I move—

The general position is, and one I have always pleaded, to allow the Bill to be introduced. I ask hon. members is it fair on a great question like this not to allow one-half of the population to receive this treatment. Once or twice when this question has been introduced it has been received with laughter, and I ask hon. members, suppose they had a question which was dear to their hearts and for which they were striving, how would they like it if it was met with laughter by this House. There are hon. members who are honestly and conscientiously opposed to the extension of the franchise to women, but that is no reason why they should stifle discussion and not allow the other side to have their say. I submit that the House should pass the first reading, and let us debate the Bill on its merits. The question is, have women a right to a vote, are they justified in demanding a vote, and is this House prepared to give them a vote. We are the only free civilised country in the world that has not extended the franchise to women. If the Bill is thrown out, it should not be thrown out without some of its supporters being heard. The question is one which has not been debated in this House for two years; much water has flowed under the bridge since then, and many new facts have come before us. I would submit I hope I have said sufficient to make the position clear that hon. members who are opposing this Bill should not adopt a dog-in-the-manger position, but should give the supporters of the Bill an opportunity of stating their reasons in favour of the Bill. Give them an opportunity of being heard, and let us come to the second reading, and give us an opportunity of being heard.

I second the motion. To those of us who have been interested in this matter it is a matter of grievance to see the ribald manner in which the question has been received in previous sessions. I hope to-day the Bill will be introduced, and that it will be treated as an important matter before the Parliament of the country, and that it will at least be debated on the second reading.

I would like to support the motion, because I think this Bill is long overdue. We have discussed the matter time after time, and the weight of public opinion outside this House is certainly in favour of passing a Bill such as this into law; and I hope the House will see fit to approve of the motion and allow the Bill to be read a first time. It is quite likely when we come to the details of the Bill, some of us may take exception to some of the clauses, but as far as the principle is concerned I think that there can be no question that the women are entitled to have a say in the making of the laws of the country. They are fellow citizens, they are taxpayers, and are as much interested in the laws passed here as are the men, and from every point of view including that of intelligence and citizenship, they are equally entitled to a voice in the election of members of Parliament. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, assuming the Bill is introduced, the Government will give a day or two for the consideration of the second reading. Otherwise it seems a waste of time to have a Bill read a first time and then for it to go by the board, owing to the fact that Government has taken all the available days for Government business. The Prime Minister would meet the wishes of the country if he gave facilities for a second reading debate on this Bill.

I want to say a few words to explain my position. Ever since I have been in the House I have consistently opposed the principles of the Bill, and I am just as strongly opposed to them as I have ever been. Nevertheless, I have never voted for the rejection of the Bill on the first reading, because it is only fair that on a very important matter like this the people interested in the Bill should have an opportunity of having the measure fully discussed in Parliament, so that the country may hear the views for and against the proposal re-stated. I also wish to voice a protest, for on the last few occasions when the matter has been before us, the House has not given that serious consideration to the subject which its importance undoubtedly deserves. When I vote on the principle of the Bill I reserve my right to vote as I have done before.

I am very sorry to say that the Government will not do what has been requested by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). My hon. friend knows the position I have taken up in regard to this question, namely, that it is a matter which should not be dealt with by the House before the native question has been settled, and until then I am not prepared to give any facilities.

The Greek Kalends!

I am looking for a lead on this question from the leader of the Labour party.

Who is he?

Tory democrat as he is, he knows that this matter has been in the forefront of the Labour programme year in and year out, and that the large mass of the Labour people in this country are looking to him to express the views of the party which he leads—leads from behind, I might say. On this question at least he should not put his tail between his legs and run away. Surely the Minister is going to stand up and tell the Pact which keeps him in power what his views are in regard to this great question. Or is he going to maintain the silence which is golden? Surely not. Surely he is going to take this opportunity of supporting the hon. member who has brought the subject forward. We know how it was treated last time it was introduced, and we feel ashamed of the position in which our Whip was placed by our own party combination.

Nonsense.

Will the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) stand up and declare the principles for which he stands? The hon. member who was the founder of a republic of half-an-hour’s duration, and who missed the opportunity of being Mussolini the First will now make the House ring to the roof with his eloquence in support of votes for women; rebuke the gentlemen he is so proud to sit amongst and to support; and say to them: “You are now, of course, going to show some regret for the miserable way in which you treated the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux), who introduced this question last year and was rudely laughed at.” Again the “backvelders” prepare to laugh discordantly.

Not the backveld only—what do you know about the backveld?

I am sorry to say that those of our party who represent a great tradition have fallen away from it—how undermined all their good resolutions are. There are other Ministers whose eloquence we have heard in the past. Where, now, is the persuasive voice of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs?

I have never addressed the House on the subject.

What about the Port Elizabeth conference?

If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is remiss, may I then appeal to the Minister of Labour, a gentleman who runs away from nothing, not even from lions. He surely will not run because of jeers which have been thrown at women’s suffrage by his new associates. Our party is always in earnest on this matter and we are sorry to think this matter is to be treated once more in the way it was received when introduced by my hon. friend here (Mr. Mullineux). We have been jeered at and, perhaps, rightly jeered, in not being sufficiently serious on this question. We have the power now to influence the Government, and we who seriously advocate this measure of justice, should not be content until it is on the statute book. I hope my hon. friend the member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and my hon. friends on my left will not raise any small difficulties with regard to the question of whether this vote should be limited to European women or not. I admit that our programme includes the principle of equal rights for women, but I ask them to accept whatever we may be able to get, even if it is only in a limited sense. We owe so much to the women of this country. Where would the voortrekkers have been if their women folk had not stood by them?

Soft soap.

In the building up of the life of this country, the women have been of great assistance to the men, and it would have remained a dark continent but for the civilizing influence and plucky determination of woman. Let us, therefore, do them a simple act of justice and cease to be a reproach to the modern world.

I am afraid that the Women’s Franchise Bill will be talked out if the debate is too long. I am surprised that the Prime Minister now makes another excuse, saying that the women’s franchise cannot be adopted until the native question has been disposed of. I wonder how long we shall have to wait before the native problem is solved. When the party opposite came into power we heard that they were going to solve it and we have now been waiting three or four years without that being done. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether the women’s franchise will have to wait until another Government comes into power to settle the native question. I cannot understand the attempt to postpone this matter.

Do you want to give the franchise to native women?

The hon. member is always talking about native women, but I am not concerned with them. He may know them better than I do, but in the Transvaal they have no vote. If he is so frightened of it, then the Government can put the matter right in the Bill, and I will assist. It is in vain for the House to postpone the matter from one year to another. It will not help much if the first reading is passed now, because private members’ days have now been taken away. Yet I shall vote for the Bill, and I hope it will be passed. I cannot understand the people who are so afraid of the women’s franchise. They use women at all their meetings and bazaars, and their political associations. The women are good enough for that, but when it comes to the granting of the franchise then attempts are always made to put the matter off.

Our women do not ask for it.

The hon. member can speak presently. He is a good friend of mine and I do not wish to offend him. The members of the Labour party are playing a very sad part. They have been working a long time for women’s franchise, which is one of the principles of their party. I remember the Labour party in the Transvaal putting through the women’s franchise in municipal elections. I was opposed to it at first, but they converted me. I have noticed that where women become members of town councils they have done good work. I am convinced that if the franchise is given to women more than one man will have to be silent when they rise as they will introduce more honesty and earnestness into the House. I do not wish to insult the men, but I have come to the conclusion that women are keen when they tackle a subject. I shall have pleasure in voting for the Bill.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) attacking the parties here. It is surely not a party matter. If it were I might ask why the S.A.P. which was in power for fourteen years did not pass the Bill.

Yes, but you were going to put everything right.

I am in favour of the women’s franchise, but I shall not vote for the motion. It cannot be granted to our women until the native question is settled. We have yet to fight the blanket vote in the Cape Province, which swamps the white vote in certain constituencies. Now we are to give the native women the vote as well.

We do not wish to.

Anyhow that will be the result if this Bill is passed, and that is what hon. members opposite want. When once the native question is decided then I will vote for the Bill. I notice many things that the women do, and am convinced that their vote is worth more than the native vote, but we must not forget that there are already thirteen members sitting opposite who have been returned by the blanket vote, and if we go on with this Bill the white vote will be further swamped. It is a thing that requires time. What astonished me most is the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). He speaks as a member of the Labour party, but I should like to know on whose behalf he is speaking. A bug is a nasty thing, sometimes in the blanket, sometimes in the bed, but in the long run it appears to be what it is.

On a point of order, is the hon. member (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) allowed to use the language he is employing. I understood him to compare the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) to a bug?

The hon. member must not use such language.

I did not say that the hon. member was a bug. I said that a bug was a nasty thing.

Yes, but the hon. member insinuated much more.

I shall withdraw the words. But does the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) forget that his constituents have passed a vote of no confidence in him? He talks loudly as if he represented the whole of the Transvaal. And whom does he actually represent? He is playing into the hands of the Opposition by openly attacking the leader of his party. Even the members of the Opposition would not do such a thing, which shows how the hon. member got into the Labour party. I do not take it amiss in the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) introducing the motion. He is nearing the grave, and would like to see the Bill passed during his time. I and other members on this side of the House will vote for the Bill, but we want to see the native question decided first.

I would like to say a few words in support of this motion. What we are here asked to do, is what has been adopted and followed out in practically all civilized countries, that is to confer upon women the franchise. I hope that the Union of South Africa will not be behindhand in this respect, and that those intelligent women who are qualified to exercise the franchise will be given it. They have knocked at the doors of this Parliament for many years and the question has been treated in a manner that is hardly a credit to this House. It is refreshing to hear the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) having the courage of his convictions. I would like to see the other members of the Labour party who have so often clamoured for women’s franchise, have the courage of their convictions, but they are all silent, all muzzled. If we get the support of the Labour members of this House this measure can be placed on the statute book this year.

This year?

In this Parliament, during this session. I am certain that the Labour side of the Pact will have sufficient authority and weight with the Nationalist side to see that facilities are given for the passage of this Bill.

The Senate will throw it out.

I do not know whether the hon. member is entitled to speak for the Senate, but that does not take away from us our duty in this matter. This House should pass the measure. What does astound one is the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister of this country on this important question. When asked by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) whether, assuming that this motion was carried, he would give facilities for the further passage of the Bill he said—

The native question never will be settled.

Oh!

There is that clamant member opposite; he can settle everything. If he lives for the next ten years or longer he will find that this native question will not be and never will be settled. Not the united wisdom of the Pact will have touched the fringe of the question. We will have a native question for all time. What I do urge is that the women of South Africa are as worthy to have the franchise as the women of every other country which has given women the franchise. The women of this country have a right to the franchise and I say that it would be a disgrace and a shame to withhold it from them any longer. Therefore, I trust the hon. member’s motion will be carried. The hon. member has a right to expect the support of at least the Labour members of the Pact party.

As far as this question is concerned I hope that no other members of this House on the Opposition benches will attempt to make political capital out of it, because some hon. members seem more concerned with making political capital and trying to place the onus on the members of the Labour party than they are to get votes for women. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) did no service whatever to the women of South Africa by the speech he made this afternoon.

Why not?

His speech, instead of being a speech showing reasons why the women should get the vote, and why the women should no longer be placed in a position of inequality in South Africa, consisted of sneers and jeers at his former associates in the Labour party. One would expect from the hon. member, after his long service with the members of the Labour party, some regard to the members of that party for honesty and sincerity, otherwise he should not have remained in their company for so many years. He should not have remained in their company for two minutes if they are really of the type that he wishes this House and the country to believe.

Why did you victimize him?

He has not been victimized in the slightest. It appears that he has been very busy during the last few months, principally during the last eight or nine months, with a chaff cutter cutting hay up for S.A. party donkeys to feed on. While I believe that my colleagues in the Labour party are big enough to rise above the sneers and jeers of my hon. friend, I do say that the speech he has made is sufficient to drive them to vote against this resolution. I hope and I believe that the members of the Labour party will rise above that and vote in favour of this resolution to-day. Let us now come to the statement of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus). He told the House that, with the support of the Labour party, women’s franchise could be carried during this session. I want to put it to the hon. member and I want to appeal to the fair-minded men in this House to face the position and tell the women of South Africa frankly and exactly where they stand. If the Labour party in its entirety were to support this Bill—

Including the Ministers.

Yes, including the Ministers, and they were to get a 15 or 20 majority in favour of the leave to introduce the first reading and the second reading, I ask hon. members of this House to tell me frankly what would happen in the committee stage. We know that at the committee stage an amendment would be moved.

Wait and see.

I am not going to wait and see. I know the opinions of members of this House. There are members of this House who are quite agreeable to the principle of women’s franchise but who believe that when it comes to a question of giving women the vote they should not receive it until they are 25 or 30 years of age. This is not a question of a blackleg; it is not a question of a red-herring or a blackleg. When it comes to a question—

On a point of order, I ask whether the hon. member (Mr. Waterston) was justified or correct in calling the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) a blackleg.

I did not understand that.

No, a member of this House interjected something about a red herring. I said it is neither a red herring nor a blackleg. I would ask hon. members on the opposite side how many of them will vote against this Bill in committee unless it includes native men and women. We know what the feeling of the Cape members of the South African party is on that question, and we also know that if it includes native women, the rest of the members of that party will vote against the Bill. These are some of the questions that will have to be faced in the committee stage, and I say the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) is consciously or unconsciously misleading the women of South Africa when he leads them to believe that they are in sight of the vote in South Africa. They have got the vote of the Labour party. Where we are going to split is when we come to the details of the exact qualification and the question of who shall get the franchise. There is the question of age; there is the question of colour, and there is another question where many men say that if a woman pays income tax she should have a vote, and if she owns property she should have a vote. I would be only too pleased to think that every member who votes in favour of the second reading would be equally solid when it comes to the committee stage, but it is not so, and we must face the position. As far as I am concerned, and I believe as far as the members of the Labour party are concerned, we are going to vote in favour of this resolution. In spite of any attempts that may be made to make party capital out of it, in spite of jeers which may be hurled at us, we have been and are, in favour of the enfranchisement of women and we are going to vote in favour of this resolution.

We have witnessed some remarkable exhibitions lately. We have no sooner got over the chastisement of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs by one of his officials—about which nothing has been done and at which the whole of South Africa is amazed—when we have this afternoon one of the most faithful followers of the Labour party chastising his leader. We have yet to see what exhibition the Minister of Labour will give us. I am surprised he is sitting still and with such a vacant look on his face. After the way the women of Durban treated him recently surely he has a good word to say for them. They presented him with gifts, they literally threw eggs at him. It looks very bad indeed when three Ministers representing the Labour party are running away from one of its cardinal principles. Women’s franchise is one of the main planks in the principles of the Labour party. Here they have an opportunity of standing up to their pledges and they decline to do so. Surely women’s franchise is no new thing in South Africa. If any women are deserving of the franchise, they are the women of South-Africa.

If members say a thing long enough they will believe it. You have to take the record of the Labour party. Members may jeer as much as they like, and I am prepared to jeer back, but I am not going to make this a party question. The Labour party is the only party which has given women the vote in South Africa. When the Labour party was in power in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal they gave women the vote in municipalities. The South African party have been in power for many years in the Cape, and they never gave women the vote. Time after time they voted against it. Time after time the Labour party brought forward a measure and the South African party joined hands with our friends over there and dished that Bill. I will throw out this challenge to the South African party—let us have a division on this. Let us fight it, and the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) will vote against it, and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will vote against it although you have made it a party plank with your tongue in your cheek and you know it. Still worse, if it were passed through this House another place would throw it out. The leader of the South African party in the Senate is dead against the Bill. Why should we make this a party Bill? I have always voted for women’s franchise and every man on these benches has always voted for it. Take the records of this House. What happened last time? We passed it through the first reading and the second reading, and then we sent it to a select committee and it was thrown out. They came back with an amended Bill in favour of European women only.

The Nationalists did that.

I am talking of this House. A large number of South African party men refuse to vote for any Bill which does not include coloured women, and a large number refuse to support it if it does include coloured women. That is the danger and the difficulty. If we had no coloured class in South Africa the women would get the vote this afternoon. The difficulty is that we have coloured and native classes in this country. Take the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). He has always been a strong supporter of women’s rights. He refuses, and says so openly, to vote for a Bill which contains a clause which does not allow coloured women to have a vote. To go through the country and say the Labour party is opposed to their getting the franchise is a deliberate untruth, and anyone who says it after now is telling a lie. We may have our faults; no doubt we nave. We recognise ours, but we have stood by women’s franchise through thick and thin. The women have never reciprocated as far as the Labour party is concerned. The people who are running women’s franchise to-day are anti-Labour. Women are entitled to the vote, and if the Labour party were in power to-morrow they would have the vote, and if Labour could do anything with the Nationalists to-morrow, they would do it. We will not do as the hon. member for Rondebosch said: “We will vote for it to-day; but to-morrow we will throw it out.” The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) told the truth. We must tell the women of South Africa that they have not a hope of getting the vote, because it will go to a select committee and be thrown out on a colour bar again. That colour bar will not be brought in by members of the Labour party; the Bill will be thrown out by members of the Nationalist party and the South African party. The public of the country should know, and the women should know that even if we passed the first reading and the second reading it will be thrown out on the colour bar. Why humbug the women of South Africa? It cannot be done; you cannot carry this Bill through the House as it is constituted to-day. The South African party have no right to tell the women of South Africa that Labour is opposed to them. Labour is not. The Labour party has always laid down the principle of equal rights for women. The South African party have never done that. They have always put women on a lower level as far as wages are concerned than men. For them to come forward and accuse Labour of fighting against the women’s cause is wrong and undeserved, and I rise to protest against it.

I propose to accept the invitation of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to take the record of the Labour party with regard to this question. I admit his statement that up to 1924 the Labour party were wholeheartedly and loyally in support of this principle, and I admit that when the Labour party had power in the Provincial Council they enfranchised, in regard to municipal votes, the women of the Transvaal. I propose to continue the process of examining the record of the Labour party since 1924 up to the present date. Up to 1924 the Labour party was ploughing a lonely furrow. I propose to examine in detail what the Labour party in its new political alliance, its new political orientation, has done in the cause of women’s suffrage ever since. It had a cardinal opportunity for displaying the sincerity of its views when the Electoral Act came before this House in 1925. Then a motion was moved in committee to insert in the Bill a provision whereby the franchise was extended to women on the same terms as to men, but the Labour party on that occasion deliberately chose rather to muzzle the press and put in some of the fantastic clauses that went into the Bill than extend its scope so as to include women’s franchise. In 1925 the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) introduced a motion for the general enfranchisement of women, and on voices Mr. Speaker gave it that the “noes” had it. The hon. member for Roodepoort, not deliberately, but through sheer inadvertence or lack of interest, failed to call for a division.

Why did you not call for it?

Am I or any other individual member to call for a division when the mover of the motion does not do so? If that is the type of excuse of the Labour party for having failed to do anything for the cause of women’s suffrage, I am sorry for them.

What did you do?

In the twelve years I have been in this House I have never lost an opportunity of helping on the cause of women’s suffrage. These eighteen or nineteen gentlemen, having made an inglorious spectacle of themselves in 1925, had to face the music at the Port Elizabeth Labour party congress in December, 1925, and there they had to listen to some very plain speaking, which was repeated in Cape Town and elsewhere by the women of their own party. These eighteen or nineteen hon. members came to the House in 1926 quite determined to remove the blot from their escutcheon. But the mountain was in Labour and brought forth a mouse, and a very little one, too. They moved a motion that a select committee should be appointed to enquire into how you could enfranchise women, and get over or ignore the colour question. If you compare the one side of the picture with the other and their burning zeal before 1924 with their apathy, and almost their hostility, since 1924, it is symptomatic of the dry rot which has crept over the party since the Pact was formed. You cannot touch pitch and not be defiled. You cannot enter into an alliance with a conservative party and give out that you are a democratic party. So long as the Labour party continues its present political alliance, so long is their support for women’s suffrage merely lip service, and not worth the snap of a finger. You have only to listen to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and see the doleful picture they paint, and one can almost feel that they say: “I am so glad that these difficulties will occur in committee, because they will allow us to postpone the inevitable clash that will come one day with our friends opposite.” The women of South Africa know that as long as the Pact continues, so long they can write off the Labour party as genuine supporters of women’s franchise. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has said that the Labour party will never allow the colour bar question to clog this women’s franchise question, and will not allow any colour bar to be introduced. Well, memories seem to be short, and the hon. member seems to be blessed with a particularly short memory—certainly by his vote and by that of his colleagues on the colour bar Bill.

On a point of explanation, the first time I voted against it, and then I paired with a man who was in favour of the colour bar Bill.

I am glad to hear the hon. member’s explanation, because I know he was against the colour bar Bill, but he was speaking for the Labour party. I am merely reminding him, not as an individual, but as a spokesman of the Labour party, that it was through the vote of the Labour party that that infamous Bill was passed.

The hon. member must not use such terms in regard to Bills passed by this honourable House.

I withdraw that, and say the regrettable Bill passed two years ago. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) speaks of the colour bar he cannot but help agreeing with me that the attitude his colleagues took was a deplorable one, and one which he dare not defend on a public platform. I tell the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) that if he looks to the Labour party for any real solid support in pushing through this Bill in the teeth of the Prime Minister, and hon. members who sit behind him, he is doomed to disappointment.

There is a tendency to resort to party recrimination, and very little is said about the subject of the debate. I hope hon. members will confine themselves to the subject of the debate.

I hope I will not transgress in the same manner, and I hope that the women of South Africa will take note of the difference of the attitude of the Labour party with regard to women’s suffrage and with regard to the Flag Bill. With regard to women’s suffrage, they make an elaborate pretence in favour of it, but every time they try to block the motion. I hope the women will take notice of this chicanery.

The hon. member must not make any reflections on hon. members.

Not the Labour party? I am referring to the Labour party, and not to members of that party.

Not to the Labour party

I think the rules of the House do not preclude me from commenting on the Labour party.

The hon. member was referring to the attitude of members of the Labour party in the discussion.

No, the greater includes the less. I was referring to the Labour party attitude, and I repeat that the Labour party is protending to be in favour of women’s votes, and that every year we have this elaborate pretence; but when it comes to the push of getting women’s franchise and votes a real fact, we always find that nothing happens, and some sort of way is found to dodge the straight issue. But when it comes to the flag issue the Labour party is solid. I hope the women will take note of the difference of the attitude of the Labour party with regard to women’s suffrage and the flag. The Prime Minister told us he was not going to have this question brought to a point until the native question is solved. To me that seems a very thin excuse. Is there a man who thinks that the Prime Minister has a solution of that problem? During the elections we were told that the Prime Minister had a solution in his pocket, and would lay his solution before us during the first session. We used to comment on the Prime Minister’s frequent absence from the House then, and we were told—

The second session nothing happened, and we were told that the Prime Minister was making some wonderful improvements. In the third and fourth sessions there was not a word about it. The Prime Minister’s solution reminds me of the story of the siege of Paris, when the commander said he had a wonderful solution in the safe, and after the whole thing had been botched and Paris taken, they opened the safe, and found a blank paper.

I am afraid the hon. member is very far from the point.

The point is the Prime Minister has never solved the native problem, and that being the case, it is a very thin excuse to say, wait until he solves it. I hope the women of this country will take note that this native problem is being used to delay and to defeat women’s suffrage. Why cannot more particularly the European women have the vote, and why should they have to wait until the native problems have been solved? As far as I understand this wonderful native legislation I don’t think anyone believes in it. But if it should come to anything it will restrict the native vote. So why should this burning question of women’s franchise wait until the native question has been solved? This is simply an excuse for waiving the subject.

This debate should not be allowed to conclude without the responsibility for shelving the question being placed on the right shoulders. There is no doubt whatever that those who voted yesterday for the curtailment of private members’ privileges deliberately did so knowing that their action would result in preventing the women’s suffrage Bill from going any further this session. The, hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) is applying for leave to introduce a Bill. If that leave be granted, owing to the motion that was passed yesterday, no open date will be available for a second reading debate on the measure. The Labour party deliberately assumed the responsibility yesterday for a motion which will bar a full discussion of the women’s franchise question. We have had the definite declaration of the Prime Minister that no facilities will be granted for the further stages of the measure until the native question has been settled. There, again, the Labour party are participants.

More party propaganda!

I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House yesterday—

Yes, I was, and I voted.

The hon. member, then, is responsible for assisting to pass a motion the known effect of which would be to completely stop the further consideration of women’s enfranchisement this session. After the fifty-first sitting day, even assuming that the flag and other contentious Bills are passed, Government business has precedence on Fridays, and, therefore, there will be no opportunity for any private member to move for the consideration of this Bill. That completely bars the way to the Bill proceeding beyond the first reading stage this session, and the Labour members in this House must shoulder the entire responsibility.

I should not like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to continue deceiving himself, because he is apparently under the impression that he has rendered a service to women’s franchise by his speech. I also know the strong feeling in the country about women’s franchise, and I know that those who are in favour of it are more than sick to-day at the sort of speech which is made by the hon. member. He has not Raid a word about the merits of the matter, or on the means of getting rid of present difficulties. The arguments used were nothing but recriminations of the Labour party. The women’s franchise is turned into a football of party politics by the Opposition, and nothing else, and I think that the women of the country are tired of it. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) will render good service to women’s franchise if they do not make speeches on the matter.

What are the difficulties?

The difficulty is that the adoption of the women’s franchise by Parliament to-day is in the hands of the Opposition. They can assist us in getting the women’s franchise within a short time if they will adopt a reasonable attitude on the native franchise and treat it as outside politics.

What did the Prime Minister say?

The Prime Minister agrees with me. If the Opposition are prepared once for all to keep the native franchise outside of party politics and to deal with it on a broad basis as a whole, and if they are willing to sacrifice the twelve to fifteen thousand native votes, then it will not take a year before we have women’s franchise. If we vote against it, it is not because we are opposed to it in principle. I cannot find any reasonable ground for opposing it in principle, but I find that there are practical objections. But the practical objections can be easily removed if hon. members opposite will adopt a sensible attitude. The Labour party is being reproached as the cause of women not getting the vote, but I think it sounds hollow in the ears of those who know the position. No, the thing is in the hands of the Opposition, and depends on their co-operation.

With reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister, the difficulty can be got over by inserting in this Bill a clause stating that it shall not come into force until a date to be fixed by the Governor-General. Then, it could become law after the Native Bills had been passed. My greatest opponent in this House will not say that I have used the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill for party purposes. I have been advocating votes for women for 20 years since I have been in Parliament and for 20 years before that, so it is not a party matter with me. Hon. members on all sides of the House are in favour of this measure, although they may not support the details. I am sorry the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is not in his place for he made a remark which was really unworthy of him when be stated that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) would by the arguments he used drive some members to vote against the Bill. Surely, there is no member of the Labour or any other party so weak-kneed that because somebody in favour of the Bill uses arguments they do not like, they will, therefore, vote against the measure. The hon. member for Brakpan also stated that the Bill has been used for the purpose of making party capital. I deny that entirely. There are members on this side of the House, and also on the other side, who are conscientiously opposed to votes for women, but should women’s enfranchisement take place, they will very humbly ask women electors for their support.

They do it now!

One other point. The hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) has explained that last session he was so taken aback at his motion being defeated that he quite forgot to call for a division. Why should we not accept that explanation? He did not realize the position, but I shall not be caught in that way. Then the argument has been raised that, even if we pass this measure, it will be defeated in another place. But we have no concern with what the other place will do. If it is thrown out in the other place, we should elect members of the other branch of the legislature who will support the franchise being extended to women. I appeal to hon. members, no matter what their opinions may be, to support me to-day. As to the position of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) I have acted in the same way on other measures in order to give an opportunity for a Bill to be discussed. At the same time, I cannot understand an intelligent man like the hon. member for Rondebosch being against the extension of the franchise to women. However, we do get these oddities, and, at any rate, the hon. member has always been in favour of a full and free discussion of the subject. I appeal to the House not to throw the Bill out to-day. This is not the stage for doing that. This is the stage for enquiry, but after the second reading, you vote on the main question Some hon. members want the vote for European women only—in that case they should bring in an amendment to that effect. With reference to coloured women, it must not be forgotten that the coloured races are our property, and we have no right to despise them. I make a final appeal to hon. members—do not make this a party question, but give an opportunity for a full second reading debate. There are members, I know, who are honestly against me on this question. To-day I hope hon. members will act fairly and justly and allow this measure to get a second reading, so that we can hear what has to be said on both sides. I hope and feel confident we shall get a full Labour vote and a large majority on this side of the House.

Motion put and Mr. Conroy called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—60.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt. T

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

Noes—46.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux. S. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan M. L.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Conradie, D. G.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 21st October.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

House to resume in committee on the Bill on 21st October.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.