shackle the licensing board which must act within the four corners of the law. Even the supreme courts are hampered by having to abide by the laws of the country. That is not a strong argument, but the argument that does appeal to me is the one that we are taking away existing rights, and the only way to deal with it is to say that the exercise of these two forms of rights is wrong, but we appreciate that something should be done to give them something for what is taken away.

Why is it wrong in principle?

Take all the evidence which has been brought. Your hotel is intended to satisfy the people who go into the hotel to take their drink there. It was never intended to allow you to take home a bottle of beer to regale your family. It is not the natural thing to do, but it is the natural thing to go to a bottle store and take your requirements home. Of course, I may be talking from the point of view of how things are done in the Transvaal, and not giving sufficient attention to how they are done in the Cape. If members feel we are not paying enough for the vested rights being taken away, the best thing is to extend these rights for a further term of years. That is the only way. I do not want the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to think I am in favour of that, but in dealing with this restricted period, we should deal with the point of the number of years this right should continue in order to pay them for the taking away of their vested rights. It would be better to fix a term for a considerably longer term if we succeed in bringing them to an end at some time or another. I do not think, with the forces arrayed against me, that the clause, as printed, is going to be passed, so it would be better to get it out of the way. What is going to happen to my amended clause heaven only knows.

I think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) feels very happy that at last he can quote my speech of eight years ago. He has for the last three years been trying to find a good opportunity to do so. Let me tell the hon. member that I still abide by that speech. I think my prophecy has been realized that we should have to ask a Transvaaler to alter this Bill, and the present Minister, who is a Transvaaler, had to come and show this Cape Province how to amend the Act. The Minister of Justice now says that he cannot understand a Transvaaler pleading for the right of hotel keepers in the Cape Province. It is very simple. The Minister assured us, and so did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that, as far as possible, existing rights should not be encroached upon. Hitherto in this Bill they have not been tampered with except in the case of bars, where it is provided that they shall retain their existing rights another ten years, and that they will thereafter get something else instead, such as a restaurant or hotel licence. But here it is proposed to take away the existing rights of hotels to sell by the bottle and to give them to people who have a bottle store, so that the latter will have been benefitted by at least 300 per cent. Now I am accused of not sticking to my principles, but it is not I who is running away from them, but the Minister from tampering as little as possible with existing rights. If the Minister himself does not see his way to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), then I want to ask him to put “ten years” instead of “five years’” in his amendment. I think that in that way he will at least be meeting the objection a little.

I want briefly to refer to one point. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is always basing his arguments upon police evidence, and he has produced what he considers irrefutable police evidence to show that these off-sales from hotels are absolutely inadvisable and should be done away with. He has given a certain number of references. I would refer him to Question 3711, addressed to Col. Gray—

That puts a very different aspect on the infallibility of the police evidence or the claim that the police evidence only goes in one direction. They recognize that in the Cape Province it is right that, where there is no bottle store licence, an hotel should be allowed to have these off-sales.

Will you go on reading the next question?

I know he says that in certain areas it should be done away with. He says that in certain areas it should not be applied. That is all we ask. These hotels are going to have to close down if they do not have these off-sales. They cannot carry on under the tremendous licences imposed by this Bill. Hotels which have had these off-sales up to now, are practically going to be in the position that they will be unable to carry on. I do hope that the Minister is going to be a bit lenient here. If you apply this to the large urban areas, I have not much to say, but to apply it to rural and smaller urban areas will, I think, mean a great injustice to the travelling public. Illicit liquor selling is not a serious matter in the country districts. We in the country districts are going to be penalized, and very seriously penalized, if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gets his way, simply to legislate for the position in the big towns. I hope the Minister will agree, so far as the country districts are concerned, for the hotels to retain these off-sales.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and negatived.

New Clause 63,

I move—

63.

1. (1) If at the first annual meeting of a licensing board under this Act the board renews within an urban area any licence which previously authorized the sale of liquor for consumption both on and off the premises, the board, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, may, at such meeting, in addition authorize the sale under such licence of liquor for consumption off the licensed premises.
2. (2) In any case in which the board grants any renewal in terms of sub-section (1), it may thereafter from year to year, but for a period not exceeding four years, continue to exercise its authority under that sub-section.
3. (3) All the provisions of this Act relating to sales under a bottle liquor licence and all the obligations of and penalties upon the holders of bottle liquor licences shall apply in respect of sales of liquor for consumption off the licensed premises authorized under sub-sections (1) and (2) and in respect of the licensee of such premises, and the licensing board may, in respect of such sales and licensee, exercise all such powers as it may exercise in respect of a bottle liquor licence: Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 69 and 77, the licensing board may, in any case in which it may deem fit, authorize the conduct of such sales in the same portion of the premises in which sales for consumption on the premises takes place.
4. (4) Whenever in terms of sub-section (1) a right of sale for consumption off the premises is retained there shall be paid in respect of such right in addition to the amount ordinarily payable in respect of the licences held an amount equal to that payable under Section 12 and the Third Schedule to this Act for the renewal of a bottle liquor licence.

I think there may be changes in this clause which may make it necessary for me to impose the ordinary bottle liquor licence. In other words, if an hotel is given the right of off-sale it must pay a bottle liquor licence in respect of that.

What is that, £100?

I think it is £50.

I now want to move my amendment to the Minister’s amendment—

1. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act ah hotel licence issued in respect of premises situate within the Province of Natal, may, if the licensing board so order, authorize the sale of liquor both for consumption off and on the premises, if, immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, there existed in respect of the said premises a country hotel licence issued under any law repealed by this Act.

I move—

Exception was taken to my last amendment, and rightly, by the Minister, that it was imperative. I want to make it permissive, when it will be the same as in the Minister’s original Bill of 1927. I move—

1. 63. If at the first annual meeting of a licensing board under this Act the board renews any licence within an urban area which previously authorized the sale of liquor both for consumption off and on the premises the board notwithstanding anything contained in section 62 may authorize the sale under such licence of liquor in securely closed bottle or other receptacle for consumption off the premises and in quantity not exceeding that which may be sold under a bottle liquor licence to one customer at any one time. In granting any such authority a licensing board may impose such conditions as it may deem fit respecting—
   1. (a) the place where any such sale for consumption off the premises shall take place and its separation from the place where liquor for consumption on the premises is sold;
   2. (b) the times when and the person to whom sale for consumption off the premises shall not be made;
   3. (c) the records which shall be kept of sales for consumption off the premises; and
   4. (d) any other matter affecting such sales, including any condition which it would be competent for the licensing board to impose in respect of a bottle liquor licence.”.

The hon. member cannot move a new Clause 63.

I am moving an amendment in the place of a blank, which I move to fill up.

The hon. member can move that later if the Minister’s is negatived—not now. He can negative it by voting against it.

Surely I can move in the way I want to.

The hon. member may move any amendment, but he said he was moving a new clause. It is an established rule that you cannot move a new clause where you have one clause already before the committee.

I am entitled to move to delete the Minister’s clause and move a new clause.

The hon. member cannot do it in the form in which he proposes.

That is how it was put last time.

It was put on the Order Paper only for the convenience of hon. members. The Chairman would not allow it to be moved.

Surely every hon. member is entitled to fill up a blank in his own way?

There is no blank. You cannot have two clauses before the committee at the same time.

I want to put an alternative proposal in order to fill up the blank. I will withdraw the words new clause, and say I want to move an amendment to fill in the blank which the House has created.

At the present moment there is no blank. I am sorry I must rule the hon. member out of order, but if he thinks I am wrong he knows what to do.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Clause 63 was rejected by the committee and a new clause was moved by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Hanover Street then wished to move an amendment which is practically a new clause. I ruled that two clauses could not be before the committee at the same time.

The position is that the House has created a blank, and has not yet decided how to fill it up. The Minister puts forward one proposal, and I suggest an alternative. The Minister’s suggestion has not been voted upon, and I suggest that any member of Parliament has a right to suggest a motion to fill up the blank in whatever way he likes. In this matter there can be no precedence given, whether he is a Minister or an ordinary member. I submit the suggestion of mine is purely a proposal to fill up a blank, and the House will eventually have to decide, and until the Minister has filled up the blank, I submit any member is in order to put a clause which he suggests in the way I have done.

It all depends upon what a blank is. As I understand it, it is a portion of a clause which has been left out. The House has voted down the printed clause, and afterwards I moved a new Clause 63. Having moved it, there will be a large number of amendments, and at the same time the hon. member is moving another Clause 63, to which there will also be a lot of amendments. There will then be two clauses running together, and it will be a neck and neck race, and which will win I do not know.

A blank having been created, is it not right the House should have a chance to say whether the clause proposed by the Minister is better than the one proposed by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander)? Why should we vote in favour of the Minister’s clause, when possibly a better clause might be proposed by the hon. member? According to the ruling of the Chair, the hon. member’s proposal is not before the House, and even the Minister may think that the hon. member’s proposal is better than his own.

I will give my ruling at eight o’clock.

The practice of the House is clearly not to deal with two clauses at the same time. Where a clause has been negatived and a new clause has been moved to take its place, that new clause must be disposed of before any other new clause can be moved. If any honourable member is not satisfied with the new clause that has been moved he can move amendments to it or he may persuade the House to negative it, but until it has been negatived he cannot propose a new clause of his own. I therefore uphold the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman.

House in Committee:

stated Mr. Speaker’s ruling to the committee.

I hope that the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) will be carried, because I must say it will place your country hotels in a very invidious position, for while hotels in the towns, where they can much more easily make a big living, would be allowed to have both on- and off-sales, your country hotels would not have them. I trust this amendment will be accepted, because if it is necessary for any class of hotel it is more necessary for the country hotel than for hotels in the towns.

I understand that the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), who is not here at the moment, is going to move an amendment which may commend itself to the Minister to this effect, that in any urban area (that is from a health committee upwards), where there is no bottle liquor licence, the hotels of that town may, in the discretion of the licensing court, be allowed to continue off-sales not merely for a period of five years, but indefinitely until a bottle liquor licence is established. That would meet the case of every small town and village in the country, and meet the difficulties that some hon. members have spoken of. With that understanding, I think the committee should keep in those words “within an urban area.”

May I ask whether the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) has moved an amendment to sub-section (2) as well, that we can discuss now on the Minister’s clause?

The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) has moved two amendments, one to omit “within an urban area” and the other to omit “for a period not exceeding four years.”

I would like to ask all those hon. members who were willing to support my amendment to support the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), which would put this matter almost exactly in the same position as it would have been if my amendment had been carried, because the Minister’s amendment, as amended by the hon. member for Barkly, means that it won’t apply only to urban areas and that the licensing board will have the power of allowing these off-sales to continue. It will be in the hands of the licensing board, and under the Minister’s amendment all the conditions that apply to bottle licences, all the safeguards against abuse, will apply to such off-sales. So substantially you will get this position that these people who have had these rights for so many years will be allowed to continue, except they will come under the various stringent conditions that apply to bottle licence. If the Minister’s amendment as proposed to be amended by the hon. member for Barkly (West) (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) is accepted it will give substantial justice to those who have held these rights for years and have not abused them. I would like to say that the existing provisions provide ample safeguards. Hon. members seem to think that not sufficient control is given. Even under the existing law a man who has an off-consumption licence if he abuses that right can be deprived of it by the licensing board. Under this Bill, in the case of any individual who is found to be supplying shebeens, or is not conducting his premises properly, it is the simplest thing for the licensing board to say, “We are going to cut off your off-sales.” Surely it is the fair way not to cut off everybody’s off-sales because one or two have misconducted themselves. You have ample provision in this clause. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Barkly West, which leaves the position one of simple justice and does not by a drastic stroke of the pen remove rights that have existed for a very considerable time.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), but the Minister has already indicated that he would rather see an amendment in the form that we should alter the period for which these off-sales licences are to be determined. I am not associating myself with the fight that is supposed to be taking place between the bottle stores and the hotel licences. As far as I am concerned, I think it is a matter of common justice. Here we have certain vested rights in these hotels in the Cape Province which have gone on for a number of years. Money has been invested in these premises. I have it on fairly good authority that with regard to the outside business here at least 60 per cent. is being made on these off-consumption licences. We propose in this clause to take away those rights within a limited period. If we take those rights away within four years, the Minister says they still have the right to come up and ask for a licence. They can ask for a licence immediately. The probabilities are that they are not within the quota, that they will not get a bottle store licence if they apply to-morrow, and at the end of four years if they have not been able to come within the quota, they do not come within the purview of bottle store licences at all. So the man who has invested his money in this particular trade is going to be damaged to the extent of the sales he has lost. Therefore, I would like to move—

That will be a reasonable period. I think that is fair, and I hope the House will support it. I am prepared to support the hon. member for Barkly West with regard to the elimination of the four-year clause, but if we cannot get that, I hope the House will support me and let us make it ten years. There are certain vested interests we have to consider, and I hope the Minister will accept that as a fair compromise.

I have so far refrained from speaking on this clause. There is not a single clause in the Bill which gives me so much trouble of personally forming a clear opinion as this clause does. It is not the case as stated by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that we are ranging ourselves on the side of the liquor traffic or other interests, but we must take up one or the other point of view according to our convictions. We have here two conflicting interests; on the one hand the sound principle in the Bill that is more in the interests of controlling the sale of liquor by the bottle than by retail, and the sale by bottle should not take place in the same building. I think that it is a sound principle. On the other hand we have the local circumstances which cannot be met by the particular principle. To everyone who favours the practical control of the sale of liquor on the countryside it is very difficult to form an opinion on the matter. After lengthy consideration I have come to the conclusion that we cannot merely discuss the principle as a principle, but that we must make provision for the circumstances of the countryside. I thought this afternoon about moving an amendment on the lines now proposed by the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), and anyhow I will support it. I want to add that in my opinion the argument used this afternoon especially by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black-well), that in order to control and reduce drunkenness the separation of the sale by retail and by bottle was necessary is not quite in point. He attached great weight to the argument that it is impossible to exercise control if consumption and off-sales take place in the same building. The sale for consumption in the place and out of it exists in the Free State, and if we compare drunkenness there with that in the Transvaal, then we have two provinces adjoining with a different system. We have here, therefore, a practical example for comparison, and if the sale of liquor can be controlled in the Free State, I do not see why it also cannot be controlled elsewhere. Another argument used was that we were encroaching on existing rights. In my opinion the State must act on convictions, and not bother itself so much about existing rights. I do not attach much weight to the question of rights. It has, however, become clear to me this afternoon that we cannot take away the rights which exist at certain places. I agree with the objections made here by restricting more and more the sale of liquor the trade will be sent into subterranean channels. I think that the sale of liquor in our country already has a bad enough name, and we must not make it still worse. I have here the evidence of Col. Grey before the select committee. I asked him question 3719 in connection with the matter, and he admitted that it was reasonable that where there was no bottle store we could allow the sale by the bottle to the hotel, but that where there was a bottle store off-sales should not be allowed to hotels. He was further asked what the position would be in places where there were not bottle stores, and he replied that we could there permit the sale by the hotel. That is the evidence of one who speaks with authority.

I can understand that a different set of laws, of control and administration, should be applied to the liquor trade, but I cannot understand that a separate ethical code should apply, and Clause 63 does apply a separate ethical code. We have men in this House who are otherwise perfectly fair-minded, but when we are dealing with the liquor trade they seem to lose their sense of equilibrium and sense of sound judgment. We have men in this House who advocate with regard to the liquor trade what they would never dream of advocating in any other trade. I am as anxious as any man to see this country sober, but I do not believe we will make this a sober country by unfair legislation or by confiscation. This is a confiscatory clause. I asked the Minister why he wants to introduce the clause, and he says the process is this: a man goes into a bar and starts drinking, and then wants a bottle. It seems that the Minister cannot understand the psychology of the craving for alcohol if he thinks that that is the process. If a man cannot get alcohol for off consumption from the premises, he is going to get it in the nearest bottle store. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul. You are enriching the bottle storekeeper at the expense of the hotelkeeper. If I thought you were going to suppress this drunkenness amongst coloured and other people by introducing this clause, I would vote for it with both hands, but I cannot see any fairness in this clause. I do feel we are doing substantial injustice in passing a clause like this, and we are achieving nothing. In Port Elizabeth there is a very strong temperance party, and I know they are far more afraid of the bottle store influence than of the hotels. You are not going to sell one bottle of liquor the less. We all know the besotted people in Wynberg and Kalk Bay on Saturday afternoons, they get their liquor from a bottle store.

They get it from the canteens.

If you tell them they cannot get it at a bar, they get it from a bottle store. I have seen them swarming round a bottle store in Muizenberg which I need not specify. There are low-class pothouses in the Western Province which should be closed, and the police and tile licensing court ought to know about them. As long as the bottle stores are there, these people will get their liquor. You are merely confiscating the rights of people which have been bought and paid for, and you are going to ruin the business of good hotels in the country. I hope the Minister will agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), which is a sound one.

I do not know whether the Minister quite understands the position of the small villages in the Cape Province. They very seldom have a bottle store. In most cases the shopkeepers have a bottle store as well. Those people do not house the travelling public. It is only a small room they have and an assistant who serves in the shop who serves someone with a bottle of wine as well. I know a hotelkeeper who built a decent hotel. Everybody said that the hotel was very good, but from the start thought that it was too large for the place. The man, however, wanted to provide the place with a good hotel, but went insolvent because it proved to be too large. Now we want to take away the off-sales from those places as well and give them only to the bottle stores. The bottle stores are the curse of the country, because they provide no conveniences for the public. When a man has had a drink and cannot get a bottle of liquor in the hotel, he will go and get it at the bottle store, and will take not one bottle, but six, with him. That will not reduce drunkenness. I think it is very wrong to take away existing rights, even if it is in three, four, six or seven years. Rather let us assist the hotels on the countryside by enabling them to sell by the bottle as well.

I have an amendment which might meet the question of small country places. Incidentally, as the suggestion was made to me by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I am reminded of the old Latin tag, “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.” However, I move—

1. (3) In any urban area where there is no bottle liquor licence the Minister may if satisfied that the reasonable requirements of the district demand it authorize the licensing board to continue to exercise its authority under sub-section (1).

That will mean that in all those little towns where you have an hotel enjoying the privilege of off-sales and there is no room for a bottle store, the inhabitants will not be deprived of what I consider a very necessary right.

I have listened all the afternoon to the debate, and I think the Minister can do nothing more. He has already conceded enough. Where it was originally proposed to take everything away at once, five years’ time is now given, but hon. members who are so anxious to give the people the opportunity to be able to get bottles of liquor are not yet satisfied. I do not know why we should debate this clause at such length. The Minister is very fair. He gives the people a chance of making provision for five years. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and other hon. members say that we must not take away vested rights. Has not the licensee any vested rights? No, they are only given from year to year. In the Transvaal the system prevails that hotels may not sell by the bottle, and it works well there. Why, then, can we not also apply it in the rest of the country? I will vote for the Minister’s proposal, and it will give the people five years, which is enough.

As the conditions in the Eastern Province are almost the same as those in Natal, I cannot see for the life of me why Natal should enjoy advantages over the Eastern Province. The House should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), which is a reasonable one and leaves the matter in the hands of the local authorities. Seeing that we are making so many drastic changes, the local authorities should be entrusted with the control of licensing matters for four or five years. If at the expiration of that period, the position is not found satisfactory, the House can deal with it. At any rate, we should leave a slight vestige of power in the hands of the local authorities. The Minister says the licensing boards in the future will be better than they have been in the past. Surely, in that event, they can be entrusted with a certain amount of power. It is unfair that country places should be bound by the same principles which apply to large towns. I do not think that one-fiftieth of the illicit liquor traffic prevails in the country as exists in the towns. If at the end of five years the country members find the position unsatisfactory, they will, I am sure, come to the assistance of the Minister and say the law must be changed. I think that in this particular instance, we should set aside politics, and every member should vote as he thinks right in the interests of the country. The chief magistrate of the Transkei constitutes the licensing court, and he tells the hotelkeepers, should the occasion arise, that unless they improve their buildings or, in other cases, where there are serious police complaints of illicit liquor traffic against them, that he will refuse to renew their licence. That warning has the necessary effect. It is not right to take away the privileges enjoyed by the Cape and Natal.

I cordially agree that every member should vote exactly as he thinks right, and no other consideration should weigh with him. I cordially agree with that principle, not only on this matter, but on every matter, but I am dealing more particularly with this case. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) was right when he drew attention to the fact that there are no vested rights in connection with the drink traffic. We know that if licensed houses are properly carried on, the licences are renewed, but we have always legislated against vested rights, so it is wrong to speak of vested rights in connection with the liquor trade. We might keep that point in mind. In introducing the Bill, I knew I should have to make substantial changes, but we have not made the changes that some of us desire. We probably would have gone much further if we could. What I have tried to do is to steer a middle course, and as far as Clause 63 is concerned, I thought I had certainly steered that course, but I find a considerable portion of the House does not agree with me, and I have fears as to the outcome. This clause is too fair to be appreciated by everyone in the House, and therefore I have to make a bid for some kind of additional support. I make my last bid for it. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). That is my last bid. I do not say it is right, but it is necessary to make a concession in order to try and get through something that will assist us with this clause, because the chance is this clause is going to be wrecked, and that will be a bad evening’s work. I am also prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), which meets the difficulties raised by the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer). If these are accepted, I do not wish to extend the period from five years to 11 years, and I will not vote for the extension of the period, that is if the clause does not change any more than by these two amendments.

What is the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand?

It is with regard to the Minister being able to allow any place where there is no bottle store in the country to continue as at present until it is possible to have a bottle store. In that case the hotel can carry on.

Why should Natal be singled out? Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I must bid for some support to get the clause through.

That is a funny way to legislate.

The last part of the proposal is that if there is no further divergence from these amendments which I have accepted, I am prepared to withdraw the sub-clause regarding the payment of an extra licensing fee. It is absolutely fair to impose a bottle store licence fee where the hotel is allowed to carry on as a bottle store as well as the hotel. I am prepared to withdraw that if the rest of the clause goes right. I am absolutely against the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers). As I pointed out before, it will be a bad state of affairs if, in certain districts, you have your licensing board allowing these people to continue for all time, and in the next district the licensing board stops it at once. No one can say there is a necessity in one district to cut it off at once while in the next district you can carry on for all time. That is the position, and I think we have now exhausted the discussion. We have given every point of view, and I hope the House will now come to a vote.

I would like to add to the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) after “Natal” the words “and the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.”

We are reducing this clause to a farce now. The Minister’s last remark was jocular in spirit, and that is the way we are treating it. In order to throw a sop to Natal, the Minister is prepared to grant them what he refuses to the Cape Province. We are not a lot of schoolboys here; we are trying to put through a serious Bill. The Minister is putting the clause up to auction for the highest bidder. If this amendment, as it applies to Natal, is a sound one, then exactly the same applies to the Cape Province. I would be sorry to have to explain to my constituents why Natal and Zululand were excluded, and not the Cape. Then the Minister agrees to withdraw his fourth sub-section about licences. I was the first to say that it was only fair that an hotel licence, carrying an off-sale licence, should pay the off-sale licence, but to tell the licensee that we are going to confiscate his valuable rights, and at the same time he must pay £100 a year to see his assets dissipated, is not quite the thing. It is not right to say to him that for the privilege of seeing his rights vanish he has to pay £100 per annum. If they have the right, then I agree they should pay for it. From time immemorial they have had the right without paying for it, but they should not pay for it if we are going to take it away from them.

At first blush it does seem as if some special concession were being given—

It is the first time you have blushed.

Let us get on. At first blush it does seem as if some special concession were being given to Natal at the expense of the Cape. I do not think the position is that at all. We were told by Natal members and also in select committee that quite substantial villages exist in Natal which have no form of local authority.

So in the Eastern Province.

We were not told that.

You ought to have known it.

It is so, whether you were told or not.

All I can say is, if the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) thinks I should find out a thing like that when no evidence is led, and when no Eastern Province member has mentioned it up to now, he is crediting me with a power of supernatural vision which I have not got. The position is this, that in Natal they have quite substantial villages and hamlets in which there are hotels, and those villages and hamlets would possess some form of local government in any other part of South Africa. The position is, therefore, this, that the Cape is protected by the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), because anything at all which is even comparable to a village is an urban authority under this Act.

No.

Yes, if you look at the definition of “urban authority,” you will see that it goes right up from health committee and village council, so that almost the smallest aggregate of houses is an urban authority, and, if it has got an hotel, that hotel can continue to sell liquor not for five years, but indefinitely, until the place has grown to such an extent that it gets a bottle store. It treats the Cape quite fairly. Natal is treated in the way it asks to be treated only in regard to these outside places where there are quite substantial hotels in these villages which cater for the same need as the hotels mentioned by the hon. member for Griqualand. There is, therefore, no discrimination, and the case of hardship or inconvenience to the public has been met. If the viewpoint we take is the convenience of the public, we have shown that by the Minister accepting these two proposals. If, of course, we sit here as the organ of the trade and worry about the vested rights to sell liquor by the bottle, no matter what the consequences are, then, of course, our viewpoint is entirely different, but if you are desirous of effecting a real reform with a minimum of inconvenience to the public, we have done that in the Minister’s proposal, and I ask hon. members to vote for it.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls—

The Minister has been so good-humoured and so persuasive in the handling of this Bill, especially in connection with this clause, that it is very difficult to oppose him, but I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) that we are taking too much out of the hands of the licensing board. I do think that the licensing board ought to have the power to allow these hotels and other licensed premises to sell liquor for off-consumption, if they see fit. We are making an exception just now in favour of Natal, which I shall vote for, and we are making another exception in favour of the Cape, but is it not the case that even in Natal and in the Cape there are different conditions in different parts of the country, and it seems to me that the licensing board in each division is the best authority to decide what conditions ought to be imposed upon licensees. I think that we are not only in danger of laying down a hard and fast and rigid rule which may impose hardships upon localities, but we are in this clause, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has said, confiscating valuable interests. It is quite true, as the Minister has said, that a licence holder has his licence only for one year, and, legally speaking, he may have no vested rights, but we know, as a matter of fact, that if the licensee carries on his business within the law, he has a moral right to have his licence renewed from year to year. So, in point of fact, he has a vested interest, and I think it is far better to allow the licensing board, who will know the conditions in each locality, to decide this matter rather than accept the clause which has been moved by the Minister.

The Minister said that he was a man of principle. But then he should prove it. If it agrees with his principles to exclude Natal from the operation of the clause, then it should also do the same to treat the Cape Province in the same way. The Minister said that there is no such thing as vested rights in the case of licences. Yet he knows that high prices are paid for licensed premises, because it is the firm expectation that the licensee will retain his licence as long as he conducts himself well. Now the Minister wants to take away his licence, however well he may conduct himself. In liquor legislation the Minister ought to consult me rather than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) will see that the word “if” will have to be omitted to make his amendment read properly.

I move—

I just want to say a few words before we vote. The Minister is possibly under a wrong impression. The small villages on the countryside without exception almost have not yet any bottle stores. Now it may be said that they can make application and can obtain a bottle store licence in four years, or that they can open one now after they have got a licence, but he forgets that Clause 62 has already been passed by which a quota is laid down under which the people cannot get a licence. What will happen in the small places like, e.g., Danielskuil or Brits-town? If there are two hotels, and they cannot sell liquor by the bottle, then more smuggling will take place than ever before, which will be much worse than our allowing the people to sell by the bottle. The hotels will not abuse it, because they know that if they do, the good templars will become stronger, and that they will then be very badly off. Then I still wish to add that I have received a large number of telegrams from all parts of the countryside, from the whole of Griqualand West up to Kimberley, and in all of them I am pressed to do my utmost to see that the rights which have hitherto existed are not taken away.

Question put; That the words “within an urban area”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—52.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—41.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Louw, J. P.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J.

W. Stals, A. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

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

Question accordingly affirmed, and the first amendment proposed by Mr. W. B. de Villiers negatived.

Question put: That the words “but for a period not exceeding”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—47.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, M. L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. P. T.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt. T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—44.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. P.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers. W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt, T.

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

Question accordingly affirmed, and the second amendment proposed by Mr. W. B. de Villiers negatived.

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

Before you put that amendment, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister whether he is going to meet us at all on this clause. The last division was a very narrow one. The Minister might very well meet the hon. member in the last amendment by extending the period.

I think I made it quite clear, if the other concession was made, I was against increasing this period. The period is five years from the end of this, or nearly six years from to-day. Surely that is a very great meeting of the position of the case. The term which the hon. member has moved is practically 12 years from now. I think it is really an unfair thing if we are going to have this long period of time, after, we have decided what the period should be. As to the narrowness of the division, it does not matter so very much, as it makes the event so much more sporting, does it not?

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—57.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

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.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers; Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—34.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hugo, D.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Watt, T.

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

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Munnik dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. P. Louw put and negatived.

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

Ayes—53.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Beane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—36.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Roux, J. W. J. W.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson put and agreed to.

I should like somebody to move the deletion of subclause (4) about licence fees.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, pat and agreed to.

On Clause 80,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 91 (to which two amendments had been moved),

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice and Dr. Stals withdrawn.

As far as this clause is concerned, it has been pointed out that it makes provision for the distillation, brewing or making of drink. This provision fittingly forms part of the excise laws, but not of a law of this kind, which deals with the disposal of drink, and I wish to move—

The result would be that we do not deal at all with the question of what may be lawfully brewed, or made, or distilled, but only with the question of the disposal of liquor lawfully made from fruit. If, in the Cape Province, such liquor may be made, it may be sold to a licensee, and the same applies to the Free State, and if it cannot be lawfully made in the Transvaal, then it cannot be sold to the licensee at all, because it cannot be lawfully made. I think that will commend itself as a better way of dealing with this question, rather than in a law of this kind giving a substantive right to make or distil liquor.

I move—

I accept that.

I want to suggest the deletion of the words “or other produce’” in line 30.

I wish again to make it clear that I do not want to amend in this Bill any other Acts which allow us to make drink from other produce. I want to leave that to the Excise Bill. We merely deal with the disposal of what can to-day be lawfully made. What can be lawfully made I say may be sold to a licence-holder. If it cannot be lawfully made, it cannot be sold to a licence-holder. I, therefore, think it is the correct form in which I have got it.

I move—

The reason is that I think that there are already enough restrictions on the liquor trade. It is sufficient for us to allow people who distil inferior liquor to only manufacture it for their own use.

I should like to explain that the clause as now amended has nothing to do with the manufacture of liquor, but only with the sale of it. The new proposed clause says that where the Excise Act permits a licence being issued for the manufacture of inferior liquor, then it can also be sold. If we want to prevent the making of inferior liquor, then it must be done by an amendment of the Excise Act, but this Bill is not an amendment of the Excise Act; this Bill only regulates the sale of liquor. The clause as printed is wrong, but now I move that in places where we allow the manufacture of liquor we shall also allow the sale, but where the Excise Act does not allow drink to be manufactured, there it shall also be illegal to sell it.

With leave of committee, this amendment withdrawn.

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 134,

I wish to suggest to the committee the deletion of this clause. The reason for that is twofold. In the first place, when we are dealing with goodwill we would require something dealing with the matter much more fully than we are dealing with it in this clause, and it may well be that if a clause of this nature stands, it will make in favour of the shorter duration of these contracts rather than towards increasing their duration, because, if a man leases premises for a year or a short length of time, he would not make out any goodwill whatever, and so a landlord might very well, to prevent a goodwill being earned, make all his contracts shortterm contracts, and, therefore, the idea underlying a previous clause that we passed would be defeated, namely, the idea of making these leases as long as possible, rather than as short as possible. That, however, is not my principal reason. My principal reason is this—that recently an Act was passed in England dealing with questions of goodwill, not in this trade only, but in all cases. That Act came into force yesterday, the 25th of March. I do not know why they made it come into force on a Sunday. That Act is, I find, a very intricate Act indeed. There are a large number of safeguards laid down, and I am informed that, as far as the legal publications in England are concerned, they are looking forward to a rich harvest for the lawyers out of that Act. At all events, I think we may with justice say this—that where an Act of that nature has been passed, we may, for a certain length of time, watch the way in which that Act works out, and then decide whether we should or should not pass legislation on this subject. It is a matter, I think, of some importance to know that as far as legislation in England is concerned, the necessity for an Act of this kind has not been felt until the present time in that old-established country, and we might very well wait and see in what way that Act operates. There is considerable force in the argument that a matter of this kind should be dealt with generally, and not in so far as it applies to one particular class of business. The reason why we deal with it in the liquor business is because we are informed that there are, perhaps, more cases in that business where rents have been unreasonably put up from time to time. I trust your landlord will, if I may use the phrase, play the game in the matter. It is, I think, an unfair thing that where a business has been worked up the landlord should at once seize that enhanced value and clap on an additional rent. So I sincerely hope that the actions of the landlord will be of such a nature as to make it unnecessary for us to have any legislation of that kind whatever. I think it is a very useful thing to make it quite clear to the country that there is no intention to depart from that policy, but to see whether in the next couple of years the Act works well in England and also to see whether there is a necessity in South Africa for that Act to be imposed upon South Africa. In connection with all businesses or in connection with certain businesses. People of this country must not think this goodwill point has been dropped for all time. It has only been dropped for the period of the good behaviour of the landlord population of South Africa. The arguments in favour of this clause being withdrawn are strong, and, therefore, I am going to vote against Clause 134.

I think the Minister is wise in withdrawing this clause. In addition to the reasons which he has advanced, and which I think are sound, I think a very invidious, if not impossible, task is imposed on the licensing boards. It would be very difficult to assess goodwill, for instance, where there are frequent changes in the licensees. The board would have to meet very frequently, and it would be most difficult for them to decide on the merits. Besides that, it would be possible for the lessee to protect himself. He could stipulate in the lease that he should receive some compensation on the amount of turnover or on a percentage basis. The clause provides no machinery for ascertaining what the goodwill might be. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to give effect to this clause as it stands at present. If a lessee has to be compensated for goodwill, surely a provision should be incorporated for compensation of the lessor, owing to depreciation of the goodwill owing to the lessee’s action.

I venture to think the statement the Minister has made will cause great disappointment among the small men in the liquor trade, who at least hoped that something of their hopes would be retained in the Bill. The Minister has, himself, on page 222 of the Votes and Proceedings, framed a more comprehensive clause dealing with the same subject. I thought the Minister was an exponent of “South Africa first,” and why he should tell us that because something is passed in England we are to stop passing something which is most necessary here, I utterly fail to understand. The lack of any provision dealing with this question of goodwill, is one of the things that has caused the greatest possible hardship. There are cases in the courts where men who have paid large sums in the way of goodwill, have been turned down, because the court has held that in law they are not entitled to any goodwill. Here one thought an attempt was to be made to do some justice to these poor men. The Minister said the landlords are put on their good behaviour and so on. These speeches in the House won’t cut any ice at all. If you don’t make provision for goodwill, you will certainly not make these people do things they are not compelled by law to provide for. Thus you are destroying an opportunity of remedying a grave injustice. I am very sorry indeed. Nothing has disappointed me so much as the statement that the Minister is throwing overboard one of the really useful provisions in the Bill. I am perfectly certain there will be disappointment through the length and breadth of the country, not among the big people, who will be glad to see the clause jettisoned, but among the small men, whose last hope that if they put in improvements to their places they will derive some benefit, has been destroyed.

Upon which the committee divided:

As fewer than ten members (namely, Messrs. Alexander, Badenhorst, Kentridge, J. P. Louw, Mai. Richards, Messrs. Rood, Pearce and Dr. Stals) voted in favour of the clause, the chairman declared it negatived.

Clause 137 put and agreed to.

On Clause 138,

I move—

I do not think it is in the interests of the country that we should authorize the Government to carry on kaffir beer houses or shops in any native area. There is a recognized custom amongst natives that they have their beer drinks, generally under the control of the chief, and so far there has been no demand amongst the natives for the Government to establish beer shops.

It is on another clause.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 139,

It has been represented to me that the Department of Native Affairs has sufficient powers to do what it wishes to do, and can take further powers if it wishes to do so; and I have agreed on that basis to the deletion of this clause, which I ask the committee to vote down.

If the whole clause is deleted the position is not safeguarded. Subsection (1) should be excepted.

I will see that anything of that kind is provided for on the report stage.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 140,

I move—

Clause 142, as I understand, allows the establishment of kaffir eating or beer houses inside an urban area only; outside they will be under the Native Affairs Department.

As it stands, it is wider. We can correct that.

Then we have to amend, as consequential, in Clause 142?

As I understand it, we are not now in this Bill dealing with kaffir beer in urban areas, which was dealt with under Act 21 of 1923. We were intending to deal with the brewing and supplying of kaffir beer in scheduled and declared native areas in Clause 139, which has been defeated. Then we go on to Clause 140, which prohibits beer drinking assemblies without the permission of the magistrate. In Clause 141 we are dealing with the brewing and consumption of kaffir beer upon premises of certain employers, and also in sub-section (2) on land not only outside urban areas, but on land not scheduled or declared native areas. At the present time there are 30 kaffir beer licences in existence in Natal, which will be covered by sub-section (2) of Clause 141, and as far as I understand it, the Minister does not intend deleting that subsection.

I move—

The object of my amendment is not to make money out of natives, but because it will be for the benefit of the farmers. It is in the natives’ interests because it will reduce beer-drinking as much as possible. When the natives drink too much they fight with each other, and it often happens that a native is killed in consequence. It has happened on my farm that a native has been stabbed to death at such a drinking bout. It is for the benefit of the farmers, because he will get more out of his labourers. For a few days after such a beer drink, the workers are not able to work. If my amendment is passed, we shall have the same law that exists in the Free State which works very well because just as is proposed in my amendment they also require a special permit in the Free State for a drinking party. If the licence is issued gratis, the position becomes more difficult than before, but if a fee has to be paid, it will restrain more particularly the natives on the countryside because they, as is well known, do not like spending money.

Is it in order to propose taxation in this way?

The amendment is out of order.

*The hon. member (Mr. A. S. Naudé) cannot move this, as it is a taxation proposal.

Is it the idea of the Minister that not more than three natives from two different kraals can meet to have a beer drink without the permission of the magistrate? Does he expect to have such a law enforced? It seems to me that it will be a dead-letter.

I hope the Minister will scrap the whole of this clause. We have carefully safeguarded the position as far as European-owned land is concerned, but to attempt to enforce the terms of the clause will bring us up against native feeling. The Native Affairs Department, under the Native Administration Act, has, if necessary, the control of beer drinking, and I hope the Minister will not, by such a clause, produce an unfortunate impression in the minds of the natives. In the past we have, as far as possible, recognized tribal institutions, and beer-drinking is one of the most deeply seated native customs. To attempt to enforce such a law would arouse antagonism among the natives throughout the country, and Government would not be able to carry it out. If there is one form of social intercourse among the natives which is enjoyed by them, it is a beer-drink. Surely within their own areas we can allow them to gather together for this purpose; they do no harm to anyone, and this Bill will hedge them round with most irksome regulations. I would suggest to the Minister that he could partially ease the position if he would exclude all native areas from the operation of this clause.

I ruled the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) out of order, thinking his proposal had to receive the sanction of the Governor-General, but I now notice that the fees are to go to the provincial administration and not to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For that reason I am bound to accept the amendment.

I may say that the payment of a fee of £1 is already provided for in the Free State, and they say it has a very good effect there. I want to say, in connection with Clause 140, that the natives who work on farms almost always go away at the week-end to other farms. I noticed, e.g., a considerable drunkenness in the district of Bethel caused by the fact that the natives met together at the week-end and that beer drinking then took place. That prevails in all parts of the Transvaal and the whole country. Natives go from one kraal to another to which they do not belong to drink there. It is quite true that in many cases it can be ascertained where they go to drink, but in other cases it is not possible to trace the drinking party. The clause is meant for European areas, and not for native areas. The clause is not quite clear on the point, but I will see that it is so drafted that it does not apply to native areas. I think it will be better for me to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and I move—

This clause seems to me to be redundant in view of the wording of Section 138, which refers to the brewing of beer on private farms. When we come to Section 140, it would appear that we are making a general restriction against the brewing of beer outside the area of any local authority except under permit. I cannot quite follow why it should be necessary to have this clause at all in view of the clear and restrictive nature of Clause 138. We are going to find it impossible to enforce it in the form of the present amendment to Section 140, a section which will be very much resented by the native if he is going to be liable to arrest in the event of his having more than three persons gathered at his own kraal when the consumption of beer takes place. It would be better to leave it to the Native Affairs Department under the general powers of the Native Administration Act. Regulations on matters of this sort can with greater safety be left in the hands of the Native Affairs Department. I do not think it is advisable to put in a section of the law, which would be difficult to amend, restrictions as to numbers and other such specific details. It will be unworkable, and will convey the impression that the natives themselves are being treated with a harshness which they have not merited.

I hope the Minister will take no notice of hon. members opposite. This is the only guarantee the farmers have with regard to the natives.

Clause 136 already gives the guarantee.

It is much clearer here, and I hope the Minister will preserve it. Beer drinking is getting worse day by day, and the farmers will have to stop farming if an end is not put to it.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). It would be a great hardship to deprive natives to the extent that this would do of the use of kaffir beer. They have no other beverage, no milk. This is the only beverage they have during the long dreary winter. It is both food and drink to them, and they should be allowed to indulge in it in reasonable quantities. Restrictions are provided under the native administration laws for the control of kaffir beer, but I think the Minister is going too far in pressing this. I would suggest that clause be deleted, as I cannot see the necessity for it.

I can understand hon. members from Natal, and also from the Cape Native Territories, wanting to retain the clause, but I want to point out to hon. members the position in the Free State. The old Volksraad specially passed an Act to prevent the illegal manufacture of liquor for beer drinking. Without the permit from the landdrost, which could only be given with the consent of the owners of the farms, natives were not allowed to make kaffir beer, and that assisted the farmers very much. Moreover, a fee of £1 had also to be paid for the permit. The revenue is at present going to the province, and if we were to repeal the old Act, we would interfere with the rights of that province, not only with regard to the licence monies, but also the rights of the farmers to restrict the kind of thing which so badly injures them.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). I know of two cases in my constituency where, as a result of beer-drinking, homicide took place; one was a case of a woman and child, and the other case of a native. We must take steps to prevent it. In the old Free State law it was expressly laid down that only when the owner of the farm consented, and it was approved by the landdrost, and £1 was paid for each beer party, that such a party could take place. That helped considerably to prevent beer-drinking, and we cannot go and repeal the old law.

I hope that the Minister will stand fast to this clause. It is a very necessary clause, providing that the amendments which he has undertaken to mother are brought in at the report stage. There is one other point that I wish to mention, that is where the assembly for a beer drink is to take place on private land, the consent of the owner should be obtained. If the Minister will at the report stage also include that provision, I think we should allow the clause to go through, as it will be a most beneficial provision to all the farmers in the country employing natives. Farmers all over the country are suffering, owing to the prevalency of native beer drinks that take place perhaps not on the owner’s farm, but on adjoining farms. These beer drinks generally take place at the week-end. The result is that when the native employees start work at the beginning of the next week, the employers find that their servants are not as proficient as they should be.

I think that Clauses 138 and 140 are complementary to each other. As far as 138 is concerned, if the owner of land wishes to prevent brewing or drinking on his farm, he can withhold his consent. As far as 140 is concerned, the object of that is to enable an owner to prevent his natives from going to adjoining lands for a beer-drink. With regard to scheduled native areas, I have got a form of amendment which I will now move—

With regard to this question of an assembly of three persons, the whole idea is to prevent a thing which is a very common evil in the Transvaal, and I believe also in the Free State, the evil of people travelling about towards the end of the week, especially squatting down on one man’s property and drinking there, because that man is too weak to refuse to give his permission, whilst all the other farmers in the neighbourhood have to suffer, owing to the weakness and laxity of that one man, who may wish to make himself popular, or to get more labour than his neighbours have. I think that is a very necessary provision, and a provision in the interests of the natives themselves.

Surely this Clause 140 overrides Clause 138. Clause 138 lays down that there shall be no brewing except with the permission of the European owner or occupier, while Clause 140 lays down that no one shall consume that beer, except the inmates of the kraal plus three visitors, or unless with the authority of the magistrate or native commissioner. Surely that overrides the authority of the owner. I think that we ought to add at the end—

I don’t want to give that consent. If I might explain to the hon. member, the trouble in 140 would be that if one allowed the European occupier to give his consent if he wished to curry favour with natives he would give consent to his neighbour’s boys being debauched on his farm, which his neighbour does not want. Clause 138 gives authority to a man on a farm to allow his own natives to have a beer-drink on that farm. There is no objection to making it “subject to the consent of the owner.” If my hon. friend moves that I will accept it, but I do not wish to make it only the owner’s consent. It has been pointed out to me by the law advised, Mr. Lanasdown, that that should take this form “save with the consent of the owner or occupier thereof.”

I will substitute that, but the word “European” has been left out. You have it in Clause 138. I move—

I think the word European should be deleted and “owner or occupier” substituted, because there are many farms owned by natives, whose consent should be obtained in the same way as the European owner. It is a hardship that the native should have to go 20 or 30 miles to the magistrate to obtain a permit? If the privilege of being consulted is allowed a European, it should be allowed to a native owner as well. I fail to see why there should be discrimination.

Clause 138 is the same, which we have passed.

We have that anomaly, which should be removed.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to something which is omitted from the clause. Line 39 says that no beer may be consumed, but it does not say no beer may be made. I should like the clause to be altered to say that beer may neither be made nor drunk. We find that it is always difficult to ascertain when the natives drink the beer, and that is not easy to stop it. My experience is that they make the liquor and commence to drink and in a few hours, when a few more arrive, they start drinking again and so it goes on. I would like to move as an amendment—

That would absolutely conflict with Clause 138, which has already been passed. It provides that natives may brew beer for themselves on a farm if the master gives his consent. By passing the amendment of the hon. member we shall be taking away that right of the master to agree to it, and I think that there is no reason for doing so.

Can the Minister tell us whether the intention is that a native shall make application in person at the magistrate’s office for a kaffir beer permit? Under present conditions—I am speaking of a good many magistrates’ offices with which I am familiar—the congestion of natives who come for permits of various sorts in such that particular days of the week have to be appointed for various permits. Natives travel long journeys and find out that cattle permits, for instance, are not issued on that particular day, and they return to their homes after a fruitless journey. In the case of kaffir-beer permits enquiries will not be possible unless the native is there in person. In our part of the country a farmer usually consults his neighbours as to the most suitable day for a beer-drinking assembly so as not to interfere with the work of the farm. An enormous stream of natives will have to go regularly to the magistrate’s office for permission to have been drinks. Will it be possible for that to be done without seriously dislocating the work on the farms, as the natives will have to absent themselves, and this must add enormously to the work of the magistrate’s office? The remedy will be worse than the evil, as we may bring about a worse state of affairs if we have a large number of natives travelling about obtaining permits. The native regards kafir bear as food, and if he has to have a permit before he can hold a beer-drink it will cause a sense of grievance which Europeans cannot understand. However, if the Minister states that applications may be made in writing the matter will be simplified considerably

If there have been many evils resulting from beer-drinks it is very unlikely that applications will be granted without a personal attendance at the magistrate’s office, but if there have been no complaints the magistrate may be satisfied to deal with the matter on the strength of a written application. Personally, I think the fewer permits that are granted the better it will be. The natives should not have these gatherings from a large number of different farms. In practice, I think very few licences will be granted, as very few owners will give their consent to beer-drinks being held on their property.

Hospitality is the first law of the natives.

If that is so, they would be equally hospitable if none of them visited other farms for beer-drinking. There are a considerable number of natives on farms, and the idea is to discourage the natives roaming about. They should be satisfied to have been-drinks on their own farms. The idea is that there should be no communal drinking.

The Minister has raised a very interesting point, but I cannot understand why he does not extend the operations of the Cape Act. That Act provides for the punishment of farmers illegally (allowing beer-drinks to be held on their properties. Why only punish the natives for holding these beer-drinks and allow the farmer, who may be the responsible party, to escape unpunished? This appears to me unjust.

I would ask my hon. friend to move this on the next occasion.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee on 28th March.