I move—

1. (a) European widows, and
2. (b) unmarried European women of at least thirty years of age who maintain themselves, as well as persons of the male sex.

As hon. members see, the object of the amendment is to limit the proposed women’s franchise. As I said during the second reading debate I am opposed in principle to the granting of this franchise. If it depended on me we would summarily throw out this Bill, but as that may possibly not take place I have moved this amendment, the object of which is quite clear, namely, to give the franchise to European widows and women over 30 years who earn their own living. The result will be that coloured and native women will be excluded. I gave my reasons at the second reading, namely, that the family is a whole, a sacred whole, and that if it is broken up it necessarily follows that the State, which rests on the family, will also be broken up. That would be calamitous for our people. Further, I think that if this Bill is passed some of the democratic institutions in our country, of which we are rightly so proud, will be turned into a farce. I suggest giving widows the franchise, because a widow can be regarded as a head of a household, or a whole which is equal to a household. I further propose to give the franchise to unmarried women over thirty who provide for themselves. The reason is that those women are independent and will probably remain so, in other words provide for themselves, form an independent unit, and therefore, as such, can expect the same rights as a unit in the form of a household.

What lady will admit that she is 30 years old?

It will possibly be difficult if she herself had to state it, but we have our registers for the purpose, and the documents will prove it. I regard this matter of the greatest possible moment. I consider this women’s franchise as proposed in the original Bill a calamity for South Africa.

Why?

I think that we should build up a separate people in South Africa, our own civilization, culture and future, and should not follow the degenerating countries of Europe, which by granting the franchise to women have retrogressed still further. What, for instance, is the result of feminism in Europe, of which the women’s franchise is an expression? As far as I have been able to study it the women in Europe are anything but happy. On the contrary we find the mental hospitals at present full of young women. That is the result. Various authorities in these matters admit today that the women have not become happier by the rise of feminism.

What is feminism?

The women’s franchise is one of the aspects of feminism which has not increased the happiness of the women in Europe. Because I greatly respect the women of South Africa I hope this Bill will be rejected. The following figures may possibly cause comment, but I quote them from the statistics. Unfortunately I could not get the exact data I wanted. There are about 40,000 widows in South Africa. The number of unmarried women above 45 is 9,000, and between 20 and 44 years, 66,000. Of the women over 30 therefore, probably about 40,000 will get the vote if my amendment is passed. The number of persons entitled to vote will therefore be increased by 75,000 or 80,000. I do not quote this in support of my amendment, but only to inform hon. members. As I have said before I am most strongly opposed to the franchise for native and coloured women, and I challenge any member to attack my standpoint on any public platform in the Transvaal. I am prepared to defend it on any platform. I am convinced that we shall find on enquiry not 2 per cent. of our women on the countryside will want the vote. The country population is opposed to it. Are we then entitled to force something on the women that she does not want? The matter is discussed as if it were a question of respect for women. What however is the result of women’s franchise in practice? In most cases, though not always, it has led to the degradation of women, and we want to see respect for the true Afrikander woman preserved. Take, e.g., the case of a woman belonging to the South African Party whose husband is a Nationalist. That is bad enough for the two spouses to vote differently, even if it does not embitter feeling. I hope that hon. members will, on the whole, be convinced that this Bill will be a calamity instead of a benefit to the women, and that the decision as to the vote for coloured and native women, numbers make no difference, will be of great importance not only to South Africa but to the whole of Africa. I hope my amendment will be the utmost length to which the House will go.

The hon. member evidently intends to kill the Bill. It is quite evident, and he knows perfectly well, that if the colour bar is introduced into the Bill the Bill is killed, and he will not be unhappy about it. Most of the arguments he used were to show the committee how bad female suffrage was, and he said that if he could not get rid of it he would substitute something else. The hon. member has left out married women altogether.

On purpose.

He thinks the lord and master can vote for both. The hon. member wants to recognize the right to the vote of the European woman of 30 who supports herself. You may have working side by side in a factory two women both over 30 years of age, one European and the other coloured, and the hon. member wants the vote confined to the European woman. Is there any justice in that? The hon. member says he does not care how many votes are going to be affected, but he will not agree to non-European women having the vote. What, then, becomes of the Government policy of taking the coloured with the European people? Is it all humbug and camouflage?

On your side.

Throughout my public life I have been consistent, so this silly charge tails flat. The Government has announced that as far as the coloured people are concerned, it is going to take them in with the Europeans. If that is true, how dare you refuse a non-European person the right to vote? This is a crucial test, whether the Government is sincere or not in this matter, or whether its supporters are going to be guilty of the imbecility of bringing in a fresh colour bar. Figures have been supplied which seem to show that the fear expressed by some opponents of the Bill on the second reading is not founded on fact. According to these figures the number of registered voters in the Union is: Europeans, 382,579; natives, 13,682; coloured, 20,969. If the Bill were carried into effect the European vote would be increased by about 300,000, but the coloured and native vote by only about 12,000. There is a vital principle at stake—are you going to continue to give rights and privileges to people not by reason of their merits or qualifications, but purely on racial grounds and on the colour of their skins. If the amendment is carried I shall not have the slightest hesitation in voting against the Bill on the third reading, but the responsibility will rest on those honourable members who refuse to treat the matter on its merits but drag in extraneous conditions. Can my hon. friend tell me of any country in the world where women’s suffrage has been confined to women of only one race or colour? If the amendment is carried this will be the first country in the world to decide the issue not on the basis of qualification but purely on the basis of race and colour The hon. member wants to rectify one injustice by asking the House to commit another.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment-—

I agree with my hon. friend when he says he is against women’s franchise. I will vote against it, but in case this Bill passes we must try to make it as good as possible. I quite agree that the majority of our women do not want the vote, but if it is granted to any women, then we must not punish the married women as the hon. member wishes to do. I cannot agree to that. The married women have the most trouble and the greatest responsibility. I have every respect for widows and unmarried ladies, but I think we must not punish the married women. I cannot agree that the franchise should only be given to women over 30. My proposal is to give it to all women who are of age. I think that women of 21 years have sufficient sense. Experience in general shows that women understand a thing very quickly, often more quickly than men. I hope women’s franchise will not be passed, but if it is we must be sure that we have a good Bill.

I will only say that my objection to the amendment of the hon. member is not that I want to punish the married women. The hon. member admits that the women do not want the franchise. What then is the punishment if they do not get it? According to him it is a punishment if we give them something they do not want. The hon. member asked why I mentioned 30 years. Because I have laid down the principle that the home is a holy unit, and that it must be maintained. There the hon. member differs from me, but that was the reason I fixed that period of life. In other words therefore I want to give the franchise only to unmarried women who earn their own living. If a woman of 30 years is not yet married it is probable that she will not be the mother of a family. The hon. members therefore did not understand my reasons. The argument of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) practically amounts to this that he wants to afflict us with the same political error and colour-blindness from which he suffers. I hope the hon. member will not take it amiss in me if I differ. I have the respect for the coloured people and natives which they deserve, but it is another question whether we are to give native and coloured women the franchise. If my amendment also applied to coloured people it would send the white widows to the poll along with the native women. The women in the Transvaal do not regard it as a punishment to have the franchise withheld. 98 or 99 per cent. of them will not so regard it. This movement for women’s franchise is an expression of feminism with which the large majority of the women of South Africa want to have nothing to do. Are we going for the sake of a small minority, to force the vote on to them.

It is a significant fact that both members who have moved the amendments make no secret of their hostility to women’s franchise. They say distinctly that they hope this law will be shipwrecked. They are strongly opposed to women’s suffrage and they both voted against women’s suffrage at the second reading. They both also repudiated the Prime Minister’s principle about coloured men, and yet these are the two gentlemen who are moving amendments. These two amendments are merely blocking motions. The inference is obvious. These two gentlemen have not the slightest intention of seeing their own amendments going through. I hope the country will take note of what has happened. As this Bill stands the question of the enfranchisement of coloured women would only apply to a very few in the Cape Province alone. For all time it will only refer to a strictly limited number of women in the Cape, and yet it is the Transvaal members who are worried about the problem of coloured women which is a purely local problem in the Cape. In order to prevent these few women in the Cape getting the vote, they are prepared to debar all the white women in the whole of the Union from getting the vote. I could use stronger language about these two amendments, but I will leave it at that, and will hope the House and the country will understand that these two amendments are purely blocking motions, and are moved in order to prevent a minor adjustment in the Cape Province. They are going to deprive the white women of the country of the vote. We can leave the country to judge the sincerity of these amendments.

It is a long time since such a disgraceful speech was made in this House as that made by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). The hon. member goes out to lay down the principle that no white woman, married and bearing children shall be a citizen of this country. He would penalize the woman who is doing her duty to God and man. Because she is a mother of the people she must stand outside the pale. I do not think any civilized Parliament in the world would touch such a motion as this. The women who train the children of South Africa and lead them by the hand are to be the outcasts of the nation. Has ever such a thing been put before a civilized Parliament before? I have never heard of such a case. Then the hon. member goes on to say no white woman, unmarried, under the age of 30 years shall have the vote. Why under 30? Why not under 40, 50 or 60? Are there no intelligent white women under the age of 30? I know numbers of intelligent women under the age of thirty, quite as intelligent as a large number of members of Parliament. Our universities are full of them, women under the age of thirty who are sweeping the board in every examination that is taking place to-day—future lawyers, future doctors, future teachers, whom we are turning out in our great schools and colleges to-day under the age of thirty. Are these women also to be held up and told “you shall not have vote,” while the boy of 21 shall have a vote? I find in my experience of young men and women that the girl of 21 has got far more sense than the boy of 21. You may depend upon the girl of 21 who may be a mother at that age, whereas, when a man of 21 is a father people say he is much too young. No, I am surprised at the hon. member (Mr. Oost), especially after his trip to London, because when he was in London, instead of going to the places which he did go to, he should have gone to Parliament or he should have taken counsel with the leaders of thought. He would then have found that in England at this moment, where they have had women’s franchise for some years, the Government is introducing a Bill to enfranchise women at the age of 21. All reforms all over the world have always been fought by people of limited intelligence. Right down the corridors of history you will see it is said that if this reform is brought on everything will go wrong with the world. Whenever they wanted to enlarge the franchise in England or any other part of the world, we were always told that everything would go wrong with the world. When the working classes were given the vote we were told that everything would go wrong with the world. The same when the women were given the vote. The world has improved with the franchise. I say as a born South African—and my hon. friend (Mr. Oost) is not a born South African—that the Afrikander women in this country do want the vote. I can point to some of the leading women in South Africa, both English-speaking and Dutch-speaking Afrikanders, who support women’s franchise. I could point to a Free State girl like Dr. van Heerden who is at the head of her profession to-day. I could point to the eldest daughter of the late President Steyn, Miss Steyn of Bloemfontein, who was the first woman barrister in South Africa, and who is working for the vote. I can give my hon. friend the names of a number of distinguished people, whose families are well known in South Africa, who are fighting for the vote. The Nationalist women at a conference passed a resolution in favour of the vote.

With a qualification.

Not the qualification that the married woman should be thrown onto the dustheap. There is a feeling in South Africa amongst large numbers of people that there should be a qualification for men, and if the women had to make those qualifications very few of us would get the vote probably.

You know nothing about it.

I have known the hon. member for many years, and there is no need for him to make that cheap retort. I know how the hon. member has twisted and turned on the question of women’s franchise. We will leave the hon. member to his conscience. I have always been a supporter of the franchise for women, and the Nationalists in their hearts are supporters of the franchise for women. The voortrekker women took part in politics, took a great part in politics.

They never asked for the vote.

The voortrekker woman did not ask for the vote; she took it. The hon. member will remember the great fight at Pietermaritzburg, and after Cloete had come through, Mrs. Smit walked in and said: “I will tackle this subject,” and she took the vote. If women had been like Mrs. Smit, they would have taken the vote before to-day. I am going to vote for this Bill as it stands, because if you can give the coloured man the vote in the Cape, and you can give the black man the vote in the Cape, you can give it to the coloured woman. Why should we, who were born in South Africa, be against giving the coloured woman the vote when the majority of us have been carried on the backs of these women when we were children. Why should we turn round and—

Do you want to give them the vote in the Free State?

It is not a question of giving the vote in the Free State. Personally, I have always said that I have never voted for a colour bar, and I never shall vote for a colour bar. [Time limit.]

I regret that the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) did not take the form of the amendment I wish to move. But let me first express my regret that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) did not delay his motion until the segregation Bills were passed. If we are to give the franchise to South African women according to the ideas of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) it means that we shall also have to give it to the native women. It will be a sad position, and one becomes afraid for the future of South Africa. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that he knows the Afrikaans woman. I do not doubt that, but I want to say that we, on this side, know her better. Not once in the midlands, which I know well, have I at public meetings had any other request than to give my support to the standpoint of the Nationalist party, not to give the franchise to women, in existing circumstances. Of course we are chiefly opposed to the grant of the women’s franchise because it will include the coloured and native women. I will go further and say that I am prepared to support women’s franchise provided we have a proviso to the Bill that a referendum shall be taken as to whether the women want the franchise or not.

Have you not had enough of referendums yet?

We have not yet had one, and I am sorry that you ran away from the referendum. I regret that there is a feeling that we ought to give the vote to native women as well. Let us first pass the native Bills and then we can consider our women’s franchise on a sound basis. In case, however, this Bill does pass, we must see that it does so in a sensible form, and I move—

I second the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and I just want to say a few words in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I am sorry he has left the chamber; it almost looks as if, after making an attack on the members here, he always leaves the House. He said that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) had made a disgraceful speech. I think there is nothing disgraceful in it, but that that would apply more to the speech of the hon. member himself. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) did not attack the women, but tried to maintain the honour of the South African women. I agree with the hon. member that the mothers, the women of South Africa, do not want the franchise to-day. They have always hitherto governed South Africa, not by making a cross or by mounting public platforms, but by educating the children in the home. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) mentioned the voortrekkers’ wives. I, as a Free Stater, want to recommend the hon. member to go into our history when he will be better informed. The voortrekkers’ wives helped their husbands and jumped into the breach when necessary. They loaded the guns when the voortrekkers marched against the Zulus, and when the men became frightened and intended trekking to Natal, the women said that that could not be done before the blood of the men who had been murdered by the natives was avenged. Those women never agitated for the franchise. The men said that, on account of their bravery, they should have the vote, but we do not find from the history of the Transvaal or the Free State that they ever agitated for the franchise. It is not the voortrekker spirit to agitate for such a thing. They rule quietly in the home, at the cradle, and in that way they use their influence.

You use them at public meetings.

As already mentioned, the women know when they must come to our aid, and when they find it necessary they say: “We will do it.” In the old days the women did not have time to walk about the streets agitating for the franchise and distributing dodgers. It is the European spirit which is pressing into South Africa, not the voortrekker spirit. I am sorry that the women here have also been infected by it. I agree with hon. members who say this is a very inappropriate time for the Bill. When circumstances change we can go into the matter again.

I yield to no one in this House, not even to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in my desire and wish to give the European women of South Africa the vote if they want it. I gave my reasons at the second reading. I differ from my hon. friends who say that the South African women in the past did not want the vote. I think they actually received it, as a matter of fact. I have here a Volksraad Besluit of 1855, where the civil rights are laid down, and it provides that when men obtain citizen’s rights their wives shall also automatically be considered citizens. The coloured people were excluded there because it conflicted with the constitution of the Republic. We have gone far since then; we have brought about union, and the coloured people in the Cape Province got the franchise. Although I am much in favour of women’s franchise I want to ask hon. members whether they are in earnest in wanting this Bill passed now. We know chat the Prime Minister’s Bills are being considered by a select committee, can hon. members then be in earnest in introducing this Bill at this stage? Let Us first settle the great problem, and then proceed with this Bill. Let us not make the native question still more complicated than it is now. I can well understand that many women are becoming impatient, and say that they are tired of waiting till matters are settled, but I think that as this Government is now tackling the question and introducing legislation, we ought rather to use all our energies in solving the native difficulty and should ask the women to wait another year or 18 months. The women’s franchise will undoubtedly come in some way or other. I understood the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) to say that the grant of the vote to the coloured and native women in the Cape Province was a local matter of no great importance. Let us assume that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) are right, then 2,000 native women and 10,000 coloured women will get the vote. The nonwhite vote will therefore be increased by 12,000 votes in the various constituencies. Together with the male native vote, there will be, according to the figures, 13,600 native votes. Is that not a considerable number? Do hon. members wish those 14,000 natives to exercise their influence through their parliamentary representatives to make laws for the women about whom they are so concerned. It is not a local question, but a national question, and it affects every man and woman in South Africa. I do not agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) because I do not wish to exclude the married women, but I am in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). Our objection to giving the native women the franchise is not hypocrisy, and we know what strong opposition there is in all the northern provinces to giving the native the vote. If I may advise the women who are so agitating for the vote I would advise them to go to the countryside and convince the women there, and get them to apply for the women’s franchise. Let them convince the women and not the men in Parliament. It cannot be denied—I am speaking primarily for Barberton and Carolina—that the women on the countryside do not ask for the franchise. I have no mandate to vote for or against it, it leaves most women quite cold. I have done more in expressing an opinion with regard to the women’s franchise than the women in my own constituency. If the women of South Africa ask for it I am quite prepared to grant it.

It seems to me that the intention is either to talk out the Bill this afternoon, or to kill it by all kinds of amendments; in any case to get it out of the way in one way or another. That seems to be the intention this afternoon, and I just want to tell the friends of the Bill that they must not assist that policy, but must do their best by not speaking, and by voting to get the matter through, so that an injustice may be removed during the present session. It is clear to me that time has been wasted in this debate. It is a repetition of the second reading debate. With the exception of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) all hon. members opposite who spoke made it clear that they were against the Bill, and the amendments which have been proposed have no bearing on the merits. The intention appears to be to kill the Bill in committee, although it passed the second reading. We on this side must not assist the other side in that policy. The question of a colour bar has again been raised. Its only object is to create prejudice in order to wreck the Bill. I will say why I support the Bill, and am opposed to the amendments. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) need not be taken seriously; it was not meant seriously. The other amendments in one way or other bring the colour bar into the matter and in that connection I again take the attitude already adopted at the second reading, that I shall vote for the Bill as it now stands, notwithstanding the coloured vote which is thereby granted. I do this because the Bill will make no difference in the three northern provinces. No native or coloured woman will get the franchise there.

But what about the Cape Province?

In the Cape Province it is given. The women are being treated exactly like the men. In all provinces, where a man has the vote, the woman also gets it, where the native man has the vote the native woman will get it, too, as well. And why not? The Cape Province is the only province where coloured women will get the franchise. Now I want to ask a question, it serious question: Are we going to withhold the franchise from European women in South Africa on account of the difficulties in connection with the native and coloured women in the Cape Province? I shall not do so. I shall not commit that injustice to the white women of South Africa on account of some thousands of native or coloured women. That is my attitude. Only a few thousand coloured women will get the franchise. Because there is more to be said against than in favour of withholding the franchise from the white woman I am not going to prevent her from getting it. Why that colour prejudice? The Prime Minister has introduced Bills to extend the franchise of natives and coloured people over the rest of South Africa, and he enjoys the support of the other side of the House.

Unrestricted?

Thousands and tens of thousands of natives and coloured people will get the vote in the other provinces.

Do you object?

No, I do not say so. We are awaiting the proposals, but I take up the logical attitude, and I want to point out how we run a risk of being led by prejudice from the right road. There are proposals by the Government to extend the franchise of coloured people and natives to all the provinces. There we do not hear of prejudice from hon. members. It is a very important matter to give the franchise throughout South Africa to natives and coloured people. It is much more serious than giving the franchise to the few thousand coloured and native women as proposed here. In the big question the hon. members are not afraid.

It is quite a different matter.

The policy proposed is to give the franchise to natives throughout South Africa.

It is quite a different matter, quite a different franchise.

We have to do here with a small group of coloured people who will get the franchise. Let us be honest. I must ask my conscience if, for the sake of a few thousand native and coloured women, I am to refuse the white women the vote. I say that we must give the vote. The time is ripe, and we must not withhold it from them.

When did you make that discovery? You had the opportunity for fourteen years.

Was the hon. member deaf and blind to what took place here? I am sorry the Prime Minister is not present. The Prime Minister shows by his policy that he is engaged in leading his party, at any rate gradually, away from the old colour prejudice. The party is agreeing to it. What would have happened if the proposals of the Prime Minister had come from this side of the House? They would not have thought of passing them. I think the Prime Minister is doing a good thing, and he is taking a step forward in the development of South African history. Here, however, we still have a little of the old prejudice. Here it is said—

They are afraid of the old coloured ayahs. I do not think that kind of argument holds. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to support me. He is giving a lead in the right direction, but his party still want to retrogress. Let us act honestly and give the European woman her due.

Hear, hear, the European woman.

Probably proposals to extend the franchise to natives and coloured people will still be introduced in this House this session.

Why so premature? Wait till they come up.

I shall not be frightened by the few coloured people. Let us give the white women the franchise.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to answer the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The hon. member for Standerton repeatedly said that the Prime Minister had introduced proposals to extend the native vote to the north. He knows well enough that his speech may possibly contribute most to the defeat of the matter. He will not frighten me. The hon. member said the Prime Minister was engaged in extending the native vote by thousands. He knows that it is not so. He knows that the proposal really is to restrict the native vote in the Cape Province, but he wants to give the other impression to the country to make political capital out of this matter. Unfortunately, the position of the hon. member for Standerton is such that he is politically bankrupt, to such an extent that he grasps at every straw to make a little political capital. From the day I came into the House I have voted in favour of the principle of women’s franchise. I was always in favour of the white woman getting the vote. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), as well as the hon. member for Standerton, said that if the Bill was passed it would only mean the extension of the vote to a small number of coloured and native women in the Cape Province. They argue that we must not deprive the white women of the franchise on account of that small group. I might use the same argument and say that we must give the large majority of white women the vote, and not let it be prevented by the small majority of native and coloured votes, and that we, therefore, must not give the vote to the native and coloured women. I shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). Hon. members know that we cannot extend the vote of the native women. They know that it will not pass this House. Let them then be honest, and not assist in wrecking this measure for giving the vote to white women, while they suggest to the women that they have honest intentions regarding the franchise. The hon. member knows what feeling there is against the granting of the vote to native women, and that the Bill will be wrecked thereby. Let them then, if they really want the native women to get the franchise, rather say: “Half a loaf is better than no bread,” and give the franchise to the white women. Why should we allow the measure to fail again? I should like to say a few words to a few members of my party. I want to point out that the amendments proposed practically all came from opponents of women’s franchise. I also think that the amendments of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) need not be taken seriously. His motion is ungrounded. He has not used one argument as to why he has inserted the age limit of 30 years. His amendment says further that only independent women, working for themselves, shall have the vote. What about the women who look after their husbands? If we make that a test, we must also take away the vote from the men who are provided for by women, I think the motion is entirely impossible. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) referred to the voortrekker women, and made an attack on the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The matter concerned an article in a newspaper about what the women had done in the history of our country. I have the paragraph here. It is in connection with an occurrence in August, 1842, after the English had taken Natal. The article reads as follows—

The question is whether the women are not entitled to the franchise. It was admitted in the past, and how can hon. members, in view of the past, when they themselves took the franchise, get up and say that they do not want it? With what right does the hon. member speak on behalf of the women? May I refer to the resolution of the women’s Nationalist party of the Cape Province? The hon. member surely knows that there is a women’s party. That party is in favour of the women’s franchise, and how can the hon. member get up and say they do not want it? The movement has progressed very much, and if the women ask for it, it is our duty to give them the franchise.

In the short speech made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) this afternoon, he no less than five times used the argument that the Prime Minister wanted to extend the coloured and native franchise to the north. With what object? Did he use it as an argument in favour of women’s franchise? The hon. member ought to know that his statement is wrong, and that the natives will not get the vote on the same basis as the Europeans. I want all the women of South Africa to know that the hon. member for Standerton was not serious. For fourteen years he had the opportunity of giving the franchise to the women, and he did not do it. That is why I interjected and asked him: “When did you make this discovery?” In his speech the hon. member for Standerton was not thinking in the least about the women’s franchise. There is something else behind it. It was not honest of him as a statesman. Let him say frankly what his intention is, he had sufficient time to give the women the franchise, but he never did so. Why is he convinced today that it is necessary? But the women of South Africa have too much sense not to know that the speech of the hon. member was not intended to advance women’s franchise. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) is so much in favour of women’s franchise that I should like to ask him whether he has ever received a mandate from any meeting in his constituency to advocate it.

Yes, certainly.

My opinion is quite clear. I always said, and still say now, let us first settle the native question, then the women’s franchise can be dealt with, but not before then.

It does seem hopeless to state a case in favour of women’s suffrage in a House like this, as we have seen from the other side prejudice is an unreasonable quality. Nevertheless I must refer to one or two of the arguments which have been advanced against votes for women. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) pointed out that only 2 per cent. of the women of South Africa were in favour of the franchise and that until the majority were in favour he would not support the franchise. In spite of that he introduces an amendment to make provision for a certain class of females to have the vote. Another argument freely used on the other side, is that until the majority of women ask for the franchise it should be withheld from them. I am not going to accept it from the members on the other side that the majority of women are not in favour of it. I think they are.

You want to force it down their throats.

It is in the nature of all reforms to be born of minorities, that is, in the minds of one or two and thence it grows. That is the history of reform throughout the world from time immemorial. The late Mr. Merriman said that women should continue to occupy the position in which nature had placed them, but I would like to know can anyone tell me what that position is. If you go back to prehistoric or remote times, you will find that women occupied a different position than they do today. They marched from the state of thraldom and barbarism step by step. In Solomon’s time we know what conditions prevailed, but at that time the majority of women were probably satisfied to submit to the conditions in which they found themselves. If no advance had been made and there had been no pioneers in the way of reform we should still have been in that condition. If we wait until the majority ask for these things we shall not get any reform. There could be no progress. Throughout all ages custom or society draws a line around our people, around our women especially, and insists upon their remaining within that line called propriety, and if anyone dares to overstep that and ask for something which the common herd disapproves of, she is at once ostracised and held up to opprobrium. All reform has to fight as a minority until it ultimately commands a majority. I can very well remember the time during my boyhood when women first began using bicycles, and departing from old established custom, and how the eyes of our old people used to turn up in horror and protest against this, and wonder what our young people were coming to. As we follow the course of history we find that professions, trade, literature, art and other fields which have been closed to the female sex gradually being opened to them, and they have proved themselves competent and justified their entrance into such fields. Why should people merely on account of their sex be denied the right to do the work which they are fitted for? There is another argument which has been used, namely, that until the native problem has been settled, we should not be acting in the interests of the country if we extend the franchise to women. We have had the native question with us for 200 years and more, and it will remain with us for hundreds of years to come. Are women going to be sacrificed because of that condition? The Prime Minister, I would remind hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), has in his Bills, if I may refer to them, made provision for extending the franchise to coloured people throughout the Union. He proposes to regard them henceforth as Europeans. If he accepts that, then he cannot consistently use the argument that native and coloured women may not have the vote, and that until the native and coloured problems are settled, European women shall not have the vote. It is perfectly obvious to me that it is merely a question of prejudice on the part of hon. members opposite, who are determined to burke this at all costs. I must tell them that great changes have taken place and are taking place, and conditions are today different from what they were 20 years ago. We have young women and middle-aged women entering various fields of activity and making their own living. They are subject to the laws and have to pay the taxes of this country, and yet, while we are extorting revenue from them, we withhold from them the right to vote. [Time limit.]

I do not now wish to speak on the general principle. I just want to show what the effect of the measure would be if it were passed in its present form. The Bill provides that all women shall have the vote where they have the same qualifications necessary for men. Now what are these qualifications? In the Cape Province one must be able to read and write a little and have salary or wages of £50 a year, or one must occupy a house or room which is worth £75. This means that if I have a native woman in my service she will have both qualifications. In the calculation of wages the value of board and lodging is included, but if I have an unmarried daughter of 21 living at home, she cannot vote, because she gets no salary or wages and she does not occupy her room in her own rights. Not only is the native woman preferred in this respect to the white woman, but she usually lives in a township, village or mission station close to the poll. It is already very difficult for the poorer class of voter among the farming population to go to the poll. They do not all have the necessary transport, and moreover find greater difficulty in leaving home than the man who is better off. It will be still more difficult for the poor farmer’s wife and daughter to reach the distant ballot box. Therefore if the Bill is to be passed as it stands it will directly injure the country population. Now it is replied that the number of natives on the voters’ list is comparatively insignificant. True. But the number is continually increasing. The figures to-day are startling in comparison with those of 20 years ago. It is due to the increase of education among natives. In order to get on to the roll you must be able to write your name, address and occupation on the application form. In the same proportion that education has increased among natives so it has also increased among their womenfolk. And the education is progressing more and more. We are not only legislating for to-day, but for the future. The longer we wait the worse the position will become. The native vote already influences 20 constituencies. It would be just as detrimental to the coloured population as to the European population if the native vote assumed command. Native and coloured persons are already a good deal opposed to each other. The interests of the coloured man are not the same as those of the native. The tale that the white women of the country are keen on the franchise is not true. Not 10 per cent. of them want it. The chief agitators are especially women from overseas—people with very little interest in South Africa. I am surprised that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is prepared to vote for a measure calculated to turn South Africa into a native country.

I do not propose to make a second reading speech at this stage, but merely to bring forward what I consider to be a point of considerable practical importance.

Have you been arranged to fill up another 10 minutes?

No, I have very definite views on this subject, but at this stage of the Bill I do not think it necessary to go into the merits or otherwise of women’s suffrage. The point I wish to submit to the committee is this. If this Bill becomes law it seems to me that the Prime Minister cannot bring forward legislation in his three native Bills, which is in any way inconsistent with this particular Bill. In other words, you have this position, that if we pass this measure this session through which the native women get the franchise, later on in the session, if it is thought necessary, as it is thought necessary, to bring up legislation dealing with the native question, we will not be able to deal with the native franchise because it will be inconsistent with this particular matter. I would like the committee to be clear on that point. I, for myself, believe that the whole question of native franchise must be dealt with fully later on, and after it has been properly dealt with it will then be the correct time to deal with the question of women’s franchise. I do not think we ought to jeopardize the passing of our native legislation. By passing this measure now there is no doubt that this danger will present itself.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) immediately commenced giving an unpleasant tone to the debate. He started with the accusation that the amendments were only intended to shipwreck the Bill. He also said that when we state that we are in favour of women’s franchise it is all hypocrisy. At the second reading we sounded a warning note and said: “Please allow this matter to stand over, seeing the segregation Bills are with the select committee; let this matter stand over till these Bills have been disposed of, and let us not make the native question more complicated still.” We are engaged on that difficult matter, and why should we, therefore, make it more difficult? Now this Bill must be forced through the House. The arguments opposite are enough to shipwreck the matter. The hon. member for Hanover Street speaks about hypocrisy, he reminds me of a baboon who burnt his own tail, and then wanted to bite someone else. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) got very angry and quoted the resolution of the Women’s Nationalist party. He said they were in favour of the women’s franchise, but he remained silent about the important proviso in their resolution. I am surprised that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) did not mention it either. When we wanted to point out that he had forgotten the proviso the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) got angry. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has astonished us once more to-day. I have never seen anybody in the House get up as he does and, without the least trace of shame, make a statement which differs as the poles from the real thing. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister and our party were engaged in extending the native franchise to the other provinces. He said that thousands and thousands of natives would get the vote. May I ask him whether it is an unrestricted extension?

The north is being given five members.

Five out of 150. That is surely a great restriction, the hon. member ought not to keep silent about it. He seems to want to create the impression that the franchise is being granted unconditionally to the natives throughout South Africa, and he thereby stirs up feeling against the Bills that have been introduced. The hon. member knows that the franchise is very restricted, and the number of members who will come to Parliament representing the natives is very restricted. Then the hon. member speaks about thousands getting the franchise. I have here a card which has been sent me calculating that if this Bill is passed 2,000 coloured women will get the franchise. I think that I am just as good an authority as anyone else to calculate how many coloured women will get it. The hon. member for Standerton asked why, for the sake of a small group of native women, we should do injustice to the white women. I am certain that the women are prepared to wait a little longer until we are able to give them the franchise properly. But the hon. member says that it must be done to-day. He is in a great hurry. He had the opportunity for fourteen years to give the franchise, and never did it, but now he cannot wait a minute longer. Let him support the native Bills so that they can become law as soon as possible, and then we can, without danger of making the native question more complicated, give the vote to the white women. The point of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) that if we pass this Bill this session, a Bill which alters the Cape franchise with regard to natives can no more be introduced, seems to me important. I think that we should ask the law advisers whether this Bill will prevent our passing the native Bills this session.

I want to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé). He said frequently that the Nationalist women’s party of the Cape Province had passed the principle of women’s franchise. It has already been explained that they made the proviso that the native question must first be solved. But, notwithstanding that, I say that the large majority of South. African women do not want the franchise. I can assure the House that if the women of the Nationalist party had been given notice that such a thing was being moved at the congress, the result would have been quite different. I am very sorry that I have to differ from an hon. member in my own party, and that he wanted to suggest that I was insulting the women. I am the last man to do so. Just because I think highly of them I want to keep them out of the political maelstrom. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has been talking so big here, but he would not be sitting on the Labour benches if it were not for the influence of his wife. The women have great influence everywhere, and they decide.

I do not rise to express my feelings that the women are not entitled to the franchise, nor to flatter one woman or another, because I think they are already very tired of it. I rise to say that I agree with those who say that the women, like the men, must have the vote, but there is a time for every thing, and the women themselves see that the time for the women’s franchise has not yet arrived. There are obstacles which we are now engaged in solving. That is why the House for ten years has rejected these proposals; the difficulties still exist to-day. I believe that the women will agree if we say that it is better to wait until the native Bills now under consideration are disposed of. I want to contradict the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton). We have no prejudice against women’s franchise, but we all feel that it must be passed at the proper time. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the Minister of Native Affairs wanted to extend the native vote throughout South Africa. I cannot understand how the hon. member who, himself, sits on the Native Affairs Committee, can make such a statement. The object of the Minister is actually to abolish the native vote, and the hon. member knows it. How can the same Bill abolish something, and at the same time, introduce it? But that there is a great difference between the policy of the present Government with reference to the native franchise and the way in which the hon. member for Standerton would like to give it to the natives, no one will contest. In the debate on the subject in 1924 the hon. member for Standerton made it clear that he would give the vote to white, brown and native women, and that the only basis of qualification should be the standard of development. We, however, feel that if qualification is the only condition, then the word “Ichabod” will be written on the door of white civilization in South Africa. It is the greatest mistake we can make to put the women’s franchise through now. There are great difficulties, and we are to-day on the eve of their solution. I can assure hon. members that if the women wait until the native Bills are disposed of, then they will find a strong supporter of women’s franchise in me.

If (his Bill is not talked out this afternoon it will certainly not be the fault of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He made an appeal in his speech to the friends of the Bill to remain silent, although he himself did not practice what he preached. He reminds me of the English writer who, it is said, devoted his whole life to singing the praises of silence. The hon. member particularly set out to hurt hon. members on this side of the House, or rather to tread on their toes. The result was that quite a number of members here jumped up. If it were only in connection with this matter that the hon. member made these statements, then we might possibly have let them pass. But he and his lieutenants have systematically represented that the Prime Minister is engaged in extending the franchise to the north. A half truth is often much worse than a complete untruth. We know that it is even less than a half truth. The hon. member knows that the efforts of the Prime Minister are to put the native franchise on an entirely different basis in South Africa. There is actually a certain amount of truth in a statement that the natives are getting a kind of franchise, but the hon. member did a very wrong thing by trying to make it appear as if the Prime Minister wanted to give the natives the full franchise. The hon. member spoke as if a great injustice was being done to South Africa, and, at the same time, he defends a thing which makes the native question still more complicated. The hon. member said that it is unjust for the South African women not to have the franchise yet. I am convinced that the largest majorities do not regard it as an injustice; many women in the towns, many in the villages, and almost all on the countryside, do not regard it as an injustice. The women of South Africa are sufficiently developed, and know well enough what rights to demand, but that the claim is not so strong in South Africa is a sign of the fairly healthy family life still existing in our country. It is good to see that family life has not yet suffered as in many other countries. According as the industrial life develops, the movement for women’s franchise usually increases, but in South Africa we still have a healthy family life. I want in a few words to defend the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). He seems to be the least popular member to-day. No one defended him. The hon. member possibly did not defend his amendment sufficiently from the right point of view. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) wrongly inferred from his speech, that the hon. member took up the attitude that women were not so intelligent as men. The hon. member did not say that. I do not say that we can entirely defend the principles in the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North). The development of women’s franchise has proceeded too much on individual lines, but the hon. member takes up the attitude that the basis of the franchise ought anyhow to be that the family forms the representation of the people, and he, therefore, wants to give the vote to widows and those who, from the nature of the case, constitute a separate entity, those who do not belong to a family. I think that the basis of his amendment is not so far wrong. Perhaps the time may come when democracy will again retreat and make the discovery that the basic principle should be that the family ought to be the unit of representation. As matters stand to-day, however, I admit that we cannot agree to the hon. member’s amendment. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) sneered at the hon. member for Pretoria (North) as an Afrikander. I was astonished to learn from the applause of the Opposition that they agreed with that, as if anyone born elsewhere cannot be a good Afrikander. If it is so, I fear that quite a number of hon. members opposite cannot call themselves good Afrikanders. Hon. members have possibly allowed themselves to be influenced by personal or party feeling to applaud such a remark. We are engaged in solving the great native question, and, therefore, I think that we are doing no great injustice to the women of South Africa in asking them to wait a little longer for the vote. They will be prepared to do so.

A side note to this clause reads—

So I suppose it is inevitable that the remarks this afternoon should have been more of a second reading character than we usually expect in proceedings in committee. I do not intend to follow that example. There have been very few remarks advanced against the abstract principle of giving women the vote. I wish to remove a few misapprehensions from the minds of a few waverers who may be inclined to vote against this Bill through non-recognition of the facts involved. They may be divided into two or three classes. Some are opposed to giving votes to women because it would bring in the native vote. These can be dealt with in this way. First of all there are in this House to-day those who are prepared to deny the vote to persons just because of their sex. Frankly, I am unable to deal with them. The world has dealt with that question. They are in such a hopeless minority and if they still hold those views they must be bigoted in their belief and it is impossible to deal with them. Then there is the fear that our electorate may be flooded with a large number of uninstructed voters. That is an international question. It has occupied the minds of statesmen all over the world. Undoubtedly there is that fear. It is a point, voiced by some, that probably the extension of the franchise, in the terms of this Bill, would produce that effect. Others have visualised a large number of what they call “blanket” voters being added to the register. Members of this House have been circularised with a postcard which is not quite accurate, and I would like to correct some of these figures. It can be said that the Bill under discussion will not add a single native vote to the three provinces of Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal under existing conditions. We can, therefore, confine the consideration of the effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, to the Cape. People visualise a large number of native women being added to our registers in the Cape Province. There are 400,000 native women adults, approximately in the Cape Province, and I have tried to get some idea of the number of these likely to become qualified to be placed on the Parliamentary voters’ register. The qualification in the Cape is the earning of a salary of £50 per year or being in occupation of a house valued at £75,—or in joint occupation of a house of such value. I have made my enquiries from the best informed quarters and they have led me to the conclusion that there is no class of native women in the Cape which could conceivably get on the register except native women teachers.

Why?

Because there are no native women, or at any rate very few, so few as to be inconsiderable, earning £50 per year or occupying a house of the required value in the Cape with the exception of women teachers. I can assure the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), who interrupted just now, that I have had my information from the best informed sources. The hon. member smiles, and I daresay if he ransacked the whole of the Cape Province he might be able to produce half a dozen women other than teachers who were so qualified. But what does that matter? My point is this, that there is no large class of native women in the Cape Province who are likely to be placed on the register, who have the necessary qualifications of salary or occupation of property and, of course, the necessary qualification of education. It is practically confined, to all intents and purposes, to these native teachers. Now how many of these native women teachers are there? There are 1,470 women employed in schools and of those 250 draw less than £50 per annum, so that the number that could possibly be qualified would be approximately 1,220. In the further inquiry from the Educational Department, it is stated that among those who have made a lifelong study of natives and their psychology and habits, the view is that it is very repugnant to nearly all natives that their women should take part in politics, and the estimate is that not more than one-quarter of those who conceivably might be qualified to go on the roll would be registered. That would bring you down to a very few hundred. I ask, is it reasonable that we should deny the expansion of the European vote by some 300,000 for the possible dangers of a very few hundred native women getting on the roll? It is said that this number may be extended in the future, but I am persuaded that for a long time to come there will be no considerable expansion of the native women vote or a very large number of native women to be added to the registers of parliamentary voters. The idea of swamping this province with native women voters is, I think, a sheer bogey. We are in the happy position that practically all hon. members of this House are agreed on the principle of women’s suffrage. I doubt if the exceptions would require more than the fingers of both hands in order to enumerate those who are opposed to the principle. Various objections in detail have been advanced. One hon. member, the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie), very eloquently and, I know, sincerely, based his argument chiefly on this consideration. He takes, as we all do, I hope, a very high view of women and their mentality. He says women will regard the franchise as a duty and that there are difficulties in the country in the carrying out of that duty by women. He was alluding to the difficulties that obtained, and still obtain, of women going to the polling station on polling day. The hon. member, when he spoke, had forgotten that we have made provision for that difficulty. We can vote by post now-a-days. That argument, therefore, falls to the ground. It can be arranged that people should vote by post who find it impracticable to go to the polling station on a particular day. As in the case of letters, it is said that if you leave letters alone they will answer themselves. I propose to leave a good many of the speeches which have been made against this Bill alone, too, because they have been mutually destructive. I am very pleased to note the fact that the enthusiasm for giving women the vote is growing, and particularly on the other side of the House, and I am quite sure that when the difficulties in the way, the dangers which are largely imaginary, are fully explained to hon. members, the majority in favour of women’s suffrage will be substantially increased. I do not propose to go into these matters now, but I think I have disposed of most of the objections that have, no doubt, sincerely, obsessed the minds of members and induced them to delay the passing of the Women’s Franchise Act for a while longer. I do not propose to go into the very big and thorny question why women’s franchise should await the settlement of the native question. That has been very ably dealt with by other speakers. I do suggest to hon. members that none of the objections which have been advanced this afternoon are really valid or will bear investigation, and I ask them to realise that this right for women is not only perpetuating an act of justice to them, but it will enable the State to have the advantage of their counsel and assistance when it was never more greatly needed. They are taking, naturally, a larger share in all public matters than ever, in business, commerce, trades and professions, and so on, and the State that refuses to enfranchise women is all the poorer for the loss of their counsels.

I have no doubt that the hon. member who has just sat down has proved entirely to his own satisfaction that the extension of the franchise to the native women in the Cape is necessary. I can, however, assure him that he has not convinced me, and that he has not convinced the country either. This Bill is intended to give the franchise to women, including the native women of the Cape. The native women will get the franchise under the existing qualifications. What are they? They will have to sign their names. Is there any probability that there will be many native women who can sign their names? I may here say that there are in the Cape Province to-day 100,000 more native than European children at school. If no difference is made between the franchise for men and women, then certainly in a few years there will be a large number of native women put on the voters’ roll by reason of their ability to sign their names. It will certainly be 50,000 women. The other qualification is that their income must be at least £50 a year. It was stated here that that qualification would prevent them. That is the same argument that was used when the franchise was given to the male native. It is insisted upon on all sides, even by the churches, that the natives should be paid more. They do get more, and when another 5 years have passed there will be a large number of native women who will easily earn £50 a year. In my opinion all the arguments are camouflaged. We must admit that we are here extending the franchise to the native women in the Cape Province, just as much as to the white women. We must either approve or disapprove of it. I feel that 70 per cent. of the Afrikander women who want the franchise to-day will agree with me that if we are to give the same right to the native women in the Cape they would rather be without it. If the figures which have been furnished by supporters of the women’s franchise are correct then certainly 80 per cent. of the Afrikander women would rather be without it. In the Free State they will not find one Afrikander woman, and not many more in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Standerton said that he could not understand how I could oppose this Bill to give the native women the franchise, seeing I was in favour of extending the male native franchise to the north. He, however, forgets that what he wants to extend I will always oppose. Instead of helping us to get away from the pernicious Cape system of the natives voting together with the Europeans, he not only wants the native men to vote with the Europeans, but also the native women. I cannot understand the argument that it only applies in the Cape Province. Is it true? As things stand to-day, yes. But let me ask my friends of the Opposition how many of them are in favour of extending the franchise to the natives in the north? A good many of them are, but still they say that it will not affect the provinces in the north. They know that it is going to restrict them, but their doctrine is: Give the Cape franchise to the natives in the north. They want to give the native in the north the franchise along with the Europeans. That is their theory. If it is agreed to, where will the country go to? How can the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) tell us that it does not affect the northern provinces. It does affect them. If we are going to pass it, I say it will be exactly 100 per cent. more difficult to solve the native question. We are therefore not justified in proceeding with the franchise now. If we are in earnest about the interests of the women, then they ought to wait. They can wait. It has been said that it will take too long, but I am still optimistic enough to disagree. I am always prepared to put the native question on a sound footing. Those who will not wait will do harm to the women’s cause. I have often expressed my opinion on the matter, but when I learn that the hon. member for Standerton has said to-day that I was intending to extend the native franchise to the north, I considered it my duty to make the difference between him and myself clear, to refer to the difference between what I am aiming at, and what will be obtained if the Bill is passed.

I am surprised at the position taken up by the Prime Minister. I thought he was more of a statesman and less of a politician. The hon. gentleman has used all the resources of his eloquence to rouse his people behind him against this Bill on the ground of the colour prejudice. He knows what string to play upon, and he knows what the result of playing upon it is, and he has used that line of attack on this Bill just as his followers in other parts of the House have used delay and trying to count the House out and all these methods. There is one argument the Prime Minister used which, I think, is a slight upon the women of this country. He says he is busy with the solution of this question of the native and coloured voter. He does not believe it is going to take so very long. He is an optimist, and he thinks that before long we shall get to some solution, and he says until that time the women can wait. Why are they to wait?

Why not?

Have the women of this country no interest in the solution of a question such as this? Are they to be kept out from using their influence and vote upon a question that is going to affect not only them, but generations that come after? They have to wait! Let them wait! What does it matter what they think? Let them wait? That is what the Prime Minister says. I am surprised at him, but I am not surprised at the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), of whom one would expect that argument. But I am speaking of the European women—they are to wait. They are to have no voice in the settlement of this question because—why? Because if this Bill passes, a few thousand of coloured women and a handful of native women may get the vote. That is why. And because of the fact that a few hundred coloured and native women in the Cape may get the vote under this Bill, hundreds of thousands of European women are to wait, and are not to be allowed to add their voice to the solution of this native question. The Prime Minister has told us in moving terms of the danger of the masses of native women who are going in the long years to come to come on the roll if this Bill becomes law and the conditions are not altered. What about coloured women? When the hon. gentleman was sitting here, and repeatedly since, he told us that coloured men and women should be treated as civilized people. Has he gone back on that? On that policy some of his colleagues have addressed large numbers of coloured people in the City Hall and said: “We are brothers.” Where are they now? Because this Bill may bring a few coloured voters on the roll in the Cape, European women have to wait.

I did not speak of coloured; I spoke of the native.

If he spoke of the native the Prime Minister’s fears are still less justified. In all these years, how many native men have we on the voters’ roll? 14,000.

And twenty years from now?

Does the hon. member think this will take 20 years? That is quite a different story. The mere fact of a number of native and coloured women who may be added to the Cape roll if this Bill passes will not in the least affect or make more difficult the solution which the Prime Minister has been aiming at so long, as this is a reasonable solution. I realize the problem just as anybody does in this House of the qualifications of the voters of the Cape, and of other parts of the country also. It is a matter into which we have to put our best energies to arrive at a solution, and to safeguard European civilization without keeping out a civilized man because of his colour. The Prime Minister is making a mistake when he says that the European women will have to wait until we can solve this most important problem.

A great deal has been said about my amendment and about my attitude. Two members, however, understood the principle I am proposing The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is one of the few members who sympathize with the principle I am supporting. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) does the same. The opposition that exists amongst the farming women against the general franchise is a speaking truth of the purity of family life among Afrikanders, and I am sorry that the purity does not have more admirers in this House. I say openly that I have more respect for the simple farm woman as house mother than for the ladies who are so keen on the franchise. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) called my speech shameful, “disgraceful.” One must take him seriously as desired because the member has proved in the past that he is an excellent judge of what “disgraceful” means. He further appealed to his being a “born” Afrikander. To this I wish to say that some people are Afrikanders because they deserve it by heavy suffering and the misery they have undergone for the country; other people are Afrikanders just because they were born here, and some of them have even subsequently abandoned that. I am not here thinking of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), but some born Afrikanders have done so. There are, however, some people who, although born overseas, have done enough for South Africa to enable them to claim it as their country. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that he could not taka my amendment seriously, and that I did not do so either. I can assure him that I am very, very serious. I can assure him that the principle that I express meets with great respect from a large section of the people. But I want to ask him if his judgment is not mixed with party feeling. Why has the hon. member given such a wrong statement of the intention of the Prime Minister, not from a wish to create an impression by the so-beloved blanket vote. Here is a point in connection with my amendment which gets me into trouble. I know that if I stick to my amendment I cannot vote for that of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). I want to vote for it because it is less bad than the Bill, and for that reason I withdraw my amendment. The arguments which have been adduced against women’s franchise have not converted me. They were very weak. I am myself able to find better ones.

I move—

I am sorry; it is a most important constitutional question, and I cannot accept the motion at the moment.

As far as I remember, I have never spoken on this question in the House, not because I do not feel strongly on the matter, but because one did not wish to talk the matter out. We have the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and several other hon. members who made no secret about it that they want to kill this Bill, and kill it along the lines of moving in “European women.” I want to say quite frankly that, coming from the north, the matter gives me considerable difficulty. If it were possible to move in the direction suggested by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) I would be very glad, and to persuade hon. members who are for this question to take the view—that since there is this trouble about colour here, let us all agree to give the vote to the European woman pending what arrangements may be made in the native Bills. If it were possible to do that, I would be very glad; but it is clear to me that if the committee accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, and the position that it is only European women who should get the vote, this Bill is dead.

It is the intention to kill it.

The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has done the same sort of thing. He will go around the country and he will say that members who will vote against the amendment have voted in favour of extending the franchise to native women. This will do us harm in our constituencies. I have just as little desire to antagonize my constituents as he has, but notwithstanding that I am going to support the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The fear expressed by some hon. members that the next twenty or thirty years the roll will be flooded with native women is a very small one, having in view a possible early settlement of the native franchise. Coming from the Transvaal, I feel that if the members for the Cape Province say they will take the responsibility of giving the vote to non-European women in the Cape Colony in order to extend it to the European women, I am not going to oppose them, but will vote for the Bill as it stands.

I am very glad that there are at least two things worth noticing in this debate. The one is that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has spoken on the subject for the first time, and the second was the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I agree with him about the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). I do not like the amendment at all. There is, however, something which the hon. member for Standerton must make very clear. I remember in a speech on the same subject in 1922 he said that we must be careful not to create a new colour bar. When subsequently I referred to the speech in the Transvaal, and, inter alia, went to Ermelo, then the pronouncement of the hon. member was hotly contested, and it was stated that he had never made it. They would not hear anything of it. Notwithstanding that I took Hansard with me they would not hear a word of it. I took it with me because I knew well that the Transvaalers would never believe it of the hon. member for Standerton, and they did deny it. Now I should like to know something from the hon. member for Standerton. I am going to the Transvaal again, and I shall say there that I, at that time, stated that the hon. member was in favour of giving the franchise to the native women in the Cape Province, and I shall again take Hansard with me in which his speech appears recommending it. The hon. member for Ermelo will also see me there. I now give my friends the opportunity to contradict me, or to repudiate what the hon. member for Standerton has said. If they do not do so here, then they must expect the countryside to deny it. Do they clearly understand that if they vote against the amendments of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), and Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg), they are then voting to give the franchise to the native women of the Cape Province. Am I wrong when I say that the hon. member for Standerton’s plea is that we should give the native women the vote? I should like to have a reply to this.

Do you want it now? My argument was this. It is not consistent for hon. members to object this afternoon to the granting of the franchise to native women in the Cape Province when they are prepared to extend the whole franchise to all the provinces.

That is not the point that I want to know. I want a definite answer, even if I have to rise ten times.

You will never get it from him.

Does the hon. member for Standerton know that if this Bill passes as it stands the native women of the Cape Province will then get the franchise? Does he know that that is so? I should be glad if he would say clearly that he knows it.

I do not know whether the hon. member is quite in his right mind. If one thing is clear then it is that.

My statement is, therefore, correct, the statement that I made in the Transvaal in 1922, that I made in the north, and will make again there, namely, that the members from the north who are to-day voting for the Bill, are in favour of the native women in the Cape Province getting the franchise just like the white man in the north.

This is electioneering.

Electioneering or not, the people must know where we stand. That is, therefore, the position. I am very glad that the hon. member for Standerton has said so. I warn hon. members that the people will not be satisfied with that action of theirs in Parliament.

I want again to point out that we are not legislating only for the present, but also for the future. What will be the conditions after 20 years? We know that there are very many native children in the schools at present, and they will be able to fulfil the qualifications. I move—

When I rise to speak then every member of this House knows that I am absolutely opposed in the present circumstances to any women’s franchise in our country, whether European, coloured or native. I have always hitherto voted against it, and will do so again to-day. It was said here that the person who is opposed to women’s franchise has little respect for the women of South Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). I do not yield to any hon. member in the House in my respect for them, and it is just because of this that I do not want to assist in their destruction. The clause we are now discussing is unpractical under present circumstances.

On a point of order, the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. de Waal) moved that we report progress.

I certainly never head the hon. member say so. If he did, he did not address the chair.

I did make the proposal, but there were many members opposite who joined in cross-talking when I did so. I now, however, withdraw the call for a division.

Motion put and negatived.

I have too high a respect for the women to expose them to what is going on in other countries. Why should we ape all the bad things overseas, and not the good things? No, we are not behind other countries in this respect. We must not ape that thing. I want to read something about what is happening in Europe, and then ask my friends if they want to expose our women to the same thing. The cutting reads as follows—

My respect for the South African women is so high that I do not want to expose them to anything of the sort. I have another extract here from what a minister of religion has said, even the parsons have to suit themselves to it. We know that in England there are 2,000,000 surplus women, and the cutting reads—

The parson had to warn people against the fact that the surplus women “find lovers and experience all the joys of life.” In England alone there are 2,000,000 surplus women, and no less than 25,000,000 in the whole of Europe. Why, it will be asked, do those surplus women not come here? Because the attractions here are not great enough for them to “experience all the joys of life.” But if we go and grant the franchise, etc., then they will come here too. We know that the “London Times” said that the only solution appeared to be for the women to go to the dominions, also to South Africa. We already have enough divorces in the courts, and we ought not by this franchise to undermine the family further. The women of South Africa do not want the franchise. It appears clearly from the speeches of hon. members that they do not know what to do. They are in a difficulty. To get rid of their difficulty I recommend them to do as I shall—although I am not in a difficulty and know what to do—vote against all amendments and also against the clause. I move—

Motion put and negatived.

As my amendment is the same as that of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) I withdraw it.

With leave of Committee, amendments proposed by Mr. van Rensburg and Mr. Oost withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. I. P. van Heerden put and the committee divided:

Ayes—56.

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

To Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Mullineux, J.

Noes—42.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the committee divided:

Ayes—52.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F. T.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van der Merwe, N. J

Van Heerden, G. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—47.

Alexander, M.

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 Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, T. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Vermooten, O. S.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I hope as we have got so far the committee will pass the remaining clause. It is only consequential and follows on the other clause. If hon. members have anything to raise on this clause, they can do it at the report stage. It is a private Bill, and there are not many facilities now. I ask, therefore, that you take it now.

I move—

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—40.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Conradie, J. H.; Hugo, D.

Noes—52.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Mullineux, J.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the committee divided:

Ayes—52.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize. J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Mullineux, J.

Noes—40.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff. L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

To Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W.

Van Zyl, J. J. M. le R.

Wessels, J. B.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: Conradie, J. H.; Hugo, D.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

What happens under this clause if a man and wife live in the same house, and the man loses his qualifications as a voter? He will still retain the franchise by virtue of this clause.

To a point of order. Has that anything to do with the clause? It is mustard after the meal.

Many men who are supported by their wives will have the franchise. They have only to hold onto their wives skirts and retain the vote.

You are wasting time deliberately.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

It looks as if he is.

The hon. member must withdraw.

I will withdraw.

I move—

We ought to consider Clause 3, for it lays down the principle that if a man is entitled to a vote now he will retain it, even if he does not possess the necessary qualification. How can you deprive a man of a vote if he is qualified? On the other hand, why should you preserve a right that a man already possesses? These points demonstrate the necessity of carefully considering this clause.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—40.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff. L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

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: Hugo, D.; Swart, C. R.

Noes—47.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Mullineux, J.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I want to move as an amendment—

The hon. member is moving an entirely new principle, and I cannot accept it.

I move—

There is not the least doubt that this Bill is being forced forward against the wish of the great majority of the women of South Africa. We know that our women are sensible and are not urging this.

On a point of order, is not this a purely frivolous amendment, or whatever you call it? Surely it is playing with the House.

I shall put the amendment to the committee.

On a point of order, may I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 217, which says—

To give this Bill the title of Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, 1930, is entirely inconsistent with what we have passed, and reduces the proceedings of this committee to a mere farce.

It is a very ordinary practice to mention in the last section, in the short title, the date upon which an Act shall come into operation. It is always moved under the title.

I understood that the hon. member was simply changing 1927 to 1930.

No, he has altered that. He moves to insert after “1927,” that it shall come into operation on a certain date

Make it the 1st of April, 1930.

I think that would suit you better.

*I am quite prepared to do so at the special request of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I think we ought to have more rime, and give the South African woman an opportunity to consider this matter and make her voice heard. Thereafter, hon. members opposite will certainly agree that this Bill should not be put on the statute book.

I move—

Because it is 1928.

I should like to propose another amendment. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) that the Bill conflicts with the views of a large majority of the women of South Africa, and it is, therefore, the duty of the minority in this House, who are in the end just as much responsible for the legislation passed to see that the Bill is make practical. The Bill will cause a large amount of organization, persuading work among the women, the necessary machinery to be arranged, etc. Therefore, more time must be given before the Bill comes into force. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet proposed “1930”, but the time seems to me too short for all the work. There is no election in 1930, but in 1929, and hon. members opposite will surely agree that the Nationalist party will be much stronger at the election than it is represented at present in Parliament. The following election will be in 1934. Why all this haste? The new House must have a chance of making necessary provision and the women will have to be convinced of the necessity of voting. I therefore move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. I. P. van Heerden—

I heartily support the motion. There are many reasons in favour of it, and I just want to point out that the new Government which will then be sitting here will first have to consult the weather oracles as to the date when the election ought to be held, because if the rivers are full, and there are other bad weather conditions which entirely stop transport, the women will find it very hard to do their duty—a thing they have always done, and will also want to do in the case of the vote.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand the Clerk of the House will make the necessary correction.

If the committee prefers 1927 for some reason or other, I cannot help it.

The Bill was introduced last year. That is how 1927 appears.

Amendment proposed by Dr. H. Reitz put and agreed to.

On the amendment proposed by Mr. I. P. van Heerden,

1928 being carried, I submit no amendment can be put.

The amendment follows the date.

The first part of amendment proposed by Mr. Oost (viz., to omit “1930” from the amendment proposed by Mr. I. P. van Heerden) put and agreed to.

The second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Oost (viz., the substitution of “1934”), put,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—27.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff. L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga. N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: van Heerden, I. P.; van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Noes—42.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, J. F. T.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. 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.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Mullineux, J.

Amendment accordingly negatived, and the remaining part of the amendment proposed by Mr. I. P. van Heerden dropped.

The clause as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I hope the House will agree to consider the amendments now.

Objection taken.

Amendments to be considered on 2nd March.