I think I am fairly entitled to say that the discussions which have taken place on this Budget must again have convinced the country that there is nothing wrong with the financial policy of the Government. The essentials of that policy have stood the test during the years that have already passed, and will stand the test during the year that lies before us. With regard to general policy, the Opposition have had to go back and dig into the past to endeavour to find something with which to impress the country. They have brought forward again the Mozambique Treaty, and the unsoundness of what an hon. member called the State steel enterprize, forgetting that the country has already given its verdict on these and other policies that have been attacked in this House. As far as this Budget is concerned, its financial proposals have not been seriously challenged, and there has not been a vestige of a suggestion that anything better could be substituted to carry the country in a better manner through the situation which it is facing to-day. Of course, hon. members opposite have had a novel experience. For the first time in six years the alluring prospect, from the party point of view, has been held out to them that there may be a deficit next year. It was almost pathetic to notice the undisguised satisfaction with which that prospect is viewed. Of course, to some hon. members, it is no longer a prospect— it is a certainty, and it is held there that it is going to be a much bigger even than the figure I mentioned. It makes me almost sad to break the news that there may be great disappointment at the end of the year. In going over the field that has been covered by this debate, I have had more than the usual difficulty in selecting the wheat from the chaff. The harvest has not been a plentiful one as far as actual financial criticism is concerned with which I may be reasonably expected to deal. One of the points of criticism has been that this is not an heroic Budget, and that I hesitated to take a plunge. Well, a Minister of Finance, has no business to indulge in heroics when dealing with the vital interests of the people. Remaining on the bank may very well be simple and commendable prudence, whereas making a plunge may merely be the act of a fool. I repeat that there is nothing in the financial situation, as disclosed by the facts as I laid them before the House, that to-day calls for anything beyond the proposals I have submitted to deal with the situation, and none of these proposals has been seriously challenged on the ground of being unsound finance. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), as the chief financial critic of the Opposition, has made an attempt to deal seriously, and in a reasoned way to submit criticism, from his point of view as far as these proposals are concerned. I say he has done so in a serious manner, which, unfortunately, has not characterized that of other hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member started off by telling us he agreed that the debt position and the credit of the country were good, and that the surpluses which had been obtained in previous years had been wisely used. He might have added, with equal truth, that during that period the burdens on the people, as far as the incidence of taxation is concerned, have also been considerably reduced. But are these not very pregnant words: “the credit of the country good”; “debt position good”; “during the years of plenty, provision has been made for the lean years to come”? I should think that everyone will agree that thrice fortunate in the country which can enter into the difficult times that lie ahead of us with the position as described by the hon. member. I must say, as far as I am concerned, I consider that I am entitled to look back on the years that have elapsed with the feeling that I did my best to build up that position for the country. The hon. member proceeded, and said that one of his points of criticism was that for the first time I was bringing forward an unbalanced Budget, with no provision being made for a prospective deficit. Well, is that not quite correct? I think I clearly indicated to the House that after certain proposals are given effect to there will be a deficit, which I stated I intended to deal with in a very definite manner. I stated that it is the intention of the Government during the year that lies ahead to exercise the strictest economy, restrict transfers between votes, not go in for filling up wastage of staff; and in various other ways to try to wipe out this prospective deficit. I also pointed out to hon. members that at the end of every financial year, there are fairly large surrenders of expenditure which you cannot deal with in your estimates. But you can realize why the hon. member does not attach much importance to that. There is such inconsistency. When they speak of the gross extravagance of the country, there are people who do not believe that, and in their hearts they do not believe the Minister of Finance can effect a reduction in expenditure. We shall see what we can do. It is not the first time, I may say, I have budgeted for a deficit. That has been my universal practice in the past, and it was only last year that there was a surplus estimated. I have consistently budgeted for a deficit in former years. So the hon. member cannot say that this is an indication of unsound finance, because I have neglected to deal with a prospective deficit. No, there is one thing which I have always tried to stress, and that is the necessity for a balanced budget. But I say that the position is not such as to justify those heroic measures which an hon. member suggests should be adopted. If what we expect is not realized, if our expectations with regard to improved conditions are not realized, if the position should arise later on that we have to take drastic steps to balance the budget, I think it will then be time for the Minister of Finance to deal with the situation, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall not shirk that duty. In the past we have also had periods of depression when our friends opposite were in power. I do not know whether they do themselves justice when they say that they always experienced depression. They also had their good years. When we were in Opposition we said that te policy of the progressive accumulation of deficits was not a sound policy, and when it became clear that the situation could not be properly dealt with except through the adoption of drastic measures, should have been restored to, even if they proved unpleasant for the taxpayer. Then the other point made by the hon. member was that my estimates of revenue were too optimistic. That was also the burden of the song of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), my estimates would not be realized, and the deficit was going to be very much greater than the amount I stated. That is merely an expression of opinion. I think I have tried to lay before the House detailed reasons why I thought those expectations could be realized. I tried to do so. If I am wrong, I need not argue about it. We shall have to await the results at the end of the financial year. But I remember what has been our experience in the past. I have always had to bear the criticism of being a super-pessimist as far as my revenue estimates are concerned. I have been accused of under estimating my revenue estimates, but we have always heard that at the end of the financial year and not at the beginning. I remember a year when we had a big surplus, when the late hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) told me that he thought, speaking as a business man, my customs revenue would not be realized. As far as that is concerned, we shall have to wait and see what the future brings us during the year. Then the principal point of attack has, of course, again been our old friend “the growth of administrative expenditure,” the “appalling cost of running this country.” We have been told that the Government should deal with the situation. We have been told that during six years over £6,000,000 have been added to the expenditure. We have been told that during that period the staffs of the various departments of the public service have been increased by over 5,000. But that is all that we have been told. Expenditure gone up over £6,000,000 and staffs have been increased by over 5,000. I think you could double those figures, and, without a careful analysis, they might signify nothing. Before the country can form a judgment as to the value of that criticism, I think it is necessary to analyse it a bit more closely to see whether hon. members are entitled to deduce from these figures that this Government has spent more than is necessary in the interests of the country, during a period of prosperity, when the country was developing, and the people of the country were everywhere demanding that their desire for development should be met as far as the making of the necessary financial provision was concerned. Dealing with the question of the increase in expenditure in past years, this point has also been made. I have tried to deal with the criticism by pointing out that, as far as the percentage increases were concerned, over the previous years, if you take any period during our Government and contrast It with some, of the five-year periods when my hon. friends opposite were in the Government, you would find that the increases with which we are taxed compare very favourably with the increases during their time. I am afraid I shall have to weary hon. members this afternoon by quoting a number of figures, but I think it is my duty to do so. Let us see what these percentage increases over the previous years were. Let me start with 1924-’25. We find an increase of 2.09% over the previous year. The next year, 7.29%. That was the year when we increased the subsidies for the provincial councils. The next year, 3.98%; the next, 1.86%. Then follows 2.47%; then comes the old age pensions year, 5.05%, and this year, 2.31%. These figures, standing by themselves, do not prove anything; but what is the value of the criticism of hon. members opposite? I think I might Just as well retaliate by pointing out some of the increases during their period of office. I will begin with the year 1916-’17, when the percentage was 12.58, the next being 6.51%, and then 15.74%.

The war.

Yes, the war accounts for many things. Every time it is the war.

Is it not a fact?

And the next percentage increase is 26.20 per cent. There always is an explanation, and that is my very point. The point I am trying to make is that a mere statement of an increase does not carry you any further. What is the good of saying the expenditure has increased by £6,000,000? You might just as well say the expenditure has increased by £12,000,000. Let us try another avenue of approach and see where we get to. Let us see, by taking increased expenditure for certain particular votes, how far we get in trying to wipe out this net increase in expenditure of approximately £6,250,000. The first item is public debt, where provision has to be made for interest and redemption. The increased provision is a result of action taken by this Government in order to put our public debt position in such a favourable condition, as already mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). There has been an increase of £1,025,000 for redemption charges and for interest paid on loans raised by this country for the development of services in which we were equally supported by hon. members on the other side. Pensions has increased £1,578,000; an unavoidable expenditure incurred as the result of legislation passed by this House, which is not controlled by the Minister of Finance at all. Old age pensions have been criticised in this House as to the amount, but I ask any hon. member opposite, who is of that opinion, to tell us whether he is prepared to-day to go back on the position which this House took up on this matter. The next item is subsidies to your provincial councils for education, £1,258,000. It may be there are some members who think that we should contract educational expenditure, but we have had it from several hon. members opposite during this session, that, in their opinion, the provision which the central Government was making in this regard was insufficient. The House has been divided on this issue as to whether the subsidies to the provinces were sufficient. I come to Education, £573,000 increase, mainly as a result of the taking over by the central Government of educational services formerly controlled by the provinces. That includes vocational, agricultural and trade schools education and many more students are being educated under this head. We come to public health, £94,000. Does any hon. member think we have reached the limit of expenditure as far as public health is concerned? Every day we have representations that the position is not even yet satisfactory. The Government has tried to carry out the policy recommended by the Opposition—recommended by the party of which the hon. member for Yeoville is a member, but we have not yet reached the limit so far as public health is concerned. We come to mental hospitals, £141,000, to which we were committed as a result of the administration of the hon. member for Yeoville. Child Welfare shows £92,000 increase. Is there any hon. member opposite who is prepared to challenge that vote? I have tried to restrict this vote, but I have had no support in this House, and I am told that this expenditure—over which I have no control—expenditure passed by this House—is still insufficient. I come to State diggings, £200,000. We hope the State will continue to derive a revenue of £1,000,000 per annum for many years to come from that source. Is there any justification for reduced expenditure in that direction? Then there is posts and telegraphs, £658,000 increase; a business department having an enormous expenditure so far as telephones are concerned, but they are there to meet the needs of the public; a business department which has earned considerably more revenue as a result of this increased expenditure. I do not think that hon. members will advocate that we should discontinue the policy, which has been adopted and passed, of meeting the need for those facilities for the benefit of the people not only of the country, but of the towns. Then there is public works £361,000, and included in this amount is £100,000 which is transferred to the loan account for minor works. I consider it good policy to transfer that amount to the loan account, and for a number of years this has appeared in our estimates of revenue. The increase on the vote is the result of increased activities mainly in the direction of hospitals. Almost every large centre in the country has a large hospital being built to meet the needs of the people. I have tried to keep down the expenditure so far as these public works are concerned, but people are crying out for increased expenditure under this head. I have selected these items from our votes in regard to which I think I may reasonably claim there is very little difference of opinion on both sides of the House, as to the desirability for these increased votes which amount altogether to £5,950,000, and you have only got a paltry £350,000 to account for.

What about external affairs expenditure?

I am not shirking that issue. I will come to that now. Let us see how we can dispose of this £350,000 that is remaining. £50,000 more was spent on the House of Assembly, including Hansard. Would hon. members care to abolish Hansard? Then there is an increased number of members and increased allowances. Ah, sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was a brave man when he said, “Cut down allowances for members of Parliament.” But he was not only going to cut down the emoluments, but also the membership of the House. What support would the poor Minister of Finance be likely to get in that direction? Not only that, but so far as these increased emoluments are concerned, I submit that a reduction would not be justified. I supported it at the time, and I am prepared to stand by it still, and anybody who suggests that the members of Parliament are being paid more than they are reasonably entitled to for the sacrifices they make, I think is merely trying to catch votes.

I did not speak of reductions of emoluments.

I am glad to hear that you do not advocate that.

I said the Senators were not earning their salaries.

In that regard I think the hon. member will have an equally difficult task to persuade hon. members that so far as the Senate is concerned their emoluments are too high. So far as the Senate is concerned, in the same way, expenditure has been increased by £10,000. Another sum of £10,000 is added to our present estimates for the rent of the High Commissioner’s temporary offices to be occupied during the building of the new South Africa House. Then there is Inland Revenue, one of the departments over which I preside; the expenditure has gone up by £23,000. I can assure the House that this is absolutely necessary as the result of increased revenue that is being collected. I do not think that any suggestion can be made that expenditure on that department must stop. Then there is customs, £27,000. Here again we have increased revenue. I am daily told by people who represent the mercantile community and by the Chambers of Commerce that the work of that department is not being done sufficiently expeditiously. We are told that we must have more staff to deal more expeditiously with the work in future. Then there is Repatriation of Asiatics, £40,000.

You will be able to save that this year, as they are not going back.

Then there is Land Settlement £100,000. That is the result of the new settlement at Hartebeestepoort, Sundays River, and various other places where new settlements have been opened. Agriculture, £125,000. There has been extension of the various divisions and also in other directions. I do not think that will be seriously challenged. Then there are Forestry £41,000, Irrigation £113,000, and native affairs £66,000, and I have not exhausted the list.

You have not mentioned the Prime Minister’s vote.

I shall not forget the Prime Minister’s vote. I am trying to deal with the position if you will leave it to me to approach this question in the only fair and possible way which will appeal to unprejudiced persons, as to whether this charge is justified. If you add these items, in regard to which I have not been seriously challenged, you get £800,000, and I am only called upon to explain away £350,000. Let us go further. What is the explanation of that? Of course, there have been very substantial reductions in other votes.

What are they;

Let us go further. The hon. member says there is another way. He tells us that there is another method of attack: “We can now select certain items on the estimates to which we are entitled to take exception, to which we can point as examples of extravagant expenditure that should not be incurred.” Let us examine a few of them. The hon. member refers to the Prime Minister’s vote. I would ask, does he speak for his party?

I do not speak for my party.

The hon. member will say that he did make an attempt to enumerate some of these things where he thought we could economise, and of course would take exception to this expenditure. I have said on a previous occasion, I said that we frankly adroit that hon. members opposite do not agree, with this policy, that we should take our place beside other nations of the world. I think that is the point of difference. I do not know where I am now. A few days ago the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told us that that was not so. He does not object to the principle of this expenditure. He was only rather doubtful as to whether we were not spending too much. Let us reduce the issue to that and then we shall know where we are. To those hon. members who have put up this challenge, let me tell them that I invite scrutiny as regards the details of that expenditure. I make this statement; hon. members may not agree with certain specific items, but they will find that the expenditure on these services is very modest, compared with the expenditure incurred by other countries similarly situated. I have been told I should reduce the expenditure on overseas legations. My reply is that we are not doing justice to our people who are representing us there. Now what further does he suggest? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) of course was prepared to abolish a few universities. He took exception to the expenditure on higher education. I really do not know whether the hon. member was really serious.

We have too many of them.

We might have saved the £250 paid to Gen. Maritz! The other day he was reforming the Senate, and cutting down the number of representatives in the House. He referred to the South Africa Act, an Act which according to hon. members opposite it would be sacrilege to tamper with. These are a few things, a few specific items that have been challenged. May I tell hon. members that if they analyse these estimates, they will find in regard to any proposal to reduce the expenditure on these estimates for which a dozen hon. members opposite could be found to vote, that would not enable me to reduce the income tax by 1 per cent. I make that statement deliberately. The hon. member also mentioned the gross figure and the rise, and another point he made as evidence of this increased expenditure was the way, for instance, in which expenditure had gone up this year. What is the increase in expenditure which the hon. member challenged?

Are you speaking to me?

No, I am speaking to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I think the hon. member for Yeoville said he was speaking of the increase in the public service and the increase in expenditure and he said the increase was £496,00 for this year.

I was referring to an increase in the staff.

I am coming to the increase of the staff. I shall first of all try once and for all to dispose of this accusation of extravagance. I think you will agree that I have tried to deal fairly with the question so far as the amount is concerned. I am later on coming to the question of the staff. The net increase of expenditure on last year’s Estimates is £496,000. A part of that increase is represented by Imperial Airways, £36,000; a grant to the Empire Marketing Board of £21,000; interest on public debt chargeable to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, £122,000; payment of reparation receipts to general sinking fund, £20,000; old age pensions £128,000, and £131,000 subsidies to the provincial administrations all unavoidable expenditure—then there are the State alluvial diggings £41,000 and the annual increments £180,000.

Why do the alluvia diggings cost more when your revenue from them is going down?

Because the methods of winning the diamonds now are more expensive than they were formerly, when it was merely a question of hand picking. Now it practically amounts to mining. The figures I have mentioned total about £7,000 and they are all for items which are unavoidable and over which I have no control. I shall now deal with what has been described as “an enormous increase in the personnel, and the army of civil servants added to the establishment.” When the hon. member mentioned that there had been a net increase of 5,000 some of my hon. friends could not believe that, but it is so. This shows how some people may be stampeded by such statements. The increase in the establishment as compared with 1924-’25, is 5,761, and I shall attempt to analyse the figure and I shall ask the House and the country whether there is really much substance in this criticism that we have heard this year—for the first time, I am glad to say. From the total of 5,761, you can eliminate at once, without any possibly have success unless there is co-operation, and the staff mutually consult with the heads of question, 788, as they are merely transfers from the “works” heads of expenditure to the “salary” heads of expenditure in the Lands, Irrigation, Printing and Forest Departments. That brings the increase down to 4,973. In the post office there has been an increase of personnel of 2,494, and my previous statement could legitimately be taken to cover this increase. I have tried to point out how the revenue has increased.

The post office expenditure is growing at a bigger rate than the revenue.

I do not think there is any evidence of that.

The last report of the postmaster-general says so.

The revenue has kept pace with the expenditure. Mental hospitals, for new and expanding institutions, account for 613 additions to the establishment; Union education, 365; child welfare, 85; Lands Department, 108; police, 329. I remember how I have been attacked in this House for not providing more funds for the employment of sufficient police. I have made an attempt to keep the police vote down, but there has been such an outcry from Johannesburg and other big centres that it has been impossible to ignore it, and if it had not been for reorganization and the utilization of faster vehicles, as a result of which policemen have become available to cover a wider area, and perform real police duties, the police Vote would have gone up by another £100,000. The diamond diggings account for an increase in the police personnel of 118; public works, 210 —new buildings in course of erection; Irrigation, 100, and Treasury, 20—we have taken over the staff of the Custodian’s Office; old age pensions, 62; customs, 113; inland revenue, 41; assize, 20, and native affairs, 233. There are increases in other Votes to which no exception can be taken, but they are wiped out by reductions in other Votes. What reasonable grounds are there for these charges which are openly levelled at us of increased expenditure and an increased establishment? As far as these matters are concerned, there is only one real test, and that is whichever Government may succeed us, will they be prepared to make any real reduction so far as this expenditure is concerned? I do not think so, and from my experience, if the time comes when the revenue drops to such an extent that the country cannot afford this expenditure, the Minister of Finance may have some chance of making an effective reduction; but when the country is prosperous and demands development, it will insist on getting it and no Government will dare to refuse financial provision for the services I have mentioned. I hope the time will not come when we shall have to retrench.

Retrench expenditure.

I say most of the services are unavoidable. They are needed by the country and are supported by hon. members opposite as well as by hon. members on this side of the House. I will now proceed to deal with the question of protection for our industries, and so far as that policy affects the specific proposals I have submitted in this budget, I have explained on a previous occasion. When the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has to describe what the actual policy is, to which he and his party subscribe, with regard to protection, every hon. member on this side will agree with him. He states he is for protection, but it must not be “protection run mad”; it must be “reasonable protection,” and we must see that we do not follow the example of Australia, where as a result of their policy in this connection they are in a bad way. We agree with him. But what has been our experience in the past? For six years now, every year I have come forward with particular proposals, and what has been our experience? In the old days, we had Mr. Jagger, then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). Well, of course, he was an out and out free trader, and opposed everything. We knew where he stood anyway, but what is the position taken up by hon. members on that side? During the budget debates we had the sort of speech we had this time: “Of course, we are for protection, but the Government is sending up the cost of living; protection is too high, and the policy of the Government is all wrong.” Every time the budget is followed by a debate in Ways and Means, and subsequently these proposals have to be passed by a vote of this House. I can remember no occasion when any of these proposals were challenged by hon. members opposite.

Clothing?

Is that the only one?

Blankets.

We have had hundreds of proposals dealing with protection, and we have this spectacle every year. In principle they are all protectionists, except Mr. Jagger, but when these proposals are to be voted on, they were not seriously challenged, and they are on the statute book to-day. What happened in the classic case of the boot industry? I remember the discussion. They were against the proposals of the Government; but when it came to a vote—

Do you remember the vote on ready-made clothing?

I have certain very important tariff proposals here, and we shall see where hon. members stand when the vote is taken on them, and when we deal with sugar and clothing—all things which “increase the cost of living”—blessed words—according to hon. members opposite. They can take up whatever position they do in the budget debate, but, according to the rules, they will have to vote on the proposals, and if they are protectionists, they will have to deal with these various measures on their merits. They cannot have their cake and eat it. Now I want to say a few words about the cost of living. It is rather difficult for the Government when it deals with these important matters to find out exactly where the Opposition stands. Under party government, if we want to obtain sound results, they can be obtained only if from time to time there is a clear-cut division on matters of policy between the Government and the Opposition. But we do not find it. When we hear these discussions on the high cost of living, a general statement is made, but our policy is never challenged in any particular respect where, according to those hon. members, that policy is responsible. At the back of their minds, they are against this protective policy, but they do not really tell us they are against it, and they do not challenge our proposals. The statement has been made that our cost of living in this country is too high, and that the Government should take steps to reduce it. Let us enquire into that. An hon. member the other day told us that, according to a Geneva statement which he read out to the House, certain facts appeared from that. Afterwards it appeared that it was not a Geneva statement, but it was merely a statement of opinion by a gentleman who expressed his opinion. The hon. member told us that the wholesale prices in Great Britain between 1924 and 1929 dropped 28 per cent., and that in the Union the drop was only 15 per cent. Well, I have not been able to verify those figures, and I do not know the source from which they are obtained; they do not agree with the official figures that I have at my disposal, and which I will give to to the House. We find these matters discussed and dealt with from time to time in the British Economist, and find there that from the figures, as far as the drop in wholesale prices in Great Britain is concerned, the amount is 20 per cent., and from the British Board of Trade figures, 18 per cent. It may be that the same months are not compared; an hon. member may compare January, 1924, with December, 1929, but, for our purpose, we may safely take the Economist and the British Board of Trade figures.

The Economist gave 24 per cent.

I am not dealing with the figures of this year; but the hon. member will find it is so. In the Union, according to the Census Department figures, the drop was only 10 per cent. As far as retail prices in Great Britain were concerned, we have a drop of 5 per cent., and, in the Union, of l½ per cent. That is for food, fuel, light and sundries. Therefore we find that the drop in both wholesale and retail prices in Great Britain is bigger than in the Union, and in both countries there is a bigger drop in wholesale prices than in retail prices. There is no dispute about that. But, in discussing this matter, there are two important factors which must not be lost sight of. The first is that in 1924 Great Britain was still passing through a period of deflation. Hon. members will know that during that time sterling was regularly quoted at a discount against the gold dollar of America, the Dutch florin, and the Swedish kroner. Those prices had to undergo a still further fall in order to establish a gold parity price, and to enable Great Britain to return to the gold standard, as she eventually did. In 1920 we passed a Banking and Currency Act, where it was definitely laid down that within three years South Africa would have to return to the gold standard. You know what the effect of that was—hardship and misery. It is true that that was afterwards extended in 1923 for two years, but during the year 1924 there is no doubt about it that our prices had already fallen very much more than British prices. A much fairer comparison would be to take other countries that in 1924 had also reached the gold parity price level, more or less. Take the United States. We find that wholesale prices dropped only 1.6 per cent, between 1924 and 1929. It is true that if you take America, they had in the previous year—1923—a very substantial drop. If you go back to 1923 you get a drop of 4.1 per cent. In Canada the wholesale prices dropped 4 per cent., and in Canada there was a slight rise in the cost of living figure. In Holland there was a decline of 7½ per cent, in the wholesale prices, and here the cost of living index figures are, unfortunately, not available. In Australia there was a 5 per cent, difference in the wholesale prices. The index prices in the Union, when compared with other countries, apart from Great Britain, show a truer reflex of the world movement in this regard. Compared with pre-war the level of prices in Great Britain rose very much higher than in the Union, and I may say than in most of the other countries. If this is borne in mind, it must be evident that the drop in the Union cannot be so great as in those countries. If we bear these factors in mind, I think we can fairly claim that the drop in the Union has not been so small, and that we compare very favourably with those countries. Let us take another factor. If hon. members are not challenging the protective policy of the Government, and if they do not say that that policy is the cause of prices not dropping sufficiently, let them point out the cause or causes. One would have expected them to do so, but from the discussions I have been listening to in this House, I do not think that you could really do anything effective unless the Government was prepared to go in for wholesale price regulation. Is this country prepared to do that? I do not think so. If you want to do it, you will have to appoint a Mussolini. I must say there is one way in which I think more good could be done than has been done, and that is that our friends, the merchants, the distributors—if they will make an effort, I think they will be able to do something. In three years I have surrendered over £800,000 per annum in customs duties, and I hope the consumer has benefited. I hope the consumer has experienced an adequate fall in price level as a result of those remissions. If your distributors cannot assist, it seems to me you will have to face the position as to whether you are prepared, through a system of universal price regulation, to interfere with the complex and intricate economic machine.

You are doing it every day.

The hon. member says we are doing it. In one case, yes, but I have my doubts whether it is possible to apply that universally. No, I have no doubts. I am absolutely certain it is not possible, and I am absolutely certain hon. members opposite will not support the Government in any endeavour of that kind. With reference to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) suggested—he said that our prices are rising—

They were rising.

The figures supplied to me are the following, as far as the wholesale price index in the Union is concerned. In 1910 the figure is, of course, 1,000, and in 1913 the figure was 1,125; in 1929, the average for the year 1,305; October, 1929, 1,276; and in January, 1930, 1,207, as compared with 1,305, the average for 1929. In the retail prices, the average for 1929, show a figure of 1,430; October, 1929, 1,422; December, 1929, 1,413; and February, 1930, the last figure available, 1,408. The hon. member will be glad to note that there is a progressive reduction.

They have been going up slightly.

No, there is a gradual reduction, and I think that, particularly as we know the very serious decline in many articles of consumption produced in this country, as a result of all that, when it does take effect I think hon. members will find that during the coming months the figures will go down very considerably still. I want to say a few words about the subject’ raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). Of course, the hon. member was right in discussing the finances of the provinces; we dare not leave out of account the financial effect which the position of the provincial finances have on the Union budget. I have not much to add to what I said previously. There is no doubt that provincial councils are in for a difficult time financially. Hon. members know the present financial position so far as these councils are concerned; they depend on a transfer to them of Union revenues plus a certain limited field of taxation. As a result of the Durban arrangement, these councils have been able to get along very well without resorting to unpopular taxation, but the time will come when these councils, in carrying out their responsibilities under the South Africa Act and the Financial Relations Act, will have to balance their budgets by making use of their taxation powers. Assuming that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is right, and that these councils have been extravagant, now is the time when the electorate will have an opportunity of voicing its opinion as to whether that is a fact or not, and, if it is, of calling them to book. We have retained the sound financial provision that ultimately the electors will have the right to call these people who spend their money to book. If they have been extravagant, they will be subject to the same penalties which the central Government would have to face, but we have to realize, as the hon. member also said the other day, that the field of taxation of the provincial council is a limited one, and I am afraid that if they have been extravagant, or if they are unable to economize considerably, we shall find that their field of taxation will be too limited, and sooner or later this country will be faced with the position that it will have to decide whether it is prepared to make that radical change, as adumbrated by the hon. member, or whether it will be prepared to extend that field of double taxation to which exception has been taken in this House. We are continually told that these councils must be done away with, but one of the chief objections has been the unsound financial arrangement that exists so far as double taxation is concerned. I frankly admit it is undesirable, but it is inevitable. These councils, if they are to continue to function satisfactorily; either the House will have to say that a radical change must be made, or it will have to face the position as already stated. The hon. member wanted to know what is the Government’s policy. I have explained that on many occasions. I said in 1925, in introducing the existing Act, that we must enable the councils to function properly, and must not try to strangle them by indirect means. I have stood by that in this House; when attempts have been made to take away their powers I have said that that would not be fair. If they are not functioning satisfactorily as far as roads are concerned; if you must have national roads; if you must have national hospitals; if the Union Government can do these things better, then do away with them in an open manner. But if you start whittling away those powers, then indirectly a radical change becomes inevitable, and I was not prepared to agree to that. But the time is coming when the question will have to be faced. They are a part of our constitution today; they are there by reason of a compromise. I do not think hon. members can expect that the Government should be prepared to come forward with a cut and dried scheme. If the position is unsatisfactory; if a fundamental and radical change in our constitution is to be made, a change of that kind can only come about as a result of consultation and discussion in a non-party manner, and inevitably, as a result of some form of consultation of the people outside. I think that is the position as far as the future of these councils is concerned. I do not want to weary the House, but I will deal briefly with a few matters of minor importance. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) the other night attacked the treasury and treated us to a display of virtuous indignation in regard to its inhuman and harsh methods in refusing to refund certain pensions contributions in the case of a young lady, who, unfortunately, died in Cape Town. Surely, as I interjected at the time, that position was a result of legislation passed by this House. The treasury cannot play fast and loose with pensions contributions. The hon. member said that under the Pensions Act the treasury has the discretion to pay out a proportion of the contribution. I have made enquiries, and I find that we cannot assist. We have no discretion. We could only have done so if these people were able to show that there were dependents, but on the merits of the case, as shown, we are not at liberty to do so, if any relief is to be obtained, it has to be obtained as a result of a petition to this House, through the Pensions Committee, and payment will have to be made from revenue, and not from the fund. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) attacked me for an entire lack of financial responsibility and financial control. The hon. member, in support of that, instanced the inaccurate estimate in regard to the bill which the country has to face in regard to old age pensions.

And republican pensions.

Yes, and republican pensions. What are the grounds for making those statements? Does the hon. member say that I introduced this measure, involving a cost of £1,200,000, and that I did so without making a proper investigation? That is the burden of his charge. What are the facts? For a number of years we employed one of our most capable treasury officials to acquire all available data and to supply information to this House. The treasury was not satisfied with that. As a result of discussions in this House, we appointed a special commission to go into the whole matter and tell us, amongst other things, what the burden would be which the country would have to face. I do not know whether I am right, but I have some sort of recollection that I even invited the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to assist me on the commission, but, unfortunately, he could not act.

Quite right.

Yet the hon. member comes forward with this irresponsible statement after the matter had been properly investigated. I asked the hon. member to assist us. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) did so, and gave his services to the commission at great inconvenience and sacrifice. I asked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also to join the commission, but, unfortunately—and I do not blame him—he could not act. But fancy coming into this House and saying that this is evidence of lack of financial responsibility on the part of the Minister of Finance, because he has brought forward this measure, without proper investigation. I went further than that. I specially sanctioned certain expenditure to be incurred by the Census Department. I had a special questionnaire sent out to these old people in order to obtain exact infarmation for the purpose of this report.

How do you account for the enormous disparity?

Let me tell the hon. member that he will find that the figures are also fairly high in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We have had special conditions in this country, we have had wars, and we have had droughts.

You have also had prosperous times.

I am quite aware of the hon. member’s idea. The hon. member says that because our figures are high, that discloses a lack of financial responsibility.

I said your estimates are hopelessly out.

I defy anybody to say he could foretell exactly how many old people in this country were living below the bread line, and would be entitled to pensions. The hon. member mentioned the republican pensions. I am afraid that he is on equally uncertain ground in regard to this matter. Those pensions were awarded as the result of an investigation by a select committee of this House. As happens every year, at the end of the session, a pensions Bill is brought in when the committee has decided that the country should do right to certain individuals, and the country has to shoulder the bill. It has never before been possible, and it is impossible at any time, before the Bill is brought before this House, for the treasury to tell the country what the cost of it will be. The committee said that these officials had a right to have their pensions recalculated on the basis that obtains for other public servants. It was a recalculation, and the committee thought that that was merely an act of justice, and Parliament thought so too. Nobody knew the cost. I defy the hon. member to prove that it is humanly possible for the treasury to make a correct estimate with all the unknown factors which have a bearing upon this question.

That is the whole point of my criticism.

I leave it to the House and to the country to give their verdict as to whether the hon. member was entitled to point to these few instances as showing a total lack of financial responsibility. Before sitting down, I can only repeat what I have said on a former occasion. I think that the facts disclosed in the budget and the discussion that has taken place, entitle us to look to the future with confidence, and to say that there is no solid ground for pessimism. I am blamed for being an optimist. Well, I am afraid that there are enough pessimists and croakers in the country to-day, without the Government adding its voice to their number. Let us see at the end of the year whether the position is really so bad as hon. members seem to think. I do not agree with them. I have no doubt that if we face the position calmly, and if we all do our duty, there is no reason why we should not win through, and we will win through, and win back to calmer waters.

I must really congratulate the hon. members, whom I called the irresponsibles during the debate of the additional appropriation, on the way in which they have preserved silence during the railway budget. With the exception of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) no hon. member opposite attempted to criticize the financial position of the railways and harbours. I will, therefore, at once confine myself to the remarks of the hon. member for Sea Point. As usual, ne strongly objected to what he called the “high costs of administration.” He says that we estimate revenue too high, and that the expenditure is out of proportion with what it ought to be. He got the hearty support of his leader, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who did not go fully into the matter, but who said with the greatest conviction that the way out of the difficulty was for the railway administration to economize. I quite agree with him, and, if he, and hon. members, will take the trouble of looking at last year’s report of the general manager, they will find a long list there of measures which were taken by the general manager and the administration to economize generally. May I say this: that, in connection with the economy measures which range over a wide area, we have had the entire support and co-operation of the general manager, the other officers, and also the rank and file of the staff. All ranks of the staff, the officials in the workshops, and those engaged in operating the lines, granted their cooperative support to economize in view of meeting the serious crisis. The hon. member for Sea Point has apparently forgotten to mention that the operating ratio, i.e., the relation of cost of operating to the revenue had dropped to 77.35 per cent. It has never yet been so low, except in 1920, when the circumstances were extraordinary. I therefore think that he might have said a word of appreciation of the general manager and the staff. One of the chief causes of this favourable drop was the re-organization a few years ago. I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point, as the chief Opposition critic, whether he is really serious in talking of economy and saying that the costs of administration are too high. I am prepared to agree that he is actually in earnest, but then I would like to know what his attitude is about the proposals introduced by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). He may possibly say to me: “I have nothing to do with it if they make such proposals.” But let me, in turn, tell him that I have every right to ask him that question, inasmuch as he did not vote on the motion. It is possible that he could not be here, but we are surely entitled to know where he stands.

What about your promises?

We are not concerned with promises now. We heard the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) clearly say in the House that during the election I had in a definite way told the railway voters in his constituency that we were not going to follow the policy that those hon. members propose. There is, therefore, no question of promises. The question is: what is the attitude of the hon. member for Sea Point? The hon. member says nothing. Then I want to ask a question of the leader of the Opposition. He said in the House, and also throughout the country, that the salvation of the railways was economy. What is his attitude? He was, unfortunately, not here at the time, but what is his attitude on those proposals that were made, and which would mean an additional expenditure of 1½ million pounds to the railways? I shall not go into the whole question, and therefore only mention one point; is he in favour of reverting to the scale of wages of 1923?

Do not catechise me.

No, I am only trying to find out whether the hon. members are serious. It is easy to say that economy is the solution of our difficulties, but when we come to the responsibility of hon. members, then suddenly we are not allowed to catechise them. Does the House know the truth? I will tell the country and the House what it is. Those hon. members are strongly opposed to the proposals made by those two members. Let them deny it. They know just as well as hon. members on this side that they dare not support those proposals.

made an interjection.

Yes, I know the hon. member does not like it.

No, not at all, but this is not a catechumen class.

But let me tell the hon. member that the irresponsible actions of the Opposition are observed by the country. The hon. member sighs. I quite understand it.

Why play the schoolmaster?

No, I am not playing the schoolmaster, but I would like to refer to facts in connection with the Opposition, so that the country can know where the Opposition stand. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) ran away the other day. Perhaps he will tell us what his attitude is.

No.

Then I ask hon. members opposite what other interpretation we can put on the proposals of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) and Salt River than that they were merely meant to catch votes. I again ask the hon. member for Standerton what use it is to talk about economy with your hand on your heart in view of proposals like that. It is nothing but pious talk. The truth of the matter is that hon. members opposite know that such motions will not be passed, but do those hon. members know that they are doing irreparable harm?

Are you again playing the schoolmaster?

Yes, as long as I confine myself to the truth. If I say anything unfair, then I am prepared to sit down to give the hon. member a chance to make an explanation to us.

Why did you not play the schoolmaster to the hon. member for Salt River?

He was trying to catch votes. I am sorry to offend the leader of the Opposition.

No, you need not be sorry for me. Be sorry for the House, which has to listen to a speech like this.

We know that kind of pity by the hon. member. The country will be thankful to me that I have exposed the hollow and the dishonest attitude of the party opposite. If that were all, then we might say that hon. members opposite were irresponsible, and the matter would go no further, but what I seriously object to is that they arouse expectations among the staff, although there is not the least chance of those expectations being realized. The hon. member for Sea Point will admit that the railwaymen are misled in this way. Or do hon. members opposite want dissatisfaction to prevail among the railwaymen? Do they know what has happened in the country? Extracts from the speeches of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) and Salt River have been spread abroad among the railwaymen and the white labourers, their portraits are attached, and it is stated: “Look at these heroes of the South African party.” Look at the hon. member for Standerton how heroically he sits there after having first run away.

How dignified !

If only the railwaymen were here to-day to see how dignifiedly the hon. member takes his gruelling. I said on a previous occasion, and I want to repeat here that the Government does not intend to discharge anyone from the railway service, notwithstanding the present critical position, but we are economizing in every possible way in order to keep the railways as an asset to the people. We do not fill up the vacancies and do not intend to do so until the position is proved. With the increased maize traffic which we may expect in the near future, the time is possibly not far off when we may be able to extend the staff again. The hon. member for Sea Point will admit that that is actually the chief point of his criticism, but I want to touch on a few less important points. I must congratulate the hon. member that he has not followed his usual course of attacking our civilized labour policy. On the contrary, he has not only advanced in his support, but begins to show great interest in the whole policy, because he was particularly anxious to know whether I intended continuing it. He thought that there were signs of our abandoning the policy. I can assure him that there is not the least intention of giving up that policy. I hope, therefore, that he will have no more sleepless nights about it. In this connection I may say that we will specially continue the policy of employing that class of youth known as learners. I may say that we have had excellent results with our policy in employing youths between 16 and 21, and thousands of them have already been promoted, and will be our future railwaymen even in the higher grades. Then the hon. member did not accept my recent statement on the position of the permanent way, I said that he need not have the least fear. The mistake the hon. member makes in this connection is that he overlooks that as soon as we have to relay large sections, provision is no longer made out of the ordinary funds but out of the renewal fund. If the hon. member says that we spend less on the permanent way he is wrong, and is looking only at the figures in connection with the ordinary expenditure out of revenue, and has forgotten to go into the figures under the renewal fund. I will give the facts, and the hon. member will then see that he is wrong. If he challenges my figures he can return to the matter later, but I do not think he will touch it again. In 1928-’29, including the renewal fund, £2,791,047 was spent on the permanent way, and in 1927-’28 the amount was £2,715,010. The hon. member will therefore see that there has been a considerable increase in this expenditure in comparison with last year. He referred to the disquietude which existed among the public, but let me tell him at once that apart from my statements, I have not seen any observation in connection with that anywhere. Why is there disquietude on the part of the public with regard to the permanent way? I would like again to give the assurance, and I have great pleasure in doing so, that there need not be the least disquietude about the condition of the permanent way. The responsible officer has this morning once more given me the assurance that the permanent way has never been better than it is now. Hon. members, however, assume a peculiar attitude when I speak on workshops, the permanent way etc., when I say that I accept what the head officials report then they say that I am shielding myself behind the head officials. On the other hand they constantly reproach me for being terribly autocratic, for dominating the officials, and wanting to dictate to them in all things. Hon. members will surely see that they cannot have it both ways, and think that both things are true. If I do act autocratically, do dominate the officials, and dictate to them, then on the other hand they surely cannot say that I simply accept what the officials say and shield behind them. Then the hon. member for Sea Point indignantly said that I had not yet given him the ton mileage statistics. The hon. member forgets that those statistics were only started during last year. If I were to give the hon. member the data for 1929, without any other figures for comparison, it would, in any case, be useless to him. The figures will only have a value at the end of 1930 when the two years can be compared, and I want in anticipation to promise the hon. member that he will get the ton mileage statistics for the two years at the end of 1930 so that he can make a comparison. Another point of criticism, I do not want to go into it, is that we publish no branch lines statistics. I have replied to this so often in the past that I think the House will excuse me for not going into it again. The hon. member, however, asked why I publish the figures for the Cape Town-Simons-town line, but not those for other branch lines. The hon. member surely knows that this line was recently electrified, and therefore it is clear that the House and the administration would like to know what the costs of running the line electrically are. That is the only reason, and we shall also furnish the data, so that the House will have the information at its disposal when the time comes to ultimately ask for additional funds to extend the system. Hon. members will, in that respect, have the advantage of the running costs under electrification. With regard, however, to the ordinary branch lines, I want to point out that we have actually decided, with the practical concurrence of the House, to build no more branch lines on the old methods, would it then be justified in the circumstances to spend £12,000 to £15,000 for the preparing and publishing of the statistics for those branch lines? We have them now as a part of the system, and in the circumstances we must make the best of it. Then there are a few general matters in connection with which I should like to say a few words. Various sides of the House have pointed to the necessity of appointing a grievances commission. The hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) pointed this out and also other hon. members. It is necessary in this connection for hon. members to have an accurate idea of our whole system. Hon. members must realize that the railway administration to-day comes under the Minister of Railways and the Railway Board, who are responsible for the policy, but that the executive control is in the hands of the general manager and of his officers. If I were to be so foolish, as Minister, as to interfere with ordinary management questions, then there would very soon be the greatest chaos imaginable. I cannot deny that there are grievances periodically, just grievances even then and there, but I ask hon. members if the Board or the Minister were to be so foolish as to allow the people to bring their grievances individually to the notice of the Board and the Minister, what the position would be? What would the position of the highly-placed officers be then? Take a stationmaster at a busy station like Kroonstad. He probably has a few hundred subordinates. If the individuals with their individual grievances can pass by the station-master, where would the stationmaster’s authority be? If hon. members will only consider the matter they will see that it is impossible to allow the stationmaster to be passed by. I have often said that there is every opportunity given to the staff to get justice. Even the most humble member of the staff has, the fullest right to bring his case to the notice of the Railway Board, and I may say that not only does this right exist, but that it is also thoroughly well used from time to time. It repeatedly occurs that even the simplest white labourer’s case comes to the notice of the Railway Board. Suppose that we were to appoint such a committee. If there really were justifiable grievances it naturally follows that they would be the result of bad administration. Is that not so? What is the use of a grievance committee if the administration is not good? The committee would hardly be done with grievances in Pretoria, and he occupied in Cape Town, when there would be fresh grievances in Pretoria once more. What is the use of it then? It would be foolish. There is only one way of controlling the railways, it is for a sound line of conduct to be laid down by the Minister and the Railway Board and for that policy to be sympathetically and thoroughly carried out by the officers. That is the only basis on which the railways can be successfully controlled. If the officers do not do their duty in this respect then the staff need only bring it to the notice of the administration, and the necessary steps can then be taken. I hope that this is the last time we shall hear of a grievances committee.

You will hear a great deal more of it.

I understand that hon. members who have not gone thoroughly into the matter will bring it up again. The hon. member can, however, take it from me that as long as I am responsible for the railways I will not allow steps to be taken to undermine the authority of the officers.

You cannot prevent us from doing our duty.

Of course, some people’s view of duty is often distorted. An hon. member spoke of the need for consultation. I entirely agree with it. Here we have a service of about 100,000, and we cannot possibly have success unless there is co-operation, and the staff mutually consult with the heads of the various departments. I have said before, and I repeat it that some time ago the policy was introduced of having separate conferences between sections of the staff and the heads of the sections. The clerical staff, e.g., meet the head of the department, and local difficulties and grievances are discussed. Then they cannot only bring to the notice of the head of the section grievances that may exist and—what is of still greater value—they can, if they want to make suggestions, bring measures, which are likely to benefit the service, to the notice of the responsible officer. I am glad to say that this leads to the very best results, because it has brought about a feeling which did not previously exist between the head of the section, and those directly under him. It has become a fixed practice to hold such separate conferences. The day is past when the head of the section could manage affairs without the full support of, and consultation with, his staff. Some hon. members want the staff to be able to dictate to the head what to do, that is wrong, but the present day demands that the head of a division shall work in the closest co-operation and consultation with the staff by which they will be enabled to do their work better. I am glad to say that there is good feeling between the heads and the staff. I do not say that there are no grievances, but to-day every person who has a grievance has a right of bringing that supposed or actual grievance to the notice of a head of the section and if necessary to the notice of the Minister and the Railway Board. I can assure hon. members that by this arrangement there is far better co-operation between the higher officers and the staff. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and some hon. members also debated the housing question. I agree that the housing of the railwaymen is of the very greatest importance. It goes without saying that you cannot expect the best work from a man who has not got proper accommodation. During the past years it was our policy to assist as much as possible with the building of houses for railwaymen, but hon. members must not forget, and I am glad that the hon. member for Hopetown agrees with me about it, that the first duty to provide housing rests on the local authorities. The railways cannot possibly provide in all the towns and villages for the housing of the staff. It would put an intolerable burden on the administration. It is the duty of the local bodies to assist those people, because they also have considerable benefits from the presence of the people. They are a great asset to places like Durban, Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, etc., and that being so, the authorities should also sacrifice something by making provision for the housing of the people. As I have said, if the state is asked to pay all the costs of housing it would be an intolerable burden. Now I want, in this connection, to refer to two facts. The first is that we have a special obligation to our people on the countryside when they are not stationed in the proximity of a local authority that can provide housing for them. It is our first duty to assist those people, and I believe no one will contradict me when I say that we must first house them. The second class that we have to provide for first are the railwaymen who live in railway camps, as at Touws River. These people live practically alone there in their camps, and we must also give special attention to housing them, but I do not think it can be expected of us to lend them all money equally. Then there are a few other points I want to refer to; one of them is our policy about rates. I expected that there would be much more interest in our rates after the publication of the report of the Rates Commission. I am glad that the hon. member for Hopetown, and some hon. members on this side said a few words about it. The rate policy is one of the chief and most important problems facing the railway administration, but not only the railway administration, but the whole country has a great interest in the matter. I am not going to bother the House with figures, but I will mention two figures to make the position clear to hon. members. On page 11 of that commission’s report we find—

Thus in round figures 2,900,000 tons produced £11,000,000. Secondly, the low-rated goods tariff 7 and lower amounted to 9,734,417 tons, but the revenue therefrom was only £3,643,234. Hon. members will see what an important factor it is. Goods that are carried at tariff 7 and lower, i.e., at very low rates, can only be carried at those low rates, as the result of the revenue from goods carried at high rates. If then we lose the high class traffic it cannot but result in a reduction of wages, or their remaining stationary, or that higher rates are demanded on goods which are carried at the lower rates. I think that no one, just as little as I myself, will want to reduce the salaries, or increase the rates, in view of these facts, however, no one will deny that the population of South Africa, and especially the farmers and manufacturers, must realize that they must support the transport of goods by rail at the higher rates, otherwise the time will come that the rates for the low classes will necessarily have to go up. I think hon. members clearly understand what I mean when I say that. It is to make the House understand what the action of the administration must be with regard to the competition of the lorries. I hope shortly to introduce a Bill in connection with this matter. When that Bill is introduced it will be an absolutely non-party measure. The point of departure is that the Government railways belong to the public, and not to a political party, and therefore as we are faced by a serious position, especially with reference to the carriage of cheaper produce, such a measure cannot be a party one. I hope to submit that Bill to the House before the recess. The second reading can be taken after the recess, and then possibly it will go to a select committee. This Bill is, to a great extent, based on the report of the commission, and it is a national matter on which each member eventually has to be responsible.

When shall we get the Bill?

I hope before we adjourn for the recess. The Government will, of course, take full responsibility for the Bill. But I want to take the first opportunity of saying that any suggestion to amend the Bill will be heartily welcomed by us, in order to obtain a solution of the great problem facing our Government railways. In conclusion I would like to say that, notwithstanding the fear of the hon. member for Sea Point, there is not the least reason to worry about our railways. The position is thoroughly sound. We made provision in the good years and our finances are in a sound position, and we have made provision for bad times during prosperity. I have not the least doubt that, with the support of the staff, we shall get through the difficult times, and if we possibly do not show a surplus, we shall, at any rate, not have to show a very unfavourable balance.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee now.

I move—

I move—

I want to say a few words about what has induced me to move this amendment. In the first place, our country is on the point of making a great leap in making a change by granting the franchise to women which amounts to a big experiment. The fact remains that we are taking a big leap in the dark at one step to give 440,000 women the franchise, who have actually had no experience of politics and of that civic duty. There are many, of those women who have not been politically trained, and the responsible women have not, as yet, had an opportunity of explaining to the younger members of their sex what the actual meaning of this civic duty is. In this connection we must see what other countries have done. Other countries have not immediately given the franchise to the younger women. England did not give the vote to girls of 21 immediately. It was only after a number of years that the age limit was reduced from 30 to 21 years. When a country with a national consciousness, and with centuries of experience behind it, goes to work so carefully then we cannot lightly overlook its example. There are many other countries where a distinction is made with regard to the age at which women get the franchise, and at which men get it. There is another point which was raised, viz., the difference in qualifications for male persons in two provinces of the Union. No qualifications are demanded of the women. In principle I have no objection to granting the franchise without qualifications, but I agree with other hon. members that at present a considerable number of males such as students and trek-farmers are excluded. I am thinking also of the less well-off young men who cannot get on to the voters’ roll. What is demanded by this amendment is merely that another four years must elapse before the girl can come on to the voters’ roll. I feel that there are some friends who will differ from me, but I should like them to bear this consideration in mind. No one will be excluded by my amendment. The granting of the franchise is only delayed in the case of the separate person. I think the amendment affects about 50,000 or 60,000 women. My last and chief objection is that the grant of the franchise to all women above 25 years will create a large new elective body in the country, which is actually stronger than the male electorate. I have tried to collect figures. According to the data, the registration figures for 1928, the number of male registered voters is about 426,000, viz., 200,000 in the Cape Province; 140,000 in the Transvaal; 47,000 in the Free State and 39,000 in Natal. If, however, the women are granted the vote, every European woman above 21 years, then it means that the vote will be given to about 440,000 of them. According to the census for 1926, there were about 426,000 adult white women above 21 years, but in the three years since that time we can assume that it has risen by 3 per cent, a year, and this brings us to about 440,000. Then there would accordingly be about 14,000 more women with the vote than men. This creates a position that the section of the community that hitherto has had no experience at all of politics will practically have the whole future of the country in its hands.

Why then are you in favour of women’s franchise?

I am in favour of it in principle, but object to the low age limit. This is not a question of principle but a difference in proportion.

I did not have the opportunity of speaking when the Bill was before the House. I feel that it is very far-reaching, but at the same time that the principle of the Bill is going to cause a great constitutional change in the Union regarding the franchise. It is, therefore, a matter of great importance to the people of South Africa. I also feel that when such a great change in the franchise of the country is being made, it is no more than right and fair that the people should have a say in it. That the people should have the right of judging of it. The promise of the Prime Minister—

The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 1 and the amendments thereon. He cannot now discuss the principle.

Clause 1 also, to a certain extent, deals with the principle, because it lays down the requirements for women’s franchise. I emphatically repeat what has just been said by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). He quoted figures which, although they are not quite accurate, were, nevertheless, correct in a certain respect. In the first place, he wanted to prove that if the vote were given to all European women in South Africa the women would be in the majority, and would have the control over the male population by their votes. He said that the number of registered voters at present was 460,000. According to the latest returns in the Government Gazette, the number of white registered male voters is 459,420. What do we find about the position if women over 21 get the vote? Then, according to the latest returns, 426,086 will be registered, but, according to the returns, a further 60,000 women must be added who will get on the voters’ roll, so that the number will be about 486,086, or 40,000 more than the number of men.

So it ought to be.

That is possibly the view of the men whom the women dictate to. We therefore see that the number of women who will get the vote will be larger than the number of men, and there will, therefore, be something radically wrong with our franchise.

The hon. member is once more debating the principle.

I will avoid it as much as possible, but it seems to me that it is an absolutely wrong basis now that the women are getting the vote for the first time. I therefore think that the clause is against the interests of the country. I further want to point out that we hear so much about the cost of living and administration costs. Do hon. members know that it will cost no less than £30,000 to prepare the roll of women voters?

The women are worth it.

I think the women of South Africa are worth more. They deserve to be protected by us, and not to be brought into the maelstrom of politics. We must properly consider the expense.

Are we to listen to all these things over again?

It is quite possible for the hon. member to argue that by increasing the age to 25 years the expense will be less.

I am glad you have given that ruling. As for the Opposition, we do not know where they stand. First they are in favour of the Bill, and then they oppose it. The cost will not differ greatly whether we put the age at 25 or 21 years, but the expenditure will not be less than £30,000. From this point of view alone I hope that the House will not pass the Bill. [Time limit.]

It seems to me that the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) is a little afraid of the experiment, otherwise I cannot understand how the hon. member is so terribly inconsistent now. He is know as the member who always tries to be consistent, and who usually succeeds in being so, but in this case I must say he is quite inconsistent. What did he say at the second reading? Hon. members will confirm that his words were: “The women ought to get the franchise because they are more balanced than men.” Now the hon. member says that the woman who is better balanced, and, therefore, better suited to exercise the vote, should not get the vote at 21 years, but at 25 years. The hon. member is a medical man, and will, therefore, know better than I do that, according to all the experts—and I assume that physicians are also experts—the women come to maturity quicker than the men. Some people say that this is a proof of her inferiority, but I will not go into that now. The fact remains that women mature quicker, and, for that reason, women come to majority quicker than men. Now the hon. member for Hopetown instead of asking that the women should get the vote earlier, wants them to wait four years longer than the men. There is yet another reason why I cannot understand the hon. member. It is generally known that he is in favour of giving the vote to the coloured women, and, possibly, also to native women, and now he says that the European girls between 21 and 25 years may not get the franchise, but the coloured women can. I cannot understand such an attitude, and the only explanation I can find is what the hon. member himself said, viz., that it is a great experiment. Another argument which I cannot understand is the hon. member’s statement that the consequence of the proposed legislation will be that the number of women will be larger than the number of men. The hon. member ought to rejoice at that, because he, himself, says that the women are better balanced, and will, therefore, be better voters. The hon. member surely would like to have a majority of the best voters. My conclusion is that the hon. member is now afraid of that experiment, and I hope that more than one hon. member will come to the same conclusion.

The hon. member cannot now debate the principle.

I only want to add that I hope the hon. member for Hopetown has arrived at the conclusion that he is on the wrong course, and that he will now stand with those who are convinced that their attitude is not an experiment, but that they have adopted the correct principle.

I cannot concur with the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). They made that experiment in the first place in England, and now they have given the vote to women over 21 years, and it is quite satisfactory. Does the hon. member suggest that the Afrikaner girl is less capable than the English or American girl? No, we do not stand one whit behind them, neither in political nor any other matters. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) is afraid of the women getting the majority, but he is not yet married, and it has often appeared that the women of the men who talk like that are the masters. I cannot, therefore, vote for the amendment.

I just want to give a reply, not to the hon. members who have spoken, but to make it quite clear to the public, because, from the criticism, it would look as if I was not sufficiently clear. I want, in the first place, to say that I do not depart by a hair’s breadth from my attitude on the second reading. I said that I considered the age limit too low, and I pointed out that in England they had mad; an experiment from 1917 to 1928, and that I considered it as a precautionary measure by which the women were politically educated. I did not consider it as wrong for England now to grant the vote to women over 21 years, but I pointed out that as we had to do here with an experiment it would be desirable for the young women in South Africa to have the same training and facilities as the English girls had. I never said that our Afrikaner girls were inferior to the English girls, and I do not know how the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) gets at that. I think that it would be unwise to-day to give the vote holus bolus to all the women above 21. It may be said that I want to exclude the women between 21 and 25 years, although some of them are self-supporting, but I want to point out that there is quite a number who support themselves before their 21st year. I only ask to make the age limit 25 years for the present, and I want to remind hon. members that a large number of the young men above 21 years do not have the franchise to-day, because they cannot comply with the qualification provisions. I do not want to disparage the Afrikaner girl, but I want, when the women are to have responsibility and a joint say, them at least to be properly trained for their task.

I also was a little surprised about the attitude taken up by the hon. member behind me (Dr. Stals). If he is in favour of women’s franchise I can not understand his objection to the women of 21 years getting it. But, according to him, the women of 25 years should have it. The hon. member, of course, considers the woman of 21 not to have enough sense, but if she has not enough sense at 21, then she will not have it at 25; therefore, if the hon. member is in favour of women’s franchise, he should vote for the clause as originally drawn. I believe it is, as an hon. member said, that the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has imbibed three-quarters, and now will not swallow the last quarter, but I want to say a few words about the clause itself. We, who are opposed to women’s franchise, cannot vote for this clause, because it lays down that the women shall have the vote. It would put, us in an invidious position if we voted against the second reading, and now voted in favour of this clause, if the Bill must go through, then this is the best form, but we cannot vote for the principle of this clause. I just want to make this clear, because we will not any further oppose the Bill in committee. This clause, however, is the pith of the matter, therefore, we cannot vote for it. We shall have no further objection to the Bill in the committee stage.

On a point of procedure, I have an amendment affecting line 11.

The hon. member may move his amendment now.

1 move—

Hon. members will see that the effect of this amendment, if carried, will be simply to remove sex disability, and to put men and women on the same footing with regard to being enrolled as voters. There are several reasons why this amendment should be put in. One reason is that the hon. the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of the Bill, was not clear as to the reasons which actuated him in making this difference. I can only assume that his speech has been badly translated in the copy I have before me, because it reads as follows—

I can find no reason in that statement. I hope the House will accept this amendment which I have moved. It is a very reasonable one, and I am not deterred by any threat of wrecking the Bill. A threat of that sort ought never to be made. It is the clear duty of every hon. member to assist in improving the Bill if he can. I think the Bill would be substantially improved if the new clause I have suggested were included. Obviously, there is a great majority of members in this House in favour of women’s suffrage, and those members would not like this Bill to be wrecked on a detail. But, if the measure goes through, it should be made as good as possible. The Prime Minister, in making this distinction between women and men, has lost sight of a great principle. The Prime Minister’s objection in the past to giving women the vote was based not so much on the fact that they were women, but on the natural instinct of every statesman to avoid flooding the electorate suddenly with a lot of uninstructed voters. But by putting women in a more favourable position than men, he is surely accentuating that drawback. I do not say that this distinction has been made, and that women are being put in a more favourable position than men, with a view to obtaining any party advantage. I acquit the Prime Minister of any intention of that sort. If he has any intention of that sort, I think, on reflection, he will see that it is not very well based. We know that in our system of constitutional government you have the alternate swing of parties, the pendulum, after a while, swings the other way. In England on a particular point the women’s vote went solidly against the Government—on the preference question—and only a year later, those same people swung decidedly to the other side. So that I do not think it is a matter of sex. It is a matter of public opinion expressed through the ballot box. I do not think there is any party advantage likely to be gained by giving the vote to women, who are in a preponderance, I believe, in the Cape Province and perhaps elsewhere. This is a measure which will remain upon our statute book for a very long time, and we ought to take long views with regard to it. As I have said before, I have never considered which party would benefit. We are here to consider something in the general interests of the state, and not for any particular party. If the committee accepts the amendment I am proposing it can hardly be disputed that it will be an improvement to the Bill.

I quite agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that it is desirable to improve a Bill, if possible, in the committee stage, but I do not agree with the hon. member that his amendment is an improvement in the Bill. I think it is a considerable— if I may use the expression paradoxically—disimprovement of the Bill. Under our present economic conditions in South Africa, the amendment would cut out not only hundreds but thousands of the wives of poor, unfortunate working men. Take railway employees. I understand one of the qualifications to which the hon. member referred is the salary qualification in the Cape, where, I understand, a man must have at least £50 a year before he is on the voters’ roll; it would naturally follow that a married man, with his wife, would have to have, a joint salary of £100 a year. It is a distinction without a difference, and it makes it infinitely harder for the wife of a married man, because she must have within her own right a salary of £50 a year. We are not talking about the intentions of the mover, but the amendment of the hon. member. I am dealing with the amendment before the committee. Why did not the hon. member move the remainder of the amendment, in order that the committee may have the right perspective as to the whole amendment which it is proposed to move?

It was my intention to move the whole of the amendment. May I move it now?

We are not passing intentions in this House. I do not know what effect the amendment referred to by the hon. member has on the former amendment, but we have to take the amendment, which states that the qualification is possession of a salary of £50, or inhabiting a house of a certain valuation. The woman has to have a salary in her own right, or to have, with her husband, double the salary that he had in the past.

As long as she has a husband she is all right.

We have to take into our mental vision the position of thousands of people who are in the employ of the state. Take a man with 6s. a day. He is not getting £100 a year. Now those poor people have daughters who are not themselves getting salaries, and, as a consequence, under the amendment, they are entirely cut out.

What about sons?

Never mind his sons. What about his daughters?

What about granddaughters?

Yes, what about granddaughters? I believe that in Cape Town and in the Peninsula you have many thousands of girls who are not getting £50 a year. To argue one disability to prove that another one should not exist is not correct. We can only urge that the conditions we lay down for women should apply to men. I am expecting the support of all hon. members to the principle that we shall have universal adult suffrage for all men and all women.

What about natives?

I have a different proposal to make with regard to natives. But there is no justification for keeping a man off the roll because he has not a certain salary, and that is not a reason why you should keep a woman off the roll in similar circumstances. The time has long gone past when you can apply these niggling qualifications to people who are otherwise entitled to vote. All over the world you have adult suffrage, and all over the world you had retrogressive opinions against it. Under the amendment you will not cut out the daughter, the wife or the granddaughter of the rich person, but it is an insuperable bar in the way of the wife, or the daughter, or the granddaughter of the poor working man.

interjected a remark.

How disingenuous the hon. member is! Why, is it not easy to settle a sufficient sum on his daughter in order that she may have a vote? He could set up a study and appoint all his daughters assistant secretaries. But the working man’s daughter would be disqualified. I am particularly anxious to see that those people who have been shut out in the past are not shut out to-day, and I endorse the clause proposed by the hon. the Prime Minister.

The speech of the last hon. member (Mr. Madeley) convinces me that it would be more convenient if I moved the following amendment now, that is—

1. (2) Whereby any law in force for the time being in any province the possession, occupation or renting of property or premises of a certain value is prescribed as entitling persons to be registered as voters, a married woman who is not living apart from her husband shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of property or premises possessed, occupied or rented by her husband as if such property or premises were possessed, occupied or rented by her separately notwithstanding that the husband is also registered or qualified to be registered in respect thereof.

It would be far more convenient if the two clauses were discussed together. I think the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) would not have been led astray in his remarks if he had read my amendment before he spoke. The hon. member for Benoni is evidently very imperfectly acquainted with the conditions concerned in this qualification. We find that one of the qualifications in the Cape Province is the occupation of a house valued at £75. Not valued at £75 per year, but a total value of £75. We find that that occupation may be solely held, or held jointly, with other persons. I do not pretend to give a legal definition of what “occupation” means, but my personal view is that any person who is legally resident in a house of the capital value of £75, thereby qualifies for the vote so far as the property qualification is concerned. We know that even in boarding houses a person in occupation of a room valued at £75 in all, ipso facto, has the qualification to vote. That is my reading of it. If a man has a wife and six daughters in occupation of a house worth £500, those individuals are legally in occupation of the house, or if the house is only worth £75 each, I believe they are legally in joint occupation of the house, and the qualification would, therefore, apply to them. We are dealing with extending the franchise to all women. If you will look at my amendment you will see that one of the qualifications is by the occupation of a house. The hon. member, apparently, does not understand that it is either salary or occupation. Therefore, if a man and his daughter have the occupation of a house of the value of £75 each, ipso facto, they have the qualification. That is my reading of the law. So that the hon. member is wrong in assuming that women will be disfranchised if they have no daughters in the house who are not earning a salary. I am quite sure that those suggestions will make a general difference to the hon. member’s opinion.

I heartily hope that the committee will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and the hon. member for East London (District) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The hon. member for Hopetown says that our girls are not sufficiently educated to judge about politics. I was astonished to hear such a thing from a man of his experience, and who, as a doctor, ought to know the female sex is quicker in deciding matters than the male sex, especially in our country the girls are all capable of deciding about politics. My little girl is only eight years old and she already knows how to say that she is a Nationalist.

When she is older she will speak differently.

No, she will not. Our girls of 21 are quite capable of judging about politics. I hope the hon. member for East London (North) will see that the girls of the countryside are excluded by his amendment. On the farms the girls earn nothing, while those in the towns do. The result will, therefore, be that the girls on the countryside will not be able to vote, but those in the towns will. It will be unjust to them if the amendment is passed. I want to make no comparisons, but the girls of the countryside are at a very high moral level, and it is they who will represent a large gain to the country if they can vote, and if we pass this amendment, then those girls will come and ask us: “Why may we not vote?”

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (the Rev. S. W. Naudé), in his address to the committee, has apparently founded it upon a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of this amendment. As regards the Transvaal and the Free State, it will not make the slightest difference.

Why not the Cape and Natal?

The hon. member has just said that this amendment might have the effect of preventing the daughters of a house in the country from voting, only if the sons are prevented. The sons are prevented to-day in the Cape if they are living, say, on a farm with their father.

And not earning money.

They may be earning money, but many are not earning money. Many are living with their fathers, and are not earning a salary. If they have a share in a farm, then they may be in occupation. The point is this: that many of these sons cannot vote to-day and their sisters would be allowed to vote under this Bill.

Why not?

Why not? Does the Minister justify setting up a discrimination like that?

I did not set it up.

If you want to bring manhood suffrage in all over the Union, we should have it. Why put in bits like this? What we are contending for in this amendment is that the women should have what they always have asked for, namely, the right to vote on the same terms as men—nothing more or less. That is what they have always asked for, and I have yet to see any reason advanced that they want more, or that they should have more. Can the hon. member advance any reason why they should have more favourable terms than the men? If he has, I should like to hear it. Does he contend that they are more capable of taking part in political life than the men? If this Bill goes through without amendment, it is interfering, in a quite unjustifiable manner, with our franchise law. If you take the qualifications in regard to European men in the Cape and Natal, well, do it for men and women alike. If you are going to amend the franchise law, taking away the qualification in the case of Natal, then do it by a general measure and not do it to the women first, and then perhaps after many years, for the men. If it is not the intention of the Government to bring about adult franchise throughput the Union what justification have they for giving the vote to women and not to men? Let this advance be made for men and women alike by removing the sex disqualification, but do not let women be enfranchised in this half and half sort of way, which has no justification in reason or equity as it will enfranchise a large number of women, but leave a large number of men without the vote. Let us give the women what they have asked for—the vote on the same terms as men—and when we alter the franchise qualification in the Cape and Natal, let us treat men and women alike.

It is amusing to listen to my hon. friend. He says that the women have never asked for anything else but the same rights as the men have. I have often heard of the Women’s Enfranchisement League, but I have never yet heard of an association for women’s franchise on the same basis as the men.

That is all they ask for.

Never yet have the women from the Cape Province asked for anything different from the women in the Transvaal and the Free State. They all merely say “give us the vote,” and not “give us the same thing as the men, otherwise we do not want it.” My hon. friend may say so, but will not get anybody to seriously believe it. Now the hon. member says: “What justification is there now for giving the vote to all the women, while some men do not have it?” He says that there are young men on the farms who have not got it, and cannot get it. Just imagine! He does not enquire whether it is right or wrong, but merely the fact that some of the men do not have it ought to be sufficient reason for committing an injustice to the women. Now I want to ask my hon. friends, suppose it is as he says—I do not say it is— that the sons of the farmers who have big farms, sometimes with a value of possibly £20,000, and do not have the vote, as he says, then I ask whether there is anything fair or just in it?

Are you going to put it right then?

Yes, if the hon. member will help me. Let us properly solve the native question, then we can alter it.

Why must the women get it now?

Because the hon. member knows just as well as I that unless the native franchise is solved it must be given also to the natives if it is given to the white men. As we are now adopting a new course where we do not require a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament, I ask my hon. friend whether, as the House is not hampered by the native vote, ought not now to do the right thing at once. I thought that I made this very clear last time why we merely asked from the women that they should be majors. I said that’ we were about to introduce a new thing, the women’s franchise, I further said that I thought that the sensible thing to do was to lay down what we thought should also apply to the men in future. I said it was clear to me that in this respect the law of the Transvaal and the Free State, and not that of the Cape Province, ought to be followed, that the franchise ought to be based on nothing else than majority. Majority is in the case of civilized men the only right qualification, and, as we are now dealing with civilized women, we must respect that principle. I further asked what was actually the object of those who said that we ought to introduce qualifications of property or income, as they exist to-day in the Cape Province. They surely must want to attain something by them. What is it? I pointed out that they were attaining nothing by it, but that they merely wanted to slavishly fallow the provisions made 50 or 70 years ago for a purpose to which the provisions no longer suit. The qualifications were introduced at that time for only one purpose, viz., to exclude the natives as far as possible from the vote. The natives know that just as Well as we do. The object was to prevent the native from getting the franchise in such numbers as to be a danger to the Europeans. Therefore, the education qualification was first introduced. What does it signify to-day? Is the white woman to come and prove that she can sign her name? Why, the provision is meaningless to-day. At that time the natives could be excluded because they did not go to school, but to-day the stipulation is valueless. The other qualification was that he had to occupy a house worth £75. Here again the object was to exclude the native because they did not occupy a house, but for the most part a hut of £5 or £2. Why should white women come under that provision? How ridiculous such a proposal is. If anyone came to-day and said that we should only give the white men in the Cape Province the vote if they occupied a house of £75—and if it were moved when there was no danger from the native vote—he would be ridiculed. Why then should the women be insulted by such a stipulation?

They must stand on the same basis as men.

Your whole principle is so ridiculous that I cannot understand a man of the sense of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) defending it. It is too paltry. The hon. member said that the girls of the countryside will only be excluded by the qualifications in the same way as the men, but why must that be so? It is not quite correct either. The young men are usually put into the position on the farms of standing on their own legs when they are 21, of having their own income, and being independent. That is the general practice. In that way the boys can comply with the qualifications. If he is anything of a farmer he can farm independently of his parents after his 21st year, but the daughter does not go farming. Her parents may be as well off as you like, but she will have nothing from which to prove an income. I only say this to show that if hon. members want to put their daughters on the same footing as their sons, they are entirely mistaken. But take another case where the parents are not farmers, but are well to do, the daughter nearly always stops at home, some go to a school or university, but we find that that is not often the case. The son of the rich man in the town does, however, not remain at home. He goes to seek his own fortune and follow his own profession. The daughter remains at home, and why should she not have the same rights as the son? What is the object of the amendment? It is as I have said for this reason that we must lay down a sound basis. In answer to the hon. member’s question whether I would be prepared to remove the qualifications, my answer is “yes.” I am prepared, and I think that we are going to do so after a proper solution of the native question, because then the ridiculous reasons for the Cape system will automatically be removed. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.

The hon. Prime Minister said he had never heard from any woman who claimed women’s suffrage on any other terms than those in the Bill. I was one of the foundation members of the Women’s Enfranchisement League, and later, I was a foundation member of the Women’s Reform Club in Pretoria. I have been in touch, all my life, with suffrage organizations of women. I have taken a prominent part in urging the claims of women before the House. The claims of the two organizations I have mentioned amounted to this: Sex equality; the abolition of any differentiation between men and women, and no woman has ever claimed what the Prime Minister is advocating. They have claimed that where there is a qualification for men, there should be the same qualification for women, and where there is no qualification for men, there shall be womanhood suffrage. They have asked for nothing more and nothing less than men have: the abolition of the sex barrier. The hon. Prime Minister can take it that the member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and myself have worked in close touch on this matter. Between us we have introduced nearly all the suffrage Bills which have been before the House in recent years. I am amazed to hear that the Prime Minister is conceding to women more than he has conceded to men. They have asked for £5: the Minister is giving them £10; it never rains but it pours. Women are put on a basis more favourable than men. The daughters may find themselves enfranchised, and the sons not enfranchised; that is ridiculous and illogical. If the Prime Minister could accent the principle to allow women to be enfranchised only on the same basis as men, he would make the Bill more acceptable. In the case of a married woman the husband’s qualifications should be sufficient to qualify his wife. What is there unreasonable in that? Surely that is the only logical line to follow. The hon. Minister knows that we are as convinced supporters of the principle of woman’s suffrage as he is, and probably more.

We want more than logic; we want fairness.

I want to see the women enfranchised. I do think that a duty lies upon us to say that this is the logical and fair way of doing it, and I hope the hon. Minister will not take it amiss if we urge these views. I want the women enfranchised and the sooner the better. I have asked for it for the past fifteen years and I shall be a happy man when the Bill goes through. The women have not asked for more than this amendment proposes.

The hon. member is right so far as the Transvaal is concerned. He always makes his comparisons with the franchise in the Transvaal. So far as I can understand the matter, unless we proceed on the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, you will be paving the way to enfranchising many women of the wealthier classes only. The daughters of wealthy fathers would be enfranchised and you would be placing a bar on their poorer sisters. There is no doubt that women do get lower salaries than men for the same occupation. Further, we know very well that many women have to remain at home for various reasons, and they are just as much entitled to the vote as women in similar circumstances in the wealthier classes of society. We know very well that there is nothing easier than for wealthy families to make allowances to their daughters for such things as housekeeping, and the vote can be secured in that way. The hon. member for East London. (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is arguing that these conditions pointed out by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will not obtain, and that every woman will be able to get the vote. If that is the argument, it oversteps his object in supporting the amendment. If that is so, what is the object of this amendment? If it is not so, then now that we are embarking upon woman’s suffrage this amendment would give an advantage to the wealthy woman and leave out her poorer sisters.

You talk about the wealthier classes. Take the case of a brother and sister at a university. Neither of them earn any money and neither is possessed of the qualification laid down in the Cape Act, but if this Bill goes through in its present form the girl will have the vote and the boy will not. Is that not perfectly ridiculous?

When the House adjourned, I was trying to convert the Minister of Defence. I was putting to him the case of a brother and a sister attending a university. Under this Bill the sister will most certainly go on the roll, but the brother will not, unless he can fulfil one of the qualifications under the Cape Act. The Minister of Defence quite agreed that that was an anomaly, but said that the amendment would create a still greater anomaly, and he instanced the case of a rich father whose daughter would go on the roll, whereas the daughter of a poor father would not get the vote. Quite the contrary is the case, however, as the daughter of a poor father probably would be out earning her own living and would go on the roll, but the daughter of a rich father would live at home, and as she would be getting no wages, would not be qualified to be placed on the roll. The Cape qualification is based on wages—“the bona fide receipt of not less than £50 per annum in salary or wages”,

It would still remain an anomaly.

But I am trying to demolish the Minister’s case. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) made the statement that if seven people in the Cape lived in a house worth £75 they would all come under the property qualification, but that is not so. The law lays it down that “if there is more than one joint occupier, the share of each occupier entitled to a vote, must be of the value of £75.” What anomaly is constituted by retaining the law in its present form and thus admitting men and women to the vote on the same grounds. At the moment the Prime Minister is doing something which has not been done in any part of the world, he is putting women on a more favourable basis than men. To say to the women of the Cape, “We do not care whether you have these qualifications or not, you are to get the franchise,” is to perpetrate an absurd anomaly.

I do not want this clause to pass without expressing my sympathy for hon. members who represent the South African party here. They had a forceful battle cry in their programme of action, viz., “Women’s Franchise for all,” and in the end it appears to be nothing else than the unpleasant squeaking of a mouse, which is being played with. The big cat that is playing with the mouse is seated on this side. While moving the amendment they say that they will not insist on it, and if it does not pass they will still vote in favour of the Bill. I have never heard of such an unmanly attitude in my life. They come here with an amendment which does not even represent their proper views because it is a white amendment, but on the other hand it is black. I want to point out that that mouse will sit up one day when they have to say their lessons and they will have a very bad time. They will have to explain why they took up such a weak attitude. It is a sad show they are making in the House to-day. I knew they had a weak backbone, but I did not expect it to be so weak. They emphatically said that they were in favour of women’s franchise without distinction of sex, this means that they of course want to give the franchise to coloured and native women as well, but now they have not the courage to stand by their principle. I must say that I would rather be the only person voting against the Bill, than to adopt an attitude like that of the other side. It is the saddest, most nauseating and weakest that I have ever yet seen.

I deplore the fact that in this particular case I do not talk only on my own behalf but on behalf of the constituency I represent, viz., Zoutpansberg. Let me say at once that Zoutpansberg is not small. It is as large as the whole of the Free State or the whole of Natal. It has been said here that this is not advertising, but I want to tell the committee that the hon. members who have surplus people in their constituencies can send them to us and there is plenty of room for all of them in good old Zoutpansberg. Clause 1 gives the franchise to women, let me say at once that I have a mandate from my electors to vote against it. The ladies in my constituency are not in favour of it.

The hon. member must remember that the principle in Clause 1 was passed by the House at the second reading, and he cannot in committee oppose what has been approved of by the House.

I thank you for the correction, but I just want quietly to say that the ladies of Zoutpansberg are not taken up with this measure. They are not to be found at the corners of the streets; they will have to go ninety miles and more to vote.

I cannot allow the hon. member to go on in this way. May I point out to hon. members that when the principle of any Bill has once been approved of by the House then the committee can only adopt amendments and have debates about the application of that principle, but not anything in conflict with that principle.

I thank you for your ruling, although it is against me. I never had an opportunity of speaking on the matter, and therefore I am now gagged, but I would like to ask, on a point of order, how it is possible to bring all the female voters of Zoutpansberg all that distance to the ballot box without mentioning my reasons. I will allow the matter to rest there under protest.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) waxed sarcastic at my expense just before dinner. The hon. member has arrogated to himself the right to lecture this House, and to lecture individual members, on all matters and subjects. He is in great danger of being regarded by members of this House as a rather bumptious prig.

The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw.

I asked for an apology. I put it to this committee whether the hon. member is justified in using language of that description.

What did he say!

He described me as a bumptious prig.

I have withdrawn that.

I ask for an apology.

And I want to say this, that I did not call him a bumptious prig. I suppose it penetrated his inner consciousness.

I ask that the hon. member withdraw and apologise.

The hon. member stated definitely that he withdraws, and he makes the declaration that he never applied the term to the hon. member.

Let me repeat what I said. I said that the hon. member is in grave danger of being regarded by a large number of members of this House as a bumptious prig. I did not say he was; I did not say he is; but I foresee the danger.

On a point of order, I believe it is a very strict rule that a member of the House is not allowed to say indirectly what he is not permitted to say directly, and I submit that an expression of that kind is an evasion of the rules.

I called upon the hon. member to withdraw, and he obeyed.

He has not apologised. I ask for your ruling. Under the rules of the House he has got to withdraw and apologise.

It is always a question of the discretion of the Chairman in a case of this kind, and, where there is a very flagrant insult, the Chairman will necessarily insist on an apology.

Before you give a decision may I say that I regard it as a most flagrant insult.

On a point of order, is it not clear that the person who has committed a breach of order must withdraw and apologise? It is not a question of the discretion of the Chair.

I will read the rule, rule 91–

May I refer to the rule which lays it down that unless he retracts and apologises he will be dealt with?

It is not the custom in this House to have an apology at the same time as a withdrawal unless it is a flagrant insult. In this case I am quite satisfied with the withdrawal.

What was the ground on which the angry member waxed indignant and tried to wax sarcastic with me about? It was that I had not dealt with an amendment which I admitted I had not read, which was a subsequent, but not, as the hon. member contended, a consequent amendment. Let me tell the hon. member that that second amendment had not been moved when I was dealing with the matter. I would like to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what would have been his line of argument with regard to that amendment if he had been in the same position as I was, and had been opposing instead of supporting. He would leave nothing to chance. He would not be cognizant of the other amendment at all. He would have regarded it as non-existent, and, until it is passed, it does not exist. When I come to read the subsequent amendment that he refers to, I find that it has precisely the same interpretation I ascribed to it on the spur of the moment; in fact, the hon. member used the argument in favour of it that I used against it, namely, that if that amendment were not passed, and the Bill were left as it is, those persons would be enfranchised which, under this amendment, would not be enfranchised. The hon. member has a right to support any amendment, but do not let him misrepresent. He has got to face the argument straight out. In reinforcement of the argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, which I accept as an argument against this amendment, there are thousands of people in this country living in tents, in tenements and in tin shanties, and this amendment, which he says I had not read, deals with a property qualification, and would, if incorporated in this Bill, throw out of action the daughters of thousands of people because of the £75 qualification. I appreciated his intervention a little while ago when he was putting us right on that point, when he said that each individual had to occupy her share of the £75 qualification. He is so often putting us right. We appreciate it very much indeed; in fact, the hon. member is in danger of getting a swelled head. I do not know whether that is unparliamentary.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether you are going to allow this debate to descend to the level of the gutter, because the language the hon. member is using with regard to me has that effect. He is directing at me a steady stream of studied insult, and I ask you to protect me from it.

Is there any expression that you object to?

I will tell you what it is. I said he was in danger of a swelled head.

The hon. member must not use an expression of that kind.

If that is considered unparliamentary, though correctly applied, I withdraw it.

The hon. member said, “Though correctly applied, I withdraw it.” Am I to sit here and be subjected to that sort of thing?

I did not understand the hon. member to say that.

He used the words “Though correctly applied”.

I frankly admit it. I did say that. He also accused me of taking part in a dog fight; I suppose he was on the other side of the fight. I withdraw unreservedly my reference to his swelled head.

I wish to state very definitely that if the debate is continued in that strain, severe measures will have to be taken by the Chair.

One can always rely on you, sir, to conduct yourself with dignity. So many of our inhabitants of South Africa are tenement, tent and tin-shanty dwellers, that if the committee passes this amendment referred to by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) as qualifying a property qualification, the committee will have departed from the principle of the Prime Minister’s Bill in which he seeks—and I quite agree with him—to enfranchise every single European woman in South Africa.

What about natives:

I personally have other views with regard to the natives. The hon. gentleman has expressed himself in regard to the demands made on the part of various womens’ organizations for the vote—the Women’s Enfranchisement League and the Woman’s Reform League, and he said the amendment moved [Time limit]. What, including points of order?

I am supporting this amendment. My reason for doing so is that during the last enrolment of voters in my constituency there were 30 or 40 who were disqualified. If we are going to pass the Bill as it is, we shall have an anomalous and ridiculous position. These men who were disqualified, their daughters of 21 years will have the franchise. I ask, are we going to enfranchise every village maiden because she is 21 years of age? Do you know what the mentality of these women is? The thing which occupies the village maiden’s mind to-day is silk stockings and dress materials. I must support this amendment. There are protagonists who are out for manhood and womanhood suffrage, and in the provinces where they are demanding this womanhood suffrage you have imbeciles and mental deficients

Are they enrolled?

Are they not? You will have the same position in regard to women if this Bill is passed. I cannot support this and I think we shall make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the world if we pass the Bill as it is, so that the daughter can be enfranchised and the father not enfranchised.

Now, sir, that you have ruled that the term “swollen head” is unparliamentary, I feel that I can speak with impunity! Because, sir, one of the hon. members on the other side—I think it was the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll)—told me the other afternoon that I was too big for my boots. But this, I hope, you will also rule out of order! The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) certainly made a grievous mistake in discussing this amendment to-day. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), however, paid the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) a very subtle compliment in commenting on this mistake, because it is very seldom, as an old parliamentarian, that he makes a mistake in parliamentary procedure, but a serious mistake it certainly was.

Is that scented oil you are pouring on the troubled waters?

It is certainly not soft soap! Two objections have been raised to this amendment, one by the Minister of Labour and one by the member for Benoni. If this amendment is passed and the Bill becomes operative then, so they say, a great injustice will be wrought on the poorer classes, and particularly on the women. As I represent a constituency in which there are a number of the poorer classes, I feel I should attempt to make the position clear. The objections raised are either fundamental—that is against any qualification whatsoever—or an objection to women, qua women, having a qualification. If the objection is fundamental, it strikes at the basis of our constitution. I can only say that if these hon. members object to the amendment on the ground that it imposes any qualification at all, I would urge them not to record any vote whatever on this particular amendment, because, if they vote against it, they will vote to put women on a better footing than men. I am still in that happy state where I have not to account to a better half, and I read with some apprehension flic other day a lecture, by a woman citizen of Cape Town, in which an alarming picture was drawn of the way in which women were becoming the superiors of men. If that lecturer was correct, then men should still look to the rights of men, and see that we do not barter away our birth-right. I am perfectly certain that no woman who earnestly wants the vote will want to have it on better terms than men. They ask for nothing more or nothing less. They want it on the same terms, nothing better or nothing worse. I appeal to those who oppose the amendment on fundamental grounds that, if they cannot vote for it, they should not vote at all. If they do vote against it, they will be voting to bring about a position in which the women will be on a better footing than the men. If, on the other hand, the objection of those hon. members is simply that if a qualification were to be imposed, women would suffer because they are not in as good a position as men to fulfil those qualifications, then I think that objection could easily be removed. There seems to be in the mind of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) a misapprehension in regard to the legal position. In order for a voter to qualify to be registered, he has to satisfy the wage qualification or the property qualification. He has either to be in receipt of salary or wages at the rate of at least £50 per annum, or to be in possession or the occupation of property to the value of at least £75.

Or rent. I know the qualification.

The hon. member for Benoni says he knows the qualifications, but I submit that, this afternoon, he showed a lack of knowledge of the legal aspect of those qualifications, because, at one stage, he said it would be easy for a rich father to settle a certain amount upon his daughter, and she would immediately be in a position to be qualified. But this, he inferred, could not happen to the daughter of a poor man. I have the legal authorities before me in which it is laid down by our courts that, in order to satisfy the wage qualification, a person must be in receipt of a salary or wages at the rate of at least £50 per annum. Our courts, however, have held that a man who earns money by piece-work does not satisfy that qualification. Therefore, a gift by a father to his daughter will not give her the necessary qualification to be a voter. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), the leader of the Cape Bar, who earns his money by piece-work, is not eligible, because he has not a wage or salary qualification! That is true. He himself is not qualified. No member of the Bar is qualified to be on the voters’ roll by virtue of a wages or salary qualification.

We shall have to look into his vote

That argument can go by the board, for it will be impossible for an opulent parent to set aside an endowment so that his daughters can be qualified. Now, in regard to the occupational qualification, all that an applicant for registration has to do is to show that he or she occupies premises of the value of at least £75. In terms of this amendment if a woman is married, she will be able to be placed on the register by virtue of occupying a house of the value of at least £75, even though her husband is registered in respect of the same premises. Let us assume the house is only valued at £75. Her husband is on the roll by virtue of that qualification, and she stands in the same shoes as her husband. The two are treated as one for purposes of registration. It may be asked: what about the daughters and the granddaughters? It is perfectly true, as the hon. member for Benoni has said, that there are a large number of the population who, unfortunately, are in such circumstances that they may have to live, not in a house valued at at least £75, but in a house valued at something less. I submit, however, that in regard to the great bulk of the constituencies of the Union, that is not so. It is the exception rather than the rule. If it is so, it is a good argument to urge the Government to amend the conditions under which people live, so as to see that these persons come on the roll. It is better to abide by a system which lays down some sort of qualification rather than to have no qualification whatever. It is a lamentable fact that there are many of our population who, through in-breeding or other causes, are mentally deficient. If this Bill goes through as it is, it does not matter where the man or woman … [Time limit.]

When the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was addressing the House this afternoon, he advanced certain arguments against the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). He said that the amendment was bad because it required the husband and wife to have a separate qualification, or to have the two coupled together. When that was pointed out to him, he shifted his ground. He then said his objection was that the amendment made no provision for the wives requiring a qualification at all. It was pointed out that that argument was bad, because the amendment, in terms, said that if the husband was qualified, the wife was also qualified by virtue of the same qualification. Then he admitted that he had not read or studied the amendment, and in perfect courtesy, I, following him, pointed out that it was a dangerous thing for him to rush in and criticize an amendment without having studied the amendment. For that I was subjected to terms of scurrilous abuse, and attacked personally, by the hon. member who sits near to me. If that is to be done, I say this House will become quite impossible as a debating chamber. We are not speaking upon a party subject.

The hon. member must speak to the clause before the committee.

I hope, sir, you will allow me to say what I wanted to say, for I am not speaking in an intemperate way about the hon. member. I did not speak this afternoon in an intemperate way. I emphasize that such language addressed by an ex-Minister to a front-bencher on the Opposition side does not elevate parliament in the eyes of the public outside and does not make for dignity in the conduct of debate.

If I had followed the example of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I should have appealed to you for protection against scurrilous language. I never appeal for protection. I now leave him. I congratulate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) on his speech, and I predict a great future for him as a barrister. He argued his case very cleverly, but very unconvincingly. My objection to the amendment is based upon fundamentals. I am in favour of universal adult suffrage. I want to see this come about, and I say it to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because he used an expression that unconsciously was rather misleading to this committee. That was that, under the Bill as it is now drafted, women will get the vote on more favourable terms than men. They will do nothing of the sort. They get the vote on precisely the same terms in most provinces.

No, no.

After all, the whole test, the point of examination, is, do they have the vote or do they not, under what qualification are they entitled to have the vote? I have yet to learn that because of the existence of an anomaly, or, rather, of a disadvantage, you have to counter-balance it with another disadvantage. Because a large number of men under the rather foolish laws passed by the Cape and Natal do not enjoy the vote—and I say that in no invidious sense—that is no argument why women should not receive the vote unless they possess the same qualifications as men. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) talked about the Women’s Enfranchisement League asking for votes only on the same grounds as men, but that was because they could not get anything else.

These organizations do not represent all the women in the country.

I am coming to that point. Even as regards the organization mentioned, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not tell us that they were opposed to being given more than they asked for. The main point is that these organizations do not represent all the women of South Africa. There are many thousands of women probably who do not know anything about them.

They don’t want the vote.

The hon. member had better be careful when he gets home, or he may have certain arguments advanced with a big stick. It is a very bad argument to say that because some women do not want the vote, the others must not have it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon., clever and subtle member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) have endorsed what I said, that the amendment would prevent the vote being given to many women, mostly of the working classes. What these hon. members want is that property and not women should have the vote.

Although I very much appreciate the arguments of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), I feel they are on an unsound basis, for his fears for the poorer classes of the community are unfounded. The bulk of the poorer classes in the Cape, whether men or women, will be able to get the vote under the Cape property qualification, and if there are instances of women who may not be enfranchised, because of this qualification, there will also be instances of men who will be disqualified on the same ground. At the present time, we should not seek to put women on a better footing than men. If it is desired to have adult suffrage, the better way would be, first of all, to place women on the same basis as the men. When that is accomplished, it may be that some Government may bring in a Bill giving manhood and womanhood suffrage. I feel, however, that even assuming that we had solely a European population, there should be some sort of a qualifying test before a person is given the right to exercise the vote. Unfortunate as it may be, there are undoubtedly a large number of mental defectives in our country who should not be allowed to exercise the vote. I am not now referring to people who may be carried away temporarily by the heat of an election. There is one other aspect of the amendment which I would urge upon the House. It is a very serious one. The Prime Minister has in the past stated that, in his opinion, coloured persons should be treated on the same footing as Europeans politically. I do not want my words to be misunderstood. I am not now referring to the native question which is in the melting-pot, and which is being discussed by a select committee.

The coloured question cannot be discussed now.

I am not referring to the right of the coloured person to have the vote, but I am referring to one aspect of the amendment, in so far as it may possibly affect the granting of the vote to coloured women in future. That is all I am doing.

The hon. member is again giving reasons—

The reason I refer to this aspect of the question is that the Prime Minister has committed himself to treating coloured persons of the Cape, at all events, as political equals with Europeans, and has definitely said he is not placing them on a separate register. If that is so, the Prime Minister is morally bound, at some future stage, to extend the vote to coloured women—you cannot get away from that implication. I ask the Prime Minister to-night whether he is prepared to give the vote to coloured women without any qualification?

That question is not under discussion under this clause.

On a point of order, the hon. member, in addressing the committee, is giving reasons why the franchise should not be given on an adult, but on a qualification, basis, and is pointing out it will make it easier to give the vote to coloured women. Inferentially, he must discuss this question of coloured women only as a reason for adopting the course we propose, instead of that of the Bill.

I wish to point out it is perfectly clear that this Bill deals with European women only, and no discussion or amendment dealing with the coloured question can be allowed.

I agree entirely [interruption]. If you will not allow further discussion, sir, I will move that you refer the matter to Mr. Speaker.

Which point?

This particular point.

I have ruled that the native or coloured franchise cannot be discussed under this Bill.

I am pointing out that the hon. member is not discussing the merits or the demerits of the coloured proposal, but he is merely suggesting that if we follow one course it will make matters easier in the future when this matter is discussed. That is a very pregnant argument.

I have allowed the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to put his whole argument to the committee. It is only when he started discussing the question of the coloured vote that I asked him to stop.

I want to make it quite clear that I am not dealing with the native question at all. I do not want what I am saying to be misunderstood, to be used in another connection, or to be distorted. I have left the native franchise entirely apart. The argument I was addressing to you, sir, was this: it may be necessary in the future, if the Prime Minister fulfils his moral obligation, to extend the women’s vote to the coloured women of the Cape, and I was attempting to point out that, in his attempt to carry that out, if he encounters difficulties, they will be mainly due to the fact that this amendment is not passed. I will put it to the Prime Minister that he will have considerable difficulty in passing a Bill, extending the franchise to coloured women, if no qualification is laid down in this Bill. If there is a qualification in any future Bill enfranchising coloured women and none in this Bill, once again there will be a colour bar between European and coloured people. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) will bear me out up to the hilt that the party opposite is committed up to the hilt to giving political equality to the white and to the coloured. I would not be doing my duty, sir, if I did not point out these difficulties to the Prime Minister; not that I am attempting to “smous,” if I may use the word, for coloured votes, but because I am just as keen as hon. members opposite to see that electors of this country are fit to exercise their votes [Time limit],

It is exceedingly difficult to know what the hon. member means. We are told by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that we want the same franchise for women as for the men. There is only one logical object of qualifications, and it is to limit the franchise. This was put in for what purpose 57 years ago? It was put in for the deliberate intention of excluding certain persons from the franchise. These proposed qualifications are put in to exclude whom? Certain unfortunate girls or ladies, to whom you will be doing an injustice by excluding them. You are not doing it to any of their brothers. If anybody asks for a vote do they not ask for it in the very best and fairest methods in which it can be given them, such as in the Transvaal? The qualification on men 50 to 60 years ago was put there when their callings were very different; now you have women barristers, typistes, clerks and so forth, which you did not have then. These qualifications, to which reference has been made, were put in to exclude other men—not women. There is not the slightest question about that, and to-day you are going to insult the ladies by making provision for the same qualification by which you excluded the natives.

No.

We are now told that we should proceed with universal manhood suffrage. It will come, but there would have to be a special session to deal with it. We cannot deal with it this session, and it is not chivalrous on the part of hon. members opposite to advocate depriving women of a vote merely because there is a qualification for men at the Cape. Why have we not got a qualification in the Transvaal and Free State? For the simple reason that we use the word “European.”

Why do they have a qualification in Natal?

Because they do not use the word “European.” Is it fair to the woman to impose upon her the same qualification in regard to dwelling and income as upon the man? Why impose this burden upon them? Why impose upon them the same qualification with regard to earnings, property and income as upon men? Is that fair? Is that what the ladies ask from hon. members opposite: to deprive them of a vote because they are not as physically fit as men, and because they have not the same opportunity of earning money? I can only come to the conclusion that the object of this amendment is to ultimately alter the Bill so that native and coloured women can vote. There is some political reason behind it. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when pressed, could only give one reason: “We want to level them up.”

You have given no reason at all.

What do you want qualifications for? Only because the men have got them in the Cape Province? Is that the reason? It is a very selfish reason; it is not a chivalrous reason. The hon. member knows that he is trying to deprive women of the vote unless they are equals with men in every respect. It has been the custom throughout that the man is the owner of property, and is the bread winner.

I am entirely opposed to the amendment seeking to increase the age qualification to 25 years. I think a woman capable of exercising a vote at 21 is no better qualified at 25. If a man is qualified at 21, I think a women should be. I give hon. members who are moving amendments credit for wishing to avoid anomalies in our enfranchisement law, any more anomalies than are absolutely necessary. But what will be the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), or the amendments, because there are two? The first lays it down as an established principle that the women of the Cape or any other province shall not go on to the roll unless they have the same qualifications as men. In the Transvaal and Free State it makes no difference, for the men have no need of any qualification at all. The hon. member who has just sat down said there were no non-European voters in Natal. The hon. member knows that there are 320 at least.

Not natives.

The non-European voters in Natal must first get the consent of the Governor-General before their names can go on the roll. That is an anomaly which does not pertain to the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North). The qualification for men is that they are in possession of a salary or income of £50, or have a residential qualification of £75. He says that it is a simple matter to divide up the property rating qualification because a person must reside in a house rated at an amount of £75. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) pertinently points to the possibility of joint tenancy. I do not think it is the intention of this House to introduce a system which pertains to-day, in the constituency of Stellenbosch.

[inaudible],

I am probably as bilingual as the hon. member. It is suggested that to enfranchise the women, it would be simple to divide the property rating qualification of the house they occupy. Nothing is so illusory. Before any woman can go on the voter’s roll as a joint tenant, she must prove not only that she occupies the room, but that she has the control in that room; that she has the key and can exclude anybody from that room. It would have the effect of turning into flats every residential home in the Cape Province where there are women who claim joint tenancy. I say that social conditions which pertain where there are boys and girls forbid any measure of certainty that it would be the simplest matter to divide the property qualification of the residents into the number of women enrolled. The qualification of joint tenancy establishes that you have to have control with the power of exclusion of anybody from the rooms that you occupy. I am afraid it would be another case of raising electoral litigation similar to the case before the courts at Stellenbosch, where students go on as joint occupiers, and we should have exactly the same thing. There is another corollary that follows which is that, where a woman is married to a man in community of property, she comes on to the voter’s roll by the property qualification. It is surprising that this amendment has been drafted without any reference to the salary qualification. It is the intention to enfranchise married women by virtue of the property qualification and the hon. member has stated that he would hardly imagine that any person would be married to a wife living with him in a house which is not valued at £75 [Time limit].

The Prime Minister said that the women of South Africa have merely demanded the vote, and were prepared to leave it to us as to how they got it. But the women of South Africa, like the women of any other country never expected to get it on more favourable terms than their husbands and brothers. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. van Hees) gave reasons for qualifications which I do not understand. I say that only men considered fit to exercise the franchise should go on the voter’s roll, and I think there ought to be a qualification. The franchise should be extended to women on the same grounds as to men. There are two provinces that have a qualification. Our property qualifications in the Cape are lower than those in Natal. I expected that members representing Natal would support this amendment. The reasonable thing to do would be to give the women the franchise on the same basis as men and then, if the aim is adult male suffrage in the Union, put all adults on the same basis. I say that the women of South Africa, according to their associations, were prepared to have the franchise on an even higher qualification than that of men. I know that from talking to leaders of the movement and reading their literature.

Why should women object to the lower qualification?

For one thing women object to having controversies raised in their homes, and political controversies are second-best to religious controversies to raise feeling If you have young men not enfranchised, and their sisters enfranchised, you will have a position in this country where politics will become more bitter—and they are bad enough and rampant already—but it will be worse when this new position is created.

Then why give them the vote?

You are objecting on behalf of men, not of women.

I am objecting on behalf of fair dealing and right action. If we are going to have adult suffrage, let us do it straightforwardly, and first give the franchise to women on the same basis as we have it now. Let us face the position manfully. You are going now with this Bill to enfranchise European women, and you are making a colour bar, although I have no song to sing about that, but why not bring in a straightforward measure, and say you shall enfranchise all adult Europeans in the Union? I object very strongly to doing it this way. I cannot find words sufficiently strong to support the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The Bill is more favourable to the married women of the country than the Bill that was thrown out so narrowly in 1928. To-day the wives of enfranchised men are ipso facto, as wives, enfranchised women; therefore, it is not necessary here to have to qualify like they had to qualify in the old measure. It allows the woman as materfamilias to exercise the vote. With regard to the younger people, and the unmarried people, I think they should be prepared to submit entirely to the same demand that is made on the men. The controversy between the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and other hon. members as to, whether or not it is in favour of the wealthy classes, I do not think has been very conclusive. I do not see how it applies at all. Relatively, the position will be the same. It is absurd to think that a father will give his daughter sufficient money to enable her to purchase a £75 property in order to qualify. She has to occupy the property. It is not the mere ownership of property that matters. You can own half the property in the Union, and you will not be enfranchised on the property basis we have in the Cape, unless you occupy your property.

What about the earning power?

Not so much was said about that as the property qualification. The ownership of property does not qualify in itself. You must occupy a house of the value of £75, or you must rent a house of that value. So that the property qualification of which the hon. member for Benoni made so much, is not an argument at all in this case. The wage-earning one is a different one. I make bold to say that there will probably be more women of the occupations which the hon. member was pretending to protect, of the wage-earning qualification, than there will be of the class he is speaking against. I do not think there is anything in that. Even now, I do think that the House ought to accept this amendment. It is absolutely logical. It is the least disturbing method of giving the franchise and will lead to less discontent and bitterness than the Bill as it stands to-day. I have always been a strong supporter of women’s suffrage, but I have always said to the women I have addressed on the subject that in this country, with its difficulties, I would beg of them to accept the franchise on a higher qualification than that for men. Almost invariably the women have said that they are prepared to do so, provided that there is nothing captious in the conditions laid down. In view of our mixed population and the many difficulties that exist, they are prepared to accept the higher qualification. Of that I am convinced to-day. I want to state to the House that quite recently I have had it on first-hand authority, out of the horse’s mouth, to use racing parlance, that a petition has been signed by 500 women, who are in favour of the franchise, against the measure as it now stands. These same women do not wish to differentiate between men and women. They say if there is this differentiation, they would rather not have the vote.

I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly, but there is one matter that I think should be cleared up. Both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. van Hees) have made statements with regard to the native franchise that I cannot reconcile with historical facts. Both of these speakers stated that the qualifications that obtain in the Cape were introduced with the deliberate intention of excluding the natives. I do not think I am doing hon. members any wrong in just paraphrasing what they said. I submit to the hon. member that he has not read his history, and he is wrong in his historical facts. I will endeavour to show him that the limitation of the franchise had no idea whatever of excluding the natives. Nothing could have been more contrary to the intentions of those who first conferred the franchise upon the native than devising means by which they should be excluded. When Natal was annexed in 1843, years before the Cape obtained responsible government, a proclamation was issued to the following effect—

Well, although that proclamation does not deal definitely with the Cape franchise, I quoted it, as I shall quote another, to show that there is a spirit underlying the constitution granted to the colonies in those days, when they attained colonial status. It is wrong, therefore, either for the Prime Minister or for the hon. member for Brakpan to assume that these qualifications were introduced with the deliberate intention of excluding the native.

What were the causes?

The causes were an attempt in those primitive days to have a certain civilized test. I am pointing out the traditional policy of the British Empire from the early colonial days onwards. What happened in another country? I mention this to show that this was not a mere local and temporary proclamation, affecting one portion of the empire only. What happened in another part of the world—in India? Queen Victoria issued a proclamation in 1858 to this effect—

It was the consistent policy of the empire. Hon. members may think and say it is wrong, but I am only dealing with the facts. I wish to explain to the hon. member that he is wrong in saying, and so is the Prime Minister in stating, that the qualification was introduced with the deliberate object of prohibiting natives from the vote. Mr. Winston Churchill in 1921 reiterated this sentiment in other words when he said “there is only one ideal for the British Empire—there shall be no barrier of race, colour or creed which will prevent any man of merit to reach any situation he is fitted for.” This has been the policy in South Africa and elsewhere, although it may be considered a wrong policy by some.

If it is a civilization barrier why apply it to women now?

I am showing that the reasons the Prime Minister advanced are not based on fact. The question has been argued as to what occupation means. One of the Cape qualifications is the occupation of a house valued at £75. The hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Bowen) has given a definite opinion as to what occupation means, I respect his opinion, but I have a contrary opinion from an equally eminent lawyer.

The occupants must have absolute control and powers of exclusion.

The opinion I have had is contrary to that of the hon. member. I am willing to pay the utmost respect to lawyers’ opinions, but I remember the old saying that a lawyer’s opinion is a guess as to what another lawyer may guess. Supposing the hon. member for Capetown (Central) is right, if it is desired to put the matter fair and square all that has to be done is to insert a definition of what occupation means. If it is desired that joint occupation should entitle a person to vote, it is a very simple matter to insert that in a definition. A lot of argument has been advanced whether it is right to make the granting of the franchise more favourable to women than to men. That argument leaves me cold and should not weigh with us. The point I have consistently tried to keep before me is what are the interests of the State—not the interests of men as such or women as such—and I am not persuaded it is in the best interests of women to reduce the qualification at this stage. There is a danger of overloading the electorate with an undue number of uneducated voters who have not had the opportunity of studying political questions. There is hardly an hon. member here who, if he were free to speak, would not agree that, in his own constituency, there are a large number of voters who ought not to be on the roll. We cannot get away from the fact that the wisdom of the world has decided that manhood suffrage is the only practicable system. That was granted after a long period of apprenticeship, and it is not unreasonable that women should go through a similar period of probation, although the time may be shorter, as they are better educated than their male ancestors were two or three generations ago. Another point that should be considered is that the Bill really brings about a substantial alteration of the principles underlying the Act of Union. There would have been no Union if the different franchises existing before Union had been tampered with, and Union was only entered into on the basis of the preservation of the franchise as they existed at the time of Union. [Time limit].

I support the amendment because in Natal the qualifying franchise has become traditional since 1856, the necessary qualification being an income of £96, property valued at £50, or the renting of property at £10 per annum. These qualifications were introduced owing to the peculiar circumstances that obtained in Natal. These circumstances obtain just as much to-day as they did then. Never yet has there been any movement on the part of the people in Natal to introduce the principle of universal male suffrage. I am the more disinterested in saying this, because even if universal male suffrage were introduced, it would add very few electors to the roll, and it would have no perceptible influence in any constituency. There is no desire in Natal tor a change in Natal’s traditional policy in this respect, and for these reasons I support the amendment. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. van Hees) has used a lot of camouflage paint trying to obscure the real picture, but the point we stand on is this—it is quite sufficient to give women the vote on the same terms as men. The people concerned by this amendment reside only in the Cape and Natal, and it is entirely unfair for hon. members from the northern provinces to use this question as a means of furthering their object—the introduction of universal suffrage. It is an unfair use of the Bill, and it is not the right method of treating the women of this country. The ground on which we stand is perfectly clear— we want the franchise given to women on the same terms as to men.

I count myself second to none in this land in wholeheartedly supporting franchise to women on the most liberal lines conceivable. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) stated that the severity of the application of the amendment he has drafted can be relieved by the interpretation of what is meant by “joint tenancy”: that being so, I am prepared to accept it. The hon. member is one of the most sincere supporters of women’s franchise in this country, and he knows as well as anyone the great social differences which exist between men and women of the urban and rural areas. Brothers and sisters at the university do not occur in every home. It is the common practice that the men folk go out to earn their living and the women folk are kept at home, which is a custom I approve of. It may be that in our urban areas most of our women, owing to economic conditions, are forced to go out into the world. One must consider the application of this matter universally. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) stated that there were many mental defectives who would be enfranchised by a too liberal qualification, but what is the danger of these men if they are as numerous as the hon. member fears? If they vote Nationalist they do nothing worse than every individual Minister who sits on the front row bench, so that cannot be a danger the hon. member wishes to avert. If we had 100 mental defectives voting in every constituency they could vote Nationalist, which from my point of view might be an argument for their being mentally defective, but the argument would be as strong and logical if they voted South African party, and every hon. member opposite would say they were mentally defective. Judging from the number of spoilt ballot papers at every election, despite having the “high qualification,” we have mental defectives. I support any measure which will bring the largest possible number of qualified eligible women on the voters’ roll. It is impossible to pass in this House, as it is at present, any measure that will bring coloured women voters on the roll. It may be argued, with a certain amount of reasonableness, that no European will be occupying a house rated at less than £75. But what about many homes in our urban areas? I know of many instances where houses are rated at very small values, and these may be occupied by a husband, wife and two or more children. I want to see the widest possible liberal interpretation placed on the Bill, and if possible to raise the standard of enfranchisement qualifications. It is easy to do so when we talk of men. We do not like to see women go out as bread winners. In rural areas the women folk are better protected, and therefore they will be excluded by the second amendment of the hon. member for East London (North).

I propose, and I think logically, to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) as I propose to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I propose to take that line on what I consider a logical basis, viz. that of equality of treatment of men and women—though I wish to state quite clearly that I am going to vote against the bill however it emerges from Committee. The proposal of the Bill is to put women on an adult qualification. They should have the same qualifications as men. I wish to challenge the point made by the Prime Minister that the franchise qualifications in the Cape were imposed in order to keep out the native. Now the Cape Franchise is Fixed under the Constitution Ordinance granted in 1853. This Ordinance was an act of the English Government of the day. In the franchise clauses there was embodied the regular principle of that day that no person should be entitled to vote unless he had some interest in the State which would justify his having the right to vote. That was so in England at that time and was probably so in other constitutions in British Colonies. At the time of the adoption of the constitution there were serious debates out here, and much the same kind of argument was used then as is used to-day, that there would be a swamping of the white vote by the native vote, because so far from there being any attempt to shut out the native by the Constitution Ordinance, the ordinance was made absolutely irrespective of colour. The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. van Hees) are I think entirely wrong on the point.

What hon. members over there are asking us to do is this. If women live on the north side of the Orange River we will give them the franchise, but if they live on the south side of the Orange River they have committed the crime of living in the Cape Province, and we will insist on certain qualifications. It is not logical, but that is in effect what the arguments used by hon. members on the other side of the House amount to. I am going to vote against the amendment.

I do not wish to detain the House, but after the remarks of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) I want to point out from this side that it is a hollow argument to say that the requirement of a qualification in the Cape Province has nothing to do with the object of keeping the native off the voters’ roll. It may all be true what the hon. member has said about the history of those qualifications, but I am not yet convinced. At the time when no colour bar existed a different way was taken, and the qualification was laid down in order to keep out those people. It was a civilization qualification as the hon. member, himself, said, and who, except the natives, and the coloured people were thereby kept off the rolls? But even if the hon. member for Mowbray were correct in his argument, can he tell me then why in 1909 when we decided on unification they insisted that the Cape Province should retain the qualification provisions? Can he give me any other reason than the fact that the object only was to keep the natives off the voters’ rolls. I just want to point out to the hon. member for East London (North) that he said that a threat was made to wreck the Bill if this amendment went through. The hon. member said that he didn’t believe in the threat, but I, as one who voted for the principle of the Bill, want to assure him that if this amendment passed then I definitely will no longer vote in favour of the Bill. As far as it is in my power I shall not allow an injustice to be done to the countryside population which certainly would be the case. The amendment is nothing else than the advocacy of an erring party, which takes not the least interest in the countryside population. I grant that there will be certain anomalies, e.g., that it may happen that a male student could not vote while his sister, the female student, could., If it appears in practice that those anomalies press too severely then a change will soon be made.

Can you mention a single country in the world where the women get the vote under more favourable conditions than the men?

Can the hon. member mention any country in the world where the circumstances are the same as they are in South Africa? We have circumstances in this country, and, while the hon. member was arguing this afternoon with that legal brain of his, he tried to show that the argument of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was bad. The hon. member for Benoni said that the amendment amounted to the rich daughter voting, but not the poor daughter. The Minister of Defence also explained this. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout proved here that that argument was invalid, and that the position was just the reverse, viz., that the rich daughter was penalised and could not vote, while the poor daughter actually could do so. This may be so, or not, but the hon. member only showed that we would have an anomaly in any case. It makes little difference whether the rich girl is excluded, the hon. member has simply proved that a greater anomaly would exist if the amendment was passed. I want to assure hon. members that any anomaly which may arise can be removed later on, and if they actually do not only, take an interest in the urban population they must not insist on this amendment. If they want to wreck the Bill they must vote in favour of the amendment.

I hope the House will support the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) has come to the assistance of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. van Hees) and the Prime Minister in the attempt to persuade the House that the only reason for the Cape and Natal franchise qualifications was that it was fixed 70 or 80 years ago to prevent the native from swamping the register. They referred only to the Cape franchise, and the reason is obvious. The Natal franchise was also fixed 70 or 80 years ago, and a salary qualification of £96 per annum and a property qualification was imposed then. In the Natal franchise, although there is this qualification, the natives cannot get on the roll at all, and the coloured men can only get on subject to certain disabilities by order of the Governor-General-in-Council. In Natal there are some 300 coloured voters, and I think only one native voter. The reason for imposing the qualification in Natal was not in any way to keen the native off the roll. The hon. member for Winburg said that the only reason the Cape qualification was preserved at the time of Union was because of the native vote. Then why was the qualification preserved in Natal, where the native cannot get on to the roll. The reason why the qualification was preserved at the time of Union, was that we in the Cape and Natal had grown up under a system of property qualifications and we were attached to that system. The class of person kept off the roll by this qualification consisted of the illiterates, the vagrants and the ne’er-do-wells whose vote would not be a source of strength to the political system of the country. In the course of time it may be that the qualification of literary and of wage-earning capacity will have to go altogether. I speak for a great body of opinion in the Cape Province when I say that we are not going to allow that qualification to go without a struggle. It was suggested by the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that women who belong to organizations which ask for the vote on the same terms as men did not represent the women of South Africa. I am certain that they do represent the great bulk of women of South Africa who want the vote, and the bulk of women who are not members of these associations are not much interested in the question whether they get the vote or not. These women’s organizations ask for the vote on the same terms as men, and they represent the women who want a voice in deciding the future of the country. The effect of this Bill, if it goes through without amendment, will be to hand over the control of the affairs of the country to women, because women will be in the majority, and more particularly in the Cape and Natal where there will be a franchise qualification for men and not for women, because women voters will be in a great preponderancy in those two provinces. I think that the women of this country, as a whole, are not politically-minded. I know that many of them are not interested in politics. The Prime Minister is proposing at one blow to hand over the control of the country to a great mass of voters who are not politically-minded, and not politically experienced. It would be much better to go slowly in a matter like this. A point has been made by supporters of this Bill that if we require the same qualifications for women as are required for men the effect will be to keep a number of women off the roll who should be on it. That argument does not appeal to me very much, because it would perhaps be better to extend the franchise gradually than too suddenly. I see no sound reason for extending it to women on easier terms than to men.

Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Dr. Stals put and negatived.

I move—

In line 26, after “registered” to insert “’ unless she has obtained a free pardon.”

I want to draw attention to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, because the effect of that Act will be, if women are given the vote, that they will be qualified and obliged to serve upon juries, provided they possess the further qualification applying to jurors. I do not know whether this is the proper stage at which to raise the point, but I want to propose to add the following words at the end of this clause—

The position is that under section (167) of Act 31 of 1917, the Criminal Procedure Act, any Parliamentary voter between the ages of 25 and 60, the owner or occupier of immovable property of the value of £300, who earns salary or wages of not less than £150 per annum, and is not otherwise disqualified, is liable to serve as a juror. I do not think that it will be a good thing to have women serving on our juries at the present stage because we know that juries are no longer empanelled for civil cases but only in criminal cases, and in criminal cases very unpleasant matters are dealt with and, unless women are kept off these juries, they will have to listen to and decide cases dealing with the most unpleasant matters.

Women may be able to deal with them better than men.

Women may make a better job of it, but I doubt it, and it will be very unpleasant for them and I beg to submit this amendment. A suggestion is made that this amendment is not within the scope of the Bill, but it is really an amendment to prevent the Bill from having a wider scope than was intended by the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill.

I think the hon. member should move this amendment as a new clause.

I will move it then at a later stage as a new Clause 5.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister to accept an amendment—

I thought that by this time we had got quite beyond disqualifying anyone as a voter because he or she has been in receipt of relief from public funds. You see how many that would put out of court. We have the almost unparalleled case of magistrates in the Transvaal ruling railwaymen as being exempt from poll tax on account of the low wages they earn, and it is quite automatic that the wives and daughters of such men would at some time be in receipt of relief from public funds You cannot divorce your electoral arrangements from the economic conditions of the people of the country. People look upon representation in Parliament as a means of improving their economic condition. How often have we heard the view that women will regard legislation from the point of view of improving economic conditions because of their own intimate experience of the conditions of home life. You are going to insist that women who have been brought painfully into association with these problems—have been depressed to such an extent economically that they have had to appeal for relief—are in fact the very people who are most painfully interested in representation in Parliament—that they shall not have the vote. I say that we are altogether antediluvian apart from every other consideration if we disable women, or any other person, from having the vote because she happens to have been in receipt of public relief. I appeal to the Minister on his past record, and I appeal to the Cabinet on their past record, because I had the temerity on one occasion to introduce a Bill into this House designed to deal with disqualifications in the Letters Patent of the Transvaal in 1906, and the Orange Free State in 1907, which cover this point. I have been looking up the debates and the divisions in that connection, and I have the right to claim the adherence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and other hon. members on that side of the House, including the Minister of Finance. I find the division in favour of the Bill I introduced on the second reading in 1923 was as follows—Ayes: Alberts, S. F.; Boydell, T.; Cilliers, A. A.; de Villiers, A. I. E.; du Toit, F. J.; Forsyth, R.; Fourie, A. P. J.; Hertzog, J. B. M.; Hugo, D.; Keyter, J. D.; le Roux, S. P.; Madeley, W. B.; Malan, C. W.; Mostert, J. P.; Muller, C. H.; Pretorius, J. S. F.; Raubenheimer, I. v. W.; Roux, J. W. J. W.; Sampson, H. W.; Stuart, J.; Strachan, T. J.; van Niekerk, C. A.; van Niekerk, P. W. le R.; Visser, T. C.; Werth, A. J.; Wessels, J. H. B. Tellers: Havenga, N. C.; Swart, C. R. Do not say you have been retrogressive. I do not believe it. By the law of averages and probabilities I have the right to expect support from the Prime Minister, and I hope he will agree. I did not read the names to annoy him, but to remind him of his past giddy heights. I think he has put this in in error, and I think it only needs his attention to be drawn to it for him to say, “Madeley, you are correct, I agree with you.”

I should like to support the amendment. Even if the provision with regard to men is in force it is still no argument why the provision for women should be included. In the country districts we have many instances where a woman is left with seven or eight children. She then becomes head of the family, and such a woman, because she possibly has to ask the magistrate for a little help cannot get the vote under the Bill, while the girl who has no other responsibility than herself can get the vote. In my opinion this creates a wrong relation, and I hope the mover of the Bill will see that widows who have such a great responsibility, and who have alone to provide for the education of their children shall not be prohibited from getting the vote.

I will leave this matter in the hands of the Committee. I, personally, will support the terms of the Bill. It is a Bill the paternity of which belongs to the House and now to the Committee. I am merely the instrument in introducing it.

The reason is very clear why this House insists because this being the law, as far as men are concerned, the same should obtain with regard to the women, and if it is necessary that men should be excluded from the franchise, because they get assistance from relief funds, the same condition should apply to women. Since 1923, I am seven years older, but I have not the least hesitation in saying that if my hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) were to introduce a Bill altering this I should be very loth to give him my support, because since 1924, I have learnt a lot. I have learnt, amongst other things, that really a great many of these people in receipt of relief from public funds, really do not deserve them. I will not say this applies to all, but it does to the majority. For that reason I do not so readily support my hon. friend.

No one questions the honesty of the Prime Minister, but I think we have a right to question his consistency. When he says he has learnt a lot since 1924, he is not correct. What he means is, that he has unlearned a lot. Surely the Prime Minister is not going to insist that because some people do not deserve something or other because of their criminal tendencies in the sense that they will not work, that women who are in receipt of relief from public funds should not get the vote. The difficulty to which the Prime Minister refers can be got over in some other way. I do not think my hon. friend has quite understood all the implications of this, and examined it sufficiently. I would not be at all surprised, if this was strictly interpreted in a court of law, that a very large number of farmers who through the stress of drought or floods were temporarily receiving relief from public funds, might be debarred, or have their names erased from the voters’ roll.

At the time of registration.

Let us assume that. “Relief” is not defined, and it is very difficult to define. The fact is he may have money lent to him to tide him over his temporary difficulties. I want to urge on the Prime Minister, there may be a slump in business, a closing down of gold mines, the abandonment of some manufacturing concern, and, holus-bolus, hundreds of men and women may be thrown on the streets. They have come to the Government for relief—temporary relief perhaps—within six months of the registration they are kept off the roll, and surely the Prime Minister does not want that. He saw the implication in the old days, and I am afraid has rather disregarded the position since then. As to the other charge of inconsistency I might level against the Prime Minister, he was entirely unmoved by the argument that you must not give the vote to women on better terms than to men, but here he does allow that difference to count. I urge upon him, in the interests of these people, to accept this; you will not do any harm. Cut out these disqualifications, which will not redound to the credit of the Prime Minister, or of the House.

I hope the Prime Minister will still accept the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni. We have already sacrificed the principle in connection with old age pension. Here a man will be removed from the roll because he gets assistance. In this way a man of 64 years, before he receives the old age pension, will lose the vote if he gets an allowance of 10s. or £1 from the magistrate, but when he becomes 65 he will be able to vote although he draws £2 10s. old age pension. I can assure the Prime Minister that in the Transvaal there are many cases which will be affected by this. The fact unfortunately is that many people get an allowance from the State. Some are obliged to get a grant owing to sickness. I certainly think that it is not the intention of the Prime Minister to remove these people from the roll, and I hope the Prime Minister and the House will accept the amendment. I would like to point out that if in the ‘Transvaal or Free State we had the same conditions that prevailed in the drought tried districts of the Cape then all the people who received Government assistance could not have been registered as voters and that surely is not the intention of the clause. I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni will be accepted.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Question put: That paragraph (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

This does seem an extraordinary provision, and it certainly conflicts with the Act of Union. We are going to have a perfect gamble because here we will have voters most unequally distributed in the electoral divisions of the country. I say the whole basis of the Act of Union is the giving of equality of representation to the different electoral divisions of the country arrived at by taking the number of people who are entitled to be registered as voters and dividing by the definite quota. We are going to have the most uneven distribution throughout the country, and I ask the Prime Minister why he suggests that we should ignore that principle entirely.

I hope the House will not accept the motion. It amounts to this that a great injustice would be committed which could never be allowed. As was shown at the second reading, it would mean an injustice to the countryside. There will be 82,000 more registered women in the towns than on the countryside. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) will agree that that would create a condition which would be very unjust, and I hope that the clause will be passed as it stands.

This is one of the entrenched clauses; any provision which changes the electoral arrangements of the Union is an entrenched provision of the Act of Union and requires a two-thirds majority of both Houses sitting together. Hence if this clause is not inserted we shall be up against that fresh difficulty. I hope, therefore, as we all desire this Bill, that my hon. friend will not insist on his amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

Our law lays down that a woman who is married in community of property must not have immovable property registered in her name. As the section now stands, women married in community of property cannot become elected to the Senate under section 26 of the South Africa Act. I move—

The hon. member has consulted me about that and I agree with the principle.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 5,

I move—

I think that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) is right, both as regards his interpretation of the particular section in the criminal procedure code and also as to his contention that it would be highly undesirable to have women jurors, at any rate, to make it compulsory for women to attend on juries. We know that the majority of cases in this country are native cases, and many of them are of a very unsavoury nature indeed. I do not think, however, that the proper way to meet that case is by way of an amendment to this Bill. I think we ought to deal with the position by means of an amendment to the criminal procedure code. If the hon. member is prepared to withdraw this amendment, I am prepared to undertake on behalf of the Government to bring in an amendment to the criminal procedure code. I will leave it to the House whether the amendment will take the form suggested by the hon. member of eliminating women, or to another form making them eligible, but not making it compulsory for them to attend.

I hope the House will take a decision on this clause to-night. I feel that if we are now going to extend the vote to women, if the women are going to Be treated, as the result of this Bill, on an equality with men, then no logical reason can exist why women should not also accept the responsibility of serving on juries. That position is accepted in England at the present time. I am prepared to admit, with the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) and the Minister of Justice, that there are a large number of cases which come not only before the Circuit Courts, but also before the ordinary Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court, which are of a very unsavoury nature. If, however, we accept the position that a woman is to be on a political equality with the male, then we cannot have these nice distinctions. I feel that if women ask to be put on the same footing as men, they must accept the same responsibilities. In the jury system in England at the present moment, women serve on juries, and although it may be that there are many cases in which it is a most unpleasant duty for them to sit side by side with men to listen to these cases, I am equally certain that there are a large number of cases where the presence of women on a jury is of inestimable value. There are a large number of cases where the intuition of women plays a very large and a very potent part in arriving at a decision.

Would you go so far as to make it compulsory?

No, I do not go so far as that. But I do appeal that you should not by the decision of this House rule out women altogether.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has appealed to logic, and of course he is perfectly right, in strict logic perhaps, but I do not think strict logic is necessarily the only rule to be followed in framing our laws. I do not think in this case strict logic would be good for the administration of justice or for the women themselves. In view of what the Minister of Justice has said, as to the course which he is willing to adopt in order to produce the same result, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, proposed new Clause withdrawn.

On Clause 6,

Before the matter is concluded I want to make a final appeal to the introducer of this Bill to first submit the matter to the country before it becomes law.

The hon. member cannot discuss it here. Clause 6, short title, is now before the Committee.

And I want to move an amendment to it to have a referendum on the matter.

It is entirely out of order.

Then the amendment is just like the whole Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the title,

I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments and specially an alteration in the title.

Amendments to be considered to-morrow.