as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements as follows—

Unless notice of objection given on or before Wednesday, 12th March, report to be considered as adopted.

I move—

seconded.

Before the business starts I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question of the utmost importance to the white population of South Africa. I have seen the Minister about it and he is prepared to reply. Therefore I want to put the following question—

I fear there is a misunderstanding. The hon. member came to see me but I was under the impression that I would not have to answer his question to-day. If he will wait until tomorrow J will reply to it then.

Hon. members cannot debate this motion, but when it is put to the vote they can call for a division.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 9 and amendments in Clauses 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22 and 26 put and agreed to.

Clause 33,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 33, 35 and the schedule, omission of the old preamble and insertion of the new preamble put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I desire to give briefly my reasons for supporting the ‘principle contained in this Bill. In the course of the debate the other day, the Minister of Agriculture, who was, I understand, speaking not only for himself, but for a large number of members opposite, had evidently lost sight of the fact that a great change has come over the world in the last 25 years. There have been great movements, political, scientific and economic, and naturally, these movements have affected most materially the opinions of mankind in general. South Africa has also fallen a victim to these movements. South Africa has not been isolated from the general movement among mankind. The hon. Minister gave me the idea that he was under the impression that women had been left behind, especially in South Africa; that they did not conform to the general trend of opinion outside South Africa, and, according to his reasons, in opposition, he gives us to understand that the women of South Africa are partly asleep, or, at any rate, that they are only awake so far as it is necessary to do their ordinary routine work inside their home circle. I hope I shall be able to prove to the hon. Minister that the women of South Africa are just as much alive to the broad conditions of life as any other set of women in any other part of the world. There is another factor that has driven women outside the home circle, and that is the economic pressure which has brought women into close contact with the realities of life. In all professions, in medicine, law, literature and science, we have to-day women taking a prominent and often a leading part. In the profession of medicine, we have in South Africa several eminent medical practitioners who are women. A couple of years ago, this Parliament passed a law under the guidance of my hon. and gallant friend, the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), enabling women to become members of the legal profession in South Africa. I consider the medical and legal professions the most exacting professions, and once we, as a Parliament, have agreed that women should be members of these professions, I do not see how, logically and consistently, we can refuse them the parliamentary franchise. The hon. Minister of Agriculture said one of his reasons in opposition to this Bill was that women could not take part in war. I wish to refute that. I know that there are some countries in which women have been duly trained to the science of war, and I believe in those countries, there are some excellent regiments in those countries in which women are able to shoulder a gun and do their duty. I say this: that I want women to have the vote so that they shall have a right to decide upon questions of peace and war before any final steps are taken, because there is no doubt that, in the end, the consequences of war fall heaviest on women. What is the position in South Africa in regard to our political life? All the party leaders sitting in this House are very loud in their praises of women. The moral and practical support of women is indispensable to party organization, and to keeping the party going. On polling days and on the days leading up to the poll, hon. members belonging to all parties sitting here are only too pleased to avail themselves of the help of the women to canvass votes for them, and to see that people come to the poll, as well as to create enthusiasm amongst the voters. But when it comes actually to giving the women the vote, they say, in the words of the Minister of Agriculture: “No, their duties are confined to the home circle.” I have spoken of the great world movements scientifically and economically, but what about the political movement, the political development in legislation almost in every country? As the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) pointed out, more and more social questions and social reforms come before Parliaments for consideration. They are dealing with such questions of practical importance as housing, conditions of living, the conditions under which children are born and brought up generally, child welfare and mothercraft. These are all questions of first-rate national importance. If hon. members considered what a noble and elevating part the women play in these questions, they would see the necessity of granting them the vote. If there is one reason why a vote should be given to women, it is that these women have vast experience in these matters, because, after all, men do not take up so enthusiastically the work of social reform as women do. If there is one reason why women should get the vote, it is to bring into more public prominence and to influence public opinion in the direction of real social reform, and of uplifting certain classes of our community. If we only think of one class of women, namely, trained nurses and midwives, and of the work they do, not only in hospitals, but in the private homes of our community, then I say, what a loss it will be if these women do not have the vote. These women cannot exercise their influence politically in the hospitals or in the sick room. They require the parliamentary vote in order to exercise their influence outside of the sick room and the hospitals, in order that they may influence public opinion in the right direction. We, who have been in the political fray for many years, are always susceptible to the parliamentary vote. Once you give the vote to women, I am certain that this matter of social reform will be beneficially affected. Why should we fear to give the vote to the women of South Africa? Wherever the vote has been conferred upon women, it has been proved to be a success. New Zealand conferred the vote on women 36 years ago. Australia conferred it 28 years ago, and it is most significant that after years of experience in Australia, the Senate of Australia passed the following resolution unanimously—

That is a very important resolution, and supports every phase of the arguments which I have put forward. You can go to the United States, and you can go to Canada, and you will find the same opinion there as to the result of the franchise conferred upon women. It is the same in the country like Finland, which, the other day, we put on the restricted list of our Immigration Quota Bill. That country conferred the franchise on women 24 years ago. In regard to the women of South Africa, I think of the dignity and the restrained manner in which they have always asked for the vote in this country, and how, under stress and diverse disappointment, they have never developed into a set of women militant and clamouring. No, they have always calmly and in a dignified manner set forth their case before Parliament. By doing so, they have reflected the true spirit of our country. The womanhood of South Africa, both the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking women, have a history behind them of which they can be proud. I am certain that if we allow the women to enjoy the franchise, it will mean that it will have an elevating and beneficial effect upon the public life of our country. I now desire to say a few brief words on the terms of this measure. I deeply regret that this measure makes invidious distinctions between men and women voters in the Cape Province. By conferring womanhood suffrage in this province and keeping males on the existing qualifications, we are drawing a very invidious and undesirable distinction. I am certain that the women of the Cape Province never anticipated that distinction, and they never asked for it. This provision is going to lead to very serious anomalies. The Prime Minister spoke in a disparaging manner of the electoral qualifications in the Cape Province, and he alleged that they could be evaded. As one with considerable public experience, however, I entirely disagree with him. At least 20,000 males in the Cape Province have been kept off the roll under the present qualifications.

Are they white or coloured ?

European. If this Bill becomes law, we shall find that the male population of the Cape Province will be outvoted considerably by the females. What are the legal qualifications of the present franchise in the Cape Province? In regard to the property qualification, the court has definitely ruled that there must be continuous occupation of property of a certain minimum value, and in regard to salary, that there must be a definite distinction between salary and income. Take the university students. At the Cape Town University there are about 2,000 male and female students. The male students, assuming that this Bill becomes law, will have to prove to the registering officer that they have this property qualification permanently and as of right. I doubt whether many of them will ever be able to prove to the satisfaction of the registering officer that they possess a legal property qualification. At Stellenbosch University the difficulty has been overcome to a certain extent by the building of special hostels, which are let to the students for the whole of the year, but a large majority of the students who live in boardinghouses are still deprived of their rights as voters.

No.

The court has definitely ruled that there must be continuous occupation and the right to occupy the property concerned. At the Cape Town University, if there are 1,500 male and female students who have reached the age of twenty-one, under this Bill 750 women students may get on to the voters’ list, but very few male students will be able to do so. The same in regard to our trek boers in the north-west of the Cape Province. These men have pleaded for years to be given the privilege of the franchise, but they cannot get on to the voters roll because their incomes are not salary. The money they make out of their flocks is not counted as salary. So, if this Bill is passed, the wives and daughters of these trek farmers will be registered, but the trek farmers themselves will still be minus the vote. I know a number of people engaged in the fishing industry who are in the same position. So there is going to be a considerable amount of feeling on this point. The Prime Minister has failed to indicate when he proposes to level down. Personally, I do not believe in levelling down the franchise. In the Cape Province whenever there was a change it was in the direction of levelling up rather than levelling down, but the House, by passing this Bill, will aid the levelling down process. The Prime Minister should indicate when this process of levelling down is to finish. With regard to the coloured vote, in view of the Prime Minister’s promise made in 1928, and in view also of his declared policy of political equality between European and coloured, it is only fair that he should declare when he intends to take definite steps in order to satisfy the feelings and aspirations of the coloured people, especially those in the Cape Province. I was rather disappointed at the Prime Minister charging this side of the House with being the cause of the position in which the coloured people now find themselves under the Bill, because we opposed the Coloured People’s Rights Bill a year ago. The Prime Minister knows that he himself, in an endeavour to save the measure, brought forward some radical amendments at the last moment, and some of them were so unworkable that we could not support them. His own supporter, Mr. Morris Alexander, opposed the Bill to the very end.

Mr. Alexander did not support the Prime Minister.

Generally, he was a Government supporter, so much so that the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior went on to the platform to recommend him to the Gardens electorate. I hope that if this measure passes, that the important constitutional questions which will naturally grow up after its passage will very soon receive the very urgent attention of the Prime Minister.

I have always been against the principle of women’s franchise. During the last election I was asked at various places whether I was for or against it, and I made it quite clear to my electors that I would not support it. Moreover, I am convinced that 90 per cent. of my electors are opposed to women’s franchise.

Are the women opposed?

90 per cent. of my electors are opposed to it, and 95 per cent. of the women in my constituency. There are a few women in favour, but not the large body. The women who are organized in the party are in favour of it, and I do not blame them for their attitude, but at the same time I am entitled to express my opinion and that of the large majority of my electors. If that is so then my position is much more difficult because the Bill is introduced by the leader of my party, for whom I have the greatest respect, and in whom I place the utmost confidence. Let me say here that if my leader had said that he was convinced that it was in the interests of the people, and that the time was ripe for the women’s franchise, that I would have had to reconsider my position, and I might possibly have been prepared to support it. What, however, is the position? The Prime Minister says that he has introduced this Bill in consequence of a promise he made in 1928. We all know the history of the promise. We all know that the Prime Minister in consequence of the unwise attitude of a few members on this side at that time was placed in that position. Now I ask whether we can be expected, seeing that our constituents are opposed to it, to support the Bill in these circumstances? I do not see a chance of doing so. I am not only convinced that the majority of the women in my constituency are opposed to it, but even that the majority of the women of South Africa are so opposed, and if the Prime Minister were to hold a referendum among the women whether they want the vote or not, then the majority would turn out to be against it. If there is a majority of one in favour of women’s franchise I should, I think, be prepared to vote for it myself, but I am convinced that this legislation is being forced upon the majority of the women of South Africa.

They need not vote if they do not want to.

Is that remark by a member on the front benches of the Opposition? I want to ask the hon. member if he is serious in saying that when they have the franchise the women need not vote. The women of South Africa know their duty, and if this House lays that duty on them I can assure the hon. member that they will go to the ballot box without an exception.

What then is your objection ?

My objection is that the women did not ask for it. If, however, we are so unwise as to lay the duty on her she will do her duty and let me say that in my constituency the women will all vote Nationalist and against the South African party. We constantly hear that the women in other countries have the franchise, like New Zealand and Australia. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) quoted a resolution passed by the Senate of Australia. We who know politics will not be influenced by it. We know the position the Senators were placed in. Women have had the franchise for years there, and they would have passed a resolution and declared that it was not in the interests of the country. They were put in an impossible position. Then it is said that it worked so well in England that all were satisfied there, and that difficult problems had been solved by the women there. A prominent person from England told me that it was a great failure in England, and that highly placed women in England admitted it was a failure. They are very sorry in England that they passed the women’s franchise, and it is well known that Baldwin committed suicide by granting it. The hon. member knows why the Labour party is in power in England to-day. Let us, however, assume that it has worked well there, and been a great success. Then I still say that it would be wrong here. A state of affairs prevails here which fortunately is still different to that in England and other countries. The women do not want it, and the women here are always still in the position of enjoying the honour, respect and protection of the men, and we make no laws which lead to the oppression of the women. I have received quite a lot of letters from women’s organizations which say they want the franchise, a string of reasons are given, but the chief is that the inferior position the women are in must be removed, in other words, the inferiority of the women in South Africa must be taken away by granting the franchise. I absolutely deny that the women of South Africa ever were inferior. On the contrary she has always been superior, and always our master as an hon. member behind me says. Why then the franchise? I do not accept the inferiority argument. Another reason they give is that the women want to help the men in solving the problems of the country, that is a splendid ideal, and I think we shall all be thankful for the co-operation of the women, but then I ask whether the women of South Africa have not helped in the past. I say that the women have contributed more in the past to solve the questions of the South African nation than the men. The women have never yet occupied an inferior position.

What do the women say?

The Nationalist Women’s party in the Cape Province is in favour of women’s franchise. That I admit, but all Nationalist women do not belong to the Nationalist Women’s Party. I doubt whether one-tenth of the Nationalist women belong to the organized party.

What percentage of the men belong to the party ?

The largest part. The women of South Africa assisted us in settling the problem. The hon. member for Caledon says that we are proud of the women of South Africa. I emphasise that. We are very proud, and the history of the women runs like a red line through the history of our country. We honour her, and are very proud of the part she has played. I am only thinking of the short but important period in our history, the three years’ war between Britain and Boer. I well remember—I was then a boy—when the negotiations were proceeding before the war that the women said we must maintain peace.

They had no say then.

The hon. member must admit that they said that they wanted peace, but that they were against peace if we had to lose our independence. The hon. member was then still a republican and fought with us. Now he has drunk sweet milk. The women of the republics in those days said that we were not to agree to any terms which would ultimately mean the loss of our independence. What was their position during the war? They looked after farming and we fought. She did not go to the field of battle, but inspired us, encouraged us, and worked. What did she do in the concentration camps? She did not run away and take rifles to help us in the shooting, but she looked after the family, and, notwithstanding the times when one child after the other had to be carried to the grave, she did not tell us that we were to make peace because she was afraid. No, she told us that we must persevere and not to make peace without independence. Through her inspiration we were able to last out three years against the greatest power in the world. When it comes to suffering and sacrifice she has suffered and sacrificed more for our country than anyone else. Now I want to ask hon. members what laws will be altered if the women get the franchise?

Prohibition will come.

Perhaps. The women’s organizations, however, do not mention that point, but talk about inferiority. What other Act will be passed if the women get the franchise? No, we practice justice towards the women, and consider it our duty to protect women just like children. I am convinced of it that women’s franchise will not have a healthy effect on the family life. The South African nation is built up on family life. It keeps the people together, and has made our people what they are. We see the tendency more and more to break up the home. We set* the men going to the club, but I understand that in the big towns in other countries the women also are already frequenting clubs, and leaving the children alone at home. In South Africa, however, we still have healthy family life, and on the countryside it has kept us together. The husband there discusses business with his wife, as well as the problems of the country, and in that way the woman still exercises her influence, but if this Bill is passed I fear that an apple of discord will come into the family life. I am not afraid of the ballot box. The women are Nationalists, but I am afraid that there will be trouble in the nomination of candidates. That is where I fear the first split in the family. It is only one of the weaknesses of our people that we sometimes exaggerate party spirit. That is our experience, and I fear that we shall produce a split in the family by this Bill. On the countryside the majority is Nationalist, and our women will vote Nationalist, but where they live miles and miles apart I fear that there will possibly be many difficulties when the elections come in winter during snow or rain. Very great inconvenience will be caused, and it will be difficult for the women to vote. I know one thing, however, that the women will vote notwithstanding everything. The principle which the Prime Minister has introduced has been referred to. The hon. member for Caledon asked when an Act would be passed giving the vote to all the men. That is a very great principle, and I do not want to enlarge on it. But the National Convention only gave the unqualified manhood franchise to the Free State and the Transvaal. In the Cape we have qualifications which, in principle, I prefer. When a man gets the vote he is given a constitutional weapon, he decides the fortunes of the nation, and ought to feel a certain responsibility. Moreover, I feel that we are more and more getting the spirit in the country of settling everything. The spirit of our forefathers, of the voortrekkers, and of most of us is still to work while you are young, and to save up for the old days and leave something to the children when you come to die. That spirit is dying out more and more, and the spirit of getting as much as possible out of life and subsequently when there is nothing left to get the Government to provide for you is a spirit which like the women’s franchise has blown in from elsewhere. The Minister knows how thousands are dependent on the Government. That spirit is getting stronger. I feel that il we give everyone the franchise, apart from qualifications and responsibilities, we shall give a mighty weapon to that section, and we shall expose the man who saves for his old days to the danger of subsequently being so taxed that none of his savings will remain. I feel this strongly. I believe the Bill will pass, I am not talking because I think I can prevent it. The Prime Minister’s influence is so strong that it will pass, but it will pass with the assistance of the South African party who have always done wrong things in the country. They will hear the responsibility because they forced the Prime Minister into the position with the assistance of five or six irresponsibles on this side. I say again that the women of South Africa cannot he congratulated on the Bill. I believe that in the long run it will do them more harm than good.

It would indeed he a hold man who would say that women are not intellectually equal to men, in their judgment as to a suitable candidate for this House. I believe from many years of experience which I have had in parliamentary elections, that in the aggregate women would exercise a greater intelligence in this respect than men. But is that a sufficient reason why we should grant the franchise to women? I have often wondered if dear old President Kruger were on the floor of this House what he would say about women’s suffrage. I remember in the early days of the Union Parliament the House was arranged somewhat differently—Dr. Neethling—I think he was the member for Beaufort West—once said in Dutch—

But now things have changed. I remember recently in a general election in England one of the male candidates was asked by one of the women present at the meeting—

It just shows you to what lengths some men will go. My hon. friend to my right (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said that since the franchise has been granted to women, no country has ever repealed the law in regard to the franchise of women. Why not? Because they could not possibly do it. Lest I he misunderstood, let me say that by reason of our party having said they were going to vote for the enfranchisement of women, I am not going to fight against it; I dare not risk it, but I do believe the hon. member opposite (Mr. Steytler) when he said: “If you took a referendum in South Africa from the white women alone, the Bill would not he passed.” Let the Prime Minister put the Bill to that test.

Will you move an amendment to that effect ?

It is recognized all over the world that it is easier to level down than to level up. It is proposed in this Bill that womenkind shall have an easier or lower franchise than the men. To-day in the Cape a man has to have an educational qualification and a property qualification. Woman, without any qualification, other than that of 21 years of age, is to be put on the roll. What would be the effect if we were to raise the qualification in so far as to make it a purely educational qualification for women? Surely that would be a better qualification for both men and women. Judging from an article in the “Cape Times” as to what would be the effect—

I believe what the hon. member opposite (Mr. Steytler) pointed out, that this would bring disunion into the House. Our party at Bloemfontein said they want it, but I hope before the Bill passes through this House it will have undergone a considerable change and improvement.

The Prime Minister has rather handicapped us this afternoon. I voted for his motion because I expected that we were anyhow going to sit through the night, but if we get the promise from him that he will not bother us before 3 p.m. to-morrow we shall be satisfied. The Prime Minister introduced this Bill, and we are opposed to it, but we admit that it has been introduced in the best possible form. I only want to make one observation on the opposition views in this debate, viz., that I hope that the North will observe the attitude of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) smiles. He knows quite well how heavy the fighting was there, and how the South African party candidates always alleged that we wanted to give the vote to natives and coloured people, and that they were always opposed to it. They tried in that way to win seats. I hope the country will take notice of the speeches of hon. members opposite. I know that I cannot prevent the passage of the Bill, and that it is as good as certain that it will pass, but I am going to use the opportunity to protest against it for the last time. I am convinced that the majority of the House are in favour of it, and I doubt whether the majority in the country are in favour of the Bill. I am convinced that at least 75 per cent. of the countryside population are opposed to it. When I speak about the Bill I speak as a representative of the countryside, as one who interprets the feelings of the countryside, although I respect the opinion of hon. members who differ from me. We have heard that this legislation is so good in other countries, but we have nothing to do with what goes on in other countries, and we have nothing to do with what other people write, like Bavinck and Dr. Kuyper, we are concerned here with a matter which is purely of South African interest. I yield to no one in my respect for women, and in my opinion the position occupied by women is too noble to allow them to be used for party political purposes, and in my opinion we may not use them for this. We are concerned here with an exotic thing. It does not come from the South African woman, it was not born in the heart of of the South African woman. We have never yet heard why the women’s franchise would be a good thing for the women of South Africa. It is one of the things which has blown over here and I am glad to say that the countryside women are not anxious to immediately adopt any foreign thing, and therefore the countryside is also not desirous of passing these things. The high position which woman takes up in the home will be altered by this Bill. The highest vocation of woman has always been her family. By dragging her into politics she will take less interest in her greatest affairs, viz., home life and education of her children. Women can be much more useful to their family, their nation, and to society if they remain outside of politics, and devote their attention to things which concern her, that is without mixing in politics. I can understand that in towns the large majority want this Bill and I agree that the women in the towns who want it represent 75 per cent. There is such a great difference between life in the country and in the village that it is not surprising to me that the women in the villages want the vote. I hope hon. members will not blame me if I make a comparison between the women of the country and of the villages. Why do people in the towns press for this Bill? In the big cities they are constantly out to look for sensation. They come out of the bioscopes and their attention is at once fixed on what the newest play or film will be. They are always looking for something new. I can understand that women’s franchise would create a new sensation in the villages. The supporters of it tell large masses that the women’s franchise will give women heaven on earth, therefore it will be a new sensation for the inhabitants of the villages when women get the vote. Polling day will be a day of sport for the women. It will not give the least trouble for the women to go to the ballot box in the villages, but on the countryside the position is very different. Hon. members have already pointed out what difficulties will arise, and I do not want to go into it, but it is certain that the women of the countryside will have to make great sacrifices to vote. The bond of the family is still so strong there that there will be very few mothers who will go to vote when their child, e.g., is ill. As the women give their greatest and first attention to the family we will very rarely find that they will go to vote under unfavourable household circumstances. This means a very great distinction between the villages and the countryside. Farm life is quite a different thing to life in the villages. On the farms we still have the soul and the aspirations and morals of the South African nation. We still find the culture and the civilization of our people there, and we are proud that they do not waste their time on new things. It is very clear to me that Providence has so ruled it that men and women have their own different vocations. The women fulfil their calling in home life, and the husband assists his wife, but does not meddle in household affairs. The wife governs inside the house and not outside where the husband has control of things. I recently met a friend married to his fifth wife. Hon. members may laugh, but I regard this question quite seriously. That friend had a grievance. He told me how happily he lived with his first four wives, but that he cannot get on with the fifth. I can assure hon. members that what I am now saying is the truth. He told me that he never bothered himself about the wife’s life and circle, and that the wives also kept to their department, but now when he inspans his waggon and four horses then the wife says that the two leaders should be put at the back, and the wheelers in front. He never meddled in the wife’s affairs, and trouble arose by the woman not sticking to her job. That applies, however, in every department. We have the same thing in church matters. We do not have women as elders, or members of the church council, not because we do not think that she is good enough, or because she is unsuitable, but because everyone has his vocation. Hon. members will possibly say that the women are still employed in the public service. That is true but do we not have a distinction there as well? Have we ever appointed women as policemen, or put them into the defence force? No, the women, even in the public service, have their definite calling. I insist that the woman can fulfil her calling, but as soon as she becomes masculine, just as when a man becomes feminine, then it is wrong. A man must act as a man, and fulfil a man’s calling. A woman can be just as good in her calling as a man in his. One hon. member has pointed out the role played by women in the history of our people. I agree with him when he says that it was a very great rôle, but she never stood on an equal footing with men. She was a help to the men in war time as far as possible, but never desired to go into battle with the men. She always fulfilled her highest calling in the interests of her family. It has been mentioned what women have done in war time. At such a time the women have just as much vocation as the men. It is the man’s duty to fight, and the woman’s to nurse the sick, bind up wounds, aid the suffering, and to assist the men with her sympathy. It is, however, impossible to put the women in the same position as the men. Just as little as the man can do the woman’s work, can she do the work of the man. Where is there a greater woman in our history than Emily Hobhouse who is deeply honoured in the hearts of our women and of our people? She had the soft and tender feelings and the tender heart of the woman, and she came here as a woman and not to do the work of a man. She could not have done her great work if she had come here as a man. And a woman can do great work but not in the place of a man. I yield to no one in my respect for women, but what will the position be if they are allowed to take part in politics? Politics will not only affect the home life, but it will lower the woman and lessen the respect that she gets. It is said that women would elevate political life. No, politics will degrade the women. When I want to help someone out of the mud I do not first get down into it to reach him and struggle about with him, but I remain on firm ground. The women admit that politics is a dirty thing, and if she wants to help the men she must remain on the firm ground she now occupies, and not mix herself up in politics.

But are there not superior and inferior women ?

Yes, just like men. Another argument used by the supporters of the Bill is the women are already doing so much why not make the cross as well? If that were all, it amounts to nothing. But is the making of the cross the only reason why the woman wants to go into politics? If this Bill is passed, and the franchise is granted to her we must be honest and then I do not say that she should merely stop at the making of the cross. She will take part in politics. And if women take part in practical politics will that raise their position? It would be a daily occurrence that the women will be the rivals of the men on the political platform. There, no doubt, she will be a good fighter, but it does not prevent the greatest blackguard having the right of insulting her. If she wants to go into politics then she will have to answer him. Will that raise the status of women? Would my hon. friend here (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) blush if it were his wife who had to take part in such a war of words? It may be the case that the woman will be a good fighter in such circumstances, but it will not elevate her. I say again that if we get a woman who is in politics, however good a fighter she may be, she will have to give up her characteristics as a woman. If she keeps out of politics, and retains her womanly characteristics, then he can elevate her. Those things are going to blunt her finer feelings. I take off my hat to women and I rise when they come in, because I and other men highly respect them and the noble position they hold in society and we appreciate her fine feelings. We know that she feels something long before we do, and we know what it means when an innocent blush shows on her face. She cannot keep that in politics, and she will then no longer be able to get the respect of the men in that way. If the grant of women’s franchise is necessary to magnify women then I should be inclined to say that we ought to give it to her. They are now considered by us as the most noble, but by granting that we shall only degrade her. She will come to Parliament, and will the woman be able to do her work here in Parliament without doing violence to her finer feelings when we debate the unpleasant things that have to be debated here? We come to the point that the women will have to assist in governing. We know that women are sentimental. That is the most noble of her characteristics, but the result is that she acts according to her heart and not according to her head, and on that account she cannot always act properly as a ruler. There is another argument—and this is the one that counts most with me—that there are so many women who make an independent living, but even if that number consists of 5 or 10 per cent. of the women I ask whether we must compel all the other women to accept it? The man who has a vote possibly has a wife, or a daughter entrusted to his care, and I cannot believe that I and others do not consider the interests of the wives and daughters when we exercise our vote. Before I sit down I must fulfil an unpleasant duty, but I must do it on my own, and on behalf of other members who are opposed to the Bill. As I say I am very sorry to have to do it. It is one of the reasons why I say that the woman should not have a vote, that women have less self-restraint than men and are inclined to do things that injure her case. On a certain occasion it was said—

What is actually the terrible libel I and others have been guilty of because we said that there were women that would not exercise the vote? By libel by someone from overseas is probably meant Conan Doyle. One who has now sunk so much in our views that we will almost not mention his name, and have the greatest contempt for him. I will repeat what I said, that there were old ladies who would not go to vote. There are, of course, women who are looking about for a seat, and if it happens to be my constituency they have their eye on, then I only want to say that I am prepared to meet them about the matter on any platform. We shall then see whether the women wish to consider it libellous. There is a section of our women that we will get to the ballot box with difficulty if the Bill is passed. The great protagonists of women’s franchise want to persuade our women on the countryside and the whole world that there never yet were women who had done so much for their people or for humanity as those who have fought so hard for women’s franchise. But where will those women be when they are put into the scale with the mothers who have done so much for the civilization and the moral progress of the people? Heaven and earth is moved by that class of women to wake up the countryside woman, and if the latter does not get enthusiastic then the others become impatient, but we still have in the country the class of mothers who do not get stampeded with all these things. They are not modern mad. However much the modern world may approve of it, it still is revolting when the women also want to smoke because the men do, and that there are women who because the men drink whisky can drink just as big a glass with them. In their case it is a scandal. Even the franchise, I think, will not take away that seriousness of hers. The franchise is a foreign thing to her, and has no attraction for, nor does it please her. It is said that we want to keep the women with the pots and pans. It is a crime to take up that attitude. Woman occupies a position in society into which the man has helped her, and we are proud of her taking that position. We want to protect her, and not to force her into other things that lower her; but if those people think that the woman ought not to know what happens with the pots and pans, it means that she does not look after the health and welfare of the family. Whatever position the woman may occupy, she still has to look after the home. The ladies must not think that I am opposed to this measure through lack of respect, but it is because I feel that it will degrade women. The women will take an active part in politics. She will mix up with things which do not suit her, and she will be insulted. Then I should just like to know also what benches the women will occupy who come to Parliament.

I am afraid this Bill is infinitely disappointing to the supporters of women’s suffrage. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has lost another two opportunities in his political career. He had an opportunity in this Bill of laying down the principles on which the franchise should be given the whole of the country, unified on a proper basis. I am not quite certain what his intention is. He has lost another opportunity also. The other day he told us that, in his opinion, the coloured persons have a right to expect from us that, politically, they shall be one with us. Having said that, he explained a clause in his Bill giving exactly the opposite interpretation to that dictum of his, and he absolutely refuses to give to the educated coloured woman the right of the franchise that he is going to give to the white woman We would be very much more happy if the Prime Minister translated his theories into fact, but I am afraid that all his fine words given to the coloured people will not satisfy them for the very great injustice that is being done to them in this Bill. The Prime Minister brings in certain native Bills which are intended to take the native entirely off the general electoral roll. One would imagine that the next step would be to unify the franchise throughout the country, and give a similar franchise to every adult person, European and coloured. The Prime Minister now has his opportunity when he has removed the native from the general electoral roll, but when on the verge of getting to this satisfactory position of having one franchise throughout the Union, he immediately sets up another bar, a colour bar, against the coloured people. Instead of having cleared the way to getting a general franchise throughout the country, he does exactly the opposite. It is absolutely hopeless to try to get a general franchise based on universal suffrage in this country. I feel certain that the Prime Minister recognises that. You have masses of coloured people who are not educated, and who are not fit for the franchise, and the educated coloured people recognize that as well as anybody in this House. But immediately he decides upon European adult suffrage, then, once for all, we can never have a general suffrage covering the whole of the Union. We remain for ever apart, and the Prime Minister will be responsible for that state of affairs. I very much doubt whether universal suffrage is good for any people. I very much doubt whether it is good in Europe, where the people in the mass are very much better educated than they are here, taking Europeans and coloured people together. In Italy and Spain it has proved so unsatisfactory that autocrats have had to come along and put the thing right.

Is that what you want?

I am very much in favour of an autocrat, provided I am the autocrat. The franchise here must be based on some qualification. I think an educational qualification, principally, and with all due apologies to my friends on the cross-benches, some property or wage qualification as well. You are never going to get a general franchise in this country unless you adopt that principle. The Prime Minister brushes aside education, but, instead of suggesting any better test, he says he will not have any test at all. We are to look at a man’s skin, and decide then whether he is civilized or uncivilized. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that although persons of Dutch and English descent have centuries of civilization behind them, and centuries of experience of self-government, there are many other Europeans in this country who have not had centuries of self-government behind them, and to me it seems to be contrary to reason for him to say that because he does not think education should be the test, that, therefore, all tests should be wiped out. Personally, I think education should be the final and principal test, and I should like to see that test infinitely more difficult to get over. I should like a high educational test. Make your test what you like, but do not base your franchise on colour. Make your test high, and prevent anybody but a well-educated man from having a say in the government of the country. Having done that, depend on the civilization education does give to a man. It must give him the opportunity of judging between right and wrong, and that is what you want your voter to know. I do not think it necessary to be a negrophile to recognize that you are treating the coloured people very badly under this Bill. It seems to me that if we consider that in some form or other we are superior to the coloured people, then we should be superior in giving them justice. We should seek to give them justice, and not take rights from them to which they are entitled. I think that is one of the very great blots on this Bill. The Prime Minister bases his objection to allowing coloured persons to have the vote on two grounds. He says first of all that we threw out his Coloured Rights Bill. My answer to that is that the Coloured Rights Bill made the confusion even worse than it is to-day. The Coloured Rights Bill practically arranged that in future there should be two classes of coloured people, one class to be considered native, and the other class Europeans. That did not seem to solve the problem. Then the Prime Minister says he will not allow a coloured woman to have the vote because of the difficulty of distinguishing between coloured and native women. But there are two ends to the coloured problem. There are many women of coloured blood to-day who pass as whites. There are not only natives passing as coloured, but there is the other end of the problem. The Prime Minister might as well decide not to have any women’s suffrage at all, because he cannot distinguish between a white and a coloured person. With regard to the details of this Bill, I should like to know from the Prime Minister—unfortunately the heat of the afternoon has sent him to sleep —why he does not allow the number of women on the roll to be taken into consideration in the redivision of the constituencies. Under Clause 3, women on the roll are not allowed to be taken into consideration in connection with re-delimitation. I suggest to him that he does not want the Cape Colony to have a greater preponderance in the affairs of this country. He deliberately tries under this clause to prevent the Cape Province having its just rights. It has not got its just rights to-day. It takes more voters to send a member to Parliament in the Cape Province than in any other. Now this is to be accentuated, because the Prime Minister thinks that more women will get on the roll in the Cape Province than in any other. I would rather have the Bill of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) than the present one. That, at all events, was simple and clear, and the difficulty in regard to Europeans and non-Europeans did not arise in that Bill, whilst women would get the exact rights which men had. To-day many women in the Cape Province will be able to get the vote, though their husbands are not eligible. That is the length to which a convert goes; the Prime Minister is now converted to womens’ suffrage, and is so enamoured of it that he would give the franchise to women whose husbands, possessing the same qualification, are debarred from voting. I think all hon. members in the House, after hearing the Prime Minister’s speech, will recognize his sincerity, especially after the motion he moved this afternoon as to a night sitting. Anyone outside might wonder whether the Prime Minister has put up a fence and hoped that we should not be able to get over it. I am supposed to be supporting the women’s suffrage, but there are so many inconsistencies in this Bill that it would require a clever lawyer to plead for the Bill as it stands. I shall have to vote for it, notwithstanding, as the French say, faute de mieux.

In considering this Bill, I do not think we should he acting rightly if we did not to-day remember the man that was responsible for the preparation of the step which we are now going to take. I think in this connection South Africa should think of the late Mr. D. M. Brown, who actually was the greatest advancer of the idea of women’s franchise in South Africa. In dealing with this subject, it is difficult to say anything which is not generally known to-day. It is a good thing, however, as I am in favour of the women’s franchise on principle, to try and put ourselves in the position of those who are opponents of it, and when we deal with the great principle, to see whether we cannot be unanimous on this subject, even if only in part so. I should like to mention one thing. I am sorry that we have to deal with this Bill just at this period. Everyone will feel that the Prime Minister has kept his word and fulfilled his duty by introducing this Bill as promised, but everyone will also feel that there are a large number of women in South Africa to-day who are unprepared for the carrying out of the Bill. I am convinced of that more and more every day. They did not expect such a rapid fulfilment of the promise, and I think that if a referendum were taken among the women, whether they were in favour of the franchise, it is doubtful whether the majority would vote in the affirmative. This does not mean that we can adopt a different attitude. I think most of us feel that women have in the past done their duty to the people; without the least doubt women will also fulfil their duty to the country in future, and they will show that they can adapt themselves to the most difficult circumstances. I, however, think that much more preparatory work was necessary. I, however, wish to analyze the objections of the opponents a little, they amount to three things. The first is that the women will be less domestic, the second is that they will become rougher, and the third objection is whether the women, under the conditions of the Act, will actually be able to bear the responsibility put upon them. As for me, I would like to share the anxiety of those members who are against the principles, viz., whether the women will not be resigning the important position they occupy in South Africa, or will not neglect household interests. What the women are the nation will be, what the women were in the past the nation was, what the women will be in the future the nation will be. The mothers of the nation make the nation. It is a very responsible question for us, who attach importance to the moral value and virtues of the people of South Africa. It is, therefore, interesting for us to enquire whether participation in the franchise in any way undermines the morality of the people. In one respect at once I do not share all the objections that have been raised. I think that the exercise of the vote once in three, and five years, does not quite make the demand on the women that has been made out. The women now do things outside their domestic duties. Take charitable work. The women do a great deal of that. Some of them do good work as nurses in their neighbourhood. Others assist their fellow mortals in other ways. They do invaluable work outside the home, but who will say that they thereby neglect their families, that it lessens the value of family life. They do a great deal for their surroundings, and if they had to vote they will not neglect their homes in consequence. Think of the great work women do as members of religious societies. There also they do work outside their home, but who will say that they neglect their household by it? I think that no one in the House will say that it will have an injurious effect on home life. I want also to point out that many women devote their spare time to charitable institutions. Many of our best and most famous South African women are members of the A.C.V.V. They work outside their homes, they visit congresses, and do outstanding social work, but will any opponent of the Bill dare to say that the members of the A.C.V.V. neglect their duties in their homes? I do not think that can be said. There are other services which the South African women do outside their homes without diminishing their value to the family. I quite agree with hon. members that if the home life gets slack that it will injure the national life, but this slacking threatens South Africa apart from the women’s franchise. The second question I want to ask is whether the women will become rougher through this franchise, whether she will lose any of her delicacy if she takes part in the politics of the country. She has not been able to vote for the assembly and the provincial council, but she has actually been able to make her voice heard in other departments of public life. I ask once more of the opponents whether that has diminished the delicacy of the women. But the best guarantee that she will not lose it is that, in my opinion, she is much better balanced than man. From the nature of the case the woman is more conservative than the man. That conservative attitude springs from her vocation, and therefore hon. members need not be concerned about the women being made rougher, as long as the vocation of the women is borne in mind by he people. I, therefore, do not believe that we need be concerned in this respect. The first question we must put is whether the women in South Africa are sufficiently educated to perform their duty as voters. Are they able to properly do their duty? Have they had sufficient political training for the purpose? In asking that question, I think that a certain section of the women have not had sufficient political training, and therefore, I shall take another opportunity of moving an amendment, viz., with reference to the woman who gets the vote at a youthful age. Where, however, the woman in the past has had the right to vote at school board and municipal elections, she has completely justified her position. When we see how in various parts of the world woman has successfully filled her posts, then we need not be afraid. In the League of Nations no less than nine countries have sent a woman as one of their representatives. The nations who had a woman as representative were Great Britain, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Roumania, Sweden, Hungary and Finland. Those nine countries had a woman representative in the highest council which the nations of the world have established. When the nations have shown such confidence in their women as to send them as representatives to the League of Nations, there is, in my opinion, no doubt that woman is suited for higher political appointments. But there are many countries where women not alone have the vote, but where they are also members of Parliament. In Finland, e.g., there is a large number of women members of Parliament, and that is the case in other countries as well, and, as far as we know, the women fill those posts with efficiency. The third question is whether women’s franchise will increase the gadding about, or whether it will hinder them in the performance of their family duties. I think the example of other nations is a complete answer to that. When we object to women’s franchise, it is no more than right to enquire into the position that women occupy in other countries. I think we can assume that the men in other countries were just as concerned as ourselves, and if they are not now opposed to women’s franchise, then we can unhesitatingly say that it has been a success there. I have, however, a few objections to this Bill. I am not against it in principle, but in certain details. In the first place, I am sorry that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, was not able to carry out the whole of his promise. Hon. members who were here in 1928 know the attitude I took up with reference to the coloured people in South Africa in contra distinction with the natives. For years I have adopted the policy, which my party has now adopted. Even before my party openly adopted that principle I was already an advocate of the coloured people not being separated from us on economic, industrial and political concerns. I considered the question for years, and my conclusion was that it was not in the interests of society in South Africa if we put the coloured people into a separate industrial, economic and political position. The attitude I adopted was very unpopular in my own neighbourhood, and when I to-day support the proposal of giving the franchise to coloured women as well, then I do not doubt that it is very unpopular with some hon. members. I, however, stand by the position I have taken up, because I think it is very dangerous to play football with an adopted principle. I, therefore, hope that the day will come when the leader of my party will be able to fulfil his promises entirely with respect to the vote for coloured women especially, because it is inevitable that the coloured person will stand by the European in future. The provincial administration already entrusts the education of children to coloured men and women to-day, and as the provincial administration puts that responsibility on the shoulders of coloured women and men, we can assume that they are people who are qualified to vote. I want it clearly understood, however, that I am not in favour of a franchise on the same basis as for Europeans. I fully support the view that the franchise is not a question of so many years school education, or of certain possessions, but that it is based on a feeling of responsibility. This can only come to maturity by years of development, and, although I am very much in favour of coloured women getting the vote, I cannot vote for the franchise on an equal footing. I hope the time will come when the Prime Minister will be in the position to fully keep his promise of 1928. I have another objection to this Bill. I think the age of 21 years is too young. I do not share the objection of hon. members opposite that we ought to demand qualifications. Since Union every European who has attained majority has a full vote in the northern provinces. I want to ask hon. members whether they are also opposed to that. I do not think we need be afraid, as hon. members have said that, owing to the complete franchise to majors, the paupers will more or less govern the country. As we are dealing here with a great experiment from which I expect much, because I think that public life will be improved by the women’s franchise, we ought not to make the risk any greater than is necessary. In taking this stop forward in giving the vote to women, I do not think we need unnecessarily enlarge the leap, and at a later stage I shall also move an amendment to raise the age limit. In England they gave 5,000,000 young girls the vote, and, although the experiment will very probably succeed, there are still very many people who are concerned about the consequences. I think the young women in South Africa have not yet had sufficient political experience, and as it is proposed to give major women the franchise, I think the risk is too great. I should like to support the Bill, but I fear the time has come too quickly. In my opinion, the question of the age limit should be reconsidered, so that we should not increase the leap we are taking.

I am afraid I look at this matter from a different angle to that of most members. The question dissolves itself down to this—not whether we should give the women the vote, but whether they want it. For if they do then we have no right to stop them from having it, and any attempts we make to" prevent them exercising the franchise will be doomed to failure. I don’t know whether my constituency are in favour of women’s franchise but I know very few shopkeepers or farmers who have made a success of life who have not their wives to thank for at least 50 per cent. of their success. Their wives have worked just as hard as they have and, to a large extent, have been responsible for their prosperity There is not the slightest doubt, too, that when things go wrong the first to feel the pinch are the women and the children. Taxes and bills have to be paid, but the things that are first cut down are food and clothing for the wife and children and expense on holidays and amusements. It is economy, not charity that begins at home. Therefore the women have a vested interest in the welfare of the Country, and the woman, through her husband, is indirectly a taxpayer or if she has means of her own she is a direct taxpayer. Therefore, as a taxpayer, she has a perfect right to have the vote. What is the foundation of democratic government? I think the old tag about “no taxation without representation” puts it in a nutshell, and if women desire the franchise, we have no right to refuse it. The argument of the Minister of Agriculture that because women cannot go to war, therefore they should not have the vote is a weak one. How many of the statesmen and others who make war go to war themselves. No, I think we can disregard that argument. The real point is: If the women want the vote, then they have the right to it whether the vote will add to the prestige of women or raise their status is an entirely different matter, and opinion is largely divided on it. I think women have ns great an influence as they can ever have, and I do not see how the possession of a vote is going to increase their influence, because of its, present magnitude. There is, of course, the danger that they may lose some of their influence thereby, but that is for them, as educated, wage-earning, taxpaying citizens, to decide, not for us. Go to European countries where women are in possession of the vote and compare the respect paid to women to-day, by men, to what they received 20 years ago before they had the vote. You go there and you find in trains more women standing and men sitting down than 20 years ago and so on, and in many walks of life women have lost prestige, which is exceptionally had for the men, because history shows that the turning point of many nations has been the moment the man started to lose respect for the womenfolk, and from that point of view it may be bad for the state. I can give many instances, but am not prepared to take up the time of the House. I wish to make it quite clear that I am not prepared to state that women’s franchise will be for the good of the women or the country—that I leave to them to decide for themselves. But we put ourselves entirely in the wrong if we allow our personal bias and political opinions to stand in the way. A great, deep and sincere movement, such as women’s franchise is impossible to stop, and we make ourselves merely ridiculous if we try to do so. We would be merely a crowd of modern Canutes, if the think we can stop it. If it is merely the noisy outcry of a small minority, then it is a different matter. The step we are taking now we can never retrace. If the Prime Minister had introduced a Bill for the holding of a referendum and by means of this referendum we knew whether the women want the vote or not, it would have been better. I am for votes for women if a majority of them want it. I go further and say it is not for us to give it, but for them to demand it as a right if they want the vote. There are two details in the Bill with which I disagree; the first is that women, because they are 21, should have the vote. You can have cases of a father with six or eight sons, and who, because they are working for their father and not earning sufficient to qualify, or have not the occupational qualification, cannot get the vote, whereas their sister is going to have the vote because she happens to be 21. Is that right? There is the question of the trek boere, many of whom will not have the vote owing to lack of qualifications, while their daughters may have the vote merely because they gained their majority. I hope, if this Bill goes through, the women themselves will see this is changed, and that only women of 30 get the vote, or otherwise, married women over 21, whose husbands have the qualification, or something like that. The point is, women have not asked for as much as the Prime Minister is prepared to give them, surely they know best what their requirements are. Why should we give them more than they really want, and more than we have ourselves? Here I want to agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has said. We have heard Ministers say that they put the coloured man politically, absolutely on the same basis as the white man. We have heard it all over the country, especially in the last general election. We need not only go by what the Prime Minister says—we have seen the policy of the Nationalist Government in their statements and propaganda, to put the coloured man politically on the same footing as the white man. We have the Prime Minister’s own speech—

Further on in the same speech we read—

As the hon. member for Hopetown has said, the Prime Minister has not kept to his promise to introduce that in his Bill. He says he has introduced this Bill to redeem his promise of two years ago. But he promised then to give the coloured women the vote, and he is not redeeming his promise. He shed crocodile tears for the coloured women, hut these tears will be assessed at their true value, and I am afraid will influence nobody. It is rather interesting to analyze the present voting strength of the Union. In round figures, the voters are: Europeans, 416,000; native, 16,000; Asiatic, 1,700; Malays, 1,100; coloured, 23,000; or a total of 459,000. The non-European vote is 42,000. The voting strength of the white women, if this Bill goes through, will be 426,083 (urban areas, 266,000; rural areas, 159,000), and, in passing, one should note that there will be 10,000 more women voters than men voters among the whites. The Prime Minister is deliberately increasing the white vote by 426,000, making a total of 842,000, against 23,000 coloured voters, which makes their vote absolutely negligible. Is this political strategy or political tactics? I use these terms in their military sense; i.e., strategy to mean action taken by a government or a military commander, when not in the presence of the enemy, and tactics to mean that action taken by a commander when in the presence of the enemy. What is the Prime Minister’s idea? Does he think we are going to throw the Bill out for him, because coloured people are not included? Is this tactics in the face of the enemy, to kill his own Bill? Is the idea to make the coloured vote absolutely negligible ?

Is that your great regret ?

It is one of my points against this particular Bill. I have always tried to be absolutely just to all sides, and to voice their opinions. Or, on the other hand, is this a strategical manoeuvre against the coloured races, for the next general election? If so, it is a very clever one. In view of the Prime Minister’s speech, we must take this one way or the other; either he was sincere when he made his speech, or he was not—I believe he was entirely sincere. If I am right, this is a tactical move hoping that we on this side of the House will throw the Bill out. On the other hand, if I am still right that he was sincere when he made the speech, but he has since changed his mind, or pressure has been brought to bear on him, then this move is strategical, and his action taken now against the coloured voters at the next general election. If this Bill goes through I trust the white women who have so long been struggling to get their political rights will see that civilized coloured women also get their political rights. I think we can leave it in their hands. I have been amused at what certain members on the other side have been saying. They Say “we do not mind voting with the coloured man, but we will not have our wives voting with the coloured woman. I cannot see the force of that argument. Because under this Bill the white woman will have to, vote with the coloured man, so what is the difference? Another argument advanced is that if you give the vote to the coloured woman you must also give it to the native woman. I think that is absoluely wrong. I do not think we need go further than the Prime Minister’s speech to rebut that argument, when the Prime Minister said that the coloured man stands on the same footing as the European, but that the native does not. But we need not go into that matter, because we can take the native’s own attitude towards his woman folk. The native does not treat his women as equals. If the native ever hopes to get the franchise for native women, let him first raise their status in his own eyes. In the meantime, we need not consider that at all. The Coloured women are a very different proposition, and I hope the white women will see that justice is done to the coloured women. I am entirely in favour of the principle of women’s franchise if the majority of women want the vote. I regret that such a good principle has been embodied in such a thoroughly badly con structed Bill.

The questions each one should ask himself, and should give clear answers to are, firstly, whether women are entitled to the franchises and secondly, whether they want it? As for the first question I want to imply that it is undoubtedly the case that the women of South Africa have the right. I, who believe in the history of our people, would like to quote something to my colleague, who is opposed to women’s franchise, from Transvaal history. It is from a resolution of the Volksraad of 18th June, 1885, that I want to quote.

Is it a resolution of the Transvaal Volksraad?

Yes, as usual the Transvaal gives the lead. The resolution reads—

Did they do that

It is clear that the Transvaal Volksraad gave term the right. I am only speaking here of the rights As long ago as 1855 women got the right to the franchise. That is clear from the resolution.

It is nothing to do with the vote.

Yes, of course, the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) is an authority on this period of Transvaal history. He will, of course, want to tell us that when the resolution speaks of “burgers”, “burgeresse”, they do not in both cases pre-suppose the same political rights. Secondly, I want to quote what happened during the voortrekkers time in Natal.

In Natal?

Yes, in Natal. And the hon. member for Ladybrand is presumably also an expert on that history. The women’s franchise was already acknowledged in principle in the voortrekkers’ days, more than three-quarters of a century before it was acknowledged in any civilized country. On the establishment of the Natal republic it was granted to women. In that first democratic constitution in South Africa it was provided for. It was, however, not made use of. It was laid down—

We read in Col. Cloete’s report to the Cape governor in connection with the annexation of Natal that the women’s deputation who refused to acknowledge the annexation of their republic, how the women by reason of that right of duty to the Governor, how he tried to contest it because nowhere in the civilized world did such a thing exist, not even social equality.

It was never carried out.

What is that to do with the case? I am talking about the right. And if hon. members will have a little patience I shall deal in a moment with whether the women want the vote. In the Volksraad resolution I have quoted the women in the north got the right to vote, and hon. members all look up to the voortrekkers. But it seems to me that they, the descendants of those voortrekkers, have wandered very far away.

Hindmost pioneers. (Agterste voortrekkers).

It may be so. It was not made use of, but that does not detract from the right having been acknowledged. Why they did not use it is another question. The position simply is that they have that right. What happened then? I quote again—

Therefore, we see that in those days of the old Volksraad and of the voortrekkers the right of the woman to vote was admitted. I should also like to quote what happened in the time of the United East India Company. In those days a deputation of women went from Stellenbosch to Governor van der Stel to strongly protest against certain things. We find in connection with Slagtersnek that a deputation of women from the north came down. I am glad that my hon. friend behind me is going back to paradise. There the woman got her rights and maintained them.

And we are still suffering to-day.

Yes, but we have also enjoyed the fruits of it. The women have proved in the past that they ought to have the right. Take the period of the various rulers of state. Take a woman like Catherine II of Russia, Queen Victoria, and Queen Wilhelmina, who were all very good sovereigns. Queen Wilhelmina was the only sovereign in Europe who was strong enough to take up manly attitude towards President Kruger. Take Carmen Sylva, the Queen of Bulgaria. So we can mention women who have governed countries and who are not only competent but who were an example to kings. In many periods of history it has been shown that a country has been well governed with a woman at the head. Take the women of Leyden; take Kenau Hasselaar, the herione who showed that they were willing to make sacrifices for their native land. I have read a diary occurring in the history of the voortrekkers. The Minister of Agriculture said that women did not take part in war. That is a very weak argument. But the voortrekker women took part in the fight for freedom. [“Vastrappers,” by A. J. van der Walt.] In that diary we are told how the barbarians stormed the voortrekkers, and how the women assisted in the fight be it was because the women could hold the together with the men that the said that the women should received rights as the men. It seems to meaning is that the woman has no politics, not that she has the necessary and power to be a leader. In that woman is in every way the equation. She does not stand below the man equal. I admit that she is possible, that I quite admit, but with mention they are receiving of recent feeling of responsibility is developing more and more. Who will deny the woman is able and has the right of judging on matters in connection with justice, education, public health, etc.? The enlightened woman can decide those matters just as well as the enlightened man. In this country where we are surrounded by people who are less privileged, by natives and coloured people, we must grant the franchise to the women. Take the case of a girl at school; there you have a lady at the head, and mistresses. They have no right of voting, but the individual who scuffles the paths has the right. Our mistresses who educate the children have no right to vote, but many a half-civilized person has. Is that position tolerable? Think of the position of the enlightened lady. She has not the right of voting, but the drunkard, the vagrant, and the convict have it. The enlightened woman does not possess it. A difficulty has been mentioned about wár. But what has happened during the last fifteen years in South Africa? What brought the South African woman to the front? It was the rebellion. In those dark days of our people there were the demonstrations of the women to assist those men who were in prison. It was that occurrence which brought the women forward, and which gave rise to the formation of a Nationalist Women’s party. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said that all Nationalist women were not members of the Women’s Nationalist party. Does he regret it? In the Transvaal we want them all in the women’s party to make their influence felt at election time. They are useful for that. They are good at working and at organizing. There are no better organizers than the women. That we have seen. There is not a single member in this House who has not much to thank the women for. They are good for that purpose, but not to go and make the course themselves. We let them work in the women’s unions, in the women’s federation, in the women’s missionary associations, etc., they are away from home for days. That is a healthy state of affairs, but the household is threatened if they have to be away from home one day to go and vote. I want to say very clearly here that women already appear on the platform. Some of our women have apeared on the platform with the Prime Minister.

We do not want that.

I am very sorry to hear it. If we are ready to use the bill en …

No, we do not want to use

The hon. members no. The Nationalist party uses esting money to obtain motors to people to the poll, and to fetch the same purpose. But she is not good devote herself. For that she is too my conviction that the South Indian will also show her gentlenesss box. It will have an ennobling political atmosphere will become purer, and it will be characterized all the more by a better and fuller appreciation of things. Some hon. members say that women’s hearts run away with their heads. Many hon. members here suffer from the same fault. But we must not forget that the educated woman today adopts the professions. They are officials, doctors, advocates, etc., and they have to use their common sense in every department just like the men. In Parliament we have to do with things such as child welfare, maternal care, and so forth, on which the women can throw much light. Women are steadfast. It has been related how the women stood firm during the second war of independence. I well remember a case in the concentration camps where a hands-upper offered to carry a bundle of wood for a woman, her reply was that she would rather carry it herself because if a mauser was too heavy for him, then he could not carry the wood. There we see, as often happened, that the women remained firm when the men already started wavering. We say now that that is all very well, but the woman must not get the franchise! She will become demoralised because politics are dirty, and logrolling takes place. We acknowledge that this often occurs, but she will make her example felt. There are possibly members who will mention that we cannot grant the franchise to women owing to religious scruples. There are leading men in religion who are fighting for women’s franchise, and no one can prove to me that the woman is not entitled to the franchise according to the Bible. Christian political science acknowledges that the women has the right to vote. What is the position in the world? In the Netherlands, in England, and in Germany religious men take up the attitude that the woman is entitled to vote on Chrisian principles. Professor Buys of Holand says—

We have a constitutional form of government, and the question arises who can have more interest in the future of South Africa than the women. We, therefore, feel that they have a right to vote. Now some members say that they are against the principle of women’s franchise, but would vote for it if a referendum among the women resulted in a majority of one in favour of it. Referendum, or no referendum, the question is whether the principle of their getting the franchise is right or wrong. Anyone who sympathizes with the principle must vote for it apart from other considerations. Then the home life has been mentioned. It was said that if the women get the vote it would be a cause of discord in the home. Today a husband and wife often differ in political matters without there being discord between them. Then it is said that it breaks up the family life. Just imagine that by voting once in five years the home life will be broken up! I cannot imagine a more ridiculous argument. Home life is not built on the ground, but on love, peace and other things. Then the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) spoke about the women of the towns. I say—though there may possibly be exceptions, just as there are exceptions on the countryside—that the ideals of the women in the towns and villages are just as great as those of the women in the country. The hon. member said that the women in the villages only thought of bioscopes and exhibited a craving for amusement, but the women in the villages, with exceptions, attached just as much importance to the home life, and looked after their families just as well as those in the country. How many men are there who are at home at night? The hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg), when the opening of Parliament on Sundays was discussed, came out with how members joined in mixed bathing at Muizenberg. Miss Hobhouse’s name has been mentioned here. Let me say that she was a great supporter of women’s franchise, she is a good example of a woman being in favour of the franchise without giving up her womanliness, because Miss Hobhouse came to the concentration camp to work on behalf of the women and children there. We heard from the hon. members for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) and Hopetown (Dr. Stals) about the coloured women. I only wish to say that I am very thankful that the Bill only refers to white women. We feel with regard to coloured people that the coloured women are not yet so civilized as the white women, and that it will be many years yet before they will attain that stage. Moreover, all the coloured men have not the franchise by a long way, and, consequently, all the coloured women cannot be given the franchise unconditionally. In the Transvaal we have manhood franchise, bit I must honestly say that I never should be able to vote for the Bill if it were also to apply to coloured and native women. Let us wait until the time comes, but it has not yet come for us to give the vote to the coloured women as well. There are only two questions which should influence us. The first is whether the women of South Africa have a right to claim the vote. Nobody will dare to deny it with justice. The second question is whether the women are in favour of it. The organized women of South Africa, both the Nationalist as well as the South African party women, are in favour of it. Undoubtedly, 50 per cent. of the women are in favour of it. The women stand alongside the men in capacity, common sense, etc., and the sooner they get the franchise the better.

It has been refreshing to listen to the eloquent speech delivered, and I quite agree with the hon. member (Dr. van Broekhuizen) in his advocacy of women’s franchise. He has emphasized the fact that in all the fields in which women have participated, they have more than justified the responsibility placed upon them. I could quote various fields of occupation in science, in literature, and in discoveries of various kinds in which women have really done themselves credit. I cannot understand people who do not open their minds to a true sense of logic. I should like to thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the women in my constituency, and I think women, generally, for having introduced this measure. I cannot understand, and to me it is inconceivable, that in face of the progress that has been made and the success which has attended the enfranchisement of women in all parts of that world, we should still have people in this country who are clinging to the relics of barbarism as many are doing. In order better to reply to some of the arguments that I have heard from the other side, let me state a formula which will make the position clearer. Suppose three persons, whom we will call A, B and C, were to form a syndicate in order to start some business. A being a male, B and C females, could it be contended that C, being a woman, should have no say in the control of such business? One can extend that principle very much further in various connections, and I say that, where females are subject to certain laws, they should have a voice in determining such laws. Let me reply to one or two arguments raised by the Minister of Agriculture the other afternoon. He said he would not be a party to exposing our women to the rough and tumble of political life, as they were too sacred. In other words, he would like to erect a wall around his womenfolk and place them, possibly, in the same position as the women of Turkey, whose faces are covered, and who are not permitted to take part in the ordinary social affairs which we feel to be the proper sphere for women. The Minister also made use of Mr. Merriman’s threadbare argument, that since women cannot take part in any war, why should they have the right to authorize war and send men to their death? Basing my argument on my above formula, I contend that persons who have to bear the consequences of an act should also have a voice in determining that act. Women have to bear the consequences of war, just as much, if not more, than men do. I have often heard men returning from the front say they have had a rollicking time at the front. But what about their wives and families Consider the anguish of women whose husbands or sons go to the front often never to return. No, sir, that argument absolutely falls away. Even if women do not take an active part in the fighting—and many of them do—they are of immense assistance, and have contributed not a little towards the success of our big campaigns and wars. Just instance the last great war. Some of us had daughters taking part in it, and throughout the world we know the important part women played in that great war. The Minister of Agriculture went further and tried to create a mental world, which, he said, was the proper sphere of women, and concluded that that was the position which the Almighty intended them to forever occupy. Is the Minister entitled to determine the exact position for all time which women should occupy? Solomon had just as much right in his time to define the position which women should occuply as the Minister has to-day, and, looking back at some future period, on this time, and at the position to which we consign our women, will appear as that of 2,000 years ago, I wonder what the Minister would feel like if his womenfolk should be consigned to the conditions as they existed in those times, and yet, if everybody took up his attitude, we would be in precisely that position. Those on the other side, who have opposed the Bill, have failed utterly to defend the position they are trying to do. Prejudice warps the minds of people who are otherwise rational and reasonable, and they cannot see things in their proper perspective. Let me refer to the select committee appointed in 1926 on the enfranchisement for women. It consisted of Messrs. D. M. Brown. Moll, the Rev. J. Mullineux, Sephton and Brand Wessels. I only need refer to the last two paragraphs of the report; paragraph 5 states that, notwithstanding the fact that the committee made an effor to obtain evidence, it was unable to find any direct demand for the extension of the franchise to native or even to coloured women. We invited them to come and give evidence, but none of them took advantage of it. Paragraph 6 expresses the opinion of the committee, who recommended to the House for consideration, that the first step to take to remove sex disqualification from the franchise law of the Union was to grant the vote to women of European descent on the terms at present enjoyed by European males in the four provinces of the Union. That was practically on all fours with the Bill which the Prime Minister has now introduced, to which I moved the following amendment—

That amendment was lost. A further amendment was moved by Mr. D. M. Brown, which was also lost. Mr. Moll moved a further amendment, to omit the paragraph and to substitute the following—

When it came to a vote, Mr. D. M. Brown’s motion was lost. The chairman, Mr. Moll and Mr. Sephton voted against it. On Mr. Moll’s motion the chairman and Messrs. D. M. Brown and Sephton voted against. Then there was the original proposal, namely, that the committee was of opinion that the first step to be taken for the removal of the sex disqualification of the present franchise law of the Union was to grant the vote to women of European descent on the terms at present en joyed by European males in the four provinces of the Union. That was carried by the chairman’s vote and my own. Two votes in favour and two against it. The chairman gave his casting vote in favour, and it was carried. On my motion, it was decided that the chairman report accordingly. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) is not satisfied that women as a whole have asked for the vote. I do not think the hon. member was in the House when we received numerous petitions from all the organized branches of the women’s enfranchisement leagues throughout the Union. I think we had something like a quarter of a million signatures to those petitions asking for the vote. We have had no organized request not to do so, and though we may admit that the majority of women, not being organized, have not given expression to their opinion, nevertheless we are entitled to assume that women, as a whole, are anxious to get the vote. But even if they were not ready for the vote, that would be no adequate reason for withholding it. In every age reforms have always come through minorities. To-day in England they are perpetuating the memory of Mrs. Pankhurst, who fought, not at the head of the women of England, but only at the head of those militant ones who constituted a small minority. Throughout the ages reforms have come through small beginnings. Generally discountenanced by the rest of their sex; yet today we are grateful to such women for what they have done. In regard to withholding the vote from coloured women, I am not in favour of a class disability, but I realize that we cannot get all we desire to have in a measure of this kind, if we can get 50 per cent. of what we want, I think we should accept it. I believe we are getting more than 50 per cent., and if we do not accept that, we are going to put back women’s suffrage indefinitely. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the attitude taken up by my leader, Gen. Smuts.

The hon. members for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton), Hopetown (Dr. Stale), Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), and Wonder boom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) have defended the Bill with more or less enthusiasm this afternoon. I want briefly to try to rebut their arguments. I will begin with the hon. member for Wonderboom, who undoubtedly spoke very enthusiastically, although not very soundly. His plea was based on two main arguments. viz., that an old republican law of about 1855 is supposed to have given the franchise to the women of that time, and that further, in Natal the franchise had already been promised to the women. What do these two main arguments amount to? The law of the old republic had to do with the question of who were to be burgers and “burgereses” of the country. I feel that the hon. member has not carefully gone into the law, otherwise he would know that in the days of the old republics the word “burgeres”—I think it was a very useful and beautiful word—is to-day more usually replaced by the English word “national.” Just as the old republics used the word “burger” and “burgeres,” "national” is employed to-day, but this surely does not mean that every “national” of the Union has the vote. Of course not. Just as little did the burgers of the republics have the vote. Therefore the argument of the hon. member amounts to nothing. He has not adduced the least proof that the “burgeres” of those days had the franchise, and he cannot move it for the simple reason that it was never the intention of the republics. The argument is as false as possible. Then the hon. member mentions the voortrekkers wives in the time of Cloete in Natal. We know that at that time, and subsequently, and even to-day, the farmer women in South Africa were and are those who bear the actual pain and burdens of life. Those days were times of troubles, and therefore the women took strong action when the country was in need. It still happens to-day. I want to mention a striking occurrence. I remember the great day in October, 1914, when our little group came together near the village of Memel, and how a parting took place there, probably for life. Gen. de Wet said good-bye to his wife. He was going into the field. Mrs. de Wet, of course, was in tears, and her husband walked up to her and felt terribly sorry for her. All the sons of Gen. de Wet, as well as his son-in-law, were going with him, and one of the sons, little Henry, 16 or 17 years old, who was still in knickerbockers, was also going. In his pity for his wife, the General then said to her: "Take Henkie; he can look after the farm and be a help, otherwise there is not a single man.” But through her tears Mrs. de Wet replied: “If your life is not too valuable to be sacrificed for our people, then Henkie’s life is not too valuable either.” He accordingly went with his father and played his part, and I think that Mrs. de Wet was proud of him. I mention this to show that what inspired the farm women right through all their sufferings is still alive to-day. But when Gen. de Wet fortunately came back, although broken by his enemies, did he then go and work for women’s franchise? Certainly not, because the work for Gen. de Wet was his wife, and the work for his wife was the work of Gen. de Wet. They two were one, stood together and suffered for their people.

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

I think that the chief point of the hon. member for Wonderboom has already been replied to by me. I think I must clearly prove that my hon. friend is quite wrong, and that his chief argument does not have any force at all. But suppose for a moment that he was right, and his reasons for giving the vote to the women of South Africa were right, what is the position? Let me go into the facts a little. The hon. member, with great eloquence, pointed out the valuable services of women and their strong characters, and rightly. I, however, fear however great his eloquence may be that it is not enough to do justice to that character in truth. What, however, will be the result of the granting of the vote to the farm women—because the hon. member for Wonderboom said that in particular it was in the interests of the farm women and their descendants—the result is that the farm women, to whom the hon. member is so anxious to give the vote, although they do not want it themselves, will be put backward in the most grievous way. Let me quote a few figures in this connection. According to the census of 1926, there is a larger population in the towns than on the countryside, and there are especially more women in the towns. In 1926 the total female population of the Union was 819,742, and out of that number 491,711 live in the towns and 328,031 on the countryside. According to calculations, about 53 per cent. of those women will get the vote; in other words, the women on the countryside are 80,000 less than the women in the towns, and if 53 per cent. of them get the vote, then the number of women voters in the towns will be 42,000 more than those on the countryside.

What is your point?

My point is that the hon. member burns with enthusiasm for the franchise for the farm woman, because she is the woman that holds character high. It is quite true, and now I point out to the hon. member for Wonderboom that he is out to put that honoured woman 42,000 votes to the bad.

What, then, about the men of the countryside?

They have the vote, and it has nothing to do with the point. The hon. member’s argument was that the Afrikaner woman, by virtue of her deserts, ought to get the franchise, and I point out that under this Bill that woman will be put back contrary to her deserts.

She will get equal rights with other women.

Of course, but we must bear the numbers in mind. Now I come to the hon. members for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), Hopetown (Dr. Stals), and others. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) said that women’s franchise was a great success in England. I will return to that point later. The argument of the hon. member for Hope town was chiefly based on the fact that women are more balanced than men. His other argument was that the women ought, nevertheless, not to get the vote at 21 years, but at 30 years of age. That was also the view of the hon. member for Bredasdorp. When the hon. member mentioned it, I thought of what happened to a friend of mine. This time it was not in London, but in Cape Town. Well, my friend told me that he was walking in Adderley Street the other day, and a pretty young lady was walking in front of him with first-class lingerie, and a skirt which was properly short. He thought that he had better look at the little lady from the front, because she must have had an interesting face. When he did so, he hurried on with an accelerated pace, because she had a terrible frontal appearance. The hon. member for Hopetown says that the women are well balanced, but here the balance of front and back was not correct. As for the age limit, I think she certainly came within the limits of the hon. member for Hopetown. I must almost say that we must give her the franchise, because if she does not get that she will certainly get nothing. The modern woman is a very difficult being to understand, and I think she understands herself very little. She understands good clothes, her voice and everything else are right, but her face betrays her, although she tries to deceive the men with it. My argument is that the want of balance in certain women enables them to stretch the truth, and that they ought not to have the vote. They only take second place to private secretaries of popular ministers in the art of stretching the truth. I think that as a result of giving the vote to the modern woman democracy will collapse. The hon. member for Aliwal said that the grant of the general franchise in England was a great success. I am convinced that if the hon. member had read this afternoon’s Argus before he made his speech then he would not have spoken, or he would have altered it. The Argus is his newspaper, and it mentions that the chief authorities in England are much concerned about the three-monthly report of the registrar of births and deaths in England. That report says that the number of births during the last quarter of 1929 was the lowest ever registered. The news goes further, and says what experts think about it. According to them, the chief cause is the uncertainty of the economic position. As a further reason, they say that people are more selfish, and take more interest in artificial excitement. I hope the hon. member for Wonderboom will remember what else they say. The life of the modern woman has completely muddled up her nerve. She wants no babies if she can have them, and when she can no longer have babies then she wants them. Yes, it is a serious matter, because one of the experts adds that the fall of the birthrate may prove the fall of the British Empire. We have the right to assume that we may receive similar reports from all the countries on the continent of Europe and America. The movement for the women’s franchise and the getting of it has so worked on the nervous system of women, that it has undermined the power of the women, and consequently the power of the nation. Some women see it. There was, e.g., a Mrs. Phillip son, member of the House of Commons, who was formerly an actress. She resigned, and would not stand again, because she put her three children and her work at home above her parliamentary duties. She said she felt that if she went on with her parliamentary work her children, when they grew up, would reproach her for having neglected them for politics, and she did not want to stand again. Punch put a striking remark under a portrait of the lady, viz., “She prefers to rock the cradle to ruling the world.” I think the Afrikaans woman also prefers to rock the cradle. If she gets the vote she will no longer rock the cradle, but, like the little lady that I have tried to represent here, will ride pillion on a motor-cycle. Nobody can deny that, as a result of this Bill, the government of the country is in principle being handed over to the women. If our men are so bad that they no longer see a chance of ruling the country, let us pass the Bill; but I still have sufficient self-respect and respect for my constituents to think that I shall be doing my duty in voting against this measure. In Europe, as a result of the introduction of the women’s franchise, there is a kind of consolidation among the men. So in Vienna, Austria, a congress was recently held and a world union established. … For what? …For the protection of the rights of man. “Man, wake up and fight for your rights,” is their slogan. That is the length things have gone to. Is the same thing to happen here? Will hon. members like it if they have to raise a cry of distress about fighting for the rights of men? The great congress raised a cry of distress. The hon. members continue to say that the grant of the franchise will create no struggle between men and women. Practice proves the contrary. Many more cases could be quoted, but we all know that in consequence of the grant of the franchise, in consequence of feminism, the women of Europe have lost their happiness. It was tragic and a repetition of the old history of Eve. The woman struggled on until she picked from the political tree the knowledge of good and evil. She took no notice of the man’s warning, and after she had picked she was put out of paradise, out of the paradise of her domestic happiness. Here also it will be to the detriment of the country and the people. As soon as the general franchise was introduced in Europe for the women it appeared that they did not look for the most competent man, but who was the best looking one. I do not see the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane), but he and I—

The hon. member must not be personal.

With regard to my appearance I may say that I feel that unless I completely change I shall have no chance of being nominated again. It has appeared that actors have the best chance of being elected by women. I fear that there are no professional actors amongst us and I warn hon. members who are in favour of women’s franchise that they will have to lake care. The day will come when they will also regret having put their fingers into a hornets’ nest they cannot get out of. Mussolini, the dictator of Italy, also referred to this matter the other day and said women knew nothing about politics and were obstinate in Parliament and the cause of much confusion. That was very unfriendly, and I will never subscribe to it, but on the other hand I will never vote in favour of an opposite policy such as that proposed here. Let me just add that although from principle and for practical reasons I am opposed to the women’s franchise, I bring homage to the Prime Minister, and am glad of the fact that he introduced the Bill. If he had not done so it would have come from the other side and then the pure-blooded Afrikaner woman would have had to walk to the polling box with the old ayah and probably later with the native woman. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said that he is almost helpless because the native women cannot be given the franchise in this Bill. Let him move an amendment. Why is he not honest and straight ?

Who said that the native women were to vote ?

The hon. member’s leader and all of you.

What did your leader say?

My leader never promised the native women a vote. He said that when the time was ripe, and I hope it will never get to that, that he would have to seriously consider the question of also finding a place for the coloured woman in the franchise system. Let hon. members opposite be consistent and move an amendment to start, with the vote for the coloured woman which, however, later on, I fear, will be extended to the native women’s franchise. The hon. member for Bredasdorp said that they wanted to have, and that the matter ought to be referred to a referendum, so that the women could have an opportunity of voting for or against women’s franchise. That is the only sensible proposal which has come from the supporters. We are convinced that the largest section of the women of South Africa do not want the vote. Other hon. members say that they do want it. I state that certain women leaders rightly or wrongly would like to play a role and they incite a certain section of the women. Let them however test the matter by way of a referendum. Then it must also be added that if the South African party come into office again, which I hope will never be the case, it will mean that the native women will also get the vote. Let them then actually say what is at the bottom of this Bill. I have mentioned the fact in connection with the results in other countries. I heartily hope that when hon. members vote on this Bill they will do so after serious consideration of the matter from all sides. The whole population are observing what is happening to-day. Some may be glad of a majority in favour of this Bill, but the large majority are anxious about the eventual passing of this Bill. If hon. members vote irresponsibly on this matter they will have to give account to the women of South Africa. As for my personal attitude I am quite prepared to defend it on any platform. After what the hon. member for Wonderboom has said I am more than satisfied that the supporter of women’s franchise have no arguments. They come along hurriedly with a few sentimental utterances, but their statements cannot stand the test of sound criticism. It is said, and I believe it, that the women and men that are opposed to women’s franchise act from stupidity. The women have privileges to-day which they have won through all the ages, which they have fought for ages. Now she has to surrender her privileges. For what? For the vote which will in any case make her unhappy. The privileges the respect which has won she will have to give up for rights she does not want. This movement is nothing but an urban movement and nothing else. The real farm woman does not want it. The woman of the countryside must be pushed back into a position where she ought not to be. It is an injustice and I protest against it and must vote against the Bill.

Nonsense.

The hon. member forgets what took place in 1901-’2. Does the hon. member forget what the women suffered then and what role they played ?

What has that to do with women’s franchise?

Everything. That woman does not want the franchise. It is forced on her, she is pushed back in comparison with the townswomen. Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem that he cannot see that. Let the hon. members move for a referendum so that all women over 21 years can say whether they want to vote or not.

Propose it yourself then.

Is it my duty? I am quite satisfied to vote on this Bill. I am, however, certain that the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) and the other hon. members dare not propose it because they know well enough that ti will then be all up with this Bill, and with the famous principle of women’s franchise. No, I still want to say this that whatever may happen in the further development of this matter, this proposal cannot do otherwise than make South Africa unhappy. The women will be unhappy; the families will be unhappy and South Africa will become unhappy. The state is built up on the family, and it is the family which, as a result of this Bill, will be broken up, the foundation of the state. Let those who wish take part in it. I do not see a chance of doing so, and I shall vote against the Bill. I shall be satisfied if hon. members compromise on a referendum provided the position is made quite clear to the women of South Africa, provided they are told what the result has been in other countries, and provided their eyes are opened which have been so blinded by those who support the measure.

I listened attentively to this debate from the start, and I came with the intention of voting for women’s franchise if any convincing arguments were used which could bring me to the conviction that the measure was necessary. I have done my best from the first speech that was made in favour of women’s franchise, and I must say that I have not yet heard a single argument that can influence me. I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), the great champion of the women, but he did not use a single argument. Well, possibly he used one, that was that the system must have been very good in other countries because no country which had adopted women’s franchise had again abolished it. Just imagine, one-half of the voters must try to take the vote away from the other half. What candidate would press a thing like that? What candidate who does so has the slightest chance of being elected? Is that the great argument which must weigh with me to vote for women’s franchise. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) but he said nothing. This afternoon, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) tried. He said that the granting of the vote would result in women being raised in social life. But after him the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) spoke and he said the opposite. His attitude was that the franchise would degrade women. He also said that that is already the case in other countries, and those are the great arguments I had to listen to induce me to vote for women’s franchise. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) was fighting people this afternoon who are not here. No one said that women had not the right, or were not competent to vote. As a matter of fact the position is that those who are opposing the Bill take up the attitude that women are indeed competent to enjoy the right. There is therefore no other way open to me than to go to the women of South Africa, and say to them that no argument has been adduced in this House strong enough to induce me to vote for women’s franchise. We must then ask them to make it clear what they want. The hon. member for East London (North) said that it was not for us to ask whether the women wanted the franchise. We must simply give it to them. In other words, we must force it on them. Is that the thanks the women of South Africa get for their sacrifice? Ask the women of South Africa what their feelings are in the matter and whether they want the vote then I will also vote for it. I shall then be glad to vote for it, and therefore I move as an amendment—

Let all the supporters of women’s franchise come and let us find out whether the women want to have the vote. We, who long for arguments, will then be prepared to vote for it, if the majority of women are in favour of it. I have not heard any other reason at all why we, should vote in favour of it. I ask hon. members to give us a chance. I do not know a single woman in my constituency who will vote for it, and how then can I vote for the Bill? I ask therefore that we should be given the chance by way of a referendum, so that the women can express themselves on it. If they are in favour of it, then we will vote for it, if not, then I am opposed to it.

I second the amendment. We, on this side of the House, who are opposing this Bill do not blame the Prime Minister for having introduced it. When we criticize it is not meant for the Prime Minister. We realize that he made the promise in this House under difficult circumstances before the lust election to introduce a Bill of this kind after the election if he came into power. He is today giving effect to that promise. This question is of importance, and to those of us who are opposed to it in principle it is a very serious matter. I am therefore sorry to see bow the supporters of the Bill have, up to the present, handled it in the House. I am even astonished at the action of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen). It astonishes me that grown men in their sound senses can sit here and laugh when members are debating a serious matter like this. To many of us this is a serious question. More serious than any yet discussed in the House. It goes to the roots of our system of Government. It is a revolutionary Bill which affects the basis of the state. It is proposed to alter the foundations of society. It does not only affect the bases of the whole system of government, but also of society in South Africa, and when hon. members treat such a question so lightly, then it is time for other hon. members to be straightforward. Before I mention any reasons why in principle I oppose this Bill, I want to say that I hope the Prime Minister will allow us, on this side of the House, who are in serious opposition to the Bill, to have the opportunity of expressing ourselves clearly about it. Our attention is not to obstruct. We only long for an opportunity to call the attention of the people to this question. Now we will take the arguments which were adduced by hon. members who support this Bill. The Prime Minister, who introduced the Bill, said nothing to convince us that it was time to make a change in our system of Government. On the contrary the Prime Minister made it plain that he considered it a fiasco, because he said that the time was fast coming when the democratic system of government would end, and, therefore, he was merely giving the women the vote because the sooner the end came the better. He therefore acknowledges that this franchise will assist in destroying the democratic form of government. Take the arguments of hon. members opposite who have supported the measure. The first is that we must support the Bill because it has been granted in England, and other countries. The second is because it is a right which women possess—the hon. member for Wonderboom emphasised this —and that the vote must be given to her for that reason. The third is because women are intellectual, and just as competent as men. Those are the three arguments which were used by supporters of the measure. I think the time has come that we, as men, must treat women honestly in connection with this matter, and that we must not follow the example of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who, for the sake of a few native votes in Herschel, told the natives that the franchise was their birthright, and that they must have it. It was mentioned that because the native in the kitchen had the vote his mistress should also get it. Is it necessary for us to put the white woman on the same footing as the native in the kitchen? Must the mistress do everything the native does? The man will not want to do it, and that argument therefore falls away. It is time for us to put an end to that kind of flattery of women. It revolts all the self-respecting women in South Africa. On every platform one hears of their nobility, and the whole feminine community is praised up to the skies. The self-respecting woman feels that that flattery is not honest. Responsible women feel that it is all talk. There are just as many good men as women in the world. And there are just as many very bad women in the world as bad men. Each sex has its path to follow. The woman has work for which the man is totally unfit, and the man has also his work which the women are unfit for. Just imagine, e.g., a woman on a platform standing there praising the men for the good work they have done for the country, as is being done to-day by men. Would it not revolt us to be praised all day long in such a hypocritical way as is often done to-day on election platforms? We do not object to the Bill because we think that the women are intellectually weaker than men. We put ourselves on an equal footing with women. Women have rendered their services to South Africa because it was their duty, and we men have also done our duty, and have shown great services to South Africa. But we are not going to embellish ad nauseaum the duties we have performed. It is said that we must grant women the rights of men, but I deny that women have any right to the franchise. Will my hon. friends say that we have done an injustice to our women because we have never granted her the vote? My view is that the laws of nature have made men physically stronger than women and we cannot break those laws by our laws. It is the duty of the physically stronger man to protect the woman. We do not sit here in this House to lord it over the women., but to protect them. Is there a single man who would do anything unjust towards women? We are all sons of women, husbands of women, fathers of daughters, brothers of sisters. It is impossible to imagine a man in this House who would do anything to dominate or oppress the women. But when women sit here with us and lose the protection because they want to be our competitors, then they will find what the protection of the men meant to them. We men do not wish to take away that protection unless the women ask it. If this Bill is passed, which is against the well-being of the women, then in my opinion it is nothing but a cowardly surrender of our duties. I want to point out that it is a certain class of women that are the cause of this women’s franchise throughout the world. One of the greatest sychologists and medical men in the country has described that class to me. There are hundreds and thousands of little children born into the world who are deformed. They have unfortunately been born like that. Men and women are, however, also born who are deformed but we cannot see it, e.g., we find women with a woman’s body, but a man’s brain. That woman is a misshapen creature, and she is a danger to society. That expert says that it would be in the interests of humanity, if we could establish that deformity in youths, to kill those children while still young. Take that woman with a man’s brain. She has not the strength to take a man’s place, and she cannot break the laws of nature. That is the type which goes about the country to organize, and they are going to mislead quite a lot of our womanly women and get them to join their organization. So we have quite a number of womanly women under the direction of some masculine women who are organizing the franchise. If we leave our women, who are real women, in the hands of the masculine woman, then it is not only a disaster to the woman herself, but to the whole country. Women in South Africa are not right for the vote. Some hon. members have said that the franchise has already been introduced elsewhere and been a success. I have here an article in the English Review on women’s franchise in England, but I prefer not to quote it here. In what circumstances did the English woman got the vote? She got it during the war when the men were in the firing line, and the women had to step into the breach to do the men’s work. The women did it, but at once you had the deformed masculine women to egg on the women and to say that they must now demand the franchise, because the country was in trouble, and they got the franchise. Those malformed creatures only had one object, viz., to dominate the man, and if possible get rid of him. I had the opportunity in the Select Committee on Women’s Franchise to get into touch with that type. I thought: thank the Lord that all women are not like that, because then not a single man would marry, and our whole population would be rooted out. In England women’s franchise has been a total failure, just as in America. We already have women there who will only vote for a man if he promises to use his influence to repeal women’s franchise. The women there, themselves, already feel the danger that lurks in the vote. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) mentioned how the women helped to collect money to build up our people. The hon. member is also a great leader in our church, and I ask him whether the women did not also collect money for the various objects of the church. But did the hon. member ever move in the synods of his church that women should become ministers, members of the church council, or elders? No, and the women do not want it either. The men are here wanting to force something on the woman who is happy which will make her very unhappy. It is here proposed that we must go to the women and say: “We have long enough carried the responsibility of your protection.” We men are too cowardly to protect you any more. We have three kinds of members who speak in favour of women’s franchise. The first group is those who actually think that women’s franchise is good in principle. There are very few of them. I think the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) is almost the only one of this kind. The second kind is the man who thinks that the women’s franchise is not a good principle, but will benefit his political party. The other group which sits opposite thinks that if they vote for women’s franchise the women will vote solidly for the candidates of their party. Let me, however, say that the women who are honest women like a man who can stand his ground, they like a man who can maintain his authority. If this Bill does not pass, which, as I hope it will not, then we shall see that the woman will have much more respect for the man who wants to continue to protect her than for a group of milk sops, who are too cowardly, and want to get rid of their responsibility. Then I come to the question which the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) also discussed, and the amendment of the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) about the referendum. We are engaged here with the tampering of the basis of our system of government. Have we the right to alter that basis without consulting our electors—I am not now speaking of the women—who elected us? Some hon. members will say that they did consult their electors, but I think it is a question that should be properly put before the country. I go further than the hon. member for Klerksdorp, and say that before we adopt that we must have a referendum of the men who elected us. They ought to decide whether they approve of our surrendering in a cowardly way to a few masculine women. If it is not possible, then lot all the voters vote, together with the women who are over 21, and then let them decide together what in their view is best for the future of the country. We have heard that it is so easy to go and make crosses. But what is the actual position? We sit here as representatives because it is not possible to give every voter in the country a seat. Therefore, the electoral system is employed to send a representative for every 2,000 to 3,000 voters who can act for them all. The Bill which we are here passing is coupled with force. If this Bill is passed and anyone contravenes the Act, then we are going to apply it with force. If we pass the Bill it will happen in the Cape that a man and a son will not have the vote, but that the wife and daughter will be voters. We get the ridiculous position that the women in the Union will have the majority of votes. Assume that that majority elects a majority of women candidates, and we get a woman Prime Minister and a Parliament of women. In that Parliament of women a Bill, e.g., is passed, and the men say that they will not bother themselves about it. The men will strike, and where will the force come from to administer the law? Is that not a clear proof that we are here coming into conflict with the laws or nature? I say that legislation goes hand in hand with force, and that in itself is a proof that women ought not to have it. The woman is the physically weaker, and the man the stronger individual. Therefore, the man must protect her. Man is the natural protector, and those who deprive him of the responsibility do an injustice to woman, and I regard it as a cowardly act, but what is more, the passing of this Bill will have a tragic result for South Africa. The leader of the Opposition has clearly stated here that he is in favour of coloured men and women having the vote. We have heard here that the party opposite is in principle in favour of the vote for native women, and we have read in the Cape Times, the Cape Argus and other Cape Town newspapers, how women who are supposed to be organized here, and demand the vote, say that they accepted this Bill but only as the thin end of the wedge, and that they were not satisfied, and they only considered this franchise for European women as a first instalment. Those women will keep on agitating, and the women who gave evidence before the select committee said that they were in favour of it, and that they represented bodies that were in favour of it, and that the franchise should not only be granted to the white women. All the organized women’s associations gave evidence except the Nationalist women’s party. Those who gave evidence said that they thought that it was an injustice to deprive a woman of the vote, just because she had a different coloured skin to us, and that they advocated the principle that the native women and the coloured women should also get the vote. We, therefore, have the evidence and the statements in the newspapers, and on the other hand we have a party, the black peril, which are also trying to give the franchise to the non-European women. Nor do I see how we can stop it. One hon. member said that it was a good thing that the Prime Minister had introduced the Bill, because it was now only being granted to the white women. That is a ridiculous argument. If the other side get into office again, which, in my opinion, will never happen, they may easily propose an amendment, and, if necessary, with a majority of one, so amend the Act that coloured and native women will also get the vote in the Cape Province. This Bill is the beginning of the downfall of the white population of South Africa. We shall not be able to stop the enlargement. I agree with the Prime Minister that it would be better if we gave the franchise after the native question was solved, then the danger would possibly not be so great, but I still doubt very much whether we can solve the question with an opposition which honours the principle that non-European women should also have the vote. I first want to see the matter solved, then the danger will not be so great. We even heard an attack this afternoon on the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), because the vote was not being given to the coloured women. To me the strong supporters in the Cape Province are so peculiar. I want to give a few instances of what I have seen myself at the Cape. We old countryside folk are opposed to women’s franchise, and then it is said that it is from stupidity, but we in the north grew up in those circumstances, and do not know the Cape so well. We grew up in the days when our parents taught us that a lady was someone that we must respect highly, before whom we should remove our hat, and whom we ought to protect. With us in the north, if a tram or bus is full all the men rise to make way for a woman; she can choose. Recently, I wanted to get into a bus here with three South Africans, but we noticed that two ladies wanted to enter, and we stood aside to give them precedence. Then two men came, who pushed the women aside, and got in. Those were men in favour of women’s franchise. But I will not say how I know it. We got in and sat behind the two gentlemen who pushed the ladies aside and they talked about women’s franchise, and said that only a few backvelders were against it. I would rather belong to the old backvelders who have respect for ladies than be in favour of women’s franchise in the way that those enlightened Cape friends are in favour of it. Those churls, who do not know how to behave towards ladies, want to give the vote because they are too rotten to bear the responsibility of protecting the ladies. Now they want to shunt it on to the ladies to protect themselves. We have heard so much of “back to the old ways.” remember the days when it was still considered a shame in the north if a father allowed his daughter to work. The view was that the father, as long as he lived, should work for them, and the father should protect and assist the female sex. Those were the good old days, when the father and brothers respected the women and looked after them. Those are the days we long for again, so that the women can be highly respected once more, and everything be done to assist and protect them. The hon. member for Wonderboom spoke of a Volksraad resolution in the days of the South African Republic. If he reads our Nationality Act, he will find the same section which he quoted to us, and I ask him whether that also means the franchise. It only means citizenship. It was given in the days of the South African Republic to the women. In addition, the hon. member quoted a proposal of the voortrekkers to grant the franchise to women when they were in great trouble. Why was it never exercised? It is because the voortrekker women, when they heard that the men had decided to give them the franchise, at once sent a deputation to the men, and said that they considered it an insult.

Where do you find that ?

In van Oordt’s history of South Africa. That is why it was never carried out. It was only offered. The hon. member for Wonderboom spoke with great enthusiasm about the department where the women were so clever, and on which they were authorities, such as education, health, etc. I admit it, and there are many other things in connection with which the women are authorities. Therefore, I say that we got our education from the women. We got our education from our mothers. Perhaps I may yet think of moving an amendment in committee to give the franchise to women for the provincial councils where those subjects are dealt with, education, hospitals, health, etc. I should consider it and we can then see whether it is a success, but to take such a leap in the dark and to off-load it on to the women, I will not approve. [Time limit.]

I do not think it matters in this particular case whether one is or not in favour of women’s suffrage. My own views may be against women’s suffrage or they may not; but that does not signify in sregard to this Bill which I look upon as one of the most fiendishly drafted bills I have ever had the misfortune to peruse. It is drafted in such a fashion as to put many of us in a cleft stick. Those in favour of it cannot but feel in doubt as to the virtue of voting for the Bill. That being so, it does not matter whether we are in favour of women’s suffrage or not. So far as my views are concerned, I am against this Bill, root and branch; lock, stock and barrel. I do not want any misapprehension on that point; mut the mere fact that I am against the Bill which the hon. the Prime Minister has placed before this House—and he is sure of his grounds when he asks us to accept the Bill, and he is sure of the majority—does not make me foolish enough to think that any remarks I may make will convert that majority into a majority against the Bill. I look upon the Bill not as putting forward the one principle of women’s suffrage, but as one that profounds several other principles. One of those principles is the introduction of another colour bar. There is no doubt about it there is a colour bar in this Bill, I am speaking from a non-party point of view, and as representing a constituency which I may say is the most intelligent and enlightened constituency in the whole of the Union—no one will doubt that because I am speaking and you are sitting in it to-night! I represent a constituency, and that constituency, if this Bill went through, would suffer a loss of 2,500 votes with regard to coloured women disfranchised by it, for that is what it amounts to. You may call this Bill a Bill for the enfranchisement of women, but it means the disfranchisement of others of the same sex, because, and only because of their colour. That I cannot, nor will hon. members of the House expect me to support. I am not in favour of any differentiation in colour in regard to such a Bill as this. I would be a traitor to my own constituency if I thought otherwise. There can be no question about that and you will realize that I cannot do otherwise than oppose a Bill such as this. It is no use going into details. I do not believe in long speeches, but that is the first principle in regard to which I am at daggers drawn with this Bill. There is another principle involved. It is a principle new to the Cape Province. That is the principle of adult suffrage. It is implied in this Bill because women are to get a vote without any other qualifications. Age is the only qualification. You will have the anomolous position that the man who has enjoyed the vote for years past will be in a less favoured position in future elections than the women to whom you are going to give the vote to-night, or rather in regard to whom you are taking the first step towards granting the franchise to-night. Surely, there is something wrong with a Bill which proposes under the parliamentary system straight a way to put the women in a better position than the men, who have enjoyed the vote for years past. There is something radically wrong with a position set up such as that. Thus these are practically three principles apart from the main principle of woman’s suffrage. How on earth can you expect to get a free vote from this House? How is it possible to get a clear, straight-cut vote, when you have the principle of a colour bar? I cannot see it myself and I cannot understand it. This is not a Bill, as it purports to be in the preamble, to provide for the registration of women as voters for representation in the legislative assembly. There is no more principle in that than if it purported to provide that women with £10,000 a year should be allowed the vote. You might as well limit it to woman earning £10,000 a year or over. That would not be in the proper sense women’s suffrage. I would be very sorry to see this Bill passed by this House as I am afraid it will be a Bill which will not raise the franchise qualifications in this province, but which will on the contrary actually lower them. That is undoubtedly what it will do. If we pass this Bill as it is now before us, we shall be lowering the franchise because there will be no educational, no business, or any other qualification save that of woman’s suffrage by virtue of age. There is nothing else. We have talked for many years of raising the qualification which will entitle a person to have the vote. Is this how we are going to do it? Is this how we are going to carry it out? I can only register my protest against it. I have said that I would not speak to any great extent, but I now register my protest against what we are proposing to do and what we are asked to do by the Bill which has been placed before us.

I congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. MacCallum) on another candid speech in which he has expressed views held by a lot of his colleagues, but which they dare not utter in this House. I think the hon. member is to be congratulated on the free and independent attitude he has taken up. Now I am very pleased in the great conflict of opinion which has taken place in regard to this measure, that so far as I can see there has been no suggestion that the South African women are not entitled to the vote, or that they are not fit to accept the responsibility of the vote as their sisters have accepted it in other parts of the world. The main argument is that the women do not want the vote. But we do not know that. We have only been told so by proxy. I think it is a great pity that hon. members on this side of the House who are continually telling us that women do not want the vote, have not taken the trouble of organizing the women and bringing forward petitions of protest in the same way as petitions have been signed by women who are so keen on getting the vote. The women supporters of the Bill have organized their side and have forwarded us petition after petition in regard to it. Now to get the opinion of the women of the country we have an amendment before us that there should be a referendum. But a referendum on a male basis would be a tedious, long drawn-out, and expensive business, but that would be nothing to what a referendum of women would be seeing that there is no list of women compiled and there is nothing whatever to go upon. I do not think the Prime Minister in these circumstances would be justified in accepting the demand for a referendum, and I trust he will turn the amendment down. The Minister of Defence, as the leader of the Labour party, gave this measure his blessing the other evening, but the support his speech secured for the Bill was immaterial, compared with the important fact that subsequently emerged that the speech was the means of saving the House and the country from approaching perilously near a great calamity. I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is not in his seat, and I regret it was necessary for him to keep a pressing appointment, for I had told him that I wished to make some reference to him. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for whose opinion the House has been patiently waiting, told us the other evening that if the hon. Minister had not intervened in the debate he would not have done so either. Therefore, the House would have been deprived of the benefit of the hon. gentleman’s unique experience and ripe judgment on this very important question. The hon. member, as we know, is averse to what is vulgarly described as “butting in,” and following his natural inclination he was apparently determined to hold aloof from this discussion which I think the House will agree with me was an exceedingly selfish and callous attitude, and one which cannot be too strongly condemned because no one knows better than the hon. member himself that the womanhood of the sub-continent, white, brown, and coloured, from Cape Point to the Limpopo were breathlessly waiting for his pronouncement, to settle this question definitely. Perhaps it is the crowded galleries such as we have the evening—

Who wrote that out for you?

Perhaps it is the crowded galleries that persuaded the hon. member to endeavuor to make party capital out of what is supposed to be a measure which is non-party, rather than the speech of the hon. Minister of Defence.

I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member in order in reading his speech ?

The hon. member may refer to his notes.

If I may repeat what I have said it is probably the full gallery which prevailed upon the hon. member to make political capital out of what is supposed to be a non-party measure rather than the speech of the hon. Minister of Defence which overcame the becoming modesty and reserve which are recognized not only in the House but in the country as the outstanding characteristic of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout having given his opinion in favour of the Bill, it is perhaps superfluous for anybody like myself to say anything about it, but I would like to say something about the contention that if the Labour party had kept its word and voted for the Bill in 1928, women would already have the vote. Let me remind the House that right from the beginning of political affairs in this country, the Labour party has been in the front rank of the fight for women’s suffrage, and when the party had control of the Transvaal provincial council, it passed an ordinance giving women the same voting power for municipal bodies as men have. When, however, the clamour for votes for women became insistent, gentlemen on the other side of the House who previously had opposed women’s enfranchisement, became very keen supporters of it, as they recognized it was becoming a powerful political factor.

Why did you vote against it last time?

In 1928 the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) introduced a Bill to give votes to women on the existing basis for men, and which also included giving votes to coloured and native women. In committee the vote was limited to European women only, but in the Cape and Natal there was a salary and property qualification as well, so that, whereas wealthy women and women earning salaries would have been entitled to the vote, the wives and daughters of working men would have been disenfranchised. This Bill of 1928 was for this reason not at all satisfactory to the Labour party, but we accepted it as the best measure obtainable at the time, and we had no guarantee that if we rejected it, a better one would have been forthcoming. However, after the committee stage, several of our Nationalist friends approached us, and pointed out that if any further electoral change was brought about it would be another obstacle in the settlement of the native problem, and that this special representation of wealthy and salaried women was loading the dice against the Nationalist and Labour parties. A solution was arrived at whereby the Bill should be recommitted, and the Prime Minister undertook to bring in the Bill minus the drawbacks of the 1928 Bill, and the result is we have the Bill which is before us to-day. The offer of the Prime Minister was accepted, and the Bill was recommitted. As one who accepted the Prime Minister’s offer, I am very pleased indeed that I did so, for although we have had to wait for a couple of years, we now have a satisfactory measure. Certainly the enfranchisement of women has been delayed, but we have a measure which was worth waiting for and is more suitable to a democratic age. The last speaker referred to the practicability of extending the Bill so as to include native and coloured women, but the people I represent in the north, both men and women, are entirely opposed to any measure of this kind including coloured and native women.

Is that democratic?

Therefore I hope the Prime Minister will go on with the Bill as it is. I do not think it will materially affect parties in this House, but whether it does or does not, I am satisfied that women have earned the right to have a greater share in the government of this country, and I hope the Bill will be placed on the statute book as quickly as possible.

It is with considerable diffidence I rise to speak, as I have not heard all the laboured arguments that have been advanced on the subject. But after the illuminating discourse of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, I would like to congratulate him on his bravery, courage and imagination.

Principally the latter.

We have had a revelation as to how the 1928 Bill came to be dealt with in the way it was, and there are many people who are supporters of women’s suffrage who have waited for the last two years for an explanation of the remarkable part played by the members of the Labour party and the way in which they sold a pup to the people they professed to support. Well, I am not satisfied yet. I appreciate the hon. member’‘s courage in daring to lecture other people on their attitude towards the Bill, considering the courageous part he himself has played. As far as the Bill before the House is concerned, I do not propose to go into any arguments on the main question. I have been entirely opposed to votes for women, but I have endeavoured to approach the question with that chivalry and respect which the subject demands. It is no use restating my arguments now. I am personally hostile to the general principle of the Bill, and also the details. Its two main principles are adult women’s suffrage, and giving it to white women only. Who is there in the House who has been able to show that there has been any demand made by qualified persons that preference should be given to women above that of men? What protagonist of woman’s suffrage, in his wildest moments, has ever believed that this would be given by the Prime Minister? They must have rubbed their eyes in amazement when they saw how far the Prime Minister had gone in this matter. I oppose the Bill because it is absolutely unfair that this should be given to women without the qualifications which men require to have to be registered as voters. I regard it as dangerous also because, knowingly or unwittingly, the Prime Minister has introduced an invidious principle which will lead logically to the granting of universal suffrage to men through the whole of the country. That is a principle which is supported by our friends of the Labour party. I wonder how many of those behind the Prime Minister who are supporting this Bill are aware that they are creating a position which will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any Minister to refuse to extend the suffrage to men all round. A large number of the people behind those hon. members do not realize it. In England you have exactly the same position, votes being granted to women under certain conditions, and the Prime Minister of England found himself by the logic of events obliged to put everybody on the same footing, and that is how there was this enormous increase of votes given, when flapper votes were given. Then I take the other main principle involved —the colour bar. Here again we come to a matter in which I have, for 15 years in this House and on every public platform on which I have stood, openly and avowedly and to the best of my convictions, stated my firm belief. It is that Parliament is doing an injustice to the country if it commits any injustice in the legislative measures that it passes; you are doing a great injustice to a large number of people if you discriminate between them on business and legislative grounds, and on matters of justice and right, I make bold to say that there are ardent protagonists of the woman’s vote who would rather not have the vote than have it selfishly at the expense of other people, whose only sin and disqualification is their colour. I only wish in this particular matter that there were those men who made the House ring on any matter involving injustice to people on account of the colour of their skin—men like Mr. Merriman, Mr. Jagger, Saul Solomon and Mr. Schreiner—who have fought valiantly and nobly to see people get their rights before the courts and the Parliament of this country, based on their standing, and not on colour.

Will you give the vote to native women ?

I object to any discrimination being made between one voter and another on account of the colour of his skin. We have an amendment for a referendum. How is it going to be carried out? A referendum on a subject like this is an entirely unsatisfactory way of dealing with it. The question has been raised whether the second reading should be allowed to go through, and have amendment in committee. I must confess I find it rather difficult to say or to guess what attitude the chairman of committees might take up as to whether an amendment on universal female suffrage or on colour would be allowed. I believe an amendment on either point would be absolutely in order, but I am not prepared to say, of course, what the ruling would be, and I am not prepared to take the chance. I do believe that one of the objects of this Bill is an indirect one, and if this principle of women’s suffrage is carried, what would happen would be that the next thing would be adult suffrage for men, and that the men would be white men only, and that would mean hat both coloured men and natives would lose such electoral rights as they have. For these reasons I feel very strongly that it is quite impossible to give a silent vote, it is quite impossible to wait for the purpose of moving amendments, because one does not know what chance such amendments will have with the chairman. Therefore, I shall vote uncompromisingly against the Bill, as I believe it is unsound and against the interests of the country.

I feel that it is my duty to say a few words about this Bill. Hands-uppers have been referred to, and I want to honestly admit here that during the past few years I have personally come to the conclusion that the time has come, and is ripe to give the franchise to women. Accordingly, I will vote for this Bill. An hon. member spoke of three points why he was opposed to the measure. He forgot the fourth, and that is the one we hear mentioned in the lobbies. It is said if women get the vote they will become competitors of the men in their constituencies, and will stand as candidates. That is the reason why hon. members are afraid of it. I am one of the fortunate men who have never yet thought about a seat, but only the welfare of the country. I stand for that alone, and therefore, I can freely vote for the second reading of this measure. It was also said that the man gets protection from the woman. There are thousands of cases we could mention where the man would go under if the woman were not there to protect him. The woman was the protector, and her clear vision kept the man on the right road. In farming she assists the man, and a little while ago an incident took place at a progressive farmer’s place in Bechuanaland which I want to mention here. The cattle there get gallamsiekte when they eat rotten bones. It was a woman who found out where the trouble was, why the cattle ate this bad carrion. I mentioned this case to show how this farmer was saved from great loss by his wife. I would never have voted for this Bill as drawn if it were not for the assurance of the Prime Minister that, as soon as the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill passes, he will see that the coloured women also get the vote. There are friends here who are strongly opposed to this point. Those who are against it do not know the coloured people, and they do not know the difference between a coloured person and a native. Before I enlarge on that, however, I want first of all to say that it is the fault of the Opposition that the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill was not passed last year. That Bill would have made a distinction between coloured people and natives, and then the coloured women would also have got the franchise now. They are not honest in connection with this matter, and, therefore, the year before last, in 1928, they practically agreed to give the franchise only to the white woman. But that Bill did not then pass. What was the difference? The only difference was that they then put some qualifications into the Bill, and now no qualifications are mentioned. Now it is said that the man would be done an injustice because he has to have certain qualifications to get a vote. The men of South Africa ought to be on the voters’ roll. There will certainly not be 1 per cent. of them who do not get an income of £50, or who do not occupy a house or a room worth £75. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) spoke this afternoon of students who cannot get the vote. I can assure him that in the hostels and private boarding-houses there are students who only have to know how to talk to the matrons, and then they can get the vote. They can merely make arrangements that they will get the key of their room for 12 months, and then they get the vote. The hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) said that he would like to see the coloured women included in the Bill, so she could also get the vote. I shall be glad to learn from him whether he meant the coloured women or both the coloured and the native women. I think that his attitude means that not only the coloured women should get the vote, but also the native women throughout the Union. I am absolutely opposed to it, because then the segregation policy will be impossible. I see a danger for the country in that, and not in women’s franchise. The coloured people have grown up amongst us. They have become part of our civilization and adopted our methods of life. The coloured people live just as well as many South Africans. Hon. members of the Transvaal see amongst coloured people persons one cannot define. I request them to come to my village, and I will show them coloured people there, and the way the coloured people live there, and I am convinced that they will have quite different views and look upon the coloured people in future other than as bastards, or natives from the north. The Cape coloured person is so civilized that no one need be ashamed to go with him to the ballot-box. They have every right to be on the voters’ roll. There are, of course, some of them, and they admit it themselves, who ought not to be on the roll, but a large number of the coloured people are very respectable. They live here amongst us, and they have no other homes. We do not grudge the native his home either, but not amongst us here. The natives can live in Pondoland, the Transkei, Bechuanaland, and other reserves. They can live there and we assist them to work out their own salvation there and to develop unless we, of course, require their labour. I hope the segregation policy will be carried out in the way I have always imagined, so that the natives can work out their own salvation in their reserves. The coloured person, however, has no other home, and so he is fully entitled to enjoy the vote. I do not want to speak much more on this subject. I want to point out one thing, viz., the dishonesty of hon. members on the opposite side of the House. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) made a speech which was nothing more than the old Unionist speech we heard from the people who could think of nothing else but elections. They know nothing else but how to raise bogies here in the Western Province at election time. I think that bogie-makers is the name that I actually gave them. They are always prepared to tell the coloured people all kinds of lies. Only recently during my election campaign, they told the coloured people on the eve of the election that the segregation policy of the Government meant that we were going to group the coloured people with the natives. There is, of course, no truth in it, but that shows the dishonesty with which those people approached the coloured people from time to time. About three years ago when a similar Bill was before the House, the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) or the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) showed that they were quite prepared to desert the native and the coloured women and to grant the vote only to the white women. In that way their dishonesty appears once more. They are now pretending here to very much love the coloured man and women, but they were, nevertheless, ready to leave the coloured woman in the lurch. The same thing happens during the election. Then they are very fond of the native voter, but as soon as the election is over, then they forget them once more for five years. Then the A.P.O. publishes a newspaper to keep the electors informed, but, as a matter of fact, to mislead them. And then it is all over for another five years. They pretend to be the best friends of the coloured people, but what do you find? Because coloured people accompanied me to the House the other day, use was made of it in the Transvaal and the Free State to win votes. It was even stated there that I allowed natives to carry me to the House. It was not natives at all, but coloured people who brought me here, and let me say that among the coloured people who supported me there is a M.A., a doctor, a chemist, B.A.’s, and a person with the intermediate certificate. That is the class of man who stands by me, and who will stand in future by the policy of the Nationalist party, because they realize that they have been fooled with fine speeches in the past. I am wandering away from women’s franchise, but the woman stands close to the man. Here we find friends opposite pleading for the franchise for the coloured woman, just as for the coloured man, but when the coloured electors bring me to the House, then they ridicule me for having been photographed together with natives. I have here a letter from a member who has to thank coloured people for his election. He wishes me good luck, and I can assure him that at the following election I will make use of that latter. Then it is said that if the women get the vote the women members will vote for “prohibition.” They use this argument to frighten us so that we should not vote for women’s franchise. I shall not allow myself to be frightened by those arguments. I know the women of the Cape, they are not in favour of total prohibition, but what they support I support also, viz., the prevention of drunkenness. We can, however, properly have liquor without drunkenness, and without introducing prohibition. But that is possible is sufficiently proved in countries like Germany and France where there is no prohibition, and yet no drunkenness. Some hon. members have said here that the women of the Transvaal and the Free State are not in favour of women’s franchise. The reason simply is because they have been told that they are getting the vote temporarily, but that later on the native women will also get it. I have, however, represented a seat which stretched far into the Kalahari, but I can assure hon. members that I never saw keener women than those there. Women have proved in the past that they can do their duty when required. Hence I am not afraid of their not doing their duty as voters. Then I want to say a few words more about what one hon. member said about the old days when the children did not work except where their parents were dead. Let me tell the hon. member that that pride has done our nation much harm. It is considered a disgrace when a young South African has done work, and when a father has said to his son: “John, put the bag of mealies on this side of the granary,” then he shrugged his shoulders and said I am not a native. Thank the Lord that state of affairs has altered. We have a large number of Europeans among our work people, and I know some of them who come from the best families that have been ruined and impoverished by that false pride. Hundreds who belong to the poor whites have become so, because they have considered work as a disgrace. I am proud to be able to say that I commenced work for £2 a month and my food, and I thank God I started in that way.

The argument was used here by the opponents of this Bill that the women in our country, and especially the countryside women, do not want the franchise. As I understand the women, that is not the case. The women in general, especially the women on the countryside, are satisfied with existing conditions, because we in South Africa are in the fortunate position, especially in the country, that the good relations still exist between men and women. The people still have the good old family way of living, and the women have confidence in the men, and, therefore, the women are satisfied for the man alone to vote, and that he should govern the country, but if we give the women the franchise, they will be satisfied, and also thankful. It has been stated ad nauseam that the women are dissatisfied with the Bill, and that they do not want to vote, and that for that reason they will not use the right, and will not go to the ballot-box. Let me assure hon. members that the same argument was used when there was a talk in the Transvaal of women’s franchise for the municipal councils. The great argument at that time also was that the women did not want it, that they would not go to vote, and that they would, therefore, not use the franchise. What do we see now, however? It is not necessary to-day to carry the women to the ballot-box as is necessary in the case of many men.

There the flirtation commences.

The hon. member says: “There begins the flirtation.” The worse thing in the whole debate, to my mind, is that bitterness in the opponents of the Bill. They condemn everyone who favours the Bill, and charge him with weakmindedness, absence of backbone, and that sore of thing. If that is their chief argument, then it is very poor. Hon. members stated that we ought not to give the vote to the women, because they did not want it, and would not use it. That was also said at that time in the case of the municipal councils, but to-day we see that it is not so.

That was in the municipalities, and not on the countryside.

I shall not be so stupid as to draw a distinction between the woman in the country and the woman in the town. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) make a great distinction between people. According to him, there are two kinds of people, one on the countryside, and the other in the villages. I know no distinction between the farmer woman in the village and the one from outside. What the women in the municipalities do in municipal elections the women in the country will do in parliamentary elections.

Against their will.

No such thing. Hon. members are not only insulting to the women, but they are deaf as well. That statement will not hold water. The women on the countryside, as well as those in the villages, are not only satisfied, but also grateful for the franchise, and they will make good use of it. It is said that the women on the countryside will have to travel great distances to vote. How then are they able to go 200 miles to the communion? If the women can travel that distance, then, of course, they will also be able to go to the ballot-box, because that will not be so far as the church, and if there are Nationalist party meetings, then the women also find a means of going to them. Why should not the women, therefore, have an opportunity every five years, that is at normal elections, to go to the ballot-box? No, that matter will come all right. The Minister of Agriculture argued that if we give the women a vote, then we must also arm them in time of war. I think the Minister is only frightening us by connecting the franchise with active military service. The Minister will surely admit that all the work that is done in war is not fighting in battle. Moreover, the Minister has certainly heard that in the history of the world women have not been afraid of great responsibility. Herodotus, the great Greek historian, tells of the so-called Amazons. They were women soldiers who troubled the Greek empire very much. They did so much good work that a similar army of women also was raised in Asia under the name of Amazons. Afterwards it was taken across to North Africa, where the French had much trouble with a woman commando. Today the greatest river in the world is called after the Amazons out of respect for those fighting women. One hon. member mentioned that women were too weak for that kind of work, but do hon. members then not know that the mortality figure for boys is much higher than for girls, because the former are weaker? Does the hon. member think that the women are merely there to multiply humanity? The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) and other hon. members asked what good the women could do when they did get the franchise. That is a wrong question. The women are not going to do anything special with the franchise, except what they have done in the past. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) said in his wisdom that we could allow the women to enter the provincial councils and to vote there. The hon. member must think very little of the provincial councils if he wants to allow women there and not here. If the women cannot be allowed to exercise the vote, why then did they allow women to join political parties? It was done because they are entitled to it, and are useful. Did not the hon. members allow women to join the: political parties?

No.

But the hon. member did not protest against it. Our Ministers go like great men to the congresses of the women’s party, they go there in a manly way and praise the women. Women are allowed at congresses, and we use them for collecting money. We need the women for that, and we also use them in the church. The woman has advanced further in the church than formerly, and we have reached the point when the women say that they deserve the franchise. We have shown that we will form separate parties of the women against the men, and that the women will vote against the men. Cannot the women then to-day with their live organizations establish large parties, and separate ?

They do so.

No, they co-operate with you, and you will not co-operate with them, and now that they come and put the matter to the test, hon. members are afraid. I say it is silly to state that the women will form a separate party in the country, and that the men will suffer in consequence. Men have achieved great dignity by their parliamentary status. It is a great honour, and if the women are to come and share the honour a little they are afraid that this will encroach upon their honour and position. It makes me think of the dog in the manger policy. The men must say that the women must not get the sweets of office. Are they then merely intended for the men ?

The woman has her own rewards.

Does she not live in the same house as the man, and cannot men and women co-operate? The sooner we get away from that foolishness the better. We, in our old conservatism, are afraid of the matter, afraid to look at something of so far-reaching a character in the face. I know we shall have difficulties, but the time has come for us to take the step come what will. And then there still are members who complain of our being in favour of the Bill. We need not run after other countries, but let us learn from them. Woe to the man who thinks he is fully educated. Woe to the poor little nation that sits in its pride and self-righteousness, and thinks that it can learn nothing from other countries. That would be a sad state of affairs. We go to other countries and learn from them what is good.

Yes, what is good.

Evil comes by itself. The Minister of Agriculture solemnly argued here that women were not created for this sort of thing. Women were created for the home and must stop there. One of the hon. members said that this would sully the women. He must have a fairly low opinion of women. I do not know whether the hon. member who spoke like that has already watched the swallows. They build their nests of mud and remain clean. Put a good woman in bad surroundings and she remains good, but put a bad one in good surroundings, and she will remain bad. I think that many of the women are full of character, and when they have to work with mud they will remain clean. Politics will not soil them. I return to the point that the women were created to remain in the home. Tencata said that the women were made of a finer texture. That is all good and well, but there are fine wires which are very strong. Where is it said that women must stop at home? Why have they not remained at home? Why are women allowed to organize in charitable and political matters? The woman is created for the home! I ask you! There is no congregation to-day which con do without women. Women have had a special place in the church. They had to sit separated from the men; they were a different sex. To-day the men and women are already sitting together. Formerly the deacon of the church was considered enough for collecting the money, to-day we beg the women to help. The women are created for the home! I wish to remind the Minister and hon. members that woman was not created from the head of the man to stand above him, nor out of the feet to stand under him, nor out of the breast to walk in front of him, nor out of the back to walk behind him. Woman was created out of the side of man to stand by his side, alongside of him, and to help him to be a helper, irrespective of where the help is required. The time has passed and matters have so developed in the world that men have long since required women in the church as well as in politics. Women have been standing a long time at his side, and now men say to them: “See, woman, you can remain at my side, but in this room, you cannot go with me into Parliament!” That is not right. Women were created to stand at a man’s side, and to help him; to be a unity with the man, to assist him in life, and also in politics and the church, so that a perfect state of affairs can be brought about with the help of the Lord. This is only a way of putting the Assembly off the scent to introduce the amendment for holding a referendum. We can place full confidence in the women. They vote right. The Prime Minister said that it would be nice for the Nationalist party to give the franchise to the women. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) objected to this, and said that the women must not get it from a party, but as a gift from us all. The hon. member for Standerton, however, also admitted that the Bill was overdue. He, therefore, had ample opportunity of giving it to the women. Our Government is giving it to the women, and they are not going to accept it as a great gift, but be thankful for it as well, and make good use of it. And let me give my hon. friends the comfort that not many women will come to Parliament to spoil their “fun.” The women’s intention is not to come to Parliament. That does not happen much in England and in other countries, and here also with few exceptions, the women will not come to Parliament. An hon. member quoted the case of the woman in the House of Commons who would not stand again because she could not be done without in her home. That also was a poor argument. The man and his wife will consult whether she can be spared in the home, and whether she has anyone to replace her if she goes to Parliament. The few women that will come to Parliament will render good service, especially in matters like education, charities, child welfare, etc. I therefore will speak in favour of the Bill, and vote for it with the greatest pleasure.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) has spoken very ably in favour of women’s franchise, but I want to tell the hon. member that we who are opposed to it think much more of the women than those who are in favour of it do. The hon. member says that woman was made out of the rib of man. Unfortunately we find that many people think that women were made out of the neck, and they can turn man’s neck as they wish. The leader of the Opposition said that his followers would prefer the women’s franchise to be also given to the coloured people. I consider the grant of the franchise to the white woman is bad enough, and we would make it still more fatal by extending it to the coloured and native women. Various members of the Opposition have complained that the coloured and the native women were not included. With full knowledge of my responsibility, I say that if such a Bill granting the franchise to the native and coloured women came before the House I would not ever vote for it. I am decidedly against it because I feel that it is something quite wrong. Further, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that it was the right time for the women to get the vote, and that we were one of the last countries to give it to her. I should be glad to see that we were the very last, and even that we were the country which did not give the vote to women at all. Then it will be something to be proud of it, then we shall also be able to say that the women who are in favour of the vote came in their thousands, but that those who were opposed to it, and did not want it came in tens of thousands. Why should we ape other countries? Our women were quite satisfied with things as they existed in the past. They have not asked for it. Dr. Kuyper has correctly said—

The wife must be subordinate to her own husband because he is the head of the wife. The wife must live quietly in all submission. A thing I am sorry about is that some of our reverend hon. members have expressed themselves in favour of the women’s franchise. Paul in his Epistles said: “I do not allow the woman to study, but to live in all quietness and contemplation”. I also want to tell them: Who are the ministers of religion in South Africa, and do you know such things. I am sorry to have to say it, but they are facts we cannot get past. One of the members in this House who is especially blamed for there being so great a demand for women’s franchise is the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). Year after year he has advocated women’s franchise here. One would almost say that he had a kink in his brain, and when he is dead some day I think that there will be something like this put on his gravestone: “Here lies a man in restlessness on account of the bad deeds that he did to the women of South Africa”. I am sorry that this thing has got such a hold with so many hon. members on this side of the House. I think it is due to the hon. member for East London (North) pleading year after year for it. I believe that the brave housewife is the crown of her Lord. Our women will cause much trouble if they go into the political arena. When it comes to election and women think differently to men, then unpleasantness will follow if they do not belong to the same party. If the husband belongs to the South African party and we find that the women by a very large majority belong to the Nationalist party then they will not agree. The result will be that the husband will not allow the wife to go and vote, because he will be afraid of her voting against his party. The other man will come to take her to the poll, and then the devil will be let loose. There will be discord, and there is already enough discord in our country. It will cause trouble between neighbouring women where previously they had lived in love and peace, and there will be trouble and the split which exists in the country will become worse. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) has moved an amendment, I agree with it, because I think that there are at least 65 per cent. of the women who do not want the vote. I cannot see why the 35 per cent. should be preferred to the 65 per cent, I have spoken to many women in the country and also in the towns and what did I find? I was told that the person in the towns who had to work was opposed to the women’s franchise. The section which is fairly well off and can employ servant girls, and the younger girls in the villages those are the people who are the greatest supporters of women’s franchise, but the people on the countryside and to a great extent those in the towns are opposed to it, and this Bill therefore amounts to this that we are wanting to force through a thing which the majority of the women do not want. I think that is quite unfair. I say it is the man who sits in the gate with the ancients of Israel. I have never yet read that the women sought election. If this Bill is passed then we are going to bring the woman down from her high pedestal, the country has put her on. Women have been admired and respected from the earliest ages. In Athens the great Diana represents a woman. She is respected, that is the way things continued until our days. We show the women that we have the greatest respect for them and men are the protectors of women. When any on breaks into the house the husband does not ask the wife to go and look, he goes himself.

There are those who ask the wife.

The man who opposes women’s franchise would not do such a thing. He will not send the wife because he realizes his responsibility. He realizes that he is the protector of the wife, and therefore when danger comes he will go in himself to put an end to it. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) mentioned that during the last 25 years a great change has taken place in our country. He also referred to brave regiments of women in other countries and so concluded that we would also give the vote to the woman, because it had been given as long as 28 years ago to the Australian women. Now I should like to know whether he can prove that the women’s franchise has been a success during the past 28 years in Australia. Can he prove that if the women had not had the vote the country would not have progressed so fast? As for the brave regiments it shows that the hon. member wants to have brave regiments of women. No, we who are opposed to women’s franchise do not want them, because we want to go and fight for the women ourselves. We are willing to sacrifice our lives for them. It seems to me that there is quite a misunderstanding with some hon. members who support the Bill about hon. members who are opposed to it. It seems to me that they think that we regard the women as incompetent. No, the position is that we have an even higher opinion of them than those hon. members. We can compare the South African women with the best in the world. They not only need not take a second place to other women, but they are higher in all respects than the women of other countries. Some hon. members have said here that the influence of women has risen so high that we ought to grant them the vote. From the earliest days all the mothers and daughters of the people have done their duty to the country, and they have never yet complained that an injustice is being done them because they are not given the vote. I know our women and I know that they are quite prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of the prosperity of our people, and I also know that it will be fatal if they get the vote. I wish I could put it into hon. members with a spoon what the future of our country will be if we pass this measure. The day will come that hon. members who support the measure will certainly regret it, and then they will know what fatal and injurious effects it will have on the people. I consider the Bill as a very undesirable one and especially for this country; one that will not at all make for the salvation and progress of our people. I should like our South African women to remain what they were in the past. Exalted in every respect, who support their husbands in everything, advise him and inspire him in the faithful fulfilment of his calling whatever it may be. I should like the Afrikaans women to retain the great influence they have to-day, and I fear if this measure passes that that will no longer be the case in future, and that we, hereafter, will be very sorry that we co operated in a matter which in its effects turned out to be quite different to what we thought, and which will injure our people. For these reasons I vote against the second reading, and I hope the majority of members, at any rate, of members on this side of the House, will also vote against it, because they mean well, not only to the women of the country, but also to the country as a whole.

Most, if not almost all, members on this side of the House are in favour of the principle of women’s suffrage, but it must not be taken for granted that every hon. member on this side is in favour of this Bill. We stand for the principle of woman’s political equality with the men—not the position in which the sexes will be put in this Bill, but one of fair and reasonable equality. The biggest argument against the Bill is the action of the private member who introduced it. Last year the Prime Minister made it very clear that he was going to put a Bill before the country, but did not for one moment suggest he would do so as leader of the Government; to-day for the hon. member for Smithfield to take advantage of his position as Prime Minister to follow a course which is unprecedented in the annals of the Union Parliament. We have one of the biggest and most important issues that are before the country under discussion here, a matter which should be ventilated to the full, which should be examined in all its minutest details, and in which time should be no object in arriving at a solution; and here we have the spectacle of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) practically putting the closure on this House after a two hours’ debate. We had a two hours’ debate last week, and the first thing we heard this afternoon was that the 11 o’clock rule would be suspended to-night. I wonder whether the hon. member for Smithfield was in a hurry to put this Bill through because he realizes that it is not the Bill which he promised. This Bill differs vastly from the pledges he gave to the country in 1928 when he promised to introduce a measure for the enfranchisement of women immediately after the general election if he was returned to power; and this haste may be due to fear that his action may be very severely criticised. Perhaps the Prime Minister is an optimist. If any other private member were to introduce a measure such as this and adopt such tactics, his Bill would have a very slight chance of getting through this House. I don’t presume, however, to judge the Prime Minister, or to weigh him in an ordinary scale. My particular objection to this Bill is the difference between the qualifications which will apply to women as compared with those which apply to men. Under this Bill there would be at least 10 per cent. more women voters than men, and if we pass this measure, once universal womanhood suffrage is accepted, there is only one further step to be taken, and that is manhood suffrage in the Cape Province and Natal. In fact, a little bird has whispered to me that a Bill has already been drafted to provide for manhood suffrage in these two provinces to bring them into line with the rest of the Union. Let me refer to the Prime Minister’s reasons for the drafting of this Bill now before the House. He told us, “I am faced with the difficulty of the native people. You people in the Cape in years gone by only adopted an educational and property qualification because you had the native vote. Otherwise you would have had universal suffrage”. What is the value of that argument? The Cape qualification is only £50 per year, and Natal has a salary qualification of £96 per year, and yet they never had the native vote in Natal. Let me follow this question of the coloured vote. Once you have adopted womanhood suffrage, you are going to get manhood suffrage in due course. The Prime Minister said, in dealing with the coloured question, that the leader of the Opposition had fought him tooth and nail when he introduced the Coloured Persons’ Bill, and he was forced to abandon the Bill at the third reading. The result of his abandoning it was that definition of what was a white and what was a coloured person, had been placed on the statute book and he could not enfranchise the coloured women till that had been done. What is going to be the position of a coloured person once you have adopted universal manhood suffrage? The Prime Minister says the coloured man stands on an equality with the white man. How are you going to deal with the coloured man? Is the universal suffrage to be extended to him? Is womanhood suffrage to be extended to the coloured women of the country, as you must do if the Prime Minister is to keep his word? Unless you do that, you are going to have one basis for the coloured man, another for the native, another for the white man—a “patchwork quilt” suffrage indeed. Granting this Bill is to lead to universal suffrage, I have only one word to say. Do you realize if you vate for the Bill in its present form, you Cape members are voting for manhood suffrage in the Cape. Are you going back to your constituents to tell them you have ca3t your vote for manhood suffrage for the Cape Province. I say the same about Natal. This is the one country where the qualification should be high and the government should be in the hands of people who have a property qualification and educational qualification and have a very real stake and interests in the country. I say to my friends, are you prepared to go back to Natal and admit the vote you cast in favour of this Bill for women’s suffrage was a deliberate vote in favour of manhood suffrage? If you are prepared to do so, then cast your vote in favour of the Bill. If you feel you have no right to take up that attitude, then I say this Bill should receive the adverse vote of every man who stands opposed to manhood suffrage. A Bill which will place the womanhood of this country on an equal basis with the men of this country, I would support, but I should think long before I supported a Bill of this nature. I hope at this hour the Minister will indicate when he replies that he is prepared to amend this Bill on the lines of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) last year, which was a Bill we can all support. I have grave doubts about the advisability of supporting a Bill of the nature we have before us to-day.

The Bill before the House is one of enormous consequence Some idea of its overwhelming importance may be gained when I say that it not only aims at changing our electoral system, but it strikes at the root of the relationship which has existed between the sexes from the beginning of time. From time immemorial man has been the head of the tribe, the head of the race, the head of the nation and the head of the home, the destinies of which have been swayed by his ultimate decision. Woman, during this age-long period, has been the helpmate, the necessary complement of man, and not his competitor. It has been, and still is, in regard to any decision made by man, her prerogative throughout this period of things to influence him in coming to the decision. On this basis of man, the trusted ruler, and woman, the trusted helpmate, the world has progressed from the beginning of things to the present time. It is now proposed to change by statutory enactment this basis, and the whole status of woman from that of a helpmate to that of a co-ruler and competitor. As the consequences of this proposed radical change are bound to be enormous, it behoves us, I think, as custodians, for the time being, of the destinies of this country, to examine and to weigh this matter with the utmost care before committing South Africa to this course. I think we should consider firstly, which people advocate the proposed change, and, secondly, the reasons that are advanced for the proposed change, and thirdly, what will be the probable consequences of the proposed change. Coming to the first point, which people advocate the proposed change, I think it would be advisable for us to differentiate between the sexes and first to consider which class of men advocate the proposed change, and then to consider which class of woman. Now, taking the men first, I consider that the most scientific classification, and the classification which appeals to one most by reason of its everyday experience, is that of Sir Almroth Wright. In one of his recent works, he divides the class of men who advocate women suffrage into three. The first class is the small group of intellectuals who do not believe in the greatness of this question, and do not believe that women’s suffrage will bring us any nearer to the millennium, but who, nevertheless, do not anticipate any dire results from its adoption, and who, therefore, in order to soothe the ruffled feelings of a number of worthy women, are prepared to consent to it. I shall, as a matter of courtesy, include all members in this House who advocate women’s suffrage in this category, unless they prefer of their own choice to go into one of those which I shall presently enumerate. The second class are the cranks, those people who once they think they have discerned a moral principle at once get into saddle and ride it to death, regardless of any principles or problems of public expediency. From this class, we recruit our vegetarians, total prohibitionists and vaccinationists.

And Nationalists.

And the supporters of any freak cause that may arise. The third class are the sentimentalists who regard every argument against women’s suffrage as an insult to their wives. One of this class thought he had an unanswerable argument, which was “Would you deny your own mother the vote?” He forgot that the normal mother does not want the vote, and that the last person to whom a man would like to give the vote is his mother, as that would mean dragging her down from the pedestal where she stands, remote and revered as a symbol of good influence, into the muddy arena of party politics.

It is pretty evident that your mother did not spank you enough.

What about a man’s mother-in-law ?

I would like to add to the classes mentioned by Sir Almroth Wright two other classes. The first is the man who is opposed to the principle but says that it is bound to come, and we must give in with good grace. I have no admiration for a man who concedes a principle without making a fight for it. In the second class is the man who looks at a thing from the angle of whether it will benefit his particular party. This principle, however, is far above party politics, and far above international relationships, and goes back to the day when Adam walked with Eve in the Garden of Eden. As to its influence on the position of parties since Union, we have seen many changes, and it is impossible to think that we can subordinate this question to party politics. At the start of Union we had the South African and Labour parties and the Unionists. In a little while we had the Nationalist party, and shortly after the Unionists amalgamated with the South African party. Thereafter the Nationalists entered into a Pact with Labour, and recently the Labour party split into two. It is very unfair to apply this problem to party politics at all. I am a newcomer in the House, and have a horror of appearing to be presumptious, but I appeal to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to make it possible for his followers to vote on this matter according to their individual feelings. There may be exceptions to the five classes of men I have mentioned, but broadly speaking they cover the bulk of the male supporters of women’s suffrage, and they should not induce the House to make this radical change. I shall now come to the two classes of women who advocate women’s suffrage. Let me admit straight away that of late years the position has changed enormously. When the movement started few normal women supported it, but of late years the position has altered and a larger percentage of normal women have joined it. By normal women, I mean women happily married and busily concerned with the moral and material welfare of their husbands and families. The percentage of normal women who are opposed to this movement is still far larger than that in favour of it. I must lay the initial blame for the normal woman supporting this movement on the party opposite, who started the first women’s party. The Women’s South African Party was started with the object of assisting the South African party in their political campaigns, and not with the object of supporting women’s suffrage. The National party for some time resisted the temptation to follow suit, but the exigencies of politics became too great, and the Women’s National party was started as a counter-move to the Women’s South African party. The natural and inevitable consequence was it became almost a patriotic duty for women to join one or the other of these parties. Let me admit that the work done by these women was invaluable, and that they assisted their parties enormously in their respective campaigns, but naturally a woman who has assisted in an election, driven motor-cars and so forth, would afterwards feel that she should not be doing all this work without having a vote herself. That is the reason why the small proportion of normal women who support this movement to-day have done so. This factor does not justify us in granting the measure. The desire of the normal woman for the vote is an artificial craving; only the abnormal woman could support this movement without an artificial stimulus. In nature the only females who endeavour to rule the males are abnormal; the only exceptions are bees, whose females lead a joyless, sexless life of hard labour, and a certain class of spider—whose females devour the males. I do not think we should follow the example of either of these classes.

How do you classify those who oppose it ?

All normal. I should like to refer to the official reasons which have been advanced by women’s organizations in favour of women’s suffrage. The first reason, impressed upon me by pamphlets, is a scriptural quotation, “Whatsoever you wish that men should do to you, do you even so to them, because this is the law and the prophets.” It appears that this is advanced as an argument in favour of women’s suffrage, and I emphatically deny that in any portion of the scriptures you will find anything in favour of women’s suffrage. You will find a great deal against it. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) dismissed the Old Testament as being out of date, and he professed to know the state of mind of the apostles when they wrote what they did. That is an airy manner of passing over the teaching of the scriptures. The rev. gentlemen who spoke in favour of women’s suffrage carefully steered clear of making any reference to the Bible. If we examine the scriptures and the various epistles, we shall find that not only are the scriptures not in favour of women’s suffrage, but they are very much opposed to it. I have pages of scriptural quotations here, but I will not trouble hon. members with all of them. In Timothy, for instance, we read, “Let the women learn in silence, with all subjection, but suffer not a woman to teach, and to usurp authority over the man.” Again, from the Ephesians, “Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife.” Then we have the quotation that wives may not preach in churches, and there is another from Titus to the effect that the young women should be taught to be discreet keepers of the home, good, obedient to their husbands. I am sorry it should fall to my lot as a layman to point out these very self-evident things from the scriptures. One of the reasons advanced in almost every women’s suffrage publication is the fact of the small number of blind babies in New Zealand. When I read this argument I begin to worry about it, and to wonder what can be the reason for the small proportion of blind babies in the dominion of New Zealand. Is it argued that a woman with a vote is less likely to give birth to a blind baby? Has the woman who has gone into politics more time to attend to her babies’ eyes? Have the women any formula for preventing blindness in babies, which they will not disclose unless they get the vote? I was forced to go into the matter with masculine logic, and I find that the population of New Zealand is 1,320,000, Whereas the population of the Union is nearly 7,000,000, and with five and a half times the population of New Zealand I think we are entitled to have a few more blind babies than that country. This argument seems to be on a par with most of the arguments advanced for women’s suffrage. They take an empirical fact and then build up an argument on a totally false basis. If this argument is of use to them, for publication in the “Flashlight,” they are welcome to it—

To use this argument you must, however, omit to state that the New Zealand pasturage is the best in the world. The second argument is that if women are excluded from the vote they will not have power to vote for the same direct representation on hospital boards, and that every session of Parliament sees some new legislation which touches the home and the family. I am not satisfied that if women have the vote they would exercise a greater influence in respect of hospitals. The inference is that up to now the husband—the head of the family—has proved himself incapable of legislating for his family, and women want the vote to do this. If that is so, then we may expect to see some hint of constructive improved policy on that which has hitherto been put forward by men. On referring to the “Flashlight” again, I expected to find it crammed with suppressed and fermenting legislative Ideas on this subject, and I was sadly disappointed. I found nothing but a continual clamour for the vote, some hatred of men, a little egotism and some unconscious humour. The hatred of man I find here—

Any man who could support this would be a very remarkable man indeed. The claims of women as free individuals with the economic freedom of the adult and her claims on society as the mother of the adult are dealt with, but we see nothing about the claims that the State has on the woman as the mother of the race. I think that claim is a very largo one; a claim to keep herself in a physical and mental condition to preserve the race to the best advantage. The unconscious humour I find here. The writer says —

Yes, I can imagine that; I can imagine more than 100 questions being asked and I can imagine many of them being asked at the same time. Now, another thing which struck me in going to Muizenberg the other day was that I saw posters all along the suburban line. These depicted women standing outside heavily barred gates, and there was a vista leading up to what looked like the gates of paradise, but which were, aparently, the Houses of Parliament. The women were looking through wistfully and enquiring: “Why are women without votes ?” I would suggest an illustration. Let the artist who drew that poster, draw another poster depicting women gazing wistfully into a barber’s shop with a caption underneath: “Why are women without beards?” The answer is the same in both cases: “Because it is not natural for them to have them.” These are the reasons which have been brought forward. As a newcomer to this House I have been listening to the speeches to find out what reasons would be advanced by the protagonists of women’s suffrage. I was sadly disappointed. No, reasons were advanced of any consequence. Therefore, I am compelled to fall back upon the reasons advanced in ordinary conversation. Firstly, they say there should be no taxation without representation. They say that you deny the woman the vote and yet you give it to her gardener. This is as it should be. The gardener is compelled by law to support Mrs. Gardener and all the little gardeners. Not 1 per cent. of the women who own property and employ gardeners have acquired that property by their own exertion. It will be found that in nearly all cases it was left to them by the kindness or good feeling of a husband or father who toiled for that property under man-made laws and passed it on to woman as a free gift. I do not think one is unjustified in saying that the demand for the franchise made upon these grounds is born of idleness and fostered on ingratitude. They say that the men are selfish in not giving women a vote. From the earliest stages, history has teemed with instances of man’s unselfishness to women, and preferential legislation passed in her favour. We have had the old Roman laws passed to save women from effects of her folly in signing suretyships. If a man fails to maintain his wife it is a criminal offence, yet a rich wife may desert an impoverished and sick husband with impunity. We find that the age of consent has been raised. The death penalty has been abolished for the murder of a new-born babe by its mother. We find that the death penalty has been introduced for rape. What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. From the earliest days man has sought to protect women and children. The argument that a man is selfish in his action towards women is monstrous. I agree with Dr. Arabella Kenealy that a grateful woman will be an anti-suffragist. Women’s services in the Great War have been quoted as entitling women to a vote. Personally. I took no part in the Great War, but from what I have read I have realized that women performed enormous duties in the Great War and rendered great services, especially those who did the nursing, but I am not prepared to concede that the woman who was a draper’s assistant at £1 per week and went into munition work at £6 a week, or a girl from a rich family who escape from the restrictions and conventions of home life by giving her services as a free motor driver, thereby earned the right to the vote. They also say that women’s vote will end war. The most illogical and most aggressive war makers are the bees governed by females, whom I have seen wantonly swarm to the attack of an inoffensive horse who was peacefully grazing some distance from the hive. I am not stirred by that argument. It is said that women must have the vote because she is the mother of the race. I do not think, however, that the possession of the vote is going to make a woman a better mother, but rather the contrary. The fathers of the race are fully competent to deal with the country’s problems without the assistance of the mother. More men are killed in industries while providing for their families than women die in childbirth. It has been said that women will purify politics. I say that politics will degrade women. Can it fairly be said that the introduction of the barmaid has purified the public house or did the public house degrade the barmaid? Has the chorus girl purified the stage, or does the stage degrade the chorus girl? I leave the answer to the House. Some people say that women’s votes will bring about prohibition. Probably it will, but when I compare a Frenchman sitting with his wife on the boulevard having a glass of wine, with an American diving into a "speak easy” to drink synthetic gin, then this argument loses much of its force. Then people say that, as nearly all other countries have women’s suffrage, we should also have it. This is a purely feminine argument —to be in the fashion we must have the franchise. If women are going to have the vote, I wonder what strange fashions we shall have to go in for. We shall be safer to stick to the more conservative fashions of men. The other day I passed the statue of Cecil Rhodes in the Cape Town public gardens, and it struck me that if the statue came to life and walked down Adderley Street, so far as its attire was concerned, it would attract no attention. That statue has been there for 30 years. But if a woman’s statue of 30, 20, 10 or five years ago came to life and walked down Adderley Street, I wonder what the result would be. In this instance it is not safe for us to follow fashion. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) pictured the feelings of a woman coming from one of those famous countries where women have the vote, and finding herself in South Africa without a vote. On the other hand, I look upon the rejection of this measure as the eventual solution of our immigration problem, for when men and women in other parts of the world are tired of political eccentricities, they will turn with relief to sane South Africa and come to live here under a normal state of affairs and then we shall get our due meed of immigration. Mr. J. H. Curie, in one of his books, referred to the Finn, “long-suffering and his ugly face stamped with sadness.” I can guess the reason for that sadness and I look forward with dread to the day when that sadness will be stamped on our own ugly faces. This agitation reminds me of the advertisement published by Pears of the baby in the bath struggling to obtain possession of a piece of soap and under the picture was inscribed the words: “She will not be happy until she gets it.” But to understand the true inward application of that advertisement, one must be a married man who has assisted in rearing children. What is the baby going to do with the soap when she gets it? Wash herself? No, she is going to stick it in her mouth, and she is going to be bitterly-disappointed with the result. The experienced married man wil not give the soap to a baby to stop it from crying, because he knows that if it gets it it will cry louder than ever. I will now deal with a few of the probable consequences of the suffrage, and I am not speaking as a misogynist, far from it, but as a father of daughters over whose future, if this measure goes through, I am very genuinely concerned; and whom I would like to see grow up under a state of affairs that will most conduce to their true happiness. A consequence I foresee from the passing of this measure will be a decline in the influence of the normal woman, and a consequence decline of modesty and morals. Normal womankind has been a powerful influence for good, but her influence has been greatly due to the fact that she was not competing with man for power, but assisting him. When she becomes a competitor man will be less willing to study her likes and dislikes. The normal woman, moreover, because she is normal, will not take such a deep interest in politics as the abnormal woman, and the latter will take the leading part, and all the political eccentricities of the abnormal woman will be attributed to womankind in general, which will assist in the decline in the influence of the normal woman, and we shall have a consequent decline in modesty and morals. In ancient Sparta, as the result of the feminist movement, women ran naked in the public games. In ancient Rome, the result was an age of luxuriousness, in which women took part as gladiators in the arena. Have we not come to that to-day? In the oversea illustrated papers you see pictures of women clad only in thin vests and running shorts, with hideously contorted faces, trying to reach the tape a few inches ahead of their next competitor. It is a warning that the influence of normal womanhood has already declined. If we study the conditions in countries where the vote has been had by women for some time, it will be evident to us that the influence of the normal woman is already on the decline. Professor Weith Knudsen of Trondhjem University has stated that the number of prostitutes in Copenhagen in one generation has increased from 500 to 20,000. Is that not a sign that the influence of normal womanhood has had a decline in those parts? In the Danish Parliament, an abnormal woman, but a graduate of law and moving in the best circles about four years ago, proposed the legalization of abortion, provided it was done within the first four months of pregnancy. Does this not tend to lower woman in the eyes of man, and diminish her influence accordingly? [Time limit extended.] Does a proposal of this nature, made by a responsible woman member of parliament, not tend to lower the dignity of women in the eyes of men? Take the case of Norway. At a meeting of women communists, there was a proposal that there should be immunity from a charge of infanticide in cases where the crime was committed within twenty-four hours of birth. Take the case of England. Dr. Arabella Kenealy states that in a recent medical journal the fact is recorded that of one hundred men affected with venereal disease, more than 70 had acquired it from amateur flappers. This is the result of the political mother neglecting the up-bringing of her children. She now wants women police appointed to do the work which can only be properly done by herself as mother. As to America, if the conditions described in Judge Lindsay’s book “The Revolt of Modern Youth” are any indication of what has happened there, then the feminist movement has been anything but good for that country, and the influence of normal womanhood has vanished. The second consequence of this measure is bound to be an increase of divorce, and the decline of marriage, with the consequent decline of the birth-rate Divided authority leads to bickering and dissension, and divided political authority in the home will lead to the same result, and a consequent increase of divorce. When divorce first increased it was said that it was due to hasty war marriages, but Denmark took no part in the great war, and the number of divorce cases has doubled in ten years. As to the decline of the marriage rate, I think we may take it as reasonable that young men on seeing that they are no longer going to call the tune will be reluctant to pay the piper, and to take upon themselves the liability of marrying and raising families, which they will have to support under the law, when they will have no authority in the home. The decline of the birth-rate will automatically follow for I have sufficient reverence for women in general to believe that for one woman who follows the example of a recent prominent English suffragist, who deliberately chose a father for her illegitimate child, a thousand will prefer to remain childless all their lives. The third thing I foresee is the decline of politics. The logical consequence of this measure will be that in future years there will be an equal number of men and women in Parliament. Dr. Arabella Kenealy says that British politics have notably declined since women took part therein, and that the influence of women over men in political life is enervating, leading them to pose and to be meretricious. I think that statement is one which it will be very difficult for any man to deny who wants to be honest with himself. The experience of centuries has taught the farmer that it is impossible to in-span mixed teams of males and females unless the sex instinct has been completely eradicated. Unless the farmer follows this principle he would get very little work done. I can imagine the future Prime Minister of the Union falling in love with the future leader of the Opposition. It might lead to a fusion of parties, but I can see a lot of principles going by the board in the process. I can imagine a future elderly Minister of Railways being flattered by the attentions of the future youthful and good-looking member for Salt River with the result that the railwaymen would get 8s. a day whether the State could afford it or not. Let us leave this fantastic aspect of the case and pass to a fourth consequence. I am convinced this policy will lead to the degeneration of the race. The noblest work of the Creator is womanly woman and manly man. But I can foresee that this Bill will lead to a Hermaphrodite State of Mannish Women and effeminate men whose infrequent children will be born in a maternity home and brought up in a creche. I appeal to hon. members not to force this measure on the overwhelming bulk of reluctant South African womanhood at the instance of the small but superarticulate percentage of women who clamour for the vote.