as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on the Cattle Improvement Bill, reporting the Cattle Improvement Bill with amendments

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 31st March.

This is of course a difficult matter, but I think all the men think as I do. Every man’s heart is full of tenderness for the women, and therefore men have a sentimental urge to vote with the stream and grant the franchise to women. In this case I think, however, that it will be safer to swim up stream. The contents of the Bill before the House may affect a deep-seated revolution in our national life. It looks to me as if it will bring darkness in future, and therefore it is my duty to speak on this measure. The reason why it is before the House we need not discuss. A large number of our women would like to see their position in the state equalled to that of the men. I do not want to criticize the Prime Minister. It is well known that he introduced the Bill because he made a promise to do so, but all the years the matter was before the House I have followed the debates with interest, without ever being able to get light as to what actually was the urge and the reason why women wanted to be put on the same political footing as men. The movers of the various Bills in past years omitted to explain that, and even the Prime Minister did not tell us. There are many speakers who advanced nothing else except that women’s franchise existed in other countries, and because it existed in other countries they consider it necessary that it must also exist in South Africa. Even the leader of the Opposition got no further than saying that South Africa was the last dominion that was granting the franchise to women. No one has thrown any light on why this change ought to be made. No one has made it clear why the nation should leave its beautiful past and in future adopt something about which there can be no certainty, and which might plunge our country into darkness. When we ask the women why they want the vote and what there is wrong with the way in which the man has governed, they have nothing to put before us. If we ask them what has been wrong in the past for them to want the vote, for them to be allowed to sit in Parliament, and to be put on an equal footing with men, then no arguments are brought forward. No complaints have come from the women of bad treatment, that they are not protected, and that they are not given what they need. We are, therefore, called upon to enquire whether men are too weak to govern, and whether the women think that they must be put on an equal footing with men to assist in protecting the men. The matter before us is one of the greatest importance to the South African people. Nevertheless it has been very frivolously dealt with in all the speeches made, and I am sorry that I cannot find sufficient seriousness in the House about this matter. We are going to spoil a beautiful past if we accept this Bill. The Prime Minister has said that he has received many telegrams of support, especially from the Cape Province. I believe it, because he will not get telegrams of that kind from the Transvaal and the Free State, because those provinces are based on the glory of our history in the past, and on the glory of the family life. President Kruger said that we must go to the past, must look for the beauty of the past, and must then apply it to our own lives and our national life. He did not tell us to go to other countries, and look for novelties there. He told us to go to our own country, and to act in the spirit of our own noble history. The Afrikaans woman has had a hard time in fulfilling her vocation in South Africa. She has had a harder time than any woman in history, but she fulfilled it in a beautiful way. During the dark times of 1898 to 1902 she stood firm. They did not ask to be put on an equal footing with men, and to go into the field, but although 28,000 women and children died, they stood firm, and encouraged the men to fight. It was not their desire to be put on an equal footing politically with the men. It is the man who has not been successful in doing his duty at home and in politics who now wants the women to take a portion of his duties on them. Such a thing is against the whole ordinance of creation. The creation ordinance gave the man his half of the duties and the woman her half. The man now wants to transfer some of his duties to the woman, but he is not prepared to take on himself a part of the duties of the woman. He will not assume the duty of motherhood, and therefore we do an injustice if we pass this proposal to transfer a portion of our duties to the women. I said that there were a large part of the women who asked for the vote. There is, however, a large section that do not want it, but who will be compelled to accept it if this Bill is passed. Without any complaint being made about government by the men, this duty will be forced upon those women. It is on behalf of those women that I feel obliged to enter a protest, and I also speak on behalf of those men who realize that the women have their own duties, and cannot be expected to assume those of the men as well. A man will not send his wife to Parliament, and remain behind on the farm. But here men are wanting to vote to send the wives of others to Parliament to sit there with other men. It will bring confusion into our beautiful national life. I am not afraid of voting against such a measure. I am voting here for the preservation of our national life, and I am convinced that posterity will not care to despise me for that reason. But posterity will look back contemptuously on this Parliament who, with a Bill of this kind, inflicts a blow on our national life, and brings about a dark future for us. The creation ordinance gave women their duties and men theirs, and one cannot take over the duties of the other. It is also said that the Bible is not against women’s franchise. Mention is made of the case of Deborah. She, however, did not say that Sisera was delivered into her hands, but into “your” hands. She makes an appeal here to the man to do the work. When public life is not connected with religious life, then there is ruin of the national life, and therefore it is the duty of every member to think before he votes in favour of this Bill. We cannot do anything here the effect of which we cannot be certain of. Dr. Kuyper rightly said that the women could never fulfil their share of the creation ordinance if they stood on an equal political footing with the men. Women allow themselves to be ruled by their hearts and not by their heads, while men often have to enter upon things with a hard heart. That women cannot do, because they are of a tender and soft nature. By this measure we shall be forcing something on to a section of our people that does not want it. It is not right. It is our duty to postpone the matter, and therefore I am in favour of the amendment for the Bill first to be referred to the people; if not, to the women, then to the men, to find out what they wish. I need not mention all the other difficulties. Quotations have been made by various members to show to what extent women must co-operate with men. It is by fulfilling her calling in her home that the woman co-operates with the man and carries out the duties entrusted to her. Those are the frivolous statements of the supporters, and even of those who have studied the Bible, from whom we expect to get light! We may not depart from the will of God, and bring destruction on the people without somebody being able to stop it. If we break God’s creation ordinance, and force something on the woman she does not want, it will react on us. What does God say, what does the Bible say? These are the questions we must ask. Let the outside world go on with the devastating system; they will reap the fruits, but let us see to it that our children do not have to pick the bitter fruit of our stupidity. It will react on every one of us because even if I vote against it, it comes down on me as a member of this House who will be doing such a thing. I appeal to the House not to permit it. I appeal to the women to give it up, to return to their homes and do their duty. The best mothers of the past have been those who have done their duty to their families, who have stood by their husbands. Women like that do not ask for the franchise. The noble woman of South Africa, the right-minded woman, does her duty, and does not want to bring disaster on us. A sword will be hanging over our heads, and the future will be uncertain. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that the women who oppose the women’s franchise can make just the same claim upon him as the father, the Prime Minister of the people, as those who are in favour of it. He will! have to give an account of this wrong thing.

I am sure that of all the calamities suggested by the last speaker, the worst would be that we should all run away from our principles and vote against the Bill. One realizes how frequently women in South Africa have been disappointed in this regard; we can realize, also, the difference of opinion which exists on this occasion on both sides of the House. I want to support the Bill as the Prime Minister has presented it. When we look at the whole position we can only come to the conclusion that the Bill is the only logical solution of this question. Many efforts have previously been made in this direction on both sides of the House. I much appreciate the action of the Prime Minister in fulfilling his promise given in 1928. That promise has been honourably fulfilled. It is true that the Bill presented to the House represents the fulfilment of that promise only up to a certain point, because it confines the franchise to white women. I think that is wise, because in the present situation it would have been undesirable to include the coloured women.

That constitutes a new colour bar.

The hon. member’s interjection is very kind, but delay is not the breaking of a promise. I am prepared to rely on the statement of the Prime Minister, that the remainder will come forward in due course. The hon. member describes this as another colour bar, but there is no breaking of a promise. If the promise is kept in two parts, I do not regard it as any justification to suggest that it introduces a new colour bar, and the argument that the Bill should be rejected on this ground is a most ridiculous one. It simply falls away when you take the position exactly as it is. We find a Bill for the enfranchisement of white women of the Union, with a promise that a subsequent Bill will enfranchise the coloured women of the Union, which is so dear to some of our friends. I am sure that the forebodings uttered during some of the speeches on this Bill were rather dreadful. I read in the press, and have heard it described as the downfall of white civilization. What in the name of goodness does that mean? Does it mean that because the white women of South Africa are to have the right to vote in the election of members of Parliament that that is the downfall of white civilization? Surely there is no argument there against the Bill. Wild statements of this kind presented to a House of this character will have no weight and no effect at all either in modifying or rejecting the Bill. Then I find another description of the Bill is that it is a pernicious Bill. My hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. MacCallum) is not present, but I cannot conceive that any hon. member of this House should regard this Bill as a pernicious Bill. He may have meant it as a “judicial” Bill. In that event I should agree with him entirely. To regard a Bill of this character as a pernicious Bill which is put forward by the Prime Minister of the country to redeem a promise, because various private attempts have been made year after year in this House to enfranchise the women and have failed, in my opinion is wrong. I say with all meaning that the Prime Minister deserves our appreciation in the very best way. I see there is another statement that the women should be kept back and should remain in their own sphere. What does that mean? To what age was the hon. member referring? To the pre-Victorian days or to the sphere of the present day? It was a common custom 50 years ago or more for people to rear their daughters and to keep them until they were married. Then they married, brought up a family and looked after the household. That was in those days woman’s sphere. But what is the position in our time? Surely in that regard, at any rate, we are living in a new age. It is not an age into which we have jumped in the course of a few years, but an age which has gradually come about. Even in this country we see that the young women of South Africa are just as capable as the young women in any other part of the world. Take your industrial and commercial life. Take the development that is taking place there, and notice how the young women of this country are taking their part in it. Take the professions, nursing, medical, law and other professions. The women have advanced in these directions tremendously during the past 20 to 40 years. If you want to take the women back to pre-Victorian days, I agree with hon. members who say that the women of South Africa are not capable of exercising a vote in order to elect members of Parliament and members of provincial councils. Surely that is a very poor opinion for this House to have of the mentality of the women of South Africa to-day. I support the Bill very heartily just as it is presented to us. There are other fields in which the women of South Africa have advanced very considerably. Take the hospital work of South Africa. I have not the slightest doubt that the work the women have done in the hospitals in this country is a marvellous one. It has thrown a new light on many matters. It is just the same in education and in other walks of life, and also in municipal work. I see one of the arguments used against this Bill by hon. members opposite is that the flapper vote, as it was originally called, would put a Labour party Government into power. I suggest that the women’s vote will make very little difference in this or in any other country to the actual parties as they exist. Where a man votes, the household will, in all probability, vote with him. I think that will be the result of this measure when it comes about. The great objection to this Bill, coming from both sides of the House, is this. It reduces the franchise. It is perfectly true, it does. But what have we got in the north? Surely we have got manhood suffrage there. Consequently, I support this Bill absolutely on that basis. There is no proof that the vote is likely to be brought down in qualifications instead of brought up. I know of no country in Europe since the war—those countries which have been recreated—which have not got manhood suffrage as the basis of the whole position. Whichever way we look at it there is not the slightest doubt that the tendency in this country will be to march in the same direction. One knows the feeling that many people in this country desire a higher qualification in regard to property, education and so forth, but it is a remarkable thing that we have manhood suffrage in all these newly-created countries, brought about by the great war. Consequently, I suggest that there is no other direction in which to travel than in the direction of manhood suffrage. In the years that are to come, whatever difficulties or complications there are in connection with votes for women, I make bold to say that the tendency of this country will be towards manhood suffrage. The Bill is particularly sound for two reasons. It separates the white from the coloured, and it is manhood suffrage. It is what we are looking for, and what will be ahead of us, and what we shall be legislating for in five or ten years from now. It is said that there is no strong demand by women for the vote. Do hon. members want something more militant? The demand of the women of South Africa has been persistent, at any rate, so far as a large section of them is concerned, and the attitude the women have taken up on the matter has always been highly creditable to their sex. In England it is true that when the “votes for women” campaign was at its greatest height, many things were done which we would be sorry to see done in this country. Unquestionably, this Bill is overdue and no argument against the principle has been put forward in this House, at any rate, no argument that cannot be washed away. The women of this country deserve well of their men-folk. When you behold the noble work the women of South Africa are doing to-day, when you remember the difficulties they have overcome, when you bear in mind all the unanswerable arguments that have been advanced in this House and outside its walls, in favour of this most great and desirable reform, and when you consider the bare merits of the case, you must realize how utterly impossible it is for us to continue to deny the women of South Africa the right to exercise the franchise.

It goes without staying that all of us, both of this side and on the other, must give the greatest attention to this Bill, because, if it is passed, it will bring about a complete change in the state institutions as they have hitherto existed in South Africa. I am glad that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that it was not a party measure. Nor do I blame him for introducing it, because if he wanted to stop a worse Bill than the one he has introduced he had to do so, otherwise we should have got a Bill which would have been still more injurious than this one.

In what sense was it worse?

This Bill contains certain safeguards which were not in the other Bill. I need not go into them. In any case, I consider the Prime Minister’s Bill as the safest, if, indeed, we are to have women’s franchise. I have, from the start, voted against this proposal, when it was brought up in this House, but I have never before given my reasons. Inasmuch, however, as we have now got to a point when the Bill will possibly become an Act, I consider it my duty as leader of the Transvaal Nationalist party to say why I oppose it. I am opposed to it both on principle and for practical reasons. In principle because I, as one who still believes in the Bible, consider that woman, according to the account of creation, has been created as a helper to man, not as his superior. That the Afrikaner woman has always been in the fullest sense of the word. If we look at the history of our people, I am speaking more particularly of the Dutch-speaking Afrikaners, then we find that from the beginning the women were the faithful assisters of the men in all they did and omitted, in their wanderings, in their treks, in wars, everywhere. The woman faithfully stood by him, not as his superior, but as a help, and in that way she got the amazing influence which the Dutch-speaking woman has, an influence which is possibly greater than that of the women of any other nation, not so much because we are kinder to our women, but because the women have always got the influence through our way of living. The Dutch-speaking, and a large section of the English-speaking, where they live lonely on their farms, have had in the past, and often have no one to-day but themselves to talk to. The men have no one else to consult about religious matters, about farming, politics, or any other matter than their wives. The wives give their opinions, and in that way acquire great influence. If now they are going to exercise influence as members of Parliament, or of the provincial council, or what not, their influence as wives and mothers will diminish. That is the reason we are opposed to women’s franchise. It is often said that we have obsolete views, that we regard the women as inferior beings. I want most strongly to contradict that. We, who are opposed to women’s franchise, appreciate the great, the enormous influence that the women have exercised in South Africa, and value it very highly, not only with regard to existing politics, but because we know that it is the influence exercised on the future generation. She will not retain this influence if she directly acts in person. As sure as we are sitting here, she will lose it. I have always placed women very high, and if I take the Bible as my guide, then the Bible also places women very high. Christ said that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and in the proverbs of Solomon it is said that the woman stops at home, and the man forgathers with the ancients in the gate. Who took the man to the gate? It is clear that it was the woman. We, therefore, place the women much higher if we do not put her directly into politics. Now it is said that we use the women to collect money for political purposes, to get votes, and then it is stated that they must also have the vote. It is true that the women do it to help the men. They have always done it, even in the days of the voortrekkers. They told the voortrekkers that they would not surrender Natal and go back before Dingaan was punished. Their word was decisive. Such great influence did the women have. It is true that women collect money in church and social work, but which of us will say that she ought to be a minister or elder? Dr. Kuyper, one of the greatest theologians and statesmen, who has acquired great fame in Europe in both capacities, has pointed out in his “anti-revolutionary statesmanship” that women have a different task to men. That is said by this great man, but I have a book in my hands which I recommend everyone to read who is so much in love with ultra-democracy. The title of the book is “To-day and To-morrow,” written by J. H. Curie, a man who has travelled over the whole world, and made a study of conditions. He has made an investigation, and what he says is very important. I do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) agrees with it. I always thought that the hon. member was a conservative, but it appears that is no longer the case. I am not ashamed of opposing women’s franchise. It is said that it is a sign of inferiority to be a conservative. I just want to tell my hon. friends here that what made England great and strong was its conservatism, and not the new ideas of Clydesdale. What does this writer say—

She will lose the influence over the men of South Africa to the detriment of future generations—

The man is mad.

I think that people who think otherwise are mad. He is a man of the world who has studied conditions and knows what he says. I have a newspaper article here. I do not want to read it, but it appeared in the Sunday News in England and was written by a republican. He writes that the conditions in many European countries, the disorganization in economic matters, and much of the unemployment is directly due to women’s franchise. He goes further—I do not know whether it is a fact, because I have not been in Europe for a long time—and points out the disquieting increase in the number of divorces—

Now we are told that we are behindhand to all the other dominions. All the other dominions have women’s franchise, why should not we as well? In the first place, I want to say that I am not in favour of slavishly aping everything European, and in the second place that our position entirely differs from that of Europe, where they have a homogeneous population. We have other problems here. There is the coloured question, which is so serious that we almost despair of a solution. We cannot simply say that we must copy other countries when conditions here are entirely different. This Bill lays down that only white women shall have the vote. I do not even want to give it to white women, certainly not to coloured women. If, however, we lay down the principle, can we stop there? Will it not go on to its logical conclusion? Can we tell the coloured man that he is on an equal footing with us politically, but not his women folk? We cannot stop it. It is possible that we could do so for a time, but it will come.

The Prime Minister has promised it.

I do not believe that the party has adopted it. It will, however, certainly happen. We cannot stop it. I go further, and want to point out that if the native Bills of the Prime Minister’s do not pass, if the policy of segregating natives politically cannot be carried out, then the native women will also get the vote. We cannot stop that either. Now I want to ask hon. members on both sides if they want to create that state of affairs? I want to point out another danger, viz., that already to-day there is a large number of people who have the vote, who do not consider it as a means of looking after the interests of the country, who do not consider it as something to be used in the general interests, but as something to get personal benefit as a sort of exchange medium. If a group of people holding that view get together and demand that certain things should be done in their special interests, otherwise they will not vote for this or the other party, it forms a danger. If this Bill passes, the danger will be much greater. We shall then have a franchise for coloured women, and, subsequently, for native women if the native question is not solved. We shall get groups of people who will not consider the interests of the state, but themselves in the first place. That class will extend. And what becomes of the taxpayer? Are they only to pay to give that class of people what they want? Have hon. members already thought of this? This women’s franchise is not indigenous to South Africa, it has been introduced from abroad as one of the socialistic principles. Hon. members may laugh, but who introduced it here for the first time but the late Mr. D. M. Brown? There were women here who immediately took it up then and a whole lot followed without knowing what it meant. The fault that exists in South Africa is that we have an individualist system. Instead of taking the family as a cell, as the kernel, we have adopted the individualist system. Moral force in the church and in the state originates in the family where the children have a proper education, but the individual only thinks of himself. But we have the individualist system here, and we have to thank the assistant leader of the Opposition and his people for it, because when we drafted the constitution they raised the cry: “One man one vote—one vote one value.” They thought that they would get votes in that way, especially from the considerable number of young Englishmen who had come into the country, and that is the reason why we made that mistake in South Africa. The man with the family is of greater value to the state; he can, e.g., run away less easily than the man who is alone. If it were to be proposed here now that the man with a family should get two votes, not because he possesses more, but because he is worth more to the state, there would be something to be said for it possibly. But here it is proposed to give the vote to everybody, man or woman above 21 years. I am very sorry about it, and I think we shall yet very much regret the passing of the Bill. It has also been stated that the women really want the vote. They say that the Nationalist women’s party has passed resolutions in favour of the vote. I want emphatically to say that that is not so. If the Prime Minister had not been forced to make the promise, they would not have voted in favour of women’s franchise.

Forced by whom?

The previous Bill on women’s franchise would have been passed if the Prime Minister had not promised to introduce a better Bill. I have attended meetings of the Transvaal Nationalist women’s party, and told them that I would say it in Parliament as well that they passed the resolutions because they had thought that they must support the Prime Minister because he has made the promise. They admitted that that was the reason they were supporting the Prime Minister. This also appears from an article which has just recently appeared in the Star. I should like to quote a portion of it—

They do not do so at our meetings?

Yes, the South African party meetings are so secret and quiet—

An astonishing state of affairs also prevails in Europe. Hon. members know that women’s franchise prevails in many European countries, but not in Switzerland, although it is surrounded by countries with women’s franchise. On that subject we find in the Star—

That is certainly noteworthy in a country which is surrounded by countries with women’s franchise. That is therefore the conclusion to which they have come in Switzerland on the subject. As for our own country there are other difficulties. It is a big country but very sparsely populated. The towns will thereby obtain a much greater advantage than the countryside. They can walk to and from the ballot box in the towns, but conditions are different in the country where people sometimes live 30 to 40 miles away from the nearest polling booth. Do hon. members think that the father, the mother and the son on a farm can all leave it to go and vote? No, unless the Government is prepared to increase the number of polling booths at least fourfold it will be impossible. The towns will therefore have all the benefit, and the countryside will suffer. We represent the people here, and we have no right to pass legislation if the majority of the people do not want it, and I say emphatically that the majority are opposed to women’s franchise. If hon. members are in doubt then let us have a referendum.

Then you will lose.

No, the hon. member will be astonished at the result. It must not then become a political question, however, a matter to get party advantage out of, but let us ask the people whether they want women’s franchise, and we can allow women over 21 also to vote on it, and if a political question is not made out of it, I am certain that there will be an overwhelming majority in South Africa against women’s franchise. I was astonished about some women from England whom I met who told me that they were all opposed to women’s franchise. They say it is the worst thing that has ever yet been passed and that it creates an impossible position. Those “flappers” have not the feeling of responsibility that a voter ought to have. The franchise is not necessary to the South African woman because she has such an influence over the men that she can do what she likes. In the second place, irresponsible people will not exercise the vote for the good of the state but for their own benefit. Speakers have said here that the vote will cause trouble in the family, and that it will create a danger of conflict between a man and his wife. The reply was that that was nonsense, but is it really such nonsense? What happened recently at the municipal election at Bloemfontein? Women can vote for municipal councils and in Bloemfontein the women’s association decided to put up two women candidates for the municipal council. They said that all women apart from parties must vote for those women candidates. This time they possibly did not succeed to give the candidates the victories, but it shows what might happen and who says that it will not also occur in politics? And if it happens will it not cause trouble in the family? The wife will possibly say to her husband: “I am not voting for your party candidate, but I am voting for that woman.” I think that in future we shall very much regret this legislation, but when repentance comes it will be too late. If we feel that possibly the Bill is undesirable why should we pass it? I believe we all know that the majority in this country are against women’s franchise, why then should we force it on the people? Let us have a referendum and if the majority of the people are in favour of it we can introduce it. I am, however, convinced that the large majority of our people are opposed to women’s franchise, and as the position is not the same here as in Europe where they have a homogeneous population, and hon. members are also convinced that the people want it, let us have a referendum. Do not let us make a political question of the matter. I am, therefore, sorry that my hon. friends opposite have put their matter on their party programme. It is not a matter which concerns them only, but the whole people. We ought to have left the matter to the people. The whole of the people ought to vote on it, and we must then abide by the decision of the majority. If we make a political matter of women’s franchise then party supporters will vote on party lines, and we shall not ascertain the actual wishes of the people. Party discipline will settle the matter. I am convinced that the people will give their verdict against the measure, because it is a wrong thing; it is foreign to our national character and to the spirit and the interests of our women. I am opposed to the Bill because I am afraid that the women will lose their great influence in our national life and also her power of doing good for our country and people, as they have done in the past. Women have made their influence felt, and it is often the case that the person who does not do a thing himself exercises a greater influence than the person who does it. I am opposed to women’s franchise because I am anxious to preserve the good influence of the women. It is better to retain that influence and to keep women on their high pedestal instead of dragging them into the political arena. I shall try to vote against the Bill and to defeat it. I know that the people are against it and therefore I support the amendment for a referendum. The Prime Minister spoke about telegrams, but those telegrams were sent because the people think than the Prime Minister must be supported. I do not know whether he is so greatly in favour of the Bill, but I will vote against it even if I were the last to oppose it.

We have just listened to a most sincere and heart-felt speech from a real conservative; or rather I will not say a real conservative, but a die-hard conservative, who wants to turn back the tide. He wants to turn the tide because he thinks the world is all wrong. I believe the world is slowly coming right; I believe in going with the current and trying to turn it into the right direction. I have great sympathy with the Minister of Lands, because I know how genuine he is. He even objects to men voting as individuals and would give the vote only to heads of families.

No, I said I would give heads of families two votes, and the others one.

That is a great concession on the part of the Minister. I have been accused at various times of many things, and I am now accused of being the cause of manhood suffrage in the Transvaal.

No, I said your party.

I have been accused of many things, but may I remind my hon. friend that when the franchise was laid down in the Transvaal I was not a politician at all: I was merely an official.

You were the tail that wagged the dog.

When the Transvaal constitution was given, the reason why no franchise qualifications were proposed was not to create a democracy in the towns, but in order not to disfranchise the young men on the farms.

Is that the “one vote, one value”?

No, I am not talking about “one vote, one value.” There were two points. First of all, whether the franchise should be given on a manhood basis or with a qualification. It was pointed out at that time very strongly, that under the old Republican law, when a man became of age, he was a burger of the state and was liable to commando service and was entitled to a vote. It was pointed out to us, and I am sure it is true, that if we had brought in a qualification franchise, such as would have disfranchised many of the young men on the farms with no holdings of their own, we should have been accused of taking away the vote from the men who, under the old republic, were entitled to it. That is the reason why manhood suffrage was given to the Transvaal. The “one vote, one value” was in regard to the question of the division of the constituencies and how much the constituencies were going up. I might tell my hon. friend that I did not believe in the “one vote, one value” principle very much. I always believed that the permanent inhabitants of a country should have a preponderating voice in the country. The hon. Minister tells us that he is against women’s franchise because, he says, the women do not want it. That is against all the testimony that we have in this House. Ever since Union, petitions have been brought into this House signed by hundreds of thousands of women.

No, no.

Well, the petitions against it have not amounted to very much. All political parties have been pressed by the women to adopt this policy of giving the women a vote. I am quite convinced it is against the facts to say that the women of South Africa do not want the vote.

Try a referendum.

The hon. member said, “Try a referendum.” The amendment moved in favour of the referendum is only another way of killing the Bill. If you are to have a referendum of women, it means that another Act must be passed through this House laying down the machinery for creating voters lists and all the rest of it, and it will also involve considerable time and expense to take the referendum. The thing is hopeless. This amendment is really an amendment to kill the Bill. The hon. Minister and other speakers have told us that women’s sphere is the home. If women desert their homes and concentrate their interests in politics, they say it will kill the home. Women’s sphere will still remain in the home, whether you give them the vote or not. Their first interest will be in the home and the family, and no amount of political interests, and no political liberties you give them will ever attract them away from that. The hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) some little time ago, gave us an eloquent speech about racial and national degeneration if this measure came in. Women would desert their homes. You would have empty cradles and they would desert their husbands. There would be unfeminine women and all the rest of it. The hon. member went back into ancient history. He went back to the days of the Roman empire, and said what a very dissolute and “unfamily” part the women had played in the degeneration of the Roman empire. However true that was, it was not politics that produced that result. It was not because they got the vote that they ruined their race in the days of the Roman empire. It is not politics now that takes women away from their homes, and leads them to desert their husbands and neglect their children. It is mere social amusements. You will find the women who are the keenest about their homes and about social reforms, are those who want to be allowed to exercise their votes in politics. No woman who is careless about her family, her country and her race wants the vote. It is the serious woman who wants the vote and wants to be able to do something to give effect in the councils of her country to what she knows to be right in her own home. The hon. member talks about the falling birth-rate in the different countries of the world. It must have taken the hon. member a long time to get up all that information. I wondered why he did not include France amongst those countries. They have not got the vote there. It is not the women’s vote in France that has led to that state of affairs there, and it will not lead to it here. The Minister who has just spoken told us that the Prime Minister had been compelled to bring in this Bill. I wonder why? I asked my hon. friend that and he said that it was in order to prevent a worse Bill from passing. I ask again: In what respects the Bill which failed to pass two years ago was worse than this Bill is? To begin with, it gave the vote to European women on the same terms as to men. In the Cape Province the European woman would have to produce her qualification before she got the vote. Under the Prime Minister’s Bill she gets the vote because she is a woman. Is that a worse Bill than the previous one of two years ago?

You cannot make a difference between the northern provinces and this province.

The difference is there now. It did not suit the interests of the party opposite that that Bill should pass two years ago, and the Prime Minister knew that it would pass unless he could buy off the Labour people to vote against it.

Only some of them.

I know, only some of them. That is why the Prime Minister was compelled to introduce this Bill. There is no secret about it, and that is why the Bill is here now. I cannot imagine any serious-minded man looking to what women do in our community, to the interest they take in public affairs, looking to the interest they have got in public affairs, looking to what it means to them that the affairs of our national life should go right and not wrong—having regard for all these things, I cannot imagine a serious-minded man saying “you shall not have the vote.” I cannot imagine him saying, “You may take part in politics; you may attend meetings and speak at meetings and canvass voters to vote for your party and drive them to the poll, but you cannot go inside.” What is the justification for this Rubicon line which is being drawn? I cannot imagine any serious-minded man being able to justify this position. Why should a woman who takes a keen interest in social affairs—and it would be a bad thing for the country if women stopped doing that—be debarred merely because she is a woman from expressing by her vote the opinions she wants to have voiced in Parliament? All this talk of the breaking up of the home and woman losing her influence, carries no conviction to anyone. Why should a woman lose her influence if she can exercise the vote, as well as trying to persuade other people to vote?

Why is the King of England such a great influence, although he has no vote, and the same with the King of Spain?

I suppose the same argument could apply to men as to women; in the view of the Minister, no doubt, it would be better if men had not the vote. I cannot see why women who have gone in for professions, who have taken a keen and active interest in social work, and who, when anything afflicts the nation, are also afflicted, should be debarred from voting. One bogey the Minister held up, and that was in the event of the franchise being extended to women, a women’s party would be formed, and that women would vote for candidates of their own sex merely because they were women. In England, however, few women enter Parliament, and, so far, although no one can say that they have been a brilliant success, no one can assert that they have done any harm in Parliament. No, women will vote for the candidates who, in their opinion, will best give effect to their views. In municipal affairs I think that women have done remarkably good work, and it is a great advantage to the councils to have women sitting in them. I cannot imagine anybody, except a few conservatives, like the Minister of Lands, saying that a woman as a woman should not be allowed to have the vote. The opponents of the Bill say that women may take part in politics in every possible way, up to a point— the point at which they themselves are to be allowed to exercise the franchise. That is an unprincipled principle. There are, however, two points in the Bill which cause us a good deal of difficulty; one point is this. The Prime Minister, when he promised to introduce the Bill, also promised to enfranchise the civilized coloured woman, but he has not done so. I would like to call attention to the attitude of the Prime Minister’s party on this question. We are often being taunted on these benches with having different views on important questions, but the differences that exist here are certainly reflected by the differences that exist on the other side. The Prime Minister has repeatedly asserted that it was his policy to treat civilized coloured men on the same basis as the Europeans—politically, industrially and economically; and that statement has been repeated by his colleagues on platforms, particularly before elections, that that was the policy for which they stood. Nevertheless, it is perfectly obvious that a large number of members sitting behind the Government treat that promise with contempt, and they make no secret of the fact that they are utterly opposed to it. What about this wonderful undivided policy of theirs? Where do they stand on this question? Are they for or against the Prime Minister? They use this as a bait for election times, and as a subject for laughter afterwards. It is contributing to unrest in the country that promises are made by Ministers, and are treated with contempt by their members.

It is not the policy of the Transvaal party to give votes to women.

I am prepared in regard to this Bill, as I was in regard to the Bill of 1928, to support it, even if it is confined to European women, in spite of the fact that it is contrary to the promises that have been made, and is contrary to what I regard as a sound policy—that the civilized coloured man should be taken along with the European. I am prepared to support the Bill, however, because I feel that the only hope of giving our European women the franchise is to carry a Bill confining the franchise to them. As the House is constituted at present, or will be constituted for some time to come, it will not carry a Bill for women’s suffrage which is not confined to European women. I believe that giving the franchise to European women alone will not delay what I regard as a measure of justice— the ultimate admission of civilized coloured women to the franchise. Another point of difficulty is this. The Bill proposes to give the franchise to women on terms upon which they have never asked for it. What they have asked for is the removal of the sex disability —that they should be allowed to vote on the same terms as men. That is a very reasonable request, but the Prime Minister goes further, and says they are to be allowed to vote on better terms than men in the Cape and Natal are allowed to vote, for, as soon as women are of age, they will have the right to the franchise, whether they have any other qualification or not. Many women, however, do not want the vote on those terms. Why did the Prime Minister depart from an obvious line of advance? He has told us he does not believe in qualifications as regards Europeans; he believes Europeans should be enfranchised without qualifications, as the men have been in the north. Well, as far as I am concerned, there may be something to be said for that, but why should it be done now? If you are going to have adult enfranchisement throughout South Africa, why begin with it in a measure for the enfranchisement of women? Surely the obvious course would have been to give women the vote on the same terms as the men; and if later the Prime Minister and his party decide to remove the franchise qualifications from European men and women in the Cape, then would be the time to do it. I understood he was going to do it for the men.

No.

Then why on earth do it for the women? I understood him to say, and thought it only reasonable, that he intended, sooner or later, when the native problem and a few other things are solved, to give manhood suffrage throughout the Union.

[Inaudible.]

I am trying to understand why this particular clause is put in. I understood the Prime Minister had in mind before very long to give adult suffrage, and that this is an anticipatory measure. If that is not so, I am entirely at a loss to understand why the Prime Minister did not give women’s suffrage on precisely the same terms as the men.

To make the Bill pass.

An amendment, which proposes to give women the franchise on the same basis as men, has a great deal of reason behind it, but the Prime Minister says it will kill the Bill. This is an opportunity, in my opinion, of bringing about a long deferred measure of justice and reform. It is a reform for which I have been working, I believe, ever since I came into the Union Parliament, and before it was adopted by any of the parties— except the Labour party. I believe the effect this is going to have on our politics is, as was indicated by my right hon. friend the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that it is not going to destroy the foundations of our national life and break up and ruin our life, but will introduce into our political life a more serious atmosphere and impulse we too often neglect at present; that it will create cleaner homes, a stronger people, and make South Africa a great nation, by working from within first of all rather than from without.

I think it is a pleasure to all of us that we can debate this important and comprehensive subject apart from party politics. For that we are indebted to the introducer of the Bill, who has not done it as Prime Minister, but as my colleague the member for Smithfield. We know that the Labour party in the first place repeated it as a means of making political propaganda, and the hon. member who has just sat down told us that he always voted in favour of it. We are concerned here with a drastic measure which will reduce women to the low level of men, and we have heard these speeches which to me are painful. I wish I had sufficient eloquence to bring home to the House what a great conviction I have in connection with this matter. I am, however, glad to know that I can speak in the House, where I know women to be highly respected, valued and appreciated, because we all realize that it is no one less than the women of South Africa that are concerned. I should also like to contribute my quota as to why I think that the women of South Africa should not get the vote. What role has she played in the history of South Africa? We follow her from the time when the first colony was established on this southern coast. It is no more than right that we should bring her our homage under the shadow of Table Mountain. We follow her during the time South Africa was being created, in the interior further and further, until, as wives of the voortrekkers, they took their share at Blaukrans, Weenen and Blood River, and were always the inspiration of the men, and always inspired them, urged them, and encouraged them to do what was right. On the establishment of the republics she played her part, as she also did in the concentration camps. To-day we see the realization of the ideal, which she inspired, in united people. These are the women we now want to take part in politics. We want them to vote, that is, to vote at elections, to offer themselves as candidates, and so to take an active part in elections. I do not think that there is anything particularly wrong with the vote, but we know that there is something wrong with the franchise. Our franchise is now being enquired into, and we have every reason for thinking that legislation will be introduced to amend it. We have dealt with a very important question like immigration, and we shall soon also have to deal with the question of segregation. At the moment we are engaged on the women’s franchise. These are all political matters which we are dealing with in the national interest to save our country. What is politics as understood at the moment by those who take part in it? As a definition, it is said that politics demands tact, discretion, care, wisdom, carefulness, cleverness, etc., and because cleverness is one of the qualities, we also arrive at such characteristics as skill, artfulness, crudeness, cunning, acuteness, and slyness. That is actually what politics is, and we can embrace it all in the Afrikaans word for outwit (“uitoorle”). That contains the best description of the politics of to-day. As that is political life, it is a life of deceit and therefore also of lying. That is the kind of politics to which we want to bring the women. We find, however, that ideals are befouled by politics, that we must follow principles, must be honest, straightforward and virtuous. These are qualities which shine in woman. As men we are honest enough to acknowledge that we have come too short, and now we want to drag women into politics as well to see if they will not uplift our politics to what they ought to be. I am a Conservative, one of the people the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has spoken about. A development is in progress to-day. It is materialistic and also scientific, but I am one of the conservatives who does not believe that I stand here as the result of evolution. I am one of the conservatives who believe in creation, and that human beings have a soul. It is especially the woman who has been created with a soft and tender soul. That is her peculiarity, and now we want to drag her into politics. What would the great ancestors say of it? Men like Piet Retief, Paul Kruger, and the late President Steyn? What did the late John X. Merriman say in this House in 1919 in this connection? Were they worn-out arguments when he said—

That is what we feel; that is my inward conviction, and I cannot omit using this opportunity, as I honour and respect the women of South Africa and the future mothers of South Africa, of voting against a motion like this which takes away the birthright from the women in exchange for the right to vote. I should be unfaithful to myself if I did not protest against the granting of women’s franchise. If she allows her rights to be taken away, and wants to compete with me on an equal footing, then she cannot expect to preserve intact the rights which she has had as a woman. If this Bill passes, we shall undoubtedly, in my humble opinion, do a great injury to the women. We want to establish a great nation. Are we then in the first place to do so with immigrants, or with other elements, or by the mothers of our people? We must establish our nation by the mothers of our people. Therefore we must keep woman in the exalted position she has held. I cannot do otherwise than call out with the great Reformer when he stood and testified in deepest conviction of soul: “Here I stand, so help me God I cannot do otherwise.” I feel that I cannot do any injustice to the mothers of South Africa by voting in favour of her being lowered to the political status in which all political parties want to use her as a blind voter for their party political purposes.

I would like to say at once that I am in favour of the enfranchisement of women, but not at any price. I would not try to persuade hon. members who are against the principle to vote against their convictions, for I think that, by this time, every hon. member has made up his mind on this question. This is a Bill for the enfranchisemen of European women only, and I have been wondering what that really means. I take it that every European woman aged 21 and over will be entitled to the franchise, irrespective of any other qualification, and I sometimes wonder whether women who are mentally defective and some who have no mentality—I mean those who are of unsound mind—will be included on the voters’ roll. This Bill is in conflict with the franchise laws as applied to the Cape Province, which is based on the principle that any man can obtain the franchise if over 21 and possessing the requisite financial and educational qualification irrespective of his race or creed. That principle has stood the test for three-quarters of a century in the Cape Province. We feel we would not like to adopt what is regarded by us as the new-fangled idea of European adult suffrage. It seems to me that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, did not seem to think very much of that principle. He had quite a different idea. May I quote what the Prime Minister said—

I think the hon. the Prime Minister, in saying that, based his arguments entirely upon a supposition, because, if this had been the case, there was a splendid opportunity for them to change the law as applied to the Cape Province when the National Convention sat. Those who represented the Cape Province at that convention stood up for the old Cape principle. These people who represented us there—men like Sauer, Merriman, and the late J. H. Hofmeyr—men of sound convictions and sound judgment, did they stand up for that principle because they loved the native more than the European? No, it was because they thought that it was in the best interests of Europeans of this country to stand by the old Cape principle and not by the principle of European adult male suffrage. I would like to say this in criticizing the Bill that the Prime Minister has referred in his speech when introducing the Bill to the coloured people. The Prime Minister mentioned that he would like to place them on the same footing with the European women, but that there were prejudices against them, and they must wait. He said he would also bring in legislation to define who a “coloured person” is. I feel that, although the Prime Minister may be quite in earnest in his desire to place coloured women on the same footing as European women, in regard to adult franchise, the coloured people will never get for their women folk adult franchise in this House of Parliament. No. I feel this, that this Bill is in conflict with the Cape franchise, and I feel that I shall not be able to support the Bill in its present form. I sincerely hope, whilst I am in favour of women’s franchise, that there will be amendments to the Bill which will satisfy sundry and all parties.

I think that we are engaged on a very important matter which I think has been before the House twenty times, and is now attracting a great deal of attention in the country. We can hardly listen to any discussion or women’s franchise comes up in it. I think that a very large section of the people are opposed to women’s franchise, but if the people get a good insight into this matter which they can expect from us as their representatives, who have made a thorough study of this problem, then they will be still more against it. I want, in the first place, to answer a few questions. The first one is this; on what basis is the women’s franchise asked for? I think it is very clear than the main argument used in favour of it is that women are the equals of men. That is the drift of feminism with its emancipation that we have already noticed even in our country. When nature shows us that the body of woman is created differently to that of man, and weaker, and if experience teaches us that she has a different nature, and if the scriptures show us that she differs from the man with her quiet and gentle spirit, how do we arrive at saying that women are the equals of men? We reach it in the following way; if we go back into history a little we shall find that towards the end of the eighteenth century women’s franchise was for the first time seriously spoken of. The idea arose at that time when also the French Revolution started, when the so-called “rights of man” were spoken of, and the slogan was heard “equality, liberty and fraternity.” In time we find people in England, like Herbert Spencer, the philosopher, J. Stuart Mill, the economist, and a writer like Mary Walstonecraft, with her “Vindication of the Rights of Women.” Out of the idea of the rights of man arose the idea of the rights of woman, that the woman was just as worthy as any other individual in the national life. Men like Pierre le Roux, and Victor Considerant in France laid the foundations for the advocacy of the franchise for women, based on the view of a state which rests on the equality of all people. We, therefore, have in this idea of the state to do with a view that the state exists out of an aggregate of individuals, that the people so to say consist out of units all with equal rights. I want to prove that only on that basis can the women’s franchise as here demanded he advocated. I want to quote a few sentences from a man like Constantine Frantz in his “Naturlehre des Staates.” I read from the Dutch translation—

That is the irony of this learned statesman. I want it to be very clearly understood that no other basis can be found for justifying universal franchise to women except that the people are an aggregate of individuals and that a woman is just as good a person in the national life as the man, and has just as strong a will as the man. Is the woman the equal of the man? It has already so often been said in this House that woman is the helpmate of man; this does not mean that she is the equal. I do not for a moment say that she is inferior, but I say that she is different, that she has a different vocation to the man, a different kind of vocation. I would like to compare it to the work of the fireman and the engine driver; the engine driver cannot proceed without the fireman; he requires the fireman’s help, hut the assistance of the fireman does not consist of his doing the same work as the driver. It is a different kind of work, and this takes place in connection with a woman and a man. If a woman is the helpmeet of the man then it does not mean that she does precisely the same as the man. The wife is the aid of a minister, not alongside him in the pulpit; the wife is the aid to the farmer, but this does not mean that she must do all things together with him, and get hold of the plough, the wife assists the advocate, but that does not mean that she pleads before the judge with the advocate. If we then get to the woman being declared the equal of the man we shall certainly get into certain follies. I just want to start by pointing out that if the woman is the equal of the man and she wants to start by wearing the same clothes, and aping the same headdress of a man. Then we get the kind of woman like Mrs. Pethwick-Lawrence who is now in South Africa and is one of the protagonists of women’s franchise. There was a lunch in honour of Mrs. Pethwick-Lawrence and the only man present was Mr. F. W. Pethwick-Lawrence, Secretary of Finance, who, while he praised his wife, said that he married her a quarter of a century ago because she was thirty years in advance of her times. As his three reasons why he proposed to her He gave that she smoked cigarettes, that she jumped off buses while they were in motion, and she did not always year gloves when she went out.

According to the newspaper report he also said—

If we want to put the woman in the same position as the man in every respect, then we will come to a kind of rebirth of the woman, and the ingrained admiration and respect for the woman will disappear. I just want to point out that in England there is already a so-called “fifty-fifty league,” of course of men, by which certain rights are protected as against the women. If women are the equals of men in every respect then it will be demanded that they shall be put on an equality in all respects, and then the league expects that the women should bear the same burdens that the obligations shall be equally divided. Think, e.g., of compulsory military service. Then some of the women will be required to bear an equal responsibility in all respects. Up to the present women could always lay claim to the protection and respect of men. In England we, however, already see this attempt to defend the man’s position as against the woman. What is that attracts us to a child? That the child is helpless. That is why everybody wants to assist the child, and as the woman is the weaker vessel in life the man as a knight is always prepared to protect her, but if the vote be granted and the women are going to mix in the national life, in politics, then men and women are in the same position. By this Bill we shall try to force the women where they never yet wanted to be, and where we never ought to place them. I ask, therefore, on what ground the franchise is to be granted to women? Firstly, of course, on the ground that there are men who take up the wrong attitude that women are the equals of men, and that they ought, therefore, to sit in Parliament. Another reason, that mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), is that women exercise a good influence on political life, that the influence of women will be uplifting. I do not think the argument is worth much. If we remove the women from the position for which they are fitted, then we can be assured that they will no longer have the influence for good, which they have had in the past. Take two powerful countries of Europe, viz., France and Italy, who have not got the women’s franchise yet. They have reached the position they have attained to-day without the women’s franchise. Again, take the position of England; there women have the vote, and there even the Labour department is entrusted to a woman, Margaret Bondfield. England has 3,000,000 unemployed; I do not say as a result of the fact that a woman is at the head of the department, or because the women vote, but I do say that as the women have the franchise the same questions and problems are coming up and yet women are powerless to solve them. Russia is perhaps the country where women’s franchise is pushed the furthest, and where the women act socially on an equal footing, and where do we find the country where anti-Christian influence is stronger? As for England, may I just say that Lord Birkenhead, a man of position in political life, expressed himself as follows after ten years of women’s franchise in England—

There you have the opinion of a man of influence in politics and that is his evidence, after ten years of women’s franchise. I further want to refer to a small country like Estonia where women’s franchise was introduced shortly after the world war. It was adopted there enthusiastically, and seven per cent. of the representatives of the people were women. Have the women had an uplifting influence on political life? There is not a single woman there to-day as a representative of the people. What is more, I see that the women are themselves nervous about voting for a woman candidate. The parties also do not like nominating women candidates because it does not conduce to the strengthening of the party. That is a country where the women’s franchise already exists. We cannot simply philosophise. We must take-conditions as they actually exist. What does the woman herself say about the influence of women’s franchise in America? We have Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt saying in the Red Book of April, 1928—

According to this statement there will accordingly be very little actual political influence-emanating from the women in America. I also have here the opinion of a leader of the franchise movement for women in England. In the book “Pressing Problems of the Closing Age” Christabel Pankhurst, LL.B., in the chapter on women’s franchise writes—

She is here talking of opposing war—

I only quote all this to show what is going on in other countries. I now also want to mention what took place in our country in 1922. We constantly hear it said that the women will have an elevating influence on our political life. In 1922 the men’s congress of the Nationalist party at Malmesbury passed a resolution against state lotteries. The same year, and in the same month, however, the women’s South African party passed a resolution in favour of them. There then we have the elevating influence of the woman! That was her influence in an important matter like state lotteries. The hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) has already mentioned quite a number of cases in connection with Europe. Allow me to mention another. With the exception of Chili, we find there is no civilized country in the world where the death of women in childbirth is so great as in America. Women under the leadership of Mrs. Margaret Sanger want to oppose it, but what steps does she suggest to prevent death in childbirth? Birth control! They have even gone so far as to introduce legislation in the State of New York for birth control. Comment on this is superfluous. In conclusion I just want to say this in the point. If all the women in the whole world to-day were good and stood higher than men in every respect, then they might have had that good influence of which mention has been made in connection with the various problems of the country, although they would be in circumstances where they would not be at home, but I think that there is no one who will say that the woman stands so much higher than the man. On the contrary the flapper vote in England is lowering political life.

Who says so?

Everybody. Moreover, we have to do with the frivolous instincts of the women. There are, of course, hundreds and thousands of exceptions. It will pull down the political life. It has been said here that the women have deserved the franchise in South Africa. Now that this Bill has been introduced various letters and telegrams of support have been sent to the Prime Minister, they are all telegrams from the women’s Nationalist party. I say with all seriousness that that organization is now being used to push women’s franchise through. What has happened is that this women’s organization started with the beautiful slogan of assisting men, and women’s franchise was not on its programme. The women’s Nationalist party in the Free State even passed a resolution against it; now, however, the organization is being used in pushing women’s franchise through. Hon. members have said that the women have already done so much work. We admit it, but let me tell that hon. member who spoke like that that there are hundreds of women inside the Nationalist party who will be highly disappointed with the attitude now being taken up by the party. They complain that selfish motives are ascribed to them in connection with the work that they have done, as if they had assisted the Nationalist party only to help themselves. If women’s franchise is passed, then it is not the Afrikaans mothers who will rejoice. We shall find that it will be the leaders, the agitators for women’s franchise, who will rejoice at this measure passing the House, and because they have got their way. But I say again that it is not the women who have done the most for the country in South Africa. Those women will be downcast and disappointed about this Bill if it passes; but I go further by putting the question on what grounds do we oppose the Bill? The largest section of the women do not want the franchise, and I agree with Mrs. G. W. Lyons, the president of the Women’s Enfranchisement League, who, according to the Argus of the 4th March last, says that the coloured women ought not to have the vote. She says—

Mrs. Lyons says, therefore, herself that there ought first of all to be a demand before the franchise is given, and we must, therefore, find out whether the women as a whole have asked for it. The women’s Nationalist party cannot speak for the women of South Africa, because they do not in any province constitute more than one-quarter of the women in that province. I want further to ask the question whether women’s franchise will assist the interests of the family spirit in the country. I will be honest and admit that we ought not unquestionably to accept all the things that are laid to the charge of women’s franchise. Feminism, however, ends in women’s franchise, and women’s franchise is joined up with feminism, and we cannot separate them. If we had no feminism there would be no question of women’s franchise, that spirit of emancipation, that tendency of putting the women on equality with men leads to impossible consequences. I just want to quote the case of Mrs. Pethwick Lawrence. She argues that women were equal to men, and, according to an article in the Morning Post of the 30th March, 1928, she says—

Mrs. Lawrence, therefore, expressly says that women ought also to take their place in the pulpit, that if she could die as a martyr she also has the right to witness in the pulpit, but here she comes in direct conflict to the scriptures, which clearly say that woman cannot occupy the pulpit. “Yet I do not permit the woman to teach.. Let your women keep silence in the congrations,” said Paul. It amounts to this, that the women say: “The Bible, the scriptures can say what they like, but I say what I like.” I had the proof of that in an English newspaper where a woman correspondent said: “Paul can say what he likes about his time, but if a woman has a message she will talk !” The hon. member for Hope town (Dr. Stals) said that it did not improve but that the women’s franchise would injure the family life. It is not easy to prove it, but we can say that the franchise is connected with feminism, and that it exercises its influence on the women’s franchise. Take England, e.g., where the women’s franchise has now existed more than ten years. I do not say that that is partly the result of the vote, but it is partly the result of feminism that the birth statistics there are constantly decreasing. It was said in the Cape Times of the 11th March—

What about France?

There feminism is just as strong as in the other countries. Let me just say that in our country we have already commenced to have the same position. Here the birth statistics are also starting to drop. The figures for 1927 clearly show this, and it is said that the birth statistics for that year are the lowest that have yet been registered. If we take the number of births per 1,000 women from 15 to 45 years of age then the figure for 1927 was 112.12, while in 1914 it was 144.88. I, therefore, state that feminism has a great deal to do with the birth figures, and the franchise is merely a consequence of that. We fear that when we break through a wall a snake will bite us. Just so we fear that it women are driven out of their sphere of life the public will experience the injurious consequences. What solution is there then of the question? We can actually say that there are thousands and tens of thousands of women knocking at the door of the House asking for the vote. They are not going to see things as we see them, but there is a movement in the national life, and what are we going to do? I am not in favour of withholding all say from women, but I want to emphatically deny that they have a right on the ground of equality, because I am still waiting for the person who can prove that women are equal to men. It cannot be given on that basis, nor on the ground of deserts, but on the basis of head of the family franchise. The national life is to me in the main what the family is in a subordinate degree. The family is the looking-glass of the national life. What do we see in the family? The man inside the home is the head, he is the head of the woman, but the woman shares with him the authority in the home because the scriptures lay upon children respect for their father and mother. Therefore we must regard the people not as an aggregate of individuals, but as an organization, just like the family the people are built up out of cells, and no nation can exist without the family. Give to the head of the family two votes and let the family remain the heart of our national life. And where the head of the family is a widow she can have the two votes. Then we can give one vote to every economic independent individual, the young unmarried man, the potential father of a family insofar as he bears responsibility in the national life. Where we in addition have to do with the abnormal occurrence of a large number of economically independent women in our national life there we can also give them one vote, but the basis remains the two votes for the head of the family. Then we do not give the vote to the women on the basis of equality, but only because a considerable number of married women to-day—I cannot help it—stand economically quite independent next to the man. I am prepared to vote for women’s franchise on that basis, but then we keep political life pure; then there is an idea behind it; then it is not a question of equality or deserts, and it cuts off those false arguments of feminism and emancipation. There is nothing complicated in this proposal, but perhaps it looks complicated to anyone who does not use his head. In the meantime, because we have as yet no solution of the native and coloured questions, I should like to say with the Gen. Hertzog of prior to 1928: “Wait with the franchise, first solve those problems and then give the franchise to women,” but then on the sound organized basis of franchise for heads of the family.

I do not intend to quote anything from any book, because I think that conclusions should be drawn from what we see around us, but the objection of some of our friends on the other side seems to be based on quotations from the Bible. The hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) quotes Timothy to the effect that women should not teach. Who does the teaching in our schools? Further, he said that they should be discreet keepers of the home. In my opinion among the best and most discreet keepers of the home are found among those who are doing public and hospital work, etc. Those who are the busiest are the best housekeepers. If a pair of shapely silk stockings under a short modern skirt walked down Adderley Street, would the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) look at them? Of course, and so would we all. But no doubt you will find that Timothy says we should not, and so I hope hon. members will realize that those sayings must be translated to suit modern conditions. Then they quote the case of New Zealand. New Zealand has had women’s suffrage for a number of years, and she is certainly prosperous. Then I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). His idea was that the women of South Africa have not asked for the vote. I have many petitions requesting the vote, including one from the National Council of Women, and so far as the constituency I represent is concerned, the women have certainly asked for the vote. I do not see why women should not have it. The reasons in the Bible referred to by the hon. member for Senekal should not be taken too literally, and it should be remembered that they were written for a different period. Are you going to deny women the vote because of those conclusions which, in my opinion, are not properly applied. The fear that appears to be animating a number of members is that women are going to force legislation on very different lines from what they really desire. In my opinion it will be found that they will help matters forward considerably. There is no reason for fear of competition; women will help us and not hinder legislation. On the principle of the Bill itself, the question is more difficult. It has been stated that the Bill is not a party measure, but when the Prime Minister said that, I do not know whether he was speaking as the hon. member for Smithfield-Rouxville or as Prime Minister, but I would ask the Prime Minister to introduce a qualification into the Bill. I do not think that women in the Cape Province desire the suffrage to be thrown at them without qualification, and they want it on the same conditions as men. If the Prime Minister introduces qualifications, this will make his task easier for extending it to the coloured, especially as he has stated there is no intention of introducing adult male suffrage in the Cape. After introducing a qualification, he can extend the vote to the coloured women. So far as coloured women are concerned, the Prime Minister has always taken up a clear attitude of including them as coming under the civilized definition, and he should, therefore, have no difficulty in extending the vote to the coloured women. Personally, I see no colour bar. The only qualification I would expect is efficiency and character. I ask the Prime Minister to carry out his promise, and to do it at once, and give all the women of this country something to aim at by way of a higher status. I shall support this Bill with these amendments, or without them.

I shall be very short and not make a long speech now. I have been a supporter of women’s franchise from the beginning, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to say that I shall vote for the Bill. Inasmuch, however, as this is doubtless the last time we shall vote for it, notwithstanding the opponents on this side, and a few on the other side of the House, I feel that I must still do a last duty in this connection. We have heard a great deal from the opponents that we always try to explain to them what has happened in other countries, but as I have listened to-day and on previous occasions to the speeches of opponents of women’s franchise, it has occurred forcibly to me how they, themselves, are constantly quoting from people of other countries. Even the Minister of Lands made quotations from people of whom we have never heard, and tried to infer from them what was best in the interests of South Africa. The accusations of the opponents, therefore, amuse me somewhat. Instead of regarding matters from a purely South African point of view, they come with opinions of people with regard to other countries. The Minister said that he would like every household to have two votes, and the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. F. D. du Toit) said that he was in favour of the vote for widows, and for persons who were economically independent. I hope, therefore, that in any case he will vote in favour of the principle of the second reading. I, however, just want to point out that the family man will get so much more voting power in the country through this Bill. In a family a man, his wife, and, if there are daughters, they also will get the vote the say of families will be greater. I want to point out to the Minister that the position of the family, and the man who has a family, will actually be strengthened. An hon. member asks what would happen if the women came to Parliament and immediately the hon. member for Edenburg (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said that the women in Australia had the franchise, but that there was not a single woman in Parliament. The arguments of the opponents are too funny. I anticipate no frightful radical change if the women’s franchise is granted. With me it is a matter of right, and, therefore, I am strongly in favour of it. The Minister also referred to church bazaars. It is true that the women usually organize as they do the party bazaars. We use them to run bazaars and collect funds; they even bring the men in charge to the polling booths, but may not themselves go inside. The hon. member for Wepener wanted to create the impression that the women’s Nationalist party practically amounted to nothing. He said that only about one in sixteen Nationalist women were members. We take proper count of them. If it were not for the women’s party many of us would not be in Parliament to-day. We must not try to minimize their influence, and when the women’s Nationalist party declares itself in favour of this measure, we cannot say that we will take no notice of them. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), and, I think, also the Minister of Lands, argued that the Prime Minister was forced to introduce this Bill. The hon. member for Albert also said that he was fought by a few members of our party. I suppose I was one of them, because at one time I was the only one in our party in favour of women’s franchise. I am surprised that the hon. member, and the Minister who surely ought to know the Prime Minister, think that a few of us, or he, or anyone else, could induce the Prime Minister to do anything he did not consider right. The Prime Minister himself said that he felt the time was right for granting women the franchise. The Prime Minister has always stood his ground, sometimes alone, why then should he here stand back for a few members if he thinks it is not a good thing for South Africa? It was an unfair argument. If our action in 1928 did any good, then it was that we reached the position we are in to-day. The South African party adopts women’s franchise as a party, and so does the Labour party. The Prime Minister is now moving the Bill, and if that was not so the Nationalist women would never have accepted the franchise in the same way as the women of the South African party. Then they would have considered that it was forced on them, and they would not have accepted it. We are thankful to the Prime Minister for our now being in a position—we do not want to make it a party matter—that the proposal comes from him, so that the Nationalist women will faithfully perform their duties as citizens. The Prime Minister thinks that the time is ripe and our women will accept it. What about the position in 1928? The Bill was through and there was nothing to stop it, and the matter was only postponed in consequence of the promise of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister saw that that Bill would be wrong, and I think it is our duty to support him now. If the Nationalist party does not accept it, it will be said that we are only trying to wreck the measure, and we know that the Prime Minister will not be in favour of such a thing.

The Prime Minister is not introducing it as leader.

It would put us in a false light if we voted against it; if we leave the Prime Minister in the lurch. The women of the South African party want it as also do the Labour women, a motion in favour of the women’s franchise was passed at two congresses of the Nationalist women’s party. In the Cape Province the women have adopted it, as also in Natal, and even in the Free State they have agreed to it, because they said that they would leave it in the hands of the Prime Minister; when the Prime Minister says that the time is ripe, we may say that the Nationalist women’s party of the Free State support the motion. For days we have seen reports in Die Burger of various resolutions passed in favour of women’s franchise.

It has been organized.

I am glad of it, because it means that the women have had proper notice, and that the resolutions have not been taken by small groups. I have here “Die Burger” of the 11th March, which says that at Swellendam the women of our party unanimously resolved to ask their member, Mr. van Zyl Wolfaard, to support the proposal. The same thing happened at the Strand. At Steynsburg, in the division of the hon. member for Albert, likewise. Similar resolutions were also passed at Marydale, Caledon, De Rust and other places. This shows that the organized opinion of the women is in favour of it.

How many women attended those meetings?

They were meetings of the women’s party, and the resolutions were unanimously passed. If the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) held a meeting in Ladybrand, and a unanimous resolution was taken, he does not come and tell us whether there were two or three people. If resolutions were unanimously taken against it at meetings, even if only by a few persons, we have not yet heard of it. The position is that women’s congresses and meetings of the women’s party have decided in favour of the women’s franchise, and how can we now say that the women do not ask for it? But even if the women have not asked for it, then it is still the duty of men to offer it to the women to see whether they do not want it. I must say that I listened to all the speeches against women’s franchise to find out why hon. members really opposed it, but I have been unable to find one good argument. It is said that the family will suffer in consequence, but yet we find that those same people say how women are already being used in politics. Has not that injured the family? The hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) made an important speech. But what was actually his argument? It was that the women of Sparta ran naked in the races. Well, there was no franchise there surely. If there had been franchise for women they would possibly not have allowed such things. He also spoke of the sword fighters of Rome and of the women onlookers of those terrible scenes. Well, there was no franchise for women there either.

Yes, but there was the emancipation of women.

Yes, but emancipation did not go so far as to give the women any authority over the laws of the men. From our knowledge of women, we think that no woman would have voted for such an unhappy state of affairs. The argument against women’s franchise which I have heard here contains no force at all. Formerly there was a great argument to the effect that the native women in the Cape Province would also get the franchise. The Minister of Lands used it again this afternoon. During the last election we used the argument of the danger that the native vote would be. We all agreed that it was a serious state of affairs, and we brought it very earnestly to the notice of the electors; but if that is so with what right can we now refuse to practically double the white vote as against the native vote? If we look at the returns in the Government Gazette, we find that in Albany there are 251 native voters, 656 in Aliwal, etc., until we come to constituencies where there are over 1,000, with the result that in the Cape Province there is quite a number of constituencies where the native vote is predominant. We used this argument, but now when we get the chance of doubling the white vote then we hesitate to make use of it. I see that Sir James Rose Innes has written a letter in which he says that if this Bill is passed it will mean that the native vote will have much less force. It will amount to 5 per cent. as against the white voting power of 95 per cent.; that is one of the reasons why we ought to vote for the measure now that we find that it is only to apply to white women. Then it is always said that the women on the countryside will have to go to the poll in very difficult circumstances. Fortunately we are still able to criticize our own Government, and it is one thing which the Government has always taken amiss, that, although we know that the force of the Nationalist party lies on the countryside, we do not now increase the number of polling booths on the countryside. The Minister of Lands said that we shall have to have four polling booths where we now have one; if four are necessary, then there must be four. It does not cost a fortune to have four polling stations instead of one every five years.

What about the provincial elections?

Yes, but we spend money in much less important matters than that, and we must have something over for this matter. There are, however, other methods which can be followed. In other countries and in our own country, we to-day vote by post, and I do not think it will be impossible for the Minister of the Interior to think out a method to enable the women on the countryside to exercise their vote. He will be able to find a means so that the women can vote without travelling long distances. As we know the countryside, and the women on it, however, we know that she will exercise her vote, even if the polling booths are not increased. The Minister of Lands said that the urban women would go in large numbers to the ballot. The countryside man may possibly remain at home, but the women of the countryside never will. They have shown in the past that they will not neglect their duty where their country’s interests are concerned. I do not want to make a long speech. I only want to say that there is one point in the Bill which I will deal with in committee, and I hope the Minister will be able to assist me.

At this stage of the debate I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House by expressing my views at any great length. A number of hon. members have drawn the very blackest picture of the consequences they expect to follow from the extension of the franchise to women, and it is clear that they are full of fears for the future of the country. I cannot share those fears. I do not consider that there is anything wrong in principle, or dangerous, in giving to the women of this country a defined status in the political system of the country. The hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser), in the diverting speech he delivered when the Bill wars before the House on the last occasion, devoted himself with evident enjoyment to making our flesh creep. He told us that the vote was going to encourage women to gad about and neglect their homes, and that it would lead to a decline in the birth rate, and so on. I do not think there is anything in that. I do not think that a woman who wants to gad about is going to refrain from gadding about because there is no political meeting to attend. If she wants to gad about, she will find something more amusing than a political meeting. Nor do I think that a woman is going to refuse to bear children because she sees a general election some months ahead of her. The decline in the birth rate has nothing to do with the question of the vote for women. It is not restricted to countries where they have the vote. We have it already in this country. But, although I think these fears are unfounded, I am only in favour of the franchise for women on equal terms with men. The women have never asked for a vote on the terms contained in this Bill. In fact, a large section of them are definitely opposed to the Bill in its present form. The day after the Prime Minister’s Bill was published, a letter appeared in the local press signed by a number of women, ardent workers in the cause of women’s suffrage, who said they did not want the suffrage on the terms offered. I myself have been approached by women who have worked for the vote for years who have asked me to oppose the Bill. This is not merely a Women’s Enfranchisement Bill; it also seeks to introduce two principles which are alien to the principle of women’s franchise, namely, the principle of manhood suffrage, and the colour bar in our franchise system. The Bill proposes to give the vote to women merely on their attaining the age of 21. The logical result will be that men must in due course be given the vote on the same terms, and I am not prepared to agree to a change in our electoral system in that direction. The present system in the Cape of Good Hope and Natal is a sound one. It has tended to keep up the standard of voters in this country. The qualification is low enough to be consistent with the requirements of democratic government, and the only men precluded from the vote are those who would not be a source of strength in our system of government, and whose inclusion on the voters’ roll would not make for sound legislation. If the Bill goes through, the ground will be cut away from under the feet of those of us who consider that the Cape system of a franchise qualification is a sound one, and who object to the introduction of manhood suffrage. The other feature in the Bill to which I take exception is the restriction of the vote to European women. If European women get the vote on womanhood basis, then European men must eventually get it on manhood basis, and then how is the coloured population to be dealt with? It seems to me that in that event there are only three possible ways of dealing with them. The first is manhood suffrage for the coloured population; the second is to have coloured voters on the same list as European voters, but with a franchise qualification applying only to them; and the third alternative is to have them on a separate register altogether, and give them separate representation. Let us consider these three alternatives. It seems to me that the third—separate voters lists and separate representation in Parliament for the coloured population—can be ruled out, because it will be inconsistent with the Prime Minister’s utterances on this Bill, as well as on previous occasions. The Prime Minister said in the present debate that we have no right to separate the coloured people from us on economical, political and industrial lines; so that separate representation of the coloured people can be ruled out. Let us consider the other two alternatives. First of all, there is manhood suffrage. I do not consider that the coloured population of this country are ripe for manhood suffrage. They themselves, I am certain, do not consider they are ripe for it. I am certain that their own leaders would hesitate to say that they are prepared to recommend manhood suffrage for the coloured population. Further, I am certain that neither of the political parties would consent to manhood suffrage for the coloured people. The Prime Minister, in this connection, said that we could not grant the franchise to all coloured persons, but only to the educated ones. So manhood suffrage can be ruled out. The only course that remains is that the European population should have the vote on a manhood or womanhood basis, with no other qualifications at all, while the coloured people are to be put on the same voters’ roll as the European section, but with the necessity of possessing certain qualifications. I feel certain that a system of this sort will not work, because the discrimination against the coloured man will be a source of the greatest discontent amongst the coloured people, not only amongst those who have no vote, but amongst those who are on the register; and political candidates will be subjected, in an intensified form, to pressure from the coloured voters on their lists, and the coloured section of their constituencies. At every election, if we have that system, we shall have the coloured people pressing for the abolition of the discrimination against them. I would hesitate to expose any set of candidates in the country to a position like that. In order to satisfy one section of their constituents they will have the alternative of standing out against this sort of thing or, on the other hand, of agreeing to abolish the differentiation. It would be an unfortunate position for a political candidate to have to face that sort of thing at every election. I consider that this Bill introduces needless complications into our electoral system, and it will mean that the franchise system in the Cape will be settled on lines from which it will almost be impossible to depart hereafter. There is another point in connection with this Bill which has not received the attention of the present Government, so far as I have heard. It is this. By receiving the vote, women will automatically be made eligible and be obliged to serve on juries. Under section 167 of Act No. 31, 1917, every person registered as a Parliamentary voter who is over the age of 25 and under 60 years, with a property qualification, is not only eligible to serve on juries, but must serve if called upon.

Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that every person who is a voter, who is between the ages of 25 and 60, who is the owner of immovable property valued at not less than £300, and is in receipt of a salary of not less than £150 a year, is liable to serve as a juror. A sub-section provides that when the immovable property is jointly held and occupied by more persons than one, each of these joint occupiers shall be qualified and liable to serve on the jury, should the value of the property when divided by the number of occupants equal £300 or more per occupant. A moment’s reflection will show that if a man with his wife and perhaps daughters occupies property of any decent valuation at all, all of them will be liable to serve on a jury. The effect of that will be that if the Bill goes through, not only will the wives and daughters of townsmen, but of residents throughout the country, have to serve as jurors, not in decent, pleasant, civil cases, for such cases are no longer heard by juries, but they will have to sit in jury boxes side by side with men of all ranks and classes and to adjudicate upon all those sordid crimes, sexual and other, that go to make up the roll at the criminal sessions in our large towns and in our circuit courts in the country. I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to inflict that sort of thing on the women of the country, because I make bold to say the country is not ripe for a thing of that sort, and in the present state of public opinion is not prepared to see women undertake work of that sort. I do not think, with the great respect I have for womankind, they have the qualities of mind that fit them to adjudicate in such cases, and I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he can contemplate with equanimity the prospect of seeing the administration of justice pat into the hands of women jurors. I want to refer to a rather peculiar provision in section (3) of the Bill, which is as follows—

It seems to me a most extraordinary provision, and if the Prime Minister proposes to give women the vote, I am at a loss to understand what was in his mind in introducing a provision in these terms. I asked myself when I read this Bill whether the Prime Minister was actuated by a genuine desire to give women the vote, and I have come to the conclusion that he was not actuated by such a desire or by a desire to redeem his promise of two years ago. Either the Bill was deliberately drafted in these terms so as to actuate opposition to it so that it might be killed—

Why do you not move an amendment?

Amendments may or may not be moved; I am not prepared to say.

What right have you to say what you do?

I have been induced to come to that conclusion by what the Prime Minister said to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) this afternoon.

Are you not trying to wreck the Bill?

I am not trying to do so; this does not give the vote to women on the terms on which women have asked for it. The terms of the Bill appear to me to indicate either an intention to kill it at its birth, or a desire to obtain a party advantage out of it. It is only on that assumption that I can understand that women who may be quite illiterate, and whose brothers and fathers are not entitled to the vote, because of the qualifications they must possess, are to be given the right to vote. The main object of the Bill appears to be to gain a party advantage by reducing the value of the coloured vote. For these reasons, although I support the principle of votes for women, on the terms on which they have asked for them, I am quite unable to support the Bill.

In dealing with this Bill, we are in such a maze of arguments that one hardly knows what to say about it. The arguments against the Bill were of such quality that the opponents of the Bill often contradicted each other, and what was proved by one was rebutted by another. According to the arguments of hon. members opposite, there are two weaknesses in this Bill, and if the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) were here, I do not doubt that he would ascribe the weaknesses to the German Treaty. The first of the two objections is that the women in the Cape Province and Natal will be entitled to vote without qualifications, which are demanded of the men in those two provinces. I do not think a single hon. member will say that an injustice is done to the men by that because nothing is taken away from them. All that happens is that a courtesy is shown to the women which is not shown to the men. The women get something more than what the men have, but that is merely the ordinary course of things in life. I do not think a man is a proper gentleman if he does not give to his wife something more than to himself. I hope I shall not be unparliamentaary if I say that hon. members opposite do not appear to me quite to be gentlemen. They want to have certain qualifications for the women, the same as exist for the men. But hon. members have apparently not yet thought that we would in that way be running a danger of keeping off the voters’ list some of our most civilized women who do not comply with the property qualifications. It may happen that a highly civilized woman cannot get on to the voters’ roll, but her washerwoman who washes for a lot of people, and thereby earns the required income, will be able to get on the voters’ roll. It will be an injustice towards the white woman in the country. It will keep the civilized woman away from the ballot, and the less civilized will have the right of voting. We cannot do that from a civilization point of view. The second objection opposite is that the franchise is not being given under this Bill to the coloured women. In the first speech made on the opposite side, viz., that of the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), this objection was raised. I listened carefully to him because I expected him to repeat what he said at Herschel in connection with this question, viz., that if the white women got the vote the native women must also get it. But this time he was not at Herschel, and he did not speak about it, and only said that it was a weakness that the coloured women were not getting the vote. Do hon. members opposite really take up the attitude of putting the coloured women on an equality with the white women; do they really want to put a half civilization on a plane with a complete civilization? I do not think anybody wants that. I want, however, to point out that during the recent election a certain Dr. Abdurahman, with his Lt. Fredericks, went through the country —those two who are well known to hon. members opposite—held meetings, and they said at Colesberg that the Government intended to make a distinction between coloured people and natives. They further stated that the Government intended to cause divisions in their families, so Fredericks said; the criterion whether your children are coloured or native will be the following: Children that are born before 12 o’clock will be coloured, and those after 12 o’clock will be native children, and so they are going to divide the family. There will be two groups of children, a group of coloured children and a group of native children. I want to point out to hon. members opposite that that imaginary colour line is not drawn, and as long as it is not drawn is it wise of the Prime Minister to say that he first wants to see how the children are born before he goes further? I hope that hon. members opposite will support this Bill. A large number of objections have been made by hon. members on this side, very weighty and very imaginary objections. The opponents of the Bill adopt the attitude that this women’s franchise movement is nothing but the emancipation movement which started years ago in America. With all respect for my hon. friends who adopt that view, I must differ from them. There is an astonishing difference between conditions here and those in Europe, because here we have to do with an entirely different class of women. Can hon. members refer us to a single excrescence of the women’s movement such as took place in Europe? No, we can say: “See how calmly the women have assisted in the past, see how quietly they conducted their meetings and passed resolutions at their congresses.” Both sides of the House can say of their congresses: “See how calmly women can discuss and consider these problems, and how amazingly logically such women can argue.” We cannot take the women in our country and say: “Because they in other countries cannot trust the women, we, in South Africa, also cannot trust them.” Our women have proved in the past that they are not so wild and extravagant as the women in other countries, so that hon. members need not be afraid of them. Then there is a matter that I do not like to touch on, because I have already told one of the hon. members that he ought not to mention the creation ordinance here. Hon. members opposite will possibly not understand it in the same way, but we have hon. members on this side who have had such a bringing up; I am one of them, and when these matters are referred to, then we have to think about it. We have been challenged by the Minister of Lands and by the hon. member for Edenburg (the Bev. C. W. M. du Toit) to prove from the creation ordinance that there is no difference between the man and the woman. It is a peculiar matter to prove, no one will undertake it, nor will I, although I know something about it. Therefore, I do not want to infer from it that women are inferior to men, even if there is a difference between them. We cannot conclude from that that the woman cannot in many things compete with the man, and even put him to shame in many things. Do hon. members want to infer from it that from a religious point of view there is any objection to the franchise for women? No, even the hon. member for Edenburg will not be able to prove it for the House. It is definitely not so that from a religious standpoint there can be any objection. We have three views among the women in our country; the first is the woman who, I admit it, is against the women’s franchise. I do not want to go into the reasons, because it will be very difficult, because it is a remarkable man who knows everything that a woman knows. There is a second class of women in the country, viz., those who are considerably indifferent about the matter. They do not declare themselves for or against it. It is immaterial to them whether the Bill is passed or not. The third class is the organized women of the country, the women who belong to a certain party, and these organized women have expressed themselves clearly on the matter. You say on this side of the House that we want to force something on to the women that they do not want. If words mean anything, and we look to the congresses and congress resolutions of these women, then I cannot see how you can say such a thing. The organized women have, as far as I know, unanimously expressed themselves on the matter in favour of the franchise. Hon. members on this side of the House also started playing the prophet. It was astonishing to see it after the lesson we had of the frequency with which the prophecies of the leader of the Opposition were not realized. They said that they were absolutely convinced that a referendum would show that the majority of women were not in favour of the vote.

Quite right.

I do not know what ground you have for saying so. If I had known it, I should also have been inclined to venture a prophecy. The hon. member makes me think of the man who shot at the moon with his Mauser, and when his friend asked him whether he had it he replied: “No, it fell sort.” I think if the hon. members hold a referendum they also will find that they had shot a good deal too short. They will find that another has been added to the heap of unfortunate prophecies of the leader of the Opposition. The Minister of Lands is interrupting me, and I want to tell him that the kind of argument he used here this afternoon is not the kind that we can accept. He quotes Kuyper, to say that Kuyper has said that in the domain of the man the woman is inferior. What has that to do with the vote? I can say that among the women there has never yet been such a musician as Beethoven was, nor such a great general as Napoleon, when I am arguing about such things, but if you come here and say that in the domain of the man the woman is inferior to the man, then I say that it has nothing to do with women’s franchise. I ask the Minister of Lands if the woman is not the superior of the man in the world of civilization? I should like him to tell me that, and I want to prove it to him. The man may have a lot more book learning than his wife, but as opposed to his wife he is far less civilized, not taken in the sense of book learning, but civilization in the sense of refinement. There the man falls very far behind. When I see how delicately civilized the women are, and then look at the husbands they have taken, I am really astonished at such civilized women accepting such men. As regards her body, the woman is weaker than the man, but she is far more forceful than the man when it comes to suffering. She possesses more endurance and more enthusiasm than the man where national matters are concerned. We make so much of our history, and on Dingaan’s Day all kinds of things are said about what the men did; if the women had not been there, the men would have been a lot of cowards. In a number of things they are superior to the men, and now we have the strange state of affairs that people who are less capable and less civilized than women get the franchise, even the coloured and black races, but the woman who has to bring up the children of the nation must have nothing to say in the affairs of the country; that is the strangest argument which can be adduced. The women do not ask to have all the power in the country. They do not ask to become our superiors, they point out that when conditions become bad in the country, when the men commit offences, and get drunk, and when things go wrong, then it is they who have to suffer with their children. They must bear the burden and suffer hardship, and therefore they would like to have a say in the country. Is it unreasonable of them to ask this? Is anyone able to point out an atom of injustice in this? We must be honest when we deal with such things. It is very clear to me that the woman will not cause trouble. The Minister of Lands mentioned a case here of a municipal election where two women stood as candidates, and it was said that the women voters all had to vote for those two women. They did not get in.

There was a third candidate.

He was contradicted by the hon. member for Edenburg, and that is the strong argument that he used. We have had the two women’s parties in the country for so many years. Have they ever had a different opinion to the men, and supported other candidates? Does the Minister of Lands think that he can frighten us with such bogies as that the women will put up other candidates? They will not turn against us. The Minister of Lands wants to come and persuade us that the women will nominate other candidates. What opinion has he got of the women? I am almost inclined to ask him whether he is married. When I think of the importance of this Bill, I am sorry that I have only one vote, because if I had more than one I would give them all in favour of the Bill.

I want to thank the hon. Prime Minister for having introduced this Bill because although I have often differed from him, on no occasion have I ever doubted his sincerity. As far as I am concerned I believe he is carrying out his promise in the best possible manner. I regret the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) and I entirely disagree with him. I believe the Prime Minister has shown in this Bill that his main desire is to see that the women of this country get the franchise, because if the Prime Minister had dealt with the coloured vote in this Bill the Bill could never have gone through. I am satisfied that if the Prime Minister had introduced into this Bill a provision for enfranchising the coloured women of South Africa there would not have been the slightest possibility of the Bill being passed by this House. Therefore, I submit that the Prime Minister showed his sincerity when, although he was urged to extend the Bill to coloured women, he realized, if he did so, there would be no chance of carrying such a Bill. He showed his sincerity by giving the franchise to European women and by making the Bill in the terms he did. My hon. friends who do not want such a Bill, should welcome the present Bill and abstain from criticism. If we start attacking the Bill it will mean that you will jeopardise not only the passing of the Bill, but that you will delay for many years to come the enfranchisement of the women of South Africa. That is why, I take it, the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) although he favoured the principle of including coloured women, nevertheless when that provision was deleted from this Bill, showed then his desire to enfranchise European women by saying: “Although the Bill as amended is not everything I desire, I take it as the next best thing.” That is exactly the position the Prime Minister has taken up in connection with this matter, realizing that if he cannot carry the Bill in any other way, he will restrict it to white women. I think the majority of hon. members who believe in the enfranchisement of women, will gladly accept this as the only measure which could possibly be passed by the House at the present moment. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister spoke about coloured women being enfranchised. But had he attempted to do that, many people who want white women enfranchised would have introduced provisions which would have made it impossible to pass the Bill. Another objection raised in connection with this matter, has been raised by some hon. members on the other side of the House who are opposing the Bill. They say that the Bill, if carried into effect, will only benefit the Labour party and the old Unionists. I can assure hon. members over there that they need not be afraid that the Bill will benefit the Labour party. We had an experience in 1914 when the Labour party in the Transvaal secured a majority in the provincial council. We enfranchised the women of the Transvaal in so far as municipalities are concerned. But we have never yet had the experience of the majority of the women voting for the Labour party. From our experience of the last 16 years I can assure the House that we are supporting this Bill entirely out of altruistic motives because we realize that the women ought to be enfranchised. Moreover, I believe that the party that will benefit most by the Bill will be the Nationalist party. I speak from personal experience. I have had occasion to find myself opposed in elections by candidates who have had the support of Nationalist women. Also I have had the privilege of finding myself on occasion supported by Nationalist women. They are so sincere and enthusiastic in the political world, that there is no doubt, if this Bill is passed, those women whose sympathies are Nationalistic will take a very active part in the elections and the Nationalist party will benefit. I do not think for a moment that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, has looked at it from that aspect. I hope that members of this House will not look at it from the point of view of the enfranchisement of women benefiting this or that political party, but from the point of view of whether it is not a right long overdue that the Bill should be passed. Another point is that it has been said that there is no real demand from the women. It depends upon what people call a “demand.” In the old days, before the great war, people could never get any reform until they had actually fought for it by violence. We know the history of the Reform Act in Great Britain. For many years people were clamouring for the vote, but they could not get it until they resorted to violence and then the Government of the day became convinced that they should have the vote. The same thing happened in regard to women’s enfranchisement in Great Britain. They asked for the vote and could get no satisfaction, and I believe that it was Mr. Lloyd George who, in a speech, apprized the women that unless they went in for violence, they would not get the vote. As it happened the position changed during the great war. The women were enfranchised by, I think, agreement of all parties. The people in Great Britain, the government and all political parties, then realized to the fullest possible extent, how important was the work which the women were doing during the great war, and they realized that all the arguments against their enfranchisement had fallen to the ground. I believe in South Africa the majority of the women do want the vote. They have repeatedly asked for it. We do not want to wait until they become desperate and go in for violence. I do not think that is possible. I think we, as a House, should say that we have got past that stage and that we think the vote for women is right, and we should not wait to exasperate the women. We should give it to them as a right and not wait until they resort to violence. When the hon. member for East London (North) introduced this Bill, if it had been amended to restrict it to white women, on that occasion the Bill would have been passed, but for the intervention of the Prime Minister and the defection of certain members of the Labour party. At that time there was agreement between all sections of the House to get the Bill through. The Labour party in those negotiations was represented by Mr. Mullineux, then member for Roodepoort. There was general agreement to get the Bill through. Unfortunately, for some reason I do not wish to go into at the present moment, the Prime Minister came along and intervened, and certain members of the Labour party on that occasion said: “Very well, we shall vote against the principle for which, for years past, we have fought.” A number of us, on that occasion, not only strenuously objected to the dropping of the Bill, but also fought against the dropping of it. We thought that a serious wrong had been done to the women of South Africa by the action then taken. We did not doubt that the Prime Minister would take an opportunity, as he promised, of introducing a Bill himself, but we felt, firstly, that there was a danger that the Prime Minister might not have an opportunity of introducing a Bill, and secondly, we felt that the advantages which existed then might not exist at a future date. That has actually been the case. If a few years ago, that Bill had been carried by this House, it would have gone to the other House where there was a much greater opportunity of getting a majority than there is at the present time. So that the Government were taking a serious risk in connection with the matter, and the House was taking a risk. I am sure the Prime Minister will carry out his pledge, not only in the letter but also in the spirit, and he will use his undoubted influence with his friends and supporters not only in this House, but also in the other House to see that the Bill shall receive the necessary majority. Some objection has been made to the fact that the Bill goes much further than some people desire, because it gives womanhood suffrage in the Cape. I realize that if we believe in manhood suffrage, there is no reason whatever why in dealing with women’s suffrage we should not give womanhood suffrage, and hope at an early date to extend manhood suffrage to the Cape, as we cannot deal with the matter in this Bill. Therefore, I think the Prime Minister is perfectly right, and the fact that woman is getting a little more than man is no reason for objecting to this measure. Perhaps it will make the men a little more active in obtaining their right to manhood suffrage in the Cape. I believe it will be of the greatest advantage to South Africa for women to have the right to vote. I do not know of any single election in which women have not done very much more work than men. The extension of the franchise to women will be highly valued by the proposed new voters and will help us to get away from the barren controversies of the past.

I did not intend speaking because the matter has already been debated from all points of view, but I would be doing myself an injustice if I did not give expression to my personal feelings. I am in favour of women’s franchise. The opponents are so serious about the matter that one would really think that if the women got the vote tomorrow they would be in power the day after, and that everything then would be upside down. During all the ages men and women have lived together, and their interests were one and the same. We cannot regard women as inferior. The great question we have to answer is whether if the women get the vote they will make a good and sensible use of it, and to that we must answer in the affirmative. The women are indeed quite capable of making good use of it. The argument that the family life will be injured does not apply either. The woman is in politics to-day whether she belongs to a party or not, but she may not vote. Is the family life injured to-day? The great question to my mind is whether politics will sully the women, or that the women who take up a higher attitude will raise politics if it is sullied. I am still young, but I know the Afrikaner woman, and I can assure hon. members who are opposed to the franchise that politics will not demoralise the women, but that the women will elevate it. The Afrikaner women have more than deserved to get the franchise. I was always a supporter of the vote for white women, but have often in this Parliament voted against women’s franchise because the proposals from the other side also included the native women. Ever since the discovery of South Africa women have sacrificed a great deal for the civilization of the country, and when I say that they must get the franchise, I ask the opposite side who to-day can exercise the vote in the Cape Province. When I enquire who all those are who decide about the welfare of the country and the people, then I must say that a great injustice is being done to the Afrikaner woman by depriving her of the vote. I am sorry that I must differ from some hon. members here, but since I have been in Parliament many of the opponents have already been converted, and are to-day supporters of women’s franchise. Show me, however, one supporter who has become an opponent. I do not like playing the prophet, but if the women do not get the franchise now then they will get it later. It is coming as certain as anything, and therefore it is better to grant it quickly. The arguments against women’s franchise practically all amounted to this that the opponents were frightened of the women. They are afraid that the women will have the majority of the votes. The Afrikaner woman is very modest, and will not push herself forward. In this respect she will be no danger to the man. Even those who say that the women have never asked for the franchise make good use of them at elections. If the Nationalist women’s party in Bechuanaland had not worked so hard I might possibly have lost my seat. The women will not come and ask for the franchise on their knees, but we must ask if it is not a right that is due to them. I feel that it is.

I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I want to state very clearly what my position is. The Prime Minister has come forward with a measure which, while we cannot all agree with it, particularly in the Cape, on account of women not having the same qualifications as men, we can support it. Our women have been able to take up public work very prominently, and on school boards and hospital boards they have been a great success. Latterly, they have been successfully sitting on our municipal councils, which is a training for work in the House. In no case have they failed in the work they have been expected to do. I feel that, while women ought to have the vote, in the Cape at all events, the franchise should be the same as for men, and I wish it were possible for the Prime Minister to alter his Bill accordingly. At the same time, I am prepared to vote for the Bill, feeling that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, and if we can get that portion, later on when our women get the vote they will see that some of their less enlightened sisters also get it. I feel it is terribly wrong that a woman gets the vote simply because she is white and is 21, whether she be educated or not. Such a woman cannot cast her vote intelligently, and while it will increase voting power very much, I do feel it is going a step backward instead of forward. I hope the Prime Minister will see his way to meet to a certain extent those of us who represent constituencies in the Cape, while I will vote for the measure as half a one rather than have nothing at all.

I have the greatest respect for hon. members who are against the women’s franchise. They act according to their lights. I hope in any case that they will have the same respect for those who are in favour of it. I am sorry that I must to-day differ from two of my leaders, viz., the Ministers of Lands and of Agriculture, but I fear that I must say with all respect that they are all on the old road, and they know that it is dangerous, that the road may be washed away, and one can get stuck in it. I think the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) was a little less fortunate in his words when he spoke of the women who are in favour of the franchise as masculine women. I do not believe that he can apply it to many of our women who are in favour of it, as, for instance, the wives of the member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen), or the Minister of Native Affairs, or the Administrator of the Cape Province, or the hon. member for Lindley (Dr. Conradie). I could multiply the names, names of women who are much respected in all departments, and I think the hon. member for Christiana ought to make his apologies to the women of South Africa. In this matter I ask the following questions: (1) Is it not a right due to the women; (2) is it a crime; and (3) will it be beneficial in public life? If we look at South African history we find that women have been the deciding factor in great decisive moments. When the voortrekkers wanted to go back the women said that they would not go back until the blood of the dear ones who had been murdered had been avenged. When subsequently the English said to the Boers who had established themselves in Natal: “Accept the British flag,” the women said that they would rather walk away barefooted than come under a foreign flag. That was another inspiration to the men. And what about the second war of independence? When we think of the incomparable heroism, the incomparable powers of endurance and suffering which the women stood, can we still say that the women are so much weaker than the men? I am not speaking about coloured and native women, because they have not deserved it, and, in my opinion, they are not worthy of it. It is surely not the object of Providence that women should restrict herself entirely to pots and pans, that is surely too prosaic; there must be more poetry in their lives. Where the women stand on an equality with the men and sometimes even are their superiors, we feel that they deserve a more dignified treatment. The blanket-wearer can vote, while the highly-civilized woman does not have the right to join in governing, and has not a say over the education of her children. The second question is whether it is such a crime for the women to have the vote. Listening to the arguments of the opponents, one would feel inclined to believe that it was a terrible crime, when we hear them it looks very immoral, but yet a woman may be a member of a political party, she may indeed attend congresses and organize bazaars, she may also help her husband at election, and I should like to know how many hon. members would have got into the House if it were not for the assistance of their wives. Then it is stated that the good name of the women would suffer, but nothing of that kind will happen. The political life will reach a higher level when woman enters politics. The third question is if it will benefit our political life. The woman will bring our public life up to a higher level. Her delicately strung temperament usually opposes everything that is dirty and mean, a great thinker, and with a knowledge of human nature, has said that he, in judging of people, the woman was right 99 times out of a 100, and often a 100 times. A woman’s instinct will see that the right people are elected members of Parliament. She does not argue, but she simply says: “It is right.” I fear that possibly many members who now sit here will not return when the women have the vote, possibly not even I. Then it is said that this Bill is unbiblical. It makes me think of an old member of the Volksraad who asked his wife’s opinion about the Fencing Act, then the old lady replied: ‘No, you must vote against the Bill, because it is unbiblical. The Bible says: “The Lord Goodness knows no bounds,” that is just as wrong as hon. members are wrong who say that women’s franchise is against the Bible. It has been quoted here that the Apostle Paul said that the woman must keep silent. If we really are to follow the injunctions of Paul so carefully, then no one may marry because he also said: “I do not want you to marry, you must all be as I am.” We also find various examples in the Bible where the women have taken action, e.g., in the case of Jochebed and the case of Bethsheba, the woman who played an important part in the life of a man. Further, we have the cases of Esther and Deborah, who said to her husband: “If you do not go I will go.” That shows what influence the women had. Another objection of hon. members was that the women, according to them, did not want the vote. If the South African women know that the native and coloured women would not also get the vote, they would all be in favour of it, and they would use it. If it is necessary, they would walk barefooted to the poll, and it will not be necessary to transport them. It will possibly surprise the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) when I saw that the women in Natal asked for the franchise as long ago as 1891. In 1909 at the time of the convention a petition was handed in asking for women’s franchise, and in 1911 there was another petition before the House. In 1924 a deputation of 500 women, led by Mr. Steyn, came to Parliament with a petition which was signed by more than 54,000 women over 21 years. There have, therefore, been various petitions, and now hon. members make naive statements that the women have not asked for the vote. The third objection of hon. members is that the women’s franchise will promote immorality and looseness. Hon. members apparently mean to say that just because women have to vote once in five years that will increase immorality and gadding about, or because possibly there will be a few women in the House. But then hon. members must also be consistent. They must not allow their wives to dance, or to take part in mixed bathing, or to play cards. They encourage the women in that, however, and they take part with them in it. The hon. member for Edenburg has made a magnificent speech against women’s franchise and when he reached his climax his whole argument fell flat like a pancake. Then he says that he is in favour of the women’s franchise, but not on the ground of equality. Is that a way of building up all the arguments against women’s franchise, and then saying that this woman and that woman may have the vote. And last, not least, I hope that hon. members opposite will vote in favour of the Bill, because I am convinced that 95 per cent. of the South African women are Nationalists at heart, and I want them to get the franchise because it will benefit us.

I do not wish to detain the House in this debate, but there is one point I wish to raise. The Prime Minister has always taken up the attitude that women’s suffrage should he postponed until the coloured question has been settled, but two years ago he made a regrettable promise, and, as a result, we are now passing legislation which is going to have a far-reaching effect on the people of this country. It should not be dealt with as we are dealing with it now. The hon. member for Yeoville suggested an amendment, and the Prime Minister said that if an amendment were proposed it would kill the Bill.

I do not ask you to support the Bill or to make any amendments. If you do not want it, you can throw it out.

Imagine the Prime Minister coming with an important measure of this kind, knowing that its passage depends largely on support from this side, saying: “If you do not want it, throw it out !” The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that this Bill as a franchise measure is interlocked with his native and coloured Bills, and yet that is the attitude he takes. We have questions dealing with riotous assemblies, questions of electoral reform in this country; even in dealing with the stalk-borer in mealies, all these we have referred to select committees and taken evidence, yet in this important measure we take no such steps. The Prime Minister apparently admits that he does not rely on his own side of the House to put this measure through, and yet treats the matter in this off-hand manner. If the Prime Minister is honest in his desire that the Bill should go through the House, I think he should have approached the matter in a different way. I had a man in my constituency over 80 years of age who could get a vote owing to receiving Government aid. He has three deaf and dumb daughters. According to the Bill now before the House, all three will have a vote, but he will not. Girls walking the streets to-day, if over 21 years of age, will have as much say as I or any other hon. members of this House has in the affairs and destiny of this country. When the Prime Minister, two years ago, gave an undertaking that he would bring this Bill before the House, I think he would have recognized that it was a tacit promise that the women would be given the vote and it would be a gross breach of faith if we did not make some provision now. The Bill is bad in its conception. Hon. members have described it in many ways; it has been called “rotten” and “pernicious,” but one of the rottenest things this House can do at this stage when women have been promised the vote, would be to reject this Bill because reasonable amendments were made. Although I feel that we may regret this Bill as it is now shaped, yet I say that a Bill of this nature is necessary. Every responsible man and woman should realize that South Africa is different from other countries where they have no colour problems, and I sympathize a good deal with the attitude of the Minister of Lands. We should not rush a matter like this through the House. We should have a select committee on it. Before extending this wide sphere to women, the Prime Minister should have tested the position in the Cape Province. Let the Cape retain its qualifications. If the women of the country are prepared to accept that, then extend the vote to them. The Prime Minister has said we are going to give them the vote. I think even at this last moment we should consider before we extend to women this privilege whether we should not retain the qualifications of the Cape and Natal. I protest against what was said by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) that this extension of the franchise to the white women of the Union was to be used as a weapon against the native vote and the coloured vote in this country. If I thought the Prime Minister was using this question in this way—using the white women of this country in that way—I would have no hesitation in rejecting the Bill. I feel that it would be a pity, a tragedy, if by reason of any words of hon. members on this side of the House or of hon. members on the other side of the House, the native population of this country, or the European population, or the coloured population, was led to think that we, who control the fate of this country, control legislation by reason of our vote, are making use of our women in the solution of the native question. I hope that the Prime Minister in extending the vote to white women will disclaim any such intention. The question of extending the vote to women was an issue in this House long before the Prime Minister introduced his Bills.

The hon. member who has just sat down is terribly concerned about this Bill also giving the vote to girls over 21 years, and he specially mentions lady students. He says: “What do they know about the vote and the politics of South Africa?” He says they must not get the vote, but at the same time he says that if he sees that there is anything in this Bill to weaken the vote of the native, then he will not vote for it. That is typical of the arguments from the other side of the House. They say that they have been sent to Parliament by the intellectual section of the people; now we see what they mean by the intellectual section. The girls in our universities know nothing about politics, but the native knows much more of it. When we listen to such a speech from the opponents of the measure, it is nothing else than a plea for the enlightened section of the population who have voted for them. I did not intend speaking, but I want to say a few words to answer some of the arguments used here. The hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) made an excellent speech if we do not analyze the arguments he employed. He put his points well, and therefore they possibly had more effect than they really were worth. He put up nothing but marionettes, and knocked them down in order to tell us that there was not one of us who could do it as well as he did.

No.

Yes, I will try to prove it. One of the arguments he used is that supporters of the women’s franchise say that the mortality figures of children in New Zealand are low, and that that is because women have the vote there. Not one of us said it. It is he alone who said it. Then he rejects the argument and says that it is rotten. As, however, he mentioned New Zealand, let us ask why the mortality figures are so low in New Zealand. If we look at European countries, we find that besides New Zealand, which is the lowest in the world, the mortality of children in Scandinavia is lowest. What is necessary to get a low mortality in children? The first requisite is an enlightened people with a high standard of education which enables such a people to apply the newest and best methods in connection with the bringing up of children. The second requisite is a moral people, because if a people are not moral then it is impossible not to have a high death rate. Thirdly, we need a people with a high method of living, because otherwise the death rate for children will be high. We need these three things, and it is strange that we find these very requisites among the peoples who were the first to give the vote to women. That is the argument we use in connection with the mortality of children, but we did not use it in the way the hon. member stated. He further said that we based our arguments on sentiments, and that sentiment was our chief argument. I listened very well to hear whether the hon. member would not also employ sentiment. He did, because he spoke of his mother, and said that we wanted to drag her down to the political arena. I have the greatest respect for his mother, but when the hon. member came and said that we wanted to drag her from the high pedestal on which he had placed her, he used sentiment in the best Hollywood manner. Yet he comes and accuses us of employing sentiment. Then there is another argument the hon. member used. He referred to Bolshevik women who have the vote, and that a group of them met in Trondheim, and a resolution was passed that a woman had the right to kill "a child within 24 hours after its birth. He said: “Just think of those women and what the position will be if such women govern in our country.” The hon. member makes out that they would possibly introduce something like that. That is another of the marionettes he has put up to be able to knock it over. If, however, the hon. member enquires how the women vote in the countries where they have had the opportunity of voting separately, then he will see how hollow his argument is. In Germany men and women vote separately, and it has been generally found that the women vote for the centre parties. They do not vote for the party of the right or the left wing. There a far greater percentage of men vote than women. The large majority of the women voters vote for the centre parties, and if the hon. member is so afraid of Bolshevism—he is nearly as frightened as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige)—he will have to move that the men should not have the vote, because when we think of the danger of Bolshevism and how the women vote in Germany, also of how the men have used their votes, then it is clear that the danger of Bolshevism will much sooner come as the result of the man’s vote than that of the woman’s. The argument he used is far more against men than against women. One of the other things he said was that men and women will not be able to co-operate. He says that the one will always want to show off before the other. He gave examples in this connection from animal life. He instanced the bee and the horse; the hon. member has apparently considerable knowledge of farming, but in connection with women’s franchise he is apparently suffering from a sex complex. If there is a difference between men and women, then he only sees the sex difference. But we surely cannot compare women with animal life, and always consider the difference from the sex point of view. We have women with high ideals, and not merely display ideals. We see men and women every day co-operating in life, especially where they live together in the home on an intimate footing. This is another of the marionettes he put up and knocked down. I do not want to go into the matter further. One thing particularly struck me, viz., that we find that in 1632, when the first Reform Bill was introduced in England giving the franchise to the working classes, the same arguments were used as are being used to-day by the opponents of women’s franchise. A small section of the people were enfranchised before 1832, and it was proposed to give the vote more or less on the basis on which it is given to-day. The opponents said that it would mean the breaking up of the family; the men would neglect their work, go about to political meetings, and not provide for their wives and children. They said that the men were not sufficiently educated, and did not know sufficient about politics. It is the same argument as was used by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in connection with our university girls. As he said, they know too little about politics.

They know too little, of life.

I thought he said that they knew too little of farming. A further argument was that the men at that time did not want the vote. That was quite right. The people did not want it because they did not know what it meant and what power it would give them. But when they had once had the vote, there was no one who could take it away from them. We see precisely the same thing to-day. The fighting of democracy on the one hand, and of conservatism. We are back at the position in England in 1832, and before that time, and as conservatism lost in England in 1832, it will lose in South Africa in 1930.

Is it not a pity to hear young boys talk like this?

It is necessary now and then for young people to teach old people what is wrong. I also hear a remark by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll), although I cannot understand what it is. He suffers from a superiority complex, and says we must maintain our position. I can well believe how the hon. member is trying to maintain his position, because he is scared to death that he will no longer be the superior, and most of all afraid that some day he will not sit here as the member for Christiana, that he will sit in a small section of the gallery specially provided for members’ husbands, and that once a year he will get a free ticket to come to Cape Town with the children and the maid. I fear that many of the opponents of women’s franchise who are fundamental conservatives are unwittingly dishonest, because they are ready to use the women while they will not give them the rights that are their due. They use the women to collect money and to bring members to this Parliament, but they did not want the women to have any say here. Just look at the social work the women do. When the women of the great cities and the slums go to save the fallen, do we also hear so much of the sullying of women? No, we expect that of them, and it is demanded of them. Does it degrade the women? No, it makes them more noble than before. They may however, not have a say. Think of education; we expect our women to educate the children, to tackle pedagogic problems, to do anything in that connection, but we will not allow her to say in what direction the national education is to go. Is that honest and just? There is another thing that we demand from the women, and that is to bring our children into life, and we demand of them to form their characters. Now we want to be sentimental, and prevent the woman being degraded, but where it does not affect politics we think very little about it. After the women have borne the children and educated them, we do not want to give them any say in regulating affairs in connection with the future of the children. If we want to be honest to ourselves, our people, our wives and our children, then we can only do one thing, and that is to vote for the second reading.

I suppose the House is getting rather tired of this debate, and is waiting for the Prime Minister’s reply. I do not intend to take more than a few minutes, and I would like to say I wish to join the many hon. members who are not against giving votes to women, but are against the Bill, which can only be described as unfair, unjust and retrogressive. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is satisfied that he has fully carried out the promise he made in this House a few years ago, and whether many of his followers are satisfied with the attitude their leader is taking up on this Bill. I know many women who have worked long and earnestly for women’s votes who are bitterly disappointed with the Bill, and many of them have publicly said that rather than have the vote given to them by such an unjust measure, they would wait for it a much longer period

Will you tell us why it is unjust?

Because I think it is unjust to a large portion of the women who are a credit to the country, notwithstanding that they are not white. The Prime Minister’s definition of civilization leaves one cold. Are we to imagine that because a woman is white she is more civilized than some of our more educated coloured women? It is a Bill which has treated a portion of our women most unfairly. The Prime Minister told the House that if women were to get the vote he would rather they got it from the Nationalist party and on good national principles. They may be getting it on national principles, but I take leave to query the adjective good as applied to these principles. Can the Prime Minister give the vote without the aid of the party on this side? I should think not, especially after hearing the speeches of some of his followers, who are speaking in earnest and are earnestly and conscientiously against the granting of votes to women, and none more so than the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser), who, we could see, had made a deep study of the whole question and was deeply in earnest in his opposition. The Prime Minister might have been generous enough to say that with the assistance of the South African party he might be able to give the women of this country the vote. Had it not been for the Prime Minister, as far as I have been able to learn from the debate here, and I have not heard it contradicted, women would have had the vote two years ago, and on much juster and fairer grounds than that proposed by the Prime Minister to-day.

interjected.

I am not afraid of the educated native and coloured vote—I do not believe in horizontal lines to keep people down when it comes to this. If the Prime Minister would adopt a reasonable attitude and give the women in the Cape and Natal the vote on the same qualifications as for men, I would not be afraid of coloured women, and not even of the educated native women having the vote—I believe some of these women are just as capable, if not more so, of exercising the vote as intelligently as many who are on the voters’ list to-day. Hon. members opposite have been speaking of the wonderful assistance they and others have had from the women, and there has been scarcely an hon. member who during election times has not had to rely very largely on the assistance given him by women. In the country districts, I understand the women do the bulk of the work in raising money for the party. They do canvassing work and bring voters to the poll, but then it is “thus far and no further." Hon. members who have opposed this have an old-time prejudice that woman is inferior to man. There is one thing many hon. members feel keenly, especially Cape and Natal members, and that is the lowering of the franchise of these two provinces. An hon. member like the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), it may be said, supports universal suffrage, that is, to anyone above 21, but hon. members from the Cape and Natal look upon this matter with concern—look upon it as a lower and retrogressive step, and would much rather see the qualifications of voters increased than lowered. I am in duty bound, however, to vote for the second reading; as, while I am of opinion that an injustice is being done to some of the womanhood, the educated coloured women, I am not prepared to do a bigger injustice by also refusing votes to the European women. The bigger injustice cannot be justified because we cannot get all we desire. I therefore intend to vote for the second reading.

I do not want to go over the same ground, but just to mention a few points. It has been said that the women of South Africa are not keen on the vote, but that the people in this House want it. During the by-election I held several meetings, and discussed the women’s franchise, and I am honestly convinced that the women of the countryside are quite opposed to its being granted. If we were to pass the amendment of the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) and have a referendum, we should find that the greatest part of our women were opposed to the vote. I have had telegrams from two branches of our party in my constituency to vote for the Bill, but notwithstanding that I am not prepared to do so, because the women who are members of the party are not all the women that are in the constituency. Two years ago a Nationalist party congress resolved that the women’s franchise must wait until the native Bills had been passed. A year later they suddenly arrived at exactly an opposite decision. Probably the alteration is due to the Prime Minister having said that he would introduce it. A referendum would cause great expense, and I am not certain that I am in favour of it. If hon. members, however, would stump their constituencies thoroughly many of them would find that the women are opposed to the vote, and they would come back here with different views. I cannot at all agree with the few points which have been raised here. I know that we, who are opposed to it, are in the minority. But there is especially an important point, viz., the qualification about which I must honestly say that I am absolutely against the principle that any person can vote just because he is 21 years old. I feel that qualifications must be laid down for anybody who is to vote. If that is done elements in the country will be prevented from voting who do not deserve to do so. I hope the time will come that the legislation will be so amended that qualifications will be laid down for men and women on an equal footing. I am not in favour of that being included now because it would be an injustice to the women of the Cape Province, not to have the same rights as the women of Natal, the Free State, and the Transvaal. I hope, however, that the time will come when general qualifications will be fixed by legislation. I have gone about in my constituency and not found one European man who was not qualified. When, however, we fix qualifications we will prevent people, who ought not to have the vote, from getting it.

I shall not detain the House long to-night. I think we have all been amused by the debate. It was particularly instructive and I do not think the women of South Africa can have any further doubt about the fact that they are very highly thought of. I think that from this side of the House, at any rate, sufficient expression has been given to statements of respect, love and appreciation. But one thing may have estranged her after all the evidences of respect, that the love was so small as not to be sufficient to also give her the franchise. As for me, I want to say that there has never been any doubt of my position on this question. Hon. members opposite have quoted from Hansard that when the matter was first before the House, I voted for it and as far as I can remember, it was so. In other words, from the first opportunity I declared myself in favour of women’s franchise. I always felt that as far as argument was concerned not a single reason could be given why the franchise ought not to be given to women, that is as far as the capacity and competency of the women were concerned. On the second occasion the subject came before the House I took up a different attitude. This was that between the first and second occasion, as far as the Nationalist party and I were concerned, we took up a definite attitude with regard to the native. We then said that it would be a great mistake to give the women the vote before the native question was settled, because, as I always said, if the native question did not follow the line that I was advocating, viz., that the native was not to be treated according to the Cape system, then I did not see how we could give the vote to women without also giving it to the native women. I always expressed myself in favour of a separation between the natives on the one hand and Europeans and coloured people on the other with respect to political rights. I always said that we must first separate the native politically. Then we know where we are and then we can also give the franchise to women. It was my policy, as well as that of the Nationalist party, that as the native was being separated the coloured person should be included politically with the European. It was also clear to me that that policy would include the coloured woman eventually getting the vote like the European woman. That was the reason that I insisted every year this question came up that the time had not yet come. So we gradually got to 1928. I am now reproached, and have it thrown at my head that I am inconsistent and have broken my promise by not including the coloured women in the Bill. This is the way that the sins of the Opposition now come back on their own shoulders, and they are anxious to get rid of them and put them on to my shoulders. They are the cause of the native question not having been solved yet. In 1928 they rejected the distinction between the native on the one hand and the European and coloured person on the other, which was proposed in the Bill. And at the same time they also rejected the other Bill which was to draw the necessary dividing line between the natives and the coloured people. They rejected it, and they fought us in the Joint Assembly for days. They know just as well as I do that without a legal definition as to who was coloured and who was native the coloured woman could not get the franchise. Hon. members opposite knew that very well. They, at that time, strongly opposed the solution of that question, and in that way also opposed the rights which were to be granted to the coloured people. Let us now see where we stood in 1928. What happened in the House when the promise was made in, pursuance of which this Bill has been introduced. There was a Bill that had passed through the House. I, however, appealed to the House not to pass it and the reason for my appeal was because I had laid on the Table of the House the Bill on Native Representation and the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill. There was yet another which I need not mention. I then gave a promise, and asked the House not to pass the Women’s Franchise Bill as we were busy considering those Bills in committee, and as it was possible that even during that session a solution of the native question might be found. I then promised the House that when those Bills had passed I would as soon as possible introduce a women’s franchise Bill. But even if those Bills did not pass I undertook that I would introduce a Bill not later than 1930 giving the franchise to women. Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) asked whether I would also give the vote to the coloured women; I replied that I would provided they were civilized. Now I wish to call the House’s attention to the fact that it knew very well, because I said it time and again, that so far as the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill, and the Native Land Bill they were dependent on the Native Representation Bill. It was clear from the first day that I would not allow the other two Bills to be passed and the privileges to be granted to the coloured persons and to the natives which were set out in those two Bills, if they were not coupled with the solution of the native question. When then L made the promise in 1928 it was clear that it was subject to whether the native Bills were passed, and the native question solved. Only then would the franchise be given to the coloured women. That was clear from the question and from my answer, because the question was asked with reference to the whole Union, and I replied in respect of the whole Union. No one can take it that I ever intended that I would give the franchise to the coloured women in the Free State and Transvaal, if the coloured men did not have it here. No, my whole promise was dependent on what I have just explained. I often said it privately and publicly to the coloured people that they could only expect the Europeans to meet them when the existing prejudice had disappeared, and when the native question was solved. But after the promise was given my hon. friends opposite took care that the Native Representation Bill was rejected. The solution of the native question was prevented, and they knew that in that way they were wrecking the whole matter. They did the same with the Bill to draw a dividing line between the natives and the coloured persons. They will remember how they fought us and how we had a majority of one in the Select Committee. No, the blame, if there is blame, lies with those who are today sitting on the Opposition benches. I always said that I would not allow the bastard natives who live in the locations in the north, and who are not coloured persons, to be regarded as coloured persons. For census purposes they are considered as coloured persons, but we have laid down in the Bill that a person whose parents are natives remains a native. For that reason it was necessary to draw a dividing line between natives and coloured people so that the official should know whom to register and whom not. My friends opposite who are now so eloquent about their concern for the coloured woman made every effort to prevent the coloured women getting on to the voters’ roll. They feel that and that is the reason why they now so indignantly represent that they are concerned because the coloured women are not included in the Bill. Until such time as the franchise is given to the coloured persons in all the provinces on the conditions that were proposed, I cannot include the coloured women in the Bill. Now I should like to go further. In connection with the coloured women the Nationalist party never promised that they would give the franchise immediately the European women got it. Just as little was the promise made to the coloured women that they would get the right of sitting in this House. What the Nationalist party stands for is that the coloured person shall not be separated as the native is being separated. He must in course of time stand alongside of the white man and enjoy all his political and economic rights. He must find his salvation there and not with the native. But I told him very clearly, privately and in public that he must not think that he will reach that position in one, five or ten years. I told them that they would reach that position according to how we succeeded in securing the disappearance of the white men’s prejudices, so that they would understand that they were compelled to give all those privileges to the coloured people. I recollect one special occasion. At Riversdale a coloured man, a supporter of the Opposition, asked me at the meeting whether I was in favour of the disappearance of the colour line between the coloured person and the European so that the former could sit in Parliament. I replied that there could be no doubt that that would happen eventually. I, however, added that it would not happen for a very long time. I told him that it was not in the interests of himself, and the white man that it should take place now. He had to admit subsequently that there was a great deal in what I said. I only mention this because as far as I am concerned that was always my policy, and I have never yet disguised it. If, however, you ask me to-day whether I am in favour of their sitting here to-day then I would definitely place myself in direct opposition to it. With regard to the franchise of the coloured women, we have in the Cape Province the coloured vote, but I always told them that I supported no franchise whether for men or women except if it were based on much higher qualifications than those existing in the Cape Province to-day, and whether it is the Cape Province or the northern provinces makes no difference to me. I therefore also said that I was in favour of the principle that the coloured woman in the long run would get the vote provided she was civilized, but I very often told the coloured people that far from all of them being civilized that there were heaps of them that one could not call civilized, and that it was in their interest that they should not all pass as being civilized and have the vote. In legislation I laid before the House, I also laid down what, in my opinion, the standard of civilization ought to be, viz., that with respect to the education test the coloured person must at least have passed Standard IV or its equivalent. I do not want to go further into that now, but repeat that the coloured people will not come under this Bill, but when we have passed the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill, the position will then be that, as far as I am concerned, I will be prepared to give the franchise under this Bill to the coloured people in the Cape Province provided they at least possessed the fourth standard or a similar educational qualification. As for the northern provinces, the coloured woman would then have had the vote together with the Europeans, but on the basis of the Coleured Persons’ Rights Bill, as far as men are concerned, viz., that the coloured women would have had the right together with the coloured men of sending a representative to Parliament. As for myself, personally, I would have been prepared to do that. As, however, the Opposition prevented me from passing the necessary legislation to lay down who were coloured persons and who not, it was, of course, quite impossible and could not be done. I must say that to some extent it is very interesting to watch the attitude of hon. members opposite. I noticed in their “fighting programme,” I think it is now 14 months old, that one of the South African party principles was equal franchise for men and women. To-day, however, we see that there are still South African party members sitting in this House who will not vote for the women’s franchise. Then some say that this Bill will not do, but if they are asked to move amendments, they will not do that either. They, however, do not vote for the Bill. I therefore, notice that the “fighting programme” of the South African party is there for anyone to submit himself to or to run away from. As for this side we have always made an open question of it, and I have said that hon. members who are convinced that women’s franchise is worthy of their support can vote for it, and that those who think the opposite can oppose it. I said at the time the promise was made that I was buying no one, and that all I understood was to lay a Bill on the Table. Now it may be that the Bill does not suit hon. members opposite. They would, perhaps, have preferred a different Bill, but they will admit that I did not promise to introduce a Bill to suit them. That was just the reason why, in 1928, I opposed the Bill then introduced, because it did not suit me. Now I have introduced a Bill which suits me. If hon. members opposite are opposed to it, they can do one of two things. They can amend it, or leave it as it is. Now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and I think also this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) say that the 1928 Bill was so very excellent. I just want to point out a few things as to how excellent the Bill was. According to the Bill the married woman, however rich her husband was, would get no vote, if he did not posses fixed property. The wife of a man, however large his income might be in the form of wages, would have no right to the vote. The daughter of a rich father would also have had no vote because she was supported by her father. I just mention these few things as absurdities in the Bill. As for the husband who owned no immovable property, he would have the vote on his wage income, but the Bill in question said not a single word in this connection about the wife, and however large the income of the husband might be, the wife would have no vote. The Bill was half baked, and calculated to merely favour a certain class of women so far as the Cape Province is concerned. As for the Bill now before the House, it was said by one hon. member to be unfair, unjust and unprogressive. I asked him why it was unjust, and he replied that the same rights were not given to the coloured women. A great deal has been made of the fact that the franchise is being given to all major European women, and it was asked amongst others by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) why we were giving more to the women than to the men, and why we were giving the women more than they wanted? I gave my reasons in introducing the Bill, and do not want to go into them again. I said that, as far as the white man and woman were concerned, it was foolish to expect them to prove that they were civilized. We must assume that of every white woman and man in our country. Then there remains only one basis on which the franchise can be granted, and that is if she or he is 21 years old, if she or he has attained independence, and can exercise the necessary discretion, she or he will be entitled to vote. So much for the Opposition. They are all in favour of it, their programme compels them to be in favour of it. Therefore it is unnecessary for me, who am also in favour of it, to stop longer trying to convince them.

What about the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser)

I have not yet finished with my hon. friends behind me. Now I want to say at once that although my colleague behind me has said this afternoon that he is not certain whether I am really whole heartedly in favour of the Bill—

We are not either.

Let me then assure hon. members that I fully and wholeheartedly am in favour of the Bill. As for me, as I have said, I was always in favour of the native question being settled first. I am convinced that it would have been sound first to settle the native question before tackling this Bill. As, however, it is clear that the majority in this House want us to go on with this matter before such time, I am not prepared to oppose it any longer, and after the promise I made to introduce a Bill I am no longer prepared to withhold my support from it. We must pass it, make the best we can of it. I want to say that in drafting the Bill I adopted the point of view that in the first place there must be a distinction between Europeans and natives. As this has not yet been made, it is clear that so far as the coloured persons are concerned nothing more can be done for the present, and we had in this Bill to confine ourselves only to Europeans. Now on this side of the House objections have been raised to the Bill, or rather to the subject of the Bill, not against the Bill as a Bill. There have always been differences on both sides of the House, amongst members of the parties, and the differences still exist to-day as far as the Nationalist party is concerned. I must, however, say that although I am prepared, and have always been prepared to show the greatest consideration for the feelings of hon. members who differ from me, I cannot associate myself with the main arguments that have been used here, and I shall therefore only deal with a few of the main arguments. They are points which we have heard over and over again in the House, and I do not think I am going too far if I say that not a single new point was raised during the debate, or a single new point of view opened up. I believe we all listened with the greatest pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser). We will admit that it was the best speech of its kind which we have heard for a number of years in the House. It was certainly a very live and a very humorous speech, one of which the spirit and the humour was such that we did not feel, as we usually do, that it was exaggerated or that it smelt too much of the midnight oil. There was spontaneity in it which we felt and which we appreciated very much, out now the hon. member will excuse me when I say that his speech showed, what speeches of that kind always show, that facts and arguments are sacrificed to wit and humour. The hon. member used an argument which was the theme of nearly every speech of opponents who spoke after him, viz., as the hon. member for Edenburg (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said: “This is feminism, and just see what feminism has led Europe into.” He went so far as to say that we must look at the Spartan and the Roman women how they were ruined to the very bottom of their hearts, how they became sterile, and how the people were ruined. Well, as someone said this afternoon, I think those examples will lead the hon. member to the opposite conclusion. The women’s franchise had nothing to do with the Spartan and Roman women, and yet they were morally destroyed, and the Empire disappeared owing to their barrenness. To say that for that reason we must not give the vote to women is an argument which cannot be logically justified. The franchise may be a sign of the tendency of our times, but it is certainly not the cause of that tendency. In the history of every civilization it occurs that the civiliized peoples are really over civiliized, and when the nations are over civilized one of the consequences is that barrenness appears automatically. I want to draw hon. members attention to something which I learnt in a hurry this afternoon. We do not have the franchise in South Africa, so the consequences of the franchise have not made themselves felt here, I have, however, taken down a few figures of my hon. friends round about me. I will begin with the Ministry. I leave the two younger members of the Ministry out, because I do not want to eliminate their possibilities in the future. Here we have nine out of the eleven Ministers, and together they have 21 children both living and dead. That amounts to two and one-third children on the average for each. We have not yet got the women’s franchise, but here are the facts, and I do not refer to them to promote laughter. I go a little further, and I have included the older hon. members behind me. I have taken eighteen in addition to the members of the Ministry. They have not dead and alive even an average of four children each; and next to me sits the Minister who was one of thirteen, and if we look about we see the same almost everywhere that even without the women’s franchise infertility has increased. No, women’s franchise has nothing to do with it. It may be one of the signs that we get in such an unfortunate period of over civilization, but we cannot stop the evil. The question is whether the circumstances of the times allow us to consider the women’s franchise as something that ought to be given. If that is so, and our conscience says that it is right, and our practical judgment that it will do no harm, then I think it is right to say that we can bring it about. But it is not right to prophesy consequences which do not necessarily follow from such a measure, but which are the consequences of accessory circumstances, from the spirit of the times. If we enquire in South Africa we shall find that in former days when it was easy to make a living there were large families, and the large families were a great gain to a small population, and especially to the household. But now the opposite is the case. Rightly or wrongly it is considered disadvantageous than the reverse to have a large family, and in consequence we can understand why families will not be so large. I say it is very deplorable, but those are the facts as I have proved by taking examples round about me, and if we were to examine the position on the opposite side, then it would be precisely the same. As for me, when it is stated here that persons are in principle opposed to this Bill then I ask myself what principle there can be. This Bill is of such a kind that I can suggest no other principle in it except that someone will say it is opposed to the Bible, or it is against my religion, and therefore he opposes it. We may differ from him, but yet I can understand such a person’s position. But if that is not the case I cannot see what objection in principle there can be to the Bill, unless it is the practical principle that it is not in the practical interests of the country. This is the basis which I take up because I do not find that the Bible and religion or the moral code is against it. I therefore range myself on the side of the practical interest of the people, and then it seems to me that it is sound reasoning to say that the time has come to give the vote to women, and that such a grant will advance the practical interests of the country and the people. That is all that weighs with me, and it is because I feel that as things are to-day we are not entitled to reject this Bill and in introducing it I made an appeal to my friends to support it, however much they might differ from me. The time has come to accept the Bill, and if it is to come well let it come from the Nationalist party. If the Nationalist party do not introduce it then the Opposition must do so, because they are pledged to it. And if we must pass it then I would rather have a measure that suits my taste than one that suits my opponents. I have listened with pleasure this afternoon to hon. members who have violently attacked the Bill on the opposite side of the House, but who in the end turned round and said they would vote for it. It is very wise, and I hope my hon. friends on this side who also have attacked the Bill will be just as wise. They must realise that if we do not pass this Bill then it will possibly come from the opposite side, and Nationalist principles are surely better than those of the S.A. party. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) complained that I talked a little party politics as he called it. If he had listened this afternoon to hon. members opposite he would have forgiven me because they dragged politics into the matter.

It is a bad Bill.

Therefore I tell my friends to infer from that what a good Bill this is from a Nationalist standpoint.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and the House divided: