I move—

I should like to move, as an amendment—

Is that the result of yesterday’s caucus?

The House will possibly allow me to say something in support of my amendment. This is the first time since this matter came before the House first—and it is quite a number of years ago—that I have spoken on it. In the past I have always consistently voted against women’s franchise. The reason for it was the same as the reason of most hon. members on this side who voted against it, namely that to be logical we want first of all to see the native question satisfactorily solved and the women’s franchise then to come up automatically for disposal. Let me assure hon. members that when the native question is solved I, like most members of the House, will vote for women’s franchise with both hands. That was my general attitude. Although as an ordinary member of the House I have never yet expressed my opinion, I must now express it, as the Minister to whom the administration of the Bill will be entrusted by the House. I do not object to the principle of the Bill, but to the Bill with amendments printed as in the Votes and Proceedings, in my capacity as Minister of the Interior. If hon. members refer to the amendments before the House they will see that completely new principles, new aspects, are at once being introduced by them, which it is impossible to deal with at this stage of the Bill. To mention only one amendment, that of the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten). That amendment is a proposal which I must admit I am much inclined to vote for, for the reason that if the proposed Bill is passed it will be regarded as very desirable by every hon. member of the House because it aims at uniformity with regard to franchise qualifications—at least for one class of voters right through the Union. Another thing, of course, is that if we give the franchise to women we must as much as possible prevent women being obliged to go to court to justify their claim to the vote. If the amendment of the hon. member for Wodehouse is rejected then there will be many cases in the Cape Province of women appearing in court to prove their right to vote. We want to stop that, and if his motion is passed uniformity, and much simplicity, will be attained. At this stage hon. members can only speak once, and that makes the debating of such an important point difficult. It is of great importance that we should discuss it in committee of the whole House and not at this stage in as much as it cannot properly be considered now. There are other very serious defects in this Bill which probably have not been foreseen and for which provision can be made in the committee stage. If the Bill is passed in this form we shall get an Act on the statute book which will very soon require amendment.

Why?

If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will wait he will hear. Just to point out one single defect. If hon. members will look at the proposed Bill and the amendments they will see that in Clause 2 and the amendments to it provision is made for the registration of women. The motion says with regard to occupation the woman can be registered if she lives in a house with her husband which has double the value of the minimum which enables the man to be registered. Now one of the conditions in the Cape Province is that a man can also qualify for the vote on the ground of a certain wage or salary. What happens now? In the case of the man qualifying by wages or salary, and the house occupied is not taken into consideration, his wife is then excluded. I ask hon. members what sense there is when a man is qualified on the value of the house he occupies that the wife shall also be allowed to vote, but where a man and wife e.g. live in a boarding house or hotel the woman cannot vote even if the salary or wages of the husband are twice or three times as high as the amount prescribed for a voter’s qualification. Why should the women be excluded in that case? It only shows how half baked the Bill is as now proposed, and when there is no provision made in the Votes and Proceedings the mistakes cannot even now be discussed. Another point that I want to refer to is the following: In the Bill before us which has to be debated, provision is made for the mother of a family, but not for a major daughter living in the house. To-day a major son who lives with his father in the same house and gets a certain wage or salary can get on to the voter’s roll in the Cape Province under the existing law, in certain circumstances. But why when the mother is registered should the daughter not be registered? For that no provision at all has been made. The Bill as it stands is half baked and crude, and if provision is to be made it is absolutely necessary for the Bill to be referred back to the committee of the whole House. But there is another point which will cause great difficulty if the Bill is passed and it is a point in which I take personal interest, viz. the question whether if the Bill passes, proper provision cannot be made for the registration of the coloured people and the Cape Malay women in contradistinction to the native women. Hitherto it has always been a difficulty when this matter has been debated in the House, and there were always only two alternatives. The one was whether the word “European” should remain in the Bill, and the franchise be confined to them, and to them alone, or whether the word “European” should not be put in and the law should apply to all women without distinction of colour. The House has hitherto not made a single effort to see that coloured women and the Cape Malay women when they become entitled, get on to the voter’s roll in contradistinction to the native women. Now I want to explain how it happened that I and others with me possibly voted last time as we did, and how it happened that some members opposite voted in the way they did. It was simply because we were on the horns of a dilemma.

You still are.

I want to get away from it, and to assist the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) also. The horns of the dilemma are that if we support a motion to leave “European” out of the Bill the result will be that we shall not only give an opportunity to be registered to the coloured women, but also to the native women. That is in direct conflict with the policy which I have hitherto advocated and still advocate. Therefore it is simply impossible for me to vote for a motion from which the word “European” entirely disappears. On the other hand, if I vote for the amended Bill as it now stands, I shall vote for the restriction to European women only. Then I come into direct conflict with the policy which I have hitherto published on platforms and most of hon. members on this side also. That policy is nothing new. It is set out in the native Bills, namely that a dividing line must be drawn between natives and coloured people, and that the political rights of the white man shall be given to the coloured people. The Bill in its present form is in direct conflict with that. For this reason I am opposed to one of the motions which up to the present has been introduced with reference to the matter. The House has not yet had an opportunity to give its attention to the question whether it is possible to make proper provision for the dividing line between coloured people and natives. Now some hon. member or other may possibly ask why I did not move in committee to include coloured women and not native women. The answer is obvious. There is no provision to-day drawing a clear division between native women on the one hand and coloured women on the other. Personally I should like to give the vote to the coloured women, but what trouble will it not give to the canvassers when they go about to know how a woman is to be classified? We are removing this difficulty in the native Bills so that we can register the coloured persons in South Africa. But what will be the result if we have no dividing line? Hundreds of coloured women will have to go to court to prove that they are coloured and not natives.

Why did you not discover it before?

The Bill is a half baked and crude measure and the interjection shows how necessary it is to refer the matter back to the committee of the whole House.

I second the amendment. I feel with the Minister that we are on the point to-day of giving finality to a Bill which can be described by no other word than that of the Minister—“half-baked”. I have hitherto on all the occasions when legislation of this kind was before the House taken no part in the debate. We have now come to the critical point, and I feel that I can remain quiet no longer. I, therefore, support the Minister’s motion. I am convinced that few hon. members have given the necessary consideration to the Bill with reference to the estimate of what the effect will be on the country and people. Superficially, it is a political measure, but only superficially regarded; it affects the social and household life, and, although I want to say at once that I have no objection to the principle of women’s franchise, I am not now in the position of going into the principle. I want to say, therefore, that in spite of my entire approval of the principle of women’s franchise there are additional things here which are more far-reaching in their effect on the national life than the majority in the House have ever thought of. As the Bill stands it is, of course, full of defects and absurdities, and they are so great that much injustice would be done in view of the position which will be created in connection with the women’s franchise in the various provinces. The rights of the women will not at all be the same in all the provinces, and we shall not, therefore, as the highest authority in South Africa, be justified in creating an unjust position. The qualifications in the Transvaal and the Free State will be entirely different from those in the Cape Province. How can we then approve of the measure to-day? That is the more reason for referring it back, but I have another great objection, and it is in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten). That raises an entirely new principle, namely, that the franchise shall be given to adult women. The principle has also been introduced in England, but the English people cannot as yet calculate what the effect will be. How then can we go in for it without being able to appreciate the effect? It is a new principle, and it is necessary to discuss it in committee first. If the amendment be passed as it stands I feel that an unjust relation will be created between man and wife. The wife will have the adult franchise and the husband will still be saddled with the various provisions and qualifications in the different provinces. That will create unjust relations between man and wife. The amendment of the hon. member is certainly an imitation of the English Act, but it is still an experiment in England, and it is a question whether we can immediately imitate such an experiment of another country without having investigated and calculated the full effect thereof. I think the English people to-day are not yet quite satisfied with the introduction of the adult women’s franchise, and we cannot blindly follow that experiment. There are dangers in following the lines suggested by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten) and then we have the differences of qualifications in the various provinces. In many provinces the position will have to be revised, and we shall have to get a uniform basis for them all. To say that a division between women and women should be drawn and that an unjust relation between one and another should be created would he a lack of statesmanship. This is a private Bill, but the matter is so complicated in connection with the points that I have mentioned that we shall only settle the matter if the Government introduces it. There are, however, other amendments and they are diametrically opposed to each other. They are not in conflict with the principle, but with each other, namely, the amendments of the hon. members for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). That amendment shows at once what difference of opinion exists in the House with reference to a measure intended for the general welfare and progress of the country. I am very sympathetic towards the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street and, as he will remember, I voted with him last time, but I did it under the reservation—and I make this statement frankly—that I am not prepared to allow the word “European” to remain where it is to-day, nor am I prepared to entirely delete it and to merely apply the Bill to Europeans, coloured people and natives.

Only in the Cape Province with respect to the coloured people.

Nor am I prepared to give the franchise to the native women in the Cape. After thinking it over for years I have come to the conclusion that it is in the interests of the Europeans in the first instance, and also the coloured people that we could say that the latter, as distinguished from the natives, should he put politically on the basis of the European. I have been following this policy since 1920 and am trying to adhere to it. That is also the policy which is being followed by my honoured leader since 1923, and I shall continue to follow it. It will solve numbers of our difficulties in South Africa and will be the saving of Europeans, natives and coloured people. The lot of the coloured people is inseparably bound up with that of the Europeans and the lot of the natives can and must be worked out by the natives themselves after they have been segregated. I am not prepared to give the franchise to the native women now. When the question of native Rills is settled the natives can themselves decide, when the legislation and their development has advanced to that length, when the autonomy to a great extent is in their own hands, in other words, if the specified amount of autonomy is granted to the natives they can themselves decide whether the native women shall have the franchise that they themselves have. We ought to regard the matter apart from political parties. We ought to regard the interests of the natives separately. Because I hold this view I heartily support the motion of the Minister of the Interior.

I doubt if this House has ever listened to a more brilliant exhibition of political casuistry and political cynicism than we have just had from the Minister of the Interior. It is quite obvious what this move is. The powers opposite have come to the conclusion that this Bill must be killed, and the Minister of the Interior is put up to draw a veil of pontifical seriousness over what is a cynical attempt to destroy this Bill. That is the position as I see it. What does the Minister tell us? The Minister tells us that at present; until the question of the native vote is solved, he is unalterably opposed to the extension of the female suffrage, and yet he is moving that we go back into committee. He is not opposing the Bill, he is moving the Bill back into committee in order to improve the Bill, I suppose, and in order to give an opportunity for the amendment put on the paper by another stalwart opponent of female franchise, the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten), who is so bitterly opposed to it that he wants to extend it over the whole Union without qualification of any kind. This is what I call political casuistry and cynicism.

Won’t you say hypocrisy?

No, I prefer to choose my own words. If anyone else likes that word better he can use it. The Minister has consistently opposed this Bill through all its stages, through all the various divisions we took on the committee stage he has consistently opposed it, and yet he wants to go back into committee again. Is it in order to pass the Bill? No, it is in order to kill the Bill. Let us have it straight out. Hon. members who vote with the Minister, whether on the Labour benches or ion the Nationalist benches, are voting to kill this Bill. Let us be clear about it. We heard about all these difficulties that the Minister has just discovered in the Bill, difficulties about registration, about qualification, the wage qualification and so on. Did none of these clever gentlemen ever think of this before?

They are none the less real.

When did the Minister of Railways and Harbours wake up to that? If he feels so strongly about these difficulties why did he not bring them forward when the Bill was in committee? This is our Bill. Why are you trying to kill it?

Because it is impracticable.

It is giving to women throughout South Africa what they have asked for for years, and that is the franchise on the same basis as men. This is what hon. members there are now going to deny. Let us be quite clear about it. This Bill gives to women the vote on the same basis as men have it. Hon. members opposite, on a pretence of giving them something more, want to refuse them that. That is my indictment against the attitude of hon. members opposite. Are they going to vote for adult female franchise without qualification? We find an amendment on the paper in the name of the chief whip of the Nationalist party. Is it a party amendment? Are they going to vote for adult female franchise without qualification? Another piece of casuistry! The gem of the Minister’s speech was when he dealt with the vote of the coloured women. Then a tone of pathos entered into his voice. The coloured woman is being excluded—that is why he is against this Bill in its present form! The Bill, when it was introduced, did not exclude the coloured woman. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) not merely to exclude the native, but to exclude the coloured woman, and the Minister voted for that amendment. Now he comes with a quiver in his voice, almost a tear in his voice, and says: “Oh, you are leaving out the coloured woman. I never could vote for a Bill like that.” We had a Bill before the House not so very long ago on the subject of liquor, and there were various prohibitions there imposed upon the coloured people. They were lumped together with the natives for all practical purposes. Did the Minister raise his voice in bitter protest against that. Did he help us who were trying to preserve for coloured men the privileges they had hitherto had in the Cape? No, he had forgotten about that for the moment. Perhaps it is the coloured woman he is standing for, not the coloured man. Do not let us be under any mistake about this. I am not going to delay the House, because I know quite well what the danger is in delay. I want to make it quite clear what the object of this motion is. It is intended to kill the Bill. The hon. member for Wodehouse, who has put this amendment on the paper, does not believe in his amendment. He wants to kill the Bill. The Minister does not believe in his motion. He does not want to improve the Bill. He wants to kill it. I want especially to call the attention to that pointed of my hon. friends on the cross-benches. Where are they? I remember on one occasion when the Labour benches were similarly depleted, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) got up and said: “Where are the boys of the old brigade?”

Where are they?

Yes, where are they? They are not here, and I want to know why they are not here, but I can guess that the word has gone forth that the Pact is to be upheld, and that those who cannot conscientiously combine to kill this Bill had better get away. Let me just warn my hon. friends in that part of the House, and the absent ones too, if I could reach them, that this will not be forgotten to them. It is not the first time they have helped their masters to kill a women’s franchise Bill, and they are piling up an account against themselves which will not be forgotten.

What have you done in the past to give them it?

I have done quite a lot in the past to get women’s franchise. I have introduced Bills and motions into the House and they have invariably been killed and obstructed by hon. members opposite. This one by a lucky chance has got beyond the stage when it can be quite easily obstructed, and, therefore, this motion is a move to bring it back into committee so that the old game can go on. Everyone who has women’s enfranchisement at heart will see that this motion is a move to kill the Bill, and they will vote against it.

I must say I was very glad to see the warmth with which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) spoke this afternoon. I am now convinced that his cause is a lost one as it deserves to be. I am this afternoon going to make another appeal to the House to wreck this Bill at this stage in whatever way possible.

Hear, hear. You are more honest than your colleagues.

And if I cannot wreck it, then I should at least like to see it improved as much as possible, and, therefore, I willingly vote for the motion of the Minister of the Interior. I quite agree with him that the Bill cannot pass as it stands; if it passes in that way it would be a great misfortune to the people. It is clear to me that the Bill as now amended in committee, has only been passed for one reason, namely, because the supporters of women’s franchise will sacrifice anything, will swallow anything if they can only pass the women’s franchise. Therefore, they have only kept that in view, and not given the least consideration to what is omitted from the Bill. (I will not say is contained, but what ought to be contained.) Hon. members will remember that I moved in committee as a last desperate attempt to do something to improve the measure, that Clause 2 should be deleted, in the hope that we should then see what the clause meant, and how much still had to be put in before it could pass. It was put through after a division, and only afterwards, not only one, but many of those who voted for it themselves, saw that it could not pass in that form. It is no use our accusing each other of wanting to make political capital out of it. My attitude in connection with this Bill is not a matter of yesterday or the day before, but of many years, ever since I was a supporter of the segregation of the natives from the Europeans and coloured people. I always said that this measure should not go through because we cannot put it on a proper basis before the native legislation is passed or totally rejected, so that we know where we are. What I regret is that just now we are on the point of bringing the Bills before the House, that the select committee is practically finished, or has already finished with the taking of evidence, is just on the point of discussion and discussions are taking place, and we are hopeful of arriving at a mutual basis of solving the matter, at this unfortunate period the keen supporters of women’s franchise in the House must come, and by the step they want us to take practically try to spoil everything—I do not say wilfully, but that will be the practical effect. If there is one thing that we must try, and that all sides of the House represent themselves as anxious to see, it is that the native Bills which are before us, the matter of the European, natives and coloured people which deal with the franchise of Europeans, natives and coloured people, if there is one thing I say which we all say we want, then it is that the great question should be solved to the satisfaction of all sides and all sections. What, however, is the first thing which is proposed while we are on the point of successfully taking a step in advance? That a motion is made that not only the native women should be excluded here, but also the coloured women. When then we are on the point of jointly solving the question how can it do any good for us to take a decision in the matter with regard to women’s franchise which prejudices the whole matter? Let me just review the position which has come to light in the House this afternoon. Hon. members there represent that they want to give the vote to the coloured women, hon. members on this side of the House want to do the same.

What does the Minister of the Interior say?

He says so too.

He did not vote that way.

No. Just as little as you had a chance of voting according to your real convictions. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) must please not treat this matter in a childish way. It is a serious question—if, at any rate, we are really in earnest about our work. What is the position? There sits the Opposition representing that they want to give the franchise to coloured women, and there sit hon. members behind the Government who are prepared to do the same, but we go and vote against it. I ask you what the result will be? A few days ago there was a large meeting of coloured people in Cape Town. Which of us dared to say that he was astonished at the meeting? Not one of us, and still less can we be surprised if the meetings, as I firmly believe they will, increase and exhibit a more bitter spirit than exists at present. I asked the House to please allow the Bill to stand over. If the women of South Africa cannot wait two years longer, then I only say that they do not deserve to have the franchise, that they are then not really entitled to it, but it is not the women of South Africa that threaten in that way, but hon. members in the House. I want to say that just as little as service is being rendered to the coloured people and natives by going to work in this way, is a service being rendered to the women of South Africa in that respect. I further appeal to the House to prevent this Bill now being passed. I repeat that we have no right if we are honest and honourable as regards the whole legislation in connection with the native question to do such a thing, to prejudge the whole question of the coloured people, natives and Europeans in South Africa. The present is one of the most important questions which is connected with that. As for me, I make no secret of my attitude with regard to the coloured people, natives and Europeans in South Africa. I practically need not explain it again. I have never been ashamed of stating on every platform—and, fortunately, I have never yet announced it without its having received practically unanimous approval—that the natives are not at home in this House. That is the policy I stand for, and how could I vote otherwise when the coloured people are also excluded. This House is still less the place for native women, but at the same time I have always said, so far as the coloured people in South Africa are concerned, it is our duty to put them politically on the same basis as ourselves. I have always also said that in the Transvaal and Free State, and I am prepared to do so again. But when I rise and say to-day that we are not entitled to cause the bitterness which this Bill is causing, then I say it is caused by our departing, by a resolution like this, from something which we have always stood for. Now I want to point out to my hon. friends opposite that the next general election will be held in fifteen or sixteen months’ time.

Not sooner?

Possibly sooner. Let us assume that it is sooner, then only one of two things can happen, viz, either the Opposition come into power or we remain in office. If they come into power they can introduce a Bill within two years, put it through and have women’s franchise. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has an amendment on the Order Paper for this Bill not to come into force until 1930. Why then this haste? We surely can pass it later after we have properly examined what is necessary and then the Government can introduce a Bill which has been properly examined and is drafted in proper form. Now, they do not believe that we will come into power again, but yet they keep the possibility in mind. Suppose now that this Government comes into office again and they fail. Then I want to give the assurance here this afternoon that if that happens, if this Government comes back into power and I am at the head of things, I take upon myself—I cannot bind anyone else—that I will introduce a Bill which will give the franchise to women, leaving it for the House to say whether they want it or not.

Which women will get the franchise?

There the cat is out of the bag again; that is what they are afraid of.

Will you not say?

In this Bill only European women are included, and what the hon. member wants is that what is done in Clause 2 should also be done then, and that those who are excluded in Clause 2 shall be excluded, namely, all the girls of the countryside. Yes, all the girls of the countryside will be excluded. That is what the hon. member wants. That is the more reason to refer the Bill back to the committee.

Will you give the franchise to the coloured women?

I say what I always said, that, politically, we treat the coloured people and Europeans alike. If I am going to give the vote to a civilized white woman then I am also compelled to give it to the coloured woman who has attained to the European civilization. I say again, that if it happens that I come back into power, I undertake to introduce a Bill of this kind even during the first year, viz., 1930. By this I am doing something which has never yet been done in South Africa, and I will support the motion. I bind myself. I want to see if my friends opposite are in earnest or if they are only engaged in trying to score. I say that we must not do that. We have no right in the circumstances to prejudice the native question as we are going to do by passing this Bill.

The House I am sure appreciates the frankness with which the Prime Minister has spoken. There has been no doubt about what he has said—he means to wreck this Bill in one way or another. In that respect his speech contrasts very favourably with the smoke screen put up by the Minister of the Interior. This veil with which the Minister of the Interior wanted to cover his motives has been torn to shreds by the Prime Minister, and we know now exactly where we are. This amendment which has been moved by the Minister of the Interior is nothing but an attempt to wreck this Bill. We, therefore, know exactly where we are, and we are indebted to the Prime Minister for the frankness with which he has spoken. We all feel very much disappointed at the attitude of the Government. For years we have had this measure before us. It has progressed step by step and year by year until this moment when we have had it before the House as a non-party measure and within an ace of being carried. It has never reached such a stage of maturity before. We are on non-party lines; not as a Government measure or anybody else’s measure, but because it has a majority behind it, we are within an ace of carrying it. Now, however, the Government comes forward and says they are determined to wreck the Bill at this stage—they are determined to dash the hope which has been raised of carrying this important measure for the State and passing a measure of reform long overdue.

They want a better Bill.

The smoke screen again. I say that the country will be profoundly disappointed that at this stage, as a non-party measure, this Bill is within sight of the end and complete success, that the Government should intervene with its heavy hand, use the club, and bludgeon it to death. The position is perfectly clear. I am very sorry. There will be profound disappointment among our own Nationalist friends.

Where?

Amongst your own women. The argument we heard against this Bill at earlier stages from that side of the House was that the Nationalist women did not want it. The women of the country did not want it. What becomes, then, of the argument of the Prime Minister, when he says now he is prepared, the first year after the general election, if he wins, to bring in a Bill himself? If his own people behind him are opposed to the Bill, what entitles him to give this guarantee to the House? The whole position has become perfectly clear. The Prime Minister said he himself would undertake to introduce a Bill into the House. We want no equivocations, no subterfuges on that point. We have to square that with the argument that the women of the country and the Nationalist women, but a great majority were opposed to this measure. The Prime Minister himself has answered that argument put forward by the other side. I am very sorry, for whatever Government there may be in the future, because for any Government, the Prime Minister knows it, to introduce this measure as a Government measure, will be a difficult matter. There is no party in the House which does not contain dissidents on this question, and to try and pass it as a purely party Government measure must be very difficult. There is a good deal of “back-pedalling” on the back benches. Well, then, the position is still clearer to the House and to the country, and the women of the country have now these two alternatives. The opportunity we have in the House to carry the measure now, except for the Government’s attitude, and the other alternative, which the Prime Minister holds out, that he will introduce a measure. His party and his Government is not bound, but he, in his private and philanthropic character, and out of love for the cause which he has always opposed and voted against, is going to father it himself. If I were a woman wanting the vote I would rather take my chance now than the prospect my hon. friend holds out. It is clear that the hope the Prime Minister is holding out is illusory. He undertakes nothing except to bring a Bill before the House. His party is opposed to it, and we can see they are not going to support it, and it will be stillborn in the House. Let me take the argument in the shape the Bill originally had, when is not the proper occasion to put forward this reform, and that it should be postponed until the native question has been disposed of. I could have understood some force in that argument in the shape the Bill originally had, when the franchise was to be extended to the coloured and native women in this province. I could appreciate some force in that argument, but not much, but now by the action of his own party that issue has been cleared away.

Why introduce party now? You said it was non-party.

I am simply stating a fact that the elimination of the coloured question is largely due to the vote on the other side of the House.

It could not have been eliminated unless you supported it.

With one or two exceptions, this side of the House voted for the Bill in its original form, and it was the support received by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) for his amendment which carried the amendment and introduced the word “European” into the Bill. The result of this was that we now have the Bill in its present form before the House, limiting the franchise to white women in the country. Native and coloured women do not come into the picture, and that is the result of the action of the other side of the House. In these circumstances the argument of the Prime Minister loses all possible force. He is not dealing with the native question or the coloured question here. It has been entirely eliminated from the Bill in its present form. It deals with the franchise of white women, and the Prime Minister, who is engaged with the native and coloured question in a number of Bills, is quite free to deal with the franchise question for natives and coloured people as he likes in those Bills. It has nothing to do with the issue before us now. It is really a red herring. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to say that as the issue has now been cleared, and we are simply confining this measure to white women, let us press forward with it and have half a loaf rather than nothing at all. The Prime Minister said: Why not wait until 1930?” and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) was prepared to postpone the Act until 1930. What has happened is something most reprehensible and the country is entitled to know what has happened. The hon. member for East London (North) had a conversation with one of the whips of the Labour party, and he understood, in discussing this question, that our Nationalist friends would be prepared to accept this Bill, and would not go against it if it did not come into operation at the next general election. I am stating the facts. I am explaining how that amendment came to be on the paper. My hon. friend consulted with me and I said to him: “If that is the real difficulty which is felt by our Nationalist friends, let us meet them half way and let us pass the Bill, but let us postpone its operation until after the next general election.” The whole object was to deal in a fair way with this matter and to assure the other side of the House that we were not stealing a political march upon them by this measure. We were dealing with it in a non-party sense, and we wanted the reform carried, without claiming any advantage from it at the next general election. It is in that spirit, and with that object that the amendment of my hon. friend was put on the paper. So far from that being carried out, a considerable section of the Labour party has disappeared from these benches. I believe that the hon. member himself is not here with whom the negotiations were entered into.

Who are you referring to? He is here.

I am sorry. I did not see him here. I thought he was one of those numerous gentlemen who have suddenly taken tickets on Friday morning in order to avoid this debate. That is the result. We have been led into a trap. Instead of coming to a settlement which satisfies the House and carries this great reform, as we had intended, we find ourselves in this hole, that our Labour friends, who were heart and soul for this measure, have largely disappeared and our friends on the opposite side, whom we intended to meet, are now using this amendment as a stick to beat us. The position was made clear by the Prime Minister in his initial words, that the object is to wreck this Bill in one way or another, and, in these circumstances, I can only ask hon. members who favour women’s franchise to stand firm. If this amendment is carried, the Bill is dead. If this amendment is carried, we cannot continue the consideration of the report stage if any member objects in this House, and we lose the precedence which this measure has enjoyed, and under which alone it has a chance of being carried in this House. We lose today and we lose priority and precedence for following days, and, therefore, the Bill is dead if this amendment of the Minister is carried. Let us face the issue, and let us do our best to stand by this Bill. I hope still there will be a majority in this House who will, apart from all side issues or party considerations, stand by the cause which is within sight of victory and push it at its last stage.

Speaking for many of my friends on these benches, I think the majority of them, we are prepared to support the motion which is before the House, subject to the undertaking which has been given by the Prime Minister. It is a matter of regret to us, sitting on these benches, that the right hon. gentleman who has just spoken while he was on his feet did not give a similar undertaking to this House.

I want to put the Bill through now.

We understood from the right hon. gentleman that a similar undertaking to the Prime Minister’s would be given, so that whichever party is returned at the next election it would pledge itself to introduce such a measure.

No.

I thought personally he did not give that pledge to the House, but others thought he did. I say it is a matter for regret to hon. members on these benches that he has not given such an undertaking. We are voting for this motion because we believe we are voting in the best interests of the enfranchisement of women in this country. Through all sorts of vicissitudes and struggles, by a lucky chance this Bill has emerged to this stage, carried through by a very small majority. Nobody has replied to the imperfections which have been pointed out by the Minister of the Interior, nobody denies that those imperfections exist, and nobody will say that this Bill meets their wishes. It really only enfranchises half the people whom we desire to enfranchise. I claim that there is a lot to be said for what the Prime Minister has stated, that it would be premature to open the door to any coloured person until the native legislation is through, yet we are doing what they have always on the other side advised us not to do in passing this Bill, that is, putting on the statute book another Bill with a colour bar in it.

Why did you vote for it?

I voted for the principle of this Bill, which was for the enfranchisement of women. I am prepared to vote for a Bill on the lines I have stated in this House. What is the position? We have got a Bill which has emerged by a lucky chance to this stage, and, according to the right hon. gentleman, it is within an ace of being passed. When he spoke like that in this House he knew he was talking with his tongue in his cheek. He must know that there are a number of amendments which, if this motion is not carried, have still to be considered by this House. He must know what if at least one of those amendments is carried this afternoon, the Bill has not a ghost of a chance of being carried at its third reading. Therefore, it is incorrect to speak of this Bill as being within an ace of being carried.

Owing to the Labour party.

Are you prepared to vote down all these amendments on the Order Paper? Is every member on the opposite side prepared to vote against all these amendments which are on the Order Paper?

You might tell us why you have remained in the house of bondage.

I will tell you what I like. The right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) has said that there was an arrangement made between the whips of the various parties with respect to inserting the date when this Act shall come into force, that is, 1930. I believe that was so. It was common cause in this House amongst those who support this Bill that the date 1930 should go into it. After all, there is no harm in putting into a Bill what are the actual facts. If this Bill were passed to-day we all know that women could not be enfranchised until the next biennial registration of voters at the beginning of next year, and they would not be entitled to vote until August 1st, 1929, and if an election was precipitated before that time, then the women would not be able to vote at the next election, so there was no harm in putting into the Bill the date 1930. If we drop this Bill we shall be in the position of getting a better Bill brought forward which will conform more to the views of those who favour women’s franchise than the present one does. Of course, if members opposite are returned with a majority and they oppose the Bill, then to pass any Bill in 1930 will be an impossibility. I think the women will have lost nothing by the delay.

They have lost faith in you, any way.

Furthermore, they have an opportunity of expressing their views at the next election and of saying what they want the Bill to be like. This country has never been tested on this question. I have seen this matter through all its stages in this House, but the greatest difficulty has always been that this House has no mandate to pass a Bill. The late Government for years and years would not support any measure of this kind—had not got the courage as a matter of fact. I doubt whether they would have the courage to do so in the next Parliament if they should have a majority. I want to hear some hon. member on that side speak with authority and give the pledge that they are prepared to identify themselves with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister this afternoon. If so, the women are in a fair way towards getting the vote, which they are not at the present time.

Many members have said that if this amendment is carried, it will kill the Bill. My natural inclination would therefore be to vote for it, because if a colour bar is in it, I do not want to see this Bill become law. But I have considered whether in voting for this amendment I would be assisting in doing something else, that is, whether I would be a party to an act of obstruction. I have considered the matter very carefully, and it seems to me that at this stage to prevent the House coming to a judgment would not be doing the right thing. I think we ought to come to a judgment one way or the other. If this motion is carried we shall not be able to do so. I am going back to 1921 and I will show how every effort has been made from time to time to prevent the House coming to a judgment. In 1921 the adjournment was carried by 52 votes to 44. In 1922 the adjournment was again proposed, and there was a majority against it, but the second reading was lost by three votes. In 1923 the second reading was lost by one vote. In 1924 the second reading was carried and the Bill was referred to a select committee. In 1924 it was brought in as a private measure. It was referred to a select committee, and I would say to those members who say that no opportunity has been given for debating the various qualifications to look at what happened before the select committee upon this matter, and if you read the evidence you will find all these difficulties were gone into then. So it is not fair to say this is a surprise in 1928 when we have been debating the matter ever since I have been in Parliament. Since the parties were constituted as they are now, this matter has been debated from that standpoint. Can anyone say we are not competent to deal with it to-day? On my amendment to delete the word “European” it would be competent for the Minister of the Interior or the Prime Minister or anyone on that side to move that instead of the word “European” there should be added the words “and coloured.” I do not believe in a colour bar against the native. I believe in no colour bar of any description. I should vote against such an amendment as I voted against the colour bar—which by the way has not yet been put into operation—introduced by the Government in 1926 in regard to mines and works. Surely it would have been competent to move such an amendment this afternoon. There is no necessity to shelve the Bill on this account. Let us fight it out. I am prepared to fight the Bill out on its merits. I do not think I would be doing the right thing in assisting those who voted in favour of the word European being inserted but who now want to wreck the Bill or who want a colour bar to a lesser extent to wreck the Bill by a side manoeuvre. We have an extraordinary state of affairs which must make it difficult for women to understand what basis we carry things on in this House. The amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) was carried by a large majority. When the clause was amended the bulk of the South African party went over and voted to keep the clause as it was, and the bulk of the Nationalist party came over to vote with me to keep the word out. I understand the motives but this is a matter of principle.

The Bill is too full of discrepancies.

Well, when we get to the report stage you can move out the discrepancies. To say there are anomalies in the franchise is no new thing. There is no reason why you should worry about these anomalies in the case of women. As long as you put them on the same basis as men that is all you can do. The anomalies must be dealt with both for men and women in a general franchise law. You cannot remove anomalies in the case of women if you are going to leave anomalies in the case of men alone. It must be dealt with by a separate Bill altogether. All you have the right to do by a Bill such as this is to remove the disqualification of sex. It has been said by some hon. members that after all the date is 1930, and why worry about it this afternoon? There is a great difference; if I may put it so, the difference between judgment and execution. The proposal is to give judgment to-day, and postpone execution until after the general election. It is an ominous word to use “execution”—in regard to the general election. How do we know what may happen if a new judgment is asked for? The Prime Minister says it will not be a party matter, and it has not been up till now. It will depend on the individuals of the new House. And you may have several individuals who are against women’s franchise who may be elected as representatives of parties in place of men who are for women’s franchise. You are leaving the whole thing to a gamble. What is the good of saying you have any certainty about it? You have none. If the Government had said, “We are going to introduce it as a Government measure” and have the moral force of the party behind them, that would be quite different.

Which party would do it?

If a party is honestly in favour of women’s suffrage, they could easily do it. Each party says what they will do, when asking for suffrages, when they get into power. I believe in being perfectly honest about this matter and saying exactly what I feel. Nothing is to be gained by not saying definitely to the women what your views are on the matter. The women would rather have a decision to-day than to know it is to be only after the general election. Even an adverse decision would be better than none at all. It is better for a decision to be arrived at on a straight vote rather than on the devious side-issues that have been introduced. I want to urge upon the House to vote on the matter so that we can get to the vote to-day. The Government has not even promised a special day. There is no guarantee that this thing will ever come forward again this session. I feel I cannot vote in favour of the proposal to recommit the Bill, as it is not asking the House to come to a straight vote, but trying to kill the Bill by devious issues.

I should like to make my view clear. I think there can be no doubt that I have always been a supporter of woman’s franchise. I am only too pleased at the progress it has made during recent years. I should like to explain why I am in favour of the amendment of the Minister of the Interior to refer the Bill back to the committee. We, even I as a warm supporter of woman’s franchise, appreciate that the Bill in its present form cannot be carried out practically. If it is passed it will still not come into force until 1930. At the end of the year we have the biennial registration, the voters’ rolls must be prepared and 1930 will be the first year in which the franchise could practically come into force. I think honestly and fairly that is why an amendment was introduced to only bring the Bill into force in 1930. It did not only come from the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), but because we approached him. I and members of the Labour party approached him and I think it is not fair to make party capital out of it, although other hon. members were possibly unaware of it. If it can only operate in 1930 where does the hurry come in? I can vote with the Minister of the Interior. I will honestly admit that it is not intended to put it through this session. If the Bill is to be referred back it will not be possible to pass it this session. We, however, have the Prime Minister’s promise, and, therefore, as a supporter of woman’s franchise I can accept the amendment. The Labour party has accepted women’s franchise as a party. The representatives of the South African party in the House are by a majority in favour of women’s franchise. Only the Nationalist party has always merely had a minority in favour of it. We have, however, never yet had the position that the Prime Minister of our country undertook to introduce such a Bill and the promise has now been made by the leader of the party of which the majority are still opposed to women’s franchise. We are therefore convinced, from the Prime Minister’s statement, that women’s franchise will come. The promise of the Prime Minister is a great step forward, and we have thereby possibly got much further than we should have done by passing the Bill. We know that by obstruction or what not there would still have been little chance of getting this Bill through now. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has now also undertaken, if he comes into power, to introduce such a Bill. Why did he not do so during the 14 years that he had the opportunity?

He did not undertake to do so.

He had the opportunity in the past and never did so. I well remember how we approached the hon. member for Standerton in connection with this matter. It was a few years ago just before he went out of office. We asked him if he would not agree to make the woman’s franchise provisionally, at any rate, applicable to European women. His answer was definitely that under no circumstances would he permit a further colour line to be introduced into this Bill. But to-day the hon. member votes in favour of coloured women not getting the franchise. Three years ago he was definitely against that view.

The hon. member in talking through his neck.

I know the hon. member does not understand this matter and it is no good arguing with him. All three parties are now bound, at least their leaders, and we shall get women’s franchise.

Everyone will not return here.

The hon. member for the Paarl (Dr. de Jager) possibly will not, but the Nationalists all will and with reinforcements. Last time I voted in favour of the Bill when it was only argued that owing to the introduction of the native Bills we could not now pass this one. I felt that possibly, in future, legislation might be passed different from what we expected, or might never be passed. I wanted security and certainty that, even if the Native Bills did not pass, we should have the women’s franchise before 1930. Now we have the Prime Minister’s promise that he will introduce a Bill, and I am certain now that woman’s franchise is coming.

I am glad I am not a member of the Labour party, and I shall be still more glad when the debate is over that I have not had the necessity of voting, as apparently the Labour members intend to vote. They will go down to history in this country as having scuttled the ship when in sight of port. They will be told that after doing lip service for the last three years to the cause of women’s suffrage, they have to-day been its wrecker. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) attempted to justify the vote he and his friends propose to give because of the Prime Minister’s promise to introduce a women’s suffrage Bill in 1930. A party which is capable of tactics displayed this afternoon by the Minister of the Interior—tactics which are utterly dishonest—is quite capable of introducing such a Bill in 1930 and passing the word round to everyone of its followers to vote against the measure. It is quite capable, also, if it has a majority in the Senate at that time, of sending word to it that nothing would gratify the Government more than seeing the Bill rejected. It is, in fact, quite capable of resorting to every piece of chicanery and subterfuge which can exist in the armoury of politicians in this country, to carry out a pledge in the letter but not in the spirit.

Will the present Senate pass this Bill?

I guarantee it will. If the Labour members pass the Bill the Senate will pass it. If the Bill goes through this afternoon in this House the hon. member need not worry about its fate in another place.

How do you know?

Never mind about that. I want to pin down the responsibility where it rests. The mover of this Bill and myself three days ago were given a solemn and explicit assurance that the 18 members of the Labour party would be here this afternoon and would vote straight. Five of these gentlemen have gone away, unpaired, and will not be available to vote, and one of the absentees is one of the gentlemen who gave us this assurance. The political history of this country contains no fouler blot on it than what has been done and what is proposed to be done in regard to women’s suffrage this afternoon. The Labour party have performed an action which they will never be allowed to forget. Has the hon. member ever read Aesop’s Fables and has he never seen the picture of the dog which dropped the bone for the shadow? Having the thing within our grasp are we to drop it for the shadow of a promise by a Prime Minister who may, or may not, be alive in 1930? If he is alive, and if he is in office then, he as an individual may introduce a Bill for which every member of his party will be at liberty to vote or not, as he pleases. We have witnessed, during the last four weeks, the spectacle of a Minister trying to pilot a contentious Bill without the aid of the party machine. We have seen that Minister almost overcome with rage because the majority behind him have voted against him on more than one occasion. We are not fools, and the women of South Africa are not fools to be tricked by a promise of that nature. If, however, the Prime Minister had pledged the Nationalists as a party to put women’s suffrage on its programme and introduce it in 1930, something might be said for the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé). But this Bill has been shipwrecked in sight of port, and is being scuttled by Labour deserters. I want to remind the Labour members of their history in this matter, for after all you cannot touch pitch and not be defiled. I do not believe that a party which professes to be pro-women’s suffrage can remain in constant association with the Nationalists without having its morals on that subject corrupted, and we have seen the evidence of that corruption this afternoon. The very first person to mention women’s suffrage in this House was Mr. W. H. Andrews, the deputy-leader of the Labour party in 1913. Then, in 1918, when the Electoral Bill was before the House, the present hon. member for Jeppes proposed that the Committee of the Whole House have leave to consider the expediency of making provision in the Bill for the enfranchisement of women. In doing that he made a speech in the course of which he said—

Then he winds up his speech—

It was purely subterfuge to say this was not the right place to introduce women’s suffrage.

That is the gentleman who has now found imperfections in the Bill and who has found out that the country has given no mandate for the Bill—

When that matter was pressed to a vote, four members of the Labour party were there, Creswell, Sampson, Madeley and Boydell, and two of those four, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Defence are to-day taking the afternoon train to get out of Cape Town when the matter is discussed, and another of the four has made the speech we have heard here. The other is the Minister of Labour. In 1919 a motion for the introduction of women’s suffrage was moved by Mr. Wyndham, and seconded by Mr. Piet le Roux van Niekerk, the same gentleman who now represents Waterberg and ever since then has opposed women’s suffrage. In 1920 a motion was moved “that in the opinion of the House the time had now arrived when the right of voting for members for the Union Parliament and the provincial council should be extended to women,” and the mover was Mr. D. M. Brown, and the seconder Mr. Tom Naudé. Today he evidently does not think 1928 is the time, but 1930 is, if the Prime Minister moves his Bill. In 1921 a Bill to enable women to vote was introduced, and seconded by Mr. Mullineux. The same in 1922, and in 1923 and 1924 we had a similar Bill, and then we had the election of 1924 and the alignment of the Labour party in the present pact. Up to 1924 no record could be more honourable or consistent than that of the Labour party on the matter. Speaking on the motion in 1919 the same gentleman I have quoted before, the hon. member for Jeppes, said—

They used to put their hands on their hearts and say, “Thank God we are not as other men are. We are consistent and united on the question of women’s suffrage.” I am going to tell you in detail what has happened since 1924. In 1918 the hon. member for Jeppes, the Electoral Bill being under discussion, moved to include the scope of women’s suffrage, and he said it was the right and proper place to do it. In 1925 we had another Electoral Bill, to amend the former Electoral Bill, and I moved—

This is what the Labour party voted for in 1918. What did they do on this occasion in 1925? The debate was adjourned by 58 votes to 33, 13 Labour men voting in the majority. If they had voted the other way, the adjournment would have been defeated by 45 votes to 36. On June 29th of the same year the Bill had to come back from the select committee, and my friend, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) moved—

And the member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) moved “the previous question,” and that was carried by 59 votes to 35, and 14 Labour men voted with the majority. Had they voted in accordance with their convictions and their previous actions, the question would have been lost by 45 votes to 39, and the issue would have been kept alive and the committee would have been instructed accordingly. On February 22nd, 1926, the Rev. Mr. Mullineux moved for leave to enfranchise “European” women, and on a vote that word was retained, and then the original motion was put and negatived without a division. The hon. member was caught napping, and that was the end of the Bill for that year. On the 5th of March following, Mr. Reyburn, for Mr. Mullineux, moved—

That was carried, and I have the report of the proceedings of the select committee, and to show how utterly dishonest the arguments of the Minister of the Interior are, I may mention that the whole question was gone into by the select committee, and three members of the Nationalist party sitting opposite me came before the committee and discussed in detail the question of how to enfranchise women, particularly discussing the points the Minister has mentioned. The select committee report is—

That is nothing more nor less than the present Bill designs to do, and that is the Bill which my friend the member for Jeppes has the effrontery to tell us is not carefully thought out and he therefore would have it recommitted. It is the same Bill as was introduced by the gentleman sitting next to him in 1926 and 1927 and done on the instructions of the Labour caucus. After their defection in 1925 they were attacked by the Labour women. At the Port Elizabeth conference (Christmas, 1925), strong exception was taken to their action, and they were told as a party they must get a move on this question. The result of that instruction was this very Bill we are now discussing, and they now say it is a faulty Bill with defects that must be remedied. Having got their own select committee, and having their own chairman and after investigating it, they said, “We must enfranchise the European women and remove the sex disqualification,” and now they say they intend to kill this Bill by their vote. I say that no incident in the history of this or any other country will reveal a greater depth of political treachery than an act of that sort. Let me continue the story. That committee came back with its report and on the 1st February last year the same gentleman, the member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux), moved for leave to introduce a Bill to enfranchise European women—this Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) moved his usual amendment to delete the word “European.” That was lost by 76 to 26. Then the motion to introduce the Bill was lost on the vote by 63 to 39. So you get the history of the Labour party before the Pact and after the Pact. I do say this, that any derelictions that they have been guilty of in this regard would have been forgotten by us and in any case they were comparatively trifling, but what will stand out in a clear white light will be their action this afternoon. The eyes of the country are focused upon their action this afternoon They will never be allowed so long as they remain in political life to forget it if they play us false. Now let me return to the Minister of the Interior. I want to test his sincerity by putting two questions. He said that there are numerous technical difficulties that he wants discussed, and that can only be discussed if this Bill goes back to committee. I ask him this question. Is he prepared to allow this House to have an opportunity of discussing them? We are now in the 43rd day of this session. After the 50th day Fridays disappear as far as private members are concerned. Will he pledge himself, as a test of his sincerity in this matter, to give the House the opportunity which he says it should have of discussing these difficulties. The Minister is silent. I say this to his face, that we cannot be expected to acquit him of insincerity in the arguments that he used. I would have respected him more if he had taken the honester course taken by the Prime Minister, who said that he wanted this Bill killed. I remember it being said ten years ago that the Minister of the Interior was leaving the pulpit in order to purify politics. If we have had an example of his methods for purifying politics this afternoon, then I am sorry he did not stop in the pulpit. I am going to put another question that will test his sincerity. He says he sees much to recommend it in the amendment put on the order paper by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten). Let me explain what that amendment really means. It means this in essence, if we accept it, that at the Cape every European woman would get the vote simply because she was a European woman over the age of 21.

Just as in the Transvaal.

Just let me finish. He does not alter the franchise qualification in regard to males, so he is going to say that every European girl of 21 and over can get the vote simply because she is over 21. Every European man will only get the vote if he has the necessary franchise qualification. Instead of giving sex equality, the Minister is giving sex superiority to women, and this from a gentleman who has consistently voted against women’s suffrage! “In vain is the snare set. I fear the Greeks when they bring gifts.” He, the opponent of women’s suffrage, says, “I will give you something more than you have been asking for. You asked for a stone; I will give you bread. I will give the women of the Cape the franchise on a far more liberal basis than the men have it.” It is too transparent a device. Having done that, he will then say to his friends, “What a foolish Bill this is. It is a Bill which gives women greater rights than men. How can you possibly accept it?” If we are going to defeat this Bill this afternoon, let us defeat it honestly, but do not treat this House and this country to the indecent spectacle which has been laid before us by the Minister of the Interior. I think it is to the shame of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) to identify himself with tactics of that sort and tell this House and the country that this Parliament has no mandate on this question. It is a pity he did not find that out before the second reading of this Bill. I think that common decency, if nothing else, should have prevented the hon. member for Jeppes playing into the hands of our Nationalist opponents in this matter by saying that this House had no mandate.

I regret the tone introduced into this discussion by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I say it is a matter that we have all been anxious to deal with as far as possible as a non-party question, and I think the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in dealing with the Labour party in connection with this matter, is neither fair nor one that is calculated to help the cause for which he has been speaking. He must realize that the stage at which the present Bill is in the House to-day is undoubtedly due to the South African Labour party. But for the fact that the members of the Labour party have consistently voted not only for the second reading, but for the Bill generally through committee stage, the Bill would not have reached the position in which it is at the present moment. In taking up that attitude and voting for the second reading and supporting the Bill in the committee stage, the members of the Labour party were only doing what they have always done in connection with the matter, and what they are pledged to do, because ever since the inception of the Labour party, as far as I am aware, the enfranchisement of women has been a definite plank in our programme and resolutions in its favour have been adopted at our various congresses. As far as I am concerned, I have stated previously in this House, and I state again, that I am prepared to vote, and I intend to vote to push through this Bill to a conclusion. I do so for two reasons, firstly, because we are definitely pledged to this question of women’s enfranchisement, and, secondly, because the pledge, which I accept with the utmost confidence which was given by the Prime Minister this afternoon is not of any very material value, because, as I understood him, he has not pledged his party to introduce this Bill. As I understand it the Prime Minister’s pledge, which I have the utmost confidence in, does not carry us much further, because he is not pledging his party to support this Bill. I go further and I say that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was asked for a pledge and he gave it, and I say that is of even less value as far as we are concerned, because the right hon. member had the opportunity to pass such a Bill and his explanation of why he did not do so was that his party was not united. Neither the pledge of the Prime Minister nor that of the Leader of the Opposition is of very material value as far as women’s enfranchisement is concerned. That being the case, our position is to take what we have rather than to put it off in the hope of getting something better in 1930. I realize the Bill which is at present before the House is capable of improvement, but I do feel these improvements can be obtained between now and 1930 by means of an amendment to the electoral law. Amendments in respect of qualification are amendments which can be got by a separate Bill and, therefore, it is not desirable, nor is it fair, to delay placing on the statute book women’s enfranchisement. As far as I am concerned. I propose to vote for this Bill going through as far as possible.

I would like to say a few words. I had not intended to speak, but when a dramatic change came over; the situation by the introduction of the motion of the Minister of the Interior and we heard those remarkable speeches made by him, by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) it seemed to me that one should say a few words approaching the matter from perhaps an entirely different point of view. I speak as one who, throughout my parliamentary career, has consistently opposed the Bill, but I have endeavoured to realize that the question is a big one, and I think the issue should be a straight one and that there should be a straight fight and a straight vote and a clean one. I have endeavoured to act on that principle throughout, and I do not think there is anyone who can point to any time when I lent myself to any methods of obstruction or blocking. I want to express my disgust at the deplorable tactics we have had revealed to us this afternoon. It is with great reluctance that I find myself compelled to maintain my views, because I feel them to be the right ones, but I do wish also to express my disgust at the tactics adopted in this House this afternoon and adopted lately on this Bill. There is, in certain quarters, an operation known as double crossing. We have witnessed some political double crossing this afternoon, such as will rarely be found in the annals of this House or any Parliament. I endorse and support every word in the speeches of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and others in condemnation of the tactics which have been applied to the measure. The hon. member for Yeoville appeals to every friend of the cause of women’s enfranchisement to vote against the motion proposed by the Minister of the Interior. I should like to go much further. We hear it said that politics is a dirty game. If there was ever a justification—

The hon. member must not use words—

He is quoting.

I said we hear it said that politics is a dirty game, and I wish to go as far as I can in saying there are certain forms of tactics which do justify such a statement.

The hon. member is now imputing dirty tactics to the other side. I think the hon. member should not go as far as that.

If you think I ought not to go as far I shall bow to your decision, but I appeal to every member who values the decencies of public life to oppose the amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior this afternoon.

We have heard a good deal from the South African party about labour not keeping its pledges. My hon. friends in front of me forget one thing, that they made this a party principle, but they took very good care that all the members of their party did not vote for it. At the conference they held not very long ago, they then decided as a party, after discussion, that women’s suffrage should be one of the great principles of the South African party, but they have never carried that out. They have moved Bills in favour of it, but have always allowed five or six of their people to vote against that great principle. Now they take exception to the Labour party doing the same thing. Coming to the Minister of the Interior, I always thought he was a man of tactics, but he has made a pretty good mess of things this afternoon. Why did he not get up—as he had a perfect right to do—and say: “I am against women’s suffrage, and I am going to fight women’s suffrage. I am going to do everything I can to smash this Bill.” He would have had every right to do that, because this agreement of 1913 was made amongst a section of the Nationalist party. It is supposed to be a gentleman’s agreement. The Minister of the Interior has said that these new amendments put on the Bill make a very great difference to the measure now before the House. Undoubtedly. But how were they put on? By the chief whip—with his consent and knowledge. This was put on deliberately to kill the Bill. The hon. member opposite may sneer and jeer, but what I mean to say I am going to say. If I intend to say anything, I shall say it.

They will not be influenced by you.

I do not intend to influence you; I am not casting pearls before swine. Let it be known throughout the four corners of South Africa that this Bill, these amendments and tactics are being deliberately put down and followed to destroy this measure. My hon. friend there says there are members of the Labour party who lend themselves to it; it may be so; it may not be so. “What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.”

His tongue in his cheek.

I wonder what cheek the hon. member’s tongue was in. We could put all this right, and this question which the Minister of the Interior has raised, and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has conscientiously raised, in any new Electoral Bill. It would not take us long to put such a Bill before this House, and to get all these things. They come forward and say: “We cannot pass the measure; this woman won’t get the vote; that boy won’t get it; that man will have to pay double.” It is all hot air; it won’t wash in this country; people will not believe it. They know it is a good Irishism—hot air that won’t wash. This very measure the Labour party introduced into this House not so very long ago, and it was sat upon by a select committee and carried by a select committee of this House. It has been before the country, and the country has never said a word against it. I don’t want a colour bar, and would say the coloured women must have a vote. But all reforms have come by degrees; and better to give it to some of the women—the white women—and in time the others will get it. The Prime Minister says: “How can I carry my native Bills unless you withdraw this measure?” If anybody has anything to say with regard to the settlement of the native problem of this country, it should be the white woman; should we not give her the vote so as to help us to settle it? We are trying to solve the greatest problem in South Africa, and are attempting to do it, and leaving our right-hand people out—giving her no say at all—just as she was at the right-hand of the voortrekkers when they solved the problem of Dingaan. We are fighting lone-handed in this native problem, and if we had any sense we would get the white woman to help us to solve it. If we put this Bill off until the next general election, we do not know what will happen. It will be a brave man in the Labour Party who will say what will happen then; a brave man in the South African party who will say how it will turn out. The Prime Minister promises he will introduce a Bill, but does he promise he will have his whips behind him? Even a more conservative number of men may be elected— I do not say they will—there may be no Labour party to assist the Bill through, and the Bill will drop. There may not be the same type of man in the South African party. The women say: “We are so near port; why now sink the ship?” There may be a new Senate to throw it out. The women may say: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” I am told I must vote for this measure, and if I do not, it is the end of me as a politician. Let the end come. I have been a pretty good thorn in a good many people’s sides for a good many years, and no doubt I will be for a good many years to come. If I do go out of this House on this measure, I know I went out voting for one of the basic principles of the Labour party. I know openly that the women will not help me in the next election. My experience of the Women’s Enfranchisement League is that they have always floored their best friends, and will support the South African party man who may be against the Women’s Franchise Bill, and is against me. They have done it before. But a gentleman’s agreement was made, which was we were to put on the paper that in 1930 the Bill should come in. That was the understanding, that the Bill was to come into operation after the next election. Wait until 1930 and have a new and clean start. We were all agreed upon it. The Government practically agreed to it, but where do we stand to-day—is this a scrap of paper to be torn up? If so, I am not going to be a party to tearing it up. I am prepared to vote against the Minister’s motion, and to take all the consequences, because I feel that if we dash this cup away from the lips of women we shall commit one of the worst tricks that have ever been played on the women of South Africa, There are women in this country who have worked day and night for many years to attain the suffrage. Are we now to say they are to lose it by a mere trick? I am told that we are going to be beaten. If so, it will be a calamity for South Africa, for it will mean that our politics are descending to a level to which they have never before fallen. I am sorry that my hon. friends opposite look at me as they do, but they have always apposed women’s suffrage, and it is easy for them to vote as they intend doing. I, however, am voting against my party. That is a most difficult thing to do, and very few men in this House will get up deliberately and vote against their party whip. It takes some doing, but I am going to do it, because I honestly and conscientiously feel, whether it means the end of my parliamentary life or not, that I could not go back to the women of Bloemfontein—nine-tenths of whom belong to the South African party—to whom I have made a promise to support this thing through thick and thin and now say to them: “I played a low and dirty trick.” Not me.

I am a supporter of woman’s franchise, and I will certainly remain so, but I and all members on this side gratefully accept the Prime Minister’s undertaking. The Prime Minister said that he would introduce a Bill in 1930 to grant the women’s franchise. We have confidence in the Prime Minister, and we accept his undertaking gratefully. Much has been said here about honesty. It is easy to insinuate about dishonesty by talking of honesty. We must, however, before we can accuse another of dishonesty, sweep before our own door. There is a proverb in Dutch originating from the Greek which is applicable to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). It reads—

That suits no one in South Africa better than you.

It is very easy to impute dishonesty. I do not do so. I speak frankly about the hon. member. His past clearly shows what he is. We are quite satisfied to-day with the Prime Minister’s undertaking. The amendment reads that the Bill shall only come into force in 1930. This Bill is a half-baked measure, while the Prime Minister’s undertaking will certainly give us a good measure. What is better? The undertaking of the Prime Minister or the incomplete private Bill of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I knew nothing of the undertaking between our whip and the South African party, but I should like to say that if the Prime Minister undertakes to introduce a Bill on woman’s franchise in 1930 we gratefully accept it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that we must keep account with the wishes of the electors. I can tell him there are quite a number of members on this side of the House whose constituents do not want the women’s franchise. That is the position, and it is the truth. We are satisfied with the Prime Minister’s undertaking. If we can give a good Bill in 1930, then it will be better than this poor one. I, as a supporter of women’s franchise, have the right of accepting the Prime Minister’s undertaking and voting for it, because he is a man of his word. I am one who knows the women of South Africa very well. I am extremely grateful to the women of South Africa, because I well know what they have done for our country and people since the voortrekkers’ days. They deserve the franchise, perhaps better than some of us. I would like to give them the vote postponing it to 1930 according to the Prime Minister’s undertaking. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) refused to agree to it to give his word, if he were in power in 1930. Is there possibly something else behind it? If we pass a good Act in 1930 then the women will certainly be satisfied.

I think this debate may draw to a close very shortly, but there are a few remarks I would like to make. Unfortunately, I was unable to follow the Minister of the Interior very closely, but I gathered enough to make me regret the complete lack of candour which characterizes his attitude towards this Bill.

Perhaps you are not candid enough to see the meaning.

I will be candid enough with the Minister if he gives me the chance. I am all the more amazed when I think of the Minister’s past and his present. It makes me doubt whether the Minister has a future in politics. I cannot conceive that politics can be built on the foundation on which the Minister is building them. I do not want to pursue this painful matter further.

Why not?

All right, you can have it. The Minister, as I understood him, said this Bill was a hasty and undigested one. The reply to that is that this Bill, in this form, has been before Parliament for many years, at any rate, sufficiently like it in form to make no difference. This identical Bill has been before the Minister for the last five months, and he has not lifted a finger to make it better.

Is it his Bill?

It is a Bill of the whole House. Does the hon. member who has blatantly interrupted feel he has no responsibility towards Bills, whoever introduces them? It is the duty of every member to give his attention and make a good or bad Bill better. What has the Minister of the Interior done to improve this Bill? Then I understood the Minister to say it was impracticable to get the machinery in order in such a short time. Now I want to deal with the question of putting it forward to the 1st of January, 1930. I have dealt with women’s suffrage on other occasions, but I have never approached it in a party spirit, and I have never sought to make party capital out of any such measure I introduced or supported. We had a little House committee which has been dealing with this matter for some weeks and this committee was representative of all four parties. Our main business was to discuss the best means of getting our objective achieved and that is women’s suffrage. We dealt with the difficulties put forward from time to time by the representatives of the different parties. It was intimated to me that a good many members of the Nationalist party—I do not for a moment say all of them—felt this was not quite the time to introduce the measure which would almost double the electorate on the eve, possibly, of a general election. I thought there was a good deal of weight in that argument, and it was intimated to me that if a suitable date was arranged, the one now appearing in the amendment in my name, it would remove a great many of these difficulties. I carried out my principle not to take party advantage. I realized it might so happen if the matter was rushed, and registration commenced immediately, that the party best organized, and having the most funds, might get the most women voters on the register to their own advantage, and to the disadvantage of other parties. Personally, I have never devoted five minutes’ consideration as to what party would benefit by giving women the vote. That makes my position quite clear. The amendment gave ample opportunity, by postponing the date on which it would take effect, to enable the Minister of the Interior to make the necessary arrangements departmentally to get the extra voters on the roll. I must correct an incorrect statement made by the Prime Minister which was received with considerable applause by his followers. I think I quote correctly that he said the effect of this Bill if passed in its present form would be to disfranchise the daughters of people on the backveld. That is not so. I am sure the Prime Minister did not want to mislead the House, but he has misled it. The qualification is an occupation qualification, that is occupation—within the Cape Province for the last three months of such period within the electoral division in which persons claim to be registered—of house, warehouse, shop, dwelling or other building separately or jointly with any land in the electoral area of the value of £75. How can the daughters then of the backveld be disfranchised? That is misleading.

What about the bywoners?

I am assuming they occupy a house or land of the value of £75. If they are on the roll now that is their qualification or alternatively they are earning the necessary salary to qualify them. I want to make clear what the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) meant. He told us four weeks ago he was always a warm supporter of women’s franchise and, if they got the franchise, political life in South Africa would be considerably improved. There are members who doubt this, but he said: “I am convinced of it with all my heart.” That was definite. He said he was going to vote for the motion of the Minister of the Interior, because a better Bill will be brought in by the present Prime Minister in two or three years. Is that so?

Yes.

His objective is women’s franchise. I ask him to consider what chance the Prime Minister has, in his personal capacity, of bringing in a Bill to enfranchise women and of getting it passed. I will tell him the difficulty. In answer to an interjection of mine he said he would enfranchise coloured women. How many would agree with that?

Every one of us.

How many of the Labour party would agree? Ah! they are strangely silent. Does he assume he will carry the whole of his party with him in a measure of that sort when we have heard so many objections from the gentlemen sitting behind him? I cannot think the hon. member will seriously consider that he has a chance of getting women’s suffrage if he were to sit down carefully and thoughtfully and think it over. If he sees the difficulties I feel quite sure he will be inclined to agree with me, if he wants to achieve his objective, that he had better do it now when we are so near our goal and when we have got over most of our difficulties. Also, I was influenced to put that amendment on the Order Paper by a statement made by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) who said he would be quite satisfied if we asked the women to wait another year or 18 months. That is exactly what my amendment is going to do. Yet I am afraid that he will be counted amongst the supporters of the Minister of the Interior. There are very many others, including the Prime Minister, who said that their objections would probably be met when the native question, that is to say the urgent portions of the native question, had been disposed of and if there is one thing that the people of South Africa have been led to believe lately, it is that the present Prime Minister, with his zeal and enthusiasm and honesty of purpose towards the natives, will find a workable solution of this problem within a short time. It is not long ago since the Prime Minister announced that he hoped to get his Native Bills through this session, and, failing the completion of that, I have no doubt he felt perfectly confident that he would get them through next session. To put this law on the statute book would tend to clear the way for him, because I can assure hon. members that this movement will not be killed today if, unfortunately, the vote is adverse. It will go on increasing. It will largely fill the landscape in future years. I do not feel called upon to deal with the extraordinary situation that has arisen through the devices of those who are opposed to this Bill. I think it is not within the recollection of any of us, nor is there any precedent in parliamentary practice when we find an hon. gentleman, who also happens to be the chief whip of the Government party, putting up a series of resolutions or amendments to a measure to which the Government of which he is the chief whip are opposed, and yet on being questioned, indicating to this House that perhaps only his own vote will go for them. It is quite possible when he proposes those amendments that his voice will be the only one from that side of the House to be raised in favour of them. Then we have the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) moving an amendment that this Bill, if passed into law, will take effect almost immediately, thus going against all the indications of difficulties that have filled the minds of hon. members opposite for such a long time. We know that the hon. member for Piquetberg is a very influential member of the party, and here we have him proposing these amendments which will increase the difficulties felt by his side towards enabling this Bill to become law. I do not feel bound to deal with the humorous use of ninepins which the Minister of the Interior has set up for the purpose, no doubt, of knocking them down. I would like the Minister of the Interior to think better of this to have this a straight fight on an important question, not to side-track it by a delaying motion like this, not to have the appearance of desiring to make what he considers a bad Bill better, when he knows full well that this means the death of it. We could not extract from the Minister of the Interior a promise that the necessary facilities for discussing this Bill will be granted. We have those facilities now, and I appeal to hon. members to allow this very big question to be dealt with and conducted in a straightforward manner, not to support this amendment, but to vote in such a way on the amendment now before us as to give expression to their wishes. I do not think we will be reflecting credit on parliamentary institutions if we adopt tactics of that sort as a general rule. To side-track in this way a matter which ostensibly is not a party matter, a matter of the utmost importance to this country, I do not think is calculated to enhance the prestige of parliamentary institutions. I do not know if that is the object of the Minister, but I can tell him that it will have that effect. I hope, if he does not withdraw the motion, that it will be defeated and that we may continue the progress of this Bill in the usual way, having reached this particular stage.

Question put: That all the words after “That” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—53.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

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

Noes—63.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers. P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

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.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words “the order for the consideration of amendments be discharged and the Bill recommitted”, put:

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—71.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell. L.

Boshoff. L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits G. P.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

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.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—46.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

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

Words accordingly substituted.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I was going to say that we might have a pleasant and profitable evening if the House consents to take it now. I move—

I object.

Where an instruction of this sort is moved to re-commit a Bill, does the same rule apply as in moving a Bill from one stage to another, namely, that the objection of a single member prevents it, or may we divide the House on it?

If there is any objection the next stage cannot be taken now. The committee stage is a different stage from the report stage and under Standing Order 159, two stages cannot be taken if objection is taken.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.