I desire to put a question to the acting Minister of Railways, of which I gave him notice this morning, whether he will make a statement and give the House full details of the accident that occurred near the Hex River and which caused the death of several persons and injuries to others.

I very much regret to state that a serious accident occurred at about 6 a.m. this morning to No. 12 up passenger train, which left Johannesburg at 10 p.m. on Wednesday last and was due to arrive at Cape Town at 10.29 a.m. this morning. At a point about 2 miles north of Osplaats, on the Hex River Mountain, the engine, four following saloons, twin dining car and saloon next following became derailed and were overturned. Six Europeans, including the engine-driver, were killed, and six Europeans and one coloured man seriously injured. No particulars are at present available in regard to details of the slightly injured passengers. The wreckage caught fire and six saloons, including the diner, were burnt out. The killed and seriously injured were conveyed to Worcester by a relief train which left De Dooms at 11 a.m. Prompt measures were immediately taken for the relief of the injured passengers, and medical attendance was early available from the tourist train, which was following No. 12 up, and also from Worcester. In terms of Section 68 of Act 22 of 1916 a public enquiry will be held into the cause of the accident. I would take this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of the Government and the Administration, our deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who have met their death as the result of this distressing accident, and to the injured.

Arising out of that question, I should like to ask the Minister whether he does not think this is a suitable opportunity to give effect to a desire which has been repeatedly expressed in the House, namely, for a most searching and impartial inquiry into this matter. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of uneasiness all over the country about these railway accidents, and I am sure that a very searching and impartial inquiry would help to ease the public mind and I would ask the Minister whether he does not think this accident, the culmination of so many other similar accidents, would not be a suitable opportunity for such an inquiry, so that we may find out what really is wrong with the running of our railways.

As the right hon. gentleman knows, according to the legislation of the country, that is a matter which will have to be considered by the Minister of Justice. As far as the general question is concerned, of course we are all very much concerned about these accidents happening and the Government will no doubt consider the whole question. I do not think it is fair at this stage to ask me to say definitely what we intend doing in the matter.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I gave a communication to the press this morning, which will appear this afternoon, to the effect that although I adhere to what I said in the discussion on my Estimates yesterday, that I believe the results of the inquiries held by the department have always been quite unprejudiced and given satisfaction, still there is a feeling in the minds of certain members of the public that where a man is appointed from some other department, he might, to a certain extent, be prejudiced. Those of us who know the inner workings know there is nothing whatever in that, but I have given notice that what I will do in future is this: to appoint a magistrate and a member of the railway service—which we must do under the Act—and an outside engineer not connected with any Government department, in cases of serious accidents, and of course this would be one of those accidents. As far as my inquiry is concerned, an outside engineer or some outside gentleman would be on the board, having no connection with any department of State. In addition, there is always the independent departmental railway inquiry which takes place.

There is an amendment on the paper on page 624, but in lieu of that I have an amendment on the paper on page 675, which I am moving now. It is to prevent anything in this Act affecting Chapter 5 of the Railway Act. I believe that is a necessary amendment to have in this clause. It practically has its place in the following Clause 6 (1) (d), but I am moving for its deletion in the next clause and inserting this amendment in this clause. I move—

To insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (1)—

(2) Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the operation of any provision of Chapter V of the Railways and Harbours Regulation, Control and Management Act, 1916 (Act No. 22 of 1916).

In any area in which under this Act a power is held by a licensing board to extend the hours of sale under, or to grant any other special right to the holder of, a licence under this Act the Minister of Railways and Harbours may, in respect of any refreshment room at a railway station, exercise like powers.

For the purposes of this Act every refreshment room at a railway station in which liquor is sold and every railway refreshment car shall be deemed to be premises in respect of such an on-consumption licence has been issued and the person in charge of such room or car shall be deemed to be the holder of such licence and to be the employer of all persons working in such room or car.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 5 put and agreed to. In Clause 6, Amendments, up to omission of paragraph (d) of sub-section (1), put and agreed to.

I move—

We have placed sub-section (d), to all intents and purposes, in the previous clause.

The proper way would be to negative the amendment of the committee.

New paragraph (d) of sub-section (1), put and negatived.

I move—

and to negative the new proviso (iii) to subsection (2) and to substitute the following new proviso—

It is practically reinserting the provision we had before. For some reason or other this clause managed to slip out of the consolidating Bill.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clauses 6, 7 and 9 put and agreed to.

In Clause 10, Amendment in paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) put and negatived.

I move—

On account of there being the privilege of late hours in a later paragraph of the Bill, inserted in committee, it is necessary to reinsert in line 49—

As far as sub-section (c) is concerned, it is necessary for consequential purposes to delete that sub-section. The sub-section was made necessary where we were imposing differing licences for a licence holder who was selling only South African products, and I proved to the whole House that would be an unfair thing to insert. The House negatived that, and it is necessary consequentially to remove this sub-section (c).

I object to the omission of the sub-clause. As the Minister has rightly said, it is a matter which, to be consistent, will also have to be altered in subsequent clauses. The rejection in this clause of the form only in which the licences must be issued in the case of renewal is not so innocent as at the first blush it appears. It also involves great principles, which are a characteristic of this Bill. I have always felt that it is one of the most satisfactory principles of the Bill that local products are given the preference.

The House unanimously rejected it.

The House will have a further opportunity of rejecting it to-day. No extra burden is being thrown on to the imported article. The Minister may say that, in the existing circumstances, it is not necessary, because the market for the inland product is so good, but we are rapidly approaching the stage where the local product will be over-produced, and we ought always to give preference to it, whether it is tobacco, drink, or any other product. I just want to refer the Minister to the report of the Imperial Economic Committee, which not only consists of Britons born in England, but of other persons from other states, and page 11 (par. 6) very clearly shows that the intention is in the first instance to take the local product to the consumer. [Quotation read.] What weight the Minister will attach to this is his affair, but to me it amounts to a certain amount of preference for the local product. I want to point out that, if the Minister’s amendment is passed, it will be too late subsequently to make certain amendments I have proposed in the schedules. I want to point out that it is not only a sound principle, but at the same time no extra burden will be put on the imported article. The fact has been emphasized that the export of our wines is increasing astonishingly, and I welcome it too, and think that this is a suitable time to impose an increased duty on products, and especially liquor, from England, with which we cannot compete, but the sub-clause does not mean an increase in customs duty. This exception only refers to the countryside and will not be of practical application in the towns. I am convinced that it is a sound principle, but if the House is against me I cannot help it. As stated, I have two more amendments on the order paper with reference to the subject, and now is the time to call the attention of the House to it.

I understand that the amendment to which the Minister objects was inserted by the select committee. There are few persons who are more anxious to see a sober country than I am, and think that within reason every possible provision should be made to restrict the sale of liquor as far as possible. However, as long as you have a legitimate wine industry, it should be the desire of Parliament to encourage the consumption of South African liquor rather than of the imported liquor. If the Minister deletes the subsection and also sub-section (2) of Clause 12, he will do away with the privileges granted under the select committee’s amendment in favour of the wine growers of the Western Province.

The wine growers are protected through the customs today to a large extent, against the competition of whisky.

They are protected up to the eyes.

I know a large number of people are in favour of encouraging the sale in this country of the national drink of Scotland, but you should encourage people in their own interests—if they must drink—to drink light wines and beer. I see that a certain number of members in this House prefer imported beverages to South African beverages. The Minister and the committee, having agreed to the select committee’s amendment, should not go back on their previous decision, but should allow this sub-section to remain.

I hope that the Government, which so far has always maintained the principles of “South Africa first” will also respect it in this case. We are following it in connection with wheat and other products. Why make an exception now? We want to give a preference even to products of other dominions. Ought we not, in the first place, to think of ourselves? The old Cape Government did so. Hence the establishment of the wine buffet at Cape Town station. The Minister considers himself as a Transvaaler in the first instance, but the slogan “South Africa first” is surely his also, and do not the farmers of the Western Province also belong to South Africa?

My hon. friend, who has been advocating viticulture here, will certainly not accuse me of being hostile to it. Hon. members know what practical steps I have taken, and how I have surrendered some of my revenue to push the wine industry.

We appreciate it.

I think, therefore, it is not fair to want me to sacrifice more now. We have encouraged South African industries by means of the customs, but it is not fair now to drag in something else which will further reduce my income. We have enquired as to how far we can meet the wine industry, but we must not now try to drag in here and there something else which will injuriously affect the income derived from imported liquors. The restriction I have imposed has surely already had a much greater effect on the imports than we expected. If we go on like this I shall have to raise money in another way, and tax another section of the population.

How much will it amount to?

If it is not going to be much it will be of no use to my hon. friends. My hon. friend must not forget that as a result of the preference given to our wine in Great Britain, the wine farmers are, as a matter of fact, being particularly benefited. They made much use of the preference, but now they want to tax the producers of Great Britain further. If they want us to protect our industries further, let them do so directly, and not on every possible occasion try to do so in a roundabout way.

I think the Minister is not quite consistent. He first of all supported the preference for our produce, but now wants to withdraw it.

I have gone far enough.

The Minister says that it will mean a considerable loss of revenue. The Minister of Finance was first fairly reasonable, but he now wants to take away what he has already given. I agree with the hon. members for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). It is not a party matter, but a matter in which we should stand together to protect our own industry, and to see that acceptable legislation is passed. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was one of those who, in select committee, moved to give the protection to our industry. He was in favour of it, and I think he proposed it to assist our own industry. I think we ought to abide by that.

The Minister of Finance is pleading here as the guardian of the Treasury, but he did not say how much money was involved in the matter. He says that it is not much, and that therefore it does not matter so much. With us it is not a question of how much money is involved, how much profit the dealer and producer will make, but a matter of principle, namely that the South African product should get a preference. We want to attach privileges to licences in connection with produce which is made in the Union, and we also want the use of South African produce to be encouraged. We say nothing about the quality of the imported product, but we produce good stuff here, and if we wish the people to use the South African article we must encourage it in every possible way, and so arrange our licensing system that we draw the attention of the public to the use of our own produce. We want the South African article to he No. 1, and the imported article to come next, and we want to draw the attention of the public to it. I did not think the Minister would introduce such a motion. When we say that we want to entourage the local article, we mean light wine. It is spirits that are imported, not wine, and if we encourage South African people to drink light wine, then it is a good encouragement because we know that drunkenness is not caused so much by the drinking of light wines as by that of spirits. The old Cape Government once introduced a light wine licence with the same object as we have to-day. At the second reading there was no difference on the point, because we all felt that the Minister had done the right thing to encourage the use of light wine. We attain two things, namely, we encourage our people to use our own products, and secondly we encourage the use of a product which causes less drunkenness.

The argument used by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is that to retain this clause as the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) wants would be to promote temperance. Now as far as I can see, the question of temperance does not enter into this question at all. My friend says it does. Hon. members seem to have argued this matter as if those classes of licences which would benefit from the half rate were institutions where only light wine and beer were sold. That is not the case. There is such a class of licence. If hon. members will turn to page 68 and look at old Clause 87, they will see, " It shall be a condition of wine and malt liquor licences … (b) that no wine or beer shall be sold thereunder which has not been produced or brewed in the Union or the mandated territory of South-West Africa. That is a special class of licence which is bound in terms to sell only our own products. That particular class of licence under the amended schedule is specially favoured in regard to licence fees. No one wants to stop that. That class of licence will pay only £20 for the first year and £10 for the second year if the Minister’s proposals are accepted. Therefore, you will then have full preference for South African wines and beers in so far as a licensee elects to sell them alone. When we come to South African brandies as well, we must ask ourselves with the Minister whether it is a fair proposition to say that all classes of licences set out in (12) (2) shall be allowed to trade at half fees if they elect to sell only South African products. As the right hon. gentleman pointed out, I was a member of the commission which actually put this provision in.

Why?

I will explain why At first blush it seemed to me that it was a fair and perfectly reasonable proposition to say that any class of licence which handled South African spirits alone should pay a lower licence fee and I take it that the Minister shared these views at one time, too, because he accepted the proposal and put it in his Bill. But we realize that we are not only an importing country, not only do we import overseas liquor, but we send our liquor overseas. It did seem to him that there is such a thing as fair play and such a thing as reciprocity. How can we hope to build up an export trade in our commodities if at the same time we bang the door against similar commodities from overseas? Can we hope to build up in England a large export trade for our wines and brandies if at the same time we say to England or to France, “We will not only put up against you an extremely high customs tariff, but we will say to licensees in South Africa that if they agree not to handle your products, we will let them off the licence fee?”

Take that in connection with boots or shoes or anything.

Exactly. It does seem to me to be a dog-in-the-manger attitude. We have all changed our minds on some of these things. On the question of policy, can we hope to have the good will of countries to which we export our commodities if we take steps in this country that are bound to be resented by the exporters? The whisky shippers’ people came to see me and said that of all the clauses in the Bill to which they took objection

Ah !

Do you think I am in the pockets of the whisky people because of a view they happened to express to me? They came to me and said, “Of all the unfair provisions that exist in the Bill so far as we go, this is the most unfair. If you say to licensees ‘we will penalize you to the extent of 100 per cent, if you sell Scotch whisky or, to put it conversely, we will benefit you to the extent of 50 per cent, if you do not sell Scotch whisky,’ then we think it is unfair.” Can we, as a young and growing State, wishing to build up an export trade in these various commodities, incur unnecessarily and quite wantonly displeasure by a clause of this Act? I am bound to say that I have come round to the Minister’s view. I think he is right in this matter.

Question put: That paragraph (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

To omit sub-section (2); in line 32, to omit “granted” and to substitute “issued”; in line 38, to omit “renewed, transferred or removed” and to substitute “or renewed”; in line 41, to omit “renewal, transfer or removal” and to substitute “or renewal”; and to add the following new sub-section to follow new sub-section (5):

seconded.

I move—

I hope by this amendment to induce the Minister to assist us by acknowledging the principle which I regard as a sound one, and in connection with which I have referred to the report of the Imperial Economic Committee. The principle they worked upon was to give preference to the local product. I make bold to move this amendment, in spite of the rejection by the House of my previous amendment, because I am so convinced of the soundness of this principle that I wish the House would give its opinion because hon. members must know well that they will have to answer to the public outside the House. In the first instance, this sound principle of preference for the local product was originally acknowledged in the Bill, and the second principle therein contained was, and I regard that also as a very good thing, the increase of State control over the sale of drink. I do not know what has induced the Minister to take these two sound principles out of the Bill. The argument that the foreign product is being damaged I cannot concede, because no tax is imposed on foreign products. There will merely be a slight preference given to the local product. The arguments of the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) are not at all in point. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout points out that we give a preference to local wines and beer, but there is hardly any wine or beer imported; what does the preference amount to then? Brandy, however, is an important product of our country, and it is always increasing in importance. It can compete with any foreign product. The argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is, therefore, absolutely valueless. Another argument he used was, “We bang the door.” That is one of the hon. member’s expressions to which we are accustomed, but what does it amount to? Absolutely nothing. It was just so many words, air, gas. I felt that what was proposed here would do the imported article no harm, but only create a little more opportunity for the sale of the local product, and I feel that the licence which it is here proposed to delete will not cause much damage to the turnover of the foreign article. It will only affect the countryside. The local products will get no preference at all in the large towns. There always exists in the large towns like Johannesburg enough demand for imported products, such as whisky. Therefore, I cannot understand the Minister’s argument, because the towns will not want to use the licence, but in the countryside villages the hotel keeper, who sometimes finds things a, bit difficult, will get a little help. In some cases he sells only the local product, and will benefit to the extent of £25. That will enable him to get over his difficulties a bit, and therefore to assist, not only the local producer, but also the local seller. The imported liquor consists chiefly of spirits. My opponent will have to admit that. If we give preference to our local product it will not indeed prevent the drinking habit, but will nevertheless encourage the taking of lighter drink. After the rejection it is almost useless to appeal to the House, and I will not even ask for a division, but I want to express my surprise at members who always say that they honour the principle of “South Africa first.” It seems to be that that is merely platform talk, because if the question comes up in this House of giving preference to the local product they oppose it. I shall know what to expect from hon. members in the future when they say that they are in favour of the principle “South Africa first.” And what disappointed me more was that, as was proved in this case, a conspiracy exists between the total abstainers and the importers of whisky. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was honest enough to admit that he was approached by the whisky importers, and I ask the Minister whether he also was approached by them. I must say that I am much disappointed.

I second. The Minister got his way in the last division, in which the South African product was defeated. I hope that he is satisfied with this victory, and will in this case concede the request of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). When the Minister moved this clause he was generally applauded by those who respect the slogan “South Africa first.” Now he withdraws it. Is this done once more at the request of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout?

No, it is not.

Why then this opposition to your own original motion?

The farmers have got more than they deserve.

I know that the Minister grudges the wine farmers a good deal. He seems to hate the Western Province, but I will appeal to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout., Perhaps the amendment will be better received by the Minister if that hon. member supports it. I fear, however, that the hon. member for Hopetown is right, and this is another case of the total abstainers and the liquor importers standing together to fight the wine farmers.

I support the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) very strongly, and I hope the Minister will soften his heart and accept the amendment of the hon. member. If the clause passes as it is, I am sorry for him, because he will have difficulty in passing it in that way this session.

I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the debate; I say to those who hold the same view as I do, the House has already decided. I am really sorry the House has decided as it has done. I do not believe it would be carrying out the policy of giving preference to your own individual industries, and it would also have acted in the direction of temperance. I will give my hon. friend the reason so he may think of it before this Bill goes to another place. A large number of people who had been in the habit of drinking spirituous liquors would have eventually been educated to drinking wine and light beers, which these hotels would have pressed in their own interests.

Why not Cape Brandy?

There are a large number of people who drink whisky but do not drink Cape brandy.

I would like to draw attention to this: It is the medical men in the House who are in favour of the extension of colonial wines. I think that is a very significant fact.

Question put: That the words “in the case of” in line 22, proposed to be omitted by the Minister of Justice, stand part of the clause, Upon which the House divided:

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

This is a very important amendment. The words “and during their membership” lays down that members of local authorities cease to hold office the moment they cease to be members of the local authorities. Hon. members will see the difficult position that may arise. A member of the local authority may be placed on the board, not because he is a member of a local authority, but in addition to other members. I lost sight of the fact that there might be several members from a local authority. There is a further difficulty; supposing that member does not vacate his position, and actually sits upon the board, then all the acts done by the board would be invalid. It would be impossible for the department to watch all the local authorities and find out whether the members remain members of the local authority. Members of a licensing court are not appointed for a term of years, but for one year. The difficulty with regard to a consultation of local authorities comes from my department. They tell me that in practice it will entail an enormous amount of additional clerical work. There the same difficulty might arise that if one of those local authorities were overlooked, all the acts done by the licensing board would be illegal. The practical difficulty is that there is a large amount of clerical work to do and if you cast this additional burden on the department, it will require additional staff, and I do not think the advantage we should get would be commensurate with the additional expense.

seconded.

I can well understand the arguments for the deletion of “and during their membership of the board. I think there will be no objection to the omission of those words, but I am sorry with regard to the further part of the amendment that the Minister wants to sacrifice the principle. His argument that it will cause too much work and expense does not weigh very much with me.

What if one of the members is overlooked?

That is no argument either. It surely does not need much to send a circular to the various members who have to be consulted. The Minister only need consult the local boards, and I do not think that will cause so much work. The list will not be so large, and the circulars can be sent out in a few hours, and will thereafter occupy a few hours when they come back. Can we, for the sake of that, sacrifice such a principle? The motion to give local boards more representation on the licensing boards has already been rejected, and it would at least give a little satisfaction if they were to be consulted.

I quite agree with the Minister in leaving out the proviso in this case. The hon. member who has just spoken (Dr. van der Merwe) has said that it gives some particular power to the local authorities. It gives them no power at all. Consultation may he to give the Minister advice, but he may ignore that advice and do as he pleases. You either give the nominating power to the local authority, or you give it to the Minister. It has been held, in the courts, that when you have got the power to make an appointment after consultation it means that you have got to go through the procedure of consultation, but you need not carry out a word of the advice given to you. The proviso means nothing, and I agree that it should be left out.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

The reason for this amendment is that we did not notice at the time the amendment was passed that there are districts under local authorities over which more than one divisional council functions. Therefore, it is necessary not to speak about “the divisional council of the district,” but “a divisional council having jurisdiction over any part of the district.”

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 13 put and agreed to.

In Clause 15, On amendment in lines 43 and 44.

I move—

Because I do not see why wine farmers may not serve on the licensing board and total abstainers may. It is insulting to the farmers to make such a distinction. If you want to keep one class off the board then you must do the same with the other class. Wine farmers are not people who would want to encourage drunkenness. Drunken people are no advantage to them. If you want to keep wine farmers off the boards because they would be prejudiced in their own favour, why should you allow another class who are still more prejudiced, namely against all consumption of drink? Prohibitionists will vote against any licence, fair or unfair, just because they are against all drinking of liquor. What I am moving is merely what the Minister proposed in the original Bill, but to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) objected.

seconded.

I move as an amendment to the amendment in lines 43 and 44—

I quite agree with what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has said, but because I have already lost confidence in the sympathy of the House with the wine farmers, I have moved a less strong amendment, which the Minister can accept without objection. The reason for it is that there are a large number of farmers who make a very little of this stuff, for their own use. They are vineyard farmers who make vinegar, etc., and distil a little brandy as well for home consumption. It seems to me that the object of the Bill and of the Minister is to allow those people, who only make a little for their own use, on to the licensing board. I should like to know from him whether the Bill is so intended, and if it is already permitted under the existing Bill, I will withdraw my amendment. The Excise Act also provides for such cases where a man makes a small quantity for his own use. The Minister will admit that only people who make liquor for sale have a financial interest in the drink traffic. I think that is the intention of the Minister, and to make it clear, I move my amendment.

seconded.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) is concerned, I have no objection to supporting his amendment.

With reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) I think there will be no objection. The principle is here laid down that people who have financial interests in the drink traffic shall not sit on licensing boards. If they distil no brandy for sale, then of course, they have no financial interests in the liquor trade, but the Minister says that he accepts nothing, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown. As for the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), I think that that point was fully discussed in the House, and that we agreed that it was the wish of the public that people who were financially interested in the drink trade should not sit on the licensing boards, and that it was impossible to determine a man’s personal opinion. I want to point out that if his amendment is passed, then no members of a church council can sit on a licensing board, and almost no one who is a member of a church would be able to sit on it. The result would be that all non-members of churches would be members of the licensing board. As the object of the Bill is to restrict the consumption of liquor, it is not possible to allow people on the licensing court would have no interest in the liquor trade.

The amendment implies that I shall have to say that no member of a church may be a member of the licensing board.

Yes, I am certain the hon. member for Piquetberg could not sit on the licensing board. I think the amendment it so unfair that we need not speak about it any more.

I propose

The hon. member has already spoken.

I just want to explain to the Minister that if we do not pass the motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) then we shall cast a slur on some of the leading citizens in our towns and villages. Take, for instance, places like the Paarl and Stellenbosch, where some wine farmers live in the villages, and it often happens that wine farmers sit on the town council. It has often happened, and it is the case now at Stellenbosch that the mayor himself is a wine farmer, and the Minister now wants to lay down by law that, although such a person is mayor, and is entrusted by the citizens with the affairs of the whole town, he cannot sit on the licensing board. Other members who are wine farmers sit with him on the town council, and if the Bill is passed none of them will be able to sit on the licensing board.

Is he a member of the church?

I am talking of sub-clause (c), and the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) must not create unnecessary difficulties. I merely want to point out that in the Western Province it will be regarded in practice as a reflection on some of the principal citizens if they can fill the highest appointments, yet are not so to say regarded as unprejudiced enough to sit on the licensing court. We are thereby also taking away an existing right because the mayor of Stellenbosch is usually a member of the licensing court. In the past wine farmers in the Paarl and Stellenbosch have often sat on the licensing board and have never shown prejudice, but have always acted in the interests of the population. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg and fully sympathize with it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Stals put and agreed to.

Amendment in lines 43 and 44, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Amendments put and negatived.

On amendment in paragraph (g),

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

The reason is that the whole Section 32 deals with this matter. It is a formal amendment.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment in paragraph (j) put and agreed to.

I move—

It is purely formal and for the elegancy of the language, as we have these words twice.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Subsection (2) I would like to have omitted. That is consequential to what the House already has decided, members of a local authority ceasing to to be members.

Sub-section (2) put and negatived.

Amendments in Clause 16 and in line 28 of Clause 17 put and agreed to.

In Clause 17, The MINISTER OF JUSTICE: I move—

This is simply to make provision for the first licensing court.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and negatived.

Amendments in Clause 19 put and agreed to.

In Clause 20, The MINISTER OF JUSTICE: I move—

(c) any application submitted to it by a lessor in terms of section 122 for the termination of a tenancy of premises;.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 20, 21, 22 and 25 put and agreed to.

In Clause 29,

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE: I move—

(3) Save as provided in this section there shall be no review of the proceedings of a licensing board.

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 31, Amendment in lines 44 and 45 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 32, The MINISTER OF JUSTICE: I move—

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 32, 33 and 35 put and agreed to.

In Clause 38, Amendment in lines 25 to 27 put and negatived.

I move—

1. (1) At the hearing of any application by a licensing board the applicant, subject to the provisions of sub-section
2. (2) of section 24, may appear before the board personally or by counsel or attorney.

The remainder of the original sub-section (1) to become sub-section (2).

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 39

I move—

The object of the amendment is to make it quite clear that the licensing boards are not forced to allow any unnecessary licence to exist owing to the terms of the Act, This is implied, but it should be explicit.

seconded.

I think the clause as printed is quite ample and the amendment of the Minister really invites a board to take objection to renewing licences. Section 62 makes it clear that the quota should not affect existing licences, but the Minister is now going beyond that. It appears to me that he is circumventing section 62. A board is now invited to say that there are too many licences. If the number of licences is reduced by one, it will not result in lessened consumption of liquor, as people will be driven to the remaining licensed houses. Then when the place grows a new licence may be granted to somebody else, although the place from which the licence was withdrawn previously, may have been admirably conducted. I think the Minister’s amendment is going much too far.

I am sorry the Minister is moving an amendment that will create a certain amount of confusion as to the intention of the Bill. I understand that the House decided with regard to the quota that the renewal of existing licences was not to be taken into account, and that boards were to start with a clean sheet with regard to all new licences under the quota, In order to meet the strong exception which was taken to the removal of off-sales, a certain period of years was given to existing licences. Now the Minister’s amendment is an invitation to boards to take away the protection accorded to existing licences. Why insert words to give the boards the idea that they must start looking around to see if they can blot out any licences. The amendment will create a certain amount of confusion. Why introduce a contentious matter of this kind

The last speech shows clearly the necessity for the amendment, for if the section is left as it is, the impression will be conveyed that the quota clause was intended to stabilize and crystallize existing licences. Nothing of the sort, however, was intended. It says that no new licences may he created in excess of the numbers laid down in that clause, and that that, clause shall not in itself operate to extinguish any of the existing licences. It was always implicit in this Act that the licensing courts should have the power they always have had to eliminate unnecessary licences, but it was felt that unless something explicit were put in the Act it would be argued before a licensing court that it is the spirit of this Liquor Bill that bars shall be allowed to exist for ten years and you must not eliminate them inside that period, and that all existing licences are sacrosanct, and that the whole spirit and intention of the clause was to cut" out new licences, in other words, to create a close monopoly for the existing licensees. Nothing was further from the intention or spirit of this Act. The effect of this is to make this point perfectly plain. We know there are parts of the Union which are hopelessly overlicensed. I believe Durban is one of them. We were told on the select committee that in proportion to its population, Durban has more licences than any other part of the Union. The hotels in Durban on the whole are extraordinarily good and Durban has a large tourist traffic. There can be no doubt that the Cape Peninsula, as a whole, is hopelessly overlicensed. There are large numbers of canteens in the Cape Peninsula which are mere pot houses. Johannesburg is overlicensed. All that the clause says is that the licensing court shall, when it renews licences, ask. “Are those licences really needed in that locality?” If they are, it can go on. The licences exist for the public, and not the public for the licences. If an hotel in the particular area is absolutely and plainly unnecessary, it is the duty of the licensing court to refuse to renew that licence. I saw the other day they did that at Sir Lowry Pass. There were two hotels there belonging to the same individual, and the licensing court said that one of them was plainly unnecessary and must be shut down. If passed, this will be one of the most valuable methods of reform that exists in this Bill. We put in a quota clause which stops the grant of new licences. We want good hotels in this country. If we are going to create a monopoly for existing licences we are going to create a close preserve however poor the hotels are, and leave no room for good new hotels. This clause is a necessary concomitant of the quota clause.

We gave the licensing courts ample authority, as the clause stands, and to extend this authority seems to be going quite too far. It seems to me the word “shall” indicates a command to the board.

No, it says “shall consider certain facts.”

It looks as if the intention of the law were a direct command, and I think the licensing court would interpret it in that direction. Take a town where there are 12 hotels, and the licensing board thinking they are bound to make a decrease, strike off two hotels. Which are going to be struck off? Sooner or later the population will increase, the quota will increase, and two more will have to be added, and two other hotels will step into the place of those confiscated. It is investing the licensing court with far too much power. It seems to me directly contrary to Clause 62, which is practically an undertaking that the quota system shall not affect renewals, and it practically takes away the undertaking given in Clause 63. It is practically a confiscatory clause, and I do not think, after the way the committee went into it, we should have a drastic clause like this re-introduced.

The language used by the last speaker in calling it a confiscatory clause is strained. There is no such thing as the confiscation of a licence. It is simply a question of whether the licensing authority will renew it or not. This is a step in the right direction of having better houses. It simply means that the board, in considering the granting or renewing of a licence, shall have regard to whether the facilities afforded in an area are sufficient. If they find there are more licences than necessary, what is the obvious thing to do?

Surely 39 as it stands is adequate.

No, I do not think so.

I just want to say that according to the proposal in the clause, the licensing board gets absolute power to act. Now it seems to me that the Minister is here going out of his way to draw the attention of the House—he practically makes it compulsory— to the further consideration whether the number of licences ought not to be reduced. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) mentioned that there might, for example, be 12 hotels in a certain place. On the order of the Minister the number is reduced by the board, possibly by two. How is the board going to decide what hotels must be closed? Our population is continually increasing, and in a few years those two hotels may he again required, but in the meantime the man has lost his capital and the hotel has practically been confiscated as unnecessary. I think that the Minister’s proposal is unnecessary, and I also think it encroaches on the quota system. I hope that the House will not pass it.

I hope the House will by all means accept the Minister’s amendment. I think it is an extremely useful amendment, and I would point out to my hon. friend here, who talks about confiscation, that there is no confiscation at all. What rights have they?

Just the same rights as you have.

Exactly. It is well known, take this Cape Peninsula, that there are far and away too many licences in the place. Take the village I am connected with, I know there are five or six licences for a place where three would be ample. They simply become drinking bars.

The court has now the power to reduce them.

It does not do it, unfortunately, sometimes. There is no question that we are in many places, here in the Western Province, over-licensed.

I do not think I have taken any part in the debate on this Bill up to the present, because I was satisfied that the principle of this measure was that, whilst we were all anxious to reduce the number of licences, the great majority of people in this House were averse from anything in the nature of compulsory confiscation. It is idle for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to say that the effect of this clause will not be confiscatory. Powers are in the Bill already which enable the magistrates to discriminate where they consider that there are too many licences in a particular neighbourhood, but undoubtedly the effect of the introduction of this clause will be to specifically draw the attention of the magistrates to the fact that they have this power of confiscation, and, personally, I do hope that the Minister will not persist in this amendment, because, taking the speeches we have just heard from gentlemen who desire to reduce licences, it is very evident how any magistrate will view that amendment. I do think that if the Minister will think it carefully over, he will find that he is going back on the principle underlying this measure, that was that, except in very extreme cases, there should be no confiscation of licences.

Amendment put; upon which the House divided:

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 42,

I move—

In line 19, after “board” to insert “to which application could in due form be made”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On amendment in lines 33 and 34,

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

In line 34, to omit “made ’’ and to substitute “considered”.

Mr. A. I. E. DE VILLIERS seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 43, Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 44,

I move—

There we give the applicant an additional remedy. If he fails in obtaining the removal he is deemed to have also applied for renewal of the same place. It might be thought that we might give him a chance to apply for some other place, but I think that would be going too far. I submit this is all he is entitled to. I do not think the House should go a step further than the amendment I have just moved.

seconded.

I do not wish to move my amendment unless I get the good ear of the Minister.

You cannot.

Well, his amendments and mine are much on the same lines, so I will not move mine.

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

Amendments in Clauses 46 and 50 put and agreed to.

In Clause 50,

I move—

It really is largely a verbal amendment.

seconded.

My amendment is covered by the Minister’s.

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

On amendment in Clause 53,

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

The reason for that has been raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who instanced the case of Heilbron. There are cases in which there are existing licences within half a mile of the boundary of the existing native location, and provision should be made for exceptional circumstances. I believe the hon. member is right in his contention, and I am endeavouring to place this amendment on a wider basis than that of the committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

In Clause 54,

On amendment in lines 2 and 3.

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

The first amendment is due to what I pointed out to the Minister at an earlier stage, that no provision is made with regard to facilities for alluvial diggings and rural areas, under this Bill. It is considered that a different provision should be made and some exception made here, and that the licensing board should be allowed to do what is suggested here, if it is considered by the board in the interests of the inhabitants concerned. As to the other amendment, it should be “wholesale liquor licence.”

Dr. STALS seconded.

I am prepared to compromise. I cannot accept the amendment about the bottle licence, but I am prepared to accept the amendment about the wholesale liquor licence.

First part of this amendment put and negatived, second part put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On amendment in lines 9 and 10,

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in paragraph (b) of sub-section (2), put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment in sub-section (2), am new sub-section (4) put and agreed to.

Amendment in line 61 put and negatived, and amendment in lines 62 and 63, put and agreed to.

I move—

It was intended after the period of ten years that any rural licences, whether in health or pleasure resorts or required for the needs of the travelling public, should be of the value of at least £2,500.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in sub-section (4) put and agreed to.

In Clause 55,

I move—

(b) if the applicant is not qualified under this Act to hold the licence in respect of which the application is made; or

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 56,

I move—

because in the first place I regard it as an entirely wrong principle for the Minister to be able arbitrarily to prohibit the sale of drink because that is what the provision amounts to. When the Minister considers it desirable in the interests of a certain class to issue his proclamation he can do so. He ought not to possess such an extraordinary power. Parliament and the Minister himself have always declared themselves against local option. If the people cannot decide where there shall be licensed houses, why should the Minister have such a right? Why should he have more power than the people? It is a very dangerous power in the hands of a prejudiced Minister of Justice. Such a Minister would be able to proclaim the country dry, or to do something very much like it. If you collect all the restrictions the Minister can impose, then it undoubtedly means very little less than total prohibition. Why cannot the Minister trust the licensing boards? These licensing boards are going to consist partly of prohibitionists and town councillors, who have very little sympathy with the wine farmers. Is not the Minister satisfied with that? But I know that unless my motion is supported by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) it has a very poor chance.

I second the amendment, because here, in a democratic country, we have an autocratic power given to the Minister. Of course it is not so stated in the Bill, because it is there said that the Cabinet or the Governor-General has the power, but we know by experience that where the law speaks of the Cabinet or the Governor-General it actually means the Minister. We cannot allow the Minister to have such a power. It is not want of confidence in the present Minister of Justice, nor in any future Minister of Justice, but it is an unsound principle. How can the Minister lay down that the sale of liquor shall be forbidden in a certain district when it is not even asked for by the people? The Minister acts on the request of the magistrate or the local boards and the local opinion is not even enquired into. If it were merely intended to meet local circumstances, then I would say that there was something to be said for it, although we have the licensing boards for the purpose. The licensing board has not deserved this want of confidence. There are no reasons for expressing want of confidence in the licensing boards, because, although there have been abuses here and there, they perform their task on the whole in a very satisfactory way. Even if the local circumstances require the restriction of the sale of drink, I would therefore say that this clause is superfluous, but provision is here made for an absolute right of veto on the part of the Minister. It says here [quotation read. “I say that this power is too great. Let us see what power the Minister already has. Binder Clause 57 he may, at the request of certain persons, close licensed premises for a portion of the day. Clause 58 gives him the power to close licensed premises during riots, and Clause 58 further gives him the power to proclaim an area where everybody who buys a bottle must have a permit. The Minister has too much power already, and therefore I support the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal).

I do not know whether this clause has really been carefully studied. It seems to me the Governor-General is vested with certain powers as to whether a licence which has been granted by the licensing board shall be issued or not. Supposing a request is presented to the Minister, and supposing my hon. friend the member for Rezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is the Minister for the time being. He would go to the Governor-General, as I read this clause, and say, “I do not want a licence issued to a particular person.” Furthermore, a licence may be granted, but the authorities may not issue that licence to the licensee until a message has been received from the Governor-General that he does not intend to exercize his right of veto. Let us take it that a magistrate is a teetotaller or a total prohibitionist, to my mind it seems to be a dangerous power. The power to grant a licence is vested in the licensing board. We will assume that the licensing board has agreed to a particular licence. There is nothing to prevent the municipality from going to the Minister, who may be sympathetic, and who may go to the Governor-General, and say, " We want you to veto a particular licence.” I ask hon. members to pause and consider this clause very carefully. We have decided that the local veto shall not be vested in the people. This is a way of getting behind all that.

Amendments in sub-section (1) put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to, and the amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal accordingly negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 57, 58 and 59 put and agreed to.

In Clause 59, The MINISTER OF JUSTICE: I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 61.

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 61:

1. (a) the urban local authority within whose area the said premises are situated, if such area is not divided into wards, or, if so divided,
2. (b) the ward within which such premises are situated.

I would like to ask the House to realize that in the Cape Province we have a memorial system which is greatly valued by a very large number of people. I realize the objection to it that might be taken by some people that it is very difficult indeed to get a new licence, very often where it is urgently required, owing to the fact that the applicant has to obtain a memorial signed by, I think, two-thirds of the voters in the area concerned in favour of the grant of the licence. My amendment provides for what I would call a “negative” rather than a “positive” memorial in the case of an application for a new licence. It does not in any way affect any existing licences, but has entirely to do with new licences, and it leaves in the hands of the people in the Cape Province some modicum of the right of memorial which they have held in the past. It is not open to the same abuse as the previous system. I grant that the old memorial form has been open to abuse and has been rather futile, but in this case, upon an application for a new licence, a licence shall not be granted if there is a memorial against it, signed by a majority of the people concerned in the area, whether it is the whole undivided area of the local authority or the wards into which such area may have been divided. I think it is a very reasonable request and, in view of the fact that we are already giving up a great deal in that memorial system which has been in operation in the Cape in the past, I hope the House and the Minister will accept this very reasonable proposal.

I second the motion. I am quite sure that the Minister has got so much out of the House that he is prepared to give a little in return. I moved originally the retention of the option which was contained in the old Cape Act. The House was against me on that. That was a provision which required that any person who applied for a new licence should get a memorial signed by a majority in his favour. This is the converse, and it is going to make it more difficult for people who desire to object to licences coming in to be able to do so. I trust the Minister will accept this amendment.

I may say that, whilst not entirely liking this system, I do not think, in this particular form, it can do much harm, and it might do a lot of good. There are certain communities in the Cape Province which have cherished the power which they have had in this connection in the past. We have heard of the classical case of Observatory and we have also heard of Fish Hoek. One can understand, of course, the difficulties that might be caused by a man who has had a licence and who wants to prevent a new licence from being established there, but a very large burden is placed on a person to obtain a majority of those who are against it. For these reasons I do not think it can do harm, and it may do a considerable amount of good, and I am prepared to support it.

New clause put and agreed to.

In Clause 62,

Amendments in sub-section (1) put and agreed to, and new sub-section (2) put and negatived.

I move—

That the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (1):

1. (2) No new restaurant liquor licence shall be granted within an urban area unless the number of parliamentary voters in that area amounts to four thousand or more: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to the grant of any restaurant liquor licence under the authority of section 4 or sub-section (3) of section 55.

The whole idea of that is to change the number from 5,000 to 4,000. Representations were made that there were some very large towns in South Africa which had not all the people living on the fringe of the municipal area. The principal instance is Bloemfontein, and I think this will only apply to Bloemfontein. It has a large population in the Shannon Valley and elsewhere, which is practically a town population, but not within the town municipal limits. It is felt that a town of the importance of Bloemfontein should have the opportunity of having a restaurant licence.

seconded.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

The object of this Bill is surely to prevent drunkenness, and I know of no sale of liquor which is healthier than that in the restaurant. I reached this conviction, not only by what I saw on the Continent, but also because it was generally said that the experience of the world, and especially of England during the war, was that where liquor is served in restaurants there are no bad results. It did not injuriously affect the capacity of the soldiers, and it did not lead to drunkenness. People do not get drunk in, the restaurants; in the first place, because they are drinking in the open, and not in a closed-off compartment. Secondly, because the consumption takes place in a large dining-room during a meal. There is no drinking from morning to night, but, according to law, merely at specified hours in connection with meals. The provision which the Minister proposes is that the municipalities must contain at least 4,000 inhabitants. I think that is senseless, because the most healthy sale of drink takes place in the restaurants Then the people will not go to other places for liquor. I know my Free State friends strongly object to restaurants, and although I do not approve of them in principle for the reason mentioned, I still feel that we can exclude very small villages. I hope, however, that the provision of the Minister, which means that only eight or nine towns can have restaurants, will not be passed in that form.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment to this amendment—

I support the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) in so far as deleting “4,000” is concerned, but when he proposes to bring the number down to 1,000, it is too small. If the number is 4,000 voters, I think there would be only six or seven towns in the Union where they would have these licensed restaurants, and not in many of your fairly large places where such a restaurant is a necessity—take the place I represent, a very important place. Unless you bring it down to 2,500, the only towns in the Cape Province which would have these restaurants would be Cape Town, Port Elizabeth. East London and Kimberley.

seconded.

I do hope the Minister will not go any further than he has already done in his amendments. In committee, when it was fully discussed, the hon. member for Hope town (Dr. Stals) had the same amendment, and the House rejected it by a fairly large majority. The Minister has already reduced the figure from 5,000 to 4,000 and I hope he will go no further. I think that is a fair compromise. People, especially on the countryside, go a great deal to restaurants where they never come into touch with liquor, because they do not go to the hotels. If the restaurants in the small places are going to supply liquor, the people will come into touch with it. I can understand that restaurants are possibly desirable in large towns, and that they might supply drinks, but it would cause great dissatisfaction if the number was still further reduced.

I thought that 5,000 was a reasonable figure. The Minister is reducing it by 1,000. I am sorry, but I hope he will not go further, and that the House will consistently vote against the motion of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals).

Amendments proposed by Dr. Stals and Mr. Heatlie put and negatived.

New sub-section (2), proposed by the Minister of Justice, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded. Agreed to.

Remaining amendment in sub-section (4) put and agreed to.

I move—

There is no doubt that in the case of some of these premises, big hotels, for instance, £20,000 might be quite reasonable, but to make that applicable to every club and restaurant in order to exclude it from the quota is really putting it at too high a figure. Hardly any restaurant is going to be erected at that particular cost, and as it is really the minimum, I think it would be reasonable if the Minister agreed to make it £10,000, which is a very high figure having regard to the fact that the land is not included in the value.

seconded.

This provision is placing a certain type of licence entirely outside the purview of this law. If anybody is prepared to erect a building of the very-considerable value of £20,000 we take him out of the law and allow him to apply for his licence taking no notice of quotas and all other troubles. It is such an exceptional case that we should make the amount exceptional too.

Amendment put and negatived.

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

I move—

I do not wish to make a speech, because we have already expressed our views on a previous occasion.

seconded.

I must say that in spite of this amendment I still think the only logical course is to have the clause in the form in which it is printed in the Bill. My amendments are merely verbal ones. I am not going to move them. I will leave the clause as it stands so as to avoid any confusion on the issue. We have really tried, in this clause, as printed, to introduce what has been the Transvaal system for a considerable period, namely, that on-consumption licences and off-consumption licences are strictly divided. But we have tried to meet the existing position in the Cape, Natal and Free State, that your hotels have also the right to sell for off-consumption by giving the right of renewal for five years. I was under the impression that if any attack was made on this section it would be delivered against that term, to make it longer instead of five years. I certainly did not expect that the whole of the section would be attacked. Practically what the hon. member is moving is the existing practice in the Cape Province and the other two provinces. We get back to the same points that I thought had been decided at a previous stage. The House has already laid down fairly clearly that it thinks the position taken up by the Transvaal is the correct one, to make this distinction between on-consumption licences and off-consumption licences. I think that logically the House was correct, and probably logically the House will follow the same view that it had before. This provision went through comparatively easily on the previous occasion.

No.

A majority of three votes.

Well, I thought more of the common-sense of the House. At all events, I think that logically the position laid down in the Act is the correct position, and I am going to vote for that position.

The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) informs me that he does not want to move the amendment I have lead, but the amendment on page 616 of the Votes and Proceedings.

One could not allow, even if one were sure how the voting would go, an amendment of the character of that moved by the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) to pass without discussion. We have reached, in this clause, one of the most contentious and most important clauses of the whole Bill, because if there is one provision more than another on which the value of this Bill depends, I think it is this Clause 63. As the Minister has said, from the time, at any rate, of the Boer war, in the Transvaal we have always drawn a clear-cut distinction between oil-consumption licences and off-consumption licences. That distinction has been found to work out admirably in practice. In this Bill we have adopted the same distinction, and the House has agreed to that distinction being adopted. We say that an on-consumption licence is one thing, and an off-consumption licence is another, and with an on-consumption licence liquor may only be sold for actual consumption by the public on the premises. That is to say, a glass of liquor is poured out and consumed on the premises, and one set of rules entirely governs that form of the liquor trade and an entirely different set of rules governs the off-consumption trade. We have laid it down in a later section of the Bill, that a bottle store and any other form of off-consumption licence, must keep adequate and full records showing the liquor received into those premises, and the liquor which is sold and to whom it is sold, and right through this Bill a fundamental principle has been to draw a clear-cut distinction between off-consumption and on-consumption. We found that in the Cape for years past a practice had existed by which hotels sold liquor by the bottle, and I want to say this in the House to-night that not a single word of testimony in favour of that system can be found in the length and breadth of the evidence given before the select committee. Ten years ago that system was condemned in what is known as the Baxter report. It was there said, and truly said, that one of the most potent causes of the drink evil which exists in the Cape Province, and particularly in the Western Province, is this very system of off-consumption; that the coloured people in particular are being ruined and debauched by this system of off-sales. What happens is that a man may hang over the bar of a canteen most of the evening, and when closing time comes, already being more full of liquor than is good for him, he can buy a bottle or two of liquor, slip it into his pocket, and finish the process begun by him in the canteen. It will be said in theory that the bars and canteens keep and observe the same hours as the bottle stores; but you can imagine the lack of check there is-— you cannot have a policeman in every bar. If a customer wants to purchase a bottle, what is there to stop him? I know that bottle store has to close at definite hours, and these are very much shorter than those of hotels.

interjected a remark.

I will give the hon. member £15 for every bottle he can buy after 6 o’clock in a Cape Town and a Johannesburg bottle store. The bottle stores have to observe their hours. The arguments that are used in favour of the retention of off-sales are purely selfish. Not a single disinterested person has come along and said this system is a good one; but a large number of hotel keepers, who find their off-sales a lucrative thing, have come to hon. members and said: “Why should we not continue to have this? We have had it for years,” quite regardless of the evils this system causes, and the effort to tighten up by this Bill. Are we here in the interests of the liquor trade, or the interests of the public?

Or in the interests of the bottle stores?

We are here to do justice to the people of South Africa.

The Rev. Mr. HATTINGH interjected a remark.

I do not attach much value to the remarks which come from the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

I would point out to the hon. member, that we are merely dealing with the amendment of sub-section (1).

It is extending the operation of this thing, and the whole principle applies. If it is good deleting these words, it is good extending the off sales system, so that my remarks are quite relevant, even on this amendment. The arguments in favour of this system are made entirely in favour of the licensed victuallers.

And those on the other side are in favour of the bottle stores.

I do not care sixpence for the bottle store keeper, and the hon. member knows it. If he will look at the evidence of the police, the temperance people and the churches he will see that they are not advocating the interests of the bottle stores, but those of the public and of temperance.

You have no right to say that those in favour of this system are in favour of the licensed victuallers.

I am going to say so. We have put a clause in this section that where there is no bottle store in country towns, off sales can continue, but what hon. members are asking is that, side by side with bottle stores which are properly regulated, hotels which have on-sales business shall be allowed to continue to sell by the bottle. I ask the hon. member if the testimony is unanimously that this is a pernicious system, how can he perpetuate it except on the plea that certain hotel keepers who have the right to-day say it will hurt their pockets. In the face of a great reform, and this is one of the greatest reforms introduced into this Bill, how can we allow any section of licensed victuallers to stop us putting this through?

Perhaps it would be more convenient if we confined ourselves to the amendment that the words “within an urban area” be omitted. Otherwise we are bound to have a lot of repetition.

We have already adopted a clause which says there shall be no new country licences at all, except under very exceptional circumstances, and the existing ones shall come to an end in ten years, unless they conform to certain reforms. We know what happened in the Free State, and the benefits that resulted from the steps they took with regard to rural licences. I can imagine nothing more calculated to defeat the intention of the clause than the amendment. I hope the House will go with the Minister in adopting the clause, and if the House does not accept it, it will be undoing one of the greatest measures of reform in this Bill.

I was a member of the Baxter commission, but I am going to support the amendment, not in the interests of the licensed victuallers, but in the best interests of that part of the country from which I come. The conditions in different parts of the country are entirely dissimilar. In Port Elizabeth, the churches, the temperance association and, I also think, the police have always looked upon the bottle-stores as means of promoting drunkenness, and so strong is this feeling that, although Port Elizabeth has a population of over 50,000 it has only three bottle-stores. It would be best to leave this matter to the licensing courts to use their discretion.

I take strong exception to the insinuation that we are here for any other purpose than to produce a good Bill and to do justice to all concerned. Neither I nor any other member are here to defend any particular section of the trade. I wish to protest against the clause. What is the difference between off-sales from an hotel and off-sales from a bottle store? What are you going to reform by passing the clause? Not a single bottle less of liquor will be sold because you take the licence from an hotel-keeper who has paid for it, and give it to an unknown man who has not paid for it. The whole principle of the Bill is to curtail the abuse of liquor, but that is not being done by this clause. Where is the wonderful reform with which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) made the rafters ring, seeing that we have laid it down that hotel off-sales are to be governed by exactly the same hours and obligations as obtain in the case of sales from bottle-stores? That is as I read sub-section (5).

What is the hon. member reforming? he is only creating a gross injustice against certain individuals. I fail to see that the clause will lead to the sale of a single bottle of liquor the less. I will give an instance of how the clause will operate unfairly and will confiscate rights. I have a friend who was secretary of a club at Port Elizabeth. A few years ago he invested the savings of a life-time in the purchase of an hotel at Knysna, paying a much higher price for it because it had the privilege of off-sales; seventy-five per cent, of his sales are off-sales. He will be ruined if the clause goes through.

What about Section 4?

That will not help him. You are taking from him a right which he has worked for and you give the licensing court the power to transfer it to some unknown man who has not paid a penny for this extra right. I am not going to draw invidious comparisons, but taking the average bottle-store and the average hotel-keeper, I think, on the whole, the latter will be as little liable to abuse his licence as the former. Owing to the fact that he is under the surveillance of breweries and wholesale people, the hotel-keeper is kept far more in check than is the average bottle-store keeper. We have a situation in the Cape Province which has been in existence for generations, and has been very rarely been abused except in certain low class canteens in the Western Province. Where it has been abused it has been due to the fact that off-sales in an hotel were allowed to continue long after the bottle store is closed. In order to achieve absolutely nothing in the improvement of the liquor condition in this country, you are going to perpetrate a substantial injustice to a large class. I am not a protagonist of a hotel keeper, but I want to see justice done. I have gone into a number of these cases personally. If we look at sub-section (3), we find the hon. the Minister has moved a clause authorizing this very abuse, against which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) inveighs—that off-sales shall be tolerated in Natal. I would ask the hon. gentleman Who has taken up such an altruistic stand on this clause how he reconciles it with his conscience to vote for the same iniquitous principle. I have yet to hear that the morals of Natal are better or worse than those of any other province. I hope not only that the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) will be accepted but that the whole clause will he moved out. A strong objection I take to this clause is that it is not so much designed to improve the liquor position as to further an internal fend between two sections of the liquor trade. We should not be turned into a sort of cockpit to fight a feud between the bottle store keepers and the hotel keepers. No one is going to benefit except the bottle store keepers. I fail to see how the public is going to benefit. The police evidence was based on a state of affairs which is now being done away with, which allowed an off-sale in an hotel long after the bottle stores were closed. Now we are providing the same hours for an hotel as for a bottle store and compelling the hotel keeper to keep records.

It will be more difficult to check it than in a bottle store.

Now we have reached the stage that this clause is based on a mere difficulty of administration. If that is the only difficulty, we shall be committing an even greater injustice if merely to burke a minor administrative trouble we are going to do this.

I would like to point out that the Minister’s own proposal in his 1926 Rill is what those who are supporting the hon. member are now suggesting. In section 83 of the Bill of 1926 the principle was recognized that all off sales existing at the time of the Act were to continue under certain conditions with regard to the separation of the place where the bottles were sold. In other words, there has been a complete somersault since 1926. We are only asking the Minister to stick to bis original proposal of 1926. I want to say in answer to what the Minister said about the matter going through easily the last time that it did not go through easily at all. On page 571 of Votes and Proceedings, he will find it was only carried by three votes. The Minister then told us he had struck a bargain with the Natal members. These bargains are like chickens that come home to roost. If you say off sales are being abused, deal with it in the way suggested under sub-section 5 and put them under the same conditions as bottle licences. Licensing courts have always insisted in the Cape on the condition that off sales can only take place at such times as bottle stores are open. You can trust the licensing court to do that. We were always being asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) why don’t you leave it to the licensing court? We ask why are not those members prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), and leave it to the licensing court? After all, the powers under section 63 are entirely discretionary. If you pass the amendment, it will still be open to the licensing courts not to allow these off sales if they consider them not in the interests of the public. It is only fair, just and reasonable that the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly should be passed.

I have an amendment on the order paper which I want to move in connection with the speeches just made, namely—

I need not say any more about it, because I think the subject has been fully ventilated.

seconded.

Before addressing myself to the merits of this clause, I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is permissible to move the deletion of sub-clause (2).

Yes.

Then following the excellent spirit of compromise shown us by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, which I think is to be commended, and when possible, followed, I hope that as far as this whole clause is concerned the words “within an urban area” will be retained, and that sub-clause (2) will be omitted. It does not seem to me to be necessary, at all events from my point of view. The hon. members of this House may, I think, be fairly divided into two classes—those who want to prohibit the use of intoxicating liquor in any form, and under any circumstances, and those who desire to promote temperance. It there is any hon. member here who thinks it his duty to promote the consumption of liquor, I am not aware of it. I think all hon. members are of opinion that there is a great deal too much liquor consumed in this country, and by a certain class of people, and surely the whole tenor of this Bill, of our discussion, and of the amendments that we have got in the Bill, has been to restrict the consumption of liquor still further. I would ask those—and I have great respect for their opinions—who believe that total prohibition is the goal, to be moderate. If it is right, they will attain their object better by approaching it gradually rather than by endeavouring to attain their object too soon. I do think that a very grave injustice will be inflicted upon perhaps the best class of hotel-keepers in this country if this sub-section (2) is carried. We know that much of this legislation and nearly all the arguments hinge round the experiences that are always before our eyes in the Western Province. I do not think that because of an exceptional state of circumstances existing in a portion of the Western Province, we should thereby penalize the whole of the community, and I feel certain that, at all events, in the eastern parts of the Cape Province this clause in its amended state will be welcomed by the great majority of people, and I think that it will tend to add to the convenience of the public generally. I would put another point of view before this House, and that is that we are hoping great things for the extension of the knowledge of our country. We are putting a large sum of money on the estimates every year to attract tourists, and we ought to give them, when they come here, reasonable facilities for carrying out that object. We want to do everything we can to ensure reasonable accommodation. We want members of the tourist community, when they traverse this country, to be able to travel in comfort, and to be able at an hotel where they stay, to have a hamper put up. The argument that has been put up that it is impossible to control the sale of liquor by bottle from the hotels, leaves me cold. I am not aware that any grave evils have resulted in the past from well-conducted hotels being allowed to sell bottles of liquor.

What about badly conducted hotels?

As to badly-conducted hotels, the whole trend of our legislation is to sweep them out of the country altogether. I assume that the Minister of Justice is as earnest as he appears to be, and that when this law is on the statute book the resources at his disposal, police, magistrates, etc., will see that it is not a dead letter, but is carried into effect. I am not prepared, at this stage, to substitute prohibition for justice, or even to attempt to secure prohibition by a substantial measure of injustice towards a class of people who have served the country, though, perhaps, not always to the advantage of the country. We do want to encourage the better class of hotel and the better class of hotel-keeper, and it is well known that, while public opinion remains what it is, the vast majority of the people desire to be able to purchase alcohol in reasonable quantities and at reasonable times. I would again seriously ask prohibitionists to remember this, that one of the secrets of temperance is to ensure that no poisonous liquor is sold to anyone, and I hope that the Foods and Drugs Act will be stiffened up to that extent. I would ask those who want prohibition to seriously consider is it really prohibition they want in this country, or the elimination of drunkenness? We know that if statistics are to be relied upon, if the reports from the United States have a vestige of truth in them, prohibition in that country has not eliminated drunkenness. The most ardent prohibitionists in this country will not get up and say that prohibition in America has done away with drunkenness. There is a very large amount of drunkenness in America, and, therefore, prohibition, as far as our evidence goes, will not suffice to do away with drunkenness. Prohibition should be the last resort of all. Who are the people most effectually prohibited from indulgence in liquor? They are the inmates of the gaols, the lunatic asylums, the hospitals and so on, but I am not aware that they remain prohibitionists. Therefore, I hope that we will put nothing on our statute book that will tend to discourage the existence of well-conducted hotels in this country, hotels that have a reputation to keep up as to the accommodation they offer their guests and so on, and, above all, as to the quality of the liquor that they sell to the public. That is a very important point. Once more, I think I am entitled to protest against the fact of the unfortunate experience of one part of the country being taken as a guide or sample of the whole. I do not think we should legislate on the assumption that the evils resulting from bottle stores, hotels, canteens, wine farmers’ licences and many other things, are necessarily typical of what takes place in other parts of the country. I do hope, at all events, the rural areas will be protected? from any extension of hotels in their midst. I thoroughly agree with that, but, until public opinion is far more advanced towards prohibition, I think we should go slowly. It may be there will be no necessity for prohibition. The hon. member knows this is a long step towards prohibition. It is admittedly the object of the hon. member, and this is one of the steps towards it. The Minister has very wisely not allied himself to any “isms” or any “ists” in putting this Bill through. He is leaving the Bill to the good sense of the House, which I presume he understands represents the good sense of the country, and I think the good sense of the country will agree with me in eliminating sub-clause (2) of this section, as unnecessary and unwise. I move—

I second the amendment. I do not think much can be said more than has already been said by the hon. member in support of his amendment, but I would like to draw attention just to one or two of the provisions of Clause 5, which lays down perfectly clearly that these people who will continue to enjoy the same privileges as at present will have their rights to sell under the same conditions as bottle stores. Seeing that these people have enjoyed these privileges for so many years and seeing that we in the Transvaal are strongly opposed to introducing anything that has not existed before, I am prepared to support the deletion of this, so that these people may continue to enjoy the privileges which they enjoy at the present moment. The Transvaal system will not be impaired or added to by this.

Yes, it will.

No, it will not, because in Section 63, line 60, it only deals with licences which were previously authorized, and does not extend that privilege to other than those who are enjoying it at the present moment. That being so, we can do no harm in allowing these people to have the privileges which they have previously enjoyed. That I think is only fair.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig-Gen. Byron) said we should not interfere unduly with the well-conducted hotels of South Africa I take it that this legislation is not so much necessary because of the well-conducted hotels, as it is necessary in connection with hotels that are not well-conducted. That is the point. We have to consider when dealing with legislation of this description the hotels that are not well conducted.

The licensing board can deal with them.

Yes, but the hon. member has lost sight of the point, and that is that legislation is necessary to deal with those hotels where the game is not played. This Bill is largely for the purpose of trying to prevent the abuse of liquor in this country. This Bill is not a prohibitive measure, it is not even in the direction of local option, unfortunately, but it is simply to try and do away with the abuse of liquor, and I cannot understand how any hon. member can possibly support the idea of an hotel having the privilege of selling liquor by the bottle, because if there is one thing more than another that may tend to abuse, so far as your hotels are concerned, it is the right to sell by the bottle as well as by the glass. A man goes in to have a drink, and he finishes up with two or three drinks, and he goes home the worse for liquor with probably a bottle sticking out of his pocket, but he would not have taken it home but for the fact that the hotel is selling by the bottle. The system must lead to further abuse of the liquor trade, and I cannot understand any hon. member keeping in view the well-conducted hotels and losing sight of the fact that what we are out to do is to try and prevent people abusing their position as retailers of liquor to the general community. It is the general community that must receive the consideration of this House. It is not the liquor interests. There is not the slightest doubt, in the mind of any hon. member of this House whether he is for or against local option or for or against prohibition that giving hotels the right to sell liquor by the bottle as well as by the glass must lead to an increase of drunkenness in South Africa.

The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) said that he would prefer to see the proposal of the Minister in its original form. With reference to that I want to say that I do not believe he would be so satisfied with the Minister’s original proposal, because, if I remember rightly, the Minister in the very first draft proposed to prohibit entirely the sale by bottle.

No, that is not so.

I think the Minister will agree that the original draft was to abolish the sale by bottle, but that after pressure was brought to bear by the hotel keepers of the Cape Province and the Free State the Minister met the objection, and after the pendulum had swung from one side to the other he eventually chose the middle course to give satisfaction to everybody as far as possible. Unlike the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), I am not satisfied that this is a big step in the direction of total prohibition. I admit that this question is the great fight between the hotel keepers and the bottle store owners, and I would not be anxious to meddle with it if it was only that battle. In any case it is clear who has the most support here and who has not, but I think that after we have spent all the money on hearing evidence we might pay some attention to such evidence. It is given by people who understand the matter, members of the police force who for years and years have had to do with it, men like Maj. Trigger and Col. Gray. They are people whom we might expect not to go to extremes in this matter. We find Question 709 in the report of the Select Committee [Quotation read]. That is by Col. Gray who has had experience in the matter for years and years. Then we find Question 3251 which was put to Maj. Trigger [Quotation read], think we ought to take notice of evidence from men like Col. Gray and Maj. Trigger who have had to do with the evil for years and years. In my opinion the evidence in very strongly on the side of the Minister’s proposal. It principally affects smuggling with which the police have much trouble. It is much more difficult for the police to control smuggling where liquor can be sold by the bottle in closed places, like hotels, than when it is sold in a place where the people go in and out. But apart from the question of smuggling-and I am not particularly in favour of a bottle store nor of an hotel, and I have no penchant for bottle stores—it must be clear to everybody that the sale by the bottle must not take place where a man can drink so much that he is not quite able to judge of what he is doing. When the man has drunk too much the temptation is very great to buy another bottle to take home. As for the principle therefore we must choose between two evils, and then we chose the smaller, that is the bottle store. As for Natal I cannot agree with the principle either, but here also we are choosing the lesser of two evils. It has also been said here that in the Cape Province hotels cannot exist as orderly hotels if the right of selling by the bottle is taken away, but I ask hon. members whether the hotels in the Cape Province are better than, e.g., those of the Transvaal. It was recently stated here that the worst hotels exist in the Cape Province and, I believe, particularly in Cape Town: In the Transvaal there has been no selling by bottle in hotels for years, and they can apparently exist just as well as those in any part of the country. The hon. member for Porth Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that different conditions prevailed in different parts of the country, and that we must leave it to the licesning board. I think the conditions are the same everywhere, namely, that wherever it may be it is dangerous when the man who has taken a little too much is exposed to the temptation of buying another bottle. The hon. member may say that if the man is drunk it makes no difference whether he drinks another bottle or not. The whole matter is a question of degree. If the hon. member says that the degree of drunkenness does not matter, then he must become a total abstainer, because the difference between total abstinence and drunkenness is in the long run also merely a question of degree. That is just where we want to oppose abuse of liquor, namely, we want to take care that a man shall have as little opportunity as possible of becoming drunk. I think the Minister has reasonably met the objections of the Cape Province by his amendment by which the sale by bottle is allowed to hotels at places where no bottle store can exist. We do not want the people at such a place to write to Cape Town for a bottle of liquor. I think we should maintain the principle here that hotels shall not have the right of selling by the bottle, and if a man’s income to the extent of 75 per cent, conies from the bottle store then he can establish a bottle store within four years. We must adopt the principle that we cannot allow the two kinds of liquor selling in the same building.

I just want to add that I have had a good deal of experience of the sale for consumption elsewhere. I had a great deal of experience in Kuils River of the devastating influence of “off-sales.” My experience is that people, especially coloured people, go into the canteen, drink there and then take a bottle with them. Not long after they lie in the streets. I am in favour of the clause, therefore, and shall vote against the amendment. I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that members are influenced by the Licensed Victuallers Association. We are here to defend the interests of the public, not those of the bottle stores nor, the Licensed Victuallers Association and we are here to prevent drunkenness. Hon. members know that I oppose drunkenness with all my power. We are not in favour of the bottle stores, but the question is how drunkenness is caused and here we have a case where drunkenness is being indirectly furthered. I have had experience. We have no “off-sales” in the Transvaal.

There is more drunkenness there than there is here.

No, only in the case of natives, where illicit sale of liquor takes place, but I lived at Kuils River for years and have now lived in the Transvaal for 50 years and I therefore know what I am talking about. I saw more drunkenness at Kuils River in one month than in the Transvaal in 30 years. That is my experience, and we have no “off-sales” in the Transvaal, and I heartily hope the House will pass the clause as it stands, “Off-sales” by hotels are absolutely wrong. We must prevent drunkenness. Hon. members want to act in the interests of the people and therefore must get rid of these " off-sales.” It is said that this, provision goes a long way towards prohibition. Not at all, we only feel that we are met to pass a liquor law for the benefit, and the blessing of the people. I spoke to-day to Col. Trew. His arguments have, not yet been referred to He is absolutely against “off-sales.” He has had experience in the Transvaal as well as in the Cape Province. His attitude appears from the report of the Select Committee [Question and answer read]. It appears from the evidence that his argument is that a man takes a bottle with him when the hotel is closed. There are other police officials who also testify that “off-sales” should be stopped. Vested rights have been referred to here. We must take them away when they injure the people. They are a curse to South Africa and it is our duty, to take them away. I respect every man’s rights, but if they injure my people then I say they must be taken away, and I say that “off-sales” are injurious to the people. I therefore trust that the motion prohibiting “off-sales” will be passed.

After the address of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) I cannot remain silent. He wants to make out that our people are being ruined by the “off-sales.” Then I ask: “Why then is the sale allowed in bottle stores? If the hon. member is against sale by the bottle he must be against all sale of liquor. I am in favour of prohibition. If I could push it through I would do so, but as that is impossible I want the next best thing. What, however, is the difference between sale in a bottle store and in an hotel.

The bottle store is restricted to definite hours.

That argument does not hold water. The hon. member says that as a minister of religion he has had much experience of drunkenness. He says that in the Transvaal there are no “off-sales.” As we cannot have prohibition I want the next best, and the most practical thing. The hon. member says that the bottle store closes at definite times. We can also stipulate that with regard to hotels, and do so, as it is, in the law We can restrict them, but that is not the argument. I feel the hon. member has only had experience in Pretoria, and not in such small places as Venterstad, etc. My experience is that if we have to fight about a matter of no importance. It makes no difference to me whether the sale of drink by the bottle takes place at a bottle store or an hotel. A man who wants to buy a bottle will buy it and drink it. My experience of the countryside is that many of the small hotels cannot exist without that sale. Unless the hotels have the right of selling by the bottle they will disappear, and we need them. I know how necessary they are for travellers. Why should we take away from the hotels the right of selling by the bottle, and merely give it to the bottle stores, thus forcing the hotels to close down? If there is no decent hotel in the small places where is one to go to?

The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) will have to take out the words “the first” and insert “any”, otherwise the amendment will be confined to the first year after the passing of the Act

Subsection (2) puts that right, I think.

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

Upon which the House divided:

On a point of order, if the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly is carried what will be the fate of mine?

We will duly test the hon. member’s amendment, but the amendments which are on the paper must be moved before the whole can be put. In order to test the position, I propose to put the question in this form, that the first two lines of sub-section (2) proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

I think we are doubtful about the position. We just want to know whether, if we pass the amendment as now moved, we can still vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers).

No, if the amendment to leave out the words is passed, the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly lapses. Thereafter, I will put the question that the rest of the clause should lapse.

Question put: That the words " In any case in which the board grants any renewal in terms of sub-section (1), it may thereafter from year to year”, proposed to be omitted by Brig.-Gen. Byron, stand part of the clause, Upon which the House divided:

We still appear to be confused.

I will clear up the position when I put the question.

I think it follows that sub-sections 3 and 4 disappear I will move—

which was the authority to conduct the sales by the bottle in these hotel premises on the same premises as the ordinary business of the hotel, and if this practice is going to continue practically for all time, we should seek to divide the businesses so that they can be better dealt with.

seconded.

With leave of the House, amendments proposed by Mr. Oost withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice, to omit sub-sections’(3) and (4), put and agreed to.

I should like to know what the effect will be, supposing we delete the proviso. Will it mean that business will be carried on as before, that is, off-sales as well as on-sales, or will it mean separate premises or a separate room will have to be set aside by a hotel proprietor?

A separate room.

I think that will be very inconvenient.

Very fair, though.

It seems that the present state of affairs should continue in premises at the present time where this business is carried on, especially hotels where off-sales or on-sales are in the bar and the house; and to provide for separate rooms, a separate bar or a separate shop seems to be quite unnecessary.

The Minister might leave the proviso where it is, and consider the matter when it is in another place. Simply leaving out the proviso leaves the matter in a state of doubt and confusion as to the premises. As the clause was originally drafted in the Bill of 1926, it was laid down that the licensing court could make conditions as to where the sale was taking place and conditions as to 0n-sales. But there is no specific provision in the section, and under those circumstances those who voted in favour of leaving things as they are—a substantial majority—should vote against leaving the proviso out. We know where we are if the proviso remains in.

I wish to be reasonable in this matter, but it is not quite clear to me what the great principle is in having this division. Is it for better supervision

We should not have a mixed up trade, which would be very bad.

Would it be different premises or a different room?

A different room on the premises

It does seem to me petty, and harrassing the man, forcing him to put up a partition or a dividing wall. I take the Minister’s information that it is the same building, but a different room.

When the hon. member was pleading for the retention of off-sales, he said all he wanted was that those who sold by the bottle should not be deprived of the right of doing so.

I said different hours.

While these people still have the right of off-sales, they should be under bottle store conditions. One of the evils of off-sales is that a man warmed up by liquor would buy liquor from the bar. All the regulations in the world will not stop a licensee selling after hours by the bottle. If the premises are separate they are locked when the bottle stores are locked, and, at any rate, some of the abuses at present attaching to the off-sales system will be stopped.

I should say that for the time being you should retain the proviso.

Question put: That all the words after “licence” in line 19, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the House divided:

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

I second the amendment. I can well conceive cases in which a person who has had two or more convictions against him having been placed in that position through the action of an employee who may have committed an offence contrary to the instructions of his employer. It might even have been done to spite his employer. Surely under these circumstances discretion should be left to the licensing board, otherwise why do we appoint these boards? Under the clause as it stands, the hands of the court will be tied.

If the amendment is carried we might as well delete sub-section (b), for its utility will disappear. I cannot imagine any case in which some extenuating circumstances will not be found. My long experience of the courts leads me to the belief that in every case the ingenuity of counsel will find some specious excuse. It is said that the offence may be that of the barman, but the profit is always that of the licensee. Even if the licensee has told his barman to sell adulterated liquor as very often happens, or to sell out of hours, you always get in almost a hundred per cent, of the cases the barman coming forward and saying: “It is my fault. I did it. It is true the profit was made by the licensee, but I was exceeding my instructions.” And if he does not come forward and say it, the licensee does, because the licensee has at stake a licence which may have a value of anything up to £5,000 or £10,000, and all that the barman has at stake is his job. The licensee usually says he has sacked the barman. Probably he has, but no doubt with a certain amount of compensation. I never knew a case of contravention of the Liquor Licensing Act in this respect where the blame was not laid on the barman. The extenuating circumstances would inevitably be that the licensee will say, “I gave the strictest possible instructions that under no circumstances were they to sell out of hours or to sell watered liquor, but they did it.” A case occurred the other day, where one of the largest hotels in the Peninsula was raided, and it was found that all the whisky had been diluted, and that the port which bore the label of the best imported port was the cheapest Cape port. Yet, when that case comes to trial, some barmaid or barman will bear the whole blame.

If the case has yet to come to trial the hon. member had better not discuss it.

I am not discussing the case, I am merely taking an example. If this clause is passed in this form, I venture to say that in no case will the effect of this ever be exercised. We must make it a rule that after the second conviction we do not want a man to hold the licence any longer. Whenever we attempt to see that we do get good hotels and good licensees, some well-meaning member of this House comes forward with an amendment of this sort, the effect of which is to destroy the whole value of the proposal.

As this section is drafted, if a man had a purely technical conviction against him 15 years ago, and then has another purely technical conviction, five years after the commencement of this Act, that is an interval of 20 years, the licensing court will have no option but to refuse the licence.

I do not think that is fair. It says “selling or supplying liquor”

Does the hon. member know the difficulties there are, for instance, in distinguishing between coloured persons and natives? There have been prosecutions for supplying to persons who have always gone as coloured men, and look like coloured men, but who are natives. That occurs down here. The hon. member is only thinking of the Transvaal. There are several persons of whom it is difficult to say whether they are coloured or native. The unfortunate man behind the bar serves a man who turns out to be a trap. The contravention in the case I am thinking of was purely technical. The man was trapped by a person whom his friends and everybody thought was a coloured man. In such a case it would be compulsory for that and some other contravention even after an interval of 20 years to take away the man’s licence. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) does not say the man shall get his licence, but he says if there are extenuating circumstances—not in the opinion of his counsel or of the licensee himself, but in the opinion of the licensing board.

We know what that is.

I think that is a reflection that ought not to be made, Under this new Bill we are supposed to be getting a fair system of licensing boards and I have not heard a word said that those boards will not be fair, and deal with the cases properly. The hon. member’s amendment goes further. It says that if a licensing board finds that there are extenuating circumstances, it must also find that those extenuating circumstances render it desirable to renew the licence. Surely it is exaggerating to talk about tearing up the whole clause because an hon. member wishes to propose, something that has the advantage of being simple and common justice.

I rise to support the amendment. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) seems to put all hotels on a par. Where you have a low-class place in the country, if a conviction is secured of this nature the licensing board would no doubt apply its discretion in refusing a renewal of the licence, but where you have a respectable hotel with a big reputation built up during years, by a single transgression of the law, the licensing court is bound not to renew the licence. The Minister takes power to restrict classes of people. The whole coloured community may be declared restricted Here in the Cape Province it is often difficult to say who is white and who is coloured. We know it. I cannot understand why they cannot allow some discretion to the licensing board. It appears to me that they want to avail themselves of every restriction in order to attain prohibition in this country.

I think this is quite an impossible amendment to accept the reason being that it is impossible to entrust to a licensing board the duty of saying whether there are extenuating circumstances in the case or not. You are asking them to decide a very difficult question, which you should not ask a man who is not a judicial officer to decide.

The magistrate will preside

The magistrate is chairman, but the majority of the board Would rule, and not the magistrate. It, is a nebulous and difficult thing for a licensing board to say what are extenuating circumstances. In the extreme case which my hon. friends have referred to where a man in mistake sells to a person thinking that, that person is, we will say, a coloured person instead of a, native, if he makes a mistake of colour of that kind, which is an absolutely bona fide mistake, in cases of this kind, where there are far-reaching consequences, there is no Government that ever ruled in South Africa that would not be prepared to grant a free pardon. A free pardon, according to the law, wipes out the whole offence. It is an impossible thing to put, in this provision, because if you do there will, not be a single case in which extenuating circumstances will not be found to be proved by the licensing board. We shall find that this provision will be watered down, and there will be extenuating circumstances in every case brought before the licensing board.

I have an amendment on the paper which is put to follow (g), but which should really come before (g). Perhaps I may be allowed to move it now. This is an amendment which was actually carried on the committee stage, as the Minister will recollect, but owing to some error on the Order Paper, it was not put into the Bill. I simply move it formally now—

To insert a new paragraph to follow paragraph (f) of sub-section (1):

seconded.

I was against it when it was brought up, but it was actually carried in the House. I admit it was carried in the House and at this stage I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. Blackwell, put and agreed to.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. Heatlie, put and negatived.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice debate adjourned; to be resumed on 30th April.