laid upon the Table—

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to

moved—

He said: A great man may have any kind of a father, but he must have a great mother. These are the opening words of a recently published biography. Perhaps why so much of our legislature is unsatisfactory—we are always tinkering with it, and in many respects it lacks greatness—may be due to the fact that great women are not allowed any part in the production of that legislature. We have in this country the anomalous state of things that while women are entrusted in explaining the law, they may act as advocates and may even take the position of judges and administer the law, they have no part in framing legislation. This Bill is the identical one which has come before Parliament for three years in succession, and, if passed, I hope that it will remove many of the anomalies. I hope that it will be discussed in the broadest possible spirit and in a spirit due to its importance, for, after all, we propose to pass a measure which may nearly double our electorate. We do not want the sparkle of parliamentary sword-play in this debate, but I hope the matter will be discussed in all sincerity and that we shall have none of those parliamentary devices to side-track or to prevent a definite decision. These devices are merely ground-bait for the mugwumps who are unwilling to give a direct vote. The point is: Are women to be enfranchised in South Africa or are they not? This great principle is so dear to the minds of those who advocate the enfranchisement of women that they are prepared to give every reasonable opportunity for the discussion of the details. It is our wish that the peculiar difficulties of South Africa and those involved under the Act of Union should be thoroughly investigated. Statistics may have to be procured and evidence be led, and if it be the will of the House, after the second reading of the Bill, I propose to refer it to a Select Committee. It may be that there are some who are still unalterably opposed to the enfranchisement of women. If so, it is simply a pathetic attempt on their part to put back the hands of the clock, but that does not alter the time of the day, and only leads to inconvenience and confusion. I only hope that those who vote in that way will live long enough to regret their action and to see the futility of their obstruction of this very necessary measure. If they have the courage of their actions, let them go back to their constituencies and say, “I am opposed to the enfranchisement of South African women under any circumstances. It is true that through a Select Committee I was offered safeguards against the dangers I feared, but I do not think that the South African women should have the parliamentary vote. And now, ladies, won’t you help me in my election?” It is time that Parliament should take a direct vote on the subject, and leave the details for subsequent discussion. I may remind the House that it is now 33 years ago since the agitation for giving women the vote started in South Africa. The Natal legislature had the honour of commencing in 1891. It is interesting to note that while Parliament had been willing on many occasions to give a platitudinous assent on votes for women, when it came down to real business in the form of a Bill many parliamentary devices have been resorted to defeat it, to prevent a direct vote on a practical issue—by the adjournment of the House and other devices. Although the Senate affirmed the principle in 1918 and the Assembly in 1919 and 1920, only twice in all these years has a direct vote on a Bill been possible. On the second reading, in 1922, it was defeated by three votes, and in 1923 it was defeated by one vote. There seems to be a familiar likeness about the methods of opposition to women’s franchise. I remember that in 1905, in the British House of Commons, the Bill was prevented from reaching a vote by a measure being discussed at length as to whether mud carts should carry tail lights at night. Similar tactics have been adopted in South Africa. It would appear that matters of political expediency have dominated the view of some members, and have obscured the view of the interest of the country as a whole. We all agree that the white population of this country needs reinforcement if we are to hold our own. We are looking around for selected immigrants, and one of the inducements we hold out for women from Belgium, Germany, Holland, Great Britain and Ireland is that if they come here they will at once be defranchised.— [AN HON. MEMBER: “Let her come.”] It is absolutely essential that we should get a fresh accession of blood if we are to maintain our white supremacy. That is the way the great countries of the world have been built up, by recruiting from elsewhere. These are the women whom we hope to attract here; they will be the mothers of our future statesmen, teachers, and professors, but when they come they will not be able to take part in the exercise of the political rights which they had in their own countries. It is a law in physics, in the inanimate world, that bodies are influenced by each other proportionately to their weights. If a cannon-ball and a bullet are suspended side by side, it is quite possible by a simple calculation to determine how much each will approach the other and deviate from the perpendicular. In this country we have had a small civilized people in contact with a great mass of barbarism. It would be an interesting calculation to see how far we have departed from our uprightness in dealing with questions relating to women through living in close contact with natives who have their own peculiar ideas about womanhood. At all events this is practically the only civilized country with a stable Government, I emphasize that, with a stable Government that refuses the franchise to women.

Switzerland and France.

Switzerland and France may be exceptions, I admit, but these are very few exceptions among the great Powers of the world. I am told there are about 60 States, self-governing States, in the world, and I believe over 40 have granted the franchise to women. I would like to say here definitely that I support this movement, not as a champion; of the sex, however attractive that may be, not solely to rectify great wrongs from which women have suffered for such a long time, certainly not because of the supposed advantage or disadvantage to any particular political party. But I support this mainly and especially because I am convinced it would be in the very best interests of the State and of the mass of the citizens, and above all, it will be in the best interests of the rising generation, to whom we have to look to solve the troubles of to-day. Their hands are being stretched forward to grasp the torch of progress which is falling from ours, and it is all-important that they should have the training and influence which is necessary to enable them to carry on this work. It is, perhaps, rather late in the day, although it may be necessary in some cases, to state that we are supposed to be living in a democracy, or rather a half-democracy. It is rather absurd that we have to go back now to enunciate the principles that were promulgated and obtained the consent of the great mass of the civilized world more than 100 years ago. We know that various forms of Government have been tried: the patriarchal, monarchical, aristocratic, and even a theocratic form of government has been tried with very disastrous results. These various forms of government may have served their day, but they are hopelessly out of date in modern times. Now, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said last year, and there is no member of this House who so impressed us by his industry, eloquence, and sincerity, that this is not a democracy, that we are really an aristocracy. The word aristocracy, like knighthood, is almost synonomous with the word chivalry, and all that this connotes regarding women. If we are an aristocracy, we have sadly departed from all the traditions associated with aristocracy or “Government of the best.” I cannot imagine an aristocracy divided in the middle, the male half of which is fit to govern the country and the other half is unfit to take any part in government. I do hope that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) will revise his ideas of an aristocracy. But I do not want to be tempted into these tempting avenues of thought and speech. I must take my own prescription and confine myself to the main principles of the Bill. I might usefully meet here some of the objections advanced by this House against the Bill. One of the great objections to women’s suffrage which we constantly hear is the reluctance of women themselves to the vote. I dare say there is a considerable amount of reluctance. I know there is, but which reflects, I take it, in many cases in the high intelligence of our women. Many of them know that through the circumstances obtaining in the past they have had no opportunity of learning, studying or making themselves acquainted with political problems. But are we not well aware that a very big percentage of the male electors are in the same case also. What percentage of our male voters are qualified by their studies, intelligence or education to give a reasoned vote on many of the problems of legislation? But when they do not themselves hasten to the poll we rush them there and urge them to record their votes. Some women have more common sense than many men voters, and it may be that their reluctance illustrates the truth of the quotation: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Again we are told by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that giving the vote to women is not in the interest of the community as a whole, and also that it will loosen the family bond. I have to confess to very considerable difficulty in meeting that objection, for the hon. member puts himself on a plane above us: he puts himself on a prophetic plane, and as we know it is quite impossible to argue with a prophet. He is out of our reach but we have liberty to disbelieve him. I have very considerable reason for my disbelief. We know that woman’s suffrage has now obtained in advanced countries for two or three generations and there is no evidence whatever that it has caused domestic unhappiness. There is no evidence whatever of that. On the contrary, we see many instances, and notable ones, where a wife’s participation in public affairs has been of the utmost assistance and benefit to her husband. There are two notable instances which we are all acquainted with, those are the cases of Lady Astor who on her husband’s elevation to the peerage took up his work, and the case of Mrs. Phillipson who also took her husbands place when he was unseated on petition and returned to the House of Commons. I have had the privilege of meeting both those ladies with their husbands and may I respectfully say that I was reminded of the: words of Homer who wrote “There is nothing mightier and nobler than when man and wife are of one heart and mind in a house, a grief to their foes and to their friends’ great joy, but their own hearts know it best.” I doubt if any member of this House can endorse the statement, that his wife’s interests in politics has caused him unhappiness. Again the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) stated that women’s suffrage is not in the interests of the community as a whole? This is not warranted by the experience of other countries. In very many countries now women have had the vote for several decades and I know of no single instance of even an attempt being made to revert to exclusive male suffrage. If women’s suffrage was producing or was likely to produce evil results so greatly feared by some, surely an attempt would have been made to rescind the privilege, and we should have heard a great deal of the evils attendant on woman’s enfranchisement illustrated by facts and experience—but we have not. But I state emphatically that on the contrary it is almost unanimously recognized that granting the suffrage to women is a step forward, not the immediate solution of all our troubles, but a step in the right direction: which we hope will lead us much further towards the end we desire later on. I do hope we have at last heard the final expression of the thought that women are “ too fine and too noble” to take their place in public life. They are not too fine or too noble to perform the very trying and often unpleasant duties to our children and for ourselves when we are ill or hurt. If our politics are of such a nature that women cannot take part, surely it is time we had a house cleaning, call women to aid and make politics a thing not only fit for men but for women and for every decent minded citizen. I do not believe that is true, but if it were, what a ghastly commentary on our male management of our public affairs if they are not clean, and unfit for the participation of decent people. Abundant proof can be put forward that these forebodings are not fulfilled or likely to be. I challenge any hon. member to state that in any country there is an increase in domestic quarrelling through politics. Disgraceful scenes at polling booths are gradually disappearing almost to vanishing point, and there is no reason to fear that female voters will cease to be womenly women. I would commend hon. members to study the photographs of the eight women members of the British House of Commons which arrived last mail and which was published in the papers. It would at once convey to our minds that a woman politician need not be angular in form or sour of temper. I think any hon. member would be honoured by any of those women representing him in Parliament. These are all negative arguments and I turn to some which deal with the positive side. Let us not imagine for a moment that giving the vote to women will be a magic wand in their hands by which all our problems will be at once solved. That is not and cannot be the case. It will prove no more than an instalment towards a condition of better things. It will not right every wrong, but it will go a long way towards making this a better and happier world eventually. I submit that giving the franchise to women has fulfilled every sane anticipation. They have still much to learn, and they have had very little opportunity of political instruction in the past, but I claim that every reasonable anticipation has been fulfilled and is being fulfilled? There has been for instance an immense improvement wherever the women have the vote in the laws relating to the drink traffic, in the laws relating to women and children, in the improvement of factory conditions and in the status of women and in respect for them. As the political education of woman goes on we shall have continued and greater improvements. There are now eight women members of the House of Commons. Members must be interested in the fact that the private secretary of the English Prime Minister (Mr. R. Macdonald) is a woman, and has been for many years. It was the same when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister. And those who are acquainted with women’s intelligence, with their adaptability and their genius, it is no surprise to find that at last there is a woman member of the British Ministry, Miss Mayant Bondfield, M.P. Even the Turkish Cabinet now-a-days has a woman member, and I ask hon. members whether the South African women are so inferior to their sisters elsewhere. The results to women individually are interesting and indeed striking. Their outlook has been enlarged, their judgment becomes tempered by their participation in affairs, and another great point is that they are less conscious of sex and more conscious of their duties as citizens. And even from the selfish male point of view, we find that the interest which women take in these matters, has made them more intellectual and better companions of men, of sensible men at any rate. We know that in matters of bread and butter politics women have had an unrivalled experience. We want more of this in our legislation. These questions loom large at present: the help of women who know these subjects and express themselves well will be invaluable. As the minister of domestic finance, we know that she has to balance her budget. She generally does it somehow, and if women had had their full share in the affairs of this country, we would probably not be in the tangle we are in especially in regard to our provincial council finances. This is not a time to go into the very serious difficulties involved in a change in the affairs of South Africa in regard to the enfranchisement of women. A Select Committee must think out the impediments. I am well acquainted with sections 34 and 35 of the South Africa Act, but I will now only ask members not to be carried away by side issues, but to concentrate on the main principles of this Bill which is: should women, or should they not be enfranchised in South Africa? It is five and a half years since the armistice and perhaps any reference to the great war may arouse a feeling of impatience in some minds. “He jests at scars that never felt a wound.” But, after all, war is the great test, it is the final analysis of a nation’s character. I would be untrue to my experience, I would be untrue to my strongest feelings, if I did not testify to the great help which women gave to their men in immediate contact with the enemy, especially the South African women. Their organization was so perfect, their gifts and comforts arrangements were so well thought out, that they reached us everywhere, whether on the Somme or the Rufigi, the Great Lakes of Central Africa or the shores of the Caspian, and they had a profound effect on the spirit and morale of the men. Those of us who had the necessary but unpalatable task of censoring the letters of the men at the front, perhaps, got more behind the scenes than others. True, it was only the one side. It was, perhaps, like overhearing a telephone conversation where you hear only one speaker, but understand the whole. In my own constituency there was a case the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. Like so many other gallant young men, he answered the call, went to the front and fell as heroes fall. And when I addressed a few stumbling words of consolation, her reply was this: “How would you have consoled me if he had not gone”? That was the splendid spirit which we saw so often. There is another case—one of four brothers, names well known in South Africa. He, after long and gallant service in the campaign, whilst leading his company to the attack—suddenly laid him down. I wrote as fully and as consolingly as I could to his widow, telling of his splendid deeds. She wrote back: “I am the saddest, but the proudest woman living.” With that spirit among the men and their relatives, they achieved the impossible at times! On one occasion, the Prime Minister will remember, a South African force had engaged the enemy and fought and pursued them, and fought and pursued them again and again for some hundreds of miles. They were on quarter rations most of the time. They were rain-drenched, sun-scorched, footsore, vermin-tortured, exhausted by exertions and privations, in the climate of Equatorial Africa, and eventually both sides dug in a few yards from each other, in a state of almost utter exhaustion. So pitiable was their plight that in one battalion only eleven men were reported fit for duty by the medical officer. But all were on duty in the trenches. The situation was most serious, but, fortunately, a small consignment of letters came through—letters from home—and those of us who were in immediate contact with the men saw the result. They cleaned up themselves and their equipment with an almost forgotten zest, and when a few days after they were attacked, under cover of a roaring fire in the 12 feet elephant grass, they were not only able to repulse it, but delivered such a counter-attack that it was possible to withdraw them slowly, very slowly to a rest camp. Those are some of the facts which we should do well to ponder over. If there is one fact better established than another, it seems to be that the final collapse of the Central Powers was due largely to the breakdown of the spirit of their women. And why did that happen? For generations it was the habit in Germany to relegate women to a very inferior position. Their intellectual and bodily activities were rigidly confined to matters pertaining to “Church, children and kitchen.” They did not have the wider education necessary to make them understand the full part they might play in the national extremity, and when they broke down, as we know from correspondence captured in the field, we knew that the breakdown of their men in the field was not far off. But Germany has learned a lesson. Since the Armistice the franchise has been granted to their women. Already 8 per cent of the members of the Reichstag are women. There are 117 women members of the State Legislatures and 1,400 members of municipal councils. I do not think all this is without significance to us. I for one believe that if women had had the vote in civilized countries for the last 50 years, the great war would never have happened. We cannot imagine that throughout that period, mothers rocking their men children in their cradles, with plenty of time for reflection on the past and thought for the future—we cannot believe otherwise but that they would have used their uttermost powers, political and otherwise, to prevent their sons becoming cannon fodder, and those stretching forms and developing brains being eventually scattered by high explosives or suffocated with poison gas. Their instinct for the preservation of the race would have prevailed where the bankrupt statesmanship of a man-governed world failed. And whither is the world treading now? Even with centuries of civilization, centuries of Christianity behind us, what is our immediate prospect of peace? If we are to avert the destruction of civilization—so dreaded by the Prime Minister—we must mobilize every means towards our preservation. Can we afford to neglect, turn down, refuse the eagerly-proffered assistance of women? No! We cannot, without running the risk, perhaps incurring the certainty of unparalleled disaster. We need the help of all in these ominous days, and I ask hon. members to accept, by their votes, women’s assistance in our troubles; to accept it with reverence, with gratitude, and, above all, with confidence towards making this South Africa of ours a better country to live in.

Ek sal die Huis nie lank ophou nie. Ek is nie van plan om die lankal afgesaagde argumente weer uiteen te sit en ander te weerleg nie. Ek staat weer op om voor te stel dat hierdie Wetsontwerp vandag oor ses maande weer gelees sal word. Ek het laaste jaar die Huis opmerksaam gemaak en ek sal nie op besonderhede ingaan nie, maar noem net enige gevalle. Ek het toe ook kafferstemreg, wat hiermee verband hou, bespreek. Ek wens die aandag daarop te vestig dat daar 25,000,000 surplus vroue in die wereld is, waarvan oor die 2,000,000 in Engeland is, en wil die Huis daarby wys daarop dat daar werklik vir die mense onmootlik ’n bestaan te vind is. Ek het duidelik in die Huis getoon dat die vroue stemreg kwessie kante het waar ek ook nou nie op wil ingaan nie; dit is ingewikkeld en sal grote invloed hê op die Unie en wat nou verbonde is met die kwessie voor die Huis. Ek het ook duidelik gemaak, dat daardie surplus vroue reeds daar ’n grote agitasie op tou geset het—dit is feite wat nie weerlê kan word nie, om ’n grote aantal van hulle na Suid-Afrika te stuur. Ek het ’n kabel voor my wat ek sal voorlees. Ons is besig om ons volk stadig maar seker te bring tot ’n afwykende, ja naapende en verkwistende volk. Dit is wat ons stadig maar seker besig is om te doen, en dit kom omdat ons so bereid is al die slegte dinge na te aap, maar die goeie opsy te skuif. Ek kon baie feite noem, maar sal net een aanhaal met betrekking tot die saak; dit is die kleding of liewer die nie-kleding van die Franse vroue. Dit word in Suid-Afrika nageaap tot op die uiterste punt. Ek het laaste jaar dit aan die Huis duidelik gemaak met behulp van ’n portret afgeneem in Kaapstad en ten bewyse dat onse dogters half naak in die publiek verskyn. Daar kan niemand verby kom nie. Ek het gesê, ek sal die Huis nie lank ophou nie. Laat net toe dat ek, voordat ek gaan sit een kwessie aanhaal van wat nou gebeur het in Engeland by die algemene eleksie, en ek dink dan sal die Huis sien waar ons besig is om Suid-Afrika heen te lei. Dan het ek hier in die hand ’n uittreksel van ’n kabel uit Glasgow, waar in een van die grootste hotels, wat myself ook baie goed bekend is, in ieder kamer ’n Bybel is, Mnr. Speaker, in elk van die driehonderd kamers van die hotel, en ek gaan nou net voorlees wat daar in Glasgow plaasgevind het en ek sê, as dit plaasvind daar waar die Bybel is, wat gaan dan gebeur in plase waar jy die Bybel nie vind. Dit is wat ek lees—

Nou Mnr. Speaker, is dit die toestand waarin ons die Suid-Afrikaanse vrou en dogter gaan bring? Nee, ek sal my stem volstrek nie daarvoor gee nie. Ek het teveel respek vir die Afrikaanse vrou en dogter. Hulle staan by my veel te hoog aangeskrywe, dat ek sal help om hulle in daardie toestand te bring om hulle te help hulle eie graf te graaf, en ek as ou Vrystater, gaan nie help om die graf toe te gooi nie. Dan is daar nog ’n kabeltjie wat ek vergeet het en waarin staan dat die Senaat van Frankryk die vroue stemreg vorwerp het met 156 teen 134 stemme, en ek se as hulle in Frankryk dit verwerp, sal ons dit dan gaan aanneem? Dis nou ’n goeie ding wat hulle in Frankryk gedoen het en dis miskien die enigste goeie ding wat hulle in die laaste 18 maande gedoen het in Frankryk en daardie goeie ding volg ons nie na nie. Ons volg alleen maar die slegte dinge na. Ek stel voor—

“heden over zes maanden.”

seconded.

Ek is baie jammer om te sien, dat die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) jaar na jaar kom voor die Huis om die wetsvoorstel door die Huis te forseer. Waarom wil hy so graag die vrou van Suidafrika forseer om die stemreg te kry. Ek sê, die vraag is nog nie gestel of die vrou van Suidafrika die stem wil hê of nie. Ek wil die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) aanraai, laat die vrou van Suidafrika beslis of sy dit wil hê op nie. Voordat dit gebeur, is ons voorbarig en wil ons iets aan die vrou van Suidafrika opdring, maar sy nie om vra nie. Nee, Mnr. Speaker, die roeping van die Suidafrikaanse vrou is te edel en skoon, om haar van daardie skone, eerwaardige plaas af te haal en haar te plaas in die stof van die aarde. Die wyse Koning Salomo sê dit vir ons so duidelik: “Die godvrezende vrouw is een kroon op het hoofd van haar man.” Gaan ons nou die kroon op die plaas laat of gaan ons die kroon afneem om die te bring in die stof, die vuil van die aarde, waar sy waarde verloren gaan? Ek sê, die roeping van die vrou in Suidafrika is to groot, te gewigtig om haar in die politieke lewe te sleur. Haar roeping is om haar man lief te hê en haar kinders en haar huis te regeer. Dat is die plaats wat haar is aangewys dour die lig van Gods Woord, waar sy haar dagelikse besigheid moet hê. Die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) wil haar nou die stemreg opdring, terwyl sy nog nie daarvoor gevra het. Ek sê, dis ’n fout wat ons maak, om die Suidafrikaanse vrou haar skone, edele roeping te ontneem en haar te meng in die politiek van die wereld. Die man is geroepe om die saamlewing te representeer en hom in die politiek te werp. Ek glo, dat as ons die vrou die stemreg gee, dan handel ons in stryd met die lig wat ons van die Woord het. Die man is niet verleid gewees, maar die vrou verleid zynde, het die sonde gedoen, wat oor die ganse menselike geslag gekom het. En wat het Paulus gesê: “Laat die vrou nie toe, om in die Gemeente te spreek, maar dat sy in stilte haar man raadpleeg, waarom haar nu insleep?” en verder “Ik vermaan die oude vrouwen, de jonge vrouw te leeren haar man lief te hebben en haar kinderen en dat zy haar huis wel regeere.” Daar is so duidelik haar werk door die lig van die Woord vasgestel. Ons wetgewing word gebaseer op die Hollands-Romeinse Reg en dit is baie gegrond op die lig van Gods Woord on daarom reken ek as ons heengaan en daar van afwyk, dan gaan ons heeltemaal in ’n verkeerde rigting en dis ’n afdwaling van ons wetgewing. Bo-dien is dit in stryd met ons Grondwet. In art. 35 word vasgestel die kwalifikasies van kiesers en art. 152 stel vas dat die stemreg onder die kleurlinge kan nie uitgebreid word, tensy met twee-derde meerderheid van Parlement en Senaat. Ek wil die edele lid van Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) net vra “Wat van die kleurling vroue se stemreg?” Volgens sy voorstel sal elke kiesgeregtigde se vrou ook die kiesreg kry. Dis in stryd met die Grondwet. Ons kan dit nie doen nie. En als dit gedoen word, dan beskou ek dit as wetteloos, want ons moet dit twee-derde meerderheid daarvoor hê van die twee Huise om die stemreg te kan uitbrei en as ons die vroue stemreg gaan gee, dan brei ons die stemreg uit vir blanke sowel as vir kleurling-vroue. Ek gaan my stem daar nooit voor gee nie en ek hoop dat die edele Huis sy reputasie op sal hou om die stemreg nie onder die kleurlinge of naturelle uit te brei nie. Ons hoor aldag, Suidafrika moet ’n witmansland bly, maar as ons daardie stap doen, dan gaan ons in die rigting wat daartoe sal lei dat Suidafrika nie meer die land van die blanke man sal wees nie. Ek hoop die edele Huis sal stem voor die amendement voorgestel deur die edele lid vir Ficksburg (de hr. Keyter) om die twede lesing te laat plaas vind oor ses maande.

Die edele lid vir Ficksburg (de hr. Keyter) het vertel van die dames wat so gekleed gaan, dat jy kan sien tot die uiterste punt. As die edele lid daar nog aan toe gevoeg had “en tot die diepste skuilhoekies,” dan sou dit volmaak gewees het. Ek sê, dis nie ’n argument nie. Nee, die kwessie van die stemreg het niks daar mee te maak hoe hul gekleed gaan. As ’n dame mooi is en sy mooi aan getrek is, dan is sy nog mooier en ek is seker daarvan die edele lid vir Ficksburg sien ook graag ’n vrou wat mooi aangekleed is en as hy voorby soon dame stap wat mooi aangekleed is en wat die arme soon bietjie kaal het, dan kyk hy nog ’n slag oor sy skouer, as hy hom nie heeltemaal omdraai nie. En my vrind oordaar, die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden), het gesê dat die kloeke vrou ’n kroon is op die hoof van haar man, maar hy het vergeet om daarby te sê, dat Salomo 700 krone op sy hoof had. Ek is van opinie, dat die stemreg aan die vrou toekom. Toe die water diep gegaan het, het sy haar man gestaan, want nadat die eerste sonde gedaan was, het Adam hom verskuil agter sy vrou. Ons neem hier besluite, waaronder die vrou ly. Laat ons net een ding neem. Ons beslis hier of ons oorlog moet voer teen die een of ander land of nie en die vrou ly daaronder. Die vrou se kinders word doodgeskiet en sy verpleeg die manne op die slagveld of ly op andere maniere daaronder. En sy het geen seggenskap daarin. Sy is goed genoeg om onder die gevolge te ly, maar dis die man wat beslis en wat reel. Telkenmale word hier gesê, ons moet ons hou by wat ons voorvaders gedoen het en let op ons ou voor-trekkers, op hul dade, m.a.w. op hul wette en ek sê as ons in ander punte sodanig vasstaan by ons voorvaders, dan moet ons dit ook doen by hierdie beginsel. Die eerste grondwet vir de Republiek opgestel deur die Volksraad van die 18de Junie 1655 sê o.a. “Wanner ’n manspersoon as burger van die republiek erken is, sal sy vrou ook erken word as burgeres van die land.”

Het sy die stem gekry?

Hoekom het sy die nie gehou nie?

Die feit is, dat die eerste Wet van die Republiek al neerlê, dat die vrou as burgeres erken sal word, net so goed as die man as burger erken word en dus het sy ook die stem gehad.

Waar staat dit van die stem?

Nee, daar staat nie van die stem nie, dit staat daar nie duidelik nie, maar as burgeres sal sy dieselfde regte het as die man as burger.

On behalf of my colleagues and the party to which we belong, I rise to support the second reading of this Bill. The South African Parliament is the only Parliament in the British Commonwealth of Nations which has not extended the franchise to its women, and this country is one of the few countries amongst the leading nations of the world that has not extended this franchise. Every year the matter has been raised in this Parliament, and, as the hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has said, it has been very seldom that we have been able to have a direct vote on its merits. Every attempt has been made to prevent this House from having a direct vote on this issue. We, on these benches, support the principle of women’s franchise, because we believe that the principle in itself is inherently just. You can argue all round it, but the fact remains that the principle itself is inherently just. You can say what you like, but you cannot avoid the fact: whether you recognize women politically or not, they have to carry out their responsibilities and their obligations, and they are entitled to have their say in the Government of the country. This Bill contains several clauses, and while we accept the principle of the second reading, we wish to make it clear that by accepting the principle, we do not necessarily bond ourselves to all the clauses in the Bill. There is sometimes a vast difference between accepting a sound principle and giving practical effect to it. It may be that a sound principle is applied in an unsound and unjust way. For that reason, we retain the right of criticism and of amending the clauses in the direction we think desirable, so that there may not be an exclusion of women who are not property-holders. We have to take care that the provisions of any Enfranchisement Bill shall cover the great mass of the female population of the country; it must not give exclusive rights to property-holders, while you deny the franchise to those who are possibly more deserving than the idle rich. We hope and trust that this Bill will be referred, after the second reading—if it is passed—to a Select Committee, so that this House can, for the first time, have an opportunity of getting to close grips with the problems. We accept the principle, but principles are always open to different applications. I hope that the Bill will be sent to the Select Committee, so that we may thrash out the difficulties and see exactly the views of this country—the only one which has not extended the franchise to the female population. A great deal has been said for women’s suffrage, but I know that whatever any speaker has said this afternoon will not influence one vote of one member in the House.—[An Hon. Member: Then why deliver a speech?] I will not keep the House long. The members of the House know that the programme of the Labour Party includes the franchise for women, and we cannot allow the motion to pass without saying something in support of it, but we wish to lay emphasis on the fact that we shall examine very closely the clauses of the Bill in Select Committee. For the reason given, I hope the House will refer the Bill to the Select Committee, so that we may examine the clauses, and so far as we are concerned we will do all we can to remove the glaring anomaly which exists and see that justice is done. We are not conferring the franchise as a privilege for services rendered; we are doing something for the benefit of the nation. The nation will be a better nation when the women have a voice in the Government of the country. For that reason I support the second reading.

Ek weet die Huis is begerig om hedemiddag nog tot stemming te kom oor die Wetsontwerp en ek wil dus die Huis nie lank ophou met wat ek sal sê nie. Laaste jaar toe die kwessie voor die Huis was, het ek gesê dat in my opinie dit nie meer ’n kwessie was wat beredenering nodig het nie. Daar behoef nie meer oor geargumenteer te word nie en ek meen daar kan geen twyfel oor wees wanneer ons sien, dat byna alle beskaafde lande in die wereld oorgegaan het tot die stap en die stemreg gegee het aan die vroue. Dan meen ek is daar geen kwessie van argument meer en argumente daardoor tas die waardigheid van die Afrikaanse vrou aan. Waar alle andere vroue in die mees beskaafde lande in die wereld die kiesreg het, waarom die Afrikaanse vrou nie? Is die Afrikaanse vrou minder as ander vroue? [’n Edele Lid: Wil sy dit hê?] Die vraag is nooit aan haar gestel nie, maar sover die vrou spreek in Suid-afrika, meen ek, is sy daarvoor. Ek stem toe, die grote meerderheid is passief in die saak, soos die gros van die bevolking passief is in die meeste groot kwessies. Jy sal altoos sien dat, hoe ernstig en belangrik ’n kwessie ook mag wees, dat die groot menigte passief bly, en dit is nie die vraag, maar of die vrou wat sigself bewus is, en wat nasionale waardigheid besit, of die vrou stemreg wil hê, en ek meen, die vraag kan jy seker bevestigend beantwoord. Waarom sal die Afrikaanse vrou agterstaan by ander vroue? Seker nie op historiese gronde nie. Daarop verdien die vrou van Suidafrika die eerste plaas bo alle ander vroue in ander lande. Nee, Mnr. Speaker, ek glo, as die kwessie op die meriete beskou word, dan sal daar geen moelikheid wees nie. Maar daar is moeilikhede waarvoor ons staan. Laat ons die reg in die gesig sien. As daar nie die kwessie van die naturelle-stemreg was nie, dat die toekenning van die stemreg ook beteken die toekenning van die reg aan naturelle-vroue in die Kaap Provinsie, dan zou daar geen moeilikheid wees volgens my mening nie, en de werkelike moeilikheid in my opinie, ontstaan daardeur, dat die bevolking voel, dat die maatreel verder gaan dan die vroue-kiesreg. Dis een van die groter kwessies in die land en ons moet baie versigtig te werk gaan. Dis die moeilikheid wat in die weg staan en laat my dit sê, dat ek die moeilikheid gevoel. In die laaste sitting is die aandag daarop gevestig deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) toe die kwessie ook voor die Huis was. Maar ek wi dit vra, moet die land ’n onreg doen terwille van moeilikhede? Waarom, al is die moeilikhede ook nog so groot, waarom gaan ons ons vroue iets onthou wat hulle verdien, waarop hulle reg het? Om te sê, die vroue-kiesreg moet wag tot die naturelle-probleem eers opgeloos is, beteken in my opinie, dat hul kan wag tot in lengte van dae. Jy kan net so goed aan die vrou sê vir die maan te wag, as vir haar te sê om met die vroue-kiesreg te wag tot die naturelle vraagstuk opgelos is. Dis ’n onmoontlike posisie en ons mag dit nie doen nie. Ek glo verder, dat dit ’n groot fout sou wees as ons weer die kleurlyn in die lewe sou roep. Dit sou weer ’n onreg wees. Ons is baie begerig om die vroue-kiesreg kwessie op te los en ek meen, dis ook die gevoele van die volk en ek meen ook, dat dit die wens is van diegene in die Huis wat die stem-reg vir vroue opponeer. Dit sal niks help om jou te verset teen die grote morele beweging om vroue-kiesreg toe te ken nie, wat veld win en tot oorwinnig kom oor die hele wereld. En ons wil tog ons vroue geen groot onreg aandoen nie. En om heen te gaan en weer ’n kleurlyn te trek in Suid-afrika sou ’n groot fout wees. Laat ons dit as ’n beginsel beskou wat moet vasgelê word in die politiek van Suidafrika, dat waar dit moontlik is gaan ons die lyn van beskawing trek, maar waar dit enigssins moontlik is dat ons nie weer die kleurlyn gaan trek nie want die kleurlyn wek soveel gevoel op by die naturelle bevolking, dat jy ’n situasie gaan kreëer, wat nog veel groter moelikhede sal meebring. Ek glo, dis die gevoele in die Huis en die publieke opinie in Suidafrika, dat die vrouekiesreg moet ingevoer word, sonder dat die kleurlyn daarby getrek word. Daar is praktiese moeilikhede waarvoor ons staan, maar ons moet die kwessie aanpak en nie die reg daaronder laat ly nie. Ek sou aan die hand gee: laat ons die beginsel passeer en dan is dit goed en reg. Ek glo nie dat enige lid kan kwaad doen deur daarvoor te stem en die reg te erken van onse vroue. Laat ons dit neem soas neergelê in die Wetsontwerp en dit dan verwys na ’n Selek Komitee vir verdere ondersoek maar daar moet ’n grondige ondersoek ingestel word. Ek glo nie dat die moeilikheid in die ander drie Provinsies is nie, waar net blanke persone die stemreg het, maar net in die Kaapprovinsie. My kom dit meer en meer voor, dat die oplossing te vinde is in die meerlê van ’n behoorlike kiesreg, wat vroue betref—behoorlike kwalifikasies. By die Nasionale Konvensie werd nie genoeg gevoel, nie sterk genoeg gevoel nie, die gewig van stemreg, en dit werd gelaat soas dit was. In Transvaal en Vrystaat bestaat eenvoudig manlike stemreg, in Natal word lae kwalifikasies gestel vir die verkryging van stemreg deur ander as Europeane en in die Kaapprovinsie bestaat ook taamlik lae kwalifikasies in die opsig. Vandag word ons gevra om die stemreg uit te brei en ons moet toesien dat dit op gesonde lyne geskied en dit moet bp dieselfde lyne wees oor heel Suid-Afrika. Ons kan nie aangaan met uitbreiding op die basis van ongelykheid soas die Konvensie dit aangeneem het, en nie langer op die verskillende bases soas tans bestaan tussen die Provinsies. Dan kom dit daarop neer dat reg moet gegee word aan die vroue, maar die kwalifikasies moet eenders wees oor heel Suid-Afrika. By my bestaan geen beswaar, maar wel by party andere en ook by sekere vroue. Daar word onderskeid gemaak tussen die man en die vrou, maar ons moet dit nie laat bly waar dit is nie en die beswaar lê hoofsaaklik by die naturel. Laat ons, wat die vrou betref een uniforme kwalifikasie oor die hele Unie neerlê. In Engeland is in die opsig ook onderskeid gemaak; ’n vrou kan nie stem voordat sy haar dertigste jaar bereik het nie, terwyl die man die stemreg kry op een-en-twintigjarige ouderdom. Dus seifs in die wetgewing van Engeland word onderskeid gemaak, die beginsel van gelykheid is neergelê tussen man en vrou maar in die praktiese toepassing word onderskeid gemaak en die moeilikheid is dat daar te lande die vrou in die meerderheid is. As die gelykheid helemaal ingevoer word, sou die stemlyste meer vroulike as manlike name bevat. En die pil was te groot om sommer te sluk. By ons bestaat ’n ander moeilikheid en dit is die naturelle-kwessie, wat veral groot is sover die Kaap betref. Ek sou aan die hand gee: laat ons die beginsel aanneem, maar die saak dan na ’n Selek Komitee verwys en laat hulle die ding uitpluis wat aangaat die vraag welke kwalifikasies gegee kan word in al die Provinsies, en dat dit gegee word aan vroue wat gesond is van gees en wat nie deur uitoefening van die stemreg moeilikheid sal veroorsaak nie; en ek reken dit behoort nie gegee te word aan vroue wat nog in ’n onbeskaafde seifs barbaarse toestand verkeer en dus nie in staat om op behoorlike wyse van staatkundige regte gebruik te maak nie. Ek dink dat die oplossing langs hierdie lyne lê en dat sodoende aan die besware van daadwerklike aard tegemoet sal gekom word. Ek sou verder gaan en die stoute staf neem om oor heel Suid-Afrika uniforme vrouestemreg in te voer, maar die praktiese besware is byna onoorkomelik. Wie artikel 35 van die Grondwet lees sal sien dat die stemreg in die Kaap vir alle blanke en gekleurdes sodanig neergelê is, dat dit byna onmoontlik sal wees om ’n stelsel van stemreg te verkry wat eenders is vir alle dele van Suid-Afrika. Wat die manne betref, word in die Grondwet nie slegs gesproke van wat dit stemreg het nie, maar ook van wie dit in die toekoms nog sou kry. Met vroue is ons in ’n ander posisie: nêrens besluit hulle reeds stemreg nie en ons het dus ’n skoon veld, en my idee is: laat ons algemene en eenderse kwalifikasies oor heel Suid-Afrika daar stel. Baie sal weer sê, julle sal hier in die Kaapprovinsie nie die naturelle vrou kan uitsluit nie. Maar ons sal wel kan verhinder dat ’n te grote aantal mense op die lys kom, wat onbekwaam is om die stemreg uit te befen en nu in staat om te oordeel oor die kwessies van die dag nie, waardeur ons blootgestel sal word aan allerlei gevaar. Ons wil geen stelsel hê, wat ons sal blootstel aan korrupsie en misbruike nie. In die Kaapprovinsie is die kwalifikasies te lastig en van so ’n aard, en werd neergelê onder helemaal ander toestande, dat ons dit tans nie algemeen kan toepas nie. En as mens dit moet uitwis by die hervorming van die stemreg stelsel, sou die moelikhede net groter gemaak word en dit kan enkel vermy word deur die instelling van nuwe kwalifikasies. Ek het die saak baie oordink en meen dat dit die enigste uitweg is uit wat anders na ’n onmoontlike posiesie lyk. Mens sal die bevolking nie daartoe kry om die naturelle-stemreg uit te brei op die bestaande stelsel nie, maar dis te hope dat die Selek Komitee ’n praktiese uitweg sal vind. Ek weet die gevoel bestaat hier en daar dat miskien die een of ander party voordeel sal behaal uit die invoering van vroue stemreg. Na my mening is daar, afgesien van die morele sy, geen bepaalde voordeel vir enige party uit te haal nie. In vele lande is die stelsel reeds in werking en daar is gebleke soas ek hier verklaar. Daar bestaat in Suid-Afrika die vrees, dat as vrouestemreg ingevoer word, sal die vroue op die platteland na die huis en die kinders kyk en nie gaan stem nie en dat soedoende die vroue van die stede die deurslag sal gee, dog die feite, ontleen aan die ondervinding van ander lande, waar vrouestemreg bestaan, staaf die bewering, dat die vroue trou sal gaan stem. In Nu-Seeland b.v. waar die bevolking net soas by ons, groteliks op die platteland woon, is die proporsie vroue wat van buite kom stem, groter as die van die stede. Op die platteland is die gevoel sterker en hulle gaat getrouer na die stembus. Ek doen ’n beroep op die Huis: laat ons ons nie langer verset teen die beginsel nie. Ek voel die besware en ons moet sorg vir ’n praktiese toepassing van die beginsel en geen misstap begaan nie: laat die Selek Komitee dit uitpluis op die basis deur my aangegee of op ’n ander gesonde grondslag.

Ek denk ons sal almal toestem, dat wat die Eerste Minister hier verklaar het van die allergrootste en gewigtigste aard is. Soas ek reeds by ’n vorige lesing verklaar het, ek is wat vrouestemreg betref in die posisie, dat ek in beginsel niks hoegenaamd teen verlening van die stemreg aan die europese vrou het nie voornamelik omdat sy daarop aandring, tenminste ’n groot genoeg aantal om ons die oor te laat leen aan die versoek en te sê: goed, as julle dit wil he, dan is dit tyd en tegelykertyd toon dit aan die vrou, hoe ons geensins die posisie inneem nie, al sou ons haar vir minderwaardig beskou as die man. En as dit alleen daarvan afgehang het en ons enkel met die europese en kleurling vrou te doen had, dan was daar geen moeilikheid nie, maar soos ek reeds geseg het, die beswaar wat werkelik weeg by my, is dat ons die belange van die toekomstige geslagte in die oog moet hou: is dat ons die stemreg ook sal moet verleen aan die naturellevrou en ek neem die posisie in, dat verlening van die stemreg, soas die in Kaapland bestaat, sou een van die fataalste foute wees, wat ooit in Suidafrika gemaak is en wat sig dageliks laat gevoel en sig dageliks meer sal laat voel. En indien dit so is, welke reg het jy en die vele wat aan die oorkant van die Huis sit, om te eis, dat ek en die wat dit met my eens is om onse standpunt sal laat vaar en mee te help aan die fatale maatreel? As dit so is, welke reg het ek of enige ander om die fatale fout uit te brei en te aksentueer deur dit uit te brei en die naturellevrou ook in te sluit? Wat ons gaat doen is gevaarlik en dreig om die toestand te vererger en soas ’n grote sterke hand ons te belet in die toekomst deur een of ander maatregel, wat verkeerd is vandag onherroeplik te maak. Ek het daarop gestaan, dat alvorens in tweede lesing, die beginsel van vrouestemreg goel te keur, een van twee dinge gedaan moes word: of alle molike pogings aanwend daardle besware in verband met naturellestemreg uit die weg te ruim, of te erken, dat dit onmolik is en te sê, ons steek die arms op en gaat dinge neem soas dit kom Ek is teen enige uitbreiding van die naturellestemreg, maar geen sodanige poging is gedaan nie. Ek het verklaar, dat ons enige tyd gereed is om so’n voorstel te beskou en daaroor te besluit sonder enige partygees te laat meespreek, maar die Regering het dit nie aangeneem nie. Hulle beskou dit as onmolik om tot enige praktiese resultaat te kom in die rigting. Dit is die enigste interpretasie, welke gegee kan word aan die woorde van die Eerste Minister; dat die posisie so hopeloos is, dat daar niks aan te doen is nie. Daar is baie in Suidafrika, meer as die helfte, wat nie in so’n desperate posisie verkeer nie en voordat ons uitgevind het of die meerderheid daarvoor is, het ons nie die reg hierin verdere stappe te neem en die volk in die gevaar te steek, waarin dit vandag verkeer tengevolge van foute van die verlede. Om die rede kan ek vandag my stem nie gee vir die Wetsontwerp nie. Dit is ’n gesonde beginsel, maar dit is ’n beginsel wat die vrou betref en onder die term vrou, val nie net die europese en kleurling vrou nie, maar ook die naturellevrou in die Kaap Provinsie, en as ons vandag die Wetsontwerp aanneem, dan beteken dit, dat die Huis van oordeel is, dat die stemreg moet gegee word aan die naturellevrou net soas aan enige ander vrou in Kaapland. Dit is duidelik dat dit die geval word, as ’t gestel word in die hande van ’n Selekt Komitee. Ek kan my toestemming daartoe nie gee nie en voordat ons dit doen, moet die posisie opgeklaar word. Ek kom tot wat die Eerste Minister aan die hand gee. Hy sê feitelik, dat wat betref die stemreg, moet ons die van die man laat soas dit is, maar wat aangaat die van die vrou, dit moet op ’n ander basis geplaas word en hy het verder aan die hand gegee, dat sekere vroue as minderwaardig uitgeslnit sal word. Die eerste wat my opval is of die Eerste Minister reg het, dat die Konstitusie, wat naturelle en Europeane betref, vir vroue dieselfde onderskeid gemaak as in die geval van manne. Die Konstitusie het noor bedoel, dat sodanige skeidslyn getrek sou word nie, as vroustemreg sou kom. Toe werd reeds die saak gekontempleer en toe het die Eerste Minister ’n baie slegte beginsel neergeleg nl. dat ons durf nie enige maatreel in die Huis neem nie, wat gebaseer is op kleuronderskeid, onverskillig of dit man of vrou betref, onverskillig dus of dit Europeane, kleurlinge of naturelle betref. Dit sal met die grootste moeilikheid gepaard gaan om hierin verandering aan te breng, maar ek wan hoop nie, want ek is seker, dat elke dag meer en meer besef sal word, hoe noodsaaklik dit is, dat ons tot ’n oplossing sal geraak en ek denk ook, dat die pogings, wat aangewend behoort te word, nog nie aangewend is nie. Nou wil die Eerste Minister onderskeid maak en wys op iets wat van so groot gewig is, dat vir heel Suidafrika ’n ander basis vir vroue moet daargestel word ten einde haar die stemreg te verleen, as wat geld vir die man. Ek kan die Eerste Minister verseker, dat as hy dit gaan doen hy ’n byenes om sy kop gaat ontketen. Waar gaat hy die lyn trek? Die man wat die heel dag dronk lê, maar meerder jarig is, het in die binneland die stem en sal ’n vrou uitgesluit word, omdat sy geen £50 of £100 besit nie: of omdat sy nie haar Matriek gemaak het nie? As dit verkeerd is, dan vir man en vrou en dan moet dit vir beide verander word. Wie anders spreek, sê dat nieteenstaande die vrou die stem het, beskou hulle haar tog as minderwaardig. Dit is ’n baie gevaarlike iets om aan te torring en ek bly daarby, dat hy sal in Kaapland nie slaag nie, want dit is teen die Wet en die Konstitusie. Ek verskil van die Eerste Minister, dat by die konvensie geseg en bedoel werd dat nie op die basis van kleuronderskeid gemaak sou word nie en as dit so is, dan verklaar ek, dat ek bevrees is vir wat dan sal geskied. Om te stem, dat die tweede lesing aangeneem word op die lyne, deur die Eerste Minister aan die hand gedaan, laat ons veronderstel, dat daar ’n lyn getrek word en more of oormore dan kom ’n saak voor die hof en word miskien beslis, dat die Eerste Minister verkeerd is en dat die stemreg aan die naturelle ook toegeken moet word, as dit aan blanke toegeken word en dan, dan sit ons eers in ’n moeilike parket, dan sal ons moeilikhede eers begin. Dan sal dit nodig wees—en ek kom nou tot ’n baie gewigtige punt—waar ons al so dikwels op gewys het—dan sal dit nodig wees om sekere vereiste vas te stel waaraan naturelie moet Voldoen, sodat slegs enkele van hulle in staat sal wees om op die register te kom. Wat het ons dan? Ons gee hul aanleiding om ons voor die voete te werp, dat ons besig gewees is om te doen wat reg is, maar dat dan agterom maatreels geneem is wat onreg is teenoor die nature. En wat meer is, m.i. is dit die hele geskiedenis van die stemreg van naturelle in Suidafrika, as ons nie vas staan op ons beginsel nie, sal ons vind, dat ons meer en meer moet toegee en die endresultaat sal wees, dat ons die naturel gaan bring op dieselfde voet as die Europeaan. Net so seker as ek hier nou sit, gaan dit geskied. Nee, Mnr. Speaker, ek gaan vanmiddag teen die Wetsontwerp stem en ek moet sê, ek gaan dit doen met die grootste vrymoedigheid, ek sou byna sê met groter vrymoedigheid as ooit te vore en deste meer na wat die edele Eerste Minister gesê het en wat my ’n bewys temeer is, dat jy nader sake eers moet aanpak, voor dat die vroue kiesreg kan word gegee. Ons vroue, in erns, is bekwaam net so bekwaam om te stem as die manne, of miskien meer bekwaam, want oor die algemeen gedra hulle hulle baie beter. Neem b.v. wat die drankkwessie betref. Maar ek sê dit, dat dit seker is, dat as die Suidafrikaanse vrou daarvan oortuig word, dat ons gewillig is om haar die stemreg te gee, maar dat die tyd nog nie daarvoor gekom is vir die heil van haar en van die land, dat sy haar nie gaan verset daarteen nie. Ek het ernstig oor die saak nagedink, soos ook die edele Eerste Minister dit gedoen het. Dis jammer, dat jaar na jaar dieselfde praatjies moet verkoop word en jaar na jaar dieselfde Wetsontwerp moet afgestem word en jy voel somtyds om maar te sê, ek stem daarvoor maar ek kan dit nie doen nie en ek het nog die vaste vertroue, dat die edele Eerste Minister en sy kollegas gaan nog saam met ons staan, om eers die naturelle-kwessie aan te pak en eers ’n toestand skep en ’n weg te baan, sodat ons almaal die Wet kan ondersteun.

The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has said this is not a question of argument, but of belief and opinion; but it seems to me that it is partly a matter of argument and partly of opinion. Those who desire to see this Bill carried desire to introduce a very great change indeed, and it seems to me that in justification of that change they must produce arguments which should satisfy those who think that the change should not be made. To my mind, the onus of proof is on those who seek to make this great change. The hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) bases his claim on the point of justice. If that is so, then there is a great deal of inconsistency in regard to the support which is being given to this Bill. If you are going to give women the right to vote on the basis of justice, you must give it without any difference of colour, race or creed. We have a Bill here which lays down a general principle which by common consent should go before a Select Committee. How will that Bill emerge from a Select Committee? The Prime Minister says that certain qualifications will be laid down, and the Prime Minister has very clearly, very fairly, and very definitely said that there is to be no distinction in regard to colour. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has made it equally clear that if the Bill goes through, the only distinction will be purely and simply that of colour. I am not prepared to take the risks of injustice being done in this respect. We must bear in mind that this is a non-party Bill, and that alterations will be made on non-party lines. What the effect of such alterations will be, no one is now able to forsee. It is very difficult to argue on this Bill, because if anybody opposes this Bill his argument is described as being stale and obstructive, and if he does not state his case, it is said that he dare not voice his views because they are based on prejudice and unreason. I do say this, that the arguments on which I found my views in this matter are the same as they have always been. Whether they are stale or not, I do not propose to repeat them. But I have risen to deal to a short extent also with the campaign which has been waged in regard to this Bill. The hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke this afternoon as if the opposition to this measure was based on trickery, on devices, and on obstruction, and as if those of us who are opposed to the Bill are wanting in courage. He challenges us, after giving our vote, to go back to our constituencies and tell them what we have done, and say, “Now, ladies, I want you to help me.” That is not an argument—not worthy of the hon. member and not worthy of the Bill itself, for whatever may be our views, when it comes to the question of courage, there is probably more courage required of those who oppose the Bill on grounds of principle than of those who support it. To those who hold opposite views to mine I give the credit of their convictions, and I think those who oppose the Bill should equally get the credit for their convictions. I speak like this because in the campaign which has been going on, and to which the hon. member for Border has lent his support this afternoon, there has been very little argument used. We have been, and are being, dogmatically charged with a certain amount of what I might almost call invective, of uttering the old arguments and bringing nothing new to it. We are charged with being out of harmony with modern society, and are told that we have not learnt the lesson which has been taught to us by other countries who have given the vote to women. This would be rather amusing, if it were not symptomatic. One of the greatest evils of our modern culture is the super-egotism of those who claim for themselves, whether it be in art, biblical criticism, or anything else, as being persons of the higher cult, and having created a platform for themselves look down upon all others. That is a disease in our modern life which we have to face. It is said that we are out of harmony with the facts of modern society. But what are the facts of modern society? That cry may easily have been raised when the great discoverers and inventors of the past were stoned and burned for the things they did. One can imagine that cry being raised against those who objected to the licence of the times in the days of Charles II. Are there not facts in modern society which women are more competent to deal with than men, and which they can deal with without the granting of the vote at all—rampant evils, like gambling dens and the relations of the young of both sexes. Many who support the women’s vote have done a good deal in these respects; have the supporters generally done all they can? What are the experiences in other countries we have to look to? Have we to give the vote here because other countries have given the vote to their women, or because of the results of the experiments in other countries? You do not give the vote because other people have given it, but because it is the right or wrong thing to give in your own country. I respect those who want to give the vote, and they should respect us who oppose it. Are we to take the experiences of other countries, when the results of the experiments have not yet been proved? Where have we got countries where there has been sufficient time to learn what the result of the experiment has been? In other countries has there been any great material benefit gained by giving the vote: gained as a national, political or social matter? The hon. member for Border (Brig. Gen. Byron) made such a claim in respect of Germany. I am not speaking of war relations, but of the present national social conditions. In view of the known conditions there, is it astonishing that anyone can dare to claim that Germany has bettered from the experiment? The hon. member for Border said: “Look at what has been done in other countries.” “Look,” he said, “what woman has done in connection with drink traffic, women and children in factories.” The present-day condition of each of these matters is product of generations of missionary enterprise and education of public opinion. He has placed emphasis on the improvements in the factories, but I say this is mainly due to the philanthropic men who spend their time and fortunes in bringing about these conditions. The giving of the women’s vote is too sacred for her vote to have been the cause of material change in these matters. We are told we are putting women in the position inferior to what they are elsewhere and as placing a stigma upon them. I must most emphatically deny that. I say for one that in my recognition of the beauty and the character and the reverence and chivalry due to womankind, I am second to none. I give them superiority in certain things, and I do not say I am treating them as inferiors when in certain other matters I differ from other members of this House. Not for a moment do we keep them inferior. Look at the qualifications for the vote under the law; they are not based on sex alone, but on age and nationality also. Take, for instance, the case of brilliant students in Oxford and Cambridge, and in our universities, young men, in many cases probably superior in intellect to many of those to whom we grant the vote, even probably to many of us in this House, do you place them on a plane of inferiority because you do not allow them the vote? Take the case of an alien who may live here, probably a very much respected member of the community, who, on account of his nationality remains unqualified for the vote: is he in a position of inferiority? We know of aliens in our midst, most respected and wealthy, who have not the vote; do we place them in the position of inferiority? I hold, I regret to say the same views as before, because there are many women for whom one has the highest respect for their social work and character. There are many women here in South Africa whom we admire for their beauty of character and for their activities—there are a large number of them who are on the same side as those who oppose the Bill. We know of one noble case, of one no longer with us, one of the most womanly women of the most beautiful character, who always took interest in the debates of this House, particularly on this subject, who always hoped that this sort of Bill would not go through as she regarded it as not being in the interest of women. In her view it was not in the true interest of the State or of women, that the vote should be given. There are women of beautiful character to whom I refer who take the same view as I do. Their view justifies me in my own view that in opposing the Bill I am not in any way casting a stigma upon women or putting them in a position of inferiority. For these reasons I for one consider it my duty to vote against the Bill.

Ek is verplig om ook ’n paar woorde oor die Wetsontwerp te sê, omdat die saak ernstig word. Ek het met aandag na die vorige sprekers geluister, maar ek denk dat die tyd daar is om verandering te breng in die manier van wetgewing deur die Huis. Ek reken, dat as ’n wetsontwerp besproke en afgestem is, dan moet dieselwe minstens twee jaar uit die Huis gehou word en nie elke jaar daaroor gelol word nie. Ek sou graag van die voorstanders van die Wetsontwerp wil verneem, hoeveel van die vroue van Suid-Afrika om die stemreg gevraag het. Hulle kan die syfers nie gee nie. Ek verteenwoordig ’n plattelandse kiesafdeling en daar kry jy nie tien persent, wat daarvoor is nie en hier kom die lede met die argument, dat die grote meerderheid daarvoor is en die Huis moet nou daarvoor beswyk, vir die drang en dit sou verkeerd wees. Ek wil vraag welke verandering dit sal breng in die aantal stemme en in die kwota of op andere maniere. Dit sal moeilik gaan om daarop te antwoord. Ek spreek omdat ek nie met die Eerste Minister kan saamgaan nie, want as ons die strekking van die Wet aanneem, sal dit nie help nie, maar ’t sal ons in moeilikheid breng en daarom is dit vir my onmolik om daarvoor te stem, want ek wil die verantwoordelikheid nie op my neem nie. Ek wil nie soas die lid vir Ficksburg (de heer Keyter) ’n aanval maak op die drag van die dames nie. Dit is nie die vraag nie en vir my part kan hulle net dra wat hulle lus het en ek laat dit geheel aan hulle oor.

Hoe minder hoe beter.

Om te sê, dat mens nie jou stem vir die Wetsontwerp sal gee, omdat die dames nie na jou sin gekleed is nie, is geen argument nie. Ek beskou die dames nie as onwaardig nie, maar dit sal haar nie baat nie. As hulle die ding omdraai en sê, net aan die goeie sal ons die stemreg gee, dan sou ek daarvoor stem, maar ek het opdrag van my kiesers om teen die Wetsontwerp te stem. Ek verteenwoordig ’n afdeling van tweedrie duisend stemgeregtigde burgers en omtrent net soveel vroue, ek het baie vergaderings gehou en as daar 5 persent ten gunste van die maatreel is, dan is dit baaie en net so is dit in ander gedeeltes, en waarom moet jy ’n ander iets gee waar hy nie om vra nie? Party verklaar, dat die vrou nie die vrymoedigheid het om te vra nie, maar as sy dit werklik wil hê, sal sy wel deeglik daarom vra. Ek kry hier in die Kaap veel vrouwe wat nie die stemreg wil hê nie. Ek hoop die Eerste Minister, wat ek altoos steun, sal my dit ten goeie hou dat ek in hier die geval nie met hom kan saamgaan nie.

Die laaste drie, vier jaar was die Wetsontwerp telkens voor die Huis en elke jaar het die Huis geweier om dit aan te neem en ek denk, dat dit tyd is dat halt geroep word insake die vermorsing van die kosbare tyd van die Huis met voorbarige dinge, soas die voorstanders sal erken. Ek het met die grootste aandag geluister na die rede van die Eerste Minister en as mens dit vergelyk met wat hy verlede jaar verklaar het, dan moet ons sê, dat daar grote ommekeer met die Eerste Minister plaasgevind het. Dit is vir my duidelik, dat die ou gesegde, dat die vrou so’n verbasende invloed op die man het in sy geval bewaarheid geword is en dat daardie invloed ’n kragdadige uitwerking op hom gehad het. My is vertel, dat die vrou ’n wonderlike karakter het—as sy iets wil hê van die man, sal sy aanhou daarom en as hy nie wil nie, dan word hy, so as die uitdrukking lui, gekamer-kantoor. Die geval laat denk aan die tyd, toe Paulus voor Agrippa verskyn het en dese verklaar het, dat hy hom byna beweeg het om ’n kristen te word, en so het hulle die Eerste Minister byna beweeg om vir vrouestemreg te stem. Wat ek afkeur in die Eerste Minister, is dat sy argumente van vandag het die dames onder ’n verkeerde indruk gebreng. In een asem verklaar hy hom voor stemreg vir vroue, maar erken dat die praktiese toepassing sal stuit op byna onoorkomelike moeilikhede. Hy het egter nie duidelik geskilder wat die besware is nie. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) daarenteen is eerlik en het onomwonde verklaar wat die gevaar is, as die stemreg verleen word. Die saak is so gewigtig, dat die volk die reg het om te eis, dat voordat dit tot wet verhef word, die vormanne onomwonde die gevare sal aantoon. Die Eerste Minister het duidelik verklaar, dat al is hy in beginsel daarvoor, hy een van die grootste obstruksies daarteen sal blyk te wees. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het daarenteen duidelik verklaar, dat as die naturellevraagstuk eers opgelos is, dan sal daar geen moeilikheid meer wees nie, en die Eerste Minister dat die saak kan oplos, het nog steeds daarvoor teruggedeins. Laat ons die feite in die aangesig staar en besef, dat die Eerste Minister opeens verklaar, dat hy sal nie in die Wet van vrouestemreg staan nie. Ons sê self, dat as die naturellevraagstuk opgelos is, dan is drie-vierde van die moeilikhede uit die weg geruim. Die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) het die vraag gestel hoeveel vroue sou vir vrouestemreg wees. Niemand kan ontken nie, dat dit iets vreemds is, wat van elders na Suidafrika toe oorwaai. Die egte moeder van Suidafrika het nog nooit om die stemreg gevra nie en ek het myself tevrede gestel deur op elke vergadering—en ek het een-en-twintig gehou—hierdie vraagstuk te berde te breng en oral werd met akklamasie daarteen gestem. Dit is die feite en ek daag die Eerste Minister uit om in Hoopstad dit anders te vind. Dit is verkeerd om mense iets op te dring, waar hulle nie om vra nie. Die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) verklaar, dat daar in Kaapstad honderde is, wat nie die stemreg wil hê nie. Ek het ook vele gevra en hulle verklaar, dat hulle hoër pligte het as om te agiteer vir stemreg—haar werk is om haar huis, man en kinders gelukkig te maak. Die meerderheid van vrouwe is daarteen en solank as hulle nie daarom vra nie, sal ek daarteen stem.

I rise to speak with the greatest personal sorrow, because since the formulation of my political opinion I believe in woman’s suffrage—absolutely and sincely in the qualification of woman and the necessity of giving her the vote. Up to the moment the Prime Minister spoke, I for one was unhesitatingly prepared to vote for the Bill. The proposition is this, we have in South Africa a most delicately adjusted piece of machinery, by which a certain ratio, determined by economic progress, on the part of certain portions of the people, i.e., on the part of the natives, is provided for by a two-thirds majority in this House. That is a most delicate position, and I have the honour in this House to represent the Native vote in South Africa to a greater extent than anyone else in this House. That being the case, it is perfectly clear that it is impossible to do what I proposed to do earlier this afternoon, and that was to vote for the principle of this Bill simply on the basis of upholding what every man who is not afraid of something or other, as I am now, deems to be right. Woman’s suffrage is due to come, that is perfectly fair, but the Prime Minister gets up and tells us that his solution is going to be this, that the Bill is to go to a Select Committee, that in the Select Committee a certain principle is to be introduced, which principle will absolutely alter the Act of Union. I am saying this not in order to convince any hon. member, but because in my own conscience I have to say it with the deepest regret, that that principle would not be fair to the native vote and native representation in South Africa. It is a platitude that when one is discussing this matter with many women they say, “Yes, why should I not have the vote when the coloured and native man has it?” And if you put it to them that the coloured and native women must also have it, they would go against it and would not want the vote. My position is this, that I cannot vote for this Bill unless two things happen. One of them is, that the hon. member, the mover of this Bill (Brig.-Gen. Byron), states absolutely definitely that if this Bill is mangled in Select Committee on the basis of any partial qualification extending beyond the present qualification for the Cane, if anything is done to lead to the dice being loaded so that the European woman gets it in a ratio as compared with the native or coloured woman greater that the present ratio as exists between the white man and the coloured and native man that is to say, that if the natives are done down in Select Committee, that he will unhesitatingly withdraw this Bill as a private measure. If he will give that undertaking, and it is a fair one—

He cannot give it. It has to go to Select Committee.

The Select Committee are so democratic that they only look after the white and not the native or coloured. It is a private Bill.

This is not a party measure.

A good many people over here never attempt to put up that kind of platitude. Hon. members in the right-hand corner always do put it up.

Do not get excited.

What has that to do with it?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the apparent manners of the monkey-house. They seem to be excited. I would, therefore, put it that if I can get an assurance from the introducer of this Bill that if any injustice is perpetrated to the principle laid down in the South Africa Act, that certain rights contained in the South Africa Act shall be assured for all time to the native people; if he can give me that guarantee I shall be saved from a difficult and a most painful impasse. I shall then vote for the Bill, the fundamental principle of which I utterly, completely, and sincerely approve of, but unless that can be given, I for one dare not, and will not, vote for that Bill, because I should be failing in a trust to those not now living and to one of my old uncles who put that trust upon me. I shall do my best to protect the native vote, the putative native vote, which ought to come into being on absolutely legitimate lines. This Bill as it stands is calculated to prevent, the increase of the native vote in any humble domicile where the house is not valued at £150. That is as the Bill stands. When I was asked how I would vote, I felt that if the general principle was to be discussed, purely the general principle, that I could, and would, and I hope I still will be able to vote for this Bill, and leave matters of detail to subsequent discussion, but in the face of the two speeches, by the two leaders of the two largest parties in this House, in which one has said that he thinks it is necessary that some adjustment, some qualification, should be made, a thing which would be altered by the Act of Union, and when the other has said that he would not consent to an increase of the vote if it means an increase of the vote given to the native woman, which would still more violate the Act of Union, in the face of those two speeches, I feel I am not prepared to take on my own personal responsibility the whole question of the standing of the native vote of South Africa—the most ticklish, the most delicate, and most difficult question in South Africa—not only guarded by previous contract, but by loaded majorities—and throw that into the melting pot of a Select Committee—it is absolutely unnecessary. That is my difficulty, and I am trying to express it. I do trust that there are others in the House who feel the same way, although they absolutely believe in woman’s suffrage. I do not sympathize with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) in his attitude or with his arguments. I never have, and I do not think I ever will, but I do hope that I shall get to-day from the hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) the assurance that he stands side by side with me in the contention that the principle laid down in the Act of Union that the state and conditions arrived at between white and black, guarded and protected in every way, will be adhered to whatever the subsequent course of future legislation may be as far as he personally is concerned, or that he will do his best to adhere to it. It will be a difficult position, but I am inclined to believe that he will meet me, because he moved this motion with the courtesy and chivalry which has always animated him in dealing with the matter, and has moved it in an honest desire to right a wrong, but not to right that wrong at the cost of the careful and steadily coordinated political machinery in this most delicate Constitution of ours. It seems to me to be unnecessary, and not only brutal, but dangerous. Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member will be able to tell me that he feels as I do about the question of the native vote, in which case I for one will certainly vote for the Bill, because the principle is beyond all question, the principle is absolutely unimpeachable. It is impossible, as has been said by one speaker—I think the acting leader of the Labour Party—that it is impossible not to realize that wherever the woman’s vote has come, nobody has ever gone back; but what has really happened this afternoon is this, that the speeches by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) have absolutely torn the last veil away from the real facts of the case in South Africa. We have been asked why in South Africa: why this has been so long in coming? The real reason is we are caught in the meshes of the Act of Union, in a careful and deliberate device, because we are held down on a written Constitution of safeguards, because it is next door to impossible to adjust into this something which would require a two-thirds majority both in this House, and probably a two-thirds majority in a House which would then be entirely hostile to the principle of introducing the women’s vote. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) felt himself up against a big problem, which appealed to him to require regulation. I cannot say that it appeals to me very much. The point of view of the native, the disadvantage which he sees, the disadvantage that the native man will object to being ruled by women, is beside the point. One of the proudest recollections of the native people is that they once had a Queen Victoria, and I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. member in his contentions. So far as that point is concerned, I do not attach much importance to it as a representative of the natives in this House, but as such I appeal to the hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron), who gives a definite statement that he and those promoting this Bill do so on a democratic basis in the fullest sense of the word, not on such a basis that some women who pari passu should be entitled to the vote with their husbands would be denied it, while other women would get it. If that basis is to be followed, then I shall not vote for the Bill. I may say I am in a very awkward position. I believe in this subject. Every woman relative I have is nearly as well entitled to the vote as I am, and perhaps more so.

Quite as intelligent.

The position is this: I have been widely awake throughout this whole business—unlike the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). This matter has filled me with tremendous unrest and difficulty, and I hope that the hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) will give me a lead which will allay my unrest.

I must confess my profound disappointment at the speech of the Prime Minister, and I am exceedingly sorry that on this occasion I cannot agree with him. I am surprised that such a master of constitutional law should desire to create further anomalies in our chaotic electoral laws as would arise from his suggested difference in the qualifications between women and men. That appears to me to strike at the root of the principle of woman’s suffrage. In view of what I said on this measure last year, and as I have been referred to several times in the course of the debate, I would like to offer a further explanation to the House of the real attitude I have adopted, and the reason I had for adopting that attitude. The hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) during the course of his speech said he would ask anyone who consistently opposed woman’s suffrage to go back to his constituency and say so. He intimated that it would fare badly with them if they did so. Well, I have done that. I have addressed my constituents on this matter. I have explained to them fully the reasons for my recantation. I explained my attitude at meetings attended by some of the leaders of the women’s suffrage movement in my constituency, women who compare in intellect, culture and education with any women in the Union. I have been told that believing as I did I could not in honesty have voted otherwise. These meetings passed unanimous Votes of confidence in me. After my speech in the House last year I received abusive letters from women’s associations all over the country in which they imputed to me views which I had never expressed and never held, and it Was said I would earn the scorn of the Women of Africa if I dared to Vote in the way I intended. I am convinced, since the tour of my own constituency, that the mass of the women of this country are not agitated over women’s suffrage. This question is not an African question, it is a European question which has been transplanted here to Africa. It is entirely alien, and if we permit this sort of thing our civilization is going to come down with a crash. I am opposed to this motion for three reasons. First, it is entirely opposed to the principle of Government established in this country, and is therefore illogical and cannot be defended on any plea of equity or justice. Secondly, it is inexpedient. In interfering with the already existing chaotic electoral laws, which differ in every Province, you are tampering with a law in a manner which will lead to such trouble that you will not know where it will end. My third point is that it is dangerous—it is digging a hole in the dyke of our supremacy in this country. This measure is defended on the grounds that it is democratic. We are always talking about democracy—it drips from our lips every time we come into the House. Yet what is the exact position of the Government of this country. We have a total white population of £7,305,000, of whom 1,503,000 are Europeans. Of this number 499,000 are registered voters, and as the census returns show that there are only 400,000 adult Europeans in the country, it follows that a considerable number of registered voters are native or coloured, or else a number of the Europeans are registered more than once. Only 60 per cent, of these voters went to the poll. So that the Government of this country is determined by 3½ per cent. of the total population. What kind of a democracy is that? 3½ per cent. of the population are deciding the fate and destiny of the country. If we consider only the adult male population of the country we find that only 12 per cent. have a say in the Government of the country; that 12 per cent. impose their will on the other 88 per cent. How can we then talk about justice, truth and equity and want to extend the franchise to another portion of the white population. If we were logical in our democratic attitude towards the question we ought surely to extend it to that portion of the democracy who toil and moil for us. I cannot admit this principle. We are not a democracy; we are an aristocracy of the white race. We had a splendid illustration of this the other day. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) came forward with a motion to enfranchise all non-Europeans. How was that motion received? Who said anything about democracy then? Yet, that was your democracy knocking at the door. What reply did you give to it what about truth, justice and equity on this occasion? You closed your ears to democracy then. Yet now you calmly come along and propose to enfranchise women, to extend the franchise to another portion of the white people which we know does not need it. The whole thing is illogical. I have sufficient faith in the intelligence and superiority of the white race in this country to leave things as they are, and I believe they will ultimately lead the native to a higher state of civilization by preserving our present system of government than by any watering-down of democracy. I would like also to explain the second point of expediency. I consider it indecent, because it is unwise to set up further grievance by altering our chaotic electoral laws. I have said that my objection is on the ground that it is illogical and not in accordance with the situation established by the law in this country; actually in this country we are ruled by a small number of people. Aristocracy implies citizenship, and you will observe that citizenship applies only to the white race; we compel them to bear arms, every white man between the age of 18 and 45; but we do not ask the other portion of the population to bear the burden of citizenship. We do not train to arms the coloured and natives. Therefore our principle of government is masculine. That is not, however, my real objection; it springs from another cause. Our women have organizations all over the country to create an agitation in favour of woman’s suffrage. While we listen to this agitation we are curiously deaf to the agitation going on among other portions of our population. Yet these other portions of the population are clamouring for the suffrage. An extension of the franchise to our women will inevitably create further grievances in the minds of these other portions, and intensify the agitation amongst the natives. That this is the position I will show from the report of the Native Affairs Department for 1921—a report presented to this Parliament for our information, which ought surely to carry some weight with us. In this report the Secretary for Native Affairs says—

What is meant by this? What does the ability to formulate schemes for their advancement and emancipation imply if not the intention to have a voice in the government of the country. Further on he says—

This conveys a solemn warning to this House. We know what the example of suffrage agitation is having in this country. Amongst the non-Europeans of the Cape, Transvaal and Natal there exist organizations which are clamouring for the franchise equally with our women. I feel that if we extend the franchise to the female portion of our race, that agitation will continue increasing. These are briefly my objections to the introduction of this measure. It is absurd to say, because of my fears in this respect, I have attempted to place the white woman on a level with the kaffir. I hold as high an opinion of the women of our race as any person in this House, but I do not want to talk fulsomely about them, or sentimentally; and the high opinion I hold of them does not destroy my sense of fitness of endangering the existence of our civilization by introducing women into the politics of this country.

Hoewel ek die groot beswaar voal, ook deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister geopper, veral vir die noorde van Transvaal, om ook die kaffermeide stemgeregtig te maak, is ek tog vir die beginsel, dat die blanke vroue die stemreg behoor te kry en ek gaan vandag ook voor die Wetsvoorstel stem.

Ek dink die onderwerp is nou uitvoerig genoeg bepraat en ek stel voor tot stemming oor te gaan.

Ek dink ons moet nie nou tot stemming oorgaan nie en ek hoop ons sal oorgaan tot verdaging van die debat. Ek dink, die Wetsontwerp is van so ’n aard, dat jy kan nie so ’n Wetsontwerp in een agtermiddag afhandel, as jy die saak met waardigheid wil behandel. Ek stel daarom voor—

Ek sekondeer.

Ek hoop, ons sal nie tot verdaging van die debat oorgaan. Ek wil die edele lede daarop wys, dat ons al jaar na jaar daaroor gepraat het en ek hoop ons sal vanmiddag gaan stem. Ons het vandag geen aandsitting. Waarom dan nie nog ’n tydjie hiermee aangaan nie, sodat ons vandag kan stem. Ek het vanmiddag met opset nie daaroor gepraat nie, om vandag tot stemming te kom.

Ek wens die voorstel van die edele lid vir Marico (Brig.-Gen-Lemmer) te ondersteun. Ons moet ook andere lede nog die geleentheid gee om hul mening te sê. Ek hoop ons gaan later nog die geleentheid kry om die Wetsvoorstel behoorlik te bespreek. Ek ondersteun daarom die voorstel tot verdaging van die debat.

As voorstander van die Wetsontwerp, dink ek dat daar nog andere edele lede is wat hul mening wil sê en ek is van mening, dat hul ook ’n kans moet kry.

Might I appeal to hon. members?—

No, vote!

It is all very well for them to say, “No,” but if it will be noticed that during the last half an hour not one speaker has risen in support of the Bill.

Why does the hon. member not rise then?

Vote! vote!

Some hon. member says vote,” but this is a matter of very great importance. You have opposition against it, and it is only fair to the House to know the position it stands in, because the adjournment of the debate means putting it off and the Bill will never come up this session.

I am sorry I cannot accept any motion for adjournment. The mind of the House is that a decision should be come to.

I propose that we do not adjourn the debate, but go on with it.

No.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put, and the House divided:

Ayes—43.

Alberts, S. F.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Cilliers, P. S.

Coetzee, J. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Du Toit, F. J.

Enslin, J. M.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Fourie, J. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Obermeyer, J. G.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Scholtz, P. E.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Wessels, J. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: Visser, T. C.; Werth, A. J.

Noes—59.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Forsyth, R.

Geldenhuvs, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Hunt, E. W.

Jansen, E. G.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuart, W. H.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Sampson, H. W.

Motion accordingly negatived

Question put: That the word “now,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion; and the House divided:

Ayes—54.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Greenacre, W.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Hunt, E. W.

King, J. G.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F.

Nel, T. J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pearce, C.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuart, W. H.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—48.

Alberts, S. F.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Du Toit, F. J.

Enslin, J. M.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jansen, E. G.

Jordaan, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Obermeyer, J. G.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Scholtz, P. E.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Visser, T. C.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: De Waal, J. H. H.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Keyter dropped.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.