announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. W. B. de Villiers from service on the Select Committee on Public Accounts and appointed Mr. Bergh in his stead; and had also discharged Mr. Conroy from service on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours and appointed Dr. D. G. Conradie in his stead.

I move—

I am quite certain that every hon. member on reading the orders of the day will deeply regret that the name of the late Mr. D. M. Brown does not appear as the mover of this measure. It was a subject very dear to him, and deeply in his political thoughts and intentions, which is proved by the fact that on no fewer than five separate occasions he introduced a measure into this House dealing with the enfranchisement of women. His faith in the eventual success of this movement was great, and I think it will be justified. It is a rather pathetic circumstance that within one hour of his crossing the bar his thoughts centred on this movement, and as a legacy he left the charge of this Bill to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and myself. I am afraid that Mr. Brown had only a Mount Pisgah view of the success of this measure, so to speak, and the success attending his efforts will never be fully realized by him. Although it is said that in Parliament a speech may change opinion sometimes, but a vote never—we see the support of this movement has been steadily growing. I am strongly of opinion that the best speech that could be delivered on this occasion would be one word, and that would simply be the word “aye” when you, Mr. Speaker, call for the voices on this motion; but I must give some little account of the faith that is in me in moving this motion. On no fewer than 18 times has a measure dealing with the removal of the franchise disabilities of women been before this House. On two occasions the previous question was moved which prevented a vote being come to; four times the prorogation prevented the issue from being decided; four times it was negatived, and on five agreed to; once the debate was adjourned with no hope of its being resumed, and on two occasions it was negatived for various reasons on the first reading. It will be seen from an analysis of the figures that the opposition to this movement has been steadily diminishing, while support has been equally steadily advancing, in fact, for the last four or five years the principle of this Bill has secured a majority of opinion in this House. It is interesting to note that before the great war there were only four countries in the world that had extended the franchise to females, but in 1920, this number had increased to 28. We must realize that such a widespread and general movement must have had some solid reasons behind it. It might have been through accident or local circumstances in one country, but when we find 24 additional countries finding it advisable to put women’s enfranchisement on the statute books, there must have been some general grounds for it common to all. I do not think the reason is far to seek. Practically all these 24 nations concerned had been engaged in the world war, either actively or gravely affected by it. The whole of their national life had been so disturbed by the great war that it profoundly affected their outlook. During any great national crisis the tendency is for race, class and social and, I can say, sex feeling to be minimized. A national crisis must secure the enlightened support of all the citizens of the country whilst the danger exists. After the war the splendid and indispensable service of womenkind during the war was necessarily recognized by the men, and they could not escape recognizing it. It was felt, if not loudly expressed, that the assistance of women towards the reconstruction of the world after peace had been established, was as necessary as their efforts to bring the war to a successful conclusion. I am sure there was another thought, not perhaps so frequently expressed, but there it was—a good many men felt it—that if the men had made such a failure of the world’s affairs which ended in such a catastrophe as afflicted the world from 1914 to 1918, it was perhaps as well that in future they did not rely on their own unaided efforts and that they could be better dealt with if men and women worked together than if they worked separately. We find in this country—and I am sorry it is one of the last to adopt franchise for women—there has been a notable change of opinion. Hon. members must have been impressed with the proceedings of the Women’s National Congress at Malmesbury, when a resolution in favour of granting the franchise to women was passed unanimously. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) will tell us what representations reached him, and he may give us his non-committal answer. I give these few instances in order to show that we need not despair about converting the great bulk of solid opinion in this country on the desirability of this measure. The war caused many men to review their opinions about women. There was, perhaps, a too prevalent idea about the muscular feebleness and the pliable nature of women rather than the robust mentality that is sought to be brought to bear upon national affairs, and that physical courage which many people thought was a male monopoly. I should like to read what Lord Asquith, who was an opponent of women’s suffrage has said—

As we have already in our midst women who take a noted part in public affairs, there must be thousands and tens of thousands of women whose aid must be valuable in the conduct of public affairs, if we give them the opportunity. As to women being unfitted for the rough and tumble of life, we must remember the splendid part they took in the munition factories in the war. On one occasion there was a sudden explosion in which 26 women were killed and 30 were injured, and the coolness and discipline displayed by the women workers in the face of such a calamity was beyond praise. A distinguished writer described the male instinct as a struggle for life and the female instinct as a struggle for the life of others. The woman’s instinct looks more to the future. Surely in all our laws we are or should be not legislating so much for the immediate present as for our children. The great curse of all life—social, political and business—is selfishness. If, however, we can bring to our counsels one half of humanity who are not so prone to be governed by that vice of mankind—selfishness—but can consider the point of view of others, we cannot fail to derive benefit. All these facts affected the opinion of people in those countries which have enfranchised the women within their borders. The United States, which has given a lead in many notable directions, has also adopted women’s franchise. While one of the States gave a lead in women’s franchise it took a very long time for the Federal Government to see its way to granting votes to women, the delay being due to the fact that the constitution of the United States was exceedingly difficult to amend. The amendment to the constitution laid it down that the rights of citizens of the United States shall not be affected or abridged on account of sex. The drafter of the Bill now before us followed that excellent example. If this Bill has any merit it is that of extreme simplicity. It does not enter into the thorny tangle of the different electoral laws of the four provinces, but leaves them as they are, simply removing the disability of sex in them all. The Bill might consist of only one clause but for the fact that there are peculiar conditions in the Cape. In order to ensure absolute fairness it is laid down that the holding of property will not in itself constitute that part of the qualification of the right of a vote, but a married woman who is not living apart from her husband shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of property or premises possessed, occupied or rented by her husband, only the property or premises reckoned for the purposes of the husband’s qualification must be at least twice the amount prescribed by law for a single individual. The Bill simply removes the sex disqualification. I do not believe that there exists any serious body of private or public opinion that is opposed to the principle of granting the franchise to women, but we may deal with some of the arguments that have been advanced against such an extension of the right to vote. I do not propose to deal with those excellent persons who believe in the infallibility of certain selected texts from the Book of Books as being the last word in regard to the franchise and position of women, for they can be countered from the same authority. A text torn from its context need not carry very much weight. Those who believe that in the Bible they have an infallible guide to our problems of the present day had better re-read the Book of Proverbs, in which the wisdom of the ancient fathers is summarized. I refer more especially to the last chapter of the Book of Proverbs. These were compiled by the wisest man who ever lived, King Solomon, but I am not going to argue whether his reputation for wisdom rested on his marked appreciation for the fair sex or not. The time has gone by when people seriously argue that male supremacy will be endangered by giving votes to women. We men think we can hold our own in occupations more suited for us and we welcome the assistance and should not fear the competition of women. It is no longer seriously argued that woman’s only place is in the home. Many young women now think that their place is in the Channel and participation in such feats provide that physique, courage and endurance will be transmitted to the next generation. But the one great obstacle in this country which prevented women getting the vote long ago was the fear that the electorate in that case would be swamped by a large number of native women voters. We are told on the authority of the Prime Minister that women’s suffrage cannot be considered until the native question is settled. Hon. members say “hear hear.” The Prime Minister also said that it would take one or more generations to settle the native question. Must women then wait all that time before they get the franchise? He also said in 1925—

so you have the Prime Minister’s definite statement that he will not stand in the way although his enthusiasm for it is certainly well under control. Hon. members will probably agree with me that I have stated the chief reason for objection to women’s franchise, and I take it from their cheers they have largely abandoned those other standpoints.

Oh no.

Well, I take it the majority of them have abandoned more positions, and that now the position is that we have a native question to settle and we cannot give them the vote for fear the constituencies will be swamped by a large number of native women voters. There may be other objections. I am not alluding to factors which are never absent when dealing with the electoral laws. That is, how it will affect our respective party fortunes. We are entitled to our own separate opinions on that and it would not be useful to discuss it. Of course a result all politicians and statesmen are inclined to dread is the great addition to the electoral roll of uninstructed voters. I wonder how many hon. members, who have these fears, have examined the figures. I have gone to the trouble of taking out the figures and I have put them in round numbers, but they are substantially accurate. In the Cape Province where the native male has been in the position to register as a voter, since 1854, nearly 75 years, there are approximately 400,000 adult males. How many of these have qualified to be registered and have in fact been registered? The number is about 14,000 or 3½ per cent.

Half of them are in Three Rivers.

There are rather less native women adults, but we will take it at the same number, 400,000. What percentage of those native women are likely to qualify and be registered as voters? My estimate is one-tenth of one per cent. of these native women are likely to get on the register within this generation.

How do you arrive at that figure?

If only 3½ per cent. of the men who have for nearly 75 years enjoyed the privilege of being put on the register, have taken advantage of it, then I ask the Minister himself to make a more reasonable estimate of how many women are likely to go on the register in the next twenty years. They rarely are qualified by income, education and property. The figures are not exact, but supposing it is as much as one per cent., or ten times my estimate, it will not make very much difference. Hon. members have been frightened of a bogey of their own invention. There is not any likelihood of the register being swamped by native women for many, many years to come, if ever. Long before they have the capacity to get on the register, we shall have revised our electoral law to meet the wishes of those who do not desire them to get on the register in large numbers. The number of non-European voters in the Cape is relatively steadily and markedly decreasing although the population is increasing. I see no reason for any great change in what is going on in this respect. European voters are increasing more or less in proportion to the population and although the native and coloured population is also increasing there is no corresponding increase in the total number of names appearing on the voters’ roll. I do not think this fear should stop the granting of the franchise to women. I have not attempted to deal with the whole of the objections, most of them are untenable where they are not in fact frivolous. There are other reasons advanced throughout the world why women should be put on the roll, but time does not permit me to advance them. I think we shall find women both in our social life and the industrial order as indispensable in peace as they were in war. We are a great civilized nation engaged in the task of bringing civilization to a large number of uncivilized people here. Why should we drag behind the world when we ought to be leading in counteracting the retarding effects in this process? We are hanging back and the results of that are being seen. There are many things which women have suffered patiently in this country. I am not proud when I go to other countries in having to admit that in South Africa a married woman living with her husband cannot open a banking account without being assisted by her husband.

Where did you get that from?

From a banker two days ago. Either it is the case or it is not. I would like to ask is it or is it not a fact that women cannot buy or sell a share or security without the assistance of her husband. I know companies have refused to allow transfer, and I am told it is based on the law. The way the South African bridegroom apparently interprets the marriage law is “With all thy goods I me endow,” and the common law supports him. The right hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I think, on the last occasion on which he spoke on this measure, called it a great reform. It is a great reform. It is overdue and it is quite time that we called women to our counsels and got the benefit of their assistance in all our public life.

When the hon. member said that, as far as he knew, the only objection to this Bill is that the franchise would be given to native women, he made, I think, a somewhat incorrect representation of what the feeling is with regard to the subject; as far as I am concerned, and, I think, also other members on this side of the House, and possibly some also on the other side. His plea for women’s franchise is based on the fact that we must give the women their rights, in other words, that we should give it to them from respect. It is just for that reason that I do not wish to give them the franchise. Europe has been mentioned, and quoted as an example of respect for women. Anyone who has recently been in and travelled about Europe will have concluded that respect for women is much greater in South Africa than it is in Europe. In Europe women have to do work which we should be ashamed to give to them. Generally the level is much lower there, and a typical thing one notices in London, for instance, in ’buses, is that, when they are full, and women are standing, the men do not get up. In some cases a man gets up, and I have often heard and noticed that when it is asked what man got up to give his seat to a woman, the answer is, he was South African. I only know a small part of the world, but as far as I know, there is not one country which can better South Africa in respect for women, and I should be sorry if we were to follow the example of the old degenerating Europe. Now it is said that we ought to give the women the vote for democratic reasons. Those who say that, reason that the more individuals, and the more sections of the population that are given the franchise, the higher the respect is for democracy. It is known that England intends to extend women’s franchise, hitherto I think only women over 30 years have had it. Now, according to the proposal, it will be given to girls, to young women after their 21st year, in other words, the franchise is now becoming what we might call a short skirt franchise. This Bill, however, wants to go further. It does not only want to give franchise to flappers, but also to black women, a blanket franchise. Is that respect for democracy, or ridicule? I say that if we go on in that way, we are ridiculing democracy, and that the necessary respect for the healthy building up of democracy will disappear in South Africa, and, instead of being a happier, it will become an unhappier, country. I think that the arguments adduced in favour of women’s franchise in South Africa do not hold water. It is said that we must abolish the sex prejudice, that we must take away the sex qualifications; in other words, put the woman on an equality with man. What will be the result if women get the franchise in South Africa? Will it level up men to women, or will the men drag the women down? I think the latter will be the case in political and moral matters, and that the effect will be just the opposite of the mover’s object. What happened on the voting for the first reading? The reproach was at once made that a large portion of the House was against the Bill. I was astonished—and expressed my astonishment publicly—at a few hon. members opposite, from whom I expected a different attitude. I cannot understand their attitude. Have they read the Bill? Do they know that the franchise will be given to native women? I do not know, but I know that certain hon. members opposite do not reflect the views of their constituents. I am prepared to meet any member opposite on a platform in the Transvaal and to state my views. He can then express his, and if we leave it to the vote, I am satisfied that there will be an overwhelming majority against him. I shall move that the Bill be read this day six months, but there is one other point. We all want to protect the cohesion of families. If the family is undermined, it will be a danger, and mean that the State is being undermined. The weakening of the family leads to weakening of the State, and this Bill goes in that direction. I, therefore, move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I am sorry that there are hon. members who immediately assume the attitude that the Bill must be defeated. The women of South Africa have undoubtedly been waiting a long time for their rightful share in the government of the country. The strongest argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) was that he opposed the Bill because he respected women, and did not want to give them the franchise. His great respect for women ought to be a reason for granting it to them. His respect does not prevent him at election time accepting the assistance of women in getting votes. I think I can heartily support the Bill. Hon. members are now trying to frighten us by the fact that the franchise will also be given to coloured persons; that is always the bogey they use. Is the white woman to wait until the native question is settled? It would not be right towards the women of South Africa. The day has arrived to give the women their just rights. Undoubtedly women have played a great role in the history of South Africa, and we are all proud of them. When troubles came, we could depend on the women, why then should we now be ashamed of the woman assuming her rightful place in the government of the country? When we look at history since the Great Trek we see the great role she has played. In all the native wars she performed heroic deeds, and we must now be ready to give her the franchise equally with men, and the place which is her due. It would be nothing but selfishness to keep her back. This Parliament is ready to tax the women. They pay just as much taxation as we do, and yet they may not have any say in the government of the country. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) has spoken about flappers. I think it is unworthy. It is scandalous for the hon. member to say such things. When a woman earns a certain amount of money—and circumstances are such that a woman is often obliged to go and earn money—she has to pay taxes, and why should she not have any representation in Parliament?

I want to say a few words about the women on the countryside. This proposal comes up every year, although the movers know well enough what the view of the House is about it. The members seem very obstinate and headstrong; at any rate, they give the impression that they want to be pleaded with every year for the same thing, which is a right of, and not a favour, to women. If it was so, it would be very unchivalrous to be opposed to it. Personally, I think that the intention is rather, by means of “Hansard” and the newspapers, to make more and more propaganda, because I do not believe it possible that members of this House will really alter their views. Experience shows that members of Parliament will always vote as the women in the constituency wish, so that they are satisfied. The reason why hon. members voted against women’s franchise in the past, was, not because they wanted to be unchivalrous, or were unwilling to give them the right, but just because they respected the women, and wanted to do what they wished. The fact is that the woman on the countryside does not want the vote; if she wanted it, I should be one of the first to say that we should grant it. South African history shows that the South African woman is capable of carrying out her duties. She has never yet shied at difficulties. In time of war the women suffered more than the men and performed glorious deeds, but it is a fact that the farm women to-day do not desire the franchise, and are content without it. That is so in my constituency. I think that I can safely say that, as for the villages, about 5 per cent. are in favour of women’s franchise, and 95 per cent. decidedly opposed. As for the countryside, not 1 per cent. is in favour of it. I am not expressing my personal views. Personally, I think that the woman is just as capable of having the vote as the man, and if she wants the vote to-day I would say, give it to her immediately, but I am content that if we had a vote throughout the Union the women would decide by an overwhelming majority against the franchise. That is the reason, and the only reason, why I am not prepared to vote for the Bill. It is unnecessary to speak of merits. The woman is just as fit for the vote as the man. If I, however, were to preach the doctrine that women should have the vote in my constituency, I should not even be offered a cup of coffee. When in 1923 the women’s franchise almost passed the House, the women in the constituency I now represent held a meeting to organize in connection with the matter. Large meetings were addressed by women, and they were well acquainted with the facts. We must not think that the country ladies are ignorant. They know very well what the position in other countries is, and what is happening in Parliament, but when the women held meetings in 1923 in my constituency their object was merely to be prepared to organize in case it were necessary. What did they call the meetings? Meetings to protest against the women’s franchise. They wanted to be ready in case it passed, but they were absolutely opposed to it, and made that clear. Why do the women think like that? The women on the countryside have a very responsible position. The husband is often away from home, and they not only have the responsibility of the house, but also of the farm. The women have a different view of the franchise from men. To a woman right is duty, the right to vote is a duty to vote. They feel that if they have the vote they are obliged and also responsible to exercise it, and the women of the country are not prepared to-day to undertake the duty because in existing circumstances they will not be able to fulfil their responsibility faithfully. This is not my argument, but that of the women of the countryside, because I was always in favour of women’s franchise. I was always in favour of the franchise. If the women got the franchise they would certainly set an example of voting to the men, because the vote to a man often means the right of remaining away from the poll, and his candidate has to be deferential and take him to the poll by motor. He will even refuse to go in a Ford. A woman will regard the franchise as a duty, and the women in the country argue that they are not able to carry out the right as a duty. Since the days of the Voortrekkers women have done their duty, and they will do it now, but they consider the time has not yet come, and that communication between the towns and the country is not yet satisfactory enough to enable her to exercise her right. The supporters of this Bill must begin with the women and persuade them, and not the men. The women will themselves influence the men if they wish to, and if the majority of South African women wish to have the franchise I shall not hesitate a moment to vote for it. Let us wait till they are prepared to accept it.

So much has for years been spoken on this subject that it is not necessary to go deeply into it, but I should like to make a few remarks on the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). He moved that the Bill should he read in six months. I just want to tell my hon. friend that the expressions he used to-day about women were unworthy of a respectable man in his position. I do not wish to go into it any further, but he held a meeting on the far side of the Bushveld, and said that there were two persons in Parliament who wanted to give the franchise to native women. He said that the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) and I were in favour of extending the native vote. He did not speak about other hon. members. Now I ask whether that statement is true? We are in favour of the principle of women’s franchise.

To a point of order, the hon. member is making a wrong quotation.

That is not a point of order.

To a point of explanation. Will the hon. member allow me?

No. According to the reports in “Ons Vaderland” and “Die Volkstem,” he said that he was tremendously surprised that the members for Bethal and Witwatersberg had voted to give the vote to native women. I do not know whether he likes retailing that sort of stuff all day, or whether he approves of giving the vote to native women, I do not. He now says that he respects women too much to give them the vote, but he uses expressions beneath criticism. There are men who are unfitted to have the franchise. This motion has often been before the House, and I just want to say that the current from the side that want to give the woman the franchise, a right which she actually deserves, has become so strong that the House cannot neglect it. The hon. member said that the women of the countryside are so superior that they do not want the franchise. Let me tell the hon. member that many women in the Transvaal, who were against the franchise, have now reconsidered the matter, and I have instructions to vote for it. I got these instructions without any pressure on my part. Our women deserve the franchise and we can no longer go against the stream. I have learnt in my experience that when a stream runs in a certain direction you cannot stop it, but must let it run the way it wishes. This applies to women’s franchise. I am opposed to unworthy men having the franchise. I hope that, if it is given to women, the qualifications will be the same, and to the effect that a person should have the necessary sense to use his vote if he wants the franchise. There are thousands of men who do not deserve the vote. I hope that the same system will apply to women and men, and that people will get the vote who have sufficient sense of responsibility to use it in the best interests of our country.

I support the second reading, I want first of all to touch on a number of matters dealt with by the hon. member who moved the second reading, because I think some of them were either calculated to affect the prospect of the Bill, although not intentionally, and others were entirely irrelevant to the question before the House. In the first place, I want to refer to the figures the hon. member submitted in order to show that the native vote in the Cape was dwindling to a considerable extent. I do not know whether his object was to prove that in order to salve the consciences of members of the South African party, but the point I want to make is, in any case, that opinion does not seem to be sufficiently accurate to weigh with this House, because the reason why the number of native voters is not increasing, but possibly has been reduced during the past two or three years, is due to the fact, as I look upon the position, that, under the administration of the South African party, men were put in the roll whether they answered to the full requirements of the roll or not. The law provides that the applicant for the vote should sign his name and give replies to certain questions, and the reason so many natives are not on the roll now is because the law is being rigidly enforced, and not because fewer natives have the other qualifications which are necessary. When the hon. member gave details of the numbers of occasions on which this question has been before the House he must have overlooked the fact that during 13 years of that time his own party was in power and, therefore, was in a position to give effect to a Women’s Enfranchisement Bill. Both inside and outside the House the matter has been dealt with by some political supporters of the question in a way which would show that to-day the question is a South African party one, and it has been alleged that the Labour party is either opposed to or is lukewarm on the subject. As a matter of fact, at the time when it was unpopular to support this legislation, the Labour party made itself unpopular by supporting it. The only place in which the Labour party was able to give effect to its views on the matter was in the Transvaal Provincial Council, and that opportunity the Labour party availed itself of. The matter should be dealt with frankly, and it should be recognized that the people who have been consistent in supporting the extension of the franchise to women are the members of the Labour party. However, I congratulate the South African party, which, now that it has no power to put women’s enfranchisement into effect, has become converted. Another reason probably why many people who formerly were opposed to women’s enfranchisement are now supporting it, is that they are realizing that here and elsewhere power is gradually departing from parliamentary institutions. The parliamentary vote is of very little value—it gives the voter very little power over a member of Parliament; in fact, as little power as a member of Parliament has over a Government. That is why the Conservative party in England are proposing to give the votes to young girls. Quite right, too; but I believe that this sudden conversion is due to the impression that the extension of votes to young women would do very little harm as members of Parliament have very little power. The average member of Parliament has to answer the crack of the whip.

Which whip—the National Council’s or the Creswellian?

Members of all parties have to vote in accordance with the whip. That is one reason why I support not only giving votes to women, but to giving them seats in the House of Assembly. I believe that women members of Parliament would worry very much more about social problems than men do, and thus it would be a tremendous advantage to the progress of the country when women have some parliamentary influence and some opportunity of utilizing their sympathies in the direction of improving the lot of the people generally. Another reason why it is desirable to extend the franchise is because, I believe, that women with their intuition are likely to be very much less subservient to those in authority and very much less amenable to discipline than men are. As the result of giving votes to women, the prestige of parliamentary institutions may be restored and the power which members of Parliament have abrogated may be recovered.

When the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. C. Conradie) said that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) had stated in a speech that he was in favour of women’s franchise, he denied it. I have a report here which appeared in “Die Volkstem” of the 12th December—it is not a Nationalist paper—of a meeting addressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), when he said that if the women’s franchise was granted it would be on the same condition as the men’s, but, if it happened, then the native women in the Cape Province would also get it, and he was sorry that persons like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. members for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) and Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) had voted in favour of it.

That is what he said

Members cannot argue it away that they are prepared to give the franchise to native women as well. All those voting for the Bill are in favour of giving the franchise to native women. The people should take due notice of it. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in 1924 in which he expressed himself in favour of it. I am not yet converted to the women’s franchise, I am still opposed to it. I do not want our women to be insulted on the political platform. The South African women generally are opposed to it. You may find a few ladies in Cape Town and Johannesburg who are in favour of it, but they have not enough work to do. They occupy their time with such things.

Your own women’s congress passed a resolution in favour of it.

I am very sorry that the congress at Malmesbury did so. The congress was possibly under the influence that day of a woman educated in Europe, and I say that the resolution will do the party more harm than good, because it will make the women in the country frightened. I know them well, and the majority of them are against it. I admit that women in the long run will get the franchise, but the time is not yet ripe. I appeal to hon. members not to pass the Bill.

I do not know why some hon. members get so excited over the Bill. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) says that South Africa does not want it. There he is going a little too far. Albert is not the whole of South Africa. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) objected on the same ground, but even Winburg is not South Africa. If these members really represent the views of their constituencies, then I do not take it amiss of them, but the constituency which I represent, viz., Johannesburg (North)—

That is not the countryside, it is Johannesburg.

I am not ashamed of representing the women in my constituency. The majority of them are in favour of women’s franchise, and if it were not so, then I would take the responsibility upon myself. The men who still oppose women’s franchise to-day are selfish people. There are women who are just as capable as men. Seeing the whole world is in favour of women’s franchise, why should we always put on the brake? Even if the women on the countryside are against the vote, we must give it to them, and I say that, when once they have it, they will exercise it. When the Labour party, with good luck, got the majority in the Provincial Council in the Transvaal, they gave the women the vote in municipalities. The women who did not ask for it made good use of it, and it was by no means a shame for them to go to the poll. If the Labour party sticks to its principles they must vote for the Bill. Are we afraid to give the women the vote? The opponents say that they do not wish to degrade the women, but it is not a degradation. The congress of the S.A.P. vacillated a bit in the beginning, but now they have decided in favour of the women’s franchise. The hon. member for Albert regrets the resolution of the congress of the Nationalist women at Malmesbury, but he is surely a loyal party man, and must stand by the resolution. The women will not be satisfied; they did much work to get us men into Parliament. If the women in my constituency had not helped me I might possibly not be here.

Do they not yet admit their mistake?

I sm not ashamed of saying that they assisted me, and if they get the vote they will help me again. Why then should we be afraid? We use the women to do lots of good work. Look at the hospitals. The nurses look after the men very well there, and the men are quite devoted to the women who do that work.

Are you speaking from experience?

The women are doing very good work there, but now hon. members opposite want us to keep them out of a share in the government of the country. I am sorry that it was said of some of the supporters of the Bill that their vote was already given to the native women; it is not true. Are all we men here then unable to lay down qualifications so that it shall not take place?

That is not stated in the Bill.

We can lay down the qualifications. After we have passed the second reading we can remove the obstacle which is now referred to. It will be a birthday if we give the vote to the native women. Let us first pass the second reading, and then we can rectify matters. It is not necessary to insult each other by the statement that we are in favour of giving native women the franchise.

The resolution of the women’s congress at Malmesbury has been mentioned a few times to-day. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said that the congress had voted unconditionally in favour of women’s franchise, an this statement was subsequently repeated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) but the resolution contained an important proviso which those members carefully suppressed. I should be sorry to think that it was done intentionally. The congress in its resolution decided in favour of women’s franchise, as soon as the Prime Minister’s native legislation was passed, and in force. That is the important point of the whole thing. The women went to the Prime Minister, and asked his opinion, and he told them manfully: “], personally, would be entirely in favour of the women’s franchise, but we must get rid of the difficulties.” While we are busy removing them, in solving the difficult native question, why should hon. members opposite again introduce the Bill? Why do they not wait until the next problem is solved? Is it not better first to assist us in solving the great problem? Then the other one will come all the sooner. We well know the value of women. We know it better than any other nation in the world. I shall personally give my vote in favour of women’s franchise. We know what the women have done. I know that there are some things about which women are better judges than men. Yet I say let us first settle the native question. After the delegates from the Nationalist Women’s Party had heard the Prime Minister they were satisfied. They remained quiet, and they do not wish to make the difficulty any greater. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) knows what a troublesome matter the native question is. Year after year it is discussed, and the matter is studied, and our Government has almost reached its fifth year, and is still occupied with that troublesome problem. Why then should we complicate it more? And why should we not let the women’s franchise wait a little longer. Our women are patriotic enough not to insist on the franchise. I appeal to those women, and also to hon. members opposite, who love their country, to keep the interests of their own children in mind, and not to push this matter too far. Let us wait a little longer and then put it on a sound basis.

I just want to make it clear by a few words that I am very much in favour of the principle of women’s franchise. It is a case of honest conviction with me, and I feel that, under existing circumstances, women have become independent and practically equal in that respect to men. The times are such that many women have to work, and do men’s work. They have to find their own living in the world and take a place in industrial life. Further, the progress of women recently has been such that many men have to take a back seat in view of the advanced and learned women who have come to the front. Take their literary work; much of the writings of women is worth reading, and in many respects women’s work deserves our attention. Even some of us in Parliament must defer to certain achievements of women. I am certain of it that women will be able to deal very effectively with legislation. There are numbers of women who can do good work in that respect. I am a strong supporter of women’s franchise, but the question is whether we should not all first stand together and pass the native Bills, removing that difficulty. If that has once been done, I shall, without any doubt, vote for women’s franchise.

Why do you not vote with us?

I think that there is an attempt to make political capital out of this matter which is not necessary. The South African party seem to be so bankrupt that they have to catch at every straw to let the world see that they still possess something.

That is your case.

We are strong enough. We must not make party capital out of this matter. The women of South Africa are sensible enough to know that the present Government are prepared to assist them, but they see that it is better first to solve the native question, and not to drag in other things which may complicate it. If we pass the native Bills this session, we can still pass the Women’s Franchise Bill this year.

The previous speaker said that it looked as if this side of the House wanted to make political capital out of the matter. Let me tell him that, in my opinion, there is no political capital to be made out of it by either party. It would be short-sighted if we were to try to do so. I do not believe that there is any capital to be made out of it by either party, and what we must ask ourselves is not what the party benefits will be from it or how it will assist us, but what is the right thing to do. And if we put that question then there cannot, I think, be any doubt about the answer. I do not think that it is right to mix up other matters in this question. An attempt has been made to drag in other matters, and possibly to make a certain amount of party capital, but I think it is quite wrong. The position is such to-day that we must regard the matter on its own merits, and not drag in other things. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) accused my party of not putting the thing right when we were in office. He asked why we are now so much in favour of women’s franchise, and why we did not pass it in the past. The answer is plain. The South African party in former years, and also to-day, did not have a sufficient majority to put this matter through. We have in our own party some members who are opposed to women’s franchise, and in this Parliament there was never yet a strong enough majority of cur party in favour of it. It would be a mistake of the worst kind to make a party matter of it. We must try to educate public opinion so that there will be a majority for a reform of this kind. That is the simple reason why we took no action in former years. I still feel to-day that, unless there is a certain amount of mutual co-operation between the parties, that unless the parties help each other, or persons in the parties co-operate, we cannot put the thing through. I think the time is ripe to-day. I have listened to the speeches and find no argument which will hold water for a moment against the Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) said that we were degrading our women by such legislation, reducing them to a low level, and they would subsequently be just as bad as the men. He referred to conditions in Europe which we were now wanting to ape. Not only in Europe, in the most progressive countries, has the women’s franchise been granted, but also in the New World. I do not believe that the hon. member will accuse the United States of degeneracy. All the other young nations of the whole British Empire have passed the women’s franchise. We are the only great British dominion that has not yet taken that step.

The other dominions do not have our problems.

The hon. member went on his political mission to Europe, and I thought that his journey had clearly done him good and improved him. Now he talks of degeneracy in Europe, but I do not believe that the journey had such a bad effect on him. Now the hon. member says that we are going to give the franchise to the native women. Why should they be dragged in? We are at the moment engaged on the native Bills, the most important legislation of this session. The proposals embrace the giving of the franchise to natives, not only in the Cape Province, but also in the other provinces. Why then should we drag that matter in here?

First help us to put those Bills through.

My argument is that those native Bills are used as a sort of bogey against this proposal. The hon. member’s own Government is prepared to propose that the natives should also get the vote in the other provinces.

That is quite a different franchise.

I am not attributing blame, I am only mentioning a fact. Let us not now argue what measure of franchise is being given, and what is being taken away. The point is that under the proposed legislation a certain amount of the franchise is given to all natives.

Are you against it?

I am arguing on the facts. The nature of the vote makes no difference. The objection to this Bill is that the native woman is getting the vote. That does not concern this matter. It is surely the Prime Minister’s intention to regulate the native franchise this session. We can, therefore, deal with the women’s franchise on its merits, and the argument of the hon. member contains no grounds for delaying the matter. The hon. member for Bethlehem says his only objection is that the large majority of our women are against the granting of the franchise. He has doubtless taken a census! He gives as his figure 95 per cent. of the women of the towns, and 99 per cent. on the countryside as opposed to the women’s franchise.

I only spoke of my own constituency.

He gives that as his reason, but I want to tell him that, if the Prime Minister puts his foot down and says that the women must have the franchise, even the women of the hon. member’s district will be in favour of it. The argument does not hold water. The Leader of his own party adopts a different standpoint. He is in favour of the women having the vote, but wants first of all to settle the native question. I will be fair and admit that there is a fairly considerable number of the women on the countryside who do not worry about the matter They are quite cool and calm. The only argument against it is that the Prime Minister first wants to solve the native problem. They are prepared, at least the Leader of the party is prepared, as soon as it is settled, to grant the franchise to women. I am certain that there will then be a sudden conversion of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie), and that, if the Prime Minister will grant it, he will find out that the majority of the women, even of Bethlehem, are in favour of it. Let us look at the matter on its merits. Why must the native question be used as a sort of bogey against this proposal. All the other arguments fall away. I cannot understand that attitude. Why should we give the natives the franchise before we give it to our women? It seems to me that we can only assume that the Prime Minister has been driven into a corner and has given that as the reason. That reason will not hold good. There are several Ministers present in the House who speak for the Government. Let them explain why we should postpone the women’s franchise until the native franchise has first been settled. It seems to me that there can be no question of precedence between the two problems. The native questions, I take it, comprise an important matter which must be dealt with, and we have repeatedly said that we would help in solving the question. It is a very difficult matter which goes far into the future of our people, and we must handle it very calmly. We are prepared to assist, but I cannot see why the women’s franchise should wait. It seems to me to be pure evasion, because I cannot assume that the intention of the Prime Minister and his party will first give the natives, and then the white women, the vote.

No, that of the native must first be taken away.

Why is the argument used? Why then is it not rather said, let us try to settle this matter? I know this, that if our women get the franchise, it will probably make no change in the policy of the country. It has been the experience in all countries where the women’s franchise has been granted that party politics is not affected. I think that the argument is overwhelming that we should deal with the matter now on its merits, and I hope it will no longer be postponed. No one has yet explained why it should wait on the native question. Let us settle the matter by a certain amount of co-operation. There is no party majority for so great a reform, and I ask hon. members to assist in giving the women their due.

Last year I showed that I was a warm supporter of women’s franchise. I have learned in my life what a mighty influence women exercise in politics. Starting from that experience I say that, if the women get the franchise, I expect political life in South Africa will be greatly improved. There are members who doubt this, but I am convinced of it, with all my heart. One hon. member said here that he would not like to see women on the public platforms. I have already listened to speeches by women on the platform which have done me much good, and been a blessing to me. If we keep the Christian point of view before us, the standpoint I proceed from, we see that women exercised a great influence even in the lifetime of Christ. He had no home, and the women assisted Him and gave Him a home. The first messenger He sent out after His resurrection was a woman. In the Old Testament we find Deborah a judge of Israel, and she exercised great influence, so also is it in the history of our people. The women also played their part there. Take the Red Cross, what beneficent influence have women not exercised there? What have they not done on the battlefield? Take the old V’oortrekkers, they made the promise that the women would receive equal rights with the men. That was after the happenings at Blood River, and we know what the women did there. Think of the Second War of Independence. But we need not go into everything. I now come to the native vote. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says: “Why wait for the native vote?” The matter is simply this—it is not that the view of the Leader is blindly taken over by the party, and leads it, I should absolutely reject that—but the trouble is that the native women would also receive the franchise. It is not my argument because my Leader says it. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) has said that the women do not want the franchise, and so also there are other arguments. But the idea of the majority of us here is that we must take away the Cape native franchise, and put it on a different base. It may be wrong, but it is my view. I do not want to put the native women on the same voters’ roll as the European women. The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows quite well that the native problem is the greatest in the Union, and he, with his vision, knows that matters cannot continue as they are. We must deal with the matter, and can no longer dilly-dally. I will take off my hat every day to the women of South Africa, and I know their influence on the history of the country, but I am not prepared to give the native women the franchise. If the introducer of the Bill would say: “Vote for white women” it would be quite another matter. This is our great objection, and the Leader of the Opposition well knows it. His statements that “The women’s franchise must wait until the native has the vote,” is the intention of the Prime Minister, are untrue, and he knows it. All the rest he says is camouflage. The things are certainly interdependent. On the first occasion possible I shall be prepared to grant women the franchise. Some hon. members think that this will degrade the women by dragging them into the mud. It all depends on the individual keeping his politics clean or dirty. I think the women will exercise an ennobling influence on our political life. I also feel that we cannot lag behind other countries, but I know that our women are prepared to wait a little longer till our native question is settled.

I have asked the question why should the vote not be granted to women, and of all the expressions of opinion I have heard outside or inside of the House on this question I have never heard anyone put forward a single argument that would convince any right-minded man that women were less fitted to exercize the vote than are men in any civilized country. One reason why the vote has not been granted up till now is the tendency in party political strife to treat individuals not so much as people with rights, but as people with votes. In all countries of civilized administration the question on its merits would not be disputed, at any rate, where democracy rules; unfortunately, in most of the so-called civilized countries to-day votes count more than principles. When we consider measures like this, we find that all sorts of arguments are searched for and advanced to justify the postponement of the granting of what must be acknowledged as a right. Anyone considering the present conditions of life must agree that we are treating our women partners in our present day society in much the same way as was done on the days before we reached even the tribal or village stage of civilization, when woman was a chattel to the brute force of the male. To-day there is nothing to justify the attitude of male voters, or governments in power, towards the women citizens of the country, in that, by main brute force only, they are able to deny them their rights. Certain women who have become prominent from time to time in their advocacy of this movement in South Africa have been largely to blame for the failure to achieve what they are aiming at. For instance we had a lady who was the chief vocal exponent of the rights of women because of a caste bias, allying herself to a political party to the disadvantage of another political party which had striven to obtain votes for women. We find the barriers of class differences creeping into the ranks of women even before they have the power to exercize the vote. We have all heard the old argument that the province of the woman is her home, and that the province of the man is that of the present-day hunter—or bread winner. Let me give an analogy between home life and business life. If a business man wants someone to organize and administer his business efficiently, he chooses one who has had training from the lowest ranks of the industry. We politicians say that the place of the woman is in the home. I put it to this hon. House, what is the object of all political administration and legislation? Surely it is to affect the conditions in the home. That is the alpha and omega of all politics, and who could be more fitted to guide the deliberations of the House in its work of promulgating legislation, the results of which must be reflected in every home, than those who have been trained up from the lower ranks of domestic administration? Surely on that ground alone it must strike anyone that the claim of women to exercise the franchise is irrefutable. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) said that if women got the vote they would use it to throw out the socialists. Personally, I would not mind if they did. If women adhere to the principles they profess to-day I should not care what they called those principles So long as women of high intelligence who are today, fighting the battle for women’s suffrage advocate the same principles then as they do today, I, for one, would not care one iota whether they declared themselves for or against socialism. What do women profess the greatest interest in to-day, and in what fields of social and economic activities have they given the best evidence of their claims to efficiency, managerial competency and general equality with men in administrative and social circles? Take factory legislation. Where have the greatest reformers come from? From the women, of course. Every great industrial reform in factory conditions has come about at the instance of women, and when governments have had to appoint officials to see the reforms conscientiously carried out, they have appointed women officials. If we take then the questions of national insurance, insurance against invalidity, provision for the periods of child birth and child welfare, who have brought these before their Governments? Women. Take, too, the white slave traffic throughout the world. Who has done most to draw the attention of the public conscience to that traffic? Women, again. And then child labour, and matters affecting the younger generation; all these are items of social legislation which those branded as socialists wish to deal with first and foremost. To socialists these are the things which matter, and they are the things to which women have applied themselves to the exclusion of all the frills and camouflages of to-day’s modern politics. Hospitals again—who has devoted more attention to the establishment of hospitals and of free medical treatment to all and sundry regardless of ability to pay? Why do women want the vote? I am sorry that my hon. friend on my right introduced one of the very few notes of derision which have been introduced into this debate. I had thought that the cause of women’s suffrage was progressing substantially simply because this House has now settled down to debate the matter seriously.

You are simply wasting time.

It is a great enlightenment to me that the first note of derision came from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the champion of two years ago (Mr. Blackwell) and the second comes from the hon. member for Umvott (Mr. Deane), who tells me I am wasting time. I would remind the hon. member that I am obeying an instruction which has been wired to me from my constituents to give their views to this House on women’s suffrage. If the time I spend in addressing this House on the subject prevents the hon. member from wasting his time, then I think the House will acquit me. I wish to say to this House that women have by the share they have taken in the exercise of the functions of citizenship established beyond any possibility of contradiction their right to the franchise. In every field of human endeavour, in everything that is elevating, in letters, in art and even to the extent that when the country is assailed with war women have shown that they are prepared to take their part in that war—in every sense, in every field of human endeavour women have established their right equally with men, and I fail to see by what moral right or by what ethical right men can forbear to extend to them that which they enjoy themselves. In every country which has come into line with modern thought, even in that last acquisition to the great commonwealth of British nations, Ireland, there you have equal franchise rights between women and men, and in a country so disturbed as that country was when that right was established, it has not had any untoward result, probably far otherwise. It is absolutely unthinkable that we should deny the right of women to exercise the franchise when we find amongst the ranks of male voters many who are absolutely undeveloped mentally and intellectually, people who have very little knowledge, people who are vicious, people who are dishonest, and yet all these people simply because of the accident of sex have the right to exercise the vote while thousands of the highest intellects in our country are denied that right. Surely the absolute negation of justice which is involved in this denial of the franchise must strike this House as something which cannot be tolerated very much longer. If we were to send women representatives to Geneva to discuss disarmament as we have lately sent men representatives of the so-called civilized countries, does anyone believe—and I speak as a socialist—that women would not exercise their joint minds to try by every means in their power to preclude the possibility of devastating war as between nation and nation? Of course they would. But we send men there, men who are tied up to the big interests; interests which are concerned in manufacturing and selling armaments, interests which are concerned in the seeking of big money profits, interests to which the ethics or social amenities of society mean nothing. If we sent our women there at least in equal proportions to the men, we do know that these gatherings would devote themselves to that for which, ostensibly, they were called together. Then there is the one other matter of the native question. It has been said in this House, and outside the House, that the passing of this motion should be delayed until the native question is settled. I venture to say that the native question is not going to be settled within the lifetime of any member sitting on these benches to-day, and if we are going to wait, and not grant the franchise to women until the native question is settled, then it will be postponed sine die. I would put this to the House and to those women who are seeking enfranchisement, that it would be wise for them to accept the vote for European women in this country, to take that as an advance instalment, to be ultimately carried further when this country has established itself beyond challenge as a country of civilized standards and which is going to be placed for all time under the control of a civilized legislative House. If women would accept the franchise to that extent, then I say we would have made a great advance and taken a big step forward. I know that amongst the coloured people there are many thousands who are equally intelligent, but, speaking on my own behalf, I say it is far better to have an instalment of that which is desirable than to go on for all time putting up with that which is entirely undesirable. If we looked at the matter from a sane point of view and without being wedded to precedent in this question, which has been looked upon as a knotty question up to now, we would have made a great step forward, and the legislative body of this House, including as it would, I hope, members of the other sex, would find that its progress, or its liberality of outlook upon progressive measures, would be reflected back again, in the well-being, not only of this House, but of the country generally, and we would find that that which has frightened us so long, after having passed it, would prove to be a very slight obstacle indeed.

I was hesitating about speaking, but after the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken it is impossible for me and others who feel as I do to remain silent. He gave the European women the worst possible advice when he told them to take the vote for themselves and to leave the question of the non-European women alone. You are asking them to take the vote for European women and all non-European working women are not to get the vote. There is no consistency about it. That is why I have always taken up the position that this question should be put on an absolutely separate basis. As a matter of principle, we have to decide whether the fact of being born a woman instead of a man is going to amount to a perpetual disqualification for the suffrage. I would rather kill a thing on principle than do an act of political expediency. The non-European women have just as much right to take part in the political life of this country as their European sisters. The best way of killing this Bill is to suggest the word “European.” The hon. member knows that what happened before will happen again, that a number of Cape members will vote against it. This is the surest method of killing it. I will read two telegrams which will put my position clearly. When I was in Port Elizabeth in October I received the following telegram from Lady de Villiers—

To which I replied—

There is no doubt that, if members introduce a colour bar during the committee stage, the Bill will not see the third reading. The opponents of women’s suffrage in any circumstances together with the opponents of the colour bar are sufficient to kill it. I will always vote against a Bill containing a colour bar, whether it is a woman’s Bill or a man’s Bill. It has never been successful where it has been tried. The South Africa Act (contains colour bar clauses which, in the long run, will be shown to be one of the greatest mistakes we have made. I must confess I was pleased that the old arguments against women’s suffrage were not used this afternoon. No one has attempted to say that a woman is inferior to a man or that she ought to remain at home and so on. We are now getting more at grips with the question. These old arguments having served their purpose have now been abandoned. The arguments this afternoon have been confined to just a few. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) said he noticed while travelling that women were treated with less respect in Europe than in South Africa. I think his experience must have been unfortunate. It is absurd to tell us that. There is respect for women all over the world. He says they have more respect for women who have not got the vote. Have they less respect for a man in South Africa who has got the vote? It is an absurd argument. The serious argument that has been adduced here has been the question of the native and coloured vote. If a man of a particular race is entitled to a vote, there is no reason why a women of the same race should not have the vote. What I do not understand hon. members in is this: They seem to think if they give votes to women on the same terms as men, they will in some way be prevented from dealing with the native question. The point to-day is that you should not disqualify a person just because she is a woman. How many native women are earning the necessary wages and will be able to come up to the qualifications. It is purely a theoretical question. Supposing a few did get the vote. If you have the power and strength to deal with the native vote, which has been in existence since 1854, surely you will be able to deal with the native women’s vote. To give a woman the vote on the same terms as a man, in no way complicates the native question, and has nothing to do with the native question. I think we are indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for the perfectly frank way in which he told us why the South African party did not bring this in as a Government measure, but there is no question that a big majority of the South African party were in favour of it. In 1924, and even in 1923, a change had come over a large number of members of the South African party owing largely to the spirit of women during the war. There was a great majority in favour of giving votes to women. I could not help thinking that the hon. member was rather optimistic in thinking that it can be done when the present Government is in power, although the time was not ripe when his own party was in power, because we know that all Nationalist members, except a few, are against it. If you take a plebiscite I guarantee that 90 per cent., if not more of them, are against it. In my own humble opinion the chances of women getting the vote are very considerably less as the result of the present Government being in power, than if the present Opposition were in power. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) knows perfectly well that on this point the opinion on the benches on the Government side is dead against this. Although at one time it was limited to European women, hon. members on the Government benches still voted against it. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), I think, favour it, but all the other members of that party are against it, and the Labour party has not sufficient power to carry it. If they had a majority I believe they would do it, but as the allies of the Pact they cannot help us at all, not even if the National Council desires it. I have been a consistent supporter of women’s franchise all my life—even before I got into Parliament. I do not see why you should differentiate against women because of their sex. But I look upon the thing rather pessimistically at the moment because there is this question of introducing the colour bar. I regret that, while nearly every great country, certainly right throughout Europe and America, and, of course, Australia, does not regard itself as properly civilized until it has enfranchized women, here in South Africa, which ought to give a lead, we are standing far behind on this one most important political and social question. It is hundreds of years behind, which I regret very much. The voortrekkers treated their women on public matters far differently than hon. members opposite tell us they should be treated. Those who know a great deal of the history of the Voortrekkers tell us so. These voortrekkers’ wives were admitted to their councils, but there was no question of a vote in those days. The wives of the Voortrekkers had every right which the Voortrekkers themselves had. Members of the Dutch race have told me that is so. Of course, there was no Parliament in those days. The sacrifices these women made were equally great as the men’s, and they were under fire as well. They were treated with equal respect. I do not see any reason why, because some women do not want the vote, others, who do want it, should not get it. Women have been admitted to town councils, and are sitting in mayoral chairs in various parts of the country and are doing good work. They are also making their mark in the legal profession. The ex-Lord Chancellor (Earl Birkenhead) once made a speech against women’s suffrage. One cannot help feeling how the prejudices against women’s suffrage are the same all over the world, and how hard they die. None of the prophecies of the terrible things that would happen in England if women got the vote have come about. All these goggas have proved to be only bogeys. The only foundation on which you can secure the claim of women’s franchise is justice for citizens who show that they can take a reasonable part as civilized beings in the life of the people, no matter what sex they are. That is merely an accident, and does not interfere in any way with public duties or powers, or even physical powers. Women can hold their own in the world of art, of science and of sport, and there is no reason why they should not be admitted on perfect equality with men into all departments of the State. I hope we shall not get red herrings drawn across the trail to obscure the vital issue which is, why should a person be deprived of her rights simply because she happened to be born a woman instead of a man?

I am going to vote for the second reading, but I dissent from some of the statements made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). Personally I am convinced that we shall never get a satisfactory settlement of this matter until we have separated the native vote from our electoral system. In 1924 we had a select committee, and it was found that a number of members who voted for the second reading of the Bill were not prepared to go forward unless the extension of the franchise was confined to European women. On the other hand, many Cape members would not vote for the third reading of the Bill unless the vote was extended to the native women. Another matter we shall have to examine very closely is how far the property qualification which prevails in certain of the provinces is going to militate against the addition to the roll of women not of the wealthier members of society, while enfranchising the women folk in the wealthier classes.

There is no necessity to detain the House very long, for the arguments made against the Bill largely have been mutually destructive. If there is a fear of an undue preponderance of native women voters through the Bill becoming law, where is the logic of denying us the opportunity of strengthening the European vote by admitting women to the franchise? I am very glad that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) alluded to the subject of education. In every civilized country, education is a State matter. The years during which the majority of children attend school are from say seven to 13 or 14, and during those years the vast majority of children come under the educative influence of women. Surely women should have something to say in the arrangement of that education, and for that reason alone a strong case is made out for the admission of women into our councils. If it is thought that women are not fitted by training or opportunity to take part in politics, I am very glad to be able to quote what the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has said on this subject. He said—

Have I repudiated that?

Oh, no, no. The hon. member went on—

That speech will be found reported in Hansard, Vol. 6, page 914.

Quite right, but you made a misquotation this afternoon.

Never mind my sins—I am alluding to your virtues at the moment. We have, at all events, a notable recruit to the cause. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has dealt with the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), who recently visited his native country, Holland, where women have the vote.

I thought he was a born Afrikander.

He was born in Holland, where women have the vote. The only European countries which have denied women the vote are France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and perhaps Greece. In Italy, however, neither men nor women have the vote, but I believe the country is getting on pretty well, all the same. Spain also is under a dictator. In France the Senate passed a resolution in favour of women’s enfranchisement, and in Belgium women have the franchise for local government purposes. Spain, under a Dictator, is considering the question of resuming government by Parliament, and has called women into its counsels to arrive at the best means of doing it. Why should we be debarred from fear from doing a simple act of justice? It is worth recording that the date Mr. D. M. Brown practically died with the word “justice” on his lips. It was for what he lived and I would rather die with the word “justice” on my lips than with the words “this day six months.”

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—53.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, E.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Collins, W. R.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F. T.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, H.

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.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

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

Noes—50.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

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.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

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

Motion then put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 17th February.