announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Electoral Law, viz.: Mr. Blackwell, Dr. Conradie, Messrs. Humphreys, Jooste, McMenamin, Moll, Nicoll, Pienaar, Roux and Sauer.

I move—

This Bill is introduced in pursuance of the promise which I made in this House in 1928. It is unnecessary to-day to mention the special circumstances which gave rise to that promise. I think each of us remembers it very well. I also wish, before I go further, to quote here the promise that was then made by me. I said on that occasion—

It is, as I have said, in fulfilment of that promise that I bring up this Bill to-day. The contents of the Bill are very simple. In the first place, the Bill grants the franchise to all major women citizens in the Union of European descent. I say it is very clear and very simple. In the second place the Bill lays down that in future every woman registered to vote will, just as in the case of men, be entitled to be nominated and elected as a senator or a member of this House or of the provincial council. The Bill is therefore very simple; perhaps too simple to recommend itself to all members of the House, but I think that, in any event, what is intended is clear to everyone. Then the Bill further takes up the position emphatically or tacitly, or both emphatically and tacitly, that the provisions of the constitution, with regard to the division into constituencies and the basis of fixing the number of members of the House of Assembly for each of the four provinces, shall not be affected by the women voters. I might almost say that this, except a few reasons for incapacity, mentioned in Clause 2, is all that this Bill contains. I think that the Bill, whatever the charges may be that hon. members may be inclined to make against it, does not suffer from vagueness or want of clearness as regards its contents. Now there are a few questions which I quite understand can be asked, and asked immediately by those who have read the Bill. I want to deal briefly with these few questions; the first, which doubtless has occurred to everyone who has read the Bill, will have been why this Bill demands no qualifications from the woman. In this connection I want to say at once that I thought we ought here to follow the way which has already been taken in the past in the northern provinces, the way which would also have been adopted in the Cape Province, if it were not that there was a hindrance, viz., that in the Cape the native had the franchise. If it were not for that, then in 1910 the same provisions would indisputably have been laid down for the Cape as for the northern provinces, viz., to give the franchise without any qualifications, except for the two about majority and nationality, which are laid down in this Bill. But although I was inclined to adopt this for the women throughout South Africa, I want to say at once that I took the trouble to enquire whether there was any reason for continuing the Cape qualifications or any qualifications for the women in South Africa. I came to the firm conviction that there was no reason. I asked myself, for instance, what, if any qualifications were required, what their general nature should be. I think every member of the House will agree with me when I say that there were only two, one or both of which could be taken, viz., the qualification at present existing in the Cape. I am not speaking about the grade of the qualifications, but about the quality, and the qualifications can only be one or both of those two. I, however, at once asked myself what those qualifications had to prove, what object we wanted to attain by them. I could see no other reply than that we wanted the education test and the proof of civilization, but I want at once to say that to fix a civilization test for the white woman and man in South Africa would be equivalent to denying the civilization of the white man. I maintain that there is no white man or woman from whom we could expect anything else but that they should be considered as properly civilized. I go further and say that the educational qualifications are absolutely no test of civilization, and for this reason, because the view that school education is a test of civilization is based on a very pernicious doctrine which we have from time to time heard in South Africa. The education, the book-learning, is exclusively concerned with the intellect and the development of the intellect. Civilization has practically nothing or little to do with intellectual education, but has everything to do with the character and with the temperament. Civilization, in the first place, is based on, and has to thank for its origin, the character which arose out of all the moral principles and all the religious ideas that form character. Civilization is, therefore, something that stands quite apart from intellectual development, and if we want to prove that then we need only look back at the history of the European nation. Hundreds of years before the European nation knew anything about schools they were already a civilized nation. That is clear enough. And I say that we have no right to take the learing, the school education—which is nothing more than one of the casual proofs of civilization—and to want to put it on an equality with civilization. I know that that is done, especially in connection with the native question, to which I will return later. I deny that learning is anything more, and can be regarded as anything more, than one of the casual proofs of civilization. To institute that test of civilization for the white man and woman is a complete absurdity, which is entirely unjustified. For that reason it was clear to me that we must take the line which had already been adopted by the Convention, and which will also be adopted by South Africa in future in other matters. As for the second qualification, that of money, I say it never would have been laid down in the Cape Province for the European, if it was not for the view of the legislators of those days that it was necessary as a good means, or was regarded as one of the means, of excluding the natives from the franchise to such an extent as to be dangerous to the population. That was the view at the time the Cape obtained self-government, and therefore the qualifications were introduced. To apply it to-day to white South Africa and the white women would, in my opinion, be absolutely absurd, and it would lead to nothing. But in the second place I can understand the further question being asked why the Cape qualifications are not required from the women of the Cape Province. There would be reason in this because the man in the Cape Province has to comply with the two requirements, viz., that he can write his name, and has an income of £50 a year, or a house worth £75. This provision appears to me ridiculous, and I do not even mind what income is required. In connection with that, the question can, however, be put why the woman in the Cape Province is not put on the same basis as the man. The only ground for the question is that if it were done the woman would be put on an equal footing with the man, but as I have already said in connection with the civilization test, that would mean nothing. As I have already said, whatever the requirements man be the white woman is a civilized woman and we cannot take any other demand to test her civilization. We assume that she is civilized and do not doubt it for a moment. To ask a white woman to sign her name, to show that she is civilized, is so ludicrous that I need only mention it to make it felt at once that it will be nothing less than an insult to the women. Just imagine their having to come to prove if they can sign their name, and that will decide whether they are civilized or not.

The men have to do it.

But the men were admitted under the law fifty years ago with no other object—let us frankly admit it—than because at that time the natives had to be given the franchise on the same basis as Europeans, and they thought that that was a way of giving the natives something with one hand, and taking it away with the other. The argument at that time was because the native had no school education it would take years and years before he could sign his name. They forgot that when the time for voting came there would be special experts to give the native the necessary instructions the night before the poll to qualify him as civilized. To-day, fifty years later, we do not intend to give the franchise to the native women. If we were to give it to the native women as well, then it would possibly be desirable in order to save the poor Cape from disaster to say to the Cape European women that they must continue to suffer the burden of the qualifications. I say, however, quite definitely that it is not my intention, and that I never will support any legislation to give the franchise to the native women along with the Europeans, as is now the case with men in the Cape Province. So much for that. There are other reasons of a practical nature which clearly show that it would be very undesirable to lay down the other qualification for the women of the Cape Province, viz., the money qualification. I do not want to go into that. The third question, which will naturally be asked, is why we do not give the franchise to the native women. I said just now that I would support no legislation for that purpose. Why not? I have noticed that some of the women in the Cape Province are dissatisfied because the franchise is not being given to the native women. I do not doubt that they have asked, and will continue to ask the question: “Why not?” I want briefly to say this; as hon. members know I deplore—and I know that there is not one member in this House who does not deplore it—that the franchise was given to the male natives on the basis of the Europeans. I say without any hesitation that there is not one member who does not deplore that. We will not all say so, which is possibly quite wise, and which I do not complain about, but every member in the House in his heart deplores it and admits that it was a great mistake to give it to the natives in that way. Are we then going to take that step, and to double the mistake, and because a tremendous mistake was made in the past, intensify that mistake? I do not think one hon. member wants that, but I wish to point out why it is such a great mistake that the white man, led perhaps by praiseworthy sentimentality, is too much or too often attached to a shibboleth, and the shibboleth which prevailed here and still prevails is “equality.” I want to say here again that I deny that equality between Europeans and natives is calculated to do the natives any good. Just the opposite. The natives are suffering from it to-day, suffered from it in the past, and will suffer from it more in the future in proportion to the agitation which takes place to make him insist on equality. Let us look the matter full in the face. The natives to-day stand where our ancestors and the nations of Europe stood in the year 200, and what the European nations had to go through, the development up to the civilization which they enjoy to-day, and which has taken them almost 2,000 years to get, must now be granted, according to some people, to the natives who have had a little education, and we must put them on a footing of equality with the Europeans. I definitely deny this, and I have already said that school education is no standard of civilization. Doubtless there are some natives whom we can regard as having attained the degree of civilization of the European, but they are so rare that it does not in the least justify us to take the natives from below, and to put them with us on the high scale of civilization, and then to expect them to understand the value of the institution which the Europeans only obtained after 2,000 years. Just think a moment of “democracy” in, say, 200, 300, or 400 years before Christ; how would it have looked? But we need not go so far back. Just think of democracy applied in the Transkei Zululand, or other native territories. Can we expect the native to have a comprehension, the slightest comprehension, of all the obligations and the ideas of our complicated civilization? Can we expect him to understand them without having shared the hundreds of years of the development of our civilization? I say again that we shall not be rendering the least service to the natives if we place them alongside of us, but that we shall be rendering them a great disservice, and a still greater disservice to Europeans. I do not, however, want to discuss this any more. It is very clear to me that whatever the sentimentalists may say or write about it, I do not believe that there is a single member in this House who will support the franchise being given to the native women of our country. I now ask why the franchise should not be given to the coloured women. I have always taken up a very clear attitude with regard to the coloured man and woman, and I have always pointed out that as far as they are concerned, we have no right to separate the coloured people from us on political, economic and industrial lines. They originated in our midst. They descend from and owe their descent to Europeans. They grew up together with the European children. Their language is either English or Dutch, the official languages of the country; they are completely separated from the natives. They are educated from the very first according to the moral customs, institutions and principles of the Europeans. They grow up in the Christian religion, and they live with us. They have the right, although separated socially, to ask us to include them with ourselves in economic, industrial and political matters. We have advocated this everywhere, and I regret very much that during the last election this was used with a political purpose on the political platform to oppose the Nationalist party because it treats that policy. Well, that may, perhaps, occur again, but I want now to say here that for the last fourteen or fifteen years, I, and the Nationalist party, have advocated that policy, and I do not think that we shall abandon it. But why not then give the franchise to the coloured women together with the white? The first reason is that I have always told the coloured people, and I repeat it to-day, that I am in favour of their being incorporated with the whites in political, industrial and economic life, but they must admit that there is prejudice, and they must not be in too great a hurry, and so spoil their chances. It will take time, and all we can do is to advocate and advance the matter so that the white man will abandon his prejudice. That is what I have clearly and publicly said to the coloured people, and I am glad that I can mention here that wherever I have said so, in public and in private, the coloured people have expressed their gratitude. But, apart from this, there is another reason which has made it impossible to include the coloured woman in this Bill, and it is because the Opposition in 1928 practically rejected the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill. Yes, I am very sorry that took place, and I hope we will rectify that mistake. We can only give rights to the coloured person if we know who a coloured person is, but my hon. friends opposite fought me tooth and nail when I included a provision in that draft Bill to define who was a coloured person and who was not, and I had to abandon the Bill at the third reading, because I realized that I could not get a two-thirds majority in favour of it. However much I may wish or not wish the coloured woman to have the franchise, we cannot do it, because the necessary stipulations, as to who is a coloured person and who is a native, have not been put on the statute book, and that cannot be done until such time as a Bill has been passed, or such a definition has been given. I hope, therefore, that in this respect we can put the matter on the basis that when the time comes for it the coloured woman will also come into her rights. I have always said, directly and indirectly, to the coloured people that they must understand that there are many among them who pass as coloured people, but who are really not civilized. While in the case of the European man or woman, it must be assumed that they are all civilized; we cannot make the same assumption with all coloured persons. If we give the franchise to the coloured woman, then it can only be granted to the civilized coloured woman, so that when it is given, the coloured woman will have to comply with certain requirements. Whether, and in how far, an education test will be sufficent, we shall have to leave until then. It is, however, certain that we can only think of giving it to the civilized woman, and that is what I have always said to the coloured people. Let me say here that I have already told the coloured people, a deputation of twenty coloured persons from all four provinces that met me in connection with the grant of the franchise to coloured men, that we could not grant the franchise to all coloured persons, but only to the educated ones. I am pleased also to be able to say that the coloured persons appreciated the force of this, and that they quite understand what will be required when they claim rights of this kind. What I have said here with reference to the coloured man applies also to the coloured woman, and I have told them so. But there is still a further reason why we cannot give the franchise to the coloured woman, and that is because under the existing law it is impossible to give the franchise to the coloured woman without opening the door to the native woman. These few words of mine have now disposed of the Bill. As appears from the promise which I read, this measure is introduced by me, not as a Government measure, and with regard to the party I have left the matter just where it was when thirteen or fourteen years ago women’s franchise was advocated here, viz., that everyone can do what he think? best. That does not prevent me from having my own opinion on the matter. I am strongly of opinion that this Bill ought to be passed. We can do what we like to-day, but we shall not be able to deprive the women of the franchise much longer. That is quite plain to me. The number of telegrams which I have got from women in the Nationalist party, especially in the Capo Province, have convinced me that it is necessary. The Afrikaans woman has been made to think, and it has become clearer in the last few years in all four provinces that the movement is growing day by day. As I said to a woman, I am sorry that I have to give them this right now when there is practically no defender of the parliamentary system left. The view prevails that democratic system has practically served its time, and even my hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) preached that overseas.

No.

But let me say this: that I do not think there can be much doubt that we are on the eve of the collapse of the parliamentary system. When I speak of the eve, then I, of course, use the term in a historical sense, and it may take another 50 years or more, but it will not be very long now. That is the only reason that I pity the women of South Africa that they are given the franchise at this stage. Let me say this, because I know that all the hon. members sitting in front of me are practically all supporters of the Bill.

We are more enlightened.

That depends on what enlightenment the hon. member refers to. I admit that amongst my hon. friends, and amongst the Nationalists who sit behind me, there are many who are opposed to the measure. To them I will only say that if the women are to get the franchise, I give them the good advice: that, if they are to get it, let them get it from the Nationalist party, and according to the good principles of the Nationalist party of South Africa.

It is quite clear from the speech to which we have just listened, that the Prime Minister is in a very difficult position. I do not want to say a word to-day which will make that position more difficult. I recognize that he has done a public service by bringing forward a Bill for the enfranchisement of women, and, although I do not agree with every detail of the measure, and do not think in form and substance it is a good Bill, yet I am grateful to him for what he has done in fathering this Bill and in standing for this principle. I do not want to make his task harder at all— it is difficult enough. Therefore, I do not propose to go at length into the various questions— let me say, side-issues—which the Prime Minister has raised. I think we have a very clear and simple work to do. We need not discuss democracy or its prospects. Democracy will remain very long after he and I have left the scene. Do not be afraid, these young Mussolinis will not batter democracy to pieces, nor need we discuss the ins and outs of the native question or the nature of civilization or similar questions to-day. To my mind we have reached the stage when this question of women’s enfranchisement is overdue. The acceptance of this principle of women’s enfranchisement and its passage as a practical measure is overdue in this country. We are the last member of our commonwealth to take this action, and almost the last to take this step among the advanced nations. It is no credit to us and no honour to our women that we have waited so long. Let us look at it from that viewpoint and give this matter our blessing. I am sorry that the Prime Minister at the end of his speech struck a rather false note by referring to this measure as possibly the gift of a party. We should not look at it in this light. In fact, I have looked at the passing of this measure on the Prime Minister’s motion and with the support mostly from this side of the House as a great advantage, as taking the Bill out of the rut of party politics. For years I have felt that to pass a women’s enfranchisement Bill as a party measure would be very difficult, and we have now that fortunate combination of circumstances that the Prime Minister, under very peculiar circumstances, bound himself two years ago to come forward with a women’s enfranchisement Bill, and he is now carrying out his pledge, in part at least. We on this side of the House are prepared to support the principle, and we are now in the happy position that the women in this country are, I trust, now going to be enfranchised by a free parliamentary vote. But it will be the gift, not of a party, it will be the gift of the manhood of this country; it will be the men of South Africa, to whatever party they belong. Let us look at it in this light, and not from a party point of view. I cannot blame my hon. friends sitting in front of me—[interruption]—who are not yet converted. I think it is a question which is bound to come, and we have reached that stage now when this great principle is going to be the law of the land. Let us rejoice in that, and look at it in that light—not as a party measure, but as a principle of justice in which all join. I think the Prime Minister has not made our path in our desire to help him easier by the form of the Bill. I think he is bringing forward a measure which, in many respects, is worse than the one he vetoed two years ago. Hon. members who were members then will remember what happened. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) had brought forward a Bill which gave the franchise to the women of this country on the same basis as men, and no colour distinction was drawn. That Bill passed its second reading in that general form. In committee, an amendment was made which confined it to European women, and after that had been passed, those who were in favour of the principle of women’s enfranchisement pressed on with the Bill in its amended form, and we were on the point of victory, in sight of the goal, when the Prime Minister intervened, and made that promise to which he has referred to-day. If he had not intervened, and no obstacles had been raised by so mighty an influence as himself at that stage, the Bill would have gone through as a Bill for the enfranchisement of European women with the same qualifications as existed in the various provinces for men. The Bill would have placed women exactly in the same position as men, and there would have been no preference. The women in South Africa in the various provinces would have received their political enfranchisement exactly on the same terms as the men. There is a great deal to be said for that, and it would have been far better if the Bill had come before us to-day in that form; but in the form in which it comes before us, a distinction is drawn between men and women in two provinces. In the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, no difference will be made between male and female voters, but in the two older provinces, the Cape and Natal, where franchise distinctions exist, the position will be that women will be in a preferential position. I do not urge this as a fatal objection to the Bill, because I do not want to raise more difficulties than already exist, but I do say that the Bill, in its present form, is less desirable and is a worse measure than the Bill which, two years ago, the Prime Minister vetoed. We are in this anomalous position—and it is an anomaly—that we are giving the women of two of the provinces more than they have asked for. They have asked only for the vote on the same basis as men, and the Prime Minister goes further and says: “No, I shall put them in a better position than the men.” [Interruption.] I am glad to hear his generosity applauded by hon. members opposite, and hope that generosity will continue. We shall have more women voters in two of the provinces than men voters, which is a position which was never asked for or contemplated. The Prime Minister has entered into an elaborate argument why that is so, and why, at this stage, it would be unfair and unnecessary to apply qualifications to the women. He says: “Why an education test? The whites have always been civilized; they were civilized in the Germanic forests.” I was very much surprised to hear that argument from my hon. friend. After all he has done for and all the benefit he has from education, to make this reactionary tirade against education is not becoming to him, and I think it was a slip. It does not help to make this unnecessary onslaught on education. His argument is that civilization is an inborn quality with Europeans, and he asks: “Why should we impose an economic test? Why a salary or a property qualification? Because that would never have been imposed on men, but for the trouble there was with regard to the franchise for the native.” The answer to all this is simple, and it is, we actually have these franchise qualifications in South Africa. We are not arguing about these qualifications in the abstract. We have these qualifications existing in two of the provinces, and these electoral anomalies exist in South Africa. The Prime Minister has now gaily added another. We have already three systems, but to-day a fourth is added, that is, the franchise for women, which, in two of the provinces, will differ from that of the men. Our whole franchise position is becoming more piebald and difficult, and without any justification, in my opinion. In my opinion, it would have been far easier and better to have stuck to the Bill as brought in by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and to have given men and women the same franchise that they exercise in the various provinces.

For Europeans only?

I have been arguing the position on the amendment passed in 1928. All that I am saying now is this: that after the amendment had been carried in the Bill of 1928, and the Bill had been confined to white women, the Prime Minister intervened at that stage. That Bill, as it was on the point of passing through this House, was a better Bill than the present one. There is no doubt that one of the difficulties that will be felt about the Bill in its present form is that it gives the women a preferential position in two provinces, and that it enfranchises more women in the two provinces than the male voters in those provinces. That will be felt as, perhaps, going too far, and as a very material objection to the Bill, and as a reason why some people will harden their hearts against it. I hope they will not. I am prepared, even with this anomaly, to accept it. I am not arguing against the second reading of this Bill, and although I feel the difficulties of the scheme of the Prime Minister, I am prepared to accept even that scheme, although the scheme before the House two years ago was a better one. Let me say a few words about the colour question. I am not at all satisfied with the statement which the Prime Minister has made to-day. The Prime Minister says that he has brought forward this Bill to carry out his promise, and he read the promise which was given. But there was more in the promise than what he read to the House. The Prime Minister will remember that as he made that promise he was asked by my hon. friend, the member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), what about the coloured people, to which the Prime Minister replied—

Listen, Bethal.

Bethal’s vote will help to see this measure through. In answer to the question of my hon. friend, the member for East London (North), the Prime Minister then said it had always been his principle to give the vote to civilized coloured women on the same basis as to white women. That appears in Hansard, and there is no doubt about it. The promise the Prime Minister made two years ago was not merely to bring forward a Bill for the enfranchisement of European women, but also for the enfranchisement of civilized coloured women. I think the position is quite clear. I do not want to introduce a contentious note, but I think if the Prime Minister looks into what he said at the time, he will find that any reasonable person listening to him at that time would have come to the conclusion that the next Bill for women’s enfranchisement to be brought in by him, if he continued to be. Prime Minister after two years, would include coloured women.

Do you wish the coloured women to be included now ?

That promise has not been kept. The Prime Minister says he is here to carry out a promise, and I am here to enter a doubt, and more than a doubt, I am here to question whether he is really carrying out, in the letter and in the spirit, the promise which he gave two years ago. I say that he is not. No doubt that creates difficulties for quite a number of my friends here behind me. That I confess quite frankly. There are numbers of my friends behind me who would have found it much easier to support this Bill if it had conformed with the promise made originally by the Prime Minister two years ago. In voting for the enfranchisement of white women only, although they are extremely keen in their support of women’s enfranchisement, they naturally have a conscientious difficulty about drawing this distinction between coloured and white women, and drawing another colour bar. The difficulty existed in 1928. Let me explain what the position was in 1928, which is the position today. My friends here, large numbers of them, coming from the Cape Province, would far rather vote for the Bill without a colour bar, and for the Bill as introduced by the hon. member for East London (North). That is the principle we stood for in 1928, and we were beaten out of that position by the amendment which was adopted in committee. Having been beaten out of that position, and the Bill having been confined, in 1928, to white women only, my friends then said that they would rather have 50 per cent. than nothing, if they could not get 100 per cent. If the House was so constituted that a majority could not be found for the enfranchisement of women, white and coloured, they said they would support the Bill for the enfranchisement of white women only. I hope that my friends will adopt the same attitude now that they are faced with the same difficulty they were faced with two years ago, because I am anxious that this Bill should go through even though it does not give us all that we want. I hope that my hon. friends behind me will act with the same patriotism with which they acted two years ago, and will say, “If the Bill has to be confined to European women only, and if that is the only way in which it can be got through, then let us get it through on that basis.” They do not thereby surrender any principle. I hope that my hon. friends behind me will not deviate from the position they took up in 1928, and will vote for the Bill even in the limited form in which it has been presented to the House. I feel that for us to go further to-day would possibly be to wreck this Bill. I feel that if an attempt were made to make this Bill a general Bill by some amendment in favour of the enfranchisement of both white and coloured women, the risk would be run of this Bill not passing and not becoming law; and it is on that ground, that I feel convinced it is impossible to carry out the whole principle, and that it is only possible to carry this Bill for the enfranchisement of European women, that I ask my friends, in view of the composition of this House, and of the feeling of this House, to vote for the Bill even though it only enfranchises European women. They surrender no principle. They stand exactly where they stood two years ago when they said that they would prefer the Bill in its more general form, but as it is impossible for it to be carried in that form through this House, they are prepared to accept it in its present limited form. I hope my friends here behind me will accept the Bill in this form and in this light. I do not wish to prolong the debate, because I do not think there is much to debate. The special arguments of the Prime Minister are not really relevant at all. The question is whether we shall enfranchise our European women on the same basis as the men, or whether we are prepared to go the length of enfranchising more women than men in these two provinces. I do not like this position. I should have preferred the Bill to be different, and follow the old form.

Is there any other possible form ?

My hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows that we are a minority on this side of the House, This side, I hope, is unanimously in favour of women’s enfranchisement, but we can only see this Bill through the House with the assistance of hon. members on the other side, and I do rely very much on the potent influence of the Prime Minister to see this Bill through. He must know the necessary limits of his influence and power, and evidently he has bowed to the storm and is prepared to help us only to this extent.

Do you want to have a coloured vote ?

Does my hon. friend spread a net in the sight of an old bird? My hon. friend is here not to pass women’s enfranchisement, but to do some electioneering. I am here to help the Prime Minister to pass women’s enfranchisement. My hon. friend must not think about his constituency in this connection. They will have an opportunity to think for themselves. I do not wish to labour the point further. I make this appeal to my hon. friends behind me to take up the attitude that they took up two years ago. Let us give our women their rightful position in the public life of this country, to which they are eminently entitled. The women of other countries are no better than ours, and they have enjoyed the franchise for many years. I have heard the argument used in this House, and sometimes outside of it, that this measure is going to help the parties which rely on urban constituencies more than those that rely on rural constituencies for their political power, because the argument is that women in the towns will find it easy to vote at the nearest polling station, whereas in the rural areas the women would have a long distance to go; transport is very difficult, and for this reason women’s enfranehisement will tell in favour of the urban parties. That argument has been used in many other countries. I saw a report some years ago about this question in New Zealand. There too it was one of the difficulties that the urban parties would be favoured and benefited more than the rural parties by women’s enfranchisement. What was the verdict of experience? It was shown after women’s enfranchisement had been in operation in New Zealand for a number of years that a larger proportion of women in the rural areas voted than in the urban areas. What has been proved by New Zealand’s experience may be repeated in South Africa. I do not fear for a moment what troubles so many people here that it is only urban women and not the rural women who will go to the polls. I think we shall find that when this measure is through, and women exercise their vote that there will be no difference at all as regards the complexion of parties. It is not going to affect party complexion or proportions in the least, but our whole public policy will be turned much more in the direction of social activities and improvements than hitherto. Men are more political; more given to the political machine than women. Women are keener on social reform and the levelling up of social life. I think when women take part in the public life of South Africa, instead of chewing the old bones of politics and taking part in the party struggle women will have an influence which will turn our attention to the problems of social betterment. I expect from this reform an alteration in the tone of public life and in the character of the legislative work which we shall be doing in this House. This advance I confidently expect and look forward to. Although I do not like the Prime Minister’s Bill in every detail I shall certainly be found supporting him in this measure.

I can almost congratulate the hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) for having been so tender hearted this afternoon. If he had felt more sorry on previous occasions we would probably have made much more advance. But I hope that he will also in future show his soft-hearted ness on other occasions and in other matters. I am glad that my leader has clearly said that it is a motion which will not be treated from a party point of view. As for myself, women’s franchise appeared to me more of a joke when ten years ago I supported it when it was proposed in the House. Subsequently, however, the matter became more serious, and it appeared that the women would get the vote sooner or later. Subsequently I always voted against the franchise for women, and in this case also I am going to vote against the second reading of the Bill. Let me say at once that I know the women will get the franchise, but there are certain reasons why I vote against the Bill. They are reasons of principle, and practical reasons. I know that when one speaks in favour of women’s franchise, one is very popular, but I am not out for popularity, and in this case also I do not want to try and become popular. My constituents are against the Bill, and at the Nationalist Congress of the Transvaal the delegates expressed themselves against the franchise by eight against ten votes. I do not think it is right towards those people if I disregard their wishes and instructions.

The women’s congresses are in favour of it.

Their congresses are in favour of it because two years ago our leader was forced to make a promise, and as a proof of their loyalty the women’s congresses resolved to support him; if, however, a referendum were taken to-day we should see that a large majority of women would be against the women’s franchise. I do not doubt that for a moment. As I have said, I am opposed to it in principle, because it is in conflict with the intention the Creator had for woman. We were accustomed to the woman, especially on the countryside, being the support of the man, and of the family, and assisting the man with advice and by actions. In the towns and villages the women have social privileges, such as clubs, etc., which they do not have on the countryside, and if the woman from the country goes into politics the family will be neglected and the love of children will no longer be so great as it was in the past. The husband and the wife will no longer consult each other as much as in the past, and it will be greatly to the detriment of our people on the countryside. I shall vote against the second reading, but yet I fear it will be passed. I shall then in committee support my leader, but that doesn’t alter the fact one bit that I am against the principle of the Bill. In the second place, I have also many practical objections to this Bill. The woman in the country has not the facilities of the woman in the towns. Many of them live more than 100 miles from the ballot box, and such a woman is therefore practically prevented from voting unless the Government is prepared to incur a great expense by having ballot boxes in their neighbourhood. Another objection is that the woman, as soon as she is put on the same footing as the man, will immediately demand that she should also be put on the same economic basis. They will ask that the salaries of women officials in the public service shall be brought up to the same level as those of the men. I ask hon. members whether they are prepared to agree with that, whether we are prepared for the woman to stand on an equal footing with men in all appointments in our industries and everywhere, then there will be great economic difficulties, and the salaries will have to be reduced. A further result will be a drop in the number of marriages. We already are such a small population, and if the number of marriages are to decrease, then the small white population will ultimately be drowned in a sea of black. I only mention this in passing to point out the danger. The woman will then also have to be prepared to take a man’s place in other directions, e.g., in war. But is the woman strong enough to take part in war? Hon. members will at once agree that it is impossible for a woman. It is true that the woman possibly suffers the most in the war. She must remain at home, and have great heartache when her sons fall in battle, but she is not suited to take part in war herself. I now want to quote what a daughter of Dr. A. Kuyper, viz., H. S. S. Kuyper, a learned person who has previously been quoted here in connection with the position of women—

Then she goes further—

What is the year of the book ?

1928; I hope that will not be too old for the hon. member. Those are, however, not all the objections that I have against the Bill. I have already said that we acknowledge all the good work the women have done. We admit that she stood by the voortrekkers, that she shared their deprivations, but it is impossible for her to be equal to the man in all departments. I have already asked whether we would be prepared to put the woman on an equal footing with the man in economic matters, and to pay her the same salary as the man. I now, however, want to refer to something else. It is so often said that the people who are opposed to women’s franchise regard the woman as an inferior. I want to deny that most strongly, and in the strongest language. We consider the women noble, and just as capable as the men, but we do not want to drag them into political life with the result of their family life being shipwrecked and the rising generation being neglected. That is the reason why we shall be doing the woman an injustice if we drag her into politics in this way. There is another matter which bothers me. I read in the Cape Argus of a certain Mrs. Hall who said in the north that the franchise for women must come, but that if it is not granted the women should stand together to refuse to pay taxes in order in that way to force the men to give them the vote. Let me say at once that if the women try measures like that they are making a very great mistake because then they will make no progress. In the past it has always been the case that it was just because the women asked for the franchise, and did not use threats that they got the people outside, and a large section of people inside Parliament to favour the women’s franchise. If the attitude of the women were to be what I have just referred to, and if it is explained to the countryside, then it will do the cause of the women no good. The argument has been used here that other countries have granted the franchise to the women. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) also used it, and he asked why South Africa should not grant it to women. We thought that the granting of the franchise to women in those countries would make a tremendous difference. Has there been an improvement in social matters ?

Yes.

That hon. member says yes, but he knows nothing about it. He could not mention a single instance to prove that social and economic conditions were improved because the franchise had been granted to the women. The women of South Africa have always in the past been prepared to help in improving our national life, without being granted the franchise. It is said that the woman is in politics because she is used at election time. Whether the women get the franchise or not they have so much love for their country and people and for their children that they will always make the same sacrifices for what they consider the interests of the country. Who are the people in our society that make sacrifices? Is it not the women, and do they want to become deacons, elders and ministers? Nevertheless they are the most loyal members of the church. That argument drops altogether. What will be the position in ten, fifteen or twenty years if a dispute arises between a man and his wife because the wife supports certain matters from charitable motives. In this connection I want to refer to something. Look at the experience of America. I read in the Review of Reviews—

I wonder what hon. members who support the women’s franchise will say if the cry of the candidates is total prohibition. I ask the wine farmers of the Western Province what their attitude will be. When total prohibition was discussed in the House why did not the wine farmers interview us to oppose it. But now they are going to vote for a dangerous thing to their industry. I hope that they will not reproach me in about ten years when this question affects them. I do not want to take up the time of the House any more. I know that a large number of hon. members are in favour of it, and I think that if the Bill passes, which I certainly expect, then it should pass in the form in which the Prime Minister introduced it. Any amendment would make the Bill weaker and ineffective. Although I am voting against the second reading, it is not because I think that women are weak, and unfit, but for the reason I have given. It is for the family reasons which I have mentioned, and because it encroaches upon a practice which has long prevailed on the countryside. A man and his wife consult each other about the work, about the education of the children, etc., and also about politics, and I fear that if we put the women into the fray it will have an injurious effect on the countryside. Moreover, we are going to further increase election costs which are already high on the countryside. I have always told the women in my constituency that they were going to get the vote, although I was very careful not to say that I would support it. I told them that the Prime Minister had promised it, and that he was not a man who forgot his promises. I recommended them to be ready to make use of it, and to prevent its only being used by one section of the population. Hon. members will therefore see that I am not voting against it maliciously. I am voting against it for the reasons given, and I feel convinced that the mothers and daughters of our people will appreciate it. I addressed a social meeting in the north, and there also I told them that they must organize and be ready because the women’s franchise was coming. Thereafter some of the women came to me with tears in their eyes and said that it would be injurious to our people, and to our country. I saw that those women felt deeply about the matter, and that they had seen the difficulties and objections in connection with the matter. We must, however, look the matter in the face, and if the Bill passes, which I do not doubt it will, then we must make the best of the matter, so that our people will do their duty as much as possible towards our country.

It is well known that there is a definite feminine strain in all men; it came out very clearly in the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon. We all know the famous couplet—“And whispering she would ne’er consent, consented.” The Prime Minister has been swearing for years past that he would never consent to women’s suffrage until the native question was settled, and now he has consented, although the native question is not yet settled. I do hope that the Prime Minister has seen that perhaps the advent of women in politics may help him towards a settlement. If so, the settlement may have been well worth waiting for. His reasons for his present attitude are not as convincing as they might be, more particularly his explanation why he has excluded native and coloured women from participation in the vote. I asked him on the 2nd March, 1928, on the motion for re-commitment, “Will you give the franchise to the coloured women ?” His reply was definite, and unequivocal. He said—

Surely it would be very difficult to square his declaration with that portion of his speech this afternoon dealing with that matter. I am sorry the Minister of the Interior is not here; we know the prominent part he took in killing this Bill two years ago. He wished to wreck the Bill, and said—

I will go a little further; this is not a chance expression, but a speech carefully revised by the Minister of the Interior. He said—

Now let us hear his exquisite reason for not giving it—

Well, naturally we must approach this Bill with caution. There are rocks and snags ahead, and some of them have appeared above water already, but we hope to avoid them, and our leader, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has made the position quite clear. I have always held that this question is too big for party politics, very much too big, it is a matter affecting our whole future for various good and sufficient reasons. Surely it must appear to my democratic friends on the Labour benches that it makes for progress. We are coming into line with the rest of the world. It must appear to my conservative friends that it makes for security, and so we are achieving stability and a broader base for the social question and therefore for greater progress at one and the same time. Another reason why I welcome this Bill, bad as it is, is that it is a distinct step forward. If the great principle of women’s suffrage be admitted it means that at last we have departed in South Africa from the principle of a governing sex. That has been the rule in the past, a governing sex; and surely, having got the thin end of the wedge in, we may hope to get away from the idea of a governing class, or a governing section, or a governing race. We may have a little more hope for the future. The question is not is it good for the women or good for the men, but is it good for the State? Again I would advise hon. members to define what they mean by the word “State.” Hitherto the State has apparently meant European adult men only. Is that the State? Is that what we mean by the community or the public? No. The State consists of more than adult males. It consists of all people as well as European male adults, whatever their sex or race or class. That is the State, whether we like it or not. So we have made a little advance in departing from the practice of having a governing sex in South Africa. Also we are beginning to realize at last that the old time-worn arguments against women’s suffrage are almost exhausted. True, we have had a rechauffé edition from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but even he has admitted that for years he looked upon this question as a great joke. I am very glad that we have got away from that. It is no longer a joke. The reason why this was treated as a joke in the past is very simple. Unfortunately there were a great many people who could not distinguish between sex and sensuality, and when sex was mentioned only one set of thoughts went through their minds. Now we are getting away from that, and it can be no longer tolerated as a joke. I think the man who ventures to make a broad joke in public now on women’s suffrage will not receive the reception he expects. While I have the sincerest respect for those who think we are going against the commandments of the Almighty in instituting this reform, I would ask them to examine the question a little further. I take it needs no argument that we do not want to go back to the Old Testament days.

You can get very strong arguments from the Old Testament.

But no one will go back to the social practices that obtained then. You will find that it was with the Christian era that improvement in the position of women throughout the world commenced. My hon. friends opposite may quote St. Paul, but if they will go into the matter a little closer they will find that the Apostles were dominated with the idea that the world would probably come to an end within their own lifetime. It can be understood, having that idea, why they advised their followers to avoid marriage if possible, and were unwilling to admit or even discuss the claims of women to greater influence in matters of church or state. When the Minister of Agriculture was speaking about the possible economic drawbacks that would result if women got the vote, as far as I have been able to understand he was afraid they might draw bigger salaries. He could not have been looking or thinking of the Minister of Defence and Labour when he brought forward that argument. I understood it was a principle of the Labour party at one time that equal work should command equal pay. I think the Minister of Agriculture is ungrateful towards the members of the Pact who keep him in power when he turns his back on one of their leading principles. The Prime Minister was a little unkind to them also. He foreshadowed the early decline of parliamentary power and parliamentary institutions. He has had six years’ experience of the Pact and of the Opposition, and he does not like either. Again the hon. the Minister of Agriculture made great play with the theory that women do not want the vote. That is not the question. The question is, is it desirable in the best interests of the state that women should be called to the councils of the state. Whether women want it or not is not the point that should weigh with us; on the contrary, what we should consider is whether women need the vote. We want women, legislatively and otherwise, to be able to follow their growing sons and their adolescent daughters into the factories and workshops, and stores and offices, and to take care of their interests there. They can only do that if they get the vote. They could have been doing it during the last two years but for the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the National Council party. The Minister of Agriculture wondered if any improvement had been made in the affairs of any country that had adopted women’s suffrage. The answer is in the affirmative. It can he proved that no self-governing state that has ever adopted women’s suffrage has ever tried to repeal it; and we know that legislative measures have been placed on the statute hook in regard to the motherhood, infant mortality, working conditions, sanitation and many other questions through their operation. The Minister of Agriculture did not wish to be considered as taking up the position that women are inferior. Well, his actions place him in that position, and if he had a wider knowledge of human life and human nature than he has, he would know that people resent being considered as belonging to an inferior class, or an inferior sex more than anything else. They dislike repression more than oppression, and for women to have their social value and importance minimized by not being allowed to take part in our public councils, is a slur which they are entitled to resent. We have been subjecting our women to repression for a great many years and I hope that we are now going to terminate that repression. I am sure that hon. members who spoke so eloquently must have considered the unhappy position in which women coming to this country, even from scheduled countries, would find themselves, women from Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, and the United States, to find that the voting rights they have enjoyed had disappeared; that this was a country where the women were thought to be intellectually or morally inferior and not fit to take part in the councils of the country. There is no danger that the legislation which will result will be inimical to men as such, while women have special interests—and so have men—as employers have special interests distinct from those of employees, yet it is good for them to meet and take counsel together and the result is more satisfactory than if one side had a monopoly of representation. Women, if I understand them rightly, do not look on the franchise simply as a means of influencing the Government, but they do like to have an opportunity of doing social work of importance to themselves and the state. It is strange how long this motion has been resisted. I can only account for it by recalling what Samuel Johnson said: “How is it that the wildest yelps for liberty come from the drivers of slaves !” From whom have the “wildest yelps” been heard? From those who have been most opposed to the liberation and enfranchisement of women. Let us hope now that they will do their utmost by passing this Bill in such a form that it will ensure the maximum freedom to the greatest number of women. The whole thing is aptly summed up by Shelley “Can man be free if woman is a slave?”

It is some 18 years ago since we had a motion on this subject.

Two years ago; I should think you would remember it with shame.

I am not ashamed. Two years ago we refused to he led into a trap which would enfranchise the women of the wealthier part of the population in a greater degree than the poorer women. I am not saying a word to justify myself in the eyes of hon. members opposite. We came to the conclusion that that Bill—the hon. member will surely believe me—

I wonder how the hon. Minister can say these things with a straight face.

We were not to be led into the enfranchising of the wealthier women of the population in a greater degree than the poorer women of the population. We were told by our women friends that they thought they had been sidetracked and when we told them we had the pledge of the Prime Minister that if returned to power, he would introduce a Bill which would meet our point of view, and enfranchise the white women of South Africa, we were told “Oh, the Prime Minister has let us down.” The Prime Minister has been true to his word, as he always is, and he has introduced this Bill which has now received the blessing of the leader of the Opposition, and we hope that the advice which he gave to his friends, that the Bill should go through in its present form, will be kept in mind. I am astonished at the impertinence of hon. members of that party; for how many years when they were in office, did they refuse to accept women’s enfranchisement. For many years the Labour party has had women’s enfranchisement as a plank of its political platform. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was on the select committee when the Bill was introduced to enfranchise women. He and I were together on the select committee and he knows perfectly well that so long as it was mixed up with the enfranchisement of native and coloured women, no Bill would go through. For the first time a Bill, also mixed up in that way, was introduced by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). It was rushed through the committee stage without any adequate examination. It was rushed through the committee stage in about five minutes.

Where were you ?

I was entirely deceived. On the operative clause, which was not discussed, the point that stuck was its form. It was subject to the property and other qualifications which ruled in the Cape and Natal, but which did not rule in the province where we came from. There we have manhood suffrage. In the Bill the hon. member brought forward, he would enfranchise many women in the wealthier classes of society, but would not enfranchise a large number of women in the less wealthy classes of society.

Did you tell the House that ?

Here is the Bill. It was short and sweet. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is one of about half a dozen, or one of the five in the House to-day, who voted for women’s suffrage years ago. He said that once we passed the committee stage, we should have voted for the third reading of the Bill. We, on the other hand, took the view that it was better to recommit the Bill than to pass a Bill which might have suited hon. members opposite, in enfranchising many women from the more wealthy class of society, but would leave their sisters of the less wealthy class unenfranchised.

Did you give that reason ?

We had no doubt in our mind what the reason was. We also had the pledge of the Prime Minister.

I must ask hon. members who are continually interrupting to cease to do so, otherwise I shall be compelled to take drastic steps against them.

I am telling hon. members, and I think I shall be supported by the hon. member over there, that we came to the deliberate conclusion that it was better to rely upon the Prime Minister’s promise to defer this matter, so that not only the women referred to would have the franchise, but many other women also would be enfranchised. If the hon. member thinks that party capital can be made out of this, I may tell him that our experience is entirely contrary. That is the only point in the Prime Minister’s speech I disagree with. So far as we of the Labour party are concerned, in the short period that we had a provincial council majority in the Transvaal, we gave the municipal franchise to the women of the Transvaal, and I believe they have voted against us ever since. Hon. members, therefore, need not think that they will make party capital out of it. I do not propose to follow the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in his long and eloquent eulogy of the other sex, and his learned disquisition on the history of the matter, and the theological reasons he advanced.

It will give you an appetite for that sort of literature.

No. In this controversy, so far as speeches are concerned, I have been more convinced on the whole of the rightness of women’s suffrage by the inadmissible character of the arguments against it, than I have been influenced by many of the speeches and arguments advanced for it. So far as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is concerned and other members on this side of the House who support him, I do not, think the fact of the women having the vote will make very much difference. It will make very little difference in any other way than the way indicated by the extract that the hon. the Minister read out, and, as was mentioned by the hon. the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The principal difference will probably be that the women’s vote will turn our attention very much more to social matters, and it will make us, in our legislation and policy, give much more attention relatively to how legislation will affect the next generation.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, after the speech of the Prime Minister and the happy speech delivered by the hon. the leader of the Opposition in reply. I did not think that any words of mine were necessary, but, after listening to a most amazing speech on this subject by the Minister of Labour on the subject of his efforts in the cause of women’s suffrage, it is more than I can do to keep quiet. I propose to examine the Minister’s record and that of his party, seeing that he has invited such an examination on our behalf. I suppose the Minister remembers such a name as that of John Mullineux. He must remember that the Rev. John Mullineux was the chief whip of his party, and probably the chief sponsor of women’s suffrage inside of the then Labour party. I invite him to go back to 1926 when the case for women’s suffrage was having more than its usual share of knocks, largely due to the vacillation of the Labour benches. The Rev. John Mullineux then moved for the appointment of a select committee in these terms—

Such a select committee, was set up, with Mr. Mullineux as chairman, and this is what that committee recommended—

It doubled their property qualification.

No. I was not out in the lobby refusing to vote, but the Rev. John Mullineux and the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) walked out of the House and refused to vote.

The Bill doubled the women’s property qualifications.

What happened was this. We said that if a man must have a certain qualification, then his wife must also have a similar qualification, so that together they had a doubled qualification, but we would not be so foolish as to say that a woman voter must have double the qualification of a male elector. That Bill was introduced exactly on the lines of the Mullineux report, and it was passed with the help of 18 Labour members. The Minister of Defence voted for it. It passed through every stage up to the committee stage, with the staunch help of the Minister of Defence and his 17 colleagues.

The committee stage occupied only ten minutes.

The committee stage took the whole of a long afternoon. The Minister must be thinking of an awkward ten minutes he afterwards had at the hands of his followers. The report in Hansard of the discussion on Clause 1 in committee occupies 34 pages, starting on page 1130 and concluding on page 1164. However, we are getting into side issues. On that clause Mr. I. P. van Heerden moved an amendment to limit the franchise to European women. There was in existence in the House in those days a joint all-party committee on women’s suffrage—if the Minister would only remain in his seat for a little while—

Don’t be so conceited.

That is an unmannerly interruption by the Minister of Justice, who sees that the Minister of Defence is getting what he has been asking for. I only want to give the Minister of Defence a faithful account of what his party did in those days. They promised that joint committee that they would support its Bill through all its stages. That promise was given by the same Mr. Mullineux, the chief whip of the Minister’s party, and they kept that promise up to and including the committee stage. They did not move a single amendment, or detect a single imperfection in the Bill. Two or three days before March 2nd, we had a further meeting of that joint committee, and we then asked the Labour representatives if all the Labour members would be here and vote straight for the Bill, and were assured that they would. On the same day when the Bill came up for the report stage, which was the last hurdle to be crossed, the Minister of Defence was not here at all. He had gone away, with four of his colleagues, by the 10.45 a.m. train, and the Bill came before the House at 2.25 p.m. Six of the Minister’s party voted against the Bill, and five voted with us. Of those six members who voted against the measure only two remain in this House. The hon. member for Germiston walked outside into the lobby with the Rev. John Mullineux. Yet the Minister of Defence tells the House, with virtuous indignation, that the reason they voted against this Bill was because it enfranchised women in the Cape on a property qualification.

Section 2 was never discussed at all.

Whose fault was that? We thought, in those days, that the Minister of Defence was a friend of the Bill. Section 2 is not the critical clause of the Bill. Is the Minister going to seek refuge in the fact that the clause was not discussed? Having, for 18 years, espoused the cause of women’s suffrage, he voted to kill the Bill because no one saw fit to discuss Clause 2 !

No, because we had the promise of a better Bill.

No promise of a better Bill was made then by the Prime Minister, who said, “If I am spared to be Prime Minister I will introduce a Bill to enfranchise women.” He said nothing of its nature or contents. So that all this sophistry and wriggling on the part of the Minister of Defence does not alter the fact that having promised to support the Bill, and having held himself and his party out as supporters of women’s suffrage, when the critical moment came they failed. And how they have paid for it! If I were asked to name a single action on the part of the Minister and his friends that proved to the outside public how far they were in the pocket of the Nationalist party and had sacrificed the principles of labour, I would speak of this to show how low the Minister and his colleagues as such have fallen. Out of 18 Labour members, only 8 were returned, and that by the Nationalist vote, and that shows what the public outside thought.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in making the same speech of recrimination as he made a year ago ?

Two years ago.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

[Reading from Hansard]—

Amongst the ayes I find “Creswell, F. H. P.” I leave the verdict of that particular defence of the Minister with the House. May I leave the Minister and come back to the Bill? The Prime Minister attempted some sort of explanation of the very curious fact that he has omitted to provide for coloured persons. Let me remind the House what speech he made two years ago, when he said—

Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) put the question, “Which women will get the franchise?” and then he put it in a more pointed fashion, “Will you give it to the coloured women?” The Prime Minister replied—

I want to try to help the Prime Minister with this Bill, but a more convincing explanation will be expected by the coloured community of the apparent violation of the pledge which he has shown this afternoon. When this motion to recommit the Bill in 1928 was made, the main reason the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior gave for saying that the Bill was hopeless and impracticable boiled down to this—that it was because it enfranchised European women only, and ignored the just claims of coloured women. The Prime Minister said, “What is the position?” [Interruption.] If these assurances of the Prime Minister are unpalatable to his own followers I am sorry, but I am not responsible, and I recall only what was said on that solemn occasion two years ago. No hon. gentleman opposite is going to deter me from quoting the Prime Minister, who went on to say—

He issued a solemn warning, and said—

They are told now that they cannot be introduced without being put on a lower footing than the Europeans. The civilization of the European woman is taken for granted, but not for coloured women, who must be subjected to a certain test. How does the present Bill meet the statement he made? I am hound to say that what he has said has not got over that. For myself, I stand as always for women’s suffrage, but must say that this Bill is not comparable with the Bill of two years ago. I am going to support the Bill in its second reading, and right through every stage. I want to say, however, that out of the mouth of one of his own followers the course the Prime Minister is pursuing this afternoon is condemned. When I look at the speech that was made by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), speaking on the motion to recommit, when this question was last before the House, I see that he said—

He makes it plain that any provision to enfranchise all European women, leaving men still subject to qualifications, is wrong and unjust. I feel the same, but I agree with my leader that we have been humbugged so often on this question—on no less than 18 occasions has it been before the House—that I am prepared to swallow that, and more than that, to see this Bill pass into law.

Since I have been a member of this House this Bill has been up before the House every year except last year. I have always carefully refrained from taking part in the debate, although I have always consistently voted against granting the women’s franchise. If I do not rise this afternoon to oppose the Bill, I cannot go back to my constituency. As for myself, personally, I am not against the principle of giving votes to women, but as it is an absolutely new principle in South Africa I considered it my duty to consult my constituents, and held eleven meetings about the women’s franchise. Although at each meeting I gave the electors the assurance that the Bill would be passed unless the Opposition defeated it because the vote was not also being given to the coloured and native women, notwithstanding the warning and the assurance, the women’s franchise was almost unanimously disapproved of at ten meetings. At one meeting it was carried by a majority of sixty against forty per cent., and the meeting handed a petition to me in favour of women’s franchise signed by 47 women. After the meeting one of the women came and told me that she had signed the petition, but that she was personally opposed to women’s franchise. I do not say that there are only 47 women in the whole constituency in favour of the franchise; possibly there are a few hundred, possibly even five hundred, but even then only 18 per cent. of the women will get on to the voters’ roll if the Bill is passed. At one of the meetings an old lady spoke very earnestly on the subject. She said that she had always been loyal to her husband in political and all other matters, that she had helped him, had educated her family, and done everything in her power, that she had made her sacrifices for the country and the people, and had driven the English out of her house during the second war of independence with sticks and a spade. She said, however, that she did not want the vote. At the same meeting a young lady of 16 or 17 spoke in favour of the women’s franchise. Well, if a person does not strive after higher things it does not amount to much. The women of the countryside are against the franchise, but I told them it would be forced on them, and that they must take care. The urban woman does not sit quiet, she is constantly agitating, and I warn the women of the country. The urban women do not appreciate the difficulties they are bringing the country women into. The country women realize it quite well; the towns women can vote very easily because the polling booths are so near each other, but the country women know that they will have to travel considerable distances to the booths. I do not doubt that the Bill will pass, because there are only a few against it, but I say that if the Bill goes through the Minister of the Interior must see that the polling booths on the countryside are at least doubled so that they are not separated by more than ten miles from each other. It is impossible to expect the women to travel greater distances to the booths. Men can travel thirty or forty miles, but that cannot be expected from the women. I say, therefore, that it will be necessary to erect many more polling booths if the women get the franchise. I have pointed out that I do not doubt that the Bill will pass if it is not wrecked by the Opposition. After I heard the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) I was certain that the Bill would go through, but after having listened now to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) I do not know whether I can continue to hold that opinion, because it is possible that they may yet introduce some dodge or other. We find that they blame the Prime Minister for having used words in 1928 which are practically the same as he has used here to-day. In 1928, in answer to a question by the hon. member for East London (North), he took up the same position as he did to-day. Out of that reply of the Prime Minister’s in 1928, much political capital was made during the general election. It wat distorted in such a way as to make the Prime Minister say that he would also give the vote to native women, and that he, therefore, would not vote for the Bill at that time. I said that I wanted to be brief, and I shall, therefore, no longer debate the matter.

On the motion of Mr. Krige, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 10th March.

I move—

This amendment follows logically on the discussion which took place on the second reading. On that occasion, in the course of remarks which I made, I pointed out how important it is that the state should assure itself before giving a charter to any institution that the institution has an adequate endowment. I claimed the Minister’s agreement with that principle because he had originally signified his intention of imposing such a condition before agreeing to the grant of a charter, and I asked him to give the House an assurance that before fixing the date in terms of Section (1) of this Bill, he would assure himself that this condition had been complied with. The Minister of Education admitted his original intention of imposing that condition. He said he was also very largely in agreement with the view I put forward on the financial aspect, but he declares that he could not stand in the way of the will of Parliament, if Parliament were to accept this Bill as drafted. In this amendment I am proposing that Parliament should insert that condition, which the Minister originally wished to impose, and since in this proposal I am giving effect to the wishes of the Minister, I hope I shall have his support to this amendment when he returns to the House. If the precise terms of the amendment do not commend themselves to him, I am willing to change them, but as far as the principle of the amendment is concerned, it is clear that the Minister has committed himself to it. I should like to explain briefly to the House the grounds for submitting an amendment of this kind. They are twofold. In the first place, there is the consideration that the state should not give a charter to any university institution until it has satisfied itself that that institution has an adequate endowment. In the second place there is the point that the Transvaal University College does not at present possess an adequate endowment, although it will be helped by this amendment to secure for itself such an endowment. The possession of an adequate endowment by a university is a necessary guarantee for the maintenance of its degrees. When Parliament grants a charter to a university institution, it gives the power to the institution to fix, without external interference, the standard of its degrees. One of the most effective guarantees it can demand is the provision of an adequate endowment. All universities, after all, apart from state grants and fees of students, are dependent on the proceeds from such an endowment. If the grants are to be stabilized as the Minister has forecasted, the number of students does not increase, as is probable, then the possession of such an endowment becomes a matter of very great importance. If a university has no such endowment, the dangers are very considerable. It is not possible for it to maintain the standard of work in its departments necessary for the maintenance of the standard of its degrees. It also faces the temptation of lowering the standard of its degrees in order to increase the number of its students and so improve its financial status. I know there are members of this House who doubt that such a contingency would arise; but I can recall two occasions when, in the senate of a university of which I was a member, a majority of that senate voted, against their better judgment, and fixed a lower standard for the degrees of that university, than they admitted to be right because of the aspect of competition with other universities. Seeing that that has happened in the past, I would suggest that that endorses the argument that where a university is hard pressed for students, it may resort to such measures. We have the experience of the United States as a solemn warning. There are in America some of the finest universities in the world, but there are also a large number of inadequately endowed, degree-giving institutions, some of which have occasionally come near justifying the appellation of degree-selling institutions. It would seem to me that South Africa should be very careful lest it take any steps which might ultimately lead it into a similar position. This might ultimately create a situation such that people in other countries will have to enquire about South African universities as they enquire to-day about universities in the United States of America, whether a particular university is a grade “A” university, or falls in the non-scheduled list. That, then, is the first point I would make. The second point in my case is this: that the Transvaal University College, at the present moment, cannot claim to have what anybody can admit to be an adequate endowment. In this connection, during the second reading debate, comparisons were made between Pretoria and Johannesburg. It was stated that the position of Pretoria to-day is the same as the position of Johannesburg was in 1921. I would like to say against that the statement made before the select committee dealing with the University of the Witwatersrand (Private) Bill was that the institution, at that time, had secured gifts and promises to an amount of £180,000, of which, I believe, at that time, something like £140,000 had been paid up. In addition, by virtue of an arrangement with the Government, it had a definite undertaking to secure a further £100,000 which would be available for endowment purposes. So there can be no comparison between the two institutions in that respect. In this respect Pretoria to-day is far behind. As a resident of that town, I regret to admit that the people of Pretoria, on the financial side, have not shown that enthusiasm for their university institution which one hoped they would show. Although I agree with the evidence which the Rector of the college gave before the select committee, that the grant of a charter might be followed by increased generosity, at the same time I feel that this House should assure itself that it has something more than that. [Time limit.]

I support the hon. member who has just spoken, and I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion he has made. In the enquiry before the select committee we were informed that certain funds were at present available, and that there was a practical certainty of a larger amount being forthcoming. The Minister himself put forward an argument that if the university college received the status of a full university, there would be a certainty that these amounts would be forthcoming. If this amendment which is moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) is accepted—and I am sure we all know he is one of the authorities in the country on educational and particularly university matters, and we cannot lightly put aside any suggestion he has made; at all events, I think the suggestion deserves careful study. I think the contention of the Minister that the amount will be more likely to be forthcoming would be strengthened by this provision that has been suggested. If this addition is made to Clause 1, it would be an incentive to the people of Pretoria, and the Transvaal generally, and to any others interested in the university, to come forward with definite donations to establish what we consider to be essential for the successful carrying on of the university, that is, a capital fund of such a magnitude that the work of that university can be assured without people having to run round, hat in hand, annually, trying to gather enough funds to carry on the work. I think it should be a principle laid down in every case of a claim for full university standing from a university college, that a sufficiently large sum should be provided for this purpose, not necessarily a fixed sum of £100,000. Personally, I do not think that £100,000 is enough, but a definite sum should be decided upon which would enable any particular university to carry on its work. I support, very strongly, the amendment, and I hope the Minister, in view of the arguments from this side of the House, will accept it. It will not weaken, in any way, this university, hut will rather strengthen it.

I think I can follow up what the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has been saying, by again emphasizing the point that you cannot build a university on expectations. You must have something more definite than that. I notice that in the report of the select committee, reference was made frequently to the possession by the university of an endowment of £59,000. That blessed figure has been quoted again and again by hon. members in the course of the debate on the second reading. But I have hitherto been entirely unable to discover where that £69,000 is. It seems to me that the statements made imply some confusion as to what the word “endowment” means. I have looked very carefully at the balance sheet of the Transvaal University College as stated in the report of the select committee, on page xiv. In the first two items, the word “endowment” occurs. Of course, the amounts mentioned there have gone into buildings, furniture, equipments, and the purchase of land, and are not available as an endowment in the ordinary sense of the word. The next item refers to the university’s liabilities of £14,940 in respect of trust funds, but somewhat to my surprise I find when I look at the assets, that only £12,000 is invested as trust funds. In other words, the liability of the trust funds is £3,000 greater than the amount shown as an investment of the trust funds. It appears that the university has, in the past, made use of some of its trust funds, quite correctly, I believe, and in accordance with the wishes of the donors, by applying them to the purchase of equipment and the development of its departments. That money is, therefore, no longer available for endowment purposes to-day. It seems to me that there we have the solution of this puzzle. The university has used, in the past, its endowment fund for other purposes, such as the purchase of equipment. It is a very useful purpose, but the university college cannot Co-day come along and claim that it has in its possession a sum of £69,000. The only way of testing that assertion is by going through its annual financial statement and finding out what its revenue-producing assets really are. If you go through those statements on that basis, you will find that the uttermost you could put to the credit of the university college under this head as at the 31st December, 1928, was £12,500. All that the university had on the 31st December, 1928, as direct revenue-producing assets, was £12,500. Since then moneys have been collected and promises have been secured. There is a sum of £25,000 to be spread over ten years promised by the Pretoria municipality. There are further promises of £6,000 with the nature and conditions of which I am not acquainted. But accepting those amounts as endowments in the sense that the proceeds of that money will be available for general university purposes, we still only get a total amount of £43,500. I contend again that that amount is entirely inadequate. I should like to get a reconciliation between that figure and the figure of £69,000 which has been so often mentioned in this debate. I think it would be a good thing if we could get such a reconciliation. Even if the figure of £69,000 stands as an endowment fund, the proceeds of which are available for the general purposes of the university, then I still contend that that fund is very far from being what it should be. I coutend that the acceptance of this amendment would be in the interests of university education in South Africa, because it will lay down what is in the circumstances a reasonably adequate standard, in relation to future applications for higher status, and in the second place, it will be definitely in the interests of the Transvaal University College. I believe that if the House prescribes that if they secure an endowment of £100,000 they will get their charter, then Pretoria and other parts served by the University will rise to the occasion, but I have the very gravest doubt of that happening if we give a charter simply on expectations. If the amendment is not quite in the form in which the Minister would like to see it I will alter it, but the amendment is an attempt to put into the Bill a condition which the Minister himself wished to impose.

I think that the House will not misunderstand me if I say that I regret I cannot support the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). The House must not misunderstand me on the point, and think I do not wish to co-operate in the general wish that the University of Pretoria, now it will start its new career if the Bill is passed, should be as strong financially as possible. In that desire I want to support the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), but not in his amendment, and I hope the House will not support the amendment. Let me say that if we were to take the standard of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) for making university colleges into universities, then the Pretoria College has much more right to become a university than the Witwatersrand University had. Circumstances give the University of Pretoria a greater right to exist than the University of the Witwatersrand, i.e., if we take the hon. member’s standard. When we consider the financial strength of the university then we cannot only consider the free capital. If we adopt this standpoint, the University College of Pretoria ought to be a university, and we ought to delete the university in Johannesburg from the list of universities. The question is actually what the debt is that such a university carries, because it must be set over against the assets. Another question is what financial task rests on the university, in other words, what building programme that university still has to carry out to properly fulfil its functions, and how far the building programme has already been completed. This is a very important point. I shall now compare three institutions from this point of view, viz., the University of Stellenbosch, the University of Witwatersrand and the T.U.C. The University of Stellenbosch had the John Marais fund of £100,000, but we cannot regard that as free capital, because the proceeds of it must be used for bursaries. Stellenbosch, therefore, had a very small amount of free capital. I do not know if it was more than £10,000 or £20,000. The most serious point, however, is that Stellenbosch has a building programme which has to be carried out to an amount of £234,000. As for the Witwatersrand University, there was indeed free capital amounting to £280,000, but £100,000 was produced by old buildings, half of which had been given by the Government.

That makes no difference. The money was available.

In addition not a single brick had been laid.

There was a promise of building loans by the Government.

They had first of all to execute a building programme of £500,000, and it is so inadequate that they are to-day still without a library. Reckoned according to the standard of the hon. member Johannesburg ought to be taken off the list. The T.U.C, on the contrary has assets amounting to £500,000. and their debts are £100,000, but of that they are only ultimately responsible for £50,000, because the Government provides the other £40,000. Their building programme is completed, and the only thing that remains to be done is a building of about £50,000. Financially therefore the institution is stronger than Johannesburg. I cannot therefore support the amendment of the hon. member, and I do not think he can make an exception of Pretoria and treat it differently to other similar institutions.

It was quite interesting for me to learn from the Minister that the Johannesburg University ought to be taken off the list of the universities.

We did not say so.

According to your standard.

Yes, I am prepared to apply my standard. The Minister admitted that the University of Johannesburg had £280,000 at its disposal in 1920; he added that the University of the Witwatersrand had then not yet laid a brick. That is incorrect. The university commenced building long before that. Further, he pointed out that the institution then had a building programme to complete. But in addition the university did not only have the £280,000, but also a promise from the Government that the necessary money would be found for the building, and for the carrying out of the building programme up to an amount of three-quarters of the required money.

That would be a loan.

Yes, it would be a loan by the Government, which would find three-quarters of the interest and the redemption. In other words the Government would find three-quarters of the money for the building.

It would be a loan.

Of course, but the Government was hound to find three-quarters of the interest and redemption.

What about the interest ?

It is 6 per cent. including redemption and it means that the university must find about £7,500 annually. The University of the Witwatersrand, which, as the Minister says, must so to speak be removed from the list, according to my standard, draws an amount of £20,000 interest on its investments. I deny this statement of the Minister that according to the standard I have mentioned the University of the Witwatersrand ought to be taken off the list of universities. He further said that that institution still had a large building programme. I hope that applies to every university in the country, and that no university is satisfied yet in this respect. He further said that the Witwatersrand University had no library. That also is incorrect. It has a library in the same sense as the T.U.C. has one. It forms part of another building. The institution would very much like to have a separate building. At the moment, however, it has a library of which it need not be ashamed. For the moment the building programme is completed, and when the Minister compares the two institutions in this respect he completely misses the mark. I again want to point out to him that the Witwatersrand University, when it reached the stage which the T.U.C. has now reached, in 1920 had about £280,000 at its disposal for general purposes. The T.U.C. now that it has reached that stage has £43,500, and we are still waiting for an explanation of the difference between that figure and the £69,000 with which the Minister is comforting himself.

I should like to know when the Minister first thought of the argument he gave us a few minutes ago. We know that when he was approached by the authorities of this college, to put through this Bill as a Government measure, he said that it could be done on condition that there was an endowment fund of £100,000.

No.

What is the use of an endowment fund condition if no sum is mentioned? I have always understood that this condition was laid down. That was the position taken up by the Government when this institution first came and asked that a charter be granted. First show that you have got an endowment, a minimum endowment, which will enable you to carry on a university as it should be carried on. The Minister has told us he agrees with that. Why not give effect to it? We are not concerned with whether Pretoria is getting a university or not. I am sorry members are taking up the attitude that because Pretoria is Pretoria, and because its status should not be less than Johannesburg and Stellenbosch and other places, the Bill should pass as it stands. We are speaking from the point of view of university education in South Africa, and it would be a very bad day for South Africa if we had universities too weak to keep up the standard of university degrees. It would make it possible for people outside South Africa, when they hear of a South African degree, to say: “Oh, where does it come from?” We want to see that the standard of degrees in South Africa is above question. That will not be achieved if the principle that the Minister is now adopting gives the university a higher status. That is the principle laid down now that any university college that comes to this House asking for university status will feel confident that it must be granted.

No.

I am afraid members are going to be swayed by local patriotism, and it is going to be regarded as a sin if we put any obstacle in its way. Pretoria asked for higher status, and must have it. Bloemfontein will be the next They will take up the same position and say we are placing a stigma on them if we refuse their request.

The word “stigma” is yours not ours.

I am using it to warn members who are swayed by local patriotism, to grant privileges which are not in the interests of the country, if the institutions are not sufficiently endowed. I do not think it would be unreasonable for the Minister to say: “I will open the door to you when you have shown me that you have got an endowment—not of £12,000—but of an adequate sum to maintain your status as a university, and not before.” That is what we ask the Minister to do.

I do not think I can let this matter pass without saying a few words in support of this Bill. I regret the attitude adopted on this matter by this side of the House. I am not altogether satisfied that the principles my colleagues have put forward are justified by the action they have taken before in respect of other universities. When I consider the applications made to this House some few years ago, when the support of this House was asked for on behalf of other institutions, I fail to find then any arguments such as those put forward now by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). A very cursory examination was then made of the financial position of those institutions, and it was stated that the income of the Witwatersrand University College was £60,000 per annum, which it was stated was quite a reasonable amount of money to be spent. When I look at the balance sheet of the Pretoria University College I see it is also in the region of £61,000 If a very poor town like Pretoria can see it way to get together £61,000 per annum—

They got it from the Government.

Then I see no reason whether it is got from the Government or any other sources, to refuse the higher status asked for.

They are all started by the Government, every one of them.

There is one attitude I would like to mention. Reference has been made to the fact that Pretoria has perhaps not supported this matter during the last few years in the manner it should have done. I put forward this point of view. Pretoria as a town is pot in the same happy position that some of the other towns in South Africa are. Take Johannesburg for instance. It looks for its main support from the mining groups, and it can always rely upon very substantial help from them. Other towns have received substantial bequests and so on. I am perfectly certain of this that, if Pretoria gets its university, it will also feel that it must not fail in its responsibility. It will do its level best, as has been proved during the last few weeks when the town donated £25,000 towards the fund. If there is any question of further money being needed the town council of Pretoria will see that its responsibility is upheld. I do not fear the position myself. I feel that although one does not wish to make this a parochial matter, the principles put forward now may be very excellent, I think it is reasonable to ask that those principles should have been applied many years ago when the whole question of university education was raised in this country.

I would like to make it perfectly clear that the principles referred to were in fact applied when the case of the application of the University College, Johannesburg, was considered several years ago. The hon. member has referred to the fact that the report dealing with the matter which came before the House in 1921 is very much shorter than the report now before the House. The reason for that is that a very full printed statement was put before the committee at that time. It was not embodied in the report of the select committee. Why it was not so embodied I do not know. I am, however, prepared to let the hon. member see the printed statement and he will see that all these considerations were given full weight to.

I did not intend to speak on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) but as I have been on the council of the University of the Witwatersrand for a long time, and have been, as a matter of fact, associated with that institution since 1908, I can speak with experience as to the value of an endowment fund. When a council considers its finances from year to year it is always a very great advantage to it to be able to fall back upon the proceeds of an endowment fund. If it has not an endowment fund then it is naturally at the mercy of such funds as it can raise by grants from the Government, and it is at a loss, sometimes, in regard to its expenditure. I regret that the Minister has taken up the attitude he has. I think he is not acting in the true interests of the University of Pretoria, as we should like to see. The council of that university and its finance committee will regret that, at times, it has not had any proceeds from an endowment fund such as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) would like to see in possession of the council. The amount of £100,000 and the annual interest of £5,000 or £6,000 are little enough. It will be made far more difficult for the council to raise further money after it has received its charter than before.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I move—

The other day when my colleague, the Minister of Railways, introduced a similar Bill for a vote on account I understand that certain hon. members opposite rather took exception to the fact that he did not make a financial statement. For the information of new members I may explain that that is quite an unusual course. In the past it was done only on two occasions, and that was by Mr. Burton and Mr. Jagger before the general election in 1924 when we did not have the usual Budget statement. The same course was followed by my colleague and me last year when we laid before the House a financial statement because we were not going to have the ordinary Budget speeches. This year, however, we will again have to introduce the Budget which I hope to do on the 25th instant, when the usual financial statement will be made. At present, I only wish to say that we are asking for three months’ supply. The Bill is on the usual lines. It provides that no expenditure may be incurred on any service which has not been provided for in the current financial year or Parliament by passing a Bill has not given its consent to any new services not provided for in the current estimates. I believe hon. members would like me to give them some information about the result of the subscriptions which have been invited for a new overseas loan. We went to the London market a few days ago for £5,000,000 at 5 per cent. I regret I am not able to give the House any information on the subject to-night for I have not had a report from the High Commissioner or agents, but I understand that a cable has been received stating that the result has been rather disappointing. I think that shows that the position of the money markets overseas must be very unsettled, because there is no question about our credit overseas. We have not been to London market during the last two years or more, and we have now gone for a comparatively small sum. We offered quite favourable terms—more favourable to the investor than we offered on previous occasions, but still I understand that our underwriters have been saddled with a large proportion of the loan. That is very disappointing to us, but we shall get the money we require although the underwriters will have to take a greater proportion of the loan than we should like. As soon as I get the information about the cause of the partial failure of the loan I will give it to the House.

As the Minister has told us we are going to have the ordinary Budget statement on the 26th of this month, I quite understand he does not think it necessary, and I do not think it is, that he should make any general statement about the public finances at the present time, and for that same reason I do not propose on this occasion to go at length into criticisms of the public finances, because there will be another opportunity before very long: but at the same time there are certain points which seems to us here desirable to raise, and as hon. members know, the time for our debate on the Budget is strictly limited, and many of us are not able to have that opportunity of bringing out the matters which they wish to bring before the House. It is natural and right, therefore, that they should take this opportunity of doing so. I wish to say at the outset that I share the disappointment expressed by the Minister as to the result of the loan we have raised on the London market. Personally, when I saw the terms offered I thought they were certainly liberal, and such as would have assured that the loan should go through with a fair amount of success, and I should have expected that all the more because I see announced in to-night’s paper that the hank rate in England has been reduced from 4½ to 4 per cent., which seems to show it is not through any stringency of the money market to get subscriptions to the loan. One is only afraid that some of the people who control the money market in London must have entertained more seriously than we do certain prophesies of depression and financial disaster that are likely to come upon us in the future. I want to raise one point which is quite proper to be raised now, and which will be unnecessary to raise again, and that is the policy of the Government in regard to the enforcement of the retiral of public servants at the age of 55.

Another charge of racialism ?

Not necessarily; that is the way the Minister may want to turn it off. I was going to ask the Minister for an explanation of his policy. I asked him that some time ago and got the answer that these retirals are enforced only in cases of inefficiency, and he also said that in judging of efficiency he took into consideration the question whether a particular officer was fully bilingual or not. That is where I want to differ from him. I recognize as fully as anyone that we want to see the public service of this country fully bilingual as soon as possible. It is a right a citizen of this country has, if he addresses a letter or a question to a public officer, that it should be answered in the language in which he asked it, it being one of the two official languages of the country. I go further, and I recognize that in the past the Afrikaans section of the public has not enjoyed that privilege as the other section has; but I do say that we are under an obligation to the men who were in the public service at Union not to enforce the want of bilingual efficiency against them as a condition of their holding office. The Act of Union provides that no public servant should lose an appointment by want of knowledge of one of these official languages, and the Public Service Act of 1912, and every Act which has succeeded it, has always protected the rights of men who were in the service before 1912. The Minister has no right to come now and say he will enforce a retirement rule on the ground that the person is not fully bilingual.

I am not doing so.

Then we do not want to argue about it, and I want to know what the grounds are.

On efficiency.

I have knowledge of persons who have notice to go at 55 about whose efficiency there is no question, and they are being replaced by men over 55. We have it now from the Minister that they are inefficient.

Not sufficiently efficient.

We have it now.

Their standard is too low.

It has been the policy up to now, certainly for the last seven years, that the civil servants of the Transvaal were under the condition that the Government had the right to retire them at 55, just as they had the right to retire at 55, and they were not to be put on a different footing from the public servants at the Cape where the ride is 60. When we were in office we laid it down that the public service of the Transvaal was to be treated as the others as to age unless a public servant was not up to the standard of efficiency, when the Government retained the right of retiring him at 55. The Minister means he is carrying out the same rule. He says, “insufficiently efficient.” I put it to him he is giving men notice to go under this 55 years of age rule, whose efficiency has never before been called into question by any experienced officer, and to whom this is the first intimation that they are not sufficiently efficient to be retained. I want to know when the Minister discovered this insufficient efficiency. Can he imagine anything more calculated to produce a feeling of dissatisfaction and unfair treatment in the service than for a man who has done his duty without any complaint or a charge of inefficiency to be told to go at 55, and then another man over 55 gets an appointment—either his appointment or some similar one? I do not for a moment question the right of the Minister to apply the rule if a man is inefficient, and if his official superior says he is not carrying out his work as it should be carried out, but I say that that test cannot be applied to all these men. I would like to challenge the Minister to state whether this rule applies in every one of these cases. This retirement of men at 55, men who are doing their work efficiently, works a very great hardship to the men themselves. In many cases they are made to go at a time when expenses are very heavy upon them, when their families are requiring expensive education, and just at the time when it is most difficult for them to live upon their pensions. It is also very expensive to the state. The Pension Fund has got to provide for them at 55 instead of 60, and this increase of the pension fund is to a large extent due to men being retired at an age before they need to be retired. It is no profit to the state if you have to put other men in their places, and it is a great hardship to the people concerned. I want this principle accepted by the House that only in cases where a man is inefficient should this retirement rule at 55 be enforced. Men are being retired now under this rule against whom, for the first time, any suggestion of inefficiency has been raised. Men who have been praised by their superiors have been retired at 55. I want an assurance that this rule will not be applied except in the case of men who are below the standard of efficiency that the Government has a reasonable right to expect. I do not want to go into general criticism of the finances, but I want to raise that point because it is a matter which has been causing a great deal of anxiety, a great deal of dissatisfaction, and it is due to the House that there should be a clear statement of what the Government’s policy is in regard to it.

I was unfortunately not in the House when the Minister of Finance made his statement, but I understand he did not go very closely into the financial position. I do not want to go very fully into our financial position. I want to follow the line of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in dealing with one particular aspect of our public finance. My subject is the growth of expenditure more particularly on our civil service, and the continued and excessive creation of costly posts in the civil service. It is often said on the public platform and in this House, that South Africa is a poor country. I believe that, statement to be true. I would like to test it, and I want to take this particular test—the test of old age pensions. Hon. members know that this was one of the last of the countries of its status and standing to adopt any schemes of old age pensions. I think we were the last in the empire, and we followed after the more progressive European countries, and when we did introduce an old age pensions scheme, it was on a very limited scale, and the benefits we give are very much lower than are given in Australia, Canada or New Zealand. I asked the Minister of Finance the other day this question—how many old age pensioners are there, and what proportion do they represent of our European population? He told me, in reply, that on the 31st December last, the total number of old age pensioners was 48,693, and of that number 33,502 were whites and 14,512 were coloured. Then I asked him what was the number of the European population of pensionable age. Hon. members know that the pensionable age was 65, and he told me 71,000 Then I asked him how many of this total number of pensioners drew the full pension, and the answer was 30,237. Anyone is entitled to draw the full old age pension if he is in receipt of an income which does not exceed £24 per annum. Of 71,000 white people, no less than 30,237 are drawing the full old age pension, which means that they have an income of less than £2 per month. In other words, nearly one out of every two of our old white people either have no income at all, or their income is less than £2 per month. I tried to find what the corresponding figures were for other parts of the empire. I could not get comparisons from Australia, but here are the figures from some of the states of Canada. Our percentage, 30,000 out of 71,000, works out at 47 per cent. In British Columbia, the percentage of the population of the required age drawing pensions is 35 per cent., in Manitoba, 31 per cent., and in Saskatchewan as low as 18 per cent. Let me take another instance. We have, I believe, something like 15,000 white labourers working on our railways, and their commencing wage is 5s. per day—5s. when they are full-blown labourers, plus certain odd privileges. In actual money wherewith to buy food and clothing these 15,000 men receive 5s. per day. That surely is proof conclusive that this country is not a wealthy country, and not a country that can afford extravagant expenditure. I believe if there is one member of this House who wants to keep down expenditure, it is the present Minister of Finance, but, from one cause or another, especially in the last year his grip of public expenditure seems to have been relaxed. The growth is bound to cause disquiet. When he came into office in 1924-’25, the Union expenditure was £24,500,000. It is now £30,750,000, an increase of £6,250,000 in six years. My argument is this. There is only one person who can control public expenditure, and that is the Minister of Finance. His is the responsibility; his is the credit, when credit is due, and his must be the criticism if he fails to control it. This Government came into office on a plea of economy and has failed to keep a grip of public expenditure, which they promised to the electorate.

There is not much chance of keeping clown expenditure when you propose to spend £30,000 to £40,000 on a Bill introduced to-day.

Does the hon. the Minister of Finance seriously tell us that the granting of the suffrage to women is going to cost the country £30,000 or £40,000?

It will cost that for the registration of voters, and the elections.

Oh, no; that is a childish argument. In a budget of £30,750,000, it might cost a little extra for these purposes, but that is a very unhappy illustration. I want to indicate a few directions in which, I submit, the Government has been unduly extravagant. In the days of Mr. Jagger, we used to get up and criticize the Labour Department, but since those days, a new department has come into being—the Department of External Affairs. I want to show how it is spending money. Just let me read to the House what our representation in various countries is costing us: Italy, £8,932; and United States, £13,340. I venture to state, however heretical it may seem to hon. gentlemen opposite, that if that £13,000 was not spent, I do not believe the interests of this country would suffer one halfpenny’s worth. The representation at Hamburg and the Hague is costing us £6,723; that in Portuguese Africa, £3,250. Nearly all this is fresh expenditure. I find the Secretary for External Affairs is now costing this country £1,740 per annum. Two or three years ago he was living in comparative obscurity at Stellenbosch. He was promoted on the grounds that he understood international law, but he was no sooner appointed than it was found desirable to bring in a young man from South-West Africa who was called “professional adviser” and paid £1,587 per annum. There was a gentleman known to members of this House—Mr. Steyn—who was private secretary to the Prime Minister, and then drawing between £500 and £600 per annum. He is promoted to be Union Consul-General at Lourenço Marques. His salary alone is £1,250, rising by increments of £40 to £1,400 annually. His foreign allowance is £255 per annum. His representation allowance—whatever that may be —is £350 per annum, and his cost of living allowance is £170 per annum. So that Mr. Steyn, who, last year, was getting £600 a year, is now in receipt of over £2,000 per annum. Look at the case of Dr. Botha, drawing £550 a year or 18 months ago, as economist to the Board of Trade and Industries. Well, economy seems to have left South Africa with Dr. Botha. This is what he is now. He is first secretary to the Union legation in New York. Mr. Eric Louw is in Washington, and Dr. Botha is in New York. Dr. Botha gets £1,250 per annum rising by increments of £40 per annum to £1,400. His cost of living allowance is £500; his foreign allowance is £250, his representation allowance £355, making a total of £2,355, which will increase in the manner I have described. He is the first secretary at Washington. The second secretary in Washington gets £1,410 per annum, and the senior clerk in New York gets £1,095. The latest manifestation of this extravagance on the part of the Department of External Affairs has relation to Mr. de Waal-Davies, who, a few years ago, I believe, was plain Mr. Davies. Then he was fortunate enough to marry into the family of de Waal, and became Mr. de Waal-Davies. Since then his progress has been truly remarkable. He was private secretary to the Administrator, but lately the Government has decided that it would create him a director of entertainments.

Do you know what you are saying is untrue ?

If the hon. the Prime Minister will wait a moment, I want to read it.

He was appointed a principal clerk.

I was saying that we saw in the paper that this new post had been created of director of entertainments.

That, at any rate, will contain the truth.

If the Prime Minister had not been in such a hurry, he would have let me conclude. I quite understand that he is stung by this criticism.

The hon. member is saying what is not true.

I do not know whether this would be tolerated from anybody else in this House. The hon. the Prime Minister is telling me that I am uttering untruths in this House. I do not know if that would be permitted by anybody else. The Prime Minister said: “You know what you are saying is untrue.” If any other hon. member in this House had said that, he would have been called to order at once. Anyway, I shall not take any notice of the ebulition of bad temper on the part of the Prime Minister. I know that he cannot stand criticism, and apparently this criticism is going home. The question of whether Mr. de Waal-Davies has been appointed Director of Entertainments or as Principal Clerk makes no difference. He draws this salary and allowance, and I should like to know what are the reasons for it. The question I put to the Prime Minister was this—

The answer was as follows—

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. His duties are in connection with guests of the state and distinguished visitors to the Union.

What is your objection to that?

I shall tell you. Whether you call Mr. de Waal-Davies a director of entertainments—and the Prime Minister is unnecessarily sensitive on the point—or principal clerk, whose duties are in connection with guests of the state and distinguished visitors, the essence of the thing remains. This is the essence. That a job has been created in the External Affairs Department, and this job has been created to provide a little niche for Mr. de Waal-Davies. He starts his job on the 1st April next. This is what I say, while this cry of economy is given lip service to on the Government benches, you get this sort of thing. It is not suggested that the department is so understaffed that it is crying out for other people, for a new post of principal clerk with special allowances. This post has been created, and the duties of Mr. de Waal-Davies are in connection with guests of the state and distinguished visitors to the Union. The next thing we shall find will be the provision of special motor allowances and other special expenditure over and above these allowances. That is what is called economy. All I can say is that I wonder whether if Mr. de Waal-Davies had remained plain Mr. Davies, this special post in the department would have been created for him. He is to receive a commencing salary of £575, a special allowance of £60, and a cost of living allowance of £70, that is a commencing salary of £705 per annum. So much then for the Department of External Affairs, and the new jobs created and the money paid.

What about the expenditure on the High Commissioner’s office in London ?

That office has been in existence for years. I am not dealing now with the post of High Commissioner in the place of our best customer who consumes our products. I was reading out what it costs us to be represented in the United States, Italy and on the continent of Europe. I was saying that at a time when the financial position is causing great anxiety we are launching out into this extraordinary expenditure. If representation were needed I should like to ask if it were needed on this scale. Mr. Eric Louw, our representative in Washington, draws £2,000 a year and an allowance of £2,000 a year. He costs us £4,000 a year alone, apart from his staff and secretary. I was dealing with the Department of External Affairs. Let me now talk of the Diamond Control Committee. We were told that this work used to be done by the late Mr. A. Brink and done by him from purely patriotic motives without reward or fee. I have looked at the estimates for the current year and I find that the Diamond Control Committee is to cost £10,000 per annum. We have already had it stated that Mr. Roos is to draw his pension plus £1,500 a year. Again I say it is an absolutely wrong precedent for the Government to have created. Mr. de Kock, another member of the Board of Trade and Industries, has left his appointment and has jumped from £1,000 a year to £1,500 a year at one stroke of the pen. The third member of the committee, Mr. Ross-Frames, also draws £1,500 a year. I now want to say a word about the Labour Department. When we were wanting a whipping boy, we used to come to the Labour Department and we were never disappointed. The Labour Department is the bad boy of the Government service, and there is no doubt whatever that the expenditure on the Labour Department is the cause of more scrutiny than that of any other department. The present Minister of Labour has managed in one year to increase the number of employees in that department from 181 to 195, and the expenditure from £69,061 to £71,216. He has got a secretary who costs £1,730 per year, an under-secretary who costs £1,133 per year, and a chief inspector of factories who costs £1,100 per year. And then I come to the plum of the department, the labour adviser. The labour adviser costs £936 per year. I shall talk about the labour adviser. If I am right—I may be wrong—I think the labour adviser is no less than our old friend, Tommy Strachan. We remember the late lamented member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). He was a most decent Scotchman and he left this House without any enemy. Why did he leave? It was because his representation of the workers in this country gave them so little satisfaction that at the end of the period they were glad to adopt that horny-handed son of toil, the present member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) in his place. This gentleman was the reject of the workers themselves, yet the country found that it could not do without him and translated him into the position of labour adviser at a commencing salary of £936 per year. One of the principal casualties in Natal at the last election was Mr. Strachan, and next we find him sitting in an office in Pretoria drawing a salary of £936 as labour adviser to his erstwhile leader. That is the type of thing going on day by day in our state departments. A good many things can be said against the Prime Minister, but at least he is loyal to his friends, and the way in which he has distributed largess to the unfortunate followers of the Minister of Labour commands my reluctant admiration. I wonder what would have happened if 200 more people had voted for the South African party candidate at Denver at the last election. Would the Minister of Labour have been looking for a job? We can joke over these things, but they have a very serious side. Any friend of the Government can hope to find a fat job at a particularly nice salary.

It has been going on since Union.

It has been going on in geometrical progression during the last six years until it has become an absolute scandal, and until the whole country is talking about it.

Mr. Strachan’s appointment has not involved any new expenditure.

Mr. Ivan Walker was the election agent of my opponent some years ago at the Bezuidenhout election. He was then labour adviser to the Government, and now he is under-secretary for labour at a salary of £1,133. The Labour Department is being used by the Minister of Labour as a means of providing solatiums for his political friends and the casualties among his followers.

Mr. Walker was not a casualty.

What he got was not a solatium, but a reward.

Is it not possible that he was the best man for the job ?

I admit I am a suspicious sort of person, but when I find that the best man is a friend of the Minister and his very faithful political ally I ask whether he was given the job because he was the best man or because he had a certain political pull ?

Emphatically he was the best man.

If we were ingenuous enough to swallow that all would be well. I find that the head office of the Labour Department alone has 44 clerical assistants and seven messengers. Having studied the working of this office quite a little time, I say quite deliberately that if the Minister of Labour would invite the whole of that head office and staff down to Cape Town, take them out in a boat and pull the plug, I do not think the industrial and commercial life of South Africa will be one whit the worse. This expenditure has gone on increasing year after year. Let me deal now with the wage board; we have a chairman who receives the modest salary of £2,250 per annum. Two members of the board get £2,165 between them; they get less together, than the chairman gets alone. There is a secretary at £884 per annum. I have never found a secretary of a board who gets less than £750. Then there is an accountant at £814, and so it goes on.

You have been studying the Labour Department.

As far as the cost is concerned and certain aspects which appear in the Auditor-General’s report. What has the department done to deliver the goods? I can tell of some of the things it has done; it has made a most unholy mess at Doornkop, under the previous Minister. We will never know, for years to come, the total commitment at Doornkop. I am perfectly certain what we had to do last year we will have to do this year— pay the current interest on those bonds of the company to England. The Labour Department has spent £12,000 in building huts in a remote and inaccessible spot in Elgin. I was in the House when the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) told the Minister’s predecessor that this place could never be a success, and it was built on a spot where European people could not live. The hon. member also said that the place was too high, too wet and too cold. They built those huts for 300 people, and bought stoves in Greyville—why there I do not know. Did the Minister ever have more than a dozen people settled there ?

Yes.

Thirteen.

A baker’s dozen. It was a failure and they had to abandon it; today these huts stand empty and derelict; the money was wasted and might as well have been thrown into the sea. The loss will not be far short of £20,000. A large portion, of the settlement at Hartebeestpoort has been transferred to the Lands Department. I believe that if we had a second Marwick on this side of the House who had been able to put his nose into Hartebeestpoort in the way the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) did into the management of Doornkop, we should have found that the waste was greater at Hartebeestpoort. The Labour Department has an amazing personnel, and an ever-increasing vote. What is the country getting from it? If hon. members will look at the last report of the Auditor-General, they will see something about the other settlements, those to which I have not referred. Under the heading of Tenant Farmers Schemes, the Auditor-General reports that during the year, in respect of loans amounting to £3,600 to 31 tenant farmers, nine of the farmers absconded, one failed to carry out his contract, five proved to be indifferent workers and unsuccessful farmers, four refused to pay the instalments when due and were dismissed, and so the tale goes on, involving a total loss of £1,122. There is another paragraph with regard to the Sand River extension scheme, which is equally informative. The story is one of inefficiency, waste and muddle in everything that the Labour Department has touched. [Time limit.]

On the motion of Mr. Anderson, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 10th March.