I move—

I do not think that we who are opposed to women’s franchise can be accused of detaining the House. I feel, however, that it is my duty again to protest against the Bill for the third reading. The congress of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal instructed its representatives in Parliament to vote against it. The Prime Minister has not introduced it as a party measure, but I, and other members who represent that party in the Transvaal, must say that we are opposed to it. If we disregard the resolutions of the congress, the congress will be dissatisfied, and the people will get out of hand. In connection with this Bill we know that we are struggling against superior numbers, we are in the minority, and we can only do our best to show why we are against the Bill. It has, however, struck me that members who were seriously strong supporters of women’s franchise spoke during the committee stage as if we were taking a leap in the dark. Why, then, should we take such a leap. Rather let us wait until we can take it in the light. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) got so frightened in committee that he half ran away from the Bill, and proposed to raise the age from 21 to 25 years. If we have to wait fourteen days more he will probably run away altogether from the Bill. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) made a great fuss about the motion for the second reading. Apparently they heard it in Potchefstroom, and now he is also becoming nervous. It looks as if the hon. member started the hymn at too high a pitch, and now cannot get to the end. I fear Potchefstroom has made him afraid of the Bill. We have not tried to delay the Bill. We have done everything in our power to make things easy for the Prime Minister, who did not introduce the Bill as a party measure, but to fulfil his promise. Although we are against the Bill, we have not fought it so as to make things difficult for him. There is, however, one section of our members that I feel we must be careful of, and that is the ministers of religion in the House. I notice that those gentlemen differ from each other. They ought to have enlightened us, ought to have known that according to the Bible women are the helpmeets of men, but now they say no, we must put the women on an equal footing with men! I fear that those hon. friends of mine lead us sometimes a little bit on the wrong road. It looks as if those parsons are now favouring the verse, “Everyone is agitating for change.” I hope that those hon. members will not subsequently regret the step that they have taken here to-day. Let me in conclusion say something to the Minister of Finance. Hon. members opposite are constantly advocating economy, but if the women get the vote, as is about to happen, then we must look to the countryside, and make proper provision for many more polling booths. If we want to give the women the right to vote let us do so properly. It will be easy in the villages for the women to reach the ballot box, but it will be difficult in the country. There are very extended constituencies. In the past the farmer could go to the poll, and his wife and daughters stopped at home to look after things, now we expect them all to vote, and we must make proper arrangements to enable them to do so. As for myself I have voted against women’s franchise, and I shall do so again at the third reading. But let me assure the Prime Minister, the House and the country that if this Bill is put on the statute book I will give every possible help to the women to organize, because it will be a big job to get them properly organized. I am not opposed to women’s franchise, but I felt it was my duty to sound a warning against it. But when the Bill is passed, then, as a friend of the women of South Africa, which I have always been, I will do my best to assist the women to exercise their vote properly. The greatest number of the women on the countryside do not want the vote, but now that it is being given to them, I know the women of South Africa, they will do their duty in the future just as they have always done it in the past. We get letters from women that say that they will not register themselves, but I know that they love South Africa so much that after calm consideration they will do so. We must, however, see that it is easy for them to register and to exercise their vote on polling day.

I have listened attentively to the Minister, and although he apparently still holds his old views, and is still against the Bill, he has just made a magnificent plea in favour of it, and I hope the light will yet come to him, and that the influence of the psalm which he quoted will, in the end, induce him to vote for the third reading. The Minister said that we must wait until we have more light. It seems to me that we should then have to wait until most of us are dead, and that we shall never have a chance of putting this Bill on the statute book. We are, however, to-day behind all the civilized countries of the world.

Switzerland?

I admit that I went a little too far, but all leading countries, all democratic nations, have long since set the example that we ought to follow in South Africa.

Only after the world war.

No, in many countries it existed even before that time. Many of our sister states in the British Empire, such as Australia, New Zealand, and I believe also Canada did so before the world war. In England, of course, it came during the world war, and also in America, but we have learnt our lesson—some of us in the world war—but the Minister of Lands has not yet done so. It is not my intention to attack the Minister for still being blind. I am only rising to explain what attitude I take about the third reading. Personally, I am strongly in favour of the principle of women’s franchise, and have tried to advance it for years with all my powers.

Since when?

As long as I can remember.

Don’t you believe it.

There was possibly a time when I did not see the light, but as far as my political recollection goes I have always been in favour of it. If at one time I was not in favour of it, then it only shows that I was always open to conviction and fresh light. I say, personally, that I am heartily in favour of the principle. It is one that we all ought to respect. If there is one woman in the world who deserves to take her place next to the man it is the South African woman. She has done her duty with the men in the history of South Africa, and when it comes to the acknowledgment of rights, then it certainly is her right to be recognised alongside of the man in the public life of the country. When, however, I do not speak in my personal capacity, but as having party interests, I feel that I am, to a great extent, bound by the attitude that my party has taken up for years. A large majority of the S.A.P. have at congress after congress voted in favour of women’s franchise. The principle has been generally adopted by our party, and there for I feel, not only in my personal capacity, but also as leader of my party, that I am obliged to vote for the third reading. The position has, however, been created in the House that it is not merely a party matter. The Prime Minister has introduced the Bill not on party lines, and not as a Government measure, and in all the debates that have taken place we have not taken up the attitude that it is exclusively a party measure. It is, however, a fact that the largest amount of support has come from this side, and I think that in the last stage the greatest support will also come from this side. We appreciate the difficulties, although we are supporting the Bill. There is a large number of hon. members on this side who strongly object to the form of the Bill. Doubtless it is a bad Bill. The principle is good, but it is incorporated in a Bill which many of us strongly object to, and to which we have objected at the various stages. The women have asked for nothing more than that the sex distinction should be removed in our public life. The women of South Africa have never asked for a better position than the men. Unfortunately the Prime Minister, for some reason or other, which he explained here, has put his Bill in such a form that the women in two provinces are being placed in a better position than the men and there will also be more women than men on the voters’ roll. Some hon. members behind me are not opposed to the principle, but are opposed to the Bill because of the form it is in. We also feel that this Bill hinds Parliament to go in for universal franchise in the future. Without qualifications, and against that also many hon. members have an objection. The Prime Minister also said that he intended, as soon as circumstances permitted it, to introduce a universal European franchise, without any qualifications throughout the Union. The Bill in its present form, therefore, not only embraces women’s franchise, but also, by implication, the other principle of general unqualified European franchise. Some of my friends behind me feel very strongly against that, because they do not think it can be justified in the special circumstances of South Africa.

What about the Transvaal and the Free State?

Yes, we know that it exists there, but in the other provinces it does not exist, and they do not want to hind themselves to such a principle in anticipation.

That is not being done.

By implication, yes. The inference must be that in the future the franchise will be given on a general basis without qualification. Our party moved an amendment in committee to save the position, and to put women on a like footing with men, but it was rejected. Not only that, but another alteration has been approved of in the other stages which, in my opinion, makes the Bill still worse and dangerous in some respects, which makes a further distinction between men and women. While the man who gets support from the State does not have the vote while he is receiving it, the women are relieved of that. Another distinction is therefore made between men and women in favour of the latter. A difference has already been made in the original Bill, and now the distinction is much sharper. The amendment has made the Bill decidedly worse. Any major European woman can vote, whether she can earn her living, whether she is of sound mind or not, whether she is in gaol, and whether she is an offender not sentenced to more than three months. That is the provision we are making according to the Bill as it stands now, and it makes the Bill almost ridiculous. We provide that woman of unsound mind can vote.

No.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Lands has now become a supporter of the measure. He can, however, go into the Bill, and he will find that no qualifications are laid down. All the women can vote excepting where the woman is sentenced for an offence to more than three months imprisonment and has not received a pardon. The Bill was originally in a very unattractive form. It is to-day in a still worse form, and, therefore, the question arises with me whether I am such a strong supporter of women’s franchise that I will, nevertheless, vote for the measure before the House. I say, yes I am going to vote for that great principle, notwithstanding the smudge or blot on the Bill, which there originally was, and which has been introduced in committee. I am prepared to accept it because we cannot trifle with a great principle. When we have to do with a great principle we must not allow ourselves to be diverted by subordinate considerations, when we are unable to agree with those subordinate points. Although I strongly differ about the details of the Bill, I am so attached to the great principle that I feel bound to vote for the Bill. The party point of view has been raised here. Some of my friends say that the Bill is against the interests of the S.A. party. The same argument has been used by some who have voted against the Bill. In my opinion, the question of party advantage does not arise here. We have to do with a great principle, the time for which is ripe, and more than ripe, and in my opinion it is one of the most difficult things to say what the effect of the measure will be from a party point of view. The party position is so uncertain, is so fluid, and changes so that it is impossible to say where the benefit will be. Some may possibly think that they are getting an advantage, others again that they are possibly being damaged. My own opinion is that the course of circumstances will upset that calculation. There only remains one sound principle in connection with the Bill and that is the great principle of the Bill which we must pass. We have struggled for years with the principle of this Bill. On a former occasion we nearly passed the Bill, and I think nothing will be a greater shock to the women, and to public opinion, than that danger should now arise at the third reading of this Bill not going through. I want to make an appeal to the House, there are representatives here—the conservative section for whom I have the greatest respect—who are opposed to the Bill. I want, however, to put my appeal in this form. Let this Bill go out from us men as a gift to the women, apart from party and sectional interests. Let us put the Bill through with such a majority that it will be accepted by the women of South Africa with grateful acknowledgment of the gift of the men. I hope that we will sink our differences of opinion in effect and that we shall only remember the principle, and allow justice to be done to the women. Let us give this gift with the largest amount of unanimity to the women, who have done so much for our country in the past. For these reasons, and not because I agree with this Bill on all points, but in view of the great principle it contains, I am going to vote for it.

I have listened with very great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He says that he was always in favour of women’s franchise. I still remember the days when I was a follower of his. Since that time he has changed very much. That, I admit, and to-day he supports this Bill. But at that time women’s franchise was proposed and I discussed it with him. He said “Vote against the thing. My wife says so, and when she is opposed to a thing I am also opposed to it.” We both voted against the Bill. Then he was still on the right road. He then still listened to his wife. I am convinced that if we asked the women of South Africa to-day whether they wanted the vote there would be an overwhelming majority against it. Accordingly, I also oppose this Bill. If the supporters of women’s franchise doubt whether the majority of women are opposed to women’s franchise, let them vote for a referendum on the Bill. We can allow all the men and women over twenty-one to vote, and I am convinced that there will be a decided majority against it. Since the Bill was introduced I have had hundreds of letters and telegrams and petitions, protesting against the Bill. Some of the letters I would like to quote, but I cannot do so. I do not agree with what the women say in those letters about the women who want the vote. I consider the women who want the vote are not quite of the class they describe, but think that the supporters of women’s franchise have lost their way, and are working against their own interests. I believe that the women are out to gain the world and lose their souls. It is not true that I do not want to learn anything. I must have become a wonderful person if I could not learn anything more. I have learnt a great deal since I have been in politics. The hon. member for Standerton will admit that if there were two people who discussed the country’s matters intimately, they were he and I, and we learnt a good deal, but when I come to this matter, then I say that there is nothing for me to learn; I see quite well that the theologians in this House, with one exception, are opposed to me, and I am no theologian, but I nevertheless say that according to the Bible it is not right for the woman to be put on the same level as the man. The man is the head and the wife his helpmate. Are we now to place the women above the men? That is what I consider wrong, and I consider it wrong because the women of South Africa have always hitherto been such a great help to the men. The women of South Africa have always exercised an amazing influence, and I am convinced that the influence will decrease or disappear as a result of the granting of the vote. The women have always exercised a very good influence on the men, but if the vote is granted the men will not look after the women any longer in the same way. They will say that they will no longer listen to what their wives say. My hon. friend may laugh, but it is a fact. The woman would be regarded as a self-dependent being, and the man will no longer consider that he should protect the woman, and she will lose her influence. Who has been the master hitherto? The woman; and it is that very influence for good of the women that I want them to retain. The women are now the masters, and exercise a good influence. Hon. members will possibly remember how the late Mr. Merriman, while he was still with us, said here “Women make fools of the wisest of us.” The woman will lose that good influence. My hon. friend for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) laughs, but he is a widower and no longer experiences the influence of a wife. It is not only that I am conservative, but I feel we are acting against the interests of the women Other countries have been referred to. They said that we have got light from other countries, but I say we have got darkness, and when we look at other countries, what do we find? France is surely one of the chief countries in the world; they have not this thing there, nor have Switzerland and Italy.

Mussolini will not have it.

My hon. friend can poke fun at Italy, but they have one of the best governments there now that they ever had. We, moreover, have yet to see what the effect of women’s franchise will be. It has been tried for too short a time to be able to form a judgment, but already there are writers and other persons who say that the influence will not be for good, as was thought, but rather for bad. That is the experience of some writers in those countries. I do not say so, because we shall only be able to see what the effect will be after a number of years. One of the supporters of women’s franchise said that we were taking a leap in the dark. I do not want to take such a leap. I want to know where I am landing. I say that if we pass this Bill, we shall not be able to stop the coloured women from getting the franchise, nor the native women, if the Native Bills of the Prime Minister are not passed. In any case, we shall have to tremendously extend the franchise, and we will especially have to increase the class who do not regard the vote as an asset of the state, a right, something which they have to use for the benefit of the whole of society, but who regard it as an exchange counter which they try to use for their own benefit. From whatever side we regard the matter, it is, to say the least of it, a risky thing that we are going to do, and I want to tell the House that possibly 15 years hence they will realize that we have done a wrong thing in passing the third reading of the Bill, because I fear that that is going to be passed The hon. member for Standerton also said that the women had never asked for more than that the sex distinction should be removed, and that no difference should be made. What woman said that? The few women’s meetings about which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) talked, possibly did, but do they represent the women of South Africa? They are like the women who, like the three tailors of Tooley Street, brought the whole world into an uproar. The same thing is being tried by the group of women about whom the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke. Who are these people? I attach little importance to it. I should like to know from the hon. member for Standerton whether the Bill, to which he referred, was a Transvaal Bill he spoke on during responsible Government.

No. It was the original constitution granted by the British Government.

Does not that provide that anyone who is insolvent, or of unsound mind, or in gaol, shall not have the vote? It is surely clear that if men, according to law, cannot have the vote when they are mad, the same will apply to women, according to this Bill.

No.

Surely this Bill says that the registration of women shall be in accordance with the registration of the men, so that if a man of unsound mind cannot be registered, a woman in a similar case could not be registered either.

No.

That is how I read the Bill. As for qualifications, I want to point out that to-day we have the position in two provinces, the Transvaal and the Free State, there are no qualifications. In Natal, just as in the Cape Province, there are qualifications, but in Natal they are not so important as here. But in two provinces—the Free State and the Transvaal—there are no qualifications at all. If, therefore, we give the franchise to the women, then we have not the right to impose restrictive stipulations, inasmuch as those provisions in this province are only imposed with the object of keeping the uncivilized native off the voters’ roll. As we are giving the franchise to European women, we cannot grant it in that way. I am opposed to women’s franchise, even if a woman owns £1,000, but we have no right to make a distinction between the rich and the poor woman. We must not forget this, and the hon. member for Standerton knows that there are poor women in the Transvaal, many of them widows, who were well-off, but were ruined by the war, or have been impoverished through other circumstances. These people who have borne the heat of the day and the cold of the night in the interests of their people, will be excluded from the franchise, while those who have arrived with boots and stockings, as our old people say, and who are rich to-day, will have the vote, and that will be unjust. If that particular class of women is not to have the franchise, vote against the measure as a whole. We can take away the franchise by a general measure, but we cannot make any difference between different sections of women. Since the second reading of the Bill was passed, I said that the matter ought to go to a referendum, so that the men and women over 21 years can vote on it without it being made a political question. If the Opposition include the matter as a part of their political programme, to influence the people in that way, then it is another matter. But if we leave this matter in a proper way to the decision of the people, I have not the least doubt that an overwhelming majority will be against it. That, at least, applies to the Transvaal, where out of 260 delegates to the Nationalist congress, only 21 voted in favour of women’s franchise. That, to me, is a proof of what the Transvaal thinks about the matter. I want to say again, that, as representatives of the people, we have not the right to pass legislation which the majority of the people are opposed to. The position now is, however, that every member has already decided what he is going to do, but if we want to do right, then we must refer this Bill to the people. If the people are in favour of it, I will submit, but if they are not, then my hon. friends also must submit. It is no use talking now, however, because, as I have said, every member has already decided what he is going to do. I, however, felt that I should again protest, and give expression to my feelings.

I have been a consistent supporter of women’s enfranchisement ever since the inception of the movement, and have voted for every Bill, with that object, which has been introduced into this House. I was a member of what was called the House Committee in Parliament for some years together with the late Mr. D. M. Brown and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé). When this Bill was introduced, I did not like it, but I voted for the second reading, which established the principle of women’s suffrage, in the hope that when the measure went into committee it would be improved. Well, sir, what has happened? The Bill has emerged from committee in a much worse condition than it entered it. Under these circumstances I cannot support the measure as it is before the House to-day. I have a petition signed by 500 women, who are in favour of women’s enfranchisement, but who are opposed to this Bill as a Bill. I am convinced that they are right, and that this measure will not be in the interests of this country. I feel that it would divide families, provoke hostilities, and arouse animosities throughout the country, and, that being so, I believe it is a bad Bill, and should be rejected; I hope it will be defeated in this House.

I want, at the eleventh hour, to appeal to the Prime Minister, because I know that he has always tried in the past when we have had to deal with great problems in South Africa, to be magnanimous in his solution, and to try to get the co-operation of all sections of the population. I feel that the matter is of so great importance to South Africa, and will cause so great a constitutional change, that the people ought to be well informed about it first of all. Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister to consult the people. I want to support what the Minister of Agriculture has said, namely, that when in this House, and particularly on the opposite side, the Bill has been supported, the great majority of the women of South Africa do not want the franchise. I want also to warn the Prime Minister to be just a little careful when hon. members on the other side, and especially the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), recommend a thing. In such a case I am always a little distrustful, and I think there is something behind it, and, for this reason, I want to warn the Prime Minister to be a little careful. The reason why I feel that it perhaps ought to be postponed a little, is that the public have not been well consulted. The majority of hon. members say that the women of South Africa want the vote. I am convinced, as I have said, that they do not want it; but let us ask them, and if it appears that they do want it, then I will vote for it. I am, however, convinced that it is not the South African woman that is asking for it, but only a certain section of women who want to adopt modern ideas. We see in the House here, day after day, hon. members opposite are inclined to copy everything that comes from other countries. It is the same thing to-day, although as usual we do not quite know where they stand. The hon. member for Standerton, e.g., said that he approved of the Bill in principle, but then he said again that it is a bad Bill. If it is a bad Bill, why does he not vote against it? It is merely to get a certain amount of praise for voting in favour of the Bill. I am convinced that it is radically wrong, and contrary to the interests of the people, to force the Bill through at this stage. I want to strongly appeal to the Prime Minister to give us time with the Bill until the people have been properly enlightened, and we have got their views about it. It is no more than right that a proper referendum of the white voters in the country should be taken, as has been done on other great occasions. It has been said that the women themselves must decide about it, and I am ready to abide by the decision of the women of South Africa, It will be a little difficult, because we shall have to get the machinery for it later, and the expenditure necessary is not justified, in my opinion, in these troublesome times. But I feel that as we have the machinery of the electors to decide about matters, it will, in my opinion, cost very little if the Prime Minister decides to take the opinion of the people. I hope that hon. members opposite will agree with this, because they even say themselves that this is a bad Bill. Let us act democratically as in other cases, and let us see whether the people of South Africa want such a radical change, one which, in my opinion, will be disastrous to the country. Let the people decide, then I will be satisfied, but do not let us work in an autocratic manner and push something through which the people do not want. You have seen from the papers how in Australia they have three great problems, and the Australian Government consult the people, because it is a sound principle. In view of this, I want to move, as an amendment—

This is an absolutely fair proposal, and I hope the whole House will agree to it. Do not let us be autocratic. The Prime Minister may say that the matter was before the country, because he made the promise two years ago, but I may say that the people did not regard it seriously at the time, because, as far as I remember, the Prime Minister at that time said that he would introduce the Bill as soon as the native Bills were passed. During the recent general election, I did not hear very much about the matter being discussed with the electors, and therefore I feel that the matter has not been fully put before the public. Even here in Cape Town round about Parliament there are many women who know nothing about the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, and there are still more on the countryside. Are we going to push the Bill through against the will of the people? I also want to point out that, apart from other expenses, it will cost £30,000 more at every registration. Moreover, it is time that we should give attention to the larger expenditure involved. The matter is not so urgent that it must necessarily be passed now. The hon. member for Standerton said that it was bad, and I agree with him. The Bill is not only bad in principle, but also in practice. I find, e.g., in Clause 1—

This is the first time that I have heard that a woman is a citizen of the state. I always thought that she was a citizeness. But what I want to point out is that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that we would not give the franchise to the coloured women before a distinction was made between coloureds and natives. If so, I want to ask the Prime Minister where is he going to draw the line in this Bill between coloureds and whites? How does he define a person of European birth? There is nothing in this Bill to indicate it. I also want to point out to the Prime Minister that it does not say how a voter, when he is once on the roll, is to be removed. In my opinion, the application of the Bill will give much trouble. In any case, it has been decided not to give the coloured women the vote. Let me just tell hon. members who speak so light-heartedly on the matter that I foresee when it has once become law, that there will be many law suits, and that the Bill will cause much expense to the state. I am certain of it, but there are, of course, many members who talk lightly about the matter. They do not worry about the public expenditure. They do not think that the expenditure will be heavy. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that the administration of the Bill will give much trouble and cause much expenditure. I hope the Prime Minister will accept my motion, so that the people can be properly consulted. I think it will be one of the most disastrous things to govern in such an autocratic manner, without consulting the people about the thing. I feel, with regard to the Bill, that we are acting autocratically, which is not in the interests of the country and the people. The Prime Minister will possibly push the Bill through with a great majority of the South African party, but the South African party will turn once more against the Prime Minister when this thing is passed. We know, in the past, the South African party have not acted in the interests of South Africa, and we must, therefore, be very careful so far as they are concerned. They now say that they do not like the Bill, but yet they are all voting for it. The country will judge their attitude in the matter. I therefore move the amendment.

On a point of order, I understand that this matter has already been before the House in the course of debate upon this Bill, and that this proposal has been defeated. Is it in order to propose it again?

This matter has not been decided. May I point out that the other amendment was that the women of South Africa be consulted, but this is to consult the European voters of South Africa.

The rule to which the hon. member refers only applies to questions which are similar in substance and there is a considerable difference between this amendment, which proposes that a referendum of all “European voters” should be held and the amendment moved on the second reading—which proposes that a referendum of all “European women above the age of twenty-one” should be held. But in any event the rule that the same question may not be twice offered does not apply to Bills when the question is offered at different stages of the Bill. The amendment is therefore in order.

After listening to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) I wondered a good deal whether I ought to second the amendment or not, but as I have always thought that the women ought to be protected, I will second it. I want to point out that it is very desirable to listen to the request for a referendum. I said, at the second reading, that I thought that 60 per cent, or more of the women of South Africa were opposed to the Bill. I think I can definitely say to-day that 90 per cent, are against it. If we look at the newspapers and at the letters we receive, we must admit that that is so. I am convinced that if the Bill is not passed a sigh of relief will go up from the women that the Bill has been rejected. Many of the representatives who are supporting this Bill in the House, are doing so in spite of the fact that their constituencies are opposed to it. I appeal to them to vote against the Bill, and to listen to the electors.

Who is doing that?

Possibly the member himself. I think it is our duty as representatives of the people, to act in accordance with the wishes of our constituents. I fear that many hon. members have put their heads into the lap of Delilah, and that their hair is going. I vote in the minority, and I think that the future will show that the minority was right again. The majority is not always right. Often the minority is, and that will also appear to be so in this case. There are hon. members who are afraid that if they do not give the vote to the women, the women will not work for them. I am against women’s franchise, and I would like to see a man stand against me who is in favour of it, and whether I would not get more women to vote for me than for such an opponent. The women must be protected, and they deserve to be. We showed that we wanted to protect the women in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). Although we are opposed to the women getting the vote, yet we do not want to see the rich women getting it, and the poor women being excepted. Let me say this that the Opposition have had the chance of showing whether it was a question of principle with them. They say that it is a matter of principle with them, but when they had the chance of including the poor woman, they voted against it. This shows that it is not such a serious matter to them, but that it counts more with them how their party will be affected by it. The leader of the Opposition said that a clear light was now shining. I fear that if this Bill becomes law the clear light will no longer shine, but that we shall be thrust into misfortune, and I hope that the House will still reject the Bill.

When this Bill was before the House at the second reading I voted for it because it is one of the principles of the party to give women the vote, and when that principle was adopted no general rules were laid down; but now the Bill is before the House for the third reading, it contains provisions which are totally unacceptable. The position is that if this Bill passes, women will be in a better and stronger position than men; they get a vote which a man cannot get. We are now told that it is “’n goeie beginsel”; a good beginning for the women. I am convinced that the Prime Minister has hypnotized or mesmerized a number of his friends, for I have it on good authority that a large number who were against it have now been talked over and changed their minds.

So have you.

No, my mind is still the same. It is felt by many people that the position of men and women should be the same, and at the second reading I mentioned an instance given in England of equality claimed as between men and women when a candidate was asked “Do not you think that men and women should have equal rights,” and the answer was, “Yes, I have always thought so, having often longed to be a mother.” If this Bill contained an educational qualification, I would not oppose it, but as it stands I hope that it will only be read this day six months. If the Bill had contained the qualifications as proposed by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and women had been placed on exactly the same footing as the men, I would not have voted against it, but in its present form I look upon it as a rotten Bill.

You may be quite sure I will not re-introduce it this session.

Yes, but I am afraid you will carry it. Speaking for the women in my division, on the broad principle they were against the acceptance of the Bill, and I hope the House will reject it.

My friend the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) surely supported the principle of women’s franchise here, together with his leader, as a principle which the South African party had adopted, and which is one of the chief planks in the political programme of the South African party.

Not one of the chief.

Yes, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said so, and I attach more value to his words than to that of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mai. G. B. van Zyl). It has just been stated by the hon. member for Standerton.

It is on their programme of principle.

Precisely. We, on this side of the House, have never yet made a question of party principle of it, and now that the Prime Minister wants to carry out the main principle of the South African party, hon. members opposite are turning round and are trying to break the yokeskey, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has done. That hon. member was ready with an amendment he wanted to move, and if the deputy leader of the Opposition had not made a signal to him, he would have moved the amendment that the Bill should be read in six months. What then becomes of the principle? The hon. member for Von Brandis said further that it was very strange that some of us who were formerly against women’s franchise were now in favour of it. If he will attend carefully, I will explain to him what the reason is. For the ten years that I have had the privilege of being a member of Parliament, I have voted against the principle of women’s franchise as often as it has been introduced here, and until the principle of the measure was settled at the second reading, I voted against the Bill. I want to explain my attitude not only why I differ from some of my friends here, but so that my electors can know why I am now adopting this attitude. I say that I have voted against the principle of women’s franchise for all these years. I have voted against the principle of this Bill. After the Bill had passed the second reading, and during the committee stage, I came to the conclusion, when I thought of the progress the agitation for women’s franchise has made during the past ten years, that we could no longer keep back the women’s franchise, just as certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow morning. If they do not get it this year, then they will get it in one of the next few years. I am convinced of this, and I hope that hon. members who differ from me will believe that when I take up an attitude, that I do so from conviction, and when I give them the credit of acting according to their convictions, I ask them to be so fair to give me credit for doing the same. I am, therefore, convinced that women’s franchise is coming in South Africa. When we see the attitude adopted by the Opposition, then I am convinced that if they are allowed to apply the principle of women’s franchise, they would not apply it on the lines of this Bill, but they would give it to all women, white. Black or coloured. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs, but I want to remind him of the speech of his leader in 1928, when the Bill of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) was before the House. To a question asked him, the hon. member for Standerton replied that he was not opposed to the kafir women getting the vote.

You are wrong.

If hon. members doubt it I can quote what he said from Hansard. I want to refresh hon. members’ memories. During the speech of the hon. member for Standerton, the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) interjected: “Will you also give the franchise to the native women,” and the hon. member for Standerton replied, “Why not?” It is very clear to me that if the Opposition had a majority we should not have this Bill, but a Bill giving the women’s franchise without distinction of colour. Fortunately, however, this side is in power. As we are engaged on a greater problem, namely the native problem, of which we hope to find a solution, the Prime Minister comes and proposes his Bill according to the principle that he wants to see adopted in the native Bills. If I am convinced that women’s franchise is coming, then I am faced by two evils. One is that the franchise is being given to the white women in South Africa, and the other, that it is being given to the white and the black women in South Africa. Even if I am opposed to the women’s franchise, if I had to choose I would choose the first evil and vote for this Bill. I am dealing with hon. members who say that the women in South Africa have not yet asked for it. I speak from experience, because I recently held meetings in my constituency, and many of the South African ladies who were present said that they did not want it, but that they left it to me, and that I, as the representative of the constituency, should act in the best interests of the country. I am convinced that I am acting correctly if I take the responsibility on myself on behalf of my electors, and face the facts instead of acting like my hon. friends who differ from me, and who also are convinced that women’s franchise is coming, but yet do not choose the safe way. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has said here that the Prime Minister is acting autocratically. Let me tell the hon. member that it comes very badly from him to call the Prime Minister an autocrat.

I never said the Prime Minister was an autocrat.

The Prime Minister introduced the Bill, and the hon. member introduced an amendment to first have a referendum, and in support of that he said that this was an autocratic Bill to submit to the House without first consulting the public. Let me tell the hon. member that it comes very ill from him to say that the Prime Minister is an autocrat. I would advise him to act a little less prophetically in the House, and to learn a little more from the older members, who have been many more years in the House than he, But in the same breath he said that it would cause tremendous expense to administer the law, and at the same time he asks the Prime Minister to take a referendum, which will probably cost much more. My hon. friend, the Minister of Lands, warned us and gave us the assurance that if the Bill went through then we should not be able to withhold the vote from native women.

I said coloured women.

Well, the coloured people have the franchise to-day, and I do not want to go into the merits. But the Prime Minister made it very clear on the second reading that if the time came that we could not prevent it, he would put the qualification in such a way as to be fair to the coloured women. I felt that I could not give a silent vote at the third reading. Although I am opposed to the principle, I am convinced that women’s franchise will pass, and then this is the best method. As this is certain, it would be foolish not to try to lead the legislation on right lines. It would be just as foolish as if a man wanted to dam up a river, and not to give the stream a proper outlet. If he does not do so, he will find as soon as the river is in flood that all the water will flow over the embankment and it will be washed away. The same applies to women’s franchise. I am opposed to it, but if I have to choose between two evils, I choose the lesser, and that is the basis on which this Bill has been framed.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Conroy) finds it advisable to change all his principles so that he can have a tilt at the South African party. He makes it clear that with him it is not a matter of principle but one of damning your opponents whenever possible. Is this now to be a party question? We have the right to ask the Prime Minister if even at this stage he is prepared to make a party question of this matter. For anyone to claim that because something may happen at some time in the far distant future, he must scrap all his principles now and force any Bill through, is a policy I cannot understand. I quite agree with him that had the South African party been in power and introduced the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill it would have been a very much better measure than this. Is he so afraid of the good the South African party may do? Only last week his principles were so strong that he was forced to vote against the second reading. The opinions of a man who can change all his principles with such lightning speed should not carry much weight. Unlike the Minister of Lands, I am and have for a very long time been in favour of women’s suffrage. In that I am in no way changed. There is no need for anyone at this stage to debate whether or no women are worthy. Every sensible man has long ago come to the conclusion that women are worthy. They always have been worthy. As to their right to vote, the matter has been so frequently debated that nothing more need be said. I wish to make it perfectly clear why I shall vote as I intend to do. Up to the present I have not taken any part in any of the debates on the present measure. I had hoped that the terms of the Bill would be considerably improved in committee, and I only waited to see whether the terms could be so altered as to make it possible for anyone in favour of the principle to support the Bill whole-heartedly. Instead, however, of the Bill being improved, it has been so altered as to make it a quite impossible Bill, and in its present form I am totally opposed to it. I am opposed to it on two main grounds. In the first place it limits the franchise to European women only. It has always been a principle with me to support no political colour bar. Then the Bill fixes on the Cape adult suffrage, which, I think, is a thoroughly retrogressive step, and I feel very strongly that before long everyone who supports such a change is going to regret it very sincerely. The terms of the Bill are neither in accord with the promise of the Prime Minister nor in accord with the wishes of the vast majority of women of this country. I have spoken to many women who have strongly supported the enfranchisement of their sex, and only one of them has opposed my views on the present Bill. They are all in favour of having the franchise, but on very different terms to those under the Bill. It is very strange that on other occasions when women’s enfranchisement Bills have been introduced that at every stage of their progress the galleries have been crowded with women, and there was not even standing room. Since the introduction of this measure, however, I find that the galleries have been empty.

Why?

Because the women are dissatisfied with the terms of the Bill. Those of us who have been in Parliament for some little time know that on every other occasion when a women’s enfranchisement Bill has been before the House the lobbies have been crowded with women trying to persuade members to support the measure. On this occasion I doubt whether any member since the first reading has been canvassed in the lobbies. On the second reading one would have expected that many women, as in the past, would have been canvassing for support for the Bill, but I noticed only two women canvassing in the lobbies, and they were canvassing not for this Bill but against the motion of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure). The women have been made pawns in the Prime Minister’s game of dealing with the native franchise. The Prime Minister has promised the coloured people political equality with Europeans, although he qualified that somewhat at the second reading stage.

That is not so.

I can read hundreds of extracts from Hansard and from newspapers to prove it. This Bill means a permanent bar to the rights of coloured women, and I cannot be a party to it without scrapping my political creed. I put it to the Prime Minister is there a single woman who welcomes the Bill in its present form? I doubt whether there is. Naturally there are many women who want the vote at any price, but they will not welcome the terms of this Bill. In the same way there are men who will accept anything at any price, but they are not the men whose interests we should consider.

You are wrong.

This Bill means adult suffrage for the Cape in the near future, which I oppose very strongly. If anything, we should tighten up the regulations regarding the right to the vote. If the Prime Minister Keeps his promise that the coloured people are to be treated politically in the same way as Europeans, before long every coloured adult, male and female, will have the vote. I certainly oppose any movement for giving all coloured people over 21 years of age the right to vote. I do not want every adult to have that right merely on account of age, but we shall be bound in the very near future to submit to their having it if we are consistent. I do not want to do anything at this stage by which we may be bound to give them these rights in the future. The majority of European women do not want the vote under these circumstances. Prominent members of the enfranchisement movement have already publicly withdrawn their support, and they say they do not want enfranchisement under the present circumstances. It is claimed that half a loaf is better than no bread. Let me remind hon. members that “half a loaf” may be more troublesome and tantalizing than no bread at all. The value of the gift is entirely destroyed by the manner of giving. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I felt I had to make it clear why I cannot support the third reading. Much as I would like to see the franchise given to women, I am unable, under the circumstances, to vote for the third reading of this Bill.

I am particularly sorry that I have to go against the Prime Minister. It is painful to me, but I am against this Bill on principle. There are many people in the country, especially the women who are working for women’s franchise, and the men in favour of it, who will rejoice about this Bill and that the Prime Minister has introduced it. The mere fact that the Prime Minister has introduced the Bill as a private measure is a proof to me how unpopular this measure is in Government circles. If the Prime Minister was honest with regard to women’s franchise, why did he not introduce it as a Government measure, and with the assistance of the big majority behind him which has always supported him—not put it through as a Government measure? This he could not do, because although he stated his wishes two years ago, he was not able to get unanimity in the Cabinet about it. No one knows better than the Prime Minister how hollow the words “women’s franchise” sound in the ears of our people. Even if the women stood alone to-day, the result of a referendum would be that women’s franchise was as dead as a door nail. I am sorry that I was under a wrong impression about the views of the Prime Minister about this Bill. My impression was that he made the promise at that time because he was driven in a corner by five of his followers who were intriguing with the Opposition, who had introduced a franchise Bill into the House, which we could not possibly pass in that form.

That is nonsense.

I say that that was my view on the matter. I say that they were continuously co-operating with the Opposition to push women’s franchise through the House, and the Prime Minister thought that he should choose the lesser of two evils. If women’s franchise had to come, then he would suggest that it should come in a manner which would be acceptable. I see now, however, that I was hopelessly wrong. The Prime Minister, on the motion for the second reading, stated that in principle he was in favour of women’s franchise The Prime Minister, the strong Samson of the Nationalist party, fell and gave way for the power of women. An hon. member stated that he lay in the lap of Delilah. I know from experience that the Delilahs still live. It is not only the Prime Minister who has given way to Delilah, but the Delilahs are busily engaged in our public press to induce members to let the measure pass through the third reading. I can see now how matters are going. I see how Samson’s hair is flowing-woman already has her scissors set. Women’s franchise is something that comes to us from abroad; it is something which owes it birth, its growth and its development to Anglo-Saxon countries. It is the strong argument of those who support women’s franchise that our country is the only country which does not give women the vote. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told us here again this afternoon that most of the countries have given women the vote, and that we are the only country in the British empire which has not yet given women the vote. I consider that for that reason we are the best country and that we are the only country which uses its common sense. Our actions in the past were in conformity with the desires and wishes of the women of South Africa. We are not speaking here of what the women of the towns and villages are wanting. Naturally, they make propaganda for women to take part in politics. I say once more that the women of South Africa do not want to have the franchise. There is ample evidence of that. Woman is not fit for political life: that we find everywhere. That is in the old and the new Testament. I have asked the champions of women’s franchise: tell me why you are so anxious to have the vote. Nine out of every ten reply by a further question, “Why do you want to have it?” And added to that is the question why the native and the coloured man can have the vote and why woman should not have it. And then comes the further statement, “I want to be able to have a say in the education of children”. And furthermore, some of them wish to see to it that equal salaries shall be paid to men and women alike. I wish to remind women of this, however, that if the Bill is passed into law it will mean the first step in the direction of giving the vote to coloured women as well, and if the Bill is passed as it is now, and if the native legislation is not passed, then it means that it will be the corner stone for the granting of the franchise to the native women as well. In regard to the question of the education of the children, the child cannot get an education from the State which will really lead to civilization and Christianity. There is only one place where the child can receive such education and that is at his mother’s knee. If, however, this Bill is passed, it will not be necessary for them to concern themselves over the education of their children, because the children will not be there. If women take part in politics, the children will no longer be there. The Prime Minister the other day referred to the question of child lessness, and he remarked that feminism had nothing to do with childlessness. I wish to clear this up. He leaves the two younger Ministers out of account and then he finds that there are 19 children for the other nine Ministers. This works out at two and one-third child per Minister. He states that the explanation does not lie in the subject of women’s franchise. But we find that it is the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Lands who have to pay the piper for the others who have no children at all. But that number of children per family is according to the calculations of the French, insufficient to maintain family life. We find that it is the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture and, I believe, the wife of the Minister of Railways who do not want to have women’s suffrage. The Prime Minister further stated with pride that he is one of a family of thirteen. To that I wish to attribute the fact that he is the man he is. But at the same time I wish to ask him whether he would have been what he is if his mother had been a women’s franchise supporter? Would be have been here to-day in that case, and would be have been to his people what he is to-day? He also told us that the Minister of Labour is one of a family of eleven. I notice that the Minister of Labour is proud of this fact and I want to ask him whether he would have been the man he is if he had not been one of a family of eleven? Great men emanate from big families. I maintain that woman’s nature does not fit her for politics. The Bible teaches us that she is intended for family life. By that I do not mean to signify that she should not take any part in public life, but her great mission lies in her family. I have the privilege to be the father of a large family. But my wife has the privilege to be the mother. It is her sole right to bring up her family in the way she wishes to do and to form their characters as she desires. If my wife, for instance, had taken part in politics in the same way as I have done and if she had appeared on public platforms in the same way as I have done, I doubt very much whether there would have been a big family. Woman is there to bring up her family, and man and woman each have their separate callings. We are here to attend to the interests of the community and woman has to attend to the interests of her family. That is the doctrine which the Old and the New Testament lay down every time. In Ephesians 5: 23, Paul says that the husband is the head of the family and elsewhere it is stated that the wife shall be man’s help meet.

But Paul did not have a wife; it was easy for him to say that.

Yes, I understand that he did not want to marry because he was afraid that his wife might want to have a vote. There is a definite relation between man and wife which has been laid down ever since the very earliest days If we break these relations, it means that we alter the whole plan of creation. If we accept the Bill as it stands, it means that we give woman greater rights than men themselves have. It will then no longer be man who will attend to the needs of the community and who will govern, but it will be woman who will govern. I am prepared to give anything to my wife; I am willing to give her my coat, I am willing to give her my shirt, but I am not going to give her my trousers. Woman is not fit for political life and in everything she shows less intellectual power than man has. Hon. members may laugh now, but I am quite convinced of this. Let us look at this matter on its merits and let us take a woman of outstanding intellect and place her alongside of a man of outstanding intellect. Do not take a woman of outstanding intellect and place her alongside of a man of mediocre talents, but take a man of outstanding intellect, and hon. members will see that she has not the same intellectual gifts as the man has. That is a fact and we can prove it. After all the years of progress and after all these years that woman has taken part in business, we cannot get one solitary responsible business man who will leave important business matters to a woman, in spite of the fact that she will do it a great deal more cheaply than a man. Man does not risk doing this. It is not woman’s fault that this should be so; unfortunately she is more delicately moulded and in addition she suffers from nervous disorders. Where we find this in men in one or two in every 100, we find this in 80 per cent, of the women. These nevrous disorders make it impossible for woman to rule, she is unable to make up her mind promptly and immediately. There is another point to which I wish to refer. Hon. members representing wine-growing districts are so convinced that they will retain their seats if the franchise is given to women, but let me point out to them that the advantage of to-day may be the detriment of to-morrow. As sure as I stand here woman will see to it that prohibition is brought into force in this country. Let me refer to what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said, viz., that when we get women’s franchise in South Africa the liquor question will be solved for ever, and that when woman gets the vote prohibition will follow. The hon. member for Newcastle is a prominent member of the Opposition, and if ever he has spoken the truth, he did so when he made that statement. I feel that I have given expression to my views. I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say that I am convinced that the great majority of women agree with me when I ask for a referendum and then women’s franchise will be dead for ever.

I made my position quite clear in my speech at the second reading. I said that, if the women wanted the vote, it was not for us to give it to them; it was their right to demand it, as taxpayers, they are entitled to it. In my constituency the only women who have spoken to me have asked me to vote against the Bill as it stands to-day. I am not very much moved by the arguments of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, when he says that woman’s place is in the home. I am afraid it is not for us to say what woman’s place is. This is the twentieth century, and she will rather resent us telling her what she should do. Nor am I much influenced by the theological arguments of several of my friends on the other side. We are, most of us, prepared to give the vote to women provided it is on the same conditions as given to white men in this country. That is the whole argument so far as I am concerned. I cannot vote for this Bill when there will be nearly 20,000 white men in the Cape Province alone who are disenfranchised, and women are going to be given the vote by this Bill at 21 years of age without that disability. It means that there will be a majority of women voters over men throughout the Union of 10,000 at least. The Minister of Lands has said that the qualifications were made in the first instance to disqualify the uncivilized. This was also said by hon. members at the second reading, but what about those 20,000 white men in the Cape Province; are they uncivilized because they have not an income of £50 a year, or a house rated at £75? Is a man to be considered uncivilized because of hard times he is not earning £50 per annum? I had hoped that the Bill would be amended in committee; if it had been I would have voted for it. Unfortunately, I was ill in bed when the second reading was voted on. Had I been here let me say to should have voted for the second reading. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) says that he has had a petition from 500 women asking him not to vote for the Bill under present conditions. This and what I have said before shows that the women as a whole do not want votes. I am not voting against the Bill because I think that women are not qualified to exercise the vote. They are eminently qualified to exercise it, and they have a right to it because they are also taxpayers. I am voting against the third reading because until you are prepared to give white men the same rights to the franchise as women, I cannot vote for the Bill.

If hon. members have listened carefully to what the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) said they will more than ever realize the necessity of women’s franchise being granted. What the hon. member said shows clearly how useful it; will be for our community. I do not wish to delay long over what the hon. member for Ladismith has said. His speech belongs to the sixteenth or seventeeth century.

Shame.

I am sorry for the hon. member that, he should hold such views. We feel that we are dealing here with legislation of the utmost importance for the whole country. The great majority of members realize that we may possibly be able to make a greater success of married life than it is today, if the partners in the family, man and woman, are placed on a footing of equality. The hon. member has spoken of different parties, but co-operation does not mean that they must always agree in everything. Mention has been made here of the falling off in the numbers of children born. I am not in the least surprised at that. I do not attribute that to women’s franchise. It has, nothing to do with it, but it is the circumstances which men create for women which are the cause of women refusing to have children.

What?

Man’s state of domination. In the times in which we live this measure is essential. Hon. members who oppose it remind me of children playing along the seashore and trying to stop the sea by building sand dams. The movement has to come and even the opponents of the Bill must recognize this. And for that reason I say that we should get it in the best form possible, the form in which the Bill is before this House to-day. I feel that this is the best form for us Africanders, and I feel that we must realize that if the Bill is not passed to-day in its present form, we may get it later in a form which will render the position far more unpleasant for us. It must be clear to hon. members who oppose this Bill what the situation will be if the Opposition should come back to power—it will be a situation fraught with far greater danger than it is to-day. Many hon. members on the Opposition benches are suddenly changing round again. Many of them say openly that they are in favour of the principle of women’s franchise, and they wish to see it adopted in any form. One of the reasons why these hon. members are opposed to this Bill is that it includes the poorest section of the community as well. The poorest section is not necessarily the most deserving, but we find that hon. members opposite are disposed to exclude them. They realize that the impoverished citizens of this country are largely on our side, and, for that reason, they regard it as more advantageous to shipwreck an attempt to include these people. The Minister of Lands stated here that we must reject women’s franchise because congresses have passed resolutions against it, congresses such as that of the National (men’s) party of the Transvaal; yet I recollect many important resolutions passed by congresses to which members of that party, including even Ministers in this Parliament, have not adhered. Hon. members come forward with the argument that the women of South Africa do not want the vote. My impression is that this is far from correct. We know that woman of South Africa has always submitted to man, and has always shown the greatest respect for man, and this would explain why woman has not definitely demanded the vote. Still woman very definitely expects man to give it to her voluntarily. That argument cannot carry much weight here. Hon. members who are opposed to this declare that we should have a referendum. I remember that when I was recently addressing a district meeting that same argument was used by a highly-respected old burgher. At the end of that meeting an incident occurred which made me realize that it is very difficult to get a correct idea of what is going on in woman’s mind, as woman in her heart expects man to give her something voluntarily without her openly asking for it. My opinion is that the South African woman really thinks a great deal of the franchise, and I just wish to quote that incident. That highly-respected old burgher said: “You come here with the question of women’s franchise, something quite new”—I do not think he was correct there, but to him it possibly was something new—“but I am certain of it that my wife will not avail herself of it, because she does not want it.” At the end of the meeting I was offered a special cup of coffee, and that same respected burgher’s wife came to me and said: “What my husband stated there is quite incorrect, but his head is so hard that I cannot convince him.” And my opinion is that in many cases that is so. We must not keep this privilege away from woman. Man, by his greater physical strength, often dominates them, and from that point of view, she looks up to him as her protector, but we cannot deny the franchise to the enlightened woman of the twentieth century. My opinion is that placing the two partners in the partnership on a footing of equality will lead to greater happiness in social life. I stated in my opining remarks that I did not believe that the lower birth rate can be attributed to women’s franchise, but the general development of our whole social system brings this with it. Not only do I say that women’s franchise has nothing to do with it, but I say that I am of the opinion that it will greatly contribute to a sound domestic condition of affairs. I consider it will create a healthy domestic condition which will even have its inuflence on the newcomers entering this world. The hon. member for Ladismith stated that there would be no more family life. This he attributed to women’s franchise. I consider that the very opposite will be the case. It is the state of affairs created by man which renders large families impossible. If woman takes up her place alongside of man in this respect— woman cannot force herself into that position— then woman will feel that she has a say in the political conduct of the country, and she will make her influence felt, and she will feel happier. Physically, woman may be weaker, but mentally she certainly is not weaker. She can take up her position alongside of man and in that manner she can exercise her influence in the interest of national welfare. Hon. members have made a point of the fact that woman must be a helpmate to man. In this way she will be able to be such a helpmate. It is not laid down that man must dominate her. The fear that home life will suffer is unfounded. It is quite safe in woman’s hands who will attend to the highest interest of her family in the same way as she will guard the highest interests of the state. It is for those reasons that I feel that especially my friends on this side of the House have every reason carefully to ponder before they lend themselves to try and wreck the Bill before this House. Possibly many will welcome its being wrecked, but the time will come when they will regret it if this Bill should be placed before them in another form which they will not find pleasant or acceptable.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House in going again through all the arguments on principle for and against women’s enfranchisement that we heard on the second reading, and that we are hearing again to-day. I do not intend to go into the question of deserted homes and broken-up kitchens that will follow from the introduction of this principle. We have had all that already, and I think we should now address ourselves to the point as to why hon. members who were able to support the Bill on the second reading should now tell us that they are unable to proceed. I criticized the Bill at the second reading, and I expressed the hope that in the committee stage some of what I regard as blemishes would be removed. I hoped that the Bill would have been so amended that women could have got what they have always asked for, namely, the right to vote on the same terms as men. I saw no reason, and still see no reason, why we should go further and remove, in the case of women, disqualifications which exist in the case of men. But because the object of the Bill goes further than it was asked to go, and because it creates an inequality which is only temporary between men and women in the Cape and Natal, should we, on that account, turn round and say: “No, we will not have it”? Surely the matter is too serious, and the cause is worth more than that for the Bill to be thrown aside because differential qualifications have been introduced in two provinces. The Prime Minister told us—and everyone who looks ahead can see—that as soon as the question of the native franchise is settled, that we will, and must have, a uniform European franchise throughout the Union.

Including coloured?

I said “European,” and I do not go further than that at the moment. Are we going to say, we, who have stood for women’s enfranchisement, that, because this Bill introduces what is going to be a temporary disqualification between men and women in the Cape and Natal, that we are now going to turn round? I should be very sorry if that were so. That question has been before the House for many years. Bills have been brought in and carried up to a certain point; sometimes hopes have been raised that the measures were going through, but always something happened. Women who have been accustomed both by their own inclination, and by our encouragement to take an active part in political life, again and again have been denied the elementary privilege of political life, namely, the right to exercise the vote. Is that to be continued? I would like hon. members who be lieve in the principle to ask themselves—if it is really their desire for that to be carried into effect—what other chance shall we have of extending the franchise to women. We have a great responsibility, particularly hon. members who believe in the principle of women’s enfranchisement, and they should consider very carefully what they are doing. Another reason many of my hon. friends do not like the Bill is because they think the civilized coloured women should have been included. I think so too, but two years ago we, on this side, with very few exceptions, supported a Bill for giving women the franchise that was confined to European women because we saw that, as things are at present in South Africa, and as public opinion is at present in South Africa, we had not a hope of getting a Bill through this Parliament for the enfranchisement of the women which did not confine itself the Europeans. Under the present constitution of this House and the present state of public opinion, that could not be done, but I certainly do not believe that the enfranchisement of European women is going to be a stumbling block to giving the vote to coloured women. I do not believe that the enfranchisement of European women is going to keep out the coloured woman, and it is in that belief that I say we should not now make the fact that the measure is confined to European women a reason for voting against it. Under the amendment moved by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) the disqualification which existed in the northern provinces in regard to voters in receipt of relief from public funds has been removed. It was a pity that was done, for, seeing that the disqualification existed in the case of men, it should also exist in the case of women. I would put it to hon. members that in practice this disqualification does not help very much and in practice the number who are prevented from voting because of this disqualification is very small indeed. I do not think any hon. member wants to exercise his objection to the Bill, by merely prolonging the debate; but I would again appeal to hon. members who believe in the principle of women’s suffrage—I do not appeal to hon. members who are strongly against the principle, who have been against it, and are now—but I appeal to those who are in favour of the principle to consider this very carefully; that because this Bill in certain points is not as they would desire it to be, and in certain respects has gone further than they would like to see, and in other respects does not go as far as they would like, they should not turn round and not vote for the third reading. That would be doing a wrong to the women who have looked upon us to do this all along, and it would be putting back the clock.

The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) told the House a little while ago that some hon. members only looked to their seats and for that reason were prepared to accept women’s franchise. So far as I am personally concerned, in matters like this I have never considered my own interests. Had I done so, I could have remained in Kuruman where I had a safe seat without difficulty, worry and trouble. But I am not one of those who look for a safe seat. I do not look after myself, but after my party and my people. So far as that hon. member is concerned, I should like to know from him how he knows that the women in his constituency are not in favour of this Bill. He has not even got branches there of the men in the constituency. He should establish a branch in every corner of his area and then he will be able to ascertain what his voters desire.

I have a larger majority than Stellenbosch.

The majority does not matter. This subject has been before the country for years, but the men have never yet taken it up seriously in their constituencies. If we had given a lead, we would certainly have been able to ascertain what the people think. On previous occasions I have given my reasons why I regarded women’s franchise as undesirable. There were widely spread constituencies and it was difficult to get to the ballot boxes. To-day we have the motor car and there are more and smaller constituencies so that those objections fall away, and I consider that the time has now arrived for women’s franchise to be granted. I do not wish to hold forth on the past history of this question as there are other members who wish to speak on this subject. I have looked at the matter from this point of view and I have taken it up seriously in my constituency, Stellenbosch. The question has been discussed as to the possible result of a referendum, and let me say this that in a well-educated centre like Stellenbosch, woman is quite willing from the one side of the constituency to the other to vote on the matter. Now I come to another point. Some hon. members have taken un the attitude that if an hon. member once holds a view he may never change and if he does, it is argued that he does not stick to his principles. Circumstances may render it quite possible for a man to change his views. Among the younger members in this House there are many who are in favour of women’s franchise, but among the older members; there are some who wish to prove how strongly they adhere to their principles and who for that reason stand firmly by their old attitude, although they are convinced that the time has arrived for women’s franchise to be granted. Now the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) comes here and proposes an amendment. A greater farce I have never heard of. The hon. member wants the men to say whether women should or should not have the vote. How can men possibly judge? And what does the hon. member for Prieska, who is not even married yet, know about it? We say that the time for women’s franchise has definitely come, and if the Minister of Lauds were to visit his constituency—he has no time to do so and I do not blame him—he would find out that the majority of women are most decidedly in favour of women’s franchise. When I recently paid a visit to my old constituency the women told me that they were very glad I had come. Why were they so pleased? To come and settle accounts with the men who were so slow in going to vote. The women are often obliged to induce their husbands to go to the poll and so long as we have that class of women we need not fear that the time is not ripe to give them the vote. They will more faithfully go to the ballot boxes than their husbands, and it will not he necessary to call for them with a motorcar if they live one mile off the polling booth, such as is often the case with the men. I now come to my final point. In all the four provinces we have established branches of the Women’s National party. The South African party women have also established branches in all the provinces, and in all respects we recognize them as our equals. They have to collect funds for us, they have to assist us in our election campaigns, they can do all the work, such as the making of rosettes, and yet hon. members say that they are not allowed to get any further and that they shall not have the vote.

I have not hitherto taken any part in this debate, nor have I voted in the divisions which have occurred, because, on principle, I am absolutely and unalterably opposed to women’s suffrage in view of the special political conditions of South Africa, brought about by the presence of our native and Asiatic populations. But since the party to which I belong has inscribed women’s suffrage on its banners. I have found myself having, like many others, against their will, having to bow my head to the storm. I have told my constituents that if this measure were introduced as a party measure I should have to support it, but that if it were introduced as a private member’s Bill, I should exercize my judgment as a private member, and vote against it. Now I am somewhat in a quandary. This Bill is introduced by the Prime Minister disguised as a private member, and it has occupied the attention of this House as though it were a Government measure. There is no doubt that everybody in this House realizes that there would not be much support for the Bill if it had not been introduced by the Prime Minister. Many of those who are now voting for women’s suffrage would not have been doing so if the measure had been brought before the House by a private member. Still, as it is of a hybrid character, and remains a private member’s Bill despite its introduction by the Prime Minister, at the final stage, when the Bill is to be read a third time, I do not think, in justice to myself or to my constituents, I can allow the matter to go through by registering a silent vote, I must therefore both speak and vote against it. When I came down to this House years ago, I came down as a convinced and zealous supporter of women’s suffrage, and in the early motions on this subject I voted with the minority in favour of the principle, but the more I came to realize how we stand in relation to our huge native population, the more I began to perceive what a disaster it would be to South Africa. In any other country in the world, in England, America, in any of the dominions, if I were in any of those countries I would be as zealous a supporter of women’s suffrage as anyone else, but those countries have a homogeneous population and have none of the racial problems confronting them that we find in South Africa. Subsequent study of the realities of our position forced me to change my views and I had to stand up in this House and recant my faith in women’s suffrage. I had much scorn poured upon me in my part of the world because of this; but I went back and faced the music, and explained the attitude I had taken, and my reasons for it, to the women of my constituency. The women of Zululand said, “Believing as you do, you could not possibly take any other attitude.” They understood it. The women of Zululand are more closely in contact with the real conditions of Africa than the women of the towns. It has always been an extraordinary thing to me that this women’s suffrage movement in South Africa has largely been led by women from overseas, women who know nothing about the conditions in South Africa. They have come here filled with all the specious arguments about democracy, and tell the women of South Africa that there should be no taxation without representation, in a country where we have 7,000,000 people paying taxation without representation. The arguments which they have used in favour of woman’s suffrage, and which are being used in this debate, are arguments which have no relation whatsoever to the government of South Africa. These women have wormed their way into our political organizations. They have obtained so much control of the party machines, that they are beginning to compel men to adopt their ideas. We all find ourselves sliding down the slope, and no matter how unwise many know the measure to be, we cannot help ourselves. I do not wish it to be understood that I am under-rating women’s influence in public life, or her influence in assisting to bring about the best forms of social and political development. I value a woman’s assistance in our public life. But we have to face facts in South Africa. We must acknowledge that our African conditions are unique in the world. I believe that the granting of women’s suffrage will do more to undermine European supremacy in South Africa than anything I know of. Something could be said for extending women’s franchise on a very limited suffrage, though even on a limited basis I should he opposed to it because of the inherent danger it contains, but we are going to enfranchise every female over the age of twenty-one. She may be a lunatic, a criminal or feeble-minded, and yet she gets the vote, whilst in two of the provinces men are required to show that they have some qualification to be a voter. On what principle is the suffrage to be given to women merely because they have attained the age of twenty-one? It is surely not because a woman is more intelligent at twenty-one than she is at sixteen, or we should not admit the half-witted. There are thousands of girls attending our schools throughout the country who are far more intelligent than women over 21. If age is to be the only qualification, there is no vestige of merit about 21. If intelligence is not to be the test, we might as well go back to the cradle and enfranchise every female child who is able to make a mark on a ballot paper. It would be just as reasonable. But the real point at issue, as far as I am concerned in my argument is that this Bill means the government of South Africa by women. There is going to be a majority of women; and no matter how you may argue about it it means the government of South Africa by women. There is something to be said for adult male suffrage. No matter what a man may be at twenty-one, whether he is feeble-minded or a criminal, he can carry a gun. He can carry out the supreme duty of a citizen to defend his country. You can train him to do something to that end. But you have abandoned that principle of citizenship in this Bill. Henceforth the sole support of South Africa is not to be our strong right arm, it is to be the ballot box. In the ballot box there is going to be some gain. For whom? What are the political parties going to gain from it? I have no doubt that many people think that this party or that party is going to gain some support by the adoption of this Bill, but if there is anything more uncertain in the world than the women’s vote, commend me to it. In the countries which have adopted women’s franchise, it has been a most difficult thing to ascertain which way the women are likely to vote. Speculations on the subject always go wrong Mr. Baldwin tried it the other day, and thought he was going to gain by it; but his party went out. They have had the women’s vote for 30 years in New Zealand, and a New Zealander informed me the other day that in that dominion the old man always votes against the old woman. But the party gain or loss is not my objection to this Bill. I do not raise an objection to it on any party ground, nor am I opposed to it because of such ideas that woman’s place is the home and the hearth. I am concerned with much deeper issues, issues which it seems to me, are little realized in this House. And the chief issue of all is that South Africa is not a democracy. The word “democracy” has been bandied about from mouth to mouth during the whole course of this debate. In the sacred name of democracy, we are told, by the forward march of civilization, we are going to associate the European women of South Africa with the Government of the country. In that way we shall fall into line with all the other democratic countries of the world. But the simple fact is that we are not a democracy; many millions of the people of South Africa are ruled despotically; they have taxation without any representation. While we are busy talking about democracy, here, in this chamber, we have a committee upstairs deciding to restrict the native franchise in the Cape. Whilst we are busy extending it to European women, we are taking it away from the natives. What a sham and delusion—what a hollow mockery of a democracy lies here. In Natal we have a fairly large Asiatic population; they are the heirs of a very ancient civilization. Many of them are cultured and educated. They can compete in intelligence with the Europeans and they possess influence and money. Are we going to enfranchise them? Is our democracy going so far, or is it merely a thing to play with; to throw across the floor of the House? They are facing taxation without representation, and there is not one single argument which has been advanced by any supporter of women’s suffrage that cannot be argued with equal force for these people. We will not extend the vote to them. I do not propose that you should, and I should be found resisting it if you did. But it is precisely because I do not want to extend it to them that I am opposed to furnishing them with the argument of woman’s suffrage. That is why I am opposed to women’s suffrage; not because I believe women are not as intelligent as men, or that they should be denied the right to take their place in public life, but because we are not a democracy. We are an aristocracy, and in so far as we water down that aristocracy by universal suffrage, just so far shall we be doing an evil thing to South Africa. Take our Bantu people. With very rare exceptions they have never recognized women rulers. There have been a few here and there of royal blood, but not women councillors; women are a negation in the councils of the native. Hitherto they have been content to accept the rule of the European male: that rule has been in accordance with their own ideas: but we are now proclaiming that we are handing over the Government of the country to European women. That is the message this measure must convey to the natives. It seems to me that this is going to bring about a worse form of the franchise agitation. The mere fact of giving the vote to women is going to spread dissatisfaction. It must result in stimulating the already growing demand for the extension of the franchise rights among the natives, and surely no European woman wants to have the vote at such a cost. There is an injustice implied in every line of this Bill for those whose rulers and guardians we are. Henceforth European women can sit in this chamber; they can discuss all matters relating to native affairs; they will have an effect upon the life and habits of the millions of people to whom we deny any representation whatever. It is useless to say that the women in Parliament will always be very few; it is useless to say that we shall never reach a stage of affairs when we shall have a woman as Minister of Native Affairs. Implicit in this Rill is the government of natives by women. That fact should alone give us pause. The real effect of this Bill is to weaken our power; water down the male attributes of our aristocracy; and breed resentment throughout the country. We are going to make the handling of our native affairs more difficult than it is, and the only gain we shall have is to satisfy a minority of our women.

The fates have loaded the dice so heavily in favour of woman suffrage that those opposing it have an uphill task. We first have the circumstance that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as leader of the Opposition has declared himself in favour of this measure. The next fatal factor in the matter is that a combination of unfortunate circumstances compelled the hon. the Prime Minister, with his enormous personal influence, to take upon himself the task of introducing the Bill. Although he introduced the Bill as a non-party measure, and although he has stated that he left every member of his party free to act as he wishes, yet the great respect and veneration which all of us on this side of the House have for him, makes the task of opposing the measure distasteful and painful, and adds greatly to its difficulty. Now that we have the fact that both leaders support women’s franchise, the chances of successful opposition are reduced to a minimum. I feel, however, that the matter is so serious that although the position is as it is, the opponents of the measure should continue to oppose it, no matter how difficult and distasteful their task may be and no matter how slender the chance of success. I have looked at the matter from every angle, and endeavoured to find some justification for this measure, but I am more firmly convinced than ever of its demerits. Sound legislation, if not justified upon traditional grounds, should at least be justified on logical grounds. As far as tradition is concerned, there is not the slightest justification for this measure, and it is wholly indefensible in this country. South African tradition has always been firmly rooted in scriptural authority. Since the days of the Huguenots, through the period of Piet Retief and President Kruger, our people have endeavoured to square their actions and mould their legislation in accordance with scriptural authority. The foremost supporter of this Bill has in effect told us to disregard the scriptures. He has told us that the Old Testament is out of date, forgetting that the only ten laws that have never required amendment are contained therein. He has told us in effect that the New Testament is fallible and open to error. None of the supporters of women’s suffrage have contradicted him, and I therefore say that this measure is contrary to Afrikander traditions. Let us examine the matter and see where it is not only not traditional but highly illogical. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) tells us that the qualifications in the Cape keep 20,000 Europeans off the register. What logie is there in giving the vote to those who are supported whilst denying the franchise to those responsible for supporting them? What logie is there in giving the franchise to girl students at 21 years of age whilst withholding it from male students even over 21? The hon. member for Caledon also said that the trek boers were precluded from voting. Many of them are men of substance. I have known them with up to 2,000 sheep. What logic is there in withholding the vote from that man and giving it to the factory girl who possesses nothing? The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has told us of the existence in his constituency of a case where the father is denied the vote, but where his three deaf and dumb daughters will be entitled to the vote. Is there any logic in this? Have hon. members reflected upon the heartburnings and bitterness that will be occasioned in hundreds of humble homes throughout the Cape and Natal when you have the instance of the husband being unable to vote and a motor-car coming to his door to take his wife to the polls. Woman has never been man’s political equal. According to this Bill, she is now to be advanced to the position of man’s political superior. Is there any logic in advancing women at one bound from a position of political inferiority, not to the equal of man, but beyond him? I can see no logic in that at all. The crowning anomaly is the amendment which was recently adopted, which has the effect that all men in receipt of rations of poor relief shall not be entitled to vote, but yet the wives of such men will be entitled to vote. The position is that a man who goes to the magistrate’s office and draws rations to keep himself and his wife from starving, is thereby debarred from voting, but his wife may have the vote. Although his wife helps him to consume the rations she may have the vote. Even if the man sends his wife to fetch the rations and he consumes them with her, he is debarred from voting and she will not be. I can see absolutely no logic in that at all. I was struck by the enthusiasm shown by hon. members the other night when these amendments were put. One hon. member, in the course of his speech, asked, “Why should woman have more rights than men ?” He was greeted with deafening and enthusiastic shouts of: “Why not?” That convinces me that the protagonists of petticoat government in this House have temporarily lost all sense of proportion. I submit that we cannot judge their actions or words in this matter by ordinary logical standards. It may be argued that these anomalies will be removed later on. Well, we may all be dead to-morrow. I submit that we should not wilfully, with our open eyes, pass legislation which we know to be unsound, in anticipation that it will be rectified in the future. We should only pass legislation that is right at the present moment. I submit that this measure is as much illogical as it is contrary to tradition, and is as repugnant to common sense as to sentiment. As this Bill cannot be justified on traditional grounds, or on logical grounds, I am at a loss to describe it. On thinking over the matter, I think that the fairest description I can give of the women’s franchise movement here is that it is a political gambling transaction. It is a political poker party. The supporters of women’s franchise are all sitting round a political table, gambling for votes. I am justified in saying this by the speeches made by hon. members at the second reading. You had prominent members on both sides of the House claiming for their particular political party the chief credit for giving the vote to women, and denying it to any other party. We had members of political parties standing up and denying the right of other political parties to have any credit in this connection at all. The hon. gentleman who sits over there very frankly put the matter when he said he hoped that we would grant the women the vote because he was certain that 95 per cent, of them would vote Nationalist, and this would be good for his party. They are angling for the women’s vote.

At all events, I was candid.

So am I. In this particular game the betting was started a couple of years ago by the South African party, who fancied their chances with the women, and they therefore bet that they would give the women the vote on the same terms as the men. Since then, the Nationalist party is prepared to raise the bet by saying, “We shall give the women a vote on better terms than men”. At this stage, the South African party is rather sorry that it made the first bet or came into the game at all. The Labour party has not said very much during this poker game. The Labour party has sat with a “pat” hand. I anticipate, however, that when the “show-down” comes at some future election, the Labour party will “rake in the pool” as far as the urban constituencies are concerned. There is only one more bet that can be made in this game. That is the bet to give the vote to the coloured women on the same terms as it is proposed to give it to the European women. Judging by the speech of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and the speeches of other hon. members on the other side of the House, I anticipate that the day will not be too far distant when that bet will be made. When the time comes and the cards are laid on the table, that is the time when the people who started the gamble, namely, the South African party, will recognize that gambling is a snare and a delusion. Then they will recognize that they have sown the wind and have reaped the whirlwind. Then will be the time when the well-known lady who has constantly complained of the fact that her gardener has got the vote while she was without it, will have her pleasure in going to the polls chastened by the fact that she is accompanied by her cook, her kitchen maid and her charwoman, in addition to the gardener and his wife. At this point, the South African party member representing an urban seat will begin to realize how many factories there are employing girls in his constituency. There is a well-known proverb, “Ander man se rieme is breed om te sny”. Riems are cut from a hide, and the broader they are, the stronger they are, but the broader they are, the more you cut from the hide. If, however, a man cuts riems from another man’s hide, then he is more concerned with the breadth of the riem than the loss to the hide. I can foresee at future elections the South African party hide hanging up and the Nationalist party cutting broad riems in the country while Labour cuts broad riems in the towns. It may be asked why I, as a Nationalist, am not willing to snatch at this party political advantage. My answer is, that I have sufficient faith in the principles of the party to which I have the honour to belong, to be firmly convinced that it will continue to flourish without such dangerous expedients. I can assure the South African party that my views upon its unlucky fate are perfectly sincere, although I confess that my reason for airing them is prompted by purely ulterior motives. It is not a genuine concern for their fate that leads me to warn them. If this Bill goes through, I wish to warn the conservative elements on both sides of the House of their fate. We have been told that women vote conservatively and moderately. We were told that by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer), and he advised me to look into the position in countries where women already exercise the vote. I have done so. It is difficult to find how they vote separately, but I will give the total result of the voting. I find that the position in Australia is that the representation there is that Labour holds 32 seats; and Nationalists come second with 29 seats. I find that in Denmark the Social Democratic party, representing mainly the industrial workers, hold 53 seats, while the Liberal party, that is the farmers’ party, comes second with 47 seats. That is in spite of the fact that Denmark has a very large and successful farming industry. In Finland the Social Democrats, who are described as moderate socialists, head the list with 62 members, the Agrarians coming second with 52. In Germany the Social Democratic party, which has a moderate State socialist programme, has 153 members, whereas the National people’s party, representing agrarian and landowning classes, have only 79 members. In the United Kingdom the Labour party has 287 members, and the Conservatives 260, the Liberal party being in the position the South African party will occupy if this measure goes through. In. New Zealand, I find that the Reform party, consisting of the old Conservatives, has 27 members and Labour 19. My explanation of this is that New Zealand is purely an agricultural country and has no gold mines or alluvial diggings.

And no Nationalists.

In Norway I find that the Labour party which is more radical than other Labour parties, and with communistic tendencies, heads the list with 59 members, the Radicals having 30, the Conservatives 29, and the Agrarians 26. In Sweden, the Social Democratic party—a socialist party adhering to the second international—has 90 members against the Conservatives 73. The enfranchisement of women means the downfall of conservatism, and I appeal to hon. members of a conservative trend of mind to look at the matter through the microscope of common-sense, and not through the kaleidoscope of party politics, for, if we persist in looking through the kaleidoscope, we shall eventually come to the bitter realization that the rainbow vision we saw is as false as it is alluring. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) described yesterday’s amendment as “women’s suffrage gone mad.” I would remind him that he whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. If the measure goes through, then I firmly believe that the gods have very definite designs on democracy. I believe if the Bill becomes law that what the Prime Minister said—that “democracy is coming to an end,” and that we are on the eve of the collapse of the parliamentary system—will prove correct. I do not wish to repeat arguments used by me at the second reading, but I believe that with the passing of this Bill democracy is running amok, and the natural end of anyone running amok is destruction. No, sir, in this gamble, the stakes are too high, for we are staking the future of our country, and when the game is ended, in my humble opinion, our moral and material ruination will begin.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser), not only on the eloquent speech he has just made, but also on his speech—which the House so thoroughly enjoyed—on the second reading. I do not think the anti-suffragettes have had a more able and valuable agent than the hon. gentleman, since we lost the right hon. member we all esteemed so highly—the late Mr. J. X. Merriman. I think that the remarks of the hon. member for Senekal this afternoon were not so much directed against the principle of granting votes for women, but the point which made most impression was his analysis of the Bill as it now stands before the House. I am one of those who, like my hon. friend on my left, have supported the granting of votes for women right through their political life. I want to assure the hon. member opposite that many men on this side of the House are in entire agreement with him as to the results of granting the vote to women. I believe quite firmly in the long run that the granting of women’s suffrage in this country, if it is going to be of advantage to any of the parties, is going to be to the advantage of the Labour party, whenever they sink their differences and become a united party. The hon. member cited the cases of countries where women’s suffrage has been granted, and showed how woman has exercised her vote. I am convinced, whether woman had been granted the vote or not, the political aspect of those countries would have been just the same. That is my firm conviction: and I am fully in agreement with my right hon. leader when he says that any hon. member who is looking at the way in which women are going to vote, is taking a tremendous risk. I would not have intervened in this debate had it not been for the speeches of two hon. members from Natal—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) and my esteemed friend the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), and I do not think any hon. gentleman sitting in this House could but help being impressed by the speech the hon. member for Zululand made. He raised questions which have been raised for the first time during the debate. He raised a most knotty and difficult question—the position of the native and of the Asiatic of South Africa. He says, supposing that in the course of the negotiations which are proceeding up stairs, this House should decide that the solution of the native problem is that the natives should take their seats in the House of Parliament, are we prepared, he asked, not only to sit with them ourselves as members, but are we satisfied that our wives and our daughters should also sit alongside of them? Then he carried his argument further, as I understood that the Asiatics will also have similar representation some day in Parliament. The answer that occurs to me is, while there may be great force and great reason in what he contends for, what I would put to my hon. friend is: is not his reasoning not so much a reason for the excluding of women from a seat in this Parliament, or granting her a vote; is it not rather a reason why we should hesitate to grant, under any circumstances, the right of natives sitting in this Parliament? It is not an extreme case, in any case, because if woman is granted the franchise I suppose she will have to vote in provincial council elections, and to-day it is a fact that coloured men have seats in those houses, and there has been, I understand, a native member also. The House cannot burke this question. To my mind, of the arguments raised in the course of this debate as a ground for differentiating, nothing has struck me as more important than the point the hon. member raised. It strikes me at first blush as not a ground for excluding women, but for the exclusion of the coloured and the black. I have the greatest difficulty in voting for the third reading of this measure in the form in which it now comes before this House. Without repeating arguments which have been already advanced, I may say that I am going to vote for the third reading for the reason given by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), because I feel that if this Bill is defeated at the third reading the prospect of women obtaining the vote in this country for a very long time will be very remote. I am so thoroughly a convert to the desirability and the ultimate necessity of granting women the vote that I will take the risk: whatever the consequences may be, I am not prepared to risk the rejection of this measure at a time like this. If, however, the deliberate intention of those who are responsible for the measure had been to make it as difficult as possible for some of us to support it, they could not have presented it to us at this stage in a better form to achieve their purpose. Yet I still say that I am going to vote for it for the reason I have given. The position the measure is going to evolve has not been exaggerated from my point, of view by the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser), but rather than deprive women of the vote, I, coming from Natal, am going to vote for the third reading of this measure.

I rise to say just a few words. I voted with the minority, and that being so, I feel that it is my duty to speak a few words on the third reading. On the second reading I stated my objections to this Bill, and I do not rise now to attack or to criticize hon. members. This is not a matter for party politics. This measure has been introduced as a private Bill, and everyone is entitled freely to express his opinion. I do not look upon this question as a joke, nor do I desire lightly to voice my opinions on this subject, but I feel that in principle I have to oppose the Bill, and, that being so, I must protest now for the last time. I protest not merely on my own behalf, but on behalf of my constituency and on behalf of the party in the Transvaal to which I belong and which is opposed to the Bill. I must say that I deeply deplore the fact that the House is going to cancel the old principle which has always been held high by us. Those principles were noble principles, and we maintained those principles not merely in our political life, but also in our religion and in our domestic life. This Bill is going to wipe out all that, and to me that is not a trivial matter. It is a change which the majority does not wish for, and it is in conflict with the will of the people. It is in conflict with what is laid down in the Bible, and I am not ashamed to say that, for that reason too, I object to it. I hope that hon. members will appreciate the conscientious scruples which members on this side feel. The House is determined to pass this Bill, but I am convinced that it will be wrong. If I were convinced that it would be in the interest of the country and of the people, I would vote for it, but the debate has made it clear to me that there is nothing behind it, and that the only object is that one or another group shall derive a benefit from it. The House has the power to accept measures such as this one, but the House has not got the power to pass them if they are in conflict with the will of the majority of the people without first consulting the people. We have not the right to set aside the principles of the past without there being sound reasons for such action. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has told us that the Bill is the consequence of the spirit of liberty which has been awakened in woman. Woman, however, has never asked for this, and I can assure the House that there are many women who think further than the right hon. the member for Standerton, and who do not want the franchise. There may possibly be a temporary advantage, as claimed by hon. members, but the evil will show itself later on. The religious sense of our people has made us strong, but measures such as this one weaken our people. There is only one party which will secure an advantage if the Bill is passed; that is the party which is most dependent on the towns. It is for that reason that we insist so much that the Bible point of view is being violated. I am not ashamed to say that I desire to place myself on the point of view taken by the Bible, and it is in conflict with the teaching of the Bible to introduce this Bill; for that reason I desire most strongly to protest against the measure. Even if I should live to be a hundred, I would still oppose it. I hope that hon. members who to-day vote for the Bill will carefully consider what they are voting for.

I only wish to say a few words in regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy). I cannot understand how anyone who in principle is opposed to women’s franchise can propose such an amendment as the hon. member for Hoopstad has done. He apparently spoke with the greatest conviction, and when he sat down he must have thought that we had all been convinced, and that we would all vote for the Bill. The hon. member convinced me more than ever that I was right in my attitude against the Bill, he convinced me more than any other member has done. He told us that he had always been opposed to women’s franchise, and that he had voted against it on the second reading, but that he was going to vote for women’s franchise on the third reading, because he knew that it had to come eventually. Is that an argument? He states that if we do not accept it now, the South African party will come, and that it will give the vote to the native woman as well, and then the hon. member tells us that we are helping the South African party.

You are instrumental in helping them.

That is the hon. member’s argument, but does the hon. member, who is opposed to women’s franchise, think that he is not encouraging it now? The hon. member helps to introduce the principle of women’s suffrage. Assuming that the South African party should again come into power—I do not think it will ever happen, but it is possible that a new party may come into existence which eventually may come into power—then they will by means of a majority with the greatest ease be able to give the franchise to the native and coloured women. The hon. member helps them in that direction by voting for the third reading. I want to ask hon. members, who have voted against the second reading, to behave like men and not to run away now. They appear to be getting frightened, and I notice that hon. members on the Opposition benches also appear to be getting frightened. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) stated that women’s suffrage blew over from England. That is so, and it is quite foreign to our country. Hon. members have come here and have cracked jokes, in the same way that five members on our side made jokes here a few years ago, with the result that the Prime Minister has been placed in the position in which he finds himself to-day. It is not too late yet. I once more appeal to the Prime Minister to consult the people. Let such a stipulation be introduced. That would be democratic. This matter is of such importance that we must consult the people. I therefore wish to propose this amendment—

The women too?

I have the fullest confidence in the women. They do not want this.

I wish to repeat what I said this afternoon.

The voice of reaction.

Yes, the hon. member may call me reactionary, but I am one of those who still stand by the old principles of our people, while he stands by the principles which have blown across from England. I shall not allow myself to be put off by remarks coming from that hon. member. I wish to repeat that the hon. member for Hoopstad gave us to understand that he had voted against the second reading of the Bill, but because the principle has now been accepted, he is not going to vote for the third reading. I wish to withdraw a few of my words which I spoke this afternoon, which hon. members may have misunderstood. I always try to avoid hurting hon. members’ feelings, and I consider that we should do everything possible to preserve the good feelings which exist among hon. members. We are opponents now, but when the Bill is passed or rejected this will cease again. If therefore I have said anything to hurt the hon. member’s feelings, I now retract it; yet I want to say again that I do not understand the argument that a man like he, who has voted against the second reading can say that he is going to vote for the third reading because the principle has been adopted. I consider that any member who has voted against the second reading should, if he wishes to be consistent, also vote against the third reading. The argument has been adduced that women’s suffrage will come sooner or later, and that for that reason we should now pass the Bill, because, as hon. members have said, if the other side should some day come into power they are afraid that they will pass women’s suffrage in such a manner that coloured and native women will also get the vote. That argument does not weigh with me. If we now accept the principle of women’s franchise in this House, and the other side should after four or five years come into power again, I do not see why, if they want to do so, they should not be able to give the vote to coloured and native women. What is there to stop them? As an example, I can state that when we came into power we amended certain laws which were not in conformity with our principles.

This is not a party matter.

Yes, but we have heard the argument of the hon. member for Hoopstad, and we have also heard the arguments of other members, and I wish to go into these arguments in detail. I know that this is not a party question, because, if this had been a party question, and if I had received instructions in caucus to vote for it, I would have done so, as I am a faithful member of my party. But it is not a party matter, and, for that reason, I am here to vote as I think fit. As I have said, I cannot follow the arguments, and it is a very unreasonable contention on the part of the hon. member for Hoopstad to say that we who are opposed to the Bill are helping the other side to get the franchise for native women. I am not going to say that it is an unworthy argument, but we have not deserved this, because the hon. member knows as well as I do that we do not want that. One of the hon. members on the other side has stated that if women’s franchise should be defeated again, it will be the end of it. I am in agreement with that hon. member. The hon. member for Hoopstad stated during the second reading that woman and the people of South Africa did not want to have women’s franchise. Let me give the hon. member the assurance that the people of South Africa have been roused by this Bill, and, if it is not adopted, women in the rural districts will organize, and they will not tolerate that the spirit which has blown across from England, as was the case in the past, will take root here. The ladies who go from platform to platform to plead for women’s franchise, will find that there is a strong opposition which they will have to take into account, and it will be the end of women’s franchise. And it will not rest with the women only, but if a man comes forward as a candidate for election, he will have to state clearly whether he is in favour or against women’s franchise. So far as this side is concerned, the great majority of the men are opposed to women’s franchise, and not many members will enter the House who are in favour of women’s franchise. Threats have been made here, but I wish to assure hon. members that I do not propose rendering matters difficult for them because they have spoken in favour of women’s franchise; if any member, however, wishes to enter my constituency with a view to making things difficult for me because I have voted against women’s franchise, I invite him to come; he will be welcome. I am convinced that woman in South Africa does not want the franchise. It has been stated here that organizations have definitely asked for women’s franchise. I admit that that is so, but at the same time I wish to ask whether those organizations really represent the women of South Africa. Does the Women’s National party command a majority in the rural areas or in the Cape Province? We can add those organizations together, and yet they will not have a majority. I do not know whether they represent even one-quarter of the women. Hon. members are so certain that the majority are in favour of women’s franchise. If that is so, I propose moving an amendment shortly to see whether they believe what they say. I do not intend dealing again with the principle, because that has been done in a very able manner by other members, among others by the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser). I congratulate him on his first speech and also on his speech which he has just made here. I admire hon. members on this side who so faithfully support the Prime Minister that they are prepared to vote for this Bill because it has been introduced by the Prime Minister, but there is another side. Everyone of us is sent here by his electors, and we bear the responsibility in the same way as the Prime Minister bears his responsibility. He came here and told us that every member was left free to vote as he thought fit. Everyone can vote in accordance with his conscience. I can understand that those five members on this side who two years ago took up the attitude which has led to these difficulties in which we are to-day, now again assume that attitude, but I cannot understand how other members on this side can justify their attitude. Hon. members must please make it clear why they now vote for women’s suffrage. Have they been converted? And, if so, why? Or do they vote for it just because the Prime Minister has introduced it? I am not playing with this matter. To me the matter is most serious, and everyone here has to realize his responsibility, and has to vote according to his conviction, and must not throw the responsibility on the Prime Minister. What I deplore most in the Bill is that every woman of 21 years of age has to get the franchise. I think hon. members must agree with me that a spirit is becoming dominant in this country which is foreign to our national life. We who are called the old Conservatives worked hard when we were young to leave something for our children when we should be old. That spirit we see gradually dying out in this country. We see a spirit entering from abroad, just like the spirit which stands for women’s franchise, the spirit of living on the fat of the land and of getting out of life all that is possible, and when everything is finished to go to the Government to ask for assistance. That spirit we have to fight. We all deplore that a spirit should become dominant under which young men who have inherited fine farms, for which their fathers have worked hard, should buy beautiful motorcars, live on the fat of the land, and, when they have squandered everything, go to the towns and expect that the state shall support them.

What has that to do with women’s franchise?

It has this to do with it, that this kind of person and this kind of woman will get the vote, and we who have worked hard and possibly intend continuing to work hard, who have lived economically, may be so heavily taxed that we may lose our possessions. I consider that the House will realize the danger of such a position of giving the vote to every woman without insisting on some qualification. I remember that when I was still a young man my member of Parliament, whenever he came to address a meeting, pointed out that every voter had a constitutional duty towards the country; but if everyone walking about the street, even persons not mentally responsible can have a vote, then I ask where is it leading to? We know that the fate of a people may sometimes be decided by a single vote. Are we lightly going to give the vote to everyone irrespective of any qualifications? I am definitely opposed to that, and wish to speak a word of serious warning against it. Hon. members on both sides think that they are going to secure party advantages. Possibly one or other member may think that as a result of this he may be able to retain his seat. I consider that we as representative of the people must not look at matters from that point of view. In the first place we are not here as party men, but as representatives of the people, and I do not wish to see anything placed on our statute book with the object of possibly securing a little party advantage, but which in the end may detrimentally affect my people. We must in the first place guard over the interests of the people, and this kind of legislation will not do us any good in the long run. It would appear to me that the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), for instance, has made this a party matter. He is opposed to the Bill because provision has not been made for coloured women. Does the hon. member possibly feel that if coloured women also had the vote this would strengthen his body of voters? Why otherwise is he so strongly in favour of it? Possibly there are members on this side who may think that they will gain party advantage by women’s suffrage. Yet where are we going to land ourselves if we allow ourselves to be driven by this exaggerated party spirit? Has not the time come to cry a halt there? We cannot allow ourselves to be misled by party spirit in order to do harm to our people. I am not thinking of parties. I am convinced that this Bill will do harm to the South African nation. For that reason I am opposed to it, but I also believe that in the long run there will be only one party which will secure an advantage from it, and that is the Labour party. I can well understand that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is pleased that his amendment was carried last night, but the National party and the South African party will not secure any benefit from it in the long run. I hope that the day may be very far distant yet when the Labour party will be in power in our country. I do not want to see them in power. The only party which I wish to see in power is the National party.

Give us a chance.

You will never again get a chance. Hon. members have said that they are convinced that the majority of the women are in favour of the franchise. I do not believe it, and I shall give them the chance by means of an amendment to prove that they are in earnest in their conviction. I wish to move as an amendment—

The hon. member cannot propose an amendment of that kind.

Do not I get another chance?

The hon. member is too late.

Of course, I accept your ruling, but I should like to point out that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has proposed an amendment to the effect that the electors shall decide. I am speaking of white persons over 21 years of age, and I wish a majority of them to express themselves in favour first of all.

The hon. member can move that the House go back into committee, and he can then move his amendment if the House decides to go back into committee. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) moved an amendment this afternoon which was in order to which the hon. member for Albert can move an amendment if he chooses. Otherwise, as I have said, he must first move that the Bill be referred back to the committee stage.

No, I shall not do that. I am in earnest with this matter, and I do not wish to propose anything which I know will not be accepted. I had thought that my other amendment would be acceptable, viz., to submit the Bill before coming into operation to a referendum of white persons of 21 years and over. While I cannot do that, I propose saying a few words about it.

The hon. member can, as I have said, move an amendment to the amendment already proposed.

Then I move it as an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska.

Not as the hon. member has worded the amendment.

Then I only wish to say that such an amendment will be moved in another place. In this House one talks of a democratic form of government. I am a democrat and hon. members who talk such a lot about democratic principles and a democratic system of government must not agree to force a Bill on the people when the people do not want that Bill.

The hon. member can move to amend certain words in the motion of the hon. member for Prieska. He moves to delete all words after “that” and to insert certain words in their stead that the House must not pass this legislation until by means of a referendum by the white electors a decision in favour of it has been passed.

As an amendment to the amendment—

Then I will move the same amendment with this difference only that I wish the words “white electors” substituted by all white persons of 21 years and over. I am absolutely convinced that the majority of the electors are opposed to the Bill. Hon. members have said here that woman wants the vote. There are women who make propaganda for it, but the woman of the rural areas does not want it. I am convinced that if the white population of the Union is consulted on this matter, an overwhelming majority of 75 per cent, will be opposed to it. If that is done I consider that the Prime Minister will do a great thing by which he will satisfy the people. He is a people’s man and nobody will be able to say that he has forced the franchise on the country. If he does that we shall greatly appreciate it.

I second the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). The principle which he has suggested is one which I raised during the second reading, viz., the principle of a referendum. It is a principle which is not at all new in our parliamentary life. In Natal, in 1909, before Union, we had a referendum as to whether or not Natal would enter the Union. A few years ago the same principle was proposed here in connection with the flag question. The Minister of the Interior raised the matter and he had actually drafted his regulations for a referendum. Now it is argued here that a referendum is too expensive, that it costs too much money If it was not too expensive in connection with the flag question then it cannot be too expensive either in connection with a far-reaching question such as women’s franchise. I particularly wish to refer members opposite to a speech made on a similar question by Mr. Baldwin, the leader of the Conservative party in England. He spoke on the subject of a tax on foodstuffs, also an important question, but not as important as this question. According to the London Times of the 4th of March he said—

Mr. Baldwin naturally is an authority in regard to British parliamentary customs and he considers that a referendum is the best means of deciding an important matter like this, as it will keep the matter outside of party politics, in the same way as the Prime Minister has kept this outside of party politics, and many of the hon. members of the House have done the same. If this amendment is agreed to, its advantage will be twofold. In the first place it will be kept outside of party politics, and in the second place we shall really get to know the opinion of the people. There is a great difference of opinion on this question on both sides of the House. There are those who seriously are of opinion that the majority of the people are in favour of women’s franchise. There are others again who are of opinion that the majority are definitely opposed to women’s franchise.

The majority is in favour of it.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson) probably speaks in all earnestness, but there are other people who think differently. Now we want to ask the Prime Minister really to submit the matter to the people by means of a referendum. Let me say again that I am struck by the fact that the consideration of this Bill does not bring any happiness among ourselves. Hon. members who are brothers of the same convictions and who have heartily co-operated to-day attacked each other and criticized each other. This is a bad omen for the Bill and a bad omen for the results it will have. I hope that my conclusions are wrong, but I fear that the result will be that there will be quarrels, disunion and division among our people.

Will not that be the case in a referendum?

Of course not, because party politics will not crop up, but every man and woman will be able to vote according to conviction. In any case the country will know then whether the majority is in favour or against it. To-day we do not know that, because both sides contend that they have the majority behind them. We as a people are accustomed to submit to the decision of the majority, but let us ascertain first of all on which side the majority is. I fear discord because this question goes into the deepest depths of our national existence, and I do not think anyone dare deny this, it is in the end a sign of feminism, which comes simultaneously with retrogression and degeneration. If we study history, we find for instance the Greek and Roman civilisation went, under and one of the causes, or in any case one of the phenomena of the rot was feminism. We as a young people who are just getting strong cannot stand this. I want to point out how short a while our culture for instance has been in existence. It was in 1906 that Mr. Preller and myself started in the north to write Afrikaans. We wrote plays ourselves and staged them although by doing so we got into conflict with certain friends. Here in the Cape Jannie de Waal started the same movement at about the same time, and the result was that in 1924 we changed our constitution so that Afrikaans became one of our official languages. This is a development which started not twenty years ago. We are a young nation and I do not want us to be vaccinated with the virus of decadence.

What is decadence?

If the hon. member were 20 years older he would notice it in his own body. Although I deplore it, I am convinced that the Bill will be passed, because hon. members opposite have spoken against it, but they only did so so as to be able to explain their position to their coloured and native electors. The Opposition reminds me of a bull which has jumped over a wall into a kraal and found it was the wrong kraal because the colour he wanted was missing, and does not know how to get out again. The gate has, however, been opened to them now by the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). Let us watch; the gate is open, but I am sure they will not go out, because they are only too anxious to remain in the kraal, because they are certain that they will subsequently find the colour there that they want. I act in accordance with the instructions of my constituents when I vote against the Bill. My electors, and I with them, are convinced that this legislation is bad for the people of South Africa, and for that reason I shall vote against the Bill, although I am convinced that it will be passed. I hope that the Prime Minister who has a great love of his people, will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albert and that he will submit the Bill to a referendum, which will be a good thing for our country.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but would you be good enough to let us know what that amendment is?

read the amendment proposed by Mr. Geldenhuys and the amendment to that amendment proposed by Mr. Steytler.

I dislike the form of the Bill, but being both personally in favour of women’s franchise and committed to supporting the enfranchisement of women, I sat here hoping that the House would realize what a muddleheaded Bill this was, and that the hon. the Prime Minister would, in the committee stage, accept such amendments as would permit us to take a straightforward decision on the question of the enfranchisement of women. But that has not happened. I have been disappointed in that hope, and I am thereby prevented from supporting the third reading of this Bill. That being the case, I am compelled to give my reasons for doing so. When the Prime Minister asked for leave to introduce this Bill, those of us who have always been in favour of political equality for women, and have been in touch with the movement for many years, thereby know that women really want it, have known that they have not been asking for the vote so much as a vote as a recognition of their full and equal and civic equality with men. When leave was asked for this Bill to be introduced, we felt that a long overdue recognition of women in South Africa was about to be accorded to them by a practically unanimous House. Perhaps it was foolish to be so optimistic. Perhaps we should have known better and we should have known our Prime Minister better. We know from past experience that the Prime Minister has the peculiar crablike habit of approaching things sideways. He is incapable of handling a perfectly simple matter in a straightforward way.

The hon. member must not make such imputations.

I withdraw. Ail that was required and all that the women of this country desired was a simple Bill removing the sex disqualification from the electoral law of this country. I am referring now purely to European women, since the Bill definitely excludes coloured women from its scope. The Prime Minister has introduced the additional principle of the extension of the adult unqualified franchise. In fact, a pistol was held at the head of those of us who represent the Cape and Natal, and we were told we could have women’s franchise at a price, and the price was that we should agree, in advance, to the principle of the extension of adult franchise to those two provinces. As far as I am concerned, anxious as I am to see women’s enfranchisement on the basis of political equality with men, I am not prepared to pay that price. I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of the women in the Cape would wish me to pay it either. This question of the extension of adult franchise to the other two provinces is a very important question, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it is a question upon which there is room for honest division of opinion among hon. members. It is a question entirely divorced from the question of enfranchisement of women. I feel that the Prime Minister had no right to introduce a separate and important principle like this by what I may call backdoor methods. I hope hon. members who propose to vote for the third reading of this Bill, will realize, when they do so, that they are approving, in principle, of the extension of the adult unqualified franchise not only for women but for men as well in the Cape and Natal.

Is that objectionable?

I think it is. When a Bill is introduced, as it will be in due course, to extend the adult franchise to the Cape and Natal, those members who vote for the third reading of this Bill will be morally bound to give it their support. In other words we are being forced to swallow the pill of adult suffrage with the sugar-coating of women’s suffrage. I certainly cannot swallow it, and I hope it will stick in the throats of the members who do. I feel bound to keep my hands absolutely free to deal with the extension of the franchise when that matter comes up. If the Prime Minister has given us any sound reason for introducing this principle, and had explained that it was absolutely impossible to extend the vote to women except on this basis of adult franchise, then we would have had to consider it very seriously, but—as I understand it—the Prime Minister gave no adequate reasons for his action. The explanation he gave us was that he was not aware that women had asked specifically for the vote on the same basis as men. Perhaps he has not very closely studied the history of this very long agitation. Having given us that explanation he proceeded a little later to oppose an amendment by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) on the grounds that it would place men and women on a different basis, thereby cutting the ground completely from under his own feet. I will refer the Prime Minister to a great authority on women’s suffrage—Mrs. Pethwick Lawrence—who was on a visit here lately from England. She has spent many years of her life fighting for votes for women, and she is a real apostle of the movement. In the course of an interview in Cape Town, referring to the Prime Minister’s measure, she said—

One takes it for granted that the Prime Minister was sincere in introducing the Bill, but it seems to me that this is an example of the well-known fact that people who become converted to a faith late in life are apt to be a serious embarrassment to their new friends by reason of their enthusiasm, and this appears to be a case in point. The fact remains that in his enthusiasm the Prime Minister has introduced a measure which embarrasses the lifelong friends of political equality for women, and is unacceptable to very many of them. Anxious as I am to see women enfranchised, and deeply as I would sympathize with them if they were to remain unenfranchised, I am going to vote against the third reading of this Bill.

I do not think it is necessary to go into all the details again. Hon. members opposite want to use our divisions on this side of the House to attain their own object with this Bill, but I want to say that they are making a mistake about me. I always regarded the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) as a sensible man, but I do not understand him now at all. He is a man who says here that unpleasantness is arising amongst hon. members, but he now wants to arouse that unpleasant feeling throughout the whole country by means of the referendum that has been proposed. The longer we put this matter off, the more unpleasantness it will cause. Is that a good thing? The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said that it was all over with women’s franchise, and that we were now rejecting the Bill. How he can prove that, I would like to see. Take the whole history of women’s franchise in this House. We have rejected it on previous occasions, but was it dead? Now we are not even going to reject it, but we are going to put it off as the hon. member suggests by his amendment, and will it be dead? Is it necessary to create an upheaval right through the country, which undoubtedly will take place if we delay any longer with the matter? The hon. member acknowledges that unpleasantness exists, and I want to tell him that the longer we dilly-dally with this matter the worse this unpleasantness will become. He asked if I did not say that 75 per cent, of the countryside was against the Bill. Yes, I did say so, and I also said that I was against women’s franchise. I still stand by that, but I also want to tell my hon. friend that my electors have not sent a marionette to Parliament. What do we call those dolls that one presses on the stomach and it makes them talk? I think they are ventriloquists. I have not been pumped up by my electors, and put into this House to lie in a certain way and to conduct myself in a certain manner. They put the duty on me of using my brains, and I am man enough to go and explain my policy to my constituents, and to discuss it with them. I should not have risen to speak if the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) had not made an attack on the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy). The hon. member for Hoopstad said that he would vote for the Bill on the third reading, because he knew that the Opposition would vote against it, in order to have the chance to introduce a Bill later to grant the vote to the native and coloured women as well. The hon. member for Albert now asks: What will stop the Opposition if they get into power, from granting the franchise to the native and coloured women, even if this Bill is passed? Is there a white Government in South Africa which, if this Bill is passed, would introduce a special Bill to give the franchise to the native and coloured women? Will my friends opposite dare to do so? They will not; that is why they have not dared to move an amendment on those lines in the committee stage. It has purely appeared from the debate on the second reading in committee, and again now, that they want to give the vote to the native and coloured women. They have not, however, ventured to propose it, because they knew that they had reaped sour grapes in the Transvaal election. They are now, however, voting against the third reading, because they want to introduce that principle. I ask my friends opposite whether, when this Bill is on the statute book, there will be a party in South Africa who will dare to introduce a Bill to give the vote to native and coloured women in the same way as this Bill gives it to white women? But if my hon. friends opposite get the opportunity of introducing a Bill of this kind, then they will, indeed, introduce that principle into it. An hon. member pointed out that the Prime Minister was also giving the vote to the coloured women. It is true that he said so, but not with the same qualifications as the white women. Are they ready to give the vote to the white and the coloured women without distinction? The Prime Minister clearly said that he was going to fix other qualifications, and not the same as those for the white women. Hon. members opposite look a little unhappy about the members who are now going to vote for the third reading. Hon. members who are not doing so are very great heroes, but I want to ask whether it is heroic when a man who is doomed to destruction says: I will show how well I can shoot; let them come and shoot me. I say the courageous man’s duty lies in this, that when he cannot attain his object, he then makes the best of a bad job. My hon. friends now want to kill the Bill with the help of the Opposition, but they forget that it is their opponents that they want to help in this way. I fought against the second reading to kill the Bill, because I was against the principle, but let hon. members ask the Opposition who are now voting with them, whether they agree with them in principle. I want to point out to hon. members that when one is in the minority, and is going to lose, he must not work with the opponent of his principles. Hon. members are going to vote with people who do not agree with them in principle, although they well know what the object of the Opposition is. I have always been opposed, on principle, to women’s franchise, but it has appeared during this debate that hon. members opposite are, in principle, in favour of women’s franchise, but that they now want to use our hon. friends on this side to attain their object. Hon. members must not think that if they kill the Bill that that will be the end of it. Then hon. members opposite who agree with them will have achieved their object, inasmuch as I have seen what their object is I cannot agree with them. The Opposition did not venture, during the committee stage, to propose a proper amendment, because they were too frightened. I want to warn hon. members who are so much against the Bill that they are being used by the Opposition to attain their object. I shall vote for the third reading, as they are voting against it, because otherwise they will be enabled to attain certain things that I do not want them to attain to, and which they will introduce when they have the opportunity. I take full responsibility in voting in favour of the third reading. The hon. member for Ladysmith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) asked, this afternoon, why the Prime Minister did not introduce the Bill as a Government measure. Is the hon. member such a stranger that he does not know the history of the Bill? Does he not know that I, and other hon. members of the party, prevented that, because as a party we were not agreed upon the measure, and because the Prime Minister is not an autocrat, he did not introduce it as a party measure. In principle I am opposed to women’s franchise because I think she will have to do humiliating things, but I am convinced that the women of South Africa have quite enough wisdom to have the vote. The hon. member for Ladysmith said that the women did not have enough sense.

I did not say that.

The hon. member did say so.

On a point of explanation, I just want to make it plain—

Will the hon. member defer?

Yes.

I said that the brains of the woman were not equal to those of the man, and that she was not able to act as the equal of the man in the government of the country.

Accordingly, that she has not enough sense to vote. I want absolutely to deny that. If I had listened to my wife’s advice more, I should often have done much better. I said at the second reading why I voted against it, namely, because I thought it would bring the women into difficulties. Our women will know quite well how to vote properly. Of two evils, however, I want to choose the lesser. The hon. member for Albert has apparently never yet thought fully about the matter. He has allowed himself to be led by sentiment, because otherwise he would realize the danger of the greater evil if he now votes against the Bill and it subsequently came before the House in quite a different form. I voted against the second reading, and take full responsibility for it. I vote for the third reading, and take full responsibility. I think we ought here to use our sound commonsense, and if my electors do not have that confidence in me, then I amount to nothing in this House. We must do the best for our country according to our ability.

I am impelled to enter into this debate in the hope that I may be able to influence members for the Peninsula to vote on the opposite side of the House to that which they occupied on the second reading, those members who voted against the Bill. If I cannot in fluence them, I hope I may be able to interest them. In a measure such as this, where one has to choose between alternatives, it is a difficult matter. It is said to be an easy matter to choose between right and wrong, but it is difficult to choose between two rights. I am prepared to support this Bill. I would feel that I would be placing myself in a very invidious position if I were to undertake to make my vote possibly the determining factor in keeping European women off the electoral roll of this country. I am not prepared to assume that responsibility. I ask those colleagues of mine to whom I have referred to consider whether they can assume that responsibility. The arguments in favour of supporting this Bill have been forcibly put by leading members on this side of the House. Since then, one of the most sincere speeches against the Bill has been the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). He placed every possible obstacle in the way of members supporting the Bill. In the early part of his speech, he built up a fairly large obstacle, and that, in the main, meant that the conditions of South Africa with the coloured and native problem before us, are such that we should be very cautious as to whom we place upon the electoral roll. Thereupon he erected other obstacles in the path of this Bill, but, in doing so, his arguments cancelled one another, for he built up the other obstacles from the material of which he constructed his first obstacle. At the conclusion of his speech I found that he had cancelled every argument, almost, that he had used against the Bill. Let there be no mistake. This measure is fraught with many difficulties when considered from various aspects, but, in the words of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the main principle before the House is the enfranchisement of women. I do not accept the statement that the women of South Africa are entirely opposed to getting the vote unless they get it on identically the same conditions as men. The women in South Africa are not in a position to appreciate the effect of the removal of sex disqualification. The removal of sex disqualification will not place very many women in South Africa, other than in the provinces of the Transvaal and Free State, upon the electoral roll. The majority of married women are married in community of property. Outside the Free State and Transvaal they are not the owners of immovable property, and the removal of the sex disqualification does not automatically place them on the same footing as men. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) said that this Bill was going to place upon the electoral roll in the Cape Province particularly many more women than men. I do not think so. The hon. member arrived at his conclusion by wrong premises. Logic is a thing we ought seriously to consider. One must be perfectly sure that one’s premises are correct. Otherwise, one’s deductions are entirely wrong. The hon. member takes the electoral roll in the Cape to-day and compared it with the European census figures of the male adults in the Cape Province, and because there happens to be 20,000 less male adults on the roll than appear on the census, he estimates that 20,000 do not possess the qualifications entitling them to be on the roll.

On a point of order and personal explanation, the hon. member disputes my figures, in which I state that the men’s votes would be swamped by the women. He suggests that I got them from the census bock, I may state that my figure of 20,000 men being kept off the register in the Cape and Natal, due to lack of qualification, I got from the official year book. But the figure I gave in my second reading speech where I showed that apart from the above the total figures for the Union make it clear that if this Bill goes through there will be 10,000 more women voters than men in the Union as a whole. The statistics I gave in this matter I got from the Government department concerned and can be taken as correct.

It does not do anything more than reinforce what I have said. The hon. member said one of his objections is that there are 20,000 less Europeans on the voters’ roll than ought to be there, and he assumed in his speech this afternoon that they were not there because they do not possess the qualifications prescribed by law. The greatest difficulty in the way of registration is to get men registered, and by far the greater majority of these 20,000 are not there, not because they have not the qualifications but they have not the initiative to see that they are on the voters’ roll. In the Free State there is a small percentage of something like 6½ per cent, who are not on the voters’ roll. One does not assume that they are off the roll because they have not the qualification because there is no qualification, except that they must see that they are-on the roll or some party organization or the canvassers must see that they are there. There is bound to be a percentage of people qualified to vote who will not be on the roll. There will be just as large a percentage of women who will find themselves off the voters’ roll because they have not the initiative to see that their names are on it. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) spoke this evening—he made an impassioned speech— and he certainly spoke sincerely; but he is using an endeavour to convince members of the House by pointing out that there is no qualification for Cape voters; he has pointed to every anomaly possible to influence hon. members against supporting this measure. If the hon. member had his way, would be prepared to support the measure? If the hon. member is against it one can appreciate his convictions; but he is introducing every subtlety—

So are you.

I am not introducing any anomalies to raise a doubt in members’ minds. Hon. members should appreciate what they are doing. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) has told us he is opposing this Bill—that if he supported it he would be supporting a principle which presupposes universal adult suffrage in the Cape Province. It may be; I am not prepared to discuss it, but he says by supporting this measure he would be supporting the enfranchisement of women in a more liberal fashion than men themselves enjoy the franchise. That is an anomaly of our electoral system; but the hon. member must not be wilfully blind to the fact that, in opposing the measure he is opposing a principle which he says he has supported for many years past.

[Inaudible.]

All I can say is the hon. member is going to record his vote in an extraordinary way to support the measure. Here is the hon. member for Wynberg who is opposed to the Bill because it is too liberal. The hon. member cannot be opposed to the measure because it is not enfranchising coloured women. If he opposes it at the third reading it must be on account of the too liberal provisions. The hon. member may say there are anomalies, but they are only anomalies which are too liberal anomalies. A too liberal measure may also be unfair, but do not let us lose sight of fundamental principles. The hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Bredasdorp are both opposed to this Bill at the third reading because it is too liberal. But where is the hon. member for Prieska and the Minister for Agriculture; why is he opposing it? Not because it is too liberal, but because he is fundamentally opposed to the measure. He will not have women get the vote under any conditions whatever. And hon. members who oppose this measure will find themselves sitting side by side with people who have reached the same conclusion by widely different routes. I am prepared to support the Bill and I invite the attention of hon. members to consider seriously that if this measure is defeated—I hope it will not be—it will be defeated by the enthusiasts of women’s enfranchisement because it is granting them too liberal a measure of enfranchisement.

As one of the members who openly stated that I was in favour of women’s franchise even before the last election, I should be allowed to say a few words. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) knows that I expressed myself in favour of it, and that that was one of the reasons why I am here. That hon. member and I are sometimes inclined to start an attack forcefully and violently. He did so in his speech this afternoon, and I was glad to see that after dinner he adopted a milder tone. I expected that in connection with the debate on this Bill there would be a change in the voting between the motions for the second and the third reading, and it is accordingly surprising that the hon. member for Albert should have so severely attacked hon. members on this side of the House who are going to vote differently on the third reading to what they did on the second reading, but that he left it to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) to deal with hon. members opposite who have turned round and are now going to vote differently. It has been said that the principle of a referendum must be introduced. We have not yet had it in our country. If we resort to that, then it will go much further than the matter has so far gone. The hon. member for Albert will go and make propaganda for his point of view. Other hon. members will do the same, and there will be great dissension in the country. We know that a referendum was proposed once, but if it was such a good thing why was it not carried through? We shall find that the practice will develop of people every now and then saying that the people are not in favour of a measure, and that a referendum ought to be held. Our state institutions do not contemplate a referendum. We have the party system here, and we must act in accordance with it. When the women were given higher education it was said that those who got it would not be good mothers, and that it would cause a diminution of the courtesy of men towards them. She enjoys that education to-day, and has it made her a worse mother? She is just as good a mother and wife. No, it has aided those women. Women have to work to-day to earn their living before they get their own homes, but does that fact make her a less good housewife? No. We hear it said so often here that the wife must be a helpmeet to the husband. It starts owing to the sister helping the brother. The wife is the helper of the husband. Everywhere the women help the men, but when we come to the council chambers of the nation then suddenly she can no longer be the help of the man. If the mother is efficient in the home, and in the social life of the people, why can she not be a light and a support to the man in the council chambers of the nation?

You belong in the kitchen.

If the hon. member in his remark exhibited the delicate breeding of women it would befit him more. Thanks to the six years’ experience that I had as an old bachelor on the farm, I could prepare an excellent meal for him, and on that account I am not a worse member of Parliament. As a supporter of women’s franchise I have often been at our women’s congresses, and I must say it was an inspiration to us and an example to us men. The whole vocation of the woman appeared there, her vocation to look after the home, the child to look after the health of the nation. We know how women in history have helped the men, how they assisted in bringing up the muzzle-loaders, and made the bullets. I went through the election lame and incapacitated, but the women helped me, and the eve of the election when we went to the place where the women were gathered together, we were once more struck by the example of the women. They were collected after the old voortrekker style, and when we came in they were kneeling in prayer to God, and invoked the help of the Almighty in the election; they prayed that if they were to suffer defeat they might bear it in a manly and courageous manner. The next day when we went to the poll we found the women there, and they were doing the hardest work. The Prime Minister was in one part of the division and the Minister of Finance in another, and I think they will agree that the women there had the most difficult part. Those are the women who instructed me to support the Prime Minister, and I say that these are not the masculine women, of whom some hon. members have spoken so contemptuously. I hope the men will see that the mothers who by great sacrifices are bringing up the progeny of the country, the mothers who often have to bear great responsibility, have the right to earn that right of exercising their vote. I have, therefore, said these few words to show why I am in favour of women’s franchise.

The hon. member who spoke before me said that the women have the right of joining with us in bearing the burden. I have taken up the attitude from the start that they ought not to bear the burden, and that they do not ask to bear it. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) often told the House that we should not do anything for, or give people anything before we know, first of all, whether they want it or not. We proposed to, first of all, ask the women whether they wanted it, and if my hon. friends can prove to us that the majority of the women want it our Opposition will cease. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has once more proposed first of all to ask the women whether they want the franchise. If then the majority of them are in favour of it my conscience is clear. I say, however, that the mothers do not want it, but we must have a chance of finding it out. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) said that he had instruction to vote against it, but that he was going to vote in favour of it. What then becomes of the argument if hon. members are voting in favour of it because the majority of the constituents want it. I sympathise with the hon. members for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) and the hon. member here. They are in a sad way. They say that they are now going to vote in favour of the third reading because they see that it is coming. Then they say also that if it does not come now it will come in a worse way. Did not the same argument apply before the second reading? The hon. member for Hoopstad said that the women of Hoopstad told him that he in his great wisdom had better decide, and that they would be satisfied. How the hon. member apparently wants to satisfy them by voting once for and once against the principle. It is a deplorable state of affairs. Now it is argued by some of the hon. members that the members on the other side are in just as bad a way and are also voting differently on the second and third readings. I just want to point out that the hon. members opposite are not in quite so deplorable a position. They said that they hoped amendments would be made, because otherwise they could not go further. They, therefore, have a kind of excuse. I wonder, however, what will happen to hon. members here in their constituencies.

They will do very well.

Perhaps with the influence of the Prime Minister if he will give it. I will go and help them in the Transvaal too, notwithstanding the fact that they are voting so wrongly. I hope that we shall still pass an amendment to test the views of the women.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer) because he has anyhow made one convert, viz., the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg), who was a great opponent of women’s franchise, and expressed himself as such in his own constituency, who voted against the second reading, but has not been converted after the speech of the hon. member for Victoria West. If the matter was not so serious we could regard it as a farce which we had seen played in the House. There are hon. members who treat the matter in a light-hearted way. It looks as if the principle was being abandoned, and things were being done opportunistically. I read, to my regret, in one of the English newspapers of Cape Town a few days ago the following article. I do not guarantee truth, but it runs as follows—

It is very painful for me to hear of political smousing, as we had to hear here, but it is much more painful if we have to see it in respect of such a serious matter as that now being debated by the House. Why was it necessary for this Bill to be introduced in its present form? Why had the amendments of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and Hopetown (Dr. Stals) to be rejected? I am certain that if the native question had first been disposed of and a solution found for the coloured franchise in the Cape, then the Bill, as it came before the House, would have been in a different form than it is in now. This shows that the matter is not being treated merely on its merits, and on principle, but that all kinds of incidental matters of a party political kind have exercised their influence. Why, e.g., was Clause I ever put into the form in which it is? As it stands, it means that every white woman above 21 years will have the vote. Is that with the object of making the franchise as wide as possible, and why then does it go so far? Is it to give the people as much representation in Parliament as possible? The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that it is a democratic principle to get as much representation as possible. A complete representation of the people is never possible if we are going to grant the franchise what is proposed in this Bill. In the first place we have no representation of the people, because a nation is an organism, and not a mass of individuals. The nation is an organism which is built up on the family, and if we give the individual men and women the vote then there still remains the large majority of the people who have no representations because the children are not represented. The girl or woman who goes to the poll will only represent herself. It is a wrong system to give the vote to all women over 21 years, and then to think that everybody is represented. The Bill we are now passing does not apply only to the present, but also for the future, and we can pass a law of which our children in 20 years will realize the effects much more than we do to-day. The children, therefore, already have a great interest in our legislation, and the child, according to the Bill, will remain unrepresented. If, however, we, as I argued during the second reading debate, were to give the vote to the father of the family, then it includes the wife and children. Then we shall really have national representation, and then we can extend our franchise as far as possible. The people are not, as Da Costa said, a number of souls on a piece of ground. There are, of course, economically self-dependent people who do not come under the family, and, therefore, I made it plain that it would be possible to give them one vote, and two votes to the head of the family. If it is said that the object of the Bill is to give the woman over 21. as far as possible equal rights with the man, it seems to me that we have gone from one extereme to the other. First of all, we said in our country that the women had nothing to say, and then we give her more rights than the man. Clause 1, e.g., gives the woman a far greater say at the poll than the man. Clause 2, which deals with incapacities expressly says that a woman when she has been convicted of a crime may be registered as a voter after three years. The man in the Cape Province can only get permission to be registered after five years. Here, too, the Bill is more favourable to women than of men. Meanwhile I want to point out that it is doubtful whether this policy of placing the women on an equality with the men can be justified from a religious point of view. The hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) pointed out that no one could point out on religious grounds that women’s franchise was wrong. I think it would be very foolish for any hon. member to quote a text and thereby to prove that the fact of a woman making a cross should be condemned, or approved of. At that time there was no constitutional Government. But principles are concerned in the matter on which the scriptures can express a proper opinion. If the scriptures, e.g., expressly say in a certain context that the man is the head of the wife, then hon. members will find it difficult to defend the proposition that the wife is the equal of the husband. I want, e.g., to point out that in Clause 4 the women is put so far as passive franchise is concerned on an equality with a man because it is said there that the woman is not on account of her six or marriage disqualified from being nominated or elected as a senator, member of Parliament, or member of the provincial council, or of sitting and voting as such. Now there may be hon. members who rely on Deborah, but she is an exception in holy writ, and the exceptions prove the rule. No one makes a general rule from exceptions. Authority always rested with the man in the old and the new Testament, and not with the woman, but in the meantime I want to point out that that political equality gives rise to the cry for social equality by the woman with the man. I do not want to enlarge on this, but I just want to quote an example to show what that kind of social equality will end in. I read from the Cape Times of the 31st March—

There we see that the woman, where in England there were still in some of those institutions the good customs for protecting the woman herself for preventing them going out at night without a man, who now want full equality, so that they can now run about London’s streets at night without male escort. That is what feminism is leading to in England, and I say that that kind of thing leads to absurdities. It will certainly be a very nice thing if, as a result of that view of social equality, we subsequently progress so far that we have women police as in Germany and America. In America the system has extended so far that the women police held a large congress two years ago of the International Association of Women Police. They are organized. In the meantime we are playing with a principle which may have tremendous consequences. As a result of this conception of political, social and, I almost said, military equality, we find from the woman’s publication, Women of Today, that a woman, Agripina, in Mexico has assumed the title of colonel. She is followed by 150 men; she rose against the Government, stormed a farm, captured 30 horses, and then went to another farm where troops pursued her. This is the kind of spirit which is set going by political equality.

Have they the franchise there?

No, it has nothing to do with franchise, but with the equalization of the women which follows on it Will that spirit of feminism which takes the woman out of her place be advantageous to family life? The Prime Minister in his reply to the motion to the second reading said that I referred to feminism. He said that it existed in South Africa before women’s franchise. I admit that it existed in South Africa and particularly in France before the women’s franchise. But because feminism is in existence are we to help it on? Are we then in South Africa to give the vote to the women who may go and carry that feminism further? Let me here quote something from the book “Schrift en Historie” about this spirit of feminism. We find on pages 123-124—

Just as we hear it in our country. I read on—

That spirit of equality is thus going to have a pernicious influence on the home life, and in that way an effect on the children. Let me give an instance of bow feminism and this equality draws the women away from their calling. In the “Life and Labour Bulletin” of January, 1928, Miss Herstein writes about the Chalutzahs in Palestine, the land of the Bible. They are pioneers there, and come chiefly from Russia, where feminism is most highly developed of all countries in the world. She says that there are permanent agricultural colonies where women who have children work. The children are looked after by the community. Miss Herstein writes—

For the woman to look after the children that feminism will not hear of. The article goes further—

Yes, those things which are becoming in the home life will disappear with it. It will not come about at once, but if we adopt this principle of equality then that sort of thing will, more and more, reveal itself in our national life. That is the thing we are afraid of, and therefore I am sorry that a tremendous principle like this should be debated as an opportunistic measure. Sometimes from the point of view of who will get the most political advantage from it. I want to admit that we will not get all those excesses at once, but how a person with Calvinistic principles, which a large section of our people still hold, can vote for a principle like that contained in this Bill passes my comprehension. During the debate on the second reading I pointed out how the movement for women’s franchise first started in France, and that it was born out of the revolutionary principle. In Russia to-day we get a resurrection of the principles which existed in France before 1789. In the book “Kultuur en Wetenschap in het Nieuwe Rusland” we read—

And those politically equalized women meet in conferences. I read of such a conference—

I read further—

The women of Russia are the most advanced in feminist matters, and they have got so far as to say that they will work for world revolution. That is the kind of spirit which is behind this matter, the spirit of the French revolution is again raising its head in Russia. It is said that women will have a good influence on political life, but here they are striving after world revolution. The so-called equality and freedom are the introduction to such things. They will not immediately happen in South Africa. We have a Christian national life here, and that spirit will not soon penetrate into the Christian woman, but we must not forget that there are already women in South Africa who are inspired with exactly the same spirit as the feminists in Europe and other countries. They do not only want freedom, but lawlessness. What is the position of family life in Russia? Let me quote a little from a new book “The Riddle of Russia,” published in 1929—

Then the writer, who was there herself, says—

The writer, Ashmead-Bartlett, says further—

That is the position in a country where the women have full political rights, but are more and more losing the true womanly and home life. Must we take that road? I am not in the least surprised that Dearing War, herself a woman, complains in “The Forum” of last November—

She then says—

She therefore says that women have of themselves caused the degradation of woman.

Shame !

The hon. member will yet call out shame in future when he remembers that he has been partly responsible for this step. Let me assure the hon. member that I do not think that we shall soon have the conditions here described in South Africa, possibly the cost in connection with this matter will be the same as with the old minister in Scotland, who got old without ever marrying. When he eventually was about to marry, a friend of his who knew the bride said: “Yes, perhaps he will find out that the wooing of her was sweeter than the having of her.” I fear that the women also will learn that there was more fun in striving after this thing than in possesing it. A farmer’s wife says in Ons Vaderland that the Nationalist women do not want the franchise, and she continues—

This is only one typical example of what the women say. A letter appeared in Die Burger about a meeting of the Nationalist women at Swellendam, who, according to the letter, sent a telegram to the Prime Minster promising him their support. The fact is that the Dutch Reformed Church there has 2,024 members. The Nationalist Women’s party has between 50 and 60 members. The position was that at the meeting where the resolution was taken there were only eight members present, and they were not even all in favour of women’s franchise. The same possibly happens in other cases. South Africa will not go under if the women’s franchise is granted, but we shall gradually follow the road of other countries that have adopted women’s franchise. Let the economically independent women who agitate so much be treated as exceptions, as I suggested at the second reading. Women who have a responsibility of their own are in a somewhat different position, but do not, owing to their agitation, build up a system of women’s franchise which will attack the basis of our social and family life and injure them, and which have no right of existence politically.

Allow me to say just a few words. I have listened attentively to the debate, and am astonished about hon. members opposite who apparently were in favour of the Bill because their leader said that they were not in favour of the Bill in its present form, but that half a loaf was better than no bread. Other hon. members thereafter made objections. The first objection came from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who thinks that the women who get assistance from one or other public funds ought not to have the right to vote. Where a woman gets assistance and has to educate her children she must not have the vote, and that argument comes from a party who always says that they do much for the poor section of the public. One of the hon. members had recently to say at a native meeting that the franchise was the greatest possession they had on earth. When they want the poor people’s vote then they are in favour of them, but when the people are to get the franchise, then they are opposed to it. Then hon. members say that they object to the men having to be qualified and not the women, but hon. members know that it is the simplest thing in the world to comply with the required qualifications. It practically amounts to nothing, and it therefore cannot be a great objection. Hon. members further objected because, according to them, the women had not asked for the franchise. Let me say that there are many more women who asked for it, than who said they did not want it. I have here various telegrams and petitions from influential women of both parties who asked me to support the Bill, because they want the vote. Hon. members will possibly ask why the women’s organization during past years has no longer asked for the franchise. It is because the Prime Minister gave the assurance that they would get it when certain things were put right. They trusted the Prime Minister, and therefore they did not press for it again. In 1929 the women held an important congress at the Paarl. I had the honour of addressing them, and advised them no longer to press for the franchise, but to leave the matter in the Prime Minister’s hands. They followed my advice, and did not ask for it again, but otherwise they certainly would have done so. Was there ever a woman’s organization that said they did not want it? No, and I shall, therefore, vote in favour of the Bill.

This debate has lasted a very long time, and the matter has been dealt with from all possible points of view. The pros and cons have been fully discussed, and I do not think it will be possible to raise any new consideration. I, therefore, do not believe, from whatever side we regard the matter, that any hon. member can say that the Bill has been insufficiently debated.

I think we are all glad that we have reached the end. I am convinced that if we went on a few days more it would not be necessary for those who want to establish a new party to go outside the House. And then there are still those among us who want a referendum, I should like to know from those hon. friends when the referendum is over how many hon. members of the Nationalist party there will be left, and not only of our party, but also of the party opposite. If there is one thing that must have convinced us of the stupidity of a referendum then it was the debate that took place this afternoon, and the spirit in which the whole matter was discussed. One might almost later on towards the end of the debate have thought that we were receiving a lesson from Ministers in religious instruction. One thing is very clear to me, and that is that if we do not now put an end to the matter, and as soon as possible then the people will compel us to make a party question of it, and then new parties will arise. Those who stand so fixedly to their principles, and who differ from me cannot possibly vote with me. Much has been said here about logic and principles. Good heavens, I know the sacred word “logic,” I know that there is in logic what in our young days we called “formal logic,” but I also know that there is a material logic. My hon. friend talks so much about logic. It is clear that he spoke from the point of view of formal logic, which in practical life is valueless. That logic certainly did not save us with regard to the natives. It is logic that has made us prohibit coloured people from getting liquor, although it is permissible to Europeans. I need not go on to give examples, but I just want to say that that reasoning cannot lead to anything. It may be used as an instrument of conjecture, and then a philosophic argument can be based on it, but fortunately we are not philosophers here but must keep count of practical life, and look practical life in the face, and act according to the demands of practical life. The hon. member for Edenburg (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) spoke about principles. May I ask him what principle? If he talks of a religious principle then I bow to him. If he says that the words in the Bible that the man shall be the head must necessarily have the meaning that he gives to them I can understand it, but at the same time I say that I differ from him, and that is why I think that he is wrong. As for the principle we as men concerned with practical life have only to do with one principle, and that is the interests of the country. I do not here want to enter upon religious principles, but we have here to look after the interests of the country, and how we can advance them. Then the simple question for us here is what our experience, what our common sense, tells us: We must ask ourselves whether the woman is to get the franchise or not. I have not the least doubt that we must answer that in the affirmative. We cannot go and withdraw to-day and say that the women shall merely theoretically get the franchise. Now there are hon. friends opposite who say that the provisions are not acceptable to them. I said at the start that I had never yet undertaken to introduce a Bill which will contain a doctrine or proposition or principles which my political opponents on the other side can respect. Then I should have acted foolishly; they would have acted just as foolishly if they came and asked me what suited the Nationalists best. As practical men it is mere nonsense to say that we can have a draft which will completely satisfy all. This draft is reasonable. We can be satisfied with it, and also hon. members opposite who want to be reasonable. When I drafted the Bill I asked myself what, according to the principles for which I stand, I ought to do. I kept in mind that the Bill must be reasonable. The fact has been complained of that the amendments moved by the Opposition embrace something not included in the Bill. The hon. members will remember that just because I was strongly opposed to a similar clause which at that time was included in the Bill, I made an appeal to the House, and said that we on our side could not possibly pass the Bill with such a provision. In this Bill I have done nothing but follow the principle which I defended at that time. I said that we could not permit a large number of women in our country who had deserved the franchise just as much as other women to be excluded. The native question was then pending, and I then made an appeal to the House. I say, therefore, we must expect that if the matter is to be left to the opposite side of the House then they will again introduce a Bill like that of 1928. I can only hope that they will not go further, and they will have every right of going further according to their principles. It has been said here to-night that the women do not want the franchise. Are there any hon. members who spoke like that who can produce facts in support of their statements? I want to speak here of the Free State; I have had about seven telegrams and letters against the Bill, but about a hundred in favour of it. Let me say at once that the largest number of them were from the Cane Province, and I want to quote two from the Free State, the first is from the Women’s Nationalist party of Edenburg, who sent the following telegram to me—

Then I want to read a second from the whole of the Free State, viz., from the Women’s Nationalist party of the Free State. It reads—

Hon. members will come here and say that the women of South Africa are against women’s franchise, and she will be against it because she is always loyal as long as her leader in the district is against it. If I wanted it then I would get the women of the country to give us loyal support if we wanted to oppose the Bill. We have no right to make too much of the consequence which it is said will follow the granting of this measure. I do not want to speak at length, but I just want to mention a few more thoughts. I have already pointed out what results a referendum would have. The spirit which has begun to establish itself here to-night to such an extent will be spread throughout the country, and we shall very soon find that there is a spirit of insurrection and of discord in the country. Why a referendum? We have long been dealing with this matter, how many years? Has the public felt so strongly about it that they have organized against it? What took place before the last election? The South African party issued a statement of policy, the so-called “fighting programme,” and the third principle on it said, “Franchise reform—enfranchisement for women.” I quote this to show that it is a matter that was brought before the public and not only by the South African party but also through the promise that I made in the House. What is more I do not know from how many platforms I said that I would fulfil my promise to introduce a Bill into the House.

Not in these terms.

Without mentioning any terms. Does my hon. friend think that that is a reason for saying that we must reject this Bill. Is he opposed to it in principle?

Yes.

But then things appear to be very strange in the South African party. On the 13th December, 1928, they solemnly adopted this “fighting programme” at their Pretoria Congress in favour of women’s franchise., I should have thought that the whole South African party were consequently in favour of it.

Is there not the same difference in your party?

Of course, but with us it has never yet been a party principle. You, however, went to the election with women’s franchise as one of your principles, and the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) probably also availed himself of it during the election.

I made my position clear to my constituency.

That is right towards his electors, and the hon. member for Mowbray is therefore correct towards his constituency, but how does he stand with respect to the party he belongs to, and which has adopted women’s franchise as one of its party principles? Some hon. members who voted against the Bill say that they must run away to-night because they have not got everything they wanted. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) e.g., has adopted that attitude.

Do you again want to make party capital out of it?

No, but my hon. friend stated here that he was in favour of the Bill, but that he was now going to abstain from voting, and as a reason it is said that that amendment was not passed. I just want to ask him if that is not a proof that he is running away from the principle.

I was always against it.

Then I withdraw all I said in connection with it, but then he is in the same position as the hon. member for Mowbray. As against his electors he has a clear conscience, but it is different with regard to his party. But now the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) voted for the second reading, and he intended voting for the third reading, but now that amendment has not been passed, and he cannot vote for it. That is a clear proof that those hon. members who talk like that put the small benefit that can be got from that amendment above the cause itself. I am not finding fault with those who, notwithstanding the rejection of the amendment, still stand by the attitude they took up at the second reading, but I just want to show that those members cannot now say that they do not want the Bill to be treated from a party point of view, and at the same time when they cannot get their way on some amendment or other run away from their principles.

Must we then vote for any measure in the form you put it?

No, you need not vote at all, you have the fullest right of saying that you will not agree to it, but then it must not be said that I must not make a party matter of it, because you in that way are making a party matter of it. What amendment then was proposed? Only the amendment that has been rejected on which hon. members rely, and which says nothing else than merely this that of the women who are going to get the franchise, some ought not to have got it. Hon. members seem so concerned about it, but I cannot believe that they are serious, and we must come to the conclusion that the motives of hon. members must be of a party political nature.

Most hon. members on your side voted in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley).

Of course, I say the same of members on this side. They must not come to me with the statement that on account of the rejection of the amendment they cannot vote for the Bill. There are certain reasons and it is not necessary to expose them, but they ought to admit it. That is all I want. I do not want to go into it further, and just want to say in general that I still feel precisely the same as in the beginning, viz., that we have reached the point in the history of South Africa where we must decide this matter. I do not want to make a party matter of it, but it will no longer be possible after the debate that has taken place and if the Bill does not pass then neither the Nationalist party nor the South African party will be able to remain master of the situation. If we do not come to a definitive attitude then the public will take it out of our hands and say that something must be done. Then I say once more that as sensible men we must use our commonsense a little. We know that in the past there has been considerable prejudice, and that, to a great extent, it is still prejudice that exists to-day. No one who remembers the conditions to-day, the changes which have taken place in the last ten or fifteen years, with reference to women, can retain any doubt that the reasons which originally lead to the exclusion of woman from political life in order to give man the exclusive right of acting in that respect no longer exists. The time has come for us to listen to the claim which the women make to certain political rights and privileges.

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

Upon which the House divided: