I move—

This amendment raises the question of section 110, because it is consequential on the deletion of 110. Clause 110 is the clause dealing with the so-called whiskey ring and from the inquiries I have made I have gathered that as far as the whiskey wholesalers are concerned they do not impose any condition upon the whiskey retailers to sell at a certain price. That point was the principal point I had made at a previous stage, because that was my information. I am now informed I was incorrect on that point, and owing to that incorrectness I do not propose to support Clause 110 in its present form. It may be that Clause 110 would have some application to the other persons mentioned in that clause, but as far as the whiskey shippers are concerned and the so-called ring, I do not think it assists in that position, and I am rather inclined to agree with the argument in the House, although I opposed it at the time, that a clause of this kind dealing with the business side of the liquor business should form a part of a (separate Bill, not dealing with drink alone, but with business generally. That was one of the reasons why we deleted the goodwill clause, and certain clauses with regard to hiring of premises have also gone, and I think a clause of this kind can very well also wait any necessary legislation in connection with general business practice. I think this is a case in which I must admit that I have taken the wrong view on a previous occasion, because I opposed the view of a large number of members on these benches, and I think the majority opposite. The report of the Board of Trade and Industries was also to the effect that it was better there should be general legislation. Without saying it will not become necessary at a later stage, I think at the present stage we will be adopting the right course by deleting 110, and consequentially this pari of 65. If the House thinks 110 should not disappear, then, of course, this proviso also should not disappear, so we are really testing 110 at this stage. I am confined to the remarks I have made now and I think I have made it fairly clear that I am not saying it may not be necessary to legislate at a later stage, but this, I think, should form part of general legislation with such questions as goodwill in the same way as the English Act is dealing with the question of goodwill. I think it is perhaps wiser at the present stage not to deal with the matter. I am not dealing with the question of principle for the future; it may quite easily be necessary in the future to legislate.

seconded.

Would you tell me, sir, whether the same procedure as we have in committee applies to the report stage, whether it is competent for an hon. member to move that a clause stand over until the governing clause, deciding the principle, has been decided? If we could defer the discussion of this until we reach Clause 110 I should like to do that.

It is usually not done, but the House can decide to allow the clause to stand over.

I think the Minister will agree with me that that is far the more convenient course.

I think the question should be decided now.

If I am in order, I move—

seconded.

Motion put and negatived.

May I resume the general question?

Yes.

Of course the House has been taken unawares, and certainly did not contemplate a discussion on Clause 65 on the merits of Clause 110. I do not want to go into the subject at great length, but I do think a very extraordinary position has been created here. We had a very full debate on Clause 110, and one of the stoutest protagonists of that clause was the Minister, who is now going to move for its deletion. Whatever misapprehension the Minister may have been under with regard to the clause, I do not think any member of the select committee was under a similar misapprehension. We were told that there was in existence a whiskey ring—that was not denied—and we were told that it consisted of the principal houses which imported whiskey, and it is still a fact—it is not denied— that these whiskey shippers form a list, on which they put the names of certain selected wholesale firms.

I cannot answer again.

I know; but the Minister is the most reasonable member, and if there is one open to conviction and whose convictions are entirely fluid—I do not intend to say that in connection with whiskey—they are the Minister’s. It is because I have that feeling that I would like to address the Minister across the floor. Everyone on that importers’ list is privileged to import whiskey through the shippers at the most favourable rate, but if anybody’s name does not appear on that list, although he is a wholesale firm and has a wholesale licence, he is not supplied, but has to purchase retail. The difference is that a person whose name is taken off the list has in effect said to him, “You are put out of the wholesale trade in so far as whiskey is concerned.” We know that the shippers’ association, for good reasons or bad, has put people’s names on that list and taken them off. The Minister seemed to think that the strength of the argument addressed to him is the whiskey shippers themselves control the prices of whiskey.

I used that argument—not you.

The Minister has had a tremendous lot of work to do, and if he used that argument he had no justification in asking the select committee to do so. There is undoubtedly not only a shippers’ ring, but one of wholesalers. South Africa, they told us, was partitioned into areas, and it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a new wholesaler to get permission as regards whiskey for a particular area. He is regarded as the cuckoo in the nest. I do not know whether the Minister realizes or not that if he takes out this clause, he strengthens the enormous monopolistic tendencies that exist to-day in the liquor trade. The brewers have an extremely strong hold under their tied house system, and the brandy distillers have an enormously tight hold on the trade. This was one of the clauses that made for free trade in the liquor trade, and the Minister is taking that out. I do not say he is doing so because it treads on the corns of the big interests, but undoubtedly it will play into their hands. I do fail to understand really the Minister’s attitude, because this clause is not new, and was in the old Liquor Bill the Minister introduced two years ago, and with some modifications of wording was kept in the Bill the Minister introduced some months ago; he voted for it manfully in committee a month ago, and now, with scarcely a word of explanation, he says he has changed his mind because he was misinformed. The fullest opportunity was given in that select committee, both to the persons who wanted that clause put in, and those who wanted to take it out, to state their case. The case was stated by the licensed victuallers for the retention of such a clause, and the case against it by the whisky shippers themselves. I base my sympathy with the clause on the case stated by the whisky shippers; it was with a large majority that it was adopted, and the Minister now says he does not want that clause. It does make a lot of discussion on the Bill absolutely farcical. The Minister says he wants the clause, and it is carried by a large number of people who have not the slightest idea of what it is about. Now the Minister says he does not want the clause, and I have no doubt a patient and docile House will vote it out. I think the wisest thing is to retain the clause, for without it the liquor trade will be in the hands of rings and monopolies. There will be nothing to stop what goes on to-day, namely, a big firm setting up a proprietary brand of brandy, for instance, and saying to the wholesalers and retailers “We will sell to you on condition that you only re-sell it at a certain price.” The penalty for selling below that price is a boycott. That is the weapon which is employed by the whisky shippers. The other day I was twitted for speaking up for the whisky shippers on a certain point, but in this case I am against them. The legitimate, protection of the trade does, in fact, demand the insertion of such a clause. Otherwise it is open to the whisky and brandy people to put A and B out of business, and to put C and It in their place. I am sorry that the Minister, in a short and somewhat unsatisfactory speech, has announced his intention of dropping it.

I support the protest of the last speaker. After a very full discussion, the clause was adopted by 54 votes to 18, which was one of the biggest majorities on the Bill. On that occasion the Minister expressed himself very strongly in favour of the clause. If the liquor interests adopt fair selling conditions, what reason have they to find fault with the clause? I pointed out in the committee stage, that clause after clause which gave some protection to the small man —the rent clauses, for instance—had been thrown overboard. Here we have a provision to enable the small man, who is not in a ring, to get a square deal, but this provision is to be thrown overboard. No reason has been given for asking the House to turn a somersault after passing this very necessary and important clause.

I must also say that I am sorry that the Minister now intends scrapping the clause entirely. There is, however, a good deal in his argument that legislation on economic matters ought rather to be contained in a separate Act, and if the Minister assures us that that will be done, I think it will be a good thing to take the proposed step. I am only sorry that it was not done long ago, before we devoted all this time to this matter, as well as to others which deal with economic subjects. I hope this does not mean that our Government is weakening in its fight against monopolies and powers which are engaged in exploiting the small man. Anyone who has read the evidence of the select committee feels that, in this case at any rate, drastic action must be taken. We are concerned with a ring of persons who keep a firm hand on the business, people who do not even live in South Africa, but overseas, and they play the master and say who may sell and who not. I admit that this is a circumstance which does not fit so well into a Bill whose object is to prevent the abuse of liquor, but I feel more and more that South Africa with its small population runs an especial danger of becoming the prey of a number of big monopolies, and I trust that the Government will soon introduce proper legislation to prevent this, and to protect the small man. I should very much like to have seen that something of this kind had already been put into this Bill, to prevent any harm which might be done in the meantime.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the previous speaker, for I am very pleased that the Minister has taken the course he has. On the general principle we fought this out very strongly in committee, and I did not think it would be again debated acrimoniously. There does not appear to be anything morally wrong in a man having the right to decide the conditions under which he sells his own products. I cannot see that there is anything morally irregular in a man who has sheep, for instance, deciding exactly the price he is going to sell at, to whom he is going to sell, and under what conditions he will sell. I do not see any reason why a man should not dispose of his whiskey and brandy on exactly the same principle. On general principles there does not appear to be any excuse for the clause. As to the business aspect of the matter, it is a question whether you are going to support good as against bad liquor. Suppose a wine farmer wishes to produce a good wine the only way is for him to put it on the market, but if he tries to sell it himself he immediately comes in conflict with what are called the big liquor interests. He has to go to agents all round the country and ask them if they will market it for him. Generally their reply is “Yes, provided when we get it on the market we are allowed to deal with it, and not our competitors in the same town who will have done nothing to help you find a market.” But if we put Clause 110 on the statute book the agent who has done all the work in putting the brand on the market will suffer, for when a public demand arises for the brand as the result of the agent’s enterprise and energy, his competitor, who meanwhile has been doing his utmost to spoil the market, will demand from the producer the wine at the same price as that at which it is sold to the original agent, who has Been doing all the pioneering work. The rival agent will demand supplies, not in order to help the producer, but in order to spoil the market for the original agent. The new agent will sell the wine at such a low price that it will not pay anyone to stock it, and thus he will kill the product. This sort of thing has been done hundreds of times in other lines of business, and the liquor interest is just as alive to the possibilities in this direction as is any other business interest. Instead of this talk about the small man being injured if we do not insert this clause, he will be harmed if the clause is incorporated in the Bill. Take a man who is prepared to produce a good brandy. He cannot do so unless he can depend on his agents obtaining a fair price so as to induce them to place it on the market and push the sale. If you carry Clause 110, the first thing that his competitors will do will be to cut it out. Immediately they see that it is a good brandy and is against their interests, they will demand to be allowed to buy it and to sell it at any price they like. They will not mind losing a few hundred pounds on the operation, so long as they can make it impossible for any agent who handles it to make his living out of it. That is the reason why all these price-fixing arrangements are in force throughout the world, and it is done by manufacturers in order to ensure that a fair and reasonable profit is made by distributors. It is not to the advantage of the producer that the public should pay too much for his product, his aim being to ensure that the purchaser can obtain the article at a reasonable price. There is another point—you do not always get out of a bottle what is put on the label. It is very difficult, in many instances, however, to prove that a licensed victualler has tampered with the contents of a bottle. There may be sufficient evidence for the manufacturer to satisfy himself, but not enough evidence to get a judgment of the court on the matter. Without this provision which it is now suggested should be deleted, it means that when other liquor is being sold under a good label, the manufacturer or producer will be able to refuse to supply that man, and protect his own good liquor, therefore I urge the House to accept the Minister’s suggestion to delete Clause 110 and in that way protect good liquor against bad liquor.

I am very sorry I was not in the House to hear the arguments of the hon. Minister of Justice to cause him to change his opinion and the opinion of the committee of some short time ago. The Minister will remember that when this clause was under discussion, there was a very strong feeling that you should not, as far as possible, have restrictions upon trade. If an individual bought an article and paid for it with his own money, it was his own article and was not the article of the gentleman who produced it. I am not a lawyer. Sub-section (b) says “In selling any such liquor to any licensee seek to impose either directly or indirectly any discrimination against the buyer or any person holding a licence of the same class as such buyer”. Would not that he interpreted to mean that if I was a licence holder and desired to buy from a wholesale licence holder certain brands of whiskies or beers or anything of that sort, that they would only sell it to me on condition that if I was selling wine in my ordinary course of business, I would put a certain price on that wine, or that if I was selling wine I would be obliged to sell a certain proportion of their liquor in conjunction with any other liquor I was selling? Because the hon. the Minister will remember when this clause was in committee, a number of us held the view that you could discriminate— that a man who was carrying on a country hotel and found it necessary in the course of his business to stock certain kinds of liquor, when he was obliged to buy those liquors from a wholesale merchant, that merchant would be in a position to impose on him certain restrictions, not alone with regard to price, but also in the manner in which he would carry on his business. If that is the case, I feel it will be a very serious restriction on trade in this country. I can foresee that it would do wine farmers a considerable amount of damage. It is only fair that the hon. the Minister should really explain the position in which the wine farmer will be. There is no doubt that a man holding a wholesale or retail liquor licence is entirely in a different position from an ordinary farmer-producer. The State has given him a licence to trade in spirituous liquors under certain conditions and, having given him that licence, why should you also empower him, when he sells that liquor, to put up certain special restrictions in regard to its sale? Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to give us the benefit of the reasons which caused him to depart from the view held by the committee the other day? I am always opposed to restrictions, as far as possible, upon legititmate trade. I know that my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), is, because, if his memory is wandering to-day—

No, it is not.

Then he is going to vote right. I remember that he introduced into the old Cape Parliament a Bill making very serious strictures upon those people who were interfering in the free sale of meat. It would be very interesting to look at that Bill; it was one of the monumental works of my hon. friend. I think I have a right to expect the support of my hon. friend in this matter.

My hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is entirely on the wrong tack. In the first place it is nonsense to say for one minute that a man will refuse to sell a man whisky if he does not charge a certain price for wine. Nobody would ever dream of that. The less restrictions a man is compelled to place upon articles for sale the better. If a man is not in the wine trade, why should he put a special restriction on the sale of wine because he wants a certain price for the whisky?

Why should he put a restriction on trade, being a free trader?

I will deal with that matter, if my hon. friend will have a little patience. He says he does not see why, if a man has bought an article and has paid for it, he should not be at liberty to do as he likes with it. That is quite right, but surely if I have bought an article I have a right to impose such conditions as I see fit as regards the sale. If I say: “I sell you this thing under certain conditions which are absolutely lawful” what is there to be said against it? The whole tendency in trade is to specialize. Take a man in the whisky trade. He may, perhaps, sell to two men. One man may agree to sell the whisky at a certain price, while another man may cut the price and charge considerably less. The first man may say that that is not good enough for him. When he makes an agreement to sell, if it is a well-known article, he will generally fix the price so that everybody in the retail trade may have a reasonable profit. Naturally, when he has fixed the price at, we will say, 5s., and anybody comes along and wants to sell it at 4s. or 3s. 6d. he will say “No, if you don’t agree to sell it at 5s., which is the fixed price, and which you agreed to sell at, I cannot supply you with any more.” There is nothing unlawful in that. The intention is to see that the distributors shall make a reasonable profit, otherwise they will not sell it, Therefore, I lay down, when I supply an article to anybody, that you should charge such and such a price, say, 5s., and if you don’t charge that I won’t supply you with any more.

What about the consumer and free trade?

It works out the same way, because the man who cuts the price only does it to destroy the trade. Of course, it is to the interests of the producer that it shall be sold at a reasonable figure. He takes care that it shall not be sold too high. I would ask you where is any moral wrong or any other wrong done in a case of that kind? The Minister has come round to see that point of view which we tried to point out to him the other evening, though, unfortunately, he did not see it then.

I am very glad that the Minister has seen the error of his ways, and that he has repented. I only hope that the 54 who followed him the other night in the division will now follow him in the opposite direction. I think this grandmotherly legislation is not going to do any good whatsoever, and I hope, in the circumstances, that the example set by the Minister will be followed by the others.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause, Upon which the House divided:

I move—

The object of this amendment is to meet the case of the Wanderers’ Club in Johannesburg particularly. They are allowed to-day under the ordinary retail liquor licence to make provision for special functions in the evening in connection with sports events, but, under the new system, when they take out a sports ground liquor licence, they will not be able to have any functions of this kind unless they take out a late hour occasional licence. They will have to pay pretty heavily for it. Although the function may not begin till 8 o’clock, they will have to pay from, say, 6.30, when the ground closes in the ordinary way. Unless you include it under sub-section (5), they will not be able to do it at all. Unless they are brought in under this sub-clause, they will have to give up these entertainments entirely. Unless they get the late hours occasional licence, they will have to close the place down at the same time as the sports close. I think it is eminently fair. These sports ground licences are under special control. They are very much bound by their rules, and it is very difficult to see how it can be abused.

made an interjection.

No, they have a retail licence. Undoubtedly they will have to take out a sports ground licence which fits their circumstances.

seconded.

If hon. members will remember the history of the sports ground licence, it was brought into being on the arugment that it was necessary for a place like Newlands to have one. Now it is going to be twisted round for the purpose of the Wanderers and other clubs in the north which have never bad it before, and whose circumstances are different from a ground like Newlands. This was only for sports grounds which have nothing but sports functions, an afternoon of cricket, football or tennis—while that sport was proceeding. It would stop at the end of the function at 6 o’clock, and it shows it was never the intention to have a late hours’ licence, because it means an interregnum from 6 o’clock until about 11 o’clock when you want to start it. My suggestion is that those clubs which have frequent functions of this nature stand on an entirely different basis, and can have the ordinary club licence, and may have an ordinary retail licence. I do not think that this House should alter the whole idea of a sports ground licence to deal with matters which would lie outside the ambit of that licence. I feel very strongly against this proposal.

Amendment put and negatived.

Omission of Clause 66, amendment in Clause 67, and new paragraph (a) to sub-section (1) of Clause 69 put and agreed to.

In Clause 69,

I move—

I am not doing that to make any change in the clause, but because this point is covered by the amendment made by the House in subsection (2).

seconded. Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to

In Clause 71,

I move—

(3) Whenever, by the constitution, or extension of the boundaries, of any municipality or borough, premises in respect of which an hotel liquor licence is held which were previously situated outside a municipality or borough become included in a municipality or borough, the provisions of sub-section (1) requiring that such premises shall contain not less than ten bedrooms shall not apply until the expiration of twelve months from the date when the premises became so included.

That is to make provision for licences which are outside licences being included inside a municipality which often happens with the extension of a town. It is necessary that you give a licensee a certain amount of time to make an alteration when he extends his premises to comply with this Act.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Under the present law the licensing court shall not grant or renew a licence unless it is satisfied with two things: that the premises are suitable, and that a bona-fide hotel is carried on. I wish to add a third provision—that the licensing board should be satisfied that adequate and proper sanitary and bathroom arrangements have been provided on the premises. All who have travelled in South Africa realize that one of the reasons why our hotels have such a very bad name is the absence of those facilities which the amendment seeks to provide. In the Cape Province, and no doubt in the other provinces, the publicity associations and automobile clubs have been the means of introducing improvements in the hotel accommodation in the country districts. It is desirable that this provision should be included in the Bill, so that licensing boards shall be satisfied that lavatory and bathroom accommodation is provided.

seconded.

Amendments put and agreed to.

In Clause 73,

Amendment put and agreed to.

I have an amendment to Clause 75, but it will fit very much better into this clause. Although we wish to restrict the sale of liquor as far as possible, there are occasions, such as charity balls, when one has to give facilities for the obtaining of liquor after the usual hours. People will pot buy tickets for charity balls unless they are given proper facilities. I notice the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) seems to be amused. Might I remind him that he takes a prominent part in the hospital ball? That is one of the occasions when we feel that large sums are subscribed and some facilities should be given. The position is that the decision will be entirely in the discretion of the magistrate. If he is not satisfied that these concerns are conducted decently, he merely has to refuse the licence, and there is no appeal. If, on the other hand, he thinks that function is for a good cause, he can use his discretion. I think there are very few members of Parliament who would like to see a place closed down at 12 oclock on old year’s night. They would like to have a few minutes after 12 o’clock. The point I make is that it is entirely in the discretion of the magistrate. He may not give a single consent to anybody. I move—

I second. I think the amendment is a quite reasonable one. The hon. member has limited the occasions for any particular licence to six times a year—not more than once in two months. When these functions take place, as a rule drinks are not served very early in the evening. It is not unreasonable to ask that on six occasions during the year, when the magistrate will have to give his consent, there should be an extra two hours. These functions are usually under responsible committees who are not likely to abuse the licence.

I support this, and would go even a step further, as we are leaving it to the magistrate, which I think is right, Why limit the occasions to six? I remember during the war when bazaars and charitable functions were taking place all the time, there was no necessity to limit the occasions to six. As the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has pointed out, these functions are always in the hands of responsible bodies. I move as an amendment to the hon. member’s amendment—

That would leave the whole matter in the hands of the magistrate. I do not see how there could be any possible abuse. To choose the number six is purely arbitrary. It may be too many or too few, but if the magistrate is competent to decide whether he is going to grant facilities on six occasions he should have the right to decide in any number over that figure. Why should we have this great-grandmotherly legislation? There is a great deal too much of this interference in legitimate entertainment in this country. That has nothing to do with the liquor trade. I will go further. I honestly think this sort of thing, interfering with bona fide entertainments and clubs, is simply driving the liquor evil underground. You are playing into the hands of the bottle stores. I do not see why it should be two o’clock. Why should a dance be hung up at two o’clock instead of five o’clock?

Why bother with liquor laws at all?

That is not the question. This is simply wet blanket legislation. If the hon. member will accept it, I will take out the two o’clock too.

I second. Frankly, all our social events in Johannesburg are concentrated in the Carlton Hotel. I quite agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that the six nights a year should be deleted.

The alliance between the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and myself is dissolved. I once more range myself under the banner of the Minister—at least, I hope so. All these sneers of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) about grandmotherly legislation leave me entirely cold. We are attempting in this Bill so to control the liquor trade as to put an end to some of the evils, as far as we can, by legislation, connected with the sale of liquor. A number of members of this House seem to approach the question from the point of view of personal convenience. There is a higher consideration, that is the consideration of the good of the people of this country. There could be no more dangerous proposal than to allow liquor to be sold up to two o’clock in the morning. There is not one member of this House who does not know that a great deal of the evils that exist to-day among our younger people exist through drinking at dances. During the Easter recess the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) and myself were attorney and counsel in a case which was fully reported in the Johannesburg newspapers. A young man of 19, employed in the railway works, was charged before a judge and jury at Johannesburg with assault with intent to commit rape on a girl a month under the age of 16. The facts show that he had taken this girl to a dance. She had got her mother’s consent by sending a spurious letter. The dance was at the Railway Institute in Johannesburg, and there, though in the ordinary way a decent, respectable boy, he had had several drinks. He took the girl home, and the story told by the complainant was that outside her mother’s house at half-past-eleven at night he attempted criminally to assault her.

And the court found him not guilty.

He got off. He had such a good attorney. But the agony and the shame that the mother of the girl went through—she was a widow—and the mother of the boy, who is also a widow, is an eye opener. I am not mentioning anything confidential. This sort of thing is unpleasant hearing, but we must get down to bedrock, and I want to show what a proposal of this sort may mean. It is known to this House that a great deal of evil does exist amongst the young people of this country because of this practice of drinking at dances. When a girl has had a certain amount of liquor, her conduct, in many cases, is different from what it usually is. Men at dances very often take too much liquor, and trouble results. I would like hon. members to read the evidence given by certain representative women at Cape Town before the select committee. It will be found on page 224. They gave evidence as to facts. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) suggests that two o’clock is much too early. Where have we got to stop? I think we have gone quite far enough in allowing liquor to be sold on two occasions a week up to midnight. It is much further than I would like to go, but I am prepared to accept it as a compromise. It is proposed that the magistrate may, on six occasions a year, allow each licensee to sell liquor until two o’clock if he wishes it. We know what happens in the Cape Peninsula. Along the Sea Point front the hotels arrange that each shall have its dance on a different evening, so that there is a regular cycle of dances from Monday to Friday. I do not object to it. You get the same along the Muizenberg front. What would happen in regard to this? During the Cape Town season, December and January, and possibly February, these hotels will arrange among themselves, and each one of them will have the full six occasions so as not to overlap with other hotels. So you will get a succession of dances with liquor sold up to two o’clock in the morning right through the Cape Town season. It is absolutely wrong and demoralizing, and I regret very much that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has ever moved it. I do hope that the Minister will be satisfied that we have done the fair thing here. We started off by allowing these late hour occasional licences once a week, and we have raised this to twice a week, and we have said that the hour shall be 12 o’clock. Don’t imagine, however, that liquor may not be consumed after 12. The bar will be closed at 12, and liquor may be sold up to 12, but it will be consumed after that. I do say this is one of the most dangerous things that could be proposed, and I hope the good sense of the House will agree in refusing to accept it.

As an unopposed motion I would like to move, as a further amendment to this amendment—

I do that for this reason, I think that these premises which will under subsequent provision be given this special privilege of keeping open till 11.30 will be the best conducted premises. They will be in the bigger towns, and it may well be that this House would cut down the number of licences which have that privilege of keeping open till 11.30. I think there are certain occasions in the life of Johannesburg in which Johannesburg

And Pretoria.

Yes, and Pretoria, like to have the jamboree spirit a little further past midnight, That jamboree spirit is not to be despised, to be sniffed at, but one would like to cut them down to the smallest possible limits, and I think if I could get an amendment of this kind through the House, all the real danger disappears from the proposal, and it is only a question of a very exceptional occasion in regard to very exceptional licences on which this thing can happen. I think it would cut out places like the City Hall, because they are not ordinary licensed places. We should draw a line somewhere, and that is the only reason why I am moving this. I do not think we should make it so far as any premises are concerned, because I may point out to my hon. friend the practical difficulty is that he may not get his amendment through, but if it is cut down in this way, I have every hope that he will be able to get his amendment through the House.

What places can keep open till 11.30?

Those are the special premises under Clause 75 which get this special privilege of an ordinary closing hour. I think the smallest town covered by that provision will be Bloemfontein. The Cape has one licensing board, and that licensing board will allow certain licences to remain open, and as far as those licences are concerned, they may have the six evenings in the year. My proposal cuts out all idea of getting this rotation of various places every day in the week. You would find very few places which would be prepared to pay for that privilege, except for very special occasions. I move as an unopposed motion that this amendment be added to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour).

I second. I think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has gone a little bit too far, and that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is also going a bit too far. Let us steer a middle course.

Let us split the difference.

That is the Minister’s amendment.

I am prepared to do that.

I have the greatest respect for the evidence which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to, but it was evidence given by ladies who know very little about dances. They were asked whether they had been to these dances, and had seen what happens, and they said they had not. I have been there, and I have not seen any of this drunkenness. I went there to see for myself, and I have not seen any of this drinking by women in the Cape. Besides that, they can take just as much drink up to 12 o’clock as they can up to 2. We in the Free State hold a record for sobriety. It has been the law there that an hotel-keeper can apply to the magistrate and keep his premises open until any time at night. That licence is only granted now and then. I hope the House will accept the Minister’s proposal. We must either have one thing or the other. We must either go dry in this country, or we must have a reasonable Act. You are going to have tourists in this country.

They don’t have it in their own country.

That is the reason why they come here. We don’t want to make this a country where there is no joy at all. You have either got to be like the Americans and close down altogether, or you have got to do as is being done in Cape Town to-day. The clause which went through the other day, Clause 63, off-sales, is going to do more harm to the liquor people in future and the liquor traffic than keeping these things open.

Is not this going to do harm?

No. That is not where drunkenness starts in South Africa, in these few dances at the big hotels. How many hotels will there be holding these dances? Very few, perhaps seven or eight in the whole country altogether.

I am the last one in the world to desire to interfere with the Minister occasionally having a certain amount of pleasure in attending a jamboree till 2 o’clock in the morning. Notwithstanding that, could not the Minister and other hon. members who are so anxious to see the jamborees extended till 2 in the morning, after the ordinary closing hour stimulate themselves sufficiently on hot, strong coffee without making it necessary to have the other beverages which it is said are so necessary at these affairs? I hope the Minister will not press his amendment, and I hope my hon. friend will not press his amendment, because I do not think it is necessary in any way for the purposes of reasonable entertainment carried on by young people to have these facilities after 11 at night. If they desire to carry them on they can do so without having the licensing facilities extended. Travelling through Australia nothing struck me more than to find that in only one State were the liquor places kept open after 9 o’clock at night. In the State of Victoria they close at 6, and in New South Wales I believe, they close at 8. What also struck me was—so different from our condition here—that in all the theatres and places of entertainment there were no liquor licences in operation owing to the early closing hours. It did not interfere at all with the numbers of people who attended these places or with the enjoyment they derived. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that it is an extremely unwise thing—it is unnecessary to give the reasons which I think will appeal to every father of a family in this House—that where young people are gathered together we should make special provision that at certain times in the year liquor facilities can exist until 2 o’clock in the morning. It would be a great mistake. I believe I am voicing the views of a large number of parents in this country who have sons and daughters to look after, who do not want to curtail their amusement, but who do desire to see that beyond reasonable hours liquor privileges do not exist at these entertainments.

In view of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw my amendment. I think it is the middle course. I have felt all along that we should take a more or less middle course, and not listen to the extremists on either side. I think that these restrictions of the liberty of the individual are going much too far, and will simply result in abuse, as has occurred in America. The idea of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that anyone who happens to oppose his views is trying to further drunkenness, I pay no attention to.

With leave of the House, amendment proposed by Col. D. Reitz withdrawn.

The amendment the Minister has proposed, as explained to us by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), seems to me to make the thing worse. You are going to give this special privilege to sell liquor on certain occasions up to 2 in the morning to a certain limited number of hotels in the larger towns. That is going to give them, it seems to me, a very serious advantage over other places of business in the same line, and I do not know why they should have it. I am not a fanatic in the matter of restrictions on the sale of liquor, but, after all, in spite of what my friend says, we do find it necessary to have certain restrictions in regard to the hours of selling liquor. If we are prepared to say: “Let us have no restrictions at all,” I can understand the position of the hon. member, but we do find it necessary to have some restrictions in regard to the hours within which liquor is sold. This Bill allows a late-hour occasional licence to be granted for the sale of liquor up to midnight for social functions and so on, and I should think that is a very reasonable line to draw. I think it would be a mistake if we are going to give a certain limited number of hotels the privilege of going up to 2 in the morning. I think those hon. members who find it necessary to go to these jamborees now and then, will also find it very useful after midnight, and before they go home, to have a little interval in which to allow the jamboree spirit to evaporate. I think we should abide by the present Bill.

At the risk of being considered one of the unco’ quid I must say I think it would be very unwise to extend these hours. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) says: “Why hang up the dance?” In other words, drinking and dancing, he says, go together. The dance can proceed quite merrily after 12 without drinking. Young people, and old people for the matter of that, can enjoy themselves very well without constantly drinking. I have personally witnessed some very painful scenes at some of these functions. I have seen young men overflowing with liquor acting in a manner which brings them into disrepute. They act towards ladies in a manner which they would not ordinarily do if they were in full possession of their faculties. There is no doubt an extension of hours also means an extension of, and taking advantage of, the facilities for taking more drink than is proper. For the protection of women, if on no other ground, and also for the protection of our young men, I think the time laid down in the Bill is quite ample.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) pointed out in connection with the evidence of the ladies before the select committee that they said they had never been to such a dance, but there were other ladies who gave evidence who actually had, and I think that they spoke in the name of South African mothers, and, in my opinion, we must be very careful in extending the restrictions. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) spoke as if we were wanting to pass old grandmotherly legislation. I want to point out to him that he, like myself, is a father of children, and we feel that we must be very careful that the children should not do things at such dances which we should very much regret later on. I undoubtedly speak on behalf of the Afrikanders when I say that we must not keep the bar open too long on such occasions. Why should it remain open later than half-past eleven or twelve o’clock? That is long enough. We talk about “beauty sleep,” let us see that the youth get it. We actually have sufficient night shows. They do not benefit our young people, and, therefore, I hope the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will not be passed. As for the coloured people in the Cape, we have seen that the earlier closing of the canteens has done much good. It is a fact that opportunity makes the thief. If the young people want to go on dancing, let them do so without liquor. We have the evidence here of ladies and of the magistrate of Cape Town, who says in his evidence that he hardly ever allows a very late licence. We know that he has discretion in this matter, and he is very careful in granting it. I think that if it is his experience that such a licence is very undesirable then we ought not to pass the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour).

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

May I just ask on a point of order whether the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is in order? We are now dealing with late hours for licences, but that amendment deals entirely with early hours, early hours in the morning, long past 12 o’clock midnight.

The amendment is in order.

Amendment, as amended, put and the House divided:

I move—

To omit paragraph (f) of sub-section (2) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

1. (f) that no person residing within ten miles of the club house is eligible as an honorary or temporary member of the club save where—
   1. (i) such eligibility is, in terms of the rules of the club, granted by reason of such person holding some public office or being a bona fide candidate for membership; or
   2. (ii) by resolution of the club committee such person is allowed the privileges of membership while engaged in any match or competition;

There is no difference in principle between the new section and the old.

seconded.

Agreed to; and amendments made in Committee of the Whole House dropped.

On amendment in paragraph (h) of sub-section (2),

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

To omit paragraph (h) of sub-section (2) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

There are many well-conducted clubs, such as the country clubs of Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria, which admit women and minors to membership, but if the clause goes through in its present form women and young fellows of 19 and 20 years of age will be practically debarred from membership of mixed clubs. My amendment provides for raising the ordinary subscription to £2 to ensure that the clubs with liquor licences shall be bona fide clubs.

seconded.

I am opposed to the amendment. A poor man should have an opportunity of joining a club, but that he will not have if the amendment is carried. It is not a question of bringing drink nearer to a man.

Bringing a man nearer to the drink.

No. I know of a Johannesburg club which gives free bioscope entertainments to which members go and lake their families. These entertainments keep the men out of the bar, but the amendment will make it more difficult for them to join such a club. I hope the mover of the amendment will withdraw it.

I am not in favour of the drink traffic, but at the same time I am not in favour of the amendment, as it will entirely exclude working men and their wives from any clubs at all. The bar is the very smallest part of workmen’s clubs. To raise the subscription fee to £2 a year will make it most difficult for men who receive small wages to join a club. I would be quite in favour of the bar of the club that I belong to being done away with altogether, but there are other facilities given in these clubs. I hope the hon. member will not press the amendment. If there is any abuse in any club the police are quite in a position to control it.

This law does not interfere with them charging whatever they like unless they have a liquor licence. Clubs under this law are getting special privileges as against other licensed premises. They are getting far more facilities than the ordinary licensed premises. Where you have clubs with a small subscription and with a membership of many thousands, as you have on the Reef, are not you getting beyond the legitimate club? Can a committee control a membership of a size of 5,000? Supposing they want a liquor licence, a shilling a week will cover the subscription. Is the working man who wants liquor facilities in a club loath to pay a shilling a week, because that would amount to £2 12s. a year?

The place where the problem of the club is most acute is, naturally, the Rand. If I remember rightly, the licensing court for Johannesburg, 12 or 18 months ago, laid down that stricter rules should be observed in regard to clubs. They laid down that the minimum subscription must be £2 2s. Two pounds is an absurdly low subscription to the average club. At the same time we do not want to go too high and tread on anybody’s corns. I suggest £2 is a fair compromise. If the House is willing to accept that amendment, and certain other minor amendments, in regard to hours, I do not intend to press my amendment in regard to closing hours of clubs on Sundays when we come to it.

Question put: That the words “(h) that, save in the cases of”, proposed to be omitted by Mr. Struben, stand part of the paragraph.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

I voted against this amendment because I feel that it is entirely unfair to increase the subscriptions to clubs, which merely hits the poorer classes of the community and is to the advantage of the wealthy classes. If it is right to have a charge, why say that you are going to differentiate between the man who can afford to pay £1 a year and the man who can afford to pay two guineas a year?

My attention has been drawn to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has already spoken; therefore, I cannot take the amendment from him.

I move—

seconded.

I want to point out that, after all, the increase to £2 or two guineas, as the case may be, is not going to prevent the consumption of liquor. It is not going to help anyone in South Africa to take less liquor, but what it is going to do, perhaps, is to prevent some members of the working classes from joining a club. It is a question of differentiation between two classes of the South African people, and it is entirely unfair on the part of this House to say that the subscription shall be £2 a year if it is not going to help to decrease the consumption of liquor.

I want to answer the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). I think he knows very well that I would not lend myself to do anything which I thought was going to penalize the poorer man over against the other. The only reason for my moving the amendment I did was to make sure that the clubs were bona fide clubs, and that, if there were women and minors as members, they should be really bona fide members. I think the hon. member himself spoke about women and children who too easily came in contact with drink.

I do not belong to any club.

The point is that a subscription of £2 per annum means less than 1s. a week. I say that if a club is a real club any member of that club can afford to pay 1s. a week for the privilege of membership. If it is an institution under the name of a club which is purely for the sale of liquor then, to my mind, that is not a club, but if the thing is bona fide, then I say that 1s. a week is not too much for any man to pay in subscription. The clubs to which the hon. member referred charge subscriptions of a good deal more than £2 a year. I do not think for one minute that this is going to penalize the bona fide club which draws its membership from any class of the community, but I do resent the hon. member saying that we were wishing to penalize the poor man.

I think hon. members will see that the position is entirely different from what it was when the last division took place, because one of the reasons why I voted for the £2 was that there was the saving clause in regard to women and minors. The reason why women and minors were excluded was because you find in the country, where a man is the head of a large family, it is a fairly big burden upon him if he wishes members of his family to join those clubs for sporting purposes.

They were not voted out.

They have fallen to the ground. The only word that is being moved now is two pounds instead of one pound. The amendment of the hon. member has fallen to the ground. Otherwise, it was unnecessary to move two pounds if that had not fallen to the ground. Unless there is that exception in favour of women and minors, it is impossible for me to vote for two pounds. If that exception is made, I am entirely in favour, because it is going to exclude a number of clubs which are not true clubs, but which are drinking places and should be excluded. If a man cannot afford two pounds, he should not be a member of a club. Where the most a man can pay in a year to belong to a club is one pound, he should not be a member of a club. It seems to me to follow as the night the day. I want to make my position clear. Unless there is that exception made, in favour of women and minors, it will be impossible for me to support the amendment.

I wish to point out that I still have to put the amendment made in committee. I am dealing with the section as it came out of committee. I have still to put the question whether “women, minors and” shall be accepted.

I hope the House will not accept this amendment. In Johanesburg there are political clubs, and the Union Club, when it was started, charged a subscription of one guinea a year. There are many men there who join a political club because they are party men. I think it would be an unfair thing to tax these men a pound extra, and I hope the House will not agree to it.

I quite agree with the hon. members for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). In Johannesburg we have to do chiefly with people of the working class, and it will be very hard on them if the subscription is increased from £1 to £2. We all know the conditions prevailing in Johannesburg, and if we fix the subscription at £2 the political party clubs will come under it. Those clubs have, up to the present, always decided themselves what the subscription shall be, and they will not be able to do so if we alter the Bill as proposed. The result will be that the number of members will diminish. It will be very hard on the people if they have to pay £2 a year to the club. I fear that the club will lose many members in consequence of this proposed alteration, and that it will do them much damage. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan that it would be unfair if the House passed the motion.

I take it the position is we have decided to retain the words “and save in the case of”, and therefore what was proposed to be deleted in committee will still come up for our decision. With that understanding, I think the Minister will have no difficulty in taking the same line as he has already taken. With regard to what the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has said, I have no wish to penalize the poor man, but most people from the Rand know this, that for every person who joins one of the political clubs the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser has spoken of for motives of passion for party, there is at least one other member who joins because he wants to get the privilege of drinking on Sunday when the ordinary bar is closed.

Nonsense.

We know that the membership of these clubs in Johannesburg totals an estimated figure of 38,000. The fact remains that throughout Johannesburg every hotel is closed down on Sundays, but by paying one guinea a year men can walk into a club and get all the drink they want during the hours they want. It is because of that that I moved and fought most strenuously in committee for this law, that clubs shall close down during the same hours on Sundays as hotels, and that they may only serve liquor with meals on Sundays, and we were defeated in committee by one vote. A great many members of this House belong to clubs which are not cheap clubs and not guinea clubs, and many have said it is unfair to try and penalize every club in the country. They tell me that in the good clubs in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and elsewhere, there is no abuse of liquor sold on Sundays. If a man is a genuine club member he is perfectly willing to pay £2 a year. There is no question of class discrimination, because you get persons of all classes and descriptions joining these clubs in Johannesburg. In order to keep out the man who pays the money, not for the privileges of club membership, but to have a convenient bar on Sundays, I suggest we should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), and make the minimum £2. I do not know what the position is along the Beef, but I have already mentioned the fact that on the Band, so far as the area of the central licensing board is concerned, they are making the subscription £2. It is very unfair to the licensing trade. They pay heavy licence fees and they find these people band themselves into a club and are allowed to carry on the same bar trade. I say it is undesirable that you should see what you do see in Johannesburg; any Sunday morning you see large numbers of men hanging over the bar or in the lounge instead of being out in God’s sunshine. I would rather see Sunday drinking in clubs abolished entirely, if I thought I could carry it, but I very much doubt that I could. As a fair compromise, let us fix the minimum at £2 a year to ensure that a club is a genuine club.

Put whatever restrictions you like on the bar part of the club, but do not interfere with the membership fee. The hon. member has told us about people hanging over the bar drinking. You get it in the highest class clubs in the country. But not only that, but the hon. member knows that on the Witwatersrand, at any rate, men can get all the quantity of drink they require without going to the club under the law as it exists at the present time, and I am opposed to that entirely. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that we have bonafinde clubs that cater for the man with a small salary or wages, and give all the facilities of a decent club. Some, I know, you can take all your friends to, or your lady friends, any time of the day. The bar is the smallest part of the business. These clubs do cater for a large section of the people, and you can have your mid-day lunch there.

Amendment in line 58, put and negatived.

Question put: That the words “one pound”, proposed to be omitted by Mr. Papenfus, stand part of the paragraph, Upon which the House divided:

I move—

That the following be a new paragraph to follow paragraph (j):

The object is to lay down something which is already in force at the Civil Service Club,namely that people who do not pay their subscriptions in three months cease to be members. As it stands, the clause only refers to new members, but the clubs are anxious that old members also shall cease to be members if they do not pay their subscriptions. The reason why three months is mentioned is that some members live far away from Johannesburg, and it takes a little time to give them notice to renew their subscriptions.

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 75,

I move—

In line 2, on page 62, after “that” to insert “save in respect of sales and deliveries to any person actually boarding or lodging in premises in respect of which an hotel liquor licence has been issued”, The amendment is designed to benefit the bona fide boarder at an hotel.

If your amendment is carried, then he could get drink at all hours.

Yes, a boarder would then be in the same position as the man who has a bottle of whisky in his sideboard. If a man is so ill-advised as to want to drink at 3 a.m. he would be in exactly the same position if he were staying at an hotel. The clause was intended to prevent people having drink outside luncheon hours.

If your amendment is carried, then they would all be boarders.

You are taking too black a view. A great many of us live in hotels in Cape Town, and for the time Being they are our homes.

seconded.

The clause has the same effect on boarders as on non-boarders, the obvious reason being that if you allow people living in an hotel to drink at any hour, the bar will be open day and night, and then the restriction on drinking on people outside would disappear. It would be a dangerous step backwards to accept the principle that boarders can have drink at any hour of the day or night, for it would be extraordinarily difficult to trace people who were not boarders. Although I can quite understand that in many cases no harm would be done under the amendment., still we have to deal with less well-conducted hotels. We cannot envisage only the good-class place, but also the places which would certainly abuse any privilege of this kind. The danger is so great that I do not think the House would willingly agree to it.

I will withdraw the amendment in order to save time.

With leave of the House, amendment withdrawn.

I had a motion to negative the amendments which have the effect of allowing a club to sell liquor on Sundays on the same conditions as on week-days. The Minister, however, has given notice of an amendment which regulates the hours of Clubs, but allows them to sell liquor on Sunday. In the hope that the Minister’s amendment will be accepted, I do not intend at this stage to press my objection to those amendments.

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

I do not know what view the Minister will take of this amendment now. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I understand that the view taken by the police where similar words are used in Act 25 of 1891, Section 26 [extract read], is that a glass of sherry before you go into the dining room is not taken with a meal, and a liqueur taken in the lounge afterwards, is not taken with a meal. If the Minister wishes to forbid drinking in connection with a meal unless it is at the table, I can understand it, but unless that is his intention, those words should be left out. However reasonable the interpretation may be, the words are “for consumption with some meal.” That means that it must be consumed at the table, while the meal is being eaten, and to supply a man with a liqueur afterwards or with a sherry before would be a breach of the law. There is no intention on my part to extend drinking. I move—

seconded.

I think it would be a dangerous thing to delete those words, because it would mean that for the whole of those two hours persons could be sitting in the lounge drinking, and the meal might become an appurtenance to the drink instead of the drinks being an appurtenance to the meal. The idea of the section is that the man has his meal and while he is having his meal he orders a drink. I have no doubt whatever that there will not be any prosecution if a man sits in the lounge and has a cocktail before he goes into the dining-room. I cannot imagine anybody trying to detect evil in that, if it is done in a reasonable way, but if you are going to make that legal it can have most extraordinary effects in the end. You may make an extraordinary use of your lounge, which may become an important place, and the dining-room a place of very slight importance. I think that where a legitimate use is made of the lounge for a cocktail or a liqueur before or after a meal I cannot imagine any proceedings emerging. I want to have the power if that right is abused, to punish.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move—

This simply gives bottle stores an hour later closing than under the Shop Hours Act. It was lost in committee by three votes. I do not want to go into the whole question, but I hope the Minister will accept it.

I second the amendment. Members will find the division on page 308 of the Votes and Proceedings. The Minister voted with us last time and it was lost by four votes. It is intended that if persons want to buy liquor on their way from work they can get it at a bottle store.

I am astonished that a resolution asking for the Shop Hours Act to be exceeded by one hour a day should emanate from the Labour benches. It seems to me there is no reason whatever why a man working in a bottle store should work one hour a day longer than shop assistants working in other shops. It may lead to a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. If we agree that bottle stores remain open for the hours that ordinary shops remain open, it is entirely sufficient.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

The result of this will be that the general closing hour of these places will be 10 o’clock all over the country, except in big centres where there are more than 4,000 parliamentary voters where the licensing court may make the hour up to, but not later than, 11.30. If there is a proposal made with regard to limiting the number of licences in the big places which will remain open till 11.30, I will accept it. I believe there is an amendment on the Order Paper to make it not more than 25 per cent. I think some limitation of that kind is necessary, because I do not think the licensing board should get the idea into their minds that every licence in a big place should necessarily be up to 11.30. We have had that trouble in the past in regard to the midnight privileges. With the consent of my hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell), I will move his proviso on page 660.

I second the amendment. The Minister has endeavoured, as usual, to steer a middle course. Personally, I have no shadow of a doubt that the hours proposed are too long. Many other hon. members may think they are too short. I, for one, am prepared to accept the Minister’s suggestion. The former Bill proposed universal closing at 9 o’clock, with power to the licensing boards to extend it to 11 o’clock. The police stated that inevitably a great number of licences at some time or other got those privileges. If the licensing board grants midnight privileges to one individual, all his neighbours think they have a grievance if they do not get them. In the commission we put 10 o’clock as the universal closing hours, and 10.30 in the case of the four larger towns. In committee this was not approved of, and the committee, if I may say so, went very much too far in fixing the closing hour at 10.30, with an extension to 11.30 in the case of the larger towns, which would be going even further than the existing law does—and this is a measure of reform. In the larger towns where the requirements of the neighbourhood demand it, there may be an extension up to 11.30, but we find in the Transvaal, at any rate, where we have the system of fixed closing and privileges in practice, the great majority got them. In Johannesburg, I fancy, 80 to 90 per cent, of the notels have midnight privileges, yet the wording of the Act of 1902 is that only in exceptional cases were these to be given. I put on the Order Paper that the hotels to get midnight privileges shall be limited to one-quarter of the total, because it is only in exceptional circumstances that the privilege should be granted. I hope the House will accept the compromise of the Minister’s proposals, which go much further than the original Bill did.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On amendment in sub-section (7),

I move, as amendments to this amendment—

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment to the amendment made in Committee of the Whole House—

seconded.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to, and amendment proposed by Mr. J. P. Louw dropped.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of sub-section (8) put and agreed to.

On proposed new sub-section (8),

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I am afraid I do not follow the reason for the Minister’s amendment here. There are very few municipalities with 4,000 parliamentary voters. Some of the smaller towns may not have the population, but they consider themselves quite as entitled to privileges as a bigger city, and a club is a club wherever it may be. I think it is a bit drastic to allow a few favoured clubs in the Union to remain open until 11.30, and compel the remainder to close at 10. I would be in favour of a compromise if the Minister made it 11 o’clock, or something of that kind. I move that the words “half past” be omitted from the clause as it stands. The Minister’s amendment says 10 o’clock in all other places except these few. I want it to be either half past eleven all round, or at least uniformly eleven o’clock at night for all bona fide clubs.

It brings them into line with the hotels.

I cannot see for the life of me what clubs have to do with hotels. A club is, after all, to some extent a man’s home. It is not a hotel, and I cannot grant that hotels and clubs should be treated on exactly the same footing. A club is not run for profit in the same way as an hotel, but for the convenience of the members. Very few clubs in this country are money-making concerns.

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

When business was suspended I was urging upon the Minister what I think is a very reasonable thing, and that is that, instead of making all clubs throughout the country close at 10 o’clock, as he does in his amendment, except in the case of a few in large cities, he should make some concession in the case of the ordinary clubs such as we have in smaller towns where they have less than 4,000 parliamentary voters. Take a town like Grahamstown. It is said to be the city of saints. In the case of men from the University, businesses and so forth who want to meet one another, I do not see why they should be turned out at ten. Then there are Queenstown and East London, and Umtata. In the case of places like that, I do think eleven would be quite a reasonable time to ask for. I would say make the hours from eleven in the morning till eleven at night or ten thirty to eleven, but I am not so much concerned about the morning hours as the evening hours, which are the real club hours. I would ask the Minister to concede that except in centres where there are 4,000 inhabitants, the clubs shall close at eleven. To close them down at ten—I do not see anything at all reasonable in that proposal. Some members say hotels and clubs should be treated on the same footing, I cannot see that at all. I cannot see that they are in any way on the same footing. In the one case the hotel is run only for profit, and is compelled to serve practically anyone, whereas in the case of the club there is scrutiny as to the membership and the people admitted on to the premises, and we know that in 99 cases out of 100 these clubs are very well conducted, and the members themselves would not readily allow anything that might bring the club into disrepute. As to where to move my amendment, I do not quite know how I stand. I want to extend the time to eleven o’clock. The hour in the old clause as passed in committee was eleven thirty. Now I am asking that we should make a compromise on that point, and say eleven o’clock at night shall be the closing hour of the clubs. The opening hour does not matter so much. Then, in ordinary cases, the clubs would be open to eleven, and in special cases the Minister has provided that in centres with 4,000 parliamentary voters and over the hour shall be extended to eleven thirty. I move—

Perhaps it would be more convenient for voting if the hon. member moved his amendment to the Minister’s amendment.

Very well, I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice—

“Be satisfied with ten” [and some remark about hotels].

I say that in a case like this the club must be differentiated from the hotel. Most of these small clubs close their bars for certain hours in the afternoon. They open again in the evening, but they are not open all day long, as the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr, Badenhorst) seems to imagine. He seems to think that people go in and out just to get a drink. Many members go in and never look at liquor. They go to write letters, meet their friends and play cards. There are very many teetotallers who are members of these clubs. I ask the House, to, accept my amndment.

1 second. I have not been able to understand why the Minister should differentiate between large town amenities and small town amenities. Take your small country town with perhaps 2,000 inhabitants. Perhaps once a month they have a ladies’ evening, and they have a bridge drive usually up to eleven or twelve o’clock. I do not see why that club should close down at ten o’clock. I think you will find more sobriety in the email towns than in the big towns. I would infinitely prefer to see the small town clubs close at twelve, and the large town clubs at ten. You would have infinitely more sobriety in that case. Surely we in the country should be allowed exactly the same privilege, whether it is the privilege of keeping sober or the privilege of getting drunk. I think the Minister has been led astray, perhaps by the temperance people. I am one, as far as that is concerned, but I call myself a temperate temperate. If he had left the clause as it stood in the original Bill—it was fully discussed in committee—he would have saved us a lot of time. I think the House will realize that we in the country should have perhaps a night off occasionally.

I do not like detaining the House, because we all want to see the Bill disposed of, but I think the Minister cannot blame me for talking on a subject which will certainly improve the Bill considerably. The Minister will not be able to say that I have delayed the House much, but it is my duty to speak on this subject. I want to discuss a point which has already been dealt with in committee when everyone was not present, and which was lost by a few votes. I think the matter is of so much importance that it is worth the trouble of giving the House another apportunity of voting on it. I refer to the drinking facilities at clubs on Sundays. The Minister originally had the idea that clubs would come under the same regulation as hotels on Sundays. Thereafter he changed his view and conceded special privileges to clubs. He based his argument chiefly on the representation that he regarded the club more or less as a private institution, and that club members actually had private rights just as anyone in his home has private rights. If that is so, I surrender. We are not engaged in drafting regulations for private residences, but I think the Minister will admit that, although some of the better clubs to a great extent possibly bear the character of private institutions, there are many which cannot be so regarded, clubs with hundreds, and even thousands of members, and they will possibly become larger and larger. We know the evidence that was before us that clubs were much abused, especially on the Rand, where hotels are subject to certain regulations which do not apply to clubs. The subscription of many of the clubs is practically negligible, and the members get all sorts of privileges, inter alia, drinking on Sundays when bars and other places are closed. I therefore think that the argument that clubs are private institutions does not hold in many cases. The Minister will know such clubs, even if he is not a member of them. Nor am I thinking only of the persons who go to drink there, but also of the people who are employed there on Sundays. There is a better class of club, against which nothing can be said, and where on Sundays one hardly ever sees anyone, but I am thinking of the weaker clubs and of the people whom we must protect against themselves. The servants in those clubs have to stand all Sunday behind the counter serving, and if we lay down that that may not be done in hotels which in many respects, so far as the bar is concerned, coincide with the clubs, we must also prohibit the clubs from serving liquor the whole of Sunday. I do not want to put clubs in all respects on a par with hotels, but yet I state that in many clubs the bars are only doing the same work as an hotel bar. I do not even wish to refer to the ordinary trade, relations between clubs and hotels. Everyone will immediately feel that it is not fair towards the best hotels in the country, for their bars to come under strict regulations, while club bars are exempted. In some cases as much drunkenness takes place there, as anywhere else.

That is not true.

You will agree with me that there are many clubs where there is a great deal of drunkenness. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. He will probably regard it as a minor amendment, but it will go very far towards making the Bill more acceptable. In many places the feeling among a better class of people, I think especially among the women, is stronger against clubs than against hotel bars, and clubs are expressly called “.home-breakers.” They take husbands away from home, especially on Sundays, when they ought to be at home. I do not wish to attack clubs, because I know they are useful when men want to meet each other, where public people want to discuss things among themselves. We also know that we cannot impose prohibition, although. I am surprised that no club is possible without a bar, but I agree that under existing circumstances it is not possible. I should like clubs on Sundays to be under the same restrictions as restaurants, and I think that is fair enough. Then there need be no people behind the counters, and bona fide members can be supplied with the drink they want during meal times. I therefore move—

I have great pleasure in seconding this amendment. If it is necessary to limit the hours with regard to sale to the ordinary person, I think it is the duty of this House also to limit the hours for the consumption of liquor in these clubs. This House has decided to limit the hours of restaurants. It is ridiculous to do so on the one hand, where they sell drink under the control of the State and when representatives of the State—the police and detectives—can keep an eye on what is carried on, and on the other hand extend the hours of the clubs. I think it would be ridiculous for this House to accede to any such request.

The reason I smiled when the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) described clubs as home-wreckers, was because I was thinking of the definition given of a club by a bishop: “A place where the women cease from troubling and the wicked are at rest.” An unanswerable case has been made out for restricting the Sunday hours of clubs to those of restaurants.

I think we shall make good progress if we pass the provision that clubs in small places shall be open until 10 p.m., and I am a little afraid that if the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) presses bis amendment—I will not support it that we shall be in danger of having the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) rejected. I think it is quite wrong to stipulate that clubs may only sell liquor at meal times on Sundays. I am only thinking of the objection to that by the country clubs. People go there and play golf and tennis and that is the time when one or two drinks are taken. I have not much experience of these matters, but I know that the members of the clubs will consider it a great infringement of their rights and they are, moreover, not in quite the same position as hotels. I should not like to lose the 10 o’clock proposal. When I made the proposal I never dreamt of a motion of this kind, otherwise I never would have moved it. I regarded my motion as a fair compromise, and I consider it of great importance.

I do not know why the Minister is now so afraid of the 10 o’clock proposal not being adopted. I shall vote with him.

Yes, but we only make two.

I think the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) in favour of the observation of Sunday is one of the best made in the House, and I heartily support it. I think clubs are good things, but we are going too far if we give them the privilege of selling liquor from morning to night, and if they are allowed to do so on Sundays. It would be much abused, because, when people cannot get drink in hotels or other places, they will go to the club, and many people are club members. We are a Christian people and we must think a little about Sunday observance.

But the motion is to serve liquor at mealtimes.

Yes, but not all day. The Minister talks of country clubs, but it is going too far. Let us stand together and pass the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg. I have sat very silent during the debate on this Bill, but I should be neglecting my duty if I did not rise and speak now.

Now Uncle Louw is talking sense.

I am very glad the hon. member agrees with me.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice to omit “half past 10 o’clock in the morning and half past 11”, put and agreed to.

Question put: That the word “10”, proposed by Mr. Struben to be omitted from the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, stand part of the amendment, Upon which the House divided:

I move—

I also desire, as a second amendment, to move to negative the amendment of the committee of the whole House in leaving out the words “thirty minutes after”. I am moving these amendments in the interests of the sportsmen of the Western Province, who have pointed out to me and the Minister that these amendments are only fair, having regard to the conditions under which these sporting functions are carried on. If the word “public” is left in before “sporting function” the bar will be closed, for instance, every time the members are having a practice, and it would not be possible for members of the club to be served.

They are better without a bar when they are practising.

My hon. friend may be able to speak for himself, but I am speaking in this case on behalf of men who are engaged in sport in the Western Province. It has nothing to do with the liquor trade. It is purely a request from the sportsmen down here. With regard to the omission of the words “thirty minutes after,” the chairman of the Western Province Cricket Club (Mr. Mars) has written to the Minister explaining the necessity for this amend ment; in other words, for leaving the clause as it was before it was dealt with by the committee of the whole House. It is pointed out that after a football match or a cricket match, it is quite a customary thing for the players to go into the bar and have a glass of beer.

How are they going to heat the New Zealanders?

I can assure my hon. friend that the man who has written to the Minister of Justice represents the best sportsmen that we have in the Western Province, and I am sure they would not advocate this if they agreed with my hon. friend and they thought it was going to interfere with their sport. Mr. Mars has had a long experience of the administration of sports grounds, and he supports the retention of this extra half-hour on several grounds. If the bars are closed immediately play is over the players are deprived of the opportunity of having a little refreshment after the match, and he also points out that from the point of view of the spectators the proper time for refreshment is not while the match is going on. The spectators are supposed to watch the game, and it is only during the intervals or after the match that they take refreshment. He points out that if the bar is automatically closed immediately play is over, the players would have no chance of getting refreshment after the close of play, and he also states that half-an-hour after the close of play is the utmost that is required; in fact, he thinks that very rarely would use be made of the full period. I suppose that is the reason why thirty minutes was left in the clause as it originally was. I hope the House will negative the amendment made in committee of the whole House, and leave the thirty minutes after the close of play.

I second: I have also received representations from sporting clubs in the Transvaal to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). They point out that it is only after the game is over that this licence is necessary, and there is not likely to be any abuse of the licence if the bar remains open for half an hour.

I would wish to support this too. I would like to ask hon. members who are against it, what is the definition of “close of a function?” There may be a series of matches going on or there may be various tennis courts in use. I have been asked to make representations on behalf of the Wanderers Club in Johannesburg. I believe the Wanderers and the Western Province Club are the two clubs which are primarily affected by this clause. It is pointed out that if this clause goes through as it is, it is going to infringe on their customs very materially. The Wanderers have a very large hall in Johannesburg. I am told they let this hall out for functions. The big firms often hire the hall to give their employees a dance, but under this the licence will be closed. Very often they have private exhibitions, all sorts of matches which are not really public and the same thing will happen there. The chief representation made to me was that this big hall will be closed, and it forms a very important source of revenue. I would go further. I have been asked to move an amendment on behalf of the Wanderers. It reads as follows—

I am afraid the hon. member cannot move that.

Then I must confine myself to supporting the hon. member’s amendment. I do not know much about it myself, but I have been asked by the Wanderers’ Club, and I understand their position is exactly the same as the Western Province Sports Club; that this, as it stands, will hit them very hard.

As far as the deletion of the word “public” is concerned, I see no reason for that. I have never seen, when a net practice takes place in cricket, for instance, that everyone afterwards makes a bee line for the bar. This must be a new development in the sporting practice of the country. As far as practice matches are concerned, they would be open to the public, I should imagine, because they are of equal importance in many cases to any other matches. In any case, I do not like the implications in connection with the omission of the word “public.” I am very strongly opposed to it. The arguments raised in support of it are weak. With regard to the thirty minutes after the time when any such entertainment closes, I have not the same feeling about that. When a sporting function closes in the afternoon it will be somewhere round about 6 o’clock, and I do not think you will find people dawdling about the field after the event has come to a conclusion. I do not think there would be any very great danger in giving that thirty minutes. That seems to have been the practice in the Cape, and I understand in the Transvaal. These clubs seem to feel pretty strongly on that point. I do not think there is very much against it.

What about the Wanderers’ hall?

There is no reason why they cannot take out a club licence if there is a bona fide club.

They could not take out an ordinary licence.

They have had that difficulty before, I think. At all events, the points I am dealing with are these two points. On the second point I think the House might accept that thirty minutes, but I do not like the first one at all.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Amendment in line 59 put and negatived.

I move—

seconded.

Amendments put and negatived.

Remaining amendment in sub-section (12), amendments in sub-section (2), and the new subsection (3) put and agreed to.

On Clause 76, Amendment in old sub-section (3) put and agreed to.

I move—

I do this to meet the wine farmers. I also move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment—

The hon, member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has already moved with regard to the words “of the same kind”, so it is not necessary for me to do so. Apart from this amendment, I do not think there is any amendment of substance in what I have moved. I have put in something one can better understand—“securely closed case”. As far as the two points raised by the hon. member are concerned, I have no objection to the eighteen pint bottles. With regard to “of the same kind”, I am entirely in accord with him. The point that was made to me was that if we have the words “of the same kind” in the section we will find that where liquor is sent a considerable distance by a wine farmer, he will send lighter liquor—it takes more trouble looking after light wines to prevent them turning sour—and if you have a full case of light wine it will not be so popular with the farmer and not come in such a good condition to the recipient. If you take the words out, the customer is more likely to order wine than otherwise. I do not see how it can do any harm to have a mixed case of drink sent by a wine farmer to the customer, otherwise we might also find this state of affairs, that you could not send two different kinds of heavy wine, port or pontac, which are, I think, somewhat different matters, in the same case, because they are not of the same kind. Where it forms part of a case containing heavier forms of wine and, perhaps, a couple of bottles of brandy, a customer might order it.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On amendment in sub-section (4),

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. In Clause 78

I move—

If hon. members read this section in conjunction with Clauses 102, 103 and 104, it will be seen that very great importance attaches to the words “restricted portion,” and it would be possible for a court to declare a dining room of an hotel a restricted portion. The result would be that you could not employ women as waitresses, and it would lead to a number of other results which I do not think were intended.

seconded.

I do not see any reason to refuse the amendment.

The licensing board is given an entirely free hand, and it is assumed that it will exercise common sense in this matter. In the great majority of cases the restricted portion will mean a bar, and nothing else. But in particular cases there may be good reason for including other rooms. What is the use of saying that the restricted portion may include all other rooms, but not the dining room? The amendment does, in a sense, spoil the scheme of the definition.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 80,

I move—

These amendments are designed to cure an evil which exists in various parts of the Union where there are many bottle stores, and competition between them is very keen. An objectionable practice has grown up. The bottle store keeper keeps an uncorked bottle of liquor in his premises, and when a favourite customer comes in he gives him a drink. It is quite obvious that a bottle store is a place where no liquor can be consumed on the premises at all.

That would mean any liquor that might not be sold by the licensee.

They have no right to allow it to be consumed in their bottle store.

seconded.

A person might be a customer, but he might not have bought the liquor there. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) takes out the word “sold.” If he leaves the word “sold” in it is all right.

I may say there is a custom in some parts of liquor being kept on the premises to be supplied to customers as an incitement to buy liquor or other goods, and it is to prevent that custom that that provision is made. I think it is a perfectly safe provision, and I think the House should pass the provision the hon. member proposes to insert. There may be a bottle on the counter from which liquor is supplied to the customer, to whet his appetite.

Why not say “sold or supplied”?

I do not think it makes much difference. The thing the hon. member is trying to prevent is the custom of having this liquor on the counter to which people might even help themselves. I do not think we should allow a loophole here. I think it is better to have it in the form in which the hon. member moves it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 81,

I move—

It is only necessary to show that the power of the licensing board is absolute with regard to the provisions affecting Asiatics and coloured persons.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Omission of Clause 82 put and agreed to.

On Clause 83,

I move—

I do not know why this special provision about wine farmers’ licences was made, because I consider it absurd. A man may be a good man, and yet not possess landed property worth £200. Take, for instance, a magistrate who is possibly acting temporarily, and has no permanent residence, or lives in an hotel or boarding house, also, e.g., commercial travellers, and public servants who are liable to be transferred. Just because they do not own landed property worth £200, they cannot buy a small box or vat of wine from the wine farmer. Take two people in a village, a magistrate who lives in a hired house, and a man of bad character who by accident owns a house worth £200. The latter may buy wine from the farmer, but the magistrate cannot. I hope the Minister will accept my motion.

There being no seconder, the motion dropped.

Amendment in Clause 85 put and agreed to.

In Clause 87,

I move—

Malt liquor is the language used throughout the Bill, and through some accident the word “beer” has crept in.

seconded.

Won’t malt liquor include more than beer?

Stouts and things of that kind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 88,

I move—

According to the clause as it stands, the farmer can only sell wine, not brandy. I cannot understand why he may not also sell brandy, because it is also the produce of a wine farmer, and if he can sell wine he ought also to have the right of selling brandy.

seconded.

Amendment put and negatived.

In Clause 89, On amendment in line 43,

I move—

The reason for the second amendment is that we have got something under (c) which does not fit into this clause at all. This clause deals with the sale of liquor by distillers or manufacturers or brewers, and here we have a reference to holders of wholesale liquor licences. We deal with that in another part of the Bill.

seconded.

First part of amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment made in committee of the whole House, in line 43, dropped.

The Minister now wants to negative the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). That amendment makes it possible for the wholesaler to do the household trade. The amendment was put in because it was not quite clear whether under the provisions of the Bill the wholesaler could do that trade. I want to know from the Minister whether it is perfectly clear that the wholesaler, as a wholesaler, will then be able to sell to the private consumer.

That is clear.

Amendment in line 45, and new paragraph (c), put and negatived.

In Clause 91, Amendments in sub-section (1) put and agreed to.

The clause as originally drafted without the amendment made certain provision for distillation from cereals and other products. Now the Minister amended that, and only regulates the sale of liquor lawfully made. In the committee stage the Minister said he was making no alteration in the law at all in regard to allowing the manufacture of liquor, but if you take section 91 in conjunction with the first schedule, when you are repealing Ordinance No. 32 of 1902, you now allow the manufacture of liquor hitherto prohibited. The ordinance prohibits distillation in the Transvaal from anything other than fruit and vine, and further provision is made in the Excise Act that you can sell your distillation from wine, but you cannot sell your distilled product from other fruit. Now we are allowing distillation from any other produce, and also allowing the sale of the resultant spirits, and there are no regulations controlling the manufacture or sale, because in the Transvaal Excise Act power was not taken to make any regulations; they could only make regulations in regard to the one product, wine spirits, which they could sell If you simply leave matters as they are there with Section 91 and the repeal of that ordinance, there would be an unrestricted manufacture and unrestricted sale, not covered by any excise regulations. They have no power to make regulations. This is a matter which certainly will have to be dealt with.

As far as the manufacture is concerned, the Excise Department is dealing with the matter with the intention of tightening up the provisions by means of a Bill. The position we take up is we are not concerned with the question of the manufacture of liquor. That must be dealt with by the Excise Department. We only say that what may be lawfully made may be sold to the licensee alone. The question of rules and regulations will be dealt with by legislation by the Excise Department.

This year?

I do not know that they will be able to put in their Bill this year, but they are dealing with it. Our regulations, of course, are set out in the next sub-section which I am amending. The matter rests entirely in the hands of the magistrate, who, at any time, may cancel any permit he may have granted. I move—

1. (4) The provisions of sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any liquor sold under permit granted in terms of this section.

seconded.

Supposing anyone brews from prickly pears, etc., under this clause.

They cannot brew under this clause. It does not deal with the question of making it. If lawfully made, it can be sold to a licensee.

But unless prohibited it is lawful. Where is it prohibited under the existing law?

It is prohibited under the Ordinance of 1902, but we repeal that.

Then there will be no law in existence. I think we ought to be very careful with this. In the preceding clause they are prohibited. The existing law is propesed to be repealed. I think the Minister should look into this.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 94,

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Omission of Clause 96 put and agreed to.

New Clause 94 put and negatived.

New Clause 94,

I move—

94. Save as is otherwise provided in this Act.

1. (a) in the Provinces of the Transvaal and Orange Free State no person shall sell or supply any liquor to any Asiatic or coloured person, and no Asiatic or coloured person shall obtain or be in possession of liquor;
2. (b) in the Province of Natal no Asiatic shall be supplied with or obtain liquor save for consumption on premises licensed under this Act for the sale thereof, or be in possession of liquor off such premises.

There is no difference in the meaning; it is a question a new arrangement.

seconded.

I should like the Minister to tell us what the position is with regard to the supply of liquor to coloured persons in Natal. In the first portion there is no reference to coloured persons in Natal. Are coloured persons under this Act, entitled to buy liquor in Natal for consumption on or off the premises?

This clause is not changing the law of Natal, but leaving it as it was. The law there was that a coloured person could buy, and an Asiatic could not buy. On the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), the laws in the Cape, Transvaal and Orange Free State should remain as they are. On an adverse vote of the House I am accepting the position; I wanted to change it, but the House would not allow me to do so.

New clause put and agreed to.

On amendments in Clause 97.

I move—

I am moving to omit this clause, not that there is anything wrong in it. If hon. members turn to Clause 92, old Clause 90, I will read this clause, and hon. members will see how closely it follows that clause. [Clause read.]

seconded.

They are both the same.

This clause becomes unnecessary on account of the words which are taken out.

Omission of clause put and agreed to, and amendments made in committee of the whole House dropped.

Before we go further, I think I can move, and I do so—

We are coming to one of the little quarrel some patches of the Bill, and I sincerely trust when when hon. members have slept over that patch they will all vote for it.

seconded.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 2nd May.